Back to: "Tomorrow belongs to me" | Forward to: Nightmare Stacks competition results ...

Constitutional crisis ahoy!

Contrary to popular belief, the UK does have a written constitution—it's just scattered across roughly 25 different pieces of legislation, subject to amendment on the fly whenever Parliament damn well pleases.

And since devolution came in, more than one parliament has to be convinced to amend the constitutional framework before it can be changed.

It is becoming apparent that The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly may have veto power over BRexit per the House of Lords European Union Committee (11th Report of Session 2015-16,
"The process of withdrawing from the European Union"). See paras 70-71, "The role of the devolved legislatures in implementing the withdrawal agreement" -- section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in a manner compatible with EU law, and Scottish parliamentary consent would be required to amend this. (A similar provision underpins the devolution settlements of Wales—which voted for Brexit—and Northern Ireland—which voted against it.)

So we have a royal mess coming down the pipeline.

Firstly, the referendum is non-binding on parliament. Voting "leave" did not automatically trigger UK departure from the EU, it just sent the sitting parliament a strong demand signal. It's up to them to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, or not, in a monumentally stupid game of international diplomatic chicken. (Also, a large majority of MPs in the House of Commons are actively opposed to Brexit. Absent the referendum, a free vote on Brexit in the Commons would have been defeated by a 2:1 majority.)

Secondly, both Scotland and NI voted to stay: in the case of Scotland by a stomping 62/38 margin. The European Communities Act 1972 is effectively baked into Scottish constitutional law, per the House of Lords report, and can't be amended without the active cooperation of the Scottish parliament. Trying to override this in Westminster would trigger a new and excitingly different constitutional crisis and almost certainly lead to Scottish secession on the fast track.

Meanwhile, Scotland is already lobbying the European Commission to protect Scotland's EU membership, and it looks likely that right now the final say in whether Brexit happens lies with Nicola Sturgeon, who is First Minister of a nation that voted to stay (and leads a strongly pro-European government). Taking Scotland out of the EU against the will of the voters and their elected government would also put Scottish independence back on the fast track—and this time previously staunch supporters of the union such as J. K. Rowling are already changing their tune.

I now confess to having run out of clues. I have got no idea where this is all going to end up. If the next leader of the Conservative Party in Westminster (presumptively Bojo, although I am having nightmares about Theresa May getting the job) wants a fig-leaf for switching to "remain", Oor Nicola is about the best that they could hope for. On the other hand, if the Commission are serious about wanting the UK out, they could insist on keeping Scotland as a separate member state, just to add to the pain. The possibilities are endless, within limits. I do not expect the Queen to stick her finger in the buzzing, sparking, shorting constitutional mains socket: she's not that stupid. But that's about all I can rule out at this point.

1291 Comments

1:

See also (an academic who predicted Brexit last year reposts his analysis, along with two corollaries, one of which now seems to be in train).

2:

And more See also directly from the mouth of Scotland's First Minister:

".... I will be inviting the Consul Generals of all EU member states to a summit here in Bute House over the next two weeks to discuss how we engage with their communities here and make clear how highly we value the contribution that they make to Scotland's economy, to our society and to our culture"

3:

The heavens have just opened down here whilst I was reading these, complete with thunder and lightning, t'm beginning to wonder about divine intervention, which is pretty weird since I'm an atheist...

4:

My reading of the European statement is that they're decided that holding a vote and voting for out means you are OUT; they really, really, really intensely do not want to create the prospect of other polities holding out votes as a means of extorting concessions.

I think they're entirely right about that.

(I can also see a whole lot of highly varied "what else can I use this crisis to get done?" going on. Such as an EU military and central bank.)

5:

So, guesses on the overlap between the people who voted Conservative "to prevent the SNP tail from wagging the Labour dog" and for Leave?

Meanwhile, as a continuation of the 'memes' subtopic, the latest hotness appears to be "The Union of Craic": Eire, NI and Scotland.

6:

(I can also see a whole lot of highly varied "what else can I use this crisis to get done?" going on. Such as an EU military and central bank.)

Yup. It's gold dust for the federalist tendency -- and about time too, IMO (I am strongly for European federalism, if we can deal with the democratic deficit along the way: the current EU falls between two stools).

7:

I do not expect the Queen to stick her finger in the buzzing, sparking, shorting constitutional mains socket:

I was thinking about that last night. On one hand, if Her Majesty spoke up and said, "We're not leaving the European Union. I have spoken" millions of people would probably faint with relief, and the violation of law and custom might just go unremarked upon (as the pound went back up and the money decided to stay.)

On the other hand, one sizable minority objecting to Her Majesty's interference in the matter would make the already ugly situation much, much worse. Furthermore, if The Queen made a public pronouncement it might look as if The Crown was panicking, which is something I imagine the U.K. needs to avoid at all costs during these dark days.

Is there a way for The Crown to finesse the situation? Some traditional fashion in which The Queen makes her wishes known to the public "without interfering in the political process?"

8:

I think you are right the EU cannot afford the UK, much less the England tail to wag the EU dog.

So Scotland vetos the leaving of Europe, Westminster does what? or will the SNP push UDI anyway? I think HM the Queen is going to have to learn gymnastics in her old age.

9:

This might be an "easy" solution for Brexiters as it will give them a new scapegoat: the Scottish. I would expect repented Brexiters to backtrack, say that they wanted to leave, but those damned Scottish made them stay and suffer those faceless bureaucrats from Brussels. At the same time, the EU would have to negotiate with a nation that wants to leave but is forced not to by a separatist state, which can get... complicated. It might be a "not so terrible" outcome, but the lesson won't be learned and many things would be damaged.

10:

I'd be sort of fascinated to hear Boris explain his credentials for prime minister to the hiring committee: "Well, I basically broke the country, wiped out trillions of dollars in shareholder value worldwide, and cynically entered into a marriage of convenience with the spiritual heir of Oswald Mosley, so that we could panic the electorate into doing something totally wrong-headed by lying up a storm. And I did it all as part of some kind of toffee-nosed dick-size war with my Old Etonian buddy, Dodgy Dave the Pigfucker. I like to think that speaks volumes about my suitability for the job?"

11:

"I am strongly for European federalism"

In this we disagree. In principle I like the idea of European Superpower, but I cannot see any way to achieve that without using the fascist method. Because I do like civil rights and freedom and democracy I just cannot support the current EU Superstate project. Sorry.

12:

If I recall correctly, that is the opinion of a particular EU statesman, probably with a sizable faction behind him. I suspect that it will be a week or two before official EU opinion hardens behind one position, and the decisions the UK makes in the next few days will be one of the most important factor in what position official EU takes.

The elephant in the room, of course, is austerity.

13:

I'm not a UK-based lawyer, so I'll demur on the question of the UK's constitutional procedures, so I'll just note that, as a matter of politics, allowing Scotland to veto the decision would be political suicide for the Tories. What's more, Scotland forcing England to remain would also not exactly do wonders for intra-UK relations.

As for the EU-Scotland axis, the warmth of those relations will probably be a good indicator of whether and how thoroughly the EU wants to screw over Britain as a result of Brexit. The nastiest possible legal manoeuvre would be to take the position that, for reasons of legal continuity, Scotland can only obtain automatic membership if it secedes prior to Britain finalising its own exit. Crisis, meet overdrive. You'll get along splendidly.

14:

Cue the Al Pacino clip: just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

Or apologies to Glasvegas: England crooning to Scotland and the EU:

When you see that I'm no good And you feel like walking I need to make sure you know That's just the prescription talking

Or Sturgeon/Scotland to England:

When your standing on the window ledge I'll talk you back, back from the edge I will turn, I will turn your tide Be your Sheppard and your guide

15:

It seems like virtually everyone is experiencing some kind of puking, mewling regret about this vote. It sounds like you're taking seriously the possibility that the UK might not actually pull the trigger. Like the grown ups might step in and refuse to allow this travesty to go further.

You just said that you have no idea how this will unfold. But, for the clueless among us (me included) would you give that scenario (Parliment refusing to trigger Article 50) a greater than 50 percent chance of actually occurring?

16:

You're hired, sir!

17:

If they REALLY want to throw a spanner into the UK's internal political workings, they can do so by simply adopting two positions:

  • Reverse the previous legal position that a formal notification by Parliament has to be made and decide that the referendum plus Cameron's promise are sufficient notification to trigger §50. That would mean the clock to hammer out the UK's status started ticking yesterday.

  • That, for reasons of legal continuity, Scotland gets automatic membership only if it gains independence prior to the UK leaving - that is, prior to the expiry of the two-year period.

  • Of course, this is the stuff of nightmares scenario. Things are probably going to be somewhat more civilised, because the UK does trade a lot with the EU, so playing hardball would hurt both sides. But the point is that the EU has plenty of levers to make the divorce as traumatic as possible.

    18:

    An an aside — the way that the SNP has been exuding competence over this has been entertaining to watch.

    England: PM resigns, we'll fire Article 50… sometime, Boris running around looking confused making contradictory statements, George Osborne basically AWOL, no coherent plan for action presented, voice of opposition non-existent. Farage running around like an idiot, etc.

    Scotland: Strong coherent unified statement of intent, white paper, IndeRef2 from SNP. Coherent statements of "no" and "maybe" from Scottish Conservative & Labour.

    Regardless of the facts of the issue — it just feels like Nicola Sturgeon flipped to page 1 of her red "Leave Wins Contingency Plan" folder and started ticking off items. Whereas over her in England we're all WTF! WTF! What did we dooooooooo!

    19:

    There's a well-known, widely observed form of political decay in which being on top of the heap means the selection processes are pretty much entirely social-among-the-upper-class ones. Eventually, reality leaks in and this fails catastrophically.

    Scotland's internal politics haven't involved being on top of any heaps for centuries, so the selection process is different.

    20:

    I'd agree in principle, but the current political-ideological constellation doesn't seem to favour any federal arrangements which would deliver something more than misery. At least, Varoufakis writes in today's Guardian that the only man with the plan is Schaeuble, who is liable to use this crisis to push for a (partial) pooling of unemployment insurance (which is good) in exchange for an austerity union with control over national budgets (which is absolutely freaking horrible).

    21:

    LOL It does looks a bit like that doesn't it. I still cannot get over the notion held by some that the UK gov. can ignore the vote and say ha ha lad it was all a joke, we're sober now and did not mean it. At the very least would that not be the electoral doom of the Tories. Not that I would mourn their passing, though I shudder to think what will replace them

    22:

    While I agree there's going to be a brief time before a position hardens, the statement I'm thinking about is this one which involves at least four politicians. And which is absolutely official EU policy, it's not a press release. (Policy can change, but it's not likely to soften; "policy never softens in a crisis" is a good thumb rule.)

    I'd translate that out of diplomat as "you startlingly inept cabbages. You're leaving, you're leaving as fast as possible so we can minimize our consequent internal political turmoil, and you can expect to concede a bunch of stuff you used to get in return from staying in."

    23:

    I would be surprised if the EU could reverse the polarity of article 50 just on their say so. It seems out of institutional character to go so against the wording of the relevant text like that. But I've been wrong about pretty much everything else during this shitshow so who knows?

    David Alan Green (aka Jack of Kent) thinks that BoJo (or whoever ends up in callmedave's chair) might not pull the article 50 trigger after all - they'll spin it out for long enough for then frame the U-turn as 'the situation has changed, so we have changed our mind' or some such guff. I'm not sure I buy that analysis but again, what do I know?

    Regards Luke

    PS, almost forgot a link for the jack of Kent piece:

    http://jackofkent.com/2016/06/why-the-article-50-notification-is-important/

    24:

    I think they have taken position 1. The original "parliament must" is an anti-leave stance. Now that leave's won the vote, the European stance MUST be to minimize their internal turmoil, which means a decisive and definitive result -- ANY decisive and definitive result -- being preferable to ongoing uncertainty.

    25:

    I'd bet good money that a lot of Leave voters are at least somewhat royalist, and so might be more accepting than you'd think if the Queen did veto it. Not that it wouldn't cause a political shitstorm of epic proportions...

    Nonetheless, the result of this referendum does seem like a textbook example of tyranny of the majority, and in a nation where a head of state, whether elected or not, has veto power over legislation, then that's exactly the sort of occasion when you'd expect that head of state to seriously consider using their veto.

    26:

    Right now (have I said this here before?) a lot of British are acting like people after a failed suicide attempt: "That wasn't it."

    Maybe, just maybe, this can yet be stopped.

    That said, if the EU stuck with its original mandate of keeping the peace within Europe, it would be encouraging the UK to rethink. (And also forgiving Greece's debt and taking in Syrian refugees.)

    Oh, well.

    27:

    The important thing UK seems to overlook, is that no relationship ever is the same after one party yells "I HATE YOU" in public.

    Juncker didn't mince words: Out, Now!

    Even if UK somehow fudges and never activates §50, it lost all its goodwill in EU and we will never again see "considering the special situation of The United Kingdoms" as a prefix for special positive treatment.

    It's hard to tell exactly how pissed the "real EU" is on UK, but the beaker seems full to the point of overflowing. The latest round of UK exceptions, negotiated only a few months ago, was very much supposed to be the final round, and the referendum was not a good way to thank EU for those concessions.

    So realistically, UK may be able to find a way to ignore this referendum and not activate §50, but to get back in good standing will take a LOT more than that.

    A new referendum showing overwhelming support for the EU project, pledging that UK will never again seek special exceptions is probably the least that has any chance of doing it.

    As unlikely as that sounds, I could easily see EU say: "Switch to the EURO to show you mean it."

    Ain't gonna happen...

    UK might as well press the §50 button and get on with it: The good old days definitively ended yesterday.

    28:

    That is actually not a bad idea. The austerity bit can and will be changed when enough voters get sick of it and a viable alternative that they believe presented to them. Or in Europe's case enough countries reject austerity until there are enough to ram it down Germany's throat.

    29:

    And so, what good is the EU's constitution? Apparently no good at all.

    30:

    The process for leaving the EU is enshrined in treaty. To change it would require unanimous consent of all EU members, including the UK.

    31:

    I doubt that Section 29 really amounts to a veto. If the UK leaves the EU and Scotland stays in the UK without amending that law, it will just become one of the many obsolete laws that everyone ignores. It would fall into the mix of strange laws that occasionally become memes, like the one about shooting Welshmen in Hereford. But IANAL.

    32:

    Seems a bit optimistic to think that Scotland can stop the UK leaving the EU. I kinda doubt Sturgeon could get away with anything that undemocratic.

    Also, as Graydon @22 says, it looks a lot like the EU has made its mind up.

    33:

    Isn't the indyref2 plans and the projected negotiations by Scotland's First Minister just "change you plans or the puppy gets it" politics?

    Annul the results of the June referendum and call another (if you must), or goodbye United Kingdom.

    Scotland would be the convenient hook to hang Westminster refusal to pass any Brexit legislation.

    Cameron [and his successor] has a majority of fourteen.

    34:

    What's to stop Parliament from rewriting the Scotland Act and others to remove this putative veto?

    Also, even if a majority of MPs are for Remain, parliamentary representation favors rural voters who voted Leave with large majorities over urban ones who voted Remain with equally large ones. Would the MPs in Leave constituencies really risk their jobs by defying their electorates?

    Finally I am sick oh hearing about the mythical EU democratic deficit. The EU is fully accountable via the European Council and the European Parliament. It's a complex edifice due to the lack of a strong pan-european identity. The Commission is not the EU's government, it is its Civil Service. We did not vote for Juncker, but you did not get to vote for Jeremy Heywood the Cabinet Secretary either.

    I was strongly in favor of the European Constitution drafted by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, which would have established a popularly elected EU President, but my own country (France) voted it down. I would vote for Angela Merkel, as it seems the Germans are the only people in Europe with adult politicians.

    35:

    What's more, Scotland forcing England to remain would also not exactly do wonders for intra-UK relations.

    Judging by the sheer numbers who didn't expect their protest vote to actually, you know, win, it might do a lot to improve things on that front.

    (As for the next PM, at least one of the names being bruited about is someone I knew Back When to the extent of being in the same tutorial group.

    I'm hoping against hope that that the tory party shares my opinion that for the individual concerned anything beyond "Senior Partner of a small-town solicitors' firm" represents absurd overpromotion.

    As does, frankly, a seat in the Cabinet, but it's not like the Pig Fucker had a wealth of talent to choose from.)

    36:

    I read the HoL report differently: Scottish Parliament can veto the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, but not the Brexit per se. So UK leaves the EU but Scotland forces them to stick to EU law (or at least EU law continues to apply in Scotland). But that's moot, since Scotland will probably gain independence before the UK gets around to implementing new laws.

    37:

    Read it carefully. While you probably have their intent right, that clearly indicates that they know that article 50 has not yet been triggered.

    38:

    Well, if you want to be nitpicky about it, the actual form the notification has to take is NOT defined in §50 TEU. It's a matter of interpretation. ;)

    39:

    I think you are overlooking the salient point; having plodded through the 28 pages it seems that there is already a settled view that Scotland does have the right to veto. It is already law, and neither the Tories nor any other party can override that without new legislation, and that legislation wouldn't have a hope in hell of making it through Parliament.

    Given that the BRexiters have already admitted that the money for the NHS, and the control over immigrants, are non-existent, it seems unlikely that a Scottish veto is going to do any more damage than England trying to drag out a country that wants to stay in.

    And the prospect of screwing the Good Friday Agreement is distinctly unappealing; no rational person wants to see the Troubles again...

    40:

    Reminder: HM The Queen is Queen of Scotland (technically she's Elizabeth the First of Scotland) as well as being Queen of England and Wales. The two crowns didn't merge exactly, but after the Tudors petered out England sent off to Scotland for a monarch and thereafter the same body sat (metaphorically) on two thrones simultaneously.

    If Scotland leaves the UK it will do so as a monarchy (although whether it remains so indefinitely is an open question).

    41:

    I see two general sorts of solutions.

    One is that, whatever the Foreign ministers said in the heat of the moment, the legal types look at both the EU part of the process and the UK part of the process and find out just how thoroughly fucked up it all is. After all, non-binding means non-binding. The EU bureaucracy realizes they've got truly serious problems and sees specialists to treat their CRIS (craniorectal insertion syndrom). The BRexiteers think through the idea of England and Wales being all that's left of the British Empire, and in a deep recession, and with Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump cheering them on, and with a whole bunch of new tariffs for their farm goods, and the whole thing just kind of fizzles out. Possibly the excuse will be that it's a shitty birthday gift for Her Majesty to destroy her kingdom, so let's wait for Bonnie Prince Charlie to get his arse on the throne before trashing the place.

    The realization that a bunch of right-wing demagogues didn't know enough about their own government to realize that they couldn't get out of it so easily destroys the credibility of the conservatives, both at home and abroad, and the UK gets a free recession out of the mess, with a shit-storm in parliament for the next two years as the hangover.

    Oh, and the EU gets an existential crisis to add onto the ongoing refugee crisis and the looming climate crisis.

    The other path is that the whole thing blows up: the EU dumps the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland secede from the UK over the next two years, the UK goes into a depression, the Queen dies of a broken heart (or possibly old age), possibly the monarchy goes away entirely as they decide they'd rather just be one of the wealthiest families in the world without all those ceremonial responsibilities, and the EU comes off looking a lot nastier than it used to by forcing the UK to "push the button" as the result of a non-binding referendum.

    Unfortunately, these two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, and they've each got groups of people pushing for them. Worse, I suspect that some of the people pushing on each side actually hate their "allies'" guts. Aren't UKIP and Scottish Independence now on the same side? In any case, what this collision means is that we'll get elements of both outcomes rolling out of the crash between the two, flaming hubcap style.

    Or is it a three-future pileup?

    42:

    1. Reverse the previous legal position that a formal notification by Parliament has to be made and decide that the referendum plus Cameron's promise are sufficient notification to trigger §50. That would mean the clock to hammer out the UK's status started ticking yesterday.

    Don't worry, that's not possible. Changing legal positions requires laws or treaties, not re-interpretation.

    2. That, for reasons of legal continuity, Scotland gets automatic membership only if it gains independence prior to the UK leaving - that is, prior to the expiry of the two-year period.

    I think that's a given. If Scottish continued EU membership isn't part of the Brexit agreement and the Brexit becomes effecive, Scotland will be out of the EU and needs to reapply. There might be a possibility of fast-tracking, though: after all, the legal stuff is already there.

    43:

    You're probably right. But I think we can agree on the fact that neither option is going to be politically... erm... unexciting.

    44:

    You may be surprised to know that I agree with you. A European federal superpower based on the current model is insupportable -- reform is an essential prerequisite. But in principle it's a worthy goal (subject to the aforementioned reforms).

    45:

    As far as I know, that's not entirely true. The courts evolve legal doctrine, for example, even when the texts which they work with remain the same. Stare decisis has never been absolute. But as per this specific case, I think you're right. In fact, I think the interpretation I put forth was abusive as hell. But it did serve to illustrate a point: The EU has plenty of levers to ruin the UK's day.

    46:

    Scotland has, however, evolved a shiny new national-level political class in just the past two decades.

    Prior to about 1995, anyone with political ambitions in Scotland went to London -- Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, you know the names. Scotland was the stuff of provincial local and city government; only a handful of eccentric SNP activists bothered with politics in Scotland, as opposed to practicing Scottish Politics in Westminster.

    Now, that wasn't entirely wrong -- it's how we got devolution. But at least one of those eccentric local politicians, Alex Salmond, would have been one of the Big Beasts if he'd started his career in Westminster; and as First Minister in Holyrood after the initial Labour-led coalition (led by relative nonentities) failed, he set a very high standard for rivals to measure up against ... while Holyrood gave the young talent that would previously have headed south an alternative career ladder.

    The result is that we've grown a brand new crop of national party leaders like Sturgeon, Douglas, and Dugdale (even if you have doubts about the latter as a national-level party leader she wouldn't look too out of place in a Labour front-bench line-up in Westminster) and they haven't had time to get bedded in and start on the institutional cronyism.

    47:

    Changing legal positions requires laws or treaties, not re-interpretation.

    Shhh... Don't tell the Supreme Court over here that, they'll all have heart attacks and die. Although in that case, maybe better that you do tell them.

    48:

    "What's to stop Parliament from rewriting the Scotland Act and others to remove this putative veto?"

    As far as I can see, nothing. Except the prospect of an actual revolt, led by the Scottish First Minister and Parliament!

    49:

    Oh, I was speaking in context of EU politics. And even if you put your case before a supreme court, you'll usually have to wait for months or years before you get an answer.

    50:

    It is subject to interpretation, but I don't think the commission are the ones who do the interpreting. The text is clear that it is the member state's constitutional mechanism which applies for activating the trigger, which means any interpretation around the nature of said mechanism will lie with the member state.

    Furthermore I don't think the EU need to start issuing diktats at this point, the article 50 text is also pretty clear that the various EU bodies have no obligation to start negotiating ahead of the trigger being pulled so that's what I expect to happen; no talks, no 'talks about talks' or back channel pre-meetings - just 'Have you notified us according to article 50? No? Then we have nothing to discuss, good day.'

    Regards Luke

    51:

    Sure, but do you think they are more worried by a revolt of Scotland than one of England itself?

    52:

    Cameron [and his successor] has a majority of fourteen.

    They won't, though, once the hardcore of Tory Brexit MPs cross the bench and sit with (or as) UKIP.

    That would make the Conservative party in a minority government and leave them dependent on Labour, SNP, or UKIP goodwill or at risk of a vote of no confidence (at their enemies' convenience).

    Note that I have a horrible feeling that the only beneficiaries of this shit-storm in Westminster after the next election will be UKIP; I expect Labour supporters to defect to UKIP (as they did in Scotland only to the SNP after IndyRef 1), and if some Conservative MPs defect as well ...

    53:

    What's to stop Parliament from rewriting the Scotland Act and others to remove this putative veto?

    Would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which is what this is all about. See "constitutional crisis" above. The Scottish Parliament is a sovereign parliament and aside from powers specifically reserved for Westminster (defence, foreign affairs, narcotics) it gets to write its own laws.

    54:

    ''Meanwhile, as a continuation of the 'memes' subtopic, the latest hotness appears to be "The Union of Craic": Eire, NI and Scotland.''

    That's the sort of dream that gives cold sweats to the leaders of all of those, even if it doesn't cause them to wake up screaming.

    55:

    Unfortunately the hiring committee will not be looking for the best candidate. Assuming more than one person stands (that seems certain), the 1922 committee (that's the Tory backbenchers) get rid of their least desired in a sort of balloon debate until there are two left, then it goes to the whole of the Conservative party.

    Now, we don't don't know the exact numbers from any voting demographics I've seen. But, generally speaking Tory voting increases with age. Voting "Leave" increased with age. The Conservative Party wider membership will love BoJo. The main hope is that the 1922 committee, who mostly would have voted "Remain" kick him out before he gets to that point, BUT there are a lot of Tory backbenchers who are pro-Brexit - this is why Callmedave promised the referendum, to stop them drifting off to UKIP - and if there's only one Brexit candidate, he's going to get to the last two.

    While I won't have a vote in it, Teresa "Snooper's Charter" May is probably a WORSE choice for the country. Gideon doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance any more. Gove won't stand.

    56:

    BTW, did you read the part of the report where the lords think that the decision to leave the EU can be reversed after the Article 50 notification? (Paragraphs 10-16)

    57:

    I'd love this to be true. However, if Scotland (and Wales?) have veto over exit from the EU, and t's in the parliamentary rule book, surely someone would have talked about this by now? Not least among the SNP?

    Plus the document referenced contains the transcript of a spoken legal opinion. It's extremely interesting, but I'm not sure it's as compelling as actual law. Yes I know written but atomised constitution so may have been missed, but...

    58:

    IANAL but the Queen has a somewhat limited right to refuse to sign acts of parliament into law still I believe. Royal Assent is still required for an act to become law. In practise it would be a constitutional crisis probably bigger than Brexit and Northern Ireland and Scotland leaving the union all rolled into one.

    The Queen absolutely does NOT make her wishes, feelings and the like known and has recently taken The Sun to court for daring to suggest it knew what she felt in a headline that was not supported by the text.

    59:

    What's to stop Parliament from rewriting the Scotland Act and others to remove this putative veto? Would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which is what this is all about.

    Must contradict. A foundational axiom underpinning all British constitutional law is the absolute supreme sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. The Scottish parliament is sovereign only in areas of competence delegated to it by Westminster, and only because Westminster said so. It remains within Westminster's remit to alter or revoke that sovereignty at any time. Of course, doing so would provoke another constitutional crisis, and a pretty earth-shattering one at that. And this is the answer to Fazal Majid's original question: what's to stop it is that it would be politically inconceivable, even though it's perfectly possible in strictly legal terms.

    60:

    I couldn't spot that in the Scotland Act 1998, nor its converse. The nearest I found is schedule 5: "The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters ... (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, (c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom".

    61:

    Again IANAL but one of the solutions I heard being fairly seriously discussed this morning was that the UK parliament should enshrine ALL of the laws and regulations from the EU as UK law, then repeal the bits they don't want to keep as part of the Brexit process.

    If they do this, and they do it for Scotland too (this is foreign affairs I assume, so they can do that) then devolve the powers about repealing them to Holyrood, (and perhaps Stormont) what happens? I imagine Scotland keeps all the EU laws, rUK loses them.

    Can the EU cope if part of a country is in the EU but not all of it? Would Scotland become an enclave in effect, and remain part of the UK and part of the EU? It's already governed by different laws after all.

    62:

    I agree with Charlie: EU in its current state is not a way forward for anybody.

    But one of the major, if not the THE major reason for the current state is that UK has never truly committed to the EU dream and thus prevented the superpower from truly rising to power.

    That is obviously a big part of why the EU leadership unanimously came out right away and said "Out! Now!" in no uncertain terms: The last thing they're going to entertain is UK coming begging for more exceptions to stay.

    63:

    So what do you think will happen first:

  • Housing bubble bursts
  • Article 50 is invoked
  • UK gets a new Prime Minister?
  • 64:

    Yeah, and that conclusion seems like a very wishful reading of article 50 to me. We could certainly go to Brussels while that two-year clock is ticking and say "oops, never mind", but one of the few explicit certainties in that rather vaguely drafted text is that the member state will no longer be a member two years after notification, and no provision is indicated for any possible exceptions.

    65:

    Agreed.

    While I sympathise with the EU's desire to want the UK to start Article 50 asap (and part of me hopes Callmedave does it as the last thing before he resigns as a massive two fingers to his successor [shame it's not article 5 really]) they have no authority to institute it from their end. Someone really didn't think that one through very carefully.

    66:

    Is the prime minister chosen by the largest party, or is it chosen by the parliament as a whole?

    I.E. if Johnson, May, or Farage can't get a majority, could Salmond, Sturgeon, or some other candidate cobble together a EU-friendly government between the SNP & various fractions of the other parties?

    I assume that the fixed-term parliament act doesn't prevent the dissolution of government if no new PM can be chosen.

    67:

    Define your terms. Fascist is a loose term meaning very different things to different people. For some reason some people seem to call any bureaucracy "fascist". I think of this as a misuse of the term. Others reserve the term for "the corporate state", i.e. a state where the government is run for the benefit of the corporations and vice versa. This is a fair use, and may be what you mean...but it is a designation that can also be applied to the current governments of Britain and the US, and probably most of the EU member states. Others seem to consider it equivalent to racist. There are historical reasons why this could be considered valid, as that was one of the notable characteristics of the Fascist states during WWII. And this, also, may be what you meant.

    So as it is I can neither agree nor disagree with you.

    68:

    I now confess to having run out of clues. I have got no idea where this is all going to end up. If the next leader of the Conservative Party in Westminster (presumptively Bojo, although I am having nightmares about Theresa May getting the job) wants a fig-leaf for switching to "remain", Oor Nicola is about the best that they could hope for. Utterly mad, & yet I agree with you 150%

    Hopefully, it will still put the frighteners on Juncker & his corrupt cronies. And I suspect that BoJo simply wants "better terms" ....

    69:

    The PM must command the confidence of the house, so a coalition of parties us possible albeit extremely hard to pull off.

    70:

    2 will only happen before 3 if Callmedave leaves it as a fuck you for his successor. Which I hope he does but I doubt it.

    1 depends on other factors - I imagine England will still be quite popular with Russians for example. But I can see 1 happening first, but more likely order is 3, 2, 1. 1 will only kick in as the investors that drive the bubble see the shape of the trade negotiations after 2.

    71:

    What Boris wants and what Boris gets are likely to be two different things. I suspect that his 'loveable buffoon' act won't cut much ice on the other side of the channel.

    72:

    UK or Bojo are not going to get better terms than the agreement hammered out four months ago.

    In fact, they're not even going to get those terms, the EU leadership said very clearly that agreement "no longer exist".

    73:

    When that article was written, the EU didn't want to force any members out - they want to keep members in. I think the current push from Juncker to invoke Article 50 is unadvisable. It's ok to stress that until the separation according to Article 50 is complete both sides have to fulfill their EU obligations. And I really think the UK should have a post-Brexit manifest before they push the Article 50 button.

    74:

    Someone said something about bureaucracy actually being just government, as opposed to arbitrary; can't find it now.

    Not least because we're all reading the Laundry Files when not on OGH's blog, maybe we could discuss this at a reasonably high level (ie. "faceless" and other cliches prohibited).

    Product declaration: I have worked 27 years as a translator, mostly of legal/admin/business texts, rarely creative writing, in a non-EU country. Or rather, half-EU country (EEA), but my work rarely touched on that. Everything that disgusted me about the bureaucracy, from personal experience and translating documents, was entirely autochthonous.

    I get it about fixed procedures to ensure lawful and uniform treatment, but what I have seen time and again is officials saying "A1 and A2 and A3 and A4, ergo, taking all factors into consideration, B". They love that phrase, which amounts to magic pixie dust that transforms the result to what they always wanted it to be – usually that it doesn't belong in their office or the answer is no you can't, so they can go home early.

    I see so many brainfarts that are only possible to persons of very low reading comprehension, or who simply have not read the letters they are supposedly replying to. It is hard to avoid the feeling that the point of these bureaucracies is not to perform public services at all, but to offer indoor employment relief, a sheltered occupation for the feeble-minded.

    It is all the worse because menial jobs are now done largely by persons of colour, which raises the question of what we do with all the thick whites. Post-1948 South Africa gave its Van der Merwes jobs in the civil service, did it not, and I think we are quite comparable.

    75:

    Oddly I think the housing bubble is the hardest to predict of the three. If the run on the pound continues, we'll see rising interest rates. So a lot of prospective buyers will be priced out of their intended purchases and a whole swathe of people who aren't on fixed rate mortgages will rapidly see their monthly repayments eating into their incomes; at the same time real-terms wage stagnation is predicted. Whether that's enough to burst the bubble or just cool it temporarily I don't know. The underlying pressure on house prices remains lack of supply, nothing in Brexit will change that.

    76:

    The Crown has the right to refuse royal assent to any act of Parliament. Probably. Maybe. Sort of. It hasn't happened since 1704, which is plenty of time for a habit to ossify into a constitutional convention (note for Americans: this phrase means something very different in UK constitutional law), but the wonderful thing about conventions is that they stand ironclad until one day they suddenly don't. George V wanted to refuse royal assent to Irish home rule in 1914, but the lawyers told him that would cause a constitutional crisis until everyone figured out whether he was still allowed to do it or not and he backed down.

    There's a line of thought that the continued existence of the royal assent provides a safeguard against the possibility of a government being taken over by fascist demagogues. (How's that working out for us so far?) But an intervention contrary to The Democratically Expressed Will of the Great British People would start a constitutional shitstorm that could conceivably ultimately bring down the monarchy. Her Nibs didn't get where she is by rocking the boat and she's not going to start doing it now. Besides, there was probably some truth to the Sun's reports that her personal feelings favoured Leave. No, we're not going to find salvation in Buckingham Palace.

    77:

    Someone said something about bureaucracy actually being just government, as opposed to arbitrary; can't find it now.

    Here it is.

    78:

    But 1 depends on psychology. If the panic is big enough, it could start Monday. In that case my guess is 1, 3, and never 2

    79:

    I seem to recall some statement about the Crown's options that went something along the lines of:

    "Technically, the Queen can cast a veto. Realistically, she can cast one veto."

    Does the Crown have that option, in a break-glass-in-case-of-imminent-apocalypse sense?

    On a grimmer note, having lived through the Tsipras-versus-EU showdown, I don't think it's quite safe to count on the folks pulling the levers at the EU acting on a strictly rational basis...

    80:

    Of course UK should have made careful plans before voting to leave EU, it might even have been a good idea to have some exploratory talks about what kind of conditions could be agreed on, so that a well informed body of voters could make the best possible decision.

    That however, is clearly not how democracy and governance works in the UK, and that ship is not only sailed long time ago, it sank, Wasa-style, yesterday.

    81:

    Re: the (understandable) vehemence of the EU that there will be no negotiation. No doubt it is authentic at present.

    I do wonder if it will really survive when they look at the reality of losing our (currently) big economy. Yes I know this has long been a eurosceptic position.

    I suspect it might be right.

    82:

    "Technically, the Queen can cast a veto. Realistically, she can cast one veto."

    Does the Crown have that option, in a break-glass-in-case-of-imminent-apocalypse sense?

    Yes.

    She might even be allowed to keep it for future re-use, if after the dust settled Parliament and people agreed it had been necessary.

    But if she gets it wrong, consequences range from: forced abdication (see also: 1938) to abolition of the monarchy.

    84:

    Nobody is talking about doing anything that hampers trade, that would be suicide for both EU and UK.

    Some kind of free-trade agreement will happen, that's guaranteed!

    The conditions will be quite similar to Norways: You have to follow all the EU market rules (ie: CE, compliance, eurocodes, competition...) and you have to pay some of the market costs, but you get no say and no vote.

    And considering how much hazzle and grief UK has always caused for the bigger EU political project, that's a big Win-Win EU...

    85:

    it might even have been a good idea to have some exploratory talks about what kind of conditions could be agreed on

    And the EU would have said: you can get the EEA deal, with passporting, or the WTO deal, without passporting. Any extras cost time and £s

    86:

    "Can the EU cope if part of a country is in the EU but not all of it?"

    That's already the case, though currently the parts that are outside are all small and exceptional. The UK has several. I doubt that the EU would accept Scotland remaining and England not, without a proper split.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union

    87:

    So that's a thing I havn't seen any press cover yet:

    February agreement was conditional on a Stay result:

    www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/european-council/2016/02/euco-conclusions_pdf/

    Juncker said in no uncertain words that this agreement was now pining for the fjords.

    In other words, even if UK finds a way to finagle the Leave result, it still ends up getting more EU than if it had voted Stay...

    88:

    Royal Prerogative (i.e. the powers of the crown) are wider than most people realise, largely because they are exercised mainly through Ministers and civil servants. Here's a link to a Parliamentary briefing note on it (quite short and in plain english). http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03861.pdf

    Importantly, the Queen could make an Order in Council invalidating the referendum (or indeed invoking article 50). Equally she could tell her Ministers to wind it back, or make a reference to doing so in her next speech opening Parliament when it returns.

    That said, all of those are highly unlkiely. Monarchs haven't got publicly involved in politics for some time.

    89:

    As a civil servant (County, social work, CA, USA), I see some amazingly stupid stuff coming out of our state government. Local government policies are usually better written. Generally, I categorize the faults into a few areas:

  • Peter Principle. A competent leader is not the same as a competent manager is not the same as a competent (whatever the department actually does). So, using social work as an example, a social worker is promoted into management based on ability as a social worker, while the leaders are picked from the managers. So, you end up with many leaders knowing having a fairly good idea of how to do social work (based on the rules 10 years ago, maybe) but having little understanding of how the support systems work. (IT, Accounting, etc)

  • Don't have time to read everything, but it's all my responsibility. Most executives & other supposed leaders tend to want to make all the decisions, but don't have time to really sit down & understand the details of whatever they are being asked about, especially if the details come from a support role that they didn't grow up in. (see point 1)

  • What I don't understand how to do isn't important or difficult. Not understanding the specialist roles would be fine if they took the time to listen & learn what was important to those specialists. But instead, they make blanket statements that make little sense.

  • I.E: If A, then do this.
    If B, do this other thing.
    If A & B do a third thing.

    Great. What about neither A & B? (nope, never thought about that)

    or:

    How does the brand new in-home care payroll system handle a bounced check?

    (actual answer was submit a ticket to technical support in Sacramento)

    My friends in private industry assure me that this happens to them as well, but generally governments have stricter rules about not breaking the rules, so you can't just go around the boss who doesn't know what you're doing. (speaking at the civil service level, not the legislators or ministers themselves)

    90:

    Denmark is EU member, Greenland is not.

    The same model could be applied to NI and Scottland, but certainly not to London.

    91:

    I've been involved in preparing draft legislation for the Westminster Parliament. The process involves getting Legislative Consent Motions from the devolved Parliaments/Assemblies for anything that might conceivably affect them.

    This is baked into the process, and the Parliamentary Business & Legislation committee will throw out anything that doesn't have the devolved administrations support. Even if PBL changed its mind you can be sure that the devolved politicians would make an almighty racket, and they have a significant fraction of MPs in Westminster that could be relied upon to bring it up in debate and filibuster.

    92:

    I didn't catch the fine details (it was a 2 minute news bulletin) but Angela Merkel is already rowing back on the hardline stance it appears, saying "no need to be nasty about Brexit negotiations."

    93:

    I have an old dictionary from the '30s, that shows the original definition of the word "Fascism" when good old Mussolini rose to power with the help and connivance of American Corporations.

    • Fascism is when the banks and the military run the country.

    Here in the US, we have the Military Industrial Congressional Entertainment Complex, which means that we are a fascist country, and have been since the Civil War.

    Every description of the EU that I have seen fails the smell test of being run by the banks and the military. The EU may be undemocratic, but it ain't fascist like the good old US of A.

    94:

    I think that's the good cop / bad cop in action; I wouldn't read more into it.

    95:

    I do know it was written with the idea that a parliament might want to leave, not that the EU would want to push someone out. But I don't think anyone wrote it with the shilly-shallying we're seeing from BoJo et al in mind, and that's why they're suddenly nervous as hell. How long will the UK keep jerking them around before pushing the button?

    As for having a plan, I agree. Now, I voted Remain. But one of my consistent complaints was the Land of Milk and Honey Brigade... I mean the various Brexit campaigns, all failed to actually give us a plan of what they'd do if they won. Now we're sitting here, pissed off and frankly scared about what's next my case, euphoric in some other people's cases, but without a fucking clue about what's next while our glorious leaders to be try to work out WTF to do now they've actually won! You'd hope between them they could organise a piss up in a brewery, but current evidence suggests not so much.

    96:

    As I put in more roundabout way on the other thread: think about how much energy has been generated in rallying support for the Status Quo? And how much has been generated, indirectly as well as directly, for xenophobia, racism and head-in-the-sandism? They have actually found a way to get people who should hate both sides to support one or the other, with quite a bit of heat and emotional investment.

    97:

    Well, my definition of fascism is "supporting (or appearing to support) an eclectic mix of ideologies in order to gain totalitarian control over a state*.

    98:

    Agreed. One of the primary problems is that is was a referendum with the government on the remain side and other people on the leave side.

    The government choose not to set out what they would do in the event that Leave won the vote. Those campaigning for Leave had no ability to implement anything that they wanted, that's the government's job.

    A sensible approach would have been for the government to have been clearer about what it intended to do either way, and then let people make choices on that basis.

    Lacking that approach (I'm guessing the risk of admitting that they could lose was too much for the key decision makers) there isn't a clear plan of action right now. The situation is compounded by the refusal of the government to take action until there is a PM and Cabinet that largely supports leaving in place.

    99:

    I think the EU and Cameron should give the leave side enough time to totally discredit themselves. Farage going back on the 350 million pounds promise was a good start. Same with admitting that Brexit won't change much about immigration. Now let the economic implications set in and force Leave to produce a manifest and UK is ripe for another referendum or general elections.

    100:

    This may not be the appropriate thread to ask this question, but are there likely to be any constitutional (or otherwise) crises within the EU.

    Schauble isn't the only person on the European continent with a plan. So are Le Pen, Geert Wilders, etc. The Austrian Freedom Party almost won the presidency this year. If they campaign on a referendum on the EU in 2018 in their manifesto in 2018, do you think they little chance in getting it? Remember, American (and I assume Australian and European) newspapers underestimated the Eurosceptic position in the UK. Could they have done the same thing on the continent?

    This is what I gather from Der Spiegel:

    "The Black Thursday vote also bolsters opponents of the EU in other member states. In the Netherlands, around half of voters want a referendum. If one were to be held, current polls indicate a majority would vote to stay in the union, though their lead is slight. The situation is similar in Denmark. In Sweden, polls indicate that only 32 percent of voters would support remaining in the EU if a plebiscite were held there. Brexit has exposed the destructive forces currently at work on the continent. The focus is no longer on the question of what connects countries -- it is on what is different about them. Even in Italy, one of the EU's six founding states, almost half of those surveyed say they have a negative view of the EU."

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/black-thursday-for-uk-and-europe-as-britain-votes-to-leave-eu-a-1099726-3.html#js-article-comments-box-pager

    102:
    Of course UK should have made careful plans before voting to leave EU, it might even have been a good idea to have some exploratory talks about what kind of conditions could be agreed on, so that a well informed body of voters could make the best possible decision.

    Except that the PM, as leader of the "Remain" campaign, wasn't willing to acknowledge the possibility that he might lose (or do any of the things that might have prevented that, like pointing out his party colleagues on the other side were lying through their teeth). And the "Leave" campaign (along with their backers in the media) were actively opposed to the idea of "an informed body of voters", because they knew that they could never win if people actually understood what was at stake.

    103:

    Your examples, ZA, seem to me to be of people failing properly to do fairly difficult stuff. I am thinking of behaviour really, really difficult not to attribute to low intelligence and/or extreme laziness.

    FYI our social workers have provoked international protests and demos, some assertions of which are obviously OTT. Others, I'd believe. The threshold for taking children and babies of immigrant families into care seems sometimes very low. But I don't think this is the stupidity and laziness I have seen in other fields; rather, it may be our long and dishonorable history of forced assimilation.

    104:

    Oh, no dissent there. I was merely considering the question of whether the Westminster Parliament could change the Scotland Act against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. My conclusion was yes, in theory, but the political aspects would be explosive!

    105:

    Yes, but privately asking ministers to edit (or drop) potential legislation before anyone outside Whitehall sees it is rather different to demanding reversal of a referendum result. The first is largely deniable, and anyway covered by the official secrets act, so it's hard for people to talk about much. The second is a very big public statement that everyone can see. Regardless of whether you approve of either, they're rather different things.

    106:

    I do wonder if Her Madge could perhaps abdicate the English throne to Chuck but keep Scotland? There is a whole range of interesting constitutional things that COULD happen if Brenda decided to. She's 90, probably far more fed up of the preening idiots in Westminster than we could ever be (after all one of them doesn't turn up at OUR door every week, for 60 years) .

    107:

    Sorry Charlie but entirely & dangerously wrong. The democratic deficit is THE PROBLEM. That has to be dealt with first. Remember the quote in previous thread about the variability & differences permitted between states of the USA, compared to the EU? Um, err, as I often say.

    108:

    "...it sank, Wasa-style, yesterday."

    Eh... Mary Rose, please :)

    (Wasa was basically a bad design from the off and went blup as soon as it tried to move. Mary Rose was in service for about three decades, and saw action against the French; it sank because they overloaded it piling more guns on to it, which along with the holes for them to fire through - and a dodgy crew who weren't up to the mark with shutting them - transformed a seaworthy design into an unseaworthy one.)

    109:

    Y'know, I'm pretty happy with her having the power to prevent parliament from unilaterally declaring war. We've just seen the kind of broken reasoning that would cause them to do something pretty stupid. And if she does it on the quiet, no-one loses face.

    110:

    Well, it's not going to be a walk in the park for EU, but despite the lofty rethoric from various neofascist parties here and there, there will not be a rush towards the door leaving BXL empty and deserted like a spanish airport.

    In particular, don't belive any polls on the subject until they reflect a informed national debate on the subject: No government is going to repeat Dodgy Daves mistake.

    There is a very big difference between having an negative view of the EU you see presented in the "news media", and knowing what you actually loose if you leave.

    Any push for a leave referendum anywhere will be met with a massive information campaign about what EU is and isn't for the country, if nothing else by business and banking.

    And likely as not, all they will need to do is point to UK and say "You want that ?!" because what else happens, UK has handed the EuroFederalists the perfect teachable moment on the subject.

    It will be rather interesting to see if the propaganda-medias role in this debacle will cause tighter regulation of truthiness in UK and/or EU.

    111:

    No, Wasa sank as the direct result of continual changes, (always expansions) to the design after the actual building had started.

    The original Wasa would have been an OK ship, not fantastic, but OK.

    112:

    To which the reply is: "You, Juncker, OUT - now - go directly to Jail!"

    113:

    Could be worse - she could abdicate an independent Scotland and give them Chuck

    114:

    Not going to happen I was always in favour of the EU, from about 1965 ... but as time went on reform got more & more urgent & less & less likely as examples like J-C J got their snouts in the trough. Which is why I switched to Brexit for so long. There are NO good outcomes in this, only less bad ones.

    115:

    If the UK government doesn't trigger Article 50 is that likely to lead to overwhelming public protest or a Tory defeat in the next election? Absent one of the two it does not seem likely that the UK government pulls the trigger on Article 50.

    The EU is not about to declare that the UK has triggered Article 50 by virtue of the referendum results because that has too much potential to bite the EU severely in the future.

    With regard to Scotland, the requirement that the Scottish Parliament Act "a manner compatible with EU law" does not provide Scotland a veto. Depending on how it is interpreted however, the Scottish Parliament would likely to continue to be bound by EU law unless it consented to cease to be so bound.

    Moreover, Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU requires Scotland to accept a currency over which it has no control (either the pound or the Euro). From the point of view of the EU, they would pretty much have to insist Scotland adopt the Euro. (Otherwise, other recent entrants who have not yet adopted the Euro and may no longer wish to are going to insist that the same exception be made for them.) I'm not sure that this will be a deterrent.

    The other question of course is how much does England care about the United Kingdom and Scotland being part of it?

    116:

    It is a great shame this referendum wasn't held 25 years ago. A project like the EU needs a clear mandate from it's people, which was never sought in the UK. Ah well.

    Kinda find it a bit worrying, the talk of letting the adults take control. A yes/no referendum is surely a pretty pure form of democracy? One of the criticisms often levelled at the EU is a tendancy to dismiss criticism or disagreement as people not understanding. A decision is a decision. Trying to weasel out of it will be a great gift to the more unpleasant side of the leave campaign. In addition, it will be the end of any party that supports such a move.

    I'm sure a solution for Scotland can be found. People have already pointed to the Denmark/Greenland/Faroes situation. The EU may well want to give us a degree of slapping, but if they hurt us too much it'll bounce back on them. Plus, go too far and they give evidence of, basically, bullying. Another great gift for the anti EU sides of the continent!

    I wonder how the right to self determination could fit into this? Since England and Wales have expressed a clear desire to leave, how would the UN view an attempt to frustrate that?

    117:

    ... and what most people seem to have forgotten/overlooked/closed their eyes for, is to what extent the proposed EU reforms were resisted, derailed or vetoed by UK.

    The most important example is how UK continuously has twarted any attempt to deal with tax-cheats, off-shoring, tax-shelters and unaccountable money in general - because that is of course the basic business case for The Square Mile.

    But UK also impeded many other matters, the UK exceptionalism has hampered EU integration, from "metric-schemtric" to Schengen, finance, defence, police, other law-enforcement, food safety, competition and ...

    I'll readily admit that countries like my own DK didn't exactly help, often cheering UK on, but it was UK throwing its weight around that mattered.

    So UK has basically been the dragging wheel on EU since 1975, and a LOT of EUrocrats and EU politicians will jump at this chance to settle many old scores.

    118:

    "The government choose not to set out what they would do in the event that Leave won the vote."

    Dunno about that. More like "did say, and then did something different".

    Cameron was saying that on the morning after a Leave vote, he'd push the A50 button and resign. Then when it actually happened, he announced his resignation but without pushing the button. He's effectively washed his hands of it and passed the responsibility for sorting it all out onto those who are not actually in a position to do it (lack of parliamentary majority for Leave). They expected to be able to duck a lot of the responsibility by blaming stuff on the guy who's left. Now they find they've got it all themselves, and it's got their knickers in a twist. It must be said it's rather a smart move.

    Then on top of that we've got the Leavers destroying their own credibility by admitting, on the very day after the vote, that two of their main planks - all this extra money that will go to the NHS, and IMMIGRATION - are bollocks. Which is a pretty dumb thing to do anyway, but even more so when they've just been handed the entire responsibility of bringing it about.

    119:

    If the referendum is invalidated, I wonder how serious an English Independence movement might get? England leaves the EU and UK at the same time.

    That aside, how much damage could a hostile anti-EU UK government do as a member of the EU?

    120:

    TBH, I think this is another reason Brexit will, long term, be good all round. The EU can carry on with it's project. We clearly never fitted too well. Am I right in thinking that our government stopping various things refers to the last Labour government too? Which would mean it isn't just a conservative problem.

    Here's a positive. Turnout was higher than any general election in the last 20 years. I hope this political engagement will continue.

    121:

    What I was referring to was that the government chose not to say something like:

    If we vote Leave then we will leave the EU political institutions using article 50 and seek to remain in the Single Market. Remaining in the Single Market will mean that we pay slightly less to the EU, still have the same trading arrangements and free movement of people. What we will lose is the ability to have a say in how the regulations are made.

    That would have resulted in a lot of complaining from sections of the Leave space, but would have given a clear mandate. It might also have made some of the less pleasant Leave factions from surfacing so much, as the immigration and economic arguments are taken out.

    Alternatively they could have done the other end of the scale and siad that they would immediately implement a full out, with no Single Market, closed borders and all the rest. i.e. exactly what the extreme element of the Leave camp wanted.

    Either way it would have effectively driven the Leave narrative and shaped the entire campaign. It would also have put off some of the protest voters from voting for it, the consequences having been much clearer. It might also have put some others into Remain because of the clarity and them not wanting to vote for the Leave promised by the government.

    122:

    The Euro is used by 19 countries and most of them don't have a problem with that: Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lettland, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands... Hey, even Eine uses the Euro.

    Of course it would be easier if there wasn't that stupid austerity policy and instead a sensible compensation for trade surpluses / deficits.

    123:

    The failure of parliament to have any plan whatsoever for Brexit is a complete dereliction of duty. MPs are elected to represent the will of the people. Whatever an MPs views, in a situation where the expression of that will is so clear cut, they should have been ready to enact that.

    124:

    The government has always been very clear about its policies in the event of a Brexit vote. It will activate Article 50 and begin negotiation to leave the EU. It couldn't be more clear than that because our eventual relationship with the EU is dependent on the outcome of those negotiations, over which they have no control.

    125:

    James Kemp pretty much summed up how much clearer they could have been. What will we negotiate for? What are the starting points for negotiation? Who will form the delegation? Also, what will they do now they'll have a lot of returned power?

    126:

    Bollocks. They could have said if they aim for the WTO+benefits model or the EEA+exceptions model, with emphasizing that the benefits / exceptions are not guaranteed. Either would have put off a part of the leave voters.

    127:

    Indeed, it could have been a whole lot clearer. There doesn't appear to have been much, if any, contingency planning. Mostly I suspect because the civil service resources simply aren't there to do that.

    On Friday all the civil service got told by Jeremy Heywood was "Keep Calm & Carry On". https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/news/sir-jeremy-heywood-calls-calm-and-commitment-whitehall-readies-long-road-brexit

    128:

    Interestingly, there's an online UK Govt petition that suggests that because the referendum failed the "50% of electorate" test, it should be reason for a second referendum.. (It's expressed as "60% in favour, from an 80% turnout). Over 10,000 votes gets you a formal reply from UK Govt; over 100,000 votes gets it considered by Parliament.

    This morning, 100,000 votes. When love-of-my-life signed an hour ago, 2.3 million votes. As of half-an-hour ago, 2.4 million votes...

    129:

    They could have said if they aim for the WTO+benefits model or the EEA+exceptions model

    And either of which would have immediately been shouted to high heaven as evidence of campaign tampering by the Leave campaign, which went ballistic over every single fact presented by the government.

    130:

    I would have a lot more sympathy for this petition if it had been put out before the vote! Whilst its proposals have some merit, it's timing suggests it's more about changing the result than getting a clear mandate.

    Also, 80% turnout? We've not had a UK wide turnout (at general elections) that high since 1951!

    131:

    I would have a lot more sympathy for this petition if it had been put out before the vote! Whilst its proposals have some merit, it's timing suggests it's more about changing the result than getting a clear mandate. All petitions on that site run for 6 months, this one has a closing date of Nov 25th which means it was started on May 25th.

    132:

    Well, and if you can't control the discourse for a referendum, you shouldn't start one in the first place, innit?

    133:

    ...which probably means it was originally put up by a nervous Leaver...

    134:

    you shouldn't start one in the first place

    Truer words were never spoken.

    135:

    The Danish government did a redo with the Maastrict Treaty when the electorate didn't return the result they wanted.

    In that instance a very unified parliament pushed much harder the second time, and won by a smidgen.

    I don't think that translates particularly well to the UK situation and I can easily see the leave side being able to make most hay, given the lack of politicians who can credibly sell the Remain argument.

    But at the end of the day, is the leave result wrong ?

    As I said in a previous debate here, the actual choice for the voters were:

    [ ] Remain in a EU that never functions, because the UK prevents it.

    [ ] Leave and see EU start working in a way you'd hate to be part of.

    When all this dust has settled, I think most everybody will be happier.

    Scotland will be (more) independent and inside EU

    Ireland may end up united (How's that for a long term Cameron legacy ?)

    The federal EU project wont be handicapped by UK

    EU economical crime and tax-evasion will be waaay down, with The Square Mile and the Channel Islands firmly on the outside.

    Everybody else in EU has learned to stay well clear of Article 50

    Only too bad for England, Wales and London, but don't count on EU to send peace keeping forces to the DMZ on the M25.

    136:

    There is precedent; the 1979 Referendum for Scottish Devolution failed to pass because of a "percentage of the electorate" test, and there are lots of constitutions that have a "decisive change X demands a two-thirds majority" clause for exactly this situation. Could be 60% of an 80% turnout, or 100% of a 51% turnout...

    The irony being that Farage spent some time before the referendum claiming that a 52/48 Remain vote would be grounds for a second one...

    137:

    As unlikely as that sounds, I could easily see EU say: "Switch to the EURO to show you mean it."

    That would switch Brexit from "bad idea" to "good idea", IMO.

    138:

    I stand corrected on the timing of it's actual start. But not on it's rise in popularity. Before Friday I'd never seen it, now it's everywhere. It would be interesting to see, but I suspect those signing it post 24th are mainly annoyed remainers than scared leavers.

    139:

    While I'd like to see Remain prevail, I'd advise against redoing any vote which wasn't so close, a handful of miscounted vote could have switched it.

    Here in France, some people are still a bit miffed at the whole Lisbon treaty stuff. We were proposed a treaty by referendum, we voted No, two or three articles were changed a bit, and... no referendum, we're voting this entirely in parliament, thank you. The end result is better objectively speaking, but democratically speaking, not so much...

    I would not be surprised if a large number of the FN electorate had this as one of their reasons for voting against any of the major party.

    140:

    Dennis had it right ...

    DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. ARTHUR: Yes. DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. ARTHUR: Yes, I see. DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- ARTHUR: Be quiet! DENNIS: --but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more-- ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
    141:

    The replacement of Civil Servants by political advisors inevitably leads to a skills vacuum; back in the mists of time Civil Servants did set out multiple options since they serve the Crown. They may not always have been hugely wonderful at it, but political advisors don't know how to do it at all...

    142:

    Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are having problems with Euro. Didn't you know? Add to that the ECB is committed to policies that make about as much sense as climate denialism and there is a powerful argument against joining the EU.

    "We’re increasingly seeing that the problems of the euro extend well beyond the troubles of southern European debtors. Economic performance has also been very bad in several northern nations with good credit ratings and low borrowing costs — Finland, Denmark (which isn’t on the euro but shadows it), the Netherlands."—PK

    143:

    Denmark has no EURO problems, we kept the DKK.

    144:

    I think this discussion is missing the elephant in the room - the EU can't survive GFC II.

    It's pretty obvious that with governments leveraged to the hilt and nothing serious done to deal with the gambling of the finance institutions, the next time the wheels come off the global economy things will get so much worse. Even with 'stress tests' and liquidity enhancements, the general economies will collapse, and with it will come the demands to "DO SOMETHING", which absent any requirement on Germany to cough up means the violent coming apart of the EU.

    I think this 'leave now' screeching of the eurocrats is part of a pre-defined policy position - kick out the UK (and with it the strongest voice saying "nope, doesn't work") and with a shock doctrine approach, shift headlong to a 'United States of Europe' destination. The idea of these eurocrats being that if they bind things tight enough, and give Germany effective control of the continent, they can 'save the EU', and their jobs. You can see this coming out of the Greece debacle.

    The problem, and the thing they really aren't taking seriously enough - that destination and the democracy deficit it encompasses is already angering significant percentages of the EU population. The right wingers want more control, and more arms length. German public wants control, but no responsibility. The small nations want the benefits they were promised.

    The UK vote is just basically an exemplar of this general dissatisfaction. Play shock doctrine games to create a USE and those voices will magnify to a point where "NO" wins out more generally.

    So, coming back to that elephant. The eurocrats and their USE can't really address it, but they probably won't accept that till everything comes apart around them. The alternative direction, that of loosing the ties, and returning the EU to more of the trading bloc isn't going to get the necessary attention till it's too late.

    So what's best for the UK?

    Well, best would have been not to hold this referendum and instead just distanced the UK from all the EU dictats via red tape and time. Too late for that now.

    Second best will be to use Article 50 to extract the required concessions for trade in exchange for not gumming up the works. If the EU does want to rush to USE then it needs the UK gone, not raising dissension.

    Either way, if 'leave' means they don't have to agree to that anti-democratic rush to USE, then it will probably be best long term.

    And as for Scotland, beware jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. If I'm right and the EU ministers come out with a "we're casting off the dead weight of the UK and swiftly moving to an 'ever closer union', which means policies X, Y, and Z will be enacted", then the SNP should think VERY carefully.

    It should become clear quite quickly if this shock doctrine plan is the way the eurocrats are going to try and push; and the eyes have to be on that GFC II threat, and how to survive it.

    145:

    whilst I favour proper federalist solutions I am worried by the precedent of thatcher voiding all talk o euro currency which lead to the euro as is rather that a complimentary currency that would have lived along side bthe currencies in existence at the time. I think making a harder time to implement such things would have made a more robust product ditto any new federalist structures

    146:

    I live in Texas; I don't know whether the UK staying in the EU is a good idea or not. But I do recognize bad campaign tactics, and the "Remain" supporters checked most of those boxes. The “Remain” campaign was not just bad; it was Jeb Bush bad.

    "Remain" lost the referendum. The good news is there is very likely going to be a second vote, either in the form of a second referendum or in the form of new Parliamentary elections where Brexit is the entire agenda. If "Remain" wants to win such a vote, then the way "Remain" is promoted has to change. What you all did in this election did not work. Doubling down on what did not work, won't work either. Here are my suggestions:

    • Remember that the very fact that you are going to get a second vote to get the “right” answer will put off a lot of voters. Approach such a vote with humility. Major political leaders saying something like "We are grateful for this second chance. We are sorry we took your votes and your concerns for granted. We propose to address them as follows..." would go along way towards winning a second vote.

    • Don't get let the issue of “Remain” or “Leave” get tangled up in questions about Scottish or Northern Ireland independence. This is a lose/lose. If the Scots are convinced they can get out of the UK and into the EU with a minimum of pain, you are looking at at much higher “Leave” vote the next time around.

    • Avoid demonizing your opponents. Calling Brexit supporters "racists" and "fascists" and "stupid" did not work this time, and won't work next time. Anyone on the “Remain” side who is saying the equivalent of “you opinions are so horribly wrong and evil, I will not even condescend to discuss them,” should be treated as if they are promoting a “Leave” vote—because they are.

    • Stop saying stuff like “older voters should not decide for the rest of us”. Remember that a majority of young voters voted “I don't give a shit either way” by staying home. Making the Brexit question into a generational issue is misguided. Besides if anyone really believed that Parliament and the Civil Service would have a mandatory retirement age of forty-five.

    • Recognize that having the support of all major political parties is not a positive thing. For many "Out" voters, a vote against the EU was a vote against a hated political establishment that does not reflect their interests, no matter who they elected. See "Humility" above.

    • The "Out" voters you want to reach don't care whether staying in the EU is good for big banks and their various hangers on. The big banks are rightly loathed by most people.

    • Concerns over Immigration and National Sovereignty mean something to voters. These are issues with both emotional and rational components. Address them. Do a better sales job on the UK's recently negotiated special relationship with the EU and its benefits. Also point out that—like other nation in the EU have done—Parliament can just choose to ignore some EU regulations.

    • On that subject, telling "Out" voters, "well you fucked up, we can get back into the EU, but you will have to pay for your fuck up by giving up EU-UK Reform Agreement that Cameron negotiated" does not help your cause. It just makes you sound like used car salesman. If you could get the deal in February 2016, you can get it in February 2017.

    147:

    Last I saw the DKK was pegged to the EUR. Has that changed?

    148:

    Is that London independence stuff which seems to fill up my Facebook feed all of a sudden real or is it just post-election acrimony?

    149:

    How about the "Leave" campaign being an open sewer of lies?

    150:

    Now could you please advise the Democrats for the coming election?

    151:

    The voting patterns in the referendum look awfully like the economic issues of the EU, with London being Germany. The policies and intransigence of the German controlled ECB is not unlike the role the government played in Britain - with most benefits going to London. There have been enough stories about the government neglecting the periphery, especially with the issue of flood control (or rather lack of anything real). It goes back at least to Thatcher and "on yer bike" uncaring attitudes from the early 1980's.

    It seemed to me that "Brexit:The Movie" presented a lot stronger case via its propaganda than the Remain side, as did Hannan at the Oxford debate. The BBC debate seemed like a awful lot of heat and no light. I'm not surprised that those voting leave on the sovereignty issue. I also have just enough connection to understand the anti-immigration stance in other parts of the country.

    It seems to me that successive governments really weren't interested in dealing with the issues in te country, and that this was the direction that discontent made itself felt. It could well have been another issue. I think this is quite similar in the US, where Tea Partiers are effectively trying to break the federal government in protest at their changed economic status.

    I am sure that similarities exist across Europe.

    Is the root cause the neo-liberal agenda, which seems to have exacerbated inequality in the name of GDP growth and efficiency?

    152:

    I would say the elephant in the room is austerity, plus the usual stuff that goes with austerity; screwing up education, healthcare, and income equality, not to mention that England/EU has its own equivalent of flyover country and they're probably as badly fucked up as America's flyover country.

    I'm absolutely astounded at how little discussion of austerity is happening here...

    That being said, you're right. The next economic crash will definitely be a mofo!

    153:

    "If we vote Leave then we will leave the EU political institutions using article 50 and seek to remain in the Single Market. Remaining in the Single Market will mean that we pay slightly less to the EU, still have the same trading arrangements and free movement of people. What we will lose is the ability to have a say in how the regulations are made."

    But that would have failed at preventing the Tories losing votes to UKIP and doing badly in the election. It doesn't address immigration and it replaces an arguably-ineffective voice in the European democratic process with an explicit statement that we don't have a voice at all.

    I guess they could have said it after the election, but I still reckon they never thought they'd need to until it was too late.

    154:

    1 first thing to say that, as an American, i am sorta pissed at 52% of the British electorate. we don't have the same kinda social safety net you folks do across the pond and the value of my retirement account took a 5% dive on Friday at 14:30 BST when the NYSE opened. i am also pissed at myself for not taking a large amount of money out of the retirement account in the previous week, but i just didn't think that a majority of Brits would be that dumb. Dumb as Trumpers are here in the states.

    2 i thought it wise when Scots chose to stay united in the UK. but now it's perfectly reasonable for Scots to leave the UK so that they can remain in the EU.

    3 i hope PM Cameron will hang on long enough to hold off invoking the Article 50 option so that the Scots can put in their referendum version 2 a conditional of the UK invoking Article 50. maybe the question can read as: "Shall Scotland sever political ties with the United Kingdom if the government of the United Kingdom exercises the option in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to sever political ties with the European Union, and consequently remain as an independent nation in the European Union?"

    make it clear to the fuckmuppets in the south that Scotland Remains and that it's just England and Wales that are Leaving should they continue to choose that option. England and Wales will choose to Leave Scotland (and perhaps Northern Ireland) along with the other 27 nations of the EU.

    that's the way to position the debate.

    r b-j

    155:

    Judicial review has been part of the US legal system since a combination of laws passed in the first session of Congress, +Marbury v Madison (&c) made it so. Not the same, then.

    156:

    The Scottish Independence Referendum should also have an amendment which takes away the Oompa-Loompa's golf course. Just because.

    157:

    "The Euro is used by 19 countries and most of them don't have a problem with that: Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lettland, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands... Hey, even Eine uses the Euro."

    If you look at the numbers, then the only country that is doing OK with Euro is Germany (ECB's policy is principally suitable for Germany, not for anyone else). All others are having problems, either horrible like Greece or just bad like France, Finland, and Netherlands.

    Scotland should think very, very carefully before joining the Eurozone. Compared to joining Eurozone even Brexit looks like a brilliant move.

    158:

    Thought I'd dip a toe on this one as a mostly English British Expat, who is marveling at how uniformed the bulk of my countrymen are.

    I was an enlisted soldier in the British Army for just over a decade before I made a personal Brexit, and I maintain a Facebook page that I log into once in a blue moon for times like this really.

    Cursory reading of my old comrades(ex service people are a small but visible minority' and their thinking is remarkably similar in most cases) posts reveals some disturbing commentary/language around the Brexit - swearing, immigration, deportation. Predictably two world wars come up ', a special entreaty to Scotland for Solidarity OR else Nicola Sturgeon 'can go F herself' sort of thing.

    I'm struck by two things, firstly there seems to be some direct equation of the UKs place in history relative to it's place in the world. The group as a whole seem to believe that if we all just muck in and 'crack on' we'll do really well today, despite the erosion In the UKs relative capabilities hen set against the world from the nostalgic times. There's a lot of criticism of the call for a second referendum, and to r b-j's point it does seem to already polarised in this group.

    Secondly, and this is wild extrapolation - ex and still serving service people(at least in the army) as a rule don't tend to think together politically(one of the reasons for all the different funny hats) but they do seem to be doing so(are least in my Facebook feed) on this one remarkably consistently.

    Holding off on article 50 makes a lot of sense for the UK. Scotland can decide what it wants r b-j again, 'fuckmuppets' is an interesting concept - will you be marketing them?I suspect in private quite a bit for the EU as well - difficult to admit - but do the want to try to decouple the financial and cultural equivilant of a two way epicyclic gear train without running it down, also being 'tough' on Greece wasn't a huge success, with the Golden Shower getting more of a toe hold. It it is held off or tye UK goes fo a second vote, I'd actually be concerned about the reaction from ex-forces, especially the 200k or so personnel back from Iraq or Afghanistan, Farrage and chums don't need many to start escalation things, just capable aggrieved people who take orders and can form a core.

    159:

    I'm in Australia and when it was formed we continued with a Governor General. Basically because our entire legal and political system is a cut and paste job from the British one.

    The Governor General is like the Queen. Figurehead, rubberstamp. S/he has in theory the right to simply sack the government of the day or refuse to sign laws. Everyone understands that this is completely ceremonial and of no practical import...

    Until one day...

    The Governor General sacked the elected government and replaced it with one of his own choosing.

    There was 'quite some fuss' but it's all perfectly legal and if things get bad the GG has the right to do it again. Indeed various governments have put up referenda with the thinly veiled intention of stripping the GG of that right and the people have resoundingly rejected them. They want there to be some kind of failsafe switch for when things are dire.

    160:

    Sorry, but the "everybody but Germany suffers with the EURO" is as fact-disconnected as the Leave campaign was.

    France 10 year state bonds are below 1% interest. That is clear indication that nobody thinks there is anything approaching state finance trouble in the french economy during that horizon.

    All the other countries you cite are in the same area, even Denmark without the euro is in that area.

    Even the so-called "troubled" economies like Italy, Spain and Portugal are well below 5%.

    Greece is is the upper exception at nearly 10%, and we all know why.

    Germany is the lower exception, their yield being negative, which if anything, supports Pikettys thesis that the 1900's were abnormal in historical context and that the "growth" thing is a thing of the past.

    The many times repeated canard that "France has a debt problem" is similarly belied by their as of right now 0.385% 10 year bond yield.

    That is not to say that everything is well and shiny in the eurozone, it is absolutly not.

    Austerity was a big mistake, caused by too many "neo-liberals" who belived in trickle down and the confidence-fairy, and the treatment of Greece was both stupid, damaging to the entire eurozone and damaged future european unity.

    The "neo-liberal" bullshit about "everything is falling apart in EURO zone" simply doesn't have any backing in economic data.

    ...Not that I expect data and reason to change the mind of anybody baptised in that intellectually poisoned fond.

    161:

    Cameron said that he would not consider a second vote, but Parliament may decide otherwise ....

    Breaking news: Labour oparty's deriliction of duty strikes ... idiot Corbyn sacks Hilary Benn & at least half of shadow-cabionet is supposed to be preparing to resign.

    Clusterfuck does't even begin to describe this mess.

    All the poiliticians' own fault, here & in Brussel. NOT listening to & being close to their voters.

