[....,,,,..,,..]

To avoid quoting the post by Simon, the poison bucket, is hanging over parliament.

If they fail to implement the referendum result, the country will forever distrust parliament.

We will see far higher votes for actually racially motivated parties getting in to parliament.

If it was put before parliament, then it would fail to go through, mainly down to number of SNP MP's.

This really worries me more than actually leaving the EU.

It is 17 million people from all walks of life and political leaning who have voted for this.

If article 50 fails to be put in place, we will have riots, we will have strikes, we will have a rise in violence against EU migrants.

That is all pretty much a given.

I am really concerned we are coming close to loosing respect for democracy.

[Archer-s]

Originally Posted by simon.

From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Well said, is our Brexit worth losing Scotland, Ireland and Gibraltar? And all the promises leave made are nearly broken already?

We may see a middle ground that is the EEA, but this is a lose/lose for both sides IMO, as we will keep the open borders, still make contributions in order to have access to the single market and keep our economy from complete wipeout

On a side note I have spoken to many friends/family who voted leave and now are stating they didn't know the negatives and would reverse their votes if they could, mostly due to the campaigns run before, they feel leave lied to them, if you buy a car and the dealer lied to you, you would want a refund, I feel this is the same given how close the result was

But I also see lots of aggressive rants on both sides, let's remember the people who voted on the opposite side to you is the same person they were yesterday, let's not alienate each another

[JD6]

Right now if parliament voted against article 50, there could be some unrest. However we are going to have a new PM, a new (pro EU) Labour leader and probably a general election before anyone invokes it. There could also be some EU concessions.

That gives time for positions to change enough to justify a new referendum in my view. The new referendum would have to be embraced by Brexiters, after the initial protest, or else they are guaranteed to lose, so at some point their anger at the new referendum switches to campaigning for Brexit.

If as seems highly on past form, the referendum shows strong support for Remain, Brexiters would have no choice but to accept it. They may call for another referendum a few years down the line, but that's a problem for another day, and I suspect the chaos caused by this referendum will still be in people's minds.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by JD6

Right now if parliament voted against article 50, there could be some unrest. However we are going to have a new PM, a new (pro EU) Labour leader and probably a general election before anyone invokes it. There could also be some EU concessions.

That gives time for positions to change enough to justify a new referendum in my view. The new referendum would have to be embraced by Brexiters, after the initial protest, or else they are guaranteed to lose, so at some point their anger at the new referendum switches to campaigning for Brexit.

If as seems highly on past form, the referendum shows strong support for Remain, Brexiters would have no choice but to accept it. They may call for another referendum a few years down the line, but that's a problem for another day, and I suspect the chaos caused by this referendum will still be in people's minds.

Some? Sorry but I believe there will be huge amounts, a lot of people voted to leave simply because they have seen nothing from either a labour or conservative Governement.

There is (even among remains) a lot of resentment with north south divide.

The country is socially fractured, just look at the powers that these nimby villages have down south.

Then okay hold another referendum and set an 85% turn out level, all the leave campaign needs to do, is say do not vote. That coulpled with those fed up with parliament but wanting to remain not voting, we will never get 85%.

In the meantime, Europe will want to evict us, then if we do get to stay in, it will pretty much guaranteed at expense of our veto.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Brigand

Then okay hold another referendum and set an 85% turn out level, all the leave campaign needs to do, is say do not vote. That coulpled with those fed up with parliament but wanting to remain not voting, we will never get 85%.

In the meantime, Europe will want to evict us, then if we do get to stay in, it will pretty much guaranteed at expense of our veto.

Saying do not vote would be an acknowledgement that they know they would lose, and that the public will is for Remain. Who would look undemocratic in that situation?

Europe would much rather Britain stays, despite the current posturing. They cannot remove the veto - we haven't invoked article 50 so the rules are unchanged.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by JD6

Saying do not vote would be an acknowledgement that they know they would lose, and that the public will is for Remain. Who would look undemocratic in that situation?

Europe would much rather Britain stays, despite the current posturing. They cannot remove the veto - we haven't invoked article 50 so the rules are unchanged.

The European nations would, especially Northern European ones.

The process of abstaining is a proper democratic process, it's used successfully by MP's.

The likes of Junkers and co will want the UK punished.

Within areas with high leave %, who would vote for there local labour or conservative? How many though would start voting for the like of England first (or whatever these nutters are called)?

We run the risk of having MP's from very racists parties being elected.

This was seen with the EU local elections and UKIP nutters getting elected.

[Tengocity]

Re. The guardian article.

