That referendum ...

[wales01man]

Re: That referendum ...

If Scotland got more from the EU in proportion to how much they contributed to the UK gross payment means the rest of the UK are subsidising them if they get the same percentage returned of the money they pay they will know how much it costs to get something back.

If anyone went to a supermarket and paid 100 for goods and got 40 quids worth would they be happy this is the same as paying into the EU more in than out

[suffering]

Re: That referendum ...

Thats why i Believe Scotland and N.Ireland voted remain because of the disproportionate funding

[des8]

Re: That referendum ...

but didn't you realise that not every nation in the EU got back in direct grants what they put in.
The EU distributed funds to the deprived areas,including in the UK, so it's obvious that some nations would get less back than they contribute.
I'm surprised at Wales' inappropriate analogy... it's nothing like being shortchanged at the supermarket. It's more like contributing to the foodbank receptacle at the exit.

[Celestine]

Re: That referendum ...

The Economist:
IT WAS a troubling exchange. On live television Faisal Islam, the political editor of SkyNews, was recounting a conversation with a pro-Brexit Conservative MP. “I said to him: ‘Where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?’ [The MP replied:] ‘There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan…Number 10 should have had a plan.’” The camera cut to Anna Botting, the anchor, horror chasing across her face. For a couple of seconds they were both silent, as the point sunk in. “Don’t know what to say to that, actually,” she replied, looking down at the desk. Then she cut to a commercial break.
Sixty hours have gone by since a puffy-eyed David Cameron appeared outside 10 Downing Street and announced his resignation. The pound has tumbled. Investment decisions have been suspended; already firms talk of moving operations overseas. Britain’s EU commissioner has resigned. Sensitive political acts—the Chilcot report’s publication, decisions on a new London airport runway and the renewal of Britain’s nuclear deterrent—are looming. European leaders are shuttling about the continent meeting and discussing what to do next. Those more sympathetic to Britain are looking for signs from London of how they can usefully influence discussions. At home mounting evidence suggests a spike in racist and xenophobic attacks on immigrants. Scotland is heading for another independence referendum. Northern Ireland’s peace settlement may hang by a thread

But at the top of British politics, a vacuum yawns wide. The phones are ringing, but no one is picking up.

Mr Cameron has said nothing since Friday morning. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, has been silent. (This afternoon I texted several of his advisers to ask whether he would make a statement before the markets open tomorrow. As I write this I have received no replies.) The prime minister’s loyalist allies in Westminster and in the media are largely mute.
Apart from ashen-faced, mumbled statements from the Vote Leave headquarters on Friday, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have also ducked the limelight; Mr Johnson is meeting friends and allies today, June 26th, at his house near Oxford in what are believed to be talks about his impending leadership bid. Neither seems to have the foggiest as to what should happen next. Today Mr Gove’s wife committed to Facebook the hope that “clever people” might offer to “lend their advice and expertise.” And Mr Johnson’s sister, Rachel, tweeted: “Everyone keeps saying ‘we are where we are’ but nobody seems to have the slightest clue where that is.”
Ordinarily the opposition might take advantage of the vacuum: calling on the government to act, offering its own proposals, venturing a framework. But Labour has turned in on itself, a parade of shadow ministers resigning this afternoon in what seems to be a concerted coup attempt against Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s useless leader. In a meeting tomorrow Tom Watson, the party’s deputy leader, is expected to call on Mr Corbyn to quit. Of the need for stability and leadership following Thursday’s vote the party has little to say.
No one seems capable of stepping forward and offering reassurance. The Leavers, who disagreed on what Brexit should look like, do not think it is their responsibility to set out a path. They reckon that falls to Number 10 (where they have appeared in public, it has mostly been to discard the very pledges on which they won the referendum). Number 10, however, seems to have done little planning for this eventuality. It seems transfixed by the unfolding chaos; reluctant to formulate answers to the Brexiteers’ unanswered questions. As Mr Cameron reportedly told aides on June 24th when explaining his decision to resign: “Why should I do all the hard shit?”
This could go on for a while. The Conservative leadership contest will last until at least early October, perhaps longer. It may be almost as long until Labour has a new chief, and even then he or she may be a caretaker. The new prime minister could call a general election. It might be over half a year until Britain has a leader capable of addressing the myriad crises now engulfing it.
The country does not have that kind of time. Despite arguments for patience from continental Anglophiles, including Angela Merkel, the insistence that Britain immediately invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, launching exit negotiations and that can last no longer than two years, is hardening. Soon it may be a consensus. Britain could be thrust into talks under a lame-duck leader with no clear notion of what Brexit should look like or mandate to negotiate. All against a background of intensifying economic turmoil and increasingly ugly divides on Britain's streets. The country is sailing into a storm. And no one is at the wheel.

[seduraed]

Re: That referendum ...

I am disappointed and scared by the decision of the UK to leave the EU. From what i can see a ot of the out voters were working on a race basis or trying to send a message to our of touch politicians.
There were false statements made in great number one of the worst was the amount sent to the EU of £330m pw however this did not take into account grants and the rebate , the rebate was £85m per week alone. I hope we can reverse the situation before irreprable damage is done . If we want to trade then we have to accept free movement of people . The financial centres will be moved away and the rules written against us . Grants and investment will go anf many overseas investors are likely to consider their investment position .
Now we have to make to make the best of bad job. Perhaps now is the time to set new agendas. An end to unsustainable growth. A definite attempt to cut the population. A real push for renewables and nuclear power. We can start there obviously cut need to e made to the health service, so we end all IVF and any assisted conception making it illegal and banning all research . A tax system designed to redistribute wealth to the poor. We can get out of free trade stay out of TTIP and free ourselves from the myth that on a finite planet everlasting growth is possible or even desireable.

[Kati]

Re: That referendum ...

How about a first hand account of a 'Post Ref' britain??

As many of you will know ... my little girl was born at home 2 1/2yrs ago now. I'm born and bred Yorkshire, dad's a Brummie/Austrian. I was walking up to the shop this evening and got surrounded by a group of LOCAL teenage lads:

"why'd you give your girl a foreign name? Are you a Pa*i?

WE voted you lot out!"

I was stuck there for 5mins before my ex-neighbours eldest walked past and told the kids I was English

.....

If this is what our country has stooped to I don't think I want ti be here to see the end of the fall out!

[enaid]

Re: That referendum ...

The country is sailing into a storm. And no one is at the wheel.

The captain of said ship although not my choice promised the referendum and promised to abide by the decision. The decision wrong or right was to leave.
The spineless captain has walked the plank instead of having the courage of his conviction.
He knew full well by doing so, rather than go through the process properly he would cause trouble in all the parties who should now be working together and doing the best for our country. Doing the best for our country is why they are where they are and we the people put them there, something they all seem to have forgotten now.
He's gone because he feels he is the wrong person to get the best result from leaving the EU, he is STILL the PM and should be doing his best for us no matter what.
Shame on him and I hope our next leader whoever from, whatever party, has a spine and the interest of the people foremost.

[leclerc]

Re: That referendum ...

The captain of said ship although not my choice promised the referendum and promised to abide by the decision. The decision wrong or right was to leave.
The spineless captain has walked the plank instead of having the courage of his conviction.
He knew full well by doing so, rather than go through the process properly he would cause trouble in all the parties who should now be working together and doing the best for our country. Doing the best for our country is why they are where they are and we the people put them there, something they all seem to have forgotten now.
He's gone because he feels he is the wrong person to get the best result from leaving the EU, he is STILL the PM and should be doing his best for us no matter what.
Shame on him and I hope our next leader whoever from, whatever party, has a spine and the interest of the people foremost.

I think the timing of the vote and the lack of information was appalling.

Let's take for example Kati, above, who was racially abused by kids who did not get told that the EU referendum would only relate to people who were migrating here from within the EU. However, having had time to look at other non EU European countries in regards to Free Trade Agreements and access to the single market we see that in fact, there is no get out of jail Free card on "freedom of movement" because that is one of the things you have to accept if you want access to the EU markets without tariffs.

Perhaps this reality should have been pointed out in the debates rather than arguing over £350 million. Perhaps, had the elephant in the room actually been unmasked and debated and facts given then perhaps Nigel Farage's agenda might not have been to the forefront. We chose to ignore that elephant and now we are here where people born in this country are doing things that quite frankly are un British and vile. One of my friend on Facebook, who's Polish, posted up on their blog about a place less than 50 miles away where some bright spark posted signs saying "Leave the EU Polish Vermin go home". I found myself apologising for the embarrassment that they have caused me that I share the same background(white British). We had a referendum where no one was told the truth. There was no punishment budget from the Remain side, there is no £350 million going straight to the NHS immediately, Cameron has not immediately enacted the get out of the EU clause and ultimately the main political parties appear to be in disarray.

If only they had not done the referendum with so much haste.

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

How about a first hand account of a 'Post Ref' britain??

As many of you will know ... my little girl was born at home 2 1/2yrs ago now. I'm born and bred Yorkshire, dad's a Brummie/Austrian. I was walking up to the shop this evening and got surrounded by a group of LOCAL teenage lads:

"why'd you give your girl a foreign name? Are you a Pa*i?

WE voted you lot out!"

I was stuck there for 5mins before my ex-neighbours eldest walked past and told the kids I was English

.....

If this is what our country has stooped to I don't think I want ti be here to see the end of the fall out!

Disgusting.

[MIKE770]

Re: That referendum ...

cleaning up in the back ground no doubt!

[enaid]

Re: That referendum ...

The difference between Racism and Prejudice should be noted imo. There is a difference and not a small one either.

[Amethyst]

Re: That referendum ...

Natti - would you be able to put the Norway and Iceland models/agreements on that fact thread too pls. xxxx

[Celestine]

Re: That referendum ...

Jack of Kents blog:

This is what sovereignty looks like - where we are with Article 50
Law and politics are separate things, and they do not often overlap. It is rare that politics is driven, or even shaped, by legal process or any legal issue. But it does happen sometimes, and it is happening in the United Kingdom at the moment.
The legal issue is about a provision in a European Union treaty known as Article 50, which deals with Member States leaving the EU. The provision has a binary nature, in that the provision is either invoked (or activated, or whatever verb you want) or it is not. That is a legal question. If the provision is invoked, then there are certain legal consequences, and if it is not invoked then there are not those legal consequences.
Until a couple of weeks ago few people in the UK, and almost no politicians or pundits, knew or cared about Article 50. What was important for them was instead something which had no real legal significance (even if politically significant), a non-binding referendum on whether the UK should remain part of the EU. That referendum also had a binary nature: you either voted Remain or Leave. As it happened, a couple of days ago, the clear (if not large) majority of voters voted Leave.
Now a problem in UK politics comes from a mismatch - a disconnection - between the result of the referendum vote and the invoking of Article 50. One has not automatically led to the other, and it may not do so.
The supporters of Remain campaign did not think about this, because they thought they were going to win. But the supporters of the Leave campaign also did not think much about this, as it seems they regarded winning the referendum as an end in itself to bring about their desired "Brexit".
It appears that few if any people involved in the campaigns on either side thought about what would come next in the event of a Leave vote.
On the day the result of the referendum became known, the Prime Minister David Cameron did not do something, and I believe the omission was significant (I have discussed this here).
In essence, Cameron did not invoke Article 50: no notification was sent to the European Union. In my view, the failure to send the notification on the very day after the referendum will mean that there is a strong chance it will never be sent at all.
Since the referendum result there has been considerable media and political discussion and speculation about Article 50. This post examines a few of the contentions which have been made about Article 50 - in particular the first two paragraphs of the Article - and sets out whether they seem good points or bad points.
The best place to start is the provision itself. Article 50 contains a sequence of stages which are separated out as numbered paragraphs. I will set out the Article as a whole, and I will then go through paragraphs one and two in particular.
"1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
"4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
"A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
"5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
So, to begin with, let's look at paragraph one of Article 50:
"1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
What does this mean? I think there are two key elements to this. The first is "decide" and the second is "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements".
The reference to "decide" is crucial. It means there has to be a decision. Without a decision, nothing else follows. It is the Marley's Ghost of Article 50.
The provisions which come afterwards in Article 50 do not even become engaged unless there is a decision.
So what is a decision?
In my view a decision in a UK context may be one of a number of things:
- a decision by the Prime Minister in accordance with the "royal prerogative" (that is, in accordance with the legal fiction that the Prime Minister can exercise powers on behalf of the Crown);
- as above, but the decision being made by the Prime Minister either in consultation with his or her cabinet, or after a vote of cabinet (or conceivably the same but with consulting the Privy Council instead);
- a decision by the Prime Minster following a resolution or motion in either House of Parliament or by both houses;
- a decision not by the Prime Minister but one embedded somehow in a new Act of Parliament (or a special statutory instrument or "order in council"), or a decision made in compliance with an existing statutory or similar regime; or
- any of the above following consultation with - or even the consent of - the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Any of these would be a decision for the purposes of Article 50(1). And each would be decision it would be fair and plausible to say is "in accordance with [UK's] own constitutional requirements".
The UK does not have a codified constitution. Some would say it has not got a "written constitution" (though my view is that the UK constitution is (largely) written down, it is just not written down in one place; it is instead spread out over many texts and legal instruments).
But what the UK constitutional does not have, at least not in any explicit way, are prescriptive "constitutional requirements" - where one could point to a text and say: A-ha! That is how to make a decision to exercise a power under an existing treaty!
Without such a helpful provision, one can only look at how formal decisions can be made by those with political power in the UK, and the five examples set out above seem to all meet the Article 50(1) wording: they are "decisions" made "in accordance with [UK's] own constitutional requirements".
What does not meet the Article 50(1) wording, either as a "decision" or something made "in accordance with [UK's] own constitutional requirements" is the mere result of a non-binding referendum.
The referendum on EU membership was advisory not mandatory. It was deliberately drafted by Parliament not to have any legal consequences. (The last UK-wide referendum, on the AV voting system, did have such a binding provision, but this time Parliament chose not to include one).
As such, the result of the poll has no more legal standing than the result of a consultation exercise. It was a glorified opinion survey, and that is what Parliament intended it to be.
The result is not a "decision" for the purposes of Article 50(1) and, on this basis, the other provisions in the provision are not engaged.
(For more on this, see this excellent post by Professor Mark Elliott.)
In my opinion, it could have been open to the Prime Minister on Friday, either on the basis of the royal prerogative or after involving the cabinet or the Privy Council, to have made the "decision". It was not even a decision to enter a new international treaty but to exercise a power within an existing one; in other words, it is the sort of decision a Prime Minister can usually make.
When the Prime Minister chose not to make that decision, that was a matter for him; and he in turn said it is a matter for his successor.
There is also a point about the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If the governments of any of the devolved states chose to (somehow) formally to object to the Leave decision then that opens the issue of whether the decision to Leave "in accordance with [UK's] own constitutional requirements".
This is not to say there would be a legal bar - but in an un-codified constitution, force is given to "conventions", as well as laws. It would seem that many believe it is arguable that there is a convention at play here - that there should be consent by the devolved governments, even if not an absolute legal requirement.
As Article 50(1) talks vaguely of "constitutional requirements" it seems to me that a convention may be as capable of being a constitutional requirement as any statutory provision.
In other words: say if the Scottish government chose to formally object to a Leave proposal then it may make it harder to make out that the "in accordance with [UK's] own constitutional requirements" element of Article 50(1) has been satisfied.
This is not (strictly) a legal point - as Professor Elliott explains in another post - but I still think it can still be significant in terms of Article 50(1): for if a convention is breached then a constitutional requirement cannot have been met.
But in any case, it certainly will be significant in terms of politics. Not a formal veto perhaps - but important.
We now come to Article 50(2):
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Remember this paragraph only even matters if there has been an Article 50(1) decision - if there is no decision, Article 50(2) falls away. In effect, we don't get past the fifth word of this rather wordy paragraph.
But it is not the fifth word which has been much-discussed over the last couple of days; it is the ninth - "notify".
Once a decision has been made - which is not the case - then the decision shall be notified: there will be a notification.
What is a notification?
It has been suggested (including by those who should know better) that there could be a notification by accident or by informal means - a situation of "whoops I made a notification". This could be by the mere presence of the Prime Minister at a council meeting, or by an admission of the referendum result, or even one imposed upon the UK by another Member State or organ of the European Union.
Much of this speculation is utter twaddle.
The thing about words in formal legal document is that they must mean something and cannot mean anything. A "notification" - especially of something which would have fundamental and (it would seem) irreversible legal consequences - is not something to be taken lightly, but should be taken reverently and responsibly in the sight of any number of lawyers.
In particular, the notification would have to be (a) formal and (b) intended to be communicated: that is what "notify" means. There has to be no doubt (or room for doubt) as to what the statement means and that it was intended to be communicated as such.
One would think this was obvious. But this has not stopped the "all depends" mongers coming with ingenuous hot-takes on what "notification" means.
But in any case, a spokesperson for the European Union has now put it beyond doubt:
"The notification of Article 50 is a formal act and has to be done by the British government to the European Council," the spokesman said. "It has to be done in an unequivocal manner with the explicit intent to trigger Article 50."
Indeed. There will be no "whoops we notified the Council".
The spokesperson's statement also expressly confirms what was the position all along: that the if and when of the Article 50 notification is entirely a matter for the UK government.
It is up to the UK whether to make the notification and, if so, the timing of it. This in turn means that the notification may never be made.
There is nothing - nothing at all - which the EU can do at law to force the UK to make that notification.
It may be an irony, but this is what sovereignty looks like.

[wales01man]

Re: That referendum ...

Kati I hope the events of you encountered yesterday do not happen again but sorry to say there are assoles everywhere I expect they are just jumping on the bandwagon and trying to feel big when really they cannot get any smaller
When I lived in wales I was told many times to go back where I came from I am not exactly fair skinned neither dark more Italian skinned and have been asked albeit years ago what part of Asia did I come from in my younger days.
WE all know there are name calling idiots out there they are a tiny minority and should be treated as such

[MIKE770]

Re: That referendum ...

Kati I hope the events of you encountered yesterday do not happen again but sorry to say there are assoles everywhere I expect they are just jumping on the bandwagon and trying to feel big when really they cannot get any smaller
When I lived in wales I was told many times to go back where I came from I am not exactly fair skinned neither dark more Italian skinned and have been asked albeit years ago what part of Asia did I come from in my younger days.
WE all know there are name calling idiots out there they are a tiny minority and should be treated as such

Do as I do if comments made == I heard that when I was 2 years old = How Old are you??? seems to stop them in their tracks, or they retract and try to say it was a joke, my reply then as I said above. & they are only on about my name