Brexit Referendum Superthread

K-9

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And all of that has what to do with my post?

Well what point were you trying to make then?

Billy86

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The bottom line, however, is that this is the Government's game of chess. Farage and Johnson have done enough damage. Frankly I don't want to hear their opinions. I don't know why Remain are so preoccupied with the internal minds of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.

One thing that has interested me in the last week or two though is this (and it also ties in with Donald Trump) - far right parties and movements have been gaining traction for a few years now, often under the pretense of 'real talk' (which ironically, is typically just an avoidance of honest or constructive discussion in favour of shouting loudly in emotive language) and their followers often claim to have just lost all faith in all established parties and politicians. It is this 'anti establishment' approach that has helped their increase in popularity - basically they are benefiting simply from not being in power for so long.

What we are seeing now, is exactly why they have not been in power for so long, and the Trump campaign in recent weeks (outside of the also-ironic 'safe space' of like-minded people in the Republican primaries) has been looking very similar.

All noise, all emotion. No thought, no planning, no competence, no answers. It's what so many people have been saying over many campaigns and the language used. And now we are seeing it begin to come to fruition - it just turns out it's the UK that 'won the race' and now get their prize, which they've just been getting and getting and getting since the morning after the vote was concluded.

I'm just hoping that the results of this mess lead other countries' populations to actually ask for some answers first, before going all-in on someone they know nothing about beyond 'real talk'.

wes

wes wrote: »

He is a lame duck. For all intents and purposes he is gone. He made it very clear he will be doing nothing.



Boris was the leader of the campaign and a member of the ruling party, as well as Gove.

Boris Johnson was going to run for party leader, before the well deserved back stabbing. The lack of a plan is kind of problematic for some who intended to lead.

Gove is running for leader, so his lack of a plan is also problematic, and yes I know he managed to cobble together some promises like 100 million for the NHS (down from 350 million and will probably end up being 0).

It just stuns me that those who most despise Farage & Johnson are most angry that they're not implementing their beliefs.

I think the UK should have remained in the EU, for their sake, but I am glad, for Europe's sake, that they've gone. Nevertheless, I am delighted that Farage and Johnson will have no significant role in public life, after Brexit. Farage can go back to the irrelevance of the European Parliament, and Johnson can go back to writing his book on Shakespeare.

Why, exactly, do you want Farage/ Johnson to govern?

Are people just so bitter that they want to attack, attack, attack, even though they don't want to consequence of what they're suggesting should happen?

Sounds like that Brexit lot.

K-9

Well it looked like Boris was going to take over and people, probably mostly actual leave voters, wanted to see what he wanted to do. People want leadership from there leaders! So he wasn't just a back bench MP, he was the former Mayor of London who has popular support.

Cameron going caught him on the hop. While I think he should have stayed he did lose the most important vote in the UK in decades, if he'd lost the Scottish Independence vote he'd have been under huge pressure to go to.

That things didn't work out for Boris, and it looks like he has no idea of what to do is a failure by Boris. Like really, did he campaign for months with no plan or no idea of what to do? I'm not surprised but most people who votes no must feel let down by him.

The Government did set out things that would happen but it was mostly dismissed as scaremongering or if the Central Bank or others got involved, interfering.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Well it looked like Boris was going to take over and people, probably mostly actual leave voters, wanted to see what he wanted to do. People want leadership from there leaders! So he wasn't just a back bench MP, he was the former Mayor of London who has popular support.

Well Johnson seems to have been duped. Gove would have split his vote in an already-divided party.

I think most people accept that premiership was Johnson's life ambition, and now his political career is for the scrapyard. I think his silence is understandable in that context.

What good would it do the British negotiations to have Johnson barracking the government from their own benches, at this sensitive time? Why divide the party even further? Why do people who oppose him want this?

I can understand why the media are distraught. Johnson was, and is, always great to shift a rag. But why are Remain voters so upset when their political opponent recoils into the night?

What i wouldn't do to see more politicians disappear into thin air...

K-9

Because Boris is more centrist than Gove or Fox as was seen with his Telegraph article, is Gove really that popular or influential? Many have questioned if Boris is that Euroskeptic.

I wouldn't write Boris off either, he's very popular for some unfathomable reason and he'll bounce back.

Kat1170

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It just stuns me that those who most despise Farage & Johnson are most angry that they're not implementing their beliefs.

