Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,323
- Location
- Southampton
aahh I see, nothing to do with the exit vote then? (the very thing they were warning you about)
makes sense
Brexit thread - what happens next
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
- Status
aahh I see, nothing to do with the exit vote then? (the very thing they were warning you about)
makes sense
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2015
- Posts
- 1,125
- Location
- London
*put fingers in your ears* lalalalaalalalala.....
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 78,855
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
If indeed only parliament can decide then it was never in the public's hand in the first place.
As much as I am for democracy, I think giving people powers to decide on something this big that has legal consequences so far reaching where 99% of the population don't understand 1% of EU law is silly anyway. They should leave the legal stuff to people who understand it, people they elect into office. That's the whole point of the House of Commons in the first place.
We were attacked by Argentina some years ago, I do not seem to remember any of our NATO allies coming to our assistance at the time (Indeed, the French carried on supplying arms to the Argentinians and, IIRC, The Belgians refused to sell us ammunition for our FN rifles!)
So I imagine that, in practice, the NATO treaty obligations are actually pretty flexible and you do not actually have to turn up if you dont want to!
(I for one, wouldn't want to go to War with Russia over any former soviet block country)
One reason why I have always felt that we should maintain our Trident capability!
The "Enemy" will not be able to distinguish between a UK Trident and a US one! Thus we can ensure that the USA will have to support us, Dr Stranglove style!
The falkland islands were outside of the territory covered by article 5. Although, if push came to shove i wouldn't wan't to be dependent on the us or france for our nuclear deterrant.
We were attacked by Argentina some years ago, I do not seem to remember any of our NATO allies coming to our assistance at the time (Indeed, the French carried on supplying arms to the Argentinians and, IIRC, The Belgians refused to sell us ammunition for our FN rifles!)
So I imagine that, in practice, the NATO treaty obligations are actually pretty flexible and you do not actually have to turn up if you dont want to!
(I for one, wouldn't want to go to War with Russia over any former soviet block country)
One reason why I have always felt that we should maintain our Trident capability!
The "Enemy" will not be able to distinguish between a UK Trident and a US one! Thus we can ensure that the USA will have to support us, Dr Stranglove style!
Applies for territory north of the tropic of cancer
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,214
- Location
- Europe
We knew that last Thursday, that it would most likely have to be approved by Parliament. That won't be an issue, I imagine.
That would depend on whether there is a general election beforehand and whether a party that vowed not to invoke it got a majority soley on the basis that they promised not to invoke it.
I don't think we'll have another referendum, but I do think there is a chance that the question could be put back to the people in the form of a general election.
aahh I see, nothing to do with the exit vote then? (the very thing they were warning you about)
makes sense
I don't agree. Of course the exit vote caused volatility, over and above that without an exit vote. That much we can probably agree on.
However, there is a larger point. Osborne and Lagarde are not just a couple of pundits, who gave their views about what might happen if an exit vote happens. One is the UK chancellor, and the other is the head of the IMF: Both are very influential individuals, and both had (and have) the responsibility to comment in a sensible, measured and careful way. We're not talking about the rights and wrongs of an exit vote, but the stability of an economy (the UK) and how that might impact on other economies. If an exit vote looked like it might happen, both Osborne and Lagarde had the duty to issue measured statements, to bolster confidence. Regardless of the vote and outcome, there is a tomorrow and things must go on.
Both Osborne and Lagarde failed specularly and issued near-hysterical statements about the impact of an exit vote. That was was grossly irresponsible: Both should go.
Never ever? Or before a certain date ?
Not before the end of 2018.
I mean, ideally the people they elect into office should make an attempt to educate the public about what these things are, how these things work and the pros and cons, but we all saw how that went....
Fabio Capello?
Exactly. Osborne and Lagarde sought to influence expectations to near-doom levels for narrow political advantage, never mind the impact on the real economy. That was unforgivably irresponsible.
It is surprising that Osborne has not announced his departure. His credibility as chancellor is up on bricks. That will not do. The financial markets must take as credible the words of a chancellor: Osborne has almost none in the eyes of the markets. Osborne, it seems to me, is finished.
Indeed. But those who voted still don't get it. Even while their 'leader' has absconded!
thought he wasnt running due to lack of support after Gove stabbed him in the back?
That's what I thought.
I wish there was a way to harness the energy from all the negativity in here..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...as-may-not-increase-with-brexit-a7110766.html
So another Leave claim that looks unlikely to be fulfilled if we leave.
So another Leave claim that looks unlikely to be fulfilled if we leave.
- Status