Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
Timing is a bit awkward.
Both France and Germany have major elections next year and we could find a very different EU emerges from that. Starting negotiations with Hollande and Merkel might set us on a path to something that cannot be delivered. Neither wants to be the leader who presided over the end of the EU, so their incentive is to hurry negotiations along and minimise disruption.
Juncker and co have the same incentive hence they are now pushing for an early start.
From a British perspective there are advantages to waiting, and if it's already October before we have a new Tory leader and then a snap election in November the temptation to wait until France has a new president will be a factor. If both Britain and France sought a loose trading federation without the political dimension or freedom of movement then it would be game over for the federalists.
I suspect after this France will elect Le Pen and the process of European union will basically stop across the continent, making negotiations a lot more open.
But we can't wait for 18 months in limbo.
Both France and Germany have major elections next year and we could find a very different EU emerges from that. Starting negotiations with Hollande and Merkel might set us on a path to something that cannot be delivered. Neither wants to be the leader who presided over the end of the EU, so their incentive is to hurry negotiations along and minimise disruption.
Juncker and co have the same incentive hence they are now pushing for an early start.
From a British perspective there are advantages to waiting, and if it's already October before we have a new Tory leader and then a snap election in November the temptation to wait until France has a new president will be a factor. If both Britain and France sought a loose trading federation without the political dimension or freedom of movement then it would be game over for the federalists.
I suspect after this France will elect Le Pen and the process of European union will basically stop across the continent, making negotiations a lot more open.
But we can't wait for 18 months in limbo.
AJS- said:
Timing is a bit awkward.
Both France and Germany have major elections next year and we could find a very different EU emerges from that. Starting negotiations with Hollande and Merkel might set us on a path to something that cannot be delivered. Neither wants to be the leader who presided over the end of the EU, so their incentive is to hurry negotiations along and minimise disruption.
Juncker and co have the same incentive hence they are now pushing for an early start.
From a British perspective there are advantages to waiting, and if it's already October before we have a new Tory leader and then a snap election in November the temptation to wait until France has a new president will be a factor. If both Britain and France sought a loose trading federation without the political dimension or freedom of movement then it would be game over for the federalists.
I suspect after this France will elect Le Pen and the process of European union will basically stop across the continent, making negotiations a lot more open.
But we can't wait for 18 months in limbo.
Merkel is not pushing for a quick Article 50 initiation it is just the EU lot who are doing this. Once again telling the UK what to do. They seem to always fail to realise this is half the reason why people voted to leave ...Both France and Germany have major elections next year and we could find a very different EU emerges from that. Starting negotiations with Hollande and Merkel might set us on a path to something that cannot be delivered. Neither wants to be the leader who presided over the end of the EU, so their incentive is to hurry negotiations along and minimise disruption.
Juncker and co have the same incentive hence they are now pushing for an early start.
From a British perspective there are advantages to waiting, and if it's already October before we have a new Tory leader and then a snap election in November the temptation to wait until France has a new president will be a factor. If both Britain and France sought a loose trading federation without the political dimension or freedom of movement then it would be game over for the federalists.
I suspect after this France will elect Le Pen and the process of European union will basically stop across the continent, making negotiations a lot more open.
But we can't wait for 18 months in limbo.
p1stonhead said:
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.
If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, invokes Article 50 and then Scotland doesn't break away, he still has a career. It's his best option.Still an appalling move for Cameron to go back on invoking Article 50.
AJS- said:
Timing is a bit awkward.
Both France and Germany have major elections next year and we could find a very different EU emerges from that. Starting negotiations with Hollande and Merkel might set us on a path to something that cannot be delivered. Neither wants to be the leader who presided over the end of the EU, so their incentive is to hurry negotiations along and minimise disruption.
Juncker and co have the same incentive hence they are now pushing for an early start.
From a British perspective there are advantages to waiting, and if it's already October before we have a new Tory leader and then a snap election in November the temptation to wait until France has a new president will be a factor. If both Britain and France sought a loose trading federation without the political dimension or freedom of movement then it would be game over for the federalists.
