WorkingMummy

Lordship 516, I wish it were the same for my family. Only our children have dual nationality. Three adults contribute to their care and upbringing: one of us is British, one Swedish, and one Swiss/German. None of we adults has the right to live or work in each other's country other than via our membership of the EU. We haven't laughed very much since Thursday. We have received some nasty anti-German WW2-referenced memes in our inboxes though. And I have been called a "silly bitch" near the Rye, when speaking German to the kids. None of us was laughing then. I've read posts which question the link between Brexit and these anecdotal experiences of hatred. I am afraid I fail to follow. How could the "win" of a campaign driven by UKIP and fronted by Farage have any other effect? You can protest all you like that "concern about levels of immigration doesn't make you racist". Der! Of course it doesn't. But continually speaking about the EU as if it WAS an immigration problem; constantly talking the language of war (which Farage did continually, for years); continually appealing to people's innate, natural but nevertheless ugly sense of "otherness" (we are us, and we are of here and we belong; and "they" are them and they are from somewhere else, and they do not belong); continually building on a sense of tribalism, Britania Gloriana, a small island, little room to spare, better off without all of you lot out there. It all appeals to something which is latent and prehistoric and dark about humanity. Farage continually gives himself away as a bigot and a demagogue. Even if you had never heard him speak before, the language of his celebration speech on "independence day" (!) was a dead giveaway. I was in my kitchen, serving breakfast to my children, with the sound of the pound crashing to historic lows in the background, fighting back my tears of grief and worry, my heart breaking for my country and my family, when Nigel Farage's jubilant tones informed me that this was, "A victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people". The necessary implication is that half of the UK's voters are neither "real", nor "ordinary" nor "decent". That, is the language of denigration. It is the language of the hard right. It is the language of the human, and the sub-human. It is the language of the Third Reich. Fortuantely, Nigel Farage is about as likely as I am to become a national leader. So Britain will not become 1930's Germany. Thank God. But you cannot deny that many leave voters were with Farage, and accepted his message. They protested that he "was not racist" - for example - to say that we have to control immigration because just look at what happened to women assaulted by immigrants on the continent last week. No, not a racists, just a "truth teller". Many were ferociously inspired by all that. And now Leave has won, those people who really were FOR Farage (as opposed to perhaps just for Leave in some other guise) and who relished his hateful message of "otherness" are drunk on that "victory". You can hardly be surprised (nor should you laugh) that in the immediate wake of all that, someone feels empowered to shout out "stupid bitch" at a woman in the park who is doing nothing more 'indecent' than talking German to her children. I can very easily not take the insult of a thug personally. His insults say nothing about me. I hesitated whether even to share what occurred and I did try to shrug it off. But I am not going to laugh.

...continuing to talk tough. The EU is saying what the EU always said. Leave didn't listen. Half the voters of this country didn't listen. Or didn't care.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Forget it, we're 'post fact' now. Pfffhhaa! Yes exactly. "The markets have gone up since Thursday, and that is just my opinion!"

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to see formed a middle ground coalition > of remain > > They couldn't do anything about this silly > referendum but at least would fight an election. That is absolutely what i want very soon too. But I am only wondering if leaving Boris as PM to deal with the short term article 50 MESS, is the best idea after all. We will know a lot more once the EU officially speaks (I really hope, to confirm what it has always said. Article 50 is a divorce procedure, not a re-marriage.)

I agree that referenda are not exactly brilliant ideas. But they are routinely not followed. They are very rarely directly binding on any government and the government only needs to listen, not obey. Certainly not obey regardless. The French in 2005 (with a majority of 54.9%), the Dutch in 2005 (61.5%), the Swiss in 2014 (50.3%) and the Greeks in 2015 (61.3%) all returned referenda results against the EU, on issues going to the heart of what the EU is all about. None of them was acted upon. Not one. The relevant government declined to do so on the grounds that the result of the popular vote was against national interests. There are an even greater number of EU state referenda that have been re-held within a short space of time, for the same reason.

