Brexit means Brexit: What the heck does that mean... Apparently the Brexit result has caused some IT leaders to look at repatriating data to the UK to “comply with data protection laws and especially GDPR”. But wait a minute – this seems to be more about a lack of understanding of data protection laws. Again. Earlier this year I wrote about emotional knee-jerk reactionism being …
What foreign country would want to keep their data in a country that might well remove the current EU-overseen data protection regulation / compatibility at any point?
We're going to lose a lot of data business, I think, just by creating yet-another-jurisdiction to deal with, even if we abide by almost all the current EU law (because it won't be "all").
We're going to lose a lot of data business, I think, just by creating yet-another-jurisdiction to deal with
Exactly. New, currently undefined, red tape and uncertainty about what and when and how are poisson.
Also, the giant holes in the left and right foot? They are called Snoopers' Charter Crater and Digitcal Economy Abyss. Neither of them is going to help attract business, to say the least.
Or maybe just because people didn't like him, who knows. Either way he only lost by 4% so I waiting with baited breath for all the Remoaners who claimed 4% wasn't enough of a margin in the referendum to start a grass roots campaign for a re-run in RIchmond. I mean they will won't they even though they won, because they genuinely care about democracy and arn't simply a bunch of steaming hypocrites suffering a bad case of cognitive dissonance who only accept democracy so long as it returns the result they want?
Come on Remoaners , prove you're not full of it, start a campaign for the 45% in Richmond!
Now, now... "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." - Nigel Farage (And how right he was. )
And wasn't it somebody fearing that leave would lose that put together the petition that got lots and lots of votes afterwards stating that there needed to be at least 66% turnout?
Perhaps he was right. Either way, the Remainers can't have it both ways. Either 4% is a good enough margin in a vote - in which case STFU about another referendum - or its not. In which case I expect to see them campaigning for a Richmond re-run. Which is it?
Why I won't campaign for a Richmond re-run; Quite simple really
Referundum question :- IN\OUT of EU; OUT won by 13:12 in a legally advisory only vote.
(Now all we've got to do is decide which bits of EU membership we are leaving then negotiate that with 27 other govts any one of which could say no)
Richmond question :- Which of these people would you like to be your next MP; biggest pile of votes wins . Job Done..
Moral of the story; Definitive votes and decisions require definitive questions..
@ Spanners
"No. The "Out" vote got 37.5% of the electorate. They seem to have won 3 to 5 - where they got the 3..."
Only if you cant count. Those who dont vote dont care about the subject (and I dont see that as a problem) and so those who care and voted remain lost. The rules of the game are set before the match not after otherwise we end up with this level of corruption of the facts. Which is why it is hard to understand how the rules were made, the result in and yet people seem to argue over disregarding it because they didnt win. Reminds me of primary school sports day.
"Why I won't campaign for a Richmond re-run; Quite simple really"
Indeed it is - you're just another hypocrite coming out with a lose of specious self justification.
"Moral of the story; Definitive votes and decisions require definitive questions.."
Leaving the EU is pretty definitive.
In case you didn't notice that was an election of an MP rather than a referendum on an issue that surrenders personal rights. So the question is totally different.
And the referendum - Democracy? My arse.
If it were democracy, Scotland would already have had indy ref 2, we would already be in the process of leaving the EU, but not the EEA, or anything else that doesn't require EU membership. Our currency wouldn't be stuffed. Businesses wouldn't be sitting on their hands unable to plan more than two years ahead. And we wouldn't have looked like the most stupid nation on the planet (until the US election).
If they wanted a mandate for a hard brexit, they should have asked the question should we leave the EEA. That question was not asked.
I am pro remain, but what I am seriously pro remaining in is the EEA. I can see some advantages to leaving the EU in that situation, but I don't see it's worth the effort, but the decision has been made. I suspect you'll rind most pro remain people are of that opinion.
Hard Brexit betrays those leave voters who ignored all the bullshit in the referendum and simply took the question at face value.
It's a bit like a doctor asking for consent to remove a badly damaged little finger that would be tricky to repair, and then, after you say ok go ahead, telling you he's actually taking it off at the wrist, or maybe the elbow.
