Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Eloise posted:

Certainly it could be argued that if a referendum was the correct way to decide if the UK should leave the EU, another referendum is the correct way to decide if the deal the UK negotiates with the EU is acceptable.  Both will affect the country in a deep and fundermental way.

+1!

Conversely, it could be argued that if another referendum is not a meaningful way to decide if the deal the UK negotiates with the EU is acceptable, then a referendum was perhaps not a very meaningful way to decide if the UK should leave the EU!

My guess is that a significant number of the pro-exit voters have taken a remain outcome for granted, voted to exit (because the outcome will anyway be remain or perhaps because they were under the impression that they were asked whether they liked Junker or Schäuble or not, not whether they wanted to exit the EU or not) and that, ex-post, they would vote differently.

I might be wrong, of course. Best, nbpf

My understanding is that there will be no negotiation with the EU until the UK govt invoke Article 50 at which time we will have burned our bridges i.e. the UK/Britain will have to leave the EU after a max period of 2 years whether or not an agreement is reached unless the EU agrees to extend this cut off period. I cannot see that a referendum being held to ratify or otherwise any such negotiation will have any effect on this.

sjbabbey posted:

My understanding is that there will be no negotiation with the EU until the UK govt invoke Article 50 at which time we will have burned our bridges i.e. the UK/Britain will have to leave the EU after a max period of 2 years whether or not an agreement is reached unless the EU agrees to extend this cut off period. I cannot see that a referendum being held to ratify or otherwise any such negotiation will have any effect on this.

I agree with you ... But that's why the whole referendum was a stupid idea.  People think we've had a say ... But we haven't really.  All it did was allow Cameron to abdicate responsibility.  No one thought through what would happen if a small majority actually voted Leave!

David Hendon posted:

fatcat posted:

Eloise posted:

Certainly it could be argued that if a referendum was the correct way to decide if the UK should leave the EU, another referendum is the correct way to decide if the deal the UK negotiates with the EU is acceptable.  Both will affect the country in a deep and fundermental way.

A second vote would simply be an indication if the exit terms where acceptable. If the vote was no, it would be an instruction to renegotiate, it couldn't overturn the result of the original vote.

You might think that a second vote couldn't overturn the first vote, but it most certainly could, especially if it were worded to have that intention.

Well that wouldn't be a vote to accept/reject the exit terms, that would be a second leave or remain referendum.

tonym posted:

eazyryder posted:

Yet another powerful and honest speech

On the contrary, it's an arrogant diatribe, and all about the man's inflated ego. So we want  good trade deals with the rest of the EU so let's insult them. Fortunately, he's treated as the joke he certainly is by the rest of the MEPs. Disgraceful.

I for one have rarely felt so ashamed of being British as when I listened to his speech.

Simply a horrible man who is beginning to sound more and more like the leading members of the BNP.

I hope his speech does not get played throughout the countries of Europe, and in the unfortunate event that it does, let's hope that the rest of Europe does not really believe that he is representative of the decent overwhelming majority of people in this country.    

sjbabbey posted:

My understanding is that there will be no negotiation with the EU until the UK govt invoke Article 50 at which time we will have burned our bridges i.e. the UK/Britain will have to leave the EU after a max period of 2 years whether or not an agreement is reached unless the EU agrees to extend this cut off period. I cannot see that a referendum being held to ratify or otherwise any such negotiation will have any effect on this.

Sure. What should be the matter of  a negotiation if the UK government does not decide to withdraw from the EU? My guess is that the UK will not invoke Article 50 any time soon. Best, nbpf

nbpf posted:

My guess is that a significant number of the pro-exit voters have taken a remain outcome for granted, voted to exit (because the outcome will anyway be remain or perhaps because they were under the impression that they were asked whether they liked Junker or Schäuble or not, not whether they wanted to exit the EU or not) and that, ex-post, they would vote differently.

I might be wrong, of course. Best, nbpf

+1

I was speaking to a colleague yesterday who voted leave, she said everybody she’s spoken to voted out, and they all said they didn’t think leave would win

 I jokingly told her a polish work colleagues has cancelled his summer trip back to Poland in fear he won’t get back into the UK.  She said she didn’t vote out, to stop people like him entering the country, just the illegal immigrants.

Although, I would bet a lot of money she's never heard of Jean-Claude or Wolfgang.

Nbpf,

I think you're right. The timetable for the selection of a new Tory leader/PM seems to have slipped by a week and the talk of an early general election seems to have gone very quiet. Indeed, it looks like there is no appetite for an early election or to invoke Article 50 any time soon.

I suspect that the Leave campaign having played the immigration card are concerned what effect this might have on any election.

Eloise posted:

All [the referendum] did was allow Cameron to abdicate responsibility.

And attempt to placate a heavily right-wing press, schooled as they are on, 'Up yours, Delors'.

C.

sjbabbey posted:

Nbpf,

I think you're right. The timetable for the selection of a new Tory leader/PM seems to have slipped by a week and the talk of an early general election seems to have gone very quiet. Indeed, it looks like there is no appetite for an early election or to invoke Article 50 any time soon.

 

+1

Sky bet are running a book on the date article 50 is invoked. There are 4 or 5 time periods to chose from, most bets (40%) have been placed on 2018/never.

I was thinking I would have a little flutter on never, thinking the odds would be good, but they're not, they're 7/2

This whole balls up should be taken to a European court of law and hang to dry all the corrupted individuals and parties. Make this sort of thing illegal and punishable by prison correction.

Interesting points from discussions in Brussels taken from a press conference with Merkel:

- prior to activating Article 50 the UK would outline its view on how the relationship should look like going forward

- there would likely be feedback on that view in bilateral discussions, albeit no negotiations formal or informal.

Sounds like a view on what a relationship outside of the EU could look like could be formed prior to activating Article 50. But is this enough to put in front of the UK public for a second referendum? 

Also, Cameron reiterating the good work that has been done between the EU and the UK over the past decades, emphasising the good relationship, giving multiple examples. Confirmed it will be impossible to take advantage of all of the benefits of EU access without any of the costs.

MDS posted:

I'm not a Branson fan, but what I took him to be saying was that if many of those who voted for Brexit could foresee the likely economic consequences - he said recession -  they would likely have voted differently and therefore at some future point there should be another referendum to give all voters another opportunity to consider the issue.  I don't think that amounts to overruling British democracy.  Indeed, I think it arguable that once the new PM has negotiated major elements of Brexit with the rest of the EU that could be explained to the electorate together with a vote on whether the government should press ahead and leave on those terms.  To date the political leaders for Brexit have not adequately explained what they propose to do. They have no worked up policies. 

But the referendum has been held, and the people have spoken.  It is over.  Now, let's look forward to the future.  Richard Branson isn't poor or working class.  Neither does he live in the North where there are shocking levels of poverty.  People with nothing don't care about the shrill messages he and others like him have for the nation.  They have nothing to lose!

The EU was only ever a neoliberal corporatist racket that has allowed a situation where London makes money hand over fist, and everyone else has virtually nothing.

totemphile posted:

Jeff Anderson posted:

totemphile posted:

Ok that seemed to work, the video shows up in the above post here as well as on my other Mac running Safari 8.0.8. However, the video in my initial post is not visible on either system, nor is it visible in any of the replies quoting my original posting of the video. They were visible before in each of the posts but disappeared successively, one after the other!! Is there a bug on the forum with regards to Safari? 

Anyone else having this issue? 

It appears to happen when someone replies to the post with video, the video is carried forward with the reply.  Happens with embedded videos.  I have it happen on the Listening thread in the music room.  Work around is probably don't embed, just cut and paste the link.

Ok, thanks, but on my systems it's only an issue using Safari. Same for the other video, which was posted and quoted afterwards - not that I mind much in that instance. More seriously, though, all the videos show up in Firefox, so the bug must be Safari related. Also, I didn't embed, just posted the link using the "Insert/edit video" function from the menu. Or are you referring to this as embedded? Asking cause there is an "Embed" option within that function, which I did not use.

