BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

  • News
  • Thread starter sunrah
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Voting
In summary: Granted there might well be an economic difference between countries that never joined and one that leaves the EU even though Britain has its own currency. But I object to the... general panic about what might happen.
  • #71
The whole issue of Brexit is turning into a complete farce.The main proponents Bojo Gove and Farage are spiralling into a morass of more lies and deceit.
They appear like rabbits caught in headlights, they never believed they would win the vote and as a consequence they had no plan as to what they would do if they did.
This is now being played out to the despair and incredulity of all.The pledges they made before the vote are turning out to be false or with strings.
It turns out there never was a migrant issue because if there is students and the like won't be able to work and travel within the EU in the future when some kind of deal is to be struck.
Meanwhile the PM won't sign any formal exit from the EU so the process of Brexit can not begin much to the anger of the politicians in the EU because this might cause them problems with there own electorate wanting to leave.The EU is not even sure if we are going to leave.
Any money that might have been saved from the payments to the EU is dwindling away as the stock market crashes and city jobs move from capital to Europe.
It goes on and on like teeth being extracted, these muppets between them have caused mayhem because of a personal jape, they should be totally ashamed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Jonathan Scott said:
There's a BBC news article which goes into some reasons why they think Leave won. It specifically mentions the £350 million NHS claim: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36574526
Yes though I still don't see how the over step of the ad carries much weight. If the ad had said $250 million per week, *some* of which could be spent on the NHS as is clearly the case, then what difference?
This referendum seems to have been a big mistake.

Clearly you've made the case that this is what you believe. Fair enough. But I've seen little reason as to why. Because misinformation had some play? When does it not. Unity? One does not create unity by force via far away and nameless bureaucrat.

The immediate outcome of the referendum is that a *majority* of an increasingly unsatisfied populace has had its voice heard and the issue resolved. Without the referendum or equivalent resolution, that problem could have only grown worse. I think one would have, for instance, increasingly seen single issue MPs elected which the electorate disagrees with otherwise.
 
  • #73
micromass said:
Proof please.
I think it's getting quite off topic, but look at the VB election program on their website: increasing pensions, improve social housing, improve healthcare and waiting lists, reduce costs of retirement homes, reduce poverty with maximum billing, ...

A part of the appeal of leaving seemed to be that money spent on others could be better spent on ourselves. But the problem is that 'others' will always be redefined and people who fixate on this will never be happy and keep blaming others for internal or global problems. If it's not refugees, it's eastern Europeans. If it's not Eastern Europeans, it's other easily definable groups in the country (Wallonians in Belgium for example), if it's not that...

Negativity is another; I just saw an interview with an English woman who was asked why she voted leave and if she's not worried of possible economic consequences. Her answer was no, because she has nothing now so has nothing to loose, her situation could not become worse, so it can only improve by leaving...
I know, I have an easy life with an engineering diploma and no financial worries, but my goodness, the sheer lack of realisation of how good a life she can lead even with all the problems she is undoubtedly facing.

I think the EU has a big PR issue. We almost never hear any of the accomplishments of the EU, mainly costs and bureaucratic issues.
I very much like the USB phone chargers though :)
 
  • #74
ZVdP said:
I think it's getting quite off topic, but look at the VB election program on their website: increasing pensions, improve social housing, improve healthcare and waiting lists, reduce costs of retirement homes, reduce poverty with maximum billing, ...

Yep, but if you know their track record in parliament, it looks nothing like what you listed.

Also, some other things:
- Abolish trade unions
- Reduce role of government
- Reduce taxes
- Make it easier for companies and entrepreneurs

Not really a left-wing program, is it?
 
