EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheKnightWho]

Talk down Britain as much as you like. Spread your doomsday prophecies. Deride ordinary people as mindless sheep til you're blue in the face. I believe in free speech and I'll defend your right to say what you like.

But if you respect the principle of democracy, you will have to accept that the people have spoken and it is wrong to ignore them. Vox Populi, Vox Dei

Are you calling the 48% stupid because you disagree with them?

Why do you think we should shut up because the people were misled? As I have said many times, that isn't calling them stupid. I know you like to repeat the narrative that you think is a catch-all winner for you, but it just makes you look like you're unwilling to admit that democracy is more than just a single vote.

And really? You think pointing out genuine economic problems is "talk[ing] down Britain"? Do you genuinely believe this rubbish?

 

[Gutfright]

Are you calling the 48% stupid because you disagree with them?

Obviously not.

I'd like to think that had remain won - even though that would prove terrible for Britain in the long run - I would have the good grace to accept the will of the people.

Why do you think we should shut up because the people were misled?

Did you actually read what I wrote before you hit the quote button?

I believe in free speech and I'll defend your right to say what you like.

Talk down Britain as much as you like. Spread your doomsday prophecies. Deride ordinary people as mindless sheep til you're blue in the face. I believe in free speech and I'll defend your right to say what you like.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But if you respect the principle of democracy, you will have to accept that the people have spoken and it is wrong to ignore them. Vox Populi, Vox Dei

I am somewhat impressed that you hark back some 307 years since the publication in 1709 of the Whig Party tract that was published with the title of "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" ("The voice of the people is the voice of God").

Has the Almighty now been brought into this debate...

 

[EM2]

I'd like to think that had remain won - even though that would prove terrible for Britain in the long run - I would have the good grace to accept the will of the people.

I believe you said earlier that you are a Labour voter? So when the Conservatives came into power, did you say 'Oh. Well, never mind, we lost but we accept the will of the people, we'll let the winners get on with it for five years' or do you think 'Hang on, that's a blow but we need to challenge the winners at every turn, and make sure that they carry out their manifesto promises honestly and fairly, challenge them when what they are doing is damaging, and carry on fighting for what we believe'?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Obviously not.

I'd like to think that had remain won - even though that would prove terrible for Britain in the long run - I would have the good grace to accept the will of the people.



Did you actually read what I wrote before you hit the quote button?

I believe in free speech and I'll defend your right to say what you like.

Thinking people should shut up is not the same as thinking they should legally be prevented from speaking.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Talk down Britain as much as you like. Spread your doomsday prophecies. Deride ordinary people as mindless sheep til you're blue in the face. I believe in free speech and I'll defend your right to say what you like.

But if you respect the principle of democracy, you will have to accept that the people have spoken and it is wrong to ignore them. Vox Populi, Vox Dei

OK, two questions:

1. If (hypothetically) the referendum had been on the question of whether all foreigners in the UK should be immediately put to death and had passed by a tiny 52-48 majority (admittedly not plausible in the UK today, but there are times and places in history where such a result may have been plausible), what would your response be? Would you seeking ways to protect any foreigners you knew, be writing to your MP to say that it's wrong to kill people just to for being foreign, and asking him/her NOT to act on the referendum result? Or would you be saying, the people have spoken, we must respect democracy, so we must now kill all the foreigners, it would be undemocratic for the Government to spare anyone?

2. Do you believe that the people spoke at the last General Election, and that therefore Labour the other opposition parties should quietly acquiesce to everything that was in the Conservatives' 2015 manifesto, and not make any attempt to oppose any manifesto pledges in Parliament?

By the way, I have never seen anyone talking down Britain. I've seen lots of people pointing out some bad consequences that are likely to happen, or are already happening, if we leave the EU. That is not talking down the UK, that is simply pointing out the reality of the world that we all live in. Also, I have never seen anyone on this forum "Deride ordinary people as mindless sheep ".

So I have a third question for you: Do you believe that the democracy and freedom of speech should include the freedom to tell lies about what your opponents are saying? Do you condone such behaviour?

