The inevitable Brexit thread


Off-Topic Discussions

751 to 800 of 863 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen.

Not at all. Politics is full of "advisory" votes, and this was pretty explicitly one of those. Parliament could have, if it wanted to, made this referendum self-enacting when they put it to the populace as a whole, which would have forced the government's hand.

Parliament chose not to do that, whether through wisdom or dumb luck.

Quote:
And the EU want it to happen soon.

... and, as nursie used to say, "want" shall be their master, then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.
Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?
The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.

A difference of3 to 4% is NOT a sizable margin. It is like looking at my wife who disagrees with me and telling her that "Nope! We are doing it anyway." I doubt that would go over very well with her. And despite everything, the people of the UK have to get along or there will be bigger issues than leaving the EU.

Edited to add a few things.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?
The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.

Obligated is a strong word. But I guess with "kind of" it's true.

There are strong political reasons to do so, but that's all.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?
The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.

Obligated is a strong word. But I guess with "kind of" it's true.

There are strong political reasons to do so, but that's all.

More generally, under the unwritten UK constitution, Parliament is supreme and there's no way for anyone to tell Parliament what to do. This even includes past Parliaments; no Act of Parliament binds a future Parliament.

It looks right now like the next PM will be Ms. May, who is not likely to be pushing it through -- she was a pro-Stay campaigner before the referendum, and she's handily defeated all of the pro-Leave leadership candidates combined. Her opponent is "a leading light of the Brexit campaign," as the BBC puts it. Depending upon how she frames the leadership contest among the Tory membership, and also depending (of course) on the outcome, she may be able to claim a mandate to take the Brexit extremely slowly or even to abandon it altogether --- if Ms. Leadsom (the Brexit candidate) is defeated in a landslide, then Ms. May not only empowered but de facto expected to follow through on her constituents' and party's wishes. (If UKIP wants the PM to follow its wishes, UKIP should concentrate on winning more seats and ultimately a majority in Parliament. Picking a leader who doesn't chicken the hell out as soon as he wins a referendum is probably a good starting point.)

In the States, people talk about the "Hastert rule," the idea that policy needs to be acceptable to the majority-of-the-majority in order to be acted upon in Congress; otherwise the Speaker of the House will not bring it up for action. The UK Parliament has operated on a similar principle for centuries.

And before someone starts raving about "consent of the governed" or some similar Libertopian nonsense,.... anyone can indeed get anything they like through Parliament, but they have to win elections first. Referenda are not elections.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

The EU is NOT a government, no matter what paranoid Britons and others think

It is an alliance of sovereign states that agreed to work together for their mutual benefits

It never became a stronger political union than this thanks in a major part to the UK fighting it relentlessly. Which makes it even more ironic that the Leave side won because the UK citizens were afraid of that imaginary EU government.

The problem with saying 'The EU is NOT a government' is that it seems to have gone out of its way to deliberately name a lot of its institutions (such as the European Parliament, the various European Presidents, and the European Court of Justice*) as if it were a government.

It also has a 'budget'.

For an institution which isn't a government, the EU seems to like dressing up as one a lot - well, either that or the translators really messed up when translating the various names and titles of its departments and functionaries into English... :)

* The European Court of Human Rights (which should NOT be confused with the European Court of Justice) is, of course, actually (at the time of this post) an institution outside of the EU. Not that there aren't some in the UK who apparently confuse the ECHR as being an EU institution, which misconception has possibly been unfortunately aided by European treaty obligations requiring member states in some circumstances to abide by ECHR rulings. :(


which misconception has possibly been unfortunately aided by European treaty obligations requiring member states in some circumstances to abide by ECHR rulings. :(

.... which would legitimately make it a court no matter what circuitous route you use to get there, meaning the brexit side is right there.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


.... which would legitimately make it a court no matter what circuitous route you use to get there, meaning the brexit side is right there.

But it has nothing to do with the EU, so the Brexit side passed through right on its way to dead-wrong-again without even so much as flashing its brake lights in acknowledgement.

