Countdown started .... Article 50 notice served

[Saracen]

<Various links>

Nope,Farage,BoJo and a number of them pointed out Norway and Switzerland as examples,and said leaving the single market is suicide,and now they have backtracked on it.



Its all on record and there is no denying what they stated either.

Edit!!

Am I surprised?

Nope.

Seriously if people hate Cameron,do you honestly think BoJo,Gove or Farage are any better? Same kind of old boys networks types - they must be having a good laugh at all the plebs believing them and fighting over them.

All skilled liers.

Agreed on the last couple of paragraphs.

On the links, the problem is that reports of who said what often either omit context, or misrepresent exactly what was being said. And Newsnight presenters, most emphatically including but not by a very large margin, limited to Evan Davies, are experts at misinterpreting (deliberately, IMHO) what people said. Even last night, I listened to one interview where Emily responded by saying "So you say that ..." and I'm shouting "No, you stupid <bleep>, that's NOT what he said, it's what you want him to have said to suit your interviewing agenda. "

Personally, I regard every member of the Newsnight team as being entirely as deceitful and disingenuous as the average politican for the way they load questions and then twist answers to suit their agenda. The only way I can stomach Newsnight these days is to ignore the loaded bilge coming from presenters nearly all the time, and simply listen to what politicians SAID, not what the likes of Evan Davies said, and certainly not what is selectively quoted by Huffinton later on. There is no way to know how accurately any of those articles represent what was said without going back to the original interviews, whuch may or may not be in my archive.

I do, howeverm have repeated examples of Hannan referencing the lijes of Norway or Switzerland as examples of other arrangements with the EU, but going on to point out, we are neither Nirway nor Switzerland and what we want is a UK deal, not any off-the-table deal.

The remarks I referred to earlier, however, from Cameron, Osborn, Gove, etc, ARE examples I have in my archive, where I have been back and listened to the whole interview, and these are major interview features, just days before the referendum vote, where both sides stated explicitly and unequivocally that leaving the EU means leaving "membership" of the single market, but NOT having no access to it. The issue is, what access, on what terms? And that, nobody yet knows.

[Corky34]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b09025ba310fce
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7104846.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7518281.html

<Snip>

Its all on record and there is no denying what they stated either.

To be fair they were being highly misleadingly and ambiguous over the whole single market thing, I'm not sticking up for that or them BTW however it leads into what you say next.

Am I surprised?

Nope.

Seriously if people hate Cameron,do you honestly think BoJo,Gove or Farage are any better? Same kind of old boys networks types - they must be having a good laugh at all the plebs believing them and fighting over them.

All skilled liers.

And there it is, the skilled liers who purposefully use ambiguity to mislead the electorate are the very same people who we are meant to get behind, support, and help out as they go about rewriting rules, regulations, and laws however they like, ultimately it comes down to trust and i personally, based on their past behavior, don't trust them to do what's best for me, my kin, and my country.

IMO The referendum shouldn't have been held in the way it was, a white paper should have been published before the referendum and not six months afterwards so people knew what they were voting for and so the electorate could have held the politicians to account, the electorate should have been given more than just 6 months to become well informed and debate such a complex topic, and there's many other things that should, or could, have been done that would have reduced the chance of such a divided country.

[Ttaskmaster]

I've had some 45 years, my entire working life as near as dammit, stuck inside one form of political/economic integration or another our politicians foisted on us without ever bothering to give us a vote before doing the foisting.

You (the people) voted them in. That was your vote. Read the small print.... no, the smaller small print... no, smaller than that.... no, no, still smaller... look, just read the smallest thing on the page, yeah.... too small? Oh well, it's there, that's our political backsides covered and that's all we needed to do about it. Anyway, must dash, have some gold reserves to sell...

Slightly overselling that me thinks. And I voted remain!

With Apartheid, I'd argue it was underselling. It was NOT officially race segregation, for example... it was merely government sanctions of existing social class and financial delineation... it "just happened" to segregate by racial group, because there was some weird coincidental correlation, you see.....

That's at least along the lines of how it starts. Same with rallying the people of Germany behind the National Socialist German Workers Party... the workers, the people... basically Labour, if you like.

So here we're heroic Brits escaping the oppressive evils of Europe... and with them out the way, who knows what insane laws will be forced on us.
If we're taking it to extremes, and all...

Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing
Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

Yes, Nige... but they're also not known for being a bunch of idiots governed by cruel idiots and can be trusted to self-govern reasonably well.

[scaryjim]

... IMO The referendum shouldn't have been held in the way it was ...

IMO it shouldn't have been held at all....!

... a white paper should have been published before the referendum and not six months afterwards so people knew what they were voting for ...

That would've required the political will to seriously consider leaving the EU, and that clearly didn't exist in the UK political system. UKIP and some people with the Conservative party clearly felt that on principal we'd be better off not in the EU, but no-one had put any serious thought into what a strategy for leaving would look like and how we would replace the existing laws and trade agreements that EU memberships entails.

Ultimately, the vast majority of the political establishment didn't think that leaving the EU was worth giving any serious consideration, and I suspect the vast majority of the political establishment - including most leading "leave" campaigners - expected the referendum to produce a "remain" result. Expert opinion strongly favoured remaining as the rational decision. Planning for the outcome of an irrational decision would be ... well, irrational

[BobF64]

IMO The referendum shouldn't have been held in the way it was

I've always thought that the referendum, along with elections, should factor in the "wishes" of those that didnt vote, but were registered to vote.

The assumption should be that non-voters were for the status quo, this is unlikely to get more people to vote, in fact i'd expect it to decrease turn out.

But in the case of the referendum, with the votes as were, it would have been a massive win for Remain, 29million against 17million.

But whats done is done.

[nekomata]

I really don't think it's a good idea to start down the path of assuming the wishes of those who had a chance to vote but decided not to.

I very nearly didn't vote myself, partially because both campaigns were so underhanded I really didn't want to give either of them my vote. If I had taken that route, I certainly wouldn't one of them then hijacking my vote with the excuse "He didn't vote therefore he obviously wants us to win!"

[Corky34]

That's why it's normally sensible to set a some sort of qualified majority vote when it comes to referendums, elections are different however when putting a question to the electorate that has long term and possibly far reaching consequences it's normally a good idea to say voter turnout should be at least X and Y percentage of the vote is needed to change the status quo.

IIRC the electoral commission and NGO's who scrutinise voting all came to the same conclusion, that the way the referendum was conducted was deeply flawed.

[Smudger]

I think Corky makes a good point, the bar should have been set at 50% of those eligible to vote, thereby ensuring it is an actual majority, rather than just the majority of those that could be bothered.

Mind you, it might encourage laziness on the part of voters...

[Phage]

<cough> Compulsory Voting</cough>

[directhex]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017...y-for-team-may

Simultaneous divorce/trade deal talks? Rejected. Finalising trade deal before exit? Rejected. Bilateral talks? Rejected.

Tumpty tumpty.

[kompukare]

That's why it's normally sensible to set a some sort of qualified majority vote when it comes to referendums, elections are different however when putting a question to the electorate that has long term and possibly far reaching consequences it's normally a good idea to say voter turnout should be at least X and Y percentage of the vote is needed to change the status quo.

IIRC the electoral commission and NGO's who scrutinise voting all came to the same conclusion, that the way the referendum was conducted was deeply flawed.

That's were an actual written constitution would be useful. Still find it very strange that the UK now has a Supreme Court when any act of parliament can pretty much change anything.

Some (especially continental) countries can have constitutional amendments done solely by parliament but usually require a super-majority. Whereas in countries like Ireland amendments have to be via referendums (where a simple majority of eligible votes count - so nothing fancy there).

Don't know of any country's constitution which requires that amendments are multi-choice, or have to have a clear out come. As regards Brexit, clear legislation which would have defined exactly what happens yes or no would have been nice, but especially the pro-leavers wouldn't have liked it as they made all kind of contradictory promises which they could never all meet.

Maybe, the May'hem which the last 9 months have been are actually partially on purpose. Yes, we know almost nobody in England+Wales cares about Northern Ireland or Gibraltar, but if Scotland were to leave the Tories could have majority for decades with the disenfranchising FPTP voting system. So maybe pushing Scotland out is a Machiavellian plot by Conservative and Unionist Party despite the irony of their official name. Still, they might lose those useful idiots in the UUP or DUP.

Taking back control looks like concentrating more and more power in a Westminster mostly concerned with the SE of England. Not news: Born-to-rule Tories don't like sharing power with the devolved assemblies, the judiciary, or with the EU. It's almost like modern concepts like consensus are alien. Yes, the argument is that FPTP delivers strong government, but too much concentrated power is seldom a good thing. Parliamentary supremacy doesn't seem to have much time for people except occasionally asking to vote in a winner-takes all FPTP election.

Unlike to happen, but now would be perfect time to actually think about wider constitutional issues like:

• regional assemblies for England.
• the prospect of a federal
• a written constitution
• a fairer electoral system (Irish-style STV could work very well in the UK as it retains local constituencies - although bigger assuming all the more democratic 5-seaters - and encourages a more engaged electorate*

*of course people still don't trust their politicians but if they do something you don't like it's no longer "I voted for the other guy" but maybe something along the line "Well he wasn't my first preference, but...". Of course, people still moan about them all the time which is sort of fair enough but that any in the case, for example, people complaining about the Irish politicians being responsible for the 2008 crash tend to ignore that the electorate was not willing to elect those who urged caution to excessive lending etc. Something repeated in just about every country with lots of issues. Nobody want to vote for those thinking long-term or urging to save for a rainy day.

I think Corky makes a good point, the bar should have been set at 50% of those eligible to vote, thereby ensuring it is an actual majority, rather than just the majority of those that could be bothered.

Mind you, it might encourage laziness on the part of voters...

Can't find it now, but I though the last Soviet election had constituencies with using a run-off system similar to the French Presidential Elections. That would make for a very very long process for parliamentary elections but could be useful for referendums especially if people were asked to chose more than A or B.

[Top_gun]

I see the UK has already conceded on the single market.

On page 4 of the Article 50 letter to the EU:

"That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership
of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four
freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no "cherry
picking". We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK
of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that
affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as
they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of
which we are no longer a part -just as UK companies do in other overseas
markets."

Seems very clear the UK has conceded on the single market and the Tories have once again broken one of its manifesto promises.

[Zak33]

On page 4 of the Article 50 letter to the EU:

"That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership
of the single market: "

Seems very clear the UK has conceded on the single market and the Tories have once again broken one of its manifesto promises.

when was the manifesto written? I don't know. 2015?

was it before or after the country voted to leave?

[Zak33]

I think the manifesto was 2015.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/m...ifesto2015.pdf

so back then David Cameron was v keen to stay in.

Having the country vote to leave, surely they're allowed to change tack? I mean....how can they stick to the manifesto if it was voted away?

I must have missed something v important. Was there a new manifesto for Post Brexit?

[SeriousSam]

I think Corky makes a good point, the bar should have been set at 50% of those eligible to vote, thereby ensuring it is an actual majority, rather than just the majority of those that could be bothered.

Mind you, it might encourage laziness on the part of voters...

When one of the options in a binary referendum is "status quo", setting a participation level at 50% or above means that it is harder to effect a change. Essentially the easiest way for "no change" to win is running a "don't vote" campaign. So I rather disagree that Corky made a good point, in fact much the opposite.

[Corky34]

The flip side is without thresholds you find yourself in the situation we're now in, that people question the legitimacy and have difficulty accepting the result leading to a divided electorate, you risk having a minority of people deciding on long term constitutional changes.

If you're bored the House of Commons published a research briefing in 2011 (PDF) that looked into minimum thresholds, turnout, and special majority in referendums.