Funnily enough, I am wondering whether the most charismatic leader of the leave rag-tag campaign is now not the only person who can - and who jolly well should - be left to confront article 50, the likely hard line of the EU, and reconcile the electorate he deceived to the truth. Turns out, folks, the adage was right: cake, eat. I cannot after all, for all my expensive education and erudite turn of phrase, unilaterally impose new terms upon the single biggest market in the world. Don't know what I was thinking. Madness! Oh, and that thing about the recession - guffaw! Sorry! We are in one after all. And what I said about not needing the single market....well you know, golly now I am in charge, I realise, yes we do! We need it. We're staying. No one who campaigned for Remain can deliver this message. I am only worried how long it takes us to get there and what happens while we wait.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could we have a serious discussion about an > alliance with Scotland? We don't need a wall any > more than they do - states are always virtual not > geographical. The UK is clearly breaking up: why > should we stay part of atavistic Ruritania? Jaywalker, have you seen this from Khan? Issued a joint statement with the Mayor of Paris. Link to full article from which this is taken(Evening Standard), which is primarily about standing together against hate crime, is on the xenophobia thread. Message is: cities are now more important than countries. Interesting! "[Khan] and Anne Hidalgo, who was the first foreign leader to meet the new London Mayor, issued a joint statement stating that cities were now more important than countries in shaping the future. They wrote: "There is so much that unites our two great cities. Shared history, shared culture, shared challenges and the shared experience of being one of just a handful of truly global cities." Suggesting that the British referendum result would not have an adverse effect, they said: "Together, we can act as a powerful counterweight to the lethargy of nation states and to the influence of industrial lobbies. Together, we can and will shape the century ahead."

Agree absolutely. With Lou, Loz and nxjen. Nick Clegg was crucified for selling out on tuition fees. When all he did was compromise with the god awful situation he was in, being in a national-interest coalition with an austerity party, and restrain the worst of Tory excesses. Makes him a good politician, not a bad one.

And Otta, no one "accepted the question" by ticking one of the only two boxes presented. And, no, I didn't think remain would win. I exhausted myself campaigning (even though I thought the whole exercise nuts) and had too much first hand experience of the irrational steadfastness of core leavers, and the confusion of people genuinely open to listen and wanting to make an informed choice. A big part of the problem was the issue is something - please don't think I am being patronising - but it is an issue you need a law degree, Whitehall experience and a strong grasp of economics OR at least one of those and access to experts in the other two fields to understand. I have practiced public law for 20 years, often appear against the government in court and occasionally advise the government on statutory interpretation. And I didn't know how article 50 worked without revisiting the Lisbon treaty (you know, reading it) and checking a couple of commentaries. This is why we have a government. Because policy decisions like this are hard and messy to understand and even more tricky wisely to form. The idea it could be decided by "ordinary decent people" in a straw poll is just...nuts. I am bracing myself for accusations of being a middle class wanker. But I say as I find. Am never going to put out to popular vote a decision whether I need life saving surgery any time soon either. I'm happy to leave decision making to people who actually know what is involved. People were done a great disservice by being led to believe this issue was black/white, or no big deal. Or that it all came done to whether you felt European or not (the number of times I shouted at my radio when bbc journalists spouted that crap line.)

Otta, I totally agree. Second referendum would be wrong. My current hope is that a leave campaigner does become PM and slowly slowly has to reconcile the people HE hoodwinked to the position that, actually, it was a mistake, not really doable. Soz! I also hope the EU sticks to its guns and to what it always said: you can't divorce us and remarry us at the same time. Because that makes Brexit impossible. It calls the bluff on all the people, in Westminster and in the street, who said - who were actually deluded and detached enough to imagine - we could "take control" of an entire bloody continent, and 27 different legal systems other than our own, in one fell swoop.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One of the most depressing things about this is > that EVERYONE is going to end up disappointed. > Those that voted remain are already gutted and > trying to think of ways they can reverse > democracy, and those that voted leave are going to > end up with something VERY different to what they > dreamt of. > > A few rich people will remain rich, the rest of us > a screwed. It isn't a reverse of democracy to treat as merely advisory, an advisory referendum, which posed a simple black and white choice on a very complicated and poorly understood question, with enormous ramifications. Especially when the question split the country almost 50/50. Especially when the question demonstrated massive divisions between different demographics (young/old, regions, etc). Especially when some of the most profoundly affected members of our society were excluded from the vote (16/17 year olds, EU citizens who have lived here for decades). Especially as people are only now finally waking up to the fact that remain was not a position based on fear, but on reality. Especially as people only began to think through clearly what the consequences of their advice to their government would be (if actually acted upon) after their votes were cast and they confronted the reality they were always warned about. That is how policy formation works. You have an idea, you think about it, maybe take a show of hands (usually in cabinet, not usually in the street), and then you sit down to do it. And when you sit down to do it, sometimes the reality of the situation forces you to change your idea. Happens every day. John Major came out of retirement to speak live to the nation about what would happen if Brexit actually happened. He told us all, you are being lied to. So did Nick Clegg, many others. The voting public had the right to ignore that very wise advice which came from - you know - people who actually know how the hell free trade, economics, social policy, our relationships with the EU, actually work. They were perfectly free to ignore those warnings and vote out for whatever very sensible or completely idiotic reason they like. But ultimately it is the government that is there to govern. It is not there to do as we say. We got to ignore John Major. Now the government (whenever it is formed, however long it takes to actually talk through deals with eu etc etc) gets to make its decision and it may in the end ignore us. Thank god.

