Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

this thread seems to have drifted from what will happen to what should. The former is much more interesting.

 

Theresa May will get voted in. There will a fudge agreement, nothing will change except we get a tiny fig leaf concession over immigration and the single market to pretend it was all worth it - and in the meantime have suffered loss of economic growth and the confidence of investors.

[Verbal]

Theresa May will get voted in. There will a fudge agreement, nothing will change except we get a tiny fig leaf concession over immigration and the single market to pretend it was all worth it - and in the meantime have suffered loss of economic growth and the confidence of investors.

 

Way more interesting that that...

 

https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

 

(Paywall),

[Batman]

Very True but still a nasty racist campaign from him which even his only MP was ashamed of.

 

Without Bonking Boris the serial liar and Mr Gove the apparent drunk serial back stabber I doubt Farage would have been successful he was not even in the official LEAVE Campaign

 

Not sure Andrea is going to be that good [Leadsom’s] one-year stint from 2014-15 at the Treasury as City minister was seen inside 1 Horseguards Road as ‘a disaster’ by one official. ‘She was the worst minister we’ve ever had.’ Unlike Ms May, she has also not held down a cabinet job.

 

Ms Leadsom’s allies say that Mr Osborne blocked her promotion to the cabinet and after the last election the chancellor asked for her to be moved out of the Treasury. She was transferred by David Cameron to the energy department.

 

‘She found it difficult to understand issues or take decisions,’ said another Treasury official. ‘She was monomaniacal, seeing the EU as the source of every problem. She alienated officials by continually complaining about poor drafting.’

 

She also seems to have off shore accounts and appears as an ex banker a tax advoider as well

 

The bitterness flows strongly in this one

[badgerx16]

 

On which subject, this thread seems to have drifted from what will happen to what should. The former is much more interesting.

 

Nobody has a clue what to do, who will actually be doing it, and what the consequences will be. Other than that, everything is tickety-boo.

[Verbal]

Nobody has a clue what to do, who will actually be doing it, and what the consequences will be. Other than that, everything is tickety-boo.

 

I disagree. From the moment Cameron delivered the double-shock of resigning AND saying he wouldn't trigger Article 50, there's been, if not a clear plan, then at least a clear direction of travel.

 

To quote the FT's legal correspondent: "Cameron did more to secure the UK's future in the EU by not making the Article 50 notification on referendum day than anything else he ever did."

[Lord Duckhunter]

I disagree. From the moment Cameron delivered the double-shock of resigning AND saying he wouldn't trigger Article 50, there's been, if not a clear plan, then at least a clear direction of travel.

 

To quote the FT's legal correspondent: "Cameron did more to secure the UK's future in the EU by not making the Article 50 notification on referendum day than anything else he ever did."

 

Lol still at the denial stage . We're leaving the EU , end of. Get your head round the fact you lost , are out of touch with the majority of the country and need to move on . Us kippers did it ...........

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Lol still at the denial stage . We're leaving the EU , end of. Get your head round the fact you lost , are out of touch with the majority of the country and need to move on . Us kippers did it ...........

 

It seems to me the post you are commenting on is entirly on-topic with the subject of this thread. I see no call to re run the referendum or to ignore its outcome. Therefore, what you are complaining about is not at all clear.

[badgerx16]

We're leaving the EU ....

I think that particular can still has a lot of road to be kicked down.

[buctootim]

Lol still at the denial stage . We're leaving the EU , end of. Get your head round the fact you lost , are out of touch with the majority of the country and need to move on . Us kippers did it ...........

 

According to the opinion poll conducted a week after the referendum 5% of leave voters have already switched sides and only 2% of remain. You're out of touch with the majority of the country.

 

I like the 'bitter' posts because it betrays worry. The remainers aren't going to give up and you know you're never going to get what you want, which is nice.

Edited 5 July, 2016 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

According to the opinion poll conducted a week after the referendum 5% of leave voters have already switched sides and only 2% of remain. You're out of touch with the majority of the country.

 

I like the 'bitter' posts because it betrays worry. The remainers aren't going to give up and you know you're never going to get what you want, which is nice.

