The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Munchkin wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Whether people like it or not the country voted to leave the EU and I don't think there's a cat in hells chance of a 2nd Referendum, those who did fail to vote and wanted to remain have in my opinion no argument.

I don't think a 2nd referendum will happen. I do think a 2nd referendum would vote Remain, even if the exact same voters come out.

Quite possibly.

GSC wrote:I can only imagine Hunts still there because the dispute is ongoing and he's a useful shield for criticism.

...or May actually agrees with what he's been doing.

Osborne and Gove were punted for their public personas, as was Morgan. Hunt just as unliked publically as those.

Can't say I ever warmed to Osborne as a person but he did a good job as Chancellor. Gove on the other hand is a backstabbing waste of DNA...glad to see the back of him.

Does Jeremy Hunt actually do anything? Does he even exist...or is he some sort of mythical bogeyman, dreamed up by the Tory party to scare junior doctors into behaving themselves?

GSC wrote:Not seen the driver be affiliated with any terror groups as of yet so will try to avoid any sweeping statements, but simply horrible events.

All they know so far is that the truck driver was of Franco-Tunisian origin, an individual named Mohamed Bouhlel and apparently he lived locally. No terrorist group yet claiming credit for the attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-36799172


Given previous events, I'm surprised the parade route wasn't barricaded and made into a pedestrian-only area. A major national holiday like Bastille Day is a pretty obvious date for an attack. Would've thrown in some rooftop snipers and helicopters for good measure.

For all the rhetoric from the PM and other figures, I can't help feeling the French aren't doing everything they could, security-wise. Maybe they just let their guard down after an (almost) incident-free Euro tournament?

dyrewolfe wrote:

GSC wrote:Not seen the driver be affiliated with any terror groups as of yet so will try to avoid any sweeping statements, but simply horrible events.

All they know so far is that the truck driver was of Franco-Tunisian origin, an individual named Mohamed Bouhlel and apparently he lived locally. No terrorist group yet claiming credit for the attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-36799172


Given previous events, I'm surprised the parade route wasn't barricaded and made into a pedestrian-only area. A major national holiday like Bastille Day is a pretty obvious date for an attack. Would've thrown in some rooftop snipers and helicopters for good measure.

For all the rhetoric from the PM and other figures, I can't help feeling the French aren't doing everything they could, security-wise. Maybe they just let their guard down after an (almost) incident-free Euro tournament?

Lots of different events in lots of different places. Can't put a sniper at every one. But I'd bet they'll make these 'pedestrian only' in future. That has to be practical.

navyblueshorts wrote:

GSC wrote:I can only imagine Hunts still there because the dispute is ongoing and he's a useful shield for criticism.

...or May actually agrees with what he's been doing.

I think it's a case of both. I think she does support the work he's doing, and wants him to finish the job. Once he's broken the back of it, she can then replace him with someone a bit softer to show that she cares.

It's all just politics.

funnyExiledScot wrote:...It's all just politics.

A truer word may never have been said.

navyblueshorts wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:...It's all just politics.

A truer word may never have been said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA73vORSnA4

Essentially.

The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

I never had a problem with Turkey joining the EU per se. My only concerns were that it was a hub for illegal immigration and a potential transit route for terrorists. I have no problem whatsoever with migration, as long as its done through the proper channels and with adequate security checks.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

Just goes to show just how much lying was done during the campaigning. Boris should be absolutely ashamed of himself.

He's not though, because he's willing to toy with the entire country just to further his own ambitions.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

Morning, Corporal - pleased you got through your 10 k race last night before 10 pm.

I do believe 'Turkey' is another example of where Cameron harmed the Remain side by attempting to run with the fox and the hounds.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

It's UK strategy, or at least it was, to get Turkey to be a fellow member of the European Union.

No harm in pointing that out.

Duty281 wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

It's UK strategy, or at least it was, to get Turkey to be a fellow member of the European Union.

No harm in pointing that out.