 

[TheKnightWho]

In addition to what DynamicSpirit just said, this is simply the tyranny of the majority. Doing what the majority say regardless of the consequences. It's "democratic" insofar as democracy means gaining a simple majority, but it does not reflect the general will, and it certainly does not reflect the rights of minority groups in society. Democracy is about inclusion more than it is about a larger group telling another group what to do; as much as the larger groups tend to like to forget that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_theory)

 

[northwichcat]

The government has said the following with regards to whether the result is binding:

The European Union Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015, receiving overwhelming support from Parliament. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say. The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

 

[Senex]

The government has said the following with regards to whether the result is binding:

I don't find this entirely convincing. The crucial part seems to me to be: "The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations."

The legislation did not set a threshold, so the government must indeed take account of the view of the tiny majority. That involves "prepare the process to exit the EU" and "ensuring the best possible outcome ... in the negotiations". But what happens if at the end of all this parliament, as the sovereign body, believes that the best outcome obtained from the negotiations is very much not in the national interest? Does it feel obliged to stick by Out because that is what a referendum that did not actually contain any detail decided, or does it exercise its sovereign will to protect the interests of the people?

It seems to me that there is an awful still down the line that we have to go through before any clear and soundly-based decisions can be made.

 

[Gutfright]

I believe you said earlier that you are a Labour voter? So when the Conservatives came into power, did you say 'Oh. Well, never mind, we lost but we accept the will of the people, we'll let the winners get on with it for five years' or do you think 'Hang on, that's a blow but we need to challenge the winners at every turn, and make sure that they carry out their manifesto promises honestly and fairly, challenge them when what they are doing is damaging, and carry on fighting for what we believe'?

The second one.

However, if following the General election Labour suddenly just declared "We don't give a fig about the popular vote, we are seizing power anyway" I would feel a little uneasy about that.

 

[northwichcat]

However, if following the General election Labour suddenly just declared "We don't give a fig about the popular vote, we are seizing power anyway" I would feel a little uneasy about that.

The 2010 election was a strange one. Technically it was Gordon Brown's responsibility to carry on as PM until a new government could be formed and it was his responsibility to try and find a solution to forming a government. However, the Lib Dems said they would talk to the Conservatives first, with regards to forming a coalition, as they were the most popular party with voters. While the Lib Dems met with Labour afterwards (which then annoyed the Conservatives) they discovered Brown was less willing to compromise than Cameron so they went back to Cameron to accept his offer.

 

[Gutfright]

OK, two questions:

1. If (hypothetically) the referendum had been on the question of whether all foreigners in the UK should be immediately put to death and had passed by a tiny 52-48 majority (admittedly not plausible in the UK today, but there are times and places in history where such a result may have been plausible), what would your response be? Would you seeking ways to protect any foreigners you knew, be writing to your MP to say that it's wrong to kill people just to for being foreign, and asking him/her NOT to act on the referendum result? Or would you be saying, the people have spoken, we must respect democracy, so we must now kill all the foreigners, it would be undemocratic for the Government to spare anyone?

That would demonstrably mean that 52% of the voters are psychopaths.

Leave voters are not psychopaths, they're not evil. They simply have a different opinion than you.

But to answer your question, in a scenario such as you have described I'd say that direct action would be justified, including violence against and killing of police, soldiers and other officials involved in the extermination of foreigners.

I don't think such a solution is appropriate for the EU referendum result though.

So I have a third question for you: Do you believe that the democracy and freedom of speech should include the freedom to tell lies about what your opponents are saying? Do you condone such behaviour?

I don't condone lying, but people should be free to choose how they interpret what their opponents are saying. If they choose an interpretation that doesn't chime with the facts, they will lose credibility.

In addition to what DynamicSpirit just said, this is simply the tyranny of the majority. Doing what the majority say regardless of the consequences. It's "democratic" insofar as democracy means gaining a simple majority, but it does not reflect the general will, and it certainly does not reflect the rights of minority groups in society. Democracy is about inclusion more than it is about a larger group telling another group what to do; as much as the larger groups tend to like to forget that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(political_theory)

Here's one then...