I'm sure much of it is right, but there are genuinely good reasons to delay invoking it regardless of whether you really want it to happen or not.

Personally, I'm a very pragmatic person and whilst I wanted to remain I see that right now Britain is potentially in quite a powerful position to negotiate and we can do so informally for quite some time.

If we invoke it now then we are on a clock with very little further political leverage and a lot less control. Right now we have lots of control.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Re. The guardian article.

I'm sure much of it is right, but there are genuinely good reasons to delay invoking it regardless of whether you really want it to happen or not.

Personally, I'm a very pragmatic person and whilst I wanted to remain I see that right now Britain is potentially in quite a powerful position to negotiate and we can do so informally for quite some time.

If we invoke it now then we are on a clock with very little further political leverage and a lot less control. Right now we have lots of control.

Same very much this.

I voted remain, however we need to be pragmatic, get business involved with cross party paliamentry bodies and work stuff out.

Looking both at what we need from the EU and at what cost to global trade.

Remember the EU is also political, they have just lost a number of armed forces and a huge technical capability in regards to Elint, heavy lift, stand off and precision weapons.

Our pulling out of the EU operations in the Med, will put greater financial and logistics pressure on France, Italy and Spain.

All this needs included with talks etc.

[SH89]

The result in my hometown of Hartlepool was 70% leave (32,071 votes) to the 30% that voted remain (14,029). The results were quite heavily in favour of leave all over the north east. This is not due to people believing a few lies told by either side or making a mistake, if there was another vote it would go the same way up here. It shows how little has been done for the region and highlights how out of touch people in the south are.

There are many contentious issues, take immigration for example. In Middlesbrough 1 out of every 186 people is an asylum seeker. This breaks the government's own guidelines of no more than 1 in every 200. Stockton on Tees is also up there with Middlesbrough in receiving the largest numbers. Then take Redcar with the closure of the steelworks costing around 2200 direct jobs and affecting 1000 contractor jobs. Then there is the ongoing Tata steel problem where the company has blamed the government and EU for their slowness to react to the dumping of Chinese steel. Most other countries had high import charges in place long before we even got the ball rolling. Only for nothing to happen.

[rich100]

When offering the referendum in the first place, the complexities and turmoil of leaving the EU must have been known should a Brexit occur.

From reading the article above, leaving the EU would seem to be hideously complicated bordering on the impossible so the circus of a referendum would seem to be somewhat pointless if it's not practical to carry through a brexit decision. In hindsight whilst Dave clearly must have thought he would win the referendum the gamble clearly wasn't worth it.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by SH89

The result in my hometown of Hartlepool was 70% leave (32,071 votes) to the 30% that voted remain (14,029). The results were quite heavily in favour of leave all over the north east. This is not due to people believing a few lies told by either side or making a mistake, if there was another vote it would go the same way up here. It shows how little has been done for the region and highlights how out of touch people in the south are.

I'm sure that you are right. A new referendum in Hartlepool wouldn't overturn a majority like that - Leave would win there. However, experience of the 3 failures to ratify treaties in EU referendums, shows that on each occasion there has been a huge shift towards the EU in the second referendum, when the prospect of a country leaving the EU looms. Not enough to change Hartlepool, but almost certainly enough to change the overall result.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by rich100

When offering the referendum in the first place, the complexities and turmoil of leaving the EU must have been know should a Brexit occur.

From the reading the article above, leaving the EU would seem to be hideously complicated bordering on the impossible so the circus of a referendum would seem to somewhat pointless if it not's practical to carry through a brexit decision. In hindsight whilst Dave clearly must have thought he would win the referendum the gamble clearly wasn't worth it.

I think Cameron called the referendum to silence the right wing of his party, knowing that Brexit would be hugely damaging, but (wrongly) confident that the British public would vote Remain.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by SH89

The result in my hometown of Hartlepool was 70% leave (32,071 votes) to the 30% that voted remain (14,029). The results were quite heavily in favour of leave all over the north east. This is not due to people believing a few lies told by either side or making a mistake, if there was another vote it would go the same way up here. It shows how little has been done for the region and highlights how out of touch people in the south are.

There are many contentious issues, take immigration for example. In Middlesbrough 1 out of every 186 people is an asylum seeker. This breaks the government's own guidelines of no more than 1 in every 200. Stockton on Tees is also up there with Middlesbrough in receiving the largest numbers. Then take Redcar with the closure of the steelworks costing around 2200 direct jobs and affecting 1000 contractor jobs. Then there is the ongoing Tata steel problem where the company has blamed the government and EU for their slowness to react to the dumping of Chinese steel. Most other countries had high import charges in place long before we even got the ball rolling. Only for nothing to happen.

