According to a report I saw on the BBC the other day, the Remain MPs (who are in the majority in parliament) are organising to vote out the results of the referendum. A referendum is only an indication of the will of the people, to make something law, it has to be voted for by parliament.

Watching the appallingly smug 'two kitchens Milliband' on BBC Question Time the other day dismiss the concerns of audience members with a wave of his hand, I can definitely see how the career politicians, so far removed from ordinary people, could decide that they know better than the plebs and that they are disregarding a referendum for the public's own good.

Posted By: Pile-o-StoneAccording to a report I saw on the BBC the other day, the Remain MPs (who are in the majority in parliament) are organising to vote out the results of the referendum. A referendum is only an indication of the will of the people, to make something law, it has to be voted for by parliament.

Watching the appallingly smug 'two kitchens Milliband' on BBC Question Time the other day dismiss the concerns of audience members with a wave of his hand, I can definitely see how the career politicians, so far removed from ordinary people, could decide that they know better than the plebs and that they are disregarding a referendum for the public's own good.

I saw those reports as well. The MPs' reported attitude is typical of what's wrong - a self-righteous emphasis on exploiting the letter of the law instead of fair dealing and principles.

I don't think they've thought it through very far though. If they ignored the will of the people (unspoken through poor planning of the referendum, which they approved), I think there would be consequences. At the next general election there would be a 'Brexit' party that would win by a landslide as all the brexit voters from whichever parties came together to undo the harm. Would that put Boris or Nigel in number 10?

Posted By: Pile-o-StoneAccording to a report I saw on the BBC the other day, the Remain MPs (who are in the majority in parliament) are organising to vote out the results of the referendum. A referendum is only an indication of the will of the people, to make something law, it has to be voted for by parliament.

On the other hand if there is a 50% turnout and the voting is as close as suggested e.g. 51% - 49% then 25.5% of the voting population would carry the day, I'm not sure what %age of the population that would be but for making the change to Brexit you could argue that not enough people want such a monumental change to make the result the wish of the populace.

If the turnout is less than 50% then less than half of the voting population are bothered about the decision and you have even less mandate for change.

Perhaps instead of a simple majority of votes cast (so 1 vote of a low turnout could carry the day) perhaps a majority of the voting population should be required at least then there would be an undeniable mandate for change. Of course I can see Brexit not wanting this as they would have to get a proper majority to effect the change rather than perhaps less than 30% of the voting population.

Posted By: Peter_in_HungaryItem on the news yesterday was that the WTO said that the existing trade deals (via WTO) were as part of the EU.

I'd be interested to read the original story. It sounds like an overstated case. The United Kingdom was a founder member of GATT since it started on 1 January 1948, long before either the EU or WTO existed and the UK joined WTO when it was formed along with other GATT members. Of course the trade agreements that come as part of our membership of the EU will need renegotiating if we leave the EU but I don't think there's anything more to the story than that.

Posted By: borpinWell a C130 can stop on a sixpence so a long runway is definitely not needed. Even the C17 Galaxy needs very little room and can self handle. Fantastic bit of kit.

Correction - not cuddly old fashioned humanitarian-drop C130 Hercules at Exeter but much huge-er C17s and/or C5s. Like jumbos they look as if flying dead slow but actually are 3x further away than the eye thinks.

Someone above said that if the vote is Brexit, a 2yr process will begin to negotiate the exit terms, during which absolutely nothing will change.
I therefore predict a Brexit vote, followed by an almightly fudge, during which any kind of change could happen - political reversal, popular sentiment, geopolitical ... by the end of the 2yrs the result and consequences will be nothing like what either camp is arguing today.

Possibly a Brexit vote would be more progressively cathartic, catalytic, than a Bremain vote.
The EU itself will be forced into a major re-think.
The UK's Celtic nations will get very clear that they don't want to remain part of an even more reactionary, Dave-free English Empire, but will clamour for devolved autonomy within a EU - soon followed by the Engish regions and all the other local competencies across Europe - and beyond.
A sharp divide will open between the world-brain young across the world, and their bigoted, narrow, manipulated seniors.
TTIP-style unfettered corporatist globalisation died last month; the Monsantos and Shells are under popular siege - and that momentum will ramp up to something incalculable during this coming 2yr period.

So, for the ultimate in tactical voting, I'm thinking of voting Brexit, just to help the process along!

Posted By: gyrogearWell, ST,
Back in 1975, at the referendum, could *you* have explained to *HIM* the mechanism for creating new trade deals, basically the nuts and bolts of how we change from trading with the world as an individual country, to trading with the world as part of the EU block ?

No, for two reasons, I was quite young and I was living as an immigrant in a small island in the West Indies.

Posted By: fostertomThe UK's Celtic nations will get very clear that they don't want to remain part of an even more reactionary, Dave-free English Empire, but will clamour for devolved autonomy within a EU - soon followed by the Engish regions and all the other local competencies across Europe - and beyond.

In general, yes. But some countries with “local competency” concerns might veto that sort of thing. E.g., Spain, to encourage Catalonia. More widespread appropriate subsidiarity will have to wait for most of the jingoistic dinosaurs to die off.

(Contrary to some of the Brexit FUD, countries do still have vetoes on membership issues. E.g., Britain could veto Turkey joining - contrary to comments I heard go unchallenged the other day on Radio 4. I was driving and sufficiently annoyed that I turned the radio off rather than be distracted by further nonsense of that sort so don't know what program it was or who said it.)

Posted By: fostertomSomeone above said that if the vote is Brexit, a 2yr process will begin to negotiate the exit terms, during which absolutely nothing will change.

NO... that gives 2 years with free movement of people and money and does anyone really think that peolpe / business will wait until day number the last to do something. No, I predict an exodus of funds and jobs whilst there are no restrictions on movement. No one is going to wait to see what sort of deal can be had. They will go whilst the going is good / available.

Posted By: fostertomPossibly a Brexit vote would be more progressively cathartic, catalytic, than a Bremain vote.
The EU itself will be forced into a major re-think.

It would certainty set the cat amongst the pigeons. But when Boris declared for Brexit and the Brexit camp started a recent report showed that over 60 billion pounds fled the Stirling area and the pound fell 5% and still has not recovered. Imagine what will happen with a Brexit vote!!

Posted By: djhI'm curious what the Bremain-inclined think some other nations should do.

Should Norway join the EU? Should Switzerland join the EU?

How about Turkey? Or Ukraine?

Or even Russia and Australia? (They're good enough for Eurovision, why not the EU? Bring peace, harmony and prosperity to a wider circle).

Norway and Switzerland have made their choices and got their agreements Norway pays a lot to have access to the EU and has no say at the table. Ditto Switzerland e.g. my nephew in law (does that exist -) lives in France as an English family ('cos its cheaper!) and gets on the tram every day and goes to work in Switzerland, which is expensive, 2 of his kids go to school in Switzerland and the 3rd goes to school in France. Freedom of workforce movement works!! And of course this English family are EU migrants. If Brexit wins what happens to them. - Do they get kicked out of France? Does he loose his job in Switzerland - or need a work permit just like anyone else in the wider world? They are buying a house in France, what happens to that? 'cos they have no job in France. Sounds like a bag of worms to me!!

As for Turkey Or Ukraine - they are outside. If they want to join the club then the members of that club will impose conditions which have to be met. If they don't like the conditions then they don't have to join. And of course all the members have to agree to let them in, which includes the UK unless Brexit wins! The conditions will be up to the members to decide, not for the applicants to dictate. The same with the UK. if the UK is on the outside then the members of the club will decide the terms on trade. the movement of people and money etc., the UK will not be able to dictate anything.

Interesting: Sarah Wollaston, MP switches from the Leave campaign, to Remain.
"Having now looked at the big picture, I honestly think that it's the right thing to do to stay."

Interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36485870

However, Sir John is Nott amused...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/08/margaret-thatchers-defence-secretary-sir-john-nott-suspends-tory/

I suspect he's right - Daveco's frenzy is obviously a smokescreen for something...

(and his use of "pathetic" re Cameron's "negotiating" stance is dead right too, in my opinion...).


gg

So nobody thinks Norway or Switzerland needs to join the EU? So what's so different that means we need to be in the club?

The basic argument seems to be 'status quo'. Whoever's currently in should stay in. Whoever's currently out doesn't need to join. Frog in a pot argument.

Posted By: djhSo nobody thinks Norway or Switzerland needs to join the EU? So what's so different that means we need to be in the club?

Posted By: CWattersIn order to trade freely with the EU Norway has been obliged to adopt the free movement of people and has implemented 75% of EU laws and directives, over which they have had little say in the drafting (they have some participation but no voting rights).

And Norway and Switzerland have to contribute a considerable sum each year as well !!
And if the EU decide to let Turkey or Albania or Ukraine or...........join then Norway and Switzerland can do nothing about it.
And if the EU want to decide to place restrictions / conditions to joining countries then Norway and Switzerland have little say in these and can not vote or veto.

It seems to me being on the outside looking in and having to pay for the privilege is not such a good deal.

Is the disruption and damage to the economy (which even Brexit) see really worth the risk to get into Norways position.

CWatters did point out the disadvantage to Norway and Switzerland of not being in - no say in the rules they have to adopt. Whether they're sufficiently unhappy about this to motivate them to join is another matter. The big question, though, is whether an exiting UK would get agreements as favourable as those Norway and Switzerland have. Maybe but most likely not, I suspect.

[PS, thought I was replying directly to DJH but cross-posted with Owlman, PiH and CWatters.]