 

Yes this should be presented as fact, because the opinion polls before the referendum were spot on

[buctootim]

Yes this should be presented as fact, because the opinion polls before the referendum were spot on

 

Can I recommend English Comprehension for Dummies? I think you'll find it helpful.

 

"According to the opinion poll" makes it clear the information cannot be relied upon with certainty. Had I written "5% of voters have switched sides" that would be presenting it as a fact and you would then have a point. But I didn't, so you don't. You're welcome.

[Window Cleaner]

Lol still at the denial stage . We're leaving the EU , end of. Get your head round the fact you lost , are out of touch with the majority of the country and need to move on . Us kippers did it ...........

 

Well then the leave camp need to get their ducks in a row and get on with whatever it is that they want to do. The current limbo state is just making it worse because most seem to believe that there will be in fact no Brexit and the markets are speculating on that. The EEC commission believe there will be no Brexit either and that in the end they'll be able to say "Told you so"..

[Whitey Grandad]

Lol still at the denial stage . We're leaving the EU , end of. Get your head round the fact you lost , are out of touch with the majority of the country and need to move on . Us kippers did it ...........

We've had 40 years of the Eurosceptics harping on about how bad the EU is and now they want us to forget about it and move on. We keep hearing that this was supposed to be a democratic decision yet it wasn't a general election and should not be treated as such. If it had been then a result this close would have resulted in a re-run soon after. Real democracy would mean regular votes in order to gauge the will of the people. This was one giant opinion poll and the voters treated it as such. I have heard from lots who admitted that they didn't have the information to make an informed choice and didn't really know what they were voting for.

[Wes Tender]

We've had 40 years of the Eurosceptics harping on about how bad the EU is and now they want us to forget about it and move on. We keep hearing that this was supposed to be a democratic decision yet it wasn't a general election and should not be treated as such. If it had been then a result this close would have resulted in a re-run soon after. Real democracy would mean regular votes in order to gauge the will of the people. This was one giant opinion poll and the voters treated it as such. I have heard from lots who admitted that they didn't have the information to make an informed choice and didn't really know what they were voting for.

 

A giant opinion poll? You might have treated it as such, but the majority of the electorate were faced with a simple In/Out decision and having received a majority of around a million and a quarter votes, the Leave option is valid without any ridiculous re-running until you Remainians get the decision you want.

 

Making comparisons between General Elections and Referenda in terms of what is more democratic is a poor argument. In a General Election, one either votes on a basket of policies set out in a manifesto, or many vote on traditional party lines. In any event, there was only one party proposing that we left the EU and that was UKIP. How much was the vote for the Conservatives based on the promise of a Referendum on our membership of the EU and how much was based on their manifesto promises on other policies, or the traditional support of the party regardless of the manifesto? Clearly though, the promise of a Referendum was forced on them to fend off the loss of votes to UKIP and having made that pledge, Cameron had to set in train the Referendum before the end of 2017.

 

Yes, we have had 40 years of Euroscepticism and in terms of democracy, a referendum should have been held before we signed each subsequent treaty following our joining of the European venture.

 

I'm amazed that despite the referendum being announced in early February, you claim that there were people who somehow didn't have sufficient information to make an informed choice, despite being bombarded with it on a daily basis. One must conclude that they hadn't bothered to apply themselves to finding out what they wanted to know, so either they should not have voted, or else they should not bleat about how they may have voted for a position that they subsequently didn't support.

[buctootim]

A giant opinion poll? .

 

Which part of 'advisory' are you struggling with?

[Wes Tender]

Which part of 'advisory' are you struggling with?

 

Where is "advisory" mentioned? So you also take the position that Referenda are only glorified opinion polls and should therefore be categorised as "advisory" and ignored if the Government so desires?

[buctootim]

Where is "advisory" mentioned? So you also take the position that Referenda are only glorified opinion polls and should therefore be categorised as "advisory" and ignored if the Government so desires?

 

It was mentioned in the bill enabling the Brexit referendum - or more to the point mandatory was not mentioned. Brexit was advisory. Other referenda, like for example the referendum on PR / STV incorporated an automatic trigger requiring the Government to legislate to enact the result. The Brexit one didnt. Note the article below was written before the vote - there is no spin or bias.

