[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

But it wasn't a case of not having enough time for the legislation or anything. He simply came up with a "solution" where the Lords remained an unelected body. It must have been a deliberate decision to retain control over the make up of the House by retaining the ability to create peers and, so, choose who sits in there.

I would agree with you on that. If it was democratically elected, then people may have chosen the 'wrong' way as they have done with the Scottish Government and a certain referendum we've just had.

 

[LlcoolJ]

And what a f_ckin mess we are now because of it. Lets just hope the government do the right thing and what they're best at - never actually decide on it, stay in the EU and squirm out some excuse to those who wanted this mess.

Interestingly, this is one of the most likely courses of action. Whatever is being said in public is, as usual, very different from what's actually happening.

Can't be bothered to trawl through 350 pages but if anyone hasn't yet read the blog posts on this by David Allen Green then they really should.

He looks at things purely from a legal/logical standpoint and was way ahead of the msm in pointing out the Article 50 situation and how Cameron has dropped Boris et al in the shite.

 

[Hamilton]

I did not play the race card. I gave an example of EU immigrants that should not be allowed into the country for the reasons stated, highlighting an issue with free movement as it currently applies.
You are persisting in applying a context to my post that is not there. At no point have I said all EU immigrants are bad or all EU immigration is bad. Nor would I ever say that the only good pole is a deed pole. You have an axe to grind and you are continuing to grind it regardless.

I'm just pointing out the dangers of raising race in a debate like this and in any context. My advice is to avoid it. That's all. You've corrected yourself now anyway so all's fine.


Sent from my iPhone in a non-Calde world :-(

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Interestingly, this is one of the most likely courses of action. Whatever is being said in public is, as usual, very different from what's actually happening.

Can't be bothered to trawl through 350 pages but if anyone hasn't yet read the blog posts on this by David Allen Green then they really should.

He looks at things purely from a legal/logical standpoint and was way ahead of the msm in pointing out the Article 50 situation and how Cameron has dropped Boris et al in the shite.

We have the answer, there will be no article 50. How will they get round this now without upsetting 17 million people, me included.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Completely agree. And it's incredible that everyone is going through such angst at the moment when there is a very simple solution. Namely, agree some sort of cap on net migration for the UK - which would enable an "emergency brake" to be applied. This would clearly need to be a better deal (for us) than the one Cameron negotiated a few months ago - but it might not need to be much better. This could then be put to the British people in the Autumn. The proposition would be some form of Associate Membership, very similar to the relationship that Norway has, with a slight tweak around the immigration cap. Logically all Remainers would vote for it, and quite a few Leavers - it should easily win out. OK - it would transgress the sacred Free Movement of People Principle - but not by much.

I suppose in reality we HAVE to go through all the angst so everyone can get their concerns heard and give their tuppence worth. Hopefully when it all dies down Merkel and (ideally) Theresa May can thrash it out over a few bratwursts.

I think an emergency brake on immigration would have to be available to all member states, not just the UK, to have a chance of getting approved.

 

[Ernest]

We have the answer, there will be no article 50. How will they get round this now without upsetting 17 million people, me included.

The Tories have let the genie out of the bottle, there will be no article 50 invoked by them so they have 17 million angry electorate to deal with now and in the future. They didn't need to hold a referendum, it wasn't demanded by anyone but the UKIP nutters and Dodgy Dave thought he would be clever, now they have an almighty mess to clear up

 

[Titanic]

The Tories have let the genie out of the bottle, there will be no article 50 invoked by them so they have 17 million angry electorate to deal with now and in the future. They didn't need to hold a referendum, it wasn't demanded by anyone but the UKIP nutters and Dodgy Dave thought he would be clever, now they have an almighty mess to clear up

Utter rubbish. #desperate

 

[beorhthelm]

Wow you really are incredibly thick... I am making two separate points...

1) I said non EU migration was higher than EU migration... Thank you your figures have proved that i was correct.

2) I NEVER said EU migration compared to non EU was 0.5% that's just crazy. The 0.5% is the figure of immigration as a whole in relation to population.

this is what you said:

I wonder if you heard that most immigration is from outside of the EU and only 0.5% is within the EU

i'll bow out as appears to be a misunderstanding, as 0.5% immigration from EU is crazy (which was my objection). we can maybe learn to be more careful how we write and indeed how we read things.

 

[Titanic]

FTSE250 and £ climbing steadily yesterday and again this morning... markets seem to have stabilised for now... hopefully our politicians can follow suit and get this show back on the road!

FTSE250 closes at 16002 up 499 (3.2%) on the day. And the £ at $1.35 (up 1.3%). Obviously still volatile but not one-way traffic #dontpanic

 

[SK1NT]

this is what you said:


i'll bow out as appears to be a misunderstanding, as 0.5% immigration from EU is crazy (which was my objection). we can maybe learn to be more careful how we write and indeed how we read things.

Agree crossed wires...

I on the other hand think 0.5% from the EU is fine especially when 98% pay taxes and their contribution to the government far out weighs what they take out of the system.

I think the issue is with the government not using these taxes correctly so the hospitals schools are getting busier but shouldn't be.

I would blame the government and not immigration.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Interestingly, this is one of the most likely courses of action. Whatever is being said in public is, as usual, very different from what's actually happening.

Can't be bothered to trawl through 350 pages but if anyone hasn't yet read the blog posts on this by David Allen Green then they really should.

He looks at things purely from a legal/logical standpoint and was way ahead of the msm in pointing out the Article 50 situation and how Cameron has dropped Boris et al in the shite.

