Brexit Referendum Superthread

Inquitus

Heseltine tears Boris a new one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36677623

iseedeadpeople

murphaph wrote: »

Johnson thought the leave side would lose. I'm pretty sure of that.

curious if he did think that what would be in it for him if they voted in?? he would be anti Europe on the losing side

ancapailldorcha

iseedeadpeople wrote: »

curious if he did think that what would be in it for him if they voted in?? he would be anti Europe on the losing side

He'd gain support from the many Tory Eurosceptics. David Cameron is, or was on his last term as PM so it'd be a wise strategic move if he weren't such a complete and utter tit.

BlitzKrieg

Conas wrote: »

I never went to the polls and voted for the likes of Donald Tusk or Jean Claude Junker, and neither did any other Irish citizen or UK citizen for that matter.

actually if you voted Fine Gael in the last european election (2014) you voted for Junker to be president

if you voted labour you voted for Martin Schultz (who came in a close second (20 seats) so they gave him the presidency of the european parliament to stop his large minority vote from contesting the commission position)

If you vote Sinn Fein or an independent then likely your vote was spoiled


If you lived in the Uk and voted for anyone other then labour or Lib Dem your vote was spoiled because UKIP and the conservatives refused to take part so only labour and the lib dems actually had candidates.


list of candidates here: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/presidential-candidates/#.V3WjHmgrKhc

Frank Bullitt

Inquitus wrote: »

Heseltine tears Boris a new one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36677623

Nail on the head really.

Patser

The narrative on Boris is subtly changing in the British media. Instead if being the coward Hesseltine calls him, more and more the newspaper headlines are portraying him as a victim of betrayal by his closest friend Gove.

That'll allow Boris slink back into some position, poor Boris never had a chance to show us what he can do!

Meanwhile Gove is the new pantomime villain, with no chance if being PM, a position I (and he according to multiple reports) doubt he really wanted. So in 1 fell swoop the 2 Brexiteers who brought in this uncertainty have managed to dodge responsibility for its conclusion, while still able to present public alibis (I stood up to take responsibility but wasn't selected or I was going to and was betrayed)

This is Netflix/HBO quality storylines playing out in reality

cml387

A new morning,another surprise. This one is from the Daily Mail who has endorsed for Tory leader.....Teresa May

In normal circumstances, this paper would hesitate to declare its hand before the closing stages of such a contest. But whatever these times may be, they are anything but normal.
And among the five candidates vying to succeed David Cameron, the Mail believes only Mrs May has the right qualities, the stature and experience to unite both her party and the country — and possibly usher in a new, cleaner, more honest kind of politics.

It's rather as if the Daily Mail has also glanced over the abyss. The affirmation of their "leave" stance is a bit half hearted.

sadie06

cml387 wrote: »

In normal circumstances, this paper would hesitate to declare its hand before the closing stages of such a contest. But whatever these times may be, they are anything but normal.

Cynical move by the Daily Mail. Back the Regrexiter so they look open and flexible in their stance yet they know that the clear favourite never gets the leadership, so they could be positioning her for failure.

CMOTDibbler

Ken Clarke has urged Michael Gove to pull out of Tory leadership race to stop 'adding farce to tragedy'

He said his political manoeuvring was “suitable for an election to a student union”.

cml387

More emphasis from EU that's it's "out first, then we talk trade deal"

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström (EU trade commissioner) has said.

Full article

There is now talk of ten years to new trade deal, with GATT rules applying until then.

If this were the case there's speculation that Britain would look to expel EU citizens, as a sort of spur to hurry things up.

It's easy to see how this could spiral out of control. And to those who say it couldn't happen well, just look at this week's events.

cml387

cml387 wrote: »

More emphasis from EU that's it's "out first, then we talk trade deal"

Britain will not be able to start talks on a new trade arrangement with the EU until other aspects of its exit have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström (EU trade commissioner) has said.

There is now talk of ten years to new trade deal, with GATT rules applying until then.

If this were the case there's speculation that Britain would look to expel EU citizens, as a sort of spur to hurry things up.

It's easy to see how this could spiral out of control. And to those who say it couldn't happen well, just look at this week's events.

Now that is scaremongering.

The GATT rules aren't terrible. The UK would prefer to have a cheaper version (as would the EU!) but if that is what is reverted to in some cases for some time, that is not the end of the world for anyone.

They're not punitive protectionist charges.

djpbarry

cml387 wrote: »

A new morning,another surprise. This one is from the Daily Mail who has endorsed for Tory leader.....Teresa May

May probably is the best of a bad bunch.

Oh Christ, I'm agreeing with the Daily Mail...

cml387

djpbarry wrote: »

May probably is the best of a bad bunch.

