Can we stqrt calling it what is is?

[Itisnoteasybeingdifferent]

It's not exit, it's independence. Alternatively we should call it sovereignty or self rule.

It was estimated that over 2 million UK citizens living in the rest of Europe who were disenfranchised from voting because they have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years. Remember the gov had vowed to scrap this 15 year rule in the 2015 Queen’s speech, but then didn't.

If there were 2 million Leave voters who had been denied a vote we would never have heard the end of it.

The OP suggested renaming departure from the European Union 'sovereignty' or self rule. In other countries where voters are disenfranchised and an unelected leader seizes power it's called a coup. Perhaps we could call it that?

fullfact.org/news/unelected-prime-ministers-common-or-not/

Prior to 1985, no overseas votes were allowed. In 1985, Thatcher allowed those abroad for less than 20 years the vote. Blair reduced this to 15 years in 2000. No-one who has lived abroad for more than 15 years in 2016 could have expected a vote.

caroldecker - I was living in the U.K. at the time of the 2005 general election, in which I voted. I think even you will agree that 2005 was less than 15 years ago?

I was asked for extra paperwork to prove my eligibility to vote that delayed the process and prevented me from voting in the referendum.

No-one who has lived abroad for more than 15 years in 2016 could have expected a vote.

If it was a manifesto commitment which made it into the Queen's speech for that session of Parliament, which it was, as stated above, then it's not unreasonable to have expected legislation to be passed to enable it. That used to be how we did democracy in the UK. Cameron was a fool rushing an early Referendum which didn't need to happen until the end of this year - he could have got that legislation through which would almost certainly have got him a few easy votes.

Cameron was indeed a fool. So if we are calling it what it is, we could call it a self sabotage Eton mess

Thanks for your link to unelected PMs Wrong. Interestingly looking at the chart, ignoring the aftermath of WWII, the only unelected PM to survive a subsequent general election was John Major. So the unelected PMs have a chequered history.

On the continuous retention of vast sovereignty by the UK by the way, this is not my opinion. It is fact verified by constitutional lawyers who write books on this subject ( yes dreaded experts) and also the government sources below.The now disunited kingdom's decision to delegate some minor amounts of shared sovereign power to the European Union over matters such as Agriculture and trade was a calculated decision.Membership has strengthened the UK’s economic position making us (formerly) the world's fifth largest economy and helped maintain peace between member states.

Numerous Eurosceptics (not you Wrong) repeatedly assert the myth that to exit means regaining sovereignty, but it is a myth.If you want to justify the result of the referendum by all means try, but not on the basis of control or sovereignty because that is just not correct.

Objective fact-The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget in 2014/15 was 1.2% of Britain’s total spending of £735 billion that year. British parliament still had sovereign control of over 98% of public spending. (HM Treasury and institute for fiscal studies- summarised in chart here medium.com/@ChathamHouse/five-things-to-know-about-sovereignty-in-the-uk-s-eu-referendum-debate-2ed7ab82bd41#.27zhptk52)
*
Determined* exclusively by UK -Health policy. Education. Fiscal policy. Public expenditure. Monetary policy.* Income tax. Corporation tax.Capital gains tax.Inheritance tax. Border control and security. Non-EU immigration.Pensions.Welfare. Foreign policy decisions. Defence. Military Intelligence. Development cooperation and humanitarian aid.All local government.National policing.Crime. *Media and press regulation.Family law. Property law and succession of estates.

( Objective facts Sources - 1. HM Government Balance of Competences review. 2. Chatham house- Niblett.Link in previous post, and general knowledge.)

Determined by joint UK and other European Union member states
Trade.* Energy.Climate policy.Environment.Agriculture. Some Employment. Consumer.Transport. Some crime. Asylum.VAT. Foreign policy (EU). Single Market.Competition.Fisheries.EU migration.(* Sources 1. HM Government Balance of Competences review. 2. Chatham house- Niblett.)
Objective fact The key benefit of membership has been peace, prosperity and unfettered access to 16.6 Trillion a year in a Single Market of 500m people.
(http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/)
The overwhelming evidence is that the small amount of delegation of some shared sovereignty, mainly tedious but necessary standardisation and safety in trade and food is a price worth paying for the immense benefits.

You're welcome lonely

Are you not happy with the Supreme Court ruling then?

It's predicated on the fact that triggering A50 and leaving the EU will change some of our laws and therefore can't be done without an Act of Parliament.

If being a member of the EU has little or no effect on our laws and sovereignty, perhaps you think the Supreme Court Justices have got it wrong?

Completely makes sense to me and I think the ruling was correct.

What are you talking about Wrong? Of course I'm very happy with the Supreme Court. I'm delighted as its a tiny glimmer of hope that the MPs can at least mitigate the damage being proposed by a right wing government.

Our Parliament is sovereign- that's why May couldn't proceed without its authority. They should have proceed by way of an Act of Parliament in the first place, of course they should.

I repeat, because Parliament is sovereign we delegated some of that in matters to do with trade, food etc to the European Union, in return for a massively beneficial trade and peace deal.

I know you are happy with the ruling lonely, I was joshing. As I say, I think the ruing is the right one too, and I hope it will do something to make the whole Brexit process less divisive.

The 'What is the EU' google question is discussed here:

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/27/were-brits-really-googling-what-is-the-eu-after-voting-to-leave/

The number of searches was estimated to be under 1000, ranked second on a list of EU related questions, and was ranked based on spikes during the time period 1.30-4.30am not total google searches.

I can imagine a certain number of foreign visitors sitting awake in hotel rooms due to jet lag seeing the news flashing up everywhere and deciding to google '"What is the EU".

Easier for some to apply prejudice though and assume it was stupid people who had just voted in the referendum.

I think its fascinating how often it is trotted out. It makes me smile because some remainers are so convinced that they are so logical, objective, fact-seeking whilst leavers are just gullible, emotion-led fools. And then it is remainers who regurgitate the "thousands of leavers googling what is the EU?" tripe without

a) checking if it's true
b) questioning who did the googling

Yes I quite agree Wrong - if only people would do a bit of proper fact checking before repeating unfounded memes .

Yes like checking facts about how little sovereignty is delegated perhaps? Interesting how you focus on the Google comment and yet ignore the following...

The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget in 2014/15 was 1.2% of Britain’s total spending of £735 billion that year. British parliament had sovereign control of over 98% of public spending.

Determined exclusively by UK
Health policy. Education. Fiscal policy. Public expenditure. Monetary policy. Income tax. Corporation tax.Capital gains tax.Inheritance tax. Border control and security. Non-EU immigration.Pensions.Welfare. Foreign policy decisions. Defence. Military Intelligence. Development cooperation and humanitarian aid.All local government.National policing.Crime. Media and press regulation.Family law. Property law and succession of estates.

Yes let's start calling it what it is; monumental fuck up fuelled by a ridiculous right wing narrative.

Yes let's start calling it what it is; monumental fuck up fuelled by a ridiculous right wing narrative.

Who will still be wealthy when the shit hits the fan, so won't suffer.

The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget in 2014/15 was 1.2% of Britain’s total spending of £735 billion that year. British parliament had sovereign control of over 98% of public spending.

£8.82 BILLION net contribution in 2014/15.

I'd rather have liked to control that too tbh, lonelyplanetmum.

£17 million per week net contribution to EU?
And you're dressing that up as a bonus?!

When you look at it on a pie chart of UK spending it's almost too small to see. It will take only a small drop in GDP - widely predicted, and deemed an acceptable price to pay by leavers - to wipe it out entirely, and then some.

to wipe it out entirely, and then some.

Ah, but it'll be Controlled by Us. Oh wait, it won't.

So if it's wiped out in its entirety, we're no worse off - it's exactly the same.

If it's wiped out '& then some', we'd be worse off by the '& then some'.

If the '& then some' is equivalent to £17m per week, then that's presumably ok by Remainers as it's what we are prepared to lose per week anyway (as part of the EU).

we are definitely going to be worse off than we currently are

I suspect some will be worse off and some will be better off, particularly if "better off" is measured by something a bit more meaningful than GDP (standard of living for instance).

I am not convinced that talking about the wealth of the whole country as if this is something we share out equally is particularly helpful. The economy has grown in recent years but so has inequality. The rich have got richer and the poor have not. Increased inequality in itself has costs (see The Spirit Level).

Aditya Chakrabortty wrote an excellent article about this -

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/10/blunt-heckler-economists-failing-us-booming-britain-gdp-london

What is it about May's government that makes you think it is committed, or even interested, in reducing inequality?

And you are right that some will do very well out of Brexit, but it sure as hell won't be the poor.