Sure, but couldn't it be argued that such plan should be prepared by the gouvernement in place at the time (and after) the referendum ? I keep hearing of Cameron stepping down, but this alone I don't quite get the logic of.
But then again I also tend to assume that both the gouvernement and the shadow should behave as responsible adults, and that's probably not quite the case
Sure, but couldn't it be argued that such plan should be prepared by the gouvernement in place at the time (and after) the referendum ? I keep hearing of Cameron stepping down, but this alone I don't quite get the logic of.
But then again I also tend to assume that both the gouvernement and the shadow should behave as responsible adults, and that's probably not quite the case
It could be argued that the government should have a plan in place in case the referendum went either way. Then again. The government is a very large group of people. Of which who should be responsible for making said plan? I would argue that the large group of Tory MPs (some of which are cabinet members) that are for leaving the EU should at least present a comprehensive plan of what they want to bring to the negotiating table and what (if they will be lost) will replace EU grants that are currently in place. It is best in my opinion, for the people who believe in leaving the EU to be the one to create the plan of action.
The UK is one of the most powerful countries in the world, I don't worry about them going fully sovereign at all. I worry more about how Germany is gonna keep the economic basket case EU members afloat all by it's lonesome self.
Well to be fair I don't really see why this journalist is being so surprised - this was a referendum, not an election, so no camp is supposed to have a "plan" nor is expected to come in power.
Shouldn't the plan be to just apply whatever regulations are in place when it comes to a country leaving the union (article 50, and then negotiations/agreements with the EU) ?
To put it into some context. When the result was announced nearly everyone involved in the campaign has suddenly disappeared. Then, the Brexit camp began backpedalling on some of the promises with Johnson himself claiming there's no rush to invoke Article 50 and start a formal departure straight away. Reading the news for these past few days paints a picture of complete and utter chaos. Suddenly all sorts of different issues keep popping out that weren't fully addressed before the referendum. Northern Ireland and Scotland possibly declaring independence, Gibraltar, the status of more than 1 million Brits living in the EU and EU nationals living in the UK, etc. The more details emerge the more it starts to look like neither the remain or leave camp ever considered Brexit to be an actual possibility, with only the Scots and BoE having any contingency plans.
I see I see. Maybe the silver lining is that this might force some much needed transparency as far as EU membership rules are concerned.
I have to say that looking at it from the outside, seing the two camps campaigning as if it was an election was very odd. I was actually quite surprised to see that Cameron himself was touring the country to campaign for one side, while I would have (naively) expected that he should have assumed a position of neutrality.
Without a doubt this is a very odd moment, but I am very curious to see how things will develop.
I wonder if the UK will sign up to transatlantic trade and investment partnership "TTIP" now we are leaving the EU as I hear the EU is close to signing up to the agreement? I can't say I like the idea of eating growth hormone, GM foods, bleached meet, animal tested products, cloned cattle, fracking and many other customs that go on in the US. Maybe the banks and government will slow down the BREXIT to slip this one though the door before the BREXIT split.
Trade agreements are extremely unpopular among the US electorate right now, Clinton is backing away from the TPP/TTIP and Trump wants to axe all of our existing trade agreements and start over. As it is, it doesn't look like President Obama will be able to get TPP through his own party. If things continue as they have, I wouldn't hold out high hopes for TTIP.
Supposedly this referendum isn't binding. They could still sit it out and do nothing, or at least use Scotland and NI as excuse. Without Britain doing the first step, the EU cannot kick them out anyway, even with people like Schulz being in such a hurry to get the process started. It would be a quite unelegant solution, but "STFU and sitting things out" worked for many other politicians in the past.
Supposedly this referendum isn't binding. They could still sit it
out and do nothing, or at least use Scotland and NI as excuse. Without
Britain doing the first step, the EU cannot kick them out anyway, even
with people like Schulz being in such a hurry to get the process
started. It would be a quite unelegant solution, but "STFU and sitting
things out" worked for many other politicians in the past.
That's entirely correct. Referenda in the UK are in most cases advisory
and not legally binding in any way. I think the only exception to that
was the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 (which was legally binding
and compelled Parliament to accept the result and legislate).
I
tend to agree with you in that I'm still not sure that we will actually
leave as it seems that everyone is reluctant to press the button (either
through fear or simply unwilling).
On the morning of the result I
think the only major politician I saw who was happy was Nigel Farage.
Boris Johnson & Michael Gove both looked visibly shaken, worried and
gave sombre, downbeat speeches in what was meant to be their crowning
moment. I assume that was because none of the official leave campaign actually
wanted to leave in the first place. They may have promoted to the
contrary throughout the campaign, but in doing so they never thought
they would actually win as they 100% knew what would happen if they did.
It was a stupid but acceptable gamble in their eyes as statistically
the UK was very unlikely actually leave as the English traditionally
favour the status quo in such things. Better the devil you know...
I
expect that it was an awful attempt to usurp George Osborne or Theresa
May to the premiership when the Prime Minister resigned before 2020 and
to gain favour with the euro-sceptic & far right of the
Conservative Party. In doing so they would almost ensure the nomination
of Boris as party leader because "at least he tried to get us out" etc.
In any case, in order formally invoke Article 50 MPs must repeal the 1972 European
Communities Act by passing a new EU repeal bill. The Prime Minister does
not have the authority to act alone on this matter as doing so would be
illegal under UK law, and indeed under Article 50 itself, which states
that a member can only leave in accordance with "its own constitutional
requirements". Our constitutional requirements are such that there must
be a bill, MPs must vote on that bill and then the Lords must be given
the opportunity to question and challenge the bill for it to become law
(assuming it gets to that stage).
As I posted above a few days ago Parliament is sovereign and it's the job of MPs to do what they feel is best for their constituents. Seeing
as that 450-500 MPs are pro-remain, and the chaos that has ensued in
the past few days (and no doubt the coming weeks), I don't think many of
them will find it morally objectionable or feel compelled by the
'democratic will of the people' to force a vote through knowing full
well it will do massive harm to the UK.
A nice quote from Geoffrey Robertson QC, who is a constitutional lawyer.
Democracy in Britain doesn't mean
majority rule. It's not the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of
the mob ... it's the representatives of the people, not the people
themselves, who vote for them.
It
seems probable that they are waiting for something that materially and
fundamentally changes the circumstances of the vote (such as a new deal
being handed to them or some emergency measure etc.) in order to accept new terms, drop the result
or have a 2nd referendum (which is more likely to succeed given the
events of the past few days).
A nice quote from Geoffrey Robertson QC, who is a constitutional lawyer.
Democracy in Britain doesn't mean
majority rule. It's not the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of
the mob ... it's the representatives of the people, not the people
themselves, who vote for them.
That's in fact how many republics in Europe work - or are supposed to work. Also the reason why voters feel that they're not always getting what they voted for, because legally representatives are responsible towards, e.g. the common good or towards their own morals, not towards the voters. The reason they take voters into account is to get elected, so there is a strong incentive to try to do what they want, but otherwise they're quite free to go against the voters' directions if required. Switzerland has a more direct model though, where the people's vote is binding, but it's also easier to poll people there and to change things.
That's in fact how many republics in Europe work - or are supposed to work. Also the reason why voters feel that they're not always getting what they voted for, because legally representatives are responsible towards, e.g. the common good or towards their own morals, not towards the voters. The reason they take voters into account is to get elected, so there is a strong incentive to try to do what they want, but otherwise they're quite free to go against the voters' directions if required. Switzerland has a more direct model though, where the people's vote is binding, but it's also easier to poll people there and to change things.
Republics are designed to protect the powerful from the poor. In the past, this was usually landowners.
James Madison on the United States' constitutional republic and the senate:
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or
rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the
day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for
ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process
of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, —
when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the
various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest
be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against,
what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if
elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed
proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If
these observations be just, our government ought to secure the
permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders
ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable
interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so
constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the
majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
There is enough corruption and stupidity in polictics, there is no need for such wannabe conspiracies. Most consitutions are very well meant, just poorly executed and their weaknesses abused by political factions.
