Off Topic Impact of Brexit on Football

Depends on perspective. Some would argue that the nationalist fervour wipped up by William Wallace against remote oppressive masters was not only justified but gave the Scots a positive ending. Not so positive ending for either Mr Wallace or England.
In addition, I would argure that it is very difficult to truely guage the positivity of the ending in all instances. The Jews were in the end given Israel following WWII, worth it for the losses, likely not, but it's hard to argue that it is not a positive end, because there is little other way that the world could or would have intervened to give them their holy land.
Of course had the Germans gone on to win the war and we had been in an expanded and united Deutschland for the last 70 years, that might have been a positive out come. Certainly for the Germans, maybe for us? If you want the EU, we could have surrendered all that time ago and saved a lot of lives and not had to endure all those painful Tory and Labour governments.

Bah!

p.s. I could even have substituted our heroic leader to freedom Nigel Farage for WW, we will have to wait and see if it ends positively or whether he is hung, drawn and quartered!

 

Our non-elected, and unaccountable heroic leader Nigel Farage, you mean

 

The point I am making is, but as you know my thoughts already on the subject, but as others do not have ESP I will explain. The EU adopted the metric system that cannot be divided by 3. Incidentally you cannot answer that question, it doesn't compute.

So the EU imposed on us a system that is not accurate against a system that did work. To my mind a retrograde step.

 

and there was me thinking he had been elected as a member of the European parliament since 1999. I think David Cameron was fist elected as an MP in 2001.

 

Remind me of the UK turnout for his being elected as an MEP again... hell of a mandate there when he can't even get elected in his domestic constituency.

 

Why is the factor of 3 an issue!? Why!? I despair.
Please stop, RBF, I'm hating myself for engaging with this incredibly strange discourse.

 

I thought Farage was an elected member in Europe and answerable to the electorate. Or have we left the EU already ?
Oh by the way it's NORKIE, RBF can speak quite well for himself. You asked for an intrusion so you got one. Don't despair at being answered.

 

Can anyone explain to me how anything's going to be agreed on Brexit?

Until the Tory party have a pro-Leave PM prepared to "push the big red button" on Brexit, then we're essentially in limbo. Parliament this summer will focus on other areas of policy. After the Tory leadership election, we're likely to see a pro-Leave PM Boris/Gove, or equally likely pro-Remain May. Both Boris and Gove have made it clear they're in no rush to activate Article 50, and I don't see why May would as if she runs, it'll be on a pro-EU stance.

So even if it gets to November/December and Gove/Boris can put in place some kind of Brexit taskforce, every major decision will have to be voted on by the Commons - which is hugely pro-EU. If the two year timer is ticking, then Leave will have to hugely dilute the changes they want to get them through Parliament, and then even further when it comes to negotiations with the EU. The only way to get significant pro-Leave changes through parliament is to hold off until 2020 and hope the new parliament has a more pro-Leave stance, and that's also assuming that a pro-Leave party maintains overall control.

Alternatively, we have a vote of no confidence in the government (requiring some Tory MPs to vote against themselves, and everyone else to vote the same way) in order to call a general election early. But when the current makeup of parliament is pro-EU, why would they vote against a government incapable of making pro-Leave changes?

This referendum was only advisory, not legally binding and there's no agreed timeframe to act upon it. The only way I see us properly leaving the EU is with a pro-Leave parliament after 2020, meaning the Article 50 clock runs out in 2022. I think it's more likely that we'll see the government try to appease the general population by clamping down on non-EU immigration, and perhaps a negotiation with Europe to "take back control" of areas of the legal system that have been handed over to the EU.

I don't think even Farage, with his complete lack of power within the UK, would activate Article 50 right now if he could.

 

Well he's still elected and by proportional representation, which is a much fair way of electing people and means that every vote counts. So in the last European elections the turn out was 34.19 % UKIP received the most votes of any party, 4,376,635 resulting in 24 MEP's, Conservatives were third with 3,792,549 resulting in 19 MEP's. Seems fair ? On the other hand The 2015 election resulted in the Conservatives getting 11,334,920 votes, which equaled 331 MP's. UKIP got 3,881,129 votes and 1 MP. Doesn't quiet seem fair, does it? Turnout was 66.1%, so approximately 2 thirds of those people entitled to vote, voted. Of those that did vote 36.9% voted for the Conservatives. I guess he has as much, if not more of a mandate as Cameron / the Conservatives had to form the government.