George Osborne just kicked article 50 even further into the long grass. Said only U.K. Can trigger it. Current administration won't trigger it. It should never be triggered until (he didn't say unless and until but I'm sure that is what he means) plan is all put together and new deal clear and agreed. Economy will be volatile and dip in meantime. Fiscal measures and cuts likely to be necessary but wait until Autumn statement for that.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely if Article 50 already allows for Govts > to use it, they don't need an Act to go down that > road? > > (Seriously, I've been lacking on sleep lately so > it's possible I'm being really thick about this, > but nowhere have I seen anything that said > Parliament needed to be consulted. Very happy to > be wrong about it) Triggering article 50 is the perogative of the government (international relations and treaty formation/conclusion always are). Legally a PM does not need legislation to do it. Practically speaking though, for a move as big as article 50, the government needs a mandate. They could have debated it in parliament and then voted on a motion. They chose to legislate the EU Referendum Act 2015 instead. So we all had our say. The result has no legal effect. But it is an expression of will. Now. Cameron had a mandate to use his executive powers and invoke Article 50. But he has declined to do it. Any everyone else is rapidly realising that article 50 is suicide and they don't want to do it either, after all. Whoever is the next PM, he/she will need a mandate to invoke it. And given the events of the last few days, may resort to legislation and parliamentary debate to try to avoid pushing the nuclear button that is Article 50. Alongside this, because ultimately in our constitution Parliament is sovereign, Parliament can (and might) table a bill without government support, aimed at either blocking article 50 or triggering article 50 themselves. So, loads going on.

Yes, Blah Blah is right. When i said PM push the button, what I should have said was, PM/government propose legislation that would - if passed by Parliament (both houses) - invoke article 50. And there is a risk that parliament will refuse to pass article 50 legislation - as some MPs have already said they will. The referendum was not a plebiscite (not people made law). It was just supposed to be advice to our MPs.

Until any candidate sets out his or her position on clause 50, i can't see they are even a candidate for anything at all. That is the only question.

Lou, Boris is just, god knows. He has no power to say what will happen. Just as he had no power to promise you no recession. He is probably hoping he can somehow back peddle to remain. Article 50 is the only power any new PM will have left. Do I push the button or do I not? Once he pushes that button, all the power will pass to the EU to say what our terms of exit are. And those terms will be restricted to allocation of our contributions in the interim period (post trigger pre departure), and what happens to EU citizens living in the UK (and UK citizens living in the EU). Then we leave the EU. If we don't like the terms offered on those limited topics (which is all clause 50 is about), they get to impose their proposals on us by a majority vote (which obviously we get no vote in). Free trade, free movement of persons, all of that, goes, after the clause 50 trigger process ends and we exit. Clause 50 does not entitle the EU to give us a trade deal. That's a whole other process which they have already said they will not do in parallel. (Hard to see how they could, legally or pragmatically. And anyhow, they won't, because they don't want us using their citizens over here or our limited future contributions as bargaining chips in any re-entry process. So the processes will be separate. All that posturing by Farage, Boris, blooming Dyson, about how easy and quick and inevitable a new trade deal would be, was men having a pissing contest in a urinal. That is all that was.) When, and only when, we are out, do we get to add our name to the list of countries who want to join the EU. Which may not even happen. And if it does, we have no power to dictate terms of re-entry - zero.

