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

[mheslep]

One potential consequence of Britain leaving the EU, if Scotland breaks from the UK.

Britain Needs a New Place to Park Its Nukes
The U.K.’s entire nuclear arsenal lives on four submarines in Scotland. And it’s got nowhere to put them ...

There's been a plausible suggestion that, in the event of Scottish separation, the subs use US ports.

 

[rootone]

I've not seen those claims from Exit leadership. New kinds of expulsions were promised? Is that all hyperbole, or do you have an example reference?

I can't remember a specific claim to that effect from one the campaign leaders, but the 'foreigners go home' meme was pretty much right at the top of the agenda in online discussions sponsored by popular right wing newspapers such as 'The Daly Mail' and 'The Sun'.
However the exit campaign leadership definitely did say on several occasions that the one of the primary aims was abandonment of freedom of movement to the UK for citizens of