 

"The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect. The referendum is advisory rather than mandatory. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform did have an obligation on the government to legislate in the event of a “yes” vote (the vote was “no” so this did not matter). But no such provision was included in the EU referendum legislation.

 

What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable."

https://next.ft.com/content/5b82031e-1056-31e1-8e0e-4e91774e27f1

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-referendum-interview-peter-catterall-on-eu-brexit-2016-6

Edited 5 July, 2016 by buctootim

[shurlock]

A giant opinion poll? You might have treated it as such, but the majority of the electorate were faced with a simple In/Out decision and having received a majority of around a million and a quarter votes, the Leave option is valid without any ridiculous re-running until you Remainians get the decision you want.

 

Making comparisons between General Elections and Referenda in terms of what is more democratic is a poor argument. In a General Election, one either votes on a basket of policies set out in a manifesto, or many vote on traditional party lines. In any event, there was only one party proposing that we left the EU and that was UKIP. How much was the vote for the Conservatives based on the promise of a Referendum on our membership of the EU and how much was based on their manifesto promises on other policies, or the traditional support of the party regardless of the manifesto? Clearly though, the promise of a Referendum was forced on them to fend off the loss of votes to UKIP and having made that pledge, Cameron had to set in train the Referendum before the end of 2017.

 

Yes, we have had 40 years of Euroscepticism and in terms of democracy, a referendum should have been held before we signed each subsequent treaty following our joining of the European venture.

 

I'm amazed that despite the referendum being announced in early February, you claim that there were people who somehow didn't have sufficient information to make an informed choice, despite being bombarded with it on a daily basis. One must conclude that they hadn't bothered to apply themselves to finding out what they wanted to know, so either they should not have voted, or else they should not bleat about how they may have voted for a position that they subsequently didn't support.

 

It's july Les and you still don't have a clue.

[moonraker]

Lets put to bed once and for all the claim that the majority of the electorate voted to leave, they did not, circa 39% voted to leave and 37% to remain, 26% either could not make their minds up or don't care. Leave have harped on and on about democracy and the lack of it in the EU and now expect a whole nation to leap into the dark on a minority vote. There is no plan, chaotic political leadership and no general election manifesto mandate (UKIP the only party who campaigned for leave got 12.6% of the votes cast in the GE so no mandate there). Brexiters childish retort of 'you lost get over it' sums up the mentality of many brexiters and their lack of understanding of the democratic and political process enshrined in our sovereign laws. The referendum result must be taken seriously and it may well lead to the UK leaving the EU, but that is not certain. Brexit trumpeted sovereignty in their campaign and that sovereignty resides in the Houses of Parliament not the electorate, this is the basis of the UK democratic process that predates the EU by hundreds of years. The irony being that because we are still a Sovereign State, free to enact its own laws without EU approval the referendum can legally be set aside. The veiled threats as expressed by some posters that it will get nasty if we don’t leave exemplifies much that was unacceptable in the leave campaign. Leaving the EU is Parliaments decision and if they do decide to set aside the referendum, ‘get over it’, that’s British Sovereignty in action, its how the British constitutions works and it is why many are campaigning for a General Election, once the party leadership fiascos are resolved.

[Wes Tender]

It's july Les and you still don't have a clue.

 

What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable."

 

If following the referendum, the Government ignore the wishes of the electorate, they do so at their peril. Cameron before he resigned had stated that a simple majority would suffice either way. Political expediency is hardly going to allow any successor as PM to attempt to ignore the will of the people by using weasel words, telling them that the Government were only asking for opinions that they would subsequently ignore, rather than directions that they would act upon.

 

I realise that you lot who are sore at losing, will grasp at any straws in the vain hope that it can be wriggled out of, but as soon as the Tory leadership election is resolved, the process of leaving will be set in motion soon afterwards.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why do the remain losers keep banging on about Europe?

[moonraker]

If following the referendum, the Government ignore the wishes of the electorate, they do so at their peril. Cameron before he resigned had stated that a simple majority would suffice either way. Political expediency is hardly going to allow any successor as PM to attempt to ignore the will of the people by using weasel words, telling them that the Government were only asking for opinions that they would subsequently ignore, rather than directions that they would act upon.

 

I realise that you lot who are sore at losing, will grasp at any straws in the vain hope that it can be wriggled out of, but as soon as the Tory leadership election is resolved, the process of leaving will be set in motion soon afterwards.

 

Camerons resignation means his pre referndum statement is null and void. Its is not about sore losing, it is about continuing to campign for what we believe in. If remain had won would UKIP have folded and gone away, would Farage have said I tried but the Bristish people dont want to leave? Indeed would all Brexisters, kippers or otherwise, have just faded away quietly?

[Wes Tender]

Lets put to bed once and for all the claim that the majority of the electorate voted to leave, they did not, circa 39% voted to leave and 37% to remain, 26% either could not make their minds up or don't care. Leave have harped on and on about democracy and the lack of it in the EU and now expect a whole nation to leap into the dark on a minority vote. There is no plan, chaotic political leadership and no general election manifesto mandate (UKIP the only party who campaigned for leave got 12.6% of the votes cast in the GE so no mandate there). Brexiters childish retort of 'you lost get over it' sums up the mentality of many brexiters and their lack of understanding of the democratic and political process enshrined in our sovereign laws. The referendum result must be taken seriously and it may well lead to the UK leaving the EU, but that is not certain. Brexit trumpeted sovereignty in their campaign and that sovereignty resides in the Houses of Parliament not the electorate, this is the basis of the UK democratic process that predates the EU by hundreds of years. The irony being that because we are still a Sovereign State, free to enact its own laws without EU approval the referendum can legally be set aside. The veiled threats as expressed by some posters that it will get nasty if we don’t leave exemplifies much that was unacceptable in the leave campaign. Leaving the EU is Parliaments decision and if they do decide to set aside the referendum, ‘get over it’, that’s British Sovereignty in action, its how the British constitutions works and it is why many are campaigning for a General Election, once the party leadership fiascos are resolved.

 

More wriggling, as expected. The General Election elected the Tory Party, who made a manifesto promise to hold a Referendum on our EU membership before the end of 2017. Now, you can argue that a majority of the electorate did not vote for the Tories, and that in any event the Referendum promise was just one amongst several policy issues in their manifesto, but as I said, the promise of a referendum was a sop towards preventing UKIP winning support from them. I remind you that the electorate voted with a substantial majority for UKIP in the European elections, the Party whose whole raison d'etre was to leave the EU, although again, you might argue that the outcome was tainted by a low turnout.

 

However, this referendum had a high turnout and it is disingenuous to argue that those who could not be bothered to vote should be included in a percentage of those against leaving. This was a single issue matter, solely concerning our membership of the EU and anybody who didn't vote cannot bleat about the outcome.

 

The essence of Parliamentary democracy which you use in your Sovereignty argument, is that the Members of Parliament are elected to carry out the wishes of the people who elected them, not to ignore them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Camerons resignation means his pre referndum statement is null and void. Its is not about sore losing, it is about continuing to campign for what we believe in. If remain had won would UKIP have folded and gone away, would Farage have said I tried but the Bristish people dont want to leave? Indeed would all Brexisters, kippers or otherwise, have just faded away quietly?

 

Suck it up, you may get another vote in 40 years time

[badgerx16]

The essence of Parliamentary democracy which you use in your Sovereignty argument, is that the Members of Parliament are elected to carry out the wishes of the people who elected them, not to ignore them.

Idealistic optimism.

[badgerx16]

Suck it up, you may get another vote in 40 years time

What's the betting we get a GE before Article 50 is invoked.

[moonraker]

More wriggling, as expected. The General Election elected the Tory Party, who made a manifesto promise to hold a Referendum on our EU membership before the end of 2017. Now, you can argue that a majority of the electorate did not vote for the Tories, and that in any event the Referendum promise was just one amongst several policy issues in their manifesto, but as I said, the promise of a referendum was a sop towards preventing UKIP winning support from them. I remind you that the electorate voted with a substantial majority for UKIP in the European elections, the Party whose whole raison d'etre was to leave the EU, although again, you might argue that the outcome was tainted by a low turnout.