Interesting that you got it factually wrong when responding to the General's post and rather than admit you made a mistake you move the goal posts. Ever thought of standing for parliament ?

 

About as good as FPTP then eh?

You're kidding that Farage as an MEP is de facto representative of the UK in Parliament, right?

 

I think much will depend on who succeeds Cameron. At the moment it looks like either Boris or Theresa. In the mean time, there seems to be some moves towards reconciliation of opposites and that could depend on what our future relationship with the EU is. One possibility that has been mentioned is that the UK could apply for European Free Trade Association (EFTA) status like Norway and Iceland currently have, as a compromise. This allows access to the European Economic Area (EEA) for free-trade in the EU by association rather than membership, leaving 'sovereignty' to each EFTA country which is outside the EU but 'associated' with it through free trade. EFTA does not include being bound by the common agricultural and fisheries policies (both big issues to 'outers') but would include the 'free movement' of goods, people, services and capital within the EU. This could upset those who object to too much EU immigration to the UK, but would placate young people who claim their employment and education opportunities have been taken away by the referendum. It could also allow an earlier departure from the EU as EFTA arrangements already exist.

The wiki page below goes into all of this in more detail, including a hypertext diagram at the bottom which shows the complexities of different relationships within and outside the EU. It's well worth reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

 

So the Brexiters might end up with a Norway-ish deal.
All the free movement and access to the market, without any sort of say in the actual legislation! Brilliant.

 

I believe you're right, the only person that can activate Article 50 is the PM and they decide when to activate it, no one else. Cameron has said he won't do it, so until he changes his mind or we have a replacement in place its not going to happen. You're also right the the referendum is not legally binding, although I'm not convinced it is a democratic or realistic option not to follow the result through. There is already a massive disconnect between the public and politicians, which would only get worse. To ignore the referendum would almost certainly destroy the Conservative party and massive strengthen UKIP and English nationalism. And if you think how much wingeing has come from the remain supporters when they haven't had their way for a few days, just thinking how all those people who voted to leave having put up with the EU for many year would feel in the result was ignored.

 

Dave bor, I think you questions will have to remain unanswered until we hear this new sub-committee of the Cabinet has made a public statement. It has been formed to handle our exit from Europe, We don't at the moment know the constitution of this sub-committee.

There is a distinctive lack of leadership from the Government, we know the ship's destination but the captain seems to have left the bridge.

Cario bor, "Ever thought of standing for parliament ?" . . . . To use an American idiom "You can't be serious."

 

No one knows where this will end and to make decisions now on the basis of all the different possible outcomes is foolish. Just like the campaign politicians spouting their mouth off and thinking about it afterwards. Facts and sensible debate are not in vogue. Panic, bluster, confusing fact with opinion and insufficient thought before drawing a conclusion are very much the order of the day.

 

Fair enough.

At least TTIP looks like it won't happen, now that Hollande has confirmed France will veto it.

 

If you read the Wiki article, JK, association through EFTA does not require EU legislation, other than mutually agreed trade regulations as would exist in any trade deal outside the EU.

 

RER bor, I find nothing wrong with adopting that EFTA agreement but with one exception, free movement of people. Our negotiators should insist on barring criminals from our country and having the choice of selecting people that provide an essential expertise. I use the word selecting because there could be applicants from non EU countries and we would reserve the right to chose who we think is more skilled. This would be covered by the mutual agreed terms you mention.

 

Norway do adhere to 75% of all EU legislation though, so I don't think we'd be adhering to purely trade legislation. There'd almost certainly be more to it than that, and free movement could well be part of it.
Like CC says though, no one knows for sure.

 

No that's not what I said at all.

You made a comment in relation to something the General said

"Our non-elected, and unaccountable heroic leader Nigel Farage, you mean"

I highlighted to you that he was elected.

You then question the legitimacy of his election because of the turnout and asked me to remind you what it was.

I then provide some facts & figures comparing him being elected as an MEP to Cameron becoming PM.

I think those figures indicate that Farage has at least as much a mandate to be an MEP as Cameron / the Conservatives have to be PM / Govern.

Despite the subsequent discussion and mine or your opinion, you are still incorrect in saying that Farage is non-elected and unaccountable he is neither.