Hauser insults the majority of the voters in this country in a referendum. Why should we care if he buggers off?

TBF, all the polls suggest that the majority of voters in the referendum realise they were idiots. What's insulting is not allowing them to change their minds.

The problem was the whole Brexit mess was deliberate. Cameron didn't want Brexit, didn't plan for it, tried to set everything up so it didn't happen, hated that he'd been backed into a corner to hold the referendum, and stated, flatly, that the referendum was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

The problem then was many people who were unsure saw Cameron's ploy as an attempt to hide something he knew the public wouldn't want, hence they voted to leave. Had Cameron left the door open for a possible second referendum at some later, undefined date, then they'd have likely voted to remain.

In fact the referendum was "advisory". Having got the result he didn't expect and obviously hadn't even planned for he panicked. It would have been quite reasonable - although unprecedented in government terms - to treat it as reason to undertake an impact assessment. That should have been his plan B. His emergence plan B was B for Bolt.

Fuck off Farage, no one wants you.

Hey, when the tiniest majority of voters (many of them heavily influenced by a Ruzzian disinformation operation) pull your country out of the international community that was keeping your country somewhat relevant, maybe they deserve to be insulted. Because, you know, they're very, very stupid.

How's the NHS doing with that extra £350 million a week, btw?

Oh well, at least it'll end up reuniting Ireland.

-> Hey, when the tiniest majority of voters (many of them heavily influenced by a Ruzzian disinformation operation)

A majority is a majority. That is what the referendum was for. Meanwhile there was plenty of EU disinformation. Don't forget that. The majority voted they way they voted. You should respect their views or declare that you do not believe in democracy.

The majority of voters didn’t vote for Brexit. The referendum only required a simple majority of those voters who actually voted to be deemed valid… Also remember the final result failed the Farage done and dusted criteria…

> Meanwhile there was plenty of EU disinformation. Don't forget that.

"Both sides"-ism.

While I've no doubt that, if pressed, you *would* be able to find some useful examples of misinformation from the pro-Remain camp- because it's inevitable there would have been at least some in a campaign of this size- let's not pretend that they would have even been in the same ballpark as the firehose of sustained lies and propaganda from Brexiteers.

> You should respect their views or declare that you do not believe in democracy.

You appear to be confusing having respect for someone's *right to choose*- which underpins democracy- with being expected to respect *them* for having made that choice.

Not at all- we're entitled to think what we like of other people, including yourself.

I think his point is that it is no longer a majority. Besides, something can have majority support and be idiotic (look at religion).

The fact that there is no mechanism to enact the renewed "will of the people" is the lack of democracy.

The LibDems support rejoining the EU. Look how well they've done in elections.

The fact that there is no mechanism to enact the renewed "will of the people" is the lack of democracy.

This!!

Tomorrow a lot of us get a chance to change our minds about votes cast a few years ago.

A one-off, irreversible decision shouldn't be treated as binding when it was presented as advisory and should require a good deal more than a simple majority.

Maybe the 28% that did not even bother to vote should turned up.

The analysis of the voting suggests that as age decreases so does turnout. Allegedly as age decreases, support for the EU increases.

Just blaming those who voted leave for the outcome is meaningless. People voted leave for a whole plethora of reasons, some genuine, some total fantasy. By the same token those who voted remain all did so under the assumption that nothing would change. With anything like this support for the status quo tends to be overshadowed by support for change unless you have 100% turnout. It is the very nature of the way anything like this works. Just blaming the Leave campaign also ignores the total shambles the Remain campaign ran. When the result looked iffy what did Remain do?

They started attacking Leave instead of promoting the positives.

We had companies writing to employees telling them how to vote.

Inevitably the Great British Public did what they have repeatedly done, the opposite of what has been asked.........

Equally the question was a simple In/Out, nothing on how "Out" would be achieved. What crippled Brexit and gave the UK the worse possible outcome was the fanatics at both ends of the EU & Political divide that blocked anything that was remotely a compromise.

The row is going to fester for years with endless blame as to who "caused" it, all of which is pointless. What is needed is politicians to get off their arses and realise that compromise is required. Being part of the EU as we were has been burnt, we cannot go back as the damage is pretty much irreparable. Also the outcome of joining the EU will be significantly different to what we left. That seriously winds me up however we have to be pragmatic. At the moment the quickest solution that fixes almost all of the EU issues if becoming part of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Unfortunately there appears to be no mainstream political support to do that, leaving the hard core Remain/Leave groups to ensure we continue with the worst possible solution.

"becoming part of the Single Market and Customs Union"

Probably impossible, now that we are in CPTPP.

And would be the worst of all worlds, leaving us subject to EU rules, but with no control over them. I suppose it might solve the NI protocol problem.

"now that we are in CPTPP"

I expect the CRG - the CPTPP Reseach Group - to emerge soon.

Ironic coming from someone who'd previously bemoaned [1]spin, beancounter ideology and chumism over technical competence from the current government when it suited you, yet you're now happy to see someone exemplifying the latter group "bugger off" because they don't agree with the populism-over-planning-driven Brexit?

[1] https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2023/04/27/uk_pm_sunak_to_allocate/#c_4656694

I translate this as "our friends in the city aren't making enough money from genuinely profitable businesses, therefore we have to create a new class of too-big-to-fail unicorns that the government will tacitly undertake to bail out in the likely event of their catastrophic failure".

In other words, we've screwed everything up, so now in an act of desperation we're going to allow a complete free for all, in the hope of bringing in lots more activity. And the problem that this will see lots of malfeasance resulting in investors left penniless? That's just an unfortunate risk that's inevitable as we try and win yet another race to the bottom.

It may not be high quality any more, but it will be cheap : it's the Poundland strategy steadily being applied to the whole economy, a really stupid road to choose to head down.

There's one difference with Poundland though: Poundland is successful.

Ironic as race-to-the-bottom deregulation was always the stated goal of the hard-right-wing laissez-faire free-market ideologues who were pushing for Brexit in the first place.

Of course, with the Liz Truss fiasco, we already saw what happened when the Brexiteer-dominated Conservative party placed ideological extremism above basic competence.

Hardly surprising that the "solution" to their various foulings of the bed should be more of the same.

...isn't that akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

Not to mention, completely missing the point.

More like on the Barham...

I don't really understand why streamlining the rules will help here. From the article ARM chose NY because it was a better choice, not because London was too complicated to get onto.

Reverse brexit.

The entire Brexit fiasco has been watched keenly the world over. Mainly by people who now know what the 50% of below average intelligence voters can be persuaded to go for.

Nice insults. Nice.

Where is the insult ? It is a matter of statistical truth that 50% of UK voters are of below average intelligence.

It would only be an insult if I suggested you were one of them. And even then, if it's true, it's not an insult.

"Reverse brexit.

The question is, why would they want us back?

Money, of course.

If, and it's a very big if, that were possible the terms we'd rejoin with would be less advantageous than those we had previously. And as to money - with a faltering economy there isn't any.

Someone tell Rishi that the unicorns have bolted from the Unicorn Kingdom.

UK governments have a great at killing off industries:

* Car manufacturing

* Steel

* Banking (Brexit)

Currently in progress:

* Tech startups

So the FCA wants to reestablish London as a centre for companies to list by removing regulations that protect the investors in those companies and allow genuine, stable, risk-aware, long-lived companies to thrive without unfair competition from fly-by-night entities that have no business plan except transferring money from cheated customers, well-run competitors and suppliers and their conned investors into their real owners pockets.

Why?

There are already plenty of locations for these fake companies. They are well established and have a price list for bribes to regulators, police, etc. I don't think London is going to be able to complete very well with the well-known tax and listing havens. So it will destroy the value of a London listing for real companies, bankrupt British investment funds and private investors, and not even deliver a successful crooked business because foreign crooks do it better!!

All I can see happening is loads of investors deciding the new risk and reduced control and transparency, with nonexistent additional reward isn't worth it and moving the money out to other markets.

Increasing the underperformance of it as a whole in the short term seems completely and utterly counterproductive to me.

And if you're really planning long-long-long term there must be better moves than this that are less damaging in the short and medium.

Maybe I am just cynical.

Given the nature of what Softbank are doing with Arm ie, make money, they are going to make the decision on where to list based on the amount of money.

The hysteria of these Tech-based flotations always favours the US when Venture Capital and Hedge Fund managers get into a total frenzy.

Arm was never going to be listed in London as that is not where the hysteria is.

In terms of Brexit, this is just making a noise for no reason. If they had listed in the EU then I would have believed it. They have not, it is the US so is Brexit is a complete red herring.

@hoola

"In terms of Brexit, this is just making a noise for no reason. If they had listed in the EU then I would have believed it. They have not, it is the US so is Brexit is a complete red herring."

They gotta blame it somehow

>Brexit is a complete red herring.

A pink fluffy unicorn, surely?

"While the UK has been Europe's biggest financial hub for many years, listings on the local exchange have reduced by 40 percent since 2008, the FCA noted".

This is being presented as being Brexit related, but the Brexit vote was in 2016, and the referendum was only promised in the 2015 election.

Why are we being given figures relative to 2008? What would the % reduction be if presented relative to 2016?

Being cynical, my first thought is that there is something (non-brexit related) that we are not being told about / that we are not supposed to find out about.

So much for "Singapore-on-Thames".