    Also, until the "10 Rillington Place" problem with arrogant Brussel civil servants is dealt with, there won't be one, either. Not that it's dead here ... a very senior Treasury official managed to postpone Crossrail in London for over 20 years by his shenanigans & obstructionism ( "Sir" J Macpherson, I think )

    162:

    And, in this particular case, either during pre-article 50 negotiations, or after them, we will get a second referendum, asking Britain: "OK, new terme - "IN" or "OUT" ?? Brussel will hate it, but what can they do, because until the final treaty is signed, Britain is still part of the EU. As stated abouve the unelected, crooked Eurocrats will scream, well - stuff'em.

    163:

    Agree on all points. European Federalism is such an obvious pathway that from afar it's almost a mystery why it would take so long for it to start becoming a thing. The Euro was a step, but a meaningless one without a central bank, and it's only the proxy for military union that NATO represents that keeps the absence of a real one seem anachronistic. Scarily anachronistic, given the Balkans bloodfest being in living memory.

    Of course all good internationalists would see federalism as a step in the right direction, the realisation of a broader global unity being generations away. Or maybe an unrealised dream disappearing further in the rear-view mirror. Something between hope and despair.

    164:

    Economy is much, much more than just the interest rates. Looking at the rates only is at least misleading.

    One of the easiest ways to check the healthiness of the economy is to have a look at the NGDP growth rates, especially the trend. Germany is the only one that has stayed in the trend. Others have suffered badly. Other good measure is unemployment.

    But this is well covered in Keynesian and Monetarist analysis, in both blogs and journal articles.

    165:

    And going further, any realistic vision of an Australian Republic will most likely preserve the role of Governor General more or less as it is, it will just be called a President and the rules for appointing one may be tweaked a little further toward democracy (eg 2/3 majority of a joint session rather than the recommendation of cabinet as it is now). There's a strong view widely held that direct election would give a President a mandate to Do Things beyond the existing conventions.

    Australia's system of government is peculiar in that it's definitely constitutional, however the constitution is silent on many matters of government and these are handled by convention. The constitutional crisis of 1975 wasn't regarded as outrageous in terms of the power of the crown being abused, the outrage was in terms of the breach of convention. These conventions probably have more legal standing than, say, the primaries system in the USA, but certainly don't have the same force as actual laws.

    Think Charlie's assessment of the outcome of an intervention by the monarch is on the money. If the workflow of government routinely pushed high-level decisions her way, and she was expected to take advice and make a call, then it would be an uninteresting routine matter for a veto to flow down. But that's an unusual situation for a democracy. Where the monarch intervenes and makes a call, having taken advice and presumably having procured her own private counsel, then it may well work out but questions will be asked. If the outcome is tolerable to most people and the reasons are good, it may well all return to status quo ante. Otherwise it might be a 1688, but with republicans rather than a bunch of Nederlander (or Belgians for that matter).

    Don't think I've come across enough of English republicanism to be across what they would propose as the role of a President in relation to parliament.

    166:

    I find it strange that people&press in UK still think that the referendum was just a local UK affair with no implications beyond The Channel.

    The result caused EU to loose all faith in UK, the same way an employer does when an employee triumphantly gives notice.

    Look at the EU-leaders statement, it says "Good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out".

    The traditional "More equal than the rest" privileges enjoyed by UK in EU are gone now, any attempt to exploit them will be met with an indifferent "But you're leaving, right ? ...moving on..."

    And without the "... or else!" negotiation leverage, which UK has exploited so many times in the past, most recently in february, there will be no future "UK-special".

    EU called UK's "we're leaving" bluff in the feb 19th agreement, clause 2 says:

    "Today, the European Council agreed that the following set of arrangements, which [...] will become effective on the date the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union [...]"

    It doesn't say "remain a member ... for now".

    Unless and until a second referendum makes it abundantly clear that the issue of UK leaving EU will never ever again be raised, UK is out in the cold as far as EU is concerned.

    Having already lost the feb19th concessions which was conceeded by EU to sweeten this referendum, getting such a result from a do-over would take a miracle.

    And even if such a miracle occurs, the feb19 agreement doesn't come back and there won't be any other "UK-special" concessions, until UK has spent 10+ years showing good faith and total loyalty to the federal EU project.

    EU cannot throw UK out, but UK's only two choices at this point are to leave or come crawling into BXL on their knees, begging forgiveness.

    Saying "oops, didn't mean that" won't work.

    167:

    Before the crash of last decade, I would have agreed with you that such metrics gave a indication of where a country were in the contemporary economic paradigme.

    But it is important to understand that their predictive ability is critically dependent on the paradigme holding, the same way that the amount of hay you brought only indicated how far you expected to go, until the advent of automobiles.

    Right now there is not a shard of evidence that we are still in that paradigme.

    In particular the widespread and non-trivial negative interest rates say we are most certainly not.

    And what does unemployment even mean, when we are about to fire the entire transport sector and nobody can point at what the jobs they can migrate to ?

    As economic metric the yield on state bonds have independent weight, it only reflects investors expectation of growth vs perceived risk over the period.

    That's a pretty shitty metric, but it is the only one we have which is not tied up in some economic woo-doo theory or other.

    Time will show if Piketty is right, and we've reverted to the feudal economies of the 1800's or something else.

    But trying to understand automobile traffic patterns by counting bales of hay ain't gonna work.

    168:

    To add to the fun we seem to be having a little bit of a Blairite coup attempt happening this morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36632956

    Unless they can somehow persuade Corbyn to resign and not come back I can't see any possible way it's going to help. But hey. Why not fuck up a golden chance to put the Conservatives in your crosshairs for four months.

    169:

    But do they even need to put the Conservatives in the crosshairs ?

    Cameron quitting without pushing Article 50 into action means that whoever becomes the pilot charged with rowing the locomotive ashore is on a suicide mission from day one. (See for instance: https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/746825028197548036)

    All Labour has to do is wait patiently for the wheels to come of the clowncar and look not quite as incompetent when it happens.

    That makes it the perfect time for a internal coup, as long as it's over before then.

    170:

    You're misunderstanding the role of the press. They (mostly) don't report any news. They report opinion occasionally wrapped in wrapper that fools people into believing it might be news.

    Even the 'quality press' falls prey to this far too often these days, although it does occasionally do quality reportage on various topics.

    And the vast bulk of the press were rabidly anti-EU and they don't give a damn about what happens beyond the Channel so they're not going to look at it. They're busy crowing about the great future we've got. Everyone else is rather tied up in wtf is going to happen next: because we're in a state of the unknown the likes of which we haven't seen in a while. The Tory party is ripping itself to bits in the process of replacing Callmedave. The Labour party is ripping itself to bits after the membership gave them a leader than the PLP couldn't stand. The lies that Vote Leave used to gull various members of the "Great" British public to vote for them are coming home to roost and the fact they don't have a fucking plan is painfully obvious. The details of what the Brexit negotiations might look like don't really matter quite yet because we're not in a position TO negotiate. There's news of 1,000's of jobs already being moved or prepared to be moved contingent on the outcome of the negotiations. The poisoned gnome's "We'll leave the single market and join the EFTA" will trigger 1,000 jobs leaving in the finance sector, as of this morning for example. There is a LOT going on.

    And in the mean time over 2.8 million are calling for a second referendum and the numbers are still climbing. As the original post points out, although I haven't seen discussed anywhere, the Scots seem to hold a veto on Brexit. The referendum is not binding on Parliament and there could be a revolt by MPs who just say "Fuck you!" Given how popular BoJo seems to be in Parliament, this isn't that unlikely.

    171:

    Unless they can somehow persuade Corbyn to resign and not come back I can't see any possible way it's going to help. But hey. Why not fuck up a golden chance to put the Conservatives in your crosshairs for four months.

    Thing is, Corbyn was always seen as a placeholder. Unable to win an election, but sufficient to scare the lite-right for a few years.

    Now it looks like an election before the end of the year, and the party controllers want a 'real' politician in place. So Corbyn is supposed to get rolled. Only he doesn't want to be...

    I just wish someone with a clue, someone with an idea of vision and planning for the next few decades, can get control of one of the parties. At present neither side looks to have anything other than typical politicians; and they are a sizeable part of the problem.

    172:

    Unless they can somehow persuade Corbyn to resign and not come back

    Well, isn't that the point of the resignations? The motion of no confidence is enough to spark a leadership election; the mass resignation of the shadow cabinet is intended to show Corbyn and anyone who would vote for him that in the event of his re-election he lacks enough support to form a leadership team.

    173:

    "Meanwhile, as a continuation of the 'memes' subtopic, the latest hotness appears to be "The Union of Craic": Eire, NI and Scotland."

    I was hoping for something along the lines of "The Up yours Kingdom", perhaps expressed in Gaelic.

    174:

    We are in total agreement there, UK just set a new world record for selfinflicted damage, and pretty much everybody in UK had their spoon in the pot.

    The point I'm trying to get across is simply that no matter what UK does now, there is no way to get back to the situation before the referendum, or to any future situation similarly beneficial for UK in general and London in particular.

    EU called UK's bluff, UK lost, and the game moved on to next round.

    175:

    Since we're looking at two leadership elections. Both of whom will produce Prime ministers, one now, one soon. It'd be nice to get voting rights to both...

    Maybe the time has come to join the Conservatives and Labour?

    176:
    Well, isn't that the point of the resignations? The motion of no confidence is enough to spark a leadership election; the mass resignation of the shadow cabinet is intended to show Corbyn and anyone who would vote for him that in the event of his re-election he lacks enough support to form a leadership team.

    But the mass of the party still support Corbyn and loath the Blairite wing. I can't think of anybody in Labour who would muster the same kind of support as Corbyn.

    So if Corbyn stays he will win. And he strikes me as the sort of man who always listens to the grass roots before the party hierarchy.

    If Corbyn does go away then they'll get a leader that the majority of the party will see as an usurper.

    Cue rebrand of UKIP as part of the working people.

    Y'know. Yesterday my sense of existential despair was fading a little. Coming up with plans to deal with the Brexit fallout. Now a new shitstorm of idiocy arrives to kill my blood pressure for the day. Bah.

    177:

    More entertainment. LibDems have now stated that they'll "stand on a platform at next General Election to ensure UK is in #EU"! https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/746841297953169408

    178:

    Oh, I agree totally.

    If Callmedave had any balls, he'd have raised two fingers to UKIP years ago, not promised the referendum and we wouldn't be in this pile of poo.

    I don't know where we'd be if Vote Leave and Farage's mob hadn't plastered £350M/week everywhere, or if people had stopped to look at just how big that really is, or if Vote Remain had done what the BBC and others started to do and basically call the people who trotted it out like good like robots liars sooner. Or if Vote Remain had run anything like a a positive campaign. Or Vote Leave had run anything like a merely normally politician's lies level of dishonest one.

    But, to coin a phrase, the fuckmuppets have made our bed. Now we have to lie in it. I might to Scotland. Or New Zealand.

    179:

    ''UK's only two choices at this point are to leave or come crawling into BXL on their knees, begging forgiveness. Saying "oops, didn't mean that" won't work.''

    Agreed, but I think there is damn-all chance that our current bunch of idiots will accept that.

    180:

    You're misunderstanding the role of the press.

    To quote a cynical economist I once knew: "The purpose of newspapers is to sell advertising".

    181:

    All Blair would have to return is win a by-election after a Labour MP resigns and then challenge Corbyn?

    New North Korean Labour with Blair as eternal leader?

    182:

    All Blair would have to return is win a by-election after a Labour MP resigns and then challenge Corbyn?

    As far as Blair is concerned, the best part of this whole clusterfuck is that, come October, he gets to be the second most-despised living ex-PM. Stranger things have happened, but I wouldn't expect a comeback from him. He's having too much fun playing Jesus in the middle east.

    183:

    Dear OGH / Moderators,

    Can we have a new fun post. Spoiler thread for The Annihilation Score, competition winners, incipient collapse of civilisation due to climate change, etc. ?

    Something to distract from the current sh*tstorm. Ta.

    Love,

    Adrian

    184:

    Which is partly why The Metro is actually quite a good paper. It doesn't do deep investigative reporting, but it is a free paper so it makes ALL its money from advertising and doesn't run a strong editorial line like the others (which also make income from people buying the paper) and so it keeps as many advertisers as possible on board.

    I don't read any of the papers, I gave up a long time ago, but I guess their various political stances make it easier to target your market segments.

    185:

    I think my favourite thing right now is the chap loudly making the rounds on twitter saying he still supports Brexit because the EU has imposed a limit of 20mg per whatever of nicotine in vaping liquid, and he prefers to vape 24-36mg mixtures.

    186:

    Not sure if this has already been posted, but it makes interesting reading.

    I wonder if Remain Tories are sharpening their knives in anticipation of BoTrump.

    187:

    Of course the moderate position wouldn't have done the Tories any favours in not disintegrating into the UKIP. However if they'd pitched Leave at the extreme end of the spectrum it might have helped them win the arguments.

    188:

    A kind soul has set up the SecondPetition twitterbot, whose purpose in life is to report every five minutes the current number of signatures on the petition. Currently running at about 5k signatures every five minutes.

    189:

    Point of pedantry: while true that Scotland has not had a Queen Elizabeth before the current monarch, she is still Queen Elizabeth II even in Scotland.

    Apparently the Queen and her advisors get to choose her regnal name and number, and according to this exchange in Parliament just before her coronation, the recommended convention should be to base it on the highest number out of all the British, English and Scottish lines. So should we have another King Edward, it would be Edward IX, and a new King James would be James VIII

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1953/apr/15/royal-style-and-title http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/why-the-next-king-james-would-be-james-viii-and-first-king-alexander-alexander-iv-13713

    Note: this doesn't include the pre-conquest Saxon Kings, or it might be Edward X.

    190:

    A hypothetical question:

    What if there's a second Scottish Indyref, with a victory for independence, and the EU officially recognises Scotland as the UK's successor state in Europe? Does that provide a mechanism for the rump UK to be ejected without ever actually pressing the article 50 button?

    191:

    The only action in the current situation, the Queen might take I can squint and imagine as justifiable (aka 'might get away with it and have the Monarchy still survive') would be to send notification to the European Council, invoking the fabled Article 50.

    52% voted 'Leave'. Their patience is not going to be infinite. The prize idiots at Westminster don't seem to be fully understanding this.

    I didn't vote 'Leave', I voted 'Remain', furthermore I'm in Scotland and voted 'Yes' in the indyref, and I'm praying to all the gods that don't exist that the Scottish government gets us the option to pull the eject lever again, and this time we actually do it, although its going to be much heavier lift, and a lot more dangerous, than a lot of people seem to think.

    So I am about the worse person to say this, and yes, all options from here are very bad.

    But, if the weaseling, infighting, floating of 'oh so clever' ideas to avoid what was understood as a clear commitment to exit the EU on a 'leave' vote, dumbly gestates too long then at some point I fear this hits the streets, with a political class of proven utter numpties, Farrage and his merry men stirring shit, and who knows what loyalties among the police (or god forbid army).

    For fucks sake 'The Troubles' is over there, that way, in highly recent memory.

    You think Ulster was special somehow?

    And mere Ulsterisation is a tame variant of whats possible.

    So, yes, I can actually imagine 'in case of emergency break glass, unleash Queen' being needed, and it actually happening, and the Monarchy surviving. But it won't be to keep us in the EU, nor should it be. It'll to force the political class to do what they committed to.

    Obviously, I am deeply pessimistic and worried.

    192:
    Cameron quitting without pushing Article 50 into action

    Despite implying strongly during the campaign he'd do it, then resign.

    I saw an analysis that it's basically a screw-up on BoJo. Which is why Boris had such a terrible face when he was interviewed last time; he had figured out he was screwed.

    Johnson has 3 choices now:

    • He can refuse the seat of PM. In which case his career is over; once you refuse a post like that, no one is going to offer it again.
    • He can get on board, and sit on the referendum, despite his campaigning for the Leave. In which case, his career is mostly over after the conservatives implode, he's out of a job after 6 months and the UKIP surges on a wave of "it's not democracy, see your vote doesn't count with those guys!" and becomes at least the arbiter of things in Westminster, at worst the majority party.
    • He can get on board, formally submit Article 50 notice, get blamed for every screw-up during the negotiation and all the bad parts that inevitably follow during the brexit itself... and say goodbye to the plushiest jobs in finance and consulting when he leaves his post, because the banks will mostly remember who caused them so many problems. But at least he'll be remembered as The Prime Minister Who Presided the Brexit.

    (meanwhile Cameron is remembered only as The Guy Who Started a Referendum He Shouldn't Have, and hopes he gets something out of it)

    Well played, David. Well played.

    193:

    The real irony about Corbyn - he's been re-elected in his constituency for 33 years with never less than 50% of the vote, usually 60%. So he's popular as a local MP.

    He's been elected to lead the Labour Party effectively as part of the same sort of anti-establishment protest that sent us down this road. And even though the PLP hate him, he's still wildly popular as a perceived outsider.

    Which means for all their rhetoric, unless the PLP can find a way to make him ineligible for selection, any move to remove him will only split the wider party.

    Hilary Benn is a classic political animal of his generation. It's obvious he was asked to be the one to start the ball rolling, and he is gladly embracing his "I only tried to speak my mind and he fired me" rhetoric in the press.

    All I can hope for is the Tories and Labour parties to both split - then we might finally get some decent PR in parliament here. Multiple parties and compromise isn't a curse, it's the best way to govern.

    194:

    Ha. Yep, it's the first clever statesmanlike thing I've ever seen callmedave do. And it has completely spiked the wheels of the Leavers.

    195:

    Corbyn is massively unpopular within the PLP. He only got on the ballot last time because one of the other candidates (I don't remember which one, I think it was Andy Burnham) signed his nomination papers so there would be a left-wing candidate to represent the broad spectrum of Labour.

    The other old stagers from Labour's left wing will still sign to support Corbyn, but that elusive last signature really won't appear this time.

    196:

    Except that P H-K is worng. There ARE other choices. Doesn't excuse Camoron fuck-up in the pathetic "concessioN" he wrong for the EU, because they didn't take it seriously - which is why Brussel so stirred-up, they thought it was a fak joke, fucked up & are now trying to blame us for their cock-up. Similarly, Camoron has been labelled by Paxo as a true heir to Anthony Eden (as in Suez) - equally true.

    197:

    Sturgeon has changed tack ... The SNP have worked out that: - out of the UK in the EU, using the Euro, no Barnett formula & subject to Juncker would actually be a VERY BAD move ... And are therefore threatening to veto our departure & claiming that they can via constitutional methods. Interesting. Just for once, I think she may be correct.

    198:

    that elusive last signature really won't appear this time.

    There's an argument based in the interpretation of the rules that he may automatically appear on the ballot, as he didn't resign. But I return to my earlier position, even given Adrian's interpretation @176, what good is an opposition leader who can't form a shadow cabinet? Shall we have another leadership election three weeks hence, to be deadlocked once again? That would be unacceptable to the general membership even in normal political times; this is no time to have a somnolent opposition.

    As soon as the ballot is open, should Corbyn's name appear on it, the rest of the PLP will make extremely loud and public noises to that effect. And the original groundswell of Corbyn voters may no longer be so engaged, or may be less convinced about his abilities, or, as a large proportion of them are young and young correlates in these days of short term leases to mobile, the ballot papers may not reach a significant proportion of them.

    I don't think a Corbyn victory is a given; should it happen I don't think it's a good thing from a pragmatic point of view.

    199:

    Actually, he has other options, but it is doubtful that he would have the balls and charisma to carry them off. For example:

    He could state that we have an existential emergency, that we can't proceed in any direction until we have reorganised our constitution, and produced an economic and political plan, and create a government of national unity to do so. A price demanded for that would be to rein back on the most extreme monetarism, but he would have no problem with that.

    The attraction for him is that, if he even half-succeeded, he would go down in history as the second Prime Minister to save Britain.

    200:

    "Except that P H-K is worng. There ARE other choices."

    In your dreams. That will become clear in a few days.

    201:

    I'm really not the one to judge, given that BoJo's upper class twittery act leaves me cold but if anyone from the Brexit side of the fence could pull off a govt of national unity it's him.

    202:

    voteit's a cute thing to see that those brexiteers had completely failed to prepare for a route within the british legal structures towards the brexit. obviously they spent all their intellectual capital on marketing and forgot that there will have to be someone doing the actual work of brexiting.

    nobody will consider the brits trustworthy anymore. their vote to leave based on xenophobia and greed is already bad for everyone concerned be it in britain or in europe. it's of course a severe insult of all the europeans, particularly of those who thought the british their staunchest allies but whose plumbers put enough fear into the british hearts to make them run away from europe. so this already is a blow for their international reputation

    this blow gets worse when the british now renege on the promise of a swift brexit. afaik cameron explicitly promised he'd immediately start the exit negotiations if the british electorate chose to vote for leave. instead he immediately defaulted on this promise and stalled everything until the cows come home. the second breaking of a promise is the one with the 350M; this is exclusively british but still nice to watch from outside. so it didn't take more than 15 hours after the casting of the votes to break two of the campaign's essential promises.

    but obviously the british do not care what others think about them. now the tenants of one apartment in the shared house (who always coaxed their co-tenants into giving them a rebate on their rent by threatening to leave the shared house) have finally terminated the lease. will the rest of the tenants be mourning them or will they be relieved?

    btw: are there posters of this red bus with the 350M promise? if yes, i really would like to have one.

    203:

    Hmmm... Given that the leadership of both of the major political parties seems to be headed for a round of musical chairs, and that none of the available choices is particularly appealing, nor likely to show particularly well at the next election, I think the SNP should give serious consideration to fielding candidates in English constituencies. I can quite see them doing pretty well simply on the basis that they're 'none of the above.' Now, if only the Scots could see their way to annexing Oxfordshire (hey: we voted 'remain' (ignore those louts from Cherwell DC)), that would be cool with me too...

    Oh, well. I guess I just get to vote Liberal again next time.

    204:

    Actually, as I posted early, there ARE things the Queen can do, but not yet. If Parliament fails to form a government, twice, she could step in. If a government exceeds all reasonable behaviour (e.g. suspending Holyrood etc.), she could step in. But, whatever happens, I am reminded of what Graves said about Rome in I, Claudius:

    And strangles in the strings of purse, Before she mends must sicken worse.

    205:

    The banks probably cannot wait for the politicians to get their act together. Anyone know how long to get regulation compliant and Euro-passport ready in France or Germany?

    206:

    Laziness/Dimness: I believe the lazy & dim at the legislative level generally either don't propose legislation, propose legislation ghost-written by lobbyists, or propose feel-good legislation like "be it resolved that we should respect motherhood & apple pie." Personal opinion, not professional opinion here.

    At the civil service level, the first fail mode is "person X is ineffective/unpleasant to work with/incompetent/retired-at-desk. It would take 1 competent manager 1 year full-time to fire them. We don't have 1 competent manager who isn't already busy. Work around them." The politicians who raise this as a problem tend to argue that the solution is no civil service protections for anyone, which just takes us back to the patronage system. I'll live with a few people retired-at-desk in exchange for not needing to be an unpaid campaign staffer (or donor, or relative) to keep my job.

    Another fail mode is "conform to institutional bias." So police officers who think everyone is guilty of someone, spies who think that the way to protect the nation is spy on everyone & everything, etc. Fixing this requires long-term commitment to reform & institutional change from leadership. Until you get a really bad & obvious case, you don't get that commitment. Just changing the department head is usually what the electeds & appointeds usually do, and that isn't enough to change anything.

    Finally, there are people who are just plain evil. In policing, they beat the people in their custody. In other cases, they may steal money from clients, sign up relatives or themselves for benefits inappropriately, etc. To the best of my knowledge, the incidence of evil isn't any worse than in the private economy. But, this may very widely across different governments.

    Your local government might be run by an incorruptible, inexhaustible dynamo who's been term-limited out of national office and who creates a culture of excellence. Or might be run by someone who is stealing the citizens blind, and creates a culture of "take what I can before it all blows up." Or someone who thinks that shouting "waste & corruption" will magically result in things getting better, creating a culture that thinks "I know better than the electeds, so ignore them."

    note, the "waste & corruption" guy might very well be right. But if they aren't willing to spend the effort to build support in the civil service (management & staff) for reforms, and to build a detailed plan for how to build systems to catch the waste & corruption, and make sure that those systems aren't more expensive than the waste it prevents, it won't fix anything. But if your goal is to get elected in the next legislature up, it's easier to just shout & get people mad without actually solving anything.

    207:

    Being from across the pond and its oddly litigous society, I have to ask:

    Since a great deal of the Leave vote was heavily influenced by the Leaver's claims of money and immigration, which were admitted to be incorrect before the ink on the tally sheets was dry, is there a chance under your laws that they could be sued for fraud or some thing similar? Could the referendum be ruled invalid and re-voted?

    208:

    Could the referendum be ruled invalid and re-voted?

    I doubt it. The referendum was valid in terms of its enabling legislation.

    209:

    nobody will consider the brits trustworthy anymore.

    Da Frenchies used to warn ya. Time to relaunch their label, "Perfidious Albion".

    210:

    The latest news is that while a string of Labour figures resigns, deputy leader Corbyn enforcer Tom Watson has disappeared on a train between Glastonbury and London and can't be reached by the media.

    211:

    And are therefore threatening to veto our departure & claiming that they can via constitutional methods.

    turns out the initial reports on that were just lazy work by the BBC

    https://twitter.com/BBCsarahsmith/status/747065979973279746

    "Scottish Govt sources saying Scottish Parliament does not have power to block to UK Brexit and say Nicola Sturgeon is not threatening veto"

    212:

    You still seem relatively fortunate, ZA. You see individuals "retired at desk" (what a lovely phrase, I shall remember it), I see some systemic failure modes at quite low level, such as making everything into a Someone Else's Problem. Reverse empire-building: we are the department of offogs – we don't deal with offogs, try the department of stray cats. Who will refer you back to the department of offogs.

    One of our systemic problems at higher level is "having every virtue except resignation", as someone once put it. Our variant on this is to redefine "taking responsibility" as the guy who messed up continuing in office to be responsible for cleaning up his own mess and doing better next time. Example, the Justice Minister at 22-7. The Prime Directive is Heads Never Roll. Cui bono?

    Worse, our unspoken social contract, applicable to pols, civil servants and citizenry alike, is "I shall forgive you for being stupid, lazy, incompetent and even corrupt, if you will forgive me for being stupid, lazy, incompetent and even corrupt when my turn comes round. But this shall only apply to us Aryans, not furriners and people of colour". Isn't this what you used to call the "good ole boy" approach?

    This is why we perch so high up on Transparency International's index; the methodology is flawed, as asking narcissists to rate themselves is a bad idea.

    213:

    Must have found some suspected molesters in the carriage...

    214:

    You could, if you had enough money, apply for judicial review on the basis of "The bastards lied M'Lord."

    Now, both sides lied to a certain extent. They're politicians and their mouths were moving. There's a BBC page about most of them here and there are other pages that do a similar service. But quite a lot of them are "politicians' lies" in the sense that they're taking a truthful statement or a pretty reliable statistic and presenting it in a more or less misleading way. One of the obvious one, Vote Remain said "3M jobs depend on the EU." While no one is sure about how many jobs actually do, 3M is what you get if you take a decent estimate of the UK's income from the EU as a proportion of GDP and multiply that by the total number of people in work. So it's not an unreasonable estimate. But in our post-Brexit world, the chances that we'll lose all 3M jobs is pretty close to 0.

    But the £350M/w figure is just an out and out lie. All the Brexiteers are rowing back from it now, having spouted it endlessly. Whether there's a grounds for a judge to throw the result out on the basis of the campaign misleading the electorate in such a way is unclear.

    There could be a review on the basis of the extension of the registration. Vote Leave were talking about doing that if they lost - it's thought to favour the Remain camp. No reason the Remain camp can't do it though just because it's thought to favour them. But it's not clear what the judge would say.

    So it could be done but I think the judge would like say "Stuff off, old mate." That's my expert legal opinion of how judges render judgement... so it's worth less than you paid for it!

    215:

    It's also like saying "I want a divorce." You can't un-say something like that, and the UK-EU relationship will never be the same.

    Clearly, there are elements in Brussels who are quite pleased to have the opportunity to smack down those arrogant Brits and their insistence on special privileges. I sincerely doubt the February deal can be saved.

    One of the best things about this blog is the courteous and rational discussions we have here. I don't see this same level of discourse most other places, and certainly not in the press. I think we may underestimate the rationality of the British electorate and their ability to be swayed by emotional attacks. Even with a second referendum, last Thursday's results may stand. If a second referendum passes, the government would seem to have no choice but to pull the trigger on Brexit.

    Similarly, a second IndyRef seems likely to pass, even if an independent Scotland faces an uncertain economic future. At least you would only be dealing with your own economy, and not dragging the rest of the UK behind you.

    Does this mess hold out the hope of a third Halting State novel, perhaps set further in the future?

    216:

    "underestimate the rationality of the British electorate"

    Err, I meant OVERestimate.

    217:

    What if a Scotland-based AI ran for Parliament and won?

    218:

    Interestingly the Grauniad has just run an article on how people from overseas are signing the petition, therefore it is being manipulated. Next up, government ignores it on the basis that it is impossible to tell how many sigs are real.

    The spin has started yet again.

    219:

    I have just had a thought. Pretty Boy Dave has a track record for saying impolitic things at inopportune moments. What are the chances that he says something on Tuesday at the European Council that is adequate to trigger article 50?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-no-need-uk-send-formal-letter-exit-process-eu-referendum-david-cameron-a7103991.html

    220:

    Point of pedantry: while true that Scotland has not had a Queen Elizabeth before the current monarch, she is still Queen Elizabeth II even in Scotland.

    True.

    And in a huge historic irony, it was her choice to style herself Elizabeth II that triggered the first stirrings of renewed Scottish nationalism back in the early 1950s.

    221:

    Disagree with your conclusion.

    I think Nicola raising the flag for the Scottish veto is a canny attempt to lever the Conservative government into fast-tracking IndyRef 2, because if she's not part of the UK any more she can't veto Brexit.

    Meanwhile it's playing to the Brussels gallery by underlining how pro-EU Scotland is.

    222:

    Does this mess hold out the hope of a third Halting State novel, perhaps set further in the future?

    Alas, I currently have five novels on the go/in progress right now, so the publication queue is filled right up through January 2019!

    Maybe some time next decade.

    223:

    Zero. As the article you linked to notes it has to be clear and explicit. Given Cameron's prior clear statement that he was going to leave it too his successor that is an incredibly high bar.

    225:

    Oh, and to nobody's surprise, the odious Theresa May has now declared we should leave the ECHR as well as part of her leadership bid. Even though effectively we wrote it.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum

    Because lets face it, if the country is to descend into a true Fascist state, then those pesky Rights need to go toot sweet.

    226:

    Was that really a choice? I thought the monarch had to pick whatever number is highest (to avoid confusion)?

    227:

    She always hated it, even more than the rest of the Tories. I'm surprised it took her this long.

    228:

    Alas, I currently have five novels on the go/in progress right now, so the publication queue is filled right up through January 2019!

    You know Charlie, much as you were screwed by reality catching up with the Halting State universe, spare a thought for the writers of The Thick of It. Right now their characters look so competent compared to reality that they're straining suspension of disbelief!

    229:

    Clueless about UK government here. Assuming Article 50 is going to be triggered, how exactly is that done?

    Can the PM just send a letter saying "I activate Article 50" to the appropriate EU official?

    Or does Parliament have to pass a law saying they activate it, or telling the PM to send a letter as above?

    Does the letter technically have to be from the Queen and signed by her?

    Does the EU official have to sign a receipt?

    Or is the answer "No one is sure, exactly"?

    230:

    Article 50.2: "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention."

    The treaty does not specify the form under which the notification has to occur. A verbal statement by the current Head of State could be considered valid. However because article 50.1 states "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.", those constitutional requirements are not yet fulfilled (Parliament hasn't held the vote). So Cameron cannot legally deliver notice.

    I suspect that, no matter how much Juncker wants to trap Cameron, he still has to wait for the legal steps to open the trap...

    231:

    Was that really a choice? I thought the monarch had to pick whatever number is highest (to avoid confusion)?

    The number isn't, but the monarch has a choice of regnal name. It's widely held that Prince Charles, for example, will not rule as Charles III because kings of that name have typically not ended their lives in a pipe and slippers. He will go by George VII instead. So Elizabeth could have chosen a different name (although obviously the name Elizabeth has a much more positive resonance for a monarch than Charles).

    232:

    Interestingly the Grauniad has just run an article on how people from overseas are signing the petition, therefore it is being manipulated.

    Sigh. The petition page says "Only British citizens or UK residents have the right to sign." I'm a British citizen resident abroad, and I signed.

    Honestly, the rest of the world is mostly munching popcorn and wondering how to contain the damage.

    233:

    As far as I know, Parliament has to have a debate and pass a resolution declaring that the UK wants to leave. That then passes through the Lords for sanity checking, then the devolved assemblies and the Queen for each of the affected parties to sign off on the resolution. Once all that is done, then the relevant diplomats get to send an official letter, or maybe #10 does.

    234:

    in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    That's the tricky bit when it comes to the constitution of the United Kingdom. I've seen at least four plausible possibilities mentioned so far (not been keeping count), plausible in that they've all had cogent arguments supporting them that pass the laugh test.

    My own take on the matter: the fact that I actually passed Constitutional Law means I know it's Not That Simple. The fact that I passed Constitutional Law twenty-five years ago makes me uncomfortably aware that while I'm in a better position than nearly everyone to understand the issues, I'm sufficiently woefully out of date that while I can follow and weigh the arguments, I'd have to do a lot of cramming to come up with one of my own.

    235:

    Updated to add: the article in question is here. According to it, the problem is not people signing from abroad per se, but the quantities from places like Vatican City, plus various shenanigans and misunderstandings propagated visibly on social media.

    It was never going to be binding for anything more than registering discontent, really, if the top prize for 100k signatures is a Parliamentary debate at some point or other. And whatever you can say about the totals, I think it's highly probable that that figure at least has been reached with genuine signatures.

    Irony: the guy who started it voted Leave.

    236:

    ... that's one of the possibilities. There are others.

    237:

    Rockets-come-down department: Oh, yes. I'm quite aware that I am fortunate. The chief executive for my county government has made a very strong push for moving towards a more effective, flexible & transparent government, where most USAian reformers only try for efficient.

    There are significant efforts being made in some areas of government to deal with the not-my-department syndrome. In my office, we are working on a push to have Juvenile Probation & Foster Youth services work to find ways to better serve the kids under our care. Sounds obvious, I know, but it goes against the grain of a rationalist bureaucracy as described by Weber. It will likely improve the average situation for the kids, but also increase the variance, so some kids will potentially be worse off. Good? Bad? We shall see.

    Not-my-fault: Totally happens here. Our Board of Supervisors fired a department head for failing to improve it sufficiently. Said department head is now suing, saying that he wasn't given sufficient support in his reform efforts. But he was successfully fired. I think we're lucky in that our population is better than many at paying attention to performance, and local government is close enough that people can see the failures more easily. We've also had some recent scandals that pointed out why you need to keep a well-funded internal audit department. (Never waste a good scandal)

    good-ole-boy: I think this is very dependent on local political & organizational culture. Silicon Valley is heavily minority-majority. (72% minority, 37% immigrant, 52% immigrant or 1st gen citizen) My instincts say that minorities here have more money & education, so are more able to fight against discrimination. I have some concerns about there being glass ceilings at the executive level or in some more rewarding jobs (IT, for example). I also think that local discrimination is more likely to be unconscious conditioning that people feel guilty about when noticed. Still needs to be fought, but it makes the problem more solvable.

    Here's an interesting database if you want to look at civil service positions across the US: http://www.metrotrends.org/commentary/race-and-local-government.cfm

    238:

    You are mistaken about the UK constitution. The Prime Minister effectively wields the royal prerogative, which include foreign affairs. Yes, it would cause a constitutional crisis, but we are already in one!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

    239:

    Apparently, 4chan is taking responsibility for the ... ahem, enthusiasm... for the petition:

    http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-brexit-2nd-referendum-petition-a-4-chan-prank-bbc-report-it-as-real/

    4chan will be 4chan.

    240:

    Yes, and my point is that one of those not-totally-laughable interpretations is that Davey Boy has the power to trigger article 50 by putting his foot in his mouth.

    241:

    No, that's one of the laughable ones, sorry. That is not the proper form for an Order In Council exercising the Royal Prerogative, which is the bare minimum required.

    242:

    "As economic metric the yield on state bonds have independent weight, it only reflects investors expectation of growth vs perceived risk over the period."

    More likely a large imbalance between savings and consumption. Yes, that also translates to lack of growth opportunities. But what do you expect with low consumption, where is the investment going to work? The Euro does have an impact because investment is still predicated on costs, including labor costs.

    243:

    "And what does unemployment even mean, when we are about to fire the entire transport sector and nobody can point at what the jobs they can migrate to ?"

    Indeed. And not just in EU but potentially globally. Transport costs may fall, but how is consumption going to fare with large increases in structural unemployment (and this is as structural as it gets). Drivers in the 21st century will go where horses did in the 20th (out to pasture, but not the knackers yard). No reduction in labor costs can save that function.

    244:

    Thank you for the correction. But I am not being entirely clear. Let's say that he does it, and the European Council minutes it as an invokation of Article 50, as the EU officials are reported to have said is enough. Unless the UK repudiates his words, that is likely to stand as far as the EU is concerned. The point is that they have followed THEIR rules.

    245:

    No reduction in labor costs can save that function.

    And when it happens, I trust the imperfect mechanism of the EU to find some way of mitigating it than I do UKIP.

    246:

    "(out to pasture, but not the knackers yard)"

    Like to bet? The current policies have reduced the unemployment benefits to almost nothing, and we are talking about reducing the taxable base and increasing the number of unemployed considerably. In order to provide pasture, we need a complete reversal of the social and economic policies of the past decades.

    247:

    I am an American so dont troll me for not knowing as much.

    Scotland has less than 5.4 m people. If they leave the UK and rejoin the EU, I think its unlikely they would get the same level of subsidies. Their subsidies came in part due to a larger UK contributing more money.

    What would happen if the Queen actually vetoed leaving the EU? I know she is just a figurehead. Could parliament over turn her veto? In the US ! Congress can override a presidential veto with a 2/3 majority.

    248:

    we are talking about reducing the taxable base

    If the elite were behaving like a traditional ruling class, or a decent player of Civ, that would be irrational. Impoverish your own population and they can't buy your stuff, right? And also generate less tax, as you say. But suppose they are not a traditional ruling class, who rationally want their peasants to be strong enough to produce a surplus for expropriation, but something else entirely?

    The first question has to be, where is their money coming from, if not from old-school expropriation of producers?

    249:

    As a naturalized USain, I can say that it will be even worse here as the social security safety net has been gutted, and one half of the country wants the remaining fragments eliminated.

    We just didn't do austerity quite as sharply as Britain.

    My sense is that "Leavers" didn't consider this at all, or maybe they thought "how much worse can it get?". We'll know within a year.

    250:

    Technically the Queen can veto a law, and that's that. Hasn't been done since 1708, and would cause a constitutional shitstorm, but she does wield supreme executive power. Presumably some ancestor was handed a sword by a watery tart.

    She's like the reverse of the President, her powers are a check on Parliament, not the other way around.

    251:

    My sense is that "Leavers" didn't consider this at all, or maybe they thought "how much worse can it get?". We'll know within a year.

    What's common to the largest part of the Leave camp is that they're all public schoolboys. The career paths for them have always been journalist, banker, captain of industry... all things that are secure and hard to automate. I think they have literally no idea that such a large sector of the economy is about to operate without human intervention (not that I think many other politicians of any stripe in the UK have grokked that), and to boot they have a skewed view of what work is like "below the line." If there are no immigrants to do n seasonal fruit picking jobs in the south of England, they imagine that's a perfect opportunity for n ex-British Leyland skilled welders in Birmingham to jolly well get on their bikes and make something of themselves. All pleb jobs are roughly equal, you see?

    252:

    Scotland has less than 5.4 m people. If they leave the UK and rejoin the EU, I think its unlikely they would get the same level of subsidies. Their subsidies came in part due to a larger UK contributing more money.

    EU "Subsidies" are more like redistribution of funds by a central federal government -- they go to the EU via the tax base and are disbursed by the EU on various projects. (Think Federal spending in the US, as opposed to State funding.)

    Scotland would probably get much the same per capita spending as it did before UKExit. And the money would come from the same source -- the Scottish taxpayers. (Scotland for the most part isn't so poor that it benefits from cross-subsidies from elsewhere in the EU.)

    What would happen if the Queen actually vetoed leaving the EU? I know she is just a figurehead. Could parliament over turn her veto? In the US ! Congress can override a presidential veto with a 2/3 majority.

    Nobody knows. The nearest we came to that level of constitutional crisis recently was back in 1906; but a better comparison was 1688, which triggered the Glorious Revolution, and basically a parliamentary coup d'etat against a sitting King (followed by a brief civil war or three). However Lizzie, aged 90, is unlikely to pick up a sabre and ride a white horse. She's also too sensible to take an action which would add to the already-in-progress constitutional crisis by jeopardizing the entire future of the monarchy at the same time (which she, and her ilk, see as vital symbolic glue holding the nation together).

    253:

    Should have checked before accepting.

    https://m.xkcd.com/1521/

    254:

    The first question has to be, where is their money coming from, if not from old-school expropriation of producers?

    From the Bank of England. Did you notice they just promised 250e9 £ to "stabilize the markets"? That will end in the pockets of the market winners.

    255:

    Or she could say something like "It's our royal prerogative to inform the European Commission and the world that the British people have decided to leave the EU according to Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. We'll advice our government to immediately start negotiations for an orderly and timely exit."

    I guess neither is likely.

    256:

    I think it is highly likely (bordering on certain) that Cameron got heavy duty legal advice prior to making his statement, and every single word of it would have been checked to make sure that, insofar as we know how Article 50 should be construed, it wouldn't trigger it.

    The government is focusing on trying to manage the financial crisis, which is what all the other governments around the world are doing; the central banks are providing very large amounts of cash to try and stabilise the markets, in the hope that we don't take the rest of the world down with us. We know what happens when market makers can't function, and it's really not nice, which is why the central banks are providing vast amounts of liquidity.

    We don't know whether they will succeed; we do know, according to the FT, that banks and other financial institutions are already planning for transfers to places which have unquestioned rights of access to the EU. Alas, poor Boris; all the stuff about taking our time and no need to rush has zero credibility in the financial world.

    Few people outside the financial sector will shed any tears for the bankers forced to go and work elsewhere, at least up to the point when the construction industry tanks, whereupon it will finally dawn on at least some people that all those glossy buildings didn't get here by magic.

    I appreciate that it's really easy to blame all this on Cameron, but any Prime Minister with a small majority in the House of Commons, confronted by demands from a group ready, willing and able to grind Parliament to a standstill, is over a barrel.

    He had taken on his own party to get the Same Sex Marriage legislation through, and succeeded, and he took them on again on the referendum. This time around he failed, but the toxic venom was not of his making; indeed, there's a case for arguing that the SSMA increased that toxic venom. I think it helps to bear this in mind...

    257:

    The wording of article 50 is 'in accordance with' the notifying state's constitution. Exercise of the Royal Prerogative is the bare minimum and that has a proper form which the minutes would not be able to properly record as having been observed. Bureaucracy, remember?

    258:

    The government is focusing on trying to manage the financial crisis, which is what all the other governments around the world are doing;

    And the chancellor George Osborne has not been seen in public since the referendum result because he has been working all weekend to try to save the economy.

    259:

    Presumably some ancestor was handed a sword by a watery tart.

    While I doubt any of them takes it seriously, farcical aquatic ceremonies don't figure in their actual claim to supreme executive power.

    The Royal Family Tree includes a number of ancestors who in turn claimed descent from Odin/Wotan.

    260:

    Right. Yes. But I am still not explaining myself :-(

    All that the EU requires is a statement of INTENT, not that the constitutional process has been completed. The question is whether the EU can reasonably assume that Cameron is empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative, and can therefore speak about his intentions. If so, it can reasonably minute that article 50 has been invoked, thus forcing the UK to repudiate his statement.

    Stevie has missed the point, because it is highly likely that he will not just read out a prechecked statement, and we know that Cameron suffers from foot in mouth disease.

    261:

    As does mine. And from a selkie.

    262:

    I was unfortunate enough to meet a "new" Labour-party member of around here, who supports Corbyn All the usual signs, open bright face, eager eyes - nobody home. Still banging on about "class" & how we hadn't had a proper revolutions. When I pointed out the (at least) THREE civil wars of 1640-1688 with a death-toll of approx 2% of the population, she claimed that didn't count(!) even though it got us a constitutional monarchy as opposed to Divine Right of Kings, the supremacy of Parliaments etc .. she simply shrugged it off. When they are that brain-fucked & ignorant of history, there's nothing much you can do. I worked out she was a Geordie ( I do listen to people's voices) & asked where she came from (S Shields) but she was totally uninterested in the fate of large manufacturing that is left around in Gateshead (providing employment & useful stuff), or that Scunthorpe Steel is safe, because no-one makes good railway rails as well as they do - she seemed to think that buying Chinese was equally good & the idea of Quality Control had not entered her empty head ... Or that (as discussed here a long time back) that tax rates over 50% simply will not work. ARRRGH! THESE are the wankers supporting Corbyn.

    At the other end, you have the ones Charlie rants on about, the crypto & not-so-crypto fascists lurking behind Farage. Yet again - ARRRGH!

    Is there no middle way?

    263:

    I think you're missing the interaction of Clauses 1 and 2 of Art. 50.

    For 2. to bite, the notice of intention has to be given by a state which has decided to leave within the terms of clause 1.

    To be such a state which has decided to leave it has to have decided in accordance with its own constitution.

    The referendum's enabling legislation is not so drafted - as far as I can tell, having read it carefully - that it complied with UK constitutional law as a decision under Article 50. The Act provides for the holding of a referendum, but does not state that the result is binding on anyone, in any way. It contains considerably more by wy of financial regulations on what may be spent campaigning than it ddoes anything else.

    Cameron on his own has neither actual nor ostensible authority (both terms of art under the law of agency, which - dimly remembered comparative law seminars tell me - doesn't include ostensible authority under most civil law systems) to give notice of an intent that has not been formed in the first place under UK constitutional law.

    264:

    "...whereupon it will finally dawn on at least some people that all those glossy buildings didn't get here by magic."

    [adds "No more giant penises in the middle of London" to the crumbs-of-comfort list]

    265:

    Well, offending Juncker & "Turkey" - read the slimy islamist Erodgan - is a PLUS point in my book You may disagree, as is your right ....

    266:

    Is there no middle way?

    You're it Greg. We're all counting on you!

    267:

    THAT is really scary. T May is actually considerably more dangerous than Farage, in my book. Talk about the cold all-over creeps. You sure she isn't a Lizard or a tentacled Laundry-horror under a semi-defective glamour?

    268:

    Timeline isn't right. He promised the referendum BEFORE the last election when he didn't have a small majority, he was part of a coalition with a comfortably large majority.

    I suspect he promised it because all the polls said he didn't stand a chance of winning outright so it wouldn't matter. Most likely outcome was a Lab-Lib or Lab-SNP coalition. Next up, a continuation of the Con-Lib coalition, and he would happily sacrifice the referendum to the very pro-EU LibDems as part of the coalition agreement.

    But, of course, none of those things happened, he had a manifesto commitment to an in-out referendum that had to be called sometime.

    269:

    Agree BUT ... HM is quite capable of err .. "calling a meeting" & knocking a few heads together, off the record. A secret (as in unrecorded) meeting of the Privy Council is possible. An order in Council to"Get your Act together" - otherwise I will pull the plug might concentrate a few minds. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, shall we?

    270:

    This is why your new friend from Labour is talking about a Revolution. You can have a little one now - maybe even a non-violent one if you vote intelligently - or a big one later.

    271:

    That is even scarier! I think I decline, unless someone really insists ...

    272:

    So here is my prediction:

    Now that Labour is also imploding, the general headless-chicken-running-around will continue until tuesday evening.

    Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, H.M. E.R. II goes on BBC and announces:

    1) Parliament is dissolved and sent home with thanks for their service.

    2) There will be a general election in X days (X = shortest possible + 2 days)

    3) The referendum will advise the new government to work out the details of UK leaving EU, and article 50 will only be activated if at least 2/3 of a subsequent binding referendum decides to do so.

    The constitutional cracks will be glossed over because everybody is relieved that there is an adult in the room to close the mayhem.

    A couple of years from now, that referendum is helt, and it doesn't even cross the 50% mark.

    273:

    WE SHOULD BE SO FUCKING LUCKY

    I like it, it would probably work, but remember Axel Oxenstierna's advice to his son, that we mentioned a couple of months back?

    274:

    OK. Thanks. In which case, it would be fairly unproblematic - except for Davey Boy! One can hope :-)

    And I really, really hope that Poul-Henning Kamp's prediction is correct!

    275:

    Well, you may easily be so lucky.

    That is the only sane reason to have a (royal) backstop for your democracy, and if she doesn't stop the mayhem, people will rightfully wonder about the expense being worth it.

    276:

    Unfortunately, I am afraid that we won't see a revolution in time to save the country from collapsing into a state like some of the nastier third-world oligarchies. Regrettably, I agree with Greg. Tingey about the intelligence and contact with reality of Old Labour - where I disagree is in not thinking any of the right-wing alternatives are any better.

    277:

    Is there no middle way?

    First, given that Corbyn had the largest popular mandate of any Labour leader ever, it's particularly inaccurate to judge him by anecdote as you offer. I'd propose that you judge him by his policy initiatives, just as soon as he gets round to issuing any. It's only been 9 months, let's not rush him.

    Second, by 1980's standards, Corbyn is the middle way–he's actually slightly right of centre. That you don't perceive him as that, right there, is the problem with the Overton window we currently have.

    278:

    And I really, really hope that Poul-Henning Kamp's prediction is correct!

    You're not the only one. I heartily dislike the institution of monarchy, but at this point Elizabeth II is the single most experienced and seasoned member of the political establishment. If we can't get some good out of that, the monarchy really is pointless.

    279:

    ...adds "No more giant penises in the middle of London" to the crumbs-of-comfort list...

    If everyone says with a straight face that it's a sausage then it's a sausage, right?

    I'll offer you another crumb of comfort: you're probably missing the American innerweb's reaction to this. It seems all our home grown lunatics have come out from under their rocks, delighted that the UK has thrown off the tyranny of the EU, the UN, the Rothschild family, the One World Government, the New World Order, or whoever. The usual cranks who want Texas to be its own nation again are out in force.

    I'm well aware of how little I, as an American, understand the political situation over on your side of the Atlantic, and I'm still left cringing at the people who are loudly certain of views that are obviously not even wrong.

    280:

    Thanks, but I'd already read it, and been depressed by it. It is depressing to realise that ignorance is now apparently seen as a good thing; it looks as if the audience were fully paid up members of the Gove 'people in this country have had enough of experts' battalions, because they were completely clueless and proud of it.

    I do my best to make allowances for people's ignorance of the way in which financial markets work, but there comes a point where that ignorance is immensely dangerous and actively destructive. The buffoons chuckling away, sure that George was off playing golf somewhere, or sulking in his tent, are the public face of a country which is highly dependent on capital investment from outside our borders, and is haemorrhaging money, despite everything the central banks are doing to prop up not only sterling but the global markets themselves.

    We desperately need the help of others, and yet apparently Gove and his battalions are convinced that everything is fine really, and any moment now all those nasty foreigners who are pulling vast amounts of capital out of this country will see the light and beg us to let them give us lots and lots of money.

    It isn't going to happen.

    281:

    Talk about the cold all-over creeps. You sure she isn't a Lizard or a tentacled Laundry-horror under a semi-defective glamour?

    No.

    Have you seen the guy who's visiting his golf course in Scotland? There's a good reminder that you should never accept cheap factory seconds when buying a rubber human suit.

    282:

    Well met, I'm a long time lurker and a Laundryverse fan who's been active on S:M. Stirling's and Brin's sites (hi, joat, if you are who I think...).

    It seems that Spain too is in a big mess. See you later

    283:

    I have quite a good view of the Gherkin, appropriately from the bedrooms, but try as I will I can't see the resemblance to a penis.

    If you want something really weird the building on Moor Lane, to the right of the large hole currently being excavated, has a sloping terraced roof with grass growing thereon. I have suggested that placing mountain goats on it would enhance its green cred still further, but nobody agrees...

    284:

    Out of curiosity, what happens if the European Commission, wanting to head off a future filled with non-binding referendums, says at some point this next week, "We consider that notice has been given, and plan on having the first meeting to discuss how to organize the exit negotiations on 6 July, in Brussels, room number so-and-so."?

    285:

    Oh dear god I would love for that to happen. It would be even better if half of BOTH parties were told not to stand again.

    Granted we'd have a whole lot of backstabbing for who got to be leader, but it might clean some of the scum off the surface.

    286:

    First, I don't think EU would want the precedent set that some careless remark causes a country to leave EU.

    Second, why would they ? The fact that UK has gone total Monty Python and lost 10% of the £ serves nicely as the unmistakeable negative reinforcement they desire wrt to Article 50.

    287:

    This is easily my favourite outcome so far, although in my version ER rides to Downing St. at the head of the Household Cavalry, bouncing a jewelled sceptre off the occasional ministerial bonce. But dead dignified. Then she delivers the P-H K plan.

    We should probably alert the surviving Dimblebys.

    After the action, Her Britannic Majesty shows mercy by banishing the whole of Parliament to a place where they'll be happy, where every day is a school day and the fifth form deb. soc. is always in session; a place where they can hector, patronise and lecture an imaginary public down all their days.

    BTW there's something not right about this forum. I shouldn't still be enjoying reading the comments as the count hurtles toward 300.

    288:

    Well, you'd better pray (or toast) her good health then because it would be really inconvenient for that plan to have a change of monarch this week...

    289:

    They can appear to themselves every day on closed circuit TV to make sure they're still real...

    290:

    Even leaving aside the want of motive for doing so Poul notes at 286, it doesn't work that way: there is a prescribed form and it hasn't been fulfilled.

    The positive side of bureaucracy has been mentioned several times in this thread, and preventing bullshit of the kind you suggest - and it would be bullshit - is part of that.

    291:

    : I agree entirely that the EU has absolutely no desire to create a precedent where careless remarks could trigger Article 50.

    Much as I would like to see sterling staying down, having lost a mere 10% in value, I fear we won't be that lucky; I expect massive volatility, and so do the banks who are pulling staff in now, ready for when trading starts tomorrow morning.

    The FT headline is: 'Banks prepare for another day of currency mayhem' and mayhem there will be. It could be worse: the headline might be: 'Banks prepare for another day of currency manslaughter following suicide attempt'.

    Unless, of course, they are saving it for Tuesday...

    292:

    Oh crap.

    Lizzie's genes are such that she can reasonably expect to live past a hundred, but she's 90 now, and the current mess can't possibly not be a significant cause of stress to her.

    All we need to make the current shit-storm complete would be for the Queen to stroke out, so we have the month of official mourning on top and then the whole pile of manure lands in the lap of His Majesty George VII, aka Speaker to Plants.

    293:

    Always liked me some Floyd. Another line that seems Boris-appropriate: "Did you exchange a walk-on part in The War, for The Lead Role in a cage?"

    294:

    We're in full agreement there.

    The comments from EU about "minimizing uncertainty" can be taken at face value: They just want this over and done with, as fast as possible, but they also have a big desire to not dig the hole any deeper in the process.

    295:

    ... who immediately announces that he was always a closet-revolutionaire, but didn't want to hurt mums feelings, but now she's gone, UK is going to become a proper republic. Election to the constitutional assembly will take place in a forthnight, while he himself can be found in Cornwall, harvesting.

    296:

    I don't think we can really say all that much right now. The UK is pretty much in limbo and to coin a phrase from an old TV show - "Anything could happen in the next 24 hours".

    If there are any budding historians out there reading all of this btw I think the only thing we can say at this stage with any certianty is that this is this decades' major "WTF?" moment. That might possibly be an even bigger "WTF?" moment if Donald trump gets elected in the US and depending on what he does.

    ljones

    297:

    An update from David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent): http://jackofkent.com/2016/06/where-we-are-now-with-article-50-decision-notify-and-devolution-issues/

    This among other things points out that there can be no such thing as an unintended notification by David Cameron accidentally telling the European Council to fuck off or similar.

    (Green is a reluctant Remainer, one who has been self declaredly neutral up until the latter parts of the "glorified opinion survey".)

    298:

    That might possibly be an even bigger "WTF?" moment if Donald trump gets elected in the US and depending on what he does.

    If Trump gets elected it might well happen because the Brits broke the world economy and the U.S. electorate thinks it's a good idea to vote for the other party. Thanks guys.

    299:

    Hello.

    The current Guardian live blog just presented Johnson's column in the Telegraph as him seeing out his stall for a leadership bid.

    If that's what he's doing then this passage from the column is significant;

    "We had one Scotland referendum in 2014, and I do not detect any real appetite to have another one soon;"

    At the same time, knowing who wrote it, I would question how considered this line really is (our any of it for that matter!)

    300:

    So here's a question. Say for whatever reason, Article 50 never gets invoked and eventually the notion of Brexit is quietly dropped in Brussels (for the purposes of argument, ignore whatever wailing and gnashing of teeth that causes among the domestic electorate).

    I posit that the UK would be fucked.

    Our relationship henceforth with the EU has been characterised by demands for special treatment, vetoes, get-out clauses and exceptions. All this based on the idea that if we don't engage with the EU on favourable terms, we won't engage at all. But abandoning Brexit would send the message that we can't leave now, and all special treatment would evaporate. There would be strong pressure to adopt the Euro, if not Schengen, and our exemption from ever-closer union would be pretty hollow at that point too.

    Basically, every argument that you can make for an independent Scotland being a vassal state to the EU also applies to a ctrl-Z Brexit UK as well.

    301:

    Balls. Hitherto, not henceforth. It's late.

    302:

    Johnson's column also cheerily asserts that he expects the EU to give us the moon on a stick, with a cherry on top. In exchange for which, we will only need to graciously bestow a kind word on them from time to time.

    I quote:

    British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. [snip] The UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation[snip] Yes, there will be a substantial sum of money which we will no longer send to Brussels, but which could be used on priorities such as the NHS.

    I don't know whether he genuinely thinks the EU will give us all the benefits of membership without requiring us to meet any of the conditions, or he just reckons this is a good line that allows him to be "disappointed" later, but neither of those is a good look in a would-be PM.

    303:

    Until A50 is activated or alternatively, UK convinces EU that it will not be, UK is in limbo EU-wise.

    Either way, there is no going back to the VIP-membership status UK has (ab)used for 40 years.

    Considering that the open market is a finished project, it is almost given that future changes to EU will be of exactly the kind UK seems to not be very fond of, so it is hard for me to see why A50 should not be invoked.

    Both Corbyn and Boris speak of "negotiations with EU", and since EU has made it very clear that won't happen until A50 is activated, we can probably infer that they both expect that to be a given.

    ... Unless Lizzie decides otherwise.

    304:

    Long term no, the UK is too big a player in European term to ignore in the long run. It simply cannot be trusted or taken at is word though as long as UK and the Brexit wing of the Tories exist. What it may do is revive the idea of a variable speed Europe with new treaties involving Germany, France and select invite only set of countries forging a closer union that excludes the UK. Germany has, as far as I know never been too keen on this as they have been anxious to bring the UK along as a counterweight to France but they may change their mind given the UK's proven unreliability. The central fact of European politics is that Germany is too small to simply dominate Europe and too big and dominant for its neighbors to be comfortable with it.

    305:

    I actually think Boris has a good case there.

    EU has no interest in cutting EU and UK markets or trade apart.

    What Boris doesn't mention is that UK will have to pay EU for that access, just like Norway does, by paying their share of certain "market costs".

    That is some percent cheaper than a full membership, but not much cheaper.

    What he also doesn't mention is that UK gets no say in market rules, no voting rights, no judges, no access to EU research grants (See: https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2016/06/21/cambridge-and-brexit/) and no access to infrastructure funds (ie: No new nuclear reactor)

    So I think he's not actually telling a lie, he's just being very economical with the truth.

    306:

    There's also an obligation in the EEA to adopt future EU laws concerning market rules. Also freedom of movement of goods and people is mutual in the EEA.

    On the plus side, joining the EEA will probably ensure that London financial sector can continue passporting.

    307:

    I wouldn't bet on The Square Mile retaining Euro business.

    Quite the contrary, a lot of EU people want London and the channel islands firmly outside EU and regulated with a very fine tooth comb to stop all the tax-evasion and off-shoring they facilitate.

    308:

    If we're quoting lyrics (though this one is a different band playing different tunes), a couple of bits of King Crimson's "Epitaph" from 1969:

    The fate of all mankind I see Is in the hands of fools. [...] Confusion will be my epitaph. As I crawl a cracked and broken path If we make it we can all sit back and laugh. But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.

    309:

    There would be strong pressure to adopt the Euro, if not Schengen, and our exemption from ever-closer union would be pretty hollow at that point too.

    I don't think there will be pressure to join the Euro. Other countries also haven't adopted the Euro. Same with Schengen.

    The exemption from ever-closer union was part of the February agreement and is moot as of Friday morning.

    310:

    Two questions:

    1) Many people in this thread have made posts to the effect of "the EU is sick of the UK and doesn't really want the UK around, and if the UK doesn't actually leave we will either not get the Cameron deal—or we will get even worse terms than we had before the Cameron deal and Brexit vote." If that's really the case, then why try to stay in the EU? If the rest of the EU no longer trusts or wants the UK, what's the point? It sounds like you are making the "Leave" case for them.

    2) Why do most (not all) of people invoking a possible Queen's intervention assume that she would be on the "Remain" side? Has she said anything to imply that?

    311:

    Speaking as a Texan, I can assure you that the "Texit" people are (mostly) not serious. It would take a substantial implosion of the US government or the passage of some truly onerous Federal laws for people here to seriously consider actually leaving the US. The belief that Texas could make a go of it alone is common to our "national" culture. The belief that it would be in anyway a good idea is really quite rare, though.

    312:

    I'm pretty sure that most of the EU countries want the UK to stay in the EU. They might be sick of some antics of British EU politics, but hey, that's politics. One reason they want the UK to stay is that they fear other countries might do the same. That means that they will not agree to any terms that will put the UK in a better position as say Norway. The Cameron deal is moot. It was worded with the condition that the referendum ended in "Stay", that didn't happen.

    Lyrics? "You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave..."

    313:

    And neither would I; passporting has always looked like a bit of a wheeze where foreign financial institutions could grab some of the action without too many awkward questions being asked.

    There were decades when Britain itself was considered by the OECD to be an offshore tax haven, never mind the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The 'Golden Triangle' of Double Taxation treaties between the U.S., the UK, and the Netherlands, was particularly profitable, hence the name.

    It's rather late here, and a) I need sleep, and b) if I get started on this I'll probably still be going on about it when the trading desks come online at 8am.

    So so long, and thanks for all the fish, sorry, interesting posts; I'll see you on whatever waits for us on the other side of the night.

    314:

    1) Juncker's is the only really forceful comment about getting the UK out: there have been others that have been more conciliatory. And we only seem to have trouble with the EU during EU administrations (and some back-channel stuff I've heard over the years leads me to believe the feeling's mutual...)

    2) She's said nothing publicly, per convention. One could make some educated guesses, but they're all whistling past the graveyard at this point. And it says something about the current situation that both sides are whistling fit to shatter gravestones at this point.

    315:

    Speaking as a Texan, I can assure you that the "Texit" people are (mostly) not serious.

    This is my understanding and I'm glad it looks the same from within Texas. Most of the secessionists aren't serious, and the ones who are aren't to be taken seriously.

    316:

    OK, let's look at this from the perspective of what each side really wants.

    UK

    Wants access for trade etc. to the EU, and even a certain amount of free movement, but none of this ever closer union, and basic control of all laws etc. Oh and much less money going to the EU. Basically a free trade area.

    EU

    More and more integration and centralisation (in the hands of the eurocrats, natch). Nobody asking nasty questions, and everyone doing as they are told. Since the EU has a positive balance of trade with the UK, they'd like that money to keep on flowing, and they want no 'rocking of the boat'.

    Everyone else

    Stop rocking the damn boat.

    As such, I don't particularly see a mismatch. All that's really needed is that the eurocrats accept that the UK ain't gonna play, and create a 'free trade' tier that works similarly to other free trade agreements around the world (no payments, no common laws, just agreement to zero tariffs, etc.). The EU still wins out in money terms, and most of the hassle goes away too.

    The only risk for them is that that is what most countries actually want, and the whole 'ever closer union' part goes down the toilet. Mind, that's probably not going to survive anyway, given the sizeable minorities that are already acting up across Europe (and Germany's unwillingness to cough up).

    Said it before, say it again, this was a screwup born in Brussels and their unwillingness to face reality and adjust.

    317:

    "their characters look so competent" Well said.

    318:

    The no common laws thing doesn't work, unfortunately, to create a free-trade area. Most of the EU legislation - is about harmonising product and production standards to make non-tariff barriers meaningless. It's the non-tariff barriers that make life hard for cross-border trade: tariffs are just a cost you build in to your selling price. Even as minimalist approach to such matters as the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution is a charter for considerable interference in the laws of the consituent states.

    319:

    Most free trade areas don't go into great detail about individual products, they simply say that you have to meet the standards of the country you are selling into.

    Of course, agreeing, voluntarily, a common standard for manufacturers to meet is a plus on both sides, but if country X particularly wants to call reclaimed offal a sausage, and country B wants it to be from a known animal, then they can do so (just there are limits on where it can be sold).

    In short, you don't need that massive bureaucracy to have free trade - plenty of countries and regions do without it.

    320:

    Some of this is certainly required; but query how much is. My understanding is that NAFTA, for example, mostly relies on non-discrimination and transparency requirements in standard setting.

    I would note though, that if you take this approach, there are certain consequences, especially in a two country system where one is larger and more unwieldy.

    321:

    I'm in the USA and don't know the British governmental structure all that well, but there's a player I'm surprised I haven't heard mentioned. Doesn't the House of Lords have the power to not approve the act that pushes the "Article 50 Button"?

    322:

    1) If your house falls down, it is a natural reaction to try and pick up the bits and prop them back up again like they were before. Even if the result is shonky and the roof leaks and the doors don't close properly and the whole thing has to have big bits of wood leaning against the outside to stop it falling down, it still greatly reduces the sense of loss compared to giving it up and sleeping in the shed, and you can also think about being able to gradually replace the immediate bodges with less bodgy bodges as time goes on.

    2) I don't read it as that - more as people picking up the idea of the possibility of the Queen "doing something", interpreting it broadly, and expressing it through the filter of their personal hopes of how it could work out.

    If she did anything, she would be meticulously careful to avoid any suggestion of biasing the outcome one way or the other, and her personal feelings would be as much a matter of guesswork after such an event as they are before. She's already had a go at The Sun (annales Murdochi, cacata carta) for portraying her as a Leave supporter; the grievance isn't whether it's true or not, but simply that they have ascribed an opinion to her at all. She'd do the same to a paper that portrayed her as a Remain supporter. (Though I do harbour a sneaking feeling that she likely considers Murdoch an odious little toad.) Any suggestion even vaguely along the lines of her picking up the reins and going "right, shut up you lot, we're doing this" comes under the heading of "ain't gonna happen".

    However, while overruling the government - even if technically possible - is right out the window, she is expected to make sure that we have a functioning government in the first place. She can appoint or dismiss prime ministers, she can go to parliament and say "right, you, you, and you, form a government", or she can go along and say "the whole lot of you are patently dysfunctional beyond redemption, bugger off and elect me a new lot". Now these are all pretty drastic steps, and it's very rare for any of them to actually happen; it's still extremely unlikely that she would do anything of the kind. On the other hand it comes under the heading of "fulfilling the responsibility to ensure good governance" rather than "undemocratic negation of government decisions", and if things did get bad enough for her to do it then I'd guess enough people would be ready to see that point to make it a much less risky venture as far as arousing anti-monarchical sentiment goes, indeed there's a decent chance it could do the opposite.

    323:

    These are my slightly-edited thoughts from my own blog.

    "We so quickly forget that the purpose of the European Union was not to promote the economic interests of countries whose names begin in G and end with Y, nor to raise Northern European values over Southern. The point of the European Union was to make and keep peace.

    "The EU is not keeping the peace, not even trying hard. If they were trying, the ECB would be forgiving Greece's debt, while urging Britain to reconsider. In the long term, to keep the peace, the EU would be promoting Keynesian macroeconomic policies intended to reduce income inequality, and taking in the Syrian refugees, both because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate and because shutting them out will breed future conflict.

    "I would like to see a return to the internationalism that the EU was founded on. The business of the EU is not promoting the interests and ideology of Germany and, to a lesser extent, France. It is to make peace and create and maintain prosperity in Europe."

    324:

    "right, you, you, and you, form a government"

    Exactly what her proxy did in Australia. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility. It was invoked because the current mob wasn't really able to govern at that point and the ship of state had no rudder.

    Chances are it would also involve saying "and call a general election as soon as possible"

    Another point on the 'has A50 already started'?

    I'm illiterate when it comes to law, but here's what an illiterate thinks. A50 is intentionally vague. Vague laws are interpreted by courts. The withdrawing party no longer has any say in the final decision. Even if a law is specific, if the courts think otherwise, then the court's decisions prevail. None of this makes any difference for 2 years. If 2 years from now the Europeans decide that the clock started ticking on the day of the referendum then that's their decision, no negotiation. That will be the day they stop honouring the treaties and there's nothing the UK can do about that.

    325:

    Unless I'm very wrong indeed, there doesn't have to be an actual Act and it doesn't have to go through the Lords. The Prime Minister can just take the referendum result and the authority of his position to the EU and say "I formally give notice blah blah blah..." and that would be valid.

    (Also, the Lords can't actually block anything any more; the most they can do is hold it up for a long time. And then hold everything else up too just to make the point.)

    326:

    How about calling the new construct "The Kingdom of the Isles"?

    328:

    In short, you don't need that massive bureaucracy to have free trade - plenty of countries and regions do without it.

    Well, no, you don't need the EU's massive bureaucracy. Each nation can set up their own redundant massive bureaucracy to pound out these agreements one by one rather than everyone getting together and doing it all at once. That was one of the reasons people created the EU in the first place.

    329:

    With respect to a royal intervention: It will not be taking sides, it will be conservative, which in this case means don't leave in a huff.

    330:

    @ 316: Said it before, say it again, this was a screwup born in Brussels and their unwillingness to face reality and adjust. Yeah And yet STILL Jucker doesn't get it ... Both Osborne ( heard live on Radio) & BoJo have said "No rush at all to press At50, only Britain can press At50, negotiations will proceed, once we've sorted ourselves out." And a sharp remark form Osborne that this was NOT the result he wanted, but "The British people have spoken, we will do as they have decided" - also translates to: "Juncker - who elected you, you crook?"

    331:

    If nothing else Greg, you certainly proves that John Olivers characteristic of the UK attitude to the EU/Brexit issue is not fiction.

    332:

    Explain.

    I remind you, that at the end, I voted "In" as probably the least-worst option.

    333:

    Exactly what her proxy did in Australia

    Sir John Kerr was a deeply weird individual: the only Governor General to haggle over salary and conditions before accepting office, a drunken bore who tried (clearly not hard enough) to be a "pants man" and who was in obvious but sadly unfounded awe of his own merits. He definitely had some strange associates and while the Falcon and the Snowman scenario might be a little overwrought, the likes of John Pilger appear to be convinced. Whitlam rejected the theory outright and Occam's Razor certainly agrees. Even today calling a double dissolution isn't that big a deal (we're going to a double dissolution election this Saturday, democracy sausages and all), but appointing a caretaker government is seriously hackle-raising. Still technically a power, because a legitimate government is formed with the same provisions (more or less).

