EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheGrandWazoo]

Read what it actually says and not what you want it to say!

No, you read.

The £350m was/is untrue. There was never any £350m figure that could or would be spent, whether that be on the NHS or whatever.

 

[DelayRepay]

Here are a few thoughts from me....

People who voted leave are not all thick or racists
I live just outside London and work in the City and most people my age voted Remain. But I know some older (not old, just older, i.e. 50+) people including work colleagues who voted Leave. These people are not thick, they work in finance and must have been able to see what would happen. When I ask them why, they say it was really a kind of protest vote and they never actually expected Leave to win. I don't think these people are thick, but I do think they made a serious error of judgement. Most of them have admitted they regret what they did.

The public should apologise to the Bankers
"The Bankers" have been demonised over the last decade for causing the financial crisis. However the financial crisis we are now facing is much more serious and will be much harder, if not impossible to recover from. This crisis was caused not by the bankers but the public and in particular fans of Farage. Will we see an apology?

Cameron is to blame
Having decided to lead the Remain campaign, he also decided against "blue on blue" debates. I think this was a mistake, he should have taken on Boris and Gove on the live TV debates and I think he would have been able to destroy them. Instead he left it mainly to Labour, who don't have the same impact on traditional tory voters.

The real casualty (apart from the UK) will be the Labour Party
Tearing its self apart when it should be tearing the Torys apart. It seems now Farage, not Corbyn (or Miliband x 2 or Burnham or...) now speak for the traditional Labour voter. My dear dad was a proud member of the labour party all his life and this would break his heart. Sadly I fear they are heading for extinction and will struggle to win a general election for decades to come, if ever.

23 June 2016 will be remembered
As one of the most important dates in this island's history. But I am not sure it will be celebrated as a Bank Holiday as Farage wants.

 

[anme]

Yep. Leave won because the people of Britain are uniquely stupid, knuckle-dragging morons.

Nothing at all to do with the fact that the remain camp had no answer to the low-paid people who had constantly seen their wages being undercut by mass immigration. Anyone who raises any concerns about immigration is literally Hitler.

It's not remain's fault for being arrogant and out of touch. It's those ghastly British people who are to blame.

Just keep telling yourselves that.

You have already been told that this theory doesn't make sense. But the explanation involved "facts" and "logic" so it didn't interest you.

To remind you, the areas which voted leave have, for the most part, low immigration. The areas which voted to remain have high immigration. Therefore, the high leave votes cannot have been caused by high immigration.

The leave votes may have been caused by *fear* of immigration, or put differently, the incorrect belief that one's problems are caused by foreigners.
Or xenophobia, to use another word. As you may know, we have seen such things before.

Think about it - why would an economic migrant go to an area with no jobs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then, in reality, all those that voted Remain or Leave were the thicko's because they all believed made up stuff

No. Do not tar those who voted remain with the same brush as the leavers. We have been proven right. How do you think Project Farce is going so far?

I'm thinking it's time for an apology from the leave supporters.

 

[Senex]

Cameron is to blame
Having decided to lead the Remain campaign, he also decided against "blue on blue" debates. I think this was a mistake, he should have taken on Boris and Gove on the live TV debates and I think he would have been able to destroy them. Instead he left it mainly to Labour, who don't have the same impact on traditional tory voters.

He certainly should have done, and it might have made a difference. But I think we have to put Corbyn up there alongside him, particularly now we have the evidence the BBC has uncovered that seems to point towards a campaign by his office to sabotage Remain, not least by ensuring that Labour speakers were not there at crucial times.

 

[anme]

Maybe if the remain campaign had anything to say to people in a similar position, but who didn't live in London, leave wouldn't have won?

Stop blaming the remain campaign for your stupid and now regretted decision. The facts were very clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There already is a minimum wage as I'm sure you are well aware but obviously the more people seeking work the more it plays into the employers hand. I don't think anybody is suggesting that all immigration should be stopped just that it cannot continue at the current level.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It wasn't untruthful although you could argue it was misleading.

Good morning! What should happen now? EEA membership with the full freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people is the only answer now, right?

