Brexit legal challenge.

Sambostar

Law overturning the vote of the common man.  Isn't that always the way.  I just hope they try it to be honest.

p90fool

Sambostar said:

Law overturning the vote of the common man.

That's probably just as well in most cases tbh. Otherwise the law would have to sanction castration, hanging, sterilisation, firebombing of offender's relatives and any other medieval, pitchfork-waving nonsense from the "common man".

Emp_Fab

That's the trouble with the common man....  he's just too fucking common.  We can't let those halfwits decide our future.

Oh ?  We just have ?

Chalky

@ICBM - Maybe Sturgeon is finally realising she can't keep talking nonsense and misleading/deceiving the people with her silly claims that she can keep Scotland in the EU? )

siremoon

Chalky said:

@ICBM - Maybe Sturgeon is finally realising she can't keep talking nonsense and misleading/deceiving the people with her silly claims that she can keep Scotland in the EU? )

I suspect that when she went to Brussels they told her it was a non starter so they've had to shift their position a bit.

ICBM

Probably, although I wouldn't write it off completely yet - if there's one thing the EU is very good at, it's making fudge .

My guess is that unless Scotland/Northern Ireland could literally retain the UK's membership it won't work - and which the Spanish won't like.

It will be interesting to see what Theresa May and Ruth Davidson have been talking about... Davidson is very pro-EU as well as a strong unionist.

seany65

fretmeister said:

It was clear that this one was not binding, just like it was clear that the AV vote one was binding.

And it necessarily follows that a NON binding vote, that if followed would need the repeal of an act, requires a vote in parliament.

That's why a parliamentary vote is needed - The European Communities Act 1972 needs to be repealed before the process can start.

Once again - the discussions on here prove that Civics lessons are needed in school.

What would be the point of a referendum if the result isn't binding? How could it possibly have helped Camaron stay as PM by beating UKIP in a 'contest' that didn't matter?

And all this 'economic chaos' that we are having,  (or not having, depending on who you believe),  is a ridiculous, sick, disgraceful joke if the vote ain't binding. 

I don't think the 2nd referendumers have a case if they say they want a 2nd vote "because there wasn't a 60% majority of a 75% turn out" as no-one ever mentioned the need for a particular majority of a particular turn out.

What happens if the result is the same, with the % being only slightly higher, such as 55% of 72%, a 3rd referendum? If the result is the same but with 56% of 73.2%, a 4th?

Don't tell me. The 'Democratic' thing to do in that case would be to ignore all results and forget the whole 'Leave' idea.

If the result was 54% of 73% for stay, I'll bet they wouldn't demand a 3rd go,  just to see if they can 60% of 75%.

None of them have ever got a petition up to get a 2nd general election "because the majority wasn't 60% of a 75% of turn out".

I also find it rather offensive that the views of people who did vote, and managed to vote the way they wanted to (but happened to vote 'Leave), would mean far less than the views of whinging turds who couldn't be arsed voting or were too stupid to vote the way they wanted to.

Isn't there a tv advert they run just before elections telling people to register and to vote, 'cos if they don't register they can't vote and if they don't vote, their views don't count?

No, a 2nd refrendum shouldn't be done. It would effectively re-write the rules after the fact and at the same time treat over 17 million people like they don't matter,  it would split the country more than it is now.

littlegreenman

seany65 said:

What would be the point of a referendum if the result isn't binding?

As a general gauge of public opinion. Which is what it was for, and widely publicised as prior to the vote which anyone paying attention understood.

Are we really still debating that point?

seany65

Clarky said:

I think the difference is that to remain means exactly that and cannot really be hijacked
Leave on the other hand was a blend of things; folks that genuinely wanted to leave, folks that wanted to simply give the middle finger to the establishment and of the folks that actually believed the unimplementable promises of Boris and Co [give £350m / week to the NHS, zero immigration etc], some may have voted differently had they realised what utter crap all that was..

so the number of people that actually voted to leave based on a reasonable opinion [that did not believe Boris' crap but still concluded that Leave is the right thing to do - which I completely accept btw] could not have been 52%
what the true figure is though we'll never know because it was hijacked by the protestors and the misled..

