There will be no second referendum, cabinet agrees
Source: Channel 4
The Cabinet agreed this morning there would be no second referendum. David Cameron will spell that out in his Commons statement this afternoon.
They dont want false hopes or complications beyond the ones already visited on the country.
Oliver Letwin is overseeing the scoping exercise on what is and isnt possible in a negotiation. The idea of Michael Gove being lead negotiator dates back to when, a touch unrealistically, he and others on the Leave side thought they could persuade David Cameron to stay put for longer.
Boris Johnson just emerged from Downing Street to state again his support for a points based immigration system combined somehow with access to the single market.
Read more: http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/referendum-cabinet-agrees/33044
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)And, this time, they may very well opt out of the UK and into Europe as a sovereign country.
The German Foreign Minister has just said they would be welcomed with open arms.
Sinn Fein has called for a Northern Ireland referendum to opt out of the UK and into the Irish Republic. Renewed sectarian tensions and even violence there would advance this cause.
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)That might keep English as one of the official languages of the EU, for one thing.
jalan48
(13,907 posts)cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)just tell the people something along the lines of "for the good of the British people we have decided it is best for us to remain a member of the EU" and just leave it at that?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)But like the various plans in 1913, they will not stop to consider the folly of marching in lockstep across the field to be mowed down by machine guns. The people want their country to commit economic suicide, so who are they to question the will of the people?
They pick a fine time to respect democracy.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)All parties agreed beforehand that they would abide by the results of the vote. While it is "technically" advisory it really isn't. This is a real vote with real consequences and the politicians are living up to their word (for once) and submitting to the will of the people. I think they made a terrible decision with this vote, but they made a decision nonetheless and now it's time to deal with the fallout. This is a cautionary tale for us concerning the upcoming election. Do not protest vote, the stakes are just too high this year.
cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)vdogg
(1,384 posts)By law it is advisory, however all parties agreed before the vote that they would act in accordance with the results of the referendum.
cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)thanking the people and promise to look into it but that for now the UK will remain in the EU.
Of course thats if any sanity remains, which I have my doubts.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,405 posts)'Pledges' don't have any force in a court of law. You were complaining that is something is 'technically' advisory, then it could be ignored. A 'pledge' can be ignored too.
But if politicians say they'll follow the results of a referendum, and then decide not to because it didn't provide the result they wanted, they'll get thrown out at the first chance possible, and worse nutters will take their places.
cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)issues a statement saying she has directed her government to seek other alternatives or something along those lines.
That way it gets the heat off most of the elected officials and puts it largely on her but hopefully preserves the government itself.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)That's not going to go down well. The vote was clear cut. I don't agree with the outcome but I'm not a brit and I have no say in the matter. The only way I see out of this is if Scotland truly does have the veto authority that they say they are willing to exercise.
cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)and an "understanding" or a verbal agreement doesn't magically change a non binding vote into a binding vote.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)cstanleytech
(26,347 posts)should have said so.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)to leave. 52% of a, what was it, 74% turnout is not such a majority. In any case, a two-thirds majority should be required for such profound constitutional change... Especially where that change can also hurt so many neighbours.
... Binding or not, a parliamentary majority vote or votes will be required before any change can be made law.
vdogg
(1,384 posts)Usually turnout is far less, yet we still elect Presidents based off of the majority of those voters that turned out...
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)the US Constitution?
athena
(4,187 posts)Voting for the worse option among the two you're offered is a very imprecise way of protesting. You make yourself indistinguishable from those who actually believe in that option. Much better to stand in front of a government building holding up a sign, or to write letters to politicians or newspapers, or to support liberals at all levels of government.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The UK has a multiparty parlimentary government that gives the people (and minority parties) FAR greater power than they enjoy in the United States. None of the top parties in Parliament have enough seats to control Parliament on their own, so they MUST maintain political alliances with the smaller parties in order to maintain power. If the Conservative and/or Labour parties attempted to overturn the will of the people, the PEOPLE would use the smaller parties to strip those two of power. With 11 recognized parties in Parliament, the British simply don't do party loyalty the way American's do (a good thing, imho). While the Bremain voters would fight them, the result would we political gridlock and the destruction of the British government. The result of THAT is fairly predictable. If the government cannot function due to gridlock, the Queen will be forced to dissolve parliament and new elections will be held. How do you think the people will vote at that point?
In the United States, the government can ignore us and there isn't much we can do about it other than complain. In a multiparty parliamentary democracy like the one in Britain, ignoring the people would have immediate and disastrous consequences for the parties in power.
pampango
(24,692 posts)for.
Conducting a second referendum, even if it were likely to contradict the first one, would understandably enrage and empower the right in the long run and cause even more damage than Brexit will cause. In 5 or 10 or 20 years, perhaps there can be a new referendum but not any time soon.
And the far-right in other European countries want to have "Brexit" votes of their own so there may be no EU to return to - just continent full of highly nationalist countries - Britain First, France First, Germany First. The history of the European continent is not reassuring as to what that will lead to.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)brooklynite
(94,911 posts)...and UKIP campaigned on "LEAVE"...
The results might be equally unsettling.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)so that they can put someone up who will say that he/she won't abide by the advisory nature of the vote. Then there will be people who say they will give the notification, and if they get the government majority, then they give the notification.
These people are morons.
I suppose the Queen could state that she would refuse to give her assent to a notification to leave the EU and create a constitutional crisis over whether to dump the monarchy at the same time. The problem is that if she succeeded in getting the exit people to back down, she would strengthen the monarchy, which hasn't done anything useful in the past several centuries.
pampango
(24,692 posts)on labor and the environment.
I know Boris has that fantasy of turning the UK into a "neoliberal fantasy island" but he should try to stay in touch with reality
RAFisher
(466 posts)That looks like the only way this could be stopped. Liberal Democrats already came out saying we are the Pro-EU party. But the next election is not until 2020 unless a new one is called before. SNP is pro EU but only runs candidates in Scotland. Labour and Conservatives seem to be mixed on EU and the next election could result in them losing seats to UKIP.