EU referendum: BBC forecasts UK votes to leave

[cumgranosalum]

two and a half million muppets now want to reverse their vote, a protest vote gone wrong, many didn't think (i could leave that as a statement but i will continue) that we would really exit they were just protesting against the elite. I just hope parliament now takes the referendum merely as a non binding recommendation and doesn't invoke article 50 otherwise we will not only lose the EU we will lose Scotland as well, what a cock up !!! well done Dave.

You're implying that it is those that voted brexit who are now asking for another referendum?

Surely its FAR more likely to be those that lost the vote, rather than those who won?!

you could be right of course but many now who voted leave are having regrets, i think if a new referendum was held it would be remain that would win. A 50-50 decision in my opinion is not binding and that is basically what it was. Parliament has the last decision and they should have the balls not to invoke article 50. If two thirds had said out i would call that binding as sad as i would be about it. We could now lose Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland as well as the EU. Already warnings are being made to the Tory party not to reverse the workers rights that were given to them by the EU and Ukip has admitted that immigration by and large wont be stopped as imagined, the 'outs' have been sold a pigs ear and they are beginning to realize it. Rubber lips Boris for PM another horror scenario. That's what happens when beer sex and football are ones main interest in life.

If 52-48 is not a winning decision, why did the country accept 36.9% win for the conservatives at the last election?

The remain voters were so arrogant they would win they did not think to demand a specific percentage of votes to win. Too late after, both sides knew the rules. The vote should stand.

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

[Kiwiken]

It's only 4 days from the vote. What's the big problem here? if rest of world wants to spit the dummy, up to them. Britain's already offered informal talks but they have been rejected.

That's the spirit! We'll get through this.

whatever,but it is interesting,like watching a car crash in slow motion

Or to watch the birth of something better

[soalbundy]

It's only 4 days from the vote. What's the big problem here? if rest of world wants to spit the dummy, up to them. Britain's already offered informal talks but they have been rejected.

That's the spirit! We'll get through this.

whatever,but it is interesting,like watching a car crash in slow motion

Or to watch the birth of something better

maybe although i doubt it. 'Der Spiegel' has an article about Junker's and Schultz's answer to Brexit,they want 'more integration' although they are being slated by the German commentator as being the main problem in this debacle. I must admit i am all for a United States of Europe but with democratically elected leaders, works for America and they were all once a collection of independent states. The UK was also a collection once of independent kingdoms, bigger is better and safer.

[Naam]

Nervous times, but screw it! Let's see it through.

Have you seen this? . . .

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit

Christ, is it a credible story?

Would explain a lot.

of course it is! Angie Merkel is to be crowned as Queen of Germany and Empress of SUP€R-€U and the hardline Finance Minister Wolf Schäuble will replace Mario Draghi, carry the title Viceroy of the United Celtic Commonwealth Ireland and Scotland and reside in Belfast.

it is not yet known where the crowning ceremony will take place. rumour has it that the Vatican, Notre Dame Cathedral and Westminster Abbey are considered.

[happy Joe]

Wow but no surprise. That's been the plan all along. One big superstate.

"Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels."

The sole reason the the USA has been able to get along across a large population and a large land mass is that it is a republic of 50 sovereign states. Not even the US could survive with just one central government ruling everyone. The US already had one huge and deadly civil war between the North and the South. The US government has very limited powers with most powers vested in the states.

Brits are lucky to not get caught up in this.

This speech is totally meaningless.

USA are strong in their unity .. Federal, their federal constitution, their federal army and their federal laws that surpass those of the states.

USA is also strong patriotism that the Federal Constitution has generated.

All the opposite of what proponents wanted to leave the british.

[soalbundy]

All this rubbish from the foreigners is even making me feel bullish.

Won't be pushed around. I tell you that.

YOU have no power, it's the bullingdon boys or Brussels,oh and the financial markets,take your choice.

[cumgranosalum]

Most of the people on my FB were pro-EU - with one or two notable exceptions - none those have made an appearance since the referendum.......they are simply too shocked by post referendum events - they really had no idea of what they were doing.

there is absolutely no argument that can justify the events they have unleashed - they opened a pandora's box and now we ALL have to reap the whirlwind - unless common sense is restored.

Here's a good read....

https://clairebroadley.com/2016/06/26/so-you-want-me-to-be-happy/

"Bitter? Angry? Resentful? You bet.

And do you know why this has happened?

