141–150 of 316 posts
Good old - we dont like the outcome, lets revote?
Many people voted pro-Brexit in the referendum due to the increasing disparity and alienation between the ruling/political class and the rest of the country. By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen. That's a sound result for the politicians and chiefs of industry based in London, but what will it mean for the wider UK? Both the courts and parliamen…
There's nothing sure about this. In general most MPs are against Brexit but they are expected to roughly follow the will of the people, so there's a good change they'll still vote in favour of article 50. I mean the whole government right now is working hard to make Brexit happen, while at the same time being against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and the referendum was purely advisory which means they can do whatever they wish.
Theoretically, yes. That's sort of like saying the British army ultimately answers to the Queen so the Queen could run the country as a dictatorship if she wanted to. It's not an argument rooted in the real world though. Queenie would be gone tomorrow if she tried that. The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out and of those who voted remain, about half were motivated by simple fear of…
The vast majority of voters in any country do not like the government. That's not the benchmark for democracy.
> about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project.
Economic consequences are just as real as "sovereignty" and similar concerns, if anything more so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and the referendum was purely advisory which means they can do whatever they wish.
Theoretically, yes. That's sort of like saying the British army ultimately answers to the Queen so the Queen could run the country as a dictatorship if she wanted to. It's not an argument rooted in the real world though. Queenie would be gone tomorrow if she tried that. The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out and of those who voted remain, about half were motivated by simple fear of…
Although your comment is clearly articulated, and concludes with a very real and accurate statement, I feel I must redress the opening of your second paragraph.
If the vast majority of 'voters' did not like the EU, and 'most voted out' then the result would have been the same, but with much larger majority. This was not the case. The economic fallout of Brexit has yet to be experienced as it will not really kick in until after the UK leaves the EU. The fallout size also depends on the 'deal' (if any) the UK gets when it leaves. Merkel has been very clear that there is no deal on the table and there never will be. Whether the threat of higher prices were a scare tactic or not, many remainers simply did not want a financial hit on their wallet, which is totally understandable. Meanwhile, a large swathe of Leavers simply voted that way because Farage told them it was the only way to keep the migrants out.
At the end of the day, both sides were lied to, more or less, by parties whose political agendas and parliamentary jockyings were more important than the well-being of the country.
I'm not pro the EU in it's current form, but I do believe that the UK will be worse off as a non-member. This is my view, and I voted accordingly.
I also voted in an well-informed away, and I just wish the rest of the country had done so also. The outcome might have still been the same, but at least it would have been for the right reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the 72.2% turnout[1] it was just 37.5% of the voting-eligible population that voted for Brexit. The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that voting on issues of such national importance (including general elections) should be made mandatory. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-a...
The referendum to enter the EU had a 64% turnout with 67.23% voting yes & 32.77% voting no. So that's around 43% that voted to enter[1]. Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't m…
Not really, no. Especially if it's not clear there's an option to say "idk". Say you care very much but don't know what's best? Does your vote not matter, now? If so, doesn't that make the election wrong? But how do you express that?
There may be an answer to this deep inside some legislature chapter XVI section 16 paragraph b, but if people don't know, does that matter?
Anyway, not saying that was the case for brexit. But "That's just how X works" is typically not the strongest argument. There are a hundred ways to implement a democracy, and they all have their own flaws.
Isn't it a well known fact for everyone by now that leaving the EU would have dire consequences to England? Losing the shared market access, researchers not being allowed into shared EU projects, the European Stock Exchange moving from London OR London leaving the UK, Scotland leaving the UK, maybe even N. Ireland leaving as well to unify the island (erin go bragh by the way!). How would it be in the interest for any…
Someone should send a memo Bashar al Assad that "dire consequences" are a valid reason to postpone democracy. In fact, democracy seems to be reserved only for use by western NATO powers, even when not respecting a democratic vote, while imposing democracy "with dire consequences" on the rest of the world.
The "Brexit" vote was nothing more than an opinion poll. There is no direct democracy in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK Would you care to elaborate?
If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy who wrote Article 50 has said it was deliberately designed to never be used. It's not a workable mechanism for leaving. In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost…
And fuel every little fascist's antieuropean campaign in other EU countries? The EU has to make an example about how leaving the Union is a bad idea, one that even the dumbest of voters understand - and that's exactly what they are going to do.
> In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened
Which is partly due to the fact that the British Referendum vote has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a "Suggestion".
> and refusing to talk about anything at all
Thus avoiding to making concessions and letting the UK test the waters before they actually decide to jump in.
> thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done
You do understand that the two years are a maximum length, and that the EU could simply decide not to Play, declaring negotiations over within seconds of May pulling the trigger, thus creating the hardest of Brexits with the UK without the EU and without any newly-set up trade agreements with third parties?
I can't believe the UK government allowed this to happen. They went ahead with the referendum without ever explaining what Leave means. They should have drafted the Leave plan first, with very specific dates, and have people vote on that. "Do you want Britain to invoke Article 50 by 31 Dec 2016?" That would have been the responsible thing to do. (If anyone argues that you can't have a referendum on such a specificall…
Blame David Cameron for that, the referendum was supposed to be an intra-party political play in which he expected "remain" to prevail to quell the extreme wing of his party. It's like a US president, without any form of planning, calling for a referendum on federal minimum income(D) or banning Muslims(R) with the intention that they turn to the further-from-center wings of their respective party and say "See, Americans don't really want that", and then things don't go as planned, but the country will have to lay in the bed that was made while the prime minister literally[1] whistles his away from the public stage...
Not even Farage had a plan, despite having been the face and voice of the anti-EU sentiment. As soon as Brexit won, he resigned and went underground. You would expect he would roll his sleeves and dive in to implement the plan he has honed over the years.
1. Cameron hummed/whistled a tune as he walked away from the podium at the end of his last address to the nation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
6% of leave voters regret their choice according to an academic study published about a month ago, enough to swing the vote the other way.... And as the effects of a potential Brexit continue to bite, this percentage will only increase http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/brexit-bri...
I'm surprised more people don't want to vote leave, it's like they want the UK economy to continue to die by remaining just so they can country hop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the 72.2% turnout[1] it was just 37.5% of the voting-eligible population that voted for Brexit. The whole Brexit saga makes me think more than ever that voting on issues of such national importance (including general elections) should be made mandatory. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/how-did-turnout-a...
The referendum to enter the EU had a 64% turnout with 67.23% voting yes & 32.77% voting no. So that's around 43% that voted to enter[1]. Regardless, I think this entire line of reasoning makes no sense. You could dismiss pretty much any election by multiplying the "yes" votes with voter turnout to get less than 50%. That's just how democracies work, if you don't care enough to vote you don't get a say, that doesn't m…
Our democracy is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is supreme. We elect representatives so that they can make the decisions for us.
Any referendum is really just advisory.