arent referendums great Colombia referendum: Voters reject Farc peace deal please log in to view this image Image copyright AFP Voters in a referendum in Colombia have rejected a landmark peace deal with Farc rebels in a shock referendum result, with 50.24% voting against it. The deal was signed last week by President Juan Manuel Santos and Farc leader Timoleon Jimenez after nearly four years of negotiations. But it needed to be ratified by Colombians in order to come into force. Farc rebels agreed to lay down their weapons after 52 years of conflict in order to join the political process. President Santos has previously warned that there is no plan B for ending the war, which has killed 260,000 people. With votes in from more than 99% of polling stations counted, 50.2% opposed the accord while 49.8% supported it - a difference of less than 63,000 votes out of 13 million ballots. The surprise result means the peace process is now shrouded by uncertainty. It is also a major setback to President Juan Manuel Santos, who since his election in 2010 had pledged to end a conflict blamed for displacing about eight million people. Less than a week ago, President Santos was celebrating with world leaders and Farc commanders the end of Latin America's last and longest-running armed conflict at a ceremony in the historic city of Cartagena. The rebels were making plans to lay down their weapons and become a political party within six months. But the president is now facing one of the most difficult moments in Colombia's recent history, says the BBC's Americas Editor Leonardo Rocha. If he sticks to his word about there being no plan B, the bilateral ceasefire will be lifted and the war will resume, our correspondent says. Opposition to the peace accord was led by influential former President Alvaro Uribe. He argued that the government was treating Farc too leniently. He said that if the 'no' vote prevailed, the government should go back to the negotiating table.
Hungary PM claims EU migrant quota referendum victory please log in to view this image Image copyright AP Image caption Prime Minister Viktor Orban called on EU leaders to note the result 10 May 2016 Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has declared victory in a referendum on mandatory EU migrant quotas, despite a low turnout that appeared to render it invalid. Nearly 98% of those who took part supported the government's call to reject the EU plan. But only 43% of the electorate voted, short of the 50% required to be valid. A government spokesman said the outcome was binding "politically and legally" but the opposition said the government did not have the support it needed. Mr Orban urged EU decision makers to take note of the result and said he would change Hungary's constitution to make the decision binding. The controversial EU plan to relocate 160,000 migrants across the bloc would mean Hungary receiving 1,294 asylum seekers. Ferenc Gyurcsany, leader of the opposition Democratic Coalition, said the low turnout showed that most people did not support the government. "According to this result with such low turnout, the people do not support the government. And this is good. The migration issue outreaches Hungarian borders." please log in to view this image Image copyright AP Image caption Opposition supporters rallied in Budapest on Sunday But a government spokesman said the result could not be regarded as invalid. "The government initiated the referendum, so both politically and legally the outcome is binding," he said. "The 50% would have made a difference because parliament could have no alternative but to make a decision. But parliament is behind the government regarding the decision. This is a reinforced mandate for the government." During last year's migrant crisis, Hungary became a transit state on the Western Balkan route to Germany and other EU destinations. In an effort to curb the influx, it sealed its border with Serbia and Croatia. The measure was popular at home but criticised by human rights groups. The BBC's Nick Thorpe in Budapest says the low turnout will be disappointing for Mr Orban's Fidesz government following months of mobilisation and an expensive campaign. Voters were asked: "Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory resettlement of non-Hungarian citizens into Hungary even without the approval of the National Assembly?" The EU proposal was meant to ease pressure on Greece and Italy, the main entry points for migrants and refugees into the bloc. In December Hungary filed a court challenge against the EU plan, which would see relocations over two years.
It's all falling apart! We Brexit and soon others will follow. I actually like Europe so I hope I won't need a visa for Germany in a few years.
I realise it was 52%. It was also the biggest ever vote on any issue ever. Over 17 million people voted to leave. The freedom of movement of people is a massive security risk and I for one will be pleased to get out of it.
I realise that you weren't having a pop mate. Sorry if I appeared to think that. I like May, but I agree that many of her team are uninspiring, particularly Hammond.