I suspect after this France will elect Le Pen and the process of European union will basically stop across the continent, making negotiations a lot more open.
But we can't wait for 18 months in limbo.
I believe Cameron loves this country and despite losing wants to do his best with Both France and Germany have major elections next year and we could find a very different EU emerges from that. Starting negotiations with Hollande and Merkel might set us on a path to something that cannot be delivered. Neither wants to be the leader who presided over the end of the EU, so their incentive is to hurry negotiations along and minimise disruption.
Juncker and co have the same incentive hence they are now pushing for an early start.
From a British perspective there are advantages to waiting, and if it's already October before we have a new Tory leader and then a snap election in November the temptation to wait until France has a new president will be a factor. If both Britain and France sought a loose trading federation without the political dimension or freedom of movement then it would be game over for the federalists.
I suspect after this France will elect Le Pen and the process of European union will basically stop across the continent, making negotiations a lot more open.
But we can't wait for 18 months in limbo.
What options we have.
My beliefs, make sense to me at least, with the post above.
Gandahar said:
Merkel is not pushing for a quick Article 50 initiation it is just the EU lot who are doing this. Once again telling the UK what to do. They seem to always fail to realise this is half the reason why people voted to leave ...
A significant point. Even though perhaps half of the people within the EU, judging from various polls, are unhappy with what they have done, are doing and plan to do, they still bang on regardless.They really do seem to have a low opinion of the people they are representing.
I suspect that even if it all falls apart, it still will be someone else who's wrong.
REALIST123 said:
I suspect that even if it all falls apart, it still will be someone else who's wrong.
Usually the quotes are along the lines of "we failed to explain our position properly" or "we failed to educate the electorate".No they didn't. They explained themselves perfectly well and the electorate just didn't f
king agree...V88Dicky said:
AJL308 said:
Yes...and no.
The EU in its current form is fked, quite honestly. I think it will continue in some, much reduced, guise though.
This whole debacle has come about for one reason - that being that the EU has evolved into a huge, undemocratic, wasteful, massively expensive monster which no one wanted. It reaches far too far into the lives of its citizens. It has never listened to anything it is told by the people it claims to rule - especially the ones paying the bills. It is a 'club' of states who are, in many cases, so different to each other that it could never reasonably work. The UK, Sweden or Germany are so utterly and completely different in culture and economic performance, especially the latter, from the likes of Romania, for instance, that the notion of them sharing a common legal system and currency is laughable, quite frankly. Look at Greece, it's an economic basket case.
The EU needs to return to be being a trading agreement between like-minded countries with comparable economies if it wants to survive. It cannot continue as a political entity and if it tries to it will implode.
If it doesn't change radically then it's royally screwed. It's second largest contributor and one of the most advanced, cultured and stable countries in history, the place which gave birth to modern democracy, has just shown it two fingers. If the EU cannot see the significance of that, or fails to act on it and blindly refuses any meaningful change then it's arrogance will be its suicide.
The EU in its current form is f
ked, quite honestly. I think it will continue in some, much reduced, guise though. This whole debacle has come about for one reason - that being that the EU has evolved into a huge, undemocratic, wasteful, massively expensive monster which no one wanted. It reaches far too far into the lives of its citizens. It has never listened to anything it is told by the people it claims to rule - especially the ones paying the bills. It is a 'club' of states who are, in many cases, so different to each other that it could never reasonably work. The UK, Sweden or Germany are so utterly and completely different in culture and economic performance, especially the latter, from the likes of Romania, for instance, that the notion of them sharing a common legal system and currency is laughable, quite frankly. Look at Greece, it's an economic basket case.
The EU needs to return to be being a trading agreement between like-minded countries with comparable economies if it wants to survive. It cannot continue as a political entity and if it tries to it will implode.
If it doesn't change radically then it's royally screwed. It's second largest contributor and one of the most advanced, cultured and stable countries in history, the place which gave birth to modern democracy, has just shown it two fingers. If the EU cannot see the significance of that, or fails to act on it and blindly refuses any meaningful change then it's arrogance will be its suicide.
