EU Referendum two months on

Given that tomorrow is the second month since the ill fated EU Referendum in the UK, it is worth asking what has changed? Well contrary to a slew of articles in the "Eurosceptic" tabloids such as the Daily Express and Daily Mail which triumphantly aver that the "Project Fear" claims of doom and gloom have been, much like Mark Twain's wry comments on reports of his own death, been grossly exagerrated, it is worth noting that until the time Article 50 of the EU Agreement( formally signalling a desire to withdraw from the Union ) is invoked, Britain STILL remains a member of the European Union, referendum or no referendum. Secondly Theresa May's government has indicated that there will be no further movement on this issue until after both the French and German elections of 2017

( a sensible idea as once Article 50 is invoked, there can be no turning back- Britain will have crossed the Rubicon so to speak). Thirdly there is a question as to whether the Referendum results- 52% in favour of Brexit, 42% for Remain- can be held to be legally binding( it;s no coincidence that Margaret Thatcher once quoted her predecessor Clement Attlee to the effect that only two types of politicians prefer referendums or plebiscites- "demagogues and dictators"- just as it's no coincidence that only the likes of Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump welcomed the Brexit vote). Given that Scotland and NI voted solidly to stay in the EU are Brexiteers prepared to argue in effect that what England and Wales want trumps(no pun intended!) the desires of other parts of the UK? Brexit could arguably lead to the"breakup of britain"- a rather ironic consequence of a campaign "to take our country back".

There are court case pending in both the Belfast and London High Courts to determine the legality of the June 23 vote and until they are formally ajudicated , Britain will lie in political limbo.

All in all, to quote Harold Wilson, if a week is a long time in politics then two months is a virtual millennium- and it could take if not years then decades to finalize our withdrawal from the EU- and the long term consequences could not (for either good or bad) become apparent in my lifetime or those of my (as yet unconceived) children!

Terry

Hopefully Brexit creates a domino effect resulting in the disbandment of the EU.

The leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister is still Pro-Remain. I don't doubt we will leave sooner or later, but with the major figureheads of the leave campaigns having retired to the shadows, I doubt she is going to be in any major rush unless there is a swell on public opinion pushing her to move on.

What's done is done UK is out - and it's for the better. They should make their own laws and the EU should've stayed the free trading bloc it was originally, not some pseudo-mass superstate.

The BBC recently had a look at the state of the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36956418

Basically after the preliminary hit everything has largely gone back to business as usual bar the value of the pound which is still low. This however in itself is not actually a bad thing (what's important is inflation, and so far inflation is still very much under control).

As a result of the devaluation, tourism has increased, but the price of overseas holidays has gone up (however, prices in many mainland European countries have actually gone down anyway because of the terrorist attacks affecting the level of demand for hotels).

Recent polls show support for Scottish "independence" to be waning.

Because it made zero sense in the first place

I would like to comment on how it's going - but I'm too busy fighting WW3 that the brexit vote triggered

Last week it was the Godzilla attack & the week before; I lost my leg in the great sharknado storm that swept the land

That Farage has got a lot to answer for - he is actually, literally & figuratively Hitler

Scotland being independent makes precisely as much sense as the UK leaving the EU.

I hope not, that would be Christmas for Putin.

It really hasn't been as bad as the Remain camp were trying to claim it was. There were always advantages and disadvantages to both sides of this equation.

Dont know why you think thats a good idea, but perhaps you are right, and when thats over the US will follow suit?

@outside_85: You mean States leaving the Union?

Last time someone tried that things got a little bit uncomfortable. I don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

All it would really take is for the US to jump on the republican bandwagon of fighting 'big government'... like what is really connecting the US states? military and foreign policy? Almost everything else comes under fire for interfering with the invidividual states.

The things that's connecting the States is...well...the fact that they are a country? And have been for a very long time. Military and foreign policy yes, as well as laws and a boat load of history to go with it. I mean, that's like asking why a County stays a part of a State. Either the pros vastly outweigh the cons, or the people within the county simply don't want to.

People were saying the same thing prior to the Civil War, that individual States trump the Union. These States then declared independence, which then had a hand in kicking off one of the bloodiest conflicts in history.

Well there is a difference. The UK as a whole is a lot more capable of supporting itself

@sheenlantern said:

If it does, then It would definitely be like the downfall of the USSR all over again.

But is it really? I mean what is the real difference between how the EU work and how the US work? Individual states in both vote for their own state governments, they both vote for their state heads, and they all vote for who to send off to represent the state to the other union members. You have the FBI to handle crimes that cross state lines, the EU has Europol for the same. The US army is well established and the EU is mulling over whenever a seperate 'EU Army' is needed to suppliment NATO and national forces. The real difference however may just be in the presidents, the US votes for theirs directly, and despite what some claim, EU citizens vote for theirs indirectly through the parliment members they elected, which may make him more of a chairman or overall representative of the union.

That said, there are a number of US senators who seem to want nearly everything, save military, to be scaled back to be state-level decisions, which makes me wonder; why are you even part of this union?

They have a common people with a common language and history in the USA.

There is no real Pan-European identity among British people, I think its only like 15% odd who even feel European. If Canada, Mexico & Cuba became US states and laws were passed in Toronto they would have a closer set-up to what the European Union is IMO.

--------------------------------------

Where is comes governance -

Congressmen can propose or try to repeal Bills, MEP's cannot, all they do is vote YES/NO to legislation proposed by the Commission.

Americans vote for their president based on a manifesto that he has to follow (or risk criticism), the Commission is appointed by the heads of each country, there is no set of promises that they have to follow and barely any transparency, therefore little accountability.

I would actually arugue against that notion, because the huge mix of people that make up the US population (like name a nation who hasn't seen a significant amount of people migrate to the US?)... the language however I give you.

That might be true for most EU member states, especially now with the growing wave of nationalism. I am not sure you'd need to include them... I mean aren't US residents feel more for their home state than the next? Aside that, you already have places like Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii in the states.

----

Hmm, thats likely true... but to be honest I am not quite sure how it works. But I suspect the idea is that an individual nation sends off a proposal to the Commission for a rough debate to sort out if it's at all possible, then they air to the menagerie of MEP's to debate in proper before a Y/N vote is cast.

Criticism from the public only really matters to a US president after 4 years in office unless it gets loud and persistent enough. And yes, the comissioners are appointed by elected politicians, so when you vote for them you know sort of what kind of person they send off to Brussels (if they care). As for promises... let me just say I think it'sa good thing they don't have a bunch of promises they personally have to meet while at the EU, means they can focus on actually representing their country and working for the good of the entire union rather than just the part of it that voted for them. (Also it means we aren't running back and forth between the voting booths, suffer from endless political campaigns or have to learn about subjects most people don't care about or understand.)

I agree to an extent but I still think States are all full of people who are proud to be American and identify with general American values

I believe that Americans vote for their House of Representatives every 2 years, so if they are unhappy with their President then half way through his term they can fill Congress with people from opposition parties who will be more likely to keep blocking him.

What all the pro-Brexit pundits and pols conveniently ignore is what happens after Article 50 of the EU is invoked and after the two years passes with no agreeement as to terms of withdrawal- then the proverbial merde will hit the fan but good,but of course it won;t upset the likes of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Frederick Forsythe( all of whom if not actually millionaires are at least comfortably well off'; those will pay the heaviest price for "Brexit" are those souls considerably more modest than they are, and anyway to quote Harold Wilson, "a week is along time in politics"- five or ten years is a virtual eternity!)

Terry

Dem poor modest bankers, whatever will they do? wherever will they go?

Not sure if anyone will follow us tbh.

The other major Eurosceptic countries are part of the Eurozone, which is considerably harder to leave

I'm not really an expert, but I've heard speculation that returning to their original currencies could possibly wipe out over 25% odd of a country's GDP in the 1st year. I would guess that Grexit is still the most likely as they simply have the least to lose at this stage.

@edamame said:

Out of those three probably Frexit according to this page.

Scotland would have no problem supporting itself as an independent country. But the same arguments for leaving the EU (democracy, sovereignty, national identity etc.) all apply to Scotland leaving the UK. More so, in fact. Considering the UK had an extremely senior and privileged spot in the EU and had a lot more power than most other EU countries while Scotland is pretty much shackled to the UK and has virtually no power whatsoever, having voted overwhelmingly for the SNP in a general election and Remain in a referendum yet got a Tory government and Brexit.

ayyyy... i dont really care :P

Well there is also the fact that the EU has basically come out and said that Scotland cannot join as an independent country because it would open up a can of worms that the UN would rather not deal with

As for Scotland being shackled to the UK: They offered them the chance to leave. If you left then, you wouldve remained EU and gained independence.

Err, source?

As for Scotland being shackled to the UK: They offered them the chance to leave. If you left then, you wouldve remained EU and gained independence.

You obviously weren't paying any attention to the first indyref. The No campaign was built on a pack of lies, the most prominent of which were that staying in the UK was the only way to assure continued EU membership. So what you're saying makes literally no sense.

We actually came up with a whole 14th amendment to cover all of that once the Civil War was over. ;) So far, no one's complaining...okay except for a few retards in Texas (yeah, the retards are in my state, but I don't claim them :).

Scotland was never voting for independence, the whole thing is a sham.

If Scotland leaves the UK and rejoins the EU they'll have even less self governance in 20 odd years than they do now.

The Yes campaign's indy budget was built on a prediction that oil would shoot up in worth to $110 a barrel.

What is it worth at the moment? $50? fracking has put a lot of pressure on oil prices and will probably continue to do so.