I must disagree with you, Clarky.

NOT everyone who voted to Remain did so for the same reasons.  Some did it 'cos their charities or companies or little organisations get some funding from the EU.  Some did it 'cos they want the ability to travel and work freely in the EU.  Some did it 'cos their pensions as ex EU comissioners depends on britain remaining in the EU.  Some did it 'cos they are in big business and big banks and their vote is practically 'owned' by those businesses and banks.

Most of them voted to Remain based mostly/entirely on their own experiences with the EU, not on all the other things about the EU that they could/should have considered.

So the number of people who voted Remain based on a reasonable opinion of the EU and what it is and is to become could not have been 48%.

I admit that some Leavers may have believed that there was a promise to spend £350m per week on the NHS, but BoJo etc. never said they would, they said "Britain gives £350m to the EU each week which could be spent on the NHS".  Yes, this was disingenuous to the point of 'Lie', as we get to keep a proportion of that money in the 'rebate', and the EU gives various groups and organisations grants, but niether of those are set in stone, and I believe the rebate was going to be up for renewal/renegotiation in 2020.  

I don't remember anyone saying they'd get immigration down to zero. They only said that we should get back legal control of our border, and implement a 'points' system for immigration.

This was branded by all the remainers and press as 'Racist',  this branding hasd coloured  a lot of the rhetoric and whinging and guilty hand-wringing from the Remainers. All this  despite the fact that hundreds of countries have full legal control over their own borders and have never been branded as racist becuase of it.

Heartfeltdawn

seany65 said:

What would be the point of a referendum if the result isn't binding? How could it possibly have helped Camaron stay as PM by beating UKIP in a 'contest' that didn't matter?

Because a Remain victory wouldn't have been about beating UKIP. It would have been about beating the Conservative backbenchers who have disliked Cameron ever since he became leader. 

Clarky

seany65 said:

Clarky said:

I think the difference is that to remain means exactly that and cannot really be hijacked
Leave on the other hand was a blend of things; folks that genuinely wanted to leave, folks that wanted to simply give the middle finger to the establishment and of the folks that actually believed the unimplementable promises of Boris and Co [give £350m / week to the NHS, zero immigration etc], some may have voted differently had they realised what utter crap all that was..

so the number of people that actually voted to leave based on a reasonable opinion [that did not believe Boris' crap but still concluded that Leave is the right thing to do - which I completely accept btw] could not have been 52%
what the true figure is though we'll never know because it was hijacked by the protestors and the misled..

I must disagree with you, Clarky.

NOT everyone who voted to Remain did so for the same reasons.  Some did it 'cos their charities or companies or little organisations get some funding from the EU.  Some did it 'cos they want the ability to travel and work freely in the EU.  Some did it 'cos their pensions as ex EU comissioners depends on britain remaining in the EU.  Some did it 'cos they are in big business and big banks and their vote is practically 'owned' by those businesses and banks.

Most of them voted to Remain based mostly/entirely on their own experiences with the EU, not on all the other things about the EU that they could/should have considered.

So the number of people who voted Remain based on a reasonable opinion of the EU and what it is and is to become could not have been 48%.

I admit that some Leavers may have believed that there was a promise to spend £350m per week on the NHS, but BoJo etc. never said they would, they said "Britain gives £350m to the EU each week which could be spent on the NHS".  Yes, this was disingenuous to the point of 'Lie', as we get to keep a proportion of that money in the 'rebate', and the EU gives various groups and organisations grants, but niether of those are set in stone, and I believe the rebate was going to be up for renewal/renegotiation in 2020.  

I don't remember anyone saying they'd get immigration down to zero. They only said that we should get back legal control of our border, and implement a 'points' system for immigration.

