cashead wrote: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.
Sinn Fein have called for a referendum. Many lifelong union supporters will now be considering a United Ireland as a serious option for the first time. Irish passport applications have gone through the roof - anyone born in NI is entitled to one - with at least one friend on facebook reporting queues at the Post Office for forms on Friday morning.
Whilst there is much in twitchy's analysis, he forgets one thing - that there are complete right wing loons in the Tory party. Boris is an opportunist and Gove is reasonably bright so both understand the difficulties. However there are true believers like Grayling who's an idiot who won't for a second care about Scotland leaving or the Irish border or having to slash and burn the welfare state and public services. In fact the likes of Grayling will be delighted to cut public services beyond the bone and blame the spiteful EU firstly for not negotiating in good faith and then for the economic problems of Brexit. Then someone like Grayling will turn to blame the legacy of immigration for all England's financial woes which are in fact caused by the inevitable consequences of Brexit.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
So the EU are pushing for talks to start ASAP. As far as AI know, the ball is in our court here as we have to trigger article 50, but could the EU push us out? Aldo, what are the chances of a reasonable deal if this is dragged out?
The danger here is that this is becoming very emotional. A pause whilst the UK parliament ratifies the result (assuming they do) and other countries sort out whether economics is more important than politics is probably not a bad thing. Even if article 50 were to be triggered today, it's still two years of uncertainty.
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.
But seriously, WTF? The decision hasn't changed. If Britain is able to get an alternative for the EU, such as a Norway style agreement, or something that is substantially different to the binary stay or go then a second referendum would be logical.
Remain lost the argument because they failed to convince British voters that the EU was worth staying in. It's that simple. This campaign smacks of 'we want democracy except when we don't agree with the vote'.
& how is this going to effect professional rugby in Britain, do you think? That's what really matters here. Will all those Pacific Islanders and other nationalities be forced to up leave for France or Super Rugby??
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
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.
But seriously, WTF? The decision hasn't changed. If Britain is able to get an alternative for the EU, such as a Norway style agreement, or something that is substantially different to the binary stay or go then a second referendum would be logical.
Remain lost the argument because they failed to convince British voters that the EU was worth staying in. It's that simple. This campaign smacks of 'we want democracy except when we don't agree with the vote'.
What was the decision? Was the decision to leave one which says that we should be in a WTO relationship, or as the leave camp were suggesting, that we will somehow manage to be part of the single market but not have to pay to do so, somehow not have to accept free movement and somehow not have to accept the judgements of the ECJ?
There's a strong argument for having a referendum to affirm or not the ACTUAL exit terms rather than the fucking fairy stories the idiots seem to have believed.
Oh and Parliament doesn't ratify the referendum.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
A further referendum in Scotland is unnecessary. The SNP - you know, the one issue party - holds 56 out of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster, and this combined with the Scottish result in the EU referendum is a clear mandate. While the UK government is busy negotiation their exit, and the main English parties are busy with their blood-letting is the opportunity to declare UDI.
rowan wrote:& how is this going to effect professional rugby in Britain, do you think? That's what really matters here. Will all those Pacific Islanders and other nationalities be forced to up leave for France or Super Rugby??
We don't have many europeans in British rugby, but assuming the end of free movement we'll have fewer. I'm not sure whether SANZAR players are here under a british or EU trade deal - I think SA is European but Australia and NZ are
The really interesting thing is for Ulster Rugby. Ulster rugby has always straddled 2 different countries, but with both being in the EU. Depending on how employment regimes begin to diverge, UR might decide to base in Donegal, or reassert that they are a mere branch of the IRFU.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Mellsblue wrote:Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
The issue is that they will then be firing the gun for the break up of the UK and the ensuing clusterfuck of the exit negotiations. These are negotiations that it is completely impossible to win, given the promises already made which founded the out vote.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Mellsblue wrote:Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
The issue is that they will then be firing the gun for the break up of the UK and the ensuing clusterfuck of the exit negotiations. These are negotiations that it is completely impossible to win, given the promises already made which founded the out vote.
I understand the mechanics of it. I just don't understand why anyone thinks any of the protagonist will worry about doing it. The gun was fired yesterday morning in Manchester City Hall.
But seriously, WTF? The decision hasn't changed. If Britain is able to get an alternative for the EU, such as a Norway style agreement, or something that is substantially different to the binary stay or go then a second referendum would be logical.
Remain lost the argument because they failed to convince British voters that the EU was worth staying in. It's that simple. This campaign smacks of 'we want democracy except when we don't agree with the vote'.
