BREXIT - The European Union referendum

coppernob wrote:What I would also like to know is post referendum why all the mud slinging at Corbyn why none at Cameron and Osbourne? That in itself tells its own story of dirty tricks of the establishment.
Can I also ask if my posts are visible as I have noticed most are not acknowledged.

I quite agree, coppernob.

The very fact that Corbyn won the Labour leadership with such a majority was a precurser to the referendum result. The rank and file public want real change and a real alternative.

Rather than pandering to the old Blairites still polluting representative Labour in parliament Jeremy Corbyn should seize the day. The people don't want old Labour, that's the point. They want new representatives who reflect the need for change. For investment into the rest of the country other than London and the monied South. They want industry back, the right to fish our waters, the right to manufacture and a future. They want life back in the Northern towns. The working classes would have voted to leave the EU regardless of what Labour told them.

Corbyn should have stuck to his view of the last 40 years and come out firmly to Leave. I fear he pandered to the will of his MPs with his half-hearted Remain approach. A mistake. He should pander no longer, dismiss his dissenters and surround himself with like-minded MPs who reflect the feelings of the people they are supposed to represent. That way he will become a credible leader for change which is what the country wants.

Not a credible candidate for PM? Well, people swore he wasn't a credible candidate for Labour Leader. We were told Leave wasn't a credible option. The country will be surprised at just what is credible if the Labour party has the courage if it's membership's convictions. Change is needed - Corbyn can spearhead that if he holds tight, sheds the deadwood and is brave enough NOW.

chirpyinsect wrote:A question.

Does anybody who voted Leave now Bregret their decision?. Perhaps based on the lies told on what would happen to the supposed £350 million going to the NHS. Even Farage has said it was a mistake to make that claim.
Apparently a lot of people are now regretting where they put their cross. Some even saying they didn't actually think it would happen or they voted out as a protest against the government. WTF?
A very good argument against democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter. Winston Churchill.
Perhaps there should have been a 14 day cooling off period.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-anger-bregret-leave-voters-protest-vote-thought-uk-stay-in-eu-remain-win-a7102516.html&ved=0ahUKEwihrMXLx8XNAhXmL8AKHYehDIQQqG8IGzAA&usg=AFQjCNEJWtxgx0Rf-7Y8f9Y2M6vqXUMJjA

Since when did people regretting their vote in the aftermath have any sway over the democratic process? I overheard somebody claiming the other day that if she had expected "leave" to actually win then she wouldn't have voted that way. She also claimed that if Trump gets elected then "that will be it". I would have asked her to elaborate, but she's clearly an idiot.

coppernob wrote:Costello, sorry if my post comes across as being anti Scottish as that is not what i'm about. I am proud to be from England and it has felt for such a long time that was not allowed. My Grandfather was brought up in the Scottish Highlands so I have Scottish roots too

Absolutely no reason to apologize coppernob. Can I ask a question re- The Chilcot affair, was this the reason Tony Blair was involved with the referendum? I'd appreciate your views on this. It was reported on TV early Friday morning that TB had arrived at some official building (missed which one) and the
inference seemed to be why? It did get me wondering to be honest.

I hope this is ok to post, if not Mods please delete, from Craig Murray:

Craig Murray

It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.

26 Jun, 2016

No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste? The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.

For the Labour Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.

Yes, they are that nuts.

If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel.

This was Benn the week before his celebrated advocacy of bombing Syria:

'Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn told a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch yesterday that relations with Israel must be based on cooperation and rejected attempts to isolate the country. Addressing senior party figures in Westminster, Benn praised Israel for its “progressive spirit, vibrant democracy, strong welfare state, thriving free press and independent judiciary.” He also called Israel “an economic giant, a high-tech centre, second only to the United States. A land of innovation and entrepreneurship, venture capital and graduates, private and public enterprise.” Consequently, said Benn, “Our future relations must be built on cooperation and engagement, not isolation of Israel. We must take on those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to exist.”

Heidi Alexander actually signed, as a 2015 parliamentary candidate, the “We Believe in Israel” charter, the provisions of which state there must be no boycotts of Israel, and Israel must not be described as an apartheid state. This fault line is very well defined. The manufactured row about “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party shows exactly the same split. In my researches, 100% of those who have promoted accusations of anti-Semitism were supporters of the Iraq War and/or had demonstrable links to professional pro-Israel lobby groups. 100% of those accused of anti-Semitism were active opponents of the Iraq War. Never underestimate the Blairite fury at being shown not just to be liars but to be wrong. Iraq is their Achilles heel and they are extremely touchy about it.