Trade agreements are extremely unpopular among the US electorate right now, Clinton is backing away from the TPP/TTIP and Trump wants to axe all of our existing trade agreements and start over. As it is, it doesn't look like President Obama will be able to get TPP through his own party. If things continue as they have, I wouldn't hold out high hopes for TTIP.
TTIP appears to be finally dead in the water on this side of the pond now: https://www.rt.com/news/348499-valls-france-eu-ttip/ of course, if previous attempts at pushing these trade pacts through are any indication at all then the nasty bits that are part of this one will be included again in anything coming our way in the future. if at first you don't succeed...
as for this referendum it really sounds like they intend to follow through with it and split, even though nobody on their side seems to have an idea how to proceed. that must have been the easiest-to-avoid economic disaster zone in human history. poor britain, they really should have known their voters better after boaty mc boatface.
This is from TIGA and makes for an interesting read.
How the UK Video Games Industry can Survive, Revive and Thrive Outside of the EU
TIGA, the trade association representing the video games industry, today published Brexit:Priorities for the UK Video Games Industry. The 20 page reports sets out a policy agenda for Government, Parliament and policy makers to consider as the UK begins the process of leaving the EU. For a copy of the report, please contact: suzi@tiga.org
Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said:
“We must all strive to ensure that the UK survives, revives and thrives outside of the EU. The high technology and creative industries, including the video games sector, can power ahead in a post-BREXIT world – provided that Government takes the right policy decisions and businesses rise to the challenge.
“TIGA’s Report sets out a practical, pragmatic and positive agenda for ensuring the UK games sector is a leading player in an industry that is predicted to be worth almost $100 billion by 2018. If the UK creates a favourable tax environment with an enhanced Games Tax Relief and R&D Tax Credit, increases availability of finance and improves access to talent, then the UK video games industry has everything to play for.”
The UK video games industry already contributes £1.1 billion to UK GDP. This will increase with the right policy environment in place.
A Summary of Brexit:Priorities for the UK Video Games Industry
1. The UK needs a favourable tax environment to encourage businesses to invest in the UK. The Government should consider:
reducing the rate of corporation tax to 17 per cent in 2017;
enhancing Video Games Tax Relief and the R&D Tax Relief.
2. Access to finance: The UK Government should:
introduce a Video Games Investment Fund to enable more studios to grow; and
increase the amount of money that a company can raise via SEIS investment from £150,000 to £200,000.
3. Access to talent: The UK Government should:
ensure that EU workers already working in the UK are protected so that they can continue to work in the UK with the confidence that they are not going to be asked to leave the UK in the future.
4. Exports, trade agreements and tariffs: The UK Government should:
negotiate a trade deal with the EU that to the greatest possible extent avoids quotas, tariffs and other barriers to trade.
5. VAT: The UK Government should:
negotiate an EU wide measure to exempt small businesses from EU VAT regulations.
6. Intellectual Property: The UK Government should:
consider introducing arrangements for the conversion or extension of a EU trademark or registered community design to cover the UK.
7. Data Protection: The UK Government should consider:
adopting the General Data Protection Regulation to ensure that companies based in the UK and doing business in the EU can continue to smoothly transfer information and data.
8. Higher Education: The UK Government should:
make up any short-fall in funding following the UK’s departure from the EU.
9. Fiscal policy: The UK Government should consider:
increasing investment in infrastructure to cushion the UK from the shock of Brexit.
10. Skills and Training: The UK Government could consider:
extending the life of the Skills Investment Fund to maximise investment in skills in the creative industries.
Notes to editors:
About TIGA TIGA is the network for games developers and digital publishers and the trade association representing the video games industry.
So Tiga wants taxes cut just for them and increased spending just for them? Who winds up paying for that? Shouldn't the state have higher priorities than funding the entertainment industry?