If (hypothetically) the referendum had been on the question of whether all foreigners in the UK should be immediately put to death and had been defeated by the majority, but then the minority lobbied really hard and convinced Parliament to enact the Immediate Extermination of Foreigners Act, what would your response be?

The government has said the following with regards to whether the result is binding:

The result is not binding, and it's possible that the voice of the people will be ignored. The EU will push TTIP and CETA on to us without our consent. National sovereignty will be replaced by corporate sovereignty. We will no longer be able to make laws which protect the environment, worker's rights, our own safety etc as that would interfere with the profits of the multinationals. The remain voters will come to regret not doing proper research. They will wish they had stood up and defended the principle of democracy. But it will be too late. The corporate takeover of Britain will be complete.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But to answer your question, in a scenario such as you have described I'd say that direct action would be justified, including violence against and killing of police, soldiers and other officials involved in the extermination of foreigners.

Right. And obviously, that's the answer that almost any reasonable person would give. But the reason I gave you that scenario was to demonstrate that 'more than 50% of the people voted X in a referendum' is not by itself morally a reason for compelling the Government to do X. The Government should in the end do what - in its judgement - is right and best for the country (or in some cases, for the wider world). It makes sense for the Government to consider public opinion (as evidenced by a referendum) in making its decision, but it doesn't make sense for the Government to be bound by the results - because there may be reasons why following the result would actually be harmful, or - in the hypothetical example I gave - morally repugnant.

Obviously, you and I disagree about whether leaving the EU would in fact be harmful, but the point of this is to show that there's nothing really wrong in principle with the Government saying, "we've looked at the referendum result, and we respect that the vote has gone for X, but in our judgement, doing X is going to cause so much harm that we will choose not to do it". And by that reasoning, there's nothing wrong (and nothing anti-democratic) with those of us who believe that leaving the EU would be massively harmful from seeking to dissuade the Government from invoking Article 50. (After all, whatever the Government does, it will in the end have to face voters in a general election within 4 years).

And notice by the way that there is one similarity between my example and the EU referendum: In both cases, there are people would be harmed by following the referendum result. In the case of the EU referendum, no one is actually going to get killed, but it is likely that many people (including many UK citizens) will be stripped of their right to live where they wish to live, against their will. It's possible that some may even end up denied the right to continue living where they currently live. If you are arguing that that should happen purely because 52% voted for it, then that looks to me like a pretty strong example of the majority suppressing the rights of a minority - which as TheKnightWho pointed out really shouldn't be part of a democracy. It's vastly different in degree from that majority choosing to kill a minority, but not different in principle.

If (hypothetically) the referendum had been on the question of whether all foreigners in the UK should be immediately put to death and had been defeated by the majority, but then the minority lobbied really hard and convinced Parliament to enact the Immediate Extermination of Foreigners Act, what would your response be?

Obviously my response in that situation would be to do whatever I could to protect the foreigners, to argue against the minority, and to seek to persuade the Government to do the 'right' thing - which in this case would involve following the referendum result.

But the key thing is, the reason I would be arguing against the minority wouldn't be because of the referendum result - it would be because I believe their position was wrong. I would be arguing against those wishing to kill foreigners just as strongly, no matter what the referendum result happened to have been.

 

[cjmillsnun]

So we have another referendum, but the losing side have learned from the original referendum that acting all whiny and butthurt because you don't like the result works. So they act all whiny and butthurt and tantrum enough to get a third referendum. But the losing side of that don't like the result, so they get all whiny and butthurt and demand a fourth referendum...

Referendum after referendum after referendum in perpetuity? That's one way of keeping us in the EU I guess...

Hang on. You Brexiters were the ones who were demanding a second referendum.

We had one in 1975 remember!

 

[northwichcat]

The EU will push TTIP and CETA on to us without our consent.

There's two ways that will happen:
1. If we remain in the EU with so many UKIP MEPs, who never bother to show up at the European parliament to make the views of the UK known, then complain when we don't get out way.
2. If we leave the EU and remain in the EEA (as UKIP want) meaning we have to follow trade rules set in Brussels but as a non-EU member we don't have our own MEPs voting on them.

So the solution is for people to not vote UKIP in EU elections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hang on. You Brexiters were the ones who were demanding a second referendum.

