European Union Referendum

[silkyman]

From the guardians comments section: (I don't know by whom. I copied it from another forum who took it from a Facebook thread.)

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

 

[silkyman]

Brexiters must realise we need to trade with the EU, hence no call for a repeal of the European Community Act 1972. They must also be aware any trade between the EU and Britain will be under the condition of free movement of EU nationals. Even the sovereignty argument is moot if our elected leaders are dictated to by Brussels.
Greece thought they were getting someone free of EU control when they elected Syriza to parliament. It wasn't long before they realised there isn't a party they could elect that would be free of Brussel's diktats.

So I ask myself what has Brexit achieved?

Financial and political instability, the legitimation of far right views and opinions, the potential breakup of the Union, and a rift throughout the country.

But you know, bendy bananas.

 

[blade1889]

Have friends affected by this who are angry to say the least:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...al-votes-demand-re-run-hundreds-a7103066.html

 

[CEngelbrecht]

ISIS BREXIT THREAT Jihadis celebrate shock leave vote and call on thugs to carry out massive terror attacks to finish off Europe’s economy
‘Europe Is Destroyed’: ISIS Celebrates Brexit Vote
ISIS 'expresses joy' over economic turmoil created by Brexit vote as terror group calls for attacks on Berlin and Brussels to 'paralyse' Europe

See? I told you stupid tits you were gonna bring a smile to all the wrong faces. But no, let's not listen to Johnny Foreigner, it's not his election, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Well, you can sit in it and eat it too now. Congratu-fucking-lations.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

From the guardians comments section: (I don't know by whom. I copied it from another forum who took it from a Facebook thread.)

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Right. Unlike Zianfraco I am probably repealing my fuck-knows-how-long hiatus from discussing politics on the internet...

To people around me in real life, this is something I've been predicting for a while should Brexit happen, although I have varying levels of confidence. I'm fully on board with the post-political political philosophy and following this train of thought would tend to suggest that we will not leave as essentially, in a post-Cold War society, democracy/ choice is something of an illusion. As has been pointed out, there is already precedent for governments to ignore referendums - especially those that have no legal bounding - that go against their wishes (like fuck did Johnson want out). Lib Dems are already building a campaign around this...

Of course if we were to ignore the referendum result out right I can see this resulting in civil disobedience in certain areas.

Should be an interesting period regardless of what happens...

 

[Magic]

Glad Putin, Trump and ISIS are on side anyway.

Sent from my HTC Desire EYE using Tapatalk

 

[markwwfc1992]

ISIS BREXIT THREAT Jihadis celebrate shock leave vote and call on thugs to carry out massive terror attacks to finish off Europe’s economy
‘Europe Is Destroyed’: ISIS Celebrates Brexit Vote
ISIS 'expresses joy' over economic turmoil created by Brexit vote as terror group calls for attacks on Berlin and Brussels to 'paralyse' Europe

See? I told you stupid tits you were gonna bring a smile to all the wrong faces. But no, let's not listen to Johnny Foreigner, it's not his election, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Well, you can sit in it and eat it too now. Congratu-fucking-lations.

Oh piss off already, the last 5 pages has been full of you crying into your cornflakes.

 

[JoeJoeJoeJoe]

Oh piss off already, the last 5 pages has been full of you crying into your cornflakes.

I never see you give any valid arguments. You just respond to people telling them to piss off. It's a bit weird.

 

[DarkSithLord]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has told the BBC that Holyrood could effectively block the UK's exit from the EU.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Oh piss off already, the last 5 pages has been full of you crying into your cornflakes.

You're god damned right I am.

 

[TheMinsterman]

I have been wondering. Have any of you changed your plans for the immediate future? Personally I've shelved my plans for a new business that I was hoping to launch this year/ early next, re thought my family holiday and put the money into paying some debts instead ( probably sensible anyway) and stopped some work being done on my house. Anyone made similar adjustments ?

Yes, I finish my PhD in just over two years time, it's not easy to even get a job as it is in this country in academia, it's highly competitive. With all this funding to the arts isn't going to exactly improve, so I can only see the jobs decreasing the closer I get to graduation. As I write on the Persian Gulf I suspect my future will probably lie there, as much as I'd prefer to stay in the UK it doesn't really seem viable and I'm just grateful I got my scholarship when I did to live on or I'd be worried about that as well.

 

[markwwfc1992]

I never see you give any valid arguments. You just respond to people telling them to piss off. It's a bit weird.

I don't really have the time to endlessly argue on here, and what would it solve? I just like to pick out laughable doom and gloom posts from people like yourself for comedy value. In the last 5/6 pages I have even seen a couple of videos of Nazi Germany being posted. Get a fucking grip, it's embarrassing.

This country has sacrificed so much for democracy and the right to vote, and now some people who don't get there own way want a 2nd referendum? This is the highest ever turnout we have had for a vote in this country, I for one am proud that we live in a country that are able to do that.

 

[JoeJoeJoeJoe]

I don't really have the time to endlessly argue on here, and what would it solve? I just like to pick out laughable doom and gloom posts from jumped up little shits like yourself for comedy value. In the last 5/6 pages I have even seen a couple of videos of Nazi Germany being posted. Get a fucking grip, it's embarrassing.

This country has sacrificed so much for democracy and the right to vote, and now some people who don't get there own way want a 2nd referendum? This is the highest ever turnout we have had for a vote in this country, I for one am proud that we live in a country that are able to do that.

The majority of my posts since the result have come from sources from the financial times and just outline the current impacts. Not exactly nazi videos.

I think the clamour for a second referendum whilst we will not get it, might be due to the fact of the leave campaign misleading voters on immigration and NHS funding. Something you don't seem concerned about.

 

[Camborne Gills]

No, apparently, a good portion of them were spite voters. To piss off the wrong politicians. Congratulations, twits.

This is what's gonna happen over the next ten years , paraphrased:

​

We will get to keep 'the dog' as you put it. They voted to leave as well.

 

[markwwfc1992]

Jumped up little shit, charming.

The majority of my posts since the result have come from sources from the financial times and just outline the current impacts. Not exactly nazi videos.

I think the clamour for a second referendum whilst we will not get it, might be due to the fact of the leave campaign misleading voters on immigration and NHS funding. Something you don't seem concerned about.

I was referring in general to the Nazi videos posted, wasn't accusing you of being the one to post them.

And there were many reasons why I voted to Leave. The NHS was one of many of my concerns.

I voted so that we could enforce our own laws, our own trade deals, and not to rely on this myth that remaining in the EU is the only way to have a sustained economy.

I voted so that as a country we could make our own decisions, and so that we wouldn't let other EU countries make those decisions for us.

I voted so that we wouldn't have to fund European foreign Aid, to constantly have to bail out countries such as Greece. Money that would be much better used by being put back into our own public services.

I voted so that we wouldn't have to fund or support European commission.

I voted so that we could have more control over our borders.

Those were my personal reasons to why I voted to leave.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

I'm due to move to Germany in September for four months to study for part of my Masters, funded by the Erasmus program. So I've no idea at the moment if this will be affected or not. Hopefully until negotiations are completed it will be business as usual.

I know through my own work, the Erasmus educational funding program continues for as long as it takes for article 50 to complete, so that's a few years yet I imagine.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

We will get to keep 'the dog' as you put it. They voted to leave as well.

Who knows what The Dragon will do, if that ball first gets rolling?
Hell, maybe you should have a 2nd referendum, 'cause now you know what the first one was truly about: About whether or not you want to keep the United Kingdom.

EU referendum: 'Shame on you Boris', crowds yell - BBC News
Brexit: The Danish are shocked at exit vote - BBC News
Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland could veto Brexit - BBC News

"Don't get me wrong here, Gordon, I care about the rest of the UK, I care about England, that's why I'm so upset that the UK made the decision, that's been taken. But my job as first minister and the Scottish Parliament's job is to judge these things on the basis of what's in the interest of the people in Scotland."
- Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland

And you really should watch this one:
Brexit case based on 'romantic fantasy': Michael Burleigh - BBC News
If only you had done so before the fact.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

And there were many reasons why I voted to Leave. The NHS was one of many of my concerns.

The NHS argument was a big fat fucking lie.

I voted so that we could enforce our own laws, our own trade deals, and not to rely on this myth that remaining in the EU is the only way to have a sustained economy.
I voted so that as a country we could make our own decisions, and so that we wouldn't let other EU countries make those decisions for us.

You need to read up on some fucking game theory, laddie.

 

[JoeJoeJoeJoe]

And there were many reasons why I voted to Leave. The NHS was one of many of my concerns. - Been over this

I voted so that we could enforce our own laws, our own trade deals, and not to rely on this myth that remaining in the EU is the only way to have a sustained economy.

I voted so that as a country we could make our own decisions, and so that we wouldn't let other EU countries make those decisions for us.

Since 1999, we've voted yes on proposed EU legislation 2474/2601 times. We've been on the losing side on 2%

I voted so that we wouldn't have to fund European foreign Aid, to constantly have to bail out countries such as Greece. Money that would be much better used by being put back into our own public services.

I voted so that we wouldn't have to fund or support European commission.

Our net spend on EU membership is £140 million. This gives us access to a single market that accounts for around half our total trade.

I voted so that we could have more control over our borders. - Been over this (See Hannan). A new trade deal with the EU would be very likely to involve freedom of movement.

Those were my personal reasons to why I voted to leave.

 

[markwwfc1992]

The NHS argument was a big fat fucking lie.



You need to read up on some fucking game theory, laddie.

The NHS for me is the best thing about this country, and yet has been going to shit in recent years. I would rather take a change in action than to let it slip into it's otherwise continuous demise.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

So, while we’re talking about second referendums and so forth, I’d just like to throw this out there.

The question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should leave or remain in the EU. There was nothing on there about the single market. This matters because the EU is not the single market. During the campaign, presumably for reasons of political expediency, neither side drew much attention to this. But it matters, especially now.

The single market is the 31-member state EEA agreement. This mostly comprises the 28 EU members, but it also includes the three EFTA members, namely Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. Those EFTA/EEA members enjoy full access to the single market without being bound by the Common External Tariff or the Common Commercial Policy.

While far from ideal, some kind of EFTA/EEA type agreement might be the most sensible compromise. I'm simplifying here (necessarily, because if I tried to explain in full I'd be typing till dawn), but basically we'd leave the EU but continue to participate in the single market. From a Leave perspective, the advantages are obvious. We'd enjoy various benefits of withdrawal and immediately nullify all of Remain's economic arguments The catch is that continued participation in the single market means conceding freedom of movement (see the "four freedoms" stated in the EEA agreement).

Richard North, who wrote the best book that exists on the EU, explains this much better than I ever could. I've linked a few people (mostly Remainers) to his work in recent months, but now seems a good time to recommend it more widely. For the brave, there's a 400+ page PDF document (“Flexit”) that can be downloaded for free on his website. For the more sensible among us, just google "Flexit the Movie". There should be a 60-90 minute presentation on YouTube. Have a watch, preferably with an open mind. North has forgotten more about this subject than most of us will ever know. He's not a Tory right-winger or free market ideologue. He's actually spent most of the campaign criticising Vote Leave.

FWIW, I could just about live with this. It's an olive branch I'd be willing to extend – partly in recognition that we won by a small margin, partly in recognition that some compromise is needed to unify the country, and partly because in the short term it might be the most sensible exit plan we have. It would absolutely require another referendum, though. Many Leave voters did vote thinking that meant an end to freedom of movement; to push forward with something like this without putting it to a referendum would be a terrible betrayal.

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[JoeJoeJoeJoe]

So, while we’re talking about second referendums and so forth, I’d just like to throw this out there.

The question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should leave or remain in the EU. There was nothing on there about the single market. This matters because the EU is not the single market. During the campaign, presumably for reasons of political expediency, neither side drew much attention to this. But it matters, especially now.

The single market is the 31-member state EEA agreement. This mostly comprises the 28 EU members, but it also includes the three EFTA members, namely Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. Those EFTA/EEA members enjoy full access to the single market without being bound by the Common External Tariff or the Common Commercial Policy.

While far from ideal, some kind of EFTA/EEA type agreement might be the most sensible compromise. I'm simplifying here (necessarily, because if I tried to explain in full I'd be typing till dawn), but basically we'd leave the EU but continue to participate in the single market. From a Leave perspective, the advantages are obvious. We'd enjoy various benefits of withdrawal and immediately nullify all of Remain's economic arguments The catch is that continued participation in the single market means conceding freedom of movement (see the "four freedoms" stated in the EEA agreement).

Richard North, who wrote the best book that exists on the EU, explains this much better than I ever could. I've linked a few people (mostly Remainers) to his work in recent months, but now seems a good time to recommend it more widely. For the brave, there's a 400+ page PDF document (“Flexit”) that can be downloaded for free on his website. For the more sensible among us, just google "Flexit the Movie". There should be a 60-90 minute presentation on YouTube. Have a watch, preferably with an open mind. North has forgotten more about this subject than most of us will ever know. He's not a Tory right-winger or free market ideologue. He's actually spent most of the campaign criticising Vote Leave.

FWIW, I could just about live with this. It's an olive branch I'd be willing to extend – partly in recognition that we won by a small margin, partly in recognition that some compromise is needed to unify the country, and partly because in the short term it might be the most sensible exit plan we have. It would absolutely require another referendum, though. Many Leave voters did vote thinking that meant an end to freedom of movement; to push forward with something like this without putting it to a referendum would be a terrible betrayal.

Any thoughts appreciated.

I for one do not see us getting a Norway style deal. The German finance minister already in his plan outlining us getting a deal closer to Turkey rather Norway. If they want the EU to survive, they will not give us a favourable deal in my opinion.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

The NHS for me is the best thing about this country, and yet has been going to shit in recent years. I would rather take a change in action than to let it slip into it's otherwise continuous demise.

And what do you think's gonna happen to the NHS now? Now that you have endangered half your trade and therefore millions in taxes, that would otherwise pay for, for instance, the NHS? That NHS argument was a load of cack all the way, but you refused to listen to those that called it out to you.

Regrexit, anyone?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Reading The Observer this morning is...interesting...

We have an excellent piece by a Labour writer talking at length about the need for the party to go back to its North England voters amd take seriously their concerns about immigration because it's buried it's head in the sand and ignored them for 20 years.


Then on the very same page is a piece by another writer basically calling anyone Labour who voted leave in the north a fucking idiot.

Then on the next page is a piece by Martin Lewis, that Remain poster boy, telling everyone to basically calm the fuck down. That he was only "55/45" in favour of remain anyway, and that barring a likely interest rate rise which we should have expected at some point anyway, it should all be ok in his view.

Then there's the economic commutator saying thay unless London gets the economic passport then London goes into meltdown and the country gets fucked back to the stone age.

Then theres a social commutator talking about how the banking amd hedge fund class of London will be the least impacted by it all.

Must all have been a confusing mixture for the editor to fit together.

 

[blade1889]

So, while we’re talking about second referendums and so forth, I’d just like to throw this out there.

The question on the ballot paper was whether Britain should leave or remain in the EU. There was nothing on there about the single market. This matters because the EU is not the single market. During the campaign, presumably for reasons of political expediency, neither side drew much attention to this. But it matters, especially now.

The single market is the 31-member state EEA agreement. This mostly comprises the 28 EU members, but it also includes the three EFTA members, namely Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. Those EFTA/EEA members enjoy full access to the single market without being bound by the Common External Tariff or the Common Commercial Policy.

While far from ideal, some kind of EFTA/EEA type agreement might be the most sensible compromise. I'm simplifying here (necessarily, because if I tried to explain in full I'd be typing till dawn), but basically we'd leave the EU but continue to participate in the single market. From a Leave perspective, the advantages are obvious. We'd enjoy various benefits of withdrawal and immediately nullify all of Remain's economic arguments The catch is that continued participation in the single market means conceding freedom of movement (see the "four freedoms" stated in the EEA agreement).

Richard North, who wrote the best book that exists on the EU, explains this much better than I ever could. I've linked a few people (mostly Remainers) to his work in recent months, but now seems a good time to recommend it more widely. For the brave, there's a 400+ page PDF document (“Flexit”) that can be downloaded for free on his website. For the more sensible among us, just google "Flexit the Movie". There should be a 60-90 minute presentation on YouTube. Have a watch, preferably with an open mind. North has forgotten more about this subject than most of us will ever know. He's not a Tory right-winger or free market ideologue. He's actually spent most of the campaign criticising Vote Leave.

FWIW, I could just about live with this. It's an olive branch I'd be willing to extend – partly in recognition that we won by a small margin, partly in recognition that some compromise is needed to unify the country, and partly because in the short term it might be the most sensible exit plan we have. It would absolutely require another referendum, though. Many Leave voters did vote thinking that meant an end to freedom of movement; to push forward with something like this without putting it to a referendum would be a terrible betrayal.

Any thoughts appreciated.

The catch with that would be we'd still have freedom of movement wouldn't it? Would be interesting to see what would happen then...

Also do we not then have to agree to some laws we don't have any say in if they change?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I for one do not see us getting a Norway style deal. The German finance minister already in his plan outlining us getting a deal closer to Turkey rather Norway. If they want the EU to survive, they will not give us a favourable deal in my opinion.

Quite possible, yes. It certainly wouldn't be the first time they'd put political dogma/ambition above compromise and economic common sense.

But this rather underlines one of the main reasons for leaving, doesn't it? Why pursue a course of deeper integration with people who think that way?

Also, I didn't ask whether you thought such a deal likely. I asked what you thought of the idea itself. With respect, I recommend you watch the North stuff before answering.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

The catch with that would be we'd still have freedom of movement wouldn't it?

Yep, though with slightly more control than we do now. North explains this well.

Also do we not then have to agree to some laws we don't have any say in if they change?

Yes and no. North explains this well.

 

[markwwfc1992]

Since 1999, we've voted yes on proposed EU legislation 2474/2601 times. We've been on the losing side on 2%

Between 2009-2015 Britain was on the losing side of 12% of decisions (mostly relating to the EU budget, security and foreign policy). In comparison France was on the losing side 1% of the time.

Our net spend on EU membership is £140 million. This gives us access to a single market that accounts for around half our total trade.

We can still trade with these countries. Germany has huge companies like BMW, where trading with Britain is essential. France's agriculture farmers will still export many of their goods to Britain regardless. It also opens many other potential trade deals and opportunities outside of the EU.

Been over this (See Hannan). A new trade deal with the EU would be very likely to involve freedom of movement.

Providing we did, It would be capped, more regulated than it would be under the EU.

 

[Camborne Gills]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has told the BBC that Holyrood could effectively block the UK's exit from the EU.

So she is basically throwing her toys out of the pram unless the Jocks get another referendum.

 

[Matt_]

I have been wondering. Have any of you changed your plans for the immediate future?

Not for the immediate future, I'll sit tight and see what happens over the next two or three years, but at the same time start seriously considering contingency plans in terms of emigrating to another country. At present I have some ties here which mean I need to stay but that is likely not to be the case in a few years time, meaning I'm in the fortunate position of having more options than other people. For those that aren't in such a fortunate position I hope everything works out for the best.

I hope I'm wrong and that I'm looking back at this period in a few years time thinking it was a good thing for the country, but I very much fear that won't be the case.