"It's a bit like a doctor asking for consent to remove a badly damaged little finger that would be tricky to repair, and then, after you say ok go ahead, telling you he's actually taking it off at the wrist, or maybe the elbow."
This.
I have heard many Leave voters saying "I voted for us to leave the whole lot/reduce immigration/some other thing".
Nope. You voted to leave the EU, because that was the question. You may have voted because of X, but that's not what you voted for.
The government would have fulfilled it's obligations* with respect to the referendum if we left the EU, but stayed in the EEA/EFTA. Doing any more than that is beyond the democratic mandate it has been given.
Although if they do that, a large bunch of Leavers will whinge that that's not what they meant or wanted.
No matter what happens, though, I'm fairly certain a majority will be unhappy with the result. Taking a few scenarios:
- Hard Brexit: I'm fairly certain that a decent chunk of people who voted Leave wanted a Soft Brexit of some description, enough to tip it over the 50% unhappy when you include the Remainers.
- Soft Brexit: A large proportion of the Leave side, plus a large proportion of the Remain side, would be unhappy, no matter the terms.
- Stay in EU: More than 50% voted Leave, so a majority unhappy (even including those who only voted in protest).
- Any option: All failures or downturns for many years to come will be blamed on the decision made by the Govt/Parliament on this, so at some point over the next decade or so, every person in the country will be unhappy with whatever decision has been made, unless that exactly fits with their own particular idea and they have not changed their opinion at all.
* I say "obligations", although it is not technically obliged to do anything at all, legally or procedurally.
In case you didn't notice that was an election of an MP
And caused by an MP who resigned on principle (far too uncommon these days) over the Heathrow expansion, so nothing to do with Brexit.
He almost got re-elected as an independent, 52:48 on only 54% turnout, despite that constituency voting 70:30 to Remain with 82% turnout, so either the remain vote has dropped hugely, or this wasn't about Brexit. I think it's obvious which is the case.
The truly apalling thing was for the new MP to say "“It does look now as if we can have a vote in Parliament that might override the referendum.". She hasn't even taken the oath yet and she's talking about using Parliament to override a democratic vote. Shameful.
"She hasn't even taken the oath yet and she's talking about using Parliament to override a democratic vote. Shameful."
Phil, I'm not sure where you're based, but please note that the UK has a parliamentary system based on constituencies. So the primary responsibility of an MP is to promote the interests of their constituents (not those of their party head office, the country as a whole, etc.).
Olney made it clear during her campaign that she was against Brexit (and the third runway) and was elected on that basis, by a constituency which in the referendum also voted against Brexit. So the democratic vote with respect to her work as a constituency MP is indeed anti-Brexit.
Phil, I'm not sure where you're based,
I'm a Brit, but living elsewhere in the EU.
please note that the UK has a parliamentary system based on constituencies.
I know, and please note that if the EU referendum had been run on consititiuency lines it would have been 70:30 to leave in England.
Olney made it clear during her campaign that she was against Brexit (and the third runway) and was elected on that basis, by a constituency which in the referendum also voted against Brexit. So the democratic vote with respect to her work as a constituency MP is indeed anti-Brexit.
I don't dispute that the people who voted for her are anti-Brexit, but I think her choice of words about using Parliament to override the referendum are disgraceful. She epitomises the Mummy-knows-best attitude of EU politicians that led to the leave vote winning.
"She epitomises the Mummy-knows-best attitude of EU politicians that led to the leave vote winning."
ISTM that she is asserting the sovereignty of Parliament which has been established, sometimes with a great deal of bloodshed, over the course of the last 1/3rd of a millennium. Some of us think that's worth keeping.
quote
she is asserting the sovereignty of Parliament which has been established, sometimes with a great deal of bloodshed, over the course of the last 1/3rd of a millennium. Some of us think that's worth keeping.
It is
However parliment voted to let the people decide in a referendum.