Because two men plotted to shoehorn the Prime Minister out of office. They expected that they would lose a referendum, and gain power themselves, by stirring up a dissatisfied minority. They thought this was a brilliant plan. A gamble worth taking. Because – surely – the British public could not be so naive to believe what they said.

Unfortunately, they underestimated how successful they would be.

We have watched them lie, ignite xenophobia, spread hollow patriotism and promise money they will not have. They used desperate refugees as a weapon. They promised minuscule immigration figures that cannot be achieved without forfeiting free trade."

Edited June 28, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[brewsterbudgen]

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

Nicely summed up by Geoffrey Robertson in today's Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

[Boon Mee]

Have y'all seen this?:

RISE OF GERMAN SUPERSTATE:
EU MEMBERS TO DISSOLVE ARMIES
SURRENDER ECONOMIC POWER

http://www.drudgereport.com/

[soalbundy]

Have y'all seen this?:

RISE OF GERMAN SUPERSTATE:

EU MEMBERS TO DISSOLVE ARMIES

SURRENDER ECONOMIC POWER

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Germany is not the EU,

[nontabury]

why not vote out the biggest welfare case in history? Ask the Windsor's to cop a stroll first. Just their art collection alone would put food in everyones bellies for years.

Royal family costs each Blighty person £0.62 a year.

Yes, sixty two pence a year.

I promise to pay your share for the next ten years, less than the price of 10 fags (that's cigarettes Merkins, stop sniggering in the back).

I don't think Canadians pay anything.certainly not if they reside in Canada.

Edited June 28, 2016 by nontabury

[Boon Mee]

President of the EU Parliament Slams Britain For "Violating the Rules:" "It Is Not The EU Philosophy That The Crowd Can Decide Its Fate"

Democracy can't be left in the hands of the filthy commoners.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-27/president-european-parliament-it-not-eu-philosophy-crowd-can-decide-its-fate

[soalbundy]

President of the EU Parliament Slams Britain For "Violating the Rules:" "It Is Not The EU Philosophy That The Crowd Can Decide Its Fate"

Democracy can't be left in the hands of the filthy commoners.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-27/president-european-parliament-it-not-eu-philosophy-crowd-can-decide-its-fate

Law is decided by parliament, not by the whipped up emotions of the street. Article 50 may yet be rejected by the law makers. The chief legal expert in the UK has said that the referendum is only advisory, the law makers must decide what is in the best interests of the UK according to their knowledge and conscience.

[Boon Mee]

Heh...elities rage is all the thing now and will be for some time.

To wit: "...the consequences of it are likely to be dire. Ordinary people are effectively being told they're too dumb for politics. And democracy is being treated as a negotiable commodity that can be cast aside if we the stupid people make the wrong decision. This is a species of tyranny. The mask has slipped"

https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/27/elitist-rage-over-brexit

The people have spoken - throw the Bums out!

[Orac]

Is this a warning - got to admire his sense of humour!

Donald Tusk @donaldtusk

UK-Iceland 1-2. Winter is coming.

[soalbundy]

Heh...elities rage is all the thing now and will be for some time.

To wit: "...the consequences of it are likely to be dire. Ordinary people are effectively being told they're too dumb for politics. And democracy is being treated as a negotiable commodity that can be cast aside if we the stupid people make the wrong decision. This is a species of tyranny. The mask has slipped"

https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/27/elitist-rage-over-brexit

The people have spoken - throw the Bums out!

''How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think'' Adolf Hitler

[dick dasterdly]

You're implying that it is those that voted brexit who are now asking for another referendum?

Surely its FAR more likely to be those that lost the vote, rather than those who won?!

you could be right of course but many now who voted leave are having regrets, i think if a new referendum was held it would be remain that would win. A 50-50 decision in my opinion is not binding and that is basically what it was. Parliament has the last decision and they should have the balls not to invoke article 50. If two thirds had said out i would call that binding as sad as i would be about it. We could now lose Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland as well as the EU. Already warnings are being made to the Tory party not to reverse the workers rights that were given to them by the EU and Ukip has admitted that immigration by and large wont be stopped as imagined, the 'outs' have been sold a pigs ear and they are beginning to realize it. Rubber lips Boris for PM another horror scenario. That's what happens when beer sex and football are ones main interest in life.

If 52-48 is not a winning decision, why did the country accept 36.9% win for the conservatives at the last election?

The remain voters were so arrogant they would win they did not think to demand a specific percentage of votes to win. Too late after, both sides knew the rules. The vote should stand.

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

"elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades."