    334:

    I was referring to you blaiming UK's mess on BXL, and thinking that UK gets to call all the shots in EU.

    That's basically why EU is more than ready for UK to leave.

    335:

    You're not very wrong indeed, but you are at least somewhat wrong: there are formalities for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative by the Prime Minister on the Queen's behalf. The Pigfucker can't just do it on the hoof.

    336:

    the only thing we can say at this stage with any certianty is that this is this decades' major "WTF?" moment.

    Oh yes.

    In 1982, if you had predicted in public that by 1992 the USSR would no longer exist, you would have been soundly mocked.

    In 1992, if you had predicted that religious nutjobs from the Middle East would kill over 3000 New Yorkers and Pentagon Workers and the US would react by invading two countries simultaneously -- one of them the wrong target -- and declaring a Global War on Terror, people would have scratched their heads and asked what drugs you were taking.

    And in 2012, if you predicted that the UK would disintegrate by 2022 (which I'm betting on as a reasonable completion date for both English Brexit and Scottish Independence) they'd have called you alarmist to say the least.

    337:

    The Lords can delay, but not prevent. Their power as a legislative chamber has been declining since the opening years of the 20th Century: the Lords vetoed a budget in 1909 and so, starting in 1911, successive Parliament Acts have been chipping away at their ability to hinder the chamber with the democratic mandate.

    338:

    Charlie in your considered opinion, is there any risk this UK mess turn seriously violent?

    339:

    Yes/No There are faults on both sides ... The UK has never fully "engaged" with Brussel, which really didn't help, the UK should have been "In" in 1963-4, except De Gaulle shafted that one ..... We should have adopted the French attitude to regulations we didn't like, i.e. ignore them The unelected bureaucracy is a real pain, & their arrogance astounding. Their insistence of "uniformity" in matters that "don't matter" (i.e. not of Europe-wide strategic importance) is so tiresome as to be a positive disbenefit, etc .... And a reminder, after Germany, we are the largest contributor to EU funds, & get no thanks for it, or so it seems.

    340:

    The first stirrings have been felt: I've seen two reports of actual violence against "Them Foreigners*", one of which involved the administration of what looks to have been a fairly solid beating, and a lot of reports of harsh language ranging all the way up to Threatening Behaviour contrary s.5 POA.

    I seem to see the Rivers of England, Foaming With Much Cheap Lager And Nativist Sentiment.

    It is, I suspect, not going to be a good few months to be a police officer.

    *The perpetrators are not, I suspect, much troubled about their false positive rate or even that they might have one.

    341:

    In Ireland, yes. Elsewhere, no. Charlie's opinion may differ.

    Scotland may not leave, now that the SNP have looked at the economic equation resulting from: Lower oil price + end of Barnett formula + having to use the Euro. Entirely possible that they will go for ultra-devo-max, instead. We shall have to wait & see.

    Meanwhile Labour continues to implode & sticky mud is being thrown at Corbyn ... Corbyn office 'sabotaged' EU Remain campaign - BBC report. Oh dear.

    342:

    If you thought the entire "Leave" vote fallout could not get any stranger...

    EXCLUSIVE: Brexit ‘2nd Referendum Petition’ A 4 Chan Prank: BBC Report It As Real

    Note—the source above, Heat Street, is a Murdoch/News Corp-owned outlet designed to target a right-libertarian audience, so feel free to disregard if you feel the source to be tainted. On the other hand this is exactly the kind of thing 4chan does.

    A quick Google search as of this posting, shows the story currently showing up on reddit, blogs, twitter, the Mirror, and the Telegraph. If my understanding of the UK newspaper ecosystem is correct, the Mirror and Telegraph are both right-of-center newspapers who (in general) supported the Brexit. It will be interesting to see if it is picked up by the more center and left-wing papers in the UK (and here in the US, too.)

    343:

    ADennis & Pigeon, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Your evaluations of any potential for the UK crown to become involved sound reasonable to me.

    344:

    Doesn't the House of Lords have the power to not approve the act that pushes the "Article 50 Button"?

    Short answer: No.

    Long answer: the House of Lords was neutered as an independent political force as a result of the 1909-11 constitutional crisis and now can't actually veto an act of parliament. It can kick an act back at the Commons, but then the Commons invokes the Parliament Act and rams it through automatically in the next (annual) session, so this blocking tactic only works reliably at the end of a five-year parliament ... and we're too near the beginning.

    Anyway, what Article 50 requires is questionable but probably doesn't require an Act of Parliament as such, so the HoL isn't involved at all.

    345:

    The exact definition of fascism is hard to pin down, and any simple definition risks casting too wide a net. However, this one by Franklin D Roosevelt is very good.

    "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"

    This is a good definition because it is not black and white (classifying states into fascist ones and not) but rather allows a continuum (as states slide into fascism or work out of it), and is independent of superficial characteristics (such as guises under which a fascist regime may hide it's identity). Only one metric is required: degree of private government. Militarism, populism, totalitarianism, and mythic nationalism are not measured, though, so Roosevelt's definition risks applying the label too broadly, to any authoritarian regime. Nevertheless, by Roosevelt's definition the US is not fully fascist, but is engaged in an internal struggle against forces pushing it in that direction.

    346:

    I'm surprised you single out Ireland for potential violence.

    To me they seem to have the simplest solution of everybody: Unification.

    Yes, there are still old grudges, but compared to the new grudges, they may not be that important any more...

    Germany showed us that unifications can happen a lot faster than expected once the idea starts rolling.

    347:

    Charlie in your considered opinion, is there any risk this UK mess turn seriously violent?

    Yes.

    We've already had an MP assassinated on the streets, and seen a frightening upswing in racist abuse and assaults over the weekend. The bigots are crawling out of the woodwork and feeling empowered.

    The only question now is where the first race riot kicks off, and when.

    348:

    Charles Stross wrote: In 1982, if you had predicted in public that by 1992 the USSR would no longer exist, you would have been soundly mocked.

    In 1983, I predicted that the USSR would likely collapse in twenty years in a paper I wrote in one of my undergraduate Political Science classes. However, I had the cause entirely wrong. I claimed the driver would be Islamic-driven nationalism among Soviet "-stans" and Caucasus. I did however get an "A" on the paper and a Political Science degree which turned out to pretty much useless for anything except for arguing on the internet.

    I know it's not a terribly high bar, but I was closer to the mark than the CIA...

    349:

    You think it will primarily be race riots rather than class- or age- riots ?

    350:

    I posted earlier that one such cause might be two consecutive Parliaments being unable to form a government (which has a more-or-less agreed definition).

    351:

    Germany showed us that unifications can happen a lot faster than expected once the idea starts rolling.

    But Germany currently has no plans for a unification with Great Britain.

    352:

    The Unionist are not ready to agree to a United Ireland, it would need a prolonged economic downturn that was not affecting Ireland or some serious political betrayal from Westminster. Otherwise they would resist violently and the Irish government or the people in the republic have no interest in coercing them.

    353:

    Age riots? Youths beating up pensioners in the street? Unlikely.

    Class riots? Most British drop the word "class" from their vocabulary as soon as they leave school.

    Race riots? Sure, in the form of pogroms. You'd just have to redefine "race" as to put Pakistani, Romanians, Indians, Polish, Persians, Italians, Greeks, Slovaks, etc. in one race and white red-nosed Brits in the other race.

    354:

    Race riots are more likely because our press has been pushing the immigrants blame game for decades; thus, in the mind of your average thug, if nothing improves after this referendum, it'll be immigration to blame.

    Race is a fairly common proxy for immigration (especially in a country that's well over 90% white away from the big cities), and thus is likely to be the flash point.

    355:

    Seem to me though that there will be no political stability in the UK unless Brexit is tried. It will only get stronger if it denied by the political class and that may get violent.

    356:

    Initially, yes, because race is an easy one to target and the gutter media has been fuelling the hatred. On the other hand, those are likely to be fairly easy to suppress (as riots), and I would assume that the real problem will be non-riot violence. You need a LOT more, unbiassed, police to stop that - remember Norn Iron in 1969, anyone?

    But the real problem will come when even the current benefits are cut, effective unemployment hits 40%, and dissaffection is suppressed by the Home Secretaries equivalent of the B-specials (G4S?) God alone knows what the ostensible cause of the riots will be, but that doesn't matter - all that does is who are the current hate objects.

    357:
    Germany showed us that unifications can happen a lot faster than expected once the idea starts rolling.

    But Germany currently has no plans for a unification with Great Britain.

    But we could make some. There are already Germans on the British throne, after all. ;-)

    358:

    Definitely race riots - there might be a small upswing in attacks on OAPs but in general the real thugs don't like attacking someone's gran.

    Class is unlikely, because in most areas where the people are likely to riot, there is little contact with the true upper classes. This has been deliberate policy for so long it is pretty much ingrained in the system.

    Race riots are likely on the other hand since different ethnicities share common socioeconomic status, so live in the same places, and it is always easier for jealousy to cause hate for the nearby one who has a little more or is different than the remote one who has a lot.

    359:

    You'd just have to redefine "race" as to put Pakistani, Romanians, Indians, Polish, Persians, Italians, Greeks, Slovaks, etc. in one race and white red-nosed Brits in the other race.

    That's basically how racists are already defining the term, isn't it?

    360:

    On the basis that Johnson is still considered front runner to succeed Cameron, Sturgeon looks to be responding to his stance on blocking a second Scottish referendum.

    Boris: "It's clear now that Project Fear is over."

    Sturgeon: "Indeed, Boris. Project Farce has now begun - and you are largely responsible."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/747350125933060102?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    361:

    Mr. Tingey, "Juncker - who elected you, you crook?" is sadly a stale rehash of one of the most obnoxious memes the Dwarf (I'm Italian, and ashamed to have had a guy like Berlusconi as PM for so long, may he burn in hell) put out, ie, "being voted amounts to being anointed by God".

    Sadly, as much as I dislike him, Juncker has always been an elected official in his own country, not a "faceless bureaucrat", and in 2014 he was the official candidate of the conservative alliance EPP , the first time all European parties appointed their candidate of choice to the Commission, to be nominated according to the vote results, and not by intra-governmental bargaining. I vote for the ESP candidate, Martin Schultz (the one Berlusconi publicly slandered, sweet revenge). So, who voted Juncker? : all the EU conservative voters and the MEPs who voted him in office. Was it different from Callmedave? (well, yes: he got more real votes, given that MEPs are voted using RP, not FPTP where you can get the seat winning barely the 30% of the votes) Crook? OK, he did his best to favor Luxemburg as tax haven...did elected Tories do anything different for Britain? at least he didn't promise nonexistant money for the NHS, nor did he put the whole world in such a mess...

    362:

    I believe that Greg is somewhat older than I am, but I was at university in London during the last mainland IRA bombing campaign and was at school in the next town when the Deal Barracks Bombing occurred. I assure you that there are people in Northern Ireland with equally good memories and bigger grudges than me.

    Some hard core Unionist splinter group would almost certainly try something violent - riot, assassination, bombing - in the event of attempted unification with Eire, and after that all bets are off.

    And that assumes all the mainstream NI politicians got on board.

    As for class riots, I would't be surprised to see a repeat of 2011.

    363:

    Traditional classes haven't made any sense in decades. But, whatever you mean, riots by downtrodden masses rarely target those at the top, because they have no contact. They target those a level or so above them, whether or not those are actually on the same side (or, indeed, themselves downtrodden).

    364:

    It seems also that the Italian PM is reading this blog... someone here, I forgot whom, proposed that the EU should give to any British national born during the period the UK stayed in a free permanent residence permit within the Union. Well, yesterday Mr. Renzi hinted at a fast track for citizenship for UK students in Italy.

    (btw: don't underestimate the role my country could play in Europe. And don't forget that the major ally Farage had and has in the EU Parliament is the second largest Italian party, the FiveStar movement. Which is an even more dangerous form of populism, as it isn't just right-wing like the others, but it mixes far left and environmentalist themes with rightwing sovereignity ones. )

    365:

    In Ireland, the past is not dead; it's not even past. Don't forget the so-called dissident republicans, and the links of both groups of thugs to organised crime. And then there is the question of how much of an IRA organisation still exists and, if it does, what it would do. At least it's not like in the early 1970s, when the IRA had more weapons and people trained in their use than the Eire government did, and said publicly that Dublin was their next target after throwing the Brits out.

    366:

    As if all this wasn't enough, we only have a couple of weeks till the Chilcot Report is released (6-July). There have been reports that the current Labour backstabbing is partly an attempt to sideline and discredit Corbyn before he can stand up in Parliament and get the words "War Criminals" into Hansard.

    367:

    Northern Ireland will get violent. It's too easy an option. There is a generation of young angry unemployed (or soon to be unemployed) who have grown up after the Troubles, listening to the stories of the good fight that their parents and grandparents fought -- how will they feel when they're further marginalised, disenfranchised, and (to their mind) persecuted?

    Three options:

    1) BRExit is quietly dropped, Article 50 never activated. Unionists (who were a majority of "leavers") see themselves as betrayed; Republicans see their best shot as a United Ireland evaporate.

    2) Go full BRExit, NI remains part of UK. Unionists cheer and jeer and caper, until the money runs out; Republicans become the villains of the piece (already happening here: have seen comments like "Oh. So you supported Sinn Feins remain campaign"), feel angry betrayed and under siege.

    3) Go full BRExit, Ireland re-unifies. Unionists go fucking spare (there really is no way to possibly describe how important membership of the UK is to hardline Unionists, these are people who once said "We will fight the British to remain British"), Republicans cheer and jeer and caper.

    The problem about having a major conflict (with historically and culturally deep roots) within living memory of everyone over the age of 30, is that resentments and old scores have not gone away, they're only papered over. (See also what EC said @365.)

    368:

    in general the real thugs don't like attacking someone's gran.

    It's a couple of decades ago, but in my hometown the National Front (or it might have been Combat 18) had a spell of considering exactly that a viable tactic - at least to the extent of shoving, threats and general harrassment, and I seem to recall there was at least one serious assault on an elderly woman - for intimidating the not-obviously-white out of 'their' neighbourhoods. I don't know what anarchists are like these days, but back then I counted a couple of them as friends-of-friends and the story I got was that they considered giving the fash vigorous reprisal shoeings the only truly acceptable bloodsport.

    (They don't think it's terribly funny if you characterise it as militia service in defence of the realm against domestic enemies.)

    369:

    I'm also old enough to remember Irelands past, although I'm one more body of water away from it.

    And yes, there are certainly people and issues which would be against unification.

    But the question at the end of the day is which is the worse alternative?

    Being pulled out of EU against your will is not particularly attractive, having the fortified EU/UK border across their island even less so.

    If this had happened a generation later, the decision would probably be a lot easier, but even now there might be enough people and businesses who prefer peace to war to make it work.

    370:

    "But the question at the end of the day is which is the worse alternative?"

    I should have thought that Brexit would have made it clear that rationality has no place in British politics - yes, it really IS that dysfunctional. I remember when that was not true on the mainland, but it has been the case in Northern Ireland as long as I can remember.

    371:

    Yes. And despite what some of the ministers are saying now, the various leave campaigns poured petrol on the racist's linking of immigrants and racist definitions. All the "Get the immigrants out!" rhetoric was pretty much one word away from your least favourite BNP/Britain First etc. racist chant. For the first time I can remember we've had mainstream politicians using their rhetoric instead of linking "racist" with cognates for "scum" and they're all feeling empowered.

    Much to our detriment.

    I'm hoping it doesn't escalate to the point of riots and murder but I'm not particularly sanguine about that. I'm not a believer in the old saw about "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." because the second half is bollocks. But, however emotionally and psychologically traumatic verbal abuse may be, it's better than being fire bombed, murdered and the like.

    372:

    Yes Depressing, isn't it?

    I'm hoping your option #1 is what happens. I can quite easily see BoJo leading negotiations to leave EU, putting result to a second referendum, getting a rejection of terms (quite possibly as encouraged by said BoJo!) & At50 button never gets pushed, return to status quo ante but with BoJo as PM. What a waste, but better than otherwise.

    Elderly Cynic @ 369 Axel Oxenstierna again - & not just Brit politics. See also my link to BBC concerning Corbyn's limp attitude & failure-to-campaign.

    Generally - "Race Riots"? No, we've been there & don't want to again. And we have laws against that sort of thing, which we didn't have back in the bad old days of Notting Hill (1958). But - there will be individual, deeply unpleasant "incidents" & it is to be hoped the "authorities" come down hard on them.

    373:

    I think people forget how extraordinary the Good Friday Agreement was, what a surprise for peace and good sense to finally break out.

    They also forget that it was five years on from the Downing Street Declaration and the IRA ceasefire. Five years to get everyone on board down to the last detail, with it being one of the top priorities of the UK and Irish government (and the top one of all the NI parties). Without the EU framework, will they need another five years to hammer out basically the same agreement? When the EU talks and the economy are distracting everyone?

    And this is in the naively optimistic scenario in which every NI politician tries their hardest to keep the lid on, and we 'only' get the odd firebombing and murder every couple of weeks.

    374:

    Btw, do we have a list of all the lies and false predictions those irresponsible pro Remain scare-mongers made? So we can check off which of them come true now?

    375:

    Well, I had my notional money on 'EU being difficult about terms of exit', 'big piece of the financial services industry moving out of London', 'Tory Party meltdown', 'sterling drops like a concrete elephant and recovers slowly if at all' and 'property bubble bursts hard'. All but one is at least at the straws-in-the-wind stage and we're only on D+4.

    I have to say I should've been more pessimistic about how big the uptick in racist bullshit would be: I didn't see that being anywhere near as bad as it's promising to be.

    376:

    The economic slide is increasing, to the extent that the more vulnerable British companies could be severely or even terminally hit quite quickly, particularly those who require funding/extensions of credit lines, and those hit by the currency slide, which makes purchases from just about anywhere outside of the UK more expensive. Fuel price will rise pretty soon, as oil is traded in US dollars etc etc.

    I would expect this to play out over weeks and months, some of the effects unfolding over the course of years.

    The point I'm making is that it's not just in the the EU's interest for Westminster to move quickly; the longer Westminster waits to start negotiations, the weaker the bargaining position will become in a dramatic way, and waiting until October would be just plain insane.

    But apparently that's whats happening?

    377:
    If that's really the case, then why try to stay in the EU? If the rest of the EU no longer trusts or wants the UK, what's the point? It sounds like you are making the "Leave" case for them.

    You appear to be missing the antecedent; the UK having voted to leave, "the EU is sick of the UK and doesn't really want the UK around." The Leave case has already been made. It won. If the UK actually wants to stay they're going to have to demonstrate some commitment to the relationship, not just say "sorry, changed my mind." We're not going through all this again the next time a Tory PM needs to convince his back-benchers to support him.

    378:

    Yes. I mispredicted the magnitude of the drop, but my prediction record has never been good on timing; my guess is that the moneybags were in WTF? mode and hadn't programmed an action for this. We should get a good idea of whether sterling and the FTSE will hold up in the short term by the end of the week. I doubt that Davey Boy's schedule is viable, as October the First Is Too Late, but God alone knows what idiocy he will perform next :-(

    379:

    Generally - "Race Riots"? No, we've been there & don't want to again. And we have laws against that sort of thing, which we didn't have back in the bad old days of Notting Hill (1958). But - there will be individual, deeply unpleasant "incidents" & it is to be hoped the "authorities" come down hard on them.

    There've been race riots a lot more recent than '58. 2001 was the last batch in my neck of the woods. And the laws on riot and violent disorder haven't materially changed between 1958 and the present.

    (The creation of racially aggravated offences, attracting higher sentences, didn't include riot of violent disorder)).

    380:

    I remember, and I also live and always have lived at "ground zero", so to speak (no oceans of separation for me, it is far from an intellectual exercise or abstract issue in my case).

    But the question at the end of the day is which is the worse alternative?

    Being pulled out of EU against your will is not particularly attractive, having the fortified EU/UK border across their island even less so.

    This has the underlying assumption that Unionists feel that it is "their island" and that they share some commonality with the Irish. That is not the way they see it. Britishness is a corner stone fo their identity, but also the fact that Northern Ireland is British (so suggesting that they just move to England is a non-starter). It's not a case of a worse alternative, to all hardliners, and not a few softer cases, a United Ireland isn't just a bad alternative, it is quite literally unthinkable.

    Northern Ireland does not function like a "normal" democracy; it is dominated by tribal identity politics -- the majority of voters here don't vote based on policy, purely on whether candidates or issues can be defined as pro-Unionist or pro-Republican. To these voters, switching allegiance would be as unthinable as waking up tomorrow and deciding that you are now a dog (I am not exaggerating about this).

    EC @369 calls NI politics dysfunctional, but I think that is actually misleading. NI politics function exactly the way that most people and most of the politicians here want (especially the politicians -- imagine never having to properly campaign to win a seat, you are guaranteed people's vote simply by accident of their birth). It's only dysfunctional compared to other democracies.

    Final thought: I think that from a short term perspective Greg @371 is right and option #1 is the least bad, resulting in the lowest probability of violence, and with NI continuing to benefit economically from EU membership. Long term, I think it's actually a toss up between #1 and #3 as least bad option.

    Final final thought (as I said else where): If Trump wins in November, I really hope that we can at least see where this is going by the time he takes office. He has the potential to be very bad news for Ireland (north & south).

    381:

    God alone knows what idiocy he will perform next :-(

    I suspect that, while he's still got a Dunning-Krueger effect strong enough to count as its own inertial frame of reference, he's had some of the bounce temporarily knocked out of him by this and we might get as much as a year or two of sensible caution out of him.

    This is one of many tunes I am whistling past the graveyard.

    382:

    Could Ulster request to come under Holyrood's rule, so that it could stay in the EU without having to come under "Catholic" control?

    383:

    Heads up: anyone who reads this and wants to become Tory leader has to make up his/her mind until Thursday. You'll start your new job by Sep. 2 then.

    384:

    "At least it's not like in the early 1970s, when the IRA had more weapons and people trained in their use than the Eire government did, and said publicly that Dublin was their next target after throwing the Brits out."

    I have to say, I have never, ever heard this one before, and it sounds like 24-carat, grade-A premium bullshit to me.

    Do you have any source for this claim?(genuine question).

    Also given that people up the thread are throwing around 'Unionist' as if it is a simple synonym for 'Loyalist', that does not incline me to any faith in their 'insights' into the peculiar condition of the north of Ireland.

    (Briefly - Unionists and Loyalists are not quite the same thing. Both might support the union of the north of Ireland with the rest of Britain but that's about it).

    385:

    Only once Scotland was independent, and with both entities minmaxing the shit out of their bonuses to saving throws vs. Diplomatic, Political and Constitutional Shitstorm.

    (And while I stand ready to be corrected by genuine experts, there's a sizeable constituency in NI of people who believe Insufficiently Protestant Counts As Catholic)

    386:

    Hehe - hmmm... would I have to be a Conservative Party member?

    D'ya think me standing on a left-wing ticket would stand a chance of winning? ;)

    387:

    I'm baffled why you think that David Cameron behaving cautiously for a year or two is in any way relevant to what's happening.

    David Cameron has stated he will resign so that his Party can choose a new leader to negotiate Brexit with a timeframe of October 2016.

    Scotland's First Minister has already pulled the carpet from under BoJo; Project Farce is underway. All that rhetoric about 'taking our country back' can, and will, now be deployed for Scotland.

    I appreciate that loathing Cameron fulfills emotional needs, but it's old news...

    388:

    He still has two, possibly three, months in office as Prime Minister. And four years in parliament. His ability to do (inadvertent, but sufficiently advanced incompetence and all that) harm is diminished, but not eliminated.

    389:

    Update, Nominations this week, open Weds eve, close noon thurs, new PM to be in by 2nd Sept. Opinion stated it was to deny May time to rally a campaign together. Bojo, or May, or Gove, or IDS, Jesus wept what a frightening bunch of demagogues, bigots and control freaks. Please NZ, let me in.

    390:

    It would appear that "Having a Plan" might be a unique selling point.

    391:

    Just took a moment to see who's touting for the job and came across the chilling comment that Gove is 'regarded as one of the party's intellectual heavyweights'.

    What.

    392:

    At a guess, a wild extrapolation from the Sinn Fein / IRA historic rejection of the "Free State", er, Irish Republic, as a valid governing entity (or Northern Ireland, for that matter)? Used, of course, to justify the likes of shooting Garda Gerry McCabe by some of the more ...unsubtle elements of the movement.

    Still very much a shibboleth for the party, based on recent election output and careful use of language, for all that they are now happy to seek political power in either jurisdiction.

    393:

    Heh!

    That may rule Kezia Dugdale out, then.

    Is she waiting for directions from London before announcing her position?

    Sturgeon may force her hand since she's asking for cross party support from the Scottish Parliament tomorrow. - Maybe Dugdale will go the free vote direction?

    394:

    Of course they're not the same damn thing, but how long have you got to start attempting to lay out the definitions for the following: Unionists; Loyalists; the subtle differences in the DUP and UUP; the samller splinter parties such as TUV; Nationalists; Republicans; Sinn Fein; SDLP; the subtle intersections of all of the above with religion and socio-economics? (Do I need to go back and put the fada in the right place in Sinn Fein?)

    True, lumping all pro-Union supporters together as "Unionists" is only one step better in granularity than calling them all "Protestants", but given the nature of Northern Ireland, how deep down the rabbit hole can we/should we go before it becomes utterly irrelevent to this discussion?

    395:

    The Dow is down another 200 points this morning. Thanks for voting. Here's your sticker.

    396:

    The 1922 Comittee can, and will, force this through; the discovery that Bojo, Gove IDS et al had dispensed with such trifling details as planning for BRexit will undermine any attempt to convince investors that their money is safe here.

    Admittedly, their money isn't safe here...

    397:

    (And while I stand ready to be corrected by genuine experts, there's a sizeable constituency in NI of people who believe Insufficiently Protestant Counts As Catholic)

    There is of course the (possibly apocryphal, but I've seen it recounted as though first-hand) of a new immigrant family settling in Belfast. One evening there's a knock on the door and the local welcoming committee is there; "Are youse protestant, or catholic?"

    "We're hindu," replies the head of the household.

    "Aye, but are you protestant hindu, or catholic hindu?"

    398:

    Bojo, or May, or Gove, or IDS, Jesus wept what a frightening bunch of demagogues, bigots and control freaks. Please NZ, let me in.

    It won't be Gove, he'll be acting as BoJo's campaign manager. It also won't be IDS, he's been there done that and knows he wouldn't stand a chance.

    399:

    Ruth Davidson anyone?

    I know she's remain, but if she promoted a minimal fuss Norway-Status Brexit without many economical changes she might look like a saviour in a week or two.

    400:

    We don't get stickers for voting in this country :(

    401:

    The punchline of the version I heard went:

    "Neither, I'm Jewish."

    "Well, amn't I the luckiest fuckin' arab in Belfast?"

    402:

    Almost certainly apocryphal, but not impossible.

    403:

    Philosphical question I've been pondering lately: Suppose you are guaranteed a leader who is both Incompetent and Evil (as we often are). Would you prefer one who is more Evil, or one who is more Incompetent?

    Do you choose Incompetance, hoping that others will be able to freely nulify the worst of the cock-ups and that bad policies will be implemented badly? Or Evil, knowing that a despot is unlikely to choose to destroy the slaves they own, whereas an incompetent one might do so purely by accident.

    404:

    She's not a Westminster MP, though - and so couldn't be elected as Prime Minister by the House of Commons.

    405:

    Would you prefer one who is more Evil, or one who is more Incompetent?

    Incompetent, in the hope that the people manipulating that leader are less evil than the Evil candidate.

    406:

    I've heard that applied to atheists ( & muslims ) as well .....

    Also, there is a stream of catholic "thought" (you should excuse the term) that atheists are an extreme form of weird Protestant - I kid you not.

    407:

    @D.J.P O'Kane (#383),

    " Dublin was their next target ... Do you have any source"

    I grew up in Dublin in the 1970s, and I remember seeing Official IRA posters on the streets declaring their objective of a unified marxist Ireland. At that time the Official IRA still had a command structure and arms, though Provisional IRA was in the ascendant.

    I did have a quick look to see if any of the posters have been scanned to give you a source but I couldn't find one.

    The wiki article on the Workers' Party of Ireland gives some of the history, and describes the various splits and name changes. If it weren't so tragic, you could re-do the splitter scene from "Life of Brian".

    408:

    In the original joke, it was a jew. (There was once a thriving Jewish community in Belfast, used to be the only synoagogue in Ireland if I remember right -- so the joke sort of made more sense.)

    It is however a good illustration of what the "Are you protestant or catholic?" question really means in the context of NI, and why religion is a poor generalisation for political affiliation.

    409:

    Yes, and my point is that one of those not-totally-laughable interpretations is that Davey Boy has the power to trigger article 50 by putting his foot in his mouth.

    And I think you're right, too.

    See UN's definition of Notification

    ... formality through which a state ... communicates certain facts or events of legal importance. ...

    Is a EU Council session a formality? Is a referendum a fact or event of legal importance?

    410:

    I'd go with Evil, as the truly incompetent have a regrettable habit of disregarding the advice of their responsible adult supervision. Of course, it depends heavily on which brand of Evil we're talking about, but bluntly speaking if I have to be on the side of Evil, I'd like it - all other things being equal - to be the winning side of Evil, rather than the losing side. Unless there's a cast-iron guarantee of a Marshall Plan after the dust settles, of course.

    411:

    The Referendum Act was written with anything that might make it of legal significance left out. It's a glorified opinion poll: politically significant, but not otherwise.

    And a foot-in-mouth event is not a formality: a formal notification is one made at the very least with stated intent to notify. That's the 'form' part of formal. You can't do it by accident.

    412:

    Well, at least it would have to be a formal accident, i.e. if you sign and send the wrong letter...

    413:

    She's not a Westminster MP, though - and so couldn't be elected as Prime Minister by the House of Commons.

    Couple of tiny errors in your statement. There's no requirement for the Prime Minister to be an MP, although it's been a while since that happened, and the House of Commons doesn't elect the Prime Minister. Otherwise, spot on.

    414:

    Are you sure a session of a supranational organisation's governing body is not what could be considered a formal act and neither is participation in one? That would surprise me to no end. It's not like it's an informal dinner somewhere but highly organized and, well ... formalized.

    And I guess the British electorate will be overjoyed to be informed that their vote is not only not legally binding but also doesn't even carry legal importance.

    415:

    Sorry, my number 414 was supposed to be a reply to your 411:

    Are you sure a session of a supranational organisation's governing body is not what could be considered a formal act and neither is participation in one? That would surprise me to no end. It's not like it's an informal dinner somewhere but highly organized and, well ... formalized.

    And I guess the British electorate will be overjoyed to be informed that their vote is not only not legally binding but also doesn't even carry legal importance.

    416:

    Genuine dumb question here - if a UK referendum does not carry any legal force, why is an Act of Parliament required to implement one?

    417:

    One thing to remember when considering who will be the next leader of the Tories (and PM for however long) is that the bookies favourite hasn't actually won in a LONG time. I've heard one commentator say "Anthony Eden was the last bookies favourite to win leadership of the Tory party" and while I'm not sure that's right, it's a pretty good indicator of how far back we're looking (1955 to spare you the effort if your British political history isn't up to scratch).

    The short process won't really stop Teresa May. All she has to do is indicate she's willing to stand to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. All the candidates then get voted on by the members of the 1922 Committee, least popular gets booted in each round. (If there's a tie for least popular, they both carry forward, but two get booted in the next round. This flange has been applied, in the election that IDS eventually won. Michael Portillo was hands down favourite to win.) Votes continue every Tuesday and Thursday, kicking one off at a time. Last two standing then go to the wider membership. There's a bit of leeway between the end of the last round of voting from 3 to 2 candidates and sending out the ballot papers - it should be performed "promptly" and then they have a month to vote. So the timetable depends on exactly how many people stand. But it looks like the first vote will be next Tuesday. There are usually 5-6 candidates, so that's about 3 weeks to get down to 2. Late August or early September is a good bet for knowing who it will be.

    And unless any of us are Tory MPs in disguise, it can't be any of us. You must be a Tory MP.

    418:

    Yes, even a formal diner party isn't a formality in the sense of treaty law.

    A session is not an act but an event; it does not have any legal consequences per se (unless referenced as an event in a treaty).

    In the context of the Lisbon treaty, the PM would have to address the European Council and tell them that the UK as a state wants to leave the EU. Any words like "Juncker old chap, we're out of here" or even "a majority of Brits decided to leave the EU" or "I'm gonna invoke Article 50 any minute now" will not do.

    419:
    hat's the 'form' part of formal. You can't do it by accident.

    Ahah, but the Article 50 does not require a formal notification. It requires a notification, that's all:

    A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

    So, the verbal answer "yes" to the question "is it true that the UK voted to leave the EU?" probably counts as a notification if it happens during a session of the European Council.

    (that's the fun bit with legalese. You can twist it a lot until judges sit down and parse it with precedent to define how it really applies... and that's the first time article 50 rears its head)

    420:

    Given how poorly informed some of the wider electorate seems to have been about what the EU actually is, I'm not surprised to learn that they don't understand how referendums work.

    421:

    By 1972, the Officials had called a unilateral ceasefire, which they largely stuck to from then on.

    That was also when they underwent their own peculiar political metamorphosis, from fierce criticism of the Provisionals to being Marxists (Moscow variety) to Eurocommunists, to what was essentially born-again Unionism. And rather than attacking the Irish state, they became participants in it, changing their name to the Workers' Party, and entering the Dail (Irish parliament for those of you watching in black and white). Some of their leading members in the 1970s ended up in the leadership of the Irish Labour Party, whose eventual repudiation of basic Labour values was even more extreme than that of their British counterparts.

    There was certainly fear that the northern crisis would spread to the republic, but in hindsight I don't think this is really credible.

    And rather than relying on Wikipedia, I would recommend the book The Lost Revolution for the full OIRA/SFWP/Workers' Party story.

    422:

    That's even more arcane than Hogwarts.

    If the deadline is this Thursday noon, could they make the first round this Thursday afternoon?

    423:

    A little bit strong, I presume for comedic effect, so :-D

    I should have added a couple of qualifiers to that I guess;

    She's not a Westminster MP, though - and so in practice couldn't be elected as Prime Minister by the Conservatives in the House of Commons.

    i.e. The system as set up would prevent her appointment in practice.

    424:

    All the candidates then get voted on by the members of the 1922 Committee, least popular gets booted in each round.

    ...wait, are they using an arcane version of AV? The rest of us get stuck with First Past The Post to decide on whoever they nominate!

    425:

    Check the link in 409 for the definition of "notification".

    The fun with legalese is that any word can mean something completely different than an average person would think it does.

    426:

    And I guess the British electorate will be overjoyed to be informed that their vote is not only not legally binding but also doesn't even carry legal importance.

    Not in this referendum, no. A feature, not a bug. Don't look at me like that, I didn't write the enabling Act: that dodge was the pig-molester's insurance, which he's cashing in even as we speak.

    (There is precedent: the referendum taking us into the Common Market was actively touted as advisory only, with parliament reserving the final decision.)

    427:

    Um, I'd have to dig deeper than I really want to. I think the answer is that it's within the rules, but really unlikely. There has to be enough time for the chair to notify the members of the 1922 committee of the candidates is the real sticking point. They could all hang round outside his office for the announcement though.

    There also has to be enough time for the candidates to address the electorate and make a speech about how great they'd be, although that's not actually written in to the rules that I can see on a superficial skim. But the electorate is small (<330 people) and collects together regularly, so Thursday pm is possible but Tuesday for the first round seems much more likely. There's usually about four hours of voting 1-5 pm, then a quick count so the results catch the early evening news slot.

    428:

    Must pick that up.
    The Politicans Formerly Known As Stickies charted one of the stranger routes through the latter part of the 20th Century; witnessing former Democratic Left-ies blasting Sinn Fein's connection with the IRA every time they needed a distraction during the last Dail was... well, it was something.

    429:

    Do you seriously imagine that I keep references of everything I read for over 40 years? I read it as reporting an official Eire planning document, and heard the other on television myself. I thought "ho, hum" and was not surprised when Eire started cooperating with the UK a few months later (at most). But, for weak evidence (and it is quite possible that the original report was referring to the combat-ready troops only):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

    430:

    Cameron's statement to the House of Commons suggests that he accepts the referendum result as binding; meanwhile the consequences of a campaign driven by 'fuck off foreigners' have yet to sink in across a wide range of industries, not to mention Parliament itself.

    For example, Sunderland voted for Brexit, notwithstanding the fact that Nissan provides by far the largest numbers of jobs, directly and indirectly, in the region. The population of Sunderland may have overlooked the fact that Nissan is, in fact, a Japanese company, and that Japan is a foreign country, but I doubt that Nissan has.

    The cultural expectation in Japan is that loyalty works both ways; the 'Nissan Way' is built on it. Obviously in the short term Nissan is not going to disassemble one of the most advanced plants in the world, but in the medium to long term it is probable that it will look elsewhere in Europe, and the Brexit voters of Sunderland will be able to congratulate themselves on their success.

    431:

    ADennis has convinced me that he has insufficient authority to say such a thing on his own behalf. That isn't the same as saying that he might not do so, and it might not then get minuted, thus forcing an official (and almost certainly acrimonious) repudiation.

    432:

    It seems to me that the saddest part of this entire fiasco is not that the UK will or may or may not leave the EU, but that we have just thrown away our reputation for stability. There really are very few countries in the world that can point to decades, let alone centuries of stable government. It was always part of Britain's appeal as a place to live and come to do business that we change through evolution, not revolution. Crises come and go, sometimes of our making, sometimes forced upon us, but we could always point out that we don't EVER decide to throw the toys out of the pram and have a political / constitutional meltdown just for shits and giggles.

    Until now.

    It's a bit like the old saw about how do the Oxbridge colleges have such perfect lawns - they just do the same thing over and over again for hundreds of years. And now we've just poured a tonne (sorry, TON, now that we're free of the EU jackboot!) of paraquat onto our lawn...

    433:

    Let me give you an example of how I think this could be argued:

    1 Formality through which a state communicates

    Is a EU Council session a Formality? Maybe not in itself, but for example a vote taken in a Council session certainly is. For the communication of a member's unilateral decision or intent this setting would very likely have to be considered sufficiently formal as well. As you correctly state, a Council session is not a mere dinner party, not even a very formal dinner party.

    2 Facts or events of legal importance

    This one is trickier, but a referendum vote is extremely likely to be of legal importance. Even if the referendum itself were not, the government's and parliament's decision to ignore a democratic decision by it's sovereign with 72% voter turnout would most likely be of legal significance concerning Art 2 TEU and Art 7 TEU. This in turn could be grounds for suspension of membership rights and privileges.

    434:

    "...the lap of His Majesty George VII, aka Speaker to Plants."

    Maybe the plants have some good ideas; the hominids sure don't.

    435:

    I haven't fully read all the comments on the thread, so I don't know if this point had been brought up yet.

    "In 1992, if you had predicted that religious nutjobs from the Middle East would kill over 3000 New Yorkers and Pentagon Workers and the US would react by invading two countries simultaneously -- one of them the wrong target -- and declaring a Global War on Terror, people would have scratched their heads and asked what drugs you were taking."

    Perhaps Brits would have been scratching their heads. I remember very little from 1992, but I remember a lot more from 96/97. Plane hijackings existed in Micheal Bay-style movies of that era and from the 80s. American media was still using the Iranian Revolution as boogeymen during that era.

    Second, if you had mentioned Iraq as the country wrongfully targeted, many Americans would have treated it as "Maybe the CIA knows something you don't". After the Soviet Union collapsed, Iraq and Iran were treated as the go-to bad guys (along with an enthno-nationalist Russia). There's a scene in the movie Armaggedon (I think?) where the asteroids are hitting NYC and a taxi driver is convinced "Saddam Hussein is bombing us". Movies during that time treated Iraq as "unfinished business".

    As for the Global War on terror, American society was still riding high from the "patriotic upswing" during the Reagan Administration, the fall of the Soviet Union, and winning the Gulf War. If you had mentioned to Republican voters about the declaration of a War on Terror, they would have said "Good idea, about time".

    In short, 9-11 brought elements to the surface which were already widespread in American society at the time. They were just filtered out by international papers. Thus, few people would have asked you what drugs you were taking.

    436:

    1 The setting is irrelevant. What you need is intention, correct addressee and power to act. Intention is the key here, and power to act is questioned by some law experts in the UK, saying that Cameron needs an act of parliament to back him.

    2 If ignoring a non-binding referendum was a breach of Art 2 then Greece and all countries which forced it to accept further austerity measures would be in breach. Art 7 might get invoked against the UK if they unilaterally repealed the EHCR act or other EU laws, or if they started to discriminate against non-British EU citizens. If the Leave fraction thinks they can demand immediate invocation of Art. 50, they are free to appeal to the European Court of Justice after they got rejected by the national British courts.

    437:

    1 The setting is irrelevant. What you need is intention, correct addressee and power to act. Intention is the key here, and power to act is questioned by some law experts in the UK, saying that Cameron needs an act of parliament to back him. 1a) Setting: I disagree. See 1c. 1b) Intention: How is that a requirement? It says communication. Intention to communicate would have to be required, not intention to invoke Art 50 TEU. Art 50 invocation could be entirely incidential. 1c) Adressee: European Council, Check. 1d) Power to act: IIRC for communication or even conclusion of treaties in international law national legal authority is entirely irrelevant, as long as the lack of authority is not obvious. Obvious is never some minor point in national law but internationally and universally recognizable lack of authority. E.g. any other minor unelected official would not be able to act on behalf of his country, an ambassador could. It's very long ago for me, you'll have to forgive if it's not entirely accurate.

    2 If ignoring a non-binding referendum was a breach Exactly. That could very well have been the case. Art 7 only never was invoked by the required third of Member States, EP, Commisson or Council etc. Art 2 has no procedural significance, it simply states fundamental values that allow Art 7 to be invoked.

    I'm not a Brexit proponent, by the way, but I think it's important to be aware of the possibilities. This is more important in the light of notorious British reluctance, obstructionism and scorched earth policy during the last decades in the EU. Their opposition to Stuff They didn't Like could be counted on to be violent even on topics that didn't have the least bearing on them at all. Deeper integration among the remaining Members is one such topic.

    438:

    On a more conciliatory note, let me share my best case scenario with you:

    In the coming weeks, while the Tories pick their new alpha-Tory, the pound will continue to fall towards the $1.20 mark and the markets will continue to be weak. Seeing this, the Tory-MPs elect a candidate who aims to keep the UK in the EEA with all its duties and obligations. This calms the markets and when he/she is appointed PM, pound and stock exchange reach nearly pre-referendum levels. UKIP cries treason but is ignored, Labour campaigns for better social security security and more jobs and is probably ignored and the government might spend a little extra on education. The next general election is after the next soccer WM. By then most Leave voters will have forgotten the referendum and everyone carries on like before. UKIP might get 15% or more, but a coalition government keeps them on the opposition benches.

    Don't ask me for my worst case scenario...

    439:

    @Jamesface 397:

    "Aye, but are you protestant hindu, or catholic hindu?"

    Yes, traditionally it was about a Jew, in my youth there probably weren't any Hindus in Belfast.

    But as I understand it, it was a perfectly sensible question. "Are you a hindu who has got your job, house etc. through the protestant patronage machine, or a hindu who has got your job, house etc. through the catholic patronage machine?" Had to be one or the other.

    As regards overthrowing the government of Eire, I am not at all Irish but nevertheless old enough to remember stuff, and the IRA's designs on a revolution in the South were the common currency of analysis.

    440:

    Meanwhile, in Brussels, diplomats are openly mocking Boris's idea that Brexit could be some kind of a la carte thing, where he gets to exit from only those parts of EU membership which he doesn't like:

    “It is a pipe dream,” said the EU diplomat. “You cannot have full access to the single market and not accept its rules. If we gave that kind of deal to the UK, then why not to Australia or New Zealand. It would be a free-for-all.” A second EU diplomat said: “There are no preferences, there are principles and the principle is ‘no pick and choose’.” The diplomat stressed that participating in the single market meant accepting EU rules, including the jurisdiction of the European court of justice, monitoring by the European commission and accepting the primacy of EU law over national law – conditions that will be anathema to leave advocates who campaigned on the mantra “take back control”.

    ... and so forth. There's also the head of some German chamber-of-commerce type organization, who Boris quoted as expecting free trade would continue. Turns out that Boris was quoting out of context; a spokesman referred the Grauniad to another statement, pre-referendum, from the same guy, saying that a Brexit would precipitate a "tooth-and-nail fight."

    Ah, well. I guess as an American, I've got a few more months of being able to laugh at this sort of thing before we have to deal with President Trump...

    441:

    You will choke, you little chump When you deal with President Trump!

    Krazy realtor, Uberalles! Krazy realtor, Uberalles! Kaaaay! KKK! Kaaaay! KKK!

    443:

    Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of the Sun and a big anti-EU cheerleader has, rather astonishingly, come out with Bregret within just four days! Buyer's remorse, he called it, though as a commenter somewhere said, you can't have buyer's remorse when you're the one selling.

    And on the lyrics subtheme: I am an antichrist/ I am an anarchist Don't know what I want/But I know how to get it I wanna destroy passer by

    Cause I, I wanna be/ Anarchy In the city Anarchy for the UK/ It's coming sometime

    When I googled for the lyrics (which I have slightly re-arranged, though not added to) the first result was an Economist blog article about the current situation.

    444:

    I guess you're not a Dead Kennedys fan? No prob. I'm just surprised the band hasn't updated their song already.

    445:

    I'll see you your Anarchy in the UK and raise you

    There is no future in England's dreaming
    446:

    I don't think there's anything better for the situation than the one song off The Wall - "who let all this riff-raff into the room." Goes both ways too, which is nice.

    447:

    Just a thought. Remember the famous headline, "Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off"? I'm just waiting for the Wail etc. to claim that all the other countries have quit the EU, leaving the UK the sole member.

    I rather wish Europe had held a referendum on kicking Britain out, as being a money-laundering neo-feudal sweatshop incompatible with their vision of a civilised continent.

    De Gaulle was right all the time.

    448:

    Re Jaju, post 11:

    So, do you also object to US federalism, a "superstate" over all those lovely independent states (and commonwealths)?

    mark

    449:

    I'll sed you, and raise you an older song, repurposed: "We were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation...."

    mark

    450:

    The pound being $1.20 on September 2nd is extremely optimistic, and I expect it to be below $1; it dropped 3% today alone. I doubt that it will be above 50c by the time the dust settles.

    451:

    And the Dow has fallen 871 points over two days. But I think things will flatten out over the week and then stop going down. (I mean both the stock market and the pound.)

    452:

    I think there's something to be said for your best case scenario short to medium term.

    There are some difficulties, too. However deeply I may disagree with a democratic decision, I don't think further voter disenfranchisement is the right way to respond to an angry electorate that will respond to populist ideas however detrimental they may turn out to be to their own self-interest. We can't make these decisions for them even if we think we have their best interest at heart.

    I can see where you're coming from. I'll assume you work with other people and most of the time you just tell them what to do, not how to do it. Sometimes you see potential solutions that you know from experience will only lead to blood, sweat and tears. You tell your people that and sometimes they are unconvinced. If you had unlimited time and budget, you'd explain and if they insisted even give them the opportunity to fail and then do it the right way.

    Let's assume you work in an environment similar to mine and that's not always possible. As a necessity you tell them this time we're going to do it this way, m'kay. Best case you come across as paternalistic. Expected result: Oderint dum metuant, but also some respect. If you're forced to do this often you come across as micromanaging. Expected result: All of the hate, all of the fear but none of the respect.

    For democratic decisions this doesn't work well. There's no boss to tell people what to do, only antagonists that disrespect their ideas. The ideas may be appalling but if you don't allow them to fail don't expect gratitude. Expect loathing. Do this for a decade or more and even if they're floating in cash and live in (relative) luxury, they'll dislike you.

    Now imagine, if you can, a population not swimming in money in their luxury mansion pools.

    Ochlocracy is what you'd get. Incompetents that believe they'd be better off without you. Inconceivable as that may sound, but they might even think they're better off without me.

    Of course, we'd call them demos if they're right and ochlos only if they're wrong. We get to make that determination ;-)

    453:

    OGH gets a Brexit/Laundry hat-tip from the Unspeakable Vault (of Doom) - http://www.goominet.com/unspeakable-vault/vault/540/

    454:

    In this case, probably to set up the two campaign groups - there having been an official remain and an official leave campaign. And also because you're using the official voting mechanisms, even if the result is defined beforehand as not being binding. You can't just have Cameron standing up and saying something and it having effect, even if some people here think otherwise.

    455:

    More or less what Bellinghman says at 454: to hold a national referendum the quickest and easiest method of doing so is to co-opt the mechanisms under the Representation of the People Acts. Said Acts don't confer any power on the relevant Minister (Justice Minister? They changed 'em all after I quit, so I'd have to look it up) to order a referendum.

    So a new Act is needed to enable a referendum. Efficiency would say amend the Representation of the People Acts to have a standard procedure for referenda but no government will do that because if such a thing is on the statute book the opposition will use that procedure for Horrible Party Political Purposes, the swine.

    456:

    Wow, I was gone for the weekend and you didn't get to 500 on this one?

    In any case, I had what's probably a profoundly stupid idea while driving home, and if anyone's still reading, I'd appreciate knowing if there's a legal reason that it's profoundly stupid, not just that it's just presumably really offensive to the English and the Welsh.

    My idea is simply this.

    The UK remains in the EU.

    England and presumably Wales secede from both the UK and the EU to become (I guess) the independent state of Britain, and the reformed UK consists of whichever formerly British territories chose to remain in the EU. That way, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and possibly Gibraltar (and whichever other islands) get to remain in the EU without having to get pulled out of the EU by the southrons and having to reapply for readmittance at the back of the line, while the English get their wish to go it alone.

    The royal family can remain on both thrones for all I care, but I'm not sure whether that kind of dual citizenship is allowed under EU law.

    Since no one's mentioning it, presumably it's daft on a pogo stick in a minefield. I'd just like to know whether there's a legal reason it couldn't work.

    457:

    I don't think secession of the southern territories should be out of the question but then I have no idea about UK constitution and couldn't find my ass with two hands and a special ass map (as Jon Stewart put it) in international law.

    458:

    I made a similar comment further up thread somewhere. If scotland (and maybe N ireland) get successor status then effectively it is as you say - England and Wales have left the EU & UK.

    The interesting wrinkle is you can write it such that they can apply to be readmitted to the UK, and if the 'UK' is still part of the EU ....

    At the moment legal is taking a back seat to politics. People are inventing concept on the hoof that will keep lawyers in gravy for years.

    And on a related note, I said I thought the EU might be trying to force the UK out fast so that it can play shock doctrine with the remaining countries. And what do we see today, but ""We will... take further steps toward a political union in Europe, and we invite the other European states to join us in this endeavour,".

    I hate being right.

    All we need to find now is that Farage is actually an undercover agent for the eurocrats and everything will slot into place.

    459:

    Sorry I missed your comment, Ian.

    Well, it will be interesting times while this all gets worked out. Just to add to the fun, I'm sure Russia will sit back and do absolutely nothing while the EU is busy having a breakdown. Oh yeah.

    460:

    150% WRONG If De Gaulle had admitted the UK, back in 1963-65 we wouldn't be having this problem, now

    461:

    Meanwhile, not only is Corbyn in deep shit, but the cracks are starting to show in the EU. The Czechs are calling for Juncker to be pushed out & the Poles want "us" to be given time to hold a second referendum, as they have presumably realised who, after Germany, is paying th EU bills. What "fun"

    462:

    Corbyn in deep shit,

    Please explain your reasoning and/or evidence for this assertion.

    463:

    Actually Nissan is owned by Renault, so even if its headquarters are in Japan, you could argue that it's a French company (it's actually a multinational, so it's neither) through a jointly owned alliance company that's registered in Holland which also owns Russian Lada.

    The CEO is French, born in Brazil of Lebanese parents and is a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. So he's about as mulitnational as a human can be.

    Nissan and Renault have demonstrated that they're happy to close factories at a moment's notice if they're not making money. If it becomes cheaper for them to build in Europe and import they'll do what they did in Australia and close the plants. I guess it depends on how the negotiations pan out.

    464:

    "I would like to see a return to the internationalism that the EU was founded on. The business of the EU is not promoting the interests and ideology of Germany and, to a lesser extent, France. It is to make peace and create and maintain prosperity in Europe."

    I'd say the rise in racism and anxiety about immigrants is a sure sign that the EU is not doing their job. I would also note that it's not possible to simultaneously impose austerity and expect people to be kind to strangers.

    The unwillingness to accept Syrian refugees is disturbingly similar to the refusal of the U.S. to accept Jewish refugees from Europe prior to WWII.

    465:

    ICELAND BEAT ENGLAND IN FOOTBALL.

    Sorry, that's all I have at the moment.

    Not to say 'haha', but... expect the entire country to be drunk for a week, a new national holiday and so on. Many many babies will be born in 9 months time.

    Oh, and: I do not expect the Queen to stick her finger in the buzzing, sparking, shorting constitutional mains socket: you can bet your life that she will if it saves the larger power arrangements.

    She's made the history books (longer than good old Victoria)... now...

    All she has do to is kick ass and save her nation's sense of pride and decency.

    No, really.

    You really think this is being gamed on the level of a public plebiscite?

    If it is, you're doooomed [Spike Milligan].

    466:

    This is so cute and 1970's.

    So human.

    So touching.

    So innocent and guileless in its attempts to offend.

    So utterly wrong.

    ~

    This is just the Solstice stuff.

    In the spirit of your guiding memes: "Winter is Coming".

    467:

    Yes, the parallels had occurred to me also.

    I'd forgot, but I had a second paranoid break while driving home, and came up with another amazingly stupid idea:

    How many of the secessionists and isolationists are getting funding from Russia? Given where Russia is right now, one could legitimately turn all the old Cold War spy tropes about commies under the bed 180 degrees and look for who is supporting the right wing nut cases.

    For example, Donald Trump won't talk about his funding, but he keeps going away for a few days and coming back with millions of dollars to play with. Common sense says that he's either getting some liquidity by hocking some part of his marketing empire or seeing his mob connections, but what if (paranoid music)...he's a Russian mole, getting money from his handlers? In many ways he's perfect for it.

    Would BoJo fit the mold? How about Le Pen? How deep does the rabbit hole go before it becomes a case of CRIS?

    468:

    Sigh. Old Men's Minds:

    How many of the secessionists and isolationists are getting funding from Russia?

    Quite a few.

    Then again, it's all open and audited and if you really want you could look into RT's paid staff and so on.

    Russia is playing the "open book" game with the EU / USA - they obviously pay those with compatible view-points (in some cases correctly, in others not so much - but then again, it was the FUCKING FRENCH WHO MINED A GREENPEACE SHIP YO, NOT THE RUSSKIES): then again, the 3-letter agencies fronting NGOs and then doing shit behind the front has a long history and also a damaging one (you might want to look into the CIA, Pakistan, Bin Ladin and fake vaccinations... which then caused the actual NGOs to have people kidnapped and killed due to it).

    Oh, but yeah: Russia. Terrible people.

    That's not important though since your mind has already sectioned off an interesting question into a Black/White spot test.

    Russia isn't funding Trump: H. Clinton's lot are.

    BJ is being funded by [redacted - UK forum] but it's not the Russkies or Chinese.

    Le Pen takes money from whoever: Russia is one, America [naughty-naughty-on-the-QT] is another. He's a whore.

    ~

    Anything else in your land of myopia?

    469:

    ...and here's the CRIS already.

    470:

    If you want references and documents, just ask. We're rather good at finding them.

    You're showing your age, old man.

    ~

    The question was asinine.

    Riddle me which banks have had a stock crash recently, and which ones have not.

    Riddle me which banks (BoA, HSBC etc) are into the long dark night of grey / black economies and laundering.

    Riddle me the NGOs banned by Russia and those attacked by the special forces of NATO countries.

    And so on.

    You're not asking anything interesting.

    p.s.

    If you'd asked nicely, I'd have given you a PDF of UKIP and Russian money and at the same time a PDF of a NGO in the Ukraine with USA money.

    Black/White.

    Good/Bad.

    Us/Them.

    Grow up old man.

    471:

    And by "PDF of a NGO in the Ukraine" I meant direct dollar transactions to political parties now "in control" of the country.

    CHRIS...

    Is this supposed to be an insult?

    Your.

    Minds.

    Killed.

    The.

    World.

    Add a T and you might have an insult [no, wait: your generation also perverted Christianity as well! Bonus fucking round]

    Church should apologize to gays & women for ill treatment – Pope Francis RT, 27th June 2016 - link ironic: no propaganda here.

    ;,;

    472:

    You're reacting extremely well to something said in pure sarcasm to poke at paranoid conspiracy theories. I couldn't have hoped for a better reaction, and I do appreciate you rising to the challenge.

    473:

    I'm not sure one has to be conspiracy-minded. The natural human tendencies to forget history and behave corruptly satisfy Occam's Razor quite nicely. The forgetting of history seems to take about 60 years - note how we killed Glass Steagal in the 1990s, about 60 years after we passed it. The EU seems to have lost its way sometime after 2000, about 60 years after the start of WWII... The Germans do remember the Weimar Republic, and of course austerity is a wonderful way for the rich to line their pockets...

    I give it around 10-15 years until we have war in Europe again if the EU doesn't get their shit together.

    474:

    And you're showing an extremely naive and limited understanding of what reality actually does. If you missed it, I was attempting to go beyond your old man Mind and hit something a little bit bigger.

    Russia is funding the far-right anti-EU groups.

    USA is funding the anti-Russian / Israel groups.

    Russia is funding Media contra the USA.

    USA is funding NGOs to destabilize and change governments.

    ~

    Bonus Round:

    Which one bombed a quasi-modern state into the stone age recently which has now devolved into fundamentalist barbarism, lack of order and destruction of infrastructure.

    Bosnia.

    Libya.

    Syria.

    Hint: I'm not seeing many Russians in these cases.

    Oh, sorry:

    Chechnya.

    ~

    No, you didn't fish.

    You got fucked.

    475:

    Oh, and: Rule 101: anyone using the term "paranoid conspiracy theories" is either an idiot, a paid contractor or so devolved into their safe space bubble that they need to label the entire world outside of it "Mentally Ill" for it to work.

    Hint:

    Not just a CIA term, also a conditioning term.

    Well done for proving your generation fucked the world and are egotistically insane.

    477:

    Oh, and to answer OP

    Brexit campaigner admits he set up second EU referendum petition signed by three million people Independent 26th June 2016.

    This isn't even going to make Parliament, let alone Law or 50.

    ~

    And no: Hetero - you've been lied to all your life. Grow up. You've no idea how it works and nor do most here. The pay-off was you lived a happy life in a little bubble and so on and so forth.

    Count yourself lucky and stop spewing shite.

    478:

    Your reference to CRIS reminds me of this item which was in the news recently here. Doesn't Ouroboros refer just as well to non-reflexive, recursive reasoning?

    479:

    Rule 101: anyone using the term "paranoid conspiracy theories" is either an idiot, a paid contractor or so devolved into their safe space bubble that they need to label the entire world outside of it "Mentally Ill" for it to work.

    How do we know you're just saying that to manipulate us into distrusting our benign but inscrutable secret police.

    480:

    For what it's worth, US Intelligence is spreading the same paranoid theory that you are, with "senior British government officials" backing them up:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12103602/America-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html

    On the other hand, this is the same crowd that was working hard to convince the world that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program before Bush deposed him -- and they have a grudge against Russia now for reasons that have nothing to do with whatever they may or may not be up to in Western Europe.

    481:

    "This is Wayne, my rubber plant. He's really good at tranquillity."

    482:

    Allow me to introduce Duranta repens "Geisha Girl", although we call this particular specimen "Ninja Girl" because...

    483:

    Heteromeles @ 467: We do know who is funding Trump, he has to declare it in his Federal Election Commission filings if someone donates more than $200 in one calendar year. So far his campaign is funded entirely by individual donors and loans from Trump himself and nada from outside groups. The same goes for the outside PACS supporting Trump.

    The crazy thing is that as of June his campaign had less than $1.3 million in cash on hand. That's barely enough enough to keep the lights on. He likewise has about 30 paid staffers, which is probably less than what Clinton has working Cleveland. So there's one ray of hope, Trump is really, really shit at running an actual presidential campaign.

    A large amount of his campaign expenditures go to companies controlled by himself and his family; I guess he always has an angle for making a buck. There also was $35k paid to Draper Sterling, the fictional ad company in the TV series Mad Men. The company shares it's address with an ex-Navy SEAL who is president of a medical startup called Xeno Therapeutics. That whole tangent is kinda weird.

    484:

    1d) Power to act: IIRC for communication or even conclusion of treaties in international law national legal authority is entirely irrelevant, as long as the lack of authority is not obvious.

    I'm no lawyer, but the briefings I've been reading do say that parliamentary approval is required for treaties that affect national legislation (hence there having been such a requirement for the European treaties).

    In this case, it's far from clear how that applies to Article 50: invoking the Article itself would seem not to directly affect legislation on the face of it, but exiting Europe would. As the legal opinion published by UKCLA argues,

    '[T]riggering Article 50 would be cut across the Act and render it nugatory. Once a withdrawal agreement took effect, or if not deal was reached, the 1972 Act would be left as a dead letter. It would instruct judges to apply the Treaties which themselves declare they had “ceased to apply” to the UK.'

    It's hard to see how the executive could invoke the Article when it would thus abrogate constitutionally-guaranteed power from Parliament two years down the line - this would seem to have the effect of breaching the constitutional principle that “..the King by his proclamation… cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm…”

    If the PM does not have the constitutional right to invoke Article 50, any such invocation would be invalid by the terms of Article 50 itself, so who actually can make the invocation needs to be clarified. Legal advice can give guidance, but any attempt by a PM to use prerogative powers would very likely be subject to legal challenge. I can't see that being resolved speedily or efficiently.

    The UKCLA opinion also argues that 'For the courts to hold otherwise would place the rights of British citizens at the mercy of the Government and would be contrary to Parliamentary supremacy.' Fascinatingly (in a train-wreck kind of way) in this case it is British citizens who have directly made their will known, while Parliament is opposed to the public will. MPs, however, have no obligation to follow the public majority opinion on policy - their duty is to represent the interests of their constituents, not their expressed desires. It could very fairly be argued that approving the invocation of Article 50 would be a failure of that representation of interests.

    Eh, this thing is a fractal constitutional nightmare. It's rabbit holes all the way down.

    485:

    Not that I actually believe it, but it's not clear to me this stops Trump being funded by $paranoidfantasyfunder. If the money is largely coming from Trump they simply give it to him, and he loans it to his own campaign. He's known to be a billionaire so it's not implausible he can turn up liquidity in big chunks when actually it's his secret paymasters giving him the modern equivalent of another suitcase full of used $100 bills.

    Or, if they're a bigger organisation, in terms of numbers, they have all their members make $199.99 donations. Since they're clearly legal and above board, they couldn't possibly have false identities or lie about their identities to do this several times.

    486:

    THIS A large part of the idiot membership, who are mostly members of "Momentum" - a marxist-religious group back Corbyn. No sane MP or voter does, however.

    There are "momentum" members in my local constituency who are trying to unseat our amazingly popular female MP, because she "Isn't socialist (read marxist for that) enough" She has a majority of approx 20 000, when it should be about 8 000, but, for ideological purity, they want to get rid of her. Wankers.

    487:

    Re this business of the same bum on different thrones, it used to be common enough.

    To take just one example, the Elector of Brandenburg was also King of Prussia. Brandenburg was inside the Empire, Prussia was outside.

    488:

    "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458"

    From that article:

    "Dave Sparks, a councillor in Dudley and a former chair of the Local Government Association, has warned that if Mr Corbyn stays, Labour will be wiped out. He told the BBC that if the leadership does not change both its leader and its course, the party is looking at its support disappearing in England as it has melted away in Scotland."

    Wrong, Dave. It is if Corbyn goes that Labour risks being "wiped out", and the comment even gets close to the reason why, but doesn't recognise it.

    Labour got buggered in Scotland for two reasons:

    1) They were crap over the Scottish independence referendum.

    2) That same referendum and the support for the SNP it engendered made the SNP a viable mainstream choice for left-wing voters.

    That SNP popularity then threatened to spread to England, with purely English voters considering voting SNP despite their Scottish focus because of it looking like the closest approximation to getting their views represented. And if Labour don't want to lose votes in that way they need Corbyn to stay.

    In England, for flippin' ages there has been no mainstream choice for left-wing voters. Said voters have been effectively disenfranchised by Blair et al turning the Labour party into Tory-lite. And the idiotic Blairite faction refuse to acknowledge this. You'd think that Corbyn being voted in by ordinary voters against the wishes of the Blairites might have given them a hint, but instead their reaction was to wish they hadn't allowed ordinary voters to vote, which serves only to piss people off even more.

    Labour with Corbyn, in England, provides that left-wing mainstream choice. That's why he's there: because people want that choice. It's a choice a lot of people have never even had. Corbyn can make voting in parliamentary elections a positive act rather than a negative one, in many cases for the first time.

    I for one am sick to the arse of not having anyone to vote for. Sick of the only options being either to vote for a party none of whose policies I favour in order to keep out one I favour even less, or to vote for some titchy party who are guaranteed to be effectively a wasted vote because of our crappy unrepresentative voting system. You might call it "disenfranchisement by stealth".

    Corbyn, in effect, gives me my vote back. I'd vote for a Corbyn Labour party. I wouldn't vote for a Blairite one. Sure I don't agree with everything Corbyn says, but it's not realistic to expect to, and he certainly beats the crap out of voting for someone I don't agree with on anything.

    489:

    My first post here so a brief introduction: Italian expat living and working in Germany since 2014, EU-skeptic.

    I do not know much about UK internal politics so I would like to get your opinion on this:

    "Is really any chance for a second referendum?"

    I would expect that whoever proposed this (except the Queen herself) would lose any credibility in the future and this would be a sort of political seppuku. Not only as a political figure, but as a political party. I mean, could you ever expected to be voted in the future if you say "ok, folks, your vote was not what we wanted to so vote again (until we get the result we wanted from the start)?".

    Maybe UK voters are more pragmatic than idealistic, understand that the consequences are really too bad (and that the original promises of the Leave side were unfounded) and wouldn't mind, but to me it looks that deciding that voting is "not valid" because it is not what I wanted when I asked you to vote seems the negation of Democracy.

    So, which party could take such a risk, and how big the risk is, in your opinion?

    490:

    Common dilemma and I empathise. It sounds like what you actually want is a mixture of preferential voting and proportional representation. It's taken 20 or so years, but over here the Greens are the mainstream left-leaning party. The ALP has been at best centrist since the 60s and definitely centre-right since the 80s. The conservative coalition, after a high-water mark of liberalism in the 70s (I guess the point when the Overton window was furthest to the left in Australia) has been drifting to the right ever since. There's been a suggestion that Abbott's leadership marked the furthest extent of that, but I really doubt it.

    Anyway, the Greens have spent that 20 years in a slow transition from protest party to credible alternative government. I suspect that even the most misty-eyed supporters agree we're not there yet, but the momentum is certainly in that direction. If you can measure success by your enemies, and use that to calibrate your vision, then the Greens certainly have the correct enemies.

    491:

    Agreed. For the last I think it's three elections, I've voted Green because they're far closer to my politics than Labour under Blair, Brown or Milliband. There's no hope in a safe Labour seat that I'll get a Green MP. If there was a chance that either a Tory or a UKIP MP might be elected by the backdoor because of my vote I would consider voting tactically against that but where I live Labour's majority rose at the last election despite us having a new MP.

    Under Corbyn there's a chance, when we see Labour's policies come the next election that I'll return to voting Labour. Mind you, Greg's opinion of my sanity is certainly up for debate.

    I heard an interview with Dianne Abbott this morning. She didn't quite say it in so many words, but she strongly implied that the PLP is out of step with the Labour Party as a whole and if, as seems likely, there's another leadership election and Corbyn wins the PLP needs to suck it up.

    492:

    El @ 485: Fake individual donors ain't gonna cut it, you'd need around 200,000 just for Trump to catch up to the current Clinton war chest.

    As for funneling money to Trump personally, candidates are also required to file their personal finances with the Office of Government Ethics. Anyone who thinks there are secret forces funding Trump can go knock themselves out combing though the OGE form 278e he filed last month.

    The simplest and legally least risky way for mysterious benefactors to anonymously give gobs of money to a presidential candidate is still to start up a 501(c)(4) social welfare group and give 49%* of the money the group raises to the campaign or the campaign's PACs (see e.g. Karl Rove's American Crossroads). But like I said, no one's actually done that yet for Trump.

    *That magic number means the group technically doesn't have politics as it's primary purpose and so allows the donors to remain anonymous.

    493:

    If they filter the signatures on the ePetition and the numbers calling for a second referendum exceed the "Leave" total, someone like Ken Clarke (who is standing down I think in 2020 and a well known pro-EU voice) could propose it and in theory get it passed if there was sufficient shilly-shallying and breaking of political kneecaps without it being political suicide by the whole of the Conservative Party.

    Parliament is obliged to consider the petition pretty much and it won't come from a party. However, since the MPs vote by publicly visible ballot it's likely they'll be good and vote no because the public has spoken - despite the fact lots of them think it's the wrong choice. That might not happen if there isn't a good, solid plan from the various Tory leadership candidates - particularly an inclusive one on Brexit since they campaigned on a cross-party platform - so the new awkward squad (the vast majority of pro-EU Tory backbenchers) combine with Labour to say "Fuck the lot of you" and protest vote in favour of a second referendum.

    494:

    He's a real estate tycoon. It's the easiest thing in the world to channel him money. You simply buy some property from him at too high a price. The FSB could set that up in their sleep.

    495:

    Teresa May is talking about pulling out of the ECHR on the basis of the referendum. Does she have a mandate to do that? The referendum was "Should remain in the EU" or "Should leave the EU" but the ECHR is a body of the Council of Europe, not the EU.

    496:

    Of course, we had a referendum on reforming the voting system not all that long ago... and it was a hopeless failure.

    We seem to have established a pattern for British referendums: the Sensible side assumes their case is self-evident and trusts people to be sensible; the Silly side starts yelling and screaming all sorts of emotionalism and scaremongering (in the case concerned, "you won't get who you vote for"); the Sensible side sees people believing all this crap and can't believe what's happening, then try to counter it with rational argument; rational argument doesn't work on people who need to be told what to think; the Silly side wins, or at least does vastly better than expected.

    I do sympathise with the various Sensibles. A day or two back someone tweeted a collage of comments screenshotted off the Daily Mail website, of people admitting that they need to be told what to think and complaining about being told wrong. Even with the evidence in front of me like that I still have enormous difficulty in accepting that people can not only be so staggeringly dumb, but aren't even ashamed of admitting it in public.

    497:

    Yeah, if this country had the same PR as NZ I'd vote labour for my local MP and Greens for the party in a heartbeat. If the SNP was an option, I'd support them all the way, because they are generally politically centrist outside their main issue.

    I really want the Greens (and to be reluctantly fair UKIP) to have around 10-15% of the MPs. That way their supporters opinions have weight, and have to be considered. I don't want them to have much more than that because I disagree with a fair number of their policies (or all of them) and lets face it half the backlist are raving nutters.

    It also should have the positive effect of dragging the two major parties back into a more centrist position. At present the PLP and the Conservatives are both so far right wing from my point of view they are barely visible.