  • #75
micromass said:
Yep, but if you know their track record in parliament, it looks nothing like what you listed.
Also, some other things:
- Abolish trade unions
- Reduce role of government
- Reduce taxes
- Make it easier for companies and entrepreneurs
Not really a left-wing program, is it?
But it's what they sell to the people. The original post was about a push to the right. I think that if you question the people that voted leave, you will find a reasonable portion of them will be quite left leaning regarding to welfare for the working class (after applying a nationalistic filter), maybe more than they realize themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
mheslep said:
The immediate outcome of the referendum is that a *majority* of an increasingly unsatisfied populace has had its voice heard and the issue resolved. Without the referendum or equivalent resolution, that problem could have only grown worse.
Unfortunately nothing has been "resolved" so far, and plans to do so seem sketchy at best; it all seems to be descending into chaos.
I'm sure just about everyone would agree that major EU reform was necessary, but the form of this referendum was far too polar; a vote for Remain seemed like a vote to accept the status quo, and it seems that many voted Leave simply to register their protest against that.
If it had for example been extremely close the other way, that would have registered the extreme dissatisfaction with the current situation in a less destructive way, and might well have helped to push forward reform.
In the longer term, I would have agreed that if reform continued to prove impossible then we should investigate alternatives including leaving, and perhaps have a referendum on it, but that should be based on positive preferences to select between multiple specific options which have been fully worked out, clearly identifying the way in which UK wished to continue to work with the EU. (The consequences of the options may be difficult to predict, but this time we didn't even know what the options were). It always seems better in principle to vote for something rather than against something.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #77
I absolutely agree with that and if I could have voted for a 51.1% Remain vote I would have. I would even have been open to argument for 51.2%. :oldbiggrin:
 
  • #78
Buckleymanor said:
The whole issue of Brexit is turning into a complete farce.The main proponents Bojo Gove and Farage are spiralling into a morass of more lies and deceit.
They appear like rabbits caught in headlights, they never believed they would win the vote and as a consequence they had no plan as to what they would do if they did.
This is now being played out to the despair and incredulity of all.The pledges they made before the vote are turning out to be false or with strings.
It turns out there never was a migrant issue because if there is students and the like won't be able to work and travel within the EU in the future when some kind of deal is to be struck.
Meanwhile the PM won't sign any formal exit from the EU so the process of Brexit can not begin much to the anger of the politicians in the EU because this might cause them problems with there own electorate wanting to leave.The EU is not even sure if we are going to leave.
Any money that might have been saved from the payments to the EU is dwindling away as the stock market crashes and city jobs move from capital to Europe.
It goes on and on like teeth being extracted, these muppets between them have caused mayhem because of a personal jape, they should be totally ashamed.

I think much of that is unfair, or at least I would put it another way.

There cannot be a policy for the moment, in that there is no government with authority to act In this matter. Cameron has quite rightly said that he would not himself initiate the article 50 procedure. He could not undertake delicate negotiation on behalf of the policy he was against, so it has to wait until there is a new Prime Minister, which means essentially a new leader of the Conservative party, which could take even three months. The system consists of the Parliamentary party whittling down by successive votes an initial list until only two candidates remain, then party members in the whole country decide between them. If Boris Johnson makes it onto this final duo, then he will certainly be elected. So most of what this election will be about will be substantial group of MPs doing all they can to ensure that he does not make this final duo.

Buckleymanor is right in the sense that it is true that in the campaign, whereas what the Brexiters wanted to be free of was a clear and well-defined entity , what they wanted in its place was scarcely mentioned and there are different ideas about it. Realistically I don't see how that could have been expected to be different. Nor realistically could it be immediately clarified within 3 days of the referendum result. Participants in single issue campaigns are usually coalitions. You will remember that it was for quite some time in dispute what organisation was going to represent Brexit in the referendum campaign..

Then the vote having been made, the responsibility comes down not to people who were important in the campaign necessarily, but primarily to the government. And for this purpose for now there isn't one, see above. The government will have to form strategy, negotiation tems etc. And as well as the government, everybody and his dog is demanding also to participate – UKIP, the Scottish government, Labour, Unions, even The London mayoralty and the regions.

