Support NeoGAF

[nOoblet16]

Not to make a doom & gloom post but in all honesty, I don't care much now.

There are xenophobic sentiments around the country even if you are to believe they are not that many this basically opened up the can of worms, there is a risk of secession, the politicians are engaged in internal conflict, the economy will go down for now, the poor will continue to suffer for now, maybe England gets a Norway deal maybe they don't. And despite worst case scenario the country will recover in the decades to come eventually, London probably won't be the powerhouse that it is but it'll be doing alright. This whole thing should never have happened in the first place but all that matters in the end is that years in the future, maybe people and politicians both will learn from all of this and the society is improved as a result. But that's still a pie in the sky I suppose.

 

[Ashes]

As an American who doesn't know the limits of her power , could the Queen do anything? Could she urge Parliament to vote one way or another? Could she overrule them?

Yes she has a veto. And no she won't use it.

That's not to say she's not told the government to sort this in a way that helps the country out of this mess.

 

[Zelias]

Philip CollinsVerified account
‏@PCollinsTimes
Northern Ireland Sec says don't activate Article 50 as "we'll be shut out of important meetings". She voted Leave. Amazing.

https://twitter.com/PCollinsTimes/status/747008334650294272

Priceless.

As an American who doesn't know the limits of her power , could the Queen do anything? Could she urge Parliament to vote one way or another? Could she overrule them?

Technically, the Queen has a number of powers she could exercise, but by convention she only ever generally uses them under advisement by the Prime Minister. In effect, it's the PM and Parliament that hold all the power, while the Queen remains neutral. Were she to ever act of her own volition, it would trigger a massive constitutional crisis and in all likelihood, the end of the monarchy.

 

[PJV3]

3 says that the treaties cease to apply after 2 years OR the date of a withdrawal agreement. So if your agreement is to "stay in, actually", you would need some bloody creative wording to have an agreement that applies treaties that are then made non-applicable once the agreement is reached. The other alternative is the 2yr period is extended to Dec 31, 3000, but that would need to be unanimous..

I would expect the law would need to be changed in order for us to reverse Art. 50

I thought the legal advice was using point 1 to back out, constitutional requirements being a change of government or referendum.

 

[ferrasvansen]

What are the betting odds on Britain not leaving the EU after all?

Shortening with every news article and the reality of the shit storm upcoming sinks in.

 

[jakonovski]

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

 

[Meadows]

Justine Greening calling for May/Johnson to joint run country in public interest.

I agree we have to unite and have to fill this vacuum of power.

 

[phisheep]

As an American who doesn't know the limits of her power , could the Queen do anything? Could she urge Parliament to vote one way or another? Could she overrule them?

In theory probably she could. There are residual powers she might use. But exercising those powers would breach nearly every constitutional convention that exists and create a further constitutional crisis which is the last thing we need right now. Not going to happen.

 

[teiresias]

Philip CollinsVerified account
‏@PCollinsTimes
Northern Ireland Sec says don't activate Article 50 as "we'll be shut out of important meetings". She voted Leave. Amazing.

https://twitter.com/PCollinsTimes/status/747008334650294272

Freaking amazing!

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

It's almost like the Leave politicians enjoyed having it as a political football, but now that they may have to own consequences they're squirming in their boots to delay the inevitable. Let them squirm, I say, it's enjoyable to watch morons realize they've owned themselves.

 

[Alx]

3 says that the treaties cease to apply after 2 years OR the date of a withdrawal agreement.

I'm not a lawyer, but I understood the " from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement" as "the date that will be mentioned in the agreement", not "the date the agreement was accepted". Now how would that work if the date in the agreement is "never"... A sillier way to work around it would be to write "we agree that UK will leave in 2999".

 

[nOoblet16]

About right to vote being taken away.
It's not unreasonable to assume people who are 65+ might not have the best interest of the younger generation, or they might not be as informed.
Why is it that children and people under 18 can't vote? Because it is assumed that they do not have the capability to make sound decisions regarding a country's future, in which case why is it unthinkable to assume old and sick or soon to be sick people have similar issues?

 

[KonradLaw]

Ehh. This was how Polish culture centre in London looked like this morning

 

[Lakitu]

Oh yeah Dizzy, because Leave-voters/campaigners have been entirely pleasant during this debacle.

 

[Maledict]

This is the rub though isn't it? All the talk right now is on triggering article 50 so formal negotiations can start. I can see how an income Tory PM, especially a pro-Brexit one, continuing without triggering article 50 almost immediately on appointment unless they call a general election.

