GENERAL ELECTION 8th June

[Mike Storey]

 Er....I haven't been the one advocating that position, quite the opposite.  You should really ask Hayfield as that seems to be his view.

 

 

Excellent post - I wanted to press Like, Agree and Friendly/Supportive.

 

My only anxiety about a second referendum post negotiation is that Article 50 has been triggered and even if the British public rejects the final nogotiation and wants to stay in, we can't - we're out (Unless, of course, all 27 EU countries decide that we can rescind Article 50 and stay in, but that would seem unlikely).

 

DT

 

There would appear to be nothing within Art 50 to prevent its withdrawal by the applicant. There is diverging legal opinion, it is true, but I also cannot see any legal mechanism by which the other 27 members could prevent such a withdrawal of the application, even if they unanimously voted to prevent it, which I seriously doubt they would.

[Nearholmer]

JJB

 

To add to your point:

 

While on hols recently, we had several long conversations with a couple, the wife being the head of neurology at a very well known large hospital. She was blindingly obviously a massively intelligent woman, working her socks off to serve patients in the NHS, dedicated to what she does, passionate and serious.

 

And, an EU country, rather than British national.

 

Her take was "and, I thought until last June that people in Britain valued us EU nationals working here" ....... delivered in a tone that was quite emotional, by a woman who is used to making life and death decisions, and well able to control her emotions.

 

In short, we'd better be blooming careful about which people we frighten away, let alone decide to expel. These are people who have real choices about where they live and work, about which country they put their expertise at the service of.

 

Kevin

[MJI]

I think this points up the problem with the UK's 'unwritten' constitution. Many, but not all countries with written constitutions, such as Germany or Sweden or South Africa set a 2/3 or 3/4 majority in their parliaments for something as fundamental as 'leaving the EU', or a country wanting independence from a union with another country.

 

We're supposed to have parliamentary sovereignty in the Westminster, Scottish, Welsh and NI Parliaments.

 

Personally, I'm appalled that Cameron's Remain campaign was so poor that nothing was mentioned about the NI situation; that 16 and 17 year olds were denied the vote; that Osborne made ridiculous assumptions about the economy and next budget. Likewise, the Leave campaign was poor and did not say what would happen with the Customs Union, and were very flip-floppy about remaining in the single market, put it to us that all 80m Turks were waiting at Calais to cross to the UK, and so on.

 

As a Scot I would be uneasy if Indyref2 produces a result as close as the examples that you suggest. 60/40 would be better, one way or the other, imho.

 

Mal

 

My children are angry that they are being pulled out of the EU without their permission.

 

They would have been of voting age if it was 16

[Torper]

There would appear to be nothing within Art 50 to prevent its withdrawal by the applicant.

 

Nor is there anything permitting it.  M'learned friends could have a field day........  But I like the argument which appears to be supported by legal opinion.

 

All the more reason, therefore, why there should be a further referendum once the full terms of leaving are known but before the negotiations are formally concluded.  It now seems that if there was a second referendum and the British people voted to stay we could!  Gosh, that would set the cat among the pigeons!  Bring it on......

 

DT

[Mike Storey]

Some interesting stuff above

 

1) re Macron, "when a new, young candidate comes along.." well, yes; but Macron is neither new, nor young. He has already served as Finance Minister. It is plain that he has sufficient presence with the now-former established parties, to be both elected and appointed. It's quite incredible that he is outside all this, but that's what is being presented.

 

2) it's a matter of record that Ted Heath misled the House of Commons regarding the nature of the long-term development of the EU. John Major preceded David Cameron by holding a Vote of Confidence regarding the signing and ratification of the Maastricht Treaty; using Party management techniques to manage constitutional issues is not new, or specific to David Cameron.

 

3) The EU have an increasing habit of claiming to have achieved things which preceded them. They aren't QUITE up to "who invented the helicopter - STALIN!) but they are going that way. "70 years of peace in Europe" for example. One might think that the presence of the largest American military force in history, the complete disintegration of the colonial system (which did so much to drive the conflicts of the 1700-1945 period), the destruction of German militarism, the direct threat of Soviet military agression and the Marshall Aid Plan were simply minor footnotes to history...