As to what the strategic aims could be, I have long thought that the end result would most probably be what you would expect of Establishments’ natural tendency - that is something as little different from the present as possible. An example would be what I expect to happen with the science programmes , as I stated on other posts. The most key question it would be do we remain in the Single Market? Many would assume yes. This would also involve continuing to pay the expensive subscription, and according to what commentators say, would require us to maintain the Freedom of Movement principle. That is difficult is to do rigidly, since this is what the anti– vote was all about. A different option, advocated by Michael Gove, (Minister of justice and one of the few intellectual politicians who has thought about it) is to exit also the Single Market and adopt the option called the WTO rules, which would involve tariffs in trade to and from Europe. From a political point of view I don't personally think that there is any urgency to make these choices, which in any case are going to take Time. I think that leaving these options open for a time seems to be no bad thing, in order to drive some sense into the heads of the leaders of the European bureaucracy and certain European national leaders, who have in the last day or two been trying to lay down somewhat peremptory orders of what Britain should do when. I think they need to let sink in the magnitude and consequences of the possible loss of the British net financial contribution to the EU budget, the second biggest of all countries' - and that a decisive cause of the referendum going the way it did was their own obdurate rigidity.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Just three days after a shocking vote to leave the European Union, millions of Britons are asking for a do-over. But is it possible to stop the process?

Technically, yes. While the chances are slim, there are several ways the UK could reverse course.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britain-revote-stop-brexit-081452041.html
Over 3 million UK residents signed a petition on Parliament's site demanding a second vote take place, the largest petition the government's website has ever seen. Parliament must debate any proposal with over 100,000 signatures.

The petition, which launched before the referendum, asked for a second vote on EU membership if support for the remain or leave vote was below 60% with turnout under 75%.

Thursday's British exit vote had only 52% backing on a 72% turnout. While the petition must be considered by Parliament, members do not need to act on it.
It seems the vote should have been on reforming the EU or modifying the relationship between the UK and EU rather than breaking that relationship.

I'm amazed at the number of folks who voted to leave thinking that the Leave side would lose. It seems they voted as a protest, but did not intend to see the UK split from the EU.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and Greg Bernhardt
  • #80
Astronuc said:
Just three days after a shocking vote to leave the European Union
Shocking? The polls predicted as much or at least indicated exit was very possible. Shocking to whom?
I'm amazed at the number of folks who voted to leave thinking that the Leave side would lose. It seems they voted as a protest, but did not intend to see the UK split from the EU.

Reference please. There's no such indication in the Yahoo link.
 
  • #83
  • Like
Likes Evanish
  • #84
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Evanish
  • #85
mheslep said:
Reference please. There's no such indication in the Yahoo link.
I was listening to various interviews on the broadcast news. I'll see if I can find references in print.

mheslep said:
Man on the street interviews, anectodotes.
More than anecdotes. They are testimonies of those who voted to leave and now regret that vote.

Apparently, many were angered after "Nigel Farage admitted on Good Morning Britain it was a "mistake" for the Leave campaign to claim the £350 million reportedly given to the EU each week would go to the NHS instead."

Meanwhile a sampling -

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12024634/brexit-supporters-regret-vote
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/peopl...leave-the-eu-heres-what-they-told-us-5965067/
http://www.people.com/article/brexit-voters-regret-uk-leave-eu

The petition for all those with second thoughts quickly flew past the 100,000 signatures needed to force a debate in Parliament. How many of those are those who voted to Leave vs those who voted to Remain, I don't know. Perhaps Cameron should have taken it more seriously and started negotiating on the Open Borders matter.

http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-leave-voters-wish-vote-remain-regret-eu-referendum-474306

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/

And one which claims - more than a million regret voting to leave,
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/more-than-a-million-people-regret-voting-leave-poll-shows-5968048/
In total, 7% of those surveyed said they wished they had not voted for Britain to leave the European Union – equal to around 1,130,000 people.

Around 4% said they regretted voting Remain, which works out at around 696,000 people.
but nearly 700,000 regret voting to remain.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
epenguin said:

I think much of that is unfair, or at least I would put it another way.

There cannot be a policy for the moment, in that there is no government with authority to act In this matter. Cameron has quite rightly said that he would not himself initiate the article 50 procedure. He could not undertake delicate negotiation on behalf of the policy he was against, so it has to wait until there is a new Prime Minister, which means essentially a new leader of the Conservative party, which could take even three months. The system consists of the Parliamentary party whittling down by successive votes an initial list until only two candidates remain, then party members in the whole country decide between them. If Boris Johnson makes it onto this final duo, then he will certainly be elected. So most of what this election will be about will be substantial group of MPs doing all they can to ensure that he does not make this final duo.