I think the UK should have remained in the EU, for their sake, but I am glad, for Europe's sake, that they've gone. Nevertheless, I am delighted that Farage and Johnson will have no significant role in public life, after Brexit. Farage can go back to the irrelevance of the European Parliament, and Johnson can go back to writing his book on Shakespeare.

Why, exactly, do you want Farage/ Johnson to govern?

Are people just so bitter that they want to attack, attack, attack, even though they don't want to consequence of what they're suggesting should happen?

Sounds like that Brexit lot.

As a cleaner ??? He most certainly won't be an MEP after Brexit.

BlitzKrieg

Bob24 wrote: »

Exactly. When you are a head of state and call a referundum, you should have a plan for whatever the outcome is or at least not lie about your intentions so that others can make their own plan. Let's not forgot Cameron clearly said he would stay and trigger article 50 in case of a leave victory. So while the leave campaigners should have had more of a plan, they are definitely not the only ones to blame for the current ackward situation.

I think judging by how quick the the Bank of England has responded to the market that there were plans in place to deal with the leave vote winning.

I think those plans got scuppered though by the dramatic shift in tone the campaign took.

If you throw back to early in the campaign (or hell even this thread) the biggest push for the UK leaving the EU was to go to the EEA and copy Norway.

That was for most of the early part of the campaign the popular alternative.

And I imagine if Leave had won with that, Cameron wouldnt have resigned, instead he would have walked into the European Council and asked for the norway deal and activated article 50 like he promised

And the EU would have given it to him.

the UK in the EEA but not the EU is to some circles of the EU the dream deal out of a bad situation.

UK remains as a powerful asset of the EU (economic, funding and free movement) but its purged from interfering in the actual political dealings for the most part of the EU itself.


But all that got scuppered when the campaign's tone shifted very firmly to immigration and the complete removal of the free movement policy.


Cameron knew none of the governments plans for a brexit win could account for that. That the whole referendum was pointless for his own political ends if they did follow their brexit plan because if the UK joined the EEA, UKIP and the backbenchers will still be able to snap away at the tory base over free movement etc. Nothing would have changed from the horrible situation he was in prior to this referendum.

So his plans got scuppered and he bowed out

Boris's whole article in the papers over the weekend felt like he was testing those same waters, to see if things had gone as hostile as cameron saw them.

Thats why he dangled that free movment in some form might remain and he got a very quick aggressive negative reaction from the brexit base over it. Nigel Farage was very quick to be on tv to shoot that article down. There was a lot of outcry from brexit supporters of going back on promises.

And thats why he bowed out.

I honestly think Gove doesnt have a plan either, but he thinks he can at least buy time to find something. Best thing he can do is delay things as much as he can until they find something. Hence why he's already said No article 50 activation this year along with no general election til 2020.

IF he's elected it's going to drag on for years.

I hope someone sets up a website counting *days without activating article 50* I get the feeling you can get some mileage from that

Bob24

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And I imagine if Leave had won with that, Cameron wouldnt have resigned, instead he would have walked into the European Council and asked for the norway deal and activated article 50 like he promised

But he is 100% responsible for leaving the door open. If what you explained was his intention, he should have made it clear that from his perspective that was what a leave vote meant (and other politicians could have challenged it if they wanted and propose their alternative plan).

Again, a responsable head of governement does't trigger a referendum on something they are not capable or willing to act uppon. Because if the option they are not ready for is chosen, it has to leave the country in limbo.

Richard

Bob24 wrote: »

But he is 100% responsible for leaving the door open. If what you explained was his intention, he should have made it clear that from his perspective that was what a leave vote meant (and other politicians could have challenged it if they wanted and propose their alternative plan).

Again, a responsable head of governement does't trigger a referendum on something they are not capable or willing to act uppon. Because if the option they are not ready for is chosen, it has to leave the country in limbo.

Ultimately I hope some fudge will be agreed so that article 50 is never triggered. If there can be a second referendum on treaties in Ireland and elsewhere then they can do it in the UK. Perhaps that is the plan of some in the UK Government. They can't say it now though as the vote is still fresh - better to leave it a few months.

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

But he is 100% responsible for leaving the door open. If what you explained was his intention, he should have made it clear that from his perspective that was what a leave vote meant (and other politicians could have challenged it if they wanted and propose their alternative plan).