No rational person would believe Brexit was Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. No rational person would believe that now is a good moment for the Labour Party to tear itself apart. Extraordinarily, the timing is determined by Chilcot.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ar-stupid/

Thanks for that coppernob, hmm....

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.

[quote="coppernob"]Claptrap re NHS and foreign workers I know loads of English who have trained to be nurses etc who can not get jobs.

The statistics, produced by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), show that 11% of all staff for whom data was available and who work for the NHS and in community health services are not British.

The proportion of foreign nationals increases for professionally qualified clinical staff (14%) and even more so for doctors (26%), prompting the British Medical Association (BMA) to observe that without the contribution of non-British staff, "many NHS services would struggle to provide effective care to their patients".

In my opinion the people have spoken end off. As for Boris Johnson he is a lot more astute than we know.

Thoughts on the Le Toquet Accord.

Yes, Chirpy. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should be compulsory reading for EVERYONE.
BREXIT is a poisoned chalice. And NO GB politician of whatever standing, Boris being first in row, is going to touch it, not even with a large pole ...

Since someone else so kindly typed it out for me, I took the liberty to copy it here:

Lots of knee-jerk reaction, daft (completely daft) calls for a second referendum, Nichola Sturgeon whipping up froth as she promotes herself as some sort of working class Queen of Scotland, the media loving it all and sub-editors creating outrageously divisive headlines (when don't they?), the night of the long knives within the labour party, it goes on and on.

So what's changed since the the UK exercised their right to vote out of Europe?

Not a lot really in terms of getting out of Europe.

What the UK needs at this time are true statesmen and stateswomen who are here to serve the public in a democratic decision and to plough themselves (their UK public elected selves) into doing their utmost to fullfil and achieve the wishes of the UK public. What we have is in-fighting which I'm sure will continue for months and then hopefully settle down.

It really is the time for brave politicians to shine. It's the greatest career opportunity they have ever been given. Stand up for Britain, the country you are elected to serve.

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, Chirpy.  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should be compulsory reading for EVERYONE.
BREXIT is a poisoned chalice. And NO GB politician of whatever standing, Boris being first in row, is going to touch it, not even with a large pole ...

What seriously worries me is that people ( some) don't know what article 50 is, or what it means. Nor have they heard of the Le Toquet Accord.
Many don't understand the full implications and not because I think they are stupid. I blame Remain for not campaigning strongly enough on the real effects. Instead they rolled out the rich and the so called elite.
Surely the referendum should have been fought not on the basis of political careers. Not on lies and fearmongering for which I blame both sides btw. Nor should it have been about further dividing an already fractured nation. The vote was bound to be pretty close and I agree people are right to be angry with a lot of what is wrong with the country but sadly, when all the flak has settled down and the reality hits, I think there will be further public spending cuts, and the very people who were the most vocal in wanting out will pay the price of their "freedom."
I was opposed to Scottish Indie too and don't think the UK has recovered from the fallout from that. Now we have another reason to be at each other's throats.
I understand I'm pretty much alone here but I have the courage of my convictions just as much as you all do. I don't think I have ever wanted to be wrong more in my life.

End wrote:Since someone else so kindly typed it out for me, I took the liberty to copy it here:

Lots of knee-jerk reaction, daft (completely daft) calls for a second referendum, Nichola Sturgeon whipping up froth as she promotes herself as some sort of working class Queen of Scotland, the media loving it all and sub-editors creating outrageously divisive headlines (when don't they?), the night of the long knives within the labour party, it goes on and on.

So what's changed since the the UK exercised their right to vote out of Europe?

Not a lot really in terms of getting out of Europe.

What the UK needs at this time are true statesmen and stateswomen who are here to serve the public in a democratic decision and to plough themselves (their UK public elected selves) into doing their utmost to fullfil and achieve the wishes of the UK public. What we have is in-fighting which I'm sure will continue for months and then hopefully settle down.

It really is the time for brave politicians to shine. It's the greatest career opportunity they have ever been given. Stand up for Britain, the country you are elected to serve.

Great post End.

It did concern me that no Brexiteer seemed to grasp the moment during the exit campaign. Watching Andrew Marr this morning gave some comfort from two political heavyweights both of whom know what to do and how to do it,unfortunately one was Tony Blair and the other Iain Duncan-Smith. Blair although a remain campee had as usual a complete grasp of the brief .....it is such a shame he is a twat. IDS also knew the steps to take .....alas he is as big if not a bigger twat. So who will grab the moment and shine the light on our first tentative steps from the dark cellar that was European dream. I personally think he/she is not even on the radar at the moment ......but step forward they will.....and then we can get rid of some of these headless chickens making mischief!

coppernob wrote:I hope this is ok to post, if not Mods please delete, from Craig Murray:

Craig Murray

It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.