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

Edited June 28, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[ilostmypassword]

If 52-48 is not a winning decision, why did the country accept 36.9% win for the conservatives at the last election?

you could be right of course but many now who voted leave are having regrets, i think if a new referendum was held it would be remain that would win. A 50-50 decision in my opinion is not binding and that is basically what it was. Parliament has the last decision and they should have the balls not to invoke article 50. If two thirds had said out i would call that binding as sad as i would be about it. We could now lose Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland as well as the EU. Already warnings are being made to the Tory party not to reverse the workers rights that were given to them by the EU and Ukip has admitted that immigration by and large wont be stopped as imagined, the 'outs' have been sold a pigs ear and they are beginning to realize it. Rubber lips Boris for PM another horror scenario. That's what happens when beer sex and football are ones main interest in life.

The remain voters were so arrogant they would win they did not think to demand a specific percentage of votes to win. Too late after, both sides knew the rules. The vote should stand.

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

"elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades."

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

The referendum was not an election, "normal" or otherwise.

[soalbundy]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

[dick dasterdly]

If 52-48 is not a winning decision, why did the country accept 36.9% win for the conservatives at the last election?

you could be right of course but many now who voted leave are having regrets, i think if a new referendum was held it would be remain that would win. A 50-50 decision in my opinion is not binding and that is basically what it was. Parliament has the last decision and they should have the balls not to invoke article 50. If two thirds had said out i would call that binding as sad as i would be about it. We could now lose Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland as well as the EU. Already warnings are being made to the Tory party not to reverse the workers rights that were given to them by the EU and Ukip has admitted that immigration by and large wont be stopped as imagined, the 'outs' have been sold a pigs ear and they are beginning to realize it. Rubber lips Boris for PM another horror scenario. That's what happens when beer sex and football are ones main interest in life.

The remain voters were so arrogant they would win they did not think to demand a specific percentage of votes to win. Too late after, both sides knew the rules. The vote should stand.

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

"elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades."

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

The referendum was not an election, "normal" or otherwise.

So if the normal election rules were applied, the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

[dick dasterdly]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

Because it undermines even the happy belief of democracy.

There was a referendum that voted to leave the EU. Cameron says he accepts it, why are so many remain voters having a problem with respecting the referendum vote?

And please don't come up with the petition which has already been shown to have many fraudulent votes, not to mention the petition signers being 'remain' voters .

[mommysboy]

Britain's bitter pill is a recession, really contrived by the spiteful behaviour of the market nuts. But UK is just voluntarily going through what EU is going to go through in spades. If other world markets are being rocked it is because those markets have underlying structural problems.

[cumgranosalum]

you could be right of course but many now who voted leave are having regrets, i think if a new referendum was held it would be remain that would win. A 50-50 decision in my opinion is not binding and that is basically what it was. Parliament has the last decision and they should have the balls not to invoke article 50. If two thirds had said out i would call that binding as sad as i would be about it. We could now lose Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland as well as the EU. Already warnings are being made to the Tory party not to reverse the workers rights that were given to them by the EU and Ukip has admitted that immigration by and large wont be stopped as imagined, the 'outs' have been sold a pigs ear and they are beginning to realize it. Rubber lips Boris for PM another horror scenario. That's what happens when beer sex and football are ones main interest in life.

Surely its FAR more likely to be those that lost the vote, rather than those who won?!

If 52-48 is not a winning decision, why did the country accept 36.9% win for the conservatives at the last election?

The remain voters were so arrogant they would win they did not think to demand a specific percentage of votes to win. Too late after, both sides knew the rules. The vote should stand.

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

"elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades."

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

Duh no! - Elections are voted for constituency by constituency which results in seats in Parliament - Ironically it is parliament that has "sovereignty" in the UK not referendums.

[cumgranosalum]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

Because it undermines even the happy belief of democracy.

There was a referendum that voted to leave the EU. Cameron says he accepts it, why are so many remain voters having a problem with respecting the referendum vote?

And please don't come up with the petition which has already been shown to have many fraudulent votes, not to mention the petition signers being 'remain' voters .

Because wee live in a democracy where it is possible to argue our point - I have never been a supporter of Cameron, i'm a supporter of remain - and I'm fully aware of the status of a referendum in the UK - is is overruled by parliamentary sovereignty and although unlikely, they are perfectly entitled to ignore it completely (and I for one would vote for that). What I feel is more likely is that after a year or so of pointless negotiation the matter will be dropped or modified so it brings us back to a virtual EU membership except we won't have a say in how the internal EU is run any more- not exactly what you'd call a result for Brexit - just a huge mess the rest of us have to clear up.

