Brexit...

[Chach]

After today's revelation that Boris wrote an article that wasn't published outlining why we should vote remain rather than leave

and then to fight a campaign to leave the way he did are there any people who were persuaded by him to vote leave thinking they have been duped or made a mistake

 

Felt bad for this guy

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/repentant-leave-brexit-voter-chokes-up-tear-son/

[johnh]

He calls himself 'stupid'. Well, he is if he allowed himself to be influenced by others instead of making up his own mind. I read plenty before the vote, by both the Remain camp and the Leave camp. I ignored what I thought was 'electioneering' and made my decision on the facts. I voted 'leave' and have no regrets. The EU will implode in the next 7 - 10 years and the catalyst will be the failure of the euro.

[holystove]

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-we-lost-the-brexit-vote-former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron/

Analysis by Daniel Korski, deputy director of the policy unit in David Cameron's governement.

 

Being somewhat pro-EU I obviously disagree with the overall Euro-sceptic tone of his analysis but it is a unique inside account from a close adviser to Cameron, starting in 2014 until after the Brexit vote.

 

For example on (to the English) all important issue of immigration he writes:

"

Our European counterparts pointed out that the number of immigrants moving to the U.K. was relatively limited, compared to, for example, Germany.

Finally, as we tried to argue that the U.K. faced a unique set of circumstances, which required a fundamental redraft of the relevant European rules, we struggled to provide evidence to support our case.

We tried using absolute numbers: three million migrants likely to come over the next 10 years, 6 percent of Lithuania’s population living in the U.K. already. We highlighted the pressure on public services like schools and hospitals. And we appealed to European leaders to consider the impact of migratory flows on their own economies.

These arguments were quickly shot down. Our European counterparts pointed out that the number of immigrants moving to the U.K. was relatively limited, compared to, for example, Germany. Or they called attention to the fact that European migrants paid more tax and used fewer public services than British citizens, which was true.

They noted that our economy was growing, that we were almost at full employment, and thus that migration was more or less inevitable. They showed us how our rate of financial distribution to the areas under pressure was much lower than, say, Germany’s, and concluded that we should just spend a lot more money addressing the challenges there.

We were never able to counter these arguments. To be honest, we failed to find any evidence of communities under pressure that would satisfy the European Commission. At one point we even asked the help of Andrew Green atMigrationWatch, an organization that has been critical of migration. But all he could provide was an article in the Daily Telegraph about a hospital maternity ward in Corby. There was no hard evidence.

That is not to say we didn’t perceive immigration as a problem. Cameron was convinced it was a real challenge — if perhaps more of a cultural one than an economic one. And he worked tirelessly to bring immigration down to acceptable levels. But it was clear that immigration is at best just one of several factors that are putting pressure on public services, along with globalization, deindustrialization, automation and aging populations.

"

[holystove]

So much for March 2017.... Good news for the British Pound though.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

 

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.

[Palfy]

If the supreme court upholds the decision of the high court then the prime minister will have to satisfy the rest of the house that she has a transparent plan and deals on the table if she can't show a credible way forward she won't get the mandate to leave which has to be good for everyone

[holystove]

today's front pages of the tabloids are genuinely frightening

 

these judges didn't make a ruling on brexit, they made a ruling on the application of the law .. the judiciary stopping the executive and telling them to first consult parliament surely isn't a threat to democracy.

[johnh]

Prior to the referendum, the government spent 9.3 million pounds of taxpayers money distributing a brochure to every household in Britain. At the time, there were complaints that it was a propaganda leaflet for 'Remain'. In spite of this, over 17m voted 'leave' which is the highest number of votes in British political history. The brochure stated 'This is your decision. The Government will implement whatever you decide'. The Remainers were so confident they would win, they were happy to treat the referendum as final and binding. So what the judges have decided is undemocratic.

 

Incidentally, two of the three judges involved are close friends of Tony Blair, the ultimate Europhile, who still has ambitions to be EU president.

 

This is a little local difficulty which will take a little time to sort out, but sorted out it will be.

[Palfy]

Exactly we will still Brexit but now it will be a Brexit that will be negotiated by our parliament and not just May who seems to be making this a personal mission to get us out at any cost.I know that the big players in the EU want us out quickly so as not to cause unrest amongst the natives,let's take our time and get the best deal possible the more we shite in their yard the more we will get out of them just to see us go

[Matt]

Prior to the referendum, the government spent 9.3 million pounds of taxpayers money distributing a brochure to every household in Britain. At the time, there were complaints that it was a propaganda leaflet for 'Remain'. In spite of this, over 17m voted 'leave' which is the highest number of votes in British political history. The brochure stated 'This is your decision. The Government will implement whatever you decide'. The Remainers were so confident they would win, they were happy to treat the referendum as final and binding. So what the judges have decided is undemocratic.