 

1. Macron is relatively young (certainly compared to me) but would be the youngest ever French president if elected IIRC (the next youngest was Sarkozy at 52, Macro is 39!) . He was Economics Minister (strictly Minister for the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs), not Finance Minister, but he was an Inspector of Finances for the State in the decade before that (then disappeared into banking for a few years before returning as Dep Sec to Hollande's Cabinet (or the equivalent - to the Elysee), and was made a minister a couple of years later. He is very well known in France, and not a newcomer at all, having introduced liberal reforms under Hollande, including the introduction of more flexible labour rights, which were pushed through by Valls despite strikes and protests. But he resigned from the Socialist Party whilst still serving as a minister (it is not unusual in France to have ministers who are not members of the ruling party), declared himself an independent, and a year later (early 2016) declared he was founding a new, centrist party, En Marche, for which he was forced to resign. Around 50 Socialist MP's have stated they are prepared to serve under his banner should he be elected (which now looks very likely) and, should they be re-elected, which is increasingly unlikely unless their declaration allows them to survive. This is the model that some people predict could happen in the UK, but the big question is who that person might be?

 

3. More accurately, the EU point out that they have put things into law, which were previously not in domestic legislation, such as workers' rights, environmental targets, codified food, pesticides, and electrical safety and so on. The difference is the enforcement and penalties - I well remember how we used to get around H&SAWA regulations in the 1970's. I know the arguments around ALARP which seem more sensible than codes, so there is a debate there. But the key objective has been always to ensure a level playing field for companies trying to trade across borders, by preventing the undercutting of others, through being less safe, less constrained by quality codes and so on. You use 70 years of peace as a strange example. It assumes that WW2 started in Europe because of colonial issues that were not resolved by WW1 - you may have more of a claim for the Asian part of that war. Rather bizarre and easily refuted. The claim is that war has been prevented between the countries of Europe over that time, not with others, something not achieved for several centuries, maybe ever. This coincides with the existence of NATO, it is true, but note that at least one member of that institution, and not an EU member, is now cuddling up close to Russia to pursue its own regional aims. Something the UK seems now set on doing, but with the USA, or anyone who will have us, I guess.....

[admiles]

Hi

 

If the vote had gone the other way by a similar small margin you would have expected those who voted to leave to abide by the result, it was a referendum and the leave vote won so to keep harping on about it is just being a bad loser.

 

Ian

 

Ian,

 

If you'd lost your business, home, means of supporting your family, had your mother assaulted based on a pack of lies would you shut up? No, I suspect you wouldn't. 

 

To some of us this has had huge consequences already. This isn't a game, this is peoples future's and wellbeing. 

[arran]

Nor is there anything permitting it.  M'learned friends could have a field day........  But I like the argument which appears to be supported by legal opinion.

 

All the more reason, therefore, why there should be a further referendum once the full terms of leaving are known but before the negotiations are formally concluded.  It now seems that if there was a second referendum and the British people voted to stay we could!  Gosh, that would set the cat among the pigeons!  Bring it on......

 

DT

So you would be happy with a second vote on Indy once the terms were known if you had a Yes vote as well then ?

 

Regards Arran

[The Stationmaster]

I think this points up the problem with the UK's 'unwritten' constitution. Many, but not all countries with written constitutions, such as Germany or Sweden or South Africa set a 2/3 or 3/4 majority in their parliaments for something as fundamental as 'leaving the EU', or a country wanting independence from a union with another country.

 

We're supposed to have parliamentary sovereignty in the Westminster, Scottish, Welsh and NI Parliaments.

 

Personally, I'm appalled that Cameron's Remain campaign was so poor that nothing was mentioned about the NI situation; that 16 and 17 year olds were denied the vote; that Osborne made ridiculous assumptions about the economy and next budget. Likewise, the Leave campaign was poor and did not say what would happen with the Customs Union, and were very flip-floppy about remaining in the single market, put it to us that all 80m Turks were waiting at Calais to cross to the UK, and so on.

 

As a Scot I would be uneasy if Indyref2 produces a result as close as the examples that you suggest. 60/40 would be better, one way or the other, imho.

 

Mal

 

This, I think, is part of the problem with holding a referendum in a country which works on basically a 'first past the post' system for most of its elections and political selection processes.  In simplistic terms  a simple yes:no vote deciding a very complex subject on the basis if a simple majority is as likely to spell the end of democracy as it is to enhance it.  Hitler was extremely clever at simple majority referendums and Erdogan is using the same tactic in Turkey right now while maintaining Putin in power is in many respects doing exactly the same.