 

However, this referendum had a high turnout and it is disingenuous to argue that those who could not be bothered to vote should be included in a percentage of those against leaving. This was a single issue matter, solely concerning our membership of the EU and anybody who didn't vote cannot bleat about the outcome.

 

The essence of Parliamentary democracy which you use in your Sovereignty argument, is that the Members of Parliament are elected to carry out the wishes of the people who elected them, not to ignore them.

 

I am not wriggling I am just stating the reality of where we are, what in my post is incorrect. You are right on one thing UKIP won the Euro Elections, tough 27% is hardly a substantial majority , with roughly the same number of votes they polled in the General Election, EU elections are just that, EU Elections, they confer no mandate for domestic policy, and therefore I contend they are immaterial. For a party focused on leaving the EU their only electoral success was in elections for that self same institution they wish to leave, wow!

You are wrong Parliament is not elected to carry out the wishes of the people it is elected to deliver the manifesto and policies of the majority party as expressed in the Queens (Sovereigns) speech. I know all this is a bit complicated for you but wining a referendum does not ensure anything.

The most telling thing in your post and the key reason I am so annoyed with the whole referendum is that it was as you have said, and therefore I assume believe, a sop to UKIP, designed to quell internal Tory unrest. There is already a body of legal argument that if it can be proven that this is the cases then the whole referendum was illegal. I am sure that as Brexiters are so keen on abiding by UK Law they will fully support an investigation into these worrying claims.

Edited 5 July, 2016 by moonraker

[moonraker]

Suck it up, you may get another vote in 40 years time

 

If there is one thing worse than sore losers its arrogant, bad-mannered winners. Try debating for once instead of crowing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

What's the betting we get a GE before Article 50 is invoked.

 

No chance

[derry]

If there is any attempt to wriggle out of the majority decision it will probably lead to the Left wing's worst nightmare. A UKIP majority government with the collapse of the Labour/Conservative/Liberal vote. 17.5m votes is about 4m more than Blair got in his best year landslide and 43% of the vote, no complaints then.

 

The Conservatives are probably only too aware of this and any backsliding is going to be wishful thinking on the part of those that don't believe in democracy.

[moonraker]

If there is any attempt to wriggle out of the majority decision it will probably lead to the Left wing's worst nightmare. A UKIP majority government with the collapse of the Labour/Conservative/Liberal vote. 17.5m votes is about 4m more than Blair got in his best year landslide and 43% of the vote, no complaints then.

 

The Conservatives are probably only too aware of this and any backsliding is going to be wishful thinking on the part of those that don't believe in democracy.

 

If UKIP secured 17.5 m votes at a General Election then I would accept leaving without a murmur, the fact is they wont. Wes cited the European Elections as evidence of their electoral success when in reality what they did was get their vote out, 73% of voters in the EU elections did not support UKIP.

[buctootim]

Suck it up, you may get another vote in 40 years time

 

We dont need another vote. Leave do. And you aren't going to win it.

[Johnny Bognor]

Can I recommend English Comprehension for Dummies? I think you'll find it helpful.

 

"According to the opinion poll" makes it clear the information cannot be relied upon with certainty. Had I written "5% of voters have switched sides" that would be presenting it as a fact and you would then have a point. But I didn't, so you don't. You're welcome.

 

Errrr, from the book of English for dummies, "You're out of touch with the majority of the country" is a statement of fact.

 

If you had said, "You may be out of touch" then fair enough. But you didn't.

 

Intellectuals 0 - 1 Common Sense & Voice of Reason

[John B]

It was mentioned in the bill enabling the Brexit referendum - or rather not mentioned. Brexit was advisory. Other referenda, like for example the referendum on PR / STV incorporated an automatic trigger requiring the Government to legislate to enact the result. The Brexit one didnt. Note the article below was written before the vote - there is no spin or bias.

 

"The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect. The referendum is advisory rather than mandatory. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform did have an obligation on the government to legislate in the event of a “yes” vote (the vote was “no” so this did not matter). But no such provision was included in the EU referendum legislation.

