Whitey Grandad

They can use any currency they choose. Whether they actually stay in the EU or not is actually irrelevant, they will see this as England forcing something on them against their wishes and the issue will be 'Who governs Scotland?' Of course the UK hasn't broken up yet but in my view it is more likely than not. Much will depend on what happens in our negotiations with the EU next year or so and what I would expect is that referendum enabling legislation will be passed in Scotland with no date set immediately. The threat will be left hanging. Whatever, the whole debacle has been very divisive and the Union is now looking a lot weaker.

What was unlikely? The net reduction of family income over the next 15 years?

15 years wasn't it?

That's not how democracy works. In Britain it is a representative democracy where we elect delegates to take decisions on our behalf. Subsequently everybody's views are considered and there is a balanced and representative outcome. True democracy would mean that we held a referendum every few years. At what point do the 'F*cking grizzling ***ts' become significant? 5 million? 10million? The Poll Tax protests overturned a democratic decision. Let me also ask you this question: Was it worth the breakup of the UK?

Screw the lot of them I say.

What was that with the woman who wanted to leave so that we could control our own currency?

You're worse than the government. Keep having polls until you get the right answer

I met one in Hamble. "I'm not a racist. I just don't like foreigners". I kid you not.

Whatever happens there are going to be a lot of disappointed people in Burnley. Like the old chap who said that we joined Europe to make things better. He obviously doesn't realise that they are, things could have been a lot worse. Britain has thrived under EU membership. That'll soon stop. There's also the lady who says 'give it a go'. Doesn't she realise that if she doesn't like it she can't take it back? I also am struggling to see where we are 'ruled by Europe'. I never come across of it. It's amazing what people will believe.

Let me ask you a different question. Would you still want to leave the EU if it involved the breakup of the United Kingdom? As things stand that is the most likely outcome, in my opinion of course but let's just treat it as hypothetical.

The Scottish Question now has great significance. Just suppose they vote for independence, possibly conditional indepence if the UK left the EU. Parliament might then consider that they were no longer held by the referendum result since the United Kingdom would no longer exist and that the preservation of the UK was more important than an 'advisory' vote. A few major concessions on movement of labour or suchlike and then return to the people for a reconfirmation of their decision. Of course the jocks would need to get something out of it, more devolved powers perhaps.

Everybody lost.

I still think Cameron's a prat but his prompt resignation and announcement that he was leaving the decision for the next PM has bought some valuable time for discussion.

At least he can't score against us now

There was definitely an air of 'oh shît' about them. They seemed to think that they had achieved all they need just by Winn the vote.

I think you may be right, at least I hope you are. For this to happen there would most likely need to be significant concessions.

A manifesto is not a legal contract, more a statement of intent. Nevertheless a referendum was approved by parliament and held. The democratic part now steps in and it is for parliament to interpret and put into effect the legislation to implement the results. If the politics are such that it is not possible to achieve this and some sort of watered-down compromise is all that can be obtained or if parliament decides that it would really not be in the best interests of the country to press the nuclear button then a new mandate would need to be obtained. Hence another vote of some sort. This was a referendum and not a plebiscite. (In Australia the meaning of the two terms is reversed). Bexy's post sums up the situation neatly. In any case during the negotiations it is best to keep the threat of Article 50 in full view but not actually invoked. There is a saying in chess: 'The threat is greater than the execution'.

...thick and easily led...

And led to the formation of Belgium, appropriate really.

Yes but it's only advisory. The practicality is that all the laws have to be passed by Parliament. What were the ground rules, did you ever find out? They certainly weren't written on the ballot paper. Even the wording is ambiguous. 'Should the United Kingdom remain...' Why, that's almost an opinion poll.

It's entirely understandable given the closeness of the vote. It wasn't a lie. Saying that you will do something and then not doing it is not a lie. Saying that you didn't do something that you did is a lie.

Yes, a referendum in Britain is only advisory but so much has been built up around this one that there will be an expectation amongst 17million that it will be carried through and the other 43 million would just have to put up with it. True democracy doesn't work like that. We have a representative process whereby the elected MPs are chosen to take the decisions for us and pass the relevant legislation. This applies checks and balances such that even if a government is elected that only represents part of the population there will still be Members who can promote the interests of those who did not vote for the ruling party. Such arrangements are refreshed ever five years at the longest. This referendum may have had a clear result but it is certainly not a clear mandate for extreme drastic action and there will need to be a significant period of negotiations and haggling and the final outcome will need to be approved by the public possibly by another referendum but more likely by a general election. To light the fuse on Article 50 right now would be extremely unwise. Fortunately this is one decision that cannot be forced upon us.

What he said was: (http://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/cameron-government-would-promptly-trigger-article-50-in-the-event-of-a-leave-vote/) He went on to say that “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely 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.” So he could have been referring to 'the process of exit' and he merely said that we had a right to expect it, not that it would happen.

Brown so it won't show the fear.

But do they know that?