What was the decision? Was the decision to leave one which says that we should be in a WTO relationship, or as the leave camp were suggesting, that we will somehow manage to be part of the single market but not have to pay to do so, somehow not have to accept free movement and somehow not have to accept the judgements of the ECJ?
There's a strong argument for having a referendum to affirm or not the ACTUAL exit terms rather than the fucking fairy stories the idiots seem to have believed.
Oh and Parliament doesn't ratify the referendum.
Yes a second referendum once the terms have been hammered out is highly possible, but not until then. Some clowns are calling for a second referendum now which is fucking stupid.
And parliament needs to have its say, ratify the result of you like, but it will be a brave house that ignores the result. Unless a third way emerges.
Mellsblue wrote:Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
May has kept her head down for much of this, deliberately so in my opinion. I happen to think she would make a good PM.
The negotiations commence once Article 50 has been triggered. If the UK goes through the entire 2 year process and then decides to have another referendum, in which they decide to stay - its already too late. They can't just "decide" to stay, it would require every member EU state, who they have in effect just told to f*ck off and spent 2 years negotiating against, to vote to bring them back in.
Mellsblue wrote:Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
May has kept her head down for much of this, deliberately so in my opinion. I happen to think she would make a good PM.
Agree with all of that. My only two reservations are that it will be a poisoned chalice - a lot of people will want to punish the Conservatives for this at the next election - and she deserves a chance in more favourable conditions, and that she's proved herself so competent at running such an incredibly difficult department that PM might be a waste of her talents.
Mellsblue wrote:Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
May has kept her head down for much of this, deliberately so in my opinion. I happen to think she would make a good PM.
Well, I guess someone who wants to leave the convention for Human Rights and ardently supports mass privatisation of public services is about as good as we can hope for at the moment.
jared_7 wrote:The negotiations commence once Article 50 has been triggered. If the UK goes through the entire 2 year process and then decides to have another referendum, in which they decide to stay - its already too late. They can't just "decide" to stay, it would require every member EU state, who they have in effect just told to f*ck off and spent 2 years negotiating against, to vote to bring them back in.
Would they?
Chicken and egg then really. I suppose if the UK could negotiate a deal like Norway then it could be put to the public along the lines of approve the deal or go completely.
This is uncharted waters so who knows how it will happen. I do think a lot of people need to calm down and cowboy the fuck up before undertaking serious negotiations. So in that respect a delay with some negotiations on the side isn't a bad thing.
Mellsblue wrote:Not sure why the hullabaloo about triggering article 50. It's the will of the people. Whoever is the figure head who does it will have the greatest excuse in politics - it was the will of the people. If you think experienced politicians such as Gove or Johnson didn't think this scenario was a massive possibility then I would bet some serious money you are wrong. Of course, there is the very real possibility that May will be our next PM and she is pretty much untainted by this shambles of a campaign/debate/deluge of lies and half truths.
May has kept her head down for much of this, deliberately so in my opinion. I happen to think she would make a good PM.
Agree with all of that. My only two reservations are that it will be a poisoned chalice - a lot of people will want to punish the Conservatives for this at the next election - and she deserves a chance in more favourable conditions, and that she's proved herself so competent at running such an incredibly difficult department that PM might be a waste of her talents.
I'm not so sure they will. Many Tory faithful plus UKIP will be happy enough with the result. Plenty of labour voters will be favourable given the opportunity to have their say. Unless there is a real alternative (Corbyn doesn't have that mass appeal) then I think the Torys could easily get a majority next time out.
jared_7 wrote:The negotiations commence once Article 50 has been triggered. If the UK goes through the entire 2 year process and then decides to have another referendum, in which they decide to stay - its already too late. They can't just "decide" to stay, it would require every member EU state, who they have in effect just told to f*ck off and spent 2 years negotiating against, to vote to bring them back in.
Would they?
Chicken and egg then really. I suppose if the UK could negotiate a deal like Norway then it could be put to the public along the lines of approve the deal or go completely.
This is uncharted waters so who knows how it will happen. I do think a lot of people need to calm down and cowboy the fuck up before undertaking serious negotiations. So in that respect a delay with some negotiations on the side isn't a bad thing.
There needs to be a bit of calm, but I also think the negotiations need to start as soon as possible. Whats the point of delaying it? As you said its unchartered water and we're not going to all of a sudden find the answers before the negotiations start. They drag out for 2 years anyway, beginning them isn't signing your life away on the spot, there will be plenty of back and forward and learning on the way.
