[Tiste Simeon]

Quote

From the guardians comments section:

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.

[Darkwatch]

Tiste Simeon, on 26 June 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

Quote

From the guardians comments section:

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.

Doesn't that ignore Farage? Isn't he *insert descriptor here* enough to step up and do it? With both Labour and the Tories tearing themselves to shreds isn't UKIP, ironically, now the only unified party? With the boost from the results could they not win an election?
I hope not but that is something I worry about.

[Coco with marshmallows]

It's interesting.

In the run up to the Scottish Indy ref, the pro Indy groups produced a white paper (essentially a plan) of what they would be doing in the months/years after getting indy.

An awful lot of it was fairly wishy-washy, and the No side (pro UK) quite rightly ripped large parts of it to shreds.

At the same time, as polling narrowed, the No side (consisting of leaders of labour, conservative and lib dems) came up with a set of promises to entice people to vote No.

Essentially, both Yes AND No had published plans of some sort as to what to do in the event of their side winning.

Yet in this referendum, there wasn't even a white paper.

There was absolutely NO plans in place by ANYONE, Leave or Remain, as to what should happen if the result should be the way it has, which is where a lot of the fear/doubt is creeping in from.

Remarkable really.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

I've been seeing the Guardian comment Tiste quoted quite a bit - even if it doesn't pan out the way they're suggesting, I definitely think there's something in the assertion than Leave didn't expect to win and now aren't sure what to do. Cameron has actually made a smart move.

Seems to be backed up by what Coco said - there was no plan in place either way. Which is terrifying.

[Morgoth]

Johnnson stated yesterday (I think) that the leave camp doesn't have a strong mandate. He's quite a bit more timid now that he needs to be responsible for his actions.

[Macros]

He's fairly pulled his horns in. On the radio this morning he was saying that there's no rush to activate article 50

[Primateus]

http://www.facebook....62672097080717/

[Gorefest]

Coco with marshmallows, on 26 June 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:

There was absolutely NO plans in place by ANYONE, Leave or Remain, as to what should happen if the result should be the way it has, which is where a lot of the fear/doubt is creeping in from.

Remarkable really.

Not that remarkable. The EU referendum was not fought along party lines, like the Scottish one (SNP versus LAbour, with the Tories lurking in the background but deliberately staying out of the battle). So the SNP had a clear mandate to draft up a proposal for an exit strategy.

But whereas the EU Remain camp had official government backing, the Leave camp had no formal political authority and as such they did not have any legislative powers to back any claims that they made. This should have been clear from the outset and I don't understand why Remain didn't highlight this more. Farage and his campaign drummed on about one set of future actions (mainly based on border control and immigration rules), Tory Leavers were focusing on another (freedom of movement and the economy), and Labour Leavers on yet another (social mobility, worker rights). So from the onset it was clear that it was impossible to reach a unified exit strategy and that this was something that would have to be dealt with by the ruling party (i.e. the Tories) once the referendum result was in. That's also the reason why so many Brexit leaders (even including Farage) were urging Cameron to stay in office after the vote, because they themselves must have seen the current issue as well.

[Khellendros]

Labour are demonstrating that machiavellian politics and short-termist thinking are hardly the preserve of the Tories. It disgusts me. If you don't like Corbyn and don't think you can work with him then 1) Just say so, and 2) Don't accept a shadow cabinet position if you're just going to snipe and backbite for nine months, and then have the gall to say he hasn't achieved enough.

Don't hide behind a false argument such as "because of him, one-third of Labour voters voted leave in the referendum." So did one-third of Scottish National Party voters. Should we therefore expect a coup against Nicola Sturgeon? Or should we accept that you're never going to convince 100% of voters, and that you're knowingly holding Corbyn to impossibly high standards?

Seriously, at a time when the Tories are at their weakest, you do this...it's just all so depressing.

[Tapper]

Darkwatch, on 26 June 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

Doesn't that ignore Farage? Isn't he *insert descriptor here* enough to step up and do it? With both Labour and the Tories tearing themselves to shreds isn't UKIP, ironically, now the only unified party? With the boost from the results could they not win an election?
I hope not but that is something I worry about.

