Merged Now What?

[Belz...]

Could you explain the important difference between what you said and my interpretation then?

It's very simple. One is about not having the responsibility or mandate to have a plan pre-vote, and the other, as you put it, is about being unwilling to discuss it. The two are entirely different, and I'm a bit worried that you can't see that.

you think it's not important that people didn't know which interpretation they were voting for?

Again, I never said that.

People literally didn't know what they were voting for.

How many people are we really talking about? It's easy to take anecdotes and think they are representative of the larger group.

Furthermore they now have no way to express a preference for any particular outcome or any influence over what happens next.

Of course they do.

So if we stay in the EEA we might have a situation where say 70 or 80% of people who voted in the referendum are unhappy with the outcome and can rightly say they didn't vote for that.

How do you resolve that problem in your mind?

The same way they just did with the EU.

Yes to the first question, at least if there were Martians and you shared some beliefs with them. As to the second, how is anyone anything? There is no 'true' citizen, or we are all in trouble.

What are you talking about? A citizen is someone who has citizenship, which is something granted by the state's government.

Seriously, this is a real problem. When is an immigrant 'local enough?'

When they get their citizenship from Canada, they are now "Canadian", for example.

 

[Belz...]

Dunno, I've had a lot of North Americans tell me they were Irish or Scottish or Italian or whatever even though they've never even been to those places in most cases.

That's because we're now conflating citizenship with ancestry. I'm sure you were aware of that, however.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What are you talking about? A citizen is someone who has citizenship, which is something granted by the state's government... When they get their citizenship from Canada, they are now "Canadian", for example.

I am afraid this is overly literal wrt to my meaning. Maybe a review of what I wrote would be in order.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's very simple. One is about not having the responsibility or mandate to have a plan pre-vote, and the other, as you put it, is about being unwilling to discuss it. The two are entirely different, and I'm a bit worried that you can't see that.



Again, I never said that.



How many people are we really talking about? It's easy to take anecdotes and think they are representative of the larger group.



Of course they do.



The same way they just did with the EU.



What are you talking about? A citizen is someone who has citizenship, which is something granted by the state's government.



When they get their citizenship from Canada, they are now "Canadian", for example.

No sorry. This is important. Your one-line retorts won't do. People voted. What did they vote for? If you cant say then that's important. Its fine to argue political points from afar but on the ground you need more than vagueries.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's because we're now conflating citizenship with ancestry. I'm sure you were aware of that, however.

No the question was IDENTITY.

U changed the rules just now.

 

[Spanx]

People voted. What did they vote for?

I would say remain voted for, keep things as they are (no plan needed)

Leave voted for, no immigrants, 350 million to NHS and trade with the world.

MP's are sending the list of to Father Christmas and we just have to wait to see what we actually get.

It's as simple as that, we just have to find someone with the balls to send the list.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I would say remain voted for, keep things as they are (no plan needed)

Leave voted for, no immigrants, 350 million to NHS and trade with the world.

MP's are sending the list of to Father Christmas and we just have to wait to see what we actually get.

It's as simple as that, we just have to find someone with the balls to send the list.

So Leave didn't vote for EEA. I agree. How do we prove that? How do we stop May signing up for EEA?

 

[Spanx]

So Leave didn't vote for EEA. I agree. How do we prove that? How do we stop May signing up for EEA?

There was talk about being like Switzerland and Norway, I don't see any reason why she can't sign up to it.

Everyone is a winner in the scratch card referendum.

 

[Spanx]

As my Dad used to say, everybody's strange but thee and me and I'm not sure about thee.

It sounds like your Dad spent some time in Newtown.

 

[Puppycow]

Meanwhile Leadsom seems to have cocked-up mightily. Her (recorded) comments about how being a mother made her a better candidate than May was reported by The Times, at which point Leadsom went ballistic accusing them of "gutter journalism" and that she'd said the exact opposite of The Times' claims. The Guardian report on the palaver.

Is there any doubt that May has already won and the final vote will simply be a formality? As long as the people who already voted for her continue to support her (and she could even afford to lose a few, not that she would), she got more votes than all the other candidates combined.

Meanwhile, Leadsom's comments about motherhood struck me as particularly condescending and even sexist.

ETA:

“I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be, ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’ because I think that would be really horrible,” she said. But she added: “Genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”

 

[Noztradamus]

650 MPs currently for Britain, but only 146 for England! Sorry, it's hard to take that too seriously.

To work it requires 5 federation states each with 130 MPs England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Berwick Upon Tweed.

 

[Craig B]

650 MPs currently for Britain, but only 146 for England! Sorry, it's hard to take that too seriously.

England would be a component of a federation, and like the other countries would have its own parliament as well as its share of members of the federal parliament. The present situation is absurd, of course. England needs a parliament of its own, federation or no federation.

 

[GlennB]

Is there any doubt that May has already won and the final vote will simply be a formality? As long as the people who already voted for her continue to support her (and she could even afford to lose a few, not that she would), she got more votes than all the other candidates combined.

The final vote is among Conservative party members, not the MPs who put May at the top of the candidates list. I still think May will win, mind, but it'll be interesting to see the final policy platforms on which the two of them stand.

 

[The Don]

I would say remain voted for, keep things as they are (no plan needed)

Leave voted for, no immigrants, 350 million to NHS and trade with the world. MP's are sending the list of to Father Christmas and we just have to wait to see what we actually get.

It's as simple as that, we just have to find someone with the balls to send the list.

I'm not sure what Leave voted for - I don't think that there's that degree of homogeneity in the campaign. True, some say that they want the walls up and so on but there are others who want to remain in the EEA (on ridiculously favourable terms) and who aren't so worried about immigration but who are concerned about bendy bananas and breakfast-meat-tubes (or whatever).

Then again, within the Leave campaign there is a similar range of views from reluctant Bremainers who barely want the degree of integration we have now through to Eunthusiats who want to be in Schengen with the Euro and well on the way to a United States of Europe.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not sure what Leave voted for - I don't think that there's that degree of homogeneity in the campaign. True, some say that they want the walls up and so on but there are others who want to remain in the EEA (on ridiculously favourable terms) and who aren't so worried about immigration but who are concerned about bendy bananas and breakfast-meat-tubes (or whatever).

Then again, within the Leave campaign there is a similar range of views from reluctant Bremainers who barely want the degree of integration we have now through to Eunthusiats who want to be in Schengen with the Euro and well on the way to a United States of Europe.

I think that UK needs some serious soul-searching to first determine what it's future is supposed to look like. Right now it has a favorable deal as a member of the EU, and it has narrowly voted to abandon it and exit the Union.

Fine, but seeing as the EU isn't very cooperative in facilitating an easy exit (big surprise there), the UK can't count on them to muddle through somehow. It needs an internal debate of what to negotiate on, what it's goals are to be and what is it prepared to offer in return. Then it needs to give a clear mandate to the PM on it, and negotiate it to the best of their ability.

It's fairly clear where this is going, UK will need another referendum on what kind of Brexit it would be content with. I foresee Remain will win the plurality of votes (if not a clear majority outright) as a write-in.

McHrozni

 

[Amazer]

I think that UK needs some serious soul-searching to first determine what it's future is supposed to look like. Right now it has a favorable deal as a member of the EU, and it has narrowly voted to abandon it and exit the Union.

Fine, but seeing as the EU isn't very cooperative in facilitating an easy exit (big surprise there), the UK can't count on them to muddle through somehow. It needs an internal debate of what to negotiate on, what it's goals are to be and what is it prepared to offer in return. Then it needs to give a clear mandate to the PM on it, and negotiate it to the best of their ability.

It's fairly clear where this is going, UK will need another referendum on what kind of Brexit it would be content with. I foresee Remain will win the plurality of votes (if not a clear majority outright) as a write-in.

McHrozni

I don't see this happening, honestly. Cameron, as PM and supporter of Remain, might have considered a second referendum. However, the next PM will in all likelyhood be someone who is publically committed to a Brexit. I can't see any reason why such a person would hold a referendum about the type of Brexit people want.... there just isn't an upside to it for them.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't see this happening, honestly. Cameron, as PM and supporter of Remain, might have considered a second referendum. However, the next PM will in all likelyhood be someone who is publically committed to a Brexit. I can't see any reason why such a person would hold a referendum about the type of Brexit people want.... there just isn't an upside to it for them.

PM is not the only problem, there are also MPs, most of whom supported Remain. I really don't see them agreeing on what kind of Brexit they want in a way that wouldn't infuriate the core of Leave voters.

Agreeing on what kind of a Brexit the UK wants needs to be done before A50 is invoked, for reasons that are, I think, obvious.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

I think that UK needs some serious soul-searching to first determine what it's future is supposed to look like. Right now it has a favorable deal as a member of the EU, and it has narrowly voted to abandon it and exit the Union.

That's my opinion too. If, in some unlikely future, the UK were to leave the EU, have massive case of regret, and re-apply to join we'd look at our current deal enviously.

Fine, but seeing as the EU isn't very cooperative in facilitating an easy exit (big surprise there), the UK can't count on them to muddle through somehow. It needs an internal debate of what to negotiate on, what it's goals are to be and what is it prepared to offer in return. Then it needs to give a clear mandate to the PM on it, and negotiate it to the best of their ability.

A cornerstone of the Leave campaign was the notion that the UK would somehow manage to negotiate the best deal ever on exit where we would be able to remain in the EEA without having to comply with any EU rules regarding freedom of movement, employment or environmental regulation, human rights and so on.

This being the same UK who were apparently so bad at negotiation that we ended up with "the worst deal evah" from the EU.

It's fairly clear where this is going, UK will need another referendum on what kind of Brexit it would be content with. I foresee Remain will win the plurality of votes (if not a clear majority outright) as a write-in.

McHrozni

I agree that there should be a close examination of the terms (or even the terms we are pursuing) but I don't think that the government of the day will put it to a referendum, just in case we get the "wrong" answer. Personally as much as I'd like to remain in the EU, I cannot see this happening. No matter how unfavourable or badly fudged the position the UK will have to leave the EU to abide by the terms of the referendum - solely IMO.

 

[Aepervius]

Fine, but seeing as the EU isn't very cooperative in facilitating an easy exit (big surprise there),

I disagree the EU is very cooperative for a quick and easy exit. In fact we were already clamoring to start now. The UK is the on shuffling around talking about september/october.

What we are NOT cooperative is to give you an advantageous for you exit.

There is a slight difference.

 

[McHrozni]

I disagree the EU is very cooperative for a quick and easy exit. In fact we were already clamoring to start now. The UK is the ons huffling around talking about september/october.

What we are NOT cooperative is to give you an advantageous for you exit.

There is a slight difference.

I was talking about this very perspective. The EU is not particularly keen on rewarding the UK for leaving, which is to be expected. Overall I think the EU will likely end up on top, it will loose the problem child of the UK, while probably retaining the British market and whatnot, maybe even taking significant business currently based in the UK.

McHrozni