Merged Now What?

[McHrozni]

Not this Bremainer - I'd see it as the least worst way forward.

The least bad way forward is finding a way of ignoring the results of the referendum, either by holding a new one, holding a new general election or finding a different way that would give the government a democratic mandate to avoid the disaster becoming a catastrophe.

Personally I think that will be unacceptable politically to the Conservative Party and we'll be out-out-out (out of the EU, out of the EEA and the way that May is so anti ECHR out of the council of Europe so we can have the death penalty back - so beloved of the blue rinse brigade) and damn the consequences

Maybe. Without the EEA UK will suffer badly though. A lot of that conservative party manifesto is about bringing in jobs, development, greater social spending and whatnot. Surely those pledges are important too? Or will they be all completely discarded, because a plurality of the electorate believed the lies and voted to Leave the EU?

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

The least bad way forward is finding a way of ignoring the results of the referendum, either by holding a new one, holding a new general election or finding a different way that would give the government a democratic mandate to avoid the disaster becoming a catastrophe.

IMO that cannot happen, if for no other reason because May has committed to Brexit.

Maybe. Without the EEA, UK will suffer badly though. A lot of that conservative party manifesto is about bringing in jobs, development, greater social spending and whatnot. Surely those pledges are important too? Or will they be all completely discarded, because a plurality of the electorate believed the lies and voted to Leave the EU?

McHrozni

Less than 40% voted for this Conservative government, 52% voted Brexit. They have a greater mandate for out-out-out (and damn the consequences) than they do for the rest of their manifesto commitments. In any case any and all post-Brexit problems will be blamed on the EU's intransigence in not allowing the UK to remain in the EEA whilst opting out on free movement, adherence to EU rules, abandoning the ECHR and so on

 

[McHrozni]

IMO that cannot happen, if for no other reason because May has committed to Brexit.

She's a politician, breaking promises is part of the job description. I've seen larger promises broken.

Less than 40% voted for this Conservative government, 52% voted Brexit. They have a greater mandate for out-out-out (and damn the consequences) than they do for the rest of their manifesto commitments.

As I said, breaking promises is part of the job description

The true art of politics is knowing which promises to break. Certainly breaking the promise of Brexit is unpalatable at this very moment, but that can be massaged as the disaster slowly turns into a calamity. Higher taxes, lower spending and job losses can sway many minds surprisingly quickly. By the end of the year it may well become unpalatable to stick to the promise of Brexit.

In any case any and all post-Brexit problems will be blamed on the EU's intransigence in not allowing the UK to remain in the EEA whilst opting out on free movement, adherence to EU rules, abandoning the ECHR and so on

That's unfortunately very true. Dibs on Scotland if that happens, I suppose.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

... In short, the circumstances of the present situation are highly unusual; and they call for a renewal of the legitimacy of the incumbent political establishment.

I have the recorded view of the new PM herself on my side. A past statement on the issue has been published in today's Herald.

Critics pointed to Mrs May’s own claims about Gordon Brown. When he succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister , she wrote on the ConservativeHome website: "Whenever Gordon Brown chooses to call a general election, we will be ready for him. He has no democratic mandate.”​

 

[Planigale]

There's another factor: EU stands to gain a lot from British loss. The financial sector will move to other EU countries - Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin are commonly mentioned candidates to take a piece of the pie. With that in mind, the EU has very rational economic reasons to deny the common market to the UK, if the UK won't offer substantial concessions in return. The loss of British market could be entirely compensated by the gain of British businesses.

Rarely has so much been sacrificed by so few to gain so little.

McHrozni

I agree. Other countries will be looking at Brexit as a big win for them. The one thing I think they will ensure is that EURO finance is shifted from London.

 

[McHrozni]

I agree. Other countries will be looking at Brexit as a big win for them. The one thing I think they will ensure is that EURO finance is shifted from London.

Suppose that happens and that USA decides it wants some of the pie for themselves, and does it's best to take the dollar finance from London to New York too. More dollars are traded every day in London than in New York, weakening of the London City financial center may well drive many of them across the Atlantic. I'm sure Americans wouldn't do anything to stop it ... or slow it down. Business is war, after all.

Certainly EU countries are the first in line, but USA isn't far behind either.

As I said in an earlier post, breaking promises is a part of a job description of any politician. The true art of politics is knowing which promises to break and how.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Suppose that happens and that USA decides it wants some of the pie for themselves, and does it's best to take the dollar finance from London to New York too. More dollars are traded every day in London than in New York, weakening of the London City financial center may well drive many of them across the Atlantic. I'm sure Americans wouldn't do anything to stop it ... or slow it down. Business is war, after all.

For a proportion of Leave voters this would be a positive boon. People interviewed in Boston and Sunderland said that part of their motivation for voting Leave was to stick it to the bankers. If you have nothing, or close to nothing then the repercussions of a financial downturn hit you less hard.