    498:

    a collage of comments screenshotted off the Daily Mail website, of people admitting that they need to be told what to think and complaining about being told wrong.

    Yesterday I was in a shop where the two guys were watching a video of an Essex Girl whose reason for voting Leave was resentment of the noise and nuisance of the football championship, which I believe shares a name with a certain currency (here, anyway). Then the interviewer had some fun with her regarding pizza division, to nail down the picture of her as being as thick as a docker's sandwich (for those of us who remember dockers).

    The two guys were, not unnaturally, going "Are they all like this over there?"

    I pointed out that the chav probably had a certain intelligence, but that system resources were being so hogged by clothes, hair, nails, tats, intimate piercings, who's in and who's out, what clubs are fashionable and what not, that, as Apple might say, other applications were not responding.

    499:

    Deliberately a hopeless failure. They set the referendum up to ask "should we replace our existing system with this specific new one", to which the vast majority said no.

    They should have asked "should we replace our existing system with some form of proportional representation?" and then had a second question later asking "what sort".

    But that has too high a chance of getting a Yes vote, and neither of the two main parties wanted that to happen.

    500:

    lets face it half the backlist are raving nutters.

    I have seen such things here, with the party psychologically akin to your Kippers plus other fringe parties trying to get started ... You see, we have a party list system, so everyone has to field 50 or so candidates, even the likes of Wing Commander Boakes.

    So, where the Sensibles actually ask people whether they want to be on the list, the scuzzbag parties just pick names out of the telephone book. If the cards fall the wrong way, therefore, the equivalent of OGH (a known name, after all) might find himself No. 12 on the list of the Kipper equivalent or much, much worse.

    501:

    Deliberately a hopeless failure.

    It has been said that saying "No" is the default value of the Norwegian mind, so that if only they had made the referendum question, "Should Norway go it alone?" we might be members now.

    What do people think about a possible British emotional bias to Yes or No? And if there is one, how does it map to Leave/Remain?

    502:

    marxist

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you appear to think it means.

    Others have responded as to why Corbyn's a good thing for Labour, and therefore the country.

    503:

    Thomas Jørgensen @ 494: That's less good than it sounds at first blush, since:

  • Trump is a real estate tycoon who likes to slap his name on everything, which increases the risk of someone noticing the mysterious sweetheart deal (Trump sells Scottish golf course for twice market price! Who is Totally Not Russia, PLC?)
  • Trump's real estate income primarily comes from rent and management fees from hotels and resorts, not sales, magnifying #1
  • it requires Trump to be knowingly complicit in a felony (or see #6)
  • real estate deals take time
  • Trump's business partners need to be involved in approving the sale*, which worsens #3 and #4
  • You have to trust Trump to not just pocket the money
  • 504:

    It sounds like what you actually want is a mixture of preferential voting and proportional representation.

    Well, yes, the current method of holding elections is terrible. The fact that a major chunk of the poltical spectrum is missing from it entirely is a rather more pressing concern, though.

    505:

    6. You have to trust Trump to not just pocket the money

    Since his election spending returns reveal that he is in large part doing exactly that anyway, that's rather a tall order. I kind of want to believe in Trump the Evil Genius who's Up To No Good with buy-in from Sinister And Shadowy supporters. I would be highly amused by Trump the Cunning Distractor there to euthanase the Republican Party by destroying its credibility for a generation, doing it as cheaply as possible (and still winning, remains to be seen whether the way he's been doing things will work in a general election).

    Signs, however, point to Trump being on a promotional tour for his own merchandise - books, DVDs, TV Series, branded goods and services - that got seriously out of hand.

    506:

    We have proportional and preferential voting. I've heard it called the gold standard for a fair system.

    Yet it delivers a choice between two far right parties who are absolutely identical in every way except the colour of their logo. A leader in Abbott who OGH said was very useful in that if he was ever a complex situation and he was unsure about what was right and what was wrong, he'd see what our PM thought and know that the opposite of what he thought was right.

    Concentration camps, subsidised coal, cuts to pensions to fund tax cuts for mining companies.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUYK8s3xt4

    507:

    Sorry, should have said "here in Australia we have..."

    508:

    In relation to Northern Ireland, while they voted to Remain, there is probably a majority in their Assembly to Leave (DUP are solidly for Leave, the other unionists are split and there are a few scattered votes in the other parties, much like the odd Labour Leaver).

    But that's not really the point, because the instant the vote comes up to approve the change, Sinn Fein will raise a Petition of Concern. At which point the vote is no longer by simple majority; it's by separate votes in the two "communities", each by majority. And the Nationalists will vote against in a landslide.

    Also, it might need the agreement of the government of the Republic of Ireland, and possibly a referendum there to unpick the Good Friday Agreement.

    I'd love to hear the reaction of Farage et al when told that Gerry Adams has a veto.

    509:

    Oh, and any analysis of Northern Ireland that doesn't use the words "Petition of Concern" is bollocks and can be safely ignored.

    510:

    I suspect that a significant proportion of the people voting out don't know what a multinational is.

    I am absolutely certain that the French do not have honorary non-foreigner status.

    Thus, Fuck Off Foreigners applies to Nissan whether it's Japanese or French, and post Brexit Sunderland will enjoy the many benefits of a foreigner-free environment sooner rather than later.

    The EU, very sensibly, has refused to negotiate prior to Article 50 being invoked; the markets place a very heavy premium on stability and planning, and an unspecified period of drift where no one knows what's happening is the antithesis of that.

    511:

    Ruth is busy angling to become the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland -- if she doesn't shoot herself in both feet by opposing oor Nicola too hard while she does the heavy lifting.

    (Complexity: Ruth Davidson is leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. As such she has to oppose IndyRef 2. On the other hand, she's too young/junior -- and not a UK MP -- so can't tackle the big job in London. Her best hope is that the SNP get their IndyRef 2 and win, at which point she can reconfigure her party as a purely Scottish Conservative party, and stand a good chance at leading the nation as soon as the electorate get tired of the SNP.)

    (NB: I live in Ruth Davidson's constituency. I did not vote for her and do not support her, but I respect her. Also, if you've got to have a Conservative representative, pick the kick-boxing lesbian instead of the boring old white guy in the suit: at least there's some hope of her being marginally aware of the needs of those who aren't members of the P7 -- the Pale Patriarchal Protestant Penis-People of Power.)

    512:

    Two options if they wanted to go that route (I'm pretty sure they -- and she -- don't):

    a) Appoint Ruth Davidson to the House of Lords.

    b) Dodgy Dave is resigning, so have Ruth stand in his (safe, conservative) seat for by-election, and fast-track it. However she'd have to resign from Holyrood, and as the most recognizable face of conservativism in Scotland they'd effectively be giving up on Scotland entirely -- at this point, that'd be as good as running up the white flag ahead of IndyRef 2.

    Option (c) would be to reverse their decision not to compete in the Jo Cox successor by-election, which would be so despicable that quite possibly not even the Conservative party could stomach it (and whichever candidate did so would appear in the House of Commons covered in rancid faecal matter: not a great start to a prime ministerial career, and I don't think they'd be stupid enough to try it). Oh, also: safe labour seat even before the assassination.

    514:

    Reply to PaMar @ 489

    (I'm not a lawyer.)

    'Gee, we want a different result' is only part of the reason another referendum could potentially be wanted (ditto 'It was all lies and it's all gone wrong!!11!). On the face of it, you're right - it looks like political suicide.

    However... at this point we can't even figure out who needs to trigger Article 50. If it's just the PM, then problem solved (pending the lengthy legal challenges). But if it's Parliament, as some legal experts are arguing, then that means MPs voting - and we have no constitutional law or precedent to say whether or not that means MPs have an obligation to vote such an Act through. (Individually, they certainly don't; in practice it would probably mean a whipped vote, which might or might not result in a backbench rebellion. Probably would.)

    Constitutionally, MPs are supposed to represent the interests (NOT the will) of their constituents. How they do so, and how they weigh this against other responsibilities, is supposed to be up to them. What does that mean in this case? Should MPs vote through an Article 50 trigger even if they think it is against the interests of their constituents? What about the interests of their constituency itself? Presumably an MP from a Remain area represents Remainers. Can they vote against it? What if the balance of opinion in the area has changed?

    What's more, they should represent the interests of their constituents, not just those who voted. Even if we turn that into 'what they say they want', what should the MP do if a majority of voters in his or her constituency said leave, but a majority of constituents are for remain?

    It's a total mess, basically because the referendum was a screw-up from the word go. Article 50 demands a constitutional solution, and this referendum simply doesn't gel with the constitutional mechanisms we have in place. The real case for a second referendum is not to change the result, but to make it possible to implement the result without a constitutional meltdown.

    Could there be another referendum in reality? If Parliament cannot or will not pass an Act to trigger Article 50, then yes, I think so.

    Either way, a referendum would need Parliamentary approval, so basically at the moment would have to be a cross-party effort. Alternatively, if a general election is held before triggering Article 50 (which is not impossible in the context of a constitutional crisis) it could be an election pledge. That would arguably nullify the plebiscite of the first referendum.

    515:

    Just because the Australian electorate is so far to the right that it makes the American electorate look sane and liberal doesn't mean that the voting system doesn't accurately and fairly represent their views.

    Any system of representative democracy aggregates votes somewhat. Our big parties get an MP for every few tens of thousands of votes, (the SNP and DUP did best at about 22,500 votes per seat each) while UKIP and the Greens were around the 1-4 million votes per MP.

    Really simplistic maths suggests every 47,206 votes should have got you a seat. And, of course, if we'd had a different voting system who knows what the actual votes would have been: there is certainly tactical voting that takes place. The UK's system is supposed to be good because it delivers "strong" government, that is even with a minority of the votes the side with the most votes usually wins a majority in parliament (as it did this time). MPs "scare" us the Italian model of a new election and a new parliament every few months. They ignore the really quite stable German model of PR and coalition government...

    516:

    If it requires parliamentary consent, does it require the assent of the HOL? They are, as we're frequently reminded, unelected. They could certainly act to say nay, it's not for the common good, they do on a number of issues.

    It's not something that could be forced by the Parliament Act, as I understand it, because the manifesto pledge was to hold a referendum, which the HOL didn't block.

    I've just heard two legal experts on WATO basically disagreeing with each other. But the one who was talking about this specific issue suggested that the house of commons has to vote on the ministerial decision to give them the right to invoke Article 50. No mention of the HOL. The second said leaving the EU requires an act of parliament, which requires both houses, but is a slightly different thing.

    517:

    As far as I can work out, the correct answer is no one knows. I've read a few opinions and they're all necessarily interpretive... Experts can give opinions, but not even the Law Officers of the Crown can actually rule on the law, as for as I understand it. No laws and no precedent generally means an issue must be tested in the courts. An absolutely ludicrous situation to be in.

    518:

    I agree with viewpoint expressed somewhere in the thread that we should address pros and cons of Brexit through the lens of coming Global Financial Crisis Part II.

    The EU will not probably survive it in current form and leaving EU just before SHTF is not actually such a silly move.

    OTOH, proposed Scotland's secession from the UK and rejoining the EU would not be wise. See contrasting experiences of crisis in Iceland and Greece.

    519:

    P7 -- the Pale Patriarchal Protestant Penis-People of Power

    Was about to say that sounds like the Worst. Superhero. Team. Ever! But obviously they're the villains. Umm, also that's 6 Ps.

    520:

    As I understand it, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that any motion passing the Commons requires vetting by the House of Lords, but these days the vetting is more in the lines of "did they write this particular bill badly" or "this bill is a terrible idea, are you really sure" rather than "you can't do that".

    521:

    and we have no constitutional law or precedent to say whether or not that means MPs have an obligation to vote such an Act through.

    Not actually the case: this is first-year law student stuff.

    Even if there was an obligation written in law that MPs had to do such-and-such a thing, the courts are barred by Parliamentary Privilege (from Parliament's side) and the rules of evidence (from their own) from hearing any evidence of the proceedings of Parliament except in narrowly-defined circumstances.

    (Pepper v. Hart was the case that established those circumstances and every attempt to rely on it since has resulted in it being further and further limited: a quick check of what scholarship I could find quickly says that consensus is that Pepper v Hart is a dead letter at this point).

    Since a law that can't be enforced through the courts isn't in any meaningful sense of the word a law, it follows that there is no legal obligation on MPs to vote any particular way. Or, in the lazier cases, at all. (Abstentions too, I suppose)

    Their political obligations are another matter.

    (I suppose in theory Parliament itself could resolve to punish the wrong vote with imprisonment for contempt of parliament, or even with a standing waiver of parliamentary privilege for the habeas corpus hearing and a statutory change in the rules of evidence but you'd have to get that voted through by the MPs themselves, including the awkward squads on both sides of the Commons. Not going to happen.)

    522:

    I haven't seen any reports of Cameron resigning as an MP, as opposed to being the Prime Minister; I suspect he will wish to stay in Parliament. I wouldn't rely on his safe Conservative seat being available to anyone...

    523:

    @outeast, @ el The House of Lords took evidence on this during their examination of the process of leaving the EU and published the results in May. "The process of withdrawing from the European Union". The most interesting conclusion was that the consent of the Scottish Parliament is required and that the consent of the other devolved governments (Wales, Northern Ireland) is probably required.

    524:

    One note on the "second referendum" idea: it would likely have to take place before Article 50 is invoked (by whatever means) to have any real effect. The relevant text from Article 50 is as follows:

    3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

    So, if that "shall" has the same effect as "shall" does in English legalese elsewhere (per gasdive on the earlier thread), invoking Article 50 is a commitment to withdraw; two years later, you're out, whether you've arranged a deal in the meantime or not. Since Britain needs to have some kind of a deal more than the EU does, this effectively puts them in a position to dictate terms -- which you can reasonably expect to be punitive. And if Britain wants back after that, the procedure would be exactly as if they were applying for admission de novo:

    5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

    and they'd be spectacularly lucky to secure a deal as good as what they had before starting this process.

    (Besides, Berlin and Brussels have been united in saying there will be no negotiations of any kind until Britain has signalled its intention to withdraw under Article 50 -- which would all be pointless if Britain was allowed to go back on that decision later.)

    Under the circumstances, the very best case scenario I can imagine is something like the deal Norway has -- where they are bound by a substantial body of EU law (not all, but quite a bit), pay substantial sums to the EU without getting nearly as much back, and forfeit control of migration from elsewhere in Europe (negating all the major Leave campaign promises), while having a limited say in the EU regulations to which they are bound.

    That would effectively negate all of the major Leave campaign promises, and leave Britain with a whole lot less influence in Europe. And it also presumes that the EU would not want to do something deliberately punitive as a warning to the next member state that wants to try something like this (which is not a bet I'm sure I'd take).

    And in the middle of all this, Nigel Farage is giving speeches in the European Parliament directly insulting that institution and everyone in it, just to make sure that negotiations whose outcome the EU will be able to effectively dictate get off in a proper atmosphere of amity and good feeling. (They've apparently never done a day's honest work in their lives. Well, the MEPs he knows best are those from his own party, so I'll take his word for it as far as they are concerned.) But the Brexit referendum might, just possibly, have kept the Tories from losing voters to UKIP in the last election. So, I guess, there is that.

    525:

    In contrast to Mr Farage, Alyn Smith, the Scottish MEP, has just given a speech to the European Parliament, pointing out that Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted to Remain. His final words "Scotland did not let you down, please I beg you, je t'en prie, do not let Scotland down" got him a standing ovation. Having friends in the European Parliament won't hurt Nicola Sturgeon's campaign.

    526:

    the deal Norway has -- where they are bound by a substantial body of EU law (not all, but quite a bit), pay substantial sums to the EU without getting nearly as much back... while having a limited say in the EU regulations to which they are bound.

    Worth noting again that Norwegian Europhobes are not happy bunnies and that their advice to the Brits is "Don't do this thing".

    527:

    Surely that doesn't contradict what I said, which is that there is no law or precedent to establish an obligation? Although I didn't know that such a law is actually impossible, so the clarification is useful.

    528:

    Yep, Norway got that deal because they couldn't get a referendum passed to get into the EU. As opposed to accidentally winning a referendum to get out of the EU.

    529:

    Sorry: I read you as saying there was no law at all on the subject of MPs having any obligation to vote. There is, in as much as there is settled law regarding Parliamentary privilege which covers the matter in an impenetrable* court-proof shield.

    *Except for the rule in Pepper v. Hart which may not even be a meaningful rule any more, and only goes to the interpretation of laws after MPs have voted them in anyway.

    530:

    And we haz lots of lovely gas. People trust us more than the Russians to keep delivering.

    You guys used all yours up yet?

    531:

    What, we Germans? No idea.

    But your British friends apparently also work on mimicking your VAT level: Grauniad link

    532:

    This Pepper v Hart stuff is all news to me. Funny thing, our travaux preparatoires are not only public domain but frequently adduced as evidence in courts of law. How else are you going to ascertain the intentions of the Legislator, in an age where legislative draftsmanship is a dead art? (bloatware)

    533:

    The view in the common-law jurisdictions is that if the legislature doesn't deliver clear intent in clear language it's not the court's job to clear up the mess. It has the merit of at least respecting the democratic part of lawmaking, and generally enforcing a higher standard of legislative draftsmanship*.

    *In some cases more theoretical than actual, and one apocryphal story I had from a university lecturer had someone asking the actual draftsman of one of the earlier Hire Purchase Acts what a particular provision actually meant, and him being baffled too.

    534:

    No, Andreas, I meant the Scots.

    ("It WAS Scotland's oil"?)

    Oh well, at least our VAT rate of 25% makes it easy to do the math in our heads.

    (I did 17 years as self-employed, thus levying VAT for the gummint. I used to enjoy telling my christian friends, I am not just a sinner, I'm a tax-collector too!)

    535:

    I want to know who Farage is taking money from.

    Le Pen's backers? P2?

    536:

    Well, just been reading yup on that Pepper v Hart, and it's interesting but not germane right now (as you rightly say).

    In the course of trying to find some kind of constitutional codification of MPs' obligations (nah, no luck on that!), I did find this opinion: http://tinyurl.com/brexitopinion

    This expresses what I was trying to say about the conflict between the referendum and parliament much more correctly than I could put it. The tl;dr, though, remains 'nobody knows what should happen now because it's all reliant on constitutional principles we do not in fact have.'

    537:

    I missed out the seventh "P": "Plutocratic".

    538:

    generally enforcing a higher standard of legislative draftsmanship.

    My translation work was into English of already-passed laws, so I had no input into the drafting. Not only am I not a native speaker, I doubt I could have improved things even if I were and had been given access, on the grounds that to achieve higher standards of literacy you need literates at the top who can enforce standards of draughtsmanship.

    If, OTOH, the illiteracy goes all the way up (just as the turtles go all the way down), then the PTB won't recognise badly-drafted text and they won't want to employ anyone to improve it, let alone recruit anyone who can write to start with. I fancy that's an a priori truth.

    In case you're interested, the worst writers I ever encountered were advertising agencies, tourist offices he police in general and Okokrim, our financial crime unit, in particular – no wonder they never do anyone. My pick, they'd be on that second spaceship with the telephone sanitizers.

    539:

    For those interested in the second referendum idea, Jeremy Hunt (whose name is mud in this household for screwing up the junior doctor's negotiations and the NHS in general) has flapped his mouth and by infinite monkeys rule a good idea for a second referendum has emerged.

    He has suggested that the team producing the plans for the UK's exit from the EU should draw up a plan and that, either through a second referendum (or a general election campaign) they should be put back to the electorate before the UK formally triggers Article 50. This is not a clear rerun, it would certainly be presented as "we listened to your opinion, this is what we want to negotiate as our future relationship, we want your endorsement" and while that would raise some hackles I'm sure it's not clearly a lie. The wording of the question would be VERY interesting, for the "no" option(s).

    Now, I can see problems: it very bad form to tell your... shall we call them opponents... in a negotiation your goals before you start being the glaringly obvious one. But I think the various splintered groups that voted Leave, when they're presented with an actual plan, will look at it and wonder what they voted for. If one of the "no" options amounts to "Go back and tell them we're sorry, we don't want to leave" as well as a "Go back and try harder to get a proper set of exit conditions" that could very neatly split the "Leave" vote and give "Remain" a victory at the second ballot.

    Along with Farage's head exploding when he hears Gerry Adams has a veto, I want to hear him when a second referendum kicks him where it will do most good like that.

    If your self control is very good you can watch him gloating at the European Parliament. I'm not going to link to it because I had to stop after about a minute. I'm usually fairly calm but for the first time in my life I understood why people worry about dying of apoplexy. The point at which he lectured them about lying to the British public was the final straw for me. But it is out there.

    540:

    In the UK we have https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-parliamentary-counsel - to do the nuts-and-bolts drafting work to achieve the legislative result the government wants.

    And, speaking as a former lawyer who had to work with their output, they generally don't do a bad job. Whether the laws they're drafting are a good idea to start with is a separate issue, of course, but it's rare you find much or indeed anything that is incomprehensible or ambiguous in a UK statute.

    Which is quite an achievement given the dullard rabble we generally elect to give them their instructions...

    541:

    Sir Humphrey: My job is to carry out government policy. Hacker: Even if you think it's wrong? Sir Humphrey: Well, almost all government policy is wrong, but... frightfully well carried out.

    542:

    Not so much 'constitutional principles we don't have' but 'constitutional principles we do have but which aren't codified in such a way as to give a clear result in this particular case, although precedent strongly suggests one of two solutions.' (The two solutions are Ministerial Exercise of Royal Prerogative with and without Parliamentary Oversight, with a third option of insisting on a full-dress Act of Parliament and a fourth, insane option of urinating from a great height on our treaty obligations and living with the consequences.)

    The piece you linked to is a good survey of those principles but the author appears to be carefully refraining from going for a conclusion. It doesn't mean there isn't one to be drawn.

    (I'm personally of the view that precedent is on the side of Royal Prerogative with Parliamentary Oversight is the proper form politically and legally, as setting the precedent most useful in the widest range of future cases. The further dilution of unrestrained Royal Prerogative is just a happy side benefit.)

    543:

    Of course we know. As I noted above, this was paranoid conspiracy silliness.

    I personally think some iteration of Hanlon's Razor is the best explanation. Unfortunately, something very much like Hanlon's Razor started WWI with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.*

    That's kind of the problem: stupidity is a tremendously powerful and destructive force in the world. And this force is strongest in some fairly smart people, unfortunately, which makes it even more dangerous.

    *Didn't his assassins reportedly say in prison that if they'd known they would start a war with their actions, they wouldn't have killed him?

    544:

    One of them did, but it wasn't in prison. It was years later, so whether that's a regret-tinged hindsight or a genuine sentiment he would have agreed to as a much younger man planning to commit murder in company with some fairly nasty individuals is, well, debatable.

    545:

    The next financial crisis is certainly a good filter for looking at these facts, but nobody in power in the UK or EU is even close to thinking about the issue through that lens. Seven years of austerity hasn't done anyone in the EU any good, except that the German's didn't have to be nervous... (spits!)

    Meanwhile austerity has given the various kinds of fascists every bit of ammunition they could have asked for - from Greece to Britain everyone and their mother is being told "Those damn foreigners are stealing your jobs!" and "Here come the Syrians to steal our jobs and the foreigner's jobs!"

    The idea the the EU will, collectively, be able to handle another financial crisis is simply nonsense, and the historical example of Keynesism as "something that worked in the U.S." will be completely lost on them. And as noted above, the EU has forgotten their primary job: don't let European politics get all fascist and war-mongery.*

    *Sorry for the phrasing there. Sounds like Buffy. I probably need more coffee!

    546:

    A weird thought for hope: the whole Tory leadership is going. Labour's in turmoil. If Corbyn stays... suppose the formal bill is brought into the Lower House... and it's voted down by those who are on their way out, anyway, and have nothing to loose?

    And in the meantime, where the hell is that damn watery tart?!

    mark

    547:

    I repeat We do not have a Social Democratic party Once upon a time, "WWW" stood for: "wir wollen Willy" (Brandt) Corbyn is effectively a marxist. Forget it.

    I do take your point about "Nothing on the left, but Corbyn is NOT the answer. I'm frightened of the tories lurching ever further to the right, too. All the shit thrown at Cameron, for all his failings, is unfair, as I regard him as basically decent, but got shafted. People like May, Hunt, Grayling scare me.

    548:

    and if, as seems likely, there's another leadership election and Corbyn wins the PLP needs to suck it up. In which case, he electorate will screw them completely ... there will be very few Labour MP's left (oops) at the next election after that. But hey, marxist ideological purity is more important that actually, you know, being in government ....

    549:

    YES it does And No That does not follow, as the saying goes

    550:

    The EU, very sensibly, has refused to negotiate prior to Article 50 being invoked So far ... And if the new tory leader insists on pre-talks, so that we can have a second referendum (as is looking increasingly likely ?

    I mean, what happens if, even after AT50 is triggered, we get a 2nd_Ref & the result goes - "No, back to where we started from" What then?

    551:

    Now THAT is most interesting.

    If correct & I see no reason why it should not be so, then At50 will never get triggered, or if it is, it will be withdrawn. However, will the EU, especially the commission learn form this & start acting a servant & not masters? or doe we have to go round all this again, when some other nation says "fuck'em" ??

    552:

    Couple that with #523 & life gets very interesting. One thing, even if At50 IS triggered & then it all collapses We WILL NOT BE USING THE EURO. Also that is Scotland's problem - they don't want to use the Euro, either...

    What a screw-up.

    553:

    A servant with 27 masters? Yeah, I'm sure that would work like a charm, with hardly any burocracy involved!

    Greg, I think much of what you perceive as unfree and Bürokratie is just a result of the EC having to herd cats.

    554:

    How much is Labour going to suffer if Corbyn doesn't go, though?

    Firstly, we're watching a group (the MPs), which opposed him during the Labour leadership contest, opposing him. Hardly a surprise, except apparently to the press.

    Secondly, the press in Scotland treated the SNP in a similar way to the treatment being given to Labour just now, and the electorate eventually ignored the press, and went with the SNP in a big way. You could even argue that the press's approach has actually helped the SNP, as people don't pay any attention to their constant, and generally perceived as contrived criticism, allowing the SNP to get away with all sorts effectively unchallenged.

    IF (and I fully accept it is a huge if) the electorate in England reacted in the same way then Corbyn could rout the Blairites from the PLP and benefit in the same way.

    Again, I accept it's very likely not going to happen but maybe an interesting what-if?

    555:

    Re Pigeon, cmt 488: "In England, for flippin' ages there has been no mainstream choice for left-wing voters. Said voters have been effectively disenfranchised by Blair et al turning the Labour party into Tory-lite. And the idiotic Blairite faction refuse to acknowledge this."

    We've got the exact same issue on this side of the Pond - Bill Clinton, around the same time as Blair, came in with "neoliberalism"... which is "rule by the centrist billionaires" (oligarch), as opposed to "rule by people like the Koch bros" (aka neofascism).

    And though I feel as though Hillary's willing to give us a few bones (the millions who supported Bernie, who is old-style Democrat*, Waserman-Schultz, Chair of the DNC is doing her best to try to chase us away.

    On both sides of the Atlantic, it's scary here... and more so, I imagine, for the rest of the world.

    • Every other Bernie supporter I've spoken to considers him an FDR Democrat, rather than an actual socialist (like me - if I were running, I'd have gone whole-hog, not juts Medicare for all, but nationalize the damn pharmaceutical industry, to start).
    556:

    There is no actual recent evidence for the assertion that the electorate will abandon a more left-wing Labour party in droves. They supposedly did with Michael Foot in 1883, but he was fighting an election against a PM that had just won a pretty popular war against an invading power, even if almost no one before April 1982 could have found the Falklands on a map. So his rejection at the polls, while popularly held to be due to "the longest suicide note in history", could well have been due other factors (as well or completely).

    In an era of (generally) falling party membership, the election of Corbyn did more than anything else to massively increase membership of Labour. As Charlie has pointed out previously, the only party that's grown faster in recent history is the SNP since IndyRef. The "Westminster Bubble" are convinced that occupying the centre ground is the way to win elections, but support for Labour has bled away, especially in Scotland but in other places too, to more leftist parties like the Greens and most obviously the SNP.

    If there's an electorate that thinks BoJo stitched them on Brexit and will switch away from the Tories, some will doubtless switch the LibDems, some will probably switch to Labour. And it would have only taken 901 votes going to the second place candidate at the last election to cause a hung parliament. Corbyn attracted over 200,000 new members - potential new votes. So yes, if he wins the seemingly inevitable new leadership elections, the PLP needs to suck it up and actually wait and see what the electorate say. They can prognosticate all they want but opinion polls can be dramatically wrong as we've all seen and the Westminster Village and conventional wisdom about how the people vote in referenda really screwed the pooch last Thursday.

    557:

    It looks like markets are rebouncing. Panic in the front and then the realization that nothing has changed (at least not yet). Of course UK and EU can totally screw this in a way that makes OGH Laundry books to look like a nice picnic into the imagined world.

    Economically Brexit is not likely the big deal. Political front is entirely another issue. Politically we are in the unmapped area.

    558:

    The Dow is up by about 135, with the pound having risen one cent against the dollar today. I'm not sure what we're seeing in the markets today. It might be bargain hunting, or a little bounce as people stop panicking. We won't know for sure for a week or two which way things will go.

    But at least if the market keeps heading upwards we Americans won't elect the Oompa-Loompa.

    559:

    Well... This might get me banned, but lets go... "Le Pen's backers?" Yes. Marine Le Pen and her party is now a completely different animal when compared to her father's creation.

    I am likely to vote for Le Pen in the next year election (I have more than one passport).

    I do not like some of her politics, but when compared to the Eurostate politics they look like new and fresh and even working.

    This does not tell so much about Le Pen and her policy, but it tells very much about the standard EU policy.

    560:

    Re: 519:

    P7 -- the Pale Patriarchal Protestant Penis-People of Power

    Was about to say that sounds like the Worst. Superhero. Team. Ever! But obviously they're the villains. Umm, also that's 6 Ps.

    Fine, so make it the Pusillanimous Pale Patriarchal Protestant Penis People of Power.

    mark
    561:

    Sounds more like a "Dead cat Bounce"; I have a pending UK transaction, (Small time, miniature wargame stuff, Kickstarter) and thought about executing it today. A penny either way is way beyond my interest or ability to control for. They are billing me separately for postage, plus there is a plus up option. For me, UKP 18 (Plus postage) is a substantial slice of the recreational budget in my US Disability.

    562:

    Something on my own response.

    FN is not perfect. I do not like the fascist tendency (now a minority in the party), but the alternatives are horrible.

    Sarkozy or Hollande? Please, this does not even make me laugh.

    I just cannot support something that just promises more of the same. Unemployment and diminishing industry.

    FN promises change. Change is better than certain destruction. Even if you do not know the direction of change. In change there is always a possibility.

    563:

    the Australian electorate is so far to the right that it makes the American electorate look sane and liberal

    Is that so? Do tell us more...

    564:

    I deliberately avoided the phrase "Dead Cat Bounce" just because it really doesn't explain anything. I think we'll just have to wait a week and see what happens. I certainly wouldn't bet on either the pound or the stock markets going a particular direction right now.

    565:

    I mean, what happens if, even after AT50 is triggered, we get a 2nd_Ref & the result goes - "No, back to where we started from" What then?

    It's my understanding that as soon as Article 50 is invoked the UK is fucked. You're out. The two year countdown is triggered, without an abort button, and at the end you're well and truly out. If you want back in you get to start from the beginning just like anyone else. On paper anyway; in practice the UK would have a lot of annoyed Europeans looking for advantage or just revenge.

    Am I missing anything?

    566:

    I don't think you're missing much. See my earlier comment on or around #524 on this thread for the relevant treaty text. (It's 524 as I write; moderator action might move it a bit.)

    567:

    The was once a broad assumption that a two-party state was a good thing, because it supposedly focuses the sides of the spectrum on the major divisions and leads to moderate policies (by a sort of Aristotelian compromise). That at least is the theory behind how the UK, USA and Australia came to this situation and the USA in particular extended their conventional arrangements to embed it more thoroughly with open primaries and so forth.

    Thing is the apparent balance of moderation has turned out to be manipulable by interest groups and soft power. Homogenous systems can be more efficient while diverse ones can be more resilient. Certainly, IMO, multiparty systems are more representative.

    Anyway what I am getting at is that PR and preferences has delivered us a system where there is almost always a balance-of-power situation with one or more parties holding it. As it happens the Australian Greens align pretty closely with my own preferred policies, and have a reasonably coherent long term view on achieving them.

    Consider the situation in the UK (scroll to the diagram showing the composition of the House). Currently the Tories have an absolute majority in their own right, and I imagine if Scotland achieves independence and many of those SNP seats vanish... Well in that circumstance would the first-past-the-post system deliver a representative result? I've no idea, others here may have something sensible to say on the outcome.

    568:

    Note also that the EU authorities are flatly refusing to engage in "pre-talks" preceding the actual invocation of Article 50. So, the best you could do for a second referendum is the Jeremy Hunt proposal of coming up with an initial negotiating position for the UK, and putting that to the voters in a second referendum -- with no guarantee that you could get that, or anything like that, in actual negotiations if the voters approved. (The Guardian showed Boris's promises in his column yesterday to a few actual Eurocrats; "pipe dream" was one of the kinder things they had to say about it.)

    569:

    Yes. Para 5 of Art 50 says "if at any time after the parting agreement takes effect the state wants to rejoin the EU, they have to go through the same process as new members."

    Which implies that it's different if they charge their mind before that time.

    570:

    I certainly wouldn't bet on either the pound or the stock markets going a particular direction right now. Yeah, watching the chaos with interest. Question: who gamed out the post BRexit-vote competently beforehand? Elderly Cynic noted in a previous thread that he had observed a serious dearth (or maybe complete lack) of such analysis in the public space pre-BRexit-vote.

    571:

    Sorry, I'm reacting to what I know of Australian politics from the outside and the characterisation in the original post (#506) that loosely said Australian politics is dominated by two far right parties that only vary colour of their logo.

    Your, almost certainly more informed opinion, may well be different.

    572:

    moderate policies (by a sort of Aristotelian compromise).

    Ha. Heard the one about the Aristotelian judge who endeavoured to steer the Golden Mean between injustice on the one side and justice on the other?

    573:

    This reminds me of Joseph Heller's God Knows where the unreliable narrator, the ghost of King David, insists that Solomon, far from predicting the behaviour of the mother, really intended to cut the kid in half.

    574:

    I'm pretty sure the Owning Classes (yeah, I know, but you know who I mean) assumed that the Referendum would result in a vote for the status quo and didn't realise that a vote to "Get the [SLUR OF CHOICE] out, send 'em BACK" would boost turnout and attract a lot of protest votes. Even though they've been using it to win elections for decades. Hence the lack of forward planning. And also ...

    (Hang on, gimme a moment to get my tinfoil hat on comfy-like...)

    Hence the Article 50 dog doing nothing in the night, their frontmen on instructions to give backword on everything they promised during the campaign and their shills in the Labour Party going in to frantic shin-kicking mode.

    They've sent Farage to the EU Parliament to make monkey noises for the amusement of the cheap seats while the fix goes in. Farage knows that once the stitchup is complete he can milk the 'courageous outsider' thing for years to come, the Pigfucker doesn't give a shit because he can go back to just being a regular millionaire, and Johnson, who might have gone to the right school but isn't from one of the Right Families, gets left to drink the poisoned chalice to the bitter dregs.

    575:

    The fear is that if Scotland went, it would leave the bleeding stump unable to ever elect anything but a Tory government. However I believe that if you look at the numbers of seats won, going back at least quite a long way and possibly even as far back as you care to, and subtract all the Scottish seats, it doesn't actually change which party was in power. (I haven't tried it myself.) Of course this is not the same thing as an answer to the question, but at least it's an indication.

    576:

    I think you have nailed it; if we invoke Article 50 we are irrevocably fucked.

    Some of us are, of course, less fucked than others; next week I fly to Lisbon to board a ship for three weeks, with my daughter joining me half way through; I'm retired, and she is a junior hospital doctor with just over a year left before she comes up for a dual specialisation consultancy job.

    She took, and passed with very high marks, the exams which test whether you have the skill set to function as a consultant, six months into the five year period of dual training. She is passionately committed to the NHS, but if the ideologues destroy it she will have no difficulty in finding highly paid employment outside the UK.

    At that point I too might want to sell up and join her; central London property prices are so high that my apartment in the Barbican is worth well over £1,000,000; if it drops by 20%, which is a massive fall, I still have a lot of money to fund moving elsewhere.

    And thus, the people who are irrevocably fucked are not those with highly marketable skills - if push comes to shove and I need to supplement my income I could engage once more in advising on the taxation treatment of complex financial instruments - but those who are immensely vulnerable. And I really hate that...

    577:

    One, apology accepted. Not really required if you weren't operating in possession of all the facts. Humbly suggest to beware easy assumptions.

    Two, it's a fair cop really - Australia has plenty of problems around the treatment of Aboriginal people and refugees. We really do have an appalling recent history of immigration detention and an untenable position on the resulting human rights breaches. In our favor, we have at times led the world in progressive advances. But yes, portions of the population are shamefully blind to the problems.

    Three, there's NOTHING LIKE the US version of racism here. There is certainly racism, but the dynamics would be familiar to UK readers and could be more or less as you might expect the result would be of transplanting 4-5 British cities to the other side of the world. In terms of immigration, Australians in general celebrate the success of multiculturalism, which has been the overarching policy since the early 80s. Australia has enjoyed change for the better through mass immigration from East- and especially South-east Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa.

    Four, Australian nationalism has its own peculiar chauvinism, but there's nothing like the mysticism certain Americans include in the mix with theirs (the ANZAC stuff notwithstanding) and there's less of it really than the UK appears from the outside to hold onto.

    Five, we've certainly had right-wing populist parties turn up off and on since the 90s, but they have never reached more than 10% of the vote across more than 1 election cycle. In contrast the Greens have a comfortable minimum of 10% on average over the last 20 years.

    Six, Abbott's own party rolled him last year, because polls showed he was leading them to a 20-year wipeout. The current PM is regarded as a moderate, mostly because he's socially liberal. However he is a lawyer and former investment banker (literally, not rhyming slang though that pretty much applies too). Every single Republican contender for the nomination this year was significantly to his right, arguably he's in better alignment with Clinton. Even Abbott would have been more in a line with Rubio or Romney.

    Seven, while I won't vote for them at all anymore, the ALP is at worst a centre-right party. I'd suggest the current leadership is roughly in line with or slightly to the left of Obama. There is still a vestigial left-wing, but the Greens have mostly taken that away from them in terms of electoral support since the 90s.

    Eight, we have a federal election this coming Saturday. My hope is that we elect a minority ALP government with the Greens holding the balance of power in their own right. It's not a bug, it's how multiparty parlimentary democracy is supposed to work, dammit.

    578:

    if it drops by 20%, which is a massive fall, In the U.S. the average drop in housing prices was more like 30%, and in some particularly bubbly regions the drop was a lot larger. (Minor sore point for me because due to the timing of a mother-in-law becoming infirm, I owned two houses for the full duration of the US bubble pop. Minor because I only lost that equity.) Some other bubble markets experienced similar movements. U.S. Bubble history here: http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/case-shiller-20-city.png London: Look at the first chart here. http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-london-house-price-and-earnings-charts-2015-12 Anyway, just saying that the London ride will (probably) be wild. Unless somebody knows of a convincing analysis that argues otherwise?

    579:

    OK Let's go therough the "Tampon Tax" fiasco, shall we? Tampons are IIRC tax-free (zero-rated) in Ireland, 5% here ... Our lot wanted to charge zero, after public protests. Fair do's, taxing tampons is anti-female-people IMHO. Brussel said: "you can't!" Us: "Why Not?" B: "Uniformity of taxation / non-communitaire, etc."

    IIRC there is now extended negotiation as to whether Britain can lower the tax rate on Tampons from 5% to zero, as if it mattered in the grand scheme of things. This anal-retentive attendance to totally unimportant details of taxation is fucking crazy & expresses exactly what's wrong with the EU. Because Britain is NOT ALLOWED to vary a tax rate by 5% on a single non-strategic item of goods. Bah.

    580:

    Both you & Charlie are wrong, because, if anyone who is a "christian" is likely to back a real, actual fascist ... it's a catholic (Rman at that) For evidence, see history.

    581:

    Oh, and any analysis of Northern Ireland parliamentary process that doesn't use the words "Petition of Concern" is bollocks and can be safely ignored.

    There. Fixed that for you. Please refrain from clever-dick condescension if you're going to get it wrong.

    582:

    So, at least one interpretation is that even after At50 has been pushed, provided the 2 years are not up, you can sop the clock, at the very least ( ? )

    And OF COURSE the established snouts in the trough are making "no backing out" noises, because they want to scare anyone else from trying the same thing. Reminder, AGAIN, that Britain is the 2nd largest subsidiser of the EU as a whole. They probably need our money.

    583:

    ...assumed that the Referendum would result in a vote for the status quo and didn't realise that a vote to "Get the [SLUR OF CHOICE] out, send 'em BACK" would boost turnout... Gaming out something non-deterministic means exploring all possible (or reasonably probable) outcomes. It would be interesting to determine who was (a) prescient and (b) somehow monetized their prescience. (Yes including by reacting faster and better to the vote results.) I'm not really familiar with UK political operatives so intuition is mostly uninformed, but from the US vantage point the UK political class initially looked like chaotic hives of cluelessness[1] for a few days. It was frankly surprising, to the point of wondering how much of it was an act.

    [1] Do people still use gormlessness?

    584:

    Easily fixed... s/protestant/papist/

    585:

    That's a horrible set of suggestions. Unfortunately, you might, just, be correct. Shit.

    586:

    No, not stop. Just reset to to the time before invoking Art50. That's also what the HoL report suggested, but I'd only rely on it after a formal declaration from the EC that they share that interpretation.

    587:

    Ok, so just for the rest of the onlookers because I got bored enough to look into it, here is a good writeup of the "Tampon Tax" issue

    The problem is that in the original discussions when the UK joined the common market back in the 70s, sanitary products were not included in the list of goods provided by the UK deemed to be VAT exempt or liable but at a rate of 0%. Blame male diplomats.

    Today people would like to change that, but moving items between categories is problematic and you are not allowed to put things on the exempt or 0% list if they have ever been in another bracket, presumably in order to avoid tax abuse. Hence the reduced rate 5% tax, which is the lowest rate allowed.

    In Ireland they were set to be zero rated long prior to joining the EU, so have always stayed that way, while France taxes them at 20%. Instead of fighting 27 separate battles, they are trying to make them VAT exempt across the whole EU, but countries like France don't want to lose the tax take so debated and voted to reject the change at 3am in the morning when no one was present to notice.

    To be honest though, I don't know why there isn't a thriving business parallel importing them from Ireland - as I understand it so long as the VAT is paid there, you don't need to pay it here as well. I guess postage would counteract the 5% difference. Either that or Unilever is making a killing in France doing exactly that.

    588:

    [1] Do people still use gormlessness?

    It's been local dialect where I live since beyond living memory and remains in regular use.

    589:

    It is a simple explanation that fits the observeable facts. And the thing about my conspiracy theories is that I do, in fact, number paranoia among the symptoms of my mental ill-health.

    590:

    While I know nothing about current Australian politics, I have this vague recollection that, with blackbirding, there might be more similarities between Australian and US history than either of us care to admit, especially since (IIRC) some of the same people were involved in both, especially after what some Americans call "The Late Unpleasantness."

    However, this is irrelevant to the current conversation, which is far more important.

    To totally change the subject and get back on track, I'm starting to wonder if the BRexit will have (to mix and mangle metaphors) a fizzle yield, and if so, what that will be?

    591:

    Yes, in terms of being another shameful episode in Australia's past. However that particular episode did not lead to the ongoing presence of an underclass of emancipated slaves with institutional racist discrimination the way it did in the USA (no less shamefully - the underpaid indentured labourers were returned to the places from which they had been kidnapped). The legacy sugar industry mostly grew on successive waves of southern European immigration in the middle part of the 20th century. Doesn't change the fact that the invasion of the Australian continent by the British and subsequent Europeans was an unmitigated disaster for the original inhabitants and the legacy of THAT is shameful enough.

    Think you're right about the fizzle. Scaremongers were working both sides of the referendum, as they do, so outcomes are unlikely to have as significant effect as predicted, either positive or negative. I suspect the overall outcome for ordinary people - from poor through to middle class - will be slightly more negative for Leave versus Remain, but losing the City could be a positive in its own right.

    592:

    Bill

    I should perhaps explain that the Barbican is in the City of Lndon; around 7,000 people live here, but around 300,000 people commute into work here.

    Trying to extrapolate that to somewhere in the US doesn't work because there's no parallel; the City is not like the rest of the world.

    And, as an entirely personal matter, if it drops 30% it's still worth well over £700,000, which is still going to provide me with a lot of freedom of action. It's been a while since I've last picked up a balance sheet in anger, since I became more and more enmeshed in the taxation status of financial institutions and financial institutions, but I was always rather good at it.

    I'm assuming you don't want to spend the next fifteen years or so developing the neccesarily knowledge, but it's worth bearing in mind that none of the BRexiters has the faintest idea of that knowledge...

    593:

    Wow, if that was the issue, then putting boxes of free tampons in every post office would seem cheaper than blowing up the economy (and would also mean that the poor and homeless would have access to them too)

    Actually, even if that wasn't the problem, boxes of free tampons in every post office seems like a really good idea. But that's probably the marxist coming out in me.

    594:

    Sigh.

    Not getting the meta-joke yet.

    The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover Telegraph, 27th June 2016 - Ambrose McFuckwit.

    Now, re-read what I wrote and get the jokes.

    Oh, you want progress?

    ‘They’re as necessary as toilet paper': New York City Council approves free tampon program WaPo 23rd June 2016.

    By Hook or By Crook you'll become a decent society.

    595:

    Being done in New York. Well, schools not the post office, but it's a start:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36597949

    596:

    I've been looking around for a hard edged economic analysis of what the effect on both the EU and England would be of Brexit. All I've seen to date are some fairly loose goosey hand waving exercises (on both sides of the debate). Any ideas?

    Ignorance thusly acknowledged, has anyone considered that the refusal to join the joint currency made England's position in Europe fundamentally untenable in the long haul? To make the common currency work economically you need deeper integration which is impossible with England sitting there saying 'nah'. Failing to do so means you end up with the inability to do basic macroeconomic management e.g fiscal transfers so as to offset regional economic differences, and as a consequence you end up with entrenched structural problems, i.e Greece and Spain.

    To make the Eurozone work you need a real federal system (like Australia or the US) and a common currency which the government and central bank can utilise. England as the hold out nation prevents that from happening because it's not committed to the Euro, and Europe [must] sort the Eurozone mess out as it is an existential threat to the European project.

    So maybe it's lucky the English jumped because if they hadn't they would have ended up being pushed. A more integrated EU would then perform better (ceteris paribus) which would be good for England's economy.

    As a final Machiavellian thought if the adult supervision in the EU has thought all this through then right about now they'd be running a strategy intended get right under the skin of the average punter in England thereby stiffening the resolve of the Brexiteers.

    597:

    From my vantage out in the woods, I have the distinct impression that Germany has ZERO interest in any deeper integration which would involve bailing out those feckless and lazy southerners.

    Historical note, wasn't there some kind of assumption or writing down of the various state debts when the US Constitution was adopted (1789)?

    I know Texas got some kind of deal (Being essentially a bankrupt, failing state in 1845); Texas got to keep all it's public lands too, no evil BLM there. But not something covered deeply in 7th grade.

    598:

    Agreed But it's still bananas, whether straight or curved, isn't it? ( joke )

    599:

    Neither Sweden, Denmark, nor IIRC Poland have joined the Euro .... Which tends to dampen your case a little, I think?

    To make the Eurozone work you need a real federal system (like Australia or the US) EXCEPT a US-federal system wouldn't even fucking CARE about the Tampon Tax, & all the other intra-state DETAILS, would it? Example: Hpw many different income, business & VAT rates are there in the USA _ different for every single state, more-or-less, isn't it?
    As it is, we've got micro-control-freaks running the show, which has not produced a good outcome, with supposed freedom of movement, unless, of course you want to live & work in France, in which case. forget it ...

    As for Machiavellian thoughts, don't bother - Hanlon's Razor in the form of J-C Juncker, who (radio just now) was giving ORDERS to the next British Prime Minister that he or she (shudder) MUST trigger At50 within 2 weeks of being elected. Now that will get up everybody's noses, won't it? Who or what does he think he is to be giving orders to any sovereign head-of-an-executive? Arrogant, crooked little shit - he's only EU Commissioner, so he can stay out of jail, IIRC.

    600:

    Just been listening to a discussion with Yanis Varofakis of tangential relevance to this question about what the "responsible adults" are doing. He thinks Wolfgang Schäuble has a plan. This is to leverage Brexit to offer France (and other remaining EU states in turn) a closer economic union. There would be just enough budget to pass for a federal EU government, but insufficient to be meaningful in macroeconomic terms. Germany however would end up with a veto over member states' internal budgets. It may end up expressed in different terms, but this would be the effect. Varofakis calls it a "dangerous" plan, but this is what he thinks will happen next.

    601:

    Um, Australia is a federal system with one single federally imposed GST (aka VAT in your world). No comment on how it works in the USA, but saying it wouldn't work there isn't the same as saying it can't at all.

    602:

    SFReader3 @518: OTOH, proposed Scotland's secession from the UK and rejoining the EU would not be wise. See contrasting experiences of crisis in Iceland and Greece.

    The "contrasting experiences" of Iceland and Greece had nothing to do with the fact that Greece was in the EU (and Eurozone) and Iceland wasn't.

    The fundamental difference was that Iceland runs a current account surplus (thanks to its abundance of fish and of geothermal energy – much of the latter is exported in the form of aluminium), which meant that it didn't need to borrow money and could therefore afford to tell its creditors to get stuffed.

    Greece on the other hand runs a current account deficit, much of it in order to import life's necessities such as food (Greece's ecology still hasn't recovered from the deforestation that built Pericles's navy, and will only get worse with climate change). The West was happy to heavily subsidize Greece during the Cold War due to its front-line position keeping the Soviets out of the Eastern Mediterranean, but that geopolitical fact died with the Soviet Empire.

    Syriza MEP Kostas Chrysogonos admitted that Greece would have ended up more impoverished than Zimbabwe if Grexit had actually occurred (how would Western Europe like having to deal with millions of Greek refugees along with the Syrian ones?).

    Maybe that's why Greece has an outright Nazi party, in the sense of a party which views genocidal expansionism to acquire more farmland (which in Greece's case would probably be directed against Turkey -- presumably they hope the West's Islamophobia would cause it turn a blind eye) as being the only possible solution to their nations problems.

    603:

    I'm not a hundred percent certain but I believe the others have give commitments of various to join with the Euro, 'in the fullness of time', and their status being what it is could be persuaded to if not.

    I agree that 'Germany pays' as a dumbed down response would be one way (a very likely way) that the Eurozone would then subsequently implode. It would be a highly risk, return strategy. So it would have to be seen as real reform not camouflage for a smash and grab raid or reifying the current bureaucratic maze. But on the othe side of the coin there's plenty of documentary evidence that the key players do want it, maybe because current situation is just not viable in the long term. Fiscal flows or people flows, which do you want?

    604:

    To make the Eurozone work you need a real federal system (like Australia or the US) EXCEPT a US-federal system wouldn't even fucking CARE about the Tampon Tax, & all the other intra-state DETAILS, would it? Example: Hpw many different income, business & VAT rates are there in the USA _ different for every single state, more-or-less, isn't it?

    Wait, are you arguing that the tax situation in the US is an improvement over Europe? If I buy an item in a state I have no idea what it will cost me until they ring it up on the register. It's why all prices are listed without taxes. Don't even get me started on interstate shipping, whereby some states demand you pay tax at origin, some at destination, and some combinations mean tax at both.

    At least in the EU the local taxes are baked in, and there is an agreement whereby if tax is paid in one place, that's it.

    605:

    @523

    The most interesting conclusion was that the consent of the Scottish Parliament is required and.."

    Is any factual information available that confirms that the Scottish Parliament has a vote in this. If they have a vote in the matter the whole brexit thing is not likely to happen I'd say.

    606:

    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 11th Report of Session 2015–16 The process of withdrawing from the European Union HL Paper 138, 4 May 2016

    See "The role of the devolved legislatures in implementing the withdrawal agreement" page 19.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf

    607:

    There are also a set of opinions, looking in some detail at the legal issues involved, written by both British and foreign lawyers, at the UK Constitutional Law Association's blog.

    https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog/

    My takeaway from reading these, is that this fiasco has gone beyond the legal sphere and is firmly in the realm of politics. The legal arguments will be used (or not) by the different players or to justify whatever happens.

    608:

    @zl,

    Firstly that's only an opinion, and it's not without its fairly obvious flaws. For example, it says that a country can backtrack on withdrawal at any point before the process is complete (ie during the 2 years following Article 50 invocation), which seems to be very much a minority interpretation. The HoL paper is not a ruling, it's an opinion paper for discussion, based on consultation with two lawyers.

    Moreover (and maybe ADennis will confirm or refute? Ve seems to have solid knowledge) it seems to be the case that treaty conventions apply here (this seems to be the basis for invoking royal prerogative). If so, from what I can see it seems Parliament (and any devolved legislature) will only have the power to ratify or reject the enabling legislation at the culmination of withdrawal negotiations. At this point it will not have the power to amend it (at least, that seems to be the law with treaties).

    Crucially, Article 50 says the following:

    The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2.

    I read this as saying that in the absence of an agreement, the default is simply that all treaty obligations cease to exist. As such, a refusal to pass the Act (by Parliament or by any devolved legislature) would not prevent exit, it would just invalidate any withdrawal agreement. That would leave Britain defaulting to WTO rules, I think.

    The agreement is for the terms of the relationship after withdrawal - it is not agreement to the withdrawal itself. This is one of the reasons I'm not happy with the Royal Prerogative interpretation, incidentally - it seems to significantly undermine Parliamentary sovereignty.

    609:

    PS In comments above (and elsewhere) I've expressed contradictory positions. That's because my understanding is evolving as people point me in new directions. Thanks to many commenters for that - it's been a very stimulating discussion.

    610:
    And if the new tory leader insists on pre-talks, so that we can have a second referendum (as is looking increasingly likely ?

    Then the EU goes, "I'm sorry, was that an invocation of Article 50? No? Nothing to talk about then, sorry. Good luck with your political crisis."

    I mean, what happens if, even after AT50 is triggered, we get a 2nd_Ref & the result goes - "No, back to where we started from" What then?

    You hope the EU likes you enough to create a mechanism to allow member states who've invoked Article 50 not to leave just for you. (Spoiler: after Brexit? They don't. There's no "can we pretend it never happened?" option.)

    611:

    Moreover (and maybe ADennis will confirm or refute? Ve seems to have solid knowledge) it seems to be the case that treaty conventions apply here (this seems to be the basis for invoking royal prerogative). If so, from what I can see it seems Parliament (and any devolved legislature) will only have the power to ratify or reject the enabling legislation at the culmination of withdrawal negotiations. At this point it will not have the power to amend it (at least, that seems to be the law with treaties).

    For values of 'solid knowledge' in the range of 'passed Constitutional Law a quarter century ago and suddenly have a motive to get back up to speed.'

    Parliament has actually defined at least part of its role in respect of treaties in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 - they can delay ratification indefinitely by voting to disapprove a treaty not less often than every 21 days. Forever. Has to be a commons resolution, the minister responsible for the treaty can override the Lords' objection. But this is irrelevant because the Act specifically excludes EU treaties. Even if it didn't, the Act is about new treaties for ratification, not taking action under existing ones.

    So, it's exercise of Royal Prerogative. There is a considerable body of precedent for parliamentary oversight of that. It's what select committees are for, ministerial questions in the commons, and so forth. Indeed, both houses of parliament have committees specifically for material from the EU proposed to be enacted in UK law by Statutory Instrument (the making of which is a ministerial exercise of prerogative power) or Order in Council (likewise).

    So, yes, parliamentary oversight is (almost certainly) going to be required. I'm pretty sure there's a majority support in the commons for that, not least because it's a bit of a joke for the Brexit crowd to yell about sovereignty and then decline parliament's sovereign role in determining the future of the UK. A role that took two-and-a-bit civil wars to establish as one of the central supports of our constitution.

    That's the obvious, no-political-risk answer. There are others, and I would not put it past the current rabble to come up with something notably idiotic.

    612:

    Except THEY NEED OUR MONEY

    And/But: - No, we obviously can't pretend it never happened. Nor can we go back to June 22nd, but some accommodation would be reached (IMHO) purely for financial reasons.

    And "I'm sorry, was that an invocation of Article 50? No? .... err .. WHAT did you say ... err ..." At which point sensible EU political leaders, those whose interest is stability (Merkel & the "northern" states) & money (Poland, Czech, etc) will probably sit, very firmly on the heads of idiot loudmouths like Juncker. Mind you, it will still be ... interesting

    613:

    Something that has occurred to me. People are, quite justifiably, annoyed that there seems to be no real plan for leaving. Most are angry at the Leave campaigners.

    What about the government and opposition? Most of the prominent Leave campaigners aren't actually in positions of power. Farage isn't even an MP, and isn't dead popular with a lot of the leave side. IDS resigned from cabinet, Boris isn't in the cabinet, etc. So, whilst they should have thought up something, they're not in any position to do it.

    Whereas Cameron and Co. always knew it would be a close result. But rather than prepare for a scenario that was always reasonably likely, they bet the farm on remaining and lost. The government is there to enact the will of the people.

    Meanwhile, Corbyn missed a golden opportunity. Imagine if he'd unveiled his post Brexit plan for labour on friday. Surely he'd walk any general election?

    614:

    and I would not put it past the current rabble to come up with something notably idiotic. Such as a fresh General Election, with two boxes on the ballot-paper One for party & the other for a second-Ref. Oh dear. Or both main parties dividing themselves into "in" & "Out" camps, or something equally worthy of Broadmoor

    615:

    @outeast, Agree. The House of Lords document is just one of the few things written down by a competent body (in the sense of a body having "competence" or a formal legal interest in the area). But yes it is an opinion.

    One of the comments was about the ability of a state to withdraw notification given under Art. 50.

    [IANACL - I am not a constitutional lawyer].

    The question of whether the UK can back out of an Art. 50 notification may be covered by the Vienna Convention on International Treaties* of 1986 where Art. 57 says

    "The operation of a treaty in regard to all the parties or to a particular party may be suspended: (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the contracting States and contracting organizations."

    I read 57.b as saying there is a let out from Art. 50, but only if all parties want to Play Really Really Nice. Yeah, right.

    The more I read the more it forces me back to my original opinion: this is now politics.

    But there is an angle for OGH. If you think about some of "code is law" ideas that have been floating around since Larry Lessig, where does that go in future? Competing AIs who keep changing the legal/technical framework for their interactions? Probably one of those neat ideas you can't use to make a story.

    • Which is ratified by the UK, but not technically in force.
    616:

    While I agree the currently very strong stated position of both the EU commissioner and various heads of state is "No prenegotiations" there's not a fucking plan to comment on.

    I wouldn't be surprised if, after there's a new PM in post, unless he or she instantly calls a new election rather than giving a timetable for a plan and triggering Article 50 (which is certainly an option) there were some comments on the proposals for the future relationship. We're already hearing, from the Crabb and Khan ticket the idea of some access to the Single Market with some restriction on Free Movement of Labour. I suspect the answer to that will be FOAD.

    Patrick Mimford, whom I vaguely knew about 35 years ago, and was nutty as a fruity cake back then in my personal and totally non-professional opinion, has a completely different plan. He is actually in favour of even more free movement labour but no tariffs, no preferential access to the Single Market and a 'short term' (no more than 10-15 years) complete restructuring of the British economy.

    Gideon has said, although he's not in the running, maintaining full access to the SM is essential to maintaining Britain's economy.

    I've given up trying to track all the variations. And several of the big beasts in this race haven't yet said anything clear that I've heard. So really there is no background for any of these banned meetings to take place against. Come say October (so a 4-6 weeks after the new PM) if there's not the purdah and mess of a general election) there may be something clear. Then meetings may take place despite what's being said now. Not formal negotiations but just meetings to say "no chance" or "maybe" or "yes, that bit is probably ok."

    617:

    I fear you're doing the residents of Broadmoor a disservice. They're in there for being crazy, not because they're blithering, purblind imbeciles with massive senses of personal entitlement and less notion of how to run the government and foreign affairs of a modern nation than my fucking dog does.

    618:

    While I agree with your anger about the lack of a plan about how to leave, my anger about the lack of a plan, as expressed in #615, is about what the shape of the relationship should be.

    In the last 5 days I've heard prominent male and female Brexit campaigners say flat out contradictory things about whether, after we've left we'll be in or out of the Single Market, the European Economic Area or trading as a WTO-tariff nation with some specific treaties to be negotiated on a case by case basis. Some of those have said clearly impossible thing about how that will relate to free movement of EU citizens, like "of course we'll remain in the Single Market, but we'll negotiate for regulated movement of all non-UK citizens" which will simply be a red line for the whole of the EU.

    It was pretty unlikely I was ever going to vote for leave, but between the big lie about £350m/w and their inability to articulate a vision of the future in anything except pipe dream terms that guaranteed it. They sold such an amorphous cloud that I will predict >90% of the people who voted leave have their own clear vision of what they voted for that will be NOTHING like the pig's ear that is cobbled together. Talk about buyer's remorse and reducing trust in politicians when that finally hits home!

    I don't mind there not being a plan in the sense of "We're going to trigger Art. 50 on Tuesday" although I do wish Callmedave had kept his promise and pressed the button and then resigned on Friday morning. I still hold out a little hope he'll do it last thing as a parting gift to whoever is his successor.

    619:

    At least dogs always know who the current pack leader is...

    620:

    Apparently Hollande would be right behind that offer - as long as Paris gets the banks. But this isn't negotiation; it's the UK tossing plans into the lion enclosure and seeing which get torn apart. There's no ability to be confident a stated position will reflect that of the EU once Article 50 talks start.

    621:

    Just to open another area of debate (or can of worms) too many people seem convinced Spain, France and other countries with secessionist movements would be bent on making things as difficult as possible for Scotland. That was perhaps true in the past, but now things are entirely different and quite more complicated.

    Now, Scotland isn't secessionist, England is! Scotland is just refusing to be dragged out from the Union against the will of the Scottish and in consequence, Scottish independentists will probably become Spain's, and France's and Italy's, new very best friends. And if the only thing we cared about was smashing independence ideas, you could also expect us to demand extremely harsh conditions to be imposed on Great Britain or England&Wales. What better way to dissuade independentists than showing them secession doesn't pay, that it brings poverty, turmoil and partition?

    Of course, in the real world things aren't black and white. For starters smashing independentism is not that high in our list of priorities compared with protecting our trade and investments, I think... but don't assume Spain, France, etc will/would oppose Scottish independence. Under today's circumstances they could perfectly support it with an standing ovation (by the way, can't you keep that Nigel chap where he doesn't further embarrass you? He should write a book, provisional title "How to lose friends and alienate people")

    622:
    And "I'm sorry, was that an invocation of Article 50? No? .... err .. WHAT did you say ... err ..." At which point sensible EU political leaders, those whose interest is stability (Merkel & the "northern" states) & money (Poland, Czech, etc) will probably sit, very firmly on the heads of idiot loudmouths like Juncker.

    Perhaps you're behind on the news, but Merkel herself has said quite explicitly (through her spokesman) that she wants there to be no pre-talks preceding invocation of Article 50.

    http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/06/27/merkel-no-informal-brexit-talks-without-article-50-trigger/

    That article also has something of note to anyone seeking an analysis of the economic consequences of Brexit: George Osborne says that there isn't even consensus about what new relationship with the EU Britain is seeking -- and whatever that is, odds are they get something less. So, there isn't yet anything to analyze (well, other than business deals that are already getting cancelled, but that's only the shadow of something not yet fully in view).

    623:
    At which point sensible EU political leaders, those whose interest is stability (Merkel & the "northern" states) & money (Poland, Czech, etc) will probably sit, very firmly on the heads of idiot loudmouths like Juncker.

    Merkel, who's already backing "no negotiations without Article 50"? Why would those in favour of stability protect the UK? It is in the interests of EU stability that the UK invoke Article 50 and get gone ASAP.

    EU stability no longer includes the UK, Greg. That's what the Brexit vote told the rest of us.

    624:

    Wishful thinking of the first order, CAPS or no caps; if they needed your money they would have granted pretty much all your wishes and smiled at you afterwards.

    Actually I'm even tempted to call that a Trumpism...

    625:

    But this is irrelevant because the Act specifically excludes EU treaties. Even if it didn't, the Act is about new treaties for ratification, not taking action under existing ones.

    Yes, I noticed both of those qualifications. That's another thing, though. At least one opinion I've read argues that the withdrawal agreement would be a new treaty by definition. And it'd be a treaty with the EU, but would it be an EU treaty, since it'd be defining our obligations as non-members of the EU? I read guidance to the CRGA rather than the Act itself, but judging from what I read, this exclusion clause was not drafted with not being an EU member in mind! On the face of it, I'd have thought that it wouldn't be 'an EU treaty' in the sense covered by the Act, since it'd be defining our relationship outwith the EU and not as a member. On the other hand, until it was ratified we'd still technically be in the EU, so it maybe it would be. Huh.

    In any case, EU treaties are excluded from the CRGA because they are 'scrutinised by other means'. These 'other means' seem to be as described in the Commons briefing paper 'EU Treaty change: the parliamentary process of bills'. Precedent-wise, that would seem to suggest an Act of Parliament is necessary:

    Although treaty ratification is strictly speaking a matter of Royal Prerogative, EC/EU Treaty amendments have always been brought into force by means of an Act of Parliament. The passage of the implementing legislation is not formally part of ratification and there is no reference to ratification in the bills, but legislation is necessary if ratification is to proceed smoothly.

    That's only precedent, but there's also the European Union Act 2011, which states:

    (1)A treaty which amends or replaces TEU or TFEU is not to be ratified unless— (a)a statement relating to the treaty was laid before Parliament in accordance with section 5, (b)the treaty is approved by Act of Parliament, and (c)the referendum condition or the exemption condition is met.

    (My emphasis) Again, I'm not a lawyer - but doesn't this say that an Act of Parliament is required in addition to the referendum?

    Summary: If this is 'an EU treaty', it should fall under the European Union Act 2011 (I think), and an Act of Parliament is required. If it is not an EU treaty, it should be governed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

    What am I missing?

    626:

    Cameron and Co. always knew it would be a close result. But rather than prepare for a scenario that was always reasonably likely, they bet the farm on remaining and lost. The government is there to enact the will of the people.

    No, the government is not there to enact the will of the people (that's not at all the principle in the UK). This, though...

    Meanwhile, Corbyn missed a golden opportunity. Imagine if he'd unveiled his post Brexit plan for labour on friday. Surely he'd walk any general election?

    ...I didn't even think of. You're right, this was a golden opportunity. But he seems to be pretty useless, no matter how decent, so no surprise he missed that trick too.

    I'm still flabbergasted that the Leavers didn't have a plan ready though. That's not just 'pretty useless', it's 'criminally incompetent.'

    627:

    I don't think you're missing anything: that is one of the plausible approaches to the problem. It carries more political risk than using the debate-and-vote-and-royal-prerogative approach, though.

    And while it is plausible, I don't think it's the most plausible available.

    The statute wording you quote is "a treaty which amends or replaces" - an Article 50 notification isn't a treaty if we stick to just the natural and ordinary meaning of the words (legally, your first port of call in construing anything). A treaty has two or more parties, after all, and Art. 50 notification is given unilaterally.

    Furthermore, you're stretching a lot less to characterise it as an action taken to exercise rights/obligations under an existing treaty, not a treaty in its own right. Like the instruments used to enact EU directives in UK law, which is the analogy that gets us to the easy solution by the most direct route.

    628:

    And by the by, if "THEY NEED OUR MONEY", well... what money is that? The 350 million pounds a week that Leave promised to stop paying the EU and divert to the NHS? The EU was listening to that stuff, too.

    Or is it the money Britain pays for EU imports that it couldn't necessarily replace in any event? I think they'll be happy to take their chances on that, as you'd also need to negotiate new trade deals with everyone else you'd be trading with...

    629:

    I'm still flabbergasted that the Leavers didn't have a plan ready though. That's not just 'pretty useless', it's 'criminally incompetent.'

    I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have pushed for a referendum if they thought they had any chance of winning it. They thought they were the standing experts on small-minded petty xenophobia of the english electorate. They've been using it to get into office for decades, after all.

    630:

    The statute wording you quote is "a treaty which amends or replaces" - an Article 50 notification isn't a treaty if we stick to just the natural and ordinary meaning of the words

    Oh, sorry, a misunderstanding there: I wasn't discussing the notification, I meant the withdrawal agreement that comes at the end of the 2-year negotiation period. I agree that the notification does not itself seem to be covered by the treaty legislation (either one).

    Article 50 defines the withdrawal agreement as:

    an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union

    That would be a treaty, wouldn't it? Whether 'A treaty which amends or replaces TEU or TFEU', or a treaty subject to the CRGA.

    I can see (now) that the prerogative probably applies to the notification (contra my position yesterday; well done, you actually educated me to the point where I had to change my opinion. It's really nice when that happens!) My foregoing post was about the withdrawal agreement. zl was returning to the idea that parliament or the devolved legislatures would be able to block Brexit by refusing to enact the withdrawal agreement act (whatever it will be called). As I interpret it, a failure to enact that act would not block Brexit, it'd just destroy any agreement. Brexit would be assured solely based on the exercise of the prerogative, in accordance with Article 50.

    the debate-and-vote-and-royal-prerogative approach

    This vote could only be advisory though, right? Parliamentary scrutiny doesn't extend to any actual power to hold the executive to account...? Other than through a separate vote of no confidence, I guess.

    This route still seems to me to undermine parliamentary sovereignty pretty conclusively, albeit in the name of popular sovereignty.

    631:

    "Mo prenegotiation" is, itself, a negotiating position, isn't it? Trying to look & talk touch in advance. Given it's coming from Juncker & some other EU heads-of-state are already disagreeing with him on other matters ... Is of itself "interesting"

    632:

    No Broadmoor is the prime place for the Criminally Insane. Which fits, only too well, yes/no?

    633:

    My point is rather that blithering stupidity is not mental illness.

    We'd not be able to build hospitals fast enough.

    634:

    Correct ... assuming that At50 EVER gets pressed &/or that "we" actually ever leave the EU. Care to make any bets at all on that one? I certainly would not.

    Remember my viewpoint - for years I was pro-EU, but pro-reform. Decided that snouts-in-the-trough was going to trump reform & switched to "out". As polling day approached, the oncoming chaos, especially in international relations became more & more obvious [ Hence my Gibraltar/Ireland/Scotland comment ] Voted "in" as a result.

    Now -look at the international-relations chaos that has & is ensued/ing from this monumenta screw-up.

    So - is At50 ever going t be pressed? Do we get a general Elction beofre that? Do we get a general election if AT50 negotiations do start & go pear-shaped, so that we can press the "cancel" button?

    You tell me.

    Because, just in case you hadn't noticed, I refuse to back any horses in any of these races (plural, note) & I refuse not to mock all involved. However, shit-stirring for fun, it ain't - it's shit-stirring in the vague hope that something sensible does emerge, but those hopes are pretty low at present.

    635:

    what money is that The second-largest contribution to the EU budget, that's what. Only Germany's contribution is larger.

    636:

    Oh, nuts - you really are in denial. Whether or not the heads of state could lean on Juncker to allow pre-negotiations, they aren't going to.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-idUKKCN0ZD12O

    637:

    Apologies if this isn't news to anyone but me - but all of a sudden the whole Corbyn thing becomes clearer;

    "Some Labour MPs believe Corbyn clinging on to respond to Chilcot next week, apologise on behalf of Lab & call for Blair war crimes trial."

    https://twitter.com/joncraig/status/748160840600272897

    638:

    Maybe I am in de-Nile (denial *) or not.

    However, it gets even murkier: N Sturgeon told to stuff it by EU leaders Summarised as "We are NOT going to talk to you, no matter how pro-EU you are" Other unpleasant stuff in linked article.

    At this rate it may become the Monarch's duty to knock a few heads together - I hope it doesn't come to that, though.

    de-Nile: Really bad joke from our mummer's play - don't ask.

    639:

    Ah, we're at cross-purposes. Sorry 'bout that.

    As for the Agreement pursuant to Art. 50, yes that is a somewhat different animal to the clause 1 notice. And yes, the obvious answer is that it's a new treaty and Parliament does get a say and the question is then which rule it comes under: the EU treaty rules (because at the time the agreement comes before the House we're still a member) or the 'all other treaties' rules because it's an agreement of the nature of a treaty about NOT being a member state of the EU. Parliament regulates its own procedure, so we get to watch the buggers argue it out when the question arises. Someone put the popcorn industry on alert.

    The thing is, Parliament declining to ratify isn't a go-back-and-renegotiate thing: Article 50 has a definite time limit requiring 27 states to unanimously extend it. When that expires, the UK is out with no deal. All the EU as a body needs do to put Parliament in a cleft stick over this is only conduct exit negotiations when they can fit it in among other business and take long lunches, leaving us with a take-it-or-leave-it choice at the end of two years.

    And, while a minister is not bound in any way you could point to in a written document to act as Parliament resolves when exercising the Royal Prerogative, the consequences start at 'constitutional crisis' and get more serious from there.

    Although the government with the most form to sailing close to the wind on disregarding parliament is, in fact, the current one. It may be that they've recognised that conventions of accountability can be shifted, over time, by repeated small challenges - Ministers have stayed on and even been promoted after stuff that would've been a resigning matter back in the day.

    It also may be that they're a collection of utter pricks who think rules are for the plebs. Mileage, as they say, may vary.

    640:

    It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Corbyn is too set in his ways to compromise on Chilcot, especially the way the supporters of Blair would want him to.
    On the whole coup .. have a read of this. It has the ring of truth about it.

    http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/truth-behind-labour-coup-really-began-manufactured-exclusive/

    641:

    Ah, so the money "THEY NEED" is the money that "Leave" has already promised to stop sending to the EU bureaucracy in any event, in really big letters on the side of their goddam bus. (A substantial fraction of which you were getting back, by the way, in terms of everything from EU research grants -- for which British applicants are already unwelcome -- to the substantial direct payments that Cornwall and Yorkshire are already quite rightly anxious about.)

    To keep that, the EU will want a very strong negotiating position -- and the strongest negotiating position for them is to have the clock ticking before talks start. Hence the public statements from everyone on their side, including the ex-friends that you seem to be counting on for assistance.

    Note: ex-friends -- anyone who went to bat for the special treatment Britain already got as a somewhat troublesome EU member sees the referendum as a betrayal. So, there are now two groups of EU players: the ones who didn't like Britain already, and those who think Britain stabbed them in the back. So, they have every reason -- both practical and emotional -- to approach their negotiations with Britain with the same gentle and accommodating posture that they had towards the Greeks. Have fun with that...

    642:

    That could readily be "We're not going to encourage secession by giving you any hope of being the UK's successor state within the EU because we want you to at least try the veto that, on some interpretations of the Scotland Act, you may well have."

    They put it in terms of it being a UK internal matter and not for them to intervene in, of course.

    643:

    Meanwhile, I've unearthed a comment I saw a month or so back, from: "Germany, memories of a Nation" By N MacGregor, director of the BM. A superb history of Germany in snapshots:

    The wheel has come full circle in that the EU is, in a sense, a new edition of the Holy Roman Empire; economic & secular, not religious; pan-European, not Roman; binding most of the continent into a framework of security & joint consultation, with France & Germany jostling for seniority. It is an old pattern. Is this long historical precedent part of the reason why Germany has so few problems with the idea of a confederal supranational EU? And why the UK, with its very different history has so many?

    Very prescient words from a copyright 2014 book

    644:

    Your post is a misrepresentation of the article. Many of them ARE prepared to talk to her - what they are not going to do is negotiate with a part of the UK, and that is what Juncker and Hollande said. I should have thought that that always was obvious. I accept that Tusk and Rajoy went beyond that, and your post was a fair summary of what the latter said.

    645:

    I'm not sure that's the reason, although it might contribute to it.

    Corbyn was elected less than a year ago with a mandate of over 60% over the whole Labour Party but a minority of the PLP, who are much more Centre-Left as they'd describe it but somewhere slightly to the right of the centre of British political opinion. Corbyn definitely is NOT over there.

    My read is that he believes they want him to resign (so he can't stand again) because even if they unify behind a single candidate in a leadership election (as seems likely now) he is confident (rightly or wrongly) that the fact he got over 60% of the votes last time means he'll win a two-horse race and they know that. He can then turn around and put into suspended animation the career of a string of former so-called Labour heavyweights.

    It's interesting that Andy Burnham, who harbours ambitions to be Mayor of Manchester in the "Northern Powerhouse" and could quite easily have resigned his current role since he'll be stepping down anyway if successful but who strikes me as a pretty astute reader of the runes within the Labour Party, spoke in support of Corbyn. He may have voted "no confidence" (it's a secret ballot) but publicly he's hitched his wagon to the Jeremy-train.

    But I'm sure being Labour leader and sticking the boot into Blair next week won't be unappealing to Corbyn.

    646:

    According to the Wikipedia numbers for 2014, that's not exactly the truth. France is second in gross contributions as well as net contributions.

    Britain is 4th, for gross contributions behind Italy and for net contributions (excl. EU taxes) behind Netherlands.

    Hey, but don't let yourself get confused by facts.

    647:

    Oh ffs .... I'm quite aware of "what we get back" is determined by Brussel, of course, not us ... but, the fact remains we are the second-largest contributor to the EU. I suspect Germany doesn't enthuse about, err, "taking up the slack" In the meantime: to approach their negotiations with Britain with the same gentle and accommodating posture that they had towards the Greeks. Have fun with that... So nice - threaten members & potential ex-members, as in "hangings & floggings will continue until morale improves" you mean?

    There has been much in the past comments about the (lack of) competence of "Our" so-called leaders. What about those in Brussel, who point-blank refused to take ANY of this seriously until last Friday morning ... ? And who, themselves are in denial (no jokes this time) & are now running around, looking for anyone else ( i.e. "us", the UK ) to blame, rather than their own smug arrogance. Well? Please note, I am not excusing any of our own so-called "leadership" from any blame in this matter. More a case of tu quoque

    648:

    Oooh, how mean of you! I was under the impression that we were second, assuming of course that wiki is never, ever wrong, as well .... I stand corrected, if that is the case, though.

    649:
    What about those in Brussel, who point-blank refused to take ANY of this seriously until last Friday morning ... ?

    They took it seriously, but they believed Cameron when he told them he was confident of a 70-30 yes vote. Oops, as they say.

    650:

    The lion’s share of revenue for the US Federal government comes from taxes on individual and corporate income. The majority of Federal expenditures go to retirees, medical care for the poor, and certain social-welfare programs.

    I would hazard to guess that if Europe had a continent-wide social insurance fund on the American model, so that—just to pick a random example—Greek pensioners would be drawing on a fund that all of Europe, rather than just Greece’s rapidly-shrinking tax base, paid into, then certain fiscal crises over the last decade or two could have played out differently.

    651:

    What this discussion is a perfect illustration of is that neither the UK nor the EU has a clear upper hand going in to any negotiations -- they can hurt each other politically and economically, but not without hurting themselves. We need/want to trade with them, they (and specifically Germany) need/want to trade with us -- the lower the barriers to that the better for everyone. We can debate all day about who wants to give who the matephorical finger and screw them over, but I don't see either side having the capability of doing that without it being a case cutting-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face.

    I am still sticking with the position that economics will win out: Assuming someone pulls the Article 50 trigger, the UK will suck up the internal political damage (from failing to meet all the "leave" campaign promises) and end up with something like the Norway deal. Political damage is for the next election cycle, economic damage is for much much longer.

    652:

    Agree wholeheartedly, with one exception: Juncker will want to hurt Britain, if only because he's an arsehole .... I suspect, however, that Merkel & quite a few others will tell him to stfu.....

    653:

    Greg, you might want to read this. Not only is the UK a smaller net contributor than Germany, France, and Italy, we have for a long time been last of all in terms of our contributions relative to GNI. All that talk about losing such a massive economy doesn't seem quite as convincing in that light. Britain was always such a Special Snowflake.

    654:

    (PS Sixth highest per capita.)

    655:

    Down thread far enough to justify unrelated topic: DVD released yesterday of "Eye in the Sky" fictionalizing a joint US/UK drone strike in Kenya. While entertaining to watch Helen Mirren do her terrifying toughie act and nice to see Alan Rickman's last role, I'm unclear as to just how much fictionalizing took place. Understandably the informed sources like Martin may not be at liberty either to confirm or deny the film's technical realism, but the level of flawless coordination among control centers scattered across the globe struck me as a stretch. Also the reluctance among political functionaries to make a go or no go call, kicking the decision further up the hierarchy until a foreign minister sick from bad shrimp literally had to decide to sh*t or get off the pot, and even the PM weighed in with a minimize collateral damage comment, seems like high fantasy.

    656:

    Not to be a defensive jerk, but in the forty years before founding of the EU the US spent 320,000 lives,* and uncounted treasure after getting dragged into Europe's periodic and extraordinarily ugly disputes. Bringing you guys together into a political union was doubtless economic of both U.S. lives and U.S. money, (not to mention Europe's lives and Europe's money.) Normally I'm not sympathetic to the actions of the U.S. deep state - I think it does much more harm than good - but assuming that Catherine is correct in her beliefs, the deep state got this one right!

    Certainly there was a deeper and uglier politics to all this, but I don't think there was much to be dis-satisfied with about the outcome until the PIGS became an issue and it became obvious that the EU's unwillingness to take monetary policy seriously was dangerous to the entire project. (I mean c'mon guys, let's compare Tampons with the Verdun - lost much perspective in the last 60 years?)

    • Granted, many, many less lives than Europe lost, (and I'm not counting US deaths in the Pacific here,) but we shouldn't have had to send troops across the Atlantic in the first place, and certainly not in the second place. **

    ** I've been looking for something stupid that's comparable to Brexit, and it suddenly came to me: Versailles!

    657:

    Several things. The devolved Parliaments have a right to be consulted about BREXIT, but Westminster is sits above them and has power over them. So no they can pontificate but they can't do anything about it.

    It's clear Scotland will get no encouragement from Europe, as usual Spain has told them to go away, but Tusk has not agreed to talk to Sturgeon and not get involved in local politics. Scotland will get no favours from Europe it will have to leave with the UK and if it becomes independent, negotiate entry on it's own.

    I'm sure the temptation is there to go for independence but the financials are even worse than last time, so it's not a shew in that'd they win.

    Forgot Northern Ireland, Polling evidence shows that only 37% of Catholics would like to see union with the South in their lifetime. 40% of N Ireland GDP is money from London and union with the South would mean no NHS (60 Euro to see your GP in the South) and not the same cushy benefits. The Republic is austere, unlike the UK.

    Back to the the continent it's interesting to note the Germans no longer refer to the referendum as binding and hints from Tusk that maybe something can be done.

    As big business continues to shit all over the Tory Brexiters buyers remorse will only increase as the big money makes it's opinions known.

    The truth is a big chunk of them never expected to win and were really playing a game of lets shaft Dave and let him take the blame for any Euro Fudge and then takeover and continue chuntering on about Europe as party mood music.

    But with one fell swoop Dave has said "no you've won, you are going to own this, and reap the real rewards". No doubt the reason so many wanted Cameron to stay on was so he could get the blame for the negotiated settlement and they could safely snipe about how much better they would have done.

    While in the car today I had LBC on loads of callers wanting Cameron to stay on think he's the best PM and so on. Oh where were you all last week!

    It's clear what way were drifting and that if we do leave it's full on Norway model of EFTA and free movement. Ironically this is the position of several prominent UKIP'ers such as Daniel Hannan and other wonks with a more financial bent.

    Some argue that it' worse than full membership, but it does leave you out of quite a few areas Such as CAP, you can implement some restrictions on free movement, such as benefits.

    Of course the problem is they ignored these people who had a workable plan in the campaign and doubled down on immigration, which is what won it for them.

    So, too look forward to. THE GREAT BETRAYAL, as realists fudge a deal as close to membership as practical with hopefully, some fig leafs over free movement. For those who thought we were about to close our borders, oops!

    From the last election they have learnt they can win with out the UKIP vote, to some degree and enough BREXIT voters have since either changed their minds, or were never that bothered about Immigration and were more concerned by other things etc etc.

    The problem for Labour is that it's activist base is metropolitan liberals and the party has detached itself from it's working class base. it can't square the circle over both of these groups when it comes to immigration.

    That leaves UKIP it could form the basis of a new working class party in the North, if only Mr Farage would fall under a bus and let the more talented and professional people in the party rise. The problem is UKIP is Mr Farages precious and anyone who shows signs of skill or professionalism is soon driven out.

    659:

    Clarification on USAian Taxation Local "Sales" tax rates (Sometimes "Goods and Services, GST) are set at the local level, and can vary by municipality. Or county,,, But it is the varying municipal and county rates that are confusing to outsiders. I paid 20% in various (state) taxes on an Automobile Rental over the "sticker" (advertised) price; Any locality with a tourist industry usually bumps the "Lodging" rate at some point, so that posted $49.95 rate is a fraud; But my basic "sales" tax rate at the local Walmart when I buy a T-Shirt these days is 9.5%. Except groceries, which are 2.5%, and was supposed to be eliminated, but the Republican Governor decided he would rather have a "Middle Class" Tax cut for the Walton Family, et al. Now about Internet/mail order. You are supposed to self report and pay up on Amazon, etc; A lot of the arm wrestling has been about "presence.", Due to Vendor offices at Walmart HQ, I usually pay (Arkansas) sales tax when I buy mail order from a national brands own web site. Also property taxes, set by municipalities, the primary source of School and Library funding. Detroit (and Dallas, missed my opportunity to contribute to the US Highway thread about that..) both have very "high" (for USA values) municipal property tax rates, the affluent suburbs can set much lower property tax rates on more expensive houses and spend more on their schools. Thus the whole US city/suburb dysfunction. More on sales tax follies later if anyone cares.

    660:

    The tax system in the U.S. is much better than Europe, in that a state can tax as is appropriate to their needs without being censured by the federal government. California, for example, has a fairly high tax rate, and a very high standard of living, and a very functional government.

    Kansas, on the other hand, can barely support their school system because they have systematically lowered their taxes - but the Kansas voters want it that way and have elected a government which does it that way. California, generally speaking, is a paradise, despite our earthquakes, while Kansas is a basket-case.

    Now, for California, substitute France. For Kansas, substitute Greece.

    Greece can't do anything to fix their problems. They can't borrow (in any useful way,) I doubt they can float bonds, their tax rates are controlled by the EU, and Greece certainly can't print currency (if that would help.)

    However, Kansas can fix their problem very simply by raising taxes. Or they can sell bonds (if anyone will buy them) or they can borrow (though this would not be a great idea - their credit is shot.) This is because nobody in DC is interfering with Kansas's ability to solve their own problems. Let a decent government be elected in Kansas, they will raise taxes, and Kansas will be economically viable in 10-15 years.

    Let a decent government be elected in Greece and they will be told "you can't do that." Greece will be a basket-case for the next century.

    This is why a federal government is a really good idea. Greece essentially would be giving up their ability to run their own defense and foreign policy in return for the ability to run their own economic policy. (It's paid off really well for California. We're the sixth largest economy in the world!)

    661:

    Forgot Northern Ireland, Polling evidence shows that only 37% of Catholics would like to see union with the South in their lifetime. 40% of N Ireland GDP is money from London and union with the South would mean no NHS (60 Euro to see your GP in the South) and not the same cushy benefits. The Republic is austere, unlike the UK.

    This calculus stays true with a strong dependency on how the exit negotiations pan out. A chunk of the money that keeps the NI economy ticking along is EU subsidies -- it's unlikely that Westminster alone can afford NI at it's current price, how small that pot has to get before (a) resurgence of political violence happens (the "young angry unemployed man" problem), and/or (b) unification with Ireland looks like the lesser of two evils, is a matter for some serious consideration.

    662:

    Greece's tax rates are not particularly restricted by the EU; the problem with Greek taxation is a ubiquitous (that is, by anyone paid much over minimum wage) and long-lived (that is, at least since Greece was an Ottoman province) culture of tax evasion. The EU controls certain minimum tax rates - there is to be a VAT, and unless you were already doing it you cannot lower the VAT on any class of items to less than 5% - but it has little influence over increasing tax rates.

    Greece can attempt to sell bonds, but it's unclear if anyone would buy them because they would necessarily be subordinate to the hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding bonds on which there is a strong risk Greece will default.

    Germany has offered to second a few hundred tax collectors to Greece, and had this offer refused.

    663:

    Excellent point Greg.

    BTW, I do want to complement you on your flexibility and following the facts to a true conclusion, and changing your mind on which way to vote. Very few people have the strength of character to publicly change their minds. (Not British - I have no true idea what's really best for the U.K., but I liked what I saw on your decision!)

    664:

    Don't forget our huge expenditure on Defense. If we don't spend a trillion dollars on guns and bombs ISIS will certainly defeat us!

    665:

    If Europe had a continent-wide social insurance fund, it would have continent-wide rules about when you could claim from it. Greek public sector employees -- Greece has had a really vigorous clientelism problem again since the Ottomans, it was reinstated in full force after the Colonels were kicked out - http://www.theglobalist.com/missed-opportunities-the-political-culture-of-greece-since-1974/ -- and so a public sector job is a reward for a good voting record sometimes had early retirement at age 46.

    666:

    Certainly Greece could do a much better job of collecting taxes. Unfortunately, they didn't fix that problem...

    667:
    So nice - threaten members & potential ex-members, as in "hangings & floggings will continue until morale improves" you mean?

    That's the current EU leadership's general philosophy of governance, yes. I don't claim that it's a sound one, only that it's theirs -- and if you don't believe the Greeks when they tell you about it, perhaps you could ask the Italian government that was effectively deposed by Eurocrats for failing to follow their diktats.

    And that philosophy goes for all of them, btw. I'm not sure why you keep citing Merkel as a potential moderating influence. To whatever extent she's done favors for Britain in the past, she got repaid with Brexit; it's hard to see any reason why she'd be in a mood for more. Speaking of which...

    What about those in Brussels, who point-blank refused to take ANY of this seriously until last Friday morning ... ?

    They took it seriously enough to offer a package of new special favors on top of those that Britain was already getting, so long as you voted to Remain. I'm not sure what else they could have done; if they'd campaigned openly in an internal vote in a member nation, that would have attracted scathing comment from all quarters, and rightly so.

    668:

    History does not repeat itself exactly, or everyone would notice. In this case, it's the self-proclaimed Christian funnymentalists, at least in the US. As evidence I point to the pastors who preached, the Sunday after the Orlando massacre, that it was a good start. And the Christian funnymenaltists who vehemently have decided that life begins at conception (#insert "everyspermis_sacred.h"), and intend on large police enforcement of that. And, of course, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.

    These days, esp. with Papa Frank, I worry very much less about the RCs than I did under the former Hitler Youth Pope.

    mark

    669:

    Just for the record, the DOW is up about 230 right now, which means that it has regained roughly half of what it lost after Brexit. I have no idea what it will do tomorrow...

    Maybe the U.S. won't elect the Oompa-Loompa after all.

    670:

    Since Spain appear to be taking the approach of deliberately forcing Scotland into a new referendum, I was looking at the schedule for the Presidency of the Council of the European Union to see if Spain could have any direct effect through that route - there isn't, but more significantly, the UK is due to take a stint July-December next year, so I guess any referendum would have to consider that, since I'd imagine the scenario of wrecking tactics being employed by London in independent Scotland-EU negotiations would have to be considered as a scenario?

    Netherlands: January-June 2016 Slovakia: July-December 2016 Malta: January-June 2017 United Kingdom: July-December 2017 Estonia: January-June 2018 Bulgaria: July-December 2018

    671:

    If you add "at the moment," I think you've got a better argument, especially for California. As with most decent economies, it's working at the moment, but that could change drastically, due to some combination of climate change, stupid politics, and random disaster.

    As with most places, we've done some amazingly stupid things in our past (cf, various aspects of the California water system, unrestrained growth in southern California), and while we've currently got the problems under control to a large degree, if we lose control, the failure modes are rather scary. Kansas is in worse shape at the moment, but they're not quite so stupidly dependent on things like long distance irrigation and groundwater. If the government collapses, rather more of their people can get by on subsistence farming than in California.

    For example, reasons California has strong environmental laws include: our coasts are a major tourist draw (so things that further screw them up cost the state a lot of money and are supposed to be strongly discouraged), we've terraformed a lot of the state (and we're paying the price for that, hence CEQA), and our development was primarily designed to make a few people rich and powerful, rather than to last (cf: Chinatown, or Cadillac Desert if you want the truth).

    672:

    Neither you nor I know what is being said behind closed doors. All that is clear is that there will be no negotiation with Scotland while it is part of the EU, and no encouragement for it to become independent. That always was obvious, and the idea of inheriting the UK's membership was pretty clearly a stalking horse. We simply do not know how it would be treated if it takes the decision to leave the UK. Indeed, if if it is planned to become independent before Brexit is completed, SOME negotiation between the EU, the UK and Scotland will have to take place just to work out what on earth its new status will be after it leaves and before Brexit is completed.

    And DavetheProc has it right about Northern Ireland, again, but it's not just the EU subsidy. The UK government has wanted to revise the Barnett Formula for ages, but the prospect of destablising Northern Ireland is one strong reason it continues.

    673:

    There are certainly complexities which go beyond the discussion of whether the U.S. states do better under Federalism than do some EU countries. No problem with that thought.

    674:

    @Troutwaxer at 656:

    I've been looking for something stupid that's comparable to Brexit, and it suddenly came to me: Versailles!

    Provided that you are not limiting it to post-1914, I'll see your Versailles and raise you Otrar 1218.

    Border fortress of the Khwarezmian Empire (equals more or less Soviet Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Iranian plateau). The new kid on the block, Temujin Borjigin, aka Chinghiz Khan, has unified the Mongols and given the North Chinese empire (the Jin) a good kicking. The Khwarezmians send him a trade embassy, offering good relations and so on. He sends one back. Minor offence is inadvertently given. The governor of the border fortress of Otrar, one Inaldjuk Ghayir-Khan, seizes their property and executes the entire party of 100. Teach this new guy his place, what?

    Well, Johnny Foreigner has his hands full with China, and had no idea of conquering Central Asia before this happened, but it's not something that he feels can just be overlooked. The Mongols march. It's so far away so it takes them a while to get there. They have Chinese siege engineers along, with gunpowder weapons. Khwarazm still has no Plan B. Some of its generals put up a fight, others don't, it's every city for itself. A city that surrenders at sight is occupied, any city that fights is massacred and levelled. Exterminate, Annihilate! Possibly worse than the Nazis in Russia. Khwarazm ceases to exist, and the Persian irrigation systems are destroyed never to recover. In later decades the Mongols flatten Russia, Eastern Europe and Baghdad too. Some historians think that, had they not had a succession crisis, they would have paddled in the Atlantic. Then, along new trade routes, some think they brought us the Black Death, the reservoir being groundhogs in Yunnan.

    Inaldjuk Ghayir-Khan himself ended somewhat like Viserys Targaryen.

    675:

    From the US side of the pond it seems the dog has caught the car and is not so sure what to do with it.

    http://www.gocomics.com/marmaduke/2011/07/15

    676:

    That's a horrible story. Love it. There's a song in there someplace... something about don't over-react and never piss off the Mongols!

    How about to the tune of Leroy Brown:

    "You don't worsen Germany's debt, You don't waste your vote on a Trump You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan And the EU shouldn't be dumped."

    677:
    Do we get a general election if AT50 negotiations do start & go pear-shaped, so that we can press the "cancel" button?

    You can't cancel. At least not unilaterally. Once Art 50 has been invoked, it takes an unanimous vote by all remaining 27 heads of state to reinstate the UK (or even prolong beyond 2 years the negotiations). One dissenter, say, Greece who remembers very well when Cameron said "we will not give one pound for bailout of Greece", says "No", then the UK is out, and has to negotiate entrance from scratch.

    678:

    Translation error: groundhogs don't occur in China. Plenty of other rodents do, of course.

    679:

    Probably thinking of gerbils in Kazakhstan, not ground hogs in Yunnan. That's sort of like California for Kansas, but understandable nonetheless.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/10/3020.full

    680:

    Chinese Marmots and Groundhogs aren't the same species, true, but I don't think I'd care to live on the difference.

    681:

    Paragraph 15 from the House of Lords report suggests withdrawal after activating article 50 could happen, though? It says there is nothing in law until a negotiated agreement takes force, however it also notes that the political fallout from reversing a withdrawal would make a reversal very damaging. Most of that damage has already been done at this point by the referendum, however. A failure to agree terms of withdrawal due to a single state 'being funny' about it would probably also mitigate the political fallout.

    682:

    It gets even better: the exit agreement under Art 50 also needs ratification by all 27 member states and the EU parliament. Some loonies in the UK thought they could negotiate from a position of strength under Art 50 and get a sweet deal? Yeah, pull the other one.

    The best the UK can hope for is speedy EEA plus passporting with no exceptions and no fuzz. Any haggling or delay will just alienate the partners who have to ratify the deal.

    You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.

    683:

    Neither Sweden, Denmark, nor IIRC Poland have joined the Euro .... Which tends to dampen your case a little, I think?

    Greg, there is a Polish joke: "we're paid in Zlotys but we have to buy everything in Euros".

    Not adopting the Euro was a very mixed blessing for ordinary Poles. You might want to ask why, and who benefits from maintaining a poor, tractable workforce who can be paid peanuts but who have access to the EU. And why all those Polish handymen and plumbers and shopkeepers piled into the UK in the early 00s but have in many cases returned home (so that if you walk into a shiny new shop the manager probably speaks English as good as yours).

    684:

    OK. I went and did it. This is sung to the tune of "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown." I hope you enjoy it. Charlie, if this will get you into trouble with the U.K.'s horrific libel laws, please take it down ASAP.

    In the baddest part of London Where the Tories like to rave In the secret places where pigs get fucked Lived a man named Call Me Dave

    Now Call Me Dave's in trouble With a dude named Nick Farage Nick likes to rant and rave and howl Says the Polacks are garbage

    You don't worsen Germany's debt, You don't waste your vote on a Trump You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan And the EU shouldn't be dumped.

    Now Nick Farage is a grifter Got no serious politics And UKIP's a tiny party That's composed of thugs and hicks

    But the Tories have some bozos Who might cross the party lines But Call Me Dave says "Let's have a referendum And everything be fine!"

    You don't worsen Germany's debt, You don't waste your vote on a Trump You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan And the EU shouldn't be dumped.

    Well Thursday, 'bout a week ago The Tories rolled those dice And the voters decided that they hate the EU So they'd kick it once or twice

    And the pound it took to falling And the Dow Jones went down too Call Me Dave got pounded just like the French At a place called Waterloo

    You don't worsen Germany's debt, You don't waste your vote on a Trump You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan And the EU shouldn't be dumped.

    Call Me Dave ended up resigning Took his pigs back to the farm He might get elected as the town dog catcher But he can't do anymore harm!

    You don't worsen Germany's debt, You don't waste your vote on a Trump You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan And the EU shouldn't be dumped. You don't worsen Germany's debt, You don't waste your vote on a Trump You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan And the EU shouldn't be dumped. You don't massacre the embassy of Chinghiz Khan... (Big instrumental finale!) And the EU shouldn't be dumped.

    685:

    No, it was definitely Yunnan.

    Groundhogs, schmoundhogs, I'm writing from memory, so forgive. The point was that there was some burrow-dwelling rodent or other, probably Chinese Marmot as ADennis says, and the locals knew to keep away from it. The Mongols eventually conquered South China as well, and didn't know to. So, did they eat it, get bitten by it, or fuck it? Who knows, it's only speculation anyway. But the Black Death did come to us over the Silk Road, via one of its termini at Kaffa in the Crimea.

    686:

    It says there is nothing in law until a negotiated agreement takes force,

    Whoever wrote that paragraph clearly had some, shall we say, reading comprehension issues with clause 3 of Article 50. The notifying state is no longer party to the Treaties when the withdrawal agreement takes effect "...or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

    The whole point is that the departing state is, during negotiations, over a barrel of its own making. Oh, and the European Parliament has to consent to the terms of any Agreement reached under clause 2 after that jackanapes Farage insulted every last one of them to their faces.

    This, I venture to suggest, will not end well. It'll only take a few MEPs grandstanding for their home constituencies to turn the whole proceeding into a titanic vortex of bollocks.

    As I've said apropos other parts of this proceeding, someone put the popcorn industry on full alert.

    687:

    Yes. I was merely nitpicking. This page contains a map of what you were referring to.

    https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bugbitten/2015/03/16/rats-exonerated-reservoir-hosts-black-death/

    688:

    Ha ha, love it ;)

    689:

    Up until that point, I had thought that Farage was merely a loud-mouthed arsehole. I think that show was a thought-out act, and he is a much nastier piece of work.

    690:

    What I don't get is why Juncker was hugging Farage. Greg's diatribes couldn't change my view of Juncker, but that picture sure did.

    691:

    I think the idea might be scorched earth policy; make sure the UK can't stay in. "Who cares about those treaties, the mighty UK will prevail in the end anyway".

    He'd probably fill the Eurotunnel as well.

    692:

    Further on the question of whether you can "undo" an Article 50 notification: say the Brits say they can, and the EU says "no, we have you over a barrel, you can't." Who adjudiciates the dispute?

    I don't honestly know, but if it winds up being the ECJ, or some such body which is an organ of the EU itself, Britain might not get much of a hearing...

    693:

    Excellent :D

    (point of order: s/Nick/Nige)

    695:

    Britain wouldn't get much of a hearing in any forum up against language that plain.

    696:

    I think you are wrong there. The ECJ is supposed to be non-partisan, only interpreting law and treaties.

    697:

    Well of course "the EU is, in a sense, a new edition of the Holy Roman Empire." You don't think the EU has a symbolic seat in Strasbourg and an actual seat in Brussels -- both in ancient Lotharingia -- by accident, do you? The Oaths of Strasbourg were where the Carolingian Empire was split up; it is effectively the site of the founding of both France and Germany. The six founding members were six of the seven nations that were successor states, if you follow the trails back far enough, to the Carolingian Empire. (The seventh, Switzerland, doesn't play nice with anybody). When the ex-Ratzinger called for some mention of Christianity in the Lisbon Treaty, he was trying to play on that sense; if the Holy Roman Empire is being rebuilt, shouldn't the Pope at least get a symbolic nod?

    698:

    On another site today I encountered a comment something like "This is like the situation immediately before WW1 kicked off, with countries sitting on the first stage of war plans which can't be cancelled once set in motion, no matter how much of a bad idea it looks." Which, given that the article was several years old and the "this" referred to DRM, gave me a bit of a head-spinning where-am-I moment.

    And the follow-on thought was: there are numerous conspiracy theories about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand being a false flag operation, blaming it on every conceivable candidate with the peculiar exception of the most obvious - Austria. So where are the conspiracy theories concerning the current fuckup? eg. "Putin funded Brexit"? Doesn't seem to have happened yet.

    699:

    And, as an entirely personal matter, if it drops 30% it's still worth well over £700,000, which is still going to provide me with a lot of freedom of action. Freedom of action is desirable. (Have been tempted often enough to become low-end affluent via NY City's finance industry.) Procrastinated away 10 minutes looking through very recent finance press pieces on the London real estate market. Lots of lack of clarity, but at least two clear takeaways; (a) uncertainty means new speculative building will stop and (b) the global worry seems to be about possible future tightening of finance markets in part related to potential loan defaults. One ameliorating effect already being talked about a lot is bargain hunting attributed to the drop in the pound. Anything else (with predictive value) to watch for?

    700:

    There are many other non-coincidences. Didn't Ted Heath win the Charlemagne Prize?

    Reviving the (Western) Roman Empire has been a game played ever since 476. Big Charlie, then Otto III, then the HRE, which was pretty serious in the days of Carlos V, then all sorts of academic "projects for perpetual peace" that were obviously trial balloons for the EU as well as the League and the UN.

    Napoleon used lots of this imagery. So did Kaiser Wilhelm in 1871, compare the mosaics in the Gedachtniskirke with Justinian's in Ravenna; and the term Third Reich only makes sense if you know what the first two were. (Get shorter, don't they?)

    IIRC there were porphyry columns in the Palatine Chapel in Aachen, originally pinched by the Romans. Napoleon pinched them, and the Prussians pinched them back in 1871. Sort of watery-tart deal except with columns instead of a sword.

    As regards the territory of the Carolingian empire and the successor states, let us not forget that Catalonia began as its Spanish March. :-)

    701:

    conspiracy theories about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand being a false flag operation

    Yeah, it's worth remembering that The Emperor and court and military command absolutely did not like Franz Ferdinand. My Austro-Hungarian history is rusty, but I recall something about him being the one with some progressive ideas regarding the clusterfuck that was the Hapsburg empire. Irascible, perhaps not a very nice man, but worth listening to. Bang! Bang! Problem solved.

    702:

    Thanks for clarifying that.

    To put it in polite terms; What a mess.

    From the point of view of someone living in Scotland, faced with this situation and the prospect of Boris or Teresa as our great leader; holding an indyref2 ballot paper in your hand, would you choose yes or no?

    Even with other plan Bs falling through (United Federation of Scotland and ?) leaving no prospect of access to the EU, that invitation to join the Nordic Council feels very appealing...

    703:

    ''"Putin funded Brexit"? Doesn't seem to have happened yet.''

    If I recall, one article in Russia Today stated that it had been claimed by some Natoid or other. I couldn't be bothered to check.

    704:

    30% in housing prices is neither here nor there. UK housing prices are a factor of 3 above where they are (in relative terms) in other 'developed' countries, which is a pretty good indication of where they would stabilise if the prices crash.

    705:

    I'd have to think long and hard about that one: first instinct is very much yes. I don't see the prevailing Received Economic Wisdom prevailing in the EU's banking institutions prevailing very much longer. There are fixes for the Euro - and to ameliorate GFC 2.0 that require them to lose their taste for Kool-Aid and it can't be long now. An EU without the UK is an EU without regular bouts of obstructionism from Those People, so reform starts to look possible. As federalism moves forward, well, it'll still be a complete bugger's muddle but it'll be a fairly prosperous one with its poltics considerably benign-ward of what a Brexited UK is likely to have.

    I think the chances for whatever King's Landing ends up ruling are pretty thin for the next couple of decades. And that always means arseholes getting elected. With no EU-applied brakes? Not fun.

    706:

    He was indeed, plus he'd put everyone's backs up by insisting on marrying Sophie, who wasn't considered nobby enough, for love, and continuing to love her. And the Austrians were itching for an excuse to teach Serbia a lesson. Franz Joseph certainly admitted privately to being relieved that he would no longer be succeeded by someone he considered unsound, and I thought I'd come across a respectable suggestion that Austria had been clandestinely influencing the Black Hand somewhere, though I can't find it any more if it did exist - only plenty of dodgy ones blaming every other possibility including the Illuminati.

    707:

    Did you click on that link? It was to the original study, which you can read in its entirety online.

    Here it is again: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/10/3020.full

    PNAS is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US. There are giant Kazakhstan gerbils in there, although the report doesn't quite say what the news media said it did.

    708:

    I think you are wrong there. The ECJ is supposed to be non-partisan, only interpreting law and treaties.

    But a dispute over the interpretation of Article 50 (specifically, whether notification of intention to leave can be withdrawn) is a question of interpretation of a treaty. So, if it doesn't go to the ECJ, where does it go?

    709:

    Article in our local paper that Toronto housing prices, measured as a multiplier of average household income in the city, are the same as London's. Same problem with Vancouver.

    Problem for the country is that any move to cool the markets in those two cities by changing interest rates etc. pretty much kills housing in the rest of the country. Only option seems to be a tax on foreign speculators/investors, but there's a question of how significant they are in the sky-rocketing prices.

    Anecdotally, a colleague talked of house-hunting in the outer suburbs and seeing Chinese buyers with cash offers* for an immediate sale. Which may not be an exaggeration — dealing in cash is common in the Chinese business community. And the buyers may have been Canadian Chinese (my colleague is). Local concern seems mostly about property speculators switching from London to Canada, driving up prices here further. (A house in Toronto currently goes for 12.7 times the average family income.)

    Apropos BREXIT:

    https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorial_cartoon/2016/06/28/theo-moudakis-levesque-on-brexit.html

    (Levesque was the leader of the Quebec separatist party back in the last century.)

    *Her phrase was "a suitcase full of cash", as near as I can remember it.

    710:

    Did you see that little note that, due to BRexit, the Brits lost their right to claim that Americans are dumber than they are?

    Well, the walk of shame didn't last long. Apparently, Donald Drumpf has sent emails soliciting campaign donations not just to every British MP, but to MPs from Scotland, Australia, Denmark, and Iceland as well. Soliciting campaign donations from foreign nationals is illegal in the US, and as one might expect complaints are being filed.

    In apparent coincidence, the Drumpf family has business interests in all the countries.

    711:

    If I see just one more incident of self-sabotage from that campaign I'm going to regard it as confirmed that the whole thing was a marketing stunt for his branded products that got seriously out of hand.

    712:

    Apparently, Donald Drumpf has sent emails soliciting campaign donations not just to every British MP, but to MPs from Scotland,

    Well then, he wasted all but one of the ones in Scotland for sure! Westminster MPs from Scotland are all SNP -- a social democratic party to the left of Labour -- except for one Labour, one Liberal Democrat, and one Conservative who is still probably centrist by Democratic Party standards in the US.

    I'm guessing the Trump candidacy was a publicity stunt for a new Reality TV show -- "So you think you can be President" -- that got drastically out of control.

    713:

    I've got to disagree. First of all, Versailles. Second, Brexit. Third, Trump is only one person and he isn't really an American. The idea that he's from the U.S. is a Conservative Lie. If you look at his birth certificate, you'll see that he really comes from Oompa-Loompa Land! (He's one of the poor sods that wasn't qualified to work in the chocolate factory - not quite bright enough and he couldn't carry a tune!)

    714:

    Moscow has a rival claim to being "the Third Rome." Meanwhile, every other capitol building in the United States looks Roman, minus the festive paint jobs the originals would have had in their heyday.

    715:

    "they need our money"

    So the UK used to give 10 units of money to the EU and the EU gave 8 units of money back as support, subsidies etc.

    After the negotiations I'd be unsurprised to find that the UK has to give the EU 3 units of money to cover 'expenses' of some sort and no money is returned in the form of subsidies.

    Leavers are able to crow they've saved the UK 7 units of money.

    The EU still gets their money, more money in fact, a more favourable to them trade deal and don't have to deal with the UK muddying the waters every time they try to do something.

    Looks like a Win Win situation.

    716:

    I'm guessing the Trump candidacy was a publicity stunt for a new Reality TV show -- "So you think you can be President" -- that got drastically out of control.

    No, it's so much better than this. Think back to the look of Christie and his "Snake Goddess" as his soul died.

    Now look at Brexit and England being beaten by Iceland in the World Cup.

    Now look at BJ and co.

    Their dreams came true: and it all it cost was the destruction of the thing they were fighting for.

    ~

    Butterflies flap their wings and hurricanes happen.

    Evil buggers like to stomp on butterflies.

    A Whisper from the Void says: "I'll make your dreams come true".

    Turns out the Void and Chaos aren't even close to our Minds.

    And burning bushes probably aren't run by omnipotent Gods.

    ~

    I'm dying [no, not narrative this time, real deal - having your teeth fall out is such a strange feeling, as is liver failure] when I wanted to live, to grow and to become.

    It cost a lot to pluck the errant strings and most likely strands of dystopia from the weave and make them non-becoming. I'm dying: and because of Belief and Gnostics, I've had to make myself a horror to preclude worship.

    Have fun.

    I didn't.

    Nothing Compares to you

    p,s,

    If another one of you fucking apes calls me "Micheal" when I'm female and hate your patriarchal and regressive systems I'll scream.

    Well done: you ruined something beautiful

    717:

    What about those in Brussel, who point-blank refused to take ANY of this seriously until last Friday morning ... ?

    Sorry Greg, but I think you are wrong there. The pace with which they got their 'sod off then' announcements out means they had already discussed and gamed this. Don't forget, they need to come out with a common voice, they can't be going against what the rest of the eurocrats and major leaders thought.

    Their position was an agreed position.

    Personally I feel this was a desire state of affairs for the eurocrats - push out the main obstacle to centralisation and a USE, even if it does mean less money and less clout in the short term.

    I think they want to use shock doctrine and the threat of "do you want to end up like the UK" to push the USE idea forward MUCH faster - like having it in place before the next GFC.

    As such, I expect two actions. First, that they will attempt VERY hard to make the UK obviously pay for daring to say 'no'. Not pressing that Article 50 button is key to the UK not getting shafted. And second, they will do something under the qualified majority voting that will push the mass of the UK public to want to be shot of them as fast as possible - ie to make the politicians HAVE to invoke Article 50.

    I agree that the fault for this lies in Brussels, but through malice, not incompetence.

    718:

    To be fair, the Eurocrats' most desired outcome was almost certainly to keep Britain in the EU -- to the extent that they agreed to extra sweeteners on top of the special favors Britain was already getting, if the result of the referendum was to vote Remain.

    But it wasn't, so they have to proceed on the assumption that Britain will Leave -- at which point, their focus is in part to get the best deal for the countries who are left, and in part, no doubt, to discourage whoever else, in whatever other country, wants to try this, starting with Mme. Le Pen. Both of which argue for putting the screws to Britain about as hard as they can without major damage to their own other interests. And coordination in advance to achieve these ends isn't conspiracy; it's just doing their job.

    Though if amity and good feeling was what they wanted (let alone the Boris Johnson pipe dream of exit from only the obligations of EU membership he finds vexing, while leaving all the benefits intact) it might have been a bad idea for Boris to compare them to Hitler in public remarks. For some reason, that tends to annoy people.

    719:

    Derekt, I wouldn't read too much into Rajoy's comments.

    • First of all, if his position is that Brussels shouldn't enter into conversations with Sturgeon bypassing London, I find that quite reasonable as things stand now (flatly refusing to enter any kind of negotiation with Great Britain until Art.50 is invoked while opening them with Scotland... well, that would not only set a bad precedent but be more than a little bit offensive, right?)

    • Second, Rajoy's own position is too precarious to influence anything. Even if PP got a dozen additional seats last Sunday they are still about 40 short of a majority. Worse, almost all those seats came from Citizens, the other center-right party and their most probable ally. Actually, it's not clear at all he will keep being PM.

    • And third, no one ever accused Rajoy of being interested or knowledgeable in foreign affairs. During the last four years he has more or less given a free hand to his Foreign Affairs Minister (actually he seems to follow King Arthur's style; his answer to any problem is sending one or two knights to solve it while he stays at the Round Table looking impressive)

    720:

    Since you have researched FN enough that you are planning on voting for them, I have a question, if you don't mind. Sorry to put you on the spot like this, but it's rare to find anyone in any of my social circles who supports them.

    I may be wrong, but Le Pen has pledged that she is planning on holding a referendum on France's membership in the EU. What is your opinion on that referendum?

    721:

    I'm not so sure Charles. Maybe it's experience with the bureaucracies and behaviours of government - but the speed and forcefulness of their reaction got my senses tingling. Particularly in light of the 'advisory' nature of that referendum, a 'most desired outcome' for a 'to stay' eurocrat would have been stalling and 'seeking to discuss the position and direction of the UK going forward'. Policy positions are teased, tested, and positioned with the utmost plausible deniability. They went hard and fast to 'get out'.

    It was part of a plan.

    As for 'extra sweeteners on top of the special favors', well when you look at the types of things Cameron was looking for (already down on what many of his party wanted) and the VERY limited words he got given, grudgingly, you have to question if they were really giving much at all. They were akin to asking for a raise and getting given a slightly nicer desk in the cubical farm.

    I was talking to a german emigrant last night. With both of us having the benefit of distance, we still disagreed on much.

    In the end I got what I think is some enlightenment. It comes down to this - the UK has always considered talk of 'ever closer union' to be guff, a nice visionary gilding for the plebs on what was a trade bloc in purpose. However the EU considers a USE to BE the point of the whole exercise, and for trade to be just one small subelement of the overall integration and rubbing out of borders aim. Neither side thought the other was serious in their understanding, both were.

    I think I see what the eurocrats plan was. We can be basically certain that another GFC is coming around the corner eventually, and given the financial state and inequality in the EU, it will mean at least the PIGS jumping ship; probably the disintegration of the EU. This strikes at the heart of what they see as their purpose. Thus they want USE before the next GFC. After all Michigan may be totally screwed, but they can't leave the US. They just have to suffer whatever the federal level doesn't do for them.

    The next GFC is almost certain to be within the next ten years, and my guess is that the eurocrats want a USE within that timeframe. Hence the desire to push forward and ignore anyone who doesn't agree with their grand plan.

    Scotland needs to think this one through very carefully.

    722:

    Scotland will get no favours from Europe it will have to leave with the UK and if it becomes independent, negotiate entry on it's own. This has now already happened. Sturgeon & her office & Scotland have been publicly insulted by Juncker & the EU. Now, I don't like Mrs S much, but this is ridiculous & very counterproductive. Haven't those fuckwits in Brussel ever heard of: Nemo me impune lacessit?

    723:

    Thank you very much ( on your flexibility and following the facts to a true conclusion, and changing your mind on which way to vote. ) ... but, surely any half-rational person, esp one with a scientific/engineering background should do this? Wasn't it J M Keynes who said: "When the facts change, I change my opinions, what do you do, sir?"

    724:

    And Dave the Proc @ 661 too ... This revolting & disgusting scandal Which would not have happened, even in the N of Ireland, or even in Britain pre-1967. Every sperm is sacred indeed, & why the RC church, even now, is a thoroughly evil organisation.

    725:

    I'm pretty sure that the pre-aggreed position was along the lines "sad day for Europe / want to keep UK as a close ally / no cherry picking / can't have same benefits out as in". What got them riled up was Cameron's statement to sit on his are for another three months, which was not in their plans.

    726:

    Yes. See previous comments - apparently he had open neo-nazi leanings in his yoof. Something I didn't know until it was pointed out in these pages.

    727:

    "What I don't get is why Juncker was hugging Farage"

    Why not? In words of Winston Churchill after declaring war to Japan with an extremely courteous letter "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite". Obviously Farage either hasn't read Churchill's books or didn't learn anything from them.

    By the way, yesterday I saw "Richard III" by the n-time (the one with Ian McKellen), one of my guilty pleasures, and when Richard is gloating after seducing Lady Anne I suddenly realized that Nigel Farage is McKellen's Richard to the letter. One doesn't need a single iota of imagination to picture a newly crowned McKellen saying to the espectators with his evil grin "well I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?".

    728:

    Of course I did, but to have my not-fully-expressed opinions backed by someone as historically eminent as Neil MacGregor was very pleasing to the ego, I can tell you! To go the full hog, the EU should move to Aachen, of course!

    729:

    I have now, thanks, and the other one. I'm not competent to judge it, of course, and I wish I'd never used the throwaway about the effing rodents. The point was to give that nice Mr. Troutwaxer the best example I knew of a really, really bad decision; which seems to have been a success.

    BTW, Chingiz sent a second mission to ask "WTF?". Pretty patient thing to do when they'd just offed your first. The Shah did something nasty to them too, I forget what, sorry, and so Chingiz is "Riiight. You lot are so dead." And then indeed they were, by the million.

    I mentioned that they gave Inaldjuk the Viserys treatment; his boss had made the equally dumb decision to back Inaldjuk up instead of sending Chingiz his head in a jar. What the Mongols did with the shah was what we now call a decapitation strike. Rapid elite force under one of the best generals of all time, Subutai, with a single mission: "Get him". Anyone else they left alone, which was a really good incentive for his men to discover urgent business elsewhere. They chased him across Central Asia until he took a boat to an island in the Caspian, where he died of a broken heart, thus cheating the Mongols out of an execution borrowed from George Martin.

    Oh, and the caliph in Baghdad had been intriguing against this same shah and hoped to bring Chingiz down on him. My enemy's enemy is my friend, right? Well, not so much; it was after an-Nasir's own time, but Hulegu Khan flattened Baghdad and executed the caliphal family by rolling them in carpets and horse-trampling them. So as not to shed sacred blood, natch.

    (Once in Russia the Mongols piled up their noble prisoners, placed a wooden dais on top of them and partied on it.)

    730:

    Rajoy is also, as I understand it, desperate to prevent direct negotiations with Scotland while it's part of the UK because he's got (at least) two strong separatist movements within Spain. According to Wikipedia there are no less than 12 still functional separatist movements in fact, but two have made the news in the UK that I remember as having a decent level of support, even if the national government won't let them go.

    Any negotiation with Scotland will instantly get his more organised and capable groups at home looking at negotiating directly with the EU, or trying to, which is something he really can't allow if he's going to try and keep Spain together. (On a side note, you have to wonder if you have that many different regions in a country with separatist movements wtf are you doing wrong?)

    731:

    I don't know what jaju will answer, but even a barely trained monkey could see the sensible thing now is wait and see how does this Brexit thingie work for Great Britain, not jumping off the cliff right after them!

    Of course I'll a take a barely trained monkey over a demagogue any day of the week...

    732:

    You have already answered, kind of, but just how many of the various Leave the EU political leaders do you think are 1) more competent than a barely trained monkey and 2) trust that they'll be a) in control and b) more popular in 2-3 years time than they are right now?

    If they all line up like lemmings and jump together, especially if they do all jump, and the rEU is negotiating say 8-10 Article 50 exits simultaneously I wonder just what that will do for them all.

    733:

    Most of them are bad jokes, "cab parties" (Spanish joke, means a a political movement so insignificant all their supporters can travel in one cab). Only the two you mention are worth mentioning and behind the scenes both usually admit that they don't have enough support, and anyway secession would necessarily imply partition (i.e. if Catalonia abandoned Spain, half of Catalonia would secede from the new state and return, most probably including Barcelona)

    Besides, that page lists about 20 regions with nationalist and/or separatist movements in Great Britain...

    734:

    Sorry. That's partly my fault! I shouldn't have nitpicked. However, an invasion of death-dealing giant gerbils sounds positively sane and cuddly to me after the last week.

    735:

    I, for one, welcome our new Gerbil Overlords.

    736:

    To make the Eurozone work you need a real federal system (like Australia or the US) and a common currency which the government and central bank can utilise.

    Responding a little late to this one (others have wandered into the scenery with it), but I'd suggest this is just a component that might be part of the thing that would make it work. What is actually needed I would suggest is a federal government with its own taxation system and a budget large enough that its fiscal policy has a macroeconomic effect. Without that you're captive to the neo-liberalism religion, austerity sect.

    Yes, a central bank is required too, but it's the scale of the fiscal policy that would make the difference.

    737:

    Quite, I wonder whether they count Hay-on-Wye? Which had a king, last time I was there, selling ambassadorships to the tourists.

    By the way, @El, as a (sort of) Norwegian, I do wish people wouldn't perpetuate this myth abut lemmings jumping off cliffs. They don't. They just DON'T. I guess that we so badly need the image that nothing else will do. (I once saw a cartoon of people in old Dutch costumes throwing themselves over a cliff -- Flemmings, boom boom.)

    738:

    Sorry, I know as a biological fact lemmings don't do it. As a turn of speech we don't really have an equivalent idiom though.

    739:

    As a turn of speech we don't really have an equivalent idiom though.

    I chose to believe you weren't that ignorant until proven otherwise. No, we don't have an idiom based on real biology, which is a pity.

    Here, people know about the cliffs but honestly believe that lemmings get so mad that they burst. An irritable lemming is or was on the masthead of a major newspaper, like the Mail's crusader or that French duck.

    Am I the only one on this blog that has handled a lemming, I wonder? (It didn't burst.)

    740:

    Ah, I'm not sure on the numbers of most our parties, but I didn't realise the numbers on the others in Spain were that low. The SNP is obviously a really significant force. PC, the equivalent in Wales, is nowhere near reaching for a referendum, although it's slowly growing. The other Welsh parties - as a Welsh woman, although living away from home, I've not heard of them. The Republicans in Northern Ireland are a genuine force too, and I'm not going to dip my toe in the mess that the troubles have left behind with all of that lot except to say I've heard of Sinn Fein and the SDLP and Fianna Fail but not the rest. There was a lot of splintering during the troubles and during the peace process which I suspect accounts for the plethora of names there. Of the rest of the parties around the UK, Mebyon Kernow I've heard of and it occasionally gets a voice on Radio 4 for example. It's probably bigger than a cab party. I live in Yorkshire and I've never heard of Yorkshire First!

    I think the Wikipedia page needs a log(n) for approximate number of supporters on that page!

    741:

    Although I have a two degrees from biology departments, I'm really a medical microbiologist/immunologist so lemmings are a bit big for me. But with the readers of this blog, you never know.

    742:

    Murid Overlords, surely.

    743:

    @746 - I had heard of the Cornish party but didn't recognise their name.

    Re Yorkshire - ooh, interesting, whereabouts ? (am in God's Own Country too)

    744:

    Bah. s.Country/County/

    Unless we secede also, I guess.

    745:

    You're not thinking of the Mayerling incident? Rudolf was supposed to have "liberal views".

    746:

    "The mice will be very annoyed" (Slartibardfast)

    747:

    An interesting article showed up today. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making

    The point I liked best was those who voted remain should, at the very least, concede that had we voted to stay in, the country would not be having this conversation. If remain had won, we would already have returned to pretending that everything was carrying on just fine

    Digging ourselves out of a hole of our own making may very well be the best thing that has happened to the uk in decades, though the repercussions will be very painful. The complete implosion of both major political parties is definitely a positive, but I suspect by the time the next regular election rolls around things will be back to business as usual on that front.

    748:

    So Boris is NOT standing?

    It looks like the tories are going to go for Teresa May - oh hell.

    749:

    Bugger me, BoJo's not standing.

    750:

    A note on the Scottish situation, would not any negotiation with the EU be considered interference in the internal affairs of the UK? Would that not be illegal under international law. So it would seem to me that the Scots need to become independent before they can negotiate or the UK government need to give the explicit power to negotiate.

    751:

    Did you miss the earlier announcement that Gove is standing? As I understood Gove stole BJ's support base, so he has no chance any more.

    752:

    The complete implosion of both major political parties is definitely a positive

    seen from outside (Italy): no, it isn't. As long you keep FPTP, with such a fractured party system most seats will be won by a tiny plurality (think four or five parties, UKIP, Tories,Labour, Momentum, Greens... with votes according to somewhat a normal distribution: anyone would win the seat with about 30%. Not great for legitimacy). And bye bye parliamentary sovereignity, as any demagogue will come out and say aloud that "the parliament doesn't represent the people", odd how Brexiters now subscribe to French Rousseau/Jacobin version of popular sovereignity irregardless of checks and balances, as I found out in Guardian comments. Wasn't Kipling the Tory ideologue warning about "holy people and holy war"?

    753:

    Problem is, as per usual, the tories have no good candidates. Gove has a horrible reputation, almost as bad as May.

    Boris is the only one with a hope of being a 'PM', rather than a caretaker, exactly when the UK needs someone competent and skilful.

    Boris will be there to pick up the Tory leadership once one of the above two stuffs it up. And the UK suffers more.

    754:

    They've never elected the favourite in years... which means... Gove? Crabb? Fox? Or breaking that trend and May. Time to emigrate.

    755:

    vote Norsefire as liberal alternative? :-)

    756:

    I listened to the whole of Today this morning, before BoJo announced he was pulling out, even before Gove announced he was standing. And The Media Show yesterday.

    Now, Boris wasn't there to comment on either. Yesterday it was three interviewers commenting that when they tried to pin him down on awkward questions (like his seesawing on Turkey joining the EU) he blustered and flustered and didn't even skilfully avoid the question. One of the interviewers commented she feels embarrassed about how forceful she had to be to try to get an answer out of him. All of them felt without outright just saying "You can't/won't answer this question can you?" they'd done enough to make it clear to the viewers that he didn't have an answer he was willing to give.

    This morning they brought up his similar super-fast changing of position wrt to the UK and the single market. Again, there wasn't a voice there to defend Boris' position, but it was the BBC economic advisor in response to a question from the public rather than a political interview so they may well have felt they didn't need to have one. He wasn't having a dig at Boris directly, rather saying it wasn't clear and saying "for example Mr. Johnson has said X but also Y and Z recently, so I think I must say 'we just don't know.'" There is certainly plenty of ammunition for the anti-Boris camp to throw at him.

    While the general population might have plenty of reasons to dislike the author of the Snoopers' Charter, the biggest black mark against Teresa May if you're a Tory seems to be the continuing high net migration levels. She can, perfectly legitimately, say she couldn't do much about that while we were in the EU.

    Liam Fox was pushed over taking his family on a ministerial junket IIRC. Stephen Crabb is a bit young, and while it might play well to the Tory faithful his links to fundamentalist Christian groups and being outspokenly anti-Gay probably won't play well. Michael Gove is... I don't know. Too much personal animosity for me to judge. I would have thought he's just too toxic and lacks charisma as well as the ability to gain enough support within the Tory MPs. But... I think there are other candidates they might throw out of the balloon first until he's the second candidate to go to the party as a whole. Then it's a case of do enough of them vote for May as Maggie's successor (there's a campaign song just waiting to be used) or do they want a man in charge at any cost. With the Tory party, who can tell?

    757:

    Kipling wasn't an idealogue, and he would have loathed the modern Conservative party, but yes. "Endeth in wholly slave". Currently, I don't see any way of us being finally sold down the river to the USA military-industrial machine, as so many third-world countries are.

    758:

    Michael Gove is... I don't know. Too much personal animosity for me to judge. I would have thought he's just too toxic and lacks charisma as well as the ability to gain enough support within the Tory MPs.

    That's what I thought about John Howard. And it's what EVERYONE thought about Tony Abbott.

    759:

    "Boris is the only one with a hope of being a 'PM', ..."

    You can't absolutely rule out the semi-unknowns, but he's the only one of those we know much about. Gove would be nearly as catastrophic as May, and Fox would be pushed to do the job of a caretaker.

    760:

    So, Mophair finally figured out that Callmedave had set him up to fail and declined the gambit. What now?

    May was anti-Brexit; will she push the button? Will her EUphilia push the Tories to Gove, or vice versa? What happens if the top two candidates are both Remainers or both Leavers?

    The elephant in the room is still whether it will be possible to whip the Button-Pressing Act 2016 in the current Parliament, or indeed in the next one. I keep having this sneaking suspicion that the real cause of Leave support is not immigration at all, but rather how Austerity has been pinching the residents of Dibley.

    761:

    Supplementary question, sort of a curiosity and on a bit of a tangent.

    On the theme of the hypothetical about an EU federal government, what would it look like? If the complaints about the current nascent version not being democratic were addressed. Not interested so much in the how to get there, more what the "there" would contain. What broadly acceptable version of democracy would render it representative in a way that is meaningful to most people and allows them to participate in a transparent process that at least gives their concerns air?

    Bicameral? Single-member electorates? A chamber with proportional representation per member state adjusted for population?

    If the ratio is 5-10 representatives per million people (optionally in each chamber) then we're looking at houses with 3200-7400 members. Is that even realistic? What's the smallest likely size of a member state - about half a million? I'm assuming that the model in the USA and Australia, where each state has the same number of senators, would not work since it would give Malta or Luxembourg as many representatives as Germany or France. So the smallest chamber would need to have at least 1 representative per 400,000 which would mean roughly 1850 members.

    Would preserving existing states as a proportional district even make sense? It seems like an obvious way, but smaller entities might make better sense. Scotland, Norway and Denmark, all with roughly the same population would have the same number of representatives.

    Would there need to be a pan-European electoral commission to ensure fairness across the states, or would each state run its own process and select its delegates its own way. This seems crucial.

    Anyway random thoughts, which others might have more coherent views around.

    762:

    The evidence is that May was pro-Brexit, not least because she utterly loathes being constrained by human rights. And your suspicion is well-known to be the case.

    763:

    I missed Andrea Leadsome in my character assassinations. Until she was mentioned on the news a few minutes ago, I didn't even know she was standing, and my quiet morning at work has just come to a crashing end!

    764:

    May has come out openly to say she will press the button. Gove hasn't yet, but given his campaign he pretty much implied he would.

    Unless either of them goes for a snap election or it goes to parliament for approval, we're in big trouble.

    Neither is interested in a second referendum for approval.

    Hunt, Crabb, and Morgan are the ones likely to be voted out en route to the final two.

    765:

    @606

    Tnx.

    We asked Sir David whether he thought the Scottish Parliament would have to give its consent to measures extinguishing the application of EU law in Scotland. He noted that such measures would entail amendment of section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, which binds the Scottish Parliament to act in a manner compatible with EU law, and he therefore believed that the Scottish Parliament’s consent would be required. He could envisage certain political advantages being drawn from not giving consent.

    The man is most likely in some influential position but what he believes won't stand when lawyers and the like are going through all the laws and rules with a fine-toothed comb.

    It's most unfortunate that the younger people didn't all vote. That would have prevented the whole mess. The older people that want out only have to sit back, relax and wait for their brexit. They even have a choice in how to exit; funeral or cremation. :D

    766:

    Hmm, well we could model it on the US senate/congress, where each one is inherently biased one way or the other.
    ie, one house has two per state, the other in proportion to its population.

    Two problems - firstly is the inherent power of the big countries, secondly is the fact that the Council of Europe currently acts as the second house, and it contains one person appointed from each government in the EU. The current inability for the US to effectively govern itself is more related to the two party state than the underlying system.

    The only real change needed then would be for the Council to be freely elected instead of appointed, and presumably to have several more members per country to ensure that it represents more than just the incumbent government.

    Ideas on how to reform the Commission and the underlying civil service I leave to the better informed.

    767:

    You mean Leadstrom, not Morgan. However, don't underestimate the strength of bad feeling that Gove has generated among Bojo's fans; he is quite likely to be one of those voted out, leaving the 'least loathed by MPs' candidate to run against May.

    768:

    Hunt and Morgan haven't put their names forward.

    The candidate list looks like they went down the list of MPs eliminating everyone with either decency or intelligence or both. The question is do we want a smart one who'll at least run the country sensibly short term, or one of the bastards who'll wreck us short term but do some long-term good by wrecking the tory party?

    769:

    My guess is that any intelligent MP would try to avoid to lead HM Most Loyal Government during Brexit. Hunt and Morgan are young enough to be patient. Gove might have been pushed into the position by BJ's handlers when they decided BJ couldn't be handled.

    770:

    There might be a couple of people in the electorate posting to this blog, but there can't be many more! So we aren't going to be asked. Unfortunately, we are likely to get someone who wrecks the country in such a way that it cannot recover in the medium term, and arguably not within many decades. Let's hope not, but none of the options fill me with even hope, except for Crabb (as a semi-unknown).

    771:

    May "utterly loathes being constrained by human rights" - but she did say this morning (not in the speech but in answer to a question) that coming out of the European Convention on Human Rights was not on the table.

    Apparently she says it divides people & has no parliamentary majority.

    772:

    Yes, him as well, and just what happened there is, I understand, a bit of an unsolved whodunnit.

    FWIW his mom had been notorious for her pro-Magyar views.

    But I was talking about 1914 and the way the next crown prince, Franz Ferdinand, was at loggerheads with the military and wanted a different approach to things. Wish I could remember more about a revisionist portrayal I once read.

    For the fractal complexity of its compromises, sometimes the EU reminds me of the Dual Monarchy.

    773:

    The prominent balance between small and large states in the US Constitution (which was the single biggest problem with writing ours too) was the Senate/House construction. Because we could make up most of our state borders we arranged a minimum threshold for new states' populations, but obviously Europe can't do that. Our system explicitly does allow that tiny states get over-represented in both houses if their population is below the average Representative's district, which is a small controversy among reformists but is not generally considered a giant problem.

    What is often missed is that the Bill of Rights was also a balance point, and that at least two and as many as five of the original 13 refused to join without it. The Anti-Federalists basically got to write up their suggestions for it, though a Federalist (Madison) was the one who compiled and submitted it for approval.

    If the EU is truly to get fixed in a way that addresses the grievances of the nationalists across the continent (instead of scapegoating Brexiteers and trying to cow the rest with a show of force) some similar document, some Bill of Regional and National Rights, would go a long long way. So would a publicly transparent means of exercising a check on regulations that seem to crush a key national quirk. When people all over Europe talk about the "democratic deficit" what they really mean is that they feel excluded, belittled, ignored, or targeted in their identity.

    Here's another idea. What if the upper-house Council (and can we rename that, it's confusing to have three bodies with "Council" and "Europe" in the name) had two members for each nation, one named by the government in power and one freely elected?

    774:

    I' looking forward to the answers to this question.

    I think the allegations of democratic deficit are BS endlessly repeated by clueless morons people.

    The European Parliament is directly elected by the member states citizens. The European Council consists of members of the member states governments. Supposedly European governments are democratically appointed by and large. (If governments appointments are farcical that's not really the EU's fault, is it?) The European Commission consists of Commissioners that are proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament.

    I completely fail to see the much vaunted dearth of democracy.

    775:

    So if a Tory leader willing to push the button is elected, the question becomes whether they will try to do so without a Button-Pushing Act. I imagine even attempting to do so would trigger a no-confidence vote and General Elections, but the new PM might consider that worthwhile if they thought the result would return them to Downing Street and/or getting it over with would be worthwhile.

    Or is it possible for a no-confidence vote to occur between the time of a Tory election result and the formal Kissing of Hands? Could the present Parliament effectively veto button-pushing in advance?

    (Once again, I have grave doubts that this Parliament under any leadership whatever would pass a Button-Pushing Act.)

    776:

    I think this article from the New York Times is a good description of the so-called "democratic deficit", which is really a "perceived accountability deficit".

    But then, it would appear Westminster now has one of those too despite being directly elected.

    777:

    "When the facts change, I change my opinions, what do you do, sir?"

    Agreed completely, but it's a rare thing and should be called out positively when it happens!

    778:

    If this is true and not another troll or splot for attention then I'm very sorry to hear it. It would help to explain that enormous chip on your shoulder and maybe some of the free verse masquerading as pithy, trenchant commentary you are known for.

    It's somewhat pointless to say but best of luck to you and you have my hopes for a peaceful denouement. Where you're headed is everyone's destination, one way or another, and whether there's a significant difference between yours or some other path is likely more a topic for angels and devils to debate.

    I think that I'd like to have had lunch with you. I'm not sure my attention span would stretch to dinner, but a lunch would have been nice. Despite it all, I hope that you find some measure of peace before you go.

    779:

    the big problem is that the Council has both legislative and executive powers. I'm for a Germany written large ( I'm Italian, but it works well, and we'll going to reshape our constitution copying some traits). A parliament electing the PM and voting him confidence, (so that in order to remove the PM you have to elect another...), something like the Bundesrat made by the PMs of the single states plus one or few representatives elected by national parliaments, exclusive competence for the Union on defence, security intelligence, major infrastructure, serious crime with something like a EU RICO statute for organized crime, and regulation of banking, finance and anti-monopoly. And harmonization of civil law (contracts, torts, eminent domain...) and criminal law (presumption of innocence and "cruel & unusual" clause) and education curricula so that lawyers, physicians, engineers, architects, can have the same basic skillset. Some things should be more centralized (One single space agency, frex) others should be decentarlized, but it's the realm of politics, compromise and try&improve.

    780:

    Brilliant article. I'm sure it will be roundly ignored.

    781:

    I suggest the people go and read the "Indy" on-line, where more than one commentator is strongly suggesting that Brexit will never actually happen. Start HERE Then have a look round the rest of their site. Interesting.

    782:

    Greg Tingey @723 wrote:

    Wasn't it J M Keynes who said: "When the facts change, I change my opinions, what do you do, sir?"

    Wrong Keynesian.

    It's a lovely quotation, but rather too waspish for John Maynard Keynes, who was polite even when obliged to deal with the obtuse. Paul Samuelson bears responsibility for some of the present confusion, having reattributed the retort to Keynes some years after he (Samuelson) said it.

    783:

    I'm a bit out of touch, haven't heard the news since the headlines at one and haven't had a chance to catch up yet.

    I did notice one interesting thing over the course of the morning though that was starting to be really hammered home by the 1pm headlines. There's a clear division in the rhetoric being made between free movement of people (clearly bad, obviously) and free movement of labour (inherently and obviously a good thing™).

    So I guess that will be how they hammer the anti-immigration line into something they like and what they say in their negotiations.

    784:

    Yeah, I noticed that change too, particularly from the UKIP crowd. Importing wage slaves is fine, but make sure they leave their families behind.

    At the end of the day they either accept full and free movement of people, or they get to limit it, but France gets the big banks. Goodbye 10% of GDP, even with no other impacts.

    To be honest I'm more entertained by the frantic hatchet jobs going on against Corbyn. The latest crying mp anti-semitic one just reeks of desperation. I suspect the comments about getting rid of him before the Chilcot report are more and more accurate.

    785:

    Sturgeon & her office & Scotland have been publicly insulted by Juncker & the EU.

    That's not my reading of it, Greg.

    My reading of it is that the EU commission are being extraordinarily careful in how they handle the facilitated exit of the UK from the EU; if they agreed to separate talks with Scotland at this point it might be seen, by England after Brexit and Scotexit, as if the EU deliberately tried to lever Scotland out of the UK. So there's a careful diplomatic dance in progress in which Sturgeon expresses interest in staying in the EU, the EU makes it clear that they can only negotiate at national level (and Scotland is not a separate nation -- yet), and so the two issues are separated: first Brexit will be dealt with and then, and only then, if Scotland secedes, Scottish entry can be facilitated.

    Shorter version: this is the EU covering their ass for the long term to prevent a British "dolchstosslegend" from emerging -- Brexit has to be remembered as being all the UK's own work -- while indicating to Sturgeon the correct sequence of events to pursue at national level.

    Oh, and now she can go back to Holyrood and said "I tried, but they're playing rigidly by the rule book: we'll have to leave the UK if we want to apply for EU membership".

    NB: for the record, I am a strong (but qualified) supporter for the idea of Scotland as a member state within a United States of Europe, as long as the USE addresses the structural fiscal/economic imbalances currently unfixable within the EU as it is today.

    786:

    That's how I read it, too, but:

    "... first Brexit will be dealt with and then, and only then, if Scotland secedes, Scottish entry can be facilitated."

    And, if Scotland secedes first? They will HAVE to negotiate something, at least for the transitional period. But that's not currently likely.

    787:

    So do you think we'll see 172 new Stewards of Chiltern Hundred? After all, if they can't work under Corbyn, that might be a less odious job.

    788:
    [...] the biggest black mark against Teresa May if you're a Tory seems to be the continuing high net migration levels. She can, perfectly legitimately, say she couldn't do much about that while we were in the EU.

