What would be the ramifications of this outcome?
If a PM do what you suggest and he doesn't bring something staggering like 10% growth, your next PM will Farage. I assure you that most of that 52% will vote someone who'll get the job done right away.
Instead of taking for granted that only an idiot would vote for Brexit, it's a good idea to understand the reasons they did. It's appalling but even my beloved John Oliver seems to have a very low regard for democracy when the populace doesn't deliver what he thinks it's right.
Given the latest developments within the EU, I would not worry too much. The EU will tore itself apart before you end up the negotiations with Brussels and at that point we'll be probably at square1 and you'll have the upper hand as your economy is bigger then most in Europe.
Off topic but still: I believe May will be the new leader. Gove eliminated himself and Boris Johnson in one blow :-)
I've never read about Merkel asking Cameron to distegard the referendum.
>> Indeed Merkel tried persuade the UK Gov to revert the vote like the Greek PM did a year back
That's reason enough for Brexit. This is an abusive relationship.
Britain: "I want to leave, I don't feel comfortable with you."
Merkel: "I know you've said you want to leave, but must stay. It's for my own good.".
Britain: "I am leaving, it's decided."
EU: "Ok then get out!"
Rubbish, if circumstances change it's entirely reasonable and democratic to hold another vote.
Sure, in 40 years or so.
After listening to Theresa May and Boris Johnson exclude the idea of a general election I think it is becoming increasingly unlikely that there will be a reversal on the Brexit. The Tory party seem to have staked their future on it and will continue on this path to 'a greater future for our children'
Any PM that invokes Article 50 will likely get a very poor post-brexit agreement with the EU.
That will no doubt result in 'the city' acting accordingly.
Also after Article 50 has been invoked, we'll likely lose our presidency of the EU in 2017, and it's likely the discussions will last at least 3-4 years.
I certainly don't think any PM will do what is actually needed to get our economy on track.
- Remove the ridiculous "internal market" in the NHS - Lapse the train operator contracts and run them as BR once did. - Re-nationalise our infrastructure (electricity, water and gas) - Stop defunding the NHS - Stop defunding Local Councils, and allow them to build houses (rather than have housing organisations do it)
There's certainly more (Like proportional representation) but I read somewhere that odd-numbered lists fair better when read ;-)
I don't have an ideological opposition to privately provided services (so long as they're free at the point of delivery, available to all regardless of ability to pay), but my experiences of NHS services delivered by private companies has been fucking awful, with a doctor clearly unfit to practice and a bunch of zero-hour contract minimum wage health care assistants topping up their wages by selling pirate DVDs. Looking at the clear abuses committed by companies like G4S it's terrifying that they're in charge of some forensic units.
And people don't understand just how badly the NHS has had its budgets cut.
> - Lapse the train operator contracts and run them as BR once did.
What we have now (one company owning all the tracks, and leasing out contracts for regions to run on those tracks) is a baffling mix of piss-poor competition (which doesn't work (look at how few people change suppliers for phones or broadband or utilities)) and central control.
> - Re-nationalise our infrastructure (electricity, water and gas)
This sounds controversial until you see how abusive some of them have been. They've created fake debt recovery agencies to scare vulnerable people into prioritising a debt that isn't actually a priority (it's more important that people pay their rent!). Some of them have got weird corporate structure purely to avoid tax or scrutiny. And competition just doesn't work - Electricity and Gas suppliers have a range of baffling plans that make it impossible to actually compare what your bill will be.
> - Stop defunding Local Councils, and allow them to build houses (rather than have housing organisations do it)
There's a bunch of stuff around public health and social care that really desperately need funding. That small amount of funding would save a lot of money for the NHS in a few years. This kind of "spend to save" thing is impossible to drive through because You need to spend the money now to see the saving in five, ten, twenty years.
"I have no plans to stand for Prime Minister" - Everyone who ever stood for Prime Minister.
"I can tell you I'm absolutely not. The one thing I can tell you is there are lots of talented people who could be prime minister after David Cameron but count me out." Gove, June 3rd to Sky News
A credible way of reversing Brexit without quite the same direct slap to those who voted leave would be to delay long enough for new leader, call general election, winning party stands on a Remain ticket. There'd be outrage, of course, but rather less than another referendum "wrong answer, try again" or just ignoring the referendum.
Having fixed term parliaments complicates a little as I think there has to be a vote of no confidence. Perhaps that's the final outcome for Cameron? Fitting, if so.
I don't think it's very likely, but I am sure it is being considered seriously.
It is irresponsible from the Tories to not have called article 50 the next morning. The sooner this gets done, the better for both the UK and the EU.
Worth it. Crossed fingers for it.
The Queen is tolerated because she's seen as an almost entirely symbolic figurehead without any actual power, and because the alternative would mean a President Blair or President Boris or something equally terrible.
So, we either accept freedom of movement and get access to the common market. That will be deeply unpopular with the people who voted to "take back control of our immigration".
Or we reject freedom of movement, and accept that our trade deals are going to be hobbled.
People seem to think that the EU would never do that because capitalism. You only have to look at stupid shit like wine lakes, butter mountains, cheese mountains, milk lakes, etc etc (Holland even had a shit lake in the 80s [1]) to see that the EU is more than capable of doing sub-optimal stuff.
[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-10-18/business/87031...
Doesn't that say a lot about how much everyone loves Brussels? :-P
The UK is a big, affluent country and the EU (read: Germany) needs to export its upmarket products (read: BMWs) somewhere :-).
Not as many customers for expensive cars in Greece or Italy these days.
That's 52% of the turnout; 38% of the electorate; 25% of the population.
They won the ballot, but I wish they'd stop saying "a majority of the country voted for Leave" when only a quarter of the country voted leave.
You can't say a majority voted leave as such, but you also can't say a majority wanted to remain. The only factual figures we have suggested a majority would have voted leave.
That's why this kind of referendums should ether be mandatory or have a higher approval point(like 75%)
Now, those 16m that didn't vote. Do we know if they don't care? Or if they are against or in favor of leaving?
Also, many would say that if you don't use your right to vote, then you can't complain about the decision taken.