Having had a referendum and not liked the result, they all go Whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
And start down a dangerous road which starts with "we know better" and ends with "fuck you , get in the ovens" when the (b)loody (n)azi (p)party manages to sneak into power somehow
ISTM that she is asserting the sovereignty of Parliament which has been established, sometimes with a great deal of bloodshed, over the course of the last 1/3rd of a millennium. Some of us think that's worth keeping.
So do I, but in a representative democracy Parliament exists to represent the will of the people. When the first public statement of a newly-elected MP is to propose using Parliament to override the demonstrated will of the people it's not democracy, it's tyranny.
"And caused by an MP who resigned on principle (far too uncommon these days) over the Heathrow expansion, so nothing to do with Brexit."
Credit to him on resigning on a matter of principle. However he found himself fighting against opposition who were also against the Heathrow expansion but differed from him on Brexit so it appears that the latter was the main issue.
Considering the previous election result the outcome was a massive swing.
> If they wanted a mandate for a hard brexit, they should have asked the question should we leave the EEA. That question was not asked.
And for cause, it would have been pointless. Leaving the EU is a process of negotiation, the government cannot dictate the result, so asking voters to say what the result should be would have been untenable.
it would have been pointless. Leaving the EU is a process of negotiation, the government cannot dictate the result
BUT leaving the EU does not equal leaving the EEA/EFTA (i.e. Hard Brexit) as a simple matter of logic. Leaving the EEA is a step beyond what was asked in the referendum.
"In case you didn't notice that was an election of an MP rather than a referendum on an issue that surrenders personal rights. So the question is totally different."
Ah, the sound of a Remoaner kicking off another round of special pleading. How uncommon. Not.
Newsflash genius - leaving the EU doesn't surrender any personal rights though that makes a nice hysterical headline. And what does it matter what the vote is for , its a vote.
"It's a bit like a doctor asking for consent to remove a badly damaged little finger that would be tricky to repair, and then, after you say ok go ahead, telling you he's actually taking it off at the wrist, or maybe the elbow."
Analogies arn't your strong point really are they. Its more like a doctor removing a tumour then telling you the chemo might have some nasty side effects but its worth it in the end.
"Newsflash genius - leaving the EU doesn't surrender any personal rights"
Yes it does: British citizens can, and do, currently move around to EU to look for work, start a business, or enjoy retirement or generally hang out. Losing that right is going to have a major impact on most of my friends and, especially, their children.
Freedom of movement is not some theoretical concept only relevant to wealthy metropolitan liberals. Many Brits, from all walks of life, have benefitted from that right and lived in other European countries for shorter or longer periods, or are still living there. A right that might well evaporate in the near future.
"Newsflash genius - leaving the EU doesn't surrender any personal rights"Yes it does: British citizens can, and do, currently move around to EU to look for work, start a business, or enjoy retirement or generally hang out.
Exactly.
Even if you ignore the "move for work" aspect (which, without freedom of movement of workers, will probably require a Visa), if we are outside the Customs union, even going on holiday will be a larger hassle.
It is definitely the loss of a personal right.
Personally, I am in the process of getting Polish citizenship (or at least confirming it, I have Polish ancestry so, technically, already am a citizen, just need the paperwork) mainly so that I don't lose the rights of EU citizenship. I'm considering also getting German citizenship as a backup (and because it'll be fun to have 3 passports and 3 citizenships). For myself, and my children, I want the freedom to move around and take a job where I want/can.
if we are outside the Customs union, even going on holiday will be a larger hassle.
Why? Most EU airports have three lanes at Customs. In theory this is Red for "something to declare", Green for "nothing to declare" and Blue for "I'm in the EU I don' have to declare anything".
Except that even in the Blue lane you can be pulled over if they think you're smuggling something, and many countries just send the Blue & Green lines through the same channel for simplicity.
Is flying to Sweden noticeably different than flying to (non-EU) Norway?
At worst people wanting to move may have to do a bit of paperwork, and some may be refused, but I daresay it will still be much easier then moving to the USA, or Australia, etc.
If Brits are to be treated as non-EU citizens by the 27 EU countries, this would mean a lot of things that happen now won't be catered for. Single people would have more difficulties with residency, partners would need to marry, it throws a spanner in the works if you have children but you aren't married, you might need to find work before you arrive, and if you lose your job that might cause residency problems. Under the British system, families have been split up due to the foreign parent losing their job or not reaching a minimum income level despite the British parent earning enough for both.
Is flying to Sweden noticeably different than flying to (non-EU) Norway?
They are both in the EEA and both in the Schengen area. This won't fly* with a large number of the Tory party.
* Did you see what I did?
" I'm considering also getting German citizenship as a backup (and because it'll be fun to have 3 passports and 3 citizenships). For myself, and my children, I want the freedom to move around and take a job where I want/can."
For some odd definition of fun. Do you children think it'll be fun to be moved around from home to home, school to school etc? Or is daddy simply a narccisist on an ego trip and expects little wifey and children to follow him obediently wherever he goes?
Do you children think it'll be fun to be moved around from home to home, school to school etc? Or is daddy simply a narccisist on an ego trip and expects little wifey and children to follow him obediently wherever he goes?
Actually, I don't currently have a wife or children. When I do, I will not move them without discussion and agreement.
Right now, I have the right to move myself around the EU for work or pleasure. If there is no work in the UK, or I can get a better job in the EU, I can just up sticks and go.
I want that right to continue. I would also like my children, when I have them, to have that right. If I gain Polish citizenship then I, and my children, will have that right.
What is wrong with wanting my children to enjoy a right which could be extremely useful at some point in their lives? Or would you prefer your children to be stuck in this country should something bad happen and the country goes to the wall?
Right now, I have the right to move myself around the EU for work or pleasure. If there is no work in the UK, or I can get a better job in the EU, I can just up sticks and go.
Which is exactly what I did. *Before* we were pushed into the EU.
Your children will be no worse off.
@ H in The Hague
"Yes it does: British citizens can, and do, currently move around to EU to look for work, start a business, or enjoy retirement or generally hang out. Losing that right is going to have a major impact on most of my friends and, especially, their children."
People did move around before the EU anyway. However the EU seems to be considering offering the freedom to move about for a yearly fee for people wanting to so that would be one less reason to stay.
Yes it does: British citizens can, and do, currently move around to EU to look for work, start a business, or enjoy retirement or generally hang out.
They could do that before the EU was created, even before the EEC was created.
Losing that right is going to have a major impact on most of my friends and, especially, their children.
This is a common piece of propganda. Losing the right does not mean losing the power. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans, Canadians, Australians, Indians, Chinese, etc. who live happily in the EU, and vice-versa. None of them had the right to simply walk in and plonk themselves down, but all had the power to request residence, do the paperwork, and settle. It isn't even very difficult. Why should anyone have the right to settle anywhere they choose, without making some effort first to demonstrate a commitment, and a willingness to contribute, to their new home?
Freedom of movement is not some theoretical concept only relevant to wealthy metropolitan liberals. Many Brits, from all walks of life, have benefitted from that right and lived in other European countries for shorter or longer periods, or are still living there.
Indeed so, about 1.2 million (or 2% of the UK population) and there's no reason we could not continue to do so, although we may have to put a little more effort into it.
A right that might well evaporate in the near future.
Unfortunately people who bang the "I know my rights" drum often overlook the other ride of the coin, which is the duty and responsibility to give something in return. Just insisting on "rights" makes it all take, and no give. It's highly unlikely that either EU counties or the UK will start expelling one another's citizens post-Brexit, that would be lose-lose. At worst people wanting to move may have to do a bit of paperwork, and some may be refused, but I daresay it will still be much easier then moving to the USA, or Australia, etc.
"… but all had the power to request residence, do the paperwork, and settle. It isn't even very difficult"
That's simply untrue. Getting a residence permit can be difficult, costly and time-consuming. Many Brits living here in NL had a lot of hassle with that in the past, and my Australian and Canadian friends still do. And ask any Brit who married outside the EU and wants to bring their spouse to the UK - equal amount of hassle.
"Yes it does: British citizens can, and do, currently move around to EU to look for work, start a business, or enjoy retirement or generally hang out. Losing that right is going to have a major impact on most of my friends and, especially, their children."
And you seriously believe that didn't happen before the Maastrict Treaty? How do you think non EU nationals live in europe? Let me guess - you're another dumb millenial who thinks the modern world only came into existence the day you were born.
"A right that might well evaporate in the near future."
Grow up.
"leaving the EU doesn't surrender any personal rights"
Yes it does. Here's one: "Free movement and right to live anywhere within the 28 nations". That's a right I have as a british subject that is conferred solely though membership of the EU, and which will be taken away from me if we leave the EU. It's not just a personal right. It's a part of my *identity* as a european.
Mind you, you probably read the opposite in the Daily Mail or Express, sandwiched between 15 stories about how foreigners will try to murder your children, just behind the story about how parliament isn't at all sovereign and the judiciary and their gay, fencing, law-upholding ways should make them target of a mob, and 50 pages before the little 2 line story at the back by the haemorrhoid and hair transplant ads about the conviction of the bloke who murdered an MP as a 'traitor' for not supporting said mob.
This new Daily-Mail 'british-only' identity is a shit replacement for being a decent human being. No thanks.
That's a right I have as a british subject that is conferred solely though membership of the EU,
If you're only a British subject (a rare status these days) then you have no such right, it exists only for British citizens. Anyway, perhaps you should stop the "I know my rights" bullshit, and think about your duties and privileges instead.
This new Daily-Mail 'british-only' identity is a shit replacement for being a decent human being. No thanks.
What is it with you europhiles and the Daily Mail? Seems like you're the only people who read it!
@ Jess
"If they wanted a mandate for a hard brexit, they should have asked the question should we leave the EEA. That question was not asked."
The only negotiations available to Cameron were done before the referendum and his wonderful game changer was a damp squib and it wasnt even legally binding (was to be rejected after we vote the right way). It was up to Cameron to secure solid reform/options of what would be available and he refused to.
The second problem is the beloved EU who are very upset we would want to leave their little cartel and want to punish us. They decided that leaving the EU had to be an all or nothing and the vote was to leave not remain.
"It's a bit like a doctor asking for consent to remove a badly damaged little finger that would be tricky to repair, and then, after you say ok go ahead, telling you he's actually taking it off at the wrist, or maybe the elbow."
I agree. Except the EU is the doctor who would respect the patients choice up until the patient not choosing what the EU expected.
A year ago he got 34,000 votes, this time - 18,000.
To lose the support of 16,000 voters looks like he's really not wanted there.
Three months ago Remain got 75,396 votes. This time the LibDem candidate who fought as a "remainer" got 20,510 votes.
To lose almost 55,000 votes certainly says something!
"To lose almost 55,000 votes certainly says something!"
Yes, it says you're comparing two different electoral districts:
Referendum district: Richmond upon Thames - electorate: 132,632
Parliamentary constituency (this election): Richmond Park - electorate: 77,303
So your comparison is invalid. But please check my analysis (you have to drill down to get the districts/constituencies):
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/uk-general-elections/2015-uk-general-election-results
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information
@ Pen-y-gors
"Quite agree - let's have a re-run of the Richmond election. How about in May 2018? And another in May 2023 and in May 2028.
A chance to change your mind is part of democracy..."
Thats an awesome idea. This was the first vote on our participation in the EU after being a member for over a decade without a say yet constantly being promised a choice. Now people have voted change so lets do it. And if people change their minds years down the line they can vote for it again then.
Firstly, the Richmond election was in London which (IIRC) was pretty much the most pro remain area in the country. Even if you accept that this was fought entirely on the EU issue, the result wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
Secondly, that the Lib Dems won it when Labour and the Conservatives didn't put up a candidate is hardly surprising, unless you thought they were going to lose to the Monster Raving Looney party.
Thirdly, The distinction between "soft" and "hard" BREXIT exists only in the media who are unable to grasp any facts that researchers paid the minimum wage can't find in 30 minutes and break down into facts that can be explained to MBA management types in under 5 minutes. This means that any nuance has to be eliminated, and only black/white is presented. The level of debate about the EU has about reached the level you'd expect from toddlers and the press are breathlessly "discovering" things that everybody else looking at the issues discovered a decade ago.
""This might lead to a completely changed EU without so much top-down regulation, harmonization or political integration. Or, of course, it could lead to the disintegration of the EU.""
I'll have mi disintegration on toast please.
The EU is done, it is a matter of time, we indeed live in interesting times.
"The EU is done, it is a matter of time, we indeed live in interesting times."
Downvoted for stating facts?
The EURO and its demonic wealth-transfer/wealth-destroying spawn the ECB were the end of it.
That and the willingness to toe Washington's line. The breakdown of Turkey is just beginning, the refugee/economic-migrant crisis is not over by a long shot, Ukraine is a festering sore soon to be granted VISA-free travel rights. Whatever next.
GDPR comes into force automatically. AFAICS the general plan is to have a single Act to adopt all the EU Regulations until such time as the UK Parliament can decide which to repeal or amend. Unless that Act specifically excludes GDPR nothing changes at Brexit. It would then take a further Act to repeal or amend it. Such uncertainty as exists depends on whether GDPR would be excluded under the proposed Act. The industry ought to press the govt. on its intentions in this regard so that it can plan accordingly.
I assume that at some point Max Schrems or AN Other will have caused the ECJ to tear off the Privacy Figleaf. Even if it doesn't GDPR is going to make relying on it somewhat risky.
The data repatriations which make sense are US to EU/UK and UK to EU, the latter on the basis of the IP Act). Anyone repatriating data EU to UK would be signalling that they expect the UK to repeal GDPR locally and that they intend to take advantage of that to adopt a cavalier approach to their customers' data.
There is an argument that the Snoopers' Charter is 'simply' codification of an existing practice that the UK authorities (and other countries' authorities) have been carrying out covertly for some time; and as such, having it no longer covert is an improvement.
It doesn't make it any less objectionable, though.
My personal opinion is that it is arguably reasonable that the Intelligence Services have enhanced access to information. There is a less strong argument for the police having access without there being an extremely robust system requiring warrants, judicial oversight and reasonable suspicion. Of course, there should also be a firewall between the Intelligence Services and the civil policing services, so the police can't do an end-run around warrant requirements by simply asking for a favour from their Intelligence colleagues. Quite why HMRC, Ambulance Services, the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission should have access, I have no idea.
Also, recording someone's Internet Access data should require a positive act to enable it, for a limited time, not 'passive' continuous recording ('snooping') of everyone's data, all the time with 12 month's retention.
However, I'm an idealist, and my time is passed. Having received Royal Assent, we have a law that we must live with, for good or ill.
"There is an argument that the Snoopers' Charter is 'simply' codification of an existing practice that the UK authorities (and other countries' authorities) have been carrying out covertly for some time; and as such, having it no longer covert is an improvement."
This is simply untrue. The requirement that ISP's keep a record of every site you visit has never existed before and is easily the most privacy damaging clause in the act.
The charter allows any one of 48 government departments to get a list of all servers visited from your ISPs (broadband and mobile) and from there query the servers belonging to CSPs they've served a notice to which forces them to cooperate. That's not existing practice.
"My personal opinion is that it is arguably reasonable that the Intelligence Services have enhanced access to information. There is a less strong argument for the police having access without there being an extremely robust system... Quite why HMRC, Ambulance Services, the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission should have access, I have no idea."
I'm against the law in it's entirety for a number of reasons, but I agree with this.
I can see the justification for the Intelligence Services, and potentially police terrorism/serious crime departments, to have access. I can see the justification for the Police in general to be able to get access with a warrant.
I see no justification whatsoever for the rest to have access, especially without a warrant.
"There is an argument that the Snoopers' Charter is 'simply' codification of an existing practice that the UK authorities ... have been carrying out covertly for some time"
Such practices ignored the presumption of innocence which was part of Common Law. The Act now says, in effect, that innocence need no longer be assumed. It's a major step. Unfortunately the petition didn't say this. It should have concentrated on that single point and left the govt. no room for the anodyne reply it came out with.
