Europe - in or out - RR Votes

[kk67]

That's nothing to do with the EU. I totally agree that none of it has been thought through from a Leave point of view, but surely that was obvious, and its what Remain warned of. Yet they were ignored, and have effectively said, you've made your bed, now who is going to lie (sic) in it!

Nothing to do with the EU,....but a clear indication of the resentment the result has created. You say it was obvious but I doubt many Leave voters had actually considered it. It's not a laughing matter,....but when I heard the Mayor's statement I almost p*ssed myself laughing.

Always like a good (sic).

[Banquo]

In this instance the Tory cabinet would have to suffice. I understand why they want to wait for a new leader, but they're getting paid to do a job, so do it. And I'm not asking for them to conclude negotiations, I'm asking for their thoughts on what they want to negotiate, as in we don't like the following sections of TFEU and so on, stick it up all up in a list if they want, I'll read 'em.

I remain very angry they had no idea what they wanted to do, there's no way after a general election the leader of the winning party would send a memo saying they're not quite sure where London is, but they hope to locate it arrive and starting making cabinet appointments in the next 2-3 months and btw they know they hadn't done a manifesto yet but we hope to get back to you with a legislative program within the year. Which is why they should have had a published plan ahead of the vote for what steps would be taken post a vote to leave, and we could now be following those steps Cameron or no. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to publish those steps as the BRexit campaigners are about as like to agree as a Master of the Hunt and the animal rights brigade, and they could have been held accountable for such plans. Or course this isn't entirely the fault of the Brexit campaigners, it still took people madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mr Madman Competition to vote for a future with no plan and all associated lunacy.

So you aren't mad with Brexit, but with Cameron and the govt. for not having a variant on govt policy in the event of a loss. Fair enough actually- unless the plan was always to produce a plan 3 months after the result. Leave didn't have a plan, as they couldn't execute it though, I thought that was obvious.

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

[Banquo]

I don't understand.
1. How does the EU influence the position of London as the financial capital of the world?

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

[Digby]

So you aren't mad with Brexit, but with Cameron and the govt. for not having a variant on govt policy in the event of a loss. Fair enough actually- unless the plan was always to produce a plan 3 months after the result. Leave didn't have a plan, as they couldn't execute it though, I thought that was obvious.

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

[kk67]

I don't understand.
1. How does the EU influence the position of London as the financial capital of the world?

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

[Banquo]

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

[Banquo]

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

[kk67]

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

Well,....given the extent to which almost all political representatives in the world are hand in glove with the market,.....that seems a disingenuous conclusion. Hence my reference to non-executive board membership.

[Digby]

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

[Banquo]

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

Well,....given the extent to which almost all political representatives in the world are hand in glove with the market,.....that seems a disingenuous conclusion. Hence my reference to non-executive board membership.

You've missed the point. There is no point in the EU threatening to decimate the square mile say, if we don't hurry up, it'll happen anyway and the faster we press the button the faster it'll happen.

(and you are right politicians are hand in glove with the market, but its markets driving the politics not the other way round! That's even assuming the non-execs are not actually representing the companies interests and stakeholders properly)

[Banquo]

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

[Digby]

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

[Banquo]

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

that's better!! and breathe...

[Digby]

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

that's better!! and breathe...

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

[Banquo]

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

that's better!! and breathe...

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

Yes, apols, I'm being a little unthinking given the real immediate impact for you.

I wonder what I will spit when the feathers run out.

[kk67]

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

Well,....given the extent to which almost all political representatives in the world are hand in glove with the market,.....that seems a disingenuous conclusion. Hence my reference to non-executive board membership.

You've missed the point. There is no point in the EU threatening to decimate the square mile say, if we don't hurry up, it'll happen anyway and the faster we press the button the faster it'll happen.

(and you are right politicians are hand in glove with the market, but its markets driving the politics not the other way round! That's even assuming the non-execs are not actually representing the companies interests and stakeholders properly)

No, I agree with all of that.
I'm not opposed to kicking it into the long grass,..I just fear that now the decision has been made, Angela et al will force the issue and say 'f*ck you'.
This has been the most prosperous 30 years in our history but we are not Switzerland.

[Digby]

that's better!! and breathe...

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

Yes, apols, I'm being a little unthinking given the real immediate impact for you.

I wonder what I will spit when the feathers run out.

It's all good, what client doesn't want to hear you might be able to provide a service depending on the outcome of 12-36 months of uncertainty.

[kk67]

I can't be arsed reading 20 pages,.....has anyone posted the thoughts of John Llewellyn, former OECD chief economist...?.

[Banquo]

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

Yes, apols, I'm being a little unthinking given the real immediate impact for you.

I wonder what I will spit when the feathers run out.

It's all good, what client doesn't want to hear you might be able to provide a service depending on the outcome of 12-36 months of uncertainty.

Indeed

[Lizard]

I can't be arsed reading 20 pages,.....has anyone posted the thoughts of John Llewellyn, former OECD chief economist...?.

Not that I can recall...

[jared_7]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/28/butcher-h ... t-5971947/

Someone needs to step up and take control, this ship is sinking. Fast.

[Banquo]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/28/butcher-h ... t-5971947/

Someone needs to step up and take control, this ship is sinking. Fast.

and not in the predicted way, though maybe predictable. This is Dave and Teresa's gig immediately, and also the british people's.

[Len]

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/28/butcher-h ... t-5971947/

Someone needs to step up and take control, this ship is sinking. Fast.

Too early to draw comparisons between present day Britain and 1930s Germany? They even hosted the Olympics recently.

Did Farage just paint a huge target on the British economy today? You need us more than we need you I think is the phrase he used. A challenge if ever I heard one. First thing he said was who is laughing now? Great. People not only voted on the back of lies but also so he could get personal vindication against a few Europeans that laughed at him 17 years ago. Guy is a weapons grade bellend. Lucklily I think the Europeans are aware of this

[Lizard]

Jebus. So you've got random loonies wandering around attacking racial minorities on a scale of verbal abuse to firebombing, meanwhile thousands are taking to the streets to demonstrate in favour of the EU (and 4,000,000 have now signed that petition). So it's only a matter of time until the loonies get organised, or the Remainers get violent, and you'll have some serious riots on your hands. Or is the geographical divide stark enough to prevent the two from meeting in serious numbers?

[UGagain]

I wonder who would be allowed to vote in your world?

This thread is rich in irony. And bigotry.

A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centrepiece of modern “globalisation”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicised civil servants.

All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more.

The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as “neoliberalism”.

On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to “Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people” are the majority of Britons.

The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days.