The EU Referendum

[MK Shrimper]

I wouldn't worry too much. Even in the event of a Brexit, which looks likely, Parliamentary statute Article 50 can be voted on, imposed and the vote to leave would mean diddly squat anyway. This referendum isn't bound by law, it's advisory. Parliament has the power under statute to say sorry, we know what's best and we're not abiding by it.

You really think that'll happen? As a Remain advocate, I'd be extremely uncomfortable with that - there'd be big questions over our democratic process.

 

[Bielzibubz]

It's possible. Apparently there have been backroom discussions in the halls of parliament since the polls swung. Consider what's at stake. Potentially 70 years of political maneuvering and power brokering towards an end game of a European Federal State which could, and probably would, be completely undone should a Brexit vote hold.

The devils in the detail. As I said, this referendum isn't bound by law,it's advisory. Something which isn't widely known or appreciated.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

British politics reached a new low yesterday with the release of UKIP's Breaking Point poster.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants.

One can only hope that the tragic murder of Jo Cox will instill a little sanity into the last few days of campaigning,which has largely become a rather squalid plebisicite on immigration, rather than a rational debate on membership of the EU.

 

[londonblue]

It's a question of who do you trust the least and the EU political elite and our home grown MP's in power at the moment clearly come out on top right.

It could be argued that BJ has been good for London. He may be a baffoon in your eyes but he's liked by many many people

I wouldn't worry too much. Even in the event of a Brexit, which looks likely, Parliamentary statute Article 50 can be voted on, imposed and the vote to leave would mean diddly squat anyway. This referendum isn't bound by law, it's advisory. Parliament has the power under statute to say sorry, we know what's best and we're not abiding by it.

But most people on that list aren't politicians. They're just people who know what they're talking about.

 

[Bielzibubz]

But most people on that list aren't politicians. They're just people who know what they're talking about.

As are the 250 business heads on the list of those voting for a Brexit. And as I said in my post previous to that one, I included business heads as well, or I should say the heads of institutions and major businesses. I should have perhaps included that in the post you have quoted. And yes i do see the irony in my post about the list of 250 for Brexit :winking:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Most of the people on that list are people who live privileged lifestyles because of their positions. i am much more interested in the views of the people on the ground who are living with the effects of Europe's interference on a daily basis.

What European interference on a daily basis?

Give me some examples from your life from today.

 

[superblue24]

You really think that'll happen? As a Remain advocate, I'd be extremely uncomfortable with that - there'd be big questions over our democratic process.

Umm, yet you responding to my comment about being dictated to by a bunch of bigwigs with comments about the House of Lords... Right? They have the power to veto this whole thing....

 

[Supernaut]

You really think that'll happen? As a Remain advocate, I'd be extremely uncomfortable with that - there'd be big questions over our democratic process.

From an article on www.bbc.co.uk;

Could MPs block an EU exit if Britain votes for it?

Michael, from East Sussex asks an intriguing question - could the necessary legislation pass the Commons if all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservative MPs were in favour of staying?

The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit - but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The withdrawal agreement would also have to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.

It adds: "If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum)."

In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one. Two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Umm, yet you responding to my comment about being dictated to by a bunch of bigwigs with comments about the House of Lords... Right? They have the power to veto this whole thing....

You said unelected big wigs. Exactly what the HOL and senior Civil Servants are. Our own system is hardly a full democracy itself.

 

[superblue24]

You said unelected big wigs. Exactly what the HOL and senior Civil Servants are. Our own system is hardly a full democracy itself.

So why are you so shocked/surprised at the concept that the leave vote might be rejected?

 

[MK Shrimper]

So why are you so shocked/surprised at the concept that the leave vote might be rejected?

Because it's the will of the people rather than a single bill. Sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

[superblue24]

Because it's the will of the people rather than a single bill. Sets a very dangerous precedent.

It's no secret that the senior figures all want to remain, so what's stopping them? We're all just plebs and punters at the end of the day, and they all "know better"

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

You really think that'll happen? As a Remain advocate, I'd be extremely uncomfortable with that - there'd be big questions over our democratic process.

I can't see how they would have the mandate to much more than start negotiations as no coherent strategy has been put forward as to what the direction for a Britain outside of Europe would be (unsurprisingly as they are all unpalatable).

Would it be the Norway EEA model where we give up our right to a say in EU affairs, still be subject to the bulk of EU legislation, save a tiny amount (Norway's contribution per capita is £22 per annum less than ours) and still have freedom of movement which means all those bloody foreigners can still get in (because the OUT campaign seems to be mainly about keeping foreigners out)?

Would it be the Swiss EFTA model where we need to comply with EU rules in order to have access, adopt freedom of movement (so all those smelly foreigners still can get in), again have no seat in the EU from which to exercise influence but save in a year maybe the monthly cost of a Sky subscription per capita. Unfortunately the Swiss haven't sorted out bilateral trade agreements for services, which is the biggest part of the UK's economy and so that would properly **** up our economy.