We had one in 1975 remember!

Plus remember who set up the petition for another referendum if one side fails to get 55% of the votes - a prominent member of the English Democrats, who were expecting Remain to get a narrow victory!

 

[Gutfright]

If you are arguing that that should happen purely because 52% voted for it, then that looks to me like a pretty strong example of the majority suppressing the rights of a minority - which as TheKnightWho pointed out really shouldn't be part of a democracy

So we now have two choices:

The majority repressing the rights of a minority; or

The minority repressing the rights of everyone.

Obviously, neither solution is ideal, but the former is clearly preferable to the latter.

There's two ways that will happen:
1. If we remain in the EU with so many UKIP MEPs, who never bother to show up at the European parliament to make the views of the UK known, then complain when we don't get out way.
2. If we leave the EU and remain in the EEA (as UKIP want) meaning we have to follow trade rules set in Brussels but as a non-EU member we don't have our own MEPs voting on them.

So the solution is for people to not vote UKIP in EU elections.

By the time the next EU elections roll around TTIP, CETA etc will already be a done deal.

 

[northwichcat]

By the time the next EU elections roll around TTIP, CETA etc will already be a done deal.

So those who voted UKIP last time are to blame for anything in it which UKIP doesn't like then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Here's one then...

If (hypothetically) the referendum had been on the question of whether all foreigners in the UK should be immediately put to death and had been defeated by the majority, but then the minority lobbied really hard and convinced Parliament to enact the Immediate Extermination of Foreigners Act, what would your response be?

What if it had been (hypothetically) that all immigrants requiring medical attention should be returned to their home country to reduce the strain on the NHS and the result had been 52% yes, but then after the referendum it was revealed all immigrants would be injected with a harmful substance to make them ill? If you move the goalposts after the referendum it makes the result invalid.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So we now have two choices:

The majority repressing the rights of a minority; or

The minority repressing the rights of everyone.

Obviously, neither solution is ideal, but the former is clearly preferable to the latter.

That would be a fair point if staying in the EU did actually involve repressing people's rights. But as far as I can see, it doesn't. Is anyone being legally and unreasonably prevented from living their life the way they wish as a result of staying in the EU? I can't think of any way that could be happening. But plenty of people will be so prevented from living their lives the way they wish if we leave the EU (and don't agree some freedom of movement deal).

(Actually if it was happening, it would be the minority suppressing the rights of the majority, not everyone, but that's not particularly relevant here)

 

[Senex]

Hang on. You Brexiters were the ones who were demanding a second referendum.

We had one in 1975 remember!

Exactly! And the Brexiters were never prepared to accept that decision as final.

 

[Gutfright]

So those who voted UKIP last time are to blame for anything in it which UKIP doesn't like then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What if it had been (hypothetically) that all immigrants requiring medical attention should be returned to their home country to reduce the strain on the NHS and the result had been 52% yes, but then after the referendum it was revealed all immigrants would be injected with a harmful substance to make them ill? If you move the goalposts after the referendum it makes the result invalid.

What if it had been (hypothetically) that all immigrants requiring medical attention should be returned to their home country to reduce the strain on the NHS and information about whether or not all immigrants would be injected with a harmful substance to make them ill was made available to everyone then the result had been 52% yes?

 

[northwichcat]

What if it had been (hypothetically) that all immigrants requiring medical attention should be returned to their home country to reduce the strain on the NHS and information about whether or not all immigrants would be injected with a harmful substance to make them ill was made available to everyone then the result had been 52% yes?

Exactly. If the information wasn't made available or it was misleading then it wouldn't be justifiable based on the referendum result.

If the next PM can't deliver an additional 9 figure sum to the NHS every week then can she justify leaving the EU when that was the main claim put forward by the Leave campaign? I'm sure the promise of all that extra investment for the NHS attracted a number of older voters to vote Leave.

 

[Gutfright]

That would be a fair point if staying in the EU did actually involve repressing people's rights. But as far as I can see, it doesn't. Is anyone being legally and unreasonably prevented from living their life the way they wish as a result of staying in the EU? I can't think of any way that could be happening. But plenty of people will be so prevented from living their lives the way they wish if we leave the EU (and don't agree some freedom of movement deal).

