If Brexit is about handing more power over to the elite, why did every banker and every corrupt crony capitalist support remain? This is was never a left/right issue in my opinion, it was more libertarian/authoritarian. Sensible left-wingers like Dennis Skinner and Tony Benn were honest about that and weren't afraid of being politically incorrect, so they could see the EU for what it is. The old labour socialists were much more intelligent than the new left, SJW types who are utterly out of touch with the white working class and don't seem to realise it.

I´m sad with the result but I was someting predictable. The consequences will be serious both for the UK and the EU.

The pro-EU has done a terrible job, not being able to explain the benefits of being part of a greater unión(the good aspect of a union works for Scotland and North Ireland but not for the UK itself? curious...).

I expect another referendum for Scotland and this time the result could be different.

Whats bad with an European Court of Justice and Parlament? A Union is about this. The spirit of a true EU is not only abou trade, its about building common institutions which reinforce the sense of having a common approach and a future Project for the continent.

Its easy to be a selfish country and take only which is beneficial for you. Like Hungary or similar countries which like the EU when they receive money for them. But when they have to do some sacrifices, they forget what is to be a part of a bigger organisation.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I agree that the highest courts of every individual EU member have thus far been inadequate to the task of applying national laws in a fair and decent enough manner. That must be true for a continental European Court of Justice to be necessary, right? The problem with all that is, the ECJ doesn't exist in a vacuum. I mean, they hae to recruit their judges from somewhere - and that somewhere, of course, is the same judicial offices of individual states that are apparently not good enough!

Look at Article 253 on the Functioning of the European Union:

See the problem? If this upper tier of national judges are interpreting the laws properly, why must there be another level of courts above them? And if they aren't doing well, how the hell is it a good idea to promote them from national to continental power?

No.... the court is specifically for applying European law, not national law. I am by no means a legal expert but that seems like a fairly straight forward distinction. *shrug*

Anyway, what a mess. Scotland's First Minster is musing about trying to use parliament to block Brexit. I can't imagine that going over so well, probably just a bit of saber rattling before turning to another referendum to leave the UK.

CorpseFister, I didn't say the ECJ dictates national laws. I am only suggesting that we trust national courts to rule in accordance with regulations passed by EU Parliament and/or required by Treaties. And if they can't, then it is better to disband the continental court and leave individual countries to bugger up their own backyards. Not to try fixing that by promoting judges, from within the same talent pool, to a supranational level with an even wider scope.

Ohhhhh that makes sense. In that case let's also abolish the Supreme Court and Appeals courts. If basic local level judges can't do their jobs properly, what's even the point of higher, BIG GUBMINT courts, right?

Completely different examples. The US federal government exists. So there needs to be a Court with the power to uphold or strike down its laws based on constitutional permissibility. The European Union is not (yet) a real, sovereign super-state. It ought to stop acting like one.

Some scathing remarks from Nigel Farage earlier today in Brussels:

I can't see how crowing over victory is going to help with negotiations - utter cretin.

This whole sorry affair is depressing...

Stephen Crabb just stepped forward and is in the running for the Conservative leadership. He replaced IDS in his job in March. His other defining feature is that he likely believes that gay people can be corrected and made straight again. Yes. One of them people.

And I would still probably take him over Theresa May and Boris. But hey, I'll have no say in this anyway.

I'm not keen on David Cameron by any means, but when looking at the people who are looking to replace him I know I'm going to wish he stuck around longer. It was the same when Ed Miliband stepped down as Labour leader - I didn't particularly like the guy, but I know who I'd rather have in power out of him and Corbyn. I know it's early days yet, and I'm trying not to overreact to the whole Brexit fiasco, but the future of British politics is looking anything but promising.

http://www.motherjones.com/.../nigel-farage-admits-his-bold-brexit-claim-was-%20mistake




My knowledge of the English language is quite limited but I would say tha the word "lie" is much more appropiate to define what Nigel said.

Now I admittedly don't know too much about how the government operates over in the UK, but it seems to me that Nigel would have little to no control over where that money would go anyhow. Doesn't Parliament ultimately decide? It's as if they just received a significant windfall of extra tax revenue and need to vote on how to allocate it. Were people specifically voting for "exit" specifically because they thought all of the money ear-tagged for the EU would go to NHS?

My knowledge of the whole thing is very limited and I'm sure someone can explain it much better than I, but my understanding is that many of the Leave voters did believe that one of the benefits of leaving the EU was that money marked for the EU would go into the NHS.

It's not by having countries leave - as you advocate - that it will happen.

That, and imigration.
And Englishness.
And cigarette price.

Gove and Johnson aren't crony, corrupt capitalists? You're right that the likes of Labour and the Liberal Democrats have failed the white working classes (hell, I've just started work in Doncaster and 70% of people there voted Leave). It's clear that their grievances need to be addressed but it's highly, highly doubtful that Johnson, May or Farage are likely to do any better. Of course, Farage might promise the world but we've already seen him or Johnson renege on those empty promises ever so quickly (that's the thing with these untested parties).

