There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
The entire argument is a ridiculous one.
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty. And to exit in the most jarring and damaging way deliberately because 'you asked for it' would be worse than dereliction of duty; it would be treasonable.
FACT: Remain will obviously not reveal this plan as it's not in their interests for the public to be reassured about a Leave result, rather they must be convinced it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Given these two facts, it's an argument over nothing that neither side can win.
Sounds as if Leave are getting a bit queasy about it all, and are demanding safeguards.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
It's IndyRef Deja Vu all over again...
If we vote Yes Leave, everything we ever wanted will magically be true, and there will no nasty reality to intrude.
All of those people we despise will bend to our will, International Law will not apply to us, and there will be much rejoicing.
What is depressing is those folk who knew the separatist myth was a basket case last time, but seem seduced by the same fantasies wearing a different rosette
I was going to say this is all very reminiscent of 'An Independent Scotland will be able to force the rest of the UK into a currency union'
Britain can stand as an independent country many many times easier than Scotland could.
Nobody's saying it can't be done. the question is: what is the point?
Britain can stand easily as an independent country. It will be able to negotiate treaties with every single country and supranational entity on this God's earth. The question is whether we could negotiate arrangements that are better than the ones we already have, and how much time and cost would it take to do so. My opinion is that the results post-Brexit would at best be slightly worse than the ones we already have and would take too long, and cost too much, to achieve, hence my REMAIN stance. Others disagree or consider the advantages wrt legislative freedom to outweigh the disadvantages, hence their LEAVE stance.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
It's IndyRef Deja Vu all over again...
If we vote Yes Leave, everything we ever wanted will magically be true, and there will no nasty reality to intrude.
All of those people we despise will bend to our will, International Law will not apply to us, and there will be much rejoicing.
What is depressing is those folk who knew the separatist myth was a basket case last time, but seem seduced by the same fantasies wearing a different rosette
I was going to say this is all very reminiscent of 'An Independent Scotland will be able to force the rest of the UK into a currency union'
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
All these ninnies in the Government and their supporters 'Ooh Betty, what are we gonna do if we have to actually run a country??' - Are they really that disastrously incompetent that they can't manage without Junker's hand to hold? Grow a set and get a grip ffs.
Companies. countries, people break and change contracts all the time, they then sort out how they want to work after that.
Indeed they do. The "sorting out" usually involves police and the courts. Or, if you're really unlucky, warfare.
lol well that's the funniest yet. So who do we nuke ? As for courts most of it never gets to court, people sort it out beforehand based on the new realities.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
The entire argument is a ridiculous one.
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty. And to exit in the most jarring and damaging way deliberately because 'you asked for it' would be worse than dereliction of duty; it would be treasonable.
FACT: Remain will obviously not reveal this plan as it's not in their interests for the public to be reassured about a Leave result, rather they must be convinced it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Given these two facts, it's an argument over nothing that neither side can win.
Sounds as if Leave are getting a bit queasy about it all, and are demanding safeguards.
Indigo isn't 'Leave' as far as I'm aware, though I'm sure he'd do a great job. I'm not Leave either, though I'd give them a better logo.
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
Sounds as if Leave are getting a bit queasy about it all, and are demanding safeguards.
Once more...
We want Independence. With the Queen. And the Bank of England. And Sterling. And Barnett...
We want to Leave!. As long as that doesn't actually mean leaving...
Must be a bit nostalgic for you to look back on a time when you were trolling on behalf of the right side of the argument. Perhaps the good times will come around again, you never know.
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
It's slightly tragic.
well of course that's your interpretation of it, but most Leavers are fairly sanguine there will be some short term pain which will be offset by better propsects in the medium to long term.
You're simply making things up to suit your own trolling.
Companies. countries, people break and change contracts all the time, they then sort out how they want to work after that.
Indeed they do. The "sorting out" usually involves police and the courts. Or, if you're really unlucky, warfare.
lol well that's the funniest yet. So who do we nuke ? As for courts most of it never gets to court, people sort it out beforehand based on the new realities.
Nuke France. History suggests that would be awesome
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty.
The methodology is in place (invoke article 50 then two years) but methodology is not a plan. Any plan must involve the other actors (otherwise it's just an aspiration), yet there have been no (official?) contacts with the other 27 nations nor the EU apparatus. So the "plan" you refer to does not exist. Call it a dereliction of duty if you like, but there it is.
* Wanting to divorce your wife is an aspiration. * Telling your wife you want a divorce is an "invitation to treat" * Negotiating with your wife's lawyers is the methodology * The divorce absolute is the "acceptance"
Right now we are at the aspiration stage. The nearest we have to post-Brexit scenarios is the wargame, but people don't like me posting that because it goes bad for the Brits.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
It's IndyRef Deja Vu all over again...
If we vote Yes Leave, everything we ever wanted will magically be true, and there will no nasty reality to intrude.
All of those people we despise will bend to our will, International Law will not apply to us, and there will be much rejoicing.