 

[radamfi]

There already is a minimum wage as I'm sure you are well aware

I said *appropriate* minimum wage. That's down to the UK government.

 

[Senex]

Apologies if this has already been posted. There's an interesting discussion of the question of Article 50 and the British "constitution " here:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/201...le-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

 

[Steveman]

All the major credit rating agencies have now down rated their credit rating for the UK as expected. Petrol and diesel prices to be up by three pence by the weekend. Who could have been daft enough to vote for this?

S&P is the same Credit Rating Agency that was paid by the banks to give AAA ratings to sub-prime junk during the financial crisis.
They then made a $2 trillion dollar massive error in downgrading US govt debt.
David Wyss (former chief economist of S & P) "The credit agencies don't know any more about government budgets than the guy in the street who is reading the newspaper."
These agencies had their finest hour in 2007 now they are fairly irrelevant.

If you're so concerned about a possible 3 pence on petrol why weren't you on here moaning about the 12/13p it's gone up in the last few weeks/months.
You do seem to be having an almighty sulk you need to have a severe word with yourself.

 

[cjmillsnun]

These agencies had their finest hour in 2007 now they are fairly irrelevant.

Tell that to the Greeks who are very affected by having junk credit ratings. Yes they screwed up prior to the credit crunch but their ratings are still very relevant.

 

[Senex]

Jeremy Hunt joining those arguing for thoroughgoing negotiation before invoking Article 50. And yet quite a number of voices on the EU side saying no negotiation before that Article is invoked. Is there a possible serious impasse between the British side and the EU side here?

And a query about the current position and this week's Brussels meeting. If Britain remains a full member of the EU right up to the notification of intent to use the Article 50 procedure, then how can the British PM be excluded from some parts of the meeting of heads of government? And how can we not appoint a replacement Commissioner for the remainder of out time in?

 

[cjp]

And Europe have stated that the referendum is final. That's it we have to leave now. Not sure how much that would stack up but they say we have made our decision.

EU still trying to run OUR country?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

23rd of June definitely shouldn't be our "Independence Day". To do so would be crass, and as John Oliver points out, the reason many countries HAVE an independence day is to celebrate escaping British colonisation!

 

[YorkshireBear]

EU still trying to run OUR country?

Hardly.

Merely we have told them to f*** off and they don't intend on letting us take it back. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Senex]

Hardly.

Merely we have told them to f*** off and they don't intend on letting us take it back. Nothing wrong with that.

Just so, but we do seem to have arrived in a very odd constitutional situation. A referendum has been held and was won by Brexit. Both major parties have accepted that a Brexit needs to follow, despite questions about the very narrow margin of victory and so on. Yet that referendum was advisory only and MPs are not bound by it. Do we not now need some form of formal vote in parliament to note the outcome of the referendum and move to implement the decision of the people? Until that happens, any desire by the EU not to talk, however understandable, seems improper, as we shall not formally and properly have recorded a political decision to move towards leaving. And then, of course, the whole Article 50 business kicks in. Does parliament have to vote to give Article 50 notice, or can Cameron or his successor use the Royal Prerogative? And given that until such notice is given, we are still absolutely full members of the EU, should other members refuse to talk to us about any issues we want to raise in the meanwhile? What a mess it all seems to be? Where is our Great Leader, Boris, to sort it out for us?

 

[me123]

EU still trying to run OUR country?

Nope. We voted to leave, now we should get on with it. The EU are stating the obvious.

 

[VauxhallandI]

S&P is the same Credit Rating Agency that was paid by the banks to give AAA ratings to sub-prime junk during the financial crisis.
They then made a $2 trillion dollar massive error in downgrading US govt debt.
David Wyss (former chief economist of S & P) "The credit agencies don't know any more about government budgets than the guy in the street who is reading the newspaper."
These agencies had their finest hour in 2007 now they are fairly irrelevant.

If you're so concerned about a possible 3 pence on petrol why weren't you on here moaning about the 12/13p it's gone up in the last few weeks/months.
You do seem to be having an almighty sulk you need to have a severe word with yourself.

"Fairly irrelevant" nice wide statement.

They are still used heavily in the financial world so surely still very relevant.

