Theresa May

nigglynellie there were lots of things none of us realised. I thought I had missed the bit where they told us how big the Leave majority would have to be for them to act on it. I didn't realise the idiots hadn't even set a level. Suppose it had only been a couple of hundred votes, we'd still be wading through all the recounts now.

@Ana

General elections are different, because it's written into statute that the results are legally binding, even if it's only one vote.

Mob rule is always a danger in a democracy, if those with the loudest voices are allowed to have their own way with no protection for minorities.

Mon 29-Aug-16 16:57:28
You know that already, I'm not playing.

Ana I am most certainly not playing games. I take what the vote may lead to very seriously indeed; I just wish the people who voted to leave could explain what they expected.

Yes, daphnedill, I said that I know a GE is different. Still don't agree with the 'mob rule' comment though.

Mon 29-Aug-16 21:21:04
Good job the government doesn't take the same attitude to GE results - there'd never be any change!

In a general election we do not elect a government Ana we elect MPs to represent us and they form a government. That is how the constitution works. The majority party will form a government.

A referendum is really not the same thing at all. Did you really not know that when you voted?

I've already said twice that I know a GE is different - it was just a semi-sarcastic comment!

Why aren't you asking nigglynellie whether she 'really did not know' a referendum is not the same thing - or is it just me you feel the need to cross-examine?

No Ana. I am sorry if you felt you were being singled out.

I had no intention of 'cross examining' you, Ana. I disagreed with your interpretation of the referendum, as do many constitutional lawyers, and your absolute certainty that the UK will leave.

There is a difference between a legally binding and a morally binding vote. The referendum was not legally binding and there are differences of opinion about whether it was morally binding, given that the majority was quite small and that most people agree that the information given out was misleading, if not downright lies.

There was nothing in the referendum about what form leaving the EU would take, nor anything about timescales for invoking Article 50. The Referendum Bill was passed by Parliament in December 2015. These issues should have been thrashed out at the time.

The practical problem now is finding a solution which will satisfy all those who voted Leave, given that so many people thought they were voting for different things.

Before some basic principles are established, negotiators can't even begin to unpick all the laws which bind us to to the EU, the government can't guarantee funding to all those who will lose out or come to reciprocal arrangements about healthcare and pensions and, most importantly, nobody can guarantee whether people living in another EU country (whether UK nationals living abroad or EU nationals living in the UK) can stay where they are.

I don't want to put a dampener on things, but when West Germany was established in 1949, there was a clause in the constitution which stated its aim to unify with East Germany. It took over 40 years for its 'intention' to be a reality. Not saying that it will take 40 years for the UK to leave the EU, but you never know.

As those who voted leave cannot agree on whether they were voting to get rid of immigrants or not, or whether they want the single market or not, it's going to take a very long time.
That's just the government, let alone the ordinary voter.

I suppose, daphne, if they cannot decide, then the simplest thing to do is invoke article 50 and leave it up to the EU experts to decide what to do with us. Then if the British people do not like what they are presented with, they can always blame those EU bureaucrats - again.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/27/brexit-is-not-inevitable-says-former-civil-service-chief

Gus O'Donnell thinks we could stay in if the EU changes.

Yes he was on the radio - must be nice now he is a Lord to be able to say what the thinks in public. On the radio the other day.

Brexit will go ahead, it would be political suicide for it not to go ahead.All that needs to be decided is the way and timing to leave the EU, and how we will trade in the future.Yes, a big job, but not beyond the capabilities of ministers.

I expect you're right that it will go ahead, but even you can't guarantee it!

I think you underestimate the enormity and constitutional implications of the task. It would be foolish to decide anything before formulating strategies for the negotiations.

No, I don't underestimate anything, it IS a huge job, but no doubt will be accomplished.

I gather that the estimate of the administrative cost is £5bn over 10 years, involving 10,000 people. The task of re-writing the legislation is enormous.
Obviously people in favour of Brexit will think it is worthwhile, but I do wonder what the total financial cost to the country will be.

Even before negotiations can start, 'somebody' (who?) has to decide what kind of relationship the UK wants to have with the EU and the aim of negotiators. Even that is no simple task and it's almost certainly going to be a rocky ride before ministers can decide on an aim which will be acceptable to UK voters. Leave and Remain voters will have to be appeased.

What I find interesting is that now we are possibly going to leave the EU, France and Germany are calling for a stop to TTIP negotiations. It sounds more and more as if the UK were the only ones who wanted it.
Who said we had no power in the EU?

www.change.org/p/home-office-stop-my-sick-father-s-deportation

This is terrible.
This man's wife was deported to Pakistan in 2011, where she died as she was not able to get diabetic medication. Now they are talking of deporting him, even though he has dementia and Parkinson's.

This government is sick. Theresa May especially so if she thinks thisa is acceptable.

Here's a way that May and Amber Rudd can show they care.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/02/home-secretary-urged-to-act-over-refugee-children-stuck-in-calais

More than 380 children in Calais have a right to join family here.

Not all those children have family here, the majority come under the Dubs arrangement. You can't just do it, proper arrangements have to be put into place with various groups and authorities just as they had to be prior to the Kindertrains. This takes careful management and time.
No criticism of France for allowing all these unaccompanied very young children to roam at will around this extremely dangerous area?!! You would think it might concern the French authorities just a little bit!!! Just constant condemnation of HMG for not sorting it out!!

I agree Niggly as the first 'port of call* wherever the children do end up ( here or anywhere else) why are they not in the care of a French childrens home? It seems a bizarre situation indeed.

This is it roses, surely anyone would expect the French to be responsible enough to find these children a place of safety until their future could be resolved by the appropriate authorities. Think of the uproar (quite rightly) if this was the situation at Dover!!!!

Someone on Today this morning pointed out that almost all these unaccompanied children are teenaged boys and asked why. Avoiding the draft seemed to be the answer. Can't blame them, although some say they should stay and be drafted in order to fight for their country.
Yes, entirely agree that France should be taking care of these children. Why are these refugees not claiming asylum in France anyway? We are told some of them have family in the UK but surely not all of them?

The 37% of the electorate who voted to leave did so for many different reasons and many were swayed by the outright lies of the leave campaign.

Why should the majority of the electorate who did not vote leave have to pay the huge price for their stupidity?

We cannot afford the huge increase in beurocracy, the cost to public services and the inevitible damage to our country's influence in the world

.