What is depressing is those folk who knew the separatist myth was a basket case last time, but seem seduced by the same fantasies wearing a different rosette
I was going to say this is all very reminiscent of 'An Independent Scotland will be able to force the rest of the UK into a currency union'
Britain can stand as an independent country many many times easier than Scotland could.
Nobody's saying it can't be done. the question is: what is the point?
Britain can stand easily as an independent country. It will be able to negotiate treaties with every single country and supranational entity on this God's earth. The question is whether we could negotiate arrangements that are better than the ones we already have, and how much time and cost would it take to do so. My opinion is that the results post-Brexit would at best be slightly worse than the ones we already have and would take too long, and cost too much, to achieve, hence my REMAIN stance. Others disagree or consider the advantages wrt legislative freedom to outweigh the disadvantages, hence their LEAVE stance.
Exactly. Leave seems to consist of IDS, Grayling, Villiers, Gove and Johnson, none of whom have ever set the world to light with their political acumen and their campaign so far consists of telling whichever expert body has just supported Remain that they are wrong and probably lying. Its getting ridiculous
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
It's slightly tragic.
So not comparable, thanks.
As for logic, I think some people find it rather far-fetched that the world's fifth largest economy will be consigned to the status of North Korea simply by virtue of ceasing to be part of a customs union. You presumably do not.
It there's a comparison to be made here, it's with the Euro campaign that never was. Were the same people not telling us how isolated we would be if we didn't get on board with that? And what europhiles really fear deep down is that the same will happen. We'll leave and there will be a total absence of catastrophe.
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty.
The methodology is in place (invoke article 50 then two years) but methodology is not a plan. Any plan must involve the other actors (otherwise it's just an aspiration), yet there have been no (official?) contacts with the other 27 nations nor the EU apparatus. So the "plan" you refer to does not exist. Call it a dereliction of duty if you like, but there it is.
* Wanting to divorce your wife is an aspiration. * Telling your wife you want a divorce is an "invitation to treat" * Negotiating with your wife's lawyers is the methodology * The divorce absolute is the "acceptance"
Right now we are at the aspiration stage. The nearest we have to post-Brexit scenarios is the wargame, but people don't like me posting that because it goes bad for the Brits.
I suspect the wargane is realistic in the event of Brexit, though. Our leaving would seriously damage the EU and those nations most committed would be hurt and upset, and consequently need to have time to get it over it, and in the meantime be less inclined to give us a “good deal". And given the timescale they would have to get on with things with reasonable speed. They would, too, be concerned, as others have said, on the effect on other doubting members.
Companies. countries, people break and change contracts all the time, they then sort out how they want to work after that.
Indeed they do. The "sorting out" usually involves police and the courts. Or, if you're really unlucky, warfare.
lol well that's the funniest yet. So who do we nuke ? As for courts most of it never gets to court, people sort it out beforehand based on the new realities.
Well, I've never liked Middlesbrough...
As for the courts thing: over 100,000 people get divorced in E&W every year. About 8.5% of the adult population are divorced: say *very* roughly around 5 million people in the UK. All of those divorces involved a court at some stage.
The German government, according to reliable sources, has made provisions for Brexit.
These include:
1) Immediately toning down any reference to "punishing" Britain for leaving;
2) Forging a UK-EU cooperation agreement to deal with all strategic, economic and migration issues;
3) Including, as a top priority, the United States, to be an honest broker.
Which would indeed be the only sane way for Germany to approach Brexit, although I am not sure that Anglo-German relations, even in those circumstances, would need a US chaperone.
There we go, problem solved.
In the meantime no doubt we will still have lots of lies and blustering about this though.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
It's IndyRef Deja Vu all over again...
If we vote Yes Leave, everything we ever wanted will magically be true, and there will no nasty reality to intrude.
All of those people we despise will bend to our will, International Law will not apply to us, and there will be much rejoicing.
What is depressing is those folk who knew the separatist myth was a basket case last time, but seem seduced by the same fantasies wearing a different rosette
I was going to say this is all very reminiscent of 'An Independent Scotland will be able to force the rest of the UK into a currency union'
Britain can stand as an independent country many many times easier than Scotland could.
Nobody's saying it can't be done. the question is: what is the point?
Britain can stand easily as an independent country. It will be able to negotiate treaties with every single country and supranational entity on this God's earth. The question is whether we could negotiate arrangements that are better than the ones we already have, and how much time and cost would it take to do so. My opinion is that the results post-Brexit would at best be slightly worse than the ones we already have and would take too long, and cost too much, to achieve, hence my REMAIN stance. Others disagree or consider the advantages wrt legislative freedom to outweigh the disadvantages, hence their LEAVE stance.
Exactly. Leave seems to consist of IDS, Grayling, Villiers, Gove and Johnson, none of whom have ever set the world to light with their political acumen and their campaign so far consists of telling whichever expert body has just supported Remain that they are wrong and probably lying. Its getting ridiculous
Agreed. Leave cannot just spend the next 2 months simply dismissing mounting concerns being expressed over Brexit as rubbish or Project Fear.