The ECHR was created by the European Convention on Human Rights (confusingly, the acronyms are the same) in 1950 as part of the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founding member in 1949. Withdrawing from the EU is neither necessary nor sufficient to relieve the UK of its obligations under the ECHR.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The EU is NOT a government, no matter what paranoid Britons and others think

It is an alliance of sovereign states that agreed to work together for their mutual benefits

It never became a stronger political union than this thanks in a major part to the UK fighting it relentlessly. Which makes it even more ironic that the Leave side won because the UK citizens were afraid of that imaginary EU government.

The problem with saying 'The EU is NOT a government' is that it seems to have gone out of its way to deliberately name a lot of its institutions (such as the European Parliament, the various European Presidents, and the European Court of Justice*) as if it were a government.

It also has a 'budget'.

So did the Gaming Club at Goshwhatta University. For that matter, so did Goshwhatta University itself, although think good ol' GU called their Parliament the "University Senate."

If anything with a President and a budget is a government, then there are a lot of startups who are a lot closer to ruling the world than they think....


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*still thinks Brexit is a horrible breakfast bar*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
*still thinks Brexit is a horrible breakfast bar*

Agreed. A humanoid digestive tract isn't supposed to process that much fiber in one meal.

Anyway, Frosted Linnorm Charms is much tastier, assuming you survive your save vs. death curse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hunt,

That's why I have my +5 cloak of resistance. Plus you know, paladin.

But yes, Frosted Linnorm Charms are pretty tasty.


http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/linnorm.html

Go to linnorm.


Yes? And what, Goth?


Orfamay Quest wrote:

So did the Gaming Club at Goshwhatta University. For that matter, so did Goshwhatta University itself, although think good ol' GU called their Parliament the "University Senate."

If anything with a President and a budget is a government, then there are a lot of startups who are a lot closer to ruling the world than they think....

Are you saying that Goshwatta University University Senate doesn't actually do any regulating or governing at all of Goshwatta University???

If so, by golly, you may have a point! :)

Dark Archive

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

So did the Gaming Club at Goshwhatta University. For that matter, so did Goshwhatta University itself, although think good ol' GU called their Parliament the "University Senate."

If anything with a President and a budget is a government, then there are a lot of startups who are a lot closer to ruling the world than they think....

Are you saying that Goshwatta University University Senate doesn't actually do any regulating or governing at all of Goshwatta University???

If so, by golly, you may have a point! :)

Or DOES he?


Sharoth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.
Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?
The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.

A difference of3 to 4% is NOT a sizable margin. It is like looking at my wife who disagrees with me and telling her that "Nope! We are doing it anyway." I doubt that would go over very well with her. And despite everything, the people of the UK have to get along or there will be bigger issues than leaving the EU.

Edited to add a few things.

Are you implying that you count for 53-54% of your marriage? :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, 48%.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No, 48%.

~pouts~ If I am lucky!

~grins~

Liberty's Edge

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The EU is NOT a government, no matter what paranoid Britons and others think

It is an alliance of sovereign states that agreed to work together for their mutual benefits

It never became a stronger political union than this thanks in a major part to the UK fighting it relentlessly. Which makes it even more ironic that the Leave side won because the UK citizens were afraid of that imaginary EU government.

The problem with saying 'The EU is NOT a government' is that it seems to have gone out of its way to deliberately name a lot of its institutions (such as the European Parliament, the various European Presidents, and the European Court of Justice*) as if it were a government.

It also has a 'budget'.

For an institution which isn't a government, the EU seems to like dressing up as one a lot - well, either that or the translators really messed up when translating the various names and titles of its departments and functionaries into English... :)

* The European Court of Human Rights (which should NOT be confused with the European Court of Justice) is, of course, actually (at the time of this post) an institution outside of the EU. Not that there aren't some in the UK who apparently confuse the ECHR as being an EU institution, which misconception has possibly been unfortunately aided by European treaty obligations requiring member states in some circumstances to abide by ECHR rulings. :(

Well, you do need to throw some bones to the political union aficionados so that it doesn't show too much how the free market has obliterated their dream :-)

But :

There is no President of the EU (as in higher up than the leaders of the member countries)

There is no Prime Minister or any minister/secretary of state of the EU (as in having the definite and authoritative decision on all things about governing the life of the citizens of the EU)

In fact getting European "laws" applied in member countries can take years on end and does not happen at the same time all over the EU.

There is no common foreign policy

Last, but very far from least, the EU does not levy taxes on citizens of its member countries

Note also that elections for the European Parliament were widely regarded (at least in France) as having no real import and a prime venue for protest voting, which is how strongly anti-european parties got into the European Parliament in the first place.

Consider WTO : it has a president (called Director-General), it has a court and it likely has a budget. I do not think anyone seriously believes that WTO is any kind of government though ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The EU is NOT a government, no matter what paranoid Britons and others think

It is an alliance of sovereign states that agreed to work together for their mutual benefits

It never became a stronger political union than this thanks in a major part to the UK fighting it relentlessly. Which makes it even more ironic that the Leave side won because the UK citizens were afraid of that imaginary EU government.

The problem with saying 'The EU is NOT a government' is that it seems to have gone out of its way to deliberately name a lot of its institutions (such as the European Parliament, the various European Presidents, and the European Court of Justice*) as if it were a government.

It also has a 'budget'.

For an institution which isn't a government, the EU seems to like dressing up as one a lot - well, either that or the translators really messed up when translating the various names and titles of its departments and functionaries into English... :)

* The European Court of Human Rights (which should NOT be confused with the European Court of Justice) is, of course, actually (at the time of this post) an institution outside of the EU. Not that there aren't some in the UK who apparently confuse the ECHR as being an EU institution, which misconception has possibly been unfortunately aided by European treaty obligations requiring member states in some circumstances to abide by ECHR rulings. :(

Well, you do need to throw some bones to the political union aficionados so that it doesn't show too much how the free market has obliterated their dream :-)

But :

There is no President of the EU (as in higher up than the leaders of the member countries)

There is no Prime Minister or any minister/secretary of state of the EU (as in having the definite and authoritative decision on all things about governing the life of the citizens of the EU)

In fact getting European "laws" applied in member countries can take...

1. A government does not need a President, Prime Minister, or any kind of centralized leader.

2. Getting laws to apply everywhere in some nations can sometimes take decades or even a century.

3. A common foreign policy is nice, but not required. Sure, it means that particular governed group can be a nightmare to deal with, but a common foreign policy has never been required.

4. Not all governments are funded through direct taxation. And some of the ones funded that way now went a very long time without it.

5. There's a very long list of nations that have either had periods where an election was deemed widely unimportant, or which never has had an election deemed widely important.

None of those are necessary signs of a government. They are signs of certain governing styles, but not signs of a government.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
That's one way of thinking about it. Another way is that he took the coward's way out, using resignation to avoid dealing with the consequences of losing the most idiotic political gamble ever made by a UK politician. Now some other sap is going to have to invoke Article 50 and face all the hard work of dealing with the consequences. Which may very well include ending the United Kingdom itself.
Speaking as an american who who knows absolutely nothing about the UK legal process, does that other sap actually have to invoke article 50, or is that just one of the many options said sap has when forming their government?
The thing about a democratic process... is that you're kind of obligated to go with how votes turn out. Brexit passed by a pretty sizable margin, so... yes it's going to happen. And the EU want it to happen soon.
Actually pretty small margin overall. Also what Orfamy quest said earlier.

52 to 48 is not a small margin when you have 71 percent of the voters participating. That's considerably larger than the Bush-Gore contest. By region the result is more dramatic with England and Wales, save for London, voted to a man for Leave.


52 to 48 is always a small margin, assuming we're talking percentages. "Considerably larger (number of votes, I guess?) than the Bush-Gore contest" is like the lowest bar to meet, ever. 'Cause, y'know, Bush vs Gore was decided by the Supreme Court, not the voting public.

Can I ask if you reside in the UK, Drahliana?


Quebec has had two elections that resulted in ties.

Liberty's Edge

Unless the topic is obviously clear-cut statistical laws imply that the more voters you have, the smaller margin you will get between the opposing sides. It's more significant to consider the number of people than the percentage of those who voted

Obviously the losers will always be talking about how small the difference in percentage was ;-)

Liberty's Edge

@Kazuka, I think we have differing definitions of what constitutes a government and I would be greatly interested if you could elaborate on your points, because I feel that I am missing something :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Unless the topic is obviously clear-cut statistical laws imply that the more voters you have, the smaller margin you will get between the opposing sides.

