Author Topic: Brexit  (Read 17263 times)

Offline gwiz

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
Re: Brexit
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2016, 06:08:41 AM »
Cameron didn't have the majority to call such a referendum prior to the 2015 general election.
This was because, although he was Prime Minister, he was in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are strongly pro-EU.
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett
...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: Brexit
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2016, 06:51:01 AM »
An interesting comment that's doing the rounds:


If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: Brexit
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2016, 06:52:29 AM »
And I thought that this piece from AA GIll pretty much sums up those that voted to kick the country in it's own nuts:

AA Gill
June 12 2016, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times

It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”

It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”

Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.

We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.

The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.

And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.

All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.
There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.

The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.

Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.

Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”

When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”

Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.

You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.
Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.

The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.

There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.

The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.

Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?

I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in."
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Brexit
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2016, 07:49:46 AM »
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

There are some elements of truth in this. I think BOJO and Mr Gove have realised they have unleashed forces that they cannot possibly control, and talking up the reigns of the Conservative Party will be a poison chalice. However, I do not think it will lead to the nullification of the referendum, unless it triggers an election an a new progressive left learning government nullify its results, but then they would have to make that clear in their manifesto, and that would probably not get public support.

The only hope for this to be reversed is for the young to mobilise and vote this crowd out, but we need another 10 years to see a shift in the demographics, such as in Scotland and the SNP vote. The result is not a vote about the EU, it's about disgust and distrust in the political class, and it would take a huge shift in voting to reverse the result in what we think is an imminent general election.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 08:15:47 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Brexit
« Reply #49 on: June 26, 2016, 08:14:40 AM »
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.

Parliament would be dissolved, it would be unconstitutional to hold a referendum when no party has a legitimate mandate to deliver policy.

Further, had Labour won the 2015 election and a referendum delivered the same result, Labour would have ignored the result. The referendum is only advisory, so a pro-European Labour party would not pay it lip service.

OK, but our Parliamentary Democracy is based on your Westminster system (the only thing absent is the Upper House), and yet we regularly have Referenda at the same time as our General Elections, eg

1990 (electoral period 3 or 4 years)
1993 (electoral system FPP/MMP)
2011 (electoral system MMP/STV/FPP/SM)

One small difference. We have a Queen. When a Prime Minister dissolves parliament, (s)he in effect ends the business of HMG which is delivered through the Queen's speech. Parliament is sovereign, so trying to shape legislation after telling the Queen that her government is dissolved would be utterly unconstitutional. Take the two scenarios:

1) A referendum is called after dissolution.
2) A referendum is called during a sitting Parliament and then parliament is dissolved for the GE.

Both are unconstitutional as the government could be seen to be doing business when parliament is dissolved, business that could sway the result of a general election. The government deliver on the Queen's speech in which the Queen expressly refers to my government and what it will deliver. That speech is the ratified by a vote in Parliament. If rejected it triggers a GE.

Once parliament is dissolved the Queen's speech is effectively in the bin as there is no legislative Government. So, conducting government business to shape policy without a sitting sovereign government is unconstitutional.

That’s how it should be too. A referendum on the same day as GE day could potentially alter turnout based on a single issue rather than cross party manifesto pledges. For instance, a sitting party could introduce a referendum to repeal capital punishment. An issue such as that could affect the outcome of the GE. Further, given that referendum is not legally binding, it could be simply voted down in the next parliament.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 10:12:13 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline darren r

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: Brexit
« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2016, 04:21:36 PM »
And I thought that this piece from AA GIll pretty much sums up those that voted to kick the country in it's own nuts:...............


I normally view AA Gill as a pompous stuffed shirt who regards anything North of Cockfosters as a culture-free wasteland but I've got to take hat my off to him here. He's spot on.
" I went to the God D**n Moon!" Byng Gordon, 8th man on the Moon.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Brexit
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2016, 04:26:13 PM »
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.

Parliament would be dissolved, it would be unconstitutional to hold a referendum when no party has a legitimate mandate to deliver policy.

Further, had Labour won the 2015 election and a referendum delivered the same result, Labour would have ignored the result. The referendum is only advisory, so a pro-European Labour party would not pay it lip service.

OK, but our Parliamentary Democracy is based on your Westminster system (the only thing absent is the Upper House), and yet we regularly have Referenda at the same time as our General Elections, eg

1990 (electoral period 3 or 4 years)
1993 (electoral system FPP/MMP)
2011 (electoral system MMP/STV/FPP/SM)

One small difference. We have a Queen. When a Prime Minister dissolves parliament, (s)he in effect ends the business of HMG which is delivered through the Queen's speech. Parliament is sovereign, so trying to shape legislation after telling the Queen that her government is dissolved would be utterly unconstitutional. Take the two scenarios:

1) A referendum is called after dissolution.
2) A referendum is called during a sitting Parliament and then parliament is dissolved for the GE.

Both are unconstitutional as the government could be seen to be doing business when parliament is dissolved, business that could sway the result of a general election. The government deliver on the Queen's speech in which the Queen expressly refers to my government and what it will deliver. That speech is the ratified by a vote in Parliament. If rejected it triggers a GE.

Once parliament is dissolved the Queen's speech is effectively in the bin as there is no legislative Government. So, conducting government business to shape policy without a sitting sovereign government is unconstitutional.

That’s how it should be too. A referendum on the same day as GE day could potentially alter turnout based on a single issue rather than cross party manifesto pledges. For instance, a sitting party could introduce a referendum to repeal capital punishment. An issue such as that could affect the outcome of the GE. Further, given that referendum is not legally binding, it could be simply voted down in the next parliament.