[dick dasterdly]

If 52-48 is not a winning decision, why did the country accept 36.9% win for the conservatives at the last election?

The remain voters were so arrogant they would win they did not think to demand a specific percentage of votes to win. Too late after, both sides knew the rules. The vote should stand.

UK doesn't have a constitution, but in countries that do - and this is the equivalent of constitutional change - they normally require things like 2/3 majority to make any change - this is to prevent major decisions effectively reflecting less than half the nations people.

elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades.

it seems to a common practice amongst Brexiteers to base they judgments on current events only and not to look to the future either. I think many fail to grasp the permanence of a decision like this.

although an election isn't due until 2020, any earlier election will certainly draw candidates who will campaign against exit and to scrap the referendum. at present 3/4 of parliament are pro market - an election on those grounds could well chuck out the referendum result...on a less than 30% win for any party.

"elections are compelled to take place every five years - so the UK first past the post - whilst not actually ideal, has been to to work for several decades."

I'm obviously missing something here, as I thought that if voting was 'counted' the same way as in normal elections - the 'leave' vote would have been overwhelming?

Duh no! - Elections are voted for constituency by constituency which results in seats in Parliament - Ironically it is parliament that has "sovereignty" in the UK not referendums.

Ignoring the rudeness - if the same voting by constituencies rules applied, would the 'leave' vote have been overwhelming?

Edit - I ask as you brought it up in your post, the part I highlighted.

Edited June 28, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[mommysboy]

I've been looking at the various options that might be available in trade deals with EU. I thought I'd better do this, as nobody can really advise. Most of all the Brexiters themselves!!!

What strikes me immediately is that UK and EU are interdependent. This is important when considering the issue of tariffs, which are taxes levied on exports by the receiving country. The danger of imposing tariffs is that they get reciprocated. Thus if, say, the EU imposed a 30% tariff on UK car exports to the EU, then UK would likely impose a similar rate, or higher, on EU export of cars to the UK. Trade would be damaged all round. This would be particularly problematic for the German car industry which exports as much as 10% of its production to UK, and has a business interest in 50% of the very big UK car industry. This example might stand good for any number of sectors.

Contrary to popular belief UK most certainly does not have a whip hand in negotiations with the EU: simply because Britain needs an agreement more than the EU does. It's just a matter of size you see. Thus while EU benefits by being a net gainer in EU vs UK trade by a whopping 40 billion, this still represents a small percentage in EU terms, whereas 46% of UK exports go to the EU.

One other observation is that multi nationals would also have a big say. And they carry weight. To go back to the car example. BMW would be livid with both the UK and German Government if they hindered trade. It would be the same other big companies, hundreds of medium size companies, and tens of thousands of small businesses.

The WTO model. Quite simply no rules or agreement as such, but a right to trade. Things just kind of do or don't develop. These might include tariffs, but read as above as to why they might not be imposed, or may be low. It's a simple model and most importantly does not require negotiation. And means UK is free to negotiate with countries outside the EU free from EU regulations. It would also make a withdrawal from the EU much simpler and without conditions.

The 'Swiss' Model. A series of bilateral agreements, which may not be offered anymore as they took years to negotiate and were a nightmare; rather has the hallmarks of its parents then I would say.

The Norway Model. Single market model. This gives full access to the single market. Britain would join the European Free Trade Association. UK would need to make high contributions as now. Additionally it would have to agree to the free movement of labour. And adhere to EU specifications, eg, a size 1 egg must be such and such a height and weight. In return there is free trade for both parties. Crucially, it is granted by EU and can not be demanded. But there are significant advantages for EU too; an offer they would be mad to refuse in all honesty.

One of the UK's big cards is the city of London. Contrary to popular belief (including mine until very recently) it would not be decimated, in fact EU needs it. It is more than just access, UK has the best hard and soft infrastructure, expertise, an established customer base (the world basically) and every country needs to be there. Once again then there is a degree of interdependence only this time roles are reversed. EU could deny the UK so called 'financial passporting', but this is easily circumnavigated, and would undoubtedly result in harsh retribution.

Overall, it is 'I scratch your back if you scratch mine'. And the demands of commerce would likely ensure a mutually satisfactory solution in my opinion.

Bit late to research - you are also completely wrong on a few points, most notably London as a centre of finance - there is a thing called an "EU passport" for finance /stock brokers etc, this is issued by the EU and many companies are in London take advantage of this to trade within Europe.