What I ask myself is, based on what I know, how likely is it that Gove/IDS/Johnson/Farage are right and all the UK party leaders, the Commonwealth, Anglosphere and EU leaders, the IMF, G20, the BOE etc are all wrong.
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
It's slightly tragic.
So not comparable, thanks.
As for logic, I think some people find it rather far-fetched that the world's fifth largest economy will be consigned to the status of North Korea simply by virtue of ceasing to be part of a customs union. You presumably do not.
It there's a comparison to be made here, it's with the Euro campaign that never was. Were the same people not telling us how isolated we would be if we didn't get on board with that? And what europhiles really fear deep down is that the same will happen. We'll leave and there will be a total absence of catastrophe.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
They haven't got a plan in place. Or, more accurately (if you read those links to Vote Leave's site that Casino Royale kindly provided) they have multiple overlapping plans that involve saying "We will do X. And/Or Y. And/Or Z."
Wow. The Remainers on this thread seem really spooked: thrashing around like a wounded octopus as they desperately try and spike any notion that Leave might have a sensible plan.
You've cheered me up immensely: I'm off for a Sunday afternoon gin & tonic with my old man.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
The entire argument is a ridiculous one.
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty. And to exit in the most jarring and damaging way deliberately because 'you asked for it' would be worse than dereliction of duty; it would be treasonable.
FACT: Remain will obviously not reveal this plan as it's not in their interests for the public to be reassured about a Leave result, rather they must be convinced it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Given these two facts, it's an argument over nothing that neither side can win.
Sounds as if Leave are getting a bit queasy about it all, and are demanding safeguards.
Indigo isn't 'Leave' as far as I'm aware, though I'm sure he'd do a great job. I'm not Leave either, though I'd give them a better logo.
Indeed not.
But since its turned into a chimps tea party here this afternoon I think I will go and enjoy the sun. I am sure Scott and Stark Raving will enjoy each other's..... company.
Companies. countries, people break and change contracts all the time, they then sort out how they want to work after that.
Indeed they do. The "sorting out" usually involves police and the courts. Or, if you're really unlucky, warfare.
lol well that's the funniest yet. So who do we nuke ? As for courts most of it never gets to court, people sort it out beforehand based on the new realities.
Well, I've never liked Middlesbrough...
As for the courts thing: over 100,000 people get divorced in E&W every year. About 8.5% of the adult population are divorced: say *very* roughly around 5 million people in the UK. All of those divorces involved a court at some stage.
of course, and the point from remainers is that any divorce will be of the most bitter wrangling type possible hence lots of conflict. Whereas it could just as easily be the type where both sides agree they have to work togther ib future and tell the lawyers here's how we want to do it.
Fact is neither Leave or Remain know which way it is going to be but are pumping out bilge claiming only they have the answer.
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty.
The methodology is in place (invoke article 50 then two years) but methodology is not a plan. Any plan must involve the other actors (otherwise it's just an aspiration), yet there have been no (official?) contacts with the other 27 nations nor the EU apparatus. So the "plan" you refer to does not exist. Call it a dereliction of duty if you like, but there it is.
* Wanting to divorce your wife is an aspiration. * Telling your wife you want a divorce is an "invitation to treat" * Negotiating with your wife's lawyers is the methodology * The divorce absolute is the "acceptance"
Right now we are at the aspiration stage. The nearest we have to post-Brexit scenarios is the wargame, but people don't like me posting that because it goes bad for the Brits.
There is a plan in place if America invades our country. The odds would be extremely stacked against our rainy haven in that instance, and neither could we predict what they would do, but a plan is still in place.
If the Government descends into farce over negotiations in the wake of a Leave vote, they're going to be punished, with every justification.
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
It's slightly tragic.
So not comparable, thanks.
As for logic, I think some people find it rather far-fetched that the world's fifth largest economy will be consigned to the status of North Korea simply by virtue of ceasing to be part of a customs union. You presumably do not.
It there's a comparison to be made here, it's with the Euro campaign that never was. Were the same people not telling us how isolated we would be if we didn't get on board with that? And what europhiles really fear deep down is that the same will happen. We'll leave and there will be a total absence of catastrophe.
That is exactly right.
And the evidence supports the view of no catastrophe.
As I posted here the other night, ALL the same dire warnings of economic meltdown were issued by the YES side in the Norwegian referendum on the EU in 1994. But instead of meltdown, the Norwegian economy grew by 5% per year from 1994-97.
Wow. The Remainers on this thread seem really spooked: thrashing around like a wounded octopus as they desperately try and spike any notion that Leave might have a sensible plan.
You've cheered me up immensely: I'm off for a Sunday afternoon gin & tonic with my old man.
Ta ra.
Don't Leavers always tell us that they do not have a plan and it is not up to them to have a plan, they are just voting Leave? The PM has said what will happen if we do vote to Leave. It's all very clear and it involves invoking Article 50 immediately.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
Companies. countries, people break and change contracts all the time, they then sort out how they want to work after that.