 

Incidentally, two of the three judges involved are close friends of Tony Blair, the ultimate Europhile, who still has ambitions to be EU president.

 

This is a little local difficulty which will take a little time to sort out, but sorted out it will be.

Got nothing to do with being undemocratic or democracy, they've upheld the law as it exists - exactly what judges should do. As someone who wanted to leave, I would've thought you'd be happy that British law is being upheld by the British courts? The democracy part comes from Parliament, not the law.

From what I've read, and I'll hold my hands up and admit that I'm no legal expert (but thanks to the current political fuck ups in recent years, I've taken more of an interest than I otherwise would've), the law they're referring to can be referenced in the "Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of The Constitution", link here (page 36, with references to the actual law in the footnotes) and then on page 176 a very prominent statement :

 

"The electors can in the long run always enforce their will. But the Courts will take no notice of the will of the electors. The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors."

 

 

 

Now if you're going to say "well, there were 2 judges that are mates with Tony, so it's bound to be biased", then at what level of power do you want the people to take control? If a large part of the argument to leave the EU was to take back control for our own interests, escape the corruption of the EU organisation, let Britain be rule by British law, but then complain about getting exactly what you wanted then I'm really confused.

 

Now May, who'll no doubt still be committed to push on with this, has got to change the law and/or get parliament behind her, so far as I can work out. But legal democracy has to be implemented, and that is the voices of the MPs elected to represent and speak on behalf of his/her constituents, not the voices of the people in a glorified opinion poll which has nothing legally binding behind it. Wrong way around in my opinion, but that seems to be how it is legally setup.

 

And I wouldn't lump all the Remainers together like that, very naive.

[Cornish Steve]

I agree that the decision is not undemocratic. What would be a travesty, though, is Parliament attempting to undo the result of the referendum. They played a game, lost spectacularly, and may now try to ignore the result. If they do that, there will be a real ruckus.

[Cornish Steve]

And I wouldn't lump all the Remainers together like that, very naive.

 

Touche to them. Haven't all those voting for the Brexit been lumped together as a bunch of ignorant pillocks?

[Matt]

 

Touche to them. Haven't all those voting for the Brexit been lumped together as a bunch of ignorant pillocks?

By some, sure. Not by all and it's exactly this kind of sweeping statement that causes separation in the population.

[markjazzbassist]

Just wanted to pop in and say I love this place for the discourse we have, I've read the American media articles on this buts it's always great to hear both sides of the first hand accounts.

 

Toffee talk for the win!

[Palfy]

I voted in I except the majority out vote but what I cannot and will not except is that we rush through article 50 because it suits the French and Germans if they want us out quickly because it good for their national interests, then let's have some guarantees, and don't give me that bollocks you can't negotiate to you implement

[Peter H]

I don't want a "hard Brexit" and was always assuming such a thing wouldn't happen because I don't see the point in being tough with the UK just in the intrest of hurting them economically. Also, I see the EU as a political/cultural project, rather than merely economic integration. So if a country was in the EU solely for economic reasons and is so frightened of losing its own identity that it tries to block any type of further integration, every other country should be happy to see it go and a deal that is best for both sides should be pursued.

 

This article quite interestingly suggests that a "hard brexit" is the only logical outcome.

 

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hard-brexit-theresa-may-by-jacek-rostowski-2016-10

 

But there is only a hard brexit. There is no soft brexit. There is no "maintaining access to the single market” and leaving the rest. When the UK leave Europe they will have 2 years to negotiate the trade deals that they want to have in place. Most of those deals will come with demands. Such as letting EU-residents move to the UK to work, or such as following the EU-laws, or taking their fair share of refugees.

 

If the UK want access to the single markets the EU will HAVE to place these demands, otherwise other countries would follow the UKs lead and also leave the EU. Its fairly straight forward. The EU has to hurt the UK if they want access to the single market. Otherwise the EU is doomed.

 

[Peter H]

what I hate the most about brexit, is that it has destroyed a childhood hero for me for all time. I will never look att Morrissey in the same way again.

