• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

I lay the blame primarily with Cameron for calling the vote, of that there is no doubt. I still have huge anger with the way the campaign was run on both sides.

And I also have huge anger with those dealing with the aftermath. "We won't negotiate with you until you invoke Article 50" was not an acceptable set up, and then "okay, we'll invoke it and beat you up in the negotiations" was bordering toward insanity.
 
It's more insidious imo, Cameron was just spineless.

It's the fault of the newspapers and society for pushing and accepting the drip feeding of lies about immigration and the EU and nostalgic bollocks about some period where most of us would have died by the time we were 60.

And it's our fault for not speaking out and letting our friends and family believe some poor plumber from Poland was at fault rather than rees-mogg et al, the banks and other rapacious capitalists.
 
There have been faults on both sides re negotiations since 2016 - none of that helps us (or indeed the rest of Europe) now.

Not entirely sure that they won't be as damaged as we are in the fall out from this, particularly as I suspect that the deal done cannot get through Parliament which presumably means a no deal leave which was always the worst possible outcome, but not just for us.
 
If the deal doesn't get through (it won't) then I think the Europhile side of the Conservative party will be VERY motivated to push for either open-ended extension of Article 50 or a second referendum. No way that no deal happens. The government will collapse before that occurs.
 
If the deal doesn't get through (it won't) then I think the Europhile side of the Conservative party will be VERY motivated to push for either open-ended extension of Article 50 or a second referendum. No way that no deal happens. The government will collapse before that occurs.

Suspect that disarray in the Tory party & an inability to put together a coherent group/plan will allow Mother Theresa to survive for some time yet. Whether that is beneficial depends on your view of the alternatives.
 
As long as Brexit gets indefinitely postponed I don't actually give a shit about the colour of the tie of the party in power.
 
So

We cant have brexit because its just too difficult to organise between now and March ( true)
We cant just stay as we must be shown to be listening to a vote (also probably true even if the vote was advisory)
The triggering of article 50 is whats causing the current issues. So I would be looking at that first surely?
 
Perhaps you should look more closely at why she had to trigger A50 when she did. Any later and she will would have been toast. You aligned yourself with the hard right of the Conservative Party, that's what was always going to happen
 
She didn't have to do anything.

Both she and Cameron were too weak-willed to stand up to a tiny minority of extremists who hold views that are patently ridiculous. A group who are so small in number that they can't even get the minimum number of supporters to get rid of the worst PM in history. A group who have no ideas and have not a single person amongst them who could realistically lead the party.

Having invoked A50 with no plan at all, she (well, Nick Timothy) then drew up the most ludicrous red lines possible, completely boxing off all avenues in terms of negotiation.

Theresa May has a lot to answer for, even if this is largely Cameron's fault.
 
As long as Brexit gets indefinitely postponed I don't actually give a shit about the colour of the tie of the party in power.

No chance of that imo. A couple of tweaks to placate one or two. May will go nowhere and the agreement will be voted through by parliament. That's just my opinion though.
Cameron had a choice: agree to a referendum or lose the election. UKIP achieved the aim of (finally) getting a referendum after years of trying and being denied. If it had been done sooner the 'leave' winning margin would have been much greater.
 
No-one really gave that much of a toss about the EU. Prior to 2016 it was always an incredibly niche issue.

20170408_woc316.png


It was an internal Tory issue, Dave didn't have the balls to do his own job so decided to risk everything on a referendum to shut up the swivel-eyed branch of his own party, gambling that he'd win. Went well for him.
 
Explain the rise and decline of UKIP then. Once a referendum was guaranteed by Cameron before the GE. UKIP disappeared imo. Just the odd few Right wing swivel eyed Tory loons. Conveniently ignoring another 17,000,000 who wanted out.
 
UKIP got nearly 4m votes in the 2015 GE :icon_lol:

Why were they popular? Lowest common denominator stuff aimed at people who (rightly, to a point) felt as if neither major party cared about them, and not being challenged properly on said lowest common denominator stuff.

Farage is a populist, a particularly grubby one but they do have an impact from time to time.

If you think 17m people genuinely understood the workings of the EU and the degree to which everything EU-related was imbedded in our country, and yet STILL wanted to leave (with no clear destination), then you're a far less cynical man than I. It's a lot more likely that it was seen as a) an excuse to kick the Tories (I normally agree with this kind of thing, but you do have to draw the line), b) any excuse to change the status quo, which doesn't work for a lot of people in the UK (this is a domestic issue though) and c) believing a load of bollocks that again, wasn't challenged.
 
How many seats did they win? If Cameron hadn't promised a referendum I think they might have won the odd seat.
People like Farage only become popular because they redress a perceived imbalance. Extremists on the 'left'. create extremists on the 'right' and vice versa i'd say.
I bid you goodnight anyway. I need to sleep.
 
Aussie (ex PM) Tony Abbott sums it up beautifully!-----

It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.

Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.

The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.

But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?

A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.

Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.

Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.

Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.

Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.

Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).

UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.

As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it.

Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
 
Post of the thread.

I thought that compromise would happen as it had to happen. This post articulates far better than I ever could that no deal may not be as scary as we have been told.
 
A hell of a lot of holes in there (that I don't have time to pick through now), the most gaping of them being that isn't how WTO rules work.
 
The biggest hole is the author. Tony Abbott is committed Australian xenophobe.

?
I thought he was leader of the liberals?

And to be fair when it comes to xenophobia Australians on the whole get more than a share of your distain.:confused-smiley-013
 
Was just looking on Oddschecker at Brexit bets. Seemingly Paddy Power are offering odds of 500/1 on T.May still being P.M.when UK leaves EU. Yet it is only 1/2 on Betfair. Doesn't make sense.
I know both scenarios might be unpalatable for a lot of you but if you can get 500/1 about it it might soften tge blow a bit :)
 
Back
Top