 

What happens next in the event of a vote to leave is therefore a matter of politics not law. It will come down to what is politically expedient and practicable."

https://next.ft.com/content/5b82031e-1056-31e1-8e0e-4e91774e27f1

 

With the dire warnings coming from every reliable economic authority that our economy is now a basket case again we truly have got our country back to where it was in 1973.

[Wes Tender]

I am not wriggling I am just stating the reality of where we are, what in my post is incorrect. You are right on one thing UKIP won the Euro Elections, tough 27% is hardly a substantial majority , with roughly the same number of votes they polled in the General Election, EU elections are just that, EU Elections, they confer no mandate for domestic policy, and therefore I contend they are immaterial. For a party focused on leaving the EU their only electoral success was in elections for that self same institution they wish to leave, wow!

You are wrong Parliament is not elected to carry out the wishes of the people it is elected to deliver the manifesto and policies of the majority party as expressed in the Queens (Sovereigns) speech. I know all this is a bit complicated for you but wining a referendum does not ensure anything.

The most telling thing in your post and the key reason I am so annoyed with the whole referendum is that it was as you have said, and therefore I assume believe, a sop to UKIP, designed to quell internal Tory unrest. There is already a body of legal argument that if it can be proven that this is the cases then the whole referendum was illegal. I am sure that as Brexiters are so keen on abiding by UK Law they will fully support an investigation into these worrying claims.

 

You are wriggling like mad. What in your post is incorrect? I pointed that out to you, but you will not have it. It is your position that there wasn't a majority who voted to Leave the EU, because you insist in believing that anybody who didn't vote should be included in the percentage of those who did not support Brexit. This was a simple single issue referendum, and you try to complicate it to suit your agenda.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, do I understand you right? You infer that if the pledge in the Conservative manifesto to hold a simple in/out referendum was included to entiice voters away from UKIP that this would be challenged as being illegal? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious."

[ecuk268]

Suck it up, you may get another vote in 40 years time

 

You certainly put forward a lucid and cogent argument.

 

You're not a past President of the Oxford University Debating Society by any chance?

[Wes Tender]

If UKIP secured 17.5 m votes at a General Election then I would accept leaving without a murmur, the fact is they wont. Wes cited the European Elections as evidence of their electoral success when in reality what they did was get their vote out, 73% of voters in the EU elections did not support UKIP.

 

By your reasoning, even higher percentages of the electorate did not want to have Conservative, Labour or Green MEPs.

[buctootim]

Errrr, from the book of English for dummies, "You're out of touch with the majority of the country" is a statement of fact.

 

If you had said, "You may be out of touch" then fair enough. But you didn't.

 

Intellectuals 0 - 1 Common Sense & Voice of Reason

 

You may believe Lord Duckhunter is "out of touch with the majority of the country" is fact but alas it's just expressing an opinion. Maybe private tuition might be more appropriate?

Edited 5 July, 2016 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Cracking unguarded Ken Clarke comments here.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/ken-clarke-caught-camera-ridiculing-tory-leadership-candidates-theresa-may-michael-gove

[moonraker]

You are wriggling like mad. What in your post is incorrect? I pointed that out to you, but you will not have it. It is your position that there wasn't a majority who voted to Leave the EU, because you insist in believing that anybody who didn't vote should be included in the percentage of those who did not support Brexit. This was a simple single issue referendum, and you try to complicate it to suit your agenda.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, do I understand you right? You infer that if the pledge in the Conservative manifesto to hold a simple in/out referendum was included to entiice voters away from UKIP that this would be challenged as being illegal? In the immortal words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious."

 

Do you actually read, there is legal opinion that there may be a case for challenging the reasons for the referendum https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk. I am sure you will arbitrarily dismiss this as it is Guardian Article. Additionally Article 50 needs an act of Parliament as it is not in the gift of the executive power of the PM. If the current house votes it might well vote down the referendum, alternatively the new PM decides to go to the country on a manifesto promise to enact Article 50 this would be tantamount to a second referendum and therefore if the winning party or a winning coalition of parties had campaigned against enactment of article 50 the referendum result would be set aside. Leavers may not like it but this is UK law and we all know how much you leavers believe that UK law is far superior to any one else’s law and therefore you will all accept it as a demonstration of our national sovereignty.