No, its not a difference. The Queen is our head of state as well, but since we are 12,000 miles away, we have a Governor General who is the Queen's representative in New Zealand. The Governor General performs ALL of the same duties with regards to Parliament that the Queen does for you., so you would think that all of the arguments you make for not having a referendum during a General Election ought to apply here, but they don't.

 
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Brexit
« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2016, 08:40:05 PM »
No, its not a difference. The Queen is our head of state as well, but since we are 12,000 miles away, we have a Governor General who is the Queen's representative in New Zealand. The Governor General performs ALL of the same duties with regards to Parliament that the Queen does for you., so you would think that all of the arguments you make for not having a referendum during a General Election ought to apply here, but they don't.

Being a representative and performing the same duties are not comparable to her sovereign power here in the UK. She's your head of state, but the Queen is conventionally bound to the Lords through her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, where the CofE is represented in the Lords by the Lords Spiritual. That's the first major difference, and that difference is fundamental to the relationship between the common people, the Lords and the monarch. It underpins conventions that are unique to the UK.

Since New Zealand ratified the Statute of Westminster 1931 with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 in 1947, the British Crown and New Zealand Crown are  legally distinct. The remaining role of the British parliament was removed by the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 and the Statute of Westminster was repealed in its entirety.

New Zealand (along with other colonies) have long since been granted responsible governments. Since the Statute of Westminster 1931, the governors-general acting solely on the advice of the local ministers, and generally they are the ones who secure the passage of bills. Therefore, they are unlikely to advise the sovereign or his or her representative to withhold assent. Royal assent is deferred locally on advice of your local ministers because New Zealand have been granted responsible government. By equal measure it would also be unconstitutional for the UK Government to interfere in the business of New Zealand when Royal Assent has been deferred to the Queen's representative. So yes, she might be your Head of State but you have a different relationship with the monarch to us in the UK.

In general we let you get on with ruling yourself. I believe there are exceptions in recent history, with NZ and your neighbours across the Tasman Sea. So while the Queen is Head of State, define what that means in terms of her relationship between NZ governance and UK influence of that governance. She is rather a figure head nowadays.

Further,  our constitution is unwritten and is really a series of conventions that are enshrined by our culture, history,
church and politics. An act of parliament cannot be overturned by the courts as the act of parliament is supreme (so I understand). There is also the Salisbury convention which outlines the relationship between the Lords and how they vote on proposals outlined in the  government's manifesto. It is like having a gentlemen's agreement, but we take the relationship between the commons, Lords and Queen as sovereign. The major difference between us and NZ is that we have the upper house, so we have a unique relationship between the commons, the Lords and the monarch, thanks to Cromwell and Charles 1.

So back to your question:

Firstly, the Conservatives could not have held a referendum at the last election as it had not been passed as an Act. It so happened that proposals for a Referendum Act were outlined in Conservative Manifesto as it had been passed as a Bill by the previous coalition government. This allowed Cameron to promise a referendum during the his second term.

Secondly, if you want to have a referendum, you needed to have it outlined in a manifesto to get past the Lords. You cannot just call it at a GE, as that would be unconstitutional.

Thirdly, if you have a referendum on your manifesto and pass the vote as an Act of Parliament, it would make you an ineffective PM if you held it during a GE. Hanging around with a manifesto pledge for 5 years, when a new government could simply refuse to enter it onto the statute books as an act would be nonsense. It makes no sense to have a referendum during a GE when we have a 5 year fixed parliaments or GEs that used to come around every 4 years. You need to have the referendum and then use it to shape policy, and that needs to occur during the parliamentary term before another party takes office.

Finally, and linked into the last post, you cannot dissolve Parliament and then carry on conducting government business when there is effectively no government. That is unconstitutional. Especially now that parliaments have a fixed term and you are working beyond that term. I am fairly sure Elizabeth would not be amused as it would be an abuse of sovereign authority. I know that when I was working for the Government, decision making stopped during a GE as there was no executive power. Carrying out a referendum after a parliamentary term would be a unilateral act without consent of the Queen, as she has no government. On who's behalf are you acting? I would go as far as suggesting that it would be an act of treason, but that it my naïve and ill qualified judgement rather than deep legal knowledge .







« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 08:54:46 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: Brexit
« Reply #53 on: June 27, 2016, 10:15:28 AM »
IMO, and I don't have a horse in the race, I believe that status quo will win out.  The devil you know versus the devil you don't know.

I guess my intuition was dead wrong, and I did have a horse in the race, my stock portfolio has suffered by about 3-4%. >:(
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Brexit
« Reply #54 on: June 27, 2016, 10:22:35 AM »
Maybe you could have words with Canada and see if they'd like another province? Put in a good word for us. We come with Turks and Caicos and Bermuda as well and I know they've been eyeing them for a while.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Brexit
« Reply #55 on: June 27, 2016, 01:33:51 PM »
On behalf of Canada, welcome aboard!
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: Brexit
« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2016, 04:01:55 AM »
I guess my intuition was dead wrong, and I did have a horse in the race, my stock portfolio has suffered by about 3-4%. >:(

3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline gwiz

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
Re: Brexit
« Reply #57 on: June 28, 2016, 07:02:08 AM »
3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.

The markets tend to make some allowance for uncertainty, so if the vote had gone the other way there would have been an equivalent rise in both shares and the pound.
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett
...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3108
Re: Brexit
« Reply #58 on: June 28, 2016, 07:15:48 AM »

3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
That was before yesterday another 3% tacked on at the end of the day.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
Re: Brexit
« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2016, 07:19:14 AM »

3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
That was before yesterday another 3% tacked on at the end of the day.

A buying opportunity then  ;D
I've just stuck a couple of £K on Barclays....could be worth a bounce.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov