UK Leaves the EU - What happens next?

[websaway]

"Brexit means Brexit, the campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempt to remain inside the EU, no attempt to re-join it through the back door and no second referendum."
Theresa May 30 June 2016

I wonder which bit of this that moron Tim Farron does not understand.
Hope he's not a member on here, or I'll be in trouble again.

 

[bonusmedia]

I imagine Tim Farron understands Theresa May's position perfectly well - he just has a different one.

I believe he was arguing that a decision made on the basis of lies should not be binding. He is offering voters a democratic choice - if you agree with him, vote for the Lib Dems at the next election - if not, don't. Given your enthusiasm for protecting democracy I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that.

As it happens I agree that we've made our bed and now we must lie in it.

However if we leave Europe on significantly different terms than those promised by the leave campaign, then the will of the people has not been carried out, has it?

If you vote for jam tomorrow and then I decide to give you marmite instead, you might reasonably question my mandate

 

[VSC]

I almost wish that this thread could be closed and then reopened on the 1st January 2019.
Because till then, neither side will truly know the real results ...

The markets (if that is your reference point) will settle now till Article 50 is invoked - then they will do their thing again. Then they will find their own level till the UK actually leaves and the World knows the terms - flutter again. Then we wait to see what trade deals the UK gets - flutter again ...

It is pretty pointless for either side to be saying "told you so" right now.

Anyway, it does seem that, as fast as people conjure up reasons to render democracy redundant and the desire to instil fear and regret into the leave camp, facts arise that dismiss them as just wishful thinking.

People are not conjuring up anything, or wishing to instil fear ... they are sharing points of view from one side of the debate, which yes was not a majority, but was by no means a minority and which have a right of expression. What frustrates you about some people expressing their concerns, is the same frustration expressed by people who believe that the wrong decision was made. What I think is an irritation is people on both sides just dismissing peoples point of view out of hand and not showing respect to the right of everyone to have their own viewpoint.

and

" You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube"

messy, but can be done ...

 

[VSC]

and, as forecast:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...lans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage
new political parties in the embryo stage ...

 

[bonusmedia]

New UKIP! I wonder what their policies will be now?

They've had some crackers in the past - abolishing maternity pay, less foreigners in football teams, abandoning the metric system, painting all trains purple and gold, legalising racial discrimination...

 

[Toonz]

Michael Gove just stabbed Boris Johnson in the front by going directly up against him for Conservative Party leader!

"It wasn't me, m'lud. Mr Dacre and Mr Murdoch forced me to do it. And it was my wife who gave me the knife, she sneaked it into my packed lunch, between my cheese and pickle sandwiches and my Penguin *sniff*"

Take back control, Michael!

 

[Toonz]

Wow, there's a stampede of Tories away from Boris at the moment. Won't be surprised if he abandons his leadership bid at this rate. Astonishing.

 

[armistice]

Boris just ruled himself out

 

[Toonz]

Wow. Fast moving!

 

[bonusmedia]

Wow, there's a stampede of Tories away from Boris at the moment. Won't be surprised if he abandons his leadership bid at this rate. Astonishing.

You called that one right...

 

[Toonz]

You called that one right...

He read my post

 

[websaway]

I think Boris lost it when he back tracked on immigration. He said free movement would remain, when that was precisely what people voted against.
Both Gove and May have stressed this morning Brexit means Brexit and it could be a straight race between aforementioned in the end. Might not be any need for Andrea Leadsom, though she could be a dark horse, she really impressed over the last few weeks. Lots of MP's now saying they were reluctant remainers. A view I had from outset, self interest and dancing to the tune of the piper.
I think now if everyone pulls together in the government Britain will reset it's sails and head for calmer waters.

 

[Toonz]

I think Boris lost it when he back tracked on immigration. He said free movement would remain, when that was precisely what people voted against.

To be fair to Boris, he didn't backtrack. He back-back-back-back-tracked.

Not that I'm suggesting he's cavalier with his principles at all...

 

[bonusmedia]

Interesting that May has abandoned her proposal to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
A cynic might suggest she no longer needs to appear tough on Daily Mail villains and even Tories believe in human rights.

I dislike her intensely since she tore up the commitment to evidence-based drug strategy in favour of criminalizing the poor.