 

If you take away even the last vestiges of checks and balances in a governing/voting system you surely need to recognise that voting for change, whichever way, which will affect the lives of many people - probably a whole nation - is hardly the sort of thing where simple majority voting will lead to overall satisfaction if there is a narrow balance between yes and no.  In last year's EU referendum 72.2% of the eligible electorate voted - a total of 33,551,983 counted votes plus 23,539 spoilt papers meaning that 12.9 million people didn't vote, for whatever reason.  The margin of those voting leave out of those voting remain was 1,269,501 or put another way if 650,000 people had voted the other way the leave and remain votes would have been almost equal,but the other way round.

 

So while we all had a vote, and while those votes all added up into some huge numbers the outcome was actually decided by the votes of 650,000 people - in a country of over 65 million.  Moreover judging by the quality (lack of) during campaigning we really don't know what led to many people voting the way they did and in any event their reasons were many and varied.  But overall it does strike me as rather frightening that effectively around 1% of the population decided the fate of all that population.  Perhaps not quite a tyranny of the minority but I really think that if Britain is going to engage in making sophisticated political decisions by means of a referendum there is either a need to require a substantial margin in favour of change (say 66% of those who voted) and a minimum turnout (ideally at least 70%) in order to ensure there is a sounder and far more widely based level of support.

 

On the other hand of course simple majority referendum voting is great if you're into totatlitarianism and dictatorship or want to make major changes very easily and can sell your line well.  For the UK I don't honestly think that the electorate is really up to making important decisions in that way and our politicians and their hangers on very definitely aren't up to objectively supplying the information we need in order to decide our opinion and form our own views.

[Rivercider]

Europe, and indeed the world, is likely to be a very different place to the one it was on 23rd June last year when we voted to leave.

I do not think I am alone in wanting to have some say which way we turn, (if), when actually we step outside the door,

 

cheers 

[Torper]

So you would be happy with a second vote on Indy once the terms were known if you had a Yes vote as well then ?

 

Regards Arran

 

Of course not!  (but there again I don't think there will be a second EU referendum - having got the result I'm pretty sure she wanted, I don't think Mrs May will give the voters a second bite at the cherry and by holding this forthcoming election she's ensuring that no other government will be able to either)

 

DT

[hayfield]

So the likelihood is that the EEC/EC/EU helped the UK turn itself around from the mid-70s; but the UK is still the same-old short-termist economy, in it for a quick buck, appearing to have learned nothing from the German economic model, car emissions notwithstanding!

 

 

40 years is hardly in for a quick buck, and with the world a totally different place now to then.  Trading partners (which is what we signed up for) yes, political bed fellows no

[hayfield]

I'm increasingly fed up with this suggestion that just because there has been a narrow victory in a referndum, those who opposed it should shut up and accept it.  I opposed leaving the EU at the time of the referendum and I still oppose it and If I could do anything to change it I would.

 

As for the Scottish referendum, a number of promises were made to the Scots by the unionist parties immediately prior ro the referendum and these undoubtedly swayed the result.  By and large, these promises have not been kept.  If a referendum result is achieved on the back of promises that are then broken, the referedum result has no moral authority at all and it is quite legitimate to try to overturn it.  Moreover, in the SNP manifesto prior to the last Holyrood election, it was clearly and unambiguously stated that an SNP government would hold another independence referendum if there was a material change in circumstance such as Britain leaving the EU.  It's a basic element of a democratic system that if a party makes promises before an election it should keep them if elected and, having made that promise, the SNP was elected with an increased share of the popular vote.  Claims that the SNP have no mandate for a second referendum are therefore quite incorrect.

 

As to Brexit supporters being called thick, that is of course incorrect although here is evidence to show that support for Brexit  was strongest amongst the least well educated, while people with higher qualifications were more inclined to vote Remain.

 

DT

 

 

1 million is not close in election terms. I am perfectly happy for Scotland to do what ever they wish. If they do go the gap gets even bigger.

 

If the EU is so good where are all the countries wanting to take our place who will be net contributors.  

 

I have a couple of Scottish friends who have made their lives down here, they both were very scathing about the Scottish Nationalists. Still they are very happy with the lives they have made down here. No doubt some have gone the other way and are happy.