Again, a responsable head of governement does't trigger a referendum on something they are not capable or willing to act uppon. Because if the option they are not ready for is chosen, it has to leave the country in limbo.

You're forgetting that the purpose of the whole exercise was to put an end to the anti-EU sniping from within his own government and stop UKIP and their ilk from stealing their clothes.

I imagine that UKIP saw the danger of the EEA solution and that's why the emphasis in their campaign shifted.

BlitzKrieg

Richard wrote: »

Ultimately I hope some fudge will be agreed so that article 50 is never triggered. If there can be a second referendum on treaties in Ireland and elsewhere then they can do it in the UK. Perhaps that is the plan of some in the UK Government. They can't say it now though as the vote is still fresh - better to leave it a few months.

precedent is against you on that.

Second referendums occur on treaty referendums (Ireland and Denmark) because treaties can be amended to account for whatever issue it is the public are displeased with.

On referendums related to the EU on anything outside of treaty ratification (membership, joining the euro etc) precedent has it that there are no second referendums, at least not for 20 year period between them at least (norway).

brexit falls into that second camp.

Richard

Richard wrote: »

If there can be a second referendum on treaties in Ireland and elsewhere then they can do it in the UK.

Being the titleholder of a major global economy, and a G7 seat, equips you with a pair of balls of fabulously ample dimension, such as the Irish people are not themselves endowed.

Daniel O'Connell used say you could spot an Irishman by his subservient gait.
These days, we know ourselves by our peculiar electoral deference.

A spotty-faced boy-intellectual, stroking a fluffy smig, need only shriek the word "Jobs!" and a gaggle of Irish voters will obediently sign-up for anything the EU suggests.

You wouldn't get away with "Lisbon for Jobs" in the UK. The British were threatened with economic armageddon, and still they voted to Leave. They may be stupid to do so, time will tell, but they certainly have the balls to stand by a decision.

According to a previous poster in this thread, a substantial majority of people oppose a second referendum, which transcends the Leave/ Remain divide.

jackofalltrades

K-9 wrote: »

Well what point were you trying to make then?

Chiefly that we shouldn't whittle the debate down to witty sayings designed to agitate.
Sayings which in this case have unprovable claims.
What part of my post lead you to your reply?

Conas

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

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

It still doesn't change the fact that Junker and Schultz were undemocratically elected, and in reality should have absolutely no role whatsoever in the political affairs of this state.
People may say that they didn't vote in Enda Kenny to be Taoiseach, but at least he had to go out and canvass, and put himself before the Irish electorate in order to get elected. These guys didn't.

What's the point in electing people to the Dáil every five years, when it seems they haven't a pot to piss in, without going through their superiors in Brussels first. Sound more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're forgetting that the purpose of the whole exercise was to put an end to the anti-EU sniping from within his own government and stop UKIP and their ilk from stealing their clothes.

This why Cameron went for the referendum yes, not forgetting that. But regardless of his reasons the point is still the same: a responsable head of governement does't trigger a referendum on something they are not capable or willing to act upon.

Bob24

Richard wrote: »

Ultimately I hope some fudge will be agreed so that article 50 is never triggered. If there can be a second referendum on treaties in Ireland and elsewhere then they can do it in the UK. Perhaps that is the plan of some in the UK Government. They can't say it now though as the vote is still fresh - better to leave it a few months.

I think article 50 will have to be activated eventually. This is much bigger than the Lisbon Treaty referendum and not doing anything about the outcome of the vote is very difficult in my opinion. Plan B is most likely to go for a Norway type of deal.

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

This why Cameron went for the referendum yes, not forgetting that. But regardless of his reasons the point is still the same: a responsable head of governement does't trigger a referendum on something they are not capable or willing to act upon.

The point was that either way it was a win. Except for (as BlitzKrieg pointed out) the focus of the Leave campaign switched to immigration which nullified the Tories' plan B.

So remain in the EU or get an EEA deal. But now the EEA deal won't win the war.

BlitzKrieg

Conas wrote: »

It still doesn't change the fact that Junker and Schultz were undemocratically elected, and in reality should have absolutely no role whatsoever in the political affairs of this state.
People may say that they didn't vote in Enda Kenny to be Taoiseach, but at least he had to go out and canvass, and put himself before the Irish electorate in order to get elected. These guys didn't.

