The result is the result, we have to move on, but adverse consequences so far: - £ is over 10% lower against the $ and €, its biggest fall for decades, meaning that nearly all imports are, as of now, 10% more expensive as the $ is the currency lots of non EU ones are pegged to. This includes food imports, you'll notice in the supermarket pretty soon. And of course all foreign travel is correspondingly more expensive. You will notice on your holidays. - as the £ has fallen faster than the $ oil price, so fuel prices perversely going up for us, no one else - our government and two major political parties have no effective leadership as a direct consequence of the referendum (ok, I'll concede one party didn't have much in this department already). Public confidence in our political class at an all time low. - major investment programmes like LHR 3rd runway and trident replacement postponed. Others (HS2, Hinckley Point to follow). These things pump money into the private sector, which creates jobs. - UK credit rating downgraded meaning government borrowing will be more expensive, meaning a combination of tax rises heavier austerity measures or heavier national debt. Or all 3. - attempt to get government current account into surplus by 2020 abandoned - UK government Gilt Yields cut by 8% which will have an major effect on pension funds and pension fund deficits - the governing party in Scotland and power sharing partner in Northern Ireland actively considering ways to leave the UK. Even if you don't care the continued uncertainty and disruption if one or both happens will be extremely damaging - a small minority of racist cretins feel, for some reason, emboldened to abuse mainly women children and the elderly of different backgrounds. Not the fault of the result or representative of all leave voters, but the result made something click in these tiny minds. Pretty adverse for the victims. Enough? These things may not be directly affecting you or me today, and we may be well off enough to shrug them off anyway. But many others, on low fixed or uncertain incomes will suffer greatly with even tiny price rises. And all these things have happened. Hopefully some are reversible. We were warned about much of this stuff but it was written off as scaremongering by corrupt experts. I think it would be very foolish to deny what has happened already or downplay what could happen over the next weeks and months in an effort to convince ourselves we have made the right decision. We need to take it all on board and factor it into what kind of country we want to be and what kind of relationships we want to have with our neighbours.
We're a week into a momentous decision. Armageddon hasn't happened, and if you want to give a balanced view, Stan, you need to show that a cheaper pound helps our exporters. All this stuff will shake down in time
It's your prerogative to ignore facts mate. I'll give you exports, but I wasn't trying to give a balanced view, I was commenting on your assertion that there have been no 'particularly adverse consequences'. There have. If 'adverse consequences' are not adverse until Armageddon happens, that's a pretty low bar.
It was clear there would be some turmoil when we voted to extract ourselves after 40 years. The Remain camp's plagues of locusts have not arrived so far. For Leavers, the alternative was becoming increasingly deeply involved in a failing organisation.
Not sure I agree with either of you. He is staying. For the next 3 months. Precisely to keep the country going while the mess caused by the result and the inability of the Brexit campaign's leaders to plan for the succession. That really should be more than enough time to elect his successor. Do either of you mean he should have stayed in post to negotiate the exit? How could he? He does not believe in it and would lack credibility with the electorate and with the EU leaders he is supposed to negotiate with. I suppose in this political age, where politicians have forgotten the basic rules of conduct and never accept responsibility for anything that blows up, some might have thought that he could now simply shed his old skin and re-emerge as a fully fledged Brexiteer. However, it used to be the case that if you lost a vote or made a mistake which had serious consequences, you did the honourable thing and resigned with a gracious speech. You accepted the decision and allowed the victors to take their turn. It used to be the case not so long ago that a minister in whose department a civil servant made the mistake you would take responsibility for that mistake and resign. Those days have gone. Today there is likely to be a public hanging out to dry of the civil servant in question while the minister uses him/her as a scapegoat and distances himself from the decision even if the civil servant had merely followed orders from above. That is why most of us praised him at the time. He behaved honourably and correctly in accordance with his conscience and established convention or precedent.
He had no choice but to resign, agreed. But this entire situation can be laid at his door, he made a promise regarding the referendum for internal party reasons, a promise he did not expect to have to keep (rather like Johnson didn't expect and didn't really want to win the referendum). Then he ran a crap Remain campaign. Now his response to almost every question is 'that will be for the new government to decide'. I have no idea what he could do to make anything better. He seems a pleasant bloke and can sometimes be quite funny, but I am extremely angry with him.
You know the old saying Stan - you make your bed, you go lie in it. This is what the people have chosen.
I think that's a bit selective Goldie. The single market is a cornerstone of the EU and so, by that reckoning, the remit is to leave that behind. The fact is that the motives for voting to leave will be wide ranging from one, some or all of immigration, sovereignty the cost of membership, dislike of the EU as an entity on principle and even an unsavoury motive or two. The problem is that the Brexit campaign tried to draw people in on so many issues that nobody could speak reliably for the voters' reasons. Securing 350 million extra a week for the NHS could have been most crucial for some. Who can honestly know? The only certainty is that, along with remain voters, there will be a lot of leave voters that will not be happy whatever the outcome. If we end up in the single market at the "cost" of retaining free movement but no reprensentation in/interference from Brussels then the goverment will have honoured the referendum (as they will have done in many other permutations).