They want tax cuts for all corporations (if I'm reading this correctly) coupled with spending increases on all sorts of shit (infrastructure, education, and setting up a creative skills fund). Oh also they want the same trade policy they had as an EU member but not necessarily accepting the same immigration policy they had.
Can someone please explain to a non european/brit all the details of this in an Unbiased manner, no "britain becoming independent" or "britain destroying its economy" hyperbole if possible.
Can someone please explain to a non european/brit all the details of this in an Unbiased manner, no "britain becoming independent" or "britain destroying its economy" hyperbole if possible.
Hey fdfxd2 that's a good article on washington post but I wouldn't say that article is unbiased, its very hard to find any completely unbiased information on this topic as a lot of it has to do with different experts interpretations of data and the public's own personal convictions and predictions for the future. Its very complicated and I couldnt even sum it up in a few words without sounding biased one way or another. I literally studied all the information for about a month before voting.
The games industry itself would feel a pinch with 100% certainty if there is any limitation to the free movement of people, as it relies heavily on imported workforce. Our studio is probably about 1/5th European workers as there aren't enough local people to fill all the positions (particularly more specialized ones).
I personally got hired from Finland without even applying at the studio, that's how dire the need for workers is. They were happy to hire me based off portfolio + single phone interview, and even chipped in towards moving costs.
Replies
But then again I also tend to assume that both the gouvernement and the shadow should behave as responsible adults, and that's probably not quite the case
It could be argued that the government should have a plan in place in case the referendum went either way. Then again. The government is a very large group of people. Of which who should be responsible for making said plan? I would argue that the large group of Tory MPs (some of which are cabinet members) that are for leaving the EU should at least present a comprehensive plan of what they want to bring to the negotiating table and what (if they will be lost) will replace EU grants that are currently in place. It is best in my opinion, for the people who believe in leaving the EU to be the one to create the plan of action.
To put it into some context. When the result was announced nearly everyone involved in the campaign has suddenly disappeared. Then, the Brexit camp began backpedalling on some of the promises with Johnson himself claiming there's no rush to invoke Article 50 and start a formal departure straight away. Reading the news for these past few days paints a picture of complete and utter chaos. Suddenly all sorts of different issues keep popping out that weren't fully addressed before the referendum. Northern Ireland and Scotland possibly declaring independence, Gibraltar, the status of more than 1 million Brits living in the EU and EU nationals living in the UK, etc. The more details emerge the more it starts to look like neither the remain or leave camp ever considered Brexit to be an actual possibility, with only the Scots and BoE having any contingency plans.
I have to say that looking at it from the outside, seing the two camps campaigning as if it was an election was very odd. I was actually quite surprised to see that Cameron himself was touring the country to campaign for one side, while I would have (naively) expected that he should have assumed a position of neutrality.
Without a doubt this is a very odd moment, but I am very curious to see how things will develop.
I tend to agree with you in that I'm still not sure that we will actually leave as it seems that everyone is reluctant to press the button (either through fear or simply unwilling).
On the morning of the result I think the only major politician I saw who was happy was Nigel Farage. Boris Johnson & Michael Gove both looked visibly shaken, worried and gave sombre, downbeat speeches in what was meant to be their crowning moment. I assume that was because none of the official leave campaign actually wanted to leave in the first place. They may have promoted to the contrary throughout the campaign, but in doing so they never thought they would actually win as they 100% knew what would happen if they did. It was a stupid but acceptable gamble in their eyes as statistically the UK was very unlikely actually leave as the English traditionally favour the status quo in such things. Better the devil you know...
I expect that it was an awful attempt to usurp George Osborne or Theresa May to the premiership when the Prime Minister resigned before 2020 and to gain favour with the euro-sceptic & far right of the Conservative Party. In doing so they would almost ensure the nomination of Boris as party leader because "at least he tried to get us out" etc.
In any case, in order formally invoke Article 50 MPs must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by passing a new EU repeal bill. The Prime Minister does not have the authority to act alone on this matter as doing so would be illegal under UK law, and indeed under Article 50 itself, which states that a member can only leave in accordance with "its own constitutional requirements". Our constitutional requirements are such that there must be a bill, MPs must vote on that bill and then the Lords must be given the opportunity to question and challenge the bill for it to become law (assuming it gets to that stage).