[sandwichsaint]

[h=1]Live M&G and Aviva suspend property fund redemptions as Brexit fears mount – business live[/h]

Pound plunges to new 31-year low as property funds refuse to let investors withdraw money after a rush of post-Brexit redemption requests

 

 

Read more

 

M&G, the fund management arm of insurer Prudential, suspended its £4.4bn fund this afternoon, citing an increase in redemptions since the referendum. The move came hours after Aviva Investors blamed “extraordinary market circumstances” for its decision to halt withdrawals by investors in a £1.8bn fund, which suffered a surge in requests by backers to redeem their investments because of fears of a property crash after Britain voted to leave the EU.

Their decisions came 24 hours after Standard Life blocked investors from taking cash out of its £2.9bn commercial property fund.

The suspensions came on another day of drama on the financial markets, 11 days after the vote to leave the EU wrong-footed markets and sparked political turmoil. Among developments:

• The pound plunged to a new 31-year low against the dollar, falling 1.8 cents to $1.3090.

• A closely watched survey of the services sector, showed a worse-than-expected reading of 52.3 in June, down from 53.5 in May. A reading above 50 indicates growth.

• The Bank of England warned that the economic risks caused by the referendum had “begun to crystallise” as it eased regulations on banks to allow them to release up to £150bn of loans to households and businesses.

• Chancellor George Osborne held a summit with the heads of the major lenders who pledged to avoid a new credit crisis by making loans available.

A spokesman for Aviva Investors said: “The extraordinary market circumstances, which are impacting the wider industry, have resulted in a lack of immediate liquidity in the Aviva Investors Property Trust. Consequently, we have acted to safeguard the interests of all our investors by suspending dealing in the fund with immediate effect.”

Aviva said the suspension would give the fund time to sell assets to remain liquid and meet obligations to investors seeking to redeem their holdings. >>

 

From this afternoon's Guardian, #it's happening, #we got our country back.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We dont need another vote. Leave do. And you aren't going to win it.

 

Lol , still in denial ?

 

You're like s spotty teenage unable to get over being dumped . The U.K. is leaving the EU ,we had the vote , there won't be another one . It's settled for a generation

[moonraker]

[h=1]Live M&G and Aviva suspend property fund redemptions as Brexit fears mount – business live[/h]

Pound plunges to new 31-year low as property funds refuse to let investors withdraw money after a rush of post-Brexit redemption requests

 

 

Read more

 

M&G, the fund management arm of insurer Prudential, suspended its £4.4bn fund this afternoon, citing an increase in redemptions since the referendum. The move came hours after Aviva Investors blamed “extraordinary market circumstances” for its decision to halt withdrawals by investors in a £1.8bn fund, which suffered a surge in requests by backers to redeem their investments because of fears of a property crash after Britain voted to leave the EU.

Their decisions came 24 hours after Standard Life blocked investors from taking cash out of its £2.9bn commercial property fund.

The suspensions came on another day of drama on the financial markets, 11 days after the vote to leave the EU wrong-footed markets and sparked political turmoil. Among developments:

• The pound plunged to a new 31-year low against the dollar, falling 1.8 cents to $1.3090.

• A closely watched survey of the services sector, showed a worse-than-expected reading of 52.3 in June, down from 53.5 in May. A reading above 50 indicates growth.

• The Bank of England warned that the economic risks caused by the referendum had “begun to crystallise” as it eased regulations on banks to allow them to release up to £150bn of loans to households and businesses.

• Chancellor George Osborne held a summit with the heads of the major lenders who pledged to avoid a new credit crisis by making loans available.

A spokesman for Aviva Investors said: “The extraordinary market circumstances, which are impacting the wider industry, have resulted in a lack of immediate liquidity in the Aviva Investors Property Trust. Consequently, we have acted to safeguard the interests of all our investors by suspending dealing in the fund with immediate effect.”

