WorkingMummy

Also v happy to confess to the ignorance, of not knowing what the hell that means. The answer to one game of Russian roulette, during which you drew back your hand as you pulled the trigger, thereby grazing your scalp but saving your life, is not to go in for another bloody round of the same game. I also think that in this very articulate, open minded, outward facing, broadly very prepared to listen and even alter our positions in response to one another community, there is a grave danger of overestimating the shape, size, and motive of "Regrex". Some people are realising that they were fed a load of oversimplified nonsense as slogans. That does not mean they are ready to vote for everything they just rejected outright. Anyhow to go back to the same single word I was using when debating Brexiteers one week ago, HOW? Another referendum HOW? For that you would need new legislation. And for that you need a government, and for that you need a Prime Minister. And for that you need HM the Queen to appoint a PM. And for that you (normally) need a general election - (so that the Monarch can follow the constitutional convention of appointing the leader of the party which won the most seats to be "her" PM to form "her government"). But this, this ain't normal You see, referenda just are not built into the DNA of our constitution. Thank god. So, as I say, however you cut it, whatever your "answer" is, first thing first, Queenie has to step in. She either appoints a member of parliament of her choice from those currently serving. Or she dissolves Parliament. Those are HER powers. Or she just lets it drag on to October while the Tory party (with a slender bloody mandate even in 2015 and no bloody mandate now) have an internal election. Like this is party politics as usual. jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WorkingMummy, that is an anti-dialectic fantasy. > The only way to confront the stupidity of the > self-evidence is to go with it twain (as the > prophet had it).

Think we agree on a hell of a lot. But plebiscites have been exposed for what they are. They produce stable and manageable results in a democracy like Switzerland, which was founded on federalism and a commitment to stay neutral in all European based matters of interest about 300 years. But that is not who we are in these islands. Call for a referndum next week on capital punishment, corporal punishment, any other firebrand topic if you don't agree. jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WorkingMummy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No way can this chaos be fixed by further > > referenda. > > > > Obviously Brexit is a disaster. Article 50 > tears > > up the infrastructure of the largest single > market > > on the planet. > > > > No more simple majority popular votes about > such > > things. Please. > > > > WorkingMummy we agree about the disaster. But you > are wrong about how to resolve the problem. The > trouble is that the referendum is perceived by > people as being 'democratic'. That is meaningless > (see John Dunn 'On Democracy') but it is > self-evident to BOTH exit and remain supporters. > The only way to undo that self-evidence is another > referendum: this time with reality biting. THEN > people will realise 1. in their interests to > remain 2. not to have undemocratic referendums > ever again. > > (the reason it is self-evident is that it was 'the > vote of the people'. so the premise is that the > people were a. well informed, 2. of sufficient > unanimity to form a stable will that would persist > until implementation of the new policy. The reason > it is undemocratic is that 1. the people were not > well informed 2. are already changing their minds > 3. are not allowed to express whatever their will > might be as new information unfolds).

No, shaunag. Way to think outside the box though. But the referendum is not legally binding. Only advisory. And article 8 can't be invoked re something which has not yet happened and is not even proposed yet. (EU citizens right to remain would be decided during article 50 exit negotiations.) And you can't outright strike down direct legislation (such as the Act which enabled the vote) by anything other than a new Act of UK parliament. Neither the domestic Human Rights Act nor the ECHR gives anyone any strike down power over UK legislation. shaunag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder if anything can be done regarding the > Referendum in the context that the outcome is in > Breach of Art.8 of the ECHR (right to a private > family life), given the effect it has on EU > nationals living in the UK which remains part of > the EU.

Blah blah I was too busy editing my own post to see your far briefer and better round up. I wonder if it needs to be someone above Westminster politics. The person needs to unite a complete mess. Sturgeon will obviously become hugely influential (as might Khan). Anyway this cannot be left to be sorted out by a Tory ballot. This is far above party politics. The Queen can in theory look to House of Lords. No clue who though. But it's that or GE (which probably makes national polarisation worse).

