Post-poll Brexit poll

[jonatha]

Britain has voted to leave the EU, but the vote is only advisory. David Cameron, who before the vote indicated that in the event "Leave" won he would promptly invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, now says that is a job for his successor, implying a delay of several months at least. Prominent "Leave" campaigners, including former London Mayor Boris Johnson and current Cabinet Member Michael Gove, say there's no rush. A petition calling for the referendum to be voted on a second time has attracted over three million signatures, roughly three times the winning margin in the election.

So will the UK actually leave the EU, or will the British government and/or the British people manage to ignore the result of the referendum?

 

[ZiprHead]

I voted for the scones since I'm not that familiar with the subject. However there does seem to be a lot of buyer's remorse amongst the pro-Brexit crowd.

 

[repoman]

This is the only Brexit thread that needs to be carried on here.

I think that the politicians won't vote for it because of the conflict of interest of having cushy unelected civil service jobs with the EU. If they leave that source of income is gone forever.

Mass revolt is the only solution.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Britain has voted to leave the EU, but the vote is only advisory. David Cameron, who before the vote indicated that in the event "Leave" won he would promptly invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, now says that is a job for his successor, implying a delay of several months at least. Prominent "Leave" campaigners, including former London Mayor Boris Johnson and current Cabinet Member Michael Gove, say there's no rush. A petition calling for the referendum to be voted on a second time has attracted over three million signatures, roughly three times the winning margin in the election.

So will the UK actually leave the EU, or will the British government and/or the British people manage to ignore the result of the referendum?

If they vote by a small margin to stay, then does than mean we have another referendum? What happens if this then says leave.

Three million signatures. There were more than 3 million who voted to leave so the margin of winning is irrelevant as a litmus test.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is the only Brexit thread that needs to be carried on here.

I think that the politicians won't vote for it because of the conflict of interest of having cushy unelected civil service jobs with the EU. If they leave that source of income is gone forever.

Mass revolt is the only solution.

What source of income? The UK pays £35,000,000 per day to the EU It also buys more from the EU than it sells to it. We don't want criminal gangs pouring in from some parts of Europe because there are no laws against them entering the UK even if they have been arrested there.

 

[bilby]

Britain has voted to leave the EU, but the vote is only advisory. David Cameron, who before the vote indicated that in the event "Leave" won he would promptly invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, now says that is a job for his successor, implying a delay of several months at least. Prominent "Leave" campaigners, including former London Mayor Boris Johnson and current Cabinet Member Michael Gove, say there's no rush. A petition calling for the referendum to be voted on a second time has attracted over three million signatures, roughly three times the winning margin in the election.

So will the UK actually leave the EU, or will the British government and/or the British people manage to ignore the result of the referendum?

If they vote by a small margin to stay, then does than mean we have another referendum? What happens if this then says leave.

Three million signatures. There were more than 3 million who voted to leave so the margin of winning is irrelevant as a litmus test.

There not only is no need for another referendum; there was no need for the first one, which inevitably was going to cause more harm than good regardless of the result.

It isn't legally binding on the government, and there are a large number of scenarios whereby article 50 might never be triggered - particularly given that Cameron has announced his resignation, but won't go immediately.

Whoever replaces him will do so long after the public have moved on to the next big excitement - perhaps the Rio Olympics - and there need not be much pressure on the new PM to act - there's no legal requirement for him to do so, and there are any number of ways to keep stalling on the issue.

The vote was close enough that any politician who nails his colours to one or other mast stands to lose as much as he gains (with the notable exception of UKIP, which is a single issue party).

If opposing the triggering of article 50 wins the votes of almost half of the country (the half that voted 'Remain'), and if a commitment to immediate triggering wins only the non-UKIP 'Leave' voters, then a completely cynical analysis says that the smart move for both Labour and Conservative is to be as slow and obstructing as possible, with a view to quietly shelving the article 50 trigger at some future date.