Would it be the Turkey model, operating under a common trade policy but with no say in that trade policy, which doesn't include services anyway which would screw up our service based economy. That was set up as a way of promoting closer not lesser ties, so I'm not sure the EU would offer us that, but it's not a particular appetising prospect in any case.

Or would it be the WTO option? The UK would not have access to trade in the EU on terms any more advantageous than third countries that do not have free trade agreements with the EU. Tariffs would then be imposed on around 90% of the goods exported to the EU; although the all important services sector would not be included. UK manufacturing business that could still sell competitively to the EU (presumably relying on the pound plummeting) would still be subject to EU requirements. Or we could try and negotiate trade agreements with the EU. They'd hold the upper hand in such negotiations as we need them more than they need us and our government would invariably have to concentrate on financial services, due to their importance to the UK economy, meaning that UK farmers and fisherman and manufacturers would probably be screwed anyway.


This is such a fundamental question, that there would surely have to be another referendum on it to have any legitimacy due to the Leave campaign's failure to present their chosen path.

 

[londonblue]

It's no secret that the senior figures all want to remain, so what's stopping them? We're all just plebs and punters at the end of the day, and they all "know better"

Speak for yourself. I personally don't think quite so highly of myself!

 

[Swiss Tony]

What European interference on a daily basis?

Give me some examples from your life from today.

I've got some;
Straight cucumbers
uniformed size apples,pears etc
Nazi like health and safety rules
and people like you who think they are very clever and talk down to people.(and in your case wearing a stupid backpack with both straps over the shoulders,very uncool)

 

[callan]

I can't see how they would have the mandate to much more than start negotiations as no coherent strategy has been put forward as to what the direction for a Britain outside of Europe would be (unsurprisingly as they are all unpalatable).

Would it be the Norway EEA model where we give up our right to a say in EU affairs, still be subject to the bulk of EU legislation, save a tiny amount (Norway's contribution per capita is £22 per annum less than ours) and still have freedom of movement which means all those bloody foreigners can still get in (because the OUT campaign seems to be mainly about keeping foreigners out)?

Would it be the Swiss EFTA model where we need to comply with EU rules in order to have access, adopt freedom of movement (so all those smelly foreigners still can get in), again have no seat in the EU from which to exercise influence but save in a year maybe the monthly cost of a Sky subscription per capita. Unfortunately the Swiss haven't sorted out bilateral trade agreements for services, which is the biggest part of the UK's economy and so that would properly **** up our economy.

Would it be the Turkey model, operating under a common trade policy but with no say in that trade policy, which doesn't include services anyway which would screw up our service based economy. That was set up as a way of promoting closer not lesser ties, so I'm not sure the EU would offer us that, but it's not a particular appetising prospect in any case.

Or would it be the WTO option? The UK would not have access to trade in the EU on terms any more advantageous than third countries that do not have free trade agreements with the EU. Tariffs would then be imposed on around 90% of the goods exported to the EU; although the all important services sector would not be included. UK manufacturing business that could still sell competitively to the EU (presumably relying on the pound plummeting) would still be subject to EU requirements. Or we could try and negotiate trade agreements with the EU. They'd hold the upper hand in such negotiations as we need them more than they need us and our government would invariably have to concentrate on financial services, due to their importance to the UK economy, meaning that UK farmers and fisherman and manufacturers would probably be screwed anyway.


This is such a fundamental question, that there would surely have to be another referendum on it to have any legitimacy due to the Leave campaign's failure to present their chosen path.

Options post Brexit can be found here YB.

http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-options-for-britain-if-we-vote-for-brexit/

 

[callan]

I've got some;
Straight cucumbers
uniformed size apples,pears etc
Nazi like health and safety rules
and people like you who think they are very clever and talk down to people.(and in your case wearing a stupid backpack with both straps over the shoulders,very uncool)

I love that back pack Mr, it's true purpose is of course to secure extra drinking room in the Spread Eagle...although I have often wondered what is so important that he carries in it........

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I've got some;
Straight cucumbers
uniformed size apples,pears etc
Nazi like health and safety rules

Straight cucumbers
The answer will be similar regarding apples and pears.

I don't think the Nazis were big on health and safety, but what rules are you referring to?
Most health and safety rules will probably come from insurance as if companies etc stick to some simple guidelines then their premiums come tumbling down and companies like paying less in insurance premiums and don't like the bad PR when someone gets injured.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I love that back pack Mr, it's true purpose is of course to secure extra drinking room in the Spread Eagle...although I have often wondered what is so important that he carries in it........

The contents is forever changing, but it usually includes a whole load of regulatory updates to read but you'll be disappointed to know that is mainly UK than EU red-tape I'm having to battle.

 

[callan]

The contents is forever changing, but it usually includes a whole load of regulatory updates to read but you'll be disappointed to know that is mainly UK than EU red-tape I'm having to battle.

I think what's more important is that it compliments your pac a mac superbly, you will of course follow uncle Cricko's advise to vote leave as this will make you a non pussy and you will be able to substitute boring paperwork for a couple of house bricks and a trowel...only then, will you truly enjoy the versatility of your ruck sack.