Does the EU/UK have a strategy on who they want to join. Most countries apply for membership. If a country can match all the criteria set for all countries already in the EU, they should be welcomed into the EU.

I'm sure Ali Kemal would be very proud of his British great grandson, Boris Johnson in all of this.

Sin é wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

It's UK strategy, or at least it was, to get Turkey to be a fellow member of the European Union.

No harm in pointing that out.

Does the EU/UK have a strategy on who they want to join. Most countries apply for membership. If a country can match all the criteria set for all countries already in the EU, they should be welcomed into the EU.

I'm sure Ali Kemal would be very proud of his British great grandson, Boris Johnson in all of this.

Without a doubt. Look at what happened in Ukraine.

Sin é wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:The coup in Turkey (actual or attempted) this evening illustrates rather well that the claims during the referendum campaign that Turkey was going to join the EU in the near future were complete nonsense.  That country is a very, very long way from being able to satisfy the conditions of membership.

It's UK strategy, or at least it was, to get Turkey to be a fellow member of the European Union.

No harm in pointing that out.

Does the EU/UK have a strategy on who they want to join. Most countries apply for membership. If a country can match all the criteria set for all countries already in the EU, they should be welcomed into the EU.

I'm sure Ali Kemal would be very proud of his British great grandson, Boris Johnson in all of this.

Yes, they do. It's called the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, which has a budget of just under 12 billion Euros for 2014-2020. Its stated purpose is:

EU pre-accession funds are a sound investment into the future of both the enlargement countries and the EU itself. They help the beneficiaries make political and economic reforms, preparing them for the rights and obligations that come with EU membership.

The current recipients of this scheme are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey - which is exactly what Vote Leave were referring to in some of their literature.

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/instruments/overview/index_en.htm

And yes, we do as well. The British Embassy based in Ankara say: "We have a dedicated team working on projects to improve Turkey’s prospects of joining the EU."

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-ankara

Bit of a difference between wanting (and preparing) for someone to join in the future and saying they are ready to join now.

I know Cameron strongly supported Turkey's entry into the EU.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/17/australia-eager-to-start-free-trade-talks-with-britain

Crikey, how many nations is that now desperate to have free trade with the UK? I'm losing count!

Boris had a great line when asked if he'd be apologizing to Obama, "He'll be at the front of the queue".

Duty281 wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/17/australia-eager-to-start-free-trade-talks-with-britain

Crikey, how many nations is that now desperate to have free trade with the UK? I'm losing count!

Sadly we can't do anything as we're still a member of the EU. And our biggest single market partner has poured scorn on any special deal, so trot on you bloody wally.

Trade deals take a long time to negotiate. Can the EU prevent the UK from negotiating with other outside the EU?

Officially we probably can't...

Munchkin wrote:Trade deals take a long time to negotiate. Can the EU prevent the UK from negotiating with other outside the EU?

I'd say the UK are already talking to countries behind the scenes, Munch (Australia for example)  
What are the EU going to do?  Have the UK officialdom offices in London bugged?  - Have phones tapped?  Can they demand that Boris and his other ministerial boys and gals do not travel outside Europe or communicate with any non-EU Leaders, ministers or civil servants?

And even if they had legal recourse to stopping the UK discussing outside trade deals whilst still being in the EU, what would the penalties be if the UK - already on the way out anyway - broke the rules of the EU?  
Fines wouldn't exactly work as the one true fact about the post-Brexit world is that the members of the EU will want to trade with the UK and vice versa.  It will be in everyone's interests to reach a formula that pleases as many traders as possible and isn't reached using threats and whips.  
A heavy handed approach of yet more threats and 'fines' etc will only serve to weaken the EU's image within the EU itself when Eurosceptics are observing everything that happens - everything - minutely.

That's my thinking, Fly. Legally, the UK can't sign new trade deals while still in the EU, but I doubt there's much the EU can do to stop the UK from agreeing terms with any Country. Liam Fox is already talking to Australia, Canada and the USA, among others, and without a peep in protest from the EU.