 

I was using embed meaning the "insert/edit video" method, yes.  Just checked, I can also see them on Firefox.  I had only been using Safari previously.  It seemed to have started around the time one of Richard's announcements regarding hoop.la maintenance so I had been blaming it there.  My replies don't appear to have been of any help outside confirming what you have discovered.

This must be a problem with Safari, so up to Hopeless to find the bug.

ursus262 posted:

...Richard Branson isn't poor or working class.  Neither does he live in the North where there are shocking levels of poverty.  People with nothing don't care about the shrill messages he and others like him have for the nation.  They have nothing to lose!

The EU was only ever a neoliberal corporatist racket that has allowed a situation where London makes money hand over fist, and everyone else has virtually nothing.

Richard Branson not being working class is completely irrelevant, his companies employ 50,000 people in the UK. When investments are cancelled or put on hold jobs are at stake or being lost. He is just one example. Other companies are finding themselves in the same situation, which means more jobs are at stake. The situation is simply very bad for current and future employment across many sectors in Britain. People with nothing should care because it will be even more difficult to find a job in this climate.

Your second point has nothing to do with the EU. Blame your own government and governments past but not the EU.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

As far as I am aware the ...EU don't support dictatorships.

“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.” - EU Parliamentary President Martin Shulz

From the economist, sounds pretty depressing:

Chaos was predicted and chaos has ensued. Businesses are cancelling investments: an Anglo-German stock-exchange merger is off, and Ryanair, an airline, will deploy new aircraft on European routes, not British ones. The domestically focused FTSE 250 has had a terrible week; housebuilders’ shares have tanked. Some hope that sterling’s depreciation will stoke export competitiveness. But costlier imports and Brexit-related uncertainty will probably outweigh that, meaning Britain would fall into recession in the second half of the year. Can the government rescue the economy? George Osborne, the chancellor, is keener on balancing Britain’s dangerously lopsided books than creating extra demand. The Bank of England’s interest rate is already at 0.5%; it can’t cut much further, and extra quantitative easing (printing money to buy bonds) is unlikely to do much. The best thing for the British economy would be clarity over the future relationship with the EU—but that won't come for months.

As I don't live in the UK and only saw the debate from a distance. I am asking myself, was everybody fully aware/informed of the impact and was the voting following that desired outcome, or do now a lot have regrets ?

Hmack posted:

tonym posted:

eazyryder posted:

Yet another powerful and honest speech

On the contrary, it's an arrogant diatribe, and all about the man's inflated ego. So we want  good trade deals with the rest of the EU so let's insult them. Fortunately, he's treated as the joke he certainly is by the rest of the MEPs. Disgraceful.

I for one have rarely felt so ashamed of being British as when I listened to his speech.

Simply a horrible man who is beginning to sound more and more like the leading members of the BNP.

I hope his speech does not get played throughout the countries of Europe, and in the unfortunate event that it does, let's hope that the rest of Europe does not really believe that he is representative of the decent overwhelming majority of people in this country.    

Was shown in Finland main television news & newspapers. Of my, what a shame, did a BIG mistake to the country reputation no matter how positively people are thinking.

eazyryder posted:

tonym posted:

eazyryder posted:

tonym posted:

eazyryder posted:

Yet another powerful and honest speech

On the contrary, it's an arrogant diatribe, and all about the man's inflated ego. So we want  good trade deals with the rest of the EU so let's insult them. Fortunately, he's treated as the joke he certainly is by the rest of the MEPs. Disgraceful.

Its an opinion, everyone is entitled to one and if you listen carefully there where a few applauses, but I guess you are a remain voter. We are a strong country and the EU needs us as much as we need them and the economic world consists of a FEW more trading countries than just the EU ones.

We're a damn sight weaker now we've decided to leave the EU. And if you think we'll get the same favourable trade deals we're currently enjoying under the EU, you're mistaken.

Well you are allowing 3 working days today since are country voted to leave the EU, to pass judgement.