26 Jun, 2016

No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste? The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.

For the Labour Right, the moment when Corbyn as Labour leader stands up in parliament and condemns Blair over Iraq, is going to be as traumatic as it was for the hardliners of the Soviet Communist Party when Khruschev denounced the crimes of Stalin. It would also destroy Blair’s carefully planned post-Chilcot PR strategy. It is essential to the Blairites that when Chilcot is debated in parliament in two weeks time, Jeremy Corbyn is not in place as Labour leader to speak in the debate. The Blairite plan is therefore for the parliamentary party to depose him as parliamentary leader and get speaker John Bercow to acknowledge someone else in that fictional position in time for the Chilcot debate, with Corbyn remaining leader in the country but with no parliamentary status.

Yes, they are that nuts.

If the fault line for the Tories is Europe, for Labour it is the Middle East. Those opposing Corbyn are defined by their enthusiasm for bombing campaigns that kill Muslim children. And not only by the UK. Both of the first two to go, Hilary Benn and Heidi Alexander, are hardline supporters of Israel.

This was Benn the week before his celebrated advocacy of bombing Syria:

'Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn told a Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) lunch yesterday that relations with Israel must be based on cooperation and rejected attempts to isolate the country. Addressing senior party figures in Westminster, Benn praised Israel for its “progressive spirit, vibrant democracy, strong welfare state, thriving free press and independent judiciary.” He also called Israel “an economic giant, a high-tech centre, second only to the United States. A land of innovation and entrepreneurship, venture capital and graduates, private and public enterprise.” Consequently, said Benn, “Our future relations must be built on cooperation and engagement, not isolation of Israel. We must take on those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to exist.”

Heidi Alexander actually signed, as a 2015 parliamentary candidate, the “We Believe in Israel” charter, the provisions of which state there must be no boycotts of Israel, and Israel must not be described as an apartheid state. This fault line is very well defined. The manufactured row about “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party shows exactly the same split. In my researches, 100% of those who have promoted accusations of anti-Semitism were supporters of the Iraq War and/or had demonstrable links to professional pro-Israel lobby groups. 100% of those accused of anti-Semitism were active opponents of the Iraq War. Never underestimate the Blairite fury at being shown not just to be liars but to be wrong. Iraq is their Achilles heel and they are extremely touchy about it.

No rational person would believe Brexit was Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. No rational person would believe that now is a good moment for the Labour Party to tear itself apart. Extraordinarily, the timing is determined by Chilcot.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ar-stupid/

Thanks for that, coppernob. I like Craig Murray more and more. Does he also hold the answers for Madeleine?

Jeremy Corbyn must hold firm. He must remain accountable to the people who put him there as leader, not to the Blairite old school MPs who no longer represent the true feelings of the Labour membership. He must not bow to the pressure of those who would have him resign, in fact, he must seize the opportunity to cleanse his cabinet of those who stand to divide.

They make me sick. They STILL don't listen to the people. They STILL think only of their own careers and futures. They STILL look to defend the indefensible. How dare they promote themselves as Labour - Labour! - MPs? Keir Hardy and Tony Benn will be spinning in their graves.

Time for those genuine Labour MPs to start shouting louder.

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, Chirpy.  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty should be compulsory reading for EVERYONE.
BREXIT is a poisoned chalice. And NO GB politician of whatever standing, Boris being first in row, is going to touch it, not even with a large pole ...

Some explanations of leaving the EU and Article 50 - informative reading if anyone interested.   Sorry it is long, but it is what it is.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/
22 February 2015

What is Article 50?
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows a member state to notify the EU of its withdrawal and obliges the EU to try to negotiate a ‘withdrawal agreement’ with that state – it involves five points laid out below.

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. 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. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
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.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
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.”
The form of any withdrawal agreement would depend on the negotiations and there is therefore no guarantee the UK would find the terms acceptable. The EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK on the entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or, if no new agreement is concluded, after two years, unless there is unanimous agreement to extend the negotiating period.

During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal. On the EU side, the agreement would be negotiated by the European Commission following a mandate from EU ministers and concluded by EU governments “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.” This means that the European Parliament would be an additional unpredictable factor in striking a deal.

However, if the final agreement cuts across policy areas within the preserve of the member states, such as certain elements of services, transport and investment protection – as many recent EU FTAs have done (for example with Peru and with Columbia) – it will be classed as a ‘mixed agreement’ and require additional ratification by every national parliament in the EU. The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU.