I'd forgotten about the very existence of David Allen Green, yet he was one of the best people I followed on my old Twitter account. I think he did the Twitter Joke trial right? Anyway, if you are in any way interested in a strictly legal interpretation of the Article 50 notification then have a look at http://jackofkent.com/

Cheers LL

 

[beorhthelm]

They didn't need to hold a referendum, it wasn't demanded by anyone but the UKIP nutters and Dodgy Dave thought he would be clever, now they have an almighty mess to clear up

17 million people might disagree with you. thats more than have EVER voted for a single party in a GE. there has been for along time a resentment of membership of the EU, for many reasons, with people wanting to have a voice on the matter being silenced by the established parties all supporting membership, and the other option a bunch of bigots and nutters with one policy to solve everything. and if you were attention, a large number of that 17million are left wing voters, in left wing areas of the North, Midlands, Wales, which wanted to express an opinion not offered through the normal democratic process.

 

[Guinness Boy]

We have the answer, there will be no article 50. How will they get round this now without upsetting 17 million people, me included.

The game is afoot and people like you and me don't count - we never did.

Ask yourself why the referendum on AV was legally binding and the referendum on the EU wasn't. The answer is because the former didn't have a snowman's chance in hell of succeeding whereas the EU one could have gone either way, and indeed nearly did.

What the Tory Party now has to ask itself is:

- are Labour capable of putting up decent opposition in a general election (at present the answer has to be that Labour couldn't run a bath let alone the country)
- how many of those 17 million people are already UKIP voters and how many would stay with UKIP if Article 50 was never invoked (and in first past the post system would it matter)
- how many, of the 17 million, on the other hand, could be convinced that they had made a terrible mistake by some clever campaigning and row backs on promises ("did I say that money would go to the NHS? Oh, deary me no, that's just not possible").

And perhaps crucially (if you read the jack of kent link)
- can notice be given under the UK constitution (which exists in disparate places) if the exercise of the Article is not approved by the devolved Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments. To which you may add the calculation that more Scottish Nationalist support may actually be a good thing for the Conservatives as Labour loses even more ground north of the border.

Right now it's a great big game of chess and, while you've been made to think you have a say, you don't. Not much of one anyway. FWIW I think we probably will exercise article 50 eventually but that the deal that we sign up to will effectively see us joining the EEA. So free trade and free movement remain, without our having any say in their rules. It allows the new Tory leader to say we left the EU, is most likely to stabilise trade and the markets and it would put Farage in a difficult and emasculated position.

 

[Jim in the West]

I think an emergency brake on immigration would have to be available to all member states, not just the UK, to have a chance of getting approved.

Yes - I agree - but it's not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine a threshold that would be unlikely to be reached except in unusual circumstances (which is pretty much what we have now, with the UK economy doing much better than most of the rest of the EU).

 

[kevo]

So now I know who is responsible for us leaving the EU. It isn't Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage, or even David Cameron for calling the referendum in the first place. It is, of course, Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[Jim in the West]

FWIW I think we probably will exercise article 50 eventually but that the deal that we sign up to will effectively see us joining the EEA. So free trade and free movement remain, without our having any say in their rules. It allows the new Tory leader to say we left the EU, is most likely to stabilise trade and the markets and it would put Farage in a difficult and emasculated position.

We could both be wrong, but that's my guess too - it may take a few months for this to emerge, but I can more upsides than downsides. The critical factor for the rest of the EU is that they will need to ensure any deal doesn't create the domino effect. Something pretty close to the Norway model will probably please most people (given where we are now).

 

[Steve Foster]

The FTSE 100 Index closes today at a higher level than pre Brexit.

So where are the doom mongers today?

 

[Guinness Boy]

The FTSE 100 Index closes today at a higher level than pre Brexit.

So where are the doom mongers today?

As I said to Titanic I think that's entirely expected. Firstly some stocks (BA and Aviva were two) were ridiculously under valued on the morning the result was announced. Quite a few of those were snapped up at a bargain price I would think. Secondly we haven't actually left - or look like leaving. Thirdly the result is known so an element of instability has been removed from the markets. And fourthly the socialist opposition is falling to pieces.

 

[beorhthelm]

So now I know who is responsible for us leaving the EU. It isn't Boris Johnson or Michael Gove or Nigel Farage, or even David Cameron for calling the referendum in the first place. It is, of course, Jeremy Corbyn.

one could say his non-campaigning had more effect, in not convincing northern labour voters to remain, than Leave campaign on the same group. ive said before, the remain camp never made the argument for remaining in the EU, it was always against leaving. it a matter of presentation, rather than claiming households would be 4300 less better off in 2030 outside , they could have said in 2030 each household would be worth 4300 more in the EU, and make it more relevant to the supposed near term positives. i leave it to you to decide why they didnt take this approach. i digress a bit, if Corbyn (and others) had been talking up the EU instaed of talking down the leavers opinions, they might have swung a couple of million to their side (and we'd have Farage banging on about holding a second referendum).

 

[Lincoln Imp]

17 million people might disagree with you. thats more than have EVER voted for a single party in a GE. there has been for along time a resentment of membership of the EU, for many reasons, with people wanting to have a voice on the matter being silenced by the established parties all supporting membership, and the other option a bunch of bigots and nutters with one policy to solve everything. and if you were attention, a large number of that 17million are left wing voters, in left wing areas of the North, Midlands, Wales, which wanted to express an opinion not offered through the normal democratic process.

You may overrate your fellow voters. Of the 20 or so people I've come across who voted Out only one (a lawyer with concerns about legal sovereignty) didn't do so on the basis of a complete misconception of the facts.