Indeed various studies have shown that happiness isn't dependent on absolute wealth but relative wealth. If I'm 10% better off but you're 20% better off then I become more unhappy OTOH If I'm 10% worse off but you're 20% worse off then I become more happier.

 

[SusanB-M1]

The least bad way forward is finding a way of ignoring the results of the referendum, either by holding a new one, holding a new general election or finding a different way that would give the government a democratic mandate to avoid the disaster becoming a catastrophe.



Maybe. Without the EEA UK will suffer badly though. A lot of that conservative party manifesto is about bringing in jobs, development, greater social spending and whatnot. Surely those pledges are important too? Or will they be all completely discarded, because a plurality of the electorate believed the lies and voted to Leave the EU?

McHrozni

I have just been reading this page via a link I picked up on another forum:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-eu-referendum-brexit-legality-a7130226.html#

I can't quite work out whether the twelve sections are quoting the whole text for each one though.

 

[McHrozni]

For a proportion of Leave voters this would be a positive boon. People interviewed in Boston and Sunderland said that part of their motivation for voting Leave was to stick it to the bankers. If you have nothing, or close to nothing then the repercussions of a financial downturn hit you less hard.

Indeed various studies have shown that happiness isn't dependent on absolute wealth but relative wealth. If I'm 10% better off but you're 20% better off then I become more unhappy OTOH If I'm 10% worse off but you're 20% worse off then I become more happier.

Maybe, but I think that this is still the lunatic fringe of the already loony movement. Most British voters would still understand that if they keep their banks they will have X money, but if their banks leave they will have Y money, where X > Y and they will agree that they would rather see banks stay in that case.

Most people aren't dirt poor who have nothing to loose any more. This 'logic' (if you could call it that) might work for a substantial portion of the population in 1860, but not today.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I have just been reading this page via a link I picked up on another forum:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-eu-referendum-brexit-legality-a7130226.html#

I can't quite work out whether the twelve sections are quoting the whole text for each one though.

The article says it's the full letter.

There is no way to quote it adequately. Each of the paragraphs is so powerful it deserves to be quoted, but that would be a rule violation

My personal favorite part:

There is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.

This alone is more than sufficient to double black and reconsider whether "out is out" is really the only way for the UK from this point.

McHrozni

 

[SusanB-M1]

IMO that cannot happen, if for no other reason because May has committed to Brexit.



Less than 40% voted for this Conservative government, 52% voted Brexit. They have a greater mandate for out-out-out (and damn the consequences) than they do for the rest of their manifesto commitments. In any case any and all post-Brexit problems will be blamed on the EU's intransigence in not allowing the UK to remain in the EEA whilst opting out on free movement, adherence to EU rules, abandoning the ECHR and so on

I find it quite annoying to keep hearing about the 52% who voted leave, when they are only just over half of the people who actually voted, which is about 12 million less than those entitled to vote, isn't it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe, but I think that this is still the lunatic fringe of the already loony movement. Most British voters would still understand that if they keep their banks they will have X money, but if their banks leave they will have Y money, where X > Y and they will agree that they would rather see banks stay in that case.

Most people aren't dirt poor who have nothing to loose any more. This 'logic' (if you could call it that) might work for a substantial portion of the population in 1860, but not today.

McHrozni

I think the problem is that people don't really think through the logic of the actions to this extent (As we have seen from the vote). So if you tell them the bankers will lose their jobs their immediate response is 'good' and the fact that it will make the country worse off doesn't really occur to them.

For others being worse off is a price worth paying (or even completely compensated for) for being rid of those foreign benefit scroungers sponging off our system and costing us billions.

Plus we're saving £350m every week! That's a huge number! We must be better off!

 

[Craig B]

I find it quite annoying to keep hearing about the 52% who voted leave, when they are only just over half of the people who actually voted, which is about 12 million less than those entitled to vote, isn't it?

Abstentions are to be counted as Remain votes?

 

[McHrozni]

I think the problem is that people don't really think through the logic of the actions to this extent (As we have seen from the vote). So if you tell them the bankers will lose their jobs their immediate response is 'good' and the fact that it will make the country worse off doesn't really occur to them.

Not yet, anyway. But when they end up having to pay more taxes or receive smaller paychecks as a result, maybe it will dawn upon them that it was all a rather bad idea.

For others being worse off is a price worth paying (or even completely compensated for) for being rid of those foreign benefit scroungers sponging off our system and costing us billions.

Those are beyond all help, but probably a minority - no more than 20% of the electorate, and possibly a fifth of that.

Plus we're saving £350m every week! That's a huge number! We must be better off!

I'm sure Theresa May will be queried about the 350 million pounds per week repeatedly in the parliament, and will have repeat that very often the number was false. That will weigh in somewhat, surely?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Abstentions are to be counted as Remain votes?