Again

*they did*

Here's them having debates live on tv (they had 3 in total I think in the run up to the elections):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes

They went and campaigned and most of europe did infact vote in the european elections with in mind of who their candidate was.

Clearly people watched it because according to the articles it did trend at the time in both the UK and ireland on twitter:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/twitter-wins-at-maastricht-presidential-debate/

There is no difference in how the european commission president got elected then how the US president gets elected in terms of process.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

They went and campaigned and most of europe did infact vote in the european elections with in mind of who their candidate was.

There is no difference in how the european commission president got elected then how the US president gets elected in terms of process.

Help me, a poor illiterate irishman, to understand the workings of the European Commission.

I thought the people we send to the European Parliament only vote for the College of Commisioners.

I thought (silly me! what am I like?) that the Council have discretion on whom they nominate to the Presidency of the Commission, and that they need not appoint the nominee of the largest party.

What dross have I been reading? Some bint called Grainne de Burca has written a textbook on EU law, and that is exactly what she says. Grainne. de Burca. Obviously a shinner.

Educate us at once.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The point was that either way it was a win. Except for (as BlitzKrieg pointed out) the focus of the Leave campaign switched to immigration which nullified the Tories' plan B.

So remain in the EU or get an EEA deal. But now the EEA deal won't win the war.

But as you said yourself - in the end either way wasn't really a win. And that is purely his fault. Others can't be blamed for turning the campaign to a different direction if Cameron didn't make it clear what his intentions were.

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

But as you said yourself - in the end either way wasn't really a win. And that is purely his fault. Others can't be blamed for turning the campaign to a different direction if Cameron didn't make it clear what his intentions were.

He couldn't say what his intentions were. In a war for the Tory heartland you don't give the enemy your strategy in advance. The real problem was the Russian roulette he played for party reasons.

But that's not new.

BlitzKrieg

Its because of Lisbon, it (shockingly because most people say the EU never reforms) reformed the commission and parliament process so they came in line with each other.


So Lisbon set it that the european parliaments are elected about 3 or so months before the Commission is formed, meaning the two events are always in sync with each other, the commission is selected off the back of a parliament election

So the European Parliament argued that because Lisbon added the following article to the treaty:

7. Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. If he does not obtain the required majority, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall within one month propose a new candidate who shall be elected by the European Parliament following the same procedure.

Meant that the president of the european commission has to come from the largest party elected in the european parliament

Which the majority of the Commission agreed with them on. Though some disagreed (primarily David Cameron)

So what was agreed was that each party could nominate a candidate for Commission presidency before the elections.

So much like with the US presidency and the electoral collage

MEPS elected to a specific party was a confirmed seat for that candidate.

Unlike the electoral collage though you cant have that mep get drunk and vote for the wrong guy.

After winning the nomination by being the largest party and the other parties conceeding (PES could have challanged as they were only 20 seats short and if the Greens or ALDE backed their candidate over Junker they could have taken the position, but they made a deal with EPP that they wouldnt challenge EPP's win as long as EPP backed a PES candidate for Parliament Presidency.)


Once selected as the parliaments nomination, the Commission candidate is then voted on a second time by the European Council (which Junker passed with only 2 voting against him, The UK and Hungary [oops])

Making him the official Commission President candidate

He then forms his commission off nominations from each member state. He formally cannot refuse a nomination from a member state, but he does choose their role in the commission and he can informally ask a member state to nominate someone else (they can refuse, but there has not been a case of this happening yet)

After he has selected all the roles of his commission they are put as a whole in front of parliament for a second vote.

Parliament also have the power by majority vote (though I think its quite high almost 70%) to dissolve the commission (I think The European Council also has this power)

swampgas

The split in the Conservative party reflects an ideological split in the country itself, I think. Many English people have yet to shake off the pretensions of empire. They don't like the idea that England is another country like France or Germany or Italy or Spain - they somehow feel it is demeaning to be considered as equals with the countries that lost the war. They feel special, superior, that they should set the rules that others must follow. Cameron's language reflects that : "The EU must this, the EU must that ...". No David, the EU "must" not do anything, just because you say so. The arrogance is so deeply ingrained that they seem to be blind to it.

The interview with the EU Trade Commissioner was interesting - the journalist couldn't quite believe that the EU felt they could act in a way that was detrimental to UK interests. That just because they want out shouldn't mean that they have to face any of the negative consequences. It's bizarre that this level of presumption is still so prevalent in the UK. Only now are they getting a glimmer that the rest of the world, and the EU, will move on without them.

Scotland is different - they've been under the shadow of English dominance for so long that they know that being part of a larger community can work, but they can see that the way the EU treats its members is (IMO) a lot better than England has treated Scotland, Wales or NI.

Maybe Brexit, and an independent Scotland, is what's needed to re-calibrate the English sense of their position in Europe and the world. It's going to take something seismic, one way or the other.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He couldn't say what his intentions were. In a war for the Tory heartland you don't give the enemy your strategy in advance. The real problem was the Russian roulette he played for party reasons.

But that's not new.

And we're back to my original point: he triggered a referendum without clearly defining what one of the options was and without having plan to deliver that vision -> that's what I see as irresponsable.

joseph brand

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

But why are Remain voters so upset when their political opponent recoils into the night?

Pointing out the fact that a Tory politician has been knifed in the back does not mean sympathy for said Tory.

What are people's thoughts on Corbyn's attempt at persuading voters to Bremain. As a Labour man myself, He seems indifferent. I thought he would be more annoyed/ animated.

swampgas

joseph brand wrote: »

Pointing out the fact that a Tory politician has been knifed in the back does not mean sympathy for said Tory.

What are people's thoughts on Corbyn's attempt at persuading voters to Bremain. As a Labour man myself, He seems indifferent. I thought he would be more annoyed/ animated.

Corbyn was always anti-EU. From what I can see he is trying (by stealth) to ensure Brexit occurs, while ignoring all his MPs (who he thinks don't reflect the party itself, at grass root level). He is on a mission, and he is prepared to sacrifice party stability and electability in order to do what he believes is best for Britain. IMO obviously

BlitzKrieg

swampgas wrote: »

Corbyn was always anti-EU. From what I can see he is trying (by stealth) to ensure Brexit occurs, while ignoring all his MPs (who he thinks don't reflect the party itself, at grass root level). He is on a mission, and he is prepared to sacrifice party stability and electability in order to do what he believes is best for Britain. IMO obviously

I actually dont think thats the case. A lot of people point to the fact that Corbyn campaigned in 1975 against the EU. But for a lot of left wing parliamentary parties the EU has shifted to being a strength for them in recent years rather then the threat they initially fear. And to be clear I mean specifically left wing parliamentary parties, the sort that dont want to build a whole new system but work in the current, those who are against the current political structure would never accept the EU because it's built around and on top of the structure of each countries government.

I think Corbyn feels the same way on that issue. Labour is a lot stronger in the EU then the Conservative party because *again* Lisbon put a lot more power in the hands of the parliament and the labour movement is the 2nd largest party in the parliament and as a result has been much more effective on affecting European legislative then the Tories have been since they walked away from the EPP in 2009.

Frankly I think Corbyn said exactly what he wanted to say. The EU protected worker's rights. He was right to shy away from the immigration argument because he's a lefty and would have said what he always says (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-says-immigration-isnt-a-problem-a6673231.html)*

Against UKIP and the tone Brexit had taken on rolling out Corbyn would have been a terrible idea so I'm leaning more to believing the rumours that it was less he refused to make an effort and more that most members of the remain campaign didnt want him to show up and make himself an easy target.

Sadly no one thought any further on the issue and let the british media paint it as corbyn being anti-eu regardless of what he said.



*I actually agree with him somewhat, I stand by large scale immigration is a symptom of poor economic and social policies by the country receiving the immigration rather then an external issue.

BlitzKrieg

actually on labours large numbers in the european parliament

I'm surprised I've never seen anyone use the same arguments for strategic voting in national elections to the european elections because its clearly what germany have been doing.



They vote overwhelmingly in favour of the EPP in european elections so they are just barely able to hold the majority in parliament.

The UK ****s the bed and votes for ukip when if they actually even just doubled their vote for labour in the european elections they would have been sitting on top of the majority in the european parliament.

With the knock on effect of no Juncker in the commission I might add.

ancapailldorcha

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

*I actually agree with him somewhat, I stand by large scale immigration is a symptom of poor economic and social policies by the country receiving the immigration rather then an external issue.

You've lost me here. People tend to relocate to wealthier countries where they think they'll get a better quality of life. How would this be down to poor policies in the destination country?