And as I stated their are far bigger economic countrys outside of the EU to deal with, without having to get EU consent.

 

Is there a "dislike" button? This man can't even spell right

Bert Schurink posted:

As I don't live in the UK and only saw the debate from a distance. I am asking myself, was everybody fully aware/informed of the impact and was the voting following that desired outcome, or do now a lot have regrets ?

Significantly pro-Brexit papers told their readers what Brexit actually means ... some of their responses are enlightening...

The Daily Mail...

...and The Sun

(both links are to articles on The Independent website)

Bert Schurink posted:

As I don't live in the UK and only saw the debate from a distance. I am asking myself, was everybody fully aware/informed of the impact and was the voting following that desired outcome, or do now a lot have regrets ?

Sadly there seemed to be very little hard information (of course unsurprising, as it is very hard to assess some of the effects) but a lot of speculation, and scare-mongering, on both sides of the argument. For possibly the majority of voters, receiving information either from only their chosen newspaper (whatever its bias), or TV news, etc, without the resourcefulness to try to dig under the surface of the hype, choices will have been swayed by which arguments either struck a chord with their own  desires, or were most persuasive on whatever aspects they focussed on. And certainly some people - no-one knows how big a proportion - not believing for a moment that the whole vote could swing that far, voted 'leave' to register a protest to UK gov that they weren't happy with the way the EU is moving, while not actually wanting the country to leave.

Following on from Eloise's links to The Independent...

An interesting view:

"If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost. 

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How? 

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-manoeuvred and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign."

Source: http://indy100.independent.co....-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ

DrMark posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

As far as I am aware the ...EU don't support dictatorships.

“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.” - EU Parliamentary President Martin Shulz

I would be very surprised, if he actually said this. Can you please provide the original quote and web address? This only seems to have been posted by others, insinuating that he said it.

His address to the European Parliament sounded very different: 

"After more than 40 years together, British citizens have decided to part ways with the European Union. It is a decision that saddens me, but at least it clarifies what has been a complex and at times ambiguous relationship. 

EU Heads of State and Government and leaders of EU institutions have now a duty to provide the maximum degree of legal, political and economic certainty to the citizens they represent. The start of the withdrawal procedure must take place immediately and the negotiations between the UK and the EU must be speedy: there is no time for delays. 

Throughout its history, Britain’s outward-looking approach and attachment to freedom have been an inspiration and bulwark for Europe. The UK will leave a European Union which it helped shape, but I am convinced that the values of that Britain, of that outward, liberal and daring Britain will continue to inspire us.

The Leave campaign claimed that these distinctively British values and open relations are better pursued and advanced outside the European Union. My conviction is that in a world of increasingly regional blocs, our values, opportunities, interests and identities are better protected and advanced by sticking together. Many in the UK shared this view and it is both a source of comfort and sadness to know that young British voters, the ones who will be most affected, overwhelmingly stood on the side of Remain.

One of the reasons which moved British voters was the sense of disconnect and unfairness brought by rapid globalisation which has changed the world radically in a matter of two decades. The European Union must be an instrument to shape globalisation, to make it fairer. We must redouble our efforts to fight against those who compete unfairly, who tweak the rules, who evade and elude taxes, who collectivise losses and privatise profits. The lesson I take from this referendum is that we have to reform the EU to make it fairer, not dismantle it. It is our duty to show that the unity between the EU’s 27 Member States is stronger than our divisions. 

The European Parliament will stand on the side of unity and reform. The conference of Presidents of political group leaders has today decided to convene an extraordinary plenary session for next Tuesday in Brussels with the aim of adopting a resolution setting out clearly the Parliament’s objectives.

Our Union might not be perfect. The list of reforms needed is there and must be addressed. But it has delivered more than sixty years of peace and prosperity to its citizens and it can continue to do so. The key is reform for new ambition not unwinding. The European Union is our common house and an ideal past generations fought hard for. The European Parliament will continue to defend it."

To be found on his Facebook page in print and as a live speech in the first video on that page.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/marti.../?type=3&theater