(Actually if it was happening, it would be the minority suppressing the rights of the majority, not everyone, but that's not particularly relevant here)

The minority who support the reversal of democracy are also trying to suppress the rights of everybody (OK, everybody of voting age) to be able to hire and fire their legislature.

That's not to mention the bonfire of workers rights which we'll suffer if and when the EU forces TTIP through...

Exactly. If the information wasn't made available or it was misleading then it wouldn't be justifiable based on the referendum result.

If the next PM can't deliver an additional 9 figure sum to the NHS every week then can she justify leaving the EU when that was the main claim put forward by the Leave campaign? I'm sure the promise of all that extra investment for the NHS attracted a number of older voters to vote Leave.

Neither campaign was prohibited from pointing out and correcting any false or misleading claims made by their opponents.

I'm just not buying the idea that we shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything because political campaigns can often be misleading.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What if it had been (hypothetically) that all immigrants requiring medical attention should be returned to their home country to reduce the strain on the NHS and information about whether or not all immigrants would be injected with a harmful substance to make them ill was made available to everyone then the result had been 52% yes?

Whilst you are on the subject of people who have historical links to an overseas heritage BUT WERE BORN HERE, can I ask you how you personally regard the eligibility to remain in this country in the two cases that I have cited below:-

HM the Queen.....born in Mayfair on 21st April 1926 and having family links to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (which no "pretend" name of Windsor alters in respect of blood line).

Myself................born in Manchester on 6th April 1945 of a Polish father (serving in the Royal Air Force) and a mother from Eire.

 

[HSTEd]

The Scottish Government may call another referendum given that there has now been a "significant and material change in the circumstances in which Scotland voted against independence".

Correction - the Scottish Government may call another referendum if the opinion polling continues to suggest a plurality for independence. That is the only concern of the SNP - whether they can win.

These 'negotiations' with Europe are just a cover to buy them time whilst they work out if this surge is a temporary thing caused by despair and shock over the referendum or not. If it is they will actually try negotiating and hope they can get some kind of deal.

However if this surge continues they will then declare that there is no hope of any deal being made - because they will never have actually tried very hard to get one - and demand a second vote on independence.
Which they may win, probably by a very small margin - and probably without every area of Scotland voting for independence - the areas that do not vote for independence will "then be dragged out of the union against their will".

Because for some reason Scotland is indivisible even though the United Kingdom is not.
A supermajority should be placed on independence and every other referendum because whilst the nationalists can keep demanding votes until they get the result they want there will be no possibility of reversing independence once it occurs - so the nationalists will always win in the end. You will vote until you let them win.

The big thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that whilst with Scotland in the UK it is likely that the UK will remain in the EEA - with all the trappings associated with that, if Scotland leaves it is almost certain that the rUK will take a harder line position and end up outside the single market - at which point Scotland is screwed because there will have to be a hard border with England.

 

[St Rollox]

Whilst you are on the subject of people who have historical links to an overseas heritage BUT WERE BORN HERE, can I ask you how you personally regard the eligibility to remain in this country in the two cases that I have cited below:-

HM the Queen.....born in Mayfair on 21st April 1926 and having family links to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (which no "pretend" name of Windsor alters in respect of blood line).

Myself................born in Manchester on 6th April 1945 of a Polish father (serving in the Royal Air Force) and a mother from Eire.

Wondered why you kept posting every time Rangers got beat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correction - the Scottish Government may call another referendum if the opinion polling continues to suggest a plurality for independence. That is the only concern of the SNP - whether they can win.

These 'negotiations' with Europe are just a cover to buy them time whilst they work out if this surge is a temporary thing caused by dispair and shock over the referendum or not. If it is they will actually try negotiating.

However if this surge continues they will then declare that there is no hope of any deal being made - because they will never have actually tried very hard to get one - and demand a second vote on independence.
Which they may win, probably by a very small margin - and probably without every area of Scotland voting for independence - the areas that do not vote for independence will "then be dragged out of the union against their will".

Because for some reason Scotland is indivisible even though the United Kingdom is not.
A supermajority should be placed on independence and every other referendum because whilst the nationalists can keep demanding votes until they get the result they want there will be no possibility of reversing independence once it occurs - so the nationalists will always win in the end. You will vote until you let them win.

It's called politics.

 

[HSTEd]

It's called politics.

Well yes - but I am just sick of people pretending the SNP aren't the same kind of lying cutthroats you see in any other political party.

 

[Domh245]

(OK, everybody of voting age)

That is a key point here. ~27% of the country voted to leave, and now the other 73% are going to suffer the consequences

That's not to mention the bonfire of workers rights which we'll suffer if and when the EU forces TTIP through...

Oh wait you're serious? Do you honestly think that with Teresa May or Andrea Leadsom we are going to see our existing level of rights, or are we going to actually see a decrease. I know what my money is on

Neither campaign was prohibited from pointing out and correcting any false or misleading claims made by their opponents.

Very true, but everything that the remain camp said to correct the leave camp was branded scaremongering and "Project Fear", and conversely for the remain camp, correcting the lies about £350million a week isn't the sort of thing that wins votes

I'm just not buying the idea that we shouldn't be allowed to vote on anything because political campaigns can often be misleading.

I don't think anyone has said that. We vote to elect official representatives to make decisions for us, and they are who should make important decisions like this. I'd be quite happy for 'trivial' things to go to public referendums because they won't massively change the future of the country.

 

[Gutfright]

Whilst you are on the subject of people who have historical links to an overseas heritage BUT WERE BORN HERE, can I ask you how you personally regard the eligibility to remain in this country in the two cases that I have cited below:-

HM the Queen.....born in Mayfair on 21st April 1926 and having family links to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (which no "pretend" name of Windsor alters in respect of blood line).

Myself................born in Manchester on 6th April 1945 of a Polish father (serving in the Royal Air Force) and a mother from Eire.

Everyone in the UK has historical links to an overseas heritage if you go back far enough...

Oh wait you're serious? Do you honestly think that with Teresa May or Andrea Leadsom we are going to see our existing level of rights, or are we going to actually see a decrease. I know what my money is on

Nice link

In a few years we can vote out May or Leadsom and replace them with a Labour PM.

That way, we'll have a Corbyn-led government (with all the Blairites purged from the party for good measure) and we won't be in the EU. It'll be a win-win situation!

 

[Domh245]

In a few years we can vote out May or Leadsom and replace them with a Labour PM.

That way, we'll have a Corbyn-led government (with all the Blairites purged from the party for good measure) and we won't be in the EU. It'll be a win-win situation!

We can but hope! With the current state of the labour party however, I suspect that a result that would give a majority or coalition in their favour is rather dim prospect, If anything, I expect that we'll see a rise for the conservatives and UKIP.

With Leadsom as a PM, the workers rights will soon be going out of the window. A lot of them would need to be repealed as we start to rewrite all of our laws after triggering article 50, something she intends on doing "straight away" so could be finished by the end of 2018. May we might have more of a chance, but I still wouldn't trust her not to start dismantling them

 

[miami]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-nominates-sir-julian-king-as-european-commissioner

David Cameron has nominated Sir Julian King as the next UK Commissioner in the European Commission.

Sir Julian is currently UK Ambassador to France. He was previously Director General in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and has served at the UK Representation in Brussels as well as in New York, Paris, Luxembourg, The Hague, Lisbon and London.

The Prime Minister said:

Sir Julian is a very experienced diplomat with particular experience in European affairs, and I believe he will be a strong addition to the Commission.

The Prime Minister wrote to the Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, on 7 July to nominate Sir Julian King as UK Commissioner. President Juncker will meet with Sir Julian on 11 July.

So just like he does with westminster ministers, our PM has appointed someone to the Brussels government.

That way, we'll have a Corbyn-led government (with all the Blairites purged from the party for good measure) and we won't be in the EU. It'll be a win-win situation!

You are a Masterful troll sir, I congratulate you, we all fell for your apparent seriousness, but at last you've slipped up, as nobody could believe that would ever happen.