What can they do? kick the UK out?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What can they do? kick the UK out?

Yes, very simply they can.

Coxy001 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What can they do? kick the UK out?

Yes, very simply they can.

I don't believe that's true. Nothing is ever that simple, and what exactly would they kick the UK out for? Talks are happening right now.

Munchkin wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What can they do? kick the UK out?

Yes, very simply they can.

I don't believe that's true. Nothing is ever that simple, and what exactly would they kick the UK out for? Talks are happening right now.

We can be expelled. It isn't hard to read the laws, even for you.

Would they do it? The sentiment of present could suggest so if we keep taking the pi$$. But of course they need us.. Silly me! I mean there's naff all to stop a land grab happening ain't there!?

Coxy001 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What can they do? kick the UK out?

Yes, very simply they can.

I don't believe that's true. Nothing is ever that simple, and what exactly would they kick the UK out for? Talks are happening right now.

We can be expelled. It isn't hard to read the laws, even for you.

Would they do it? The sentiment of present could suggest so if we keep taking the pi$$. But of course they need us.. Silly me! I mean there's naff all to stop a land grab happening ain't there!?

Usually when someone resorts to abusive language, as you do often, it's normally a sign that the offender lacks confidence. I think this may be true for you.

I haven't read any law specific to the UK engaging in trade talks, while still a member of the EU. I accept that you must know this law, but you should really back up your assertion with facts, rather than ad hominem.

Looking forward to you providing the facts.

Technically they could kick the UK out but come on Coxy, they'd never do it.

However, these free trade deals will, even when combined, pale in comparison to not having access to the largest single market on the planet.

Australia may well be extremely keen but the US, as usual, will bully the UK.

There is no legal provision for the EU to 'kick out the UK', and certainly not for talking trade with other countries:

"While a state can leave, there is no provision for it to be excluded. But TEU Article 7 provides for the suspension of certain rights of a member state if a member persistently breaches the EU's founding values (respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities), outlined in TEU Article 2. The European Council can vote to suspend any rights of membership, such as voting and representation as outlined above. Identifying the breach requires unanimity (excluding the state concerned), but sanctions require only a qualified majority.[36] The state in question would still be bound by the obligations treaties and the Council acting by majority may alter or lift such sanctions. The Treaty of Nice included a preventative mechanism whereby the Council, acting by majority, may identify a potential breach and make recommendations to the state to rectify it before action is taken against it as outlined above.[36] The closest this provision came to being used was in early 2000 due to Austria forming a government which included the far right Freedom Party. Other member states threatened to cut off diplomatic contacts in response and some feared Article 7 might be invoked.[5]
However the treaties do not provide any mechanism to expel a member state outright. The idea appeared in the drafting of the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty but failed to be included. There are a number of considerations which make such a provision impractical. Firstly, a member state leaving would require amendments to the treaties, and amendments require unanimity. Unanimity would be impossible to achieve if the state did not want to leave of its own free will. Secondly it is legally complicated, particularly with all the rights and privileges being withdrawn for both sides that would not be resolved by an orderly and voluntary withdrawal. Third, the concept of expulsion goes against the spirit of the treaties. Most available sanctions are conciliatory, not punitive; they do not punish a state for failing to live up to fellow states' demands, but encourage a state to fulfill its treaty obligations - expulsion would certainly not achieve that."

Link: NoLegalProvision

ARTICLE 7:

THE EU RULE OF LAW FRAMEWORK

In March 2014, the European Commission adopted a new framework for addressing systemic threats to the rule of law in any of the EU’s 28 countries. The new rule of law framework is complementary to infringement procedures - when EU law has been breached - and to the so-called ’Article 7 TEU procedure’ which, at its most severe, allows for the suspension of voting rights in case of a ’serious and persistent breach’ of EU values by an EU country.
The framework allows the European Commission to enter into a dialogue with the EU country concerned to prevent the escalation of systemic threats to the rule of law. In preparing its assessment, the Commission can draw on the expertise of other EU institutions and international organisations (notably, the European Parliament, the Council, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), etc.).