Indeed they do. The "sorting out" usually involves police and the courts. Or, if you're really unlucky, warfare.
lol well that's the funniest yet. So who do we nuke ? As for courts most of it never gets to court, people sort it out beforehand based on the new realities.
Well, I've never liked Middlesbrough...
As for the courts thing: over 100,000 people get divorced in E&W every year. About 8.5% of the adult population are divorced: say *very* roughly around 5 million people in the UK. All of those divorces involved a court at some stage.
of course, and the point from remainers is that any divorce will be of the most bitter wrangling type possible hence lots of conflict. Whereas it could just as easily be the type where both sides agree they have to work togther ib future and tell the lawyers here's how we want to do it.
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
It's slightly tragic.
So not comparable, thanks.
As for logic, I think some people find it rather far-fetched that the world's fifth largest economy will be consigned to the status of North Korea simply by virtue of ceasing to be part of a customs union. You presumably do not.
It there's a comparison to be made here, it's with the Euro campaign that never was. Were the same people not telling us how isolated we would be if we didn't get on board with that? And what europhiles really fear deep down is that the same will happen. We'll leave and there will be a total absence of catastrophe.
That maybe what Europhiles fear, but most of us voting Remain are not Europhiles. What worries me is that we will leave the single market and fail to improve our trading situation elsewhere in the world. I am not that bothered about pooling sovereignty and I don't see leaving making any huge difference to our ability to control immigration. So, yes, I see many more downsides than upsides.
How is leaving a 50 year old international agreement which (thank God) we do not depend upon for any of the organs of the state, and which we pay billions of pounds a year to be part of, in any way shape or form comparable to the breaking up of the UK.
What is comparable is the unshakable belief of the separatists that they can dictate the agenda, without any regard to logic, reality or the Rule of Law.
It's slightly tragic.
So not comparable, thanks.
As for logic, I think some people find it rather far-fetched that the world's fifth largest economy will be consigned to the status of North Korea simply by virtue of ceasing to be part of a customs union. You presumably do not.
It there's a comparison to be made here, it's with the Euro campaign that never was. Were the same people not telling us how isolated we would be if we didn't get on board with that? And what europhiles really fear deep down is that the same will happen. We'll leave and there will be a total absence of catastrophe.
That is exactly right.
And the evidence supports the view of no catastrophe.
As I posted here the other night, ALL the same dire warnings of economic meltdown were issued by the YES side in the Norwegian referendum on the EU in 1994. But instead of meltdown, the Norwegian economy grew by 5% per year from 1994-97.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
He also said he wouldn't resign, but I think it's a bit hard to see him staying. If he resigns, I think he can reasonably kick the can down the road to his unlucky successor.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
It's a new one for all us. First the Leavers complained that the referendum wasn't being held early enough; now their gripe is that Brexit is going to happen too soon. Do these people actually know what they want?
The punters at Betfair didn't expect a Tory majority even after the Nuneaton and Swindon North declarations on general election night.
The odds on the Ref. only change when there is a sudden spike in volume, thus I have the suspicion that it's the same people placing the same bets all this time with two exceptions on March 22nd and April 11th.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
It's a new one for all us. First the Leavers complained that the referendum wasn't being held early enough; now their gripe is that Brexit is going to happen too soon. Do these people actually know what they want?
The PM has made absolutely clear what will happen after a Leave vote.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
The impact on us (and I for one accept there will be one, almost certainly negative in the very short term) will be much greater than the impact elsewhere.
One possible consequence might be that countries like Denmark, Sweden and possibly Holland might start to think about whether they want to remain in as well but that is a medium term issue and ultimately their decision just like this is ours.
As long as we stay in the EEA I can honestly imagine people in 5 years time wondering what all the fuss was about.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
It's not entirely academic in that 28 parties would need to agree to extend it, although the EU generally manages to fudge something together.
It's an interesting one. It could be extended up to the next GE. That would make EU membership the biggest issue during the campaign by far. If things have not gone well economically following a Leave vote, but we still haven't left by then, what will that do to voting decisions?
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
He also said he wouldn't resign, but I think it's a bit hard to see him staying. If he resigns, I think he can reasonably kick the can down the road to his unlucky successor.
According to Boris yesterday, David Davies and Chris Grayling on Marr today, and Theresa Villiers on Sky, all of whom are in the leave campaign, David Cameron will continue as Prime Minister post the 23rd June. The idea that he resigns and there is then an election for his successor is simply impractical and is not going to happen
The punters at Betfair didn't expect a Tory majority even after the Nuneaton and Swindon North declarations on general election night.
Neither did the modellers. If you go thru the Twitter timefeeds[1], you'll see they lagged as well.
[1] There is a legitimate objection to using Twitter timestamps since their accuracy is debatable, but at least we can say it didn't happen after it'd been posted
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
It's a new one for all us. First the Leavers complained that the referendum wasn't being held early enough; now their gripe is that Brexit is going to happen too soon. Do these people actually know what they want?
The PM has made absolutely clear what will happen after a Leave vote.
Yes, and quite right too. No point faffing around. Let's get on with it. Curiously though it's the Leavers who seem to be demanding a cooling-off period.