Considering the implications of the referendum, there is a case to be made for that, yes. If a majority of electorate thinks it should be done, the choice is legitimate. Five times more voters choose not to partake in the referendum than the difference between the two results. This clearly means a large proportion of the electorate didn't explicitly chose to leave either. There is a democratic mandate to maintain status quo as well. It's not absolute, but seeing as how outright lies were spread to make people vote leave, it's not all that weak either.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Maybe, but I think that this is still the lunatic fringe of the already loony movement. Most British voters would still understand that if they keep their banks they will have X money, but if their banks leave they will have Y money, where X > Y and they will agree that they would rather see banks stay in that case.

You're right but I think that people differentiate in their own minds between bankers - corrupt fat cats who reside in Canary Wharf - and their local financial services provider. That false dichotomy has been fed by the media and politicians who talk about "casino" banking arms having been a malign influence on our good old-fashioned retail banks.

Indeed the narrative around the bank bail out IMO implied that the UK would have been better off without the former - even though they cannot be separated from the latter.

Most people aren't dirt poor who have nothing to loose any more. This 'logic' (if you could call it that) might work for a substantial portion of the population in 1860, but not today.

McHrozni

Depends on what you mean by "dirt poor". For sure we don't have millions living in slums and pretty much everyone has access to clean water, education, healthcare and so on. Then again the BBC reported (though annoyingly I cannot find the report ) that some remarkable proportion of people couldn't afford a relatively modest emergency payment.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I find it quite annoying to keep hearing about the 52% who voted leave, when they are only just over half of the people who actually voted, which is about 12 million less than those entitled to vote, isn't it?

Sadly this is how referenda work though. The biggest number wins.

All of these shennanigans just seem like trying to rewrite the rules after the result to me. It was this Tory Government who came up with the idea and committed to follow the result so I think they are hamstrung to do so even if they don't want to. It was their stupidity and it should be remembered for a long time who caused it. Not Farage. Not Bojo. David Cameron and his Government (of which May was a key part)

I think the only legitimate way that someone could now overturn the decision would be after a general election if they stood on the ticket of remaining in the EU and were elected.

In some ways I'm sympathetic to the 'lets just be sensible and not do this' approach because it would probably be the best outcome for the country but there's no legitimate way to do that and as a supporter of Scottish Independence I'm not about to start arguing that ignoring the results of a referendum is OK if they don't suit you.

Had 50.1% of people voted Yes we'd be pushing to make independence happen with no excuses so we should be granting the same to Leave.

Perhaps we may have a bit of a more favourable reception from the EU if May is able to paint this as a reluctant exit forced upon her. Maybe there is even a way to smooth a path for re-entry in a few years time on more or less the same terms as we had before. Or maybe May will jump on the bandwagon and take the chance to eliminate everything she get her hands on since she seems to think human rights are annoyances.

 

[McHrozni]

Depends on what you mean by "dirt poor". For sure we don't have millions living in slums and pretty much everyone has access to clean water, education, healthcare and so on. Then again the BBC reported (though annoyingly I cannot find the report ) that some remarkable proportion of people couldn't afford a relatively modest emergency payment.

Assuming the emergency payment was 500 quid or so, this is not due to these people being poor, but because they're horribly poor at planning ahead and prefer to spend what they have immediately.

I have a sister like that. Her income and regular expenses match mine from about five or six years ago, but I was able to put money aside monthly from that wage, but she's broke all the time. In most cases it has nothing to do with income, wealth, situation or anything other than being Bad with money.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

I have the recorded view of the new PM herself on my side. A past statement on the issue has been published in today's Herald.

Critics pointed to Mrs May’s own claims about Gordon Brown. When he succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister , she wrote on the ConservativeHome website: "Whenever Gordon Brown chooses to call a general election, we will be ready for him. He has no democratic mandate.”​

That's interesting and it should be uncomfortable for her, but I disagree with her.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not yet, anyway. But when they end up having to pay more taxes or receive smaller paychecks as a result, maybe it will dawn upon them that it was all a rather bad idea.

Those are beyond all help, but probably a minority - no more than 20% of the electorate, and possibly a fifth of that.

I'm sure Theresa May will be queried about the 350 million pounds per week repeatedly in the parliament, and will have repeat that very often the number was false. That will weigh in somewhat, surely?

McHrozni

I think I more or less agree but with one caveat. By the time the effects hit them in the pocket they may well have forgotten what caused it. Especially if politicians are telling them a different story.

For examples of this I refer you to the UKIP/Leave arguments that blame immigrants for the results of Tory cuts and blame difficulties for skilled Non-EU migrants on the EU rather than Theresa May's policies.

There's probably also not much political capital in highlighting the effects of Brexit for Labour since May will quite rightly be able to point out that she was against it personally but it was the will of the majority of the people. Maybe Farage will be blamed and then we all move on.