Quote: billwill @ 1st July 2016, 11:26 PM BST

>As a precedent, a referendum on trade and on immigration opens the door to referendums

The precedent is already set. We already had a referendum on trade (though the immigration aspect was glossed over) the basis of the 1975 referendum, was

We joined without publishing the terms for the population to see, these are the terms now vote on whether we stay in the EEC or leave it.

View original

That wasn't the specific question, though, which referred to whether we remained a part of the EEC.

The "C" alongside the middle "E" is important as it emphasised it was a community as well as economic, ie a community whether or not it is mainly based on trade is political or at least in that case it was - what was clear was it would be political to the point of needing new EEC elections in Britain and that is absolutely constitutional.

Can I add I was never a Blairite. That may sound muddly but I didn't identify with it and blame him for a lot.

Blair? He wasn't involved then, methinks.

I did try to simplify the 1975 referendum above but here are the actual words of the government pamphlet.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#front

The exact question asked was not in the pamphlet, this is the closest bit.

You will get a ballot paper, and be asked to mark the ballot paper in one of two clearly marked places, in order to record a Yes or No vote about Britain's continued membership of the European Community (Common Market).

Quote: billwill @ 2nd July 2016, 1:07 AM BST

Blair? He wasn't involved then, methinks.

I did try to simplify the 1975 referendum above but here are the actual words of the government pamphlet.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#front

The exact question asked was not in the pamphlet, this is the closest bit.

View original

Yes I know Blair was simply a long haired Ugly Rumour then - I was just clarifying that when I talk about the Centre or Centre Left in terms of myself (and the Centre bit has a fair slice of Right too) that isn't Blairism in my book. I recognise that some people see Blairism in those terms because they haven't known anything else.

Yes, the actual question was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" If we are going to get technical about it, that reference to "European Community" rather than "European Economic Community" is rather odd seeing that the referendum was in 1975, the EEC existed from 1957 to 1993 and the EC (European Community) did not replace the EEC until 1993. (All of this precedes the EU). (The term "the Common Market" was the semi-official byword for the European Economic Community (EEC)).

I assess that the question was worded in the way that it was worded - ie without the word "Economic" - to help the referendum to be lawful at that time, ie if the word "Economic" had been included then people could have said "Oh, this is not about a community. It is about an economic community. Consequently it is not about the British constitution at all and it's all about economics. Referendums are only for constitutional matters. The referendum, therefore, must not take place". Wilson would have wanted to avoid that sort of whinge, given that much like Cameron later he called it mainly to address internal party problems. It was the first all-national referendum.

Now, in fairness to you, I will backtrack on my previous point that the referendum was directly linked to the introduction of a new set of (European) elections because they didn't commence until 1979. That was in some ways a constitutional change that wasn't put to the public in a referendum. BUT the bigger point is surely that in 1975 there was a greater constitutional matter than elections to be endorsed (or not) by the public which was a shift of power in 1973 towards the Council of Ministers etc, a pooling arrangement involving the 9 members including UK even if there was a national veto. That change in procedural decision making was political beyond the narrower economic/trade remit and it was what was meant of Britain being in a, quote, community of nations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-CtQygIDFE

A lot of 'Remainers' are talking about another referendum, and 'Leavers' are saying it's not best of three, but regardless of who's right, is there any rule outlawing such a thing within any particular time period?

Quote: Nogget @ 2nd July 2016, 1:44 PM BST

A lot of 'Remainers' are talking about another referendum, and 'Leavers' are saying it's not best of three, but regardless of who's right, is there any rule outlawing such a thing within any particular time period?

View original

There is not.

It is, however vanishingly unlikely.

I can't imagine any government calling another Brexit referendum in the next 25 years.

However, the referendum is merely advisory.

The government (at the time) may put it to a Commons vote before invoking Article 50. This is more likely now that Gove/Boris are gone and will probably be in the Labour manifesto in the unlikely event of an early General Election.

I think it would be foolish to think of Brexit as a foregone - rather than being 75% likely.

Quote: JohnnyD @ 2nd July 2016, 4:22 PM BST

I can't imagine any government calling another Brexit referendum in the next 25 years.

However, the referendum is merely advisory.

The government (at the time) may put it to a Commons vote before invoking Article 50. This is more likely now that Gove/Boris are gone and will probably be in the Labour manifesto in the unlikely event of an early General Election.

I think it would be foolish to think of Brexit as a foregone - rather than being 75% likely.

View original

I have taken 8/1 that Article 50 is not invoked in either 2016 or 2017.

I doubt if a50 will ever be invoked.

Boris never thought he would win (just a Bullingdon jape) and he subsequently viewed PM as a poisoned chalice.

There'll be some compromises from Brussels on immigration/free movement, but not sovereignty. The new agreement will be put to the people in a General Election with both Labour and Conservative supporting Remain.

UKIP's one MP disowned them on Question Time this week.

Don't Panic!

How about a referendum to see how many people want another referendum. I suppose the losing side will contest the result of that. What part of democracy do these people not understand?

Bugger democracy. I want to be Dictator of Britain. I'd show them. Put the Queen in a sink housing estate surviving on a state pension ;Charles could have a pensioner job in B & Q; take Cameron's millions and give them to the poor with him working on the bin lorries with attendant wage; deport Boris because of his immigrant ancestors; slap Farage in jail with bread and water rations because he's a total arse; and .... need I go on?

Quote: keewik @ 2nd July 2016, 8:50 PM BST

Bugger democracy. I want to be Dictator of Britain. I'd show them. Put the Queen in a sink housing estate surviving on a state pension ;Charles could have a pensioner job in B & Q; take Cameron's millions and give them to the poor with him working on the bin lorries with attendant wage; deport Boris because of his immigrant ancestors; slap Farage in jail with bread and water rations because he's a total arse; and .... need I go on?

View original

Art 50 will be invoked.

I've drawn up a list of reasons why I think it is right not to do it before the end of this year:

Need to have the Civil Service prepared for both the new PM and EU negotiations.
Shouldn't do anything too soon that seriously causes problems for our economy.
International security arrangements need to be adapted/boosted in light of Brexit.
Shouldn't do anything that could affect US election and its result, ie wobbly markets.
Would be helpful to us, US and global markets to know who the new US President is.
Need time to see changes in other EU countries - attitudes, elections, referendums.
Need to have a picture of immigration patterns following the Brexit decision.
Must consider how informal global trade talks could be held given constraints.
Need to think through procedures re WTO option as that's not an automatic default.
Taking time before negotiations will put more pressure on EU to compromise.

Those who want concessions on Freedom of Movement stand more chance of having a better result by UK playing the long game. If the EU can take 7 years to agree a Canadian deal, then it can wait several months for this!

Exactly, give them a taste of their own crap. It took us 9 years and cost millions to deport a single terrorist suspect because of them and our loss of sovereignty. The EU is the nanny from hell that other member countries now want to be free from, read the news, remainers, several are planning their own refs in glee at our brave decision. Once again Great Britain leads the way. Rule Britannia doo doo diddle diddle doo...

The thousands who threw a mass strop in London yesterday just do not get what a monstrosity the EU is. They can't be working where they get their hands dirty because most of us who do have seen their income plummet because of the free movement of mass cheap labour.

Londoners eh? More interested in what latest fashion trend to latch onto and being cosmo than the plummeting quality of life of their own country's people outside the big bubble. >_<

The EU politions claiming that trade negotiations can't start until after the EXIT terms are agreed and after the UK has actually left, haven't thought it through.

Once we have left the EU, World Trade Organization rules would then apply so UK-EU trade would not stop, (but would be subject to tariffs; import/Export duty). However the free-movement-of-labour regulations would immediately stop and the UK would have full control of immigration from the EU. If they spent 9 years dithering about making a new agreement; UK would have full control of immigration for those 9 years and would probably come to like it a lot and wouldn't give up a smideon of that control for the sake of zero tariffs.

Besides which in that 9 years, new deals would be made with non-EU countries and our trade with them would increase and trade with the EU would decrease, perhaps eventually leading to "The UK had decided that it does not need any special agreement with the EU, WTO rules will suffice" and cancelling of any negotiation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote: keewik @ 2nd July 2016, 8:50 PM BST

Bugger democracy. I want to be Dictator of Britain. I'd show them. Put the Queen in a sink housing estate surviving on a state pension ;Charles could have a pensioner job in B & Q; take Cameron's millions and give them to the poor with him working on the bin lorries with attendant wage; deport Boris because of his immigrant ancestors; slap Farage in jail with bread and water rations because he's a total arse; and .... need I go on?

View original

Shall we suggest you for the vacant PM job. Once you are there you can do the rest towards becoming Dictator yourself.

I think that's how Cromwell did it.

John Oliver's take on Brexit (it's funny): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGL5sDg7b8Y

Quote: billwill @ 3rd July 2016, 1:52 PM BST

Shall we suggest you for the vacant PM job. Once you are there you can do the rest towards becoming Dictator yourself.

I think that's how Cromwell did it.

View original

Sounds good to me, as long as I don't have to join the Tory Party.