The more I think on it the more I see Camerons parting gift as seriously damning his party no matter what they do. It's pure lose-lose for the Tory party. If Labour can't capitalise on this as the formal opposition then the country truly is lost.

The new leader will call an election - Boris's camp are already telling MPs that's part of his plan going forward. That will delay article 50 even further.

The plan is, delay activating article 50 long enough so that the economic costs of fully leaving are seen and understood, and make the case that it is better being in and having influence than being out, having no influence and still being subject to the laws.

Cameron did the best thing possible by resigning in this way - it's the only realistic chance of Brexit not happening, by making the position completely untenable and putting Johnson in the driving seat for it.

 

[danowat]

Shortening with every news article and the reality of the shit storm upcoming sinks in.

I guess they've got to weight up which is worse, the mess of leaving the EU, or the utter public shit storm that would be inevitable if they didn't.

 

[phisheep]

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

I guess than plan right now is much more short term than this, it is to work out what to say this Thursday.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

Ehh. This was how Polish culture centre in London looked like this morning

Not too far from where I live. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Lime]

trade negotiations have already started

I love this so much hahahha

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

Yes she has a veto. And no she won't use it.

That's not to say she's not told the government to sort this in a way that helps the country out of this mess.

She should. Quite simply, if she has that power and she doesn't use it then there's no point having her.

 

[Crumpo]

I'm not a lawyer, but I understood the " from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement" as "the date that will be mentioned in the agreement", not "the date the agreement was accepted". Now how would that work if the date in the agreement is "never"... A sillier way to work around it would be to write "we agree that UK will leave in 2999".

That was the same point as I reached for the "agreed delayed date beyond 2yrs"; could potentially work.

I would expect the UK will seek extensive counsel on whether we could do this before the Article is invoked.

 

[Izuna]

Seriously, if an early GE is called and Libdems have a chance, I'll party every day.

 

[shinra-bansho]

By who ? Are you going to step forward and trigger it ?

Who do you think will ?

Spoiler

Dont hold your breath

Why would I hold my breath for months?

By whoever governs the UK if and when they can figure that out themselves.

Unless one assumes this strange limbo can just continue indefinitely and at length.

 

[ferrasvansen]

Seriously, if an early GE is called and Libdems have a chance, I'll party every day.

Anythings possible now, and with a lot of disillusioned remain voters floating about, someone will benefit massively.

 

[Maledict]

Seriously, if an early GE is called and Libdems have a chance, I'll party every day.

They can't win - but they can gain back the seats they lost to the Tories in 2015, which means a hung parliament, which means no article 50. That is unless Labour continue to be the craven, spineless pile of uselessness they have been under Corbyn, who seems quite happy with a leave result.

 

[oti]

She should. Quite simply, if she has that power and she doesn't use it then there's no point having her.

I agree. No democracy has the power to overturn this decision, but the Queen is such a political oddity that she could play that card. It would likely mean the end of the Monarchy as we know it but this shouldn't be her first concern

Spoiler

but of course it is

.

 

[Ashes]

They didn't so much choose to ignore these authorities, they were never properly informed of them. Blame the campaign not the electorate.

Hell, even I didn't know some of these.

Technically speaking it's the government's fault that the higher educated you were the more likely you were to vote Remain.

That says something fundamentally about the nature of the entire debate.

 

[PJV3]

Justine Greening calling for May/Johnson to joint run country in public interest.

I agree we have to unite and have to fill this vacuum of power.

I can't see Johnson having much of a future if he backs down. He's roused the masses with his independence day stuff.

 

[Daffy Duck]

So are people coming to the conclusion the exit will not actually happen due to whatever tactics?

 

[Crumpo]

Technically speaking it's the government's fault that the higher educated you were the more likely you were to vote Remain.

How so?

 

[Baloonatic]

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

There is no plan in place to handle us leaving the EU. They will try to delay it as long as possible and anything said from the EU will be twisted into them bullying us.

 

[GamerMax73]

But I mean, at some point, article 50 needs to be formally triggered. And I would think in timeframe of months, not years or whatever.

I doubt we'll see article 50 before 22 October 2017 (next German Federal elections). Germany and France don't want the headache of formal Brexit negotiations during an election year.

The only way, and I think its very remote, is if the Tory's elect a very right wing hardcore pro-leaver who forgoes the possibility of calling a general election and tries pulling the trigger on article 50 the moment they take office.

If that happens I wonder if Parliament as a whole would sit back and take the hit or if we'd have the further political turmoil of a vote of no confidence.

There really isn't an easy win on this one.

I'm calling it now, Johnson is going to do all he can to keep he's name off the ballot paper. The choice is Gove, May, or a rank outsider.

 

[kmag]

No, I didn't mean it in a "greedy bankers" sort of way, I meant it in a 40% unemployment in Ebbw Vale fpr 30 years didn't make the politicians do anything sort of way.

The immediate economic impact of your situation is greater and deserves attention of course, the festering wound of the other is what led us here in the first place.



I think there is, though it is a bit sketchy. It was discussed in evidence before the Lords Committee though I can't look it up right now (got the ironing to do and posting in between shirts) and can't remember whether it made it to the final report - there's no provision in Art 50 for what happens if the exiting member state changes its mind prior to the 2-year deadline. One point of view is that that would be perfectly permissible and that the exit process could be terminated at that point. But it's by no means exactly clear.

The evidence to the committee also said in the event of a cancellation he thought very likely that the Eu would want to go back to year zero i.e. the removal of all the uk special terms

Sir David Edward: It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government. That said, I wonder what the other member states would say in that event. It does not seem to me that you can necessarily say, “Right; I have put you to all this trouble; we have negotiated for two years and now I do not actually like the terms you are offering so I want to go back to zero”. My hunch is that many of them might say, “Right, back to zero. No more opt-outs”. That is a pure hunch; it would entirely depend on the politics of the situation at the time. I do not think there would be enthusiasm for letting you back with all the existing opt-outs. I emphasise that the deal Mr Cameron struck in Brussels does not come into effect if Britain votes to withdraw.

 

[avaya]

'Take back control', that is such an emotive term. The use of it and the implicit dog whistle within it are unforgivable. I am not shocked by the brazen racism. The mask has slipped.

 

[Dizzy]

Oh yeah Dizzy, because Leave-voters/campaigners have been entirely pleasant during this debacle.

Never said that at all.

Clearly though the Remain side is making all the fuss right now because they lost. Also younger generation, more likely to use social media to voice their opinion etc etc and so what I'm seeing is mostly remain.


Look I think the UK would be better in the EU. However I believe we can stand on our own two feet if we leave. I'm not that scared of leaving.

However you know what would scare me? A future where the Government ignores the will of the people. Or removes the rights to vote from certain groups. Or redoes referendums just to get the result they wanted. That kind of future scares me far more than the UK leaving the EU.

That's what I'm unhappy with and trying to address here. Deep down would anyone really want a Government like that?

 

[Clear]

On the other hand, should the results of this referendum be ignored - which I believe is a constitutionally legal possibility - what would that mean for any future referenda on, say, Scottish Independence?

Objectively speaking, one could view the referendum as simply signifying a vote of no-confidence in the EU (which I honestly believe a lot of "leave" voters expected it to be), as opposed to a decree of executive action. But that would obviously have major ramifications regarding precedent.

Honestly I think its a fascinating situation if you take a step back from the hysterics. Because essentially so far every act and piece of rhetoric has been politically symbolic only, the Rubicon has not been crossed until Article 50 has been triggered.

 

[Plum]

I can't see Johnson having much of a future if he backs down. He's roused the masses with his independence day stuff.

He doesn't have a future no matter what. Unless he magically negotiates the best possible deals and pushes us into a golden age the consequences of his Brexit will be the dagger used to completely ruin his chances in 2020. He's played himself.

EDIT: Oh, this isn't aimed at you but I know I said I'd ignore Brexit for a few weeks but damn it's like a trainwreck. It's impossible to look away.

 

[darkwing]

What are the betting odds on Britain not leaving the EU after all?

I'd say high, no one will invoke Article 50

 

[PdotMichael]

I doubt we'll see article 50 before 22 October 2017 (next German Federal elections). Germany and France don't want the headache of formal Brexit negotiations during an election year.

Showing UK who is the boss is like best election year fodder for France and Germany - like you that Merkel was blamed for being too soft to Greece, a mistake she will not repeat.
While UK's poor attempts of handling the referendum will kill any momentum for similiar momvements in Europe.

 

[deefol]

It's the long-term unemployed leave voters' time to shine.

This whole fiasco is actually starting to get depressing, hopefully when I've graduated and if/when I get a grad job I'll ask to relocate to the US, unless Trump is in power where I just might drink bleach

 

[Bold One]

Umm, I actually think the UK would have been better on in the EU. But the sheer ridiculousness, pettyness, and tantrums I've seen from a vocal minority of Remain supporters disgusts me.

