UK Referendum 23 June 2016 - Will it be an EU BREXIT or Not?

This is an OUCH!! in advance to all who may choose to have a dig about me keeping the thread warm because there is an interesting year ahead. Believe me! And if the French majority want a FREXIT well wouldn't that be a a turn up for the books? They will be watching the UK very closely (as will others) I am sure and when the positive signs start to come from the UK just you watch. Those who leave a sinking ship early get to safer ground/water sooner!

a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

If the French go thats its......


All that will be left in the EU is Germany, a few bankrupt nations and maybe a retarded scotland

originally posted by: crazyewok

If the French go thats its......

All that will be left in the EU is Germany, a few bankrupt nations and maybe a retarded scotland

Hmmn.... I was listening to a discussion on Sky News where it was being said

if Scotland had won their referendum to leave the UK it would be in *queer

street* by now with the fall in oil price and that its economy would be in line

with Greece.

LOL!! retarded and broke .....


WAIT FOR IT 5... 4... 3 ... 2... 1

Theresa May will trigger Brexit negotiations without Commons vote

www.msn.com...

I am beginning to think that TM was a closet BREXITEER!

It seems Theresa May is stalling triggering article 50 until her advisers/analysts etc tell her to do so.
Basically, they will trigger article 50 when it best suits the Conservative party.

How long should it take to put a team in place and decide what you want from the negotiations?!

originally posted by: 83Liberty
It seems Theresa May is stalling triggering article 50 until her advisers/analysts etc tell her to do so.
Basically, they will trigger article 50 when it best suits the Conservative party.

How long should it take to put a team in place and decide what you want from the negotiations?!

well she has asked her cabinet for a blueprint for BREXT. The more and more I hear the more I am convinced she is really a BREXITER in disguise.
Although TM said she was for remain she gave little support of made little contribution to the IN mob!

www.msn.com... BBoPRmx

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
The more and more I hear the more I am convinced she is really a BREXITER in disguise.

Perhaps the unelected new PM either genuinely supports democracy or with all the anti Brexit, anti democratic and fear mongering rhetoric floating about, she can afford to take a bit of a back seat and allow others to push European tyranny down Brits throats.

Brexit is not inevitable, says former civil service chief
Gus O’Donnell says both public opinion and the EU itself may change, meaning the UK could be happy to remain part of union


www.theguardian.com...

The guy has said he thinks he knows what public opinion will be.

The cowardly Guardian have not opened a comments/discussion board for this piece.

originally posted by: teapot
Perhaps the unelected new PM either genuinely supports democracy

Why bother to mention "unelected"? We don't "elect" P.M.s in this country, never have done.
She got into office, like all the other Prime Ministers in British history, by being able to command a majority of M.P.'s in the House of Commons, and THOSE are the people we elect.

a reply to: DISRAELI

No mention of the article linked about how the out vote can be sidestepped?

But to be fair and because of how the system works, I always refer to the leader as unelected.

originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: DISRAELI

No mention of the article linked about how the out vote can be sidestepped?

But to be fair and because of how the system works, I always refer to the leader as unelected.

There will be no side stepping unless TPTB want a revolution to repel. The sleeping lion has spoken!

Like I said, I think TM is a "I'm not coming out" BREXITEER!

Theresa May rules out second EU referendum or election to decide terms of Brexit

www.msn.com...

Like I said TM is a secret BREXITEER! Nice one!

There would NOT be a second referendum it would be political madness, just because a few snowflakes and regressive left millennials did not get their way and acting in typical fashion of shouting and stamping feet does not mean any politician would back it..

If it is tied up for years is a different matter, but then honestly has the damage to the UK not already been done?. This is damage limitation nothing more. I do hope however France leaves and then if that was case it is curtains for the bloc and Brussels can pick up all the pieces.

As a nation we should now stack the shelves and get the shop window ready, however in true EU fashion there is some obscure law under article number blah blah blah section 5 that states we cannot sign any trade deals until after we are "officially" out of this this crap, oh well the day we are away from this cluster f#ck get the pens out and start writing..

Just a shame this was not 1990 when we still had a good chance of rescuing the nation..


RA

originally posted by: 83Liberty
It seems Theresa May is stalling triggering article 50 until her advisers/analysts etc tell her to do so.
Basically, they will trigger article 50 when it best suits the Conservative party.

How long should it take to put a team in place and decide what you want from the negotiations?!

No, they will trigger Article 50 when they have a full team in place AND know exactly what they are after from negotiations.

In very simple terms, there is so much to pick through that negotiations will be very complicated and therefore that is something that any responsible government wouldn't rush into. There are over 60'000 bits of legislation concerning trade with the EU - and that is just trade. Think similar for social and cultural legislation also and you will see the size of the task facing the Civil Servants and government ministers. You simply cannot rush into that without making some potentially huge mistakes - and if that ends up happening, then what was the point of Brexit?

It will be a case of "slowly slowly catchy monkey" until everything is in place - and then things will begin to move.

a reply to: teapot


Gus O'Donnell was asked a very specific question about does he see any circumstances in which Britain may not leave the EU and he answered. In typical journo fashon, that part has been left out to instead go with the headline"Brexit is not inevitable".

a reply to: slider1982

Actually, even some Leave supporters are not against a second referendum - and not because they have changed their minds! It is because the majority was so small for such a major political decision.

That leaves me conflicted. On the one hand, i support that position as unlike elections, we do not get a chance to undo the decision. Such major change should have a clear mandate and, whatever anyone says, a 52-48 decision is not a clear majority.

On the other hand, the vote has happened so lets get on it with it.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: slider1982

Actually, even some Leave supporters are not against a second referendum - and not because they have changed their minds! It is because the majority was so small for such a major political decision.

That leaves me conflicted. On the one hand, i support that position as unlike elections, we do not get a chance to undo the decision. Such major change should have a clear mandate and, whatever anyone says, a 52-48 decision is not a clear majority.

On the other hand, the vote has happened so lets get on it with it.

Your last sentence is right.
The govt and the media wanted a remain vote - if it were them voting it would have been 80-20 in favour of Leave. Unfortunately for them, the people chose to leave. If it had been 52-48 the other way round, the same people talking about a 2nd referendum would be laughing at the idea.
Ask yourself what happens if a 2nd referendum goes 51-49 in favour of Remain, what then? A third referendum and best of 3? Maybe the third would be 52-48 again in favour of Leave. Maybe then it could be best of 5?
Sounds like kids in a playground to me.

a reply to: UKTruth

That is why the whole thing was badly handled by both camps. For such a decisive and important decision, it should have been set in stone at the outset what majority was required (say 60%). They didn't and have a very evenly split country as a result.

I actually think though that if they did have a new referendum, the Leave vote would actually increase a bit this time round.

And, again, it was actually Leavers that table a second referendum for the very reasons i gave (initially proposed before the referendum had actually occured).

In terms of the questions you raised, it is very simple. The Leave camp would have to get to (let's say) 60%. It is them requiring dramatic change so they would have to reach their clear mandate, otherwise nothing changes. This is simliar to how other referendums around the world work. Clearly, it is all hyperbole though because the simple truth is both sides cocked up when formulating the referendum (mainly because neither side truly thought Leave would win).

Personally, i am more confident about Brexit now than i was before but i would insert an addendum there stating that nothing has actually happened yet so it is still early days - too early to say if it will succeed or fail.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: UKTruth

That is why the whole thing was badly handled by both camps. For such a decisive and important decision, it should have been set in stone at the outset what majority was required (say 60%). They didn't and have a very evenly split country as a result.

I actually think though that if they did have a new referendum, the Leave vote would actually increase a bit this time round.

And, again, it was actually Leavers that table a second referendum for the very reasons i gave (initially proposed before the referendum had actually occured).

In terms of the questions you raised, it is very simple. The Leave camp would have to get to (let's say) 60%. It is them requiring dramatic change so they would have to reach their clear mandate, otherwise nothing changes. This is simliar to how other referendums around the world work. Clearly, it is all hyperbole though because the simple truth is both sides cocked up when formulating the referendum (mainly because neither side truly thought Leave would win).

Personally, i am more confident about Brexit now than i was before but i would insert an addendum there stating that nothing has actually happened yet so it is still early days - too early to say if it will succeed or fail.

Well I actual think the way it was run was correct, it was inline with the voting system of the United Kingdom, yes you can have nearly half of the country not wanting it but it is a majority vote, not a "need 60%"...

Had the Government and the House of commons in general for that matter had been listening to what the average Joe was saying was it not more than just a fighting chance that we would leave??.. I also believe it showed that many "official" polls where doctored to give the notion that Leave had no chance..

I was surrounded by pro leave people and I lived and work in London in the lead up to it, I do not think I knew one person that was voting in?.

Bit off topic but you see the same style of reporting happening in the US now with the election. I know of no one that is voting for Hillary, everything on social media is pointing to her been viewed as damaged goods. The main argument is that even though people hate Hillary they do not really favor Trump but he has a massive fan base yet the official polls still give Hillary a very strong lead all things being considered. I expect another "upset" in that vote although our brothers and sisters in the US have allowed Voting machines to count their vote!!!!!.. What could go wrong..


RA

a reply to: slider1982

If you look at any country that holds referendums on issues of national importance, a clear majority is needed (as opposed to a close majority). Elections can be overturned in 5 years, this referendum can't. That is why they fudged it from the beginning.

Even Farage was saying this a month before the referendum took place. As soon as he got the result he wanted, he completely abandoned this position which is actually a pretty disgraceful action. When other politicians do that, they get called on it and we are all disgusted by their hypocracy - why should Farage get special treatment?

Like i said above, this is all hyperbole and hypotheticals as the result is what it is. But the fact these debates are still occuring is a perfect demonstration of how badly the referendum was handled by both sides. If clear rules had been in place from the beginning, there would be no more debate (although it could be argued that was deliberate).

Theresa May has just said there will be 'no back door attempts to remain in the Eu' and there will no second referendum.

No possibility for staying in the Eu