Buckleymanor is right in the sense that it is true that in the campaign, whereas what the Brexiters wanted to be free of was a clear and well-defined entity , what they wanted in its place was scarcely mentioned and there are different ideas about it. Realistically I don't see how that could have been expected to be different. Nor realistically could it be immediately clarified within 3 days of the referendum result. Participants in single issue campaigns are usually coalitions. You will remember that it was for quite some time in dispute what organisation was going to represent Brexit in the referendum campaign..

Then the vote having been made, the responsibility comes down not to people who were important in the campaign necessarily, but primarily to the government. And for this purpose for now there isn't one, see above. The government will have to form strategy, negotiation tems etc. And as well as the government, everybody and his dog is demanding also to participate – UKIP, the Scottish government, Labour, Unions, even The London mayoralty and the regions.

As to what the strategic aims could be, I have long thought that the end result would most probably be what you would expect of Establishments’ natural tendency - that is something as little different from the present as possible. An example would be what I expect to happen with the science programmes , as I stated on other posts. The most key question it would be do we remain in the Single Market? Many would assume yes. This would also involve continuing to pay the expensive subscription, and according to what commentators say, would require us to maintain the Freedom of Movement principle. That is difficult is to do rigidly, since this is what the anti– vote was all about. A different option, advocated by Michael Gove, (Minister of justice and one of the few intellectual politicians who has thought about it) is to exit also the Single Market and adopt the option called the WTO rules, which would involve tariffs in trade to and from Europe. From a political point of view I don't personally think that there is any urgency to make these choices, which in any case are going to take Time. I think that leaving these options open for a time seems to be no bad thing, in order to drive some sense into the heads of the leaders of the European bureaucracy and certain European national leaders, who have in the last day or two been trying to lay down somewhat peremptory orders of what Britain should do when. I think they need to let sink in the magnitude and consequences of the possible loss of the British net financial contribution to the EU budget, the second biggest of all countries' - and that a decisive cause of the referendum going the way it did was their own obdurate rigidity.
And there was me trying my upmost to be restrained:smile:
If Boris does make the cut it's doubtful after being a popular mayor of London to becoming one of it's most hateful figures at least by the morning rabble who gather outside his London residence.
You cannot imagine him relishing the prospect of becoming PM with so many discontents banging on his door every morning after bathing in the limelight.
As for staying in the single market it makes sense but when has any sense prevailed in this election.
Like war truth has been a casualty in this referendum and will probably continue to be.
As for the intellectual capability of Mr, Gove the Mr,Gove who was sacked for being unpopular towards teachers when he was education minister and who recently compared experts with Nazis I agree he had the intellectual foresight to apologise but I suspect his intelligence for having said it in the first place.
Before joining the EU Britain was considered the poor man of Europe and now has the second biggest economy within the EU.
The heads of the European bureaucracy must have been of some help as you cannot imagine it's all down to likes of our MPs and parliament after you see in full flight the type of actual performance they contribute.
 
  • #87
mheslep said:
Comes from a Survation poll, 33 people regret exit vote, 19 regret leave vote. Same pollster was wrong on referendum outcome.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2016/06/Survation-post-Brexit-poll.pdf

Man on the street interviews, anecdotes.
Over 3 million Brits sign request to redo Brexit vote.

2) A re-do referendum
Over 3 million UK residents signed a petition on Parliament's site demanding a second vote take place, the largest petition the government's website has ever seen. Parliament must debate any proposal with over 100,000 signatures.

The petition, which launched before the referendum, asked for a second vote on EU membership if support for the remain or leave vote was below 60% with turnout under 75%.

Thursday's British exit vote had only 52% backing on a 72% turnout. While the petition must be considered by Parliament, members do not need to act on it.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britain-revote-stop-brexit-081452041.html

A petition calling for another referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Union has quickly received millions of signatures (more than 3 million as of Sunday morning) — a level that means it must now be debated by British politicians. It was apparently so popular that the British Parliament's website, where the petition was hosted, briefly crashed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-referendum-they-shouldnt-hold-their-breath/
 
  • #89
So who is going to be obliged to trigger the article 50 divorce process then?, a referendum in the UK is not legally binding, it's considered as 'advisory', a govt still has to declare it as being the official policy of the govt.
Until such time as a new pm is appointed who announces this, nothing actually has changed.
For some reason I have not yet fathomed, the loudest proponents for 'leave', are now arguing that there is no rush to set the actual mechanism for departure in motion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Buckleymanor
  • #90
Evo said:
Over 3 million Brits sign request to redo Brexit vote.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britain-revote-stop-brexit-081452041.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-referendum-they-shouldnt-hold-their-breath/
Some 16.1 million voted to Remain. They lost by 1.3 million. Now some are signing petitions for another go, despite PM Cameron saying before the vote that there would not be another vote after THE vote. Feels a little fascist to me. Petitioners appear to be hanging their hats on misinformation before the fact.