[holystove]

Prior to the referendum, the government spent 9.3 million pounds of taxpayers money distributing a brochure to every household in Britain. At the time, there were complaints that it was a propaganda leaflet for 'Remain'. In spite of this, over 17m voted 'leave' which is the highest number of votes in British political history. The brochure stated 'This is your decision. The Government will implement whatever you decide'. The Remainers were so confident they would win, they were happy to treat the referendum as final and binding. So what the judges have decided is undemocratic.

 

Incidentally, two of the three judges involved are close friends of Tony Blair, the ultimate Europhile, who still has ambitions to be EU president.

 

This is a little local difficulty which will take a little time to sort out, but sorted out it will be.

 

Disagreeing with the decision the judges made is something different than calling them the enemies of the people. The ruling could have gone either way so it was always a given that one side would oppose the ruling. It's something completely different to personally attack the judges who made the ruling.

 

What is the effect of such attacks on the respect Joe 6-pack has for the judiciary? What if he gets into an argument with his neighbour, they take it to court and the judge rules (well-founded) in favor of the neighbour - will the guy accept the decision or will he be trying to find out if the judge is by any chance an openly gay ex-olympic fencer?

 

It is totally irrelevant that two of the judges were friends with Tony Blair. It wasn't a ruling on brexit, it was a ruling on the application of the law. Not one legal commentator that I've read today has stated that the ruling is constitutionally/legally unfounded (most even seem to say the supreme court will fully agree), they are however the strongest in their disapproval of the Sun, DM, DE, Telegraph because of the damage these tabloids are doing to the rule of law.

Edited November 4, 2016 by holystove

[Palfy]

fair play Holy you should have been an MEP

[MikeO]

 

Disagreeing with the decision the judges made is something different than calling them the enemies of the people. The ruling could have gone either way so it was always a given that one side would oppose the ruling. It's something completely different to personally attack the judges who made the ruling.

 

What is the effect of such attacks on the respect Joe 6-pack has for the judiciary? What if he gets into an argument with his neighbour, they take it to court and the judge rules (well-founded) in favor of the neighbour - will the guy accept the decision or will he be trying to find out if the judge is by any chance an openly gay ex-olympic fencer?

 

It is totally irrelevant that two of the judges were friends with Tony Blair. It wasn't a ruling on brexit, it was a ruling on the application of the law. Not one legal commentator that I've read today has stated that the ruling is constitutionally/legally unfounded (most even seem to say the supreme court will fully agree), they are however the strongest in their disapproval of the Sun, DM, DE, Telegraph because of the damage these tabloids are doing to the rule of law.

 

Absolute disgrace, couldn't believe the headlines when I saw them in the shops today; though I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised.

 

Newspapers when I was younger may have had a political slant certainly, and they made their points in the small "comments" section; now they just scream at you and sadly many people buy into their poison.

[Palfy]

MikeO sadly gone are the days when people voted for the policies of a certain party to many just vote on whether they like the leader and not what they stand for, the press have had a big part to play in this if they don't like a party for what ever reason they very rarely say what policies they disagree with they just personally attack the leader and unfortunately it seems to work

[pete0]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-leave-voter-british-law-caller/

[StevO]

Peter H, if the EU have to punish the U.K. For leaving, to scare other countries into staying, that is not an organisation to be proud of. No one should ever rule by fear.

[Palfy]

Did anyone see May on the news giving a speech in India on a free trade deal with India it seemed that she wasn't far off offering them open entry to UK or did I get the wrong impression

[MikeO]

Did anyone see May on the news giving a speech in India on a free trade deal with India it seemed that she wasn't far off offering them open entry to UK or did I get the wrong impression

 

Didn't see that no, but as we gave ourselves free entry into India it only seems fair to return the courtesy.

[Palfy]

On that basis we would have half the world with free access to this country

[StevO]

I think all commonwealth countries should have free access to each other. But then I'm not in charge.

[MikeO]

On that basis we would have half the world with free access to this country

 

Yup. Serve us right.

 

But it was tongue in cheek obviously; not sure why anyone would want to move here now personally anyway, think the out queue will be bigger than the in one pretty soon.

[MikeO]

I think all commonwealth countries should have free access to each other. But then I'm not in charge.

 

Take the word "commonwealth" out of that and I completely agree .

[Peter H]

Peter H, if the EU have to punish the U.K. For leaving, to scare other countries into staying, that is not an organisation to be proud of. No one should ever rule by fear.

 

its more a case of making sure that there is a benefit to being part of the EU.

[Matt]

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.ch/2016/11/meanwhile-in-britain.html?m=1