[Reorte]

So while we all had a vote, and while those votes all added up into some huge numbers the outcome was actually decided by the votes of 650,000 people

No. The outcome was decided by everyone who voted. Everyone's vote counted for as much as everyone else's, not just a group of 650 000. You could argue (not unreasonably IMO) that the requirement should've been more than 50 / 50, but wherever you put the threshold you could make the same "only a few" argument if the result was close to it.

[hayfield]

Hi

 

If the vote had gone the other way by a similar small margin you would have expected those who voted to leave to abide by the result, it was a referendum and the leave vote won so to keep harping on about it is just being a bad loser.

 

Ian

 

 

Ian

 

Whilst many would have been disappointed and the likes of UKIP would continue, the government of the day would say they had a mandate to remain, end of.

 

Our best position then would push for EU reform, but in all honesty would all 38 countries agree. I think not.  We would still be in the EU for years to come being mugged daily.

 

As we are the best result we can have for everyone is the best deal for the UK, nothing hard or soft but a good deal for both sides benefiting all in the UK

[Horsetan]

.....push for EU reform, but in all honesty would all 38 countries agree. I think not.  ....

 

Currently 28 countries, but I suppose there might be a time when the total number of members exceeds 30. Once Britain has managed to leave, the awkward squad will probably consist of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia; in some ways they've already started.

[hayfield]

Following this logic, then why have any more general elections ever? The conservatives won the last one, so we should all just suck it up and let them rule us for ever...

 

 

We have general elections to appoint a party to run the country, political parties rise and wain.

 

This one is a bit different a one off. As I said normally voters choose either a person or a party. This one is different, there is a mandate to leave the EU,

 

Which one of the 3 main party leaders/leadership teams (irrespective of politics) would you want negotiating for you to get the best deal for the country,

 

If you feel either Corbin or Farron have the ability to negotiate and have the team to do so, then vote for them, I guess are able to do this.

 

Nothing at all to do with having the same party in charge for ever, absolutely stupid idea 

 

Who has Farron got to fall back on?, Labour has all the best guys refusing to serve Corbin

[hayfield]

Currently 28 countries, but I suppose there might be a time when the total number of members exceeds 30. Once Britain has managed to leave, the awkward squad will probably consist of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia; in some ways they've already started.

 

 

Its all those countries falling over themselves wanting to replace us, or my fat finger ?

[EddieB]

I totally agree with you on the issues of poor British management and shareholder decisions, covered by ideological sales of national assets. But all the evidence (IMF, World Bank, ONS and BofE) suggests you are quite wrong about the economic drivers subsequently, other than for the first 10 years maybe. The UK's rate of growth more than doubled after 1987-ish (fastest ever since 19thC and the late 30's when re-arming), bar the Black Wednesday blip, and most of that was due to vastly increased trade with the EU, mostly financial and services, and only latterly maintained by increased trade with the US. It has developed outside of the previous cyclic drivers, given that growth of both is now nearly the same. What is at risk now is the extent of that trade, and the idea of a "best deal" to resolve it, except that no-one seems to be anywhere close to understanding what that will be. We are now reportedly near the back of the queue again with Trump, who wants to re-open TTIP negotiations with the EU in front of us, as well as renegotiating NAFTA. I suspect, given the Korean problem, he will also have to re-think TPP as a priority.

You're free to disagree, but for me that increased growth came about by the injection of foreign capital as the City underwent a major revolution. Some inward investment came from banks residing in countries within the EU, but I wouldn't see any qualitative difference between them and other institutions in say Switzerland, North America or Hong Kong. It might also be argued that increased trade with EU partners only widened our trade deficit. It would be churlish to lay the blame for Black Wednesday on the EU, any more than selling off our gold reserves at bargain basement prices, but the ride would have been a whole lot less bumpy had it not been for the ERM - which our political leadership cocked up royally.

[Rivercider]

We have general elections to appoint a party to run the country, political parties rise and wain.

 

This one is a bit different a one off. As I said normally voters choose either a person or a party. This one is different, there is a mandate to leave the EU,

 

Which one of the 3 main party leaders/leadership teams (irrespective of politics) would you want negotiating for you to get the best deal for the country,

 

If you feel either Corbin or Farron have the ability to negotiate and have the team to do so, then vote for them, I guess are able to do this.