The four cornerstones or pillars of the EU are : The free movement of goods. The free movement of services and freedom of establishment. The free movement of persons (and citizenship), including free movement of workers. The free movement of capital. The single market is the means by which members trade, complying with the 4 pillars. What UK Leavers voted for in the referendum was the country "taking back of control". This was not limited to immigration, but it was clear from the way the Leave campaign was conducted and by everything leavers have been saying, that controlling EU immigration was critical. As I've said in an earlier post, Matt, if the UK government deliberately fails to take control of unlimited EU immigration for whatever reason, then there will be huge consequences. There would be a constitutional crisis, UKIP and the far right would see enormous surges in support etc. I'd be amazed if either a Tory or Labour Government would want to haemorrhage its support by taking this course.
Surely those are the four corner stones of the single market and not the eu, Norway and Switzerland comply with all four of those but are not members of the eu! This was a fundamental flaw with the leave campaign in general which was highlighted various times, there was no fixed plan in place for what people were actually voting for! Only 25% of the population voted to leave the eu and the government are duty bound to also take into account the will of and what's in the best interest of the other 75%, also of the Union 2 countries voted in and two voted out, so it's only right that a compromise is found. We need access to the free market or it would be even more devastating for the economy then what we are already facing, if we are to believe the leavers then the number one issue was soverenty so immigration is more likely to be the one to give and as the eu have already made clear- access to the single market comes with all the bells and whistles.
Implied? How is that democratic? Many Leave voters want to see zero immigration and to get rid of people that are already here - that ain't gonna happen. Equally, many voted Leave because they were concerned about sovereignty and may well be satisfied to stay in the Single Market.
They are the four freedoms of the EU. Per wiki, "According to the official site of the European Parliament: Freedom of movement and residence for persons in the EU is the cornerstone of Union citizenship, which was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992." The 25%, if it's true, results from the fact that some people couldn't be arsed to vote. Tough. What is the will of those in the 75% that didn't vote. Who knows? In the campaigns, Remain majored on the economy, Leave majored on immigration. It's simply a nonsense to say it wasn't vital to Leavers, but if you want to believe that, it's up to you.
Strolls, 52% voted to leave the EU. Full stop. That includes leaving the rules on the free movement of workers, so that immigration can be controlled. I haven't seen or heard of any Leaver that want zero immigration, and the Leave campaign, including Farage, made it clear that no one already here should be sent home. There may be different rules for those who come post-referendum, but that's just my thoughts.
You haven't heard the stories of people going round telling immigrants that 'we voted to send you home'? Yes, I know - a tiny minority. Perhaps, then, a better question for the referendum would have been: Are you in favour of the UK enduring the severe economic downturn that will result from leaving the Single Market in order to reduce immigration? That would have made the result a lot clearer.
I can't see any Conservative government proposing that Parliament opposes the directly expressed result from the referendum. This is one time where they have persuaded us to take responsibility for a decision that might end badly, but they've made sure there is a ready-made patsy to take the blame - us. It's noticeable that Gove and Johnson are now toxic for the Conservatives, whereas IDS and Patel are not. If Mrs May wants to become PM, she's being forced into a corner by the existence of Leadsom, where promising to invoke Article 50 is the only way May can hope to get leadership votes from a significant proportion of Brexiters. Britain will invoke Article 50. We should all plan for it and get on with the rest of our lives.
I see Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times threatening Remainers that if they continue to express themselves there will be tanks on the streets, votes for UKIP, and a rise of the far right. He's just a low rent journalist, not an 'expert', so we can't ignore him. All this bluster about 'democracy' and 'taking control' clearly only serves from a particular perspective in some minds. There's only 16.1 million of you, shut up! I don't want another referendum, I've got the cilice firmly strapped on my thigh now, and it would only make the country even more divided and nasty. But why do Leavers fear it so much? I suspect because they believe, as I do, that way more than the needed 700,000 would change votes in a heartbeat. And some of the fools who didn't bother first time round would make an effort, all for Remain. And this before the full impact of Brexit has materialised. But apparently it wouldn't be 'democratic' to ask this oversimplified question again. We are not allowed to even have the chance to change our minds when provided with new evidence. Good job the rest of our lives aren't run on this basis.
That says it's a cornerstone of union citizenship not of a countries membership, the fact you don't have to be a member to have it is quite significant. Leave supposedly majored in soverenty according to those who lead it and again if leave wanted certain things to happen then they should have set out a specific mandate to tell people what they were voting for, keeping it vague worked in their favour as people then weren't able to make as much of a thought out choice making it more of an emotive one. The 25% also results in those who were ineligible to vote ie under 18, not uk citizen, no fixed address etc.