This was branded by all the remainers and press as 'Racist',  this branding hasd coloured  a lot of the rhetoric and whinging and guilty hand-wringing from the Remainers. All this  despite the fact that hundreds of countries have full legal control over their own borders and have never been branded as racist becuase of it.

what I'm trying to get at [maybe not that well cos I'm not finding it that easy to describe if I'm honest] is that the reasons to leave or remain based on real issues, even if a person / business / institution has a self interest, are all totally valid in my opinion..
the university wanting to remain because of funding
the fella with a real worry about immigration and it's effects on society and jobs wanting to leave
a touring muso like me that could do without visas and work permits to play in Italy or Germany wanting to remain
a company with international exports predicting that they will be better off in the long term outside of the EU [for whatever reason]..
and so many more.. all self interest stuff, but in my opinion all completely valid..
I'd actually expect this self interest stuff - what's best for me / my company etc - to come to the fore because to be honest, most of us are really not qualified to determine what is best for the UK as a whole politically or economically.. and let's face it, those that are supposed to be get this stuff wrong often enough.. lol..

the prob for me is mainly those that voted to leave for the "middle finger to the establishment" reason that distorts the result..
it's disrespectful to those that gave the EU question serious thought irrespective of how they voted..

we are lucky enough to live in a country that allows to vote at all.. something which was fought for hard centuries ago..
and it makes our country stand out as being one of the fairest and most tolerant there is
despite our faults it does make this one of the best countries on earth to live in..
so to me, this 'middle finger' vote seems to be an abuse of one of our fundamental national treasures

p90fool

I agree, especially about the middle finger thing. 
People here in Wales are demanding an assurance from the government that they'll make up the shortfall when EU funding stops. 

We only had EU funding because the EU recognised that Westminster had neglected Wales for generations, Wales has been making a profit from EU membership for years. 

I know the "turkeys voting for Christmas" thing has been bandied about a lot, but that really is what happened here. 
Well bend over guys, here comes the stuffing. 

siremoon

Sky news reporting that Merkel has invited May to Berlin for talks.  If true then what happened to the EU "no informal negotiations before you invoke Article 50" position?

ToneControl

p90fool said:

I agree, especially about the middle finger thing. 
People here in Wales are demanding an assurance from the government that they'll make up the shortfall when EU funding stops. 

We only had EU funding because the EU recognised that Westminster had neglected Wales for generations, Wales has been making a profit from EU membership for years. 

I know the "turkeys voting for Christmas" thing has been bandied about a lot, but that really is what happened here. 
Well bend over guys, here comes the stuffing. 

Searching for more detail on this, I learned from the EU's own website that, as well as the normal UK contribution,  the EU also takes:

• 75% of customs duties on imports from outside the EU and sugar levies. EU Member States keep 25 % of the amounts as collection costs. (another EU official page linked to says 20%)
• some of the (VAT collected): a uniform rate of 0.3 % is levied on the harmonised VAT base of each Member States.
• the UK pays about 20% of the VAT paid into the EU purse.  So that's 3% of the total EU budget. This figure used to be much higher
  https://fullfact.org/europe/does-uk-pay-fifth-vat-going-eu-budget/

Anyway -  my point is  the EU funding to Wales (etc.) was tiny in proportion to the EU fees 
(NB: the fees are being reviewed at present: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-130_en.htm) 

Although I'm wary of tories,  first appearances suggest they tried to improve the EU allocation:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/allocation-of-eu-structural-funding-across-the-uk  



This site says the EU allocated about £800 per person in Wales over 6 years, so that must be  £400m a year max, less than 2  weeks of UK money sent to the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/01/mapped-where-in-the-uk-receives-most-eu-funding-and-how-does-thi/

The UK gets  £1.36b a year in EU structural funds (i.e. cash to improve  infrastructure)
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/2455/production/_90010390_rc_eumoney_inuk_pounds.png
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36561084
More than half od all the money that comes back from the EU goes to farmers

"The biggest total payout goes to Poland which will receive  €76bn from 2014-2020, nearly a quarter of the whole fund. It dwarfs their yearly contributions to the EU budget - €3.5bn in 2014."
https://cartodb-basemaps-b.global.ssl.fastly.net/light_only_labels/4/8/5.png

The UK is in the bottom 5 countries receiving EU structural funds, at 169  Euros per person
Estonia gets 2691 per person. Poland gets 25% of the whole Eu budget for this

I guess that the Welsh, in common with other poor areas are harder to buy off than people thought,  and voted leave in the expectation that  the UK can manage its own money

p90fool

Yeah that's an interesting breakdown, I look forward to seeing where we end up, especially here in rural mid-Wales where farmers seem to have voted overwhelmingly to leave.
It's long been assumed that our local farmers survive on EU subsidies but some of my farming friends say that cliche is well out of date.

