Whitey Grandad

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?

I was just thinking earlier that £20 million seemed to be an average going rate for an upper-half Premier League player nowadays. £11m might be a good deal.

Cameron was the wrong person for the job.

Very well put. I think that a large part of the Leave vote was from people who live in communities that aren't involve in Europe in any form, feel poor and disadvantaged and can only see European economic migrants amongst themselves as taking their jobs and public services. They don't realise that these same services are partly paid for by the tax contributions of those who are closely involved in European trade.

We don't actually have a negotiating team any more. We haven't need one for forty years or so.

Interesting read, especially the bits about a narrow vote either way. I'd settle for associate membership and I'd like to keep the EU flag on my driving licence and number plate and passport. Does the result mean that he's going to lose his job as an MEP whatever happens?

What a beautiful goal. When you try to explain to people why it's called the beautiful game then just show them that goal.

I saw it compared to Dunkirk in today's Times. (Sorry, can't be arsed to look it up)

If only Ali had had the chance to benefit from a couple of seasons of the famous 'Southampton Way' who knows what he might have achieved?

Wall Street Journal but not an American perspective: Mr. Nelson is the editor of the Spectator and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph. Thanks for the link, by the way:)