Are there examples of misinformation before votes?

Leading into the US election 2012, the thankfully former Majority Leader of the US Senate Harry Reid lied on floor of the Senate about the GOP candidate Romney paying no federal taxes. We know Reid lied because Reid is proud of the smear, has boasted about its effects, is retiring, and remains immune to liable since the statement was made in the Senate. Thus I now consider a petition for a redo of the US 2012 election, and expect 3 million names quickly gathered.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Evanish
  • #92
Astronuc said:
I was listening to various interviews on the broadcast news. I'll see if I can find references in print.

More than anecdotes. They are testimonies of those who voted to leave and now regret that vote.

Apparently, many were angered after "Nigel Farage admitted on Good Morning Britain it was a "mistake" for the Leave campaign to claim the £350 million reportedly given to the EU each week would go to the NHS instead."

Meanwhile a sampling -

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12024634/brexit-supporters-regret-vote
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/peopl...leave-the-eu-heres-what-they-told-us-5965067/
http://www.people.com/article/brexit-voters-regret-uk-leave-eu

The petition for all those with second thoughts quickly flew past the 100,000 signatures needed to force a debate in Parliament. How many of those are those who voted to Leave vs those who voted to Remain, I don't know. Perhaps Cameron should have taken it more seriously and started negotiating on the Open Borders matter.

http://www.newsweek.com/brexit-leave-voters-wish-vote-remain-regret-eu-referendum-474306

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/

And one which claims - more than a million regret voting to leave,
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/more-than-a-million-people-regret-voting-leave-poll-shows-5968048/
but nearly 700,000 regret voting to remain.

There is no actual fair count of "nearly 700,000", as you well know there can not be a couple days later. There's been a poll by a polster who claims some 1000 people polled, a pollster who BTW was wrong on the referendum outcome, and who found a few dozen people expressed regret about leave.

"Apparently many were angered"? According to talking heads as guys on the street? I was angry Harry Reid was Leader of the Senate but that didn't get me on TV nor achieve a recount.

What possible conclusion do you draw from a petition collection in a country where 16 some million voters were on the losing side of a vote? Shall we poll Oakland, CA as to whether the good folks there think there should be redo of the NBA finals?
 
  • Like
Likes Evanish
  • #93
Good or bad it's got them talking in the halls of powerhttp://www.cfr.org/eu/media-call-brexit/p38089
[CFR President Richard Hass' opening remarks}
I think for the United States what this shows is the potential breadth and depth of disaffection against Washington. And we’ve seen it. We’ve seen a lot of this in the strength of the Sanders and Trump campaigns. We’re seeing opposition to quote-unquote traditional politicians. We’re seeing rejection of what had been decades of bipartisan support for free trade. We’re seeing, again, a streak of anti-establishmentism in our politics. So I think what this does is show that what is happening in the United States is by no means unique. I think Mr. Trump will probably take some satisfaction from today’s vote, not simply because he favored Brexit, but because the forces, the political and social and economic forces that put Brexit over the top, that put leave over the top, he will see as forces that are very close to his and Bernie Sanders’ base.

And I would think that Hillary Clinton’s campaign this is something of a warning not to underestimate the disaffection, not to underestimate also the political and economic nationalism, because the issues motivating Brexit were not just economic but they were also linked to society and they were also linked to immigration, and the real and perceive—or, more specifically, the perceived threats or dangers that stem from immigration. And the challenge for the Clinton campaign is going to be how to—how to deal effectively with those kind of populist and nationalist concerns. And I think that the next four and a half months in the United States are going, to some extent, be informed by the perceived lessons and the perceived messages coming out of the Brexit vote......
..........
[Haass's closing summation]
I’d also add one other thing, at the risk of being controversial. But I do believe that the Brexit vote raises and puts front and center the entire question of the role of referenda in democratic societies. And if you go back to the founding of the United States and you read the Federalist Papers, there was a lot of conversation about, if you will, direct democracy versus representative democracy. And the bias of the founders was towards representative democracy—hence the Senate, hence also the electoral college and so forth. And what I believe Brexit shows, to some extent, is the danger of deciding truly consequential, even historic issues through referenda.

And it’s one of the lessons that I hope is taken—it may not be—but it’s one of the lessons that I hope that is taken, that this ought not to be the way here in the United States that we take really big decisions. But I also understand that in saying that, that puts greater pressure on our existing representative institutions, above all our Congress, to act in a much more bipartisan, effective way. And the danger is if we continue the sort of gridlock we’ve seen in the last couple of days—be I the Supreme Court unable to act on immigration issues or the Congress unable to act on gun control issues—then I think it will simply increase popular frustration and people will look for alternatives to the traditional political process. Referenda are one such alternative. And what Brexit should do is warn us about the potential risks of going down that path.

Translation: The peasants are angry.. Beware of the ballot box .

At least they've noticed.
 
  • #94
Jonathan Scott said:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/more-than-a-million-people-regret-voting-leave-poll-shows-5968048/
That's funny (pathetically misleading) because it focuses on the number regretting voting to leave while waiting till the end of the article to point out that a lot also regret their votes to stay, making the outcome of the poll not implying a change in the result if the re-vote were today! Lol!

I don't have a chicken in this fight, but I must say I do enjoy watching people (journalists, especially) squirm to try to rationalize their way out of a reality they don't like!
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule, mheslep, nsaspook and 1 other person
  • #95
Astronuc said:
...anecdotes. They are testimonies of people...
You just said the same thing twice.
 
  • #96
In all of the elections worldwide, I find it amusing and amazing as to why the resulted percentage of votes usually falls into either 48% vs 52% or 49% vs 51%. I always expect it to be 10% vs 90% or 20%,40% vs 80%,60%. Such a number isn't persuasive enough for me as I never believe in true randomness, particularly when it concerns money, power and authorities.
 
  • #97
rootone said:
So who is going to be obliged to trigger the article 50 divorce process then?, a referendum in the UK is not legally binding, it's considered as 'advisory', a govt still has to declare it as being the official policy of the govt.
Until such time as a new pm is appointed who announces this, nothing actually has changed.
For some reason I have not yet fathomed, the loudest proponents for 'leave', are now arguing that there is no rush to set the actual mechanism for departure in motion.
It is a question that could have some interesting outcomes.
Here is a commentators opinion on why nothing has changed and reminds me of the children's story about who is going to put the bell around the cat's neck.
I quote.
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realizes that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realize it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Looks increasing likely the only person capable is George.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, StatGuy2000 and EnumaElish
  • #98
Globally stock market lost about $2tn on the day following brexit. World market capitalization is in the order of $70tn. So it was an ~3% loss not adjusted for expectations. If brexit was expected with 33% probability then it's a 4.5% loss. If it was 50/50 it's a 6% loss. Either way it's significant but not (yet?) catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
  • #99
There are two articles that I think people unhappy with the outcome should read. One is Megan McArdle's, where she says:

The inability of those elites to grapple with the rich world’s populist moment was in full display on social media last night. Journalists and academics seemed to feel that they had not made it sufficiently clear that people who oppose open borders are a bunch of racist rubes who couldn’t count to 20 with their shoes on, and hence will believe any daft thing they’re told...the dominant tone framed this as a blow against the enlightened “us” and the beautiful world we are building, struck by a plague of morlocks who had crawled out of their hellish subterranean world to attack our impending utopia.

Both Progressive movements, at the start of the 20th and 21st centuries, have had an anti-democratic streak: the masses should be ruled by a wise and benevolent technocracy. You are seeing a rebellion against this - the masses don't want to be ruled by this wise and benevolent technocracy (and for that matter, the wise and benevolent technocracy doesn't want the masses standing in the way of Progress) You are going to see more of this, and if Remain manages to swindle Leave out of their victory (e.g. having parliament refuse to leave), things will get ugly: Remain will have told Leave, "you have the right to vote - but only if you vote the way we tell you."

The other is Walter Russell Mead's, where he says

The torpid bureaucracies and dysfunctional political organizations of Brussels can’t deliver real solutions to Europe’s problems, but European nation states have given so many of their powers to the EU that in many cases they lack the ability to act when Brussels fails.

Mead brings up a very important point - the EU wants a totalitarian superstate (totalitarian in the descriptive sense - one in which the EU feels they can regulate anything they want to) but truth be told, they are not very good at it. It's not just that they are busybodies - it's that they are inept busybodies.

I write this as someone who doesn't have a dog in this hunt, but nevertheless think Remain would have been the wiser option.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes billy_joule, PeroK, russ_watters and 6 others
  • #100
During the campaigns, the Vote Leave side never clearly stated what they meant by "Leave", and from recent reports in the news it's beginning to look as if they didn't even know, or deliberately promoted self-contradictory views.

For example, their position that it would save a significant amount of money would be valid if the UK also opted out of the single market. However, at the same time they were saying that the down side of leaving the EU could be minimised by remaining a member of the single market, for example like Norway, but Norway has to pay EU fees to be a member of the market. The same applies to various other areas, such as immigration, where they effectively claimed that the "right" people could still be allowed to move around freely while the "wrong" people would be stopped, yet examples demonstrated totally overlapping definitions of "right" and "wrong", essentially amounting to racism.

Anyway, when a Vote Leave MP was asked what the next step would be, the answer is "there is no plan. Leave campaign don't have a post Brexit plan, Number 10 should have had one".

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/revealed-vote-leaves-exit-plan-after-eu-referendum-5968106/

I'm upset about the referendum because I'm convinced that most people who voted Leave did not do so for any realistic reason. Both from local conversations and reports in the news, people are saying "Well, I voted leave because of ..." for many different reasons, but the vast majority of those reasons seem to be spurious or basically unacceptable (amounting to racism or refusing to accept the UK's global responsibilities). There are quite a few reasons which seem perfectly valid (for example the fact that the UK has been legally powerless to make sensible decisions in some specific cases because of apparently misapplied human rights law), and if enough people felt strongly enough about that type of reason, I'd feel it was valid to vote Leave, although to me they are not strong enough to overcome the positive aspects of EU membership. However, the only form in which I've heard that sort of issue mentioned is in the slogan "take back control", which seems to be used more in the context of somehow recapturing the glory days of the British Empire!
 
  • Like
Likes StatGuy2000, billy_joule, EnumaElish and 2 others
  • #101
am i hearing a theme in the halls of power ?

Buckleymanor said:
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

Vanadium 50 said:
Remain will have told Leave, "you have the right to vote - but only if you vote the way we tell you."

jim hardy said:
...if you will, direct democracy versus representative democracy. And the bias of the founders was towards representative democracy—hence the Senate, hence also the electoral college and so forth. And what I believe Brexit shows, to some extent, is the danger of deciding truly consequential, even historic issues through referenda.

Governing would sure be a lot easier if we pesky commoners would just stay out of it and leave things to our betters, eh ?

The sentiment is nothing new.
Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast!
Attributed to ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in a political argument with Thomas Jefferson.

EDIT: Quotes above are not what the PF members said themselves, but from quotes cited by them. .
I used the 'quote' button so it'd be easy to get back to the relavent posts.
No intent to mis-represent what anybody actually said. I hope nobody took offense.

Just I'm amazed at the political scrambling for position and media frenzy .


.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
The newspapers have been trying to comfort us by pointing out some of the EU rules we can escape from. I must admit that at least one of those sounds good.