It is estimated that as many as 3/4 million jobs would move - probably to Frankfurt if they don't renegotiate that deal

"Banks based in London rely on an “EU passport” to operate freely across Europe’s financial markets while having most of their staff and operations in the UK capital. But François Villeroy de Galhau, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank, warned that the City could no longer expect to enjoy a similar arrangement in the future." - guardian.

I was 'remain'. Note 'was'. I have learnt a lot since then. And the damage has been done so we may as well go. I wouldn't want associate status. I see the EU as an institution best kept at arms length.

The so called passport is easily circumnavigated, but granting of the licence would be very likely. The City of London is not reliant on Europe, which in any case needs it more. Frankfurt is a very poor second. It takes years to develop the eco-system that London offers, that's where it is, and that is where people want to be. One crucial factor is 'latency'- the speed at which things are done. Then there is price/costs. Then there is expertise, and even the language. It's generally accepted banking is over staffed/populated. The firms would be going anyway. They're just folding or downsizing I would guess.

I have also done further research in to tariffs. These are actually low, eg, 5-10% for cars. Access might be an issue for new products. But this is dirty tricks, and would likely provoke same reaction from UK.

Also, overall, 90% of GDP is non European. The temporary vacuum would in time be absorped by non EU trade.

Britain does not need EU, nor EU Britain. But when the nuts have done their worst, normal trade between friends and colleagues will go on. UK is actually very pro Europe, it's just the EU that is not liked.

Edited June 28, 2016 by mommysboy

[dick dasterdly]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

Because it undermines even the happy belief of democracy.

There was a referendum that voted to leave the EU. Cameron says he accepts it, why are so many remain voters having a problem with respecting the referendum vote?

And please don't come up with the petition which has already been shown to have many fraudulent votes, not to mention the petition signers being 'remain' voters .

Because wee live in a democracy where it is possible to argue our point - I have never been a supporter of Cameron, i'm a supporter of remain - and I'm fully aware of the status of a referendum in the UK - is is overruled by parliamentary sovereignty and although unlikely, they are perfectly entitled to ignore it completely (and I for one would vote for that). What I feel is more likely is that after a year or so of pointless negotiation the matter will be dropped or modified so it brings us back to a virtual EU membership except we won't have a say in how the internal EU is run any more- not exactly what you'd call a result for Brexit - just a huge mess the rest of us have to clear up.

Nothing wrong with arguing one's point - I was replying to your post asking "why be frightened of a second referendum", and pointing out that it makes a mockery of any idea of democracy.

[mommysboy]

President of the EU Parliament Slams Britain For "Violating the Rules:" "It Is Not The EU Philosophy That The Crowd Can Decide Its Fate"

Democracy can't be left in the hands of the filthy commoners.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-27/president-european-parliament-it-not-eu-philosophy-crowd-can-decide-its-fate

Law is decided by parliament, not by the whipped up emotions of the street. Article 50 may yet be rejected by the law makers. The chief legal expert in the UK has said that the referendum is only advisory, the law makers must decide what is in the best interests of the UK according to their knowledge and conscience.

You are right. The referendum is not legally binding. MP.s who are 70% pro Europe, could object if they think national interest is being jeopardized. Because of its implications for NI and ex-partner Scotland, it could be declared unconstitutional.

I believe if a snap election were held, the referendum would no longer be valid.

I am not sure if Parliament has any say over enactment of Article 50. Or who the person is that actually sends the letter or makes the enactment. The PM I guess. But clearly the present PM has no intention of triggering Article 50.

Edited June 28, 2016 by mommysboy

[Morch]

That kid's a complete tw@t!

He's also a "reporter" associated with Alex Joness infowars, prisonerplanet etc.

[mommysboy]

why be frightened of a second referendum ? If it really is the will of the people then even though they have seen the disaster unfolding before their eyes they would still vote leave

Because it undermines even the happy belief of democracy.

There was a referendum that voted to leave the EU. Cameron says he accepts it, why are so many remain voters having a problem with respecting the referendum vote?

And please don't come up with the petition which has already been shown to have many fraudulent votes, not to mention the petition signers being 'remain' voters .

The problem as I said earlier is not quantitative, it's more about quality. The result is sound for sure.

The result throws up an awful permutation really, that threatens to destabilize the UK. Not only was the winning margin slim, but Scotland and N.Ireland voted to Remain. This is not an election, which lasts up to 5 years. This is a consitutional matter.

It is not a binary issue.