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE I
COMMON PROVISIONS

Article 7

(ex Article 7 TEU)

1.   On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.
The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.
2.   The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.
3.   Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.
The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.
4.   The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide subsequently to vary or revoke measures taken under paragraph 3 in response to changes in the situation which led to their being imposed.
5.   The voting arrangements applying to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council for the purposes of this Article are laid down in Article 354 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Link: EU

So, Coxy, talk of the UK being kicked out is nonsense. The very worst that could happen, and it won't, is that the UK could be suspended. The only time the EU can force the UK to leave will be after the period of 2 years, with the 2 year period only starting once the UK invokes A50.

I would suggest given we are about to enter into crucial negotiations with the EU over the terms of our exit and we are already going in as the junior partner, and apparently asking for the moon on a stick (free trade without free movement) doing things in the interim such as negotiating solo deals with America, knowing this will pee the very people we are negotiating with off enormously is not a particularly smart course of action or conducive to us getting favourable exit terms.

So, Coxy, talk of the UK being kicked out is nonsense. The very worst that could happen, and it won't, is that the UK could be suspended. The only time the EU can force the UK to leave will be after the period of 2 years, with the 2 year period only starting once the UK invokes A50.

We would first be suspended, yes. Treaties don't exit, yes. But do you honestly think that if we start negotiating trade deals whilst still a "member" of the EU (i.e. we haven't invoked Article 50) that the other EU states wouldn't suspend us (which removes our vote) and then amend a treaty is a bit blinkered. I keep saying it but you don't listen - the EU will do everything they can to make an example of us so to keep the union together, to think or suggest otherwise is fanciful tosh.

So put your "It won't happen" away - they will not do us any favours or grant us any special "oh we don't mind you making it look like you're getting special rosy deals with other countries" little bottom slaps. Your ignorance of how the EU views the UK is astounding.

In other news Boris is abroad meeting his fellow foreign secretaries today. Should be an interesting meeting as he offended pretty much every single one of them (comparing the EU to Hitlers regime springs to mind).

Munchkin wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
What can they do? kick the UK out?

Yes, very simply they can.

I don't believe that's true. Nothing is ever that simple, and what exactly would they kick the UK out for? Talks are happening right now.

We can be expelled. It isn't hard to read the laws, even for you.

Would they do it? The sentiment of present could suggest so if we keep taking the pi$$. But of course they need us.. Silly me! I mean there's naff all to stop a land grab happening ain't there!?

Usually when someone resorts to abusive language, as you do often, it's normally a sign that the offender lacks confidence. I think this may be true for you.

I haven't read any law specific to the UK engaging in trade talks, while still a member of the EU. I accept that you must know this law, but you should really back up your assertion with facts, rather than ad hominem.

Looking forward to you providing the facts.

I noticed in passing that the outgoing BREXIT manager Oliver Letwin admitted that we currently have no trade negotiators at all.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3693476/Jobs-150-000-referendum-shock-Boss-Reed-says-majority-firms-no-plans-freeze-recruitment.html

Recruitment specialist Reed Group said demand for new staff has flourished since the referendum, with 150,000 more jobs added to its website in the past three weeks compared with the same period last year.

James Reed, chairman of the £1 billion-plus turnover group, said the 8 per cent increase was a sign that it was ‘business as usual’ despite fears that job vacancies could drop. The growth – in line with the first half of the year – bucks fears of a recruitment crash.

‘The situation is surprisingly good,’ Reed said. ‘The vote hasn’t affected things. People are still hiring and there are lots of opportunities.

Duty281 wrote:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3693476/Jobs-150-000-referendum-shock-Boss-Reed-says-majority-firms-no-plans-freeze-recruitment.html

Recruitment specialist Reed Group said demand for new staff has flourished since the referendum, with 150,000 more jobs added to its website in the past three weeks compared with the same period last year.