I'm listening to her now on the wireless. The fact that she has taken 3 months to talk to us, via the media, and chooses to do it all around the Tory Party conference, smacks either of incredible arrogance or not having anything to say in my view. She has just, inadvertently I think, revealed that the Brexit negotiations will be just about Brexit, the future relationship with the EU will come after (because she doesn't know what it should be yet). Nick Robinson didn't pick up on this. Actually I think this is the clean way to do it. I used to have a visceral dislike of Thatcher, her personality revolted me, but even I could see that she knew what she wanted and how to get it. May is just bland to me, and this interview has just reinforced this. She said that the biggest issues for her are child abuse and modern slavery. To me these are important things that you just do your best to tackle, they are not big political issues. Hunt's plan to replace all foreign NHS doctors with British ones within 10 years is obviously just conference pleasing crap, he can't deliver it, and will be long gone before judgement is passed on yet another failure. He needs to focus on keeping the younger doctors that we have already in the NHS as well as training more, and sorting out this contract crap might help. Now Cameron has gone 'Lord' Ashcroft, the owner of Belize and a man who's approach to avoiding tax makes Donald Trump look like an amateur, has said he will start giving manny to the Tories again. Probably because, like May, he wants to help ordinary working people. Did anyone see the Panorama on diabetes last night? Terrifying, and possibly intentionally so as a kind of public information film. The complete inability of almost everyone filmed to look after themselves properly, even when they knew that blindness, amputations, kidney dialysis, strokes and an early death are the inevitable consequences of failure to manage this disease properly, was striking. I am sure there are posters on here with type 2 diabetes (statistically it would be amazing if there were none) who can confirm that this is a very manageable disease. My dad had it for the last twenty years of his life and never progressed to the stage where he needed to inject himself with insulin. My brother was diagnosed as pre diabetic a few months ago, he changed his diet, lost 18lbs and now they have taken him off all medication. We are not a family reknowned for self discipline, but when you are faced with a no brainer it ain't so hard.
One of the biggest problems for May imo is that she won't rush into things, preferring to analyse and consider. To me, this makes perfect sense, but any PM who APPEARS to be a ditherer is going to get poor reviews. She also refuses to play the usual political games of personality over substance. She just wants to get on with the job. On the EU, she didn't want to put all our strategies out there too soon and quite rightly so imo. You don't let the other side know what your position is pre-negotiations. A clean break is the only way imo and try to set up trade deals that suit everyone as much as is possible.
Who knows what May actually thinks about Brexit? Hammond knows leaving the Single Market is economic madness and has spoken about retaining the 'best possible access to European markets'. By the way, Hammond also spoke about borrowing to invest in infrastructure. A good idea, and one that the Tories ridiculed Labour for advocating.
I don't think we have a negotiating position yet Col, as Hammond, Davis, Fox and Johnson are saying contradictory things, with May edging towards the Davis/Fox end. But we don't need one as we won't be negotiating until 2019 until then it's the technicalities of leaving. Nevertheless I think it should be possible to say 'we would like to aim for xxx post Brexit' (it will be a Canada type agreement, with different sectors included and excluded and will take a long time to set up) without 'revealing our hand' (I commented way back on this thread that I find this a very old fashioned way of approaching negotiations, sets up conflict and confusion. If we, and the EU, are clever there will be a whole raft of things we can agree very quickly, but that requires openness). I see Fox has now slagged of the quality of applicants for the trade negotiator jobs he is trying to recruit to. Now that gives your negotiating partners a lever, if they know you have little confidence in your own team.
The media complain that no one knows what May's strategy is, but she's made it clear that the unrestricted migration of EU citizens into this country will end, as will the supremacy of the European Courts over the courts in the UK. These are red lines, we are told. So for me, the ball is in the EU's court. If, as seems likely, they say no to us staying in the Single Market, then I agree we have to head for the clean break and that's what the government should be planning for. And that's how the UK and Brussels will go into negotiations next year when Article 50 is triggered. The question that I have to admit is not entirely clear to me, is where are the grey areas up for negotiation? Clearly both sides want to facilitate tariff free trade if possible, but of necessity, there doesn't seem to be much flexibility in the UK's position. We could probably agree to the maintenance of some key EU regulations on safety, quality etc by enacting them in Parliament. I suppose we might agree to take a minimum of skilled workers from the EU in certain sectors of industry if we were offered a decent incentive. Other than that, all the compromises must come from the EU or not at all.
I see Amber Rudd has had to slap down other ministers making pleas for low or no restrictions on immigration for bankers, builders, health workers and farm workers. And in Johnson's case Australians (there's positive discrimination for you). The crux is that immigration is undeniably good for the economy, and certain sectors depend on it, but socially divisive. Regardless of membership of the EU this is going to be very tricky to get the right balance on, and some people will be eternally pissed off about it. Any Brexit agreements have to be ratified by each of the 27 members' parliaments, each having a veto. Compromise is going to be hard to engineer from the EU side.
Agree, and a good point about the 27 states having a veto. Ultimately, I think the whole thing comes down to the big-funder Germany on the EU side, and how badly it sees its industry being affected by with-tariff trade with the UK. Of course, there could be Hungarian-type rebellion from the Eastern States to a Germany-influenced compromise, but if the whole EU project isn't to fail, these objections will be overcome. The negotiations will presumably last the two years, so we don't know what the German government will look like by the end. If Merkel goes, it will probably be further to the right. Will such a government be more likely to protect its industry so as not to lose ground on an important export market? Perhaps.