On the point about Cameron checkmating Boris et al, with the result that Britain quietly remains in the EU? As someone who voted Remain I would be horrified to see that happen after Thursday's result.
Like it or not a majority has spoken and their view was clear - Leave the EU. No ifs, buts or maybes! For whoever succeeds Cameron to not do that after a clear mandate would be a far worse result than just accepting the view of the people of the UK and getting on with it.
Nothing is ever done well if approached half-heartedly, so we need to fully engage with the process, now that it has been expressed as the view of the people, immediate Article 50 declaration or not!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My understanding is that it can be done in 2 other ways, either the UK repeals the 1972 European Communities act, meaning we go instant cold turkey, or the other EU nations unanimously vote to kick us out.The thing I hadn't realised about article 50 though is that the whole 2 year negotiation thing is the other EU countries negotiation what deal they want to give us, we don't get any say in it.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty...
Once we invoke article 50 the clock starts ticking though, no turning back and if they don't reach a decision in 2 years they just tell us for f
k off.The way the European presidents have behaved is literally shocking, like children at best.
Is there a possibility that the other states could say, 'no, hold on a moment, we want to deal with the uk, we don't want our economies put at risk'
And as such kick out the current leaders? Is that possible?
Is there a possibility that the other states could say, 'no, hold on a moment, we want to deal with the uk, we don't want our economies put at risk'
And as such kick out the current leaders? Is that possible?
Smollet said:
Everyone is talking about a snap election but aren't we into fixed term parliaments now with only a vote of no confidence can change that. I can't see the Tories implementing that tbh.
I think a 2/3rds majority in the commons can call an early election. Don't see much difficulty in getting that.m3jappa said:
The way the European presidents have behaved is literally shocking, like children at best.
I think Sturgeon and McGuinness are behaving a little shocking. Complete opportunism to break up the UK. What we need is a strong leader to unite the country. The vote was made as the UK and they knew that before it went to the polls.They need to let this sink in before making this about their own personal political agendas.
m3jappa said:
The way the European presidents have behaved is literally shocking, like children at best.
Is there a possibility that the other states could say, 'no, hold on a moment, we want to deal with the uk, we don't want our economies put at risk'
And as such kick out the current leaders? Is that possible?
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance - a lot of people are somewhere around stages 2 and 3 at the moment.Is there a possibility that the other states could say, 'no, hold on a moment, we want to deal with the uk, we don't want our economies put at risk'
And as such kick out the current leaders? Is that possible?
It's a shame we can't have someone like Daniel hannan leading the country.
I have watched him talk and what a man, astute, on the ball and really does have the countries best interests at heart, I've even see a few remainders agree with that sentiment.
Oh and the irony of sturgeon wanting to leave the uk because the uk wants to leave the eu would be funny if it wasn't so serious
I have watched him talk and what a man, astute, on the ball and really does have the countries best interests at heart, I've even see a few remainders agree with that sentiment.
Oh and the irony of sturgeon wanting to leave the uk because the uk wants to leave the eu would be funny if it wasn't so serious
marshalla said:
m3jappa said:
The way the European presidents have behaved is literally shocking, like children at best.
Is there a possibility that the other states could say, 'no, hold on a moment, we want to deal with the uk, we don't want our economies put at risk'
And as such kick out the current leaders? Is that possible?
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance - a lot of people are somewhere around stages 2 and 3 at the moment.Is there a possibility that the other states could say, 'no, hold on a moment, we want to deal with the uk, we don't want our economies put at risk'
And as such kick out the current leaders? Is that possible?
REALIST123 said:
Gandahar said:
Merkel is not pushing for a quick Article 50 initiation it is just the EU lot who are doing this. Once again telling the UK what to do. They seem to always fail to realise this is half the reason why people voted to leave ...
A significant point. Even though perhaps half of the people within the EU, judging from various polls, are unhappy with what they have done, are doing and plan to do, they still bang on regardless.They really do seem to have a low opinion of the people they are representing.
I suspect that even if it all falls apart, it still will be someone else who's wrong.