The BOE still use them in their calculations of the financial climate, you know the chaps who are doing their best to hold up the market for you even though you guys said they were just another crap expert.

 

[crehld]

Just so, but we do seem to have arrived in a very odd constitutional situation. A referendum has been held and was won by Brexit. Both major parties have accepted that a Brexit needs to follow, despite questions about the very narrow margin of victory and so on. Yet that referendum was advisory only and MPs are not bound by it. Do we not now need some form of formal vote in parliament to note the outcome of the referendum and move to implement the decision of the people?

Insofar as parliament's role, this will be confined to repealing all of the various statute which ratify the EU treaties (including the 1972 European Communities Act). But, under the treaty provisions (which parliament itself ratified), it is the government's decision, not parliament's, to withdraw from the EU. If parliament as a whole was against the decision it could call a motion of no confidence in the government, but due to the quirk of executive dominance in our political system this is highly unlikely. Also while constitutional the referendum was merely an advisory poll, I find it highly unlikely that parliament would wish to go against the (very slim) majority verdict of a popular poll. Indeed the largest constitutional conundrum from all of this is that it is a popular referendum, not our membership of the EU, which has actually curtailed the sovereignty of our parliament.

Until that happens, any desire by the EU not to talk, however understandable, seems improper, as we shall not formally and properly have recorded a political decision to move towards leaving.

This is quite wrong. It is entirely proper. In ratifying the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the UK agreed to a clear process which sets out the process for leaving. The "formal and proper recording of a political decision to move towards leaving" is to trigger that process, as defined under Article 50. If the UK government is not satisfied with how this process works it should have either tried harder in the treaty negotiations to get a different process, or it should not have ratified the treaty in the first place.

And then, of course, the whole Article 50 business kicks in. Does parliament have to vote to give Article 50 notice, or can Cameron or his successor use the Royal Prerogative?

No. It is for the UK government to trigger this alone. If parliament was dissatisfied with the government's conduct it could call for a vote of no confidence in the government. But this country suffers from executive dominance whereby parliament's influence and independence is significantly limited (and that lack of independence is, of course, nothing to do with the EU, but rather how our domestic majoritarian political system is set up), so while the governing party(ies) hold a majority it is highly unlikely.

And given that until such notice is given, we are still absolutely full members of the EU, should other members refuse to talk to us about any issues we want to raise in the meanwhile? What a mess it all seems to be?

We are indeed members of the EU, and will continue to be so during the withdrawal negotiations. But the EU treaties set up a very well defined and regulated process of interaction between the various institutions and member states. The EU will carry on with day-to-day business, which the UK will continue to be part of. The other EU member states are not talking to us about our withdrawal, simply because until the UK gives formal notice there is not formal mechanism nor compulsion for them to talk to us about it.

Where is our Great Leader, Boris, to sort it out for us?

He of course has no legitimate claim to leadership, nor is he in a position to tell us what government policy is, until he is democratically elected Prime Minister by an electorate amounting to 0.23% of the British public.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EU still trying to run OUR country?

I'm confused by this statement.

While we are members of the EU we have a very strong position of influence over EU legislation. As for the EU's influence over the withdrawal negotiation, the process, which the UK government agreed to and the UK parliament ratified, clearly puts the EU in a much more favourable negotiating position than the UK.

Even though we will leave, we will still have have to accept EU law and policy, but have zero input or say over it. And of course having means no veto in key policy areas.

If you wanted control over the EU and OUR country you should have voted "Remain". The remain campaign was very clear about how the EU amplified British influence both domestically and abroad, and was equally clear about the risks to that influence should we leave. If you were misled by the Leave campaign's slogan "Take Back Control" I strongly suggest you take this up with them as, quite frankly, you were wilfully lied to.

 

[Mvann]

Right change of direction. As it is known that Germany have wanted reforms to the EU and now Poland have come out and said that there needs to be radical changes, does this actually alter anything if they do actually get these reforms, as, in theory we were being asked to stay or leave from the EU as it is now.

 

[northwichcat]

Right change of direction. As it is known that Germany have wanted reforms to the EU and now Poland have come out and said that there needs to be radical changes, does this actually alter anything if they do actually get these reforms, as, in theory we were being asked to stay or leave from the EU as it is now.