No way can this chaos be fixed by further referenda. Obviously Brexit is a disaster. Article 50 tears up the infrastructure of the largest single market on the planet. No more simple majority popular votes about such things. Please. The Swiss had a referendum in 2014 (triggered constitutionally by popular demand, not top down legislation) mandating their government to impose immigration quotas. Has the government of the highly rational, super-stable and most highly devolved political system in the world, owning the worlds top safe-haven currency, followed that mandate from its pissed off populace? No. And that would be because.....it would dismantle Switzerland's treaties with all EU nations. And this referendum was not even a binding mandate. It was "advisory"!! Joke! Ask advice on a question as huge to the world and as complicated in detail from an electorate who largely (and no doubt on both sides, but, nyahhhh, I'm guessing more on one than the other) has never informed itself upon basic questions such as: How free trade works. What the PM does. What the EU does. What the Queen does. Cameron can't bring about the parliamentary rejection of our advice, because he personally called for our advice. Sturgeon can't (although she says she wants to/wishes she could veto it) because she's not PM. But a new PM and Sturgeon-backed alliance could. The Queen needs to help DC out and appoint a new PM quick. A little like she nudged Gordon Brown along his way during (now oh so tiny) crisis of the hung parliament of 2010.

V happy to belittle: The often openly racist messages of Nigel Farage. The integrity of Boris Johnson. The ideology of Gove. Although strictly speaking, I feel the last of those is a BIG thing to disrespect, not a little thing. Also. The lack of government now is not the result of the "worst" of "remain". (There is no "remain" just as there is no "leave". Those are just slogans. Not organisations.) Cameron's resignation was inevitable, just look what happened to Salmoned after Scotland said no to his ballot. It was breathtaking for Boris to say it was DC's duty to stay. Leave spokespeople admitted having no exit plan at least once in live tv debate that I saw BEFORE we voted. It really is beyond me people are shocked. If you want to blame any one thing, perhaps blame the whole idea of putting an issue like this up for referendum at all. The electorate on both sides is largely uninformed about constitutional law, economics, EU law and sociology. Which is why the electorate is not the government and should never have been asked to issue "advice" to their elected representatives on the political, economic and social infrastructure of the largest land mass of humanity on the globe. I think Dave, George, Bor, they may have mustaken reality for the debating chamber of the jolly old Oxford Union. Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no, WM - that's not true. I think we've talked > about not belittling other's opinions. > > So we have racist 'Leave', Super Intelligent > 'Remain', Lazy 'couldn't make my mind up'..... > > let's not start on each other. > > If this has pulled out the worst of any side - > it's the worst of ALL sides - yes, Remain too. We > now have NO governemt. > > That woudl actually help. The fact our PM thought > it best to run away from responsibility doesn't > say much, does it. > > This is not about immigration (as that covers SO > many things) it's about the volume of people and > the pressure on Infrastructure. > > This is bordering on hysteria.

So, my direct personal experience in last 36 hours (me being a very pasty looking forever-on-this-island generation white woman who tries to be bi-lingual and has genuinely bilingual, European children whom I will sometimes address in German when English apparently falls on deaf little ears): Newly de-friended former face book friend, whom I've known from reception class at a south Croydon primary school sent me a meme of a WW2 statue of an allied soldier explaining to a group of children gathered at his feet, "This is what it was all for." Sister of above person (now blocked on fb) pm'ing me that the world was going to be shit scared now England (ha - she lives in Wales) is "rising up" to take back their country. (Those last four words she really did get from Farage.) You stupid bitch shouted at me yesterday near Peckham rye, by a thug on a bike (when I was calling out to my kids in German). But I don't know. Maybe he "just" meant I was an idiot to let my children stray so far.

And I agree with you Azira, about how no one shouting racist abuse is thinking "this shit is lawful now". They are just drunk on what they see as victory in a campaign which appealed directly to their inner racist.

Ahhhh - yes got it. Also 1998 = ref to Harrassment Act. Forgive me uncleglen. I had a dufus moment.