I'd be interested to know what you think these "clear-cut statistical laws" are, because as far as I know, there's no such thing unless you assume your conclusion in advance.

There is indeed a phenomenon called "margin of error" which suggests that the difference between the sample distribution and the actual distribution gets smaller (in percentage terms) as you get a larger sample. But this says nothing about the actual sample. If the actual distribution were 50/50, then you'd expect the numbers to get closer and closer to 50/50. But if the actual distribution were 60% in favor of Leave, you'd expect the margin between the camps to get larger than the sampled 52/48 difference if you polled more people.

There's another phenomenon called "regression to the mean" that says roughly the same thing.

But Hitdice's point is fundamentally correct : 52/48 is a very small margin, which (probably) represents a population that is fundamentally divided into roughly equal camps,.... which in turn means that idiots casting protest votes (on either side) are likely to have had an outsized effect on the actual outcome. Hence (part of) the demand for a revote, now that the idiot protestors might realize the consequences of their actions.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also now we have the situation of being led into the rest of this mess by someone who practiclly no one in the country (heck practically no one ine her own party) voted for. You know exactly one of the things the leave side had been arguing about in regards to the Eu.

To be blunt the entire thing has/is a farce.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly I'm still confused why it was setup based on simple majority. Isn't th really the sort of thing you want a supermajority for?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Frankly I'm still confused why it was setup based on simple majority. Isn't th really the sort of thing you want a supermajority for?

You would think so (Also another sore point for me was some of the leave guys arguing when it looked like remain would win that if it were close a second reforendum would have to be held but now that they won they seem to have forgotten all about that.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Frankly I'm still confused why it was setup based on simple majority. Isn't th really the sort of thing you want a supermajority for?

Because it was supposed to be an easy victory that would shut up the Leave crowd. Since it was a clear winner, there was no need for supermajority provisions.


Kevin Mack wrote:

Also now we have the situation of being led into the rest of this mess by someone who practiclly no one in the country (heck practically no one ine her own party) voted for. You know exactly one of the things the leave side had been arguing about in regards to the Eu.

To be blunt the entire thing has/is a farce.

The UK has a history of changing national leaders without General Elections in moments of crisis.

Winston Churchill replacing Neville Chamberlain in May, 1940, for example...

The Exchange

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
52 to 48 is not a small margin when you have 71 percent of the voters participating. That's considerably larger than the Bush-Gore contest. By region the result is more dramatic with England and Wales, save for London, voted to a man for Leave.

Not correct when you look at the actual numbers. If you exclude London entirely, you can get to 60% leave for certain regions. You can top 70% if you pick strongly UKIP constituencies. But you don't get to 'voted to a man'.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

Also now we have the situation of being led into the rest of this mess by someone who practiclly no one in the country (heck practically no one ine her own party) voted for. You know exactly one of the things the leave side had been arguing about in regards to the Eu.

To be blunt the entire thing has/is a farce.

The UK has a history of changing national leaders without General Elections in moments of crisis.

Winston Churchill replacing Neville Chamberlain in May, 1940, for example...

Well, you don't vote for a national leader in Parliamentary elections. You vote for a local MP. The local MPs collectively vote for a PM. By the way, the local MPs collectively are called "Parliament."

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
By the way, the local MPs collectively are called "Parliament."

I'm not entirely sure that's the terminology currently being used to describe them by most people, however historically you are correct.


And now the man who got us all into this mess has been appointed to the post of Foreign Secretary..in other words "You got us into this Boris now deal with the consequences" Talk about being handed a poison chalice

Serves the bugger right

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
DM Wellard wrote:

And now the man who got us all into this mess has been appointed to the post of Foreign Secretary..in other words "You got us into this Boris now deal with the consequences" Talk about being handed a poison chalice

Serves the bugger right

Except the rest of us have to suffer, too.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Wellard wrote:

And now the man who got us all into this mess has been appointed to the post of Foreign Secretary..in other words "You got us into this Boris now deal with the consequences" Talk about being handed a poison chalice

Serves the bugger right

He's been given the job by someone who said of him only a week or so ago "The last time he tried to do a deal with the Germans, he came back with three nearly-new water cannons!"

I'm pretty sure it's a "Behave, or destroy your career — your choice."

Interestingly, the one area of foreign policy that he doesn't get to touch, is Brexit. This will instead be handled by a man who a month ago was unaware that we wouldn't be able to negotiate new trade deals with EU members individually after we leave...

Dark Archive

DM Wellard wrote:

And now the man who got us all into this mess has been appointed to the post of Foreign Secretary..in other words "You got us into this Boris now deal with the consequences" Talk about being handed a poison chalice

Serves the bugger right

Except that I don't want him anywhere near it, or any other job of importance. Sure it's a s*@% job, but's it's a s**$ job than has to be done and that has to be done right.

BoJo's the wrong choice in s many regards -- not least is it sends completely the wrong message to the rest of the world.

On the other hand, ForSec in this ministry will be everywhere-except-europe (David Davis gets to be the janitor for the Brexit mess), so BoJo has responsibility for our relationship with the US (which he likes), the remains of the Empire^H^H^H^H^H^HCommonwealth (which he likes), Russia, India, and China (which to varying degrees find him entertaining, and where we have lots of experience FO staff to do the heavy lifting), and a bunch of small places he can delegate to junior ministers.


I have a friend who really wants to visit Japan. If he makes a mess of foreign policy, will they send him there? :)

I think a lot more is going on here.


Hitdice wrote:

52 to 48 is always a small margin, assuming we're talking percentages. "Considerably larger (number of votes, I guess?) than the Bush-Gore contest" is like the lowest bar to meet, ever. 'Cause, y'know, Bush vs Gore was decided by the Supreme Court, not the voting public.

Can I ask if you reside in the UK, Drahliana?

You may ask. I will tell you that I followed the event on Sky News rather than Fox or CNN.

I've tried to emphasize that concentrating on just the raw percentage numbers misses the point.

England is essentially the lead nation in the United Kingdom... always has been. With the exception of the London districts, England voted virtually unanimously for Brexit, as did Wales. That and the fact that Brexit did get the majority vote, seals the deal on what the next Prime Minister must do assuming that something extremely unusual doesn't change the political equation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


England is essentially the lead nation in the United Kingdom... always has been. With the exception of the London districts, England voted virtually unanimously for Brexit, as did Wales. That and the fact that Brexit did get the majority vote, seals the deal on what the next Prime Minister must do assuming that something extremely unusual doesn't change the political equation.

That doesn't really follow -- the political equation in the UK doesn't work that way. "England" doesn't exist, politically, not even as strongly as Scotland (which at least has its own assembly). ["England, with the exception of the London districts" even less so.]

As I pointed out earlier, people don't vote for PM in the UK; they vote for their local MP. Once Parliament happens, the MPs as a whole vote for PM, typically on the basis of party affiliation (and without regard to national affiliation). Even the party leader isn't chosen by "England"; s/he is either selected by the MPs (as just happened), or is elected by the party members, again without regard to national affiliation,

So all Ms. May needs to do to keep her job is keep most of the Conservative MPs happy, and keep a Conservative majority in Parliament. The fact that Yorkshire voted 58% for leave doesn't actually matter unless the Yorkshire voters will shift party affiliations enough to deprive Ms. May of her majority, a process that could take up to five years (until the next scheduled general election).

It sounds very nice to talk about "what the next Prime Minister must do," but, really, where's the force? If Ms. May were to say "Eff the Brexit," what happens? She just won a resounding victory in a leadership contest, so she's highly unlikely to face a Tory revolt. Conversely, Labour, the SNP, and the Liberal Democrats together don't have the votes to dissolve Parliament via a motion of confidence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
With the exception of the London districts, England voted virtually unanimously for Brexit, as did Wales.

By the way, this is also false.

There were 9 regional voting counts in England; 8 of the 9 voted to Leave. London, of course, was the exception. But the Leave vote as a percentage never rose above 60% in any of those regions (the most lopsided was the West Midlands with 59.26%). Wales split 53%/47% for Leave.

While a technical majority, this is far from "virtually unanimously." Which again suggests that, far from some sort of Divine punishment lying in wait for May if she delays or outright abandons the Brexit, she's can probably play such a decision to her political advantage if she frames it right.

Basically, she's given the two top Leave proponents in the government the job of negotiating their way out of the EU. If, as I expect, they couldn't actually negotiate the time from a church clock, she can simply stall until their failure is obvious.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
England voted virtually unanimously for Brexit, as did Wales

Factually untrue, as has been pointed out already upthread. Regardless of peoples natural wishes to presume that the whole country apart from a tiny minority agree with them, the government has to focus on the fact that the population as a whole is split by a knife-edge on this, and demographics mean that the balance is changing rapidly. The likely outcome is that the next election will be fought shortly after Brexit becomes final, with an English electorate that is marginally in favour of it never having happened - I believe that the rate of swing is something circa 500k votes per year.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
While a technical majority, this is far from "virtually unanimously."

Especially given the number of people in the 'Regrexit' camp.

There's the following categories of numpties, who should be barred from voting on the grounds of incompetence;

"This was my protest vote against Cameron. I didn't think they'd win."
"I voted Leave, as a joke, because I was dared to."
"I voted Leave, but I don't know what that means?"
"I went online to find out what leaving the EU meant, after I'd voted to do so, and I don't agree with what they stand for. How do I reverse my vote?"

And there are the people who knew what they were voting for, and were doing so because of explicit claims and promises, who are angry at being misled.

The country was lied to, regarding what the EU is, what the EU does, how the EU positions are filled, the fact the UK has a better deal than anyone else, 98% of EU law being proposed/seconded by UK politicians, and the UK exempting themselves from much of the remaining 2%.

They were lied to regarding the ease with which Brexit could happen, the ease with which new treaties could be negotiated, and told the UK economy would be £350 million pounds per week better off, all of which would be spent on public services, in addition to the funding they already get.

The very morning of the result, the main campaigners for Brexit turned up on TV, telling the public that none of the statements they had campaigned on was true.
We can't reduce immigration.
We can't negotiate individual trade deals.
The UK can't save £350 million/week in EU membership fees, because we have never sent that amount.
Not only will there be no additional funding for any public services, from not paying EU membership, but we will not be able to meet the funding levels that the EU currently returns to us. There will need to be draconic cuts to public services, to pay for the financial upheaval.
And, despite the fact every one of us have been filmed making those promises, have added our support to leaflets with those promises, and been photographed in front of a bus with those promises on, 'we never ever claimed that'.

So, if the public were to be asked today, the result would be far closer than 52:48, possibly a majority to remain.

A new Prime Minister needs to be aware of that, and that going ahead with Brexit could actually anger more people than if they did not.

Plus, because the referendum was so vaguely drafted, it is unclear what exactly, the Leave voters even want.
Do they want a Norway-style agreement? Swiss? Something else?

The PM is under no obligation to promise Leave voters they will get what they want, when the likelihood is that the majority no longer want it, the votes were gained via deception, and the Leave voters are incoherent in even explaining what it is they thought they were voting for.


Snorter wrote:

...The country was lied to, regarding what the EU is, what the EU does, how the EU positions are filled, the fact the UK has a better deal than anyone else, 98% of EU law being proposed/seconded by UK politicians, and the UK exempting themselves from much of the remaining 2%.

They were lied to regarding the ease with which Brexit could happen, the ease with which new treaties could be negotiated, and told the UK economy would be £350 million pounds per week better off, all of which would be spent on public services, in addition to the funding they already get.

The very morning of the result, the main campaigners for Brexit turned up on TV, telling the public that none of the statements they had campaigned on was true.
We can't reduce immigration.
We can't negotiate individual trade deals.
The UK can't save £350 million/week in EU membership fees, because we have never sent that amount.
Not only will there be no additional funding for any public services, from not paying EU membership, but we will not be able to meet the funding levels that the EU currently returns to us. There will need to be draconic cuts to public services, to pay for the financial upheaval.
And, despite the fact every one of us have been filmed making those promises, have...

In fairness, the country was also lied to by the 'remain' camp, who promised some sort of financial apocalypse, and George Osborne going crazy with a budget hatchet within days of any 'leave' vote.

So far the pound has fallen, but the stockmarket seems to have been bouncing up and down rather than plummeting through the floor, George Osborne had a chance to implement (or at least announce) a budget that would bring the country to its knees - and yet singularly failed to do so - and there seems to have been a shortage of bankers throwing themselves off the top of Canary Wharf or The Gherkin to date or of their institutions going into meltdown.