I feel much sympathy for many communities around the country like yours. The issues are so much bigger than the EU and closer to home, and there is much that governments could have tried to do but didn't. But I'm sorry, Brexit isn't going to change very much on that front.

[SH89]

Originally Posted by JD6

I'm sure that you are right. A new referendum in Hartlepool wouldn't overturn a majority like that - Leave would win there. However, experience of the 3 failures to ratify treaties in EU referendums, shows that on each occasion there has been a huge shift towards the EU in the second referendum, when the prospect of a country leaving the EU looms. Not enough to change Hartlepool, but almost certainly enough to change the overall result.

Obviously that is the case, I was just trying to point out how divided the north and the south are. In my opinion if another referendum did happen the result would be in favour of remain, but not by much. If a narrow leave win isn't good enough then why should a narrow remain vote be? People have to remember that the majority in most of the country voted leave with the exception of London and a few other areas.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by rich100

When offering the referendum in the first place, the complexities and turmoil of leaving the EU must have been know should a Brexit occur.

From the reading the article above, leaving the EU would seem to be hideously complicated bordering on the impossible so the circus of a referendum would seem to somewhat pointless if it not's practical to carry through a brexit decision. In hindsight whilst Dave clearly must have thought he would win the referendum the gamble clearly wasn't worth it.

But it's not a complicated process, we apply, it gets voted on within the EU if they will agree to it and a timeline is set.

This is within various EU articles relating to voting rights and ability to act as a sovereign nation within the Ezu.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-50.html

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...ticle-218.html

What is complicated is the diplomacy around what agreement (if any we want to seek).

For example we could offset any monetary payment with an agreement to support EU military operations both humanitarian and direct military action.

This would very much swing votes and agreements from Eastern European countries that are under threat from Russia.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by SH89

Obviously that is the case, I was just trying to point out how divided the north and the south are. In my opinion if another referendum did happen the result would be in favour of remain, but not by much. If a narrow leave win isn't good enough then when should a narrow remain vote? People have to remember that the majority in most of the country voted leave with the exception of London and a few other areas.

I think we would have to make the next one a binding referendum, rather than an advisory one, which this one was. Looking at the shifts which occurred in previous second EU referendums, I think you may be underestimating the potential swing when faced with apparently dire consequences:

Ireland (Nice) - First 46/54 to Second 63/37
Denmark (Maastricht) - First 49/51 to Second 57/43
Ireland (Lisbon) - First 47/53 to Second 67/33

There is already a great deal of voter regret out there from Leavers I have spoken to.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by JD6

I think we would have to make the next one a binding referendum, rather than an advisory one, which this one was. Looking at the shifts which occurred in previous second EU referendums, I think you may be underestimating the potential swing when faced with apparently dire consequences:

Ireland (Nice) - First 46/54 to Second 63/37
Denmark (Maastricht) - First 49/51 to Second 57/43
Ireland (Lisbon) - First 47/53 to Second 67/33

We live in a Parliamentry democracy, you can't have binding referendums.

They can only be advisory, Parliament is there for a reason.

Historically, referendums have been for devolution, we don't have many and invariably Governement gets what it wants or expected.

This one is different in that the country said No.

http://www.parliament.uk/get-involve...eld-in-the-uk/

http://www.parliament.uk/business/pu...eu-referendum/

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Brigand

We live in a Parliamentry democracy, you can't have binding referendums.

They can only be advisory, Parliament is there for a reason.

We do, which is why parliament can legislate to make a referendum binding if it chooses.

OK now we have had the practice one, it's time for the real referendum

[Tengocity]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-36633244

Scottish parliament cound try to veto the Brexit decision.. could take a lot of lawyers a lot of time to work out how this all pans out.

I don't think anybody has even the vaguest understanding of what the hell is going to happen!

As a kid I always wondered if there would be some sort of apocoalyptic event for humanity to cope with (asteroid, alien invasion, triffids, nuclear war)... this may be the nearest we get to!

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by Lobb

Bloody hell Terry. Take some happy pills!

I'm starting to enjoy it all now, and my concern is that it's because im starting to see my secret desire for apocalypse coming to reality!

I love thinking about the fucked up shit that's going to happen that we hadn't considered beforehand.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Lobb

I find it highly offensive when the loosing side starts questioning the intelligence of those of us on the winning side.

It's 'losing' by the way

[Xplosiv166]

it looks like Scotland and N.Ireland could save the day and veto the result - thus leading to a new vote.