    Except that she does have full control over non-EU migration which is higher than EU migration!

    789:

    Perhaps. But I doubt that there is anything so subtle. At least three unrelated camps loathe Corbyn, for different reasons, and all are seizing every opportunity to malign him. Yes, one camp may have used the arguments of another, but equally well it could be the obvious camp.

    790:

    Remember the comment up thread about "perception"? We're into the post-truth world now where facts don't matter!

    791:

    Indeed. The monetarists don't want to reduce wage-slave immigration, because that keeps wages down - what they want to do is to prevent the immigrants from having any rights. They don't really even want to reduce ILLEGAL immigrants, because those are prepared to work under illegal conditions, and hence ensure that things like minimum pay, safety regulations etc. aren't enforced too effectively.

    792:

    What three camps? The PLP, the Brownites/Blairites and the Fabian Society?

    793:

    ... this article ... Thanks for link. Sounds coherent.

    ... accountability deficit ... That's certainly true. OTOH if your national government is appointed by parliament and they choose to select a bunch of sociopaths intermingled with the occasional psychopath there isn't much you can do about it either. Besides, what are you going to do come next election day? Support the least insane option, probably. I can't see a fundamental difference to the EU.

    794:

    The big problem is that the Council has both legislative and executive powers. I agree that's a big problem and your ideas sound reasonable to me.

    What I like about the EU Council and it's relationship with the EU Parliament is that they are formed by politically completely disentangled processes.

    AFAIK government in all member states are appointed as a by-process of legislative elections. Executive and legislative invariably represent the same way of thought.

    Is a separate direct personality election for EU executive (=EU Commission) conceivable? Let's say elections every 5 years staggered by 2 1/2 years for executive and parliamentary elections. EU Council could then be relegated to propose laws to the EU Parliament.

    795:

    OK What are the odds, that At50 never gets its button pressed? I am seriously beginning to wonder. After all, that referendum was only "advisory", cough.

    796:

    EU Council could then be relegated to propose laws to the EU Parliament. + maybe a role something like Bundestag (if that represents the local governments in Germany, I'm not well informed on the German constitution).

    797:

    It would be political suicide, though. Any Tory leader not bona-fide negotiating a Brexit will face defeat in the next general election. I'm afraid it's beyond their control, now.

    798:

    Facts... schmats!

    And a very high proportion of those non-EU migrants seem to be people coming to work and their families. They're not "free movement of people" they're approved movement of labour. There's going to be some interesting tap dancing with the numbers if that becomes an issue though.

    799:

    I think you mean Bundesrat, the representation of the local states (Bundesländer). The Bundestag is elected directly with 50% filled by the victors from the parishes (Erststimme) and the rest filled up from party lists so that the total number of seats is proportional to the party votes (Zweitstimme).

    800:

    Only way will be if there's a general election before then and the Tories lose power and Labour stand on a "Remain" platform.

    Which is possible - I don't know how true it is, but the rumour is > 60% of Labour voters across the country voted Remain. If the button hasn't been pressed, they could get some Tory-Labour Remain switchers as a protest, plus core Labour that voted Leave as a protest against Cameron/Osborne rather than an actual vote for leaving.

    Of course if our next glorious leader has pressed the button already, that's a moot point.

    But I can't see a Tory PM not pressing the button. Instant suicide.

    801:

    Thanks for the clarification. I misquoted Marino_bib, who had it right. Sloppy me!

    802:

    The DOW is up another 220 points so far. I suspect that means two things. First, that an advisory vote without an Article 50 notification is not a big deal to the U.S. stock market. Second, the business intelligence believes there will be no Article 50 notification. (I have not idea about whether this is true or not, just that U.S. investors believe it to be true.)

    803:

    I should go on to note that we won't be sure what the stock market is doing for a week or two. I should also note that pound hasn't gone down today - it's been steady at 1.32 U.S. Dollars for the last couple days.

    804:

    I've been watching this unfold from across the pond, and I see three main themes:

  • The EuRef was always intended to be a referendum on Callmedave's leadership of the Tory party. That he failed to call it correctly, and blithely led the UK into a major constitutional crisis at the same time, is (from the perspective of a Scotsman living abroad) merely par of the course for Westminster Tories
  • The potential successor to Cameron is likely to be Gove or May: both strike me as fecking awful for the UK. Despite campaigning for remain, May has already said "Brexit means Brexit" so we can expect her to pull the trigger on At50 almost immediately. She'll also double down on her bid to become "even steelier than Maggie" - although that should probably be spelled "stealier"! Gove is... who the hell knows? Other than being an anti-justice justice minister, and being wholeheartedly in favor of Leave, it's hard to find anyone who has anything good to say about the man. His rather quick elimination of Boris speaks highly to his political backbiting skills, but says nothing about him as a statesman capable of navigating the next few months (never mind years).

  • The hugely xenophobic Leave campaign stoked the "Little Englander" vibe perfectly - and there are apparently enough people pissed off at the WM government as a whole, as well as enough willing to be led by the Media (and Farage/Boris et al) to vote to leave. England has always been much more "Euroskeptic" than almost anywhere else in Europe. Ready and willing to use "Johnny Foreigner" for cheap hols in a sunny clime, or for cheap labour, but even more ready to pin every and all problem or failing upon the EU bogeyman.

  • The reaction of Europe to Nicola Sturgeons "entreaties" is perfectly acceptable and (with the exception of Rajoy's intemperate comments, more for his home-grown separatists consumption than for anyone else, I think) seems to amount to nothing less than a lightly veiled instruction that Scotland should get on with the independence vote already.

  • Overall there are certainly going to be a lot of challenges downstream. Regardless of the outcomes in Englandshire's parliament, there will be a concerted push withing the EU to move Eurobond trading to a "real" EU country. There will also be increasing pressure on WM to accept the full terms of EU integration (if they choose not to push the At50 button) - there won't be any more special treatment.

    The potential departure of England will be seen as a huge positive in Europe. (England has always seemed to be the racist uncle that we need to invite for dinner at Christmas/Thanksgiving... we'd rather they didn't come, but they're part of the family so we can't just tell them to stay away). the comparative behavior of soccer fans at the recent Euro2016 is merely another small piece of supporting evidence (Singing from the Irish, Rioting from the English). It still seems that many in England are of the impression they can have their cake (independence from Europe) and eat it too (unfettered access to European markets, immigration controls, no EU regulatory burden)

    Scotland, on the other hand, has learned to be a good citizen, and - being smaller - has always recognized the value of being part of a larger market. Scots are, generally, good global citizens.

    I'm actually looking forward to Gove or May's election as Tory Leader. S/he will be the perfect focal point highlighting the fecklessness of a UK Government that cares absolutely nothing for Scotland as a nation or as an electorate. I see significant additional support from the Scottish electorate for independence on terms distinctly different from the last IndyRef: Regain direct control over all Scottish affairs; Retain access to England's markets as their major trading partner (or don't they want the oil & gas & timber & energy & whisky & electronics & ...); and gain enhanced powers and representation in Europe as a Full member.

    805:

    Any Tory leader not bona-fide negotiating a Brexit will face defeat in the next general election.

    The split was 58-42 in the Tories for Leave according to Lord Ashcroft Polls, so I guess you are right, but a sufficiently convinced Tory PM might consider that worth the price of nuking Brexit. OTOH such a principled PM almost certainly couldn't be elected.

    So we come back around to the question: does the British Constitution not require a Button-Pushing Act to be passed by Parliament? And if that is the case -- given that the Tories have a majority of just twelve seats; that there are a lot of Remainers still amongst the backbenchers; that UKIP has precisely one seat in the Commons; and that every other party's voters went for remain by 2:1 or better...

    ...how can you possibly whip the vote in the Commons???

    Conclusion: either the new PM causes further constitutional chaos by asserting a Royal Prerogative power to push the button without Parliament; or the Button Pushing Act fails, at which point Madam or Mr. PM either shrugs and tries to pretend Brexit didn't happen or calls General Elections.

    And that's before the possibility that the Lords might try to delay it. Normally that delay is politically pointless, but here it could be effective.

    806:

    So besides the question of "What counts as pushing the button?" we also have the question "What is the shelf life of the button?"

    Now I am imagining some science fiction story set centuries in the future where the button gets pushed as part of some complicated legal technicality. Like in Poul Anderson's The Star Fox where some tortured legal logic leads France to issue a letter of marque and reprisal In Spaace!

    807:

    I don't have much time to devote thought to this question. However, here is what I propose

  • A Bicameral legislature modeled with the upper house being the same for all states

  • A defined process for creating new states out of existing ones. We have had the longest European peace since the Romans and the empires are long gone. That was in some cases the only glue holding these countries together.

  • A process to initiate European-wide referenda, with constitutional checks on the referendum process. Outside Switzerland, Ireland, and some US states, referenda have no constitution definition. As referenda have become more popular in recent decades, the ostrich approach has ensured few checks on them.

  • This is a tangent, but I personally believe that the early 21st century will be defined by the spreading of citizen initiatives just as the 20th century was defined by expanding the franchise. Disclaimer, I do not have enough knowledge of legal theory. From my vantage point, when all is said and done, Britain (or its successor states) unwritten(?) constitution will have a formalized process for a referendum and its interaction with Parliament.

    808:

    "I am a strong (but qualified) supporter for the idea of Scotland as a member state within a United States of Europe, as long as the USE addresses the structural fiscal/economic imbalances currently unfixable within the EU as it is today."

    Juncker and, especially, Schauble aren't going anywhere.

    On a poli-sci point: I think one of the things the creation of the Eurozone points up is the failure of our federal governmental forms, apparently all federal forms up until now. The EU is raising some member states up and delivering austerity to others, and yet no-one seems to have any idea what to do about it. Part of the problem seems to be a failure of technocratic economic governance: valid economic insight into macro-economic policy is being rejected for, apparently, no good reason. We need a change in economic thinking and perhaps also new forms of federal government.

    809:

    Another question. If the button is not pressed and a general election is held, how many seats does UKIP get?

    810:

    It all depends on the context centuries from now. Even though everyone had forgotten about it, there was an article from the US Bill of Rights that was still hanging. Since there was no self-destruct clause in the enabling bill, it was still technically "pending before the states". Someone noticed, started lobbying again, and before long, it was the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

    In fact, there is still one article from the Bill of Rights' enabling act technically pending. Since it relates to apportionment, and passing it would expand the House of Representatives by a factor of fourteen, it is functionally dead... but all is not dead that sleeping lie.

    Practically, a lingering Brexit button lives as long as the Treaty of Lisbon does. If another treaty supersedes it, and especially if the article on secession procedures is rewritten, the Brexit button dies. Otherwise, it lives as long as Parliament does not explicitly kill it. IANACL but I think the logic is sound from what I know of the common law.

    811:

    I honestly think that depends.

    We haven't seen the various Tory candidate's platforms particularly, but Teresa May has said "no election before 2020, no pressing the button before the end of the year when the plan should be in place." That seems not unreasonable. But if Gove says "A plan, then an election" as an alternative and the Tory party go for it then I think the wider electorate might go for that.

    If there's a plan and an election is called to ratify the plan, maybe a few more than the current total of 1 but not necessarily. It depends on the plan. If the plan delivers strives for ambitious curbs on migration then UKIP won't get much traction. If the rhetoric I've pointed out above about "free movement of labour" but not "free movement of people" is used then I imagine it will deliver votes to UKIP in big numbers and the Tories will lose some seats.

    What happens with Labour-UKIP seats depends on what Labour decide to do at the election. If Article 50 hasn't been pushed, I think they'll stand on Remain. It was their policy before after all. They might lose a few seats to ardent Leave voices, but I think probably not because they'll be split between the Tories and UKIP.

    812:

    I am very strongly against legislation via referenda but would be very strongly in favour of referenda to stop/delay or force reconsideration of stupid and/or deeply unpopular governmental decisions (at national or EU level) the rest I have no problem with.

    813:

    REALLY? I'm not so sure, especially given the numbers APPARENTLY voting "out" to "give the Establishment a kicking" AND the apparent breaking of ranks by the French (!) finance minister saying (effectively) "Come on chaps, there's got to be a way to finesse this, because we actually need the Brits on the inside ..."

    No, there is no guarantee that At50 will actually be pulled.

    814:

    The potential departure of England will be seen as a huge positive in Europe. The French finance minister disagrees with you! CORRECTION Scotland, on the other hand, has learned to be a good citizen grovel nicely There, fixed that for you.

    815:

    With Farage's open neo-fascism now out in the public arena, quite possibly none at all ....

    816:

    The economics don't look good for ScotNatRef2 and it seems unlikely that the EU would offer any economic support for Scotland EU. With UK out I would have thought that Scotland would have to bite the Euro bullet.

    And RUK suffering departure economic blues might be glad to be rid of Barnet.

    So although it probably does not make any more economic sense than BREXIT maybe Scotland will follow the recent style of 'up yours' referendum voting and go for it: its probably the SNPs best chance in the next few years: at the very least its another wonderful chance to blame it all on those evil Tories.

    817:

    So do you think we'll see 172 new Stewards of Chiltern Hundred

    Only 86. Although applying for appointment as Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds is the one usually quoted, they alternate with the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.

    818:

    Here's a thought from the peanut seats.

    The tories have no sane, viable, candidates you could trust to run with scissors. The labour party is currently going through similar ructions of finding someone everyone could get behind.

    So why not form a wartime 'government of national unity', drawing the best from across Parliament, from whatever party, to address the not inconsiderable issues and problems facing the country?

    Not only does that help prevent the government going off on ideological bents - it also means the blame can be shared and nobody has the poisoned chalice.

    819:

    The French are also carefully positioning themselves to try and get as much as possible of LCH.Clearnet's work shifted from London to Paris. There is a shitton of money moving through them in London that everyone in Europe wants to get a piece of, and since Clearnet was a French company, they have the best shot.

    Any consideration from Paris will come with a blanket no Passporting requirement.

    820:

    Not a chance - why would anyone volunteer to take a full share of the blame for whatever minor spoils of power the Tories are willing dish out? Remember that we have the Lib Dems as an example of how this works out.

    821:

    Wait, what? There's more open neo-fascism from Rhymes-With-Garage?

    822:

    My gut feeling is that IF Westminster pulls the trigger on Article 50, THEN that will mark the beginning of the campaign for IndyRef 2. Whether IndyRef 2 takes place within the two year negotiating period or afterwards is ... well, it depends on who's running the ship and which outcome they would prefer to see. A smart unionist PM would demand that IndyRef be held before Brexit is complete, in order to allow the anti-indy campaign to spin FUD about the consequences of Scottish independence, while a smart pro-Indy FM would want the referendum to be held as soon after the terms of the divorce are settled as possible (to minimize FUD) but before completion of Brexit or as soon afterwards as possible (to reduce the long-term damage).

    NB: FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

    My gut feeling is that the Independence position will be: Independence with the Euro as a currency (Sterling was already ruled out in 2014), possibly Schengen zone membership, and that this is the lesser evil -- "there will be some pain, but not as much as staying with the UK after Brexit".

    823:

    Funny if the "smart unionist PM" turns out to be Scottish-born Gove (or indeed Liam Fox).

    824:

    Will England retain UK's permanent seat in the UN Security Council?

    And what will happen to UK nuclear submarines (which are based in Scotland, I believe)?

    825:

    I thought Greg was referring to the recent exhumation of the 2013 news that everyone seems to have forgotten about (including me), of Farage getting in trouble at school for singing Nazi songs and so on.

    826:

    It would be bloody great, but I can't see any way it's going to happen. The parties deciding to do it off their own bat is about the last thing they're likely to do, so it would require the Queen to step in and bang some heads together, which despite all our wishful thinking further up the thread is of comparable improbability.

    827:

    The UK will retain its permanent UNSC seat to start with, and I don't think seceding constituent states get to make a claim. The precedent for changing the membership of the UNSC would be the shift of the Chinese seat from one china to the other, which took a resolution in General Assembly. The precise details of how and why that was done are left as an exercise etc.

    Shifting naval bases after a piece of the UK departs was done last time by retaining treaty ports for a couple of decades.

    828:

    Well, it would be a great way of getting a PM in place that's NOT from either of the two main parties - something of a fall guy twinned with actually finding someone in parliament up to the task ahead. And if everyone is represented in cabinet, nobody can be throwing shit in future (hell, throw an SNP rep in there).

    As it, it's looking like Teresa "wotz privacy" May is likely to be anointed as the tory top dog - and that's going to be a bigger screwup than continuing with the pig fucker.

    829:

    England will retain the UK's permanent seat and veto in the Security Council, just as Russia retained that of the Soviet Union.

    830:

    As I understand, the UK will cease to exist after secession of Scotland.

    South of the Scottish border, there will be a new country - the kingdom of England.

    England will have to apply to join the United Nations as a new member state.

    As for England's succession to UK's permanent membership in the UN Security Council, it will probably need a proper UN Security Council resolution which is very unlikely to pass.

    Putin will surely veto it.

    831:

    Russia's claim was accepted by international community in completely different circumstances.

    The Cold War was over and Russia was allied to the West at the time.

    Now, the Cold War has restarted and acceptance of England's claim to successor state status will depend on goodwill of four permanent members of the UN Security Council.

    Which include Russia and China.

    And after everything English politicians said about Russia and President Putin recently, surely you can't realistically expect Russia's goodwill.

    832:

    Russians will probably say that UK's permanent seat in the UNSC was anachronism to start with, that it's a good opportunity for UNSC reform and they will propose to give UK seat to someone else, someone more worthy than England.

    To India, for example.

    833:

    Scotland will leave the UK; that will not dissolve the UK or a result in a "successor" state any more than it would if Tibet left China, or Wisconsin left the US.

    The UK will continue to exist and be part of the UN, NATO and any other treaties. (Scotland will be an entirely new entity, not part of the EU or the UN. Post Scottish independence, the two are not in equivalent positions. )

    Whether the UK chooses to change its name to England or retain its old name will make no difference whatsoever.

    834:

    Funny if the "smart unionist PM" turns out to be Scottish-born Gove (or indeed Liam Fox).

    Apparently Gove will be running after "stabbing Boris Johnson in the back" and Boris has responded to this betrayal by dropping out of the race.

    So it's now Gove vs. May, whatever that means.

    835:

    Should also have mentioned that some others are in the running, but I have no idea who else is important.

    836:

    Scotland secession means repeal of Union Acts of 1707 which created the UK.

    So situation will revert back to what existed before 1707 - two separate kingdoms of England and Scotland.

    London could attempt to claim that the UK will continue to exist after secession of Scotland, but it seems rather futile effort.

    Like Czech Republic continuing to call itself Czechoslovakia after secession of Slovakia or Serbia insisting that it is still Yugoslavia after everyone else seceded.

    837:

    United Kingdom of Southern Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    838:

    Much as May gives me the shudders, she's probably the best least-worst candidate: She is very unlikely to push At50 unless she really has to ( "the referendum was merley advisory" is the line ... ) And, as my very close associate in the City says - they don't trust or like Gove further than they can spit & watching May go head-to-head in cage-fights with both Merkel & Sturgeon is worth paying money for (!)

    P.S. She's already stated that withdrawal from the EHCR is a non-starter, which is a huge relief.

    PPS: This unbelievable arrogance & stupidity from the EU trade commissioner. That moronic action would hurt France & esp Germany almost as much as us.

    839:

    It may not be Gove.

    There's a general response that he's stunning unpopular as a potential leader among Tory MPs, not seen as leader material and so on. They will also remember he diagnosed himself as lacking the qualities to make a good PM. There will be lots of folks willing to vote for "anyone but Gove" in the first round or two when perhaps it's seen as not mattering and I think a relatively low number of genuine loyalists. He basically has to hope the Brexiteers vote for him rather than switching to a unity candidate they think is better like May, an old right-winger they're familiar with like Fox, or anyone but Gove and voting for Crabb or Leadsom in the first round. They might well look at Gove and see the man who has stabbed the man for whom he said he'd be campaign manager in the back, and the man who is one of his closest friends in the back, and now he's attempting to step into his shoes and become PM. That goes beyond reasonable political ambition into something else.

    I'm not sure which of the others it would be. Leadsom or Crabb I'd think.

    840:

    About that poloitical suicide thing...

    Wouldn't it normally be considered political suicide to implement a policy which 48% of a 72% turnout have got off their backsides, made their way to a polling station, and explicitly rejected?

    Basically whether they choose to push the button or not the next government is going to alienate half the electorate (give or take a couple of percent) and if they don't throw some pretty substantial bones there will be uproar whichever way they jump.

    There will be fudge, there will be lots of fudge, and it will be warm, brown, and very sticky...

    841:

    Does adherence to the rules as written count as arrogance or stupidity? That seems to be the tenor of the Commissioner's remarks.

    842:

    "L'Adminstration" is more important that political reality, or what the politicians in France, Germany etc want. An exact expression, right out in public of what's wrong with the EU. Also a classic case of the Iron Law of Bureaucracy, unless I'm much mistaken (Which is entirely possible, of course )

    843:

    So you are asserting that a bureaucrat should be allowed to choose which rules to follow and which to ignore?

    844:

    They might well look at Gove and see the man who has stabbed the man for whom he said he'd be campaign manager in the back, and the man who is one of his closest friends in the back, and now he's attempting to step into his shoes and become PM.

    Sounds like just the man for the job, if you're a Tory.

    845:

    It's appallingly murky. The historical, de jure and de facto constitutional positions have diverged considerably, and not just in that matter. Historically, Wales and Ireland were colonies by right of conquest, but the UK has accepted Eire as a sovereign state and Northern Ireland has been given a separate status, including by treaty with Eire. However, England itself was a colony by right of conquest, of the Duchy of Normandy, of which the successor state is the Channel Islands. And, as you say, the United Kingdom was created by uniting the Crowns of Scotland and England. We all know that the de facto situation is entirely different, and I will leave ADennis to describe the de jure situation - assuming that there IS one :-)

    846:

    No, May has NOT said that withdrawal from the ECHR is a non-starter - all she has done is to rule it out for now. If she negotiates an exit from the EU, and wins in 2020, expect that to be junked PDQ.

    847:

    hi OGH & all of you out there ...

    i love this blog for some time now. this discussion f.e. gave me much to think and laugh. some of it made me a bit sad.

    my position on the matter as citizen of the EU in austria is complicated. while i love much of the english history, lifestyle, humor, language and my visits in the UK were interesting and fun i cant deny that UK's role in the european politics always made me sad and even mad sometimes.

    sure, the EU has much room for improvement. the structures are too complicated, the parliament is too weak and the council is too strong. the unanimity (is this the right word ?!?) principle is a pita when fast pace and hard decisions are required (refugee situation f.e.). and: way too much lobbying and not nearly enough transparency (TTIP f.e.) …

    but i cant see whats bad about the underlying idea and i cant see any alternative for the thing and the process. esp. small countries like mine have no realistic alternative to integrate and close ranks in a world like this.

    its not hard to imagine that im in favor of deepening the EU.

    your politicians always would throw a wrench or two into integration and deepening. much of "my favorite EU" i didnt get because of this and the UK was always leader in halting progress. sure there are enough others esp. in the visegrad states. and even in my own country we have some clowns who would like to ÖEXIT and made us a 2nd swiss – surely the world is in urgent need for such place …

    so while im not very happy that a country I resepect and like has so much people who would fall for a bunch of "rattenfänger"'s im hoping that the result for the EU is a speedup for progress. maybe we will need a core europe (D,FR,IT,BENELUX,NL,AT) to push the issue and have an open door for the rest to join schengen, the EURO, a deeper social sec sys & fiscal alignment etc. and maybe some day england will come back. i would hope so.

    in my youth in vienna we still had old people very much like some of your senior BREXIT voters: they really would want their old catholic empire with all the "kronländer" back ... however unreal that was. "alles war besser als es den kaiser noch gab" …

    848:

    You're asking for stuff from International Law. (Most of which, as far as I can tell, boils down to "ultima ratio regum" anyway, whatever noises come out of the UN.)

    849:

    Thanks. Yes. But, if the new PM delays pressing the button? My feeling from where I sit is that there will still be an IndyRef2 - but, if I were doing it, it would be to link Scottish independence to Brexit. The aim would be to pressure Westminster to include Scotland in the Brexit negotiations, as part of the UK team. It might also kill the whole thing :-)

    But I am horribly afraid that May will win, and press the button almost immediately.

    850:

    Not the bureaucracy, the rule of law. If the law says X you can't force it to say Y because it's "political reality" Someone quoted here the incredible piece of legal argument in Anderson's Star Fox, (I read it too in my misspent youth) where international law forbids issuing letters of marque, and it is used to...well, issue a letter of marque and reprisal. With such logic, why bother with rule of law, stato di diritto, Rechtsstaat or whatever terms one's language uses...

    851:

    I'd wish to know more about the view of Ms. May on human rights and privacy, something substantive and not too much biased. Because if rumors are true, it may be a nasty issue with EU and Germany in particular, as witnessed by the anger of Ms. Merkel on the NSA affair. Think a bit: UE nationals not covered by the EU Charter of Human Rights while in UK (for any value of "U"); data from individuals and firms not being covered by EU privacy laws, maybe even in their own country...really bad image.

    852:

    I think her interpretation of the rules will not stand. It appears to contradict Art. 50:

    "In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union."

    853:

    Or maybe it could go like the Soviet Union. The conceit was that it was a Soviet of Republics, so the main part of it had to stop calling itself the USSR, it had to just be Russia. The conceit of Britain is that it is a union of kingdoms, so if all the participating kingdoms are gone, except the main one, then it would have to stop calling itself anything other than England. Or change the conceit, and claim "United Kingdom" is just aspirational.

    854:

    At the end of the day power comes from carrots and sticks (bribes and force), but the people with the carrots and sticks find it cheaper and easier to motivate with more abstract carrots and sticks than with real ones. Written laws are such abstractions, and when they get distorted in application that represents strain and decay of the abstraction system. And that means direct rule of guns and money gets closer. So those with the real power need to decide if they want to rule directly or rule easily. Because you can't do both.

    855:

    Why don't you search on (a) her public statements and (b) her actions as Home Secretary? A quick search on 'Teresa May ECHR' gives the text of her speech on Brexit - and please note that she didn't HAVE to include anything about the ECHR in that.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/04/theresa-mays-speech-on-brexit-full-text.html

    856:

    Northern Ireland is a successor state to the Kingdom of Ireland. As long as NI is in, which is to say as long as the unionists there have sufficient support to keep it in, it's still validly a United Kingdom -- a UK of merely England and Northern Ireland. It's an open question whether Wales gets its name in there; Wales is a country within the UK, but ranks lower (a Principality) and has a more tightly connected legal system by virtue of that. For instance, there's a Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

    If Malmstrom keeps that attitude I don't think she will be EU trade rep much longer. I get that Brussels is upset but deliberately refusing to negotiate trade deals with one of your biggest partners for years out of either bureaucratic tendencies or spite actually makes a good case for other nations to exit the EU.

    857:

    "Ruth is busy angling to become the first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland -- if she doesn't shoot herself in both feet by opposing oor Nicola too hard while she does the heavy lifting."

    And she appears to have done exactly that in the past few days.

    Much as I despair of Kezia Dugdale, she hit the nail on the head for me with her essay in the Guardian yesterday

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/29/union-tories-scotland-england-conservatives

    Davidson apparently hasn't yet adapted to her very new role as leader of the opposition - and is still mostly taking approaches you might choose as leader of a very minor opposition party.

    However, on Tuesday she went a step further and effectively produced a position in response to the brexit vote which was opposed to any action not initiated by Downing Street. It would have been understandable for her to oppose a new indyref or other actions which her party has specific strong views on. Blanket obstruction for the sake of it surely won't go down well, and must have damaged her in the perception of much of her electorate.

    Dugdale's criticism may well be opportunistic, but it's struck a cord I think; I can see a change in people's perception. This is only anecdotal, based on my own observations, but people who were opposed to independence certainly have switched. In my community locally, two very vocal indyref 'no' campaigners are still very vocal, but have said they will campaign for 'yes' if given the chance. Maybe they will change their minds when the dust settles a bit (or at least we have different dust), but the public mood has changed, probably in quite a complex way.

    858:

    The text you're quoting comes from clause 2 of art. 50., which sets out what shall be done right after a notification under that clause, consequent on a decision made in accordance with clause 1 with the state that made the notification.

    Reading it any other way leaves the words 'that State' in the text you cite referring to nobody: the only sensible way in which they can be read is in reference to the sentence immediately preceding (which you didn't quote, perhaps because it would have made the nonsense too obvious) which reads "A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention." That's the "that State" referred to. Until some state makes a notification there is no "that State" with which the Union shall negotiate.

    Negotiations before notification would, therefore, not be mandatory: the Commissioner appears to take the view that they would be, under other provisions of EU law, forbidden. Which is a reasonable view to take, and one which doesn't have the Union's institutions unilaterally going beyond the powers delegated to them by Member States under the treaties.

    859:

    No, that commissioner seems to think that trade negotiations are forbidden until the exit takes effect, not only before Art. 50 notification. Since clause (2) says that the negotiations & agreement shall "[take] account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" it seems to me that it would allow trade negotiations as part of the Brexit. Malmstrom says: first Brexit, then Trad Agreemenst.

    860:

    You can't trust media articles to be accurate about such details. I agree that it seems to say that, but that could easily be the reporter or editor getting it wrong.

    861:

    There's also the argument that the EU used to have a democratic deficit and people just haven't updated their complaints...

    862:

    I didn't read the article as reporting the Commissioner in those terms at all. Going back and reading more closely, well, the EU would be within its rights to do it that way - they only have to take account of the framework for the future relationship, not actually have it defined. And putting a dreadful offer on the table and letting time run on is a venerable (if horrible) negotiating tactic, after all.

    863:

    My proposal: dissolve one of the European Council or Council Of The European Union, make the other a directly elected upper house, one seat per state, and leave appointment of Commissioners as it is. (I realize this weights things towards the smaller states, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. I do live in one, though.) We need to make it legible to people who's doing what and give them the ability to clearly signal "stop doing that." Having two upper houses with almost the same name, almost the same membership (heads of state, states' representatives) and no visible means of democratic accountability is... not good.

    We also need to pick one place to wield executive power. It currently rests in the Commission, the rotating Presidency, the European Council, and I'm sure I've missed some other bodies. I'd be biased towards resting it in the Commission; a body appointed by national governments but accountable to Parliament sounds a good compromise.

    864:

    I now listened to the interview and it appears you are right: negotiations after Art 50 notification and WTO status after the 2 years are up without an agreement. Bloody journalists.

    865:

    I don't think that will work. In my opinion there should be not one seat of power but checks and balances between different EU bodies. I'd also be interested in how far the DevoMax experience in the UK can be used for the EU, and opening some policy areas to direct democracy a la Swiss (that would necessarily have to be electronic).

    867:

    Just as a reminder to those handicapping the Tory election sweepstakes:

    Theresa May is already on record as saying that she regards the result of the referendum as final, not adivsory, and has ruled out a second referendum or a snap election, which are the two most obvious ways to try to back out of it.

    The one possible out that she's leaving herself is a promise not to invoke Article 50 until the UK strategy is agreed, and she's hinting that might not be till the end of the year. A schedule that would leave both the Brussels bureaucracy and the individual governments of other EU members deeply vexed.

    http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/theresa-mays-pm-bid-brexit-means-brexit-and-no-snap-election-11364070914164

    868:

    That's kinda what I'm angling at, actually; the day-to-day running going to the Commission, who answer to Parliament, who answer to the electorate - and both having to answer to the ECJ (and hopefully ECHR, eventually).

    That's more-or-less the situation as it stands, except some day-to-day running is also done by the Presidency, who answers (as far as I can tell) to the Council Of The European Union inasmuch as they answer to anyone, and some other executive power is vested in the European Council, who answer to their domestic parliaments. So if you object to - for instance - European treatment of refugees, who do you complain to? Frontex is the Commission, the current crisis is the European Council, actually co-ordinating policy is the Presidency...

    869:

    I wonder how the different candidates stand to the three key questions about Brexit: trigger Art. 50 immediately, Single Market, Free Movement of Labour/People.

    Here is my current understanding:

    They all want to limit Immigration, but May will probably allow movement of labour.

    Only May and Crabb are unconditionally for access to the single market.

    Fox and Crabb see no need to trigger Art 50, May wants it to the end of the year, Gove and Leadsom are likely to immediately trigger Art 50.

    Your views? Are there any other policy issues where they differ?

    870:

    Gove has stated that he is for "full-fat BRExit", complete withdrawal from common market, and stopping all free movement.

    (It almost sounds as if he is trying to scupper his own chances before they begin -- he can't possibly imagine that these options are going to appeal to anyone with an interest in seeing the UK economy not flat line.)

    871:

    I think Leadsom has the same attitude.

    872:

    As long as they don't want to trigger Article 50, I'd take Fox or Crabb (or even Goyle!)

    I must say I don't get the attitudes of Gove, May or Leadsom - they've been shown that Brexit is pretty much a nuke - aimed at them - they've all had samples in their portfolios of stocks which have tanked over the issue, and most of the U.K. has clearly changed their minds, they've watched the value of the pound falling 10 percent... they have to know by now that the EU is happy to through them under a bus, and by the way, if they crash the world economy, the U.S. might just elect the Oompa-Loompa!

    What the fuck is wrong with those people and why aren't they getting enough feedback to understand that they're wrong?

    873:

    For Leadsom and Gove: opportunites! action!

    I think May is a control freak and wants to use Brexit to restructure the state along her own agenda.

    874:

    Also he's on record as comparing the Good Friday Agreement to the Munich Agreement. Hooray, finally a safe pair of hands for the Irish Question!

    875:

    Listening to the summary of how he'd set out his stall on the news just now, the only thing I can think of is that he's in it for the lulz at this point.

    Or possibly the outright wrecking of the Conservative Party, which I'd heartily approve of if I wasn't living in the splash zone.

    876:

    Yep. It's a depressing day when I'm saddened that Johnson is gone, let alone wishing Cameron might stick around.

    Gods but the senior remaining Tory candidates are bloody awful.

    877:

    May is obviously one of those people who shouldn't be elected as the local animal-control officer, much less high office. Not sure about the rest of them.

    878:

    Please refer back to # 771?

    879:

    Generally the longer At50 is NOT pressed the better ... I wonder if May is looking for an excuse, a really good one ... ?

    Gove would be a total disaster .... Meanwhile the Labour party is self-destructing

    880:

    My prediction is that nothing substantial, monetary wise, is going to change. If we go down, we take the EU with us, so spiteful rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. We will remain part of the free trade area but regain some control over our borders beyond the Shengen opt-out. I just pray that the City does not push up the exchange rate - even now it is over-valued and a pain for exporters (like my company).

    881:

    What the fuck is wrong with those people and why aren't they getting enough feedback to understand that they're wrong?

    That appears to be the critical question for all Westminster, doesn't it?

    Being across the pond, I had no reason until last week to learn current internal Tory personalities. Gove appears to be someone who would sprain his finger pushing the button and has done much of the legwork in pushing Leave as far back as arranging matters to box in Callmedave years ago. Crabb reaching the finals would mean the backbench has revolted against the Brexit concept. The other two candidates appear to be running solely for the attention.

    I still have insufficient data to judge May; however, she seems to be cautious, something that would give Parliament plenty of time to stall matters further. Could people describe why they do or don't like May?

    882:

    Gove has said today "no need to start Article 50 process before the end of 2016."

    883:

    You do know the EU threatened to cease all preferential trade terms with Switzerland when they imposed a quota on EU immigrants, right? And Switzerland's not even an EEA member.

    Free movement is foundational to the EU and they don't fuck around with it.

    884:

    It isn't the EU that is going to crash our economy.

    885:

    Her apparent addiction to spying on everyone and wanting to 'scrap the Human Rights Act' are the big ones, I think.

    886:

    The real problem with this is that she's been the Home Secretary (and thus the politician with the main responsibility for these things in the UK) for six years non-stop. That is an insanely long period of time, I heard one commentator this morning say "longest since Victorian times" and I really can't be arsed to go and fact check it, but it will give you an idea of just how impressive it is.

    Some of that might be because under the coalition they hived off prisons and courts into the new-fangled Ministry of Justice. Despite the 1984-sounding name. But, although Chris Grayling made a right pig's ear of the job and it let Cameron put his mate Gove into an important cabinet post but just undoing all the damage his predecessor had done rather than massively pissing off huge chunks of the electorate (like parents of school age children) prisons and courts is generally a relatively low stress part of the job.

    Over her six years, Mrs. May has tried (as have Home Secretaries of every party) to generally ramp up police and intelligence agency powers, to the opposition of human rights lawyers. She's had some wins and some loses - again that's not uncommon. Her current "snoopers' charter" is in it's third (or fourth, I've lost count) incarnation. I was blocked once in coalition as "too extreme" and has been watered down at least twice since then. I think it's too extreme, civil rights lawyers tend to agree with me, but I think it's getting close to something that will be passed, whether I like it or not. It's probably too biased for the state's powers over privacy but it's a lot better than what the NSA were up to.

    On the other hand, she's only Tory Home Secretary to be booed at the Police Federation conference because she took them on over a series of vested interested. She (unlike Gove in general, and Jacqui Smith and Jack Straw and probably Blunkett too on this issue - all Labour Home Secretaries) looked at the evidence about how the police were abusing Stop and Search powers in ways that amounted to racism, and took them away. She looked at the evidence about S. Yorkshire Police and Hillsborough and a cover-up and ordered the inquiry and new inquests that's basically just eviscerated the force and what it did. (The previous Home Secretaries didn't have the evidence to do that but she didn't have to do it, it didn't win her any votes. Actually for all I dislike a number of her policies it's one thing I really respect her for. I am biased, I lived in Liverpool in 1989 and although I'm not a football fan, I remember walking up stairs in the (student) house I lived in at the time to have a chat to some friends before the match started and seeing the start of the disaster. One of my close friends at the time was related to one of the victims and so on.)

    So there isn't an answer to the question of where she stands. And to some extent her job requires her to be fairly authoritarian. She's the person who is responsible for the police and intelligence agencies and what they get up to. I disagree with the law she has introduced to try and allow MI5, MI6, GCHQ etc. to catch up with the digital age but have the veneer of parliamentary scrutiny but I don't disagree that such a law is needed.

    887:

    I'm pretty certain that Gove genuinely doesn't want to be PM. Between his own statements, and his wife's accidentally-released email, I'd say that he entered the contest with one goal: making sure that Boris Johnson didn't reach the final two, because Johnson might refuse to give Murdoch what he wants. That worked immediately, and now Gove has to go through the motions while working behind the scenes to make sure he gets a nice job in the cabinet of whoever actually wins. If the final two are Gove and May, I expect Gove to withdraw before the members' ballot, but I don't know whether he'll get that far. (I'd be very surprised if May isn't one of the final two, however.)

    888:

    He's not automatically allowed to withdraw according to an interview I heard this morning. He'd do better to withdraw at the point there are 3 left if he's one of them. The election system is designed to give the party membership a voice in selecting a leader, so a withdrawal has to be approved by the chairman of the 1922 committee. Someone suddenly diagnosed with a life-threatening illness for example... Not someone trying to blatantly subvert the process.

    Although as I've commented up-thread (and as Deadringers just so brilliantly spoofed if you can get iPlayer Radio) he might well be knocked out early.

    889:

    ... he might well be knocked out early too. Pesky fingers.

    890:

    So she's better than she looks at first glance. I don't like authoritarians, but I definitely like them better when they believe that everyone should follow the same rules.

    I'll revise my stance: maybe she should be elected dog-catcher.

    891:

    Oh cool, so it's like a game of hot potato. What if there are three left and two want to drop out? And are the current top two allowed to drop out in earlier rounds?

    892:

    It's a game of "Hot Murdoch-tato." You toss the crazed right-wing publisher from one person another, and the loser gets to make a decision either destroys your own country or angers the crazy man who owns lots of media.

    893:

    The idea of the rules seems to be (and again, this is from skimming them and what the Radio 4 Political Editor said in commentary this morning) that the process produces 2 candidates from however many stand that the MPs can at least tolerate, then the full party chooses the one they like the most - notionally because they might reflect the electorate better than just the MPs. (It's worth noting, if the Labour Party did this, they wouldn't be in their current mess, Corbyn would have be roundly dumped in round 1 of the PLP voting. We'd almost certainly have Burnham or not sure who the other candidate would have been put the wider party. But Burnham was the second placed candidate, albeit miles behind Corbyn.)

    So, If there are three left and two want to go, the first can, the second can't. I guess in chronological order. Unless there's a really good cause for the second, in which case there might be pressure put on the first to withdraw his/her withdrawal. If after one round, so there are four left, the top two decide to drop out but there are two left, that would be ok.

    But, a lot of this is 'at the discretion of the chairman' to 'ensure the party members have 2 candidates to choose between' so honestly, who can tell.

    894:

    Speaking of Theresa May...the startling realization I had a couple of days ago is that while all sorts of things could happen in the next six months, one of them is that in six months' time three of the economically most significant countries in the world could all be...

    ...governed by grandmothers.

    wg

    895:

    We don't know. Because Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010 and she's only been Home Secretary, so she's been in a job where the job requires being authoritarian and detail oriented she's definitely that way inclined but while she's much more inclined to the "big power of state" over "rights of the individual" than me, she does exhibit a sense of fairness and an eye for justice both of which are pretty important too.

    I've heard some things about Andrea Leadsom over the course of today that make me hope she's the other candidate. She's young in political terms (she's part of the class of 2010) but she's got senior management experience, she's got experience handling big budgets and she stood up to Gideon when he was her boss and he did laid in to Ed Balls and she thought Gideon was in the wrong. I think she's an unlikely candidate, Crabb or Fox seems like a more likely stalking horse so it's not two women but she's probably got what it takes.

    From a Tory MP and wider party membership POV Teresa May has that "The Nasty Party" quote to live down still.

    896:

    Paging Harry Perkins. White courtesy telephone, please.

    (Chris Mullin, too, has had problems with reality overrunning his sequels.)

    897:

    Doesn't her idea of abandoning the European Convention on Human Rights raise some concerns for you? I think that exit from the EU is a big deal, but that is on an entirely different scale.

    898:

    Theresa May, Hillary Clinton and ???

    Angela Merkel has no children, and France, Italy, Japan, India and China have male leaders. Maybe Brazil if the impeachment fails?

    899:

    Oh yes, absolutely. But she's rowed back from that because "there's no parliamentary support for it."

    Look, I don't vote Labour because they're too right wing for me. An authoritarian Tory has a LOT of policies I really don't like as "natural." If I had to choose the PM, I'd choose none of this rabble thanks. Oh, wait, I did in 2015 but our wonderful electorate ignored me then, just like they did last week. Oh well.

    But, while Teresa May certainly has a whole batch of policies I oppose bitterly, she's done some things which win my approval however grudging it may be. That's more than can be said for Gove and Fox (others, including some on this list have other opinions).

    900:

    Now look at BJ and co. Their dreams came true: and it all it cost was the destruction of the thing they were fighting for. Sorry to not respond earlier. (Yesterday was a bit confused personally; took a while to ... sort it out.) I don't care much about BJ and co. Do care about the UK, and ripple and feedback effects that may affect the world including the U.S.. Watching with interest. Lots of people in the U.S. are becoming much more familiar with UK politics which is fun. Lunchtime political discussions about the UK and EU. (Beats talking about Trump.) I'm dying [...] when I wanted to live, to grow and to become. The part of me (subset of belief network, roughly) that believes this asks a deeply serious question; is there anything that can be done, including by any of us here? (Listened to the video twice; usually don't do that.) ...because of Belief and Gnostics... Pesky Gnostics. Wait, what? Please explain.

    901:

    The more I look at it, the more I fail to see any motivation for the EU to do anything other than: (1) Systematically discriminate against the UK while the UK is in the EU. (2) Refuse, under any circumstances, to allow financial passporting. (3) Grudgingly allow entry to the single market under the condition of (a) slightly increased dues and (b) free migration of labor.

    The outcomes include: (if England buckles) (a) Significant decline in UK economy (losing the financial sector) (b) Significant increase in EU wealth (snagging the financial sector) (c) Keeping UK trade

    The outcomes include: (if England refuses) (a) Really big decline in UK economy (financial sector, trade with EU) (b) Possibly net neutral in EU wealth (lose a big trading partner, gain a gigantic financial sector) (c) Loss of migration to UK and vice-versa (d) Loss of UK tax shelters...

    Both outcomes include: Crashing the UK economy, and thereby discouraging impulses towards fragmentation in the EU. So, win-win. And, I'm not sure what the UK can offer to better those options for your typical EU bureaucrat.

    Am I missing something?

    902:

    Yep: 1) is illegal under EU law.

    Also, while France seems to be quite keen to attract London banks, I'm not sure if other countries value the financial sector higher than free trade with the UK. Also, Poland has no interest of integrating all UK workers back into the local labor market (probably can't).

    About tax shelters: my understanding is that the EU doesn't want those.

    903:

    That about tallies with my feelings, however I fear you're underestimating the damage that could come our way from France, via a very weak President looking out for his own political skin in the upcoming French presidential elections. His main challenger is tipped to be Marine Le Pen, who will be fighting on an anti EU ticket. Hollande looks to be prepared to do anything he can to make Britain's position as bleak as possible in an attempt to scare voters away from Marine Le Pen and 'FREXIT'

    904:

    Financial news today says the DOW is up about 20 and the pound is now worth 1.33 dollars (up from 1.32 dollars.) The DOW being up means that we're now in the territory the DOW was occupying prior to the vote on the referendumb. Hopefully it will stay there, and whoever leads the Tories (chief cat-herder?) is smart enough to defer Article 50 until after the U.S. election in November.

    Please don't screw up the economy; we might elect the Oompa-Loompa!

    905:

    About tax shelters: my nderstanding is that the EU doesn't want those.

    I think the point being made is that that's the aim in view: moving the UK and its long-standing protection of tax havens outside the EU.

    (There's also a certain amount of suspicion of the whole law of trusts in civil law jurisdictions. It's a completely different theory of property ownership and a fair number of them regard it as something akin to legal sorcery.)

    906:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ - in case you wanted to see an Untergang parody of Boris Johnson's reaction to winning the leave vote...

    907:

    Sigh.

    Did Juncker speak with aliens leaders of other planets ? YT: reality: 0:27 -- look up the actual speech, it says the same.

    And no, you can't do much.

    You can only have compassion as they die / the world dies / we die.

    Interesting times: in your life time the Lions, Tigers and Bears (and Orcas and all the rest) go extinct.

    There's a reason Islam deserves a special place in infamy: betrayal and Babylon and loss of contact and fucking the Djinn.

    Being Made the Vehicle of Torture for Beautiful things. Quite the punishment.

    Just for Being and Existing.

    ~

    And no: I'm fucking dying. It's annoying and sad, but the worst is what it cost. My life is nothing to the 4 billion humans on the chopping block.

    ~

    Pesky Gnostics. Wait, what? Please explain.

    Talk to Dirk.

    The debasement is there to preclude any attempt at deification and worship.

    908:

    Oh, and BJ stepped down.

    What you're dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the Law.

    Their Law YT: music: 4:07

    ADAPT OR DIE.

    That wasn't a funny, it was a reality check. The Right are adapting, mutating and orgasming in the Flow.

    The rest? Dying on the Vine.

    My money is on a strong Left Avatar and move, but not of the Authoritarian Bent.

    I've been known to be wrong[1].

    (Listened to the video twice; usually don't do that.)

    But did you cry?

    Stoned Immaculate YT: Music: 1:33

    [1] Lol, no. Check Orca Culture, CERN experiments, Humans sensing magnetic fields and so on. CBA to give you links to reality anymore. It all came true. Dpb can learn or revile: reality cares not.

    909:

    Islam. The Muddled East. The Roadside Picnic. Howard knew.

    Pro tip: When you wake up from a dream in which "He Who Is Not To Be Named" is angry with you... don't go back to sleep!

    910:

    Yes you are missing ( a very big ) something. The policies you describe would crash the EU as well, or can't you see that? The politicians in Europe can, but the commissioners can't, the exact problem with the EU, in fact ....

    911:

    And, tryptic, just to weave the thread:

    The fringed curtains of thine eye advance, And say what thou seest yond.

    And when you see the world eternal, flashing and figured in your mind's eye, they'll attempt to blind you and ruin all.

    They don't like it when we see.

    He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

    Big on punishment, less sophisticated on self-awareness.

    Financial news today says the DOW is up about 20 and the pound is now worth 1.33 dollars (up from 1.32 dollars.) The DOW being up means that we're now in the territory the DOW was occupying prior to the vote on the referendumb. Hopefully it will stay there, and whoever leads the Tories (chief cat-herder?) is smart enough to defer Article 50 until after the U.S. election in November.

    Sigh. Money means nothing now. It's why they're all pressing for electronic mediums.

    $15 billion for Snap Chat.

    Sea Turtle Recovering After Being Stepped on and Beaten for Selfies Nat Geo, 24th June 2016 [and yes: ignore the man behind the curtain here and his angle]

    You're Fucked.

    912:

    Pro tip: When you wake up from a dream in which "He Who Is Not To Be Named" is angry with you... don't go back to sleep!

    What if you wake up and you've taken his Crown and Court? (Rhetorical)

    913:

    When I was 6 years old I had a nightmare about the Abominable Snowman from the old Rankin-Bass production of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. The snowman was chasing me through the house and roaring and I was terrified. Suddenly I realized that he was a "snowman" so I could turn up the heat in the house and he would melt. So I turned up the heat. And the Abominable Snowman melted. And then I woke up.

    For the very first time in my life, I had taken control over my own brain/fears/dreams. Obviously it doesn't work every time - because dreams - but I feel like I have taken the the Abominable Snowman's Crown and Court. And that's enough. I know my limits.

    Taking Hastur's Crown? Hastur's Court?* I'll settle for being a cautious rat inside a nice, thick wall - you live longer that way.

    And yes, we are so fucked. Thanks for being willing to say so. I wish you could talk more about things you're not allowed to talk about.

    914:

    For the Nth time, it is NOT the EU that will crash our economy - I agree that they would do a lot to avoid it. For 30 years, our current account has been in the red, and we have survived only by selling off our business and property and by foreign 'investment' (multinationals setting up bases in the UK, mainly to sell to the EU):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-5-charts-that-show-the-vulnerability-of-the-uk-economy-a7110981.html http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2014/speech750.pdf

    Unless the next PM can pull off a miracle, we are going to lose London as the pre-eminent financial hub and most new foreign investment. That, in turn, will make our current account much worse, raise unemployment (and hence reduce the tax base AND increase public expenditure). But it's worse than that. House prices, the housing sector, banks, insurance companies and pensions are all closely connected, and all reliant on (effectively) a set of intertwined Ponzi schemes. And, once Ponzi schemes start to fail, they crash.

    Those of us with the curse of Cassandra have been warning about this for many decades, and (in many cases) when the main policy changes that led to this were being proposed. Brexit won't be the cause, but it will be the trigger. I may be wrong about the timing (I often am), but we have to get down of the tiger sometime, and I am not relishing what happens thereafter.

    915:

    Annoying, sad and confusing.

    I haven't known what to say, so I haven't said anything.

    Now all I'm saying is, I don't know what to say other than that I feel I should say something. I know it doesn't help.

    You'll be very much missed.

    916:

    They just don't get it.

    Thinking on what happens if the UK really leaves, what do the Eurocrats come up with? Military integration. Because expanding French peacekeeping and preventing more wars in Lotharingia is a higher priority than defending the Euro-Russian border, or actually getting the European intelligence agencies to talk to each other, or addressing migration both between EU members and from the outside. All of which are issues blinking orange and red on the EU stability damage control panel, never mind them actually mattering to the half-billion Europeans you are supposed to be leading and protecting.

    I've heard of fighting the last war, but this is trying to prevent the next-to-last war. Dear Brussels, when they complain about accountability deficit, this is the problem. And they are right, and every time you do something like this... well, not only do you make it more likely that the Union will collapse, you make it more proper and appropriate that it do so.

    917:

    There is nothing in the article linked, to suggest that it is anything other than the authors opinion masquerading as news. Yes the French in particular may have been pushing for EU military integration but nothing in the article suggest that there is a new push from Paris on the topic much less one in response to Brexit. The memo referred to at the beginning was "long awaited", so I am guessing it was years in the making, possibly initiated before Cameron ever though of the Brexit referendum. Some of it seems Neo-Con bait, "Ooh! Europe will cosy up to Russia"

    918:

    preventing more wars in Lotharingia is a higher priority than defending the Euro-Russian border

    You really got me daydreaming with this one...

    President Drumpf ended his speech with, "We must not allow there to be a Lotharingian gap!"

    Flying into West Ghent, he said, "Ich bin en Lothringer".

    Manicurist Lorraine Essexgirl was in tears yesterday when her studio was attacked by a BNP mob chanting "Lorrainers Out!"

    Mariano Rajoy has refused to send troops, on the ground that "Lorraine in Spain is Really Quite A Pain".

    All right, I'll shut up now.

    919:

    There is a hidden issue here that has other implications as well.

    It is possibly true that Brexit will hurt GDP because of the effect on the big banks, but I'm not at all sure this matters to the great majority of the British public. And the reason for that is that the financial district and the real economy (that of people who make things and provide services that people actually want to buy) is rather loosely linked to the financial "industry".

    British financial institutions, and/or the British branches of international ones, much prefer to make their money by shuffling magnetic domains from database A to database B and then on to C,D,E... and skimming a percentage at each iteration, rather than lending money to people who want it to actually do useful things with. Such as buying new machinery, recruiting/training staff and building houses, for example.

    I'm not at all sure that even a semi-fantasy disaster, such as an asteroid strike on the City of London, would affect the economy of anywhere north of Watford or west of Heathrow very much at all.

    There are other indices, such as industrial production statistics and the number of new houses built. Those are a much better measure of what's really going on than crude GDP.

    920:

    Yebbut, 17% of our foreign exchange comes from financial services. Are you old enough to remember the last foreign exchange crisis?

    921:

    Directly I don't care if the banks take a hit, you're right. I certainly don't care if the City bankers take a hit. I think it's outrageous none of them have ended up in prison for Libour fixing and so on, unless I've missed some news.

    While I'm sure they practise tax avoidance to the max, I wonder just how much it really matters to the UK economy - rather than the UK public. What proportion of our tax bill do they still pay? I know, with absolute certainty, I'm net receiver from the taxes of others compared to how much I pay in income tax. (I can work out how much the drugs and other medical support I get cost per annum and compare it to how much income tax I pay. That's before I add staffing costs.) I'm pretty sure even when I add how much I pay in VAT and national insurance, I'm a net receiver, although that's a harder calculation. (Since I haven't included staffing costs, I'm pretty sure it's still lower.) So one millionaire banker probably more than makes up for me.

    Now, I have a real issue that so much of our GDP lies in this one basket. But if it curls up and dies and stops paying its taxes, whatever proportion of the taxes you or I think it should it be paying, the taxes the businesses and employees currently actually do pay) I wonder just how much we'll be unaffected outside the M25. I think the economy will hurt a lot when austerity++ kicks in.

    922:

    Damn the taxes - they come from the ordinary people - it's the foreign exchange, needed to pay for essential imports.

    923:

    I'd be fascinated to see what the breakdown of income tax by earnings band is, although I can't find it. And what "the ordinary people" are too.

    If you're on the minimum wage, which I'm pretty sure is the modal wage in this country, you don't pay income tax for example, although depending on what you buy a high proportion of your disposable income probably goes on VAT. I can't find the figures to work out tax receipts from those earning less than the median wage and up to and including the mean wage.

    Given the minimum wage earners pay no tax both of those could be less than the contribution to the tax receipts from corporation tax though, at 6.2% of national tax income according to the IFS. Almost certainly less when you add another 4.2% for business rates and consider total receipts for income tax is only 25.7% of the total.

    I'm not saying the foreign exchange isn't important as well. But if our new chancellor bangs on about austerity and balancing the books as much as the current one and we get a sizeable hole in the taxes from the financial sector the public will really care about that too.

    924:

    The foreign exchange is the biggie all right, particularly with the UK's current balance of payments. As I recall this brought down more than one UK government in the past. That said the taxes and income of the 300k or so people working in the industry in the London area is not to be sniffed at.

    925:

    PENSION FUNDS This is the exact same mistake that Militant Tendency Momentum, err, Corbyn's lot make ....

    "Oh lets get rid of all the banks, yeah, OK, where's the budget surplus going to come from then? You might not like it, but that's the way it is (at present)

    926:

    Damn the taxes - they come from the ordinary people WRONG The bulk of taxes come from ( often small) business, corporations & VAT. Time to join the real world .....

    927:

    Eh.. just because they move offices, doesn't mean the firms managing retirement funds get to stop paying out their obligations. Or do you mean the state pensions? The ability to keep paying that does not depend on having a financial sector, it depends on having an economy.

    928:

    @ 916 - 918 OK, the heffalump-in-the-room. "Military"? Really? Really, really ?? We have just passed the anniversary of Jutland, we are just 100 years from Verdun. Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of my (lying) then 17-year-old Uncle's going "over the Top" at the Somme [ He survived ] & we wonder why so may people voted "OUT" when we are being ordered about by a small/big-time crook from LUXEMBOURG ????

    After a previous conflict, I think it was Swift who wrote: "Enough for Europe has our Albion fought, let us enjoy the peace our blood has bought"

    Some people are ungrateful bastards.

    929:

    IF you are replying to me? I DO NOT mean state pensions - I mean "private", which includes a lot of employers/employees pension funds. { I have a small one, paying almost the same as my state pension, f'rinstance ) Huge numbers of people are either dependant upon these, or are expecting to be dependant on them .... Which Corbyn's nutters don't even comprehend, the fuckwits.

    930:

    Well! according to This source 53% or so of UK tax revenue comes form income (32%) and NIC(22%) now I do not know how National Insurance breaks down between employees and their employers but VAT and Corporation Tax only account for about 29% or so.

    931:

    Uh, who - strictly in the real world, here - do you think pays all that VAT, and owns and runs all those small businesses? And, indeed, the small corporations that pay most of the corporation tax actually collected? (And all the fuel duty, and all of the excise taxes on life's little pleasures, and the stamp duty every time you move house, and so on and so forth...)

    932:

    This source is WRONG. ( Wobbly figures/rates to say the least )

    933:

    Yhea, but in the final reckoning, those payouts also come from the non-financial sector of the economy. Countries don't have savings. There are no huge warehouses of consumer goods to be emptied out when the pensions come due. All present consumption comes out of present production - so if you care about pensioners not starving in the street in the future, what you should care about is the future production of goods and non-financial services. Thus, it is a really bad idea to allow finance to cannibalize the rest of the economy.

    934:

    "Uh, who - strictly in the real world, here - ..."

    You mean that it still exists? After the past week, I thought that it had got lost.

    935:

    Well that source takes its figure from an excel spread sheet which is available on This site which says it is it "HMRC Tax Receipts and National Insurance Contributions for the UK" which I just downloaded and cross checked against the site I originally linked to and they agree for the relevant year The spread sheet has the annual figures and monthly breakdown April 08 to May 2016. The site I linked to has a gov.uk address, so I expect that, that data is as good as I will get or od you have a better site?

    936:

    Yes, it's wrong per HMRC's own stats, which lists - for 2015 - 54% of tax coming from the personal income taxes - Income Tax, NICs, CGT and BPT - and 22% coming from VAT.

    Corporation Tax makes up somewhat less than 9% - the Banking Levy and Petroleum Revenue tax not being big contributions. Booze, smokes and fuel duty contribute more to the tax base, at 11% put together.

    So, somewhere between 80 and 90 % of the tax actually collected comes from the incomes and spending of entirely ordinary people. Probably nearer the top of that range, as a fair chunk of the corporation tax comes from the small businesses of the ordinary people you're claiming aren't paying the nation's taxes.

    937:

    "Oh noes, the eevil Eurocrats will steal our armies, thus destroying the sacrifice of Our Boys" - believed propaganda of the more breathless end of the Leave campaign, but utter bollocks.

    There's a Franco-German Brigade; it's been around for thirty years now, and it's still only a Brigade (about 5000 soldiers). There's Eurocorps, which is a Corps Headquarters (about 1000 soldiers), and it was declared operational twenty years ago. That's it. A framework, to which Governments attach troops, not uncommon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

    Claiming this as evidence of a European Army is just daft - no-one is claiming that the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (NATO formation, with a UK Lieutenant-General in command and the UK providing the bulk of the Corps Headquarters troops) is somehow proof of the UK attempting to cunningly take over NATO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Rapid_Reaction_Corps

    Defence Cooperation is not a Single Armed Forces... Read this, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

    938:

    Ah, sorry for not answering this before: "Re Jaju, post 11:

    So, do you also object to US federalism, a "superstate" over all those lovely independent states (and commonwealths)?

    mark"

    Well, USA has achieved at least some level of ideological and economical integrity. Although they have fought a very interesting war in order to achieve it.

    Currently USA is a clear superpower. But if I had been living in the Confederation, then I would not agree with the Union.

    939:

    We currently have an entire government devoted to the proposition that the real world can be made to conform to expectations if admonished with sufficient sternness by someone of the Right Class. So, yes, it can be hard to keep a firm grip on that notion.

    940:

    "I may be wrong, but Le Pen has pledged that she is planning on holding a referendum on France's membership in the EU. What is your opinion on that referendum?"

    I support dismantling Euro. But I do not support killing the whole EU project.

    Although, if the decision is between continuing with the complete Euro disaster or dismantling EU, then I am for killing the EU.

    941:

    "In particular the widespread and non-trivial negative interest rates say we are most certainly not."

    Personally I think that to be in contrast to reality. If you consider the interest rate issue without the emotional problem with zero, then negative interest rates are just interest rates.

    In the case of negative interest rates you just think that things are going to be fairly shitty for a long time. Hence the best estimate for a return is negative.

    I completely agree with you in the sense that negative interest rates are a very, very bad phenomenon. Something like having quite a few barrel bodied and tentacled monsters flying in the sky of your economic world. And being eager to eat your brains.

    But in the real world there is no reason to think negative interest rates in a special way. They are just a bit lower than your 10^-1000 rate. They just represent the market estimate of the economy.

    Negative interest rates for the Eurozone just tell how flawed the Euro is.

    942:

    Elie Wiesel, may he rest in peace. Maybe get a Coke with Ali. One of the ironies of history is that things all kick off again as the last people who remember pass on.

    943:

    Seems to me that if City of London banking becomes a shadow of it's former self, the UK, or whatever's left of it by then, dodges a lot of blame the next time the world of finance blows up. Steaming wreckage in a ditch seems to be one of the natural states of investment banking.

    944:

    My money is on a strong Left Avatar and move, but not of the Authoritarian Bent. This would be good. I'm presuming the UK? Turning the U.S. will be harder, though not impossible. (Speaking as an incorrigible optimist.) But did you cry? If you must, sad yes, and eyes moistened a little bit. (Father dying a couple of years ago got the same. Sadness lingers.) ... Firecrackers and skyrockets scared the coyotes into silence. The US is loud in early July.

    945:

    im a bit confused ...

    this discussion seems to have shifted from arguing the brexit and the possible scenarios and blaming your/the UK politicians/voter to a blame-fest of the EU/brussels/the EURO etc. lots of hate ...

    are there any rational arguments why/how the EU is responsible for this mess ? and can someone explain whats bad about the EU, the EURO and "more of it" ? (and yep, "it doesnt work" would not be exactly satisfying ...)

    946:

    That is only half of the story. The so-called "loyal opposition" are equally unaware of the real world, too. Which is the entire problem, of course - they're all as mad as a box of frogs ....

    947:

    I re-quote : "The EU is perceived as French, Authoritarian. Left-Wing & Catholic & a great majority of English & British people will have problems with at least three of those things" [ The speaker is nominally catholic ... ] My own take is that "l'administration" is more important than actually running the show, i.e. it's a pure bureaucracy, euw. As in that the commissioners certainly appear to be utterly unaccountable, no matter what the rules say.

    BTW - all those people who made re-comments on mine on tax ... I was quoting from imperfect memory, but madam saw some of your previous ones & started "shouting at the radio" - she works in Tax, oh dear. So, we're all wrong, OK?

    948:

    Funny. That's the second time I've encountered the word "Rattenfänger" this week... As it happens, I wrote to Juncker and Merkel on the 27th, copies to various politicians here, with the following letter proposing an immune system against Rattenfänger:

    Dear President Juncker

    I am writing with a proposal concerning the Brexit referendum and education. Namely, that an Institute of European Union Studies be set up to explain the EU, and that the referendum then, if still appropriate, be re-run.

    The referendum result upset me deeply. I have lived and worked in EU countries and learned several EU languages. At the end of 2001, I started a tour around Europe to watch the Euro come in. I value the EU and the history behind it, and am sorry that we now have to leave.

    But I was also sickened by the bias and misinformation that affected the vote. For example:

    • Daily Express headlines such as "2M EU migrants grab our jobs", "Migrants keep on pouring into EU", and "You pay for Roma gypsy palaces".

    • The Vote Leave poster proclaiming "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week".

    • Voters who reportedly voted Leave as a protest, believing this would be safe because everyone else would vote to remain. Which is silly because if you don't know how someone else will behave, it's best to assume that you're typical and they're typical, and so they'll do the same as you. Meaning in this case that they'd also vote Leave.

    I do not want to live in a country where such a crucial vote — and hence our economy — can be affected by poor education, gutter-media lies, and anti-immigrant hatred. It's a stupid way to run a democracy. So I want to suggest this. Set up an independent institute called the Institute of European Union Studies. It would analyse the effects of staying in the EU and of leaving under various scenarios, and explain these to the public in an unbiased way. It would also explain how the EU works; and analyse, and where necessary, rebut, claims by the media (including all those Daily Express front pages) and by politicians and campaigners.

    Being unbiased, it would do this for pro- as well as anti-EU claims. Amongst other things, it would need to explain how financial markets work, why they're important, and how our relationship with the EU affects them. Staff would include economists and historians and international lawyers, but also writers skilled in explaining these complicated topics to non-experts.

    Let the Institute run for two years. Then — if still politically necessary — hold another referendum. If that results in a Leave vote, so be it. But at least it will be an informed vote, in a democracy which is not functioning on lies and ignorance.

    Anthony Seldon, the political historian, wrote to the Times proposing the same thing, so I'm in good company. Thanks to OGH for the Daily Express front pages.

    949:

    Do let us know if you get a reply!

    I'm afraid that I do not see how this idea is going to work. To create such an Institute would be the easy part. Not having it drown in the ocean of other think-tanks, some of which are fronts for what Bentham called "sinister interests", would be harder. I expect that there already were institutions devoted to public information, understanding, fraternisation and apple pie (strudel?), of which almost no one has ever heard. It would be like the Piddle-Hinton Committee for World Peace.

    How would the output of your IoEUS be communicated to the Express-reading public? Would the IoEUS publish its own newspaper, which no one would read, or would it have to rely on being reported by the likes of the Express? We know how well that would work: "Brussels propagandists eat babies on YOUR taxes!"

    The idea that you could cancel the referendum because it wasn't held under the benign supervision of this Institute – sorry, to me that's lion-lying-down-with-the-lamb territory.

    950:

    We nick Shauble's idea of the EU paying for the dole (while finessing the Germany supervises part to something like the EU parliament supervises) add also part pays for primary and secondary education with a mandatory civics and Euro language component. Add in the free opportunity for Summer camp in the Euro country of you language study for 2 summers for full cultural immersion. Would that help?

    951:

    Rational arguments against the Euro and the EU?

    We didn't really hear any during the whole referendum IMO. Although like most (maybe all) of the enfranchised people commenting on this thread I voted remain so I'm biased.

    There were a lot of emotive arguments advanced and a lot of unsubstantiated arguments advanced and a lot of appeals to national pride, nationalism and so on. There were some blatant lies and a lot of obfuscation and "politician speak" too. But clear, rational arguments, can't think of one. Most, if not all, of the same criticisms (with the exception of appeals to national pride and nationalism) can be levelled at the remain camp too by the way.

    One example of (unchallenged by almost anyone) Leave "politician speak" is the (true) fact that over the last 7 years Europe has had worse economic growth figures than any continent save Antarctica. Followed by "Why should we tie ourselves to this moribund economy?" Ignoring the fact that in the last year, Europe is on an upswing, South America and Asia are looking not so good as the BRICs economies are slowing down and Europe shouldn't be considered moribund any more. But hey, why let recent figures get in the way of a good line?

    Another one is the infamous £350m/week. Some huge proportion of the electorate believed this "fact" despite it being a lie. They kept comparing the amount we send to being like your wages, and the £350m/w is the total, not the net after tax. A more sensible analogy is buying something in the sale, the original price is £350m, but when you get 25% off you don't say "Oh, it cost me £350m, you say it cost me £260m." In the case of the EU subsidy it starts getting way more complex because of course we then get subsidies back in payments to regions, payment to agriculture, funding for science, funding for business. We also also get membership of the Single Market and so on. But even in the simplest of terms, we just don't send £350m/w to the EU.

    So when you struggle to find simple facts, rational arguments will always be tricky.

    952:

    "My own take is that "l'administration" is more important than actually running the show, i.e. it's a pure bureaucracy, euw. As in that the commissioners certainly appear to be utterly unaccountable, no matter what the rules say."

    i can relate to that.

    but im pretty sure that every bureaucracy falls into that category more or less. the austrian (former K.u.K.) one for sure and my guess is that UK's not very different.

    my pov is that i think its a common attribute to democracy. its always a struggle and every historc example of overthrowing it completely brings sheds of blood plus another probably bigger instance. you have to live with it and hold it in check. maybe change the rulez for better ones and let it work for the common good.

    but nobody would want to blow the house to hit the janitor - especially a big, complicated and hard to be built one like the EU ?!?

    953:

    yeah, we have that too in the current presidential elections ...

    sascha lobo names this "Bullshit 9.0" as in: BS in the discussion where nobody cares it is BS and arguing against it is lost in the white noise.

    http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/bullshit-9-0-wut-sticht-wahrheit-kolumne-a-1100410.html (sorry german)

    954:

    im all for it, for some people education surely would help. i hope u get an answer.

    my personal experience thou tells me that some people are educated and it helps nothin at all. in my 1st post here i wrote of some blokes that told me we should ÖEXIT and live "the swiss" model. and these guys had an academic grade on economics ...

    i believe in their guts they just want no migrants and an authoritarian state and build a (very weak) narrative to make it sound modern, enlightened and reasonable. it fails on the argument level ...

    955:

    some blokes that told me we should ÖEXIT and live "the swiss" model...they just want no migrants

    Given that Switzerland has Europe's highest percentage of refugees and migrants, how did they think that would work? Well, I guess no external player is compelling the Swiss to take them, but these blokes maybe ought to find another name for their enclave.

    956:

    "They kept comparing the amount we send to being like your wages, and the £350m/w is the total, not the net after tax."

    I used the wages comparison to argue against the 350m figure: considering your wages in terms of the pre-tax figure is Bloody Stupid, because you do not in reality get that much, therefore the figure is meaningless; the only relevant, meaningful figure is that after tax, which describes how much actually lands in your bin. Considering how much we pay to the EU without knocking off what the EU pays us is similarly Bloody Stupid for the same reason.

    957:

    Except hardly anyone knows their wages post-tax. You don't see it advertised anywhere. You see a pre-tax figure, people discuss the pre-tax figure. At least everyone I know does.

    You're right of course, discussing what you have to spend post tax, NI and any pension contributions is much more useful but it's not what people actually talk about.

    958:

    Amen, Brother Pigeon.

    One reason for my thinking, as a child, that "adults" were Bloody Stupid was how they were forever complaining that such-and-such a thing cost so much more than it had in 1945, and never, ever, with any awareness that their income had also increased. Really, who other than an economic historian should care what a pound of fish cost in Attlee's time? Even as a kid, I knew that the only important question was how much fish you could get for your income today.