Oh Christ, I'm agreeing with the Daily Mail...

The world turns upside down.

I wonder whether the press barons are now getting cold feet.

Sam Russell

I can see this referendum being re-run with the terms for leaving being made quite clear to the electorate.

Cameron should have put a triple lock in - minimum turnout, minimum % for leave, and all regions to agree to leave.

Boris and Gove are stuffed for a decade at least if not forever. May could justify a re-run as the Leave campaign told so many lies, damn lies, and utter falsehoods.

Bob24

Sam Russell wrote: »

I can see this referendum being re-run with the terms for leaving being made quite clear to the electorate.

Cameron should have put a triple lock in - minimum turnout, minimum % for leave, and all regions to agree to leave.

On the first point I think it will be difficult:
1) the exact terms will only be known once a deal is finalised with the EU, which will take a long time, and by that time some parts of the deal might already seem irrevocable (because Brexit will have become what everyone is expecting). Also if there is the slightest hint a second referendum is the plan, the EU27 will know British negociators who want to leave are in a week position
2) there would be suspicion that a bad deal was negotiated on purpose to get people to change their mind (rightly or wrongly)
3) if people don't agree on the terms, what will it mean? Just that they don't agree on a package but not that they don't want to leave any-more. Then what next?

On the second point I aslo don't think it was feasable. Yes Cameron could have put these restrictions, but quite rightly people could have asked why if this type of rules apply to a Brexit referendum, all other decisions related to a change of relationship with the EU (either to strengthen it or weaken it) have not been governed by the same rules (for example why no referendum with the same conditions to ratify the Lisbon treaty). A failure to answer would have appeared as having double standards in terms of democracy depending on what question he is asking the people.

cml387

The one thing that everyone agrees in this mess, Labour, pro and anti leave, the EU etc. is that the decision is irrevocable and there'll be no rerun of the referendum.


So I would suspect that some rerun of the vote is inevitable

swampgas

EU trade commissioner says Brexit first, trade deal later

Liam Fox already calling it "bizarre and stupid".

The UK really don't seem to get the fact that they are just another country. This could really get ugly.

wes

swampgas wrote: »

Liam Fox already calling it "bizarre and stupid".

They really should have looked at what the process actually entailed. I will say again, that I am stunned at how unprepared Brexiters are for this whole process. They do not seem to have a clue.

Bob24

swampgas wrote: »

EU trade commissioner says Brexit first, trade deal later

Liam Fox already calling it "bizarre and stupid".

The UK really don't seem to get the fact that they are just another country. This could really get ugly.

It also says "But the BBC understands other EU Commission officials privately believe it is "inconceivable" that trade talks would not start before the UK's exit".

The EU is not prepared either and needs internal discussions to come up with a plan. Right now and aside from the clear common position that common market means free movement of people, depending on which bureaucrat/politician/institution/country you listen to you can get very different views on what the expectations are.

And specifically on trade deals, it seems a bit odd to say "get out and then we will talk". I clearly understand why the EU doesn't (at least officially) want to talk before article 50 is invoked, but why not discussing trade deals in the subsequent 2 years period which is specifically there to define the future relationship with the departing member? (I understand the UK probably needs it more that the EU, but overall it is in everyone's interest)

Sam Russell

wes wrote: »

They really should have looked at what the process actually entailed. I will say again, that I am stunned at how unprepared Brexiters are for this whole process. They do not seem to have a clue.

It was pointed out to them by Christine Legarde, Barrack Obama, The Governor of the BofE, the Scots, The EU Presidents, Merkel, Hollande, the guys down the pub (no not that pub - that is where Farrage drinks), in fact everyone with an once of sense, that leaving was not a good idea.

Why did they not listen to other than the elderly racist xenophobes?

Harika

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was pointed out to them by Christine Legarde, Barrack Obama, The Governor of the BofE, the Scots, The EU Presidents, Merkel, Hollande, the guys down the pub (no not that pub - that is where Farrage drinks), in fact everyone with an once of sense, that leaving was not a good idea.

Why did they not listen to other than the elderly racist xenophobes?

Taken the decision aside, there was no plan in place what to do in case of the successful Brexit vote. Compare what the clowns of the Torries did since the referendum, Cameron just now decided to create an organisation trys to find out how the future relations to the EU should be, to what Nicola Sturgeon was doing since then (starting the referendum talks, open talks with EU members and so on)

swampgas

Bob24 wrote: »

It also says "But the BBC understands other EU Commission officials privately believe it is "inconceivable" that trade talks would not start before the UK's exit".

The EU is not prepared either and needs internal discussions to come up with a plan. Right now and aside from the clear common position that common market means free movement of people, depending on which bureaucrat/politician/institution/country you listen to you can get very different views on what the expectations are.