He would put a timetable in place, appoint the team responsible for negotiating and so on. The exact timing of Article 50 is only important in so much as it has to happen with a reasonable time to satisfy the Leavers. Or do you think he will just push the button out of spite on day 1?
I think he would push the button on Day 1 out of respect for the vote.
Why you think that would be spiteful is not clear. If we voted for it, why wouldn't anyone want it?
"respect"?
Leave would be voting to leave the EU in the best and safest way for GB, over a reasonable time frame.
Leave are not voting to dive into Article 50 without a plan in place.
FFS if they haven't got a plan in place by the referendum then heaven help us.
This idea article 50 can be deferred until a draft trade agreement seems a new one on me. As I understand it David Cameron has stated on several occasions that he will invoke it immediately on a leave vote as the act of recognition of the democratic will of the people. I do not see how he could explain that he wasn't signing it in the circumstances of a leave vote
It's a new one for all us. First the Leavers complained that the referendum wasn't being held early enough; now their gripe is that Brexit is going to happen too soon. Do these people actually know what they want?
I had always assumed that Article 50 would be triggered by the PM within a short time after the election result. More than a day or so but less than a month - not to give any time to sort out any details or do any negotiating but just to give the Government and cabinet time to sort out their own narrative and position.
I don't actually see what the benefit of deferring would be. It would simply cause more uncertainty and would not give anyone more time for negotiations. The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule so it is not as if deferring gives extra time for anything.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
It's not entirely academic in that 28 parties would need to agree to extend it, although the EU generally manages to fudge something together.
Quite. They are good at fudge and everyone has a vested interest in the success of these negotiations. Anyway, on the very reasonable assumption that Chilcot is not going to play any part in these negotiations 2 years is a very long time, especially when we have a series of off the peg solutions to choose from.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
The impact on us (and I for one accept there will be one, almost certainly negative in the very short term) will be much greater than the impact elsewhere.
One possible consequence might be that countries like Denmark, Sweden and possibly Holland might start to think about whether they want to remain in as well but that is a medium term issue and ultimately their decision just like this is ours.
As long as we stay in the EEA I can honestly imagine people in 5 years time wondering what all the fuss was about.
I agree if we stay in the EEA. But if we do stay in the EEA there will still be free movement of people, and that will mean none of the big issues will have gone away.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
And as you said in 1992:
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
The impact on us (and I for one accept there will be one, almost certainly negative in the very short term) will be much greater than the impact elsewhere.
One possible consequence might be that countries like Denmark, Sweden and possibly Holland might start to think about whether they want to remain in as well but that is a medium term issue and ultimately their decision just like this is ours.
As long as we stay in the EEA I can honestly imagine people in 5 years time wondering what all the fuss was about.
I agree if we stay in the EEA. But if we do stay in the EEA there will still be free movement of people, and that will mean none of the big issues will have gone away.
Well you can't expect Nigel to retire can you? After he loses his sinecure in the EU Parliament he will need something to bleat about.
I emphasize California because Trump sweeping it would likely make him the nominee (aka give him the majority of delegates).
There can be no doubt, those results would hand Trump the nomination.
However the major factor a lot of analysis misses, is that coming into California, Trump supporters and opponents alike will know "this is it". Their mindset will be affect accordingly.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
Where's the evidence?
Ahead of the 1994 Norwegian referendum the Norwegian Prime Minister claimed she didn't know of any companies planning to invest if there was a NO vote. One of the country's biggest firms claimed 'billions' would be invested abroad.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
It's IndyRef Deja Vu all over again...
If we vote Yes Leave, everything we ever wanted will magically be true, and there will no nasty reality to intrude.
All of those people we despise will bend to our will, International Law will not apply to us, and there will be much rejoicing.
What is depressing is those folk who knew the separatist myth was a basket case last time, but seem seduced by the same fantasies wearing a different rosette
I was going to say this is all very reminiscent of 'An Independent Scotland will be able to force the rest of the UK into a currency union'
nothing of the sort.
trade is voluntary and both sides will wish to trade
Exactly as they would have done if referendum had been Yes. Only lying lower than snakes Tories would suggest otherwise and lie about it again.
What a bizarre thread. I pop out with a quick game of cricket with my kids and the daftest arguments ever seem to break out.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
A Leave vote will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
Where's the evidence?
Ahead of the 1994 Norwegian referendum the Norwegian Prime Minister claimed she didn't know of any companies planning to invest if there was a NO vote. One of the country's biggest firms claimed 'billions' would be invested abroad.
Actual result: Norwegian investment
1994 +5% 1995 +3% 1996 +9% 1997 +15%
In an oil boom those are not particularly impressive figures. It seems sensible to conclude that there will be a period of uncertainty and that investment, particularly investment relating to international trade, will be adversely affected until the basis of our future trading is confirmed. All the more reason to get on with fixing those terms of trade as fast as possible of course.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit. And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other EU Member States agrees to a delay. And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join, it is a process for leaving
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
The entire argument is a ridiculous one.
