Oh, and Britain will definitely get a Trade Deal with the US; they have signed up every single country bar China, Brazil, Russia, India (i.e.; the growing powerhouses who threaten the US's position at the top of the heap). Its a final push to engrain their stranglehold on the world, and they will want Britain to be part of it.
A different deal. The TTIP is an EU agreement. Any deal will now have to be renegotiated.
Frankly, I am pleased to be shot of it. Always looked like Bilderburg nonsense to me, although this is clearly a guess as they wouldn't tell us what was in the deal.
I have a feeling you will see it again, maybe not until it's too late....
Maybe,.....but it is now looking like Hilary v Angela to drive the deal through. Or it might also be Hilary and Angela driving it through. Either way,... Bitches be crazy.
Emergency shelter needed for 1,000,000 obnoxious Brit refugees about to be unceremoniously kicked out of Spain. They may possess a certain level of English, but are unlikely to be willing to do any kind of work and will almost certainly spend their time sponging off the state. All those who voted leave are invited to put these people up in their spare bedrooms.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
jared_7 wrote:
Surely the old left went through the transition from Governments focussing on full employment, to using labour and the unemployed as a deliberate tool to reduce inflation and keep wages low to control the costs of production?
Surely they would know that immigrants have nothing to do with jobs or housing, ideology does?
I disagree. I live in Stoke on Trent, a very safe Labur seat. I grew up in Newport, a Labour heartland. Both have a degree of immigration which statistically isn't that significant, yet anti-immigration is rife. The BNP have had local electoral success in Stoke because of disillusioned Labour voters who are fed up of their party not listening to them. I note your comments about ideology, but that isn't something many labour supporters are worried about - they are concerned at how many immigrants are moving in and (allegedly) taking their jobs. That may not match up with left ideology, but its the fact on the ground, as witnessed by the results from last night.
D'accord, the intellectual masturbation going on about the left and the right is meaningless to these traditional labour voters, not from Islington, and struggling to find or keep a job.
Spot on, and if I hear one more person tell me that immigration is fantastic because their nanny is Portuguese I'll probably vomit.
And yes, Sandy is absolutely right also. Large swathes of the population, particularly in the north, certainly not in the south east and London anyway, feel economically and politically disenfranchised and perception is reality for them. That's not just Dave's fault, it is the fault of successive governments. What is Dave's fault is that he didn't recognise this, particularly given the groundswell of support for UKIP which made him make the rash promise in the first place.
But what is not helping is the increasing trend of a certain type of remainer to dismiss 52% of the population as idiot racists who know absolutely feck all. It's that kind of attitude that made these people feel the way they do in the first place.
It is “democratically unacceptable” that Scotland will be taken out of the EU against its will, Nicola Sturgeon has said, and a second independence referendum is “highly likely”.
The First Minister said that the Scottish Government would commence preparations for another independence vote after Scotland bucked the UK trend by voting 62 per cent to 38 per cent for Remain.
bruce wrote:
Based on a poll of less than 1700 people a week before the referendum.
People's views change as they get older. The same poll 30 years ago probably have given the same results, despite the now oldies being the then youngies.
Normally, you get more risk adverse as you get older. Perhaps older voters feel a bit let down by how the EU has changed from a trading block to this quasi super state. Younger voters might be less bothered as they have grown up with it.
It would be interesting to establish if younger voters who don't have a good number of qualifications were pro or anti-EU.
I reckon there would be an almost direct correlation between voting in or out and newspaper readership. The young get their news from a much wider range of sources. The old get theirs from the Mail or the Telegraph or the Sun, etc.
We need press regulation.
Are you suggesting that the Internet is more reliable? Many media sources are far more dubious than anything in print.
It is “democratically unacceptable” that Scotland will be taken out of the EU against its will, Nicola Sturgeon has said, and a second independence referendum is “highly likely”.
The First Minister said that the Scottish Government would commence preparations for another independence vote after Scotland bucked the UK trend by voting 62 per cent to 38 per cent for Remain.
Begins? She's been vomiting this garbage for years.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
This sums up the mood of many disillusioned traditional labour voters. Taken from today's Times:
"There was never a route to victory for the Remain side in this referendum which did not pass through the Labour heartlands. It turned out that no route could be found. Labour working-class areas came out to vote in numbers that have not been seen for a generation and they overwhelmingly decided they wanted to leave the European Union. It is as sure as anything in politics can be that they will not get what they want.
The Labour vote to leave the EU is, essentially, a protest vote. Labour voters feel neglected and downbeat. They feel that the prosperity of the country has not been shared with them. They feel that politics has ignored them and they are angry about it. The focus of this discontent is immigration. In a place such as Sunderland, which was the first portent of the victory eventually claimed by Leave, only 3.6 per cent of the population was born outside the UK. Sunderland is a homogenous white working-class town. But concern about immigration is still very high and was expressed as hostility to the free movement of labour within the EU.
It is obvious that immigration is a code word for a set of anxieties that cover poverty, job insecurity and bleak prospects in areas with poor public services. The Labour Party has nothing to say to its own core supporters at the moment. When Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, reiterated that he was in favour of the free movement of labour, the point went down extremely badly in Labour areas.
All week Labour MPs were reporting that the numbers in their patch were ghastly. Tristram Hunt in Stoke, Pat McFadden in Wolverhampton, Dan Jarvis in Barnsley and Gloria de Piero in Ashfield met a wall of hostility. They all said there was nothing they could say. The Labour vote had stopped listening to the Labour Party. They have instead decided to go off on an anti-European escapade in the hope that the shock they have sent through the political class will bring them a reward.
It is, sadly, hard to see how it does. There is no likelihood, in the low-tax, deregulated economy that many of the exit advocates wish, that there will be much benefit for the people of Stoke, Wolverhampton, Barnsley and Ashfield. It may take some time for disillusionment to set in but it surely will. The stock of politics has lower to sink yet."
Good piece that which conveys the very real and justified working class disillusionment with the political class.
Its clear that turnout played a big part here. The turnouts were well above what you'd expect in a GE, and I suspect many people came out to register their discontent last night that have probably not voted in any election for a while.
Labour needs to start doing their job by properly representing their core constituency before they all slope off elsewhere.
We're entering hazardous waters over the next few years and we desperately need a truly social democratic and united Labour party with clear messages to stand up.
fivepointer wrote:Good piece that which conveys the very real and justified working class disillusionment with the political class.
Its clear that turnout played a big part here. The turnouts were well above what you'd expect in a GE, and I suspect many people came out to register their discontent last night that have probably not voted in any election for a while.
Labour needs to start doing their job by properly representing their core constituency before they all slope off elsewhere.
We're entering hazardous waters over the next few years and we desperately need a truly social democratic and united Labour party with clear messages to stand up.
The number of people moaning about turnout and the margin of victory, we elect governments on less FFS. Some people on Facebook are making complete tits of themselves today, this really isn't the end of the world.
According to Pultizer Prize-winning author and journalist Chris Hedges:
“If there is anyone who is responsible for the Brexit, it is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” he said. “They destroyed Libya. They turned over Libyan weapons to [Islamic State], al-Qaida and [Nusra Front]. It was their war in Syria, where many of these weapons ended up, which created the massive exodus of refugees into Europe. This exodus exacerbated nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Clinton and Obama are also responsible for a huge exodus of Ukrainians. This is all a response to American war policy in the Middle East and the Ukraine. In central Europe, with the expansion of NATO, Washington is meanwhile demanding that governments spend billions on weapons rather than on recovering the economy.”
rowan wrote:According to Pultizer Prize-winning author and journalist Chris Hedges:
“If there is anyone who is responsible for the Brexit, it is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” he said. “They destroyed Libya. They turned over Libyan weapons to [Islamic State], al-Qaida and [Nusra Front]. It was their war in Syria, where many of these weapons ended up, which created the massive exodus of refugees into Europe. This exodus exacerbated nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Clinton and Obama are also responsible for a huge exodus of Ukrainians. This is all a response to American war policy in the Middle East and the Ukraine. In central Europe, with the expansion of NATO, Washington is meanwhile demanding that governments spend billions on weapons rather than on recovering the economy.”
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Sandydragon wrote:This sums up the mood of many disillusioned traditional labour voters. Taken from today's Times:
"There was never a route to victory for the Remain side in this referendum which did not pass through the Labour heartlands. It turned out that no route could be found. Labour working-class areas came out to vote in numbers that have not been seen for a generation and they overwhelmingly decided they wanted to leave the European Union. It is as sure as anything in politics can be that they will not get what they want.
The Labour vote to leave the EU is, essentially, a protest vote. Labour voters feel neglected and downbeat. They feel that the prosperity of the country has not been shared with them. They feel that politics has ignored them and they are angry about it. The focus of this discontent is immigration. In a place such as Sunderland, which was the first portent of the victory eventually claimed by Leave, only 3.6 per cent of the population was born outside the UK. Sunderland is a homogenous white working-class town. But concern about immigration is still very high and was expressed as hostility to the free movement of labour within the EU.
It is obvious that immigration is a code word for a set of anxieties that cover poverty, job insecurity and bleak prospects in areas with poor public services. The Labour Party has nothing to say to its own core supporters at the moment. When Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, reiterated that he was in favour of the free movement of labour, the point went down extremely badly in Labour areas.
All week Labour MPs were reporting that the numbers in their patch were ghastly. Tristram Hunt in Stoke, Pat McFadden in Wolverhampton, Dan Jarvis in Barnsley and Gloria de Piero in Ashfield met a wall of hostility. They all said there was nothing they could say. The Labour vote had stopped listening to the Labour Party. They have instead decided to go off on an anti-European escapade in the hope that the shock they have sent through the political class will bring them a reward.
It is, sadly, hard to see how it does. There is no likelihood, in the low-tax, deregulated economy that many of the exit advocates wish, that there will be much benefit for the people of Stoke, Wolverhampton, Barnsley and Ashfield. It may take some time for disillusionment to set in but it surely will. The stock of politics has lower to sink yet."
What's going to happen when these people realise that the eu and immigrants weren't actually responsible for all their problems and the UK has broken up. I would feel a bit of schadenfreude if I wasn't on the same ship they have scuppered.
rowan wrote:According to Pultizer Prize-winning author and journalist Chris Hedges:
“If there is anyone who is responsible for the Brexit, it is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” he said. “They destroyed Libya. They turned over Libyan weapons to [Islamic State], al-Qaida and [Nusra Front]. It was their war in Syria, where many of these weapons ended up, which created the massive exodus of refugees into Europe. This exodus exacerbated nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Clinton and Obama are also responsible for a huge exodus of Ukrainians. This is all a response to American war policy in the Middle East and the Ukraine. In central Europe, with the expansion of NATO, Washington is meanwhile demanding that governments spend billions on weapons rather than on recovering the economy.”
rowan wrote:According to Pultizer Prize-winning author and journalist Chris Hedges:
“If there is anyone who is responsible for the Brexit, it is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” he said. “They destroyed Libya. They turned over Libyan weapons to [Islamic State], al-Qaida and [Nusra Front]. It was their war in Syria, where many of these weapons ended up, which created the massive exodus of refugees into Europe. This exodus exacerbated nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. Clinton and Obama are also responsible for a huge exodus of Ukrainians. This is all a response to American war policy in the Middle East and the Ukraine. In central Europe, with the expansion of NATO, Washington is meanwhile demanding that governments spend billions on weapons rather than on recovering the economy.”
That would be true perhaps if the immigration issue were a new phenomenon. But these issues have been around far longer than that. Arguably, the integration of former eastern block states into the EU was when this started to become apparent.
Sandydragon wrote:This sums up the mood of many disillusioned traditional labour voters. Taken from today's Times:
"There was never a route to victory for the Remain side in this referendum which did not pass through the Labour heartlands. It turned out that no route could be found. Labour working-class areas came out to vote in numbers that have not been seen for a generation and they overwhelmingly decided they wanted to leave the European Union. It is as sure as anything in politics can be that they will not get what they want.
The Labour vote to leave the EU is, essentially, a protest vote. Labour voters feel neglected and downbeat. They feel that the prosperity of the country has not been shared with them. They feel that politics has ignored them and they are angry about it. The focus of this discontent is immigration. In a place such as Sunderland, which was the first portent of the victory eventually claimed by Leave, only 3.6 per cent of the population was born outside the UK. Sunderland is a homogenous white working-class town. But concern about immigration is still very high and was expressed as hostility to the free movement of labour within the EU.
It is obvious that immigration is a code word for a set of anxieties that cover poverty, job insecurity and bleak prospects in areas with poor public services. The Labour Party has nothing to say to its own core supporters at the moment. When Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, reiterated that he was in favour of the free movement of labour, the point went down extremely badly in Labour areas.
All week Labour MPs were reporting that the numbers in their patch were ghastly. Tristram Hunt in Stoke, Pat McFadden in Wolverhampton, Dan Jarvis in Barnsley and Gloria de Piero in Ashfield met a wall of hostility. They all said there was nothing they could say. The Labour vote had stopped listening to the Labour Party. They have instead decided to go off on an anti-European escapade in the hope that the shock they have sent through the political class will bring them a reward.
It is, sadly, hard to see how it does. There is no likelihood, in the low-tax, deregulated economy that many of the exit advocates wish, that there will be much benefit for the people of Stoke, Wolverhampton, Barnsley and Ashfield. It may take some time for disillusionment to set in but it surely will. The stock of politics has lower to sink yet."
What's going to happen when these people realise that the eu and immigrants weren't actually responsible for all their problems and the UK has broken up. I would feel a bit of schadenfreude if I wasn't on the same ship they have scuppered.
I think some traditional industries will benefit, but on the whole I don't see what benefit it will bring people in that position. At the moment, there are jobs for British people which are taken by immigrants because the locals don't want them.
Sandydragon wrote:This sums up the mood of many disillusioned traditional labour voters. Taken from today's Times:
"There was never a route to victory for the Remain side in this referendum which did not pass through the Labour heartlands. It turned out that no route could be found. Labour working-class areas came out to vote in numbers that have not been seen for a generation and they overwhelmingly decided they wanted to leave the European Union. It is as sure as anything in politics can be that they will not get what they want.
The Labour vote to leave the EU is, essentially, a protest vote. Labour voters feel neglected and downbeat. They feel that the prosperity of the country has not been shared with them. They feel that politics has ignored them and they are angry about it. The focus of this discontent is immigration. In a place such as Sunderland, which was the first portent of the victory eventually claimed by Leave, only 3.6 per cent of the population was born outside the UK. Sunderland is a homogenous white working-class town. But concern about immigration is still very high and was expressed as hostility to the free movement of labour within the EU.
It is obvious that immigration is a code word for a set of anxieties that cover poverty, job insecurity and bleak prospects in areas with poor public services. The Labour Party has nothing to say to its own core supporters at the moment. When Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, reiterated that he was in favour of the free movement of labour, the point went down extremely badly in Labour areas.
All week Labour MPs were reporting that the numbers in their patch were ghastly. Tristram Hunt in Stoke, Pat McFadden in Wolverhampton, Dan Jarvis in Barnsley and Gloria de Piero in Ashfield met a wall of hostility. They all said there was nothing they could say. The Labour vote had stopped listening to the Labour Party. They have instead decided to go off on an anti-European escapade in the hope that the shock they have sent through the political class will bring them a reward.
It is, sadly, hard to see how it does. There is no likelihood, in the low-tax, deregulated economy that many of the exit advocates wish, that there will be much benefit for the people of Stoke, Wolverhampton, Barnsley and Ashfield. It may take some time for disillusionment to set in but it surely will. The stock of politics has lower to sink yet."
Maybe its just me that finds it funny the towns with the lowest percentage of immigrants are worried about immigration. Using immigration as a "code word" for a number of other of societies problems is by definition scapegoating and prejudice.
Sandydragon wrote:This sums up the mood of many disillusioned traditional labour voters. Taken from today's Times:
"There was never a route to victory for the Remain side in this referendum which did not pass through the Labour heartlands. It turned out that no route could be found. Labour working-class areas came out to vote in numbers that have not been seen for a generation and they overwhelmingly decided they wanted to leave the European Union. It is as sure as anything in politics can be that they will not get what they want.
The Labour vote to leave the EU is, essentially, a protest vote. Labour voters feel neglected and downbeat. They feel that the prosperity of the country has not been shared with them. They feel that politics has ignored them and they are angry about it. The focus of this discontent is immigration. In a place such as Sunderland, which was the first portent of the victory eventually claimed by Leave, only 3.6 per cent of the population was born outside the UK. Sunderland is a homogenous white working-class town. But concern about immigration is still very high and was expressed as hostility to the free movement of labour within the EU.
It is obvious that immigration is a code word for a set of anxieties that cover poverty, job insecurity and bleak prospects in areas with poor public services. The Labour Party has nothing to say to its own core supporters at the moment. When Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, reiterated that he was in favour of the free movement of labour, the point went down extremely badly in Labour areas.
All week Labour MPs were reporting that the numbers in their patch were ghastly. Tristram Hunt in Stoke, Pat McFadden in Wolverhampton, Dan Jarvis in Barnsley and Gloria de Piero in Ashfield met a wall of hostility. They all said there was nothing they could say. The Labour vote had stopped listening to the Labour Party. They have instead decided to go off on an anti-European escapade in the hope that the shock they have sent through the political class will bring them a reward.
It is, sadly, hard to see how it does. There is no likelihood, in the low-tax, deregulated economy that many of the exit advocates wish, that there will be much benefit for the people of Stoke, Wolverhampton, Barnsley and Ashfield. It may take some time for disillusionment to set in but it surely will. The stock of politics has lower to sink yet."
Maybe its just me that finds it funny the towns with the lowest percentage of immigrants are worried about immigration. Using immigration as a "code word" for a number of other of societies problems is by definition scapegoating and prejudice.
That's not wholly true as, for example, the town with the highest proportion of immigrants Boston had the highest Leave vote. However, it is true that a decent proportion of those in the market towns think they will be over run any time soon. When, obviously, if it hasn't happened by now it never will. I live in such a market town, though knowing the local politics very well I doubt we voted out, and myself and my wife are going out for a no expense spared celebratory meal in a few weeks. There is a local, low priced burger/pizza restaurant owned by an east-European family at which I have just booked a table, in place of the English owned top quality steak house 50 m further down the road.
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 legistlation 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-maneouvered 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.
If the Scots do trigger another independence referendum, I wonder if it would trigger something similar in Ireland? A (comparatively) small majority did vote to remain as well in their neck of the woods.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
twitchy wrote: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 legistlation 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-maneouvered 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.
This. Exactly.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
twitchy wrote: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 legistlation 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-maneouvered 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.
I hate to puncture balloons, but does anyone seriously see a way that the next PM won't trigger article 50? To ignore that verdict is political suicide.
So perhaps hope for a deal that is good enough for a second referendum? Euro politicians want to make an example, but German business leaders are less bullish so it's possible. But I'm no betting the farm on it.
At the moment the most likely scenario is that we leave, and the ride that pony come what may. Short term pain for sure. Long term, I don't think either side can predict which is why I'm a bit sceptical of the doom merchants. This isn't the end of the world regardless.
twitchy wrote: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 legistlation 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-maneouvered 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.