Clarky

p90fool said:

I agree, especially about the middle finger thing. 
People here in Wales are demanding an assurance from the government that they'll make up the shortfall when EU funding stops. 

We only had EU funding because the EU recognised that Westminster had neglected Wales for generations, Wales has been making a profit from EU membership for years. 

I know the "turkeys voting for Christmas" thing has been bandied about a lot, but that really is what happened here. 
Well bend over guys, here comes the stuffing. 

it's funny really, cos when I saw that Wales, Cornwall and some places in the north of England that get EU funding for rejuvenation projects, my first thought was "of my fkn god, what on earth are you guys doing??"

it kinda reminded me of that teenager "I hate my parents" thing, when they seem to forget to consider where the pocket money comes from, who puts the food in the fridge and pays the bills for Sky and the internet..
the thing I do get though is that a huge number of people are seriously angry and feel a strong need to be heard..
it's just a crying shame that they used the referendum as a means to it..
cos like you say, "turkeys voting for Christmas"..
I never understood it

Clarky

p90fool said:

Yeah that's an interesting breakdown, I look forward to seeing where we end up, especially here in rural mid-Wales where farmers seem to have voted overwhelmingly to leave.
It's long been assumed that our local farmers survive on EU subsidies but some of my farming friends say that cliche is well out of date.

let's hope then that when the UK finally leaves, that it is prosperous enough to make up the difference and sort it all out..
May made quite a few promises yesterday about building a better UK for everyone and keeping the UK united
fingers crossed that she is able to keep them.. cos it'll be quite a thing if she can and does

Clarky

siremoon said:

Sky news reporting that Merkel has invited May to Berlin for talks.  If true then what happened to the EU "no informal negotiations before you invoke Article 50" position?

I understood this to be talks on May's intentions for the UK rather than informal negotiations..
I seriously hope that May and Merkel really hit it off and work well together
we need to get away from all the 'little Britain' spiteful sniping that's been coming from those in the EU Commission
it's the sort of emotionally driven crap you'd expect to hear from a dumped girlfriend 

from what I gather, the UK cannot enter into any negotiations formal or otherwise with the EU before article 50..
but there is absolutely nothing preventing May and Co holding talks with individual heads of state that just happen to be EU members.. 
and I don't think the EU Commission can prevent it
Merkel was also pretty smart in ensuring that heads of state handle the serious Brexit stuff rather than the EU Commission..
Juncker wanted to appoint one of his own to handle this and punish the UK..
Merkel seems to have taken the lead on this and basically over-ruled him

does anyone else here get the feeling [especially after his comments yesterday] that Juncker has had his wings clipped?

Sporky

seany65 said:

This was branded by all the remainers and press as 'Racist'

No, it was branded as racist by some remainers and some of the press.

In the same way that it's only some of the leavers who are painting all remainers as intolerant, anti-democratic snobs, or as you put it, "whinging turds".

All? No. That's an outright lie and you know it. I've seen more leavers claim that remainers think leavers are racist than I've seen remainers who've actually said it.

SecretMachine

Exactly. Claiming all remainers have branded leavers as racist plays into the whole "country divided" rhetoric that the right wing media love to spin. Vice versa, the leavers branding remainers as non-patriotic leftist city dwellers is total nonsense. 

 
Having said that, @ToneControl 's analysis of the cost of the EU to the UK is probably one of the best analysis i've seen of the impact of the EU on the UK. It just baffles me I had to read that on a guitar forum and not on a news website!