Will Britain vote for Brexit?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by James R, Jun 22, 2016.

?

Brexit or Bremain?

Poll closed Jun 24, 2016.
  1. I would support Brexit and I think it will succeed.

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  2. I would not support Brexit, but I think it will succeed.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I would support Brexit, but I think Britain will Remain.

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%
  4. I would support Remain, and I think Britain will Remain.

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  5. I have no opinion / don't want to express my opinion on this.

    1 vote(s)
    11.1%
  6. Brexit? Bremain? What 'chu talkin' about, Willis?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,990
    Yup. The UK will no longer exist, a decade from now. But I was wrong about Wales, which voted for Leave.

    The joke is that it is all the poor people in the rust belt towns that voted to perpetuate their poverty. Next time Nissan decides where to build a new model for the EU market, will they go for Sunderland or Spain?

    My son has a French passport as well as his British one: I'll make sure he keeps both up to date.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    I am curious as to whether Cameron's resignation will now push the party further to the right.

    I suspect that as the celebrations from the "Leave" side dies down, the realisation of what their vote has entailed will hit home. I suspect that for some, it already has as they see the value of the Pound drop like a stone and the markets crashing.

    Small businesses will also suffer, especially those who are able to trade to a single market because the UK are in the EU. And with countries like China and India such strong competitors, small businesses in the UK could very well suffer now, which will decrease job stability and the market will suffer even more as people will simply not have enough to spend or they may do what is so natural to do and that is to save.

    Economically, it's a horrid decision. And frankly could be disastrous for the UK. And yes, I do suspect that Scotland and Ireland will look towards independence, which will further destabilise what will remain, that being England and Wales.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    This is probably the end of decades long battle between left and right within the party. The party's left is dead. The Conservative party is now committed to a Little Britain, xenophobic mentality that will ride roughshod over workers' rights, while accelerating the dismantling of the welfare state.

    The Liberal Democrats are discredited over their well intentioned, but poorly implemented coalition government with the conservatives. The Labour Party have become disconnected from their natural constituency. The only party in the country that enjoys serious respect and support, and has a united front, is the Scottish Nationalist Party and it does have a rather limited remit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    I have to say, this is nasty..

    The Ukip leader was speaking as news broke the UK had voted to leave theEuropean Union despite an on-the-day poll predicting a win for Remain.

    He said: “The dawn is breaking on an independent United Kingdom!

    “We have fought against the multinationals, we have fought against the big merchant banks we fought against big politics, we fought against lies, corruption and deceit.

    “And today honesty, decency and belief in nation I think now is going to win.

    “And we will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet being fired.

    That is appalling. Has he forgotten Jo Cox's murder? Or is he simply rubbing salt in the wound?

    On the other side of the coin, a petition has started to have a second referendum, due to the close nature of this referendum:

    A petition for the government to hold a second referendum on Brexit has proved so popular it temporarily crashed the parliament website.

    Within just hours of the historic Leave vote, it had already gained 60,000 signatures and counting.

    The petition states:

    EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum
    We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.

    At the time of this post, the number voting for a second referendum stands at just over 80,000. The petition map shows an interesting story of particular voting blocks in certain areas popping up. They reached this number in just a few hours. At 100,000 the UK Government has to respond in some way. Given the very close result of this referendum, those who started this petition do have a point.

    And referendums in the UK are not legally binding, so the Government is under no legal obligation to leave Europe (trying to think back to my law classes here from a loooooong time ago and the Parliamentary Sovereignty of the United Kingdom meant that the Government can ignore the result of post and pre legislative referendums). Am I correct?
     
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    they certainly can Bells; given the current state of unrest though, I fear no matter what the government does, it will split the nation even further. they have a helluva divide to bridge before things can start getting truly better
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, just gave a measured, calm, forward looking statement. She noted that those from mainland Europe living and working in Scotland were welcomed for their contribution to the nation; she stated Scotland's desire for investment from abroad; she noted conversations this morning with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding actions to be taken to assure stability in the markets; she explained she had instituted moves to prepare for a second independence referendum, though the decision to proceed would depend upon many factors. Overall it was a thoroughly creditable, professional performance.

    Adjacent to her podium, prominently displayed, were the Scottish Saltire and the flag of the European Union. The Union flag was noticeably absent.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    I saw a tweet somewhere, with an image from Greece of a notice placed outside a bank, advising British customers that they cannot allow any withdrawals or exchange to the pound due to the market.

    The only hope for the UK now is that Parliament votes against leaving the EU. They are not bound by the referendum. And it would also need to get through the House of Lords, which I understand is predominantly "remain". So there is a chance that this may not happen. With the margin between the Leave and Remain being so small, it could very well come to pass that politicians, now with hindsight of what is happening to the Pound with just this referendum, could very well vote to remain. Obviously this article was written prior to the results, but it does point to something very interesting. The referendum results may not guarantee an actual Brexit.

    Since the 17th century national sovereignty has resided not with the crown and its servants but with the parliament at Westminster. Ministers might extract the country from the EU’s institutions but it will remain subject to the provisions of Brussels until the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed.

    The government would have to introduce a bill to bring this about. In practice, it would also have to bring in enabling legislation to empower itself to unravel a vast panoply of associated embroilments. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires that the withdrawal agreement negotiated with our EU partners would itself have to be laid before parliament, which would have the power to delay ratification indefinitely.

    Normally, a government relies on its parliamentary majority to carry through such proposals. However, the Brexit question has shattered normal party allegiances, and they seem unlikely to reassert themselves as long as the issue that destroyed them continues to tower over the nation.

    Leave might have won the referendum, but at least half of Conservative MPs have been backing Remain. The vast bulk of Opposition MPs have done likewise. Overall, the Commons seems to be at very least 70 per cent pro-Remain. The Lords are of course even more pro-Remain.

    If Leave’s referendum victory has been decisive, this may not matter. The irrefutable will of the people would doubtless prove irresistible. However, though the polls cannot tell us which side will win, they do seem to have established something: the result is fairly certain to be close.

    This will mean that those who do not like that result will be able to present it not so much as a defeat but more as a tie. What the populace has really proclaimed, they may suggest, is that it cannot make up its mind. Suppose that 52 per cent vote Leave on a turnout of 64 per cent (which was the turnout in the referendum on EEC membership in 1975). It will be possible to argue that support for withdrawal has been demonstrated by barely a third of the electorate. And that figure might have been even lower if predominantly pro-Remain groups like the under-18s and long-standing expats had not been denied a vote.

    For parliamentarians, this point will not be academic. In some jurisdictions, referendums are binding. This is the case with those held regularly at federal, cantonal, and municipal level in Switzerland. However, because the British constitution makes parliament sovereign, a referendum in the UK can only be consultative. The government pamphlet explaining the 1975 referendum spelt outthat “the British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973.”

    David Cameron and his Cabinet colleagues may have committed themselves to implementing the verdict of the current referendum, but parliament has not. The act that authorised the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote obliged the government to implement electoral reform if the Yes side won. The legislation enacting the EU referendum, on the other hand, contains no such requirement.

    So it would be down to parliamentarians to decide whether or not Brexit should go ahead. They might well feel this presented them with not just an opportunity but an obligation. We have opted for representative rather than direct democracy in the belief that the populace is not as well suited to determining complex issues as people selected and equipped for the job. Why become an MP if you’re going to duck such a mighty responsibility as this one? After all, the public have informed us in vox pop after vox pop that they don’t understand the subject on which they will have voted.

    As parliament mulled the matter, it would come under great pressure to block Brexit not just from all corners of the British establishment but from international organisations and Britain’s allies overseas. The EU would doubtless be offering blandishments, perhaps even new concessions, and implying that it would reform itself.

    Even Leave campaigners accept that the markets would be in turmoil. Sterling would fall and prices would go up. Interest rates would then rise too, pushing up rents and triggering a wave of mortgage defaults and repossessions. Opinion polls might well be suggesting that a majority of the public was now eager to repent of the course on which the referendum verdict had set it.

    To snuff out Brexit, all it would take would be the votes and abstentions of enough parliamentarians as the government’s legislation tried to worm its way through Westminster’s tortuous processes. Amendments might perhaps be added that reversed the purposes of bills.

    Faced with such obstruction, the prime minister might seek a general election, if only to secure his own release from the nightmare in which he would find himself. Unfortunately the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011 would prevent him from just asking the Queen for a dissolution. Nowadays, parliament can only be dissolved before its term is up if the house of commons votes for an election by a two-thirds majority or the government loses a confidence vote. That means the decision would be up to parliament itself.

    Why would MPs renounce their stranglehold over the fate of the nation at such an important moment in our island story? The government would surely find that its only practicable course would be to bow to the will of our sovereign parliament and abandon Brexit.

    Of course, not all of the above would necessarily come to pass. As soon as it was apparent that this was the path on which the nation had embarked, reality would probably assert itself. In fact, the government might simply announce quite quickly that article 50 would not after all be invoked: unfortunately, parliament had over-ruled the executive, as was its constitutional right. The Brexiteers would be awkwardly placed to protest, since, ironically, the sovereignty of the UK parliament is supposed to be what they’re fighting for.


    The irony of that last sentence should not be overlooked if the British Parliament does vote to remain in the EU.

    Cameron's decision to have this referendum was stupid. Perhaps he felt that Remain would win and it may have been a point of bravado. And as much as the Conservatives may have declared that they would honour the results, as Cox notes, Parliament is not bound by any such promise and with the likely event of the British and Scottish Pound now crashing, along with the market, if that does not stabilise and pick up soon and if public sentiment points to this being exceptionally unpopular (the petition is now at over 110,000 and rising in a matter of hours which means the Government has to respond), Ministers may very well backpedal to save the country from the continuing economic catastrophe this is bringing. Minister's might initially face the wrath of the Leave supporters, but support for leave might well vanish once the actual crunch happens. And that crunch is happening as we speak. There is still a chance that Parliament will strike it down, and it may not pass through the House of Lords. They might have won by a minutely small margin, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it will happen. Either way, things will get worse for the UK before it gets better regardless of what happens.
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911
    It would not be the first time the will of the people would be ignored. This is what one has to expect.
     
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    What of the will of the 48+% who voted to remain.

    What of the will of Ireland and Scotland who are now being dragged into this against their will? Or do they not matter?

    As I type, the Farage's campaign lies are being outed.

    Nigel Farage today admitted it was a “mistake” for the Leave campaign to pledge that the weekly £350 million saving in EU contributions could be spent on the NHSinstead.

    The Ukip leader was confronted on ITV’s Good Morning Britain by presenter Susanna Reid just hours after the UK backed Brexit.

    Reid quizzed Farage on whether he could guarantee the bold pledge promoted on the side of a much-photographed battle bus would be delivered on.

    Farage responded simply: “No I can’t,” and added that it was a “mistake” of the official Vote Leave campaign to have made the claim in the first place.

    Reid rebutted him saying: “Hang on a moment, that was one of your adverts”.

    Farage insisted that it was in fact a claim carried by the official ‘Vote Leave’ campaign, not his own party’s ‘Leave.EU’, but still acknowledged it was wrong.

    But Reid fired back that the pledge may have influenced a lot of people to vote Brexit.

    She asked: “You’re saying, after 17m people have voted for Leave based - I don’t know how many people voted basis of that advert, but it was a huge part of the propaganda - you’re saying that was a mistake?”

    Farage responded that the contribution - which he said was more than £350m a week - could be spent on public services including “the NHS, schools or whatever it is”.

    [...]

    The Ukip leader defended his personal position, saying he had been “ostracised” by the official Leave campaign, adding: “As I’ve always done, did my own thing.”

    Despite the apology, many voters expressed disappointment Farage’s comments.


    The bus they speak of:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Apparently this was a "mistake" he didn't actually mean or support..

    And it gets worse. We also have the ridiculous poster debacle.

    Ukip’s only MP blasted Nigel Farage’s infamous ‘Breaking Point’ poster as “morally wrong” this evening,

    In further evidence of the split between the party leader and Ukip’s only parliamentarian, Douglas Carswell slammed Farage for using “angry nativism” to try and win the referendum.

    The ‘Breaking Point’ poster was condemned by politicians on both sides of the EU Referendum debate, with Vote Leave’s Michael Gove saying he “shuddered” when he saw the image.

    Ukip’s deputy leader Paul Nuttall said he would not have gone ahead with the poster, but Farage has remained defiant, claiming it shows “the truth”.

    Speaking on the BBC just minutes after Farage predicted Remain had won today’s vote, Carswell said: “I think it was fundamentally the wrong thing to do and let me say why: I think it was morally the wrong thing to do.

    “Using a picture of people who had fled from war in Syria, going to Slovakia, had nothing to do with the United Kingdom.”

    He went on: “Angry nativism doesn’t win elections in this country.”

    Not to mention Daniel Hannan declaring that immigration levels into the UK would not change.. after the vote.

    This is what happens when you base a campaign on lies and fear mongering. It comes back to bite you.
     
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911
    What of the 48%? What always happens if they loose elections. They are f...... Such is life. Sorry, not life. Such is democracy.

    The politicians have lied? Big news. They always lie in election campaigns, on all sides. Even used car sellers are more trustworthy.

    The more interesting point is that there was a majority against the media mainstream. The old "media democracy", where all one needs to win is support by the media, is dying.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    The point is that the vote was exceptionally close. And the UK Government is not bound to honour any referendum. The Parliament in the UK is sovereign, so they may well vote against it.

    It is interesting to note that Brexit politicians are now saying that there is no rush to leave the EU, that the UK would take its time, possibly to attempt to renegotiate its terms with the EU. The EU is having one of it and rightly so. To wit, the UK is now being told by the EU that it needs to move on this quickly to ensure stability. And it is more than likely that the benefits the UK currently enjoys as a member of the EU will vanish. That will affect trade and sectors like tourism, health and employment.

    What is quickly becoming clear is that people voted on the assumption that immigration levels would drop and funds would be partitioned as promised by the Brexit politicians. They are now being told a day after they voted that these promises they voted for were a mistake and that immigration levels would not drop. That goes beyond being a mere lie. It is outright deception.

    Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.”

    It is fair to say that people voted for this not realising or understanding the actual consequences of the UK exiting from the EU and reports are now showing that many who voted to Leave are now fast regretting that vote. For example:

    For Jim Plows, in Clacton, Essex, the news of Brexit this morning triggered “panic stations”.

    Despite voting to leave Europe, the 77-year-old said he was surprised by the news. His wife, Pam, said her first thoughts as the results came in was: “Oh dear.”

    The retired couple from Jaywick, in Essex, were among several visitors to Clacton pier to say they were concerned about the process for Britain leaving the EU.

    “The next year will be a worry,” said Jim Plows.

    Pam Plows said:

    We do have to put our country first. It’s got to the point where there’s been flooding here over the last few days, and there’s no help, and then we’re sending millions to other countries.

    Diane Claringbold, 51, said she was pleased about the result:

    I’m glad that we’re out. This country needs to start looking after its own people and not everyone else’s, people like the Chelsea pensioners and the homeless.”
    Claringbold, who is disabled, said that she voted leave because of pressures on the NHS.

    “I’ve waited eight months for an appointment at Colchester hospital. Other countries are fine outside Europe, we’ll be fine too.”

    These people voted based on the lies and misinformation campaign by UKIP and Brexit politicians. The fact is they won't be fine. A large portion of medical staff who work for the NHS are Europeans and non British foreigners. If they leave and they very well might despite the NHS trying to assure they are welcome, I am going to guess with some precision that Claringbold's wait time for her appointment at Colchester Hospital won't be coming any time soon.

    Pensioners who are living off their investments are now much poorer than they were yesterday (guess they weren't thinking that through well enough seeing that the over 65's were the ones who tended to vote "leave"). Young people entering the job market for the first time, who had Europe to enjoy employment wise, are now up the creek without a paddle. This is now reality time:

    The UK has to negotiate two agreements: a divorce treaty to wind down British contributions to the EU budget and settle the status of the 1.2 million Britons living in the EU and 3 million EU citizens in the UK; and an agreement to govern future trade and other ties with its European neighbours.

    [...]

    There were early warnings of difficulties ahead. The German MEP Elmar Brok, who chairs the European parliament’s committee on foreign affairs, told the Guardian the parliament would call on Juncker to strip the British commissioner, Jonathan Hill, of the financial services brief with immediate effect and turn him into a “commissioner without portfolio”.

    “They will have to negotiate from the position of a third country, not as a member state. If Britain wants to have a similar status to Switzerland and Norway, then it will also have to pay into EU structural funds like those countries do. The British public will find out what that means.”

    Jean-Claude Piris, a former head of the EU council legal service, said claims that Britain would get unfettered access to the single market, without free movement of people, were the equivalent of believing in Father Christmas. The British “cannot get as good a deal as they have now, it is impossible.”

    [...]

    One likely outcome of negotiations is that banks and financial firms in the City of London will be stripped of their lucrative EU “passports” that allow them to sell services to the rest of the EU.

    However, on paper, nothing changes immediately. The UK remains an EU member until it has finalised the terms of its divorce and is obliged to follow all EU rules.

    In theory, the UK retains the decision-making privileges of membership; in reality, power will rapidly drain away and British diplomats can expect to be marginalised in the councils of Brussels.

    The UK will keep its veto in some areas, such as tax and foreign policy, but diplomats say Britain’s voice on other EU decisions, for example economy and business, will count for little.


    This will hit small businesses and even bigger companies who trade with the EU quite hard. Unemployment will rise. Sure, Brexit politicians have been touting the line that these companies and businesses can simply hire the English to do these jobs, but that is a load of absolute bull.

    You argue about the 'will of the people'.. That will count for nothing when they realise everything they voted for was a lie and the economic crash that has already started results in the loss of their livelihood, their pension, their future stability in their homes. Because there is now the real and absolute risk that the property market will also crash, devaluing homes and property. And this was evidenced by the fact that it was the construction companies and listed real estate agents who suffered first and foremost when the market started to crash. There go all those construction jobs out the window.

    The only hope "the people" have is if the UK Parliament votes against it. Because it is now abundantly clear that "the people" had absolute no idea what they were voting for. What? They thought they could leave the EU and continue to enjoy the comfort and economic safety of the EU? The reality is that they cannot have and enjoy both. The EU have already stated that the privileges the UK enjoyed are about to end. So now the UK will face the prospect of going out on its own, and competing without the cushion of the EU, against countries like China and India, who will profit from this as the EU could now very well turn to those two countries for trade instead of the UK. The UK will have very little chance of competing in a world market that is flooded with cheaper labour and goods.

    I suspect many who voted to leave voted on the belief that the UK was self reliant. It isn't. To wit, the cost of living will go up, unemployment will rise, health costs will go up, as will the cost of education. Young people who may have looked to the EU for unemployment will no longer have that opportunity. So yeah, let's talk about the "will of the people" when it is clear "the people" were stupid enough to buy into lies and deception, or worse, voted to leave thinking Leave would not win.

    • Seven voters in ten expected a victory for remain, including a majority (54%) of those who voted to leave. Leave voters who voted UKIP at the 2015 election were the only group who (by just 52% to 48%) expected a leave victory.
    54% of people who voted "leave" expected "remain" to win.
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Nonsense! Any MP who voted against exit would be behaving dishonourably and ensuring in most of England and Wales that they were never re-elected.

    My own disgust at the vote has been made clear in an earlier post, however, if Parliament chose to ignore the clearly expressed view of the public I would be strongly inclined to adopt the Guy Fawkes solution. The principle of democracy is that you don't get to choose not to play when the vote goes against you.
     
  16. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Yah, that had been bandied about in the media for some time before this, a no need for immediate panic if it did happen: That the referendum was vague in its scope and would still have to weather parliament. That it would be better to anger a Leave majority of voters by either mitigating or outright rejecting their decision. In some respects, though, this might be compared to the feeble optimism that some Republicans in America have of a renegade effort to oust / replace Trump at their convention. Doesn't seem likely due to the complex political chemistry; but OTOH these whole jarring scenarios (of a Brexit and a Trump nomination) once seemed like fantastic fiction prospects themselves to many.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics...guerrilla-campaign-to-reverse-brexit-decision

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ilemma-for-parliament-after-a-vote-for-brexit
     
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,418
    I have to say that while I supported Brexit (albeit from afar), I never thought that the British would have the balls to do it. (I'm one of the two who voted for the third alternative in the poll above.) I'm surprised and heartened.

    There are some fairly dramatic market movements this morning. It was entirely predictable, given all the apocalyptic rhetoric from the remain side. (Are flesh-eating zombies lurching through London yet?) My own feeling is that this might be an excellent occasion to buy British stocks at reduced prices, which I predict will quickly rebound, and I intend to do that next week.

    One of the fascinating things about this is that it isn't a conventional "left" vs "right" battle. (Whatever those terms mean any more.) It was regular people, labour and conservative, against their own ruling elites. I think that's the new dynamic that's reshaping politics all over the Western world, including here in the United States.

    So how loudly will this echo in the rest of the EU? Euroscepticism is widespread in many European countries, not just the UK. Will the EU start to unravel? Or will the European elites finally start to get it into their thick heads that they have lost the support of a large portion their own people and that without willing supporters, they are merely oligarchs? Leaders walking the corridors of power have to be attentive and responsive to the concerns of the "little" people that they supposedly represent. The question now is how (and whether) the EU's leadership will try to get out in front of this. Will Angela Merkel stop being so unilateral and start listening as well as speaking? Will "Ever Closer Union" start to roll back in any visible way across Europe? I think that what most Europeans want is a looser federation of soverign states along with a free trade zone, not eventual submergence in a centralized and paternalistic United States of Europe. My guess is that formerly unthinkable renegotiation of some of the fundamental European treaties might find itself on the table very soon. If that happened, Britain might even rethink its withdrawal.

    It's going to be interesting. Apart from Britain, most of the EU has been at the brink of recession. If they launch a trade war with the UK, they will likely throw themselves across that line.

    As for the UK, it looks like David Cameron is going to be resigning. Despite the brave talk, it was always inevitable if Brexit won. I think that his leaving might be good for Britain. Cameron has always struck me as a well-intentioned but weak leader, kind of a stereotypical upper-class-twit. I like Boris Johnson (who has an identical background and went to the same schools) more. He might provide a stronger and more creative hand on the helm.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2016
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,911
    Of course, this is what one has to expect. Except if there are, in fact, parts of the Britisch deep state behind the Brexit. Then it has a chance to happen. But what the sheeple vote for does not really matter.

    Don't weep. That's democracy. Campaigns without deceptions do not exist in principle.

    It may become a problem for those who use a fake firm on some Commonwealth island to organize trade with the EU without paying taxes.
    I don't. The "will of people" is anyway only a propaganda mem with no relevance for the ruling elites. And the fate of the votes in the past have illustrated this nicely. What happens depends on what the British elites really want to do. And it seems, the fraction which wants to leave is sufficiently strong. Else, a 52% victory would be simply impossible, you would need at least 60%, so that a falsification would be too obvious. And in this case the usual known methods of ignoring the will would be used.
    I expected it too. But there seems to be a strong enough faction of the British elite who wants to leave.

    On the other hand, the pro-EU faction is also quite strong. They seem to have controlled the polling firms, because an error of more than 2% in the middle is quite implausible. (It is something one can expect if it is about small minorities, so that you need a lot of respondents to catch enough of them, but in the middle of the society this is improbable, the accuracy in this domain is higher.) If such institutes do much worse than they can, they are probably manipulated. We will see if they are strong enough to prevent the Brexit itself. It seems yet far from impossible for me.
     
  19. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,079
    Especially ironic in light of how Brits sporadically conceive the US as being the Anglophone capital of right wing influences or being waterlogged in the latter's effects. Or the reverse among how US conservatives sometimes feel about the UK (i.e., Pat Buchanan might as much have had a publicly withheld "UKistan" epithet to go along with his "Soviet Canuckistan" pejorative tag for Canada).
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    Goddess grant...

    The leader of Cornwall Council has demanded the UK Government replaces the £60million a year of EU support it will lose as a result of the Brexit vote.

    John Pollard issued an urgent statement amidst the news UK had voted to leave the EU.

    He said: “Now that we know the UK will be leaving the EU we will be taking urgent steps to ensure that the UK Government protects Cornwall’s position in any negotiations.

    “We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which have averaged £60m per year over the last ten years.”

    Cornwall voted Leave at 182,665 to 140,540 who balloted Remain.

    [...]

    A statement from the council claimed it had been reassured by the Leave campaign prior to the referendum, that a decision to leave the EU would not affect the EU funding which had already been allocated to the area.

    It also asked for assurances that Cornwall would “not be worse off in terms of the investment we receive.”

    It added: “We will now be studying the impact of this decision on Cornwall, both now and in the future. Because of Cornwall’s relatively weak economy, compared to the rest of Europe, Cornwall has received significant amounts of funding from the EU over the past 15 years and we will be seeking confirmation that this allocation, based on need, will continue in the future.”

    So stupid it hurts..

    Firstly, one would have thought that they would have studied the impact of leaving the EU prior to supporting and voting for leaving the EU.

    Secondly, one would have assumed they would have confirmed or sought assurances in regards to the millions of pounds of funding they receive from the EU due to their low economic status before voting to leave the EU. They have received over one billion pounds in the last 15 years in aid from the EU and their market for their goods is predominantly from the EU itself and they were due to receive around 400 million more pounds up to 2020..

    What of MP's who represent counties who voted to remain? Wouldn't they be remiss in ignoring their constituent's votes and voting against their wishes to remain, by voting to leave?

    The referendum is non-binding. People also voted for their representatives in Parliament. Politicians who were voted in to do what is right for the country and their constituents. That is their task. Sometimes that will entail going against the will of the people. And frankly, they would be failing at their job if they willingly vote for the economic catastrophe, rising unemployment, a possible housing crash, higher cost of living, the possibility of the end of the United Kingdom and the list goes on and on..

    It is also possible that they will be honourable to the stupid (including the 54% who voted leave because they thought remain would actually win and they never envisaged that the UK would actually leave the EU) and actually vote for this. To which I say stupidity wins and the expectation that elected officials would do right for the country and their constituents goes out the window.

    But consider this, are you not surprised that Brexit politicians, like Borish Johnson for example, are now suddenly urging that the UK does not rush to leave the EU?

    Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and a leading Leave campaigner, said there should be “no haste” in the preparations for the exit of Britain, the first sovereign country to vote to leave the union.

    Because that strikes me as particularly strange. And somewhat hypocritical. Is he not being dishonourable in urging "no haste"?

    It's politics Ophiolite. And sometimes, it might be better to be dishonourable if being honourable is tantamount to a catastrophe.

    It is probably the reason why your referendums are non-binding, to provide the country with an out from the stupidity of its voters.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,507
    Craven much?

    That rebounding? Ya..

    The UK is now no longer the 5th wealthiest nation on the planet. And the kick in the proverbial balls?

    "UK could lose its AAA credit rating"

    Standard & Poor’s also confirmed it was reviewing the UK’s top-tier AAA credit rating, warning that it could easily cut the rating by at least one notch, due to the economic problems Brexit would cause.

    A vote to leave would, in our view, deter investment in the economy, decrease official demand for sterling reserves, and put the UK’s financial services sector at a competitive disadvantage compared with other global financial centres.
    Yay happy fun times!

    But hey, at least you get to buy some cheap stocks.

    About as good as Trump would be a terrific President with Sarah Palin as his VP in the US.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,990
    No I think it's quite reasonable to call for no haste. At a purely practical level, extricating ourselves from 40 years of membership is a huge and complex task. Everyone will make a far better job of it if we plan the campaign before we press the red button by invoking Article 50 - after which we have to be out within 2 years. Now that the Leave people have got what they want, they do not have be in a rush.

    But I do believe it is utterly unthinkable that the referendum result would not be honoured by Parliament. Constitutionally it may only be advisory, but politically, it is obviously mandatory to comply with the will of the people, expressed at the ballot box, when the Prime Minister has explicitly told the country it is decisive.

    No, we will be OUT - in due course - and, once the Scots have had their second referendum, Great Britain will be no more. And I will find myself having been born in a foreign country. It all feels rather weird. I'm waiting with a measure of angry relish for whatever twat replaces Cameron to face the ignominy of setting up barbed wire encampments at Dover, to house the migrants that now infest Calais. I don't believe the residents there will accept continuing to host a UK border post on French soil, given the problems it has given them. It would be a fitting spectacle, given the use of these migrants by the Leave people as a reason for leaving the EU.
     
    Ophiolite likes this.
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,822
    Crash?
    You mean the markets currently being at the same level they were just a few days ago?
    Now, admittedly it might be the first step on a drawn out downward trend, but markets seem, at the moment, to simply have had a knee-jerk reaction and realised that, at least for the next 2 years, nothing much will change.
    The main issue will be investment within the UK while the divorce from the EU goes on... and on... and on..., which will almost certainly be lower than might otherwise have been.
    But "crash"? Not yet, at least. Perhaps over the coming days, weeks, months, years... but not yet. Not, at least, according to the markets.
    Yes, the pound has devalued somewhat... but that in itself is manageable.

    As for backpedalling... won't happen. We actually take pride in our democracy in the UK. Once the people have spoken, for good or bad, we abide by that. The mandate is (unfortunately or otherwise) quite clear. More so if Scotland decide to up sticks and float across to the EU on their own (I can't yet see Northern Ireland doing the same, but it's not off the table). The English and Welsh population have spoken quite clearly. No PM, no political party, no government would go against such a clear mandate.

    But be clear, any lack of haste is to avoid/minimise short-term impact. Exit was always a long-term matter. The UK hasn't thrown a tantrum and wants to storm out. It has simply grown out of love with the EU and wants as amicable a separation as possible. I can see it taking years, certainly more than the 2 given as a default in the EU rules. Heck, a clever politician may try to draw it out indefinitely... but all the while the uncertainty will hit investment in the UK. Simply put a quick divorce in the heat of the moment benefits no-one. Both sides, in the cool light of day, will (hopefully) work to as amicable a solution as possible.
     

Share This Page