Yeah. The campaign was filled with lies, half truths and things that ultimately the referendum itself wasn't directly connected to. This is true for both campaign. Neither was better than the other really. The campaign was a shame for both sides. Now the £350 million sum was wrong in and of itself and even if it was true the referendum itself couldn't decide on where this money would be spent instead. And Nigel Farrange certainly can't decide since he is in no position of such power.

While I keep being cautiously optimistic about Brexit I certainly realize that the people who voted in many cases didn't really understand what they voted for or against since they were mislead by the campaigns.

The main problem of a leave campaign is that they promise things they dont know if they can be done or they know that its impossibe to do.

The remain side did a truly awful job because there was enough data to explain why the UK should remain.

The biggest problem is inmigration politics in which the blame cannot be only for the UE. The hole inmigration politics need a hole revision.

Are you aware how the ECJ works? It deals with most cases through a preliminary ruling reference system. When national courts require assistance in the interpretation of an EU law or question its validity, they can, and entirely at their own discretion, refer the case to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. So national courts are in fact trusted to rule and only refer to the ECJ when they are themselves unsure. The preliminary ruling is then binding, but as we've seen from cases like Landtova (in which the Czech constitutional court ruled that the ECJ acted ultra vires in its preliminary ruling and gave precedence to national law) that isn't always the case.

What Juncker said hit the nail on the head. Fuck Johnson and Farage and feel sorry for everyone who put their trust in them.

Disagree with Farage all you want. But he stepped aside after achieving what he wanted rather than hanging around in politics for the sake of job security at the public trough. That's honourable.

On a side note, my local pub no longer carries Newcastle on tap. I hope this isn't Brexit's fault

It's honorable to spend years working toward Brexit, and then not have any real plan for the aftermath? It was a bullshit campaign based largely on racism and meaningless buzzwords like "sovereignty" that is now having real and measurable consequences for the British people, and he's like "NOT MY PROBLEM." That's the opposite of honorable.

Sovereignty is not a "meaningless buzzword." It's ultimately the only thing that states believe they have any control over nowadays. Without it states are themselves meaningless.

It's a telling problem when it comes to the world we live in, and it's not just about the "Leavers" and the "Remainers." The more that a society becomes globalized the less you, your representatives and the state you live in matter. That's at the heart of that "meaningless buzzword" of sovereignty. There's pros and cons to that and some may benefit from it and others lose, however, the point is that it still matters.

Europe is a quintessential case of that. Here you have states with deep and proud national and cultural histories that span centuries, which have only recently tried to join together and operate, effectively, as one. Undoubtedly you're going to have negative reactions when the two don't go hand-in-hand. I wouldn't be at all surprised if reactions like Brexit become more and more common within the EU, though perhaps different in scale and scope. Hell, 25% of the members in the European Parliament are Eurosceptics, and that number has been growing.

In the context of the Brexit campaign it was. "Sovereignty" was used as one of those political buzzwords that not only sounds cool, but has a bunch of implied opposites that sound bad. Do you think most of the people voting for Leave really understood what sovereignty the UK originally ceded to join the EU, and what they were getting back by leaving? What the benefits/consequences of that would be? The same is of course true for everyone voting Remain, but in cases of ignorance it makes sense to vote for stability. I'm not saying British people are stupid - I certainly don't understand everything about the EU - it's just such a complicated issue that it should never have been left up to a popular referendum. I'm sure you saw how questions like "what is the EU" began topping Google searches within the UK immediately after Brexit won.

Oh, certainly, but that's sadly common with a lot of popular referendums. When they maintain the status quo they're not seen as a problem; in fact, they're often hailed as democratic successes. That was the goal with Brexit, as it had been with Scotland, and even more personally with Quebec here. That's even the case when the referendum, like in this case, is based on the 50+1 rule and the issue (and the potential impact of the results) is complicated and confusing for the voters. However, when the results of a referendum wont maintain the status quo and/or it goes against the intended result it seems the reaction people give to it is exactly the opposite - that it's illegitimate, or that somehow the people voting or managing it are ignorant, or that either it wasn't democratic enough or far too populist. Maybe popular referendums shouldn't be the answer to these issues, but I'm certain there'd be a reaction against even suggesting that. Now to look forward to the inevitable second Scottish 50+1 referendum.

Proud sovereign states were also the cause of more or less endless warfare which in turn was the cause of the EU.

The individual's lessened influence in a more encomppassing border (such as a continental or global) may be used to motivate nation state sovereignty and the abolishment of the continental or global structures, but could also be used to motivate an abolishment of the nation state and motivate even more local structures. How many individuals in Britain truly feel influential in their state-encompassing democracy regardless of the EU? Individual political apathy got deeply rooted in human society before continental or global power structures discussed here were invented.

And now Scotland seem to want sovereignty from Britain in order to stay in the EU.