I'm not a Brit, so might get some stuff wrong, but my take would be that Farage failed to get elected to the Commons at the least seven times, and he's their front man. UKIP has a single seat in the Commons as it is, out of 650. I highly doubt they'll be able to turn that into 50+, which is a number that would make a coalition between Tories and UKIP possible (considering half of those UKIP seats would probably be right wing Tory, mixed with disillusioned Labour).

During the last elections, multiple UKIP politicians had to stand down or were dropped by the party because of racist pasts, controversial statements or other forms of incompetence (the same happens here with our local populist Wilders whenever his party grows exponentially).
Even if they do manage to somehow get numbers that will allow them to become part of a coalition government, I don't see them gathering any support whatsoever in the House of Lords apart from what they already have (3 members out of 800+).
The only place where UKIP has a voice, is ironically inside the European Parlement.

With regards to the UK not activating Article 50: it is in the UK's favor, but the EU will not allow them to be dallying about it for long.
Farage, Cameron and Corbyn all argued that Article 50 should be activated immediately, but there's an ugly situation in which it makes sense to ignore all three for now. Disregard Cameron because he stepped down. Disregard Farage because he has no House representation. Disregard Corbyn because he might be removed before the end of the week. However, when the new PM is installed, there will need to be a resolution.

If sufficient members of the EU press for reform of the various treaties to accomodate Britain (Poland's euro-sceptic government already is suggesting just this), there might be some external help, too. For the Union this is a lose-lose scenario, though, and not something France and Germany will support. If that somehow happens, then a second referendum might take place. If this is soon enough to keep the public memory awake of Leave admitting some of its arguments were outright lies, then Remain will probably win.

However, as things stand, Farage will howl for change and Article 50 activation, as might Euro-sceptic backbenchers in the Tories (and perhaps in Labour, too). On top of that, many countries in Europe will not want Britain's dead weight dragging them back: already, Schauble and Juncker are saying there will be no informal negotiations before formal ones, so Britain is left dangling with their payments as is, and probably some voting happening at some point to divert EU funds away from the UK pending the activation.

As Wert and Lycaenion said, there's voices in the Netherlands about a Nexit referendum as well. Apparently, in Italy, there's also a danger of Leave gathering pace (but referenda on international policy are apparently illegal there).
The Dutch government has a year to go until the general elections, and if there is going to be a referendum, then I doubt it will be before the general elections: if done before, the accusation might rise that it will not honour the advisory referendum if Leave wins.
That year is going to teach us a lot about the impacts of Brexit and the EU response, even if Article 50 has not been activated yet.

[Maark Abbott]

In terms of UKIP only having one seat, that's one of the big issues with FPTP. The SNP got a disproportionately high number of seats from that system too. As much as I hate UKIP, I feel that PR is the only real way to ensure the percentages for peoples' votes are actually reflected.

[Khellendros]

Maark Abbott, on 27 June 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

In terms of UKIP only having one seat, that's one of the big issues with FPTP. The SNP got a disproportionately high number of seats from that system too. As much as I hate UKIP, I feel that PR is the only real way to ensure the percentages for peoples' votes are actually reflected.

Same - again, as much as I feel UKIP are a detestable political party, the current first-past-the-post system needs reform. Well, we had a referendum on introducing PR back during the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition - and the people voted to reject voting reform.

So that's zero out of two for referendums during my voting lifetime.

Time for a dictatorship?

[Mezla PigDog]

Khellendros, on 27 June 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 27 June 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

In terms of UKIP only having one seat, that's one of the big issues with FPTP. The SNP got a disproportionately high number of seats from that system too. As much as I hate UKIP, I feel that PR is the only real way to ensure the percentages for peoples' votes are actually reflected.

Same - again, as much as I feel UKIP are a detestable political party, the current first-past-the-post system needs reform. Well, we had a referendum on introducing PR back during the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition - and the people voted to reject voting reform.

So that's zero out of two for referendums during my voting lifetime.

Time for a dictatorship?

And if you remember the campaigns for the electoral reform referendum the Lib Dems went with intelligent facts and the Tories with popular sound bites so the majority didn't understand what they were voting for. Same old same old. Definitely time for a dictatorship - lets decide who gets it via a referendum!

[Tiste Simeon]

Personally I'm rooting for China just taking over...

[Maark Abbott]

Khellendros, on 27 June 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 27 June 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

In terms of UKIP only having one seat, that's one of the big issues with FPTP. The SNP got a disproportionately high number of seats from that system too. As much as I hate UKIP, I feel that PR is the only real way to ensure the percentages for peoples' votes are actually reflected.

Same - again, as much as I feel UKIP are a detestable political party, the current first-past-the-post system needs reform. Well, we had a referendum on introducing PR back during the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition - and the people voted to reject voting reform.

So that's zero out of two for referendums during my voting lifetime.

Time for a dictatorship?

It was actually to introduce AV which is closer to FPTP than anything else. It wasn't actually going to bring in PR.

[Khellendros]

Maark Abbott, on 27 June 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Khellendros, on 27 June 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 27 June 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

In terms of UKIP only having one seat, that's one of the big issues with FPTP. The SNP got a disproportionately high number of seats from that system too. As much as I hate UKIP, I feel that PR is the only real way to ensure the percentages for peoples' votes are actually reflected.

Same - again, as much as I feel UKIP are a detestable political party, the current first-past-the-post system needs reform. Well, we had a referendum on introducing PR back during the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition - and the people voted to reject voting reform.

So that's zero out of two for referendums during my voting lifetime.

Time for a dictatorship?

It was actually to introduce AV which is closer to FPTP than anything else. It wasn't actually going to bring in PR.

Yes, you're absolutely right, I got my voting systems mixed up. It was a supposed to be a halfway point between FPTP and PR - though alternative vote isn't actually PR. But it still would have been a better system than FPTP in my opinion. Once again, though, only London agreed with me It was like 70% against.

[Gorefest]

Khellendros, on 27 June 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

Same - again, as much as I feel UKIP are a detestable political party, the current first-past-the-post system needs reform. Well, we had a referendum on introducing PR back during the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition - and the people voted to reject voting reform.

So that's zero out of two for referendums during my voting lifetime.

Time for a dictatorship?

Bit of nuance there. The LibDems originally pressed for proportional representation, but had to water this down due to Tory pressure into a referendum on an 'alternative vote', which was a muddled and toothless compromise somewhere between FPTP and PR. Even those in favour of electoral reform would have had a hard time voting in favour of that wet tissue.

FPTP is awful. PR would be great, but it's never going to happen as long as the Tories are in charge, because the current voting system is highly in their favour.


[edit]Oh, should have read on first....

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 27 June 2016 - 04:01 PM

[Gorefest]

First tentative reaction by Boris Johnson by the way in his weekly Telegraph column. Full piece here: http://www.theguardi...rship-platform.

An excerpt:

"I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe, and always will be. There will still be intense and intensifying European cooperation and partnership in a huge number of fields: the arts, the sciences, the universities, and on improving the environment. EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU. British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal. This will bring not threats, but golden opportunities for this country – to pass laws and set taxes according to the needs of the UK.

Yes, the Government will be able to take back democratic control of immigration policy, with a balanced and humane points-based system to suit the needs of business and industry. Yes, there will be a substantial sum of money which we will no longer send to Brussels, but which could be used on priorities such as the NHS. Yes, we will be able to do free trade deals with the growth economies of the world in a way that is currently forbidden."


Balls. So basically he wants to keep the status quo but with border control. Not gonna happen, pal. The EU is going to laugh you out of the building.

[Werthead]

Guess what? The EU has laughed Boris out of the building.

This post has been edited by Werthead: 27 June 2016 - 07:31 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Project I-Told-You-So-But-This-Feels-Hollow anyone?