Personally I'm of the opinion the EU referendum result was void as soon as the winning Leave side admitted they misled voters on Friday morning. Further changes will make it even less valid.

Imagine if Labour had won the last election with their pledge of putting more money in to the NHS and then not only said they misled voters over that claim but removed the legislation that doesn't allow them to remain in office for more than 5 years. That's effectively what Vote Leave have done.

 

[dgl]

Personally I'm of the opinion the EU referendum result was void as soon as the winning Leave side admitted they misled voters on Friday morning. Further changes will make it even less valid.





Imagine if Labour had won the last election with their pledge of putting more money in to the NHS and then not only said they misled voters over that claim but removed the legislation that doesn't allow them to remain in office for more than 5 years. That's effectively what Vote Leave have done.

Here! Here!

 

[lejog]

No. It is for the UK government to trigger this alone. If parliament was dissatisfied with the government's conduct it could call for a vote of no confidence in the government. But this country suffers from executive dominance whereby parliament's influence and independence is significantly limited (and that lack of independence is, of course, nothing to do with the EU, but rather how our domestic majoritarian political system is set up), so while the governing party(ies) hold a majority it is highly unlikely.

That is currently subject to some debate amongst constitutional lawyers, see this article on the UK Constitutional Law Association website.

In this post we argue that as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Prime Minister is unable to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of Article 50 itself.

It further highlights the paucity of information available before the referundum, there's even no consensus who can start the leaving process.

Edit: One of the arguments is that giving notice under Article 50 automatically triggers UK exit from the EU in 2 years. However under the UK constitution, this is only a decision that can be taken by Parliament, which would have to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to allow this.

 

[GarethJohn]

Here are a few thoughts from me....

People who voted leave are not all thick or racists
I live just outside London and work in the City and most people my age voted Remain. But I know some older (not old, just older, i.e. 50+) people including work colleagues who voted Leave. These people are not thick, they work in finance and must have been able to see what would happen. When I ask them why, they say it was really a kind of protest vote and they never actually expected Leave to win. I don't think these people are thick, but I do think they made a serious error of judgement. Most of them have admitted they regret what they did.

The public should apologise to the Bankers
"The Bankers" have been demonised over the last decade for causing the financial crisis. However the financial crisis we are now facing is much more serious and will be much harder, if not impossible to recover from. This crisis was caused not by the bankers but the public and in particular fans of Farage. Will we see an apology?

Cameron is to blame
Having decided to lead the Remain campaign, he also decided against "blue on blue" debates. I think this was a mistake, he should have taken on Boris and Gove on the live TV debates and I think he would have been able to destroy them. Instead he left it mainly to Labour, who don't have the same impact on traditional tory voters.

The real casualty (apart from the UK) will be the Labour Party
Tearing its self apart when it should be tearing the Torys apart. It seems now Farage, not Corbyn (or Miliband x 2 or Burnham or...) now speak for the traditional Labour voter. My dear dad was a proud member of the labour party all his life and this would break his heart. Sadly I fear they are heading for extinction and will struggle to win a general election for decades to come, if ever.

23 June 2016 will be remembered
As one of the most important dates in this island's history. But I am not sure it will be celebrated as a Bank Holiday as Farage wants.

I see you do not hold any pro-Brexit Unions in your statements, ones that would have considerable membership and influence on this very forum.

 

[northwichcat]

Farage has actually turned up at the EU parliament today - it seems for the sole purpose of gloating about Leave winning. No wonder they want the UK out ASAP.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Farage has actually turned up at the EU parliament today - it seems for the sole purpose of gloating about Leave winning. No wonder they want the UK out ASAP.

Shame he hasn't turned up for any of the other meetings he was supposed to..... Maybe our fishing industry would be in better shape if he did amongst other things.

 

[lejog]

But, under the treaty provisions (which parliament itself ratified), it is the government's decision, not parliament's, to withdraw from the EU.

Article 50 specifically says:

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

Where exactly in "the treaty" does it say its the government's decision?

 

[Domh245]

Osborne now on record as saying that he is going to raise taxes and cut spending.

 

[phoenixcronin]

osborne now on record as saying that he is going to raise taxes and cut spending.

Take back control! Independence day! Unelected bureaucrats! Project fear!

oops

 

[northwichcat]

The UK's reportedly not got enough legal experts to support Brexit so would have to use up to 475 foreign lawyers to be able to 'stop these foreigners taking our work.' :roll:

 

[crehld]

That is currently subject to some debate amongst constitutional lawyers, see this article on the UK Constitutional Law Association website.

Of course it's a matter for debate among constitutional lawyers! But the article nicely points out the difference between constitutional and legal idealism and political reality. It is the latter which dictates how much of our political system operates. The political reality is that although parliament is constitutionally sovereign, the executive has dominance over the legislature - this puts the government in a position of control, unless parliament is able to overcome that. Of course the government will secure formal approval from parliament (it is parliament that makes law after all), but the fact of the political reality that the government holds the confidence of parliament, holds a majority in parliament and that we have just held a popular referendum which parliament is not going to ignore (especially given much of the result reflects an inherent mistrust in politics) means such a formal approval is all but achieved. The only conceivable way parliament is going to ignore the referendum result is a change in the government's position (which given how things are going may well be likely).

Edit: One of the arguments is that giving notice under Article 50 automatically triggers UK exit from the EU in 2 years. However under the UK constitution, this is only a decision that can be taken by Parliament, which would have to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to allow this.

I agree it's an interesting constitutional conundrum, but unfortunately our membership of the EU is as much a matter of international law as it is domestic law. By triggering Article 50 the UK will have sealed it's withdrawal from the EU by a process which a sovereign parliament agreed to when it ratified the treaty. The fact the 1972 act will still be on the statute books is immaterial to our membership of the EU. The 1972 act (and all others which ratify EU treaties) simply legitimizes the UK's EU membership from a point of domestic law. By way of an extreme example, China could pass a law saying it's a member of the EU - doesn't mean it will be though!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Farage has actually turned up at the EU parliament today - it seems for the sole purpose of gloating about Leave winning. No wonder they want the UK out ASAP.

It was disgusting and disgraceful behaviour, which was rather unbecoming of someone elected to public office.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Article 50 specifically says:



Where exactly in "the treaty" does it say its the government's decision?

I believe you just quoted the relevant passage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The UK's reportedly not got enough legal experts to support Brexit so would have to use up to 475 foreign lawyers to be able to 'stop these foreigners taking our work.' :roll:

This was pointed out by the remain campaign, and it was retorted by the leave campaign this was baseless scaremongering part of 'project fear'. Turns out, in fact, the remain campaign were pointing to legitimate risks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Osborne now on record as saying that he is going to raise taxes and cut spending.

Yes, it was made very clear by the chancellor that this would be a direct consequence of a leave vote. I don't understand why everyone dismissed it so readily during the campaign, and why everyone is now so surprised it has to happen.

 

[RichmondCommu]

S&P is the same Credit Rating Agency that was paid by the banks to give AAA ratings to sub-prime junk during the financial crisis.
They then made a $2 trillion dollar massive error in downgrading US govt debt.
David Wyss (former chief economist of S & P) "The credit agencies don't know any more about government budgets than the guy in the street who is reading the newspaper."
These agencies had their finest hour in 2007 now they are fairly irrelevant.

If you're so concerned about a possible 3 pence on petrol why weren't you on here moaning about the 12/13p it's gone up in the last few weeks/months.
You do seem to be having an almighty sulk you need to have a severe word with yourself.

If those credit agencies are irrelevant why are Governments still so keen to maintain their AAA ratings? Whilst fuel prices have been increasing in the last few months we have seen nothing as severe (can you see what I did there?) as we will see this weekend. And as the Pound sinks further it will get only worse. Not only that but the increases that we have seen in the previous few months could not attributed to the UK; this is different.

If you don't like reading the consequences of your decision to vote Brexit then hard luck. Oh my God Steveman what have you gone and done?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EU still trying to run OUR country?

No dear boy their telling us to leave as soon as possible! Which is what Boris Johnson wanted, right??