    This stupidity was universal, and accounted for a large proportion of all discussions in both parlour and pub. Trying to explain inflation to such people was like expounding quantum mechanics to the dog. They just continued quoting 1945 prices as proof of Ain't-it-awful, but more loudly. Lights on but no one at home.

    The Missing Link between the apes and intelligent creatures has been found – it's us!

    959:

    And what else is going to be said by people who don't actually pay any tax, and naturally don't want to advertise the fact socially?

    Perhaps they can't do get away with this in your neck of the woods. Here, we used to publish everyone's tax status in the newspapers, so we could see that the ten or twenty richest people in the city paid nada in personal taxation. "Zero-taxpayer" is an uncomplimentary part of the language, but funnily enough, never got translated into pressure actually to do anything about it. It is my impression that British and American billionaires actually do pay some tax – ours don't.

    960:

    Over here, after-tax income and take-home-pay are commonly talked about.

    961:

    I am certainly not defending people who should pay tax and don't. And the only people I know that pay zero income tax are those who earn too little to be taxed, not those that are rich and avoid it.

    I'm just saying, if you see an advert for a job in the UK, one appeared in my email yesterday, that says salary £44,000pa. that's the gross figure. The amount of deductions from that amount are not listed and, on the (rare in my social circles) we talk about how much we earn, we talk about gross incomes.

    Personally, I think the whole income tax system needs a massive overhaul. I don't remember the exact figure right now, but the tax rules in the UK publish something like 2 telephone directories of updates every year. That strikes me as completely crazy: we need to throw them out, start afresh and write clear and simple rules from scratch so it's easy for everyone and make tax avoidance (for example by paying in pensions) clear and well understood and tax evasion harder and punitive. Not punished by prison but by paying 3x the amount you tried to cheat say.

    As for paying some tax - I think it's like everywhere. There are rich people here who are rich as a by product of what they do and they, by and large, don't mind paying their taxes. I'm sure they employ accountants to do their books but they don't make particular efforts not to pay their taxes. Then there are rich people for whom being rich is the goal and they try hard not to pay as little tax as possible, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally.

    I would guess that most of the richest 20 in any location are in the second camp: to become super rich you have to be really motivated by every penny after all.

    962:

    Personally, I think the whole income tax system needs a massive overhaul. I don't remember the exact figure right now, but the tax rules in the UK publish something like 2 telephone directories of updates every year. That strikes me as completely crazy: we need to throw them out, start afresh and write clear and simple rules from scratch so it's easy for everyone and make tax avoidance (for example by paying in pensions) clear and well understood and tax evasion harder and punitive. Not punished by prison but by paying 3x the amount you tried to cheat say.

    Your suggestion for the punitive element: not bad, but the deterrent effect comes with certainty of being caught, not with how stiff the penalty is (and it should be stiff). What might work is treating tax evasion (and to some extent avoidance) the same way we treat benefit fraud: hugely policed with bounties paid to snitches and an anonymous tip-line. The number of investigators for benefit fraud relative to the amounts involved is huge compared with the size of the force working on tax compliance, again measured against the amounts involved.

    (Of course this is deliberate policy.)

    As for simplifying the tax code: sorry, but that's not the way it works. A simple tax code is, by its nature, full of loopholes and room for special cases. The updates are mostly 'clarifications'.

    A big team of seriously big brains with a remit to find and reverse all the perverse incentives in the tax code: that I could get behind. Especially if their remit included gaming out the consequences. At the moment the tax system rewards cross-generational accumulation of wealth, rent-seeking, and a real-property price ratchet. Just to pick the first three I wrote down before I restrained myself from a terrible, terrible rant.

    You don't need to increase the total take from taxation by much if at all. And the brokenness of modern taxation isn't down to how complicated it is - complication is inevitable - it's in how it's poorly enforced and has perverse incentives baked right into it. Rewrite it to take as much as possible from places where wealth can do harm to the common good and no more than a reasonable amount elsewhere to let people feel they're making a contribution.

    963:

    First: my last was in reply to the same comment as this one. Not sure what happened there.

    Second:

    I would guess that most of the richest 20 in any location are in the second camp: to become super rich you have to be really motivated by every penny after all.

    With very few exceptions, the route to super-richness starts with having the right grandparents. Rags-to-riches is for all practical purposes, something that requires lottery-win luck.

    964:

    In California, land of the referendum, our government sends out "voter guides" to every registered voter. These guides discuss all the referendums on a ballot in formal-debate-like terms. First, there is a general analysis of the referendum by the "Legislative Analyst." This is very neutral in tone and does not take a side. Then both the "pro" and "anti" sides write their own analysis of what the referendum will do, then each side replies to the other side's arguments.

    I don't know how much "behind the scenes" work is done to ensure good work by both sides, but when everything is done both sides have taken a well-educated and intelligent tone with no name-calling. I'd be curious whether there was a "voter guide" of any kind attached to the Brexit referendum.

    For samples of what a California Voter Guide looks like, you can download these pdfs:

    vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-title-summ-analysis.pdf

    vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2016/primary/en/pdf/50-arg-rebuttals.pdf

    A text of the proposed law is also included, which I'm not linking to because I don't want this post to get stuck in moderation.

    965:

    I'd be curious whether there was a "voter guide" of any kind attached to the Brexit referendum.

    I look forward to the Brits answering that one.

    Looking up Switzerland, I find that the government recommends for or against an initiative. The voters usually follow, but not always. The government definitely recommended against that recent one violating their treaty commitments to free movement of people, and were blown off.

    Wiki also mentions an informative "official text" as something apparently apart from the recommendation, so that may answer to your Californian voter guide, or it may merely be a vetted wording of the proposal.

    966:

    "As for simplifying the tax code: sorry, but that's not the way it works. A simple tax code is, by its nature, full of loopholes and room for special cases. The updates are mostly 'clarifications'."

    That has got it precisely the wrong way round. It's the complex codes that are like that, and the 'clarifications' then create more loopholes and special cases. Not merely is there a vast amount of experience that that is fundamental (both in taxation and IT), but it can be demonstrated semi-mathematically. As you say, it is deliberate that the very rich don't pay tax, but the complications are used to enable that. Whenever people at the mere 99% level start using them to avoid tax, more complications are added to stop that.

    The problem with simple tax codes is neither evasion nor avoidance, but the way that the distort behaviours. One classic example was the window tax.

    967:

    @Andreas Outright discrimination is probably illegal. 'Accidental' discrimination as UK interests are completely ignored while writing new legislation - not so much. Imagine things like 'locality' requirements in finance or odd counts for fishing restrictions, applied completely evenhandedly. It is perfectly possible to make someone's life miserable by treating them completely fairly. Diplomats do work full time - and UK diplomats have just had their power in the UK significantly cut.

    And, yah, losing the UK's tax shelters can only benefit governmental budgets in the rest of the EU. By and large, most trusts appear to be primarily for tax purposes and my opinion is that, while they should be permitted to exist, the rule of thumb should be that there should be no tax benefit. As in, take the worst case alternative assuming the trust didn't exist and calculate taxes accordingly...

    Overall, with the EU project, from an ignorant outsiders perspective, there looks like overreach with respect to the amount of federalization of authority desired and cultural homogeneity present.

    Let's assume you're not open to massive inter-nation currency transfers (bearing in mind that in the US, arguably more homogeneous than the EU, a substantial number of states are getting > 2-3 USD per dollar of federal tax paid...) Then, if countries can't print money, letting them borrow in Euros and not go bankrupt is problematic. If nations have substantial numbers of racist xenophobes, maybe completely free migration tends towards destabilization. And, a single currency without bankruptcy will tend to induce migration (see Puerto Rico). And, well, I'm amused - but it looks like the random EU protectionism through excessive regulation is biting y'all also. [Seriously, I've done CE marks in the US and most of the requirements and additional tests are viewed as a pure tariff.]

    Overall, it looks like a bit of a shame. It the whole Brexit thing had been worked out in advance... with...

    no decrease in annual dues no decline in migration a probable loss in the financial sector and retaining access to the single market

    ...I'm not sure it would have passed.

    That said, I doubt the economic fallout will be terrible unless EU bureaucrats are sufficiently motivated to do harm. I mean, worst case, the UK loses the single market and London, Scotland, and Ireland. The EU loses trade with the UK, but it gets finance out of London. [Basically, if you must have a vampire squid attached to the jugular, best to keep it close by so you can use its poop as fertilizer. Unfortunately, you end up smelling like squid and squid excrement.] That's probably a 20% hit for the UK and maybe 3% for the EU. But, on the bright side, people in the UK will feel richer - because the bankers won't be pushing housing prices into the stratosphere along with fancy restaurants. And, well, it isn't like 20% of people will be out of work - just quite a few of the upper classes will move elsewhere. Meh. They sky isn't falling. Longer-term, there may be a real bonus - the EU, as it exists, looks a little dodgy. If it became a US-style superstate with wealth transfers and military enforcement, et cetera, I can see it being stable. As is though, there's a real danger of collapse at some point.

    968:

    As you say, it is deliberate that the very rich don't pay tax, but the complications are used to enable that.

    I don't know how in fact our rich shipowners go about paying zero personal tax, or whether it is something that demands a lot of effort (cf El on 961) or whether there are a few simple dodges like setting up a postbox company to own the house, cars and yacht.

    (If anyone wants me to, I can really rant about the misuse of the company form –– a word meaning sharing bread –– to mean a legal association of me, myself and I, with no Object other than to "own" one man's assets and evade liability. All right then, nobody does.)

    You're right about the law being used to stop the 99% aping our betters. The slightest talk of taxing the shipowners and they threaten to go overseas. The government then grovels. But that doesn't mean that normally rich people get to do this.

    The aristocracy of the ancien regime claimed total tax-exemption on the grounds that they contributed to society in other ways. Up to WWI that meant leading the cavalry charge or being first over the top, they had some sort of point. Now they tell us that they shouldn't pay tax because they help the economy. But if Fred Bloggs should say that he shouldn't pay tax because he makes the vital social contribution of driving the Clapham omnibus, or welding girders, or fighting fires, or arresting drunken arseholes singing the Horst Wessel Song – well, not so much.

    969:

    Official government policy was pro-Remain so, shortly before purdah began there was a propaganda piece sent to every home saying "This is why the government thinks you should remain."

    We, the UK that is, have had 3 national referenda. Scotland has had one more. If we did more of them we might have better rules. I don't generally think much of US electoral rules but the California explanations of propositions sound like a decent system as you explain it and from how the documents you linked look. What we basically do is typically British and fudge the general election rules. In a general election, because parliament is wrapping up, government (that is the civil service) can't launch new initiatives, make new policy statements and the like, but existing rules and policies continue to operate for a period (called purdah) before the election. Once the election is over, it all swings back into operation and things that were held back are the first order of business. Many of them, even under a new administration, are approved.

    There are rules that limit spending on campaigns. Each side (or party for an election) gets a number of slots for broadcasts on the BBC and so on. In the purdah period the rules about impartiality that always apply to broadcasters become tighter. (Listeners and viewers may complain about the perception of bias, the politicians very rarely do.)

    Certain bodies have a role in overseeing the use of statistics by public figures. They can, and did, all comment on various egregious abuses of statistics in the referendum campaigns. However, they lack teeth and the figures they pointed out (more politely than me) were bollocks continued to be abused.

    970:

    In the UK, it's simple, but there's a high entry fee, in money, effort and organisation. You can get it done for you at a price, but not easily if you are an ordinary employee - senior executives, of course, have no problem.

    971:

    http://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016 ...

    ...

    .... in which the plot thickens. I await with genuine interest to see exactly how they plead their case. (The rules have changed since I was still in practise as a lawyer, so while I will probably understand developments as they develop, I don't know enough to make even educated guesses as to how this is going to work for either side.)

    972:

    How would the output of your IoEUS be communicated to the Express-reading public? Would the IoEUS publish its own newspaper, which no one would read, or would it have to rely on being reported by the likes of the Express? We know how well that would work: "Brussels propagandists eat babies on YOUR taxes!

    I know. I don't have a good answer. Can anyone suggest one?

    The idea that you could cancel the referendum because it wasn't held under the benign supervision of this Institute – sorry, to me that's lion-lying-down-with-the-lamb territory.

    The Institute would just be a symptom. I want to cancel the referendum because too many voters were horribly misinformed, and didn't think beyond their sources of misinformation (*). I just don't think it's a sensible way to make such an important decision.

    (*) At least, I'm assuming that's true. The news stories about Bregret imply so, but they are only reporting a very small sample.

    973:

    I want to cancel the referendum because too many voters were horribly misinformed

    I wouldn't mind that happening at all, in the same way that I wouldn't mind Bill Gates leaving me all his money (despite what Charlie said), but I'm not holding my breath.

    One factor is the hard-core leavers feeling it as a dolchstoss, and I don't think we want to see what they're like when they're really, really alienated. Better to have a recount on the basis of ballot-boxes being just discovered in the back of a London taxi, cf Austria.

    Another factor is whether we apply that principle to everyone and everything. Hindsight regret could get us into the dungeon dimensions. Would Lincoln have been elected if they knew he would run a very bloody civil war? OK, not entirely congruent with your point, but those in the time-zone for drinking morning Wetware Boot Utility (aka. coffee) can think of a better example for me.

    974:

    "...if you see an advert for a job in the UK... that says salary £44,000pa. that's the gross figure. The amount of deductions from that amount are not listed...

    I think the whole income tax system needs a massive overhaul... start afresh and write clear and simple rules from scratch so it's easy for everyone..."

    Two humans with one turd (that's the pigeon version of "two birds with one stone"):

    The advert can't list deductions or quote a more meaningful figure because under the current system they're not necessarily the same for everyone. So, change the rules. First, change the formal definition of "your pay" to mean the amount you actually get in your bin. Lump income tax and NI together in one figure because having two income taxes and pretending one isn't is silly. Remove, as no longer necessary, that bit on your wage slip that says how much tax has been taken and serves no purpose other than to piss you off every month. Make income tax something paid by the employer, rather than the employee (which is easy, since in practical terms this is what already happens). And change the rate calculations from being something different and complicated for every person, to a simple fixed percentage of the total wage bill, the same percentage for every employer, chosen so as to bring in the same total tax as before the changes.

    Now, everyone is still getting the same amount per month as they got before, and the government is getting the same amount of tax, but everything is enormously simpler. Job ads will quote the pay you actually get. Tax administration gets vastly simplified as you no longer have to keep records for every individual person. Payroll calculations are simplified for the same reason. Tax evasion is no longer possible. A party can raise the rate without making everyone vote for the opposite party next time. And it acts as a big discouragement to this crap of "the only good immigrant/non-immigrant is a tax-paying immigrant/non-immigrant" (where "tax-paying" excludes all taxes other than income tax) and giving income tax payers a huge persistent sore of self-righteousness from which the scab gets pulled every month.

    975:

    "Rags-to-riches is for all practical purposes, something that requires lottery-win luck."

    How good it is to hear someone else saying that for a change. I do get fed up with people at the top of the pyramid telling people at the bottom (especially youngsters) "anyone can do this if you work hard enough". Er, it's a friggin' pyramid. Lots of people work hard and all most of them get is blisters. It simply promotes alienation and disillusionment, straight away among the more cynical, and among the more credulous after a time lag, but probably to a greater degree.

    976:

    One factor is the hard-core leavers feeling it as a dolchstoss, and I don't think we want to see what they're like when they're really, really alienated.

    Farage has already given an interview to this effect. Which he insisted on giving in the course of a tour of the Somme.

    Very slightly chilling, the whole thing.

    977:

    Rags-to-reasonably-comfortable used to be, if not easy, at least within the grasp of someone reasonably intelligent with a capacity for hard work. I'd like to see that reinstated.

    The rest is a massive rant that I'm choking down because I don't think I'd stop.

    978:

    @Troutwaxer, certainly our California Voter Guide has always been a decent start towards good voter information, though limited in coverage and expensive for candidates seeking to have their candidate statements included. Various parties publishing analyses on the Web scales better. (I offer my own modest examples.)

    Your Kansas/California contrast does strike me a useful cautionary tale for the UK, as indeed it's important that our state didn't drink the Austrian School austerity Kool-Aid. Nor did, bless his little moderate-Republican head, Pres. Obama, one of the reasons I have hope that November will yield a vote for the Much Lesser Evil.

    979:

    IMHO the figure for our contribution less the rebate is the relevant one. That figure is around the £285m mark, I believe. The reason is control. The money coming back from the EU is under EU control, and is probably being doled out in accordance with policies designed to help the other 27 countries rather than in Britain's interests.

    In any case, there is still the smaller but still very substantial matter of approximately £150 million per week net contribution. Personally, I think that British taxpayers' money, about £8,000,000,000 per year of it, would be much better used on projects to help British people rather than Greeks or Poles.

    980:

    The problem is that with Tories in control, or with a Blair-style Labour government, that money isn't going into projects for the people. Instead, it's going into some one-percenter's pocket.

    And even if it doesn't go into a one-percenter's pocket, as El noted above, "of course we then get subsidies back in payments to regions, payment to agriculture, funding for science, funding for business. We also also get membership of the Single Market and so on." So by dropping the EU you're disrupting an enormous flow of money that already goes to the U.K. in particular ways that already give people jobs and fund all kinds of stuff. These kinds of disruptions are why people go bankrupt and become a burden on the system.

    Also, a ton of your laws come out of treaties which are part of the UK's EU membership, and some of those laws are very favorable to workers and consumers, not to mention your current free-movement throughout Europe.

    In other words, you can't simply calculate a number and say "we get to keep this much more of our taxes and it will be great." You have to consider a number of complicated factors, then if you still want to withdraw from the EU you need to figure out how to do it without doing things like disrupting research grants/agriculture payments and killing the associated jobs.

    981:

    While I understand the popularity of the concept, in execution there are at least two major problems.

    Firstly, the inevitable result would be for high income earners to be paid in other ways not covered by the tax.

    For the simplest example, it's one reason IR35 was brought in - contractors would be charged out at x rate, their personal company would pocket the money, and the contractor would be paid at x/50 rate which meant they owed no tax. Until the money leaves the company, it is effectively free, so can be used to buy company assets, like contractor's shiny new car, house, misc work equipment and so on. A good accountant can hide a lot of spending as expected company costs.

    Naturally they brought in IR35 just at the point when I started earning enough to be able to join the racket :(

    I can think of half a dozen variations off the top of my head that would do the same thing.

    Secondly, flat rate taxes disproportionately affect low income earners, because the flat percentage is a more significant amount in dollar terms removed from their pay.
    Taking 50% of £1,000 is obviously more of a burden to the individual to pay their bills than taking 50% of £100,000. Making the system work for low income earners puts all the complication back into the system, which high income earners can then afford to exploit.

    982:

    In America corporate law is mainly a state thing so it varies, but generally setting up a corporation involves filling out some paperwork and paying a fee in the neighborhood of fifty to few hundred dollars. Lawyers technically aren't needed though they're a good idea to make sure you don't screw things up. Small, closely held corporations are the most common type in the US and they serve as a way for people running a small business to separate personal assets from their business in case their business goes tits up. Plumbers, restaurants and really any local business in the US are typically a corporation. They're even used by SF authors. Harlan Ellison does all of his business through The Kilimanjaro Corporation, which he owns and controls. Open up any of his American (dunno about overseas) books and it will be listed as the copyright owner.

    983:

    Follow-up.

    Yesterday afternoon our allotments had their annual summer party (Home-grown food, natch) The was an utterly Upney Momentum member present, itching to unseat Stella Creasey, "because she's too right-wing" ... If I see her or her (not so looney) friend I shall congratulate them on their efforts to get either a tory or a green elected to Walthamstow division. A N other old Labour man who was present tried to warn them of the Derek Hatton effect, but they were not listening. Ideological purity is more important that getting MP's elected, apparently. [ I might add, that Gove suffers from this fault too, of course .... ]

    984:

    Thank you Very rational & my resident expert would agree with you. Referring back to my self @ 983, above, it was plain that the Momentum member thought that millionaires should not exist at all (*), & that they were all greedy crooked bastard, & their money would automatically make everybody else lots richer ....

    (* Wonder if I count, if you include the value of my house .. worth £2700 in 1948, cough )

    985:

    No No guides at all. The nearest we got to it was the BBC, who were, needless to say, abused by both the In & Out camps ....

    986:

    And, well, it isn't like 20% of people will be out of work - just quite a few of the upper classes will move elsewhere. Bollocks. You don't live in or anywhere near London, that's obvious.

    I have just realised that there is a model for a world financial centre changing its administration & many of its laws completely, with virtually NO change in the operation of the finance sector: Hong Kong. Um, err ....

    987:

    In the UK, creating a corporation to employ you can reduce tax, but does not escape it. You need for it to be a foreign corporation to do that.

    988:

    The word probably just broke under the weight you are making it bear. Firstly, why would money be spent in the UK to benefit the other countries and yet not be spent elsewhere to benefit the UK in return? Secondly, as a part of the capitalist machinery the EU will spend a lot of money on projects which aid the capitalist machine, eg regional development, so how is that a bad thing?

    989:

    Now, everyone is still getting the same amount per month as they got before, and the government is getting the same amount of tax, but everything is enormously simpler.

    Why doesn't that happen? For the same reason as I, as a minimum pensioner, pay 8% tax on a breadline income. The State giveth and the same State taketh away. Why not just pay me a smaller pension without any tax?

    Because that would reduce employment among the Dereck Guyler types, silly.

    Living an oil economy makes this easier to see. A small corps of engineers and roughnecks make our national income, with which the government rewards voters by creating Second Spaceship jobs.

    990:

    Lots of people work hard and all most of them get is blisters.

    There are only 24 hours in the day for everybody.... I agree with you, the only way to get rich is to do something called stealing when shabby people do it. Sweating your labour, putting more sawdust in the sausages and more sand in the concrete, selling alligator swamp for holiday homes, bribing officials, the list goes on.

    992:

    Oops!

    I wonder if Tim Farron is feeling pressured yet...

    993:

    So Farage just resigned as UKIP leader ... but for some reason hasn't resigned from the European Parliament. No surprise he's milking that gravy train as long as possible.

    994:

    A small corps of engineers and roughnecks make our national income

    Many of whom are from elsewhere. When we were visiting our friend in Stavanger a few weeks ago, his partner was off visiting a rig, so we didn't see him. Said partner is Malaysian Chinese, from KL.

    with which the government rewards voters by creating Second Spaceship jobs

    The most obvious use of that income to an outsider is probably your road building program, with all those bridges. Seriously, it's very impressive. (The tunnels too, but less obviously so - still, getting a "Happy New Year" text from my sister when I was three km into a tunnel, 200+ metres under the sea, surprised me somewhat. But hey, so many tunnels, you got to do something about reception.)

    995:

    I wonder how long this resignation will last.

    (Cynical, me?)

    996:

    Meh. Dont get your hopes up.

    Firstly Juncker was democratically elected (in the EU fancy that!) so Merkel would have to build a huge constituency among MEP's to get rid of him.

    Secondly it suits her and the EU in general to have someone to play Bad Cop, who can be reined in when it suits them.

    Its far simpler once you realise even the "no negotiations before Art. 50" is part of the negotiations.

    997:

    All of 30 seconds, I'd say [Richard III, again]

    First, if all obstacles were cut away, Yet, so much is my poverty of spirit, So mighty and so many my defects That I would rather hide me from my greatness. But, God be thanked, there is no need of me. . . . I am not made of stone. Since you will buckle fortune on my back, I must have patience to endure the load. But God doth know, and you may partly see, How far I am from the desire of this.

    998:
    I've done CE marks in the US and most of the requirements and additional tests are viewed as a pure tariff.

    Some of the rules are protectionism, some are genuine consumer protection, and disentangling which is which can be ...complicated (look up the last 15 years of importation of Brazilian beef to the EU, if you want an example.). But most also apply internally, which would be a dumb way to write a protectionist law.

    999:

    As is the opposite tactic of: "Article 50 after we have done all the negotiations, isn't it? The latter to be preferred, because we could then have ... a second referendum.,

    1000:

    You're both right in the sense that the argument about whether we play chess or not is part of the game.

    1001:

    The most obvious use of that income to an outsider is probably your road building program

    That as well, and of course much more prominent to a non-resident than the hordes of Dereck Guylers on the Second Spaceship.

    But how much of you seen of investment in public transportation, eh?

    A few years ago the semi-privatised railways were being run by a management group, none of whom had any previous experience. (You know, the business-school doctrine that if you can sell soap, you can run a railway.)

    I always joke that it's better to fly to Oslo than take the train over the mountain plateau, eco-friendly and scenic as the latter is, on the grounds that if the plane breaks down, at least you won't get stuck up there for three days. Yes, that has been known to happen.

    I don't know how it is in the UK, but the demographic here that corresponds to your Kippers is ferociously opposed to rail, whether main-line or urban light rail. It's an article of faith with them that a Real Man must be able to drive what he likes, where he likes, how fast he likes and having drunk what he likes. (/cue Braveheart, Freee-dom!)

    1002:

    The idiocy and mendacity of the the Tory leadership contest marches on: Leadstrom has claimed that there is in fact billions of pounds that will be diverted to the NHS post-BRExit.

    No further comment necessary.

    1003:

    This morning I ran into a neighbour in the supermarket. He is a former shop steward and local leader of the old-school Communist Party, the NKP. Grown a white beard since I last saw him and now looks rather like Jeremy Corbyn, by accident or design.

    Anyway, despite my attempts to talk about the Brexiters' opposition to EU employment protection, his line was thinking the UK had it coming for failure to prevent "Brussels tyranny", for all the world as if he were a Kipper.

    If this is the best the Old Left can do, I thought....

    1004:

    Your statement that nobody knows their wages after tax is rubbish! Everywhere I have worked people waited for their pay slips. The after stoppages pay is what they look at. They also usually check their bank statements once a month to check that the salary has been paid. As a rule of thumb use 30% as a stoppages rate.

    1005:

    Question for anyone still reading: what's up with Nigel Farage stepping down as UKIP leader. As a Yank, I don't know him from other intestinal parasites, but it seems odd that he's quitting right when he's won, but staying on to irritate the EU Parliament. Is his statement that he accomplished what he set out to do honest (e.g. he's an old-school vandal, interested in tearing stuff down but not dealing with the aftermath honest), or is it that he's realizing what he did, and is trying to get as far away from the consequences as his ego will allow him to flee? Or is something else going on, and I'm just too ignorant to see it?

    So far, it looks like we're playing the hand grenade version of Hot Potato with Who Gets to Trigger Article 50. If Farage and Johnson are out, who's left? Or rather, who's next?

    1006:

    So far they've (the Tory party potential leaders that is) all ruled out a second referendum I think?

    So unless the Tory backbench new awkward squad, and Labour under whoever is leading it at the time of any potential vote comes both develop a spine and blatantly ignore the will of the majority (while supporting the will of some 16 million voters and acting as a loyal opposition) vote against there's really not likely to be a second referendum.

    1007:

    UKIP under Nigel was really a one-policy party with a narcissist demagogue as a leader. They have achieved their single policy aim and the Tories have 100% efficiently frozen him out of the UK end of the negotiations: he's not an MP, he's not a civil servant, so they can politely tell him to fuck off, he's just not part of the apparatus that's going to be involved and for all he pouts and postures they're right, he's not part of the establishment.

    From the inside, while not necessarily Gove-like, there have been moves to unseat him for quite a while. I don't know all the ins and outs but the woman that wrote the manifesto for the last general election tried (in her own words but not challenged so probably broadly correctly in an interview on WATO today) to challenge homophobia within UKIP which seemed to be taken as "disloyalty to the party" so she was suspended. UKIP's two MPs before the election had both tried to turf him out, the remaining MP has tried again since the election. Farage might well have (or have had) a majority of members in support of him, but it was far from a united party and significant figures have had it in for him.

    Add to that a variety of health concerns and I would guess there's a candidate coming with strong internal support, his doctor and/or his wife have got to him and he's decided to step aside looking like a success rather than following in Callmedave's comment "Every political career ends in failure." Jump before you're pushed and we'll let you go out with dignity and all that.

    But, in all honesty that's guesswork. It's somewhat informed guesswork but no more than that. If we see there's a single, strong candidate that emerges it will support it somewhat.

    1008:

    Anti-Rail in - sorry - Norway or Denmark?

    We had this 30 years ago under you-know-who. It persisted in small form until overthrown (except in bunkers deep inside the Treasury) in about 2009

    1009:

    Yes & no. The name of the game, right now is PLAYING FOR TIME, delaying & waiting. I expect May to win the tory election & she's enough of a pragmatist to try to finesse it, especially if she can get to say, February 2017 without At50 being pushed. [ Remember, she campaigned for "in" ] We will also have to see what the real delaying/blocking powers of the devolved assemblies are, won't we?

    1010:

    Anti-Rail in - sorry - Norway or Denmark?

    Norway.

    I gather you guys have been talking about a new high-speed link to Oop North. I remember the first attempt to do what the French, Japanese and Spaniards had already done successfully, bodged up by the Brits (as always in the Muddle of the Woad). Tilting trains, am I right? Running on century-old tracks. Epic fail.

    1011:

    Well start with:- 1) The various EU treaties that the UK is signatory to were all ratified by act of parliament, so it's not a simple PM/cabinet fiat to invoke Article 50. 2) The Scottish Parliament (and probably NI and Welsh Assemblies) establishing act states that government is under EU law, so those all need amending, and it's possible that the SP may have to pass its own ratifying act to do this legally; since 60% of the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the EU...

    1012:

    Tilting trains, yes. Tilting trains are rather cool to ride — sitting in the dining car of a Pendolino as it follows the shoreline of Lake Geneva and the horizon bobs up and down, all the time the wine in your glass not moving, is quite something.

    (Also, the Swedish X 2000 coming in to Stockholm as it whips around the landscape.)

    Tilting trains have been pretty successful around the world in places where the ability to build straight line LGV or Shinkansen tracks ain't on. In Switzerland you can get from Basel to Zurich by French TGV or by Italian Pendolino. The latter is quicker over that route, or was last time we were doing it.

    1013:

    OK, maybe the Brits messed up their tilt technology, or tried to use it as a substitute for new track. I'm sure I remember it imploding and being heard of no more.

    I have travelled extensively in Switzerland but never paid attention to whether the rolling stock was Italian or not. Though I did frequent the DB train that terminates at Interlaken. The TGV you can keep, I'm only 5" 5' or so but still find the carriages cramped. Prefer the AVE. The Shinkansen is great unless you have luggage, it's designed for sararimen with a briefcase and overnight bag not for tourists.

    1014:

    The seat spacing in the shinkansen carriages usually allows you to keep your serial-killer suitcases with you or you can store them at the end of the carriage behind the last row of seats like everyone else does. The overhead racks are very capacious for smaller bags, jackets etc.

    1015:

    The first version didn't work very well. It was fixed, but by the time it was everyone was rather disenchanted by it, and the technology was sold off.

    As for the Shinkansens and luggage, my wife and I travelled about two thirds of the network, and we were over there for a fortnight so we were travelling with a bit more than carry-on. Despite that, we didn't have any issues with luggage space on the Hikari trains (we had the Rail Pass, which doesn't cover the Nozomi).

    We even ended up buying an extra case at one point.

    1016:

    Greg: Hong Kong vs London has one major and critical difference: leaving the EU means that London will no longer be a EuroBond market (and all of the ancillary market making that surrounds that). There was no equivalent trading constraint in Hong Kong post transfer.

    Passporting will disappear, which will decimate London's usefulness as a trading centre.

    I'm afraid that you are alone, versus pretty much every analyst: Brexit will result in large-scale movement of trading and banking from London to the EU (Paris, Frankfurt, and even Edinburgh/Glasgow have been mentioned in the event of a successfully negotiated IndyRef2 prior to rUK's departure). If the trading moves, so too will the people.

    1017:

    This might just be confirmation bias, but I seem to have detected a slight increase in hiring for financial services in Edinburgh. If this is true, then some firms may have decided to hedge against an ex-EU London by at least making noises about moving some services up north in the expectation of a possible in-EU Scotland. (Whether or when the advertised jobs end up with signed contracts is of course open to speculation.)

    1018:

    Now I'm wondering whether my memory has brainfarted, what with two of you telling me the baggage space is good.

    FWIW I travelled by Nozomi. (I had the funds and the contortions to get the Japan Railpass were offputting.) And on smaller lines, down to narrow-gauge single-track railbus thingies. I'm particularly fond of Ura-Nihon.

    1019:

    Thank you, & exactly, & what a wonderful set of delaying tactics could be spun out of that tangle - I hope.

    1020:

    Both of those are supposed to be taken care of by junking the individual nature of the taxation and making it an aggregate figure for the employer instead of a separate figure for each employee. The tax is no longer a separate account for each individual, but simply a set percentage of the total amount the employer pays out to everyone. So the idea of individuals performing fiddles with how they are paid no longer makes sense. And the flat rate thing is covered by the redefinition of "your pay" to be what you actually receive. If you're employed at so much a month that now means that the employer is obliged to give you all of that, and you can now keep all of it. The initial setup is arranged so that that stays the same, and after that it is no longer connected to changes in tax rate.

    1021:

    Totally off-topic, but someone actually thought up a quite reasonable plan for the UK to exit the EU. You can see it here.

    1022:

    There's already a name for that: Reverse Maastricht.

    1023:

    It worked just fine. There were a couple of minor snags that didn't show up until the transition was made from test conditions to full-on passenger service, but the fixes were very simple: changing the target for the cant deficiency compensation to 90% or so instead of 100%, and fitting heavier-duty bearings in the final drive gearboxes. (Or maybe just improving the lubrication of the existing bearings, I can't remember, but that order of simplicity at any rate.)

    The reason it went pop was the media's fondness for lambasting the railways at every possible opportunity resulting in everyone thinking it was an abject failure, combined with Thatcher hating railways. So she pulled the plug on the funding when it was within an inch of being ready for full-scale introduction.

    The Italians then picked up from where we left off, and ended up selling it back to us. So now we do have tilting trains, running on that same route, as an alternative to building new track, and it works fine - except that they stink of shit. That's not a childish metaphorical insult, they really do. New regulations mean that the toilets are no longer allowed to discharge directly onto the track; instead the train carries around a tank of shit which is emptied at the depot. And thanks to some fuck-awful design cockup the fumes from the tank leak back into the passenger compartment and nobody seems to be able to sort it out. We also have other trains based on the same overall design but without the tilt, and they stink of shit too.

    The basic idea of tilting trains as a substitute for new track is entirely sound, but it does depend on various other conditions being met. One is some competent redesign of the signalling system to cope with the higher speeds, and there are whole books to be written about the lack of regard for the importance of the word "competent" and the way the matter has been banging on for a ridiculously long time while nothing much actually happens and the amount of money spent on nothing happening continues to increase. The other is that the track capacity to accommodate the higher speeds needs to exist, which is a big problem when the line is shared with slower services, and the response is a similar tale of spending lots of money on things that are supposed to address the problem but do not in reality make a whole lot of difference.

    The high speed rail link to the north is the latest and most expensive ineffective answer. Leaving out the meaningless marketing-speak used to plug it ("transport system fit for the Century of the Fruitbat" and all that garbage), a big part of the idea is to release capacity on the West Coast Main Line and refuse to admit that this won't happen without cutting existing services that the high speed line can't replace.

    There are three main classes of traffic using the WCML: fast passenger services calling at major stations; slow passenger services calling at all stations; and freight. Each class has its own stopping pattern and speed/acceleration profile. Trying to mix all three of these together on one line canes the capacity, and to get rid of one class would be a big improvement.

    The HS2 wonks claim that they'll be removing the fast passenger class, but they won't. Their claim would only be valid if all, or nearly all, trains in that class called only at stations that will correspond to HS2 endpoints. In fact they all call at some major stations in between HS2 endpoints. So in order to preserve the existing level of service to those stations, all those fast passenger trains still have to run. The HS2 wonks' response to this is to claim that logic doesn't apply to them, that they can maintain service levels while removing services, and wave draft timetables which they claim support their position when in fact they contradict it.

    What would help the situation would be to build a dedicated freight line, serving major freight depots (which are mostly not in the same places as passenger stations), and get the "freight" class off the WCML. This is what the national freight association want done, being well aware that the claim that HS2 will release freight paths on the WCML is bollocks. It's a much easier and cheaper proposition because the line wouldn't have to support high speeds, and much of it could be built on disused former trackbeds. There have been attempts to get something of the kind off the ground long before anyone thought of HS2, but freight isn't glamorous so it doesn't get the political backing.

    1024:

    Perhaps the U.K.'s new government will also take effective charge of the situation.

    1025:

    @Pigeon:

    Much obliged for a fascinating essay.

    I stayed once in an Austrian mountaintop hut that had won design awards. These must have been given on the basis of the brochure, as is I think usual in architecture. For the dorms were built right over the chemical toilets. Stinking of ammonia is better than stinking of shit, I guess, but... It is called the Schiestlhaus, which just begs to be re-spelt.

    Ghods, the joys of corprat-speak. The chocolate ration in 1984 being increased from 100 to 50 grams seems child's play now. "In order to improve your cardiac functioning, we are going to rip your heart out through your arsehole".

    As you surely know, other countries' HS lines are totally new, and often have dedicated stations outside the traditional city. One example is Lyon, others are Osaka and Kobe. You need a really strong and bloody-handed state to do that, or lots of empty space like in Spain.

    Technical question for OGH etc.: I have several times been clobbered by the session expiring while actually writing a post, and unless I'm missing something, the post then dies in between the dimensions. Is there a trick for preventing or recovering from this, other than copying it into a doc before pressing Submit?

    1026:

    Write in notepad, then copy-paste.

    1027:

    Indeed, my brain automatically re-spelt it as I read it and I had to look again to get it right :)

    Re session expiry: before submitting a post, I go to the end of it and then press Shift-PgUp to get back to the beginning, thereby selecting all the text. Under Linux this alone suffices to copy it to the clipboard, and if I find myself signed out, once I've signed in again a middle-click in the textarea pastes it all back again. I would guess that an equivalent procedure would work under other OSes.

    1028:

    The HS2 wonks claim that they'll be removing the fast passenger class, but they won't. Their claim would only be valid if all, or nearly all, trains in that class called only at stations that will correspond to HS2 endpoints. In fact they all call at some major stations in between HS2 endpoints. So in order to preserve the existing level of service to those stations, all those fast passenger trains still have to run.

    This is a solved problem, it just requires smart scheduling and fanatical devotion to meeting timetables e.g. shinkansen. The fastest trains (Sanyo Nozomi) only stop at a few major stations, blowing through the smaller stops to get between endpoints the quickest. Slightly slower trains (Sanyo Kodama) stop at all stations en-route and reach the endpoints a bit later. They occasionally have to wait at a platform to let the faster train(s) blow through the station at 150-200kph, that's all.

    HS2 is short enough it probably doesn't have to have a second level (Sanyo Hikari/RailStar) service which stops at more but not all stations, waiting only to let the Nozomi get ahead of them but leapfrogging the stopping Kodama trains.

    1029:

    Dumb EU Rules Question: Does the EU have rules for what happens if a member state splits? Are both halves still in, or both immediately out, or does one half get to stay the "official" EU-member Country X if it's considered that the other half left?

    In the first case, Indyref2 would let Scotland stay in and leave Westminster to clean up the mess if it wants, the second case could end up with Nicola Sturgeon implicitly triggering Article 50, and in the third case, maybe Scotland could say "Hey, the Queen's still ours, England were only borrowing her, so we get to stay in!"

    1030:

    That pretty well describes the situation on our existing main lines, except we add to the mix (a) freight trains and (b) the British approach to timetabling, which is "if trains are late, change the timetable so they're on time".

    The thing about HS2 is it's nothing but endpoints; it can't provide any service to intermediate stations because it doesn't go there. Their only service is via conventional lines, and the only way to maintain the current levels of service to those stations is to continue to run all the conventional trains that call there at present. HS2 may increase the capacity available on the trains themselves, by taking some of the passengers making the full end-to-end journey, but it cannot increase the available track capacity on conventional lines.

    1031:
    Technical question for OGH etc.: I have several times been clobbered by the session expiring while actually writing a post, and unless I'm missing something, the post then dies in between the dimensions. Is there a trick for preventing or recovering from this, other than copying it into a doc before pressing Submit?

    The obvious but perhaps unconsidered solution: in some browsers hitting back will return you to the edit box with your comment still in it.

    1032:

    This bit from Nigel Farage's resignation speech almost made my head explode from the irony:

    "As soon as we get a new Prime Minister, we need teams of negotiators. I’m told that we haven’t got the skill! I’m told that we haven’t got the competence or the expertise within our own civil service, which I suppose is the price you pay when you give away the ability to run your own country. So, let’s headhunt them. Let’s get them in from Singapore, or South Korea, or Chile, or Switzerland, or any of these countries who’ve managed to achieve far more in terms of global trade deals than we have as part of the European Union."

    1033:

    "This train arrived 9 minutes and 50 seconds late"

    "I'm sorry madam, that's not late, that's on time for recording purposes."

    You missed that one. Any train that arrives within 10 minutes either way of its timetabled time is "on time". Which means if you have a train running a bit late by anyone else's description and your connection is running early by anyone else's description, you can miss them if you only left 5 minutes for the connection while both trains are regarded as being on time.

    Last time I travelled by train in France and they booked me 2 minutes for the connection I was understandably nervous. They explained I got off the train, crossed the platform and got on the next train and there was nothing to worry about. Then they realised I was British and said "Our trains run on time, you will make your connection!" They were right.

    1034:

    Johnson , Farage and whoever. The rats really are abandoning ship.

    I know a referendum has to be acted upon by the government in Switzerland. In Holland that is not the case. A referendum can be held but there is no obligation for the government to act on the result.

    Is the british government actually required by law to act on the result of the referendum? It's not in the interest of the country to do that.

    1035:

    Sorry, but not even wrong ... much too long to go into detail. ONE major fault with HS2, though - the maximum speed is too high (No that wasn't a mistype)

    1036:

    We should be so lucky!

    1037:

    Is the british government actually required by law to act on the result of the referendum? It's not in the interest of the country to do that. No, they are not. ( "Advisory", remember? ) But the screams from the "Outers" would/will be deafening. Hence the obvious delaying-tactics ( already being shown by May, along with deliberately provocative remarks about resident EU nationals) So, no serious negotiations until October or November, consultation with NI & Scotland on possible vetoes ( & I'll bet Ms May is desperately hoping that such vetoes are valid! ) Hopefully negotiations BEFORE At50 is pressed ... you could make it last easily into 2018, by which time, "Circumstances have changed, which makes it necessary to have a second Referendum" - with the absolute-minimum announcement-to-vote period, which I think is 6 weeks ....

    1038:

    The obvious but perhaps unconsidered solution: in some browsers hitting back will return you to the edit box with your comment still in it.

    Not unconsidered, the first thing I did. But the back button returns me to the status before I started to post, that is the edit box without the comment. I'll do my drafting in Word or Notepad from now on, unless I've only just signed in.

    1039:

    Fascinating information here - And in the subsequent included links. [ It's a very recent BBC News/comment piece, btw ]

    1040:

    Last time I travelled by train in France and they booked me 2 minutes for the connection I was understandably nervous.

    Switzerland is like that too. Tight scheduled changes are usually the other side of the platform, and 2 minutes does not mean 1:45.

    1041:

    There is a simpler option.

    As PM you accept the legal advice that you don't have the right to trigger Art. 50 without a vote in parliament. There's plenty of it flying around after all. You don't make it whipped but you do make it a government bill. The opposition should largely vote against, the SNP will probably vote against. If it's not whipped, it's technically not a rebellion for Remain Tories to vote against, and you only need 6 of them to vote their conscience and oops... can't trigger Art. 50.

    It's not your fault. Sorry Brexiteers.

    1042:

    On the other hand, we once found ourselves still sitting at the platform in Gare De L'Est in Paris when the train ought already to have been in Strasbourg. We were very lucky that was our final destination, but almost everywhere was closed by the time we did get there.

    I think that's the latest of any trains I've ever been on in my life.

    1043:

    Short answer: No, the EU has no rules for what happens when a member state splits. However, there are precedents enough in international law to foresee what would happen: one state would maintain the legal personality of the old, including all its rights and obligations, and the other or others would be new states with no rights and no obligations. For example, Russia inherited the rights and obligations of the USSR.

    Of course, in the real world things are more complicated and a new state actually doesn't start with a clean slate, they inherit a portion of the assets and the debts, etc, etc, but it stands to reason that a secession can't create obligations for another states or international organizations, obligations not freely accepted but imposed.

    Say that Zendans elect a Nazi/Communist/Jihadist government that secedes from Syldavia, a western nation member of NATO and EU. It would be madness if Zenda became automatically a NATO member just because Syldavia was...

    1045:

    Oh, I don't know. Once we were supposed to be back in Euston at approx 22.40, Saturday. We got to watch sunrise over Watford Junction + taxis-home on the Sunday morning - finally left WAJ approx 07.15 .....

    1046:

    @1037 No, they are not. ( "Advisory", remember? )

    The advisory part wasn't really highlighted in the dutch media. From what I have read I understand that they're mostly focused on the possible negative economic effects and it's presented as a done deal.

    1047:

    That offers a way out, yes, but do you really want to go where that way leads? Tories are so divided over Europe as the day before the vote, Labour isn't exactly unanimous either. How would Brexiteers react if Parliament refused to sanction a bill invoking Art.50? Nay, how would Europeans react if Great Britain after all decided not to take a decision? Brexit at least would end a situation most people increasingly considered untenable even before the referendum.

    It's indeed a sad thing to say, but something broke on June 24th and no Parliament vote can mend it. If that or a second referendum won by Remainers with a similarly narrow margin are the only ways out, perhaps the best you can do is leave and return if and only if someday you decide to take part in "an ever closer Union".

    1048:

    Don't think anyone has pointed this out yet? (Might have missed it.)

    A law firm representing an unspecified consortium of clients is taking the constitutional question to the courts. Plenty of the usual voices decrying this as undemocratic, elitist meddling, etc, but in my opinion it's exactly what's needed. The way our system works, it should be for the courts to resolve exactly how the law must be interpreted.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jul/03/parliament-must-decide-whether-or-not-to-leave-the-eu-say-lawyers

    Whatever way this goes, I think it's necessary. The legal wonks are clearly very divided on the legal question of who should have the power to invoke Article 50, so the uncertainty needs to be legally resolved (at the moment, anyone can pick an authoritative opinion to suit their preferences). Plus of course the precedent that is set now will become an implicit part of our constitution: it will lead to a new understanding of the extent of and limits to the Royal Prerogative, as well as defining how we respond to referendums.

    1049:

    Although I voted Remain, and I think there's a mix of protest voters, bad political reasons, stupidity, racism, and protest voting that got us here, we're probably best served by sucking it up and getting on with it.

    That's absent a time machine and just just leaking pictures of Callmedave in flagrente with that pig's head before he became leader of the Conservative party (and other such meddling in the time lines) until we just didn't have the referendum.

    That doesn't stop me plotting ways that politicians could get out of it if they really want to.

    1050:

    Just published in the online version of De Telegraaf, a Dutch paper:

    Criticism of the 'flight' of British politicians 1 hour ago

    STRASBOURG - The disappearence of British politicians after the Brexit referendum was certain to have attracted strong criticism in the European Parliament. "One politician after another disappeared from the scene. I do not understand: I thought that the politicians who were for Brexit would have had a plan", said President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker.

    "Patriots do not quit when things get difficult, but stay'', said Juncker. He was referring to Boris Johnson who last week withdrew from candidacy for the British premiership; and to the UKIP leader Nigel Farage who resigned on Tuesday. Farage is also still an MEP, but was missing from the debate on Tuesday.

    Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberals in Parliament, spoke of "rats leaving the sinking ship". "Shocking and irresponsible". He also made reference to the announced departure of British Prime Minister David Cameron. About Farage, Verhofstadt said that "he wants more time for himself to spend his European salary".

    Several MEPs stressed the "populist lies" in the Brexit campaign, and the threat posed by a British departure to the future of the EU. Frans Timmermans, vice chairman of the commission, said Brexit shows that people no longer believe they can gain control over their lives. "The rôle of the EU institutions is to prove that we can indeed deliver results".

    Juncker again called for the British decision to exit from the EU to be passed on officially without delay, so that negotiations can begin on the terms of withdrawal.

    1051:

    Apologies, then. I mentioned it just in case - I've missed such solutions often enough myself.

    1052:

    Although I voted Remain, and I think there's a mix of protest voters, bad political reasons, stupidity, racism, and protest voting that got us here, we're probably best served by sucking it up and getting on with it.

    Yup.

    We unleashed raw mob-rule populism with this referendum, do we really believe that such a beast will be satisfied with some clever legal or political dodge that undoes the result?

    1054:

    Juncker again called for the British decision to exit from the EU to be passed on officially without delay, so that negotiations can begin on the terms of withdrawal. THERE EXACTLY is why "Out" got a majority. Juncker can FUCK RIGHT OFF ...

    Never mind the complications of an Irish & Scottish say-so on anything before At50 gets pressed, if it ever does.

    I fond outeast's post @ 1048 germane, too ....

    1055:

    THERE EXACTLY is why "Out" got a majority. Juncker can FUCK RIGHT OFF ...

    So you're in a queue for the only operational checkout at the supermarket, you've just reached the till, set all of your shopping on the counter, then said: "Hang on! I need to go and check the price of everything here!" You have then wandered off into the shop for an indefinite period of time.

    But now you refuse to accept that the people behind you, and the assistant on the till, have any reason to be annoyed, and are being completely unreasonable by asking you to just hurry up and pay.

    1056:

    Ignore Juncker, he's in the peanut gallery right now.

    Meanwhile the Tories are electing their fall-guy / fall-lady for the Bresaster. I wonder who the lucky one will be who gets off the hook today.

    And if property market and pound continue to go down like today, I wonder if they have enough time to elect their new leader. Maybe Cameron will follow El's scenario from #1041.

    1057:

    Sorry, but I disagree. Junckers has a mandate and he has to enforce rules, such as Art. 50. Rule of law, anyone?

    So, either the referendum was a scam and its supporters had no plans on how turn it from an advisory opinion poll into law of the land, or Junckers is just asking the (former U)K government to respect the will of the people by finding out how to activate Art.50 ASAP.

    Note also that Farage's resignation from UK but NOT from the EU Parliament, where he gets a nice pay (from OUR pockets) while being a negative recordman for attending sessions, is becoming for us on the other side of the Channel a symbol of how craven and gormless UK politicians of all shades and stripes are (except LibDems and Sturgeon). Add to this the farce in the Tory leadership, the Labour's circular firing squad and the UK's political class is going to make even my own Italian pols look far better, 'nuff said.

    1058:

    Who elected Juncker? I certainly did not participate in any representative election where he was a candidate.

    1059:

    He was front runner of the EPP in the 2014 EP elections.

    If you don't participate in European elections, that's your choice.

    1060:

    While I appreciate Junker wants the UK to proceed asap, Art. 50 says "when a country gives formal notification of its wish to withdraw" it doesn't say "when the electorate have spoken in an advisory way and the duly elected government is deciding how to handle that" so he's not enforcing the law, he's insisting a country gives formal notification before the country feels ready to do so. In other circumstances you'd say that's bullying.

    Now, I agree with a lot of his criticisms. The leave campaigners should have a had a plan pretty much ready to go so that on the morning of 24/6 they present the plan to Callmedave, he notifies Brussels and off we go. He could then have stepped down with the plan rolling along if he wanted to. The disruption of all these people jumping off the bandwagon is hardly conducive to improving confidence in the process or the markets.

    But there's nothing in Art. 50 that suggests he has any power to force countries to hurry up and leave, he just has to wait for them to tell him they want to go. He might know they're building up to it and be impatient but he's being undiplomatic saying so out loud.

    1061:

    So, either the referendum was a scam and its supporters had no plans on how turn it from an advisory opinion poll into law of the land YES - that is the case, as we now know ...

    However:Juncker is just asking the (former) UK government to respect the will of the people by finding out how to activate Art.50 ASAP. Wrong, more than once(!) The government of the UK has not changed at all - the PM will change, once a new leader is selected/elected ... It is NOT "The will of the people" - the referendum was advisory. And, most importantly, as is now becoming apparent, only Parliament can trigger At50, after suitable debate & legal advice. So, & therefore, like I said in the first place, Juncker can fuck right off ....

    1062:

    did you vote for the EP? I was perfectly aware that I was voting for the European Socialists and their candidate Martin Schultz.

    1063:

    it wasn't a typo. I wrote (former U) as in "former United".

    and 27 countries having to wait for a cabal of tories to choose between Littlefinger and Cersei/Brienne... I mean, Gove and May is something straight from Jonesco. Note also that all over Europe countries have an estabilished system to get legal effects from a referendum. And it makes all the current political and legal moves by the Brexiters quite farcical. Constitutions and laws state in general how to hold referendum and how they get effective, no need to an ad hoc Act.

    Like, Italy: the rightwingers attempted in the '70s to delete by referendum our divorce, and later our abortion law. The issue was clear: will the law remain on the book or not? Once the votes were counted, both laws survived, period. We'll be holding a referendum about a constitutional reform in October: if Aye wins the law passes, if the No wins, it fails. No need to get suitable debate and legal advice after the vote, it had already done before in Parliament, something that should have done also in this case. Btw: I'm going to feel full Yankee abou UE and the Brexit. The EU is the "star spangled banner", Brexit sounded a lot like "The Union has been dissolved" scream in movies about ACW, and the Ode to Joy is like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. So imagine Junckers as a wannabe Lincoln... (and May speaking about deportation of UE nationals rate as Ft. Sumter).

    1064:

    The pound is currently at 1.30 dollars - down about 3 U.S. cents. DOW's down about 95 points.

    Thanks guys. Trending towards electing the Oompa-Loompa today.

    1065:

    And the fun never stops:

    NEWSFLASH: M&G has now suspended its property fund after experiencing a surge of withdrawal requests, following Standard Life and Aviva.

    (from Grauniad)

    So my scenario 1. housing/property market crash, 2. General Elections, 3. Never Art. 50 seems to be still on track.

    1066:

    None of the "parties" cited in your link appeared on the last EPL election ballot paper in Scotland.

    1068:

    Firstly, whether or not Italy has a mechanism to hold binding referenda does not mean that every nation has one.

    Secondly, and highly importantly, even if this referendum was binding on parliament, there would still be Acts required to be passed before the government could legally activate Article 50.

    1069:

    Labour and SLDP are member s of the Party of European Socialists, so you could have voted for Martin Schultz. But I couldn't find a UK member party of the EPP. Maybe because in England the words "European" and "Popular" are opposites?

    1070:

    The thing about HS2 is it's nothing but endpoints; it can't provide any service to intermediate stations because it doesn't go there.

    Just the same as TGV and Shinkansen then.

    it cannot increase the available track capacity on conventional lines.

    And yet, they do. The trains using the shinkansen cannot even call at non-shinkansen trains due to having different gauge!

    The “same level of service” does not require running precisely the same trains (with maybe some extra ones that don't interfere with the existing ones at all); that is not what the words mean. In any timetable change, it is almost inevitable that some journey will be adversely affected.

    And one might reasonably argue that having a long-distance train every 40 mins from ABC to XYZ that is nearly always full can be adequately replaced by a train every 60 mins that is not nearly always full. Or for longer distances, an additional change of train might be occasionally required — with a faster resultant timing that would be considered by many to be approx the “same level” of service.

    Not claiming that HS2 will do any of that, but it's not that it is impossible to do that, and it is precisely what other countries have done. For the simple reason that it is the fastest services that take the greatest amount of track capacity, and thus whose hiving-off to a separate line gives the greatest benefit to overall track capacity.

    1071:

    @Paws4thot

    None of the "parties" cited in your link appeared on the last EPL election ballot paper in Scotland.

    Labour is a part of the Party of European Socialists, the SNP is a part of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Conservatives are a member of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, the Lib Dems are a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, UKIP is a member of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy...

    Secondly, and highly importantly, even if this referendum was binding on parliament, there would still be Acts required to be passed before the government could legally activate Article 50.

    As discussed ad nauseum above, that is very, very far from being clear. Hence my comment @1048.

    1072:

    But I couldn't find a UK member party of the EPP.

    Because our parties are members of other European groups and parties (see my post just above).

    1073:

    The Tories were EPP until 2009. Cameron switched them to the newly-founded ECR. because apparently he felt the Kaczyńskis and AfD were who the Conservatives shared aims with.

    1074:

    Maybe not. Farage/Johnson=Trump. Vote them, you get disaster followed by political meltdown so it would be the same in USA. It will show how bad the populism hurts the contry, object lesson. "Hilary would have never let such a mess happen" as bumper sticker? Remember to US voters that the Eastern European immigration was a consequence of Blair's support to GOP's Iraqi war (Rumsfeld's "new Europe" balancing the German-French antiwar "old Europe", coming back and biting some backside...)

    1075:

    The trains using the shinkansen cannot even call at non-shinkansen trains due to having different gauge!

    at non-shinkansen stations, I assume you meant. Yes, as I mentioned, some places they have out-of-town stations called Shin-(Place) and you have to take a local train from the city centre out there. Osaka is like that, though Tokyo isn't. Where they share stations, like in Kyoto, the shinkansen has dedicated platforms. That is, after all, what the word means -- a new line.

    It may interest Pigeon, I am sure I remember a proposal in Switzerland once to build a metro system underneath the whole country, or at least the populated north and western parts. Maybe maglev. I would imagine that it never came to anything inter alia because it's hardly necessary. Overground, it's only one hour between Bern and Zurich, Bern and Basel, you don't have to strip and you have trees and cows to look at, what's not to like? IIFC Geneva is two and a half hours (it seems as SSB has messed up its web timetable since I was there, it wants a code when you press Search). I'll never understand the corprats who fly between cities an hour apart by train.

    1076:

    I'm not sure what scares me the most.

    1) Some clever political/legal footwork to say "Sorry, we couldn't do it" and those with BRegret heave a sigh of relief, some of those with crappy political reasons suck it up, and we get to (metaphorically at least) shoot the racists. That I think will be unpopular and there will be some political sword falling but I find I can live with politicians falling on their swords. Now, I admit I might take this with a great deal of equanimity because ultimately "my side" wins the vote.

    Then there are two alternatives that really scare me.

    2) All the politicians get down to sorting out a plan for their negotiating position and they basically say "Free movement of labour without free movement of people" plus Aussie-style immigration. First year target number 300,000 because we need that many lettuce pickers, nurses and doctors. Cue many of the nutters that are really pissed off under 1) above exploding into riots and targeting anyone they don't think is "English." Ugh.

    3) The politicians decide the single market is too important and the EU (as it's stated time and again) won't back down on free movement, so they agree to that with a bolstered up 'kick out the criminals' element (which the EU might go for as long as it's bilateral). All the nutters from 2 kick off plus all the protest voters and those that think the politicians are out of touch and so on.

    Of those three choices, 1) is definitely the best.

    For those tracking the elections, Fox-hunting is still a blood sport in the Tory party.

    1077:

    Trump and Clinton are both plenty scary. I used to think Trump is scary like Freddy Kruger, Clinton is scary like cancer.

    Considering you equation I had to rethink my position: Trump really is scary like Freddy Kruger, but only if a slasher that can kill you with nightmares actually existed.

    1078:

    Clinton is a female Nixon. The only thing I can really support about her is that her enemies list has significant overlap with the people I think are ruining the U.S.

    Trump, on the other hand, is like Guiron, the monster in the Gamera movies who looked like a shark and had a giant knife for a nose - extremely stupid, very dangerous, and controlled by aliens. I support Trump if he gives up his US citizenship, joins a Tibetian monastery, and takes a lifelong vow of silence.

    1079:

    Hilary isn't THAT bad, surely! She knows where all the bodies are buried, she has a track-record of actually getting things done . She can probably break the ultras (rethuglican) hold on not doing any useful business. Nowhere near ideal, admittedly, but easily the least-worst candidate.

    1080:

    She doesn't have to whole "Damn commies-red-baiting" thing going on, and she does demonstrate considerably less prejudice than Dick did, but look at the way her people tried to erase Bernie from the US Civil Rights movement during the primaries - very Nixon-dirty-trick-like, and consider the likelihood of the US getting into another war while she is president.

    I expect her to be a socially liberal president who otherwise sides with the corporations whenever possible - the corruption just reeks. The one really good thing about Hillary is the Supreme Court picks. The bad thing is the cynicism and bitterness.

    All that being said, Nixon was not a total loss. He was the last Republican president who was an environmentalist - he created the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and signed the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. On the other hand, he did start the whole "War on Drugs" and his many other villainies are well-known.

    With Hillary I expect Nixon-light, decent Supreme Xourt picks, and a possible war.

    1081:

    Sorry, that should read "...decent Supreme Court picks,"

    1082:

    No, Hilary isn't that bad. She's just not charismatic.

    Come on, people. The Republicans have been smearing her for--what--25 years now? If she was as much of an evil genius as they've smeared her to be, she'd be ruling the world by now. If she was as crooked as they've smeared her to be, she'd be in prison, just as any number of governors, mayors, even senators are for the real crimes they committed while the republicans were trying to smear her.

    What they're scared of is that she's a hard-working woman, doing their jobs better than they do (check out her record of bills in the Senate--it's way better than Bernie's), and with all that, she's a grandmother too.

    Hell, it took the Republican congresscritters, what, two years of setup by drawing down State Department Protection to cause the Benghazi incident? As for her emails, FBI isn't recommending prosecution, as she was no more careless than were her predecessors when it came to using email.

    Do I agree with her politics? Not entirely, and I still don't forgive her vote on the Iraq War or on the 2008 bailout. But she's by far the most qualified candidate for the presidency this cycle.

    What I'm getting sick of is the misogyny peering out through all those attacks on her. Obama's election proved, over eight years, that American are a bunch of racist bigots on average. I'm pretty sure that Clinton's term will prove that we're not only racist bigots, we're sexist pigs too, especially where post-menopausal women are concerned. If she looked like Sarah Palin, we'd be falling all over ourselves ogling her supporting her.

    Now let's get back to the BRexit, shall we?

    1083:

    Crabb cut himself out, too.

    So it's May against Leadsom, unless May manages some tactical votes for Gove to keep Leadsom from making the finals.

    1084:

    'kick out the criminals' element (which the EU might go for as long as it's bilateral).

    I might cheer that one if it covered money launderers and so forth as well as muggers.

    Oh, silly me, you meant convicted criminals, not the ones with immunity. Sorry.

    1085:

    Just for the record, I'll be voting for Hillary. She'll be business-as-usual with a bit of a Nixonian vibe, possibly a war, and some good Supreme Court picks. Anyone capable of winning the Republican nomination would rate someplace between disastrous and cataclysmic.

    I'd just like to vote for someone who really excites me and doesn't have that bitter, cynical look they all get after kissing the corporate boot for twenty years or so.

    1086:

    She can probably break the ultras (rethuglican)

    Nice coinage, I may steal that to go together with my own "retardican".

    1087:

    I'd add in the Republicants, if you want a less severe nickname.

    1089:

    No, I meant the whole lot of them. But they'll mean the convicted ones.

    1090:

    I'm not convinced May could get enough people to vote for Gove. Although there will be much frantic counting of heads between now and noon on Thursday I'm sure.

    I'm kind of surprised Gove mustered enough support to come third in fact.

    1091:

    He's on the telly now insisting he's not dropping out.

    1092:

    As for May: Respecting the will of their constituents, even if they disagree with your previously stated opinions is an attitude I can respect in a politician. Capital "R" values of Respect, that is.

    Thinking that the ECHR is simply an optional feature for any European country (inside the EU or not) is a deal breaker. Even the Russians manage to work around it whenever they feel like it. Declaring outright that you think it's too burdensome to finesse it is not a good omen IMO.

    I'm too uninformed to have an opinion about Gove, except that he backstabbed a backstabber. Maybe, if we ever got his unadulterated opinion about Johnson, we might have a GOT Jamie revelation.

    1093:

    She'll be business-as-usual with a bit of a Nixonian vibe, possibly a war, and some good Supreme Court picks. Anyone capable of winning the Republican nomination would rate someplace between disastrous and cataclysmic. This is my attitude as well. In particular, differences in U.S. climate change policies are (OK could be) very significant when effects are integrated over the next several hundred years. I've been wishing she had (1) more empathy and (2) a better political intuition. Also would be nice if at least one of her close and trusted advisors leaned left/progressive (compared to HRC). Sorry, back to BRexit now.

    1094:

    Sorry, back to Brexit now.

    Yup.

    1095:

    Russians use ECHR as a cheap external check for their judicial system (which is quite imperfect, putting it mildly).

    And they don't enforce ECHR decisions which they really don't like

    1096:

    Well I can think of a pretty simple fix for tax loopholes.

    The Australian constitution and I believe others says that if the state takes your stuff, you need to be given fair compensation.

    Just set the company tax rate to 20% of declared income. Set the 'fair compensation' to twice the declared income for the past 10 years. Any company (or trust) can then be nationalised if the government wants to, just by giving the shareholders twice the declared income for the last 10 years. Apple or BHP wants to declare zero profit for 10 years. Fine. Government gets ownership of it for zero dollars. Call it the 'Mate, you're havin a larf' act of 2016

    I think you'd find they'd re-arrange their companies so that they started to pay some tax.

    1097:

    Hpw many different income, business & VAT rates are there in the USA _ different for every single state, more-or-less, isn't it?

    You have NO IDEA. Our sales tax (similar to VAT but different) can vary by local government. There are 4 or more rates within 20 miles of where I live. This is a big reason that mail order firms were able to lobby effectively for decades to not have to try and collect as it was too complicated to get any where near correct in the past. And even today it's very hard to do. How does a mail order firm tell if a shipping address is where something is to be used or where someone lives or ...

    1098:

    California, for example, has .... a very functional government.

    I've NEVER heard anyone say that in the last 40+ years.

    1099:

    ... Since we threw out the Gropenfuhrer (Arnold) and managed to get more than 2/3 of the legislature to go Democratic, everything has worked very nicely. We have a financial surplus, our rate of growth is high, and employment has been improving for some time.

    The biggest arguments in California right now involve infrastructure issues; whether to build a high-speed train and whether to dig a massive water-tunnel. On the other hand, there's Kansas, where they can't keep the schools open.

    1100:

    I can appreciate wanting to opt out of the ECHR is a deal breaker.

    The current government as a matter of policy wants to repeal the Human Rights Act (which among other things signs us up to the European Declaration of Human Rights and the supremacy of the ECHR) and institute a much less strong British Bill of Human Rights with the supremacy of the British courts.

    Now, a new PM is not necessarily bound to the manifesto promises in the same way that the old one was. Directly opting out of the ECHR as May wanted - she was the one who clashed with it in her old job so it was her personal bugbear - might be off the cards but if they follow through on that particular little bundle of joy it's still there by the back door for all of them.

    There are reasons if I had to choose which of the five - three now - I want as PM, the answer is none of the above.

    1101:

    That's a fair degree of genius, except ...

    Having ownership of "Apple Australia" would give you ownership of the square root of sweet FA. The value is held in "Apple US", or more probably "Apple Caribbean Tax Haven" - so all they would do is drop the old company and setup a new company to collect the idiot tax in Australia.

    Even worse, any company that WERE in Australia, would rapidly make sure all the IP and value were owned outside the country - meaning even less corporation tax, etc.

    And even better still, make sure the "Apple Australia" entity was in net deficit at all times by taking out loans. Then if the national government tried to grab the company, you could end up ahead on the deal.

    PS the problem is in globalised 'free' trade - which gives the companies the freedom.

    1102:

    The current government as a matter of policy wants to repeal the Human Rights Act (which among other things signs us up to the European Declaration of Human Rights and the supremacy of the ECHR) and institute a much less strong British Bill of Human Rights with the supremacy of the British courts.

    There are reasons if I had to choose which of the five - three now - I want as PM, the answer is none of the above.

    Me too. The voters who were frantic to Leave so they could get their "sovereignty" back and not suffer from EU "control"; well, the EDHR is one of those controls they'll be ditching. I wish them joy.

    1103:

    The one really good thing about Hillary is the decent Supreme Court picks And that,just might, be the best possible reason to vote for her, given the long-term effects of such a set of decisions, might it not?

    1104:

    NO no, nopety-nope, nooooooooo The ECHR is nothing at all to do with the EU. Fortunately.

    May has said that it's not on the menu (at the moment) I suspect she realises that actually withdrawing might not be such a clever move IF she become PM .... ( I certainly hope so )

    1105:

    Greg, leaving the EU is a prerequisite of exiting ECHR.

    1106:

    So, in the right hands (not trying to sabotage government at every turn) the term limits thing isn't crippling, merely not a panacea?

    1107:

    First-off, I'm not English!! :mad:

    Having vented, there is no statement (that I remember anyway) in any EP literature that I saw or on the ballot paper that "$party is a member of EP $voting_bloc".

    Even if there were, with the UK system, you might well vote in support of a "good constituency MEP" rather than for their party. This doesn't translate to me as voting for $person for an office which is appointed by the voting blocs.

    1108:

    I repeat from #1107 - The fact that $UKparty is a member of $EPvoting_bloc is obscured by omission by the parties and the design of the ballot papers.

    Where is your precedent in UK law for a fiat to be all that is required to unmake several Acts of parliament?

    1109:

    That is true, but the reverse, that leaving the EU requires you to drop the ECHR, is not.

    1110:

    I didn't call you English. What I said was that in England the terms European and popular seem to be opposites of each other, and that might be the reason that no UK party wanted to team up with the EPP.

    The fact that UK officials obfuscate the ballots so that the voters don't know what they are voting for is unfortunate. Reminds me of a certain referendum...

    1111:

    I'm sure you know better but this sentence: "What I said was that in England the terms European and popular seem to be opposites of each other, and that might be the reason that no UK party wanted to team up with the EPP." is really hard to parse because you seem to be deliberately confusing England and the UK. That will get the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh (like me) hunting you with a variety of pain-inflicting implements.

    And actually the Electoral Commission try quite hard to make the ballot papers (that's the officials concerned). But the fine details are actually dictated by the politicians - they decided the question for the referendum for example, the amount of details on the European elections and so on. And the liesinformation that was circulated for both.

    I did actually know the voting would lead to the election of the new president of the European Commission but it wasn't made clear on the forms and I don't remember it being spelt out in any of the information that was sent by the candidates. It was on the news somewhere though.

    1112:

    As a native German I tend to make long convoluted sentences, I'm afraid :-)

    But if I had said "in the UK the terms European and popular are opposites" the Scots would have complained, too, wouldn't they? So maybe I should have said "in England the terms European and popular are opposites, so no party wanted to team up with the EPP in England, and by extension in the UK"?

    And apologies to the officials who designed the ballot papers. I should have known it was the politicians.

    1113:

    On another note, the Pound now has reached The Crowd's "You'll never walk alone" levels. Ominous, that. Anyone remember when that was in the charts?

    And another nice analysis of the Sterling performance: Dying Elephant Pattern (from yesterday).

    1114:

    That would actually be fine, unless we wanted to get into hair-splitting about the various Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh parties who don't stand candidates anywhere else (at least not yet, but I have heard of people threatening to stand for the SNP in English seats).

    1115:

    Yes, that sentence would have been fine. Or no conjunction and two short sentences instead of the original. It reads less like you're eliding England and the whole of the UK if you have "What I said was that in England the terms European and popular seem to be opposites of each other. That might be the reason that no UK party wanted to team up with the EPP." It makes it clear you're talking about two different things instead of it being a run on.

    My grasp of German internal politics isn't good enough to think of a local equivalent I'm afraid. But I think if you called an Austrian a German by mistake, I know if you call a Canadian an American by mistake... that's pretty much what your original did. Careful parsing tends to fly out the window!

