EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

reconstruct a more suitable multi-nation cooperative pact for europe.

Genuinely curious as to what you think would be a more suitable co-operative pact.

I used to be opposed to essentially anything other than a loose free trade area/free movement area. Over time that has shifted as I have understood more about the importance of harmonisation of regulations.

Both of those require some sort of political / legislative / judicial body(s).

I guess now I'm realising where I end up is an EU without industry subsidies (such as agricultural) and without a centralised monetary policy (although I realise once you accept the Euro then you have to have a single monetary policy).

Edited just to be clear - I don't like the concept of a centralised monetary policy over an area the size of the EU, but struggle to see how you can't have one with a single currency.

That's not far from where I am.

Although I appreciate that the harmonisation of regulations for a loose but large free trade area actually requires the harmonisation of law, which includes tax rules, and logically also eventually includes currency.

There is a logical conclusion, and either it's a trading area that is huge with little in the way of trade, or it's not. Once you mentally walk down the various paths and see where they lead one ends up at one of the extremes... there's no middle-way, they all veer eventually.

As I said on the day of the referendum, ultimately it's about the economy, hence I take one of the earlier paths towards a united and functioning Europe even though in some ways I'm a sceptic.

STV is used in Northern Ireland and gives smaller parties a much better chance. I don't see this two party nonsense end on fptp.

A government recall bill would be good. Currently only the government can re-sign we can't make them.

It would also have been possible to at least try to stage a revolt in the EU as the UK has a lot of power.

Or try to reign in banks.

But no. The game has been to blame a lot of UK problems not caused by the eu and then walk off.

There are some issues like banking regulations and junker. But ironically the eu is more democratic in the voting system and I don't hear much noise about this.

The UK didn't leave to help the eu. It left for not getting its way.

Maybe something good will come out of it if other eu countries can capitalise and force a reform.

I would insist on PR in the house of lords with elected peers and FPTP in the commons.

You're an idiot.

I guess there is a alternative middle way of standing still. Ie we've reached a sensible overall point in the EU life cycle and now we maintain it with minor prods and pulls.

Also on your "clear mandate" point; listening to R4 this morning I now understand what you mean.

Every. Fucking. Sound. Bite.

Yeah.

How to make it clear that you have no mandate for anything important... claim you do at every opportunity and repeat it over and over for the press hoping that they say you do.

A general election must be called.

It could easily have been avoided if Cameron had stayed as PM, but he like many others wanted to dodge the bullet that is article 50.

Prime ministers who have had strong mandates:

1. Thatcher
   
2. Blair
   
   

It comes from an overwhelming majority of the people.

Not ~10k local constituents + 200 MPs. That's nothing, no legitimacy whatsoever.

The failure of Parliament, let alone the government, in performing a decent job in debating and legislating the Referendum Act borders on incompetence.

Mandate doesn't mean anything. Either you have the votes to form a government, or you don't. Theresa May does.

the conservative party does - barely. Teresa May has the endorsement of her constituency. This is how the system works, and that's the problem.

She only has that if the Conservatives are united.

The pro-EU tories can easily rebel and join forces with Labour and SNP to swing anything.

The ones in power today are the pro-EU Conservative rebels.

The failure of Parliament, let alone the government, in performing a decent job in debating and legislating the Referendum Act borders on incompetence.

Indeed, but I guess it comes down to the fact that no-one really expected anything other than the 'remain' outcome.

If I could be bothered I'd go scouring Hansard for the debates...

Mrs May, who has pledged to make Brexit a success, will appoint her own ministerial team when she takes office.

ftfh

She only has that if the Conservatives are united.

Labour have secured their unity by role-playing in graphic detail the consequences if they are not.

A general election must be called.

I am really torn between my pragmatic and ideological sides.

And election now would be a cluster-fuck with a totally un-predicable outcome. We have finally given the rest of the world some semblance of certainty, do we really want to rock the boat even more?

Surely we want all hands to the deck rather than everyone focusing on a protracted élection ?

Surely we want all hands to the deck rather than everyone focusing on a protracted élection ?

There are 64.1 million people on this ship, 35k local constituents and ~200 MPs are the only ones who have in any way voted for the person who will now be steering this ship.

I do agree that we need uncertainty removed, and stability restored, as soon as possible. But that isn't achieved by having a leader whose vision was only voted on by ~0.0005% of the population.

It's quite fucked.

There are 64.1 million people on this ship

Votes for babies!

Votes on everything! I didn't get to vote on every specific detail of the recent trade deal with India!

I want my country back!

In all seriousness, it's a representive democracy, it's what happens sometimes.

I'd only want a GE if the alternative was Article 50 being triggered.

It actually happens a lot - over ten times in the last 100 years I think from a graphic I saw on BBC news earlier.

Well here we're not actually talking about voting on the minutiae of policy detail. Not at all actually. In fact it's literally the opposite of what you just said.

It isn't as if Osborne had just had a promotion either. I don't think anyone would have predicted the other year that May would be PM and that a silm government would be negotiating arguably the most important international deal in the county's history.

Here we are!

Yeah:

Notable that our two great war time prime ministers both came into office without a general election.

Half our contemporary prime minsters assumed office without winning a general election. Like it or not, its the way it works a surprising amount of the time. In the past its happened three times in a row, although they must have won elections in the intervening period.

with a request that she campaigns/votes against any triggering of Article 50 for the forseeable future. My reasons are roughly as follows (I'd be interested in your thoughts):

She represents her constituents, who voted 3:1 to remain. She is not required to change her view (she was previously "in") to reflect that of a nationwide referendum (and she would be morally deficient to do so), especially when...
The majority was relatively small. This qualifies a lot of the other reasons; if the majority had been large (>2/3, for example) then there would be a stronger argument that we should simply muddle through the following issues.
The campaigns, especially the Leave campaign, were riddled with factual inaccuracies from which the key Leave campaigners retreated almost instantly apparently in the knowledge that they were incorrect.
A large number of those who voted Leave apparently now regret their decision
The Leave campaign presented 2 incompatible views ("Britain unchained, globalisation, less regulation vs. Fortress Britain, protectionism, anti-immigration), which means that...
There is no possible model for Brexit that satisfies all or even most of those who voted Leave i.e., there is no mandate for any specific course of action.
The impact on the British economy has already been ruinous.
The current negotiating stance of the EU means that very little can be established before Article 50 is triggered, leading to yet further instability.
The process of renegotiation is completely uncharted and will take years and countless worker-hours that could be dedicated to more worthwhile things.

copied and sended also

Dear 99wombats,

You recently signed the petition “EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum”:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.

The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.

A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.

The Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government. You can find out more about the Committee on its website: http://www.parliament.uk/petitions-committee/role

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament