[Archived] Eu Referendum, In Or Out - Looks Like Blackburn Wants Out !

[Al]

It's amusing to see the losers in the remain camp clutching at straws to try to prove that they were right. It's also amusing, if strange, to see Jim and philipl, who are at opposite ends of the political spectrum in the same camp. If you ad Den they are certainly a strange bunch of bedfellows. Not knocking any of them for holding the views they do but it does seem strange to see them all on the same side.

[yoda]

It's amusing to see the losers in the remain camp clutching at straws to try to prove that they were right. It's also amusing, if strange, to see Jim and philipl, who are at opposite ends of the political spectrum in the same camp. If you ad Den they are certainly a strange bunch of bedfellows. Not knocking any of them for holding the views they do but it does seem strange to see them all on the same side.

Don't be to sure about that Al, given Jim's previous scribblings about Thatcher

Jim also seems reluctant to question the Bilderberg's role in the EU's un elected hierarchy.

[yoda]

It will be a number of months before the extent of the Brexit damage is fully apparent but all the signals thus far are deeply concerning.

The Brexiters had no plans beyond a bunch of lies they had disowned within 24 hours of winning nor do they agree what Brexit actually means- in fact there is every likelihood of the Brexit campaign disintegrating into fratricidal warfare with Aaron Banks firing the first shots and Bill Cash joining in.

What is certain is the Brexit damage will be becoming very clear before Hammond's stimulus can have any impact and before Article 50 is anywhere near being ready to be triggered.

Even after Article 50 is triggered, it is increasingly clear it can be untriggered plus even negotiating a trade treaty with Britain is illegal in international law before the UK is out two years after Article 50 is triggered.

So this looks like a minimum of three years of absolutely fundamental uncertainty over whether the UK remains inside the single market and whether firms can benefit from things as basic as the single VAT regime, never mind all the EU support and harmonisation schemes (and many of the most valuable do not involve any subsidy).

The absolute killer for investment is uncertainty. In the absence of certainty, the base case is the worst case.

This is why the PMI index and property funds are beginning to crater.

Politically the proverbial will be all over the fan and needing immediate attention long before Article 50 is flavour of the month. The Tory leavers will feel full freedom to behave as irresponsibly as they want to because Labour has left the Parliamentary chamber to go on a Momentum demo somewhere so the Tories could commit suicide as well. Gordon Brown was in a far stronger position as PM in 2007/8 than Theresa May is now.

We really are in the greatest national crisis since WW2 and the outcome is as clear as mud. Article 50 being triggered has to be an outside possibility given the political system is weighted towards self-protection and the status quo. Farage is still drawing his MEP salary and expenses which is a clear sign that Brexiters are going to be sold down the river.

Sorry to intrude with hard facts but the UK has gained relatively and absolutely during the 41 years of membership to date.

And if you have seen jackboots in Brussels or Berlin, you should stop going to kinky gay bars or SM clubs.

The people voting leave were not in Government, it was the Governments job to plan for all outcomes, their arrogance stopped them from doing so.

The same arrogance that stops career politicians from listening to people and helping all in the country instead their own narrow interests first.

In my view the referendum vote was seen by many as a chance in a lifetime to to have a say, instead of what normally happens at elections.

If you climb down from your ivory tower once in a while you would see the country in a different light, as the following sheds light on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36868752

[matt83]

Well we shall see how it all pans out and if in a decade or so we are all destitute queuing up at soup kitchens as a result of leaving the all mighty EU I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. But my belief is still long term we will prosper being out of the EU economically and socially or at worst the average man on the street will barely be able to tell the difference aside from some will have the warm feeling inside of sovereignty (rights every democratic country in the world outside the EU enjoys)

However, what is alarming is the vitriol and amount of British people who seem to want us to fail now we've left. Sharing and revelling in any little scare story whilst totally ignoring any more positive ones. Maybe their desire to want to potentially say I told you so overrides any sense of wanting the country to prosper. Particularly evident in some sections of the media who bury or just don't report any feel good story instead go for the good old doom mongering ones.

I only hope this doesn't become a self fulfilling prophecy. It's as though some are happy for the country to succeed but only so long it's in the exact way they see fit and no other way will do. Now we've taken a different direction, against their ideals, they appear to be willing things go wrong while masquerading as deeply concerned citizens wanting the "best" for the uk.

What is the Edmund Burke quote "it is a popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public interest to be the most anxious for it's welfare."

[jim mk2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36868752

The stupidity of people in that article is astonishing. It's astounding that anyone can support May when she belongs to the party that called the referendum and divided the nation (and families) in the first place. And they cheerfully admit that EU money has helped to revive Blackpool seafront and are then daft enough to think that Westminster money will fund similar improvements in the future when anyone with half a brain cell knows that London will allow poorer areas of the country to languish like it always has.

[yoda]

The stupidity of people in that article is astonishing. It's astounding that anyone can support May when she belongs to the party that called the referendum and divided the nation (and families) in the first place. And they cheerfully admit that EU money has helped to revive Blackpool seafront and are then daft enough to think that Westminster money will fund similar improvements in the future when anyone with half a brain cell knows that London will allow poorer areas of the country to languish like it always has.

Maybe so but that is how they think JIm and you calling them stupid won't change that will it.

In reality it is being in the EU that has divided people

[jim mk2]

Maybe so but that is how they think JIm and you calling them stupid won't change that will it.

In reality it is being in the EU that has divided people

How can you post this nonsense?

It's the referendum that has divided the country

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Lol you sound particularly grumpy today Jim. Usual drivel of course about someone who disagrees with you being an identical definition to someone who is stupid. Brexit and the Tories continuing domination starting to get to you? Don't worry Jeremy will sort it out.

[yoda]

How can you post this nonsense?

It's the referendum that has divided the country

I can post it very easily JIm, I don't have you blinkered prejudiced view of the world

[jim mk2]

I can post it very easily JIm, I don't have you blinkered prejudiced view of the world

Still nonsense though.

[yoda]

Still nonsense though.

Only in your opinion, and that is a singular state I would suggest

[philipl]

Here is an FT explanation of the fabled Article 50.

I know Brexiteers abjure facts and reality but never mind. Incidentally, it was written by an Englishman which goes to show that on the quiet, the British were doing a pretty decent job of running the EU until ignorance and inanity ruled for just one day on 23 June....

The 262 words that frame Britain’s EU divorce came to life on a kitchen table. The date was early 2003 and the place the small Brussels flat of John Kerr, a veteran British diplomat turned secretary-general for a conclave to develop a new EU constitution.

His job for the European Convention was to draft a formal exit clause for countries to leave the EU, a scenario the union had preferred to ignore. After a few years of lively political debate, a couple of failed referendums and a revised agreement known as the Lisbon treaty, those words became the notorious Article 50, the law paving the way to Britain’s EU afterlife.

At the time it was moderately controversial, but only in an academic way. “I certainly did not imagine it would be used by us,” the now Lord Kerr says. “But it is better to have a framework for leaving rather than none.” How that secession clause is interpreted, the constraints it imposes on talks and what bargaining power it hands the EU will be a crucial factor in handling Brexit. Lord Kerr is now advising Scotland's first minister Nicola Sturgeon on Brexit

For the weight it carries, Article 50 looks like a bare skeleton, but it is the only formal structure for what ministers describe as one of the world’s most complex negotiations.

So potentially unforgiving are its terms that David Cameron, former British prime minister, dubbed triggering Article 50 “the gamble of the century”. His successor, Theresa May, has barely settled in to Downing Street yet is already under pressure from European countries to invoke it. There is nothing to stop Mrs May walking away from the EU and cutting all Britain’s legal ties in one swoop. But to salvage anything from the 40-year partnership requires an exit deal under Article 50 — agreed via EU rules, under the pressure of a two-year deadline only the EU can extend.

There has never been any doubt that a country could leave the bloc in practice under international law. But the captains of the project always saw it as not just a flimsy treaty, but an enduring sovereign bond. “I wanted to put an end to the sort of [Eurosceptic] stuff about how we are chained to the oars of the EU with no way out, galley slaves heading to an unknown destination,” says Lord Kerr. “It was nonsense. If a country stopped paying the bills and stopped turning up at the meetings in the end they would be out, whatever the rules."

"It could develop into a blackmail clause or into a take-the-money-and-run clause because you can leave even without an agreement,” said Frans Timmermans, now vice-president of the European Commission, who was a delegate to the constitutional convention.

With hindsight, the two-year deadline appears to have been quite a hurdle for secessionist states. Some senior EU officials believe Britain “will never notify” and give the tactical whip hand to Brussels, but will instead attempt to negotiate an exit deal outside Article 50.

It echoes the views of one prominent campaigner when the withdrawal clause was published in 2004. “It is called the exit clause but it’s actually a trap that would mean Britain would be reduced to a colonial state,” said Nigel Farage, then leader of the UK Independence party and a cheerleader for the Leave campaign. “No prime minister could ever do it. If [it becomes law] there is no way out."

Article 50 states: A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

Here lies the button. Once pressed, the Brexit break-up formally begins. Theresa May is waiting until the new year; Brussels and hardline EU states want the process activated sooner. Only the UK can decide to invoke Article 50. But if Britain plays tactical games, and talks turn hostile, the EU has options. It might aggressively interpret “notification”, or punish the UK in other ways. But that is a last resort, and would need some creative lawyering.

Article 50 states: In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Possibly the most important and least understood phrase in Article 50. These 12 words capture a defining feature of EU divorce: there is not just one deal to leave the bloc, but probably two or more. And they are negotiated under different rules, and most likely at different speeds. Article 50 is largely backward looking. It deals with unravelling the legacy of membership, from budget dues or expatriate rights. One extreme way to do that is a clean break. That would simply sever UK-EU obligations: budget payments, membership rights of EU agencies, liabilities to pensions for EU staff, funding arrangements for UK universities — on a set date all of this would end.

Anything else requires a more complicated negotiation. To maintain areas of co-operation you need to roughly know what sort of relationship will follow divorce. So, for instance, any serious exit deal on EU university spending will make assumptions about future UK-EU relations. Would research co-operation continue? Will the UK continue making EU budget payments? Without making such assumptions, the only possible answer is a hard break.

Some of those pacts require a separate negotiating track; the EU cannot agree certain things under Article 50. It is not a short circuit to the treaty. A trade deal, for example, would involve more laborious voting and ratification rules, which take longer. A comprehensive deal, for instance, would need unanimity between 27 countries and ratification through 38 national assemblies and the European Parliament. That takes time and a lot of political capital.

So before an exit via Article 50 is complete, probably the best Britain can hope for is an agreement on a “framework” for future relations — such as agreed objectives for a trade deal. That makes building a transition to that point easier. But it also means there is a lot to agree to avoid a hard break with the EU.

Article 50 states: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

The guillotine. The first deadline for talks is two years. After that, few senior EU officials believe it would be significantly extended. They do not want talks to drag on. This probably means that Britain’s exit deal will be settled in the early hours of the morning after a gruelling summit. The way Article 50 is drafted implies that there will be no deal until everything is agreed because there are too many moving parts. That suggests a protracted period of uncertainty for businesses and EU citizens.

Article 50 states: For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

This sentence sets the voting rules for the EU to decide on Britain’s exit deal — without Britain in the room. Its importance is more than practical. Britain remains a full member, with full membership rights, until the day it leaves. But that day is in reality the legal finale to a longer parting of the ways. In the hours after the Brexit vote, as Britain’s influence in Brussels institutions fell away, EU leaders already started to meet without Britain to discuss Brexit’s consequences. Diplomats expect the sense of separation to grow as the divorce talks raise tensions, and British officials either walk away from or are pushed out of EU policymaking processes.

Article 50 states: If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Can Britain change its mind once Article 50 is invoked? Can the process be stopped or is it a one-way road? On this, the treaty is almost silent.

It makes clear that any country, once it has left, cannot rejoin without repeating the demanding EU accession process, which would include unthinkable political conditions for Britain like pledging to join the euro.

Article 50 sets out how UK will break up with Brussels

Charles Michel, the Belgian prime minister, hinted to the FT that if there was a request to reverse Article 50 it would be a difficult discussion, saying he fully expected Britain to “respect the choice of the people”.

Lord Kerr argues that the absence of explicit guidance is telling. “There is nothing in the treaty saying it’s irreversible. So it isn’t. But of course some might want some sort of price to be paid,” he says.

European Commission lawyers take a harder line. To them, a decision to invoke Article 50 is a legal act that cannot be withdrawn. In practical terms, one scenario they want to avoid is a hostile Britain withdrawing and resubmitting its notification, thereby resetting the two-year deadline. “This cannot be done unilaterally,” says a senior EU official.

Should this situation arise, there is a middle ground. If the treaty is silent on any issue, the interpretation of the EU’s 27 leaders would hold. In short, to be confident of stopping the Brexit process, Britain would need unanimity.

[jim mk2]

Only in your opinion, and that is a singular state I would suggest

It wasn't the EU that divided the country as you stated but anyone can see the referendum certainly has - north v south, London and Scotland v the rest, families etc etc. Just listed to the radio and watch the TV, read the newspapers. If you cannot acknowledge that you must be more dense than you already appear.

[yoda]

Here is an FT explanation of the fabled Article 50.

I know Brexiteers abjure facts and reality but never mind. Incidentally, it was written by an Englishman which goes to show that on the quiet, the British were doing a pretty decent job of running the EU until ignorance and inanity ruled for just one day on 23 June....

The 262 words that frame Britain’s EU divorce came to life on a kitchen table. The date was early 2003 and the place the small Brussels flat of John Kerr, a veteran British diplomat turned secretary-general for a conclave to develop a new EU constitution.

His job for the European Convention was to draft a formal exit clause for countries to leave the EU, a scenario the union had preferred to ignore. After a few years of lively political debate, a couple of failed referendums and a revised agreement known as the Lisbon treaty, those words became the notorious Article 50, the law paving the way to Britain’s EU afterlife.

At the time it was moderately controversial, but only in an academic way. “I certainly did not imagine it would be used by us,” the now Lord Kerr says. “But it is better to have a framework for leaving rather than none.” How that secession clause is interpreted, the constraints it imposes on talks and what bargaining power it hands the EU will be a crucial factor in handling Brexit. Lord Kerr is now advising Scotland's first minister Nicola Sturgeon on Brexit

For the weight it carries, Article 50 looks like a bare skeleton, but it is the only formal structure for what ministers describe as one of the world’s most complex negotiations.

So potentially unforgiving are its terms that David Cameron, former British prime minister, dubbed triggering Article 50 “the gamble of the century”. His successor, Theresa May, has barely settled in to Downing Street yet is already under pressure from European countries to invoke it. There is nothing to stop Mrs May walking away from the EU and cutting all Britain’s legal ties in one swoop. But to salvage anything from the 40-year partnership requires an exit deal under Article 50 — agreed via EU rules, under the pressure of a two-year deadline only the EU can extend.

There has never been any doubt that a country could leave the bloc in practice under international law. But the captains of the project always saw it as not just a flimsy treaty, but an enduring sovereign bond. “I wanted to put an end to the sort of [Eurosceptic] stuff about how we are chained to the oars of the EU with no way out, galley slaves heading to an unknown destination,” says Lord Kerr. “It was nonsense. If a country stopped paying the bills and stopped turning up at the meetings in the end they would be out, whatever the rules."

"It could develop into a blackmail clause or into a take-the-money-and-run clause because you can leave even without an agreement,” said Frans Timmermans, now vice-president of the European Commission, who was a delegate to the constitutional convention.

With hindsight, the two-year deadline appears to have been quite a hurdle for secessionist states. Some senior EU officials believe Britain “will never notify” and give the tactical whip hand to Brussels, but will instead attempt to negotiate an exit deal outside Article 50.

It echoes the views of one prominent campaigner when the withdrawal clause was published in 2004. “It is called the exit clause but it’s actually a trap that would mean Britain would be reduced to a colonial state,” said Nigel Farage, then leader of the UK Independence party and a cheerleader for the Leave campaign. “No prime minister could ever do it. If [it becomes law] there is no way out."

Article 50 states: A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

Here lies the button. Once pressed, the Brexit break-up formally begins. Theresa May is waiting until the new year; Brussels and hardline EU states want the process activated sooner. Only the UK can decide to invoke Article 50. But if Britain plays tactical games, and talks turn hostile, the EU has options. It might aggressively interpret “notification”, or punish the UK in other ways. But that is a last resort, and would need some creative lawyering.

Article 50 states: In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Possibly the most important and least understood phrase in Article 50. These 12 words capture a defining feature of EU divorce: there is not just one deal to leave the bloc, but probably two or more. And they are negotiated under different rules, and most likely at different speeds. Article 50 is largely backward looking. It deals with unravelling the legacy of membership, from budget dues or expatriate rights. One extreme way to do that is a clean break. That would simply sever UK-EU obligations: budget payments, membership rights of EU agencies, liabilities to pensions for EU staff, funding arrangements for UK universities — on a set date all of this would end.

Anything else requires a more complicated negotiation. To maintain areas of co-operation you need to roughly know what sort of relationship will follow divorce. So, for instance, any serious exit deal on EU university spending will make assumptions about future UK-EU relations. Would research co-operation continue? Will the UK continue making EU budget payments? Without making such assumptions, the only possible answer is a hard break.

Some of those pacts require a separate negotiating track; the EU cannot agree certain things under Article 50. It is not a short circuit to the treaty. A trade deal, for example, would involve more laborious voting and ratification rules, which take longer. A comprehensive deal, for instance, would need unanimity between 27 countries and ratification through 38 national assemblies and the European Parliament. That takes time and a lot of political capital.

So before an exit via Article 50 is complete, probably the best Britain can hope for is an agreement on a “framework” for future relations — such as agreed objectives for a trade deal. That makes building a transition to that point easier. But it also means there is a lot to agree to avoid a hard break with the EU.

Article 50 states: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

The guillotine. The first deadline for talks is two years. After that, few senior EU officials believe it would be significantly extended. They do not want talks to drag on. This probably means that Britain’s exit deal will be settled in the early hours of the morning after a gruelling summit. The way Article 50 is drafted implies that there will be no deal until everything is agreed because there are too many moving parts. That suggests a protracted period of uncertainty for businesses and EU citizens.

Article 50 states: For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

This sentence sets the voting rules for the EU to decide on Britain’s exit deal — without Britain in the room. Its importance is more than practical. Britain remains a full member, with full membership rights, until the day it leaves. But that day is in reality the legal finale to a longer parting of the ways. In the hours after the Brexit vote, as Britain’s influence in Brussels institutions fell away, EU leaders already started to meet without Britain to discuss Brexit’s consequences. Diplomats expect the sense of separation to grow as the divorce talks raise tensions, and British officials either walk away from or are pushed out of EU policymaking processes.

Article 50 states: If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Can Britain change its mind once Article 50 is invoked? Can the process be stopped or is it a one-way road? On this, the treaty is almost silent.

It makes clear that any country, once it has left, cannot rejoin without repeating the demanding EU accession process, which would include unthinkable political conditions for Britain like pledging to join the euro.

Article 50 sets out how UK will break up with Brussels

Charles Michel, the Belgian prime minister, hinted to the FT that if there was a request to reverse Article 50 it would be a difficult discussion, saying he fully expected Britain to “respect the choice of the people”.

Lord Kerr argues that the absence of explicit guidance is telling. “There is nothing in the treaty saying it’s irreversible. So it isn’t. But of course some might want some sort of price to be paid,” he says.

European Commission lawyers take a harder line. To them, a decision to invoke Article 50 is a legal act that cannot be withdrawn. In practical terms, one scenario they want to avoid is a hostile Britain withdrawing and resubmitting its notification, thereby resetting the two-year deadline. “This cannot be done unilaterally,” says a senior EU official.

Should this situation arise, there is a middle ground. If the treaty is silent on any issue, the interpretation of the EU’s 27 leaders would hold. In short, to be confident of stopping the Brexit process, Britain would need unanimity.

Just shows how complicated over bureaucratic the EU really is

It wasn't the EU that divided the country as you stated but anyone can see the referendum certainly has - north v south, London and Scotland v the rest, families etc etc. If you cannot acknowledge that you must be more dense than you already appear.

I didn't think I would have to point out the bleeding obvious to a supposed intelligent person like yourself Jim.

If everything was fine and dandy a referendum would not have taken place.

You can't make a post without making derogatory remarks about someone can you.

[jim mk2]

Just shows how complicated over bureaucratic the EU really is

I didn't think I would have to point out the bleeding obvious to a supposed intelligent person like yourself Jim.

If everything was fine and dandy a referendum would not have taken place.

You can't make a post without making derogatory remarks about someone can you.

This is even more stupid !

The referendum was called by Cameron for 2 reasons. The first was to try to unite the Tory party, which has been divided on the Europe issue for decades. The second was to to try and win over Ukip voters to the Tories before the election last May.

This is really basic stuff and I'm amazed I have to point this out to you.

[yoda]

This is even more stupid !

The referendum was called by Cameron for 2 reasons. The first was to try to unite the Tory party, which has been divided on the Europe issue for decades. The second was to to try and win over Ukip voters to the Tories before the election last May.

This is really basic stuff and I'm amazed I have to point this out to you.

Make your mind up, you said the referendum divided the country, now you are saying it was the divide in the Tory party.

[jim mk2]

Make your mind up, you said the referendum divided the country, now you are saying it was the divide in the Tory party.

FFS, I said before that the referendum has divided the country but it is the issue of Europe that has always divided the Tories.

I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse here as usual or are genuinely thick.

[yoda]

FFS, I said before that the referendum has divided the country but it is the issue of Europe that has always divided the Tories.

I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse here as usual or are genuinely thick.

There you go again Jim.

It is not that many pages back that you and other were giving Boris Johnson the credit for the 52% leave vote and he was not even part of the Tory Government at the time.

Perhaps you could explain why the vote was 52%

[yoda]

Philip Hammond seems to have a differing view to you Philipl on trade deals while still a member of the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36877573

[jim mk2]

I'd love to know why you think Britain pre-Brexit was divided and why you think the referendum hasn't divided the country.

I'm not expecting a sensible answer.

[yoda]

I'd love to know why you think Britain pre-Brexit was divided and why you think the referendum hasn't divided the country.

I'm not expecting a sensible answer.

The regular polls for years showed a split on EU membership, then the Bilderbergs launched project fear and the British people saw a chance to have a say (like the ones in the Beeb article above).

simple really, I know it won't fit well with your indoctrinated view of the world though.

Now how about explaining the 52% out vote

[jim mk2]

What polls ?

You're making it up and repeating the same old mantras.

[yoda]

What polls ?

You're making it up and repeating the same old mantras.

Read this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/a-disunited-kingdom-why-brexit-britain-is-as-divided-as-europe-i/

That's right bury your head in the sand, explain the 52% out vote Jim

[jim mk2]

You made a silly statement that "in reality it is being in the EU that has divided people" which you have still not justified.

[yoda]

You made a silly statement that "in reality it is being in the EU that has divided people" which you have still not justified.

I don't need to justify it Jim, unexpectedly 52% voted to leave, they had their reasons.

Whereas you just think they are thick to vote that way.

You still have not explained the 52% out vote.