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.
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.
4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too
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.
I wouldn't worry about the majority of those who voted for brexit. They've had their one brush with politics and will be back to their apathy by now. It's one of the plus points going forward.
Electoral services workers have reported calls from people asking if they could change their decision after Friday’s result became clear, while some publicly admitted they intended to use a “protest vote” in the belief the UK was certain to remain in the European Union.
The anxiety – dubbed “Bregret” – emerged as the value of the pound tumbled and markets crashed, while somefelt betrayed by Nigel Farage’s admission that a Vote Leave poster pledging to spend millions of pounds supposedly given to the EU on the NHS was a “mistake”.
Mandy Suthi, a student who voted to leave, told ITV News she would tick the Remain box if she had a second chance and said her parents and siblings also regretted their choice.
“I would go back to the polling station and vote to stay, simply because this morning the reality is kicking in,” she said.
“I wish we had the opportunity to vote again,” she added, saying she was “very disappointed”.
Khembe Gibbons, a lifeguard from Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, also said she had regrets about her decision after Mr Farage said he could not guarantee NHS funding.
"We've left the EU, David Cameron's resigned, we're left with Boris, and Nigel has just basically given away that the NHS claim was a lie,” she wrote.
"I personally voted leave believing these lies, and I regret it more than anything, I feel genuinely robbed of my vote."
A woman calling into an LBC radio show echoed the sentiment, saying she felt “conned” by the claim and felt “a bit sick”.
A voter who gave his name as Adam told the BBC he would have changed his pro-Brexit vote if he knew the short-term consequences it would have for the UK economy.
"The David Cameron resignation has blown me away to be honest and the period of uncertainty that we’re going to be magnified now so yeah, I’m quite worried,” he said.
"I'm shocked that we voted for Leave, I didn't think that was going to happen. I didn't think my vote was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to remain."
Digby wrote:
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.
4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too
I don't think anybody thinks there won't be costs regardless of which course we take. I'd much rather short term pain than a long term cock-up. Though, I'll admit my income isn't at risk.