FACT: There should be (and one must presume there is) a sensible plan and timetable in place to withdraw from the EU following a Leave vote. Not to have one would be a total dereliction of duty. And to exit in the most jarring and damaging way deliberately because 'you asked for it' would be worse than dereliction of duty; it would be treasonable.
FACT: Remain will obviously not reveal this plan as it's not in their interests for the public to be reassured about a Leave result, rather they must be convinced it will be a catastrophe of epic proportions.
Given these two facts, it's an argument over nothing that neither side can win.
Sounds as if Leave are getting a bit queasy about it all, and are demanding safeguards.
Or that REMAIN tell LEAVE what 'LEAVE' means......
I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit. And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other EU Member States agrees to a delay. And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join, it is a process for leaving
The point of this is that Boris was somewhat cavalierly suggesting that there would be a second referendum on better terms than the first if we voted leave. No, there will not. Which is fine, by the way.
..The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule...
No, it's actually a rule. It can be extended with the consent of all parties, but - again - we're back to the problems of getting 27 nations to agree. "Dear UK. We want £5billion to extend the deadline, otherwise no. Signed, Slovakia".
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malcolm, I am not sure that the village idiot is an official position that has to be filled in every case. Unless it was sneaked in under the named person legislation....
I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit. And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other EU Member States agrees to a delay. And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join, it is a process for leaving
The point of this is that Boris was somewhat cavalierly suggesting that there would be a second referendum on better terms than the first if we voted leave. No, there will not. Which is fine, by the way.
Can you see any circumstances under which Cameron does not trigger Article 50 within days, if not hours, of a LEAVE vote? Since uncertainty is damaging, the sooner it starts the better.
The suggestion downthread that somehow we would wait for a broad outline seems 'very brave' in Sir Humphrey speak....positively 'courageous' (trans "off your f*cking head")
On topic I would say we are at least as involved as anyone else wrt Brexit and we can't agree so why on earth we believe the betting markets have some kind of unique insight is beyond me.
The idea I liked best was for a hedge fund to commission an exit poll (£20k they estimated) and then take a long/short position on sterling depending on the outcome. Do we know when we get the official result?
As to in/out, plan/no plan I think @viewcode had it right (apologies if it was someone else). We are not looking at catastrophe one way or the other (unless you are @MikeK). It is a matter of degree - slightly better off in certain areas, slightly worse off in others for each option - and each person can make their mind up accordingly.
As for Article 50 well Dave did say he would invoke it and I can see some of the Leavers getting hugely, and rightly, aggrieved if there is not a clear path to actually leave beyond a "yes we'll come to that in due course".
It's telling. Apart from the odd crackpot (Farage) and the odd career advancer (Boris) few professional politicians have advocated Leave. There must be a politicians-club thing going on here: they know the mayhem Leave will unleash and are kind enough not to inflict that sort of thing on any successor.
I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit. And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other EU Member States agrees to a delay. And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join, it is a process for leaving
The point of this is that Boris was somewhat cavalierly suggesting that there would be a second Can you see any circumstances under which Cameron does not trigger Article 50 within days, if not hours, of a LEAVE vote? Since uncertainty is damaging, the sooner it starts the better.
The suggestion downthread that somehow we would wait for a broad outline seems 'very brave' in Sir Humphrey speak....positively 'courageous' (trans "off your f*cking head")
I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit. And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away. Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a two year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other EU Member States agrees to a delay. And we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to re-join, it is a process for leaving
The point of this is that Boris was somewhat cavalierly suggesting that there would be a second referendum on better terms than the first if we voted leave. No, there will not. Which is fine, by the way.
Can you see any circumstances under which Cameron does not trigger Article 50 within days, if not hours, of a LEAVE vote? Since uncertainty is damaging, the sooner it starts the better.
The suggestion downthread that somehow we would wait for a broad outline seems 'very brave' in Sir Humphrey speak....positively 'courageous' (trans "off your f*cking head")
yes. I would have thought it prudent to have a cabinet meeting first and since our elections are on Thursday deliberately to give us the weeked to digest the consequences, then the following week seems the the time in which to make prononuncements.
It would be odd to say the least to make an announcement without consulting other European leaders first.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
It's not entirely academic in that 28 parties would need to agree to extend it, although the EU generally manages to fudge something together.
It's an interesting one. It could be extended up to the next GE. That would make EU membership the biggest issue during the campaign by far. If things have not gone well economically following a Leave vote, but we still haven't left by then, what will that do to voting decisions?
Super-interesting and would give Jezza the opportunity to pull the mother of all u-turns, come out for Leave, excoriate Dave for not leaving when the country has demanded we leave, and romp home in the GE.
When I read or watch the statements from people in favour of REMAIN, I am reminded of that other wonderful european idea, the Euro and the forecasts of the End of Days that would fall on us if we did not enter that european project. To see some of that europhile BS I would recommend the book "Guilty Men" by Oborne and Weaver.