Article 50 Table itemprop=

Are there withdrawal options other than Article 50?
Theoretically, there is nothing to stop a British Government unilaterally withdrawing from the EU by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state. However, while this may be the case in principle, such an approach would likely damage the UK’s chances of striking a preferential trade agreement with the EU after exit – since its first act as an ‘independent’ nation would have been to have reneged on its EU treaty commitments. It would also mean there is no transition period, so EU legislation along with the UK’s free trade agreements via the EU lapse immediately. Since some EU law applies in the UK directly, the UK would need to legislate to replace it.

When would Article 50 be triggered?
The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said today “a vote to leave is a vote to leave” and suggested that Article 50 would be triggered immediately if the referendum vote were for Leave. This was confirmed by David Cameron in the House of Commons, adding that Article 50 is the only way to leave. When it is triggered is ultimately up to the UK government but it is hard to imagine that it could be significantly delayed after a leave vote. Some have suggested that, since the EU cannot throw the UK out, one way would be for the UK government to use a No vote in the referendum as a de facto negotiating mandate. But this would depend on the EU’s willingness to negotiate an exit before Article 50 was triggered.

Similarly, any alternative mechanism for exit would need to be devised and agreed by the rest of the EU – a significant gesture of goodwill. Nevertheless, any potential agreement the UK struck with the EU at any point after withdrawal would come up against the same dynamics as Article 50, most notably requiring approval by EU leaders, MEPs and national parliaments. Therefore, unless the UK is truly prepared to ‘go it alone’, any ‘unilateral withdrawal’ option is tricky.

Interesting it is, BB ...
I'll get back to it tomorrow, after a good night's sleep [finally] and then contacting some at the EC& EU :-)

It would be astonishing if article 50  were ever invoked. The government could wait years before doing it (because they've no idea how to kick negotiations off), and by then there will have been much water under  the bridge. Meanwhile, lawyers all over the country will be looking for loopholes to stop Brexit, Scotland may yet prevent it happening, and time will drag other countries into the mayhem.  The two main political parties are in disarray and we may end up with a new centre-ground pro-EU party that would make a big impact at the next General Election. Don't bank on Brexit - it isn't going to happen folks

May I ask if that is a personal opinion or an informed consensus of opinion garnered from your working field? I have read a few such opinions today.

I read this over the way earlier.


Following the result on Friday morning, and the UK Column's coverage of that result on the lunchtime news, we came under a certain amount of criticism. "I was happy about the result until I saw your programme and now I'm really down", was one comment, and "you're a bunch of fearmongers" another.

We are not "fearmongers". We can't live our lives in a dream, hoping that what we see around us is one thing, when in fact its another. We must be willing to face reality and act accordingly, without fear.

Friday's result has changed nothing, and it has changed everything. It offers us a chance to see the battlefield with clarity, but only if we choose to see it.

Here's the nothing: We are still in!

We have not left, we are not going to leave. Article 50 has not been invoked. Even if it is at some point in the future, what will the political environment be at the end of the Article 50 process, at best two years later? How many MPs will respect the vote of a non-binding referendum which took place at least two years previously?

And here's the everything: as we said several times on the news programme leading up to the referendum, the referendum has been used to change the political landscape completely. Cameron has resigned, Boris is a likely shoe-in, Corbyn is in crisis. Whatever emerges from this mess is not going to be pleasant: with Corbyn out of the way, the "left" is likely to be back on a war footing.

One thing is absolutely clear, though. Any notion of a divided Tory party is no more than a PR narrative, inflamed by the media. There is no real division there, and they will unite behind their new leader.

In the meantime, politicians and the media are stoking up as much anger and division as possible amongst the general population. The aim: to generate as much noise as possible while under the surface the policy agenda continues.

Remember: this referendum was never a simple "in/out" decision, because the "in" decision was based on Cameron's famous "renegotiation". Yet the terms of the renegotiation were not discussed during the course of the campaign, by either side, nor by any media outlet except the UK Column.

So let's end with a couple of questions as examples. Should Article 50 be invoked at some point after the new Prime Minister is selected, will negotiations on TTIP stop on that day? Will EU military integration stop on that day? If the answer to these questions is "no" as we believe it to be, or if government refuses to say either way, then everything we are experiencing is a lie, and the #EUReferendumPsyop continues.
by Tony Bennett
Today at 7:07 pm

Search in: Have your say: News topics
Topic: CMOMM member proposes urgent post-BREXIT petition to the Prime Minister
Replies: 9
Views: 346

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:It would be astonishing if article 50  were ever invoked. Don't bank on Brexit - it isn't going to happen folks

May I ask if that is a personal opinion or an informed concensus of opinion garnered from your working field? I have read a few such opinions today.