EU legislation meant we can no longer buy the normal old incandescent light bulbs ("pearl" or "clear" finish 100W and 60W) in the UK, supposedly because they "waste" energy as heat (despite the fact that in the UK most of the time any light is on the heating is on as well, so if the heating is controlled by a thermostat, there is very little waste). Instead, we had to resort to CFLs which are much more expensive, contain mercury (requiring disposal as hazardous materials), often don't fit existing light fittings because of the bulky electronic part, don't come on immediately and are much dimmer than the incandescent "equivalent" bulbs, as the manufacturers deviously managed to get the ratings compared with "soft light" incandescent bulbs that effectively have a layer of something like paint on them! They are supposed to last much longer than incandescent, but even across many different makes we've had a lot of failures, including bulbs spontaneously cracking, presumably releasing the mercury vapour. This whole scheme was devised by manufacturers of CFL bulbs and accepted into EU law. At least LED-based lighting is making progress, but usually provides a very harsh light which gives weird colour effects. It's very good that lower energy bulbs are available, and in many contexts they are a good idea, but banning the old cheap and powerful incandescent bulbs from being sold is extremely unhelpful, and the primary reason for it was simply to help the profits of the CFL manufacturers.

Another weird law is that vacuum cleaners over 1600W are no longer allowed.

They tried to suggest that electric kettles might be limited in power as well to save energy (!), but nothing came of that. Perhaps someone managed to explain the physics to them.
 
  • #103
Jonathan Scott said:
EU legislation meant we can no longer buy the normal old incandescent light bulbs ("pearl" or "clear" finish 100W and 60W) in the UK, supposedly because they "waste" energy as heat (despite the fact that in the UK most of the time any light is on the heating is on as well, so if the heating is controlled by a thermostat, there is very little waste).

Jonathan Scott said:
Another weird law is that vacuum cleaners over 1600W are no longer allowed.

They tried to suggest that electric kettles might be limited in power as well to save energy (!), but nothing came of that. Perhaps someone managed to explain the physics to them.

Bureaucrats.
Were their business worth minding
they'd mind theirs instead of yours.

It's no better in US.
Our EPA funded a student competition to find ways to reduce particulates from backyard barbecues.
A politician from Missouri, a part of our country that retains a modicum of common sense, got wind of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015...against-epa-pollution-emissions-for-backyard/
A Missouri state legislator wants the Environmental Protection Agency to back off of people’s backyard barbecues.
On Monday, State Senator Eric Schmitt (R) from St. Louis kicked off a #porksteakrebellion after he discovered the EPA is funding a study on propane grill emissions that suggest pit masters use a special tray to catch grease drippings and a "catalytic" filtration system to reduce air pollution, reports Fox News KTVI.
He and several others publicly ridiculed them so harshly they reversed course on that one.

Of course the idea came from ... California (where else? ) ..
The competition is called the “P3 Awards:A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet.” The specific project was proposed by students at the University of California, Riverside; they received a $15,000 grant from the EPA in August 2014 that lasts about one more month.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstract...isplay.abstractDetail/abstract/10266/report/0

You Brits gave us C N Parkinson whom i read in my formative years
surely he is proud of you now.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
There's a big difference between being enabled, encouraged and given incentives to do something in a better way (which is positive) and being banned from doing it in what someone considers the wrong way (which tends to create a back-reaction). Sometimes bans seem justifiable on health grounds (e.g. indoor smoking) or environmental grounds (certain nasty chemicals) but most of the time it's not black and white. The EU needs to learn to use the carrot rather than the stick!
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #105
Jonathan Scott said:
...At least LED-based lighting is making progress, but usually provides a very harsh light which gives weird colour effects...
I have no time for light bulb fiats from Brussels, however:

Harsh (cold blue 4500k) light LEDs are so five years ago.
2700 Kelvin WarmWhite - 2 Pack
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2700k-60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/
Lasts 10-20 times longer than, and uses 1/5 the energy of incandecents.
 

Similar threads

ChatGPT Examples, Good and Bad
4
Replies
126
Views
12K
News POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start
7
Replies
237
Views
18K
Photo Contest - Bad Photo (7/7-7/13)
Replies
15
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Bad Photo (6/6-6/12)
Replies
22
Views
3K
News Muslim family in Canada killed in 'premeditated' truck attack
Replies
3
Views
922
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
2K
News Vote Now in EU Elections - How & Why
Replies
18
Views
7K
Collecting News Fails: How Not to Report on Airplanes
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Oroville Dam Evacuation: 180,000+ Forced to Leave
Replies
11
Views
2K
That's Not a Drone!
2
Replies
43
Views
823

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top