 

[bonusmedia]

I think Boris lost it when he back tracked on immigration. He said free movement would remain, when that was precisely what people voted against.
Both Gove and May have stressed this morning Brexit means Brexit and it could be a straight race between aforementioned in the end. Might not be any need for Andrea Leadsom, though she could be a dark horse, she really impressed over the last few weeks. Lots of MP's now saying they were reluctant remainers. A view I had from outset, self interest and dancing to the tune of the piper.
I think now if everyone pulls together in the government Britain will reset it's sails and head for calmer waters.

You know May also backs freedom of movement? I suspect Gove will have to too

 

[BREWSTERS]

OK... what we certainly can agree on is that we have very different definitions of 'wealth', and yours is an unusual one.
If, according to your definition, there is a finite amount of wealth that cannot be created or destroyed then wealth is a zero sum game.

It's not, because the wealth is connected to the money that bought it, or will buy it, which is connected to debt and interest.

I'm not sure your definition is particularly useful, because taken to logical extremes it says that someone with £50M in cash has no wealth and that we have the same wealth now as we had when living in caves 10,000 years ago. I think that defies common sense - i.e. most people would say it's not a useful definition. In fact I wonder if you're really just re-defining matter/energy as wealth.

The £50m in cash is relative to what you do with it. If you were lost and dying in a desert you might pay a man with a camel £50m to take you to safety. That man may never do anything with it and the money rots away in his tent, or he uses it to get his fires going, thus reducing the money supply (which leads us to the nonsense that is austerity but lets not get into that) Extreme examples, I know.

Money is simply a method of exchange...it used to be backed by something, usually silver or gold. Now it isn't thanks to governments handing over the rights to issue currency to private bankers. Now it's created from debt.

BTW if you're in China with a £50 note, you certainly don't have nothing. You can change your £50 for local currency relatively easily. Money is useful precisely because it is a (practically) universally accepted store of value.

Forex...good example - if you exchange your £50 at a bank for USD, you might get $67 - if you exchange it at the Post Office you might get $65.50 - so what's it really worth?

 

[websaway]

Can I just ask everyone to join me in thanking the Daily Mail and all of it's courageous columnists who have in the past stood up against the politically correct, obsessed with destroying our democracy and our entitlement to free speech.

 

[gimpydog]

The real question is: once the parties start to splinter, how many pieces will they end up in? Do you foresee two general "blocks" with opposing views

I think Peter Hitchens answered that one last Friday.

I used not to be a fan of proportional representation, but recent events have made me a convert.

Yes. We should have a referendum. Er, what?, oh bugger!

It can only be hoped that this won't turn into civil unrest

Yes. Let's hope no one starts pouring petrol on The Guardian's fires.

I think you can see what's happening here: the Brexiteers do NOT want to win this, so are engineering to split their helping of the vote as much as possible...

The conspiracy theory thread... Have at it!

 

[Toonz]

Can I just ask everyone to join me in thanking the Daily Mail and all of it's courageous columnists who have in the past stood up against the politically correct, obsessed with destroying our democracy and our entitlement to free speech.

No.

 

[bonusmedia]

It's not, because the wealth is connected to the money that bought it, or will buy it, which is connected to debt and interest.



The £50m in cash is relative to what you do with it. If you were lost and dying in a desert you might pay a man with a camel £50m to take you to safety. That man may never do anything with it and the money rots away in his tent, or he uses it to get his fires going, thus reducing the money supply (which leads us to the nonsense that is austerity but lets not get into that) Extreme examples, I know.

Money is simply a method of exchange...it used to be backed by something, usually silver or gold. Now it isn't thanks to governments handing over the rights to issue currency to private bankers. Now it's created from debt.




Forex...good example - if you exchange your £50 at a bank for USD, you might get $67 - if you exchange it at the Post Office you might get $65.50 - so what's it really worth?

I can just about accept you having a different definition of the term wealth, but it's either finite or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

Yes, the value of goods, services and even money is different to different people.

Yes, money is a method of exchange, a store of value. It generally still is backed by something - government commitments - hence some currencies are stronger than others according to the ability of different governments to back them up.

I'm not sure either of those points have much bearing on whether wealth can be created (or destroyed).