"Here was the strategy: to create the widespread impression that those arguing against the Euro were mad, racist or xenophobic. This story was for a time extremely successful, and convinced even some Conservatives that they should drop opposition to the Euro as a political campaign." “We could stop listening to the assorted maniacs, buffoons, empire-nostalgists, colonial press tycoons, Save The Groat anoraks and Yorkshire separatists of the Europhobe movement, and prepare for our earliest feasible entry into the euro. Once in the Euro we would immediately reap the benefit of our competitiveness, our goods competing – in eternity (which in economics is quite a long time) – on a level playing field.” – David Aaronovitch, Independent, 2 February 2001.
There is the slight possibility that he is... now what was that word again... oh yes, lying.
So the day after a Leave vote he stands on the steps of Downing Street and says to the nation "I know you voted for Leave, and the only way to do that is invoke Article 50, but I have decided not to..."
FFS, at least try to keep it within shouting distance of reality.
Bizarre. The Leavers are advocating 'Leave but not quite yet'. They need to get a grip here. This referendum isn't a game. If we vote Leave we're out and all the consequences that entails will ensue. I get the impression the Leavers think this is merely some sort of thought experiment.
That's two villages out searching now.
I'm sure that means something to you. I'm stumped.
You prove my point , villagers are looking for their idiots.
Malc I think jokes fail when you have to explain them.
Comments
Invoke article 50. You then have 2 years.
This is not complicated stuff.
Has somebody spiked the leavers juice today?
Britain can stand easily as an independent country. It will be able to negotiate treaties with every single country and supranational entity on this God's earth. The question is whether we could negotiate arrangements that are better than the ones we already have, and how much time and cost would it take to do so. My opinion is that the results post-Brexit would at best be slightly worse than the ones we already have and would take too long, and cost too much, to achieve, hence my REMAIN stance. Others disagree or consider the advantages wrt legislative freedom to outweigh the disadvantages, hence their LEAVE stance.
we have deals signed with lots of European nations and they regularly break the EU rules we still trade with them.
We want Independence. With the Queen. And the Bank of England. And Sterling. And Barnett...
We want to Leave!. As long as that doesn't actually mean leaving...
All these ninnies in the Government and their supporters 'Ooh Betty, what are we gonna do if we have to actually run a country??' - Are they really that disastrously incompetent that they can't manage without Junker's hand to hold? Grow a set and get a grip ffs.
It's slightly tragic.
You're simply making things up to suit your own trolling.
* Wanting to divorce your wife is an aspiration.
* Telling your wife you want a divorce is an "invitation to treat"
* Negotiating with your wife's lawyers is the methodology
* The divorce absolute is the "acceptance"
Right now we are at the aspiration stage. The nearest we have to post-Brexit scenarios is the wargame, but people don't like me posting that because it goes bad for the Brits.
So far as I can see that is the position. We pay the EU £8 billion a year and we then have to fork out £110. billion to pay for the net trade.
As for logic, I think some people find it rather far-fetched that the world's fifth largest economy will be consigned to the status of North Korea simply by virtue of ceasing to be part of a customs union. You presumably do not.
It there's a comparison to be made here, it's with the Euro campaign that never was. Were the same people not telling us how isolated we would be if we didn't get on board with that? And what europhiles really fear deep down is that the same will happen. We'll leave and there will be a total absence of catastrophe.
As for the courts thing: over 100,000 people get divorced in E&W every year. About 8.5% of the adult population are divorced: say *very* roughly around 5 million people in the UK. All of those divorces involved a court at some stage.
There we go, problem solved.
In the meantime no doubt we will still have lots of lies and blustering about this though.
What I ask myself is, based on what I know, how likely is it that Gove/IDS/Johnson/Farage are right and all the UK party leaders, the Commonwealth, Anglosphere and EU leaders, the IMF, G20, the BOE etc are all wrong.
And yes, heaven help us.
You've cheered me up immensely: I'm off for a Sunday afternoon gin & tonic with my old man.
Ta ra.
But since its turned into a chimps tea party here this afternoon I think I will go and enjoy the sun. I am sure Scott and Stark Raving will enjoy each other's..... company.
Fact is neither Leave or Remain know which way it is going to be but are pumping out bilge claiming only they have the answer.
If the Government descends into farce over negotiations in the wake of a Leave vote, they're going to be punished, with every justification.
And the evidence supports the view of no catastrophe.
As I posted here the other night, ALL the same dire warnings of economic meltdown were issued by the YES side in the Norwegian referendum on the EU in 1994. But instead of meltdown, the Norwegian economy grew by 5% per year from 1994-97.
You don't pay £8bn.
It's much clearer than what would have been in the case of scottish independence.
And whether its EFTA or EEA or something else, is also much better than what the scots would have got.
Who cares when the Article 50 is triggered? If the 2 years proves an inconvenient time then the parties can extend it and they will.
The argument that this is potentially such a source of panic and confusion that Article 50 can never be triggered and everyone should just sit quietly in their box until the lid is nailed down surely has to be the most surreal to date. It is even more surreal than the argument that it is for Leave to tell Cameron what he should be doing the day after a vote for Leave is won. He will be the PM and it will be his job to ensure that the democratic wishes of the British people are implemented to their best advantage. There is really no more to be said on this.
There are good arguments for remain that I have acknowledged before. The nature of our deal within the EEA is uncertain and important to our economic prosperity. Uncertainty will almost certainly cause at least a pause in inward investment (something that is really important to us since we consume too much to do much of our own). There is (as always) an argument that this is not the time for running such risks. I am sure that there are some positive arguments for the EU too, I just haven't come across them.
But the article 50 argument is just silly. Childishly silly.
From the team that gave us "Let's pretend we didn't sign the Treaty and go on from there"
I will never be able to make up anything as good as that.
CBS/Yougov polls.
N.Y
Trump 54
Cruz 21
Kasich 19
Pennsylvania
Trump 46
Cruz 26
Kasich 23
And CALIFORNIA
Trump 49
Cruz 31
Kasich 16
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-keeps-large-lead-in-new-york-ahead-in-california/
I emphasize California because Trump sweeping it would likely make him the nominee (aka give him the majority of delegates).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIWpDfmL0_s
One possible consequence might be that countries like Denmark, Sweden and possibly Holland might start to think about whether they want to remain in as well but that is a medium term issue and ultimately their decision just like this is ours.
As long as we stay in the EEA I can honestly imagine people in 5 years time wondering what all the fuss was about.
It will need careful calibration for Brexit, where apparently "We didn't sign the Treaty" = " Normality"
[1] There is a legitimate objection to using Twitter timestamps since their accuracy is debatable, but at least we can say it didn't happen after it'd been posted
I don't actually see what the benefit of deferring would be. It would simply cause more uncertainty and would not give anyone more time for negotiations. The two year limit for negotiations is a guide not a hard and fast rule so it is not as if deferring gives extra time for anything.
Britain leaving the ERM will not only stall economic activity and investment in the UK. That is one of the problems. If it were just us affected by this vote, then it would not be so bad. But it is likely to trigger reactions well beyond our shores - so meaning the impact will be much greater and longer-lasting.
However the major factor a lot of analysis misses, is that coming into California, Trump supporters and opponents alike will know "this is it". Their mindset will be affect accordingly.
Ahead of the 1994 Norwegian referendum the Norwegian Prime Minister claimed she didn't know of any companies planning to invest if there was a NO vote. One of the country's biggest firms claimed 'billions' would be invested abroad.
Actual result: Norwegian investment
1994 +5%
1995 +3%
1996 +9%
1997 +15%
Steve Davis has retired from professional snooker at the age of 58 ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/36034458
.......................................................................
Make me feel old .... Hhhmmm .... I am old !!
New York
Clinton 53
Sanders 43
California
Clinton 52
Sanders 40
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-keeps-new-york-edge-leads-bernie-sanders-in-california-election-2016/
Clinton 53 .. Sanders 43
California - YouGov/CBS
Clinton 52 .. Sanders 40
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-keeps-new-york-edge-leads-bernie-sanders-in-california-election-2016/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-full-statement-on-the-eu-deal/
Want to see more of him during the campaign
All the time.
And people move on.
The suggestion downthread that somehow we would wait for a broad outline seems 'very brave' in Sir Humphrey speak....positively 'courageous' (trans "off your f*cking head")
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-04-17/sturgeon-scotland-should-have-new-referendum-if-brexit/
which rather says the pointless wheel out a "celebrity" theme is a bit of a waste of time.
On topic I would say we are at least as involved as anyone else wrt Brexit and we can't agree so why on earth we believe the betting markets have some kind of unique insight is beyond me.
The idea I liked best was for a hedge fund to commission an exit poll (£20k they estimated) and then take a long/short position on sterling depending on the outcome. Do we know when we get the official result?
As to in/out, plan/no plan I think @viewcode had it right (apologies if it was someone else). We are not looking at catastrophe one way or the other (unless you are @MikeK). It is a matter of degree - slightly better off in certain areas, slightly worse off in others for each option - and each person can make their mind up accordingly.
As for Article 50 well Dave did say he would invoke it and I can see some of the Leavers getting hugely, and rightly, aggrieved if there is not a clear path to actually leave beyond a "yes we'll come to that in due course".
It would be odd to say the least to make an announcement without consulting other European leaders first.
"For those of you reading in black and white, the pink (turnip) is just behind the green (vegetables)."
.........................................................................................................
Apologies to "Whispering" Ted Lowe
"Here was the strategy: to create the widespread impression that those arguing against the Euro were mad, racist or xenophobic. This story was for a time extremely successful, and convinced even some Conservatives that they should drop opposition to the Euro as a political campaign."
“We could stop listening to the assorted maniacs, buffoons, empire-nostalgists, colonial press
tycoons, Save The Groat anoraks and Yorkshire separatists of the Europhobe movement, and
prepare for our earliest feasible entry into the euro. Once in the Euro we would immediately reap the benefit of our competitiveness, our goods competing – in eternity (which in economics is quite a long time) – on a level playing field.” – David Aaronovitch, Independent, 2 February 2001.