What uncleglen just said has made me weep. But then I thought maybe I misunderstood him. Then I re-read your post UG and realised I don't understand it all. So - Genuine Question - are you saying it would be OK to call me or my kids names or tell us to go home on the grounds you think we are German?

Part of the problem is that (as we were discussing on your thread) "Leave" is not really anything other than a slogan for disparate co-belligerents (some wanting to weaken their Tory colleagues in order to run for PM, some just naive and oversimplistic nostalgic old people who miss the 1960s because that's when they first had sex and yes, some out and out racists).

.

Oh and hear hear jaywalker.

Agreed Jules-and-Boy. But I really think only Buckingham Palace can do it. It's call a GE or appoint a new PM from existing MPs. (Could be anyone in theory. Could be a member of the Hoise of Lords and has been historically, at least once that I can think of off the top of my head.)

Azira Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > messageRe: There is no plan new > Posted by Jules-and-Boo Today, 05:45PM > > Can we officially call this after the dessert, > Eton Mess? > > > No, because if we learn anything from this whole > mess, it should be to be suspicious of simple > stories. Oooooo wise words. Azira, I don't know you. But please God, are you under 35? If so, please consider a career in public life.

Good one though. History A-level Q 2063: Discuss the Eton Mess and its role in the geo-political crisis of 2016-2019.

I don't draw conclusions about people's motives because that I believe is impossible. (Sometimes it's hard even fully to know your own...) But I agree - no leave plan. But they have always said it. Said to the PM on a live tv debate when they were asked. Spokesperson said "His problem". Which it is. Again, it is not Cameron's personal problem. Although you can blame Cameron personally - if you like - for calling a bloody 50% popular vote on the infrastructure of a big part of the global political and economic world, no one can escape the reality that planning and executing BREXIT for the UK is a task which only the government is constitutionally able to do. And leave is not a government. Or even an opposition party. It's simply a rag-tag of co-belligerents, with no common ideology and absolutely no policy. Leave is just a slogan. Even if BJ (or Gove) had had a plan, he'd be powerless to implement it because he is not PM. He is not the government. It's why this is a constitutional crisis now.

FFS! It's the first time in 40+ years that any P.M. has had to make any decision for themselves.. Brussels has done that for them... BOLLOCKS BOLLOCKS BOLLOCKS. The PM makes decisions every BLOODY DAY. The EU regulates certain aspects of commercial, labour and environmental life because it's a SINGLE BLOODY MARKET To name 5 randomn things out of a million. The PM or his government led by him can decide: - new measures to academise all schools. - effectively to abolish legal aid. - to change junior doctors working contracts. - to cut everyone's benefits. - to go to bloody war or bomb bloody Syria. He CAN'T abolish your two year consumer protection gaurntee, cut the EU's funding of certain relatively small things (like broadband provision to villages of a few tens of people in Cornwall), re-permit gender discrimination in the work place, or allow outdated and dangerous lorry cabs which pose threats to cyclists and pedestrians to be made contrary to EU standards, (although UKIP tried their hardest to allow him to do exactly that by voting against certain vehicle safety improvements proposed in the Euro Parliament a few years back.) But he RUNS the bloody country. And you do, have NO clue. Most of the country bloody doesn't. "What is the EU?" A popular internet search on FRIDAY 24th June. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > WorkingMummy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It't the first time in 40+ years that any P.M. > has had to make any decision for themselves.. > Brussels has done that for them... > > and > > No prime minister has done anything for 40+ > years without EU say so???? > > are not the same thing.. > > Under the E.U. the rules were laid down and the > any UK P.M had there hands tied. > Now they have to think for themselves. Makes it > more difficult . So Cameron resigns. > > > Foxy.

But he's right. It is not personal to Cameron. But it can't be "Leave". Leave does not exist, constitutionally. It's like the tooth fairy. "Leave" cannot issue instructions to Whitehall or meet EU negotiators and speak on our behalf.

Ok, Foxy. If you think that, you just demonstrated in a single post why the referendum should never have been held. No prime minister has done anything for 40+ years without EU say so???? Bollocks. You have no idea what either your government or the EU do. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course there is Panic and comfusion.. > > It't the first time in 40+ years that any P.M. > has had to make any decision for themselves.. > Brussels has done that for them... > > Now we just need to listen what the U.S tells > us.. > > Having The US and Brussels was like having 2 > Anti-Viruses on your P.C. Conflict. > > Foxy.

But for HM the Queen scenario planning won't do (and anyhow she's not allowed to do it). She can't have no effective PM (or one who can only mow the lawn) for the next 4 months of crisis. And it is crisis. Constitutional crisis. It is way bigger than the collapse of two political parties. Sturgeon is threatening to veto, (Queenie may have to have a quiet word and say she hasn't that power). And MPs are likely to start debating how to respond to the referendum itself - ie whether to ratify. None of that can happen with a lame duck ex PM in waiting, a vapourised chancellor and no alternative government about to be formed. She can't tell the government what to do but she is going to have to identify who the government currently is. jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well, could we not do some scenario planning? > > one possible course (all possibles currently being > a little difficult to get a grip on) is this: > > Tories in limbo next couple of months. > > Corbyn gets vote of no confidence this week. EU > leaders demand article 50 is invoked, UK refuses. > > Corbyn is re-elected by rank and file party > members, but does not have the support of more > than a rump of MPs (about 50 I think). > > Labour splits. Corbyn keeps labour party but > ceases to be leader of HM opposition. > > New centre left party, Umunna as leader if can be > persuaded, otherwise Cooper. New party almost > certainly becomes official opposition (no > elections necessary, MPs can and do just shift > party) and forms new shadow cabinet. Parliament > still has years to run. > > Tory leadership election: MPs give Teresa May big > majority over Boris. But final two candidates must > go to members: Tory members give Boris > overwhelming majority over May. > > Remain Tories refuse to serve under Boris. New > centre-right party formed under May. > > New government under Boris is refused supply by > parliament (or Queen cannot appoint him in first > place knowing no supply). > > EU begin to cancel opt-out privileges negotiated > by UK over past couple of decades. Very large > number of EU workers begin to arrive in UK before > we split. Signs of recession in real GDP become > apparent. Instability on financial markets. First > sign of significant inflation after collapse of > sterling: yet Bank of England feels forced to > print money wholesale to try to prevent recession > and preserve integrity of banking system. > Financial collapse threatens. > > > New govt of national unity formed by > centre-parties (Umunna, May) on condition of > electoral reform (otherwise centre parties, with > majority in parliament, would be swept away at > next general election). Actually of course, tory > party doesn't have to formally split here - the > new government can be non-party based, so Boris > would just be leader of a party and not himself in > government. New government says they will consider > invoking article 50 when the conditions seem > right.... but deteriorating economy makes it clear > that that time is not now. General Election > (possibly only in 2020). > > IF then General Election under new voting rules. > New coalition government announce they have no > immediate plans to invoke article 50 and begin > renegotiating the taken-away privileges. Economy > swiftly recovers if EU not itself in crisis by > then (significant elections there are in 2018). > > ELSE General Election under current rules. Huge > gains for far right in election. Centre MPs > squeezed out by first past the post. Capital > flight, inflation, chaos. > > I fear the worst. The big problem is that the rest > of the EU may start disintegrating. Then it is > Ruritania here we come.

...and Buckingham Palace is going to have to step in. Only question is if she calls a general election or simply appoints a new PM to get on with Brexit. She cannot leave an emasculated Cameron in place until the party conference, his successor (who will run Brexit) to be chosen by the whim of the Tory party. And she cannot leave her government without a rudder until the Autumn, when civil unrest is only one bad turn away.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We have some breaking news. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol > itics-36633244 > > The SNP is considering vetoing the entire > referendum result. > > Louisa. Brava! She is the only sensible candidate PM right now. I want to see what Buckingham Palace will do. Osborne has vapourised. We effectively have no PM. Almost all government has to be put on hold until this is sorted. Who does Liz treat as "her" PM?

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reason they want to delay triggering Article > 50 is because the two year time frame for exit put > the UK at a negotiating disadvantage. Even during > the campaign this was openly acknowledged. > > What Leave hope to achieve is informal agreement > on trade and other key issues before trigger > Article 50. In total they acknowledge it will > take at least 4 years to put in place the > agreements Britain needs. > > What the EU wants is for Article 50 to be > triggered and to only deal with issues covered by > article 50: citizens rights etc but NOT trade. > They are proposing only negotiating on trade after > the UK is out of the EU. The EU has come out and > explicitly stated they don't want the UK to use > the rights of their citizens living in Britain as > a bargaining chip during trade negotiations and so > they want them to be two completely separate > discussion happening in sequence rather than in > parallel. > > Trigger Article 50 basically guarantees than the > UK will leave the EU without a new trade agreement > unless all 27 countries grant and extension or if > the government adopts the Norway model. Yes but LM what that doesn't factor in (but BJ knows and is just sick about), is that my Auntie Masie and Uncle Stan did not vote for a Norway style settlement. Which means no lower immigration, less control over borders, we enter Schengen, Calais camps move to Dover, no veto on future EU expansion, goodbye Maggie rebate on contributions. They really, really wanted imaginary out out (so we magically carry on with exactly the same economy outside of the EU with no immigration) having no idea what real out-out meant. They heard Gove say, "Norway rocks and it is out!" But that was of course a huge deception by Leave and my dear Aunt and Uncle refused to listen to my sisters and I when we tried to explain this. They couldn't answer any of our points to them. They just started to talk about the German bombing of Coventary and what chocolate bars and bathroom cleaner used to called in 1973. I had exactly the same conversations on this forum (except people here just kept reverting to Control Control while steadfastly refusing to get specific about the chocolate bar naming EU changes they disliked). Boris has no mandate to make us Norway. There is no mandate for any 1) achievable and 2) desirable alternative to our current position.

Yes - I really like that comment, Jah Lush. I am no Tory, but I think the cries of Brexit voters now turning on Cameron and saying, "You never told us it would cost us this!!! It's your fault I voted that way - you weren't clear!" is a irony rich, self-diagnosis of the problem of "the populace". It is classic infantile behaviour. You demand control, make a bad decision, can't handle the consequences and so turn in anger on those who gave you control. Classic self-sabotage of a child. That self-sabotage may be one stage of maturity ahead of my uncles and aunts whose comments on my FB page are to the effect that they are glad they voted out because the EU made us change the name of Marathons to Snickers. But only just. And it is a far, far cry from the level of maturity actually required. Which is not for Regrexiteers to come on social media and rant about how badly misled they were. (Yes Gove is a xxxx and Farage is a tool and Boris is an opportunist. I am happy for your too-late enlightenment but the signs were all there, the warnings clearly issued, WE TOLD YOU. But you dismissed our words, as boring or as conspiracies.) And what is required is certainly not Remain voters petitioning for a second referendum. That request is sterile. Remain already had its say and was outvoted. It is those who are now Regrex who should be mobilising THEMSELVES like GROWN-UPs and publicly voicing: "We made a mistake. Please don't follow that "advice" we formally gave our elected representatives last Thursday." That's all you need to say. You don't need to self-flagulate. It's self-indulgent and annoying. And don't waste your moment of self-empowerment but blaming anyone else; you just infantilise yourself again if you do. Referenda have now been proven to be the bad idea that they always were. (Imagine a referendum next month on bringing back hanging or flogging.) But if Regrex were to stand together and voice those TWO magic sentences (and nothing else, please) then we could all begin to regain our security, our public life, and our dignity in the world. We could also start to talk about the things that really matter. Like saving the NHS, investment of our tax revenues in stimulus and preventing further bad-brain education. (None of which are EU matters, nor ever were.)