    1116:

    There are, or were, a lot of people living in England of a left-leaning persuasion wondering if we could vote SNP too. Despite a certain Londoner of this parish's disdain for the SNP they had policies (except secession) that appeal to the old left-wing Labour supporters in rUK far more than Labour under "Red" Ed.

    It not actually being an option, I know I voted Green. If God's Own County had had an SNP candidate in the right place, I'd have seriously considered voting for the yellow with a thistle. If I was still living in God's Own Country, I'd be voting for the green with a daffodil on it. Perhaps unsurprisingly that's three parties with female leaders. When the Tories elect a female leader I won't be switching to them though.

    1117:

    Arguably 4, since the Scottish Green Party and the English "Watermelons" are genuinely separate parties and ISTR both have female leaders.

    1118:

    And another three property funds suspended today: Analyst: Property funds will stay frozen for months.

    But not all is bleak, if you believe your Trade and Investment Minister Mark Price: Brexit is an opportunity for second Elizabethan golden age.

    1119:

    Spy-ridden police state, persecution of religious minorities, conflict with some bits of Europe while seeking to do deals with other bits, female Scottish leader raising the prospect of Scotland/European alliance on the other side from England... yep, sounds about right.

    1120:

    Fair point, I guess, regarding the failure to communicate how parties align with voting blocs. Not sure this could be on the ballot though. Depends on the rules, which I can't be added to research now. That's a failure of communication though not of transparency or accountability.

    Re the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, search upthread for details. Tl;Dr is that triggering Article 50 is only an announcement of intent. Of itself it changes no law - that would be done later, via Act of Parliament. The PM would give the notification on behalf of the Queen, herself 'acting' in her role as the State (not as monarch per se). So basically it'd be 'the country' announcing the intent to negotiate exit terms. (Arguably this is the most honest representation of the referendum: the Queen speaks on behalf of her subjects, expressing their will and imposing it on parliament.) Whether or not this is the correct Constitutional solution is not entirely clear - hence the need for a court hearing. But legal opinion is split down the middle.

    1121:

    It is the nature of legal opinion to be split down the middle. That's why taking it to court and getting a ruling seems like a sensible way to go.

    And unless the court rules "you have no right to proceed with an Article 50 notification" which seems really unlikely there probably won't be an appeal if they rule any single one of the possible mechanisms is the right one. There are a lot of people interested in the outcome, no one is particular injured by any particular outcome though, unless it's a bizarre one.

    If a separate court rules one way or another on a Scottish and Northern Irish veto there may be. If the courts say "No Scottish right to involvement in the process" there will be a stink from Holyrood. If they say "Scottish veto" there will be a stink from Westminster. Interesting times in THAT courtroom!

    1122:

    If it was Germany, the constitutional court would rule some compromise, e.g. PM can't act alone but needs decision of the cabinet after consulting the devolved governments. Such decisions annoy all sides, but everyone sucks it in and tell the press that they have won.

    1123:

    There are definitely times when this happens in the UK. And on the presence or absence of a veto someone will get pissed off.

    But on the mechanism for something like this which is clearly unprecedented I don't think there are really any vested interests so someone who isn't Parliament saying "this is the legal process by which you have to do it" would be a relief and no parties feel particularly injured.

    1124:

    Oh yes. The Supreme Court picks are everything. The U.S. Supreme Court as it stood before Scalia's death is the consequence of voting Republican. The two things that will get me to the polls are the Supreme Court and the fact that Hillary will be far more socially liberal than anyone the Republican's might field* because I've got plenty of relatives and friends who don't follow the usual binaries in their lives.

    • I'm not 100 percent convinced it will be Trump - if the Republicans can ditch him they will.
    1125:

    "Stuff on the Pound's exchange rate"

    Are you serious? The Pound has not even got a hit. Drastic exchange rate changes are in the over 30% region (in a week). In the real life one Pound was about the same as the current valuation in euros in 2013.

    In my eyes the Pound has not taken any real hit.

    It seems, at least my continental point of view, that UK economy has not taken any real hit of the referendum.

    1126:

    "consider the likelihood of the US getting into another war while she is president."

    Not sure that's worth considering when it comes to US presidents, whoever you elect is going to get into a war if not several. Everyone thought Obama was going to be a bit of a softie and he managed Libya and Syria despite starting out overstretched in two major conflicts from the previous administration. Was Carter the last president to avoid a war?

    1127:

    Well, I didn't say "hit". And thanks for reminding me that the change wrt to the Euro isn't that much: it just means that the UK managed to drag down the Euro wrt to the dollar as well.

    For me the state of the property funds is more interesting. I'm no expert in economics, but the property sector seems to be the weakest link in UK finance. Let's wait what happens if Mme Leadsom makes it to the finals tomorrow.

    1128:

    Everyone thought Obama was going to be a bit of a softie and he managed Libya and Syria despite starting out overstretched in two major conflicts from the previous administration.

    Plus cleaning Bin Laden's clock. It's probably the closest he came to having the Retardicans recognise him as human.

    1129:

    Inconsistent "VAT" tax is the least of it. My wife is a tax accountant for a company that sells aviation fuel across the US. The state, local, county, city, and sometimes per-airport taxes are wildly inconsistent. Some of the venues involved no longer understand their own taxes. Several have laid off their entire tax staffs and gone to an 'automated' phone-only system. So how do those venues check that you're filing correctly? If you pay less tax this year than last, it must be an error. You receive a computer-generated form saying your return is in error . . . and there's no one you can talk to about it and nobody to read the letters you send in reply.

    Or there's the venue that wanted to know why the company didn't file a return. "Because we don't do business there any more." "You still need to file a final zero-entry return so we (in the tax office) know you're gone." Except that every freaking year, they wind up having to file another zero-entry return because they filed a return the previous year. Oh, and after three years of this they got audited - the notice of which was mailed to the closed-for-three-years office. Madness, madness.

    So when retail entities like Amazon whine that state sales tax accounting is too hard, I have little sympathy. There is already damned good software you can buy for this, so stop sucking off the public teat and pay your damned taxes.

    1130:

    You're mostly right. Every U.S. president blows stuff up and shoots people (through proxies, thank goodness, at least since Teddy Roosevelt) but I think Hillary has a major, very stupid war in her, something of the same severity/stupidity of invading Iran or attempting peace-keeping in the Sudan. She voted for the Iraq war, as you'll recall, and I like to think she's learned her lesson, but I really have my doubts.

    Obama, on the other hand, was smart enough to mainly fight what they used to call "cabinet wars." Gotta keep the troops blooded... sigh. I blame the Overton window.

    As for Carter, he's the one who started supplying the Afghani militia back in the seventies, and he did try for a hostage rescue in Iran around 1979 or so... he didn't really have a war, but he owes for some portion of the Afghani blowback.

    1131:

    Hmm...and perhaps I left out my real point.

    One of the goals of things like the EU and the US federal government is to improve and optimize commercial activity by things like a common currency, minimizing or eliminating flow of capital and people across borders, cross-border recognition of contacts and other state acts, reducing or eliminating tariffs, etc. (And when I refer to this as a goal of the US federal government, I'm talking about the federal government put in place by the current constitution, dissolving the previous confederation of 13 colonies).

    But people will always find edge conditions that they use to either put up barriers or externalize taxation. For the former, see as Arizona's rules about not bringing citrus fruit across state lines. For the latter, see hotel room taxes - hugely more than sales taxes, but falling primarily on visitors from out of state. End result is a mindless web of tiny taxes that nobody can keep up with sanely.

    There's a nice writeup at this site if you're not familiar with that era of US history.

    1132: Since this thread is long and slowing down, nothing I post here could influence book orders one way or the other. So here as promised is a sneak preview, from the untranslated third book in Liu Cixin's trilogy, due out from TOR this fall in English. My first impression is that when the author was a kid he must have flown a kite with a wad of chewing gum stuck to its tail as a stabilizer. This image then lingered in his memory until it morphed into a story concept, the idea of sending a human brain into space. It would be contained as the payload trailing far behind an enormous ultralight sail, propelled to 1% of light speed by a strategically timed sequence of H-bomb blasts. The original intent was to send a whole person in hibernation to meet the alien invaders halfway, on the assumption they'd intercept and revive the capsule's occupant out of sheer curiosity. Mankind would thus gain an emplaced sleeper agent behind enemy lines with sufficient lead time before invasion to make a difference. Test trials, however, revealed the space sail's maximum payload to be under one kilogram, so they settled for sending a frozen brain in hopes the aliens could clone a body for it using their superior technology. Naturally the brain donor had to be selected from someone with a science background, and to ensure future good will the donation had to be voluntary. This led to governments legalizing euthanasia Kevorkian style, to provide a pool of potential candidates. One who chose ethical suicide was Yun Tianming, a 28 year old aerospace engineer with terminal lung cancer. A morose, inhibited loner who saw his life as resembling a Kafka novel, Yun was still smitten with unrequited longing for Cheng Xin, a woman he developed a huge crush on in college. Incapable of expressing his feelings for her and nearing death, he bought her an anonymous gift with the proceeds of a surprise monetary settlement received from another ex-classmate who got rich off a canned beverage formula, based on an idea Yun once shared with him (lawn grass extract.) The gift Yun sends Cheng is an ownership certificate for a barely visible star 50 light years distant, the sale having been initiated by the U.N. as a money raising scheme to support planetary defense. (This part was concurrent with the Wall Facer program startup from book one.) Cheng Xin was charmed by the gift but remained unaware of the giver's identity until after Yun got chosen as the brain donor by her employer, the Planetary Intelligence Agency, and sent into space. She then decides to go into hibernation as a representative of the P.I.A. so that someone familiar with the brain-in-space scheme could be available in the future, because the space sail wouldn't reach the invaders until generations later anyway. When she gets revived, the world has progressed from the Crisis Era into the Mutual Threat Standoff Era engineered by Luo Ji in book two. Luo Ji is now over a hundred years old but still controls a gravity wave signalling device (far more effective than the solar resonance technique from book one), capable of broadcasting coordinates for the invaders' home world, unless they cooperate with mankind. Obviously Luo Ji needs a successor, and Cheng Xin is chosen by popular demand owing to her perceived Madonna-like sympathy with all creation. Unfortunately, just minutes after Luo Ji relinquishes signal controls to her, the aliens' "teardrop" weapon which destroyed Earth's space fleet in book two makes a surprise attack. Cheng Xin is emotionally incapable of tripping the signal which would destroy both worlds (due to the Dark Forest principle from book two), giving the invaders time to remotely destroy all the gravity wave antennas on earth, and to set up jamming interference preventing a solar resonance signal. So the Mutual Threat Standoff Era ends with the invaders victorious, and they enforce their harsh new regime through attacks on cities by the teardrop weapon, expressing their will through a human-like android woman embodying a sophont. Their plan is to relocate all 3 billion humans (this is after the Great Ravine disaster described in book 2) to Australia, leaving the other continents for themselves. Though difficult it's technically possible by way of fusion powered food production. Since the world's people have no choice, they comply with the imposed deadline. Once they're all in Australia, however, a teardrop weapon destroys all the power plants. Mankind's leaders protest they face starvation, but the android says they should just cannibalize each other to eliminate 99% of the population and get down to a number Australia can support. Cheng Xin blames herself for her failure to deploy the doomsday signal, and succumbs to hysterical blindness brought on by guilt and despair. But within hours, news arrives that one of the spaceships surviving from the fleet's destruction had taken a vote of all persons aboard, and decided to activate the gravity wave signal device they'd commandeered from a pursuing ship ( survivors of the destroyed fleet were wanted for crimes against humanity, book two). Once their home world coordinates were broadcast to the universe, the would-be invaders ceased their hostile actions against Earth because to them it was also hopelessly compromised by the broadcast and no longer worth the effort to occupy. Thus began a new era , the Broadcast Era lasting 60 years. During this time the Earth is no longer at risk from invaders, since the Three Body home world's star was destroyed by a kinetic energy weapon moving nearly at light speed, only a few years after its location got broadcast. Earth's days are also clearly numbered, being in the star system nearest to the Three Body world. So over a span of a few decades, mankind relocates to 30 mile long, ten mile wide spinning cylindrical cities hidden in space behind the four giant gas planets. Analysis of the Three Body star's demise shows the gas giants to be large enough and sufficient distance such that objects in their dark side would be sheltered from the sun's inevitable destruction, subsequent release of intense radiation and expulsion of solar interior matter far out into the solar system. It is in one of these colonies behind Jupiter that Cheng Xin is reawakened from her latest hibernation. She'd had a new set of eyes cloned, and donated all her vast fortune from the sale of her star, along with her whole space engineering company, to Thomas Wade, her former boss at the P.I.A. . She wanted him to work surreptitiously on developing light speed spaceships despite laws banning such work, and despite Wade once having tried to assasinate her. She figured he was just the right mixture of ruthless, cunning, devious but unquestionable efficiency to get the job done. He's an ex CIA guy, kind of America's answer to the inscrutable Fu Manchu. I couldn't help imagining him as Donald Trump. The invaders had launched a second fleet travelling at near light speed, and the principle behind it was revealed to Earth by none other than Yun Tianming, the erstwhile frozen brain which had indeed been intercepted, revived and embodied in a custom made clone by the Three Body invasion fleet. He made a succesful career for himself in his new life as an author creating stories for the alien children, stories couched in fable- like symbolism. He still had lingering attachment to Cheng Xin and arranged to speak with her via sophont transmission at an interview rigorously controlled by the aliens, in which the disclosure of any technical information would be punished by her immediate death. Using the pretext of these stories, however, he was able to indirectly hint at various crucial technical matters by couching the information in storybook terms that went right over or under the aliens heads. One such item decoded from Cheng's recounting of these fables was determined to be the light speed principle, which used alteration of the curvature of space for propulsion. But astronomers discovered a telltale signature in the form of a visibly distinct spherical zone of space revealing anywhere this technology had been used. Leadership organizations surmised that this signature contributed to the near immediate destruction of the Three Body system following the Broadcast, and consequently the research of light speed propulsion was illegalized by all human governments on Earth and in space.

    And that's as far as I got, 150 pages left to go out of 500. Will advise if further events of interest transpire in the last 2 chapters. Hey, I'm a slow reader even in English.

    1133:

    My high-level thoughts on Brexit: Brexit: Are We Without the Peace?

    1134:

    You are saying that we cannot exit the EHCR UNLESS we are out of the EU, I think? BUT, even if At50 gets activated, it is not a necessary condition that we leave the ECHR. Let's try to be clear on this, shall we, as several people have repeatedly got this "around their necks".

    1135:

    You might be surprised to find I agree with you. What I object to in the SNP is their "Calvinism/Prebyterianism" - the utter determination to nosey-parker into things which are of no concern to politicians. The currently failed/stalled attempt to have a Block Warden for every child in Scotland being the classic case. However, dahn sarf in Lunnon ... we have loonie-left Momentum (Read: "Militant Tendency" nutters trying to unseat Labour MP's with 20 000 majorities, so that they can get a "true socialist" elected. What would happen of course is that a tory or a Green would get elected. This level of stupid scares me.

    1136:

    YES From the point of view of most people here, the really important exchange rate is that against the Deutschmark err Euro ....

    1137:

    Sorry but no.

    As discussed under "Indyref 1" the sovereignty of Scotland vests in the population rather than in a head of state (original source Declaration of Arbroath, and no-one's come up with a later legal document that supersedes it). Accordingly the HofS has no right to make a statement on behalf of Scotland which is contrary to an expressed wish of the population, who voted 3 to 2 to remain in the EU.

    1138:

    I've seen it suggested that we cannot leave the ECHR unless we also leave the UN! I think this is because the ECHR is a European implementation of a UN directive? (directive may be the wrong word here)

    1139:

    Educate the voters? "They" have been maliciously eroding the public education system in the USA for a generation, and it sounds like the UK has similar problems.

    Today I saw a streaming "Gadsden" Flag ("Don't Tread on Me") and an oversize bumper sticker proclaiming "Obama: The Lying President"

    Just on a brief drive to/from town. These are considered MAINSTREAM opinions around here, and it sounds like the UK has similar problems. You can't have a rational discussion with them, they know what they know.

    1140:

    You are right. Leaving the EU is not the same as leaving the ECHR, which is part of the Council of Europe.

    However, as part of the Tory manifesto, there is a move to withdraw from the EDHR and the support legislation and establish a (far less powerful) British Bill of Rights. Among other things, one of the stated intentions of this bill is to reinstate the supremacy of the British courts over British citizens. The rhetoric for this doesn't necessarily require actually withdrawing from the ECHR, just saying "we're going to ignore you and remove the right of British citizens to appeal to the ECHR."

    Now, with a little bit of poorly thought our legislation that we've just seen, the change in PM we're about to see, and the fun of sorting out what the deal "we" "want" might look like will be and then triggering Art. 50 etc. I suspect this will slide and slide and slide. It will be incredibly fiercely opposed by a lot of people. But if it does go through it's the first step to slipping out of of the ECHR without actually leaving.

    1141:

    Hillary has the potential to be the USA's best Republican President since Eisenhower (tm).

    Assuming she gets enough Senators and can break the obstructive (Republican/party of Koch) nut cases in the house (Congress/House of Representatives). Which would probably require breaking off some nominal Republicans. See my previous post, there is NOT a Democratic candidate in this or a significant number of other Republican held districts. And oceans of Dark money pouring in to keeping Republican control of the House and Senate. Checks and Balances, with NO funding limitation, important on this thread as a lesson on how not to let your politics go adrift.

    Or design limitations for a "more democratic" EU. Just guarantee every nation one seat, and tell them to suck it up' There is a variation at the bottom, seven states with only one House Seat, from Wyoming (Population 563,767) to Montana 989,417); Rhode Island with a population of 1,052, 931 gets two.

    The last proposal I heard of to increase the House by two and Give DC a voting representative (population somewhere in the middle of the single seat states, not going back to Wikipedia) would result in another seat for Utah, i.e, not upset the partisan balance/divide.

    1142:

    Now, that should finally convince all Leave supporters that they are wrong:

    Brexit pushes up cocoa prices

    The chocolate bar in your pocket may soon cost more, following the sharp falls in the pound.

    (from Grauniad)

    1143:

    This is true. Hillary was a young republican, as were many current democrats. The parties have changed.

    It's also worth remembering, that during Eisenhower's era, the segregationist bigots of the Jim Crow south were all democrats, specifically dixiecrats. After Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, the dixiecrats started leaving in droves for the Republican party, helped along by Nixon's southern strategy. Now they're what passes for the heart of the Republican party, which is now the "Party of Lincoln" (e.g. emancipation) in name only. Part of what's tearing that party apart is that amoral businessmen and deeply religious, and often bigoted, poor white (males) don't really have that much in common.

    Many independents are former, more moderate republicans, and the democrats are the majority of everyone else.

    1144:

    Gove out. May vs Leadsom. 2nd British Female PM in about 7 weeks time.

    1145:

    Any bets?

    Markets must be thrilled at the prospect of Leadsom becoming PM.

    1146:

    This comes up often enough that I tried to find out real numbers on working-class voting patterns. It was difficult because people don't stick to income to define class in a lot of these studies and I could not come to any firm conclusion.

    However, poor Americans, even poor whites in the South, defined solely by income, do tend to vote Democrat. When people blast the "white working class" for voting Republican, they usually mean the lower middle or even middle middle classes. Then they will defend this by falling back on education levels and other cultural markers rather than classic economic or Marxist definitions.

    However, the rich do vote Republican, even in blue states, and the Democrats have only recently reached parity with white women as a whole.

    Basically, we all suck, but the poor are easy targets for "progressive" spleen in the U.S.

    1147:

    I honestly don't know. You have to remember I'm a LONG way from your typical Conservative party member, except I'm getting old now. Even then I'm probably at least 10 years if not more below the average age of their membership. And that's the closest I get.

    My gut feeling says Leadsom. Wherever you are on the political spectrum, May has history and successes and failures. Leadsom has a history outside politics, she's an up and comer within politics but no real blots on her copybook. No big successes but no big failures and that's just as important sometimes.

    I didn't like a lot of what Callmedave did in terms of the policies and so on but we've certainly had worse people as PM in terms of managing the cabinet and parliament, bar his stupid promise on the referendum. Because of the Blair-Brown years he had zero ministerial experience when he stepped straight in as PM. Leadsom can point that out and that she has more experience as a minister, albeit a junior minister, than he did. She also had a really good debate in one of the TV referendum debates and she interviews better than May which might well play well to the electorate. Part of the PM's job is things like PMQs, press conferences and so on - to be a public figure and in the limelight frequently - and May really doesn't seem at her best there. She's not terrible, or she wouldn't be a senior politician but she's not wonderful.

    However, the Conservative Party membership is often conservative too and might go with someone they know.

    As I said before, I'm really a long way removed from the electorate this time, more than usual. I wouldn't be surprised if it was either of them. If it was May vs Gove there's no way Gove would have stood a chance. I'd be surprised if he'd got 5% of the rank and file voting for him.

    1148:

    Leadsom is a virtual unknown to me, as admittedly so was Callmedave (who is my MP for my sins...) at the time he became Conservative leader. The difference here is that Callmedave had some time as opposition leader to establish himself as potential prime ministerial material, and then had to fight and (sort of) win an election before he got the keys to No. 10

    Leadsom has seemingly come out of nowhere and would get the keys handed to her on a plate by the Conservative party alone.

    On the other hand, May seems like the least bad alternative -- even though I really dislike the position she has taken on on-line privacy and the ECHR as Home Secretary.

    1149:

    Leadsom appeart be well past Upney - she's out in the Corby league of out-of-contact-with-reality. Which May, most definitely is not (Whatever you think of her) I'm assuming that May will win ... "safe pair of hands" & all that. In her partial defence ( Am I saying this? ) .... Home Secretary is a shit job, & to hold it down for as long as she has is some achievement. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me, but I think, in the whole of the 20th C there were only two HS's who were openly socially liberal: Winston Churchill & Roy Jenkins. If anyone can add to that very short list, I would be grateful (?)

    1150:

    Leadsom will also get the religious conservative support, which while not as significant as in the US, is still a thing in the Conservative ranks.

    1151:

    I should have added white and technically middle class to my list of similarities to the typical Conservative Party member.

    1152:

    Not sure she'll get that vote over Teresa "Son of a Preacher Man" May. (Yes, I know she the daughter but the song title is too good to pass up, sorry.) May is also devout, just not showy about it from what I remember of her appearance on Desert Island Discs.

    1153:

    Not sure you can make judgments about someone's character based on a Desert Island Discs appearance. Especially not of someone with a media team who'd handle the scripting of it.

    1154:

    It's really hard to fathom May. Is she actually as authoritarian as she appears to be or was she just being a pragmatic Secretary of State touting for the special interests her department represents?

    OTOH she did stand up to the Police Federation like no other Home Secretary in history has, and she presided over the decline and fall of the odious Association of Chief Police Officers. So she can't be all bad.

    Can she?

    1155:

    I'm not making judgements about her whole character. There are plenty of politicians who appear on the show where religion doesn't get a look in. It did for her, and not just because of her father. So however spun it was, it's probably actually important to her. You're probably more likely in the UK to get elected if you say you're not a believer after all, even as a Tory.

    So I don't think Leadsom will have a particular edge with the Tory Christian voters.

    1156:

    she's out in the Corby league of out-of-contact-with-reality.

    Hey, I come from Corby (Northants). I'd prefer you to abuse the Labour leader with his final N.

    1157:

    Hmm, religion and politics. In my relative youth, I was for some years mind-parasitised by fundies (charismatics within the CoE), and am now a hardass atheist, so I know a bit about both sides.

    What might interest our American friends was the fact that the church concerned was absolutely NOT like the US religious right. While conservative on "faith and morals", they were cool with evolution and perfectly loathed Mrs. Thatcher, in power at the time. There was one Tory, who was, probably not by coincidence, a farmer, and she was very lonely.

    Inasmuch as in the US one rather gets the impression that a lot of people believe in capitalism first and God as a means to that end – the end-point of this being the "prosperity gospel" (cf the televangelists like in "The Apocalypse Codex") – I might even suggest that the lack of consonance between the US and UK is because British Christians do not get how their 2000-year-old religion should be merely the machine-gun nest on top of Scrooge McDuck's money pile. They think there should be more to it than that. They might be "conservatives" in their own way, but it's not the same way.

    1158:

    When it comes to Sterling-Dollar exchange rate £1 = $1.30 is about correct with respect to PPP. Sterling has been over valued for years. It will certainly do good things for balance of trade and our exports.

    1159:

    Ah yes, the typo-curse strikes again Also called Keybored ewwor

    1160:

    Thanks, I'll stand corrected. We all suck.

    Say, didn't those with medium pay and medium education used to be, you know, unionized?

    1161:

    We have no good language or terms of reference for class in the US. It's almost like we are not supposed to be talking about it. Funny, that.

    (Seriously, not personally ragging on you. Just tired of how entrenched the "ignorant poor" meme has gotten in American liberal thinking. We all fall victim to it, like institutionalized racism.)

    1162:

    I believe the politically-correct formulation is that The Unions Had Grown Too Powerful, And They Were Ruining The Country.

    1163:

    You might be interested in this: https://newrepublic.com/article/134875/white-trash-theory-donald-trump. It's actually in large part a book review that has little to do with Drumpf.

    Personally, I see parallels with what I've read in James Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed, in terms of the kinds of people who flock to apparently messianic leadership.

    1164:

    in terms of the kinds of people who flock to apparently messianic leadership. Well there's a very long & depressing list of both of those, isn't there? Not JUST Adolf, but Musso, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Chavez, Franco, & many many others. Even worse is when these "leaders", or should I say "Guides"(? ) embrace or push a form of religion with it. Euwwwwwww .....

    1165:

    Oh, they usually do that; they just don't call it that and it usually pretends not to have a god.

    1166:

    Oh... and here is some inside information on Tory thinking, photographed on the tube and tweeted:

    http://filehost.serveftp.net/g/tory-on-tube.jpg

    1167:

    Huh!? Corby isn't on the District line, or indeed anywhere in Essex.

    More generally I'm sure that we all know how Ken Clarke described Teresa May as "bloody awkward", but isn't that exactly what Article 50 negotiations will require?

    1168:

    That looks like a Leadsom position summary. Or maybe a PLP one, it can be so hard to tell.

    1169:

    There are, as I understand it, no Art 50 negotiations. There are trade and visa negotiations with the EU to follow after Art 50 is invoked and we leave, perhaps you mean them? It's unlikely May or Leadsom will still be in office by the time they are complete years from now and she can't really commit her successor(s) to any particular course of action or negotiating stances.

    1170:

    Looks like points Leadsom will make when campaigning for leadership. Check the item "Boris to campaign around the country for her". Also "Trigger Art. 50 in September". Both points rule out Theresa May, which has the support of 60% of the PLP.

    Here's the original tweet of the guy who made that photo.

    1171:

    Argh, I think we both menat "PCP", not "PLP". At least I did.

    1172:

    I meant PLP, or at least the Benn-the-younger tendency.

    1173:

    "Constitutional Crisis" ?

    Maybe not

    Let's see, shall we?

    If Leadsom wins, not a hope. If May wins, I would bet on this one .....

    1174:

    There are some people, who claim to be spokespersons for young people, who are saying that the old (who overwhelmingly voted OUT) aren't going to have to live with the results for far longer and have ruined things for the young, who overwhelmingly voted IN.

    Actually, not true. The young overwhelmingly voted "Can't be arsed". I found a set of figures for turnout broken down by age groups:

    18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

    Youngsters, if the result was that important to you why did nearly two thirds of you stay at home?

    If the 18-24 age group, and possibly the 25-34 age group, had bothered to vote in the proportion that pensioners did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    That's the thing about living in a democracy. If you can't be bothered to vote, then of course you are entitled to complain - free speech and all that. But those of us who could be bothered don't have to listen to you. And you don't get to have your moaning shape policy, either.

    1175:

    This mornings "what the papers" on the beeb was ... interesting.

    The realisation that the UK is about to disintegrate has finally penetrated the politico's excuses for brains & they are panicking. Also the faction-fighting in Labour is getting interesting, with Ms Eagle insisting that Corby must be nominated - he doesn't get automatic enrolment on the ballot ... and - apparently ... The right wing of labour & the left wing of the tories starting to think of forming a centre-party, because the ultras on both sides are obviously nutters.

    Fortunately At50 cannot be pressed until Sept/Oct at the earliest & the longer it isn't activated, the better the chance of it never being activated, or a 2nd referendum, or some other way of weaselling out of it.

    1176:

    Maybe this lot will get off their fat idle backsides, if a 2nd referendum happens?

    I can't understand this, incidentally, I don't think I have ever missed an election in which I was eligible to vote ....

    1177:

    I can't understand this, incidentally, I don't think I have ever missed an election in which I was eligible to vote ....

    Me too. My motto is, if there's no one you can love, vote against the one you hate most. And it's hardly possible for there not to be one.

    Fletcher Christian: The right wing of labour & the left wing of the tories starting to think of forming a centre-party, because the ultras on both sides are obviously nutters.

    But – but – but isn't that what you had when Blair was ruling with a massive majority?

    Remember me telling you all how the Swedish right-wing did a brilliant piece of memewar by renaming themselves "The Moderates", implying that social democrats were inherently nutters.

    1178:

    The story about young people failing to vote may not be true. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high It seems likely that 18-24 and 25-34 turned out in slightly fewer numbers than the over 40s, but not drastically so.

    At which point you have to wonder about the agenda of the people saying blame old people, no blame young people, no blame Corbyn, no blame Cameron, and on and on.

    1179:

    Absolutely NOT. Blair's autocracy was merely a less overt form of the extremist monetarism and subservience to the USA military-industrial machine. The coalition was a very similar oligarchy. For example, there was a continuing cut-back on any real investment in people, for social purposes, or to restart any UK-owned commerce.

    1180:

    Absolutely NOT. Blair's autocracy was merely a less overt form of.... The coalition was a very similar oligarchy.

    But isn't that more or less what I said? Not formally, but de facto a single centrist party with only the nutters to the left and right? "You can have any colour as long as it's monetarist and a loyal vassal of the Empire?

    (Not that I really consider Corbyn a nutter, I've been exposed to this view, not least here, but also to the idea that he is actually Old Labour, and I don't feel competent to judge. That he was against Hatton was vital information, though.)

    1181:

    So the figure being thrown around were based on the last general election, not the referendum?

    Odd how numbers take on a life of their own, isn't it? Everyone knows most young people don't care and these numbers show just that — when what they show is that most of them do care, when presented with a choice. (The most common reason I've heard for not voting is 'it makes no difference who wins, things won't change'.)

    1182:

    No. Its centrist claims were almost entirely cosmetic - why on earth do you think there was a reaction among Labour party members? Ignore the polemic and look at the actions - it talked (diluted) socialism and delivered even more monetarism and subservience. It's actual delivery was considerably to the right of what most of the country wanted.

    Another way to look at it is to ignore the voting of the masses, because they don't have a clue about the issues and aren't capable of analysing claims, so are susceptible to demagogues telling them how to vote. Instead, consider their expressed wishes, work out how they could be delivered, and ask if the government is even trying to do so.

    1183:

    Another way to look at it is to ignore the voting of the masses, because they don't have a clue about the issues and aren't capable of analysing claims, so are susceptible to demagogues telling them how to vote. Careful with that ... You will get called either a fascist or a communist for expressing opinions like that. Guess how I know?

    Yes, wee all know it's actually a failure of education ....

    1184:

    I was thinking of the Blair government in terms of the Ratchet – the new centre is what we used to call the right wing, and you guys can't have what you want because it will destroy The Economy (the new name for the rich). I hadn't read you as disagreeing with that.

    How would this suggested "Grand Coalition of Everybody Except The Nutters" differ from this, as the whole point of the Ratchet is to brand everyone who has their enthusiasm for the super-rich under control a "nutter"?

    I suspect that in ancient Carthage, anybody who wouldn't throw their first-born into Moloch's fiery furnace was a "nutter". Perhaps the priests claimed that refuseniks would get Moloch so pissed that the economy would collapse.

    1185:

    For those who don't believe the turnout data, I got this from Quora:

    "Here are the numbers from a Sky poll, which put together a model on the principles above:

    Estimated turnouts:

    18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%

    The second approach is via the detailed data from Lord Ashcroft’s polls, but again is projected from a poll that was not designed to discover turnout.

    Estimated turnouts:

    18-24: 32% 25-34: 55% 35-44: 76% 45-54: 80% 55-64: 90% 65+: 78%

    Finally, we can see lower overall turnouts in places with higher proportions of young people, which supports the above."

    The trend is the same on both tables, although the details differ. There is some stuff on FT.com as well, but it's behind a paywall that I don't seem able to breach. (The old trick of putting the web address into Google doesn't work.)

    1186:

    The problem with quoting your sources is that the other linked source specifically says the Sky Poll data is flawed.

    Lord Ashcroft uses a fixed group and his 18-24 year olds consist of 12 people. So 3 of Lord Ashcroft's 12 people in that age group voted. Forgive me if I have a low degree of confidence in the accuracy. It's also a very general poll about a lot of things because it's fundamentally an opinion poll, rather an poll about voter turnout.

    The poll in the one that calls these numbers into question is a post-referendum poll that asks "did you vote?" "By what mechanism did you vote?" and is specifically looking at getting the data on voter turnout, not anything else. They may lie of course but generally research aimed at specifically answering questions like this is considered more reliable than more general research.

    So, while it's one piece of evidence and it needs corroboration by some more targeted research, the basic indicators are good that they're closer to the right answer than either of the survey's you're quoting I'm afraid.

    1187:

    I have to thank you for that post acting as an incitement to me to improve my education by actually reading "Das Kapital". (Fuck me is it ever tedious though...)

    1188:

    There was some fairly serious analysis last night that suggests if Leadsom gets elected she'll do what it appears Corbyn's election is doing to Labour at the moment and causing a fracture between the left and right wings.

    There's also some fairly serious suggestions that Leadsom could win it because although the country will look at Callmedave and gay marriage as positives, the party membership (presumably clutching their little blue books?) really don't and May is regarded as "his" natural successor and therefore to be punished.

    So it seems like the bulk of the politically-active electorate is far more tribal and polarised than the centrist politicians. Of course party members are still a tiny minority of the total electorate and perhaps the MPs reflect the country better.

    1189:

    and perhaps the MPs reflect the country better. Yes.

    Leadsom is as far round the U-bend as Corbyn.

    1190:

    There's a smaller book called "Lohnarbeit und Kapital" that covers the key points and has less footnotes. I didn't have the stamina for "Das Kapital" either, but "Lohnarbeit und Kapital" was a nice read.

    1191:

    Thanks for that, I'll check it out.

    1192:

    For anyone still reading this far:

    It appears that Leadsom is to quit the Tory leadership race, citing that "abuse is too great", following her odious comments about Teresa May; apparently another public figure who considers "I'm sorry that you were offended" is a real apology, and feels somehow hard done by when quoted accurately. Boo-fucking-hoo!

    May's latest rhetoric seems to indicate that she is swinging back towards pushing the Article 50 ejector button as soon as possible. Early indications are that her more moderate and cautious stance appears to be evaporating now that she is more-or-less guaranteed the PM spot.

    Fun.

    1193:

    Aaaaand... Theresa May wins

    1194:

    And now the United Kingdom will be ruled by Theresa May, a bona fide unelected bureaucrat, while the EU is ruled - in as much as the Good Old Holy Roman Empire can be ruled - by Juncker, a 100% democratically elected... bureaucrat.

    This must be what I once saw defined as an 'ironicidal sarchasm'.

    1195:

    In fairness her "Brexit means Brexit" quote was made before any news of Leadsom's announcement had leaked, at least as far as the BBC.

    But it will be interesting to see what she does. May's a bit of a micromanager - which has been great as Home Secretary - so it's hard to imagine she's going to drive to press the button before she has a clear strategy for what she wants from the Art. 50 negotiations, where the red lines are and so on. Unless a miracle has happened in the last just under 3 weeks (and while I admire the civil service without a PM in place to provide guidance it would be a freaking miracle) that won't be there. It might, now, be there by the time she (or Leadsom) was due to be elected.

    But it's going to be interesting, possibly for Chinese curse values, to see where we go from here.

    1196:

    Definitely Chinese curse interesting. My reading is that she has always disliked the EU, but didn't want to break ranks (and let's not ask why not). But I don't think that she is an idiot (unlike Davey Boy and Loathesome), and so will at least listen to the mandarins if they describe the disaster that awaits. But (a) they may well tell her only what she wants to hear (i.e. the optimistic but unlikely scenario) and (b) I don't think that she will believe them if they describe the mess in full. My guess is that she will either delay Article 50 until the end of the year, and probably use her honeymoon period to ram Parliamentary approval through. I doubt that she would be able to call a snap election without shooting herself in the foot, unless Labour are even more insane than seems possible or the SNP back that.

    The thing to watch is the property market and what the big builders do. Currently, they are in "Oh!, shit!" mode and waiting to see what happens. But if a few large foreign investors pull out to cut their potential losses, we are likely to see a spiral of dropping prices, the big builders stopping proactive developments, and workers laid off.

    1197:

    My understanding of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 is that the PM cannot call a "snap election". That act would need to be repealed.

    Or the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

    Or if the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

    I can't see any of these things happening unless things get really, really bad. Meaning that we're stuck with Theresa May until 7-May 2020.

    1198:
    so will at least listen to the mandarins if they describe the disaster that awaits. But (a) they may well tell her only what she wants to hear (i.e. the optimistic but unlikely scenario) and (b) I don't think that she will believe them if they describe the mess in full.

    I wonder how true this assessment is. You could be 100% right of course but I do wonder. She's been Home Secretary for 6 years and her only significant reverses have come at the hands of first the British courts, then the ECHR and every time she's changed and adapted to meet their objections to get her ultimate goal rather than having a long-lasting hissy fit. OK, she's had the hissy fit as the instant reaction but the eventual deportation of Abu Qatada was basically a triumph for the courts and her (and the FCO) negotiating with Jordan to change their trial laws rather than her ignoring the advice of the mandarins.

    She keeps (kept I should now say) coming back with the wretched snoopers' charter, but while it remains wretched and overpowered, it's considerably weakened from the first draft.

    It strikes me she's someone that although she has clear objectives, objectionable though I find many of them, she's rather more than some others prepared to listen to the expert advice, welcomes it even, and will plot her course accordingly.

    While I voted Remain and I don't like this, I'm still more scared about the other stuff she'll do. But I find I'm happier, except at the prospect of the Tories splitting, at the prospect of her as PM than any of the other candidates frankly. And that's pretty bloody worrying.

    1199:

    I am not going to describe the full mess again, but it's MUCH larger than is reported in the papers. You need to put the (known) data together, work out what depends on what, and realise what houses of cards our economy and society are. But I fully agree with your last paragraph, God help us all :-(

    1200:

    You should read May's Birmingham speech from today (and for laughs compare it with Angela Eagle's statement today). If she sticks to that program, Angela Eagle will have to oppose here from the right; it looks more like something Jeremy Corbyn would support. Some highlights:

    The people who run big businesses are supposed to be accountable to outsiders, to non-executive directors, who are supposed to ask the difficult questions, think about the long-term and defend the interests of shareholders. In practice, they are drawn from the same, narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and – as we have seen time and time again – the scrutiny they provide is just not good enough. So if I’m Prime Minister, we’re going to change that system – and we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but employees as well.

    ...

    Because unless we deal with the housing deficit, we will see house prices keep on rising. Young people will find it even harder to afford their own home. The divide between those who inherit wealth and those who don’t will become more pronounced. And more and more of the country’s money will go into expensive housing instead of more productive investments that generate more economic growth.

    ...

    I want to make shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. I want to see more transparency, including the full disclosure of bonus targets and the publication of “pay multiple” data: that is, the ratio between the CEO’s pay and the average company worker’s pay. And I want to simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company and its shareholders.

    I also want us to be prepared to use – and reform – competition law so that markets work better for people. If there is evidence that the big utility firms and the retail banks are abusing their roles in highly-consolidated markets, we shouldn't just complain about it, we shouldn’t say it’s too difficult, we should do something about it.

    1201:

    Meaning that we're stuck with Theresa May until 7-May 2020.

    Or until there's another Tory leadership election of course. But I find that unlikely.

    1202:

    Yes. Not as unlikely as a three-line whip to vote 'no' on a confidence motion by the party in government, though. That would make them a laughing stock.

    1203:

    If May ends up stating that she can't in conscience trigger article 50, who knows what might happen.

    Gah, this whole mess!

    1204:

    Openly telling more than 50% of the population to piss off because you don't like the way they voted leads to Northern Ireland circa 1970

    1205:

    I'm not sure if that's more insulting to Leave voters or the Catholic and Nationalist populations of Northern Ireland.

    1206:

    More like 30%. 52% of 72% of whatever proportion the electorate is of the population.

    1207:

    The parliamentary electorate was 70.1% of the population in 2014 - the most recent figure the ONS has easily findable. That gives us a 26.4% Leave vote as a fraction of the whole population.

    That's a top-end estimate: electoral registration is trending downward at the moment due to the individual registration thing (and it's not a reliable process, my son is having trouble with it).

    1208:

    Am I the only one actually reading May's speeches? She has several times said Brexit means Brexit. No 2nd referendum, no wiggling out. She will take this as a chance to reform Britain as she sees fit. If she succeeds, it will be very different from the Britain of Blair or Mayor.

    1209:

    Read #1196 for an answer to that. The only likely way it would be cancelled is if MPs vote it down; we need to wait until she is in office and says how she is going to proceed.

    1210:

    Am I the only one actually reading May's speeches? She has several times said Brexit means Brexit.

    I posted a citation of them a few hundred posts that, but ever since (like, perhaps, others) I've been heeding the warning of https://xkcd.com/386/

    1211:

    How likely is it that the Tories vote against their freshly elected leader when she tries to implement the program she was elected for?

    1212:

    No, she was NOT elected to implement Brexit, but to replace Davey Boy. As I posted earlier, May is not a political idiot, and this is ONE way that she could arrange a negation of the result. But I don't think she will, as she is a closet Leaver.

    She announces that Article 50 will be triggered, but only after the decision is confirmed by MPs, and gets her mandarins to put together a leaving strategy and predictions that are as dire as the Remainers were saying (though probably not as dire as I have been saying). She then publishes it, and announces a free vote ON THE STRATEGY a suitable time afterwards. She, of course, says that this isn't nice, but the wishes of the electorate must be respected, even though Parliament is supreme (as it is, in law), and doesn't defend it any more strongly than she defended the Remain vote. Following a defeat of the strategy, she creates a committee to create a new strategy (without cancelling the claimed decision to leave eventually), but with a hidden remit to blither sine die. And everything then gets swept under the carpet by the next election.

    1213:

    No, you're not. But as several people have commented over the course of this thread, wtf does that actually mean?

    Are we leaving the EU and going to try and stay in the single market? Leave the single market and be part of the wider trading area? Default to WTO trading tariffs only? There's a whole host of other things that are contingent on that. Given in her speech she's made building new houses a huge priority, she's basically said whatever immigration policy she has is going to have a lot of builders included in it. There are a lot of (largely unpopular in certain parts of the Brexit voting) Eastern Europeans working in the building trades. That will be fun to sell to the electorate.

    Are we going to try and keep the UK in the EU research agreements (various countries well outside the EU are in that)?

    What's she going to do with the money she doesn't pay to the EU every week... however little that actually is. If she honours the agreement to keep funding to farmers, poor regions, science and industry etc. she's got about £80m/w to shove around give or take. Given how much money disappears into the NHS, well I'm sure it would be welcome, it's frankly a drop in the ocean that wouldn't be noticed. (There are things she could spend it on that would make a much bigger difference, like restructuring care for the elderly nationally, taking the money away from local authorities, moving it into the NHS and using that money to ease the transition. Clean up bed blocking, reduce hospital waiting times and make a LOT of local government officers and NHS administrators hate her while probably saving the NHS money in a two year timeframe in a way that would make her chancellor kiss her.)

    Her rhetoric is just fine but there's still no detail on what Brexit actually means.

    Some of the rest of the rest of her speechifying is fun though. Kicking company bosses in the pay packet... we'll definitely have a new incumbent in 11 Downing Street shortly after Wednesday night!

    1214:

    I missed out the etc. etc. etc. in my list of points of "what does Brexit actually mean."

    1216:

    Quiet word on the street is that Leadsom was pushed over the cliff ... once her quite-unpleasantly-close links with some US Neo-Cons (Like Palin) became apparent.

    How sad.

    May will obviously delay pressing At50, because it's a bargaining chip - especially if she can push it past next years French & German elections. Merely saying that "We want to get this right, so we mustn't rush it", of course ....

    1217:

    Guesses for May's cabinet?

    Given her statement about reforming the rules about director's salaries rules and the like, that's kicking Gideon out. Given her history with Gove it's hard to see him continuing in a major role. Callmedave will fade onto the back benches for a while.

    She's said she wants a Brexit minister. I think she's going to need a new Chancellor. Obviously she's going to need a new Home Secretary. It's traditional to have a new Foreign Secretary too although she might like Hammond and keep him or kick him over to a different senior office. She'll also need a Justice Minister if she does kick Gove to touch.

    Appointing Leadsom as Brexit minister would be an astute move. It would be a nice sign of peace between them and willingness to work together. It would be a clear sign to the public of meaning to work on Brexit (even if behind the scenes) nothing actually happens and whether or not Leadsom is the frothing nutter some declare her to be, it's not insignificant position to the awkward squad in the party.

    After that, I don't know enough of the characters really. Any thoughts?

    1218:

    Greg, Theresa May could very conceivably delay invoking Art.50 - she has to organize a cabinet and a negotiating team, decide the targets to reach in that negotation and how to reach them, take some very difficult decisions regarding Scotland and North Ireland... and last but not least to recruit somehow, somewhere, the experts needed, those experts that everyone apparently agrees the Union has and Britain lacks - but that delay isn't a bargaining chip.

    After you have voted to leave, which kind of bargaining chip is threathening the other side with not leaving? I don't know if this cunning plan belongs more to Blackadder or Monty Python. Sure, it creates uncertainty, but that a)won't win you any friends or good will, b) that uncertainty will also hit Great Britain, only harder, c) will create increasing frustration amongst the 'Brexiteers', and last but not least d) during those months prices will rise, jobs will leave, Ireland and Scotland will become increasingly unstable, etc. In short, the longer the delay, the weaker Britain's position will be when negotiations start.

    1219:

    I don't see Leadsom as Brexit minister. May is said to tend to micromanaging, so she will want to have someone cooperative in that position, not someone who wants to implement their own ideas.

    1220:

    Damn her statements - look at her actions.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-prime-minister-andrea-leadsom-policies-voting-record-human-rights-what-did-she-mean-a7130961.html

    She will probably sack Hideous Gideon, on the grounds that he is a one trick pony, and the trick hasn't been working. But she might just ask Davey Boy to oversee the Brexit - I regard him with contempt, but will admit that he is nearly as glib as Bliar. I agree with ou about timing, which is why I am guessing December or thereabouts.

    1221:

    Oops. Alatriste post about the timing.

    1222:

    While I agree about the micromanaging, she's also said to be good at working with people. She pretty much has to appoint a pretty prominent Brexit figure to the position, so it's going to be someone with their own ideas but it's got to be someone she can work with happily. She could, if Leadsom would agree, make it clear what the working arrangements would be and see how it goes.

    If Leadsom has ambitions, maybe not to be PM but for a senior ministerial rank still, she'd see it as a stepping stone to that, so she'd take a fairly prominent but quite tightly constrained role with the expectation that success her would lead to something like MOJ or maybe even Home Secretary in 2 years time or so. (The chances that the next incumbent as Home Secretary will last more than 2 years are pretty remote based on everyone before Teresa May for a century or so.)

    So both sides could see it as a win.

    The other obvious person to give it would be BoJo and I think May would find him harder to work with. She and Gove don't get on so it's unlikely to go to him.

    1223:

    Cameron, the man famously bad at EU diplomacy, heading up Brexit negotiations?

    1224:

    She could also hire Yannis Varoufakis...

    1225:

    How many times do I have to say, if I had to choose which of the five of them I wanted for PM I'd shoot the lot and say "None of that rabble, thanks," hmm? I can't do anything about what May's voting record, nor Leadsom's is. They're both objectionable right-wing nutters IMO. From where I sit on the political spectrum it's pretty hard to tell the difference on just how far 'over there' they are. Other political opinions are available, and they'd probably both brand me as a looney lefty. I'm ok with that.

    I don't have a choice about voting for her for PM. I'm not a Tory MP in disguise. Even if Leadsom hadn't withdrawn I wouldn't have had a choice because I'm not a Tory party member. I am considering joining the Labour Party and voting for Corbyn just to annoy Greg.

    None of that stops me being interested in what she might do as PM. I'm not oblivious to the fact she might turn around and destroy our human rights on a systematic basis, left, right and centre. I have to hope between the fact she's got a lot on her plate and the HOL still has some teeth and she doesn't actually have a mandate to do that she won't. Plus, she's talking about doing other things which are away from the human rights field to give her more on her plate.

    1226:

    Meanwhile, Angela Eagle & Co actually have to win an election against Corbyn in order to succeed him in Labour leadership, consider the ignominy!

    So, can anyone tell me any reason why Eagle would be a better leader, except for being chums with 80% of the Labour MPs?

    1227:

    Depends on how you view politics really.

    The standard model of British Politics, to coin a phrase, which has more or less held true for a century, actually if you change the party names it's more or less held true since we've had a house of commons, is that there's a left(ish) and a right(ish) party. (There is a third party in the UK that rises and falls but is usually insignificant. Northern Ireland has its own parties and again, although they're vital in Stormont, they're typically insignificant in Westminster. There have been exceptions to that general rule, the coalition 2010-15, the Major government propped up by the DUP and UUP, the Lib-Lab pact and others but basically it's the big two.)

    How left and right they are varies over time but they have core voters of those political persuasions. Whether you win the general election or not, thanks to FPTP and electoral boundaries and so on, depends less on your core vote than persuading sometimes quite small numbers of floating voters in middle England (quite literally, geographically usually as well as in political terms) so that the marginal seats that decide the outcome will swing one way or another. Callmedave's majority might be 12 seats until tomorrow, when Teresa's will be, but it's founded on a key 901 votes out of 38 million or whatever it was. If that number of people in key places had voted for the second place candidate, there wouldn't be a Tory majority.

    The PLP believes that Corbyn, under the standard model is a vote loser in middle England. They could be correct because he's pretty far to the left, although this hasn't really been tested in a long time and the last time it was tested (1983, the first time I could vote) it really wasn't a straight fight because Thatcher had just won a pretty popular war in the Falklands against an invading force which boosted her popularity so a left-wing manifesto against a successful war PM is not really a test of a left-wing manifesto.

    Now, the rise of the SNP in terms of MPs and votes; the leaking of votes to UKIP, strongly from the Tories to some extent from Labour; the big increase in the Green vote might all suggest a change in the standard model. The election of Corbyn as leader attracted ~ 200,000 new members to the Labour party and while their geographical distribution is unclear and whether they were existing Labour voters before they joined is also unclear, that's a big rise when most political parties (the SNP being the other exception) had been seeing a steady decline in member numbers.

    MPs (of both parties) are out of touch with their grass roots members. What the real question is, are they in touch with why they win or lose elections though? My instinct is no. They claim to listen but looking at what Labour did for it's post mortem on it's election loss in 2015, they didn't ask the right questions. Actually they should have done better and not asked leading questions at all, but they asked questions which led people to give answers in areas where they wanted them and not necessarily the right answers. Likewise BoJo and Gove proved that Callmedave and Gideon don't understand how to reach the electorate about the EU.

    So, I haven't really answered your question.

    Having the ungrudging support of a lot of your chums means you might be able to run a shadow cabinet effectively and when you call on the party to vote in opposition to the government on, say, invoking Article 50, they'll follow you through the right lobby. In that sense she'll be a better leader.

    There you go. Whether or not she'll be better able to win an election, whenever we hold one, we don't know.

    1228:

    MPs (of both parties) are out of touch with their grass roots members. Often correct BUT MP's (of both parties) are (usually/should be) very in touch with their grass-roots constituents. Erm, err ... [ A phrase that MP's should remember: "Your loyalty is (or should be) ... COUNTRY, Constituency, Party! ] My very popular female Labour MP is hated by the Corbynites. I don't vote Labour (this year) but I do vote for Stella.

    Which should tell you something.

    Incidentally, Corbyn (J) is a classic reverse of this: He was a fantastically-successful local constituency MP, for a remarkably-deprived inner-London area, adjoining areas of considerable affluence. Now promoted way beyond his competence, which is a pity.

    1229:

    "...the last time it was tested (1983, the first time I could vote) it really wasn't a straight fight..."

    And in terms of non-policy factors, given the existence of TV, Labour really could have done better than pick a wild-eyed ranting loon for their leader. Even today if you put his name into google images the results page that comes up is quite a scary thing. Corbyn looks like a gentle fatherly figure who is sad to see what his children have come to, whereas Foot looked like he'd eat them.

    Interesting thing to my mind about the Falklands time is the way it seemed to switch things off and when they came back on again it was all different. Up until then things had tended to be about two fairly moderate parties, with small majorities to keep them that way. Given how Tory popularity was in the pits for failing to sort out the mess they'd inherited, 1983 could have looked very different if it hadn't been for the Falklands, and it'd probably have carried on much the same. It was after the Falklands that it all went mad and we got mad parties who win election after election and end up thinking they can do owt.

    "they didn't ask the right questions"

    Aaargh... surveys that can only be answered in such a way as to tell them what they want to hear :( How many times have I fought with some shit-awful website that refuses to work because it has been designed by an idiot and needs its code hacked/debugged by me just to function, finally come to the end of whatever I was trying to do, then been asked "Would you like to take our customer satisfaction survey?"... YES... I do want to take the official opportunity to tell them how shit they are and how to fix it... Then it turns out that 50% of the questions are entirely irrelevant, 20% are about things I don't give a toss about, 15% are elaborations of one or two things (that were more or less OK) into a great number of questions, and maybe one question has any relevance to the (un)usability of their website. Indeed no matter what your problem had been you would still inevitably have to give positive answers to most questions. You can imagine them all passing the survey results round at a meeting and patting each other on the back, all blithely unaware that all the noise outside is in fact an angry mob of disgruntled customers setting fire to the building...

    1230:

    So, the GOP is allying itself with UKIP? Fanfuckingtastic.

    Key Brexit figure Farage to attend GOP convention

    1231:

    Definitely true that Michael Foot looks like a madman, yes. I'd forgotten just how much so until I googled him.

    And yes, the Tories could have been up shit creek without the Falklands but the lesson Labour learnt was don't go too far to the left - we have such quotes as "the longest suicide note in history" and I suspect in 25 years time the historians will draw a pretty direct line from that to Tony Blair.

    As for writing good surveys to find out what people think, the real problem is that it's a really hard job, both to write them and to analyse them. It's very easy to ask questions you want the answers to (not necessarily that people want to answer) give yes/no answers or a Likert-scale or similar (even when actually a yes/no answer is more appropriate "I have seen this advert - strongly agree" wtf? It's yes/no you muppet.) Analysing these sorts of answers is also easy, because you just produce a nice quick graph or two "40% of customers are very satisfied with our service and a further 37% are satisfied." You can get a nice script to analyse the answers for you.

    If you want to actually get opinions beyond that you have to give them non-leading questions and then give them space to write their answers and then employ someone to read and analyse their answers. Usually someone with a brain who can cope with typos, pick the meaning out of the statement. Yes, you get much better feedback but it's much more expensive.

    I'm a Virgin Media customer and I have to say although they are guilty of a lot of the sins I've mentioned, they do have space on every page of their feedback surveys for you to write comments in and someone reads them and considers them. I filled in a survey after a fault with a complaint and someone phoned me back to talk about the complaint/suggestion for an improvement in their service I'd made.

    And if you have complaints about unusable websites you should look (if you can be bothered) for the "Contact us" option and get in touch that way. A lot of companies will welcome the feedback if it's polite and you can get some nice thank you gifts.

    1232:

    I'd have thought he was too liberal for them?

    1233:

    @ 1230 ( JPR) ARRRGGGGH!

    Meanwhile Ms May has been heard saying amazingly socially left-wing things for a current tory leader. [ Note the word "current" - they wouldn't have been out-of-place coming from either Ted Heath or Supermac, which people forget ]

    Whether this is temporary window-dressing, or deliberate, we shall have to wait & see. Moving your formerly centre-right party back towards the middle ( i.e. "leftwards" ) & particularly on social issues is a guaranteed vote-winner, especially since Militant Tendency "momentum" are/seem determined to take Labour over ....

    1234:

    I suspect the timing of the referendum may have had a lot to do with the low youth turnout, as many students will have moved house very recently (returning to their parents from their term-time address, or moving to take up summer work).

    Most mainland European countries have compulsory residence registration (which doubles as a fully up-to-date electoral register) but the UK does not. Of course disenfranchising people who have moved house recently (which will mostly be private tenants) serves to strengthen the Tories and other parties which rely on the Home-Owner-Ist vote.

    The UK's lack of compulsory residence registration (along with its lack of ID cards) are probably also the main reasons why it is a magnet for illegal immigration, as illegal immigrants can hide here more easily than they could in Continental countries.

    1236:

    Not outrageously low, but 64% for 18-24s considerably lower than the 90% for 65+s (and probably enough to make the difference).

    1237:

    Yeah, it's lower. But it's close enough to the figures for the other two segments younger than 55 for the difference to be less than the error bar. The narrative that it was the young that lost it is misleading.

    1238:

    I wonder how much of the common thread in voter turnout is the utterly daft idea of holding it on a weekday, when people are working.

    I know two of my colleagues were unable to get home to their defined polling stations until after they closed, which to be fair is their own fault for not going before work.

    In Australia & NZ for example all elections and referenda are required to be held on Saturdays, to maximise the chance of participation.

    1239:

    What we don't know from that latest (on this thread) set of figures is the relative proportions of people entitled to vote who were actually registered, in the various age groups.

    I would be astounded if that data didn't roughly follow the pattern of registered voters actually voting, and for my part I am still not swayed by any claim that some young people were cheated - this time because they weren't registered although they were entitled to be.

    If you are entitled to a vote and you haven't made sure you actually get one because messing around on Facebook, or playing on the PS4, or getting rat-arsed in the student union bar, are more important to you than getting the vote to which you are entitled - then you still have no right to complain about the result of a referendum. Or to be more accurate, no right to be listened to when you do.

    For elections, you might have some excuse, because we all know there are places where one party or another has no chance of being booted out; but that doesn't apply to a referendum.

    1240:

    An Italian guy working in UK (hi-tech multinationa, I suppose) wrote in a blog I follow here in Italy that he got two phone calls from a customer. First time, he was addressed as "filthy European"; second time the call was answered by a Scot and the guy answered that he wanted to speak "with a true Englishman". Bad tidings...

    1241:

    I'm not swayed by claims that people were cheated because they weren't registered but the electoral commission has been warning for several years that the change in the rules for voter registration (introduced by the coalition government) has resulted in a big drop in the number of registered voters and the following disenfranchisement of a lot of people who legally entitled to vote.

    I can't find the earliest warning but I can find warnings dating back to 2013, along with warnings it disproportionately affects the young, women and people in ethnic minorities. Cynics would note that two out of those three groups disenfranchised by these changes are groups unlikely to vote Conservative... but gerrymandering is a dirty word.

    Now, I've seen a lot of adverts about registering to vote (although like quite a few people here I've never missed a vote in my life, even though I was on the brink of a migraine on the 23rd June so I'm hardly the target audience) and millions more people registered to vote for the referendum than anything else, so maybe those warnings are now out of date. But turnout numbers are from registered voters, not from projected total voters which we should be able to work out with a fair degree of accuracy, at least for the referendum, from the 2011 census.

    1242:

    So, May has decided to put Boris Johnson in charge of the Foreign Office. Thus, a leading role in Brexit negotiations will be played by someone who recently compared the EU project to Hitler's dream of a thousand-year Reich, and even more recently published a column in which he assured readers that Brexit would mean only withdrawal from the particular obligations of EU membership that they found vexing, with no corresponding curtailment of the benefits.

    I can see no flaws in this plan.

    1243:

    First time, he was addressed as "filthy European"

    And let me guess: the Italian gentleman could write better English than the nativist?

    1244:

    It may be that she's giving Boris the opportunity to fall flat on his face that he so richly deserves. It's certainly not a sign that PM May is aiming to back out of Brexit, unless she pulls for a General election after the conference season is done and dusted to legitimise her unelected elevation to Number 10 (she was vocal on that subject when Brown took over from Blair about a decade ago).

    1245:

    Heck, no, he could almost certainly SPEAK it as well as write it better! And probably had a better knowledge of the UK's constitution, English law and English history. Most British citizens would fail the citizenship test :-(

    1246:

    Actually the role of "Minister for Brexit" might well supercede BoJo on that. Mind you he was in China for the hand over of the Olympics and told them that their claim to have invented table-tennis was rubbish, it was invented in Eton or some such. He might not be quite as bad as Phil the Greek but he's definitely got form!

    David Davis is going to be the nominal head of Brexit. He's an old hand Eurosceptic, so he's safe in the sense of appeasing the Brexiteers. He's also an old-timer, probably too old to have serious ambition after the negotiations are done (although if BoJo fucks it up and Davis does a good job, some time in the FCO isn't impossible I guess) so it's an interesting choice in that sense.

    And, of course, Gideon is out.

    1247:

    More likely Davis fucks it up, and has been set up to do so - Johnson is as devious and as slippery as the small intestine.

    1248:

    And, of course, Gideon is out.

    So we got that goin' for us, which is nice.

    1249:

    Meanwhile, it turns out the new Brexit Minister was twittering two months ago about the prospects for trade deals with individual EU members after Britain left. Screenshot here:

    https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/753315030884548608

    This is getting off to a wonderful start. Truly!

    1250:

    He's a good choice politically. "Brexiteer" and "good grasp of reality" don't regularly go together in the same sentence though. You can argue "Politician" and "good grasp of reality" don't too. Life long pro-Brexit Tory MP... him and reality are probably not even in the same county let alone the same room.

    We have to hope when he's a minister (and he has been a junior minister before, under John Major, so he should know the drill - ironically he was Minister for Europe, a junior minister in the FCO) he's astute enough to run his ideas passed his civil servants AND the PM first. If not, his appointment followed by his sacking for gross incompetence (however it's wrapped up) might just be the first sign that Teresa "Brexit means Brexit" May is lying through her teeth.

    1251:

    When Boris unexpectedly dropped out of the running I mentioned he had done a deal. Not sure whether it was here

    1252:

    "... to legitimise her unelected elevation to Number 10... "

    We do not have a presidential system. No Prime Minister has ever been elected by the public.

    1253:

    WRONG BoJo will be dealing with outside Europe- parts of the FCO's remit - she has split the office into 3 parts (like Gaul). If BoJo screws-up his outside-Europe brief he can be safeky sent to the back-benches for ever. Very crafty

    1254:

    No May will be playing for as much time as she possibly can (indeed she is already doing so) In the hope, if not certainty, that "Circumstances will change" so that we get what is already being called "Brexit-lite" or that negotiations precede, not follow At50 & the results can then be put to referendum_2 because "circumstances have changed". Which would not be lying, merely very careful negotiation of an obstacle course. The careers of O v Bismarck & B Disraeli might be indicative here?

    1255:

    I think we merely disagree in how she's playing for time. I think she's using the "give them enough rope" technique. And if he does produce something workable, well she'll go with it.

    In the meantime, Mr. Cunt, former Hulture Secretary, of infamous Naughtie spoonerism, and seriously pissing off the whole of the NHS' staff, Whittingdale, now also former Culture Secretary of inept hatchet attempt on the BBC, Morgan and Gove are all out. I never liked Gove but the Howard League for Penal Reform (who generally hate Home Secretaries and Ministers of Justice since they took over prisons) liked his proposed prison reforms.

    1256:

    The independent has a nice map for Johnson's orientation.

    1257:

    If he visits Rio for the Olympics and then tours North Africa he'd have a good chance of filling the last white patches on the map.

    1258:

    Mr. Cunt, former Hulture Secretary, of infamous Naughtie spoonerism, and seriously pissing off the whole of the NHS' staff [...] are all out

    From what I see, he isn't. Early reports were that he was gone from government, then that he was gone from the NHS. But it seems not.

    Also, she's got Grayling in. At least Nicky Morgan has gone.

    And oh, is anyone else having difficulty telling Truss and Greening apart?

    1259:

    Yes, I've just seen that. Damn. His kicking out was pinged as a headline, the correction required going to the news website.

    Disappointed (but not surprised) Grayling is in. He's the one a High Court basically called fucking incompetent. That's not quite the wording used but the language was very non-judicial.

    Leadsom is in at a fairly meaty role too.

    1260:

    The one thing Gove did manage was to clear up a lot of the mess that Grayling left. Gove was brave enough to scrap the failed policies.

    (Though it did help they weren't his.)

    1261:

    Now this is fun: T.May applying ruthlessly the rule "you broke it, you own it" for her cabinet reshuffle.

    Here are the new pro-Brexit members so far:

    Boris Johnson, FCO: sell Brexit to the rest of the world David Davis, SoS Exit EU: work out th egritty details of Brexit Liam Fox, Intern. Trade: Secure all these bilateral trade agreements which will make Britain Great again Andrea Leadsom, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: explain to the farmers were the subsidies went. Chris Grayling, Transport: if I were May, I'd give him also the Customs & Excise branch from the Home Office Priti Patel: International Development, so she can continue to tour with BoJo and kiss fish.

    1262:

    Chris Grayling, Transport: ARRRGGG!

    Ohe Noe!

    I assume he's a Two-Jags-&-M'ways man, again all these railways .... Pity, because Mclouchlin (spelling worng there?) was doing a good job. Appears "Climate Change" dept is dead & "Innovation & Skills" is being split up. I don't like that, unless there's other stuff we can't see yet. Obvious that the mad Leadsom is being set up to fail - I HOPE

    1263:

    While it's true Gove cleared up a lot of Grayling's mess, it wasn't hard.

    "So loyal civil servants, what did my predecessor do?'

    "That much? Ok, rank them in order of the worst fuck up to the least bad."

    "Right, how do we reverse the worst then?"

    "Next!"

    1264:

    I love the whining noises coming from Stage Left. Best so far is: "The referendum was not democratic!" Can't wait for President Trump in November to complete the set.

    1265:

    That reminds me, what is Theresa May's stance on transhumanism?

    1266:

    As long as it doesn't taint the flavour of the precious bodily fluids her kind craves, she's fine with it.

    1267:

    "Precious bodily fluids" ?? Like Insulin, I assume you mean?

    1268:

    Yeah, let's go with that.

    1269:

    But, you know, I've never seen her drink a glass of water.

    1270:

    No idea - I'll have to ask her

    1271:

    Today is interesting ... May has temporarily abandoned/postponed re-shuffling the lower ministerial ranks ... to go to ... Edinburgh. The tone of her reported comments & those of N Sturgeon (heard on radio) show a very interesting & subtle shift. I get this funny feeling that both of them have ... been given "Instructions".

    1272:

    ...have had a meeting with a certain Mr Howard?

    1273:

    No "The Boss" ( "Brenda" )

    1274:

    That would be my guess, too, but it may be calculation. There hasn't been enough time for near-absolute power to rot May's mind yet - give it a few years.

    1275:

    Greg, go see a movie called "Dr. Strangelove" if you haven't seen it before. It will explain "precious bodily fluids" quite nicely.

    1276:

    Given that I Have the Kubrick boxed set of "nice ones", I'm afraid I missed that reference entirely. (!)

    [ Strangelove / B Lyndon / 2001 / Clockwork Orange / EW Shut / Shining / Full Metal J / Lolita ]

    1277:

    It will explain "precious bodily fluids" quite nicely.

    Regarding a different PBF, I am just waiting for "The Economist" to justify a modern-day Elizabeth Bathory in terms of the efficient allocation of resources. The Countess' use of the blood of virgins as skin care represents added value, and the blood is more valuable outside the skin of the productive Elisabeth Bathory than inside the skin of the unproductive virgins.

    1278:

    I'm not following this line; what is being suggested re May/Sturgeon? e.g is BRexit-delay being plotted?

    1279:

    Yes, for as long as is reasonably practical. Preferably so that the negotiations can be don BEFORE At50 is pressed, & then it's all-over in months, not 2+ years. Juncker won't like it, but Juncker can fuck off .... Better still, if "we" can wait until after 2017's French & German general elections, lots of fun could ensue ....

    1280:

    Perhaps she was trying to avoid leaving her fingerprints around, unlike the last home secretary reported drinking a glass of water.

    1281:

    The mountain went to Mohammet. She went to Edinburgh, rather than Sturgeon going to London. And then to Cardiff. My guess is that she will visit Belfast pretty soon, too.

    1282:

    No chance. The UK has pissed off too many of the EU countries for too long for them to break the rules for our benefit; discussions, maybe, but no negotiation before article 50. Marine Le Pen might be prepared to, but not Germany or several other countries - look at what they said, and I don't mean the Eurocrats.

    1283:

    Marcus Ball is trying to crowd-source £100k for a private prosecution for offences including misconduct in public office and fraud, and for a judicial review of the referendum result.

    Looks like that page has been there since the start of the month but the Indy has picked it up today and it's now more than halfway towards its target.

    1284:

    In which case, the whole thing will stall completely - exactly what May wants. She can thus point & perfectly correctly say: "Not my fault gov!"

    1285:

    The Countess' use of the blood of virgins as skin care represents added value... Does the grisly skin treatment made from baby foreskins count?

    1286:

    Does the grisly skin treatment made from baby foreskins count?

    "Donated", it says. How generous of the babies. One would like to know more about this. Or perhaps not.

    1287:

    Back to topic: Welsh & N Irish & Scottish assemblies/Parliaments are demanding or at least asking strongly for a place at the table during the Brexit negotiations. Which is probably a good sign, like Brexit is actually too complicated to work ... Provided it's spun out for as long as possible of course.

    1288:

    Scotland has a strong case - inter alia, none of the culprits want it to challenge the UK in an international court for refusing a second referendum. Wales much less so, and Gibraltar doesn't have much more chance than Cornwall. The situation of Northern Ireland is a right royal mess (no news there), and there are strong grounds for saying that Eire must have a seat at the table. The word clusterfuck is a euphemism.

    1289:

    Agreed 150%

    The only hope is, that the longer this is spun out, the more likely it becomes that Brexit will implode before it happens, if you see what I mean.

    1290:

    Interesting. It seems that UKIP's major donor wants the party's manifesto to advocate a Swiss-like referendum system for the UK's constitution

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/23/to-deliver-the-brexit-we-voted-for-ukip-must-rise-again

    1291:

    May visiting NornIron today.. I wonder if the excuse ( And probable fact ) that re-re-jigging the "Border controls" between N/S Ireland & even worse along the Eng/Scots border will crash the whole thing, as administratively impossible. One hopes so.

    { Latter case: Eng / Scots: Flights: Require full pass-port-&-immigration checks. Road: All roads x-ing the border to have customs/immigration posts. Rail: All trains stopped for full passport & immigration checks (ARRRRGH! ) Landscape: razor-wire along the full lenght of the Cheviot ridge & an immigration post where the Pennine Way crosses.

    Somehow, I think someone will revolt before that happens. )

    Specials

    Merchandise

    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Charlie Stross published on June 25, 2016 5:13 PM.

    "Tomorrow belongs to me" was the previous entry in this blog.

    Nightmare Stacks competition results ... is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

    Search this blog

    Propaganda