Have you got any proof that most of those searches were made by leave voters rather than non-voters or remainers, or is that just another blind assumption that conviniently enables you to characterise your opponents as ignorant?



Implementing a plan to leave is a job for the next leader of the Conservative Party, I'm not sure why you think Farage should be responsible for this plan. He has completed his life's work which was to get us this referendum so we could get our democracy and sovereignty back, and regain control of our law-making and our immigration policy. The fact he's kept at it for over twenty years despite the threats to his family and the constant ridicule and misrepresentation by the media makes his achievement all the more remarkable. Whether you agree with him or not, you can't honestly say he hasn't worked hard over the years; I think he's deserves a good rest.

.. to be fair, most of them are.



So, "I want those to be OUR problems. Not my problems, precisely, I don't intend to be involved, but ENGLAND's problems. My life's work is to leave other people holding the bag."

I have kept quiet on this since I'm not European and don't really understand everything involved, but surely people are upset about Farage stepping down just as soon as his big campaign needed him the most, right? Didn't Mark Davis also say he wasn't actually going to run for Prime Minister after the vote went through? Surely Leave voters must feel at least a little bit betrayed that the two big figureheads spent all this time promising big things if we just follow them, only to have enough of the country follow them to actually put the country in a position to move those big things forwards, only for them both to just say "Yeah we weren't actually going to lead you guys, why would you think that? We were just gonna gloat about it and then leave the actual difficult stuff we've been championing all this time to everybody else. Toodles!"

It's a weird thing with the culture today that I've noticed that people are less and less open to admitting they made mistakes and instead just double down on their wrongness, and impassioned defense of Farage after abandoning the cause he spent so long fighting for right when it reached its toughest point, right when there was the highest amount of global scrutiny, right when there were actual serious consequences hanging in the balance of where the movement decided to go from there, is just another example. I tell you, if something like that happened in America, I'd be fucking furious if the guy I trusted to make it all happen bailed right at this point.

Though hey, there is an American view to this as well, since the proposal of "Hey, we get to make our own, highly restrictive and fear mongering immigration laws that go completely against the rules of the EU (hence why we're leaving), but we still get to enjoy all of the benefits like free trade and movement" got laughed out of the building should be a good glimpse into how things would work under Trump's proposed foreign policy attitude of "Oh don't worry, they'll do what we want, we'll make them listen" is gonna work out.

But nothing has actually happened yet. We haven't begun the process of leaving so no one can know for sure what the costs/benefits of Brexit will be and we probably won't have a good idea for another five to ten years. The EU has been a disaster itself (both in theory and practice), and as far as I'm concerned gaining independence is well worth a year or two of politcal and economic turmoil.

Funny how it's only english people who are called racist or stupid for wanting to have an independent country. If the US was part of a similar political union there's no way the average american would stand for it and there's no way that being opposed to such a union would be seen as an extremist position...

You're ignoring the fact that a big part of the Brexit campaign literally was based on racism. If a major draw of this theoretical "USexit" campaign were about keeping out brown people, then yes I would call it racist. Heck, Trump's campaign has a lot of that going on, and yes, it is racist and extremist.

Also, very convenient how you're ignoring the overt racism of every single far-right nationalist eurosceptic party across the continent that has been gaining traction in recent years.

C'mon, UKIP specifically describes themselves as "A non-racist party!" How could they possibly be racist or at least exploit people's racial prejudices to push their anti-euro agenda? THEY SAY THEY'RE NON-RACIST, IT MUST BE TRUE!

Obvious falsehoods like these are usually only spewed out by trolls. Parties with racist foundations are active all over Europe, and it's been adressed way longer than Brexit or anything like that.

Pretty much.

This has been simmering under the surface for years. The media tends to target a particular group and then they just scapegoat the fuck out of them. Result being the outcome of the referendum.

I called it months that this would be the result. I don't any real vindication in the result.

Thatcher part II ????

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jul/11/andrea-leadsom-apologises-to-theresa-may-politics-live
Theresa May says she will make success of Brexit as prime minister
and maybe the sun will rise in the West ... maybe ... just maybe.

1. the brexit will never actually take place. Parliament is not bound by the referendum

2. the younger people have only themselves to blame. they should have participated. if they would have voted in the same percentages that the older citizens did then remain would have won in a landslide

Lady is nuts. This is gonna be a fun 4 years. I hope Labour get their shit together for the next GE.

Dandelo & oneyoudontknow: Theresa May, like most of her Conservative Party's leadership, voted to stay. Of course she said she'll "make Brexit a success." She had to. It was her acceptance speech; she had to put a positive spin on everything, even stuff like the Brexit which she didn't want. She couldn't very well stand up there and say, "Oh bugger. Now I'm stuck sorting out all this bollocks."

You may have noticed that I'm anti-EU myself; still, I don't envy May's position. She'll be trudging through all this Article 50 stuff completely without her heart in it. In a similar place, knowing that one of my first major actions as PM would be against my own beliefs... I don't think I could even put my name in for the job.