And specifically on trade deals, it seems a bit odd to say "get out and then we will talk". I clearly understand why the EU doesn't (at least officially) want to talk before article 50 is invoked, but why not discussing trade deals in the subsequent 2 years period which is specifically there to define the future relationship with the departing member? (I understand the UK probably needs it more that the EU, but overall it is in everyone's interest)

Fair enough, but the UK really need a unified approach from the EU-27 if they want a smooth transition. Once article 50 is triggered there are a lot of hostages to fortune, and the EU is one giant haggle-fest at the best of times.

jackofalltrades

Sam Russell wrote: »

Cameron should have put a triple lock in - minimum turnout, minimum % for leave, and all regions to agree to leave.

It would be hard to impose conditions and at the same time be seen as being impartial.

May could justify a re-run as the Leave campaign told so many lies, damn lies, and utter falsehoods.

Yes but how do you quantify the degree of lie telling needed to trigger a re-run?
Also the public don't want a re-run.

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was pointed out to them by Christine Legarde, Barrack Obama, The Governor of the BofE, the Scots, The EU Presidents, Merkel, Hollande, the guys down the pub (no not that pub - that is where Farrage drinks), in fact everyone with an once of sense, that leaving was not a good idea.

Why did they not listen to other than the elderly racist xenophobes?

The UK public have very little trust in politicians.
They should have had a bit more trust in Mark Carney.
Having the word Bank in his title my have undermined that though, given the recent financially crisis.
There seems to be a very little trust in people who actually might know enough to offer advice.
Maybe they need some sort of Referendum Commission, to offer impartial advice.

CMOTDibbler

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Maybe they need some sort of Referendum Commission, to offer impartial advice.

That's been suggested before. It's not the panacea for all ills though and those who want to accuse it of bias will still go ahead and do that regardless of reality.

It would help, but for those who didn't bother to inform themselves, it's probably no use.

swampgas

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The UK public have very little trust in politicians.

IMO the whole Iraq war "sexed up documents" business under Blair did a lot of damage to whatever trust might have been there before. (The Chilcot report is due to be released shortly too.)

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why did they not listen to other than the elderly racist xenophobes?

Oh give it a rest, would you. The referendum is over, and you seem to be unhappy with the result. Implying on a bulletin board that 52% of the British public were motivated by racism is not going to change anything.

Maybe people found it difficult to listen to Remain arguments because they were always tarnished with the implicit suggestion that if you were considering Leave, you must be some wide-eyed little racist who wants to live in the Kingdom of Warm Beer, with blancmange & cricket on the village green. BLACKS OUT.

The reasons a majority of British people voted Leave are various and complex. They do include immigration and British values, but I hardly think those are synonymous with racism, don't you agree?

Inquitus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh give it a rest, would you. The referendum is over, and you seem to be unhappy with the result. Implying on a bulletin board that 52% of the British public were motivated by racism is not going to change anything.

Maybe people found it difficult to listen to Remain arguments because they were always tarnished with the implicit suggestion that if you were considering Leave, you must be some wide-eyed little racist who wants to live in the Kingdom of Warm Beer, with blancmange & cricket on the village green. BLACKS OUT.

The reasons a majority of British people voted Leave are various and complex. They do include immigration and British values, but I hardly think those are synonymous with racism, don't you agree?

I think latent racism was a big factor in the outcome of the vote myself, if you've ever spent much time in the UK, that should be no surprise to you.

mansize

Take back our country
Control our borders
Reduce immigration

What I kept hearing

It implied it was currently overrun- which it wasn't
And by reffering constantly to it created a "them and us" scenarios

Sam Russell

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh give it a rest, would you. The referendum is over, and you seem to be unhappy with the result. Implying on a bulletin board that 52% of the British public were motivated by racism is not going to change anything.

Maybe people found it difficult to listen to Remain arguments because they were always tarnished with the implicit suggestion that if you were considering Leave, you must be some wide-eyed little racist who wants to live in the Kingdom of Warm Beer, with blancmange & cricket on the village green. BLACKS OUT.

The reasons a majority of British people voted Leave are various and complex. They do include immigration and British values, but I hardly think those are synonymous with racism, don't you agree?

I am not saying they are racist, just if they had not listened to the elderly racist xenophobes, the vote may have been 48% leave instead of 52%. Not all leave voters were as described, just enough of them to tip the balance. Racism is definitely a significant problem in Britain, particularly in England - not 100% but definitely significantly noticeable.

Bob24

mansize wrote: »

Take back our country
Control our borders
Reduce immigration

What I kept hearing

Are controlling borders and limiting immigration flows racist or xenophopic ideas? And if yes aren't most countries in the world xenophobic and racist then?