Aviva said the suspension would give the fund time to sell assets to remain liquid and meet obligations to investors seeking to redeem their holdings. >>

 

From this afternoon's Guardian, #it's happening, #we got our country back.

 

This is just more project fear only last week Batman assured us everything was alright, he also said Fox or Crabb would win the Tory Leadership contest, so perhaps it isn't quite so ITK as he likes to think!!!! Suck it up leavers.

[Batman]

This is just more project fear only last week Batman assured us everything was alright, he also said Fox or Crabb would win the Tory Leadership contest, so perhaps it isn't quite so ITK as he likes to think!!!! Suck it up leavers.

 

I said that was who I would like to win.

I would like saints to win the league but won't be putting money on it

[moonraker]

I said that was who I would like to win.

I would like saints to win the league but won't be putting money on it

 

No it wasn't you said 'Crabb or fox I reckon'.

[Batman]

No it wasn't you said 'Crabb or fox I reckon'.

 

I reckon. Hardly some sort of ITK insight

 

LOL

 

Stop Brexit, batman reckoned wrong !!!!!

[moonraker]

By your reasoning, even higher percentages of the electorate did not want to have Conservative, Labour or Green MEPs.

 

 

In the general election there were nearly 1.5m more votes for solid remain parties (not Labor or Tories) than for UKIP. If we accept that a proportion of Tories and Labor votes switch to UKIP in an in out general election it is very likely we would have a remain coalition as neither of these two would have a majority, and there is no chance of UKIP gaining anywhere near enough seats to be the largest party at best 20 -30. Labor will campaign for remain, what the Tories do is any ones guess but both main parties have real problems. With luck one good outcome of the referendum will be a long overdue realignment of party politics and the breaking of the out of date class based two party system.

[moonraker]

I reckon. Hardly some sort of ITK insight

 

LOL

 

Stop Brexit, batman reckoned wrong !!!!!

 

 

Another piece of evidence that supports my point that you don't reckon much correctly. Do you still reckon everything is alright with the economy?

[Batman]

Another piece of evidence that supports my point that you don't reckon much correctly. Do you still reckon everything is alright with the economy?

 

Don't tell me. You thought remain would win?

 

Yes?

[Wes Tender]

Do you actually read, there is legal opinion that there may be a case for challenging the reasons for the referendum https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/politics-brexit-unlawful-eu-uk. I am sure you will arbitrarily dismiss this as it is Guardian Article. Additionally Article 50 needs an act of Parliament as it is not in the gift of the executive power of the PM. If the current house votes it might well vote down the referendum, alternatively the new PM decides to go to the country on a manifesto promise to enact Article 50 this would be tantamount to a second referendum and therefore if the winning party or a winning coalition of parties had campaigned against enactment of article 50 the referendum result would be set aside. Leavers may not like it but this is UK law and we all know how much you leavers believe that UK law is far superior to any one else’s law and therefore you will all accept it as a demonstration of our national sovereignty.

 

That isn't what you said in your last paragraph, or didn't you read it before posting it? Clutch at these straws if it comforts you.

 

First, the original motivation for the holding of a referendum seems not to have been the public interest, but the particular interest of a political party

 

I suspect that this legal opinion that the holding of a referendum ran counter to the best interests of the electorate is going to be hard to prove as a majority of the public seemed interested enough in voting. Don't you think that the public are capable of knowing what is in their best interests?

 

For this reason, the courts are particularly firm in keeping public authorities within the limits of their powers. UK withdrawal from the EU would affect the legal situation of every person in the UK, and the legal situation of many other people elsewhere.

 

Furthermore, reading the thrust of that argument, it implies that actions taken by the public authority, i.e. the Government, which affect the legal situation of every person in the UK could be the subject of a judicial review. It therefore follows that logically the same applied to every single European Treaty that successive Governments signed since the Treaty of Rome and that if there had been people complaining at the time that these Treaties affected them adversely, then they could have called for a judicial review. I'm fine with the judiciary finding that all of those Treaties were signed illegally and that we can therefore revert back to the position we did originally agree to, essentially the Common Market.