 

Nothing at all to do with having the same party in charge for ever, absolutely stupid idea 

 

Who has Farron got to fall back on?, Labour has all the best guys refusing to serve Corbin

What is the 'best deal for the country'?

I would guess that the 'best deal for the country' may well not align with the 'best deal for the remaining 27 EU countries'.

 

It is possible that by playing for a 'hard Brexit' we might end up cutting off our nose to spite our face.

By playing for a 'soft Brexit' we might get taken for a ride.

There are too many 'unknowns' here, without starting to worry about the 'unknown unknowns',.....

 

cheers

[rockershovel]

A propos the origins of WW1 and WW2, and subsequent claims by the EU, surely the point is that in 1945 the USA held the purse strings and had the largest military force in history camped throughout Europe. This force remained in place until the 1990s. The Soviet Union presented a clear and present danger and occupied significant areas of what us now, the EU.

 

Regarding EU workers in the UK, I've worked for many years as an itinerant professional in countries where we have no such arrangements. I can assure any competent health professionals who happen to be reading this, that they need have no fears at all. The issue is being grossly and egregiously misrepresented to a quite atrocious degree.

[Horsetan]

Its all those countries falling over themselves wanting to replace us, or my fat finger ?

 

The last country to join was Croatia, a few years ago.

 

Currently in the waiting room are:

 

Montenegro

Serbia

Macedonia

 

I think Albania also want to have a go at joining the EU as well (I've already seen a small number of secondhand RHD cars here on Albanian plates and, no, Albania is not a RHD country), whilst Iceland is supposedly in two minds about whether to complete the process.

 

If Albania make it into the EU, then I suppose Kosovo will eventually want to follow, despite the latter's obvious difficulties.

[Nearholmer]

"The issue is being grossly and egregiously misrepresented to a quite atrocious degree."

 

I submit that neither you, nor anyone else, can be certain of that.

 

And, my point wasn't about being allowed to remain or come here, it was about feeling welcome (or not) and wanting to come, remain, or go. Much more subtle affect.

 

Kevin

[Purley Oaks]

The last country to join was Croatia, a few years ago.

 

Currently in the waiting room are:

 

Montenegro

Serbia

Macedonia

 

I think Albania also want to have a go at joining the EU as well (I've already seen a small number of secondhand RHD cars here on Albanian plates and, no, Albania is not a RHD country), whilst Iceland is supposedly in two minds about whether to complete the process.

 

If Albania make it into the EU, then I suppose Kosovo will eventually want to follow, despite the latter's obvious difficulties.

And Bosnia are trying to make the grade, too.

Mal

[Mallard60022]

What is becoming clear from many of the posts above is that the country is now a very disturbed place. The ill conceived Referendum, using a bianary choice question and no ratio control as a 'winning' margin, has caused  an uncomfortable divison between the two 'camps' and the future here for so many is a total mystery. I feel quite sad that a very unpleasant can of worms appears to have been opened last June and now it is getting worse as blue and red factions are putting the boot in leading up to another scary day in another June.

The only thing I can get interested in at the moment is the thought of looking at the data that is gleaned from the coming election. I want to see just how many people just don't bother turning out, what the distribution of voting looks like, will or won't there be a huge majority and listening to the World Service and hearing just what others outside the UK think about the whole circus. 

Finally, I am going to Ladbrokes tomorrow and getting odds on the number of times the words strong and stable are used by herself and her colleagues during the next few weeks. Blimey, I almost smiled thinking about that...........................................

Phil

[Reorte]

What is becoming clear from many of the posts above is that the country is now a very disturbed place. The ill conceived Referendum, using a bianary choice question and no ratio control as a 'winning' margin, has caused  an uncomfortable divison between the two 'camps' and the future here for so many is a total mystery. I feel quite sad that a very unpleasant can of worms appears to have been opened last June and now it is getting worse as blue and red factions are putting the boot in leading up to another scary day in another June.

It didn't create the differences, they were there already. Not giving them an outlet wouldn't make them go away, more likely things would boil away under the surface and the eventual eruption would be truly unpleasant. Polarising opinions of the EU is clearly an issue; I believe issues should be brought out and aired if they're ever to be mended, or at least resolved. Suppressing them only causes problems in the long run.

 

edit to add: I agree with the ill-conceived part though, since it appears that it was done for the wrong reasons - just to help gain an election victory, presumably with the assumption that a Remain result was a foregone conclusion.