The markets are decimated and will stay that way so long things are uncertain; they work off human behaviour. A will-they, won't-they on triggering article 50, the threat of a second referendum immediately; all these things are doing is keeping us in the mire.
jared_7 wrote:The negotiations commence once Article 50 has been triggered. If the UK goes through the entire 2 year process and then decides to have another referendum, in which they decide to stay - its already too late. They can't just "decide" to stay, it would require every member EU state, who they have in effect just told to f*ck off and spent 2 years negotiating against, to vote to bring them back in.
Would they?
Chicken and egg then really. I suppose if the UK could negotiate a deal like Norway then it could be put to the public along the lines of approve the deal or go completely.
This is uncharted waters so who knows how it will happen. I do think a lot of people need to calm down and cowboy the fuck up before undertaking serious negotiations. So in that respect a delay with some negotiations on the side isn't a bad thing.
There needs to be a bit of calm, but I also think the negotiations need to start as soon as possible. Whats the point of delaying it? As you said its unchartered water and we're not going to all of a sudden find the answers before the negotiations start. They drag out for 2 years anyway, beginning them isn't signing your life away on the spot, there will be plenty of back and forward and learning on the way.
The markets are decimated and will stay that way so long things are uncertain; they work off human behaviour. A will-they, won't-they on triggering article 50, the threat of a second referendum immediately; all these things are doing is keeping us in the mire.
I really don't think there is 'a will they won't trigger article 50' question. Preliminary negotiations can begin prior to it being triggered, anyway. It's worth delaying it as emotions are high - as we saw from Juncker storming off stage - and it's very nearly the summer recess.
jared_7 wrote:The negotiations commence once Article 50 has been triggered. If the UK goes through the entire 2 year process and then decides to have another referendum, in which they decide to stay - its already too late. They can't just "decide" to stay, it would require every member EU state, who they have in effect just told to f*ck off and spent 2 years negotiating against, to vote to bring them back in.
Would they?
Negotiations could be on anything really, given we don't know what the BRExit campaign want to actually negotiate, nor what they want to have replace it. And now we'll likely have to wait for a few months whilst the Conservatives appoint a new leader to even commence the process, luckily markets and investors always respond positively to months of uncertainty.
I sort of understand why the BRexit people have never said what they actually want to negotiate as it's very likely they don't remotely agree with each other. But it'll be oddly interesting to see what they want to do (eventually) and how they think the mandate of a 35% vote made of largely of left wing racists gives authority to some right wing politicians, no easy consensus to be had there.
Mellsblue wrote:
I really don't think there is 'a will they won't trigger article 50' question. Preliminary negotiations can begin prior to it being triggered, anyway. It's worth delaying it as emotions are high - as we saw from Juncker storming off stage - and it's very nearly the summer recess.
I'm about to lose two big contracts absent of some clarity as to what happens next, and I doubt I/we'd be the only business that has some nervous overseas investors/clients. All very well saying lets work our way through it, but there will be some costs the more this drags out, and from my point of view we should have been told going into the vote what was actually going to be negotiated, okay they couldn't have possibly told us the outcome, but they could have said these are the areas we want change, and these areas we're not going to touch, well they could have done were they organised and understanding of what they wanted to achieve rather than an amalgam of people who have various issues with Europe, the EU and the political status quo with no actual idea of what they want next and no chance of agreeing on it.
And speed is important, emotions will be running high in a few months too if we're making people redundant as a consequence of this.
Mellsblue wrote:
I really don't think there is 'a will they won't trigger article 50' question. Preliminary negotiations can begin prior to it being triggered, anyway. It's worth delaying it as emotions are high - as we saw from Juncker storming off stage - and it's very nearly the summer recess.
I'm about to lose two big contracts absent of some clarity as to what happens next, and I doubt I/we'd be the only business that has some nervous overseas investors/clients. All very well saying lets work our way through it, but there will be some costs the more this drags out, and from my point of view we should have been told going into the vote what was actually going to be negotiated, okay they couldn't have possibly told us the outcome, but they could have said these are the areas we want change, and these areas we're not going to touch, well they could have done were they organised and understanding of what they wanted to achieve rather than an amalgam of people who have various issues with Europe, the EU and the political status quo with no actual idea of what they want next and no chance of agreeing on it.
And speed is important, emotions will be running high in a few months too if we're making people redundant as a consequence of this.
It's 4 weeks out of 104, and as I've said informal negotiations can begin whenever. Once article 50 is triggered you've got 2 years and if you get to the end of those two years and negotiations are not quite finished then tough, the divorce happens. That would lead to chaos.
Speed isn't nearly as important as getting it right. Botch the negotiations and people will suffer for years. Trade deals take years to negotiate, how anyone thinks we can 'consciously uncouple' (hat tip to Gwyneth) speedily is beyond me. Though, I have to admit, why trade deals take so long is also beyond me.