@Norman Nescio Quote: "...the Snoopers' Charter is 'simply' codification of an existing practice..."
This is, at best, naive. Who knows what the "existing practice" actually is at places like GCHQ or the NSA? I for one am pretty certain that the hacking and snooping going on for years now has paid absolutely no attention to the law. I'd point out that Theresa May as Home Secretary wanted to abandon the European Convention on Human Rights -- I wonder why. I'd also point out that in the last few days Philip Hammond has announced another 1.9 billion pounds for the GCHQ budget -- a sum which almost certainly buys a huge amount of snooping into the legitimate activities of 60 million UK citizens.
In summary, "existing practice" is almost certainly illegal, and is absolutely certainly damaging to personal privacy and to the democratic rights of citizens. The STASI is here, and no one cares.
Not necessarily. It will have lost them the electoral support of many who voted for them in the past but no longer. Brownomics and then Corbyn have seriously damaged Labour. UKIP will get their comeuppance when the economic costs of Brexit start to bite. This could be the start of a Lib-Dem revival.
Not necessarily. It will have lost them the electoral support of many who voted for them in the past but no longer.
This. My normal inclination in an election is to vote Conservative (lesser of several evils....), but post Brexit I can't/won't vote for them - especially not with Mrs May the snooper-in-chief in charge. Labour are in a worse mess than even they normally manage.
As far as I'm concerned my only real options come the next election are Green or Lib Dem. Great....
What leaver's seem to fail utterly to accept is that if it is unacceptable for someone who voted remain to campaign to remain in the EU because you have to "respect the referendum" then they have a moral problem. Because for *DECADES* the likes of UKIP did not respect either the 53.9% of people who voted for parties that campaigned for EEC entry in the 1970 general election as a major part of their platform. Neither did they respected the 67.2% who voted to remain members of the EEC in the 1974 referendum.
Consequently as the leavers never respected the first referendum and campaigned for a second referendum, they have *ZERO* moral grounds for complaining *WHATSOEVER* that the remainers don't respect the second referendum and are campaigning for a third.
If this year's referendum had been about staying in the EEC then the remain campaign would almost certainly have won, but the EEC and the EU are very different beasts.
UKIP, which wasn't founded until some 20 years after the EEC referendum, and in that time a great deal had changed. Certainly much more than has changed since the 2016 vote which you clearly want to ignore.
Blow up the Chunnel
Sink all the ferries
cut the interconnector
and we can sail off over the atlantic and get inside Dump's great wall.
Or...
We can be friends with our neighbours in Europe,
Not piss them off over BREXIT.
Not gloat over the Italian banking crisis
etc
etc
Which is it to be folks? you choose.
I'm leaving next year bound for Kiwi land so it really does not matter to me in the long run.
Much as the discussions on the by-election and the EU as a whole are fascinating, this line in the story struck me:
> Unless the UK waives the two year exit negotiation period...
I've actually read Article 50 and there is no provision for that; there is only provision for extending it if all the other members agree. So all EU laws and regulations in place at the end of the 2 years would apply, if I understand May's idea of a Great Repeal Bill.
But it probably won't happen, if Parliament comes to its senses and blocks Article 50 indefinitely.
> Unless the UK waives the two year exit negotiation period...
---> I've actually read Article 50 and there is no provision for that
You're right. Much of the Leave spin has been about Hard Brexit and simply moving onto WTO standards rather than suffer the humility of trying to negotiate a suitable deal the remaining 27 member states might not give us. Therefore, technically, Parliament could take us out of the EU by simply passing a law to do that. Boris is good at acting like a surly child on the international stage but even for him this might be a step too far.
---> So all EU laws and regulations in place at the end of the 2 years would apply, if I understand May's idea of a Great Repeal Bill.
Yes, apart from the ones which conflict with whatever Brexit deal we do such as the ECJ being the supreme court and freedom of movements etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
