UK Politics: The Morning After

[Shryke]

2 minutes ago, Andrés Garcia said:

You really didn't answer my point though. I'm saying that in this particular instance, when your fundamental principle is taken to its extreme, it does appear undemocratic. My saying this doesn't go against the ideals of representative democracy, since there may well be other instances where a general election is far easier to understand than the choices that need to be made. All you managed to say was a stubborn "nuh-uh"

If representative democracy is by your argument "undemocratic" then that word has lost all meaning since none of the things we call democracies meet the definition of "democratic" anymore, which is ludicrous. I did already answer your point and am doing so again now.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah man, who needs a decent economy. Or a currency not plummeting in value.

Europhile MPs have actually trashed the UK economy before. ERM anyone ...

[mormont]

23 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Well, I would have thought the EU would struggle to claim that the referendum itself was the notification when their first response to the decision was to call on the UK to activate Article 50 quickly, thereby implying that they had not done so.

Edit: God knows what's happened there with the quote function and what Fez has to do with it!

This quote function business is easy.

I'm not suggesting the referendum itself was the notification. But equally, it's not unreasonable to argue that trying to delay notification on what is literally a formality, one not actually laid down in law or even in writing, while presumably attending EU meetings and summits and refusing to indicate whether we'll be leaving at those, is something people might challenge.

18 minutes ago, protar said:

I'm really just clinging to the slim possibility that the new PM will just choose to ignore the referendum. I don't know if there's even a candidate that would do that, but if they did - would they not have loads of support? Half the country doesn't want to leave and I'm sure seeing the pound crash has made more than a few brexiters regret their vote. 

I'm on the losing side here and even I think that this would be disgraceful. As are all the petitions about a second referendum with a turnout threshold, and so on.

This was a perfectly solid result in democratic terms. If Remain had won with 50.1% of the vote on a 30% turnout we'd all be hailing it and saying how democratic it was. People should stop trying to delegitimise it just because we dislike it.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Andrés Garcia said:

Why don't you tell me about World War III and IV and V while you're at it.

Why don't you look at the value of the pound today instead. I'm not the one talking about fantasies.

[Andrés Garcia]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

If representative democracy is by your argument "undemocratic" then that word has lost all meaning since none of the things we call democracies meet the definition of "democratic" anymore, which is ludicrous. I did already answer your point and am doing so again now.

You omitted part of my point. And I still don't believe you answered it, but since I'm beginning to suspect that you can't, I'll leave it at that. I'll just let readers decide whether you're right or not. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that representative democracy is fundamentally undemocratic. I'm just saying that by not letting certain decisions be taken by the public, it can be.

For the sake of completion, I'll leave the rest of my quote here:

The poster above also makes a good point. If the parliament is capable of making decisions about a EU referendum for themselves, then surely they're capable of knowing when to leave such decisions to the public as well?

 

[Shryke]

5 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

And the MPs agreed to submit the question of the UK's EU membership to the electorate (as in 1975) and are now honour bound to abide by the result.  

We have no plans to apply direct democracy extensively. But great constitutional issues can be settled by referendums.

They can also be settled by a monkey knife fight, with one labelled "Stay" and the other "Leave", but this is also a stupid idea.

They can certainly ignore the result if they want since I've read nothing saying it's legally binding. That would, in fact, be the smart thing to do and would be them actually doing their jobs of representing the people who elected them's best interests. Which is the point of the whole representative democracy thing.

And that's not even touching on the silliness of simple majority requirements for this kind of thing in a direct referendum.

[protar]

14 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Not from anyone who valued the principle of democracy.

Ignoring the referendum result would not be undemocratic at all and here's why:

a.) Referendums are pretty much never legally binding in the UK and that fact has always been available to the public for those who cared to educate themselves. If someone thought the referendum meant something different then that's on them.

b.) It was not a landslide victory. Half the country doesn't want this and it could easily have gone a different way merely due to random fluctuations of voter turnout. Given how close it was I think not having a possibility to reconsider is incredibly rash.

c.) A lot of people voted to leave under the assumption that it would be good for the economy. Well the pound is at a thirty year low and the right wingers are already rescinding the promises they made (i.e giving more money to the NHS). So I'd wager a lot of brexiters are regretting their decision. And if they aren't, well they voted on assumptions that have now been proven demonstrably false. Screwing ourselves over for decades to come because of the ignorance of the slight majority is not democracy, it's idiocy.

D.) If a candidate announces an intention to overturn the result, and we vote them in because of that claim...that is democracy in action. That's Britain saying "actually, we've reconsidered. We don't want to leave, so we're voting in this guy who will fix the problem."

[Andrés Garcia]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Why don't you look at the value of the pound today instead. I'm not the one talking about fantasies.

Yes, looking at the pound the day after is a reliable indicator of whether a country will end up having an economy in the long term. You're just making yourself look worse and worse in this debate. Just stop it, for your own sake.

 

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Andrés Garcia said:

You omitted part of my point. And I still don't believe you answered it, but since I'm beginning to suspect that you can't, I'll leave it at that. I'll just let readers decide whether you're right or not. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that representative democracy is fundamentally undemocratic. I'm just saying that by not letting certain decisions be taken by the public, it can be.

For the sake of completion, I'll leave the rest of my quote here:

The poster above also makes a good point. If the parliament is capable of making decisions about a EU referendum for themselves, then surely they're capable of knowing when to leave such decisions to the public as well?

 

I didn't omit part of your point, it didn't exist. I read the post and hit the quote function. It is not there. So stop with this stupidity of yours.

And parliament is certainly free to have a referendum on an issue. And perfectly free to ignore it should it return a stupid result.

Asking the question was fucking stupid in the first place and we should all know it. This was Cameron being a fucking moron trying to fend off attacks from the UKIP and ending up shooting himself in the face because, hey, it turns out "Remain" was not an easy win. Good job dumbass.

[Chaircat Meow]

4 minutes ago, Shryke said:

They can also be settled by a monkey knife fight, with one labelled "Stay" and the other "Leave", but this is also a stupid idea.

They can certainly ignore the result if they want since I've read nothing saying it's legally binding. That would, in fact, be the smart thing to do and would be them actually doing their jobs of representing the people who elected them's best interests. Which is the point of the whole representative democracy thing.

And that's not even touching on the silliness of simple majority requirements for this kind of thing in a direct referendum.

 They can't and won't ignore the result.

The referendum was a manifesto pledge (by the conservative party) and was agreed to by Parliament. It is fully compatible with our tradition of representative democracy.  

[protar]

5 minutes ago, Emre Mor-mont said:

I'm on the losing side here and even I think that this would be disgraceful. As are all the petitions about a second referendum with a turnout threshold, and so on.

This was a perfectly solid result in democratic terms. If Remain had won with 50.1% of the vote on a 30% turnout we'd all be hailing it and saying how democratic it was. People should stop trying to delegitimise it just because we dislike it.

I'm just as democratic as the next guy. But when slightly more than half of a bus full of people are shouting at the driver to drive them off a cliff, I'm not going to complain when the driver decides to give them the finger and not do that.

 

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Andrés Garcia said:

Yes, looking at the pound the day after is a reliable indicator of whether a country will end up having an economy in the long term. You're just making yourself look worse and worse in this debate. Just stop it, for your own sake.

Dude, the only one looking stupid here is the person trying to ignore the news out of the markets as this news hit. News which was basically exactly the kind of reaction experts were saying would happen. There's no reason to think this won't negatively effect the UK economy in the long term.

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

 They can't and won't ignore the result.

The referendum was a manifesto pledge (by the conservative party) and was agreed to by Parliament. It is fully compatible with our tradition of representative democracy.  

They certainly can. What is binding about the result? What forces their hand? There is no force of law here as far as I'm aware.

