Brexit thread - what happens next

[Mauller]

Eurosceptics wouldn't have ever accepted it as a good deal (as evidenced here).

Of course eurosceptics would not see it as a good deal, becasue he came back with relatively nothing compared to what he was trying to achieve.

 

[Roar87]

I think it's better than the sceptics allow for and not as good as was needed.

So it's gone from he got a good deal to not as good as was needed. I'll continue playing on my 3DS I think.

 

[Caged]

So it's gone from he got a good deal to not as good as was needed. I'll continue playing on my 3DS I think.

Something can be good whilst simultaneously not being good enough to please the eurosceptics.

 

[Roar87]

Something can be good whilst simultaneously not being good enough to please the eurosceptics.

Yeah sure why not, we're just making things up as we go along anyway

 

[Caged]

Yeah sure why not, we're just making things up as we go along anyway

Are you struggling with the concept of varying degrees of 'good'?

 

[enkoda]

Eurosceptics wouldn't have ever accepted it as a good deal (as evidenced here).

In context, yes it is. We were talking about him moving to leave if he didn't get a good deal. He felt he got a good deal, so stayed with remain.

According to the 10 items on his agenda that he took to the EU, he won 2, made significant compromises on 3 and 5 remain unchanged.

That counts as coming away with a good deal?

 

[fornowagain]

Public funds were spent on both campaigns.

Interested to know more about the order to civil servants. I've not seen that.

Hardly balanced though with the Government spent £9 million on pro-Remain leaflets on top of official campaign groups funding. Not to mention all the 'independent' reports commissioned.

Civil servants have been banned from helping ministers make the case for leaving the EU, prompting claims the establishment is lined up against them.

 

[Caged]

Why would you be happy with government money being spent to support a position that the government wasn't campaigning for?

 

[delta0]

Leadsom and May look likely to be two candidates to be the next PM. My money is on Leadsom. She is extremely talented.

 

[StriderX]

Why would you be happy with government money being spent to support a position that the government wasn't campaigning for?

Perhaps because government should be neutral, as it wasn't an election.

 

[Arazi]

With all these pro EU demonstrations going on, 2 in London today it's only a matter of time before the anti EU organise themselves properly and the confrontations aren't going to be pretty.
Once the first one happens then that will trigger confrontation at every demonstration and the Police will be caught in the middle.

I said this kind of thing will probably happen over a week before the vote, some others did to, we got ****ged off.

 

[Caged]

Maybe if it does happen then you can feel vindicated and righteous.

 

[Arazi]

Those 60+ yearolds who overwhelmingly supported Leave will take it to the streets?

I'm 45, i voted leave, i've no intention on rioting, but i can easily see it happening.

 

[Richdog]

So it's ok for people to blatantly lie, because that's politics?

No its not morally OK and no its not fair, but it is part and parcel of modern politics. You can never guarantee that you will do everything you say you will do when elected. People are often elected for their ideals, not their reality.

 

[n111ck]

According to the 10 items on his agenda that he took to the EU, he won 2, made significant compromises on 3 and 5 remain unchanged.

That counts as coming away with a good deal?

Everyone mocked that deal - probably even the staunchest of remain voters on here too (pre referendum).

 

[dowie]

Public funds were spent on both campaigns.

except more was spent on remain with the govt spending 9million on leaflets for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35984991

David Cameron has defended a government pro-EU membership campaign, amid criticism that £9m of public money is being spent on "one-sided propaganda".
The PM said the government was "not neutral" in the referendum and the cost was "money well spent".
The 16-page leaflets will be sent to 27 million UK homes from next week.
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said it was "outrageous" to spend taxpayers' money "to tell us how we should think and how we should vote".
Leave campaigners complained that the promotional campaign was costing more than the £7m each side will be allowed to spend by law, once the official campaign period starts next week.

Civil servants banned from assisting leave ministers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35642296

Michael Gove and other ministers campaigning for Britain's exit will also be unable to use official briefings to prepare campaign speeches.
But civil servants will be allowed to help ministers arguing for Britain to "remain in a reformed EU", No 10 said.
[...]
Downing Street said civil servants and special advisers should not give ministers campaigning for the UK to leave the EU access to government papers, apart from ones they have already seen, on the referendum or David Cameron's EU renegotiations.

so despite the status quo being often perceived as 'safe' by those who are unsure in referendums and in spite of public resources being focused on the remain side and the leave side having the rather large disadvantage that they're not in govt so can't actually make policy decisions nor can they predict accurately what shape negotiations will take they still managed to win. For some protester to claim it was not fought on a level playing field he might well be right in making that statement but the playing field was in favour of remain. (note I'm not arguing that the govt should have been neutral here per say but simply that remain had the advantage/backing here in the form of additional spending, civil service resources etc..)

Interested to know more about the order to civil servants. I've not seen that.

that was from a few TV interviews but a quick google gives the below quote

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/government-made-no-plans-brexit-7930947

A Downing Street spokesman told journalists at an official briefing: "The government has a position which is that we should vote to remain and we are not contingency planning."

Asked if there was no planning whatsoever, he said: "That is the government's position yes."

In fact there has been some contingency planning from the BoE and Treasury... but nothing wide-scale from the civil service in general across departments - this is one of the reasons why triggering article 50 would be unfeasible anyway right now.

another link from a newspaper on the other side of the political divide:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/eurosceptics-brand-no-contingency-plan-for-brexit-disgraceful/

But what has annoyed them is the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the government was not drawing up contingency plans for Britain voting to leave the European Union. Marr asked him whether the government was prepared for the possibility of leaving the EU. Cameron replied:

‘I don’t think that is the right answer, for the reasons I’ve given, but were that to be the answer we would have to do everything necessary to make that work. We put it in the manifesto, it’s the public that will decide this, not the civil servants.’
Marr asked again whether the civil service were working on a contingency plan:
‘The civil service are working round the clock to support my renegotiation. It’s not smoke and mirrors because there’s a very serious negotiation agenda, this is not simple or easy – all of the four areas I’m talking about…all of those are difficult and the civil service is working to help me deliver those things. Now, if we fail to deliver them and we have to take a different stance, then that’s a new situation. But I’m clear in politics what my goal is, my goal is renegotiation, referendum, secure Britain’s place in a reformed EU.’

Shortly afterwards, on Pienaar’s Politics, David Davis said this was the most striking revelation from the interview, adding later on the Sunday Politics that it was ‘actually disgraceful’. Governments don’t like to admit to planning for something that they don’t want to happen, and there is an argument that the Leave campaigns should be the ones explaining what will happen. But those who want to leave the EU will also argue that Cameron is being complacent in not having contingency plans for a Brexit.

 

[Gilly]

Hardly balanced though with the Government spent £9 million on pro-Remain leaflets on top of official campaign groups funding. Not to mention all the 'independent' reports commissioned.

Civil servants have been banned from helping ministers make the case for leaving the EU, prompting claims the establishment is lined up against them.

Yes, the leaflets were sent out ahead of the spendings restrictions and that's wrong. The leave campaign still got public funds though, wasn't it £7m?

Also, perhaps I'm reading something wrong, but remain were also restricted from using the same civil servants leave were. From the news item you linked to : "Michael Gove and other ministers campaigning for Britain's exit will also be unable to use official briefings to prepare campaign speeches."

No its not morally OK and no its not fair, but it is part and parcel of modern politics. You can never guarantee that you will do everything you say you will do when elected. People are often elected for their ideals, not their reality.

Ideals and desires are different to outright lies though...

 

[Arazi]

Nigel Farage himself said if there was only a few % in it he would feel it was "unfinished business". I wouldn't totally discount the possibility of marches had remain won by such a small margin.

And Cameron immediately responded to that with there would not be a 2nd referendum.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Perhaps because government should be neutral, as it wasn't an election.

This. The Government should have stayed out of it all together, and planned for both possible outcomes.

 

[Arazi]

On a 52-48 split of course you would.

Don't forget when Farage thought Leave had lost and announced defeat around 11pm on vote night, he actually said if it's something like a 52-48 split that's not enough of a mandate and a second referendum would be required.

Funny I haven't heard him saying the same thing now he won

And Cameron immediately responded to that with there would not be a 2nd referendum.