These people champion democracy but then try and throw it out of the window when they don't get their own way. Saying people should have their right to vote taken away? Redoing a referendum because you didn't get the results you wanted? Asking the Government to ignore what people voted for? Lmfao. If we read about this happening in some other nation people would be up in arms about how corrupt it is if the Government started doing that. People need to read what they write before they post.



That's nice but my post was in regards to accusations of "self-importance".

This "us vs them" mob think mentality needs to stop. I'm calling out what I see to be bullshit. Doesn't mean I'm a hardcore pro leave champion.

I just understand that everyone has a different point of view based on a variety of factors and I can respect that.

If Leave lost and they were saying the same shit I'd call them out on it too.

Of course people are furious, their livelihoods, their jobs, homes and future prospects have been hampered by an electorate who fell snake-oil salesmen, I for one reserve my right to be pissed off and to vent that frustration. Take it as a tantrum all you like, but this decision has hurt us all and I refuse to put up and shut up and play nice in fixing a mess I didn't cause.

 

[call_kotaku]

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

Is it literally the plot of the Producers right now in Britain?

 

[Bashtee]

From the perspective of an outsider, this is all really interesting. Reading some of the comments here from or about UK politicians, it's like no one ever thought that leave could actually win.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

As an American who doesn't know the limits of her power , could the Queen do anything? Could she urge Parliament to vote one way or another? Could she overrule them?

Nope.

Actually she can through the use of her prerogative powers.

The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.

Summoning/Proroguing Parliament – The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.

Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.

Secondary Legislation – The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.
Appoint/Remove Ministers – Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.

Appointing the Prime Minister – The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.

Declaration of War – The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.
Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.

 

[Ashes]

She should. Quite simply, if she has that power and she doesn't use it then there's no point having her.

She's not a dictator. She's not a president. She is the head of state. Now I'm not saying that democracy is higher in import than economic and fiscal responsibility, but those 17m people need to have their voice heard.
We simply cannot go back from this. We have to look forward and find another way.

 

[cyberheater]

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

Yes. That seems to be the rub of it. Just let uncertainty exist forever.

 

[TatteredHat]

Am I interpreting it correctly that the plan right now for Leave, at least as seen in this thread, is to just drag your feet in the belief that as long as you never chant the magic words of Invoke Article 50, nothing bad will happen?

Seems like it. Just let the uncertainty fester, I'm sure nothing bad will happen by doing that.

 

[Crumpo]

Never said that at all.

Clearly though the Remain side is making all the fuss right now because they lost. Also younger generation, more likely to use social media to voice their opinion etc etc and so what I'm seeing is mostly remain.


Look I think the UK would be better in the EU. However I believe we can stand on our own two feet if we leave. I'm not that scared of leaving.

However you know what would scare me? A future where the Government ignores the will of the people. Or removes the rights to vote from certain groups. Or redoes referendums just to get the result they wanted. That kind of future scares me far more than the UK leaving the EU.

That's what I'm unhappy with and trying to address here. Deep down would anyone really want a Government like that?

TBF I agree with you. We can't go on about tolerance, denounce racism etc and then in the same sentence say that old people don't deserve the same rights as us...that shit is just not correct.

I'm really hoping that bit is chalked down to emotion and goes away fast.

 

[EdwardTeach]

So is it pretty much a given that the London's financial services industry will be moving out over the next few years?

No it is not a given, it is a worse case scenario.

Johnson, Gove or whoever else ends up doing the negotiations, know it would be utter suicide to negotiate any settlement where we lose our financial passport. The UK is totally dependent on tax revenues generated from the city. We will be irrevocably fucked if we lose the passport. (We won't be able to afford to keep up benefit payments to all the outers.)

 

[Zelias]

She should. Quite simply, if she has that power and she doesn't use it then there's no point having her.

Well, I mean... I'm a republican anyway and wouldn't mind seeing the monarchy abolished, but our entire system of government (which, by the way, is a constitutional monarchy) is based on the idea that while the monarch does technically have these powers, she will never use them without being told to by someone who is elected.

She won't use her powers on her own. It's not happening.

 

[avaya]

TBF I agree with you. We can't go on about tolerance, denounce racism etc and then in the same sentence say that old people don't deserve the same rights as us...that shit is just not correct.

I'm really hoping that bit is chalked down to emotion and goes away fast.

It won't. When you put people's job security at risk in a real and tangible way, the resentment it build will last for a generation or more. It's not going away.