The country voted (overall) to leave, and yet the four horsemen of the financial apocalypse seem to have decided (thus far - granted that *might* change) to loiter in the bar for a couple of more rounds of drinks, rather than to ride out laying waste to the economy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
...There's the following categories of numpties, who should be barred from voting on the grounds of incompetence...

If you're barring people from voting on the grounds of incompetence, obviously wisdom only comes with age and experience, so only those fine folk over the age of 65 should be allowed to vote on such grounds.

(These superabundantly experienced citizens are, of course, also those who have put the most into the country in terms of a working life and taxes paid, and who - as those who have 'invested' the most into the economy - have the best grounds for having a 'say' in what gets done with what they have built up...)

Crazy? I'll show you CRAZY!!!
Disclaimer: There should of course be a disclaimer here, but I'm too busy telling young whipper-snappers to get orff my lawn to fill it in.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Regarding the financial markets:

The FTSE has been largely level. This is because, weirdly (not) the pound is worth £1. In other words, UK companies trading on the UK stock exchange are still worth as much to each other as they were before the vote. Surprise!

However, the pound has been hammered overseas. Not looking forward to my planned US holiday next year, and a friend of mine is shortly moving to the US for his work on a three year stint, and his cash has just had a massive reduction in value.

Meanwhile, several investment firms have ceased trading in UK commercial properties because they don't have enough liquid cash for all the people who think "with no international trade, UK commercial property is a sucky deal, get out now!", which has resulted in some interesting situations for other investors, or if they've not stopped trading, they've suspended their funds for a few days before whacking a chuffing great 17% reduction in the value of their properties, just in case anyone else is thinking of not hanging into those funds. Yes, that is exactly the same as a £200,000 house suddenly only being worth £166,000 after a couple of weeks. Doesn't matter if you're still going to live there, but just try selling it...

The UK financial services sector is being completely screwed by Brexit, and unfortunately one of our powerhouse industries in the EU was our financial services sector.

It may not be obvious that this is happening, but it has and is, and we haven't hit rock bottom yet.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
In fairness, the country was also lied to by the 'remain' camp, who promised some sort of financial apocalypse, and George Osborne going crazy with a budget hatchet within days of any 'leave' vote.

It's good to be even-handed, but there is a material difference between misdirection (I won't label the Leave campaign as liars), and prediction. The first stirrings of the financial pain it has been predicted this will cause have been felt, and if we lose London's 'financial passport', that is £35B of tax going into the budget that has to come from somewhere else (it will only be a proportion of that, probably).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also one of the reason the econemy diddent collapse is because the bank of england ejected 150 Billion pound bailout into the econemy in order to prevent that


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
The country voted (overall) to leave, and yet the four horsemen of the financial apocalypse seem to have decided (thus far - granted that *might* change) to loiter in the bar for a couple of more rounds of drinks, rather than to ride out laying waste to the economy.

Just curious, do you know for a fact that British companies are going to be able to maintain their financial passports to the EU economy?

Currently, it's estimated that a firm that wants to relocate to Brussels, Paris, Frankfurt or Stockholm will have to spend roughly €50 million. That's per firm. Yet this will still end up being cheaper than staying in London after a mere 3-4 years once the passporting of financial services ends.

Not being in the EU will cost London based financial firms somewhere around €10-20 million every year, in addition to having lowered revenue due to not having access to certain clients. For example, financial firms will no longer be able to make corporate loans.

The UK gets about £65.6 billion in tax revenue from the financial services sector, or about 11.5% of all tax revenue. That number is going to go down significantly as firms either aren't able to do business across the channel, or have to relocate altogether.

The apocalypse hasn't happened yet, I agree. But right now, these businesses can still do business. Once the Brexit happens, if that's no longer true, the UK government is going to find it's lost a serious amount of revenue. How much of that £65.6 billion? I don't know for sure, but if it's more than ~£5 billion, it'll be more than the UK was paying into the EU.

I imagine that France, Germany, Belgium and Sweden are all going to vote in favor of cutting off the UK's financial passporting, because it means they all get a bigger slice of that pie and increase their own internal tax revenues.

751 to 800 of 863 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The inevitable Brexit thread All Messageboards