The side that backs Brexit gets to share half of the votes with the kippers; while their opponents get the other half all to themselves. The game theory optimum strategy is not to commit to Brexit, but to try to persuade your opponent to back themselves into that corner. Coming out against Brexit is a winning strategy, but only if done long enough after the referendum to avoid a massive backlash that could lead to UKIP becoming a major player.

 

[angelo]

If they vote by a small margin to stay, then does than mean we have another referendum? What happens if this then says leave.

Three million signatures. There were more than 3 million who voted to leave so the margin of winning is irrelevant as a litmus test.

There not only is no need for another referendum; there was no need for the first one, which inevitably was going to cause more harm than good regardless of the result.

It isn't legally binding on the government, and there are a large number of scenarios whereby article 50 might never be triggered - particularly given that Cameron has announced his resignation, but won't go immediately.

Whoever replaces him will do so long after the public have moved on to the next big excitement - perhaps the Rio Olympics - and there need not be much pressure on the new PM to act - there's no legal requirement for him to do so, and there are any number of ways to keep stalling on the issue.

The vote was close enough that any politician who nails his colours to one or other mast stands to lose as much as he gains (with the notable exception of UKIP, which is a single issue party).

If opposing the triggering of article 50 wins the votes of almost half of the country (the half that voted 'Remain'), and if a commitment to immediate triggering wins only the non-UKIP 'Leave' voters, then a completely cynical analysis says that the smart move for both Labour and Conservative is to be as slow and obstructing as possible, with a view to quietly shelving the article 50 trigger at some future date.

The side that backs Brexit gets to share half of the votes with the kippers; while their opponents get the other half all to themselves. The game theory optimum strategy is not to commit to Brexit, but to try to persuade your opponent to back themselves into that corner. Coming out against Brexit is a winning strategy, but only if done long enough after the referendum to avoid a massive backlash that could lead to UKIP becoming a major player.

You're suggesting they ignore the will of the majority?

 

[whichphilosophy]

There not only is no need for another referendum; there was no need for the first one, which inevitably was going to cause more harm than good regardless of the result.

It isn't legally binding on the government, and there are a large number of scenarios whereby article 50 might never be triggered - particularly given that Cameron has announced his resignation, but won't go immediately.

Whoever replaces him will do so long after the public have moved on to the next big excitement - perhaps the Rio Olympics - and there need not be much pressure on the new PM to act - there's no legal requirement for him to do so, and there are any number of ways to keep stalling on the issue.

The vote was close enough that any politician who nails his colours to one or other mast stands to lose as much as he gains (with the notable exception of UKIP, which is a single issue party).

If opposing the triggering of article 50 wins the votes of almost half of the country (the half that voted 'Remain'), and if a commitment to immediate triggering wins only the non-UKIP 'Leave' voters, then a completely cynical analysis says that the smart move for both Labour and Conservative is to be as slow and obstructing as possible, with a view to quietly shelving the article 50 trigger at some future date.

The side that backs Brexit gets to share half of the votes with the kippers; while their opponents get the other half all to themselves. The game theory optimum strategy is not to commit to Brexit, but to try to persuade your opponent to back themselves into that corner. Coming out against Brexit is a winning strategy, but only if done long enough after the referendum to avoid a massive backlash that could lead to UKIP becoming a major player.

You're suggesting they ignore the will of the majority?

This is in effect trying to ignore the BREXIT vote.
Boris the Clown and entertaining, plus is a key player in BREXIT (outside the UKIP). However there is a chance the Tories could cock up if they manage this in the same way as they manage UK affairs. Despite the red tape the expectation is that the Leave process should start. It will take over two years to sort out every fine detail.

There are some bleating that they made a mistake in voting LEAVE. They have had years to decide and make up their minds. Sure given more than 3 million voted for BREXIT then that number of signatures will not be difficult to get.

If Labour collected signatures after it lost the last election, then it too could have easily obtained more than 3 million signatures in disapproval of the Tory party.

It's time for the UK to stop tugging its comfort blanket, stop paying £35 million a day to the EU, cut the cord and prepare to leave. Butter and lamb from Australia are much cheaper even than UK equivalents and there are a lot more goodies in store.

 

[bilby]

Ignoring a marginal vote that is non-binding, and that advocates a harmful course of action is the right thing to do.

It would perhaps be a different story if the vote had been 90-10; but there is no clear result here - the 'will of the people' cannot be determined from this result.

There is no clear moral imperative to follow the guideline that this referendum has laid down, so yes, ignoring it is both the wisest and most reasonable thing to do, as well as being politically expedient. I fully expect that not only will this be ignored, but also that it will be done in such a long-drawn-out fashion as to give the impression that Article 50 is just around the corner for long enough for the electorate to become distracted by something else.

Nigel Farage will, of course, be livid; but that's OK by me.

And by the way, once article 50 is triggered the deadline for the END of negotiations is two years. It CANNOT take longer than that, or the UK will be left with no trade deal with the EU at all. That's the rule. I agree that two years is insufficient; which is another excuse for dragging their feet on that article 50 declaration - and another reason why I expect that to not happen until some time after it snows in Hades.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Ignoring a marginal vote that is non-binding, and that advocates a harmful course of action is the right thing to do.

It would perhaps be a different story if the vote had been 90-10; but there is no clear result here - the 'will of the people' cannot be determined from this result.

There is no clear moral imperative to follow the guideline that this referendum has laid down, so yes, ignoring it is both the wisest and most reasonable thing to do, as well as being politically expedient. I fully expect that not only will this be ignored, but also that it will be done in such a long-drawn-out fashion as to give the impression that Article 50 is just around the corner for long enough for the electorate to become distracted by something else.

Nigel Farage will, of course, be livid; but that's OK by me.

And by the way, once article 50 is triggered the deadline for the END of negotiations is two years. It CANNOT take longer than that, or the UK will be left with no trade deal with the EU at all. That's the rule. I agree that two years is insufficient; which is another excuse for dragging their feet on that article 50 declaration - and another reason why I expect that to not happen until some time after it snows in Hades.

Europeans also have common sense. If it takes longer for both sides, then the will give each other extensions. If there are no trade deals the UK can very easily reopen with Australia, New Zealand. The UK purchases from Europe more than it sells to it so the EU will need to also act sensibly.

Why would Nigel be livid. He is not the government. He will gain support if (or perhaps when) the government cock ups on this. As Sun Tzu said, "In the midst of chaos there is also opportunity." Treaties take a lot of time to sort out all the find points.

 

[Jayjay]

Ignoring a marginal vote that is non-binding, and that advocates a harmful course of action is the right thing to do.

It would perhaps be a different story if the vote had been 90-10; but there is no clear result here - the 'will of the people' cannot be determined from this result.

There is no clear moral imperative to follow the guideline that this referendum has laid down, so yes, ignoring it is both the wisest and most reasonable thing to do, as well as being politically expedient. I fully expect that not only will this be ignored, but also that it will be done in such a long-drawn-out fashion as to give the impression that Article 50 is just around the corner for long enough for the electorate to become distracted by something else.

Nigel Farage will, of course, be livid; but that's OK by me.

And by the way, once article 50 is triggered the deadline for the END of negotiations is two years. It CANNOT take longer than that, or the UK will be left with no trade deal with the EU at all. That's the rule. I agree that two years is insufficient; which is another excuse for dragging their feet on that article 50 declaration - and another reason why I expect that to not happen until some time after it snows in Hades.

Europeans also have common sense. If it takes longer for both sides, then the will give each other extensions. If there are no trade deals the UK can very easily reopen with Australia, New Zealand. The UK purchases from Europe more than it sells to it so the EU will need to also act sensibly.