James Reed, chairman of the £1 billion-plus turnover group, said the 8 per cent increase was a sign that it was ‘business as usual’ despite fears that job vacancies could drop. The growth – in line with the first half of the year – bucks fears of a recruitment crash.

‘The situation is surprisingly good,’ Reed said. ‘The vote hasn’t affected things. People are still hiring and there are lots of opportunities.

You may as well give it up, Duty. The only person who could possibly understand such a complicated matter as Brexit is Coxy.

Coxy001 wrote:In other news Boris is abroad meeting his fellow foreign secretaries today. Should be an interesting meeting as he offended pretty much every single one of them (comparing the EU to Hitlers regime springs to mind).

Well I can see the similarities.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:In other news Boris is abroad meeting his fellow foreign secretaries today. Should be an interesting meeting as he offended pretty much every single one of them (comparing the EU to Hitlers regime springs to mind).

Well I can see the similarities.

Yeah, and I'd add a few lines to support such a premise too.

24 days and still they don't send the notification.

superflyweight wrote:24 days and still they don't send the notification.  

Allow 28 days for Delivery?

What's the rush?

Coxy001 wrote:

So, Coxy, talk of the UK being kicked out is nonsense. The very worst that could happen, and it won't, is that the UK could be suspended. The only time the EU can force the UK to leave will be after the period of 2 years, with the 2 year period only starting once the UK invokes A50.

We would first be suspended, yes. Treaties don't exit, yes. But do you honestly think that if we start negotiating trade deals whilst still a "member" of the EU (i.e. we haven't invoked Article 50) that the other EU states wouldn't suspend us (which removes our vote) and then amend a treaty is a bit blinkered. I keep saying it but you don't listen - the EU will do everything they can to make an example of us so to keep the union together, to think or suggest otherwise is fanciful tosh.

So put your "It won't happen" away - they will not do us any favours or grant us any special "oh we don't mind you making it look like you're getting special rosy deals with other countries" little bottom slaps. Your ignorance of how the EU views the UK is astounding.

You obviously have an issue with comprehension, Coxy.

I see you're moving the goalposts now as well. So now you accept that the UK can start negotiating trade deals once A50 is invoked. Where did you read this, Coxy? You're trying to wriggle out of your waffle by waffling more, Coxy.

According to you I haven't read EU law that exists to oust the UK from EU when no such law exists. What law was it that you have been reading, Coxy? The law as written on Coxy's imagination?

You say a lot, Coxy, and I do listen, but I'm only hearing nonsense from you. You hold your opinion above the facts that have been provided for you.

Munchkin wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

So, Coxy, talk of the UK being kicked out is nonsense. The very worst that could happen, and it won't, is that the UK could be suspended. The only time the EU can force the UK to leave will be after the period of 2 years, with the 2 year period only starting once the UK invokes A50.

We would first be suspended, yes. Treaties don't exit, yes. But do you honestly think that if we start negotiating trade deals whilst still a "member" of the EU (i.e. we haven't invoked Article 50) that the other EU states wouldn't suspend us (which removes our vote) and then amend a treaty is a bit blinkered. I keep saying it but you don't listen - the EU will do everything they can to make an example of us so to keep the union together, to think or suggest otherwise is fanciful tosh.

So put your "It won't happen" away - they will not do us any favours or grant us any special "oh we don't mind you making it look like you're getting special rosy deals with other countries" little bottom slaps. Your ignorance of how the EU views the UK is astounding.

You obviously have an issue with comprehension, Coxy.

I see you're moving the goalposts now as well. So now you accept that the UK can start negotiating trade deals once A50 is invoked. Where did you read this, Coxy? Did you just make it up? You're trying to wriggle out of your waffle by waffling more, Coxy. For christ sake, we've been talking about negotiations prior to A50 and how we could get more than a bumslap for doing so. Of course we're going to start negotiating, we're not going to sit on our arses now are we

According to you I haven't read EU law that exists to oust the UK from EU when no such law exists. What law was it that you have been reading, Coxy? The law as written on Coxy's imagination? It's not law you dimwit - it's the provision and mechanism that doesn't exist.

You say a lot, Coxy, and I do listen, but I'm only hearing nonsense from you. You hold your opinion above the facts that have been provided for you. Are we allowed as an EU member to negotiate trade deals with other countries? No. We're not, it isn't hard to understand or contemplate the doomsday scenario put forwards of a treaty getting amended so that there is a provision and mechanism for expulsion of a country.

Thundertwonk.

Galted wrote:

Duty281 wrote:http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3693476/Jobs-150-000-referendum-shock-Boss-Reed-says-majority-firms-no-plans-freeze-recruitment.html

Recruitment specialist Reed Group said demand for new staff has flourished since the referendum, with 150,000 more jobs added to its website in the past three weeks compared with the same period last year.

James Reed, chairman of the £1 billion-plus turnover group, said the 8 per cent increase was a sign that it was ‘business as usual’ despite fears that job vacancies could drop. The growth – in line with the first half of the year – bucks fears of a recruitment crash.

‘The situation is surprisingly good,’ Reed said. ‘The vote hasn’t affected things. People are still hiring and there are lots of opportunities.

You may as well give it up, Duty. The only person who could possibly understand such a complicated matter as Brexit is Coxy.

Consumer confidence has dropped
Footfall has dropped
Business confidence has dropped

Find using a job posting website as a barometer as frankly a ridiculous way of trying to prove a point. Perhaps it's 150,000 people jumping ship abroad before the crap hits the fan? Friends in retail are reporting being 50% down YoY, then they say "well we were in sale this time last year and aren't launching ours until Friday". That figure and Reed's one is pretty irrelevant as nothing has changed!!!!! Yet....

SecretFly wrote:

superflyweight wrote:24 days and still they don't send the notification.  

Allow 28 days for Delivery?

What's the rush?

1000 million quid @ 350 million for every week's delay. Worth hurrying up for surely.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

superflyweight wrote:24 days and still they don't send the notification.  

Allow 28 days for Delivery?

What's the rush?

1000 million quid @ 350 million for every week's delay. Worth hurrying up for surely.

Well, you don't want to be ambushed by a bunch of Remainers ready with their freshly printed "IDIOTS!!!" placards for any foolish rushed negotiations and solutions now, do you?


Oh right - that's exactly what the Remain eagles are hoping for.  "Look we're getting nothing out of Europe in these rushed negotiations.  Let's call the whole thing off and write Juncker a 'sorry for being bold' letter instead"

There wouldn't be any rush if the Leavers had actually thought to have some sort of plan to implement beforehand. Currently their plan seems to be 'Er, we don't know what to do, let's see if we can come up with something vaguely feasible when we get around to it'.
Inspires confidence, doesn't it?

JuliusHMarx wrote:There wouldn't be any rush if the Leavers had actually thought to have some sort of plan to implement beforehand. Currently their plan seems to be 'Er, we don't know what to do, let's see if we can come up with something vaguely feasible when we get around to it'.
Inspires confidence, doesn't it?

You see, I'd have a lot of time for an argument like that, Julius, had the same interest been shown by the Great British public in the 'plenty of time' (in terms of decades) they had to coax and cajole their elected leaders to get an EU model up and running that actually worked.

One might say your above line is a definition of the EU itself: "Er, we don't know what to do, let's see if we can come up with something vaguely feasible when we get around to it".  And they came up with 'Empire' as their answer to tidying up all the complexity of 28 countries looking out for their own interests.  Empire - it's had a grand old record of making Europeans happy in the past.  

The UK had ample time to be a Leader in changing Europe's mind and stop it taking that dumb choice in the first place ... but the public wasn't interested.  'We don't care about Europe, us.  Leave them to it.  We got our pound still.  Let our MEPs take care of that stuff.  It's a sideshow to the real issues here in the UK.'

But it's become more than a sideshow now - and both Leavers and Remainers now actually know a lot more about this thing called the EU than they ever cared about before the Referendum debates.  Too late though.