A bit of both, but it all becomes clear if you think about it. And I agree with what TB wrote in the post you just quoted. The UK is still in the EU despite all the calamitous headlines on Friday. There are several side issues that are going to be impossible to fix if the UK leaves. First, the fact that 75  per cent of MPs are "Remain" - how can we possibly expect them to carry out their duties if they fundamentally disagree with the UK's status in relation to Europe? Also the problem of Scotland and Northern Ireland. No parliament would want to lumber the Queen with the albatross of being the monarch who presided over the break up of the UK. Nor would they want that legacy  themselves

Actually I am very optimistic,  and when the hysteria dies down, I think we will be a step closer to what many people actually want - a healthy working relationship with  Europe without being controlled by it. Junker gone (he is a big part of the current problem) and a new type of EU. In that respect, it may not matter whether we are in or out

The question was always whether that could be be achieved by staying in or exiting.  I slightly favoured the latter but could see the other side too. The Guardian  and Independent are still trying to convince their Islington-based elite champagne lefty readers that the world is about to end, and it's about time that they stopped being so irresponsible and saw that something had to  happen to the EU sooner or later, and that a threatened Brexit is probably as good as anything to help them come to their senses

Cameron sealed his fate by telling the world that there would be meltdown if we left. He and his chancellor should be ashamed at talking the country down and potentially creating/exacerbating any problems that may have arisen from a Leave vote. But as the word gets round that article 50 won't be invoked for ages, if at all, the rest of the world should calm down a bit

The problem for the government now will be telling the diehard Brexiters that they are going to have to wait a long time until they get what they are hoping for. But much will happen in the next few years and a new type of EU (EEC anyone???) may appeal  to many of them just as much as pulling out altogether. So things are looking very bright to me. Fingers crossed folks, I am bursting with juice this morning

Going to stick my neck out and say that was the plan from the off.

Well hows that for a refreshing outlook Sat? Chirps i disagree.....they thought it was in the bag. Boris and Gove were planted incase the worst (Brexit in their eyes!) happened,and it has. Now Boris leads the way with his really didnt think we would win attitude.David Cameron as instigator should be the one to apply article 50 but he has shamfacedly walked away to leave this stick of dynamite to his successor......a poisened chalice if i ever do see one. So with no real appitite for exit in parliament, it again boils down to who will step up to the plate and and be the leader we need? The issue with Europe is accountability imo. Thats the root 9f all fears.....we have no real power to react to the legislation that is enacted in our name. The youth of today seem happy to leave things to other so called experts,happy to work for peanuts on zero hours contracts and leave politics to the proffesionals who know best!!?
The only ones to blame are the baby boomers who they see as lucky self centered leeches.....they never think that maybe they were just unwilling to put up with a bad deal,unwilling to let those at the top screw them,willing to vote in the knowledge that it was a hard fought for right and that 51% is a majority which honourable people respect and get on with it!

And maybe a little bit of luck?

I think we are closer together on this than we have ever been on Maddie, Bampots

Note how the Tories are not in turmoil despite what the so-called intellectual lefty media keeps telling us. To them it was just a game. I doubt that Leave thought they would win - Boris, Gove and IDS would probably have been happy with a narrow defeat. But now they can reunite with the rest of the government and try to reform the EU from both sides of the debate

Meanwhile Labour is falling apart

The main problem that might lie ahead for the  Tories would be the creation of a modern version of New Labour (time for a David Miliband comeback maybe?) that would promote its pro-EU agenda more than the government is able to

Interesting that there is some  momentum behind the idea of slipping in a new Tory leader by consensus without a divisive internal vote

A new PM might mean a General Election to get the backing of the public. If so,  the Lib Dems would get some pro-EU Tory voters back, and UKIP would take a few more Tory votes if the govt is seen to be hesitating over Brexit. The current Labour party would be wiped out. A Tory win

If the Tories hold together and don't argue, are seen to be encouraging moves towards a more democratic EU, and the financial markets stablilise, they may avoid a GE altogether and be able to spend the next four years sorting out Europe from the inside - with their trump card (no pun intended) of article 50 occasionally being waved at the EU to remind them that Brexit would cause more problems for Europe than it would for the UK

Make no mistake, the UK - whether by accident or design - is now in a strong position to change the face of the  EU for ever. And by that I mean in a positive way

Satsuma wrote:
A new PM might mean a General Election to get the backing of the public. If so,  the Lib Dems would get some pro-EU Tory voters back, and UKIP would take a few more Tory votes if the govt is seen to be hesitating over Brexit. The current Labour party would be wiped out. A Tory win

Remember that quote about an oozing pile of yellow toast?

That's the LibDems electoral chances, that is.