That's valid for ending the negotiations. But UK can drag out even starting the negotiations, by simply not filing the official motion to the EU. This means more uncertainty and harms both UK and EU economy as long as it goes on.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Europeans also have common sense. If it takes longer for both sides, then the will give each other extensions. If there are no trade deals the UK can very easily reopen with Australia, New Zealand. The UK purchases from Europe more than it sells to it so the EU will need to also act sensibly.

That's valid for ending the negotiations. But UK can drag out even starting the negotiations, by simply not filing the official motion to the EU. This means more uncertainty and harms both UK and EU economy as long as it goes on.

Then as they dither more support for BREXIT, especially UKIP which is not part of the government discussions.

 

[Will Wiley]

 

[Tigers!]

I detect a wee bit of hypocrisy here with the call for another referendum by the thwarted Bremainers. If the vote had been 52:48 in their favour they would not be claiming that it was not a decisive enough margin.

Sour grapes never taste nice.

 

[Terrell]

I honestly don't know. What are the consequences of the UK leaving, short & long term? Can the UK return if they find it's in their best interests to do so?

 

[SimpleDon]

My opinion is that the Brexit phenomenon and the Trump proto-fascism are both examples of the same thing, the supporters of both knowing that something is fundamentally wrong but not knowing what it is. They see that the middle class is disappearing and that their children face a bleaker future than they did. No one in the mainstream of politics will tell them why. So they latch onto these crackpots and their simplistic explanations that aren't backed up by any realistic solutions to the problem.

For every job lost to immigrants, there have been hundreds lost to our anti-poverty program to to save the communist government by lifting a billion Chinese out of grinding poverty. What is lacking from our political leadership is an explanation of exactly why we did this.

 

[jonatha]

If the UK really intends to get out of the EU they'd best get on with it. And if the UK really intends to remain in the EU despite the vote they'd best make that crystal clear as soon as possible.

The result of the vote has weakened Britain's position in the EU regardless of whether Britain has officially invoked Article 50. The other members of the EU are going to marginalize the UK as much as possible. I note that the UK's most senior official (Jonathan Hill, who held the financial services portfolio, one of particular interest to the UK) has resigned. Anybody want to bet that he will be replaced by another Brit?

 

[fromderinside]

And by the way, once article 50 is triggered the deadline for the END of negotiations is two years. It CANNOT take longer than that, or the UK will be left with no trade deal with the EU at all. That's the rule. I agree that two years is insufficient; which is another excuse for dragging their feet on that article 50 declaration - and another reason why I expect that to not happen until some time after it snows in Hades.

What it comes down to is either the orange/green and the Scots leave the UK and remain in the EU or the UK decides call their vote just sense of GB vote. So what we really have is a period in which the UK show they are nationalistic wimps, no longer the country of Churchill.

 

[jonatha]

If the UK really intends to get out of the EU they'd best get on with it. And if the UK really intends to remain in the EU despite the vote they'd best make that crystal clear as soon as possible.

The result of the vote has weakened Britain's position in the EU regardless of whether Britain has officially invoked Article 50. The other members of the EU are going to marginalize the UK as much as possible. I note that the UK's most senior official (Jonathan Hill, who held the financial services portfolio, one of particular interest to the UK) has resigned. Anybody want to bet that he will be replaced by another Brit?

Merkel and Hollande have just held a joint news conference. I speak both German and French and they basically said "don't let the door hit you on the way out."

The apparent present strategy of delaying things doesn't look like it's going to work....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I detect a wee bit of hypocrisy here with the call for another referendum by the thwarted Bremainers. If the vote had been 52:48 in their favour they would not be claiming that it was not a decisive enough margin.

Sour grapes never taste nice.

True, but a Remain vote would mean that there are no changes to be made. The Leave vote means that there will be and right now, nobody's too sure what those are. Once most of those can be spelled out, a case could be made that it be taken to an election or another referendum with the question of "Do you accept X, Y and Z and, as a result, authorize the government to invoke Article 50?".