Meanwhile, Hollande and Merkel announce that they are in agreement as to how they are going to handle the exit process. And the pound continues to crash. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36636853

Cracking!! He vows what? Which side was he on? And he is in ??? what kind of position (by which I mean, not moral position, but actual position as a bank bencher) to give this reassurance? Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037 > > More breaking news. Boris confirms EU co operation > will begin immediately. > > Louisa.

Hmmm... Bojo v May. Yes and maybe it will all just be allowed to run on and descend to party politics of a barely in the majority ruling party with no mandate left post 23.6.16. A general election now would hardly bring everyone together. Golly. Can't we call him BJ? Just, suits him so well. That's what all of this quite possibly was for him. A great, big, BJ.

JW i agree with your philosophy as you set it out there, 100% thank you for explaining it to me. It would not be a constitutional crisis for the Queen to step in to perform the function that as head of state is hers to perform. There is precedent for this kind of thing. It is not a million miles away from telling Brown that he could not continue to serve on after the GE of 2010 threw up a hung parliament and the libs did not at first agree to form a coalition with anyone (as he said he was going to in the first few days). The power to appoint a PM is hers. The power to dissolve parliament and call a GE is hers. She would normally take that step "on the advice of her ministers". But when there are no ministers, or they are all acting like tools, or where the mandate of a government is dissolving or being misused in some fundamentally unconstitutional way, there is precedent for very carefully managed intervention. (See the 1950 intervention of George VI when the PM of a newly elected hung parliament that wasn't functioning said that he (the PM) would keep calling general elections until people returned an outright majority that someone could actually work with. Private Secretary to George VI wrote to the Times under an obvious pseudonym to remind the PM that he served at the leisure of His Majesty and that Parliament was not his to dissolve, but the King's. This is a rare example of the head of states assertion of prerogative, taught to first year law undergrads up and down the country.) This is actually her moment to remind people what a constitutional monarchy is for. Exceptionally difficult though. Way bigger than the crisis of 1950.

I agree, Loz. She is completely untainted. And has carried herself so well. She is really going to come into her own. I am not predicting it will happen but I would bet money that the Queen is currently being counselled as to whether, post devolution, her constitutional prerogative to appoint a PM allows her to choose one from the Scottish Parliament (or Welsh assembly). Obviously such a step might well enrage Ruritania and is therefore probably out of the question. But her constitutional advisors will be drawing up all options lists. And if you translate the referendum result into a first past the post GE (which normally dictates choice of PM), she probably does lead the single biggest party. Farage, Gove, Boris, always split "Leave", and now are in shambles. Ditto Tories and Labour. Libs no parliamentary presence at all. So if you award popularity points to political parties as well as you can looking at the 48.1/52.9 split, who do you look to first?

Nicely played, Foxy. Thereby proving ???? wrong - AT THE VERY LEAST - about the lack of charm. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Don't bother with Fox - he's our Forum Village > > Idiot, with none of the charm. > > yep. True... I used to live at the very top of > Dunstans Rd. Op. Dawson Heights. > > The Fool on The Hill .. Thats me. > > Fox

It has made me personally realise that the secret pipe dream I had of running a guest house in the South West one day, was always just that, a silly pipe dream. In other words, it has made me very happy to live in London. I will of course be dreaming of taking semiretirement in Scotland from now on.

I agree, devsdev (thank you) but am also so proud and happy to live in London. The thug who shouted at me was cycling past, and I am small, and I was alone. He knows he is surrounded in London by people who would leap to my defence if they had heard him. Honestly, I didn't even take it personally, and hesitated to share it at all. But I do think that it is a sign of the inevitable, well warned, well predicted, empowerment of the far right, at home and abroad (see Le Pen, Trump's responses) that Leave always was going to bring about. (For clarity, i am not for a moment suggesting that this was the intention of all or even most Leave voters.) WM x devsdev Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jesus christ...and we're in London!!! I'm sending > all of you hugs. I've been called a paki only once > and my honest to god reaction was "no, I'm > Indian"...and then I realised he was being racist. > But now it seems I can look forward to this in our > own little enclave where over 70% voted remain. It > is so heartbreaking.

But jaywalker there is no "leading" politician at the moment. See my response to your dialectic, whatever, your saying I am fantasising on the petition thread. I am not fantasising, by the way, but trying to explain the way our constitution works. jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sky News this hour reporting multiple incidents of > racism in London, as relayed already by many on > this Forum. No leading politician has yet said > anything about this - it is a disgrace.