[DaveSumm]

I'm surprised how much talk there is of ignoring it. This is happening. There'll be no second referendum, there'll be no new rule to only do it for 60% majorities, there'll be no independent city of London within the EU. We're out, the prospective Tory leaders will have to lay out their strategy for exiting as part of their leadership election, then swiftly enact A50 once they're sworn in. You could maybe talk like this for something that got far less attention (the AV referendum for example) but this is a huge global story. It can't be reversed.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I wonder how many people decided on Brexit as a result of the EU's handling of Greece.

No. The handling of Greece was more a matter of the Eurozone, and less a matter of the EU in general. The Brits had nothing to do it. Except from trying to call the shots from the sidelines. A bit like a football screaming at the manager which subs to make. 

But a general question for you, becuase I find some argumentation a wee bit mind boggling:

So the Brexit is good, because now the EU can no longer enforce neo liberal economics upon the British Goverment, which is headed by the Tories? In other words, now that the UK is out of the EU the heirs of Lady Thatcher can finally engulf socialism, expand the NHS and spend all the cash on social services? If that happens, two things will happen. 1. I will admit the Tories pleasently surprised me. 2. I realize I somehow landed in a bizarre twilight zone universe. 

I mean you are aware, that most of the leave campaign criticism is from the Neo-liberal playbook. The EU is overregulating business with too many rules. And I assume you are also aware, that Britain was the one EU player, that strongly opposed stricter banking regulations? Well, that was at least the nicer leave argument, compared to the Breaking Point, no immigration campaigning. 

Well, I guess I will hold my breath and watch comrade Boris and comrade Nigel build a socialist paradise in England. Afterall Cuba is an Island, too. 

[Chaircat Meow]

7 minutes ago, Shryke said:

They certainly can. What is binding about the result? What forces their hand?

Because it is, de facto, a binding referendum. Parliament ignoring the result is unthinkable.  Neither of the main parties could afford to. 

I actually don't understand why people are even arguing about this.

The real question, I think, is about the terms of the UK's exit, and whether this will involve a trade deal that preserves freedom of movement.

[protar]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Because it is, de facto, a binding referendum. Parliament ignoring the result is unthinkable.  Neither of the main parties could afford to. 

I actually don't understand why people are even arguing about this.

The real question, I think, is about the terms of the UK's exit, and whether this will involve a trade deal that preserves freedom of movement.

Well as to that we can pretty much forget about a favourable trade deal of any sort. The EU is going to be as hardline with us as possible because if we get a good deal it encourages other members to hold their own referendums.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The trade deal will indeed be an interesting show. Well not the deal itself, but how the British goverment (whoever might be the poor bastards in charge) will try to sell it. 

The three big points were: the payments to the EU will stop, and freedom of movement, and overregulation.

If you look at the deal Norway has, they have to accept all that for access to the single market, just that they really don't have any say in the EU concerning laws and regulations. It is really inconceivable how the UK can hope for anything better, than Norway. 

Happy independence day, Boris. 

[Prince of the North]

How many other counties are in a similar situation?

Quote

Cornwall has issued an urgent plea for reassurance that it will not be worse off following the Brexit vote.

The county has received a "significant amounts" of funding from the EU for the past 15 years due to its "relatively weak economy".

 

[Tijgy]

Just now, protar said:

Well as to that we can pretty much forget about a favourable trade deal of any sort. The EU is going to be as hardline with us as possible because if we get a good deal it encourages other members to hold their own referendums.

Everyone has to lose with a bad agreement. If they force upon UK strict terms, this would also be bad for several other countries. Today I already read an article by one of our biggest weaving companies they do want UK to have a similar agreement as with Norway because UK is their biggest export country. 

If the EU is being strict, then a lot of other countries would also wanting to leave the EU because they might then get better agreements with the UK. Because thanks to the EU, we cannot have trade anymore with Russia. Luckily for us Flemish, Indians also like pears pretty much because we had a lot of unsold pears. 

And for apparently they already decided the guy who will lead the task force during the negotiations. He is Belgian and the former chief of staff of Van Rompuy (First President of the European Council)

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160624_02355737