As I posted above a few days ago Parliament is sovereign and it's the job of MPs to do what they feel is best for their constituents.
Seeing as that 450-500 MPs are pro-remain, and the chaos that has ensued in the past few days (and no doubt the coming weeks), I don't think many of them will find it morally objectionable or feel compelled by the 'democratic will of the people' to force a vote through knowing full well it will do massive harm to the UK.
A nice quote from Geoffrey Robertson QC, who is a constitutional lawyer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-loophole-eu-referendum-mps-law-legal-legislation-constitution-a7105181.html
It seems probable that they are waiting for something that materially and fundamentally changes the circumstances of the vote (such as a new deal being handed to them or some emergency measure etc.) in order to accept new terms, drop the result or have a 2nd referendum (which is more likely to succeed given the events of the past few days).
James Madison on the United States' constitutional republic and the senate:
There is enough corruption and stupidity in polictics, there is no need for such wannabe conspiracies. Most consitutions are very well meant, just poorly executed and their weaknesses abused by political factions.
of course, if previous attempts at pushing these trade pacts through are any indication at all then the nasty bits that are part of this one will be included again in anything coming our way in the future. if at first you don't succeed...
as for this referendum it really sounds like they intend to follow through with it and split, even though nobody on their side seems to have an idea how to proceed. that must have been the easiest-to-avoid economic disaster zone in human history. poor britain, they really should have known their voters better after boaty mc boatface.
Get out the popcorn, dis gonna be gooooood.
How the UK Video Games Industry can Survive, Revive and Thrive Outside of the EU
TIGA, the trade association representing the video games industry, today published Brexit: Priorities for the UK Video Games Industry. The 20 page reports sets out a policy agenda for Government, Parliament and policy makers to consider as the UK begins the process of leaving the EU. For a copy of the report, please contact: suzi@tiga.org
Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said:
“We must all strive to ensure that the UK survives, revives and thrives outside of the EU. The high technology and creative industries, including the video games sector, can power ahead in a post-BREXIT world – provided that Government takes the right policy decisions and businesses rise to the challenge.
“TIGA’s Report sets out a practical, pragmatic and positive agenda for ensuring the UK games sector is a leading player in an industry that is predicted to be worth almost $100 billion by 2018. If the UK creates a favourable tax environment with an enhanced Games Tax Relief and R&D Tax Credit, increases availability of finance and improves access to talent, then the UK video games industry has everything to play for.”
The UK video games industry already contributes £1.1 billion to UK GDP. This will increase with the right policy environment in place.
A Summary of Brexit: Priorities for the UK Video Games Industry
1. The UK needs a favourable tax environment to encourage businesses to invest in the UK. The Government should consider:
2. Access to finance: The UK Government should:
3. Access to talent: The UK Government should:
4. Exports, trade agreements and tariffs: The UK Government should:
5. VAT: The UK Government should:
6. Intellectual Property: The UK Government should:
7. Data Protection: The UK Government should consider:
8. Higher Education: The UK Government should:
9. Fiscal policy: The UK Government should consider:
10. Skills and Training: The UK Government could consider:
Notes to editors:
About TIGA
TIGA is the network for games developers and digital publishers and the trade association representing the video games industry.
Get in touch:
Tel: 0845 468 2330
Email: info@tiga.org
Web: www.tiga.org
Twitter: www.twitter.com/tigamovement
Facebook: www.facebook.com/TIGAMovement
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/tiga
For further information, you can also contact: Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO by email: richard.wilson@tiga.org
All I can say is good luck with that.
These websites demonstrate just how complex the issue is:
Heres the bbc eu reality check where people are asking some of the big questions and getting some answers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388
or fullfact which also has a lot of information on various eu topics. https://fullfact.org/europe/
I personally got hired from Finland without even applying at the studio, that's how dire the need for workers is. They were happy to hire me based off portfolio + single phone interview, and even chipped in towards moving costs.