Unlike all elected parties from every EU state which does.
That's the problem.
It's a level of autocracy that really needs to reform.
Don said:
REALIST123 said:
I suspect that even if it all falls apart, it still will be someone else who's wrong.
Usually the quotes are along the lines of "we failed to explain our position properly" or "we failed to educate the electorate".No they didn't. They explained themselves perfectly well and the electorate just didn't f
king agree...I asked this question several days ago, but why have the unelected EU elite not asked the questions: WHY did over half the voters in a country of over 65 million people vote to leave the EU?
WHY do hundreds of thousands across Europe also want a referendum to enable them to leave the EU?
If they had any brains, they should be trying to find out what THEY THEMSELVES have done to make so many people reject the EU. But I suspect they are so arrogant, they will not even accept that they have made a mistake in trying to take Europe to a place that many do not want to go to.
Starting with the UK, many across Europe, it seems will now also try to get a vote to leave the corrupt un democratic EU.
The EU elite though their own actions, may have brought the destruction of the EU upon themselves.
WHY do hundreds of thousands across Europe also want a referendum to enable them to leave the EU?
If they had any brains, they should be trying to find out what THEY THEMSELVES have done to make so many people reject the EU. But I suspect they are so arrogant, they will not even accept that they have made a mistake in trying to take Europe to a place that many do not want to go to.
Starting with the UK, many across Europe, it seems will now also try to get a vote to leave the corrupt un democratic EU.
The EU elite though their own actions, may have brought the destruction of the EU upon themselves.
The Leavers are banging on about winning the referendum, but are missing one important point of democracy: Compromise.
The result wasn't conclusive, and if the UK left the EU tomorrow, nearly half the population would be angry, and it will lead to problems down the road. The calls for referenda for independence in Scotland and reunification of Ireland are symptoms of this.
The next Prime Minister is going to have to figure out a deal that will keep both a decent proportion of voters on both sides of the debate reasonably happy, and be palatable to the rest of Europe. That is going to be a nightmare.
As for Remain supporters being undemocratic in seeking a re-run, some Leave supporters were proposing holding a second referendum in a few years if they lost.
The result wasn't conclusive, and if the UK left the EU tomorrow, nearly half the population would be angry, and it will lead to problems down the road. The calls for referenda for independence in Scotland and reunification of Ireland are symptoms of this.
The next Prime Minister is going to have to figure out a deal that will keep both a decent proportion of voters on both sides of the debate reasonably happy, and be palatable to the rest of Europe. That is going to be a nightmare.
As for Remain supporters being undemocratic in seeking a re-run, some Leave supporters were proposing holding a second referendum in a few years if they lost.
Graemsay said:
The Leavers are banging on about winning the referendum, but are missing one important point of democracy: Compromise.
The result wasn't conclusive, and if the UK left the EU tomorrow, nearly half the population would be angry, and it will lead to problems down the road. The calls for referenda for independence in Scotland and reunification of Ireland are symptoms of this.
The next Prime Minister is going to have to figure out a deal that will keep both a decent proportion of voters on both sides of the debate reasonably happy, and be palatable to the rest of Europe. That is going to be a nightmare.
As for Remain supporters being undemocratic in seeking a re-run, some Leave supporters were proposing holding a second referendum in a few years if they lost.
So what percentage do you think is right for it to magically become fair (I fThe result wasn't conclusive, and if the UK left the EU tomorrow, nearly half the population would be angry, and it will lead to problems down the road. The calls for referenda for independence in Scotland and reunification of Ireland are symptoms of this.
The next Prime Minister is going to have to figure out a deal that will keep both a decent proportion of voters on both sides of the debate reasonably happy, and be palatable to the rest of Europe. That is going to be a nightmare.
As for Remain supporters being undemocratic in seeking a re-run, some Leave supporters were proposing holding a second referendum in a few years if they lost.
king hate that word, fair....)?Also, I can categorically tell you now that had it been the other way around, there would have been zero compromise.
Do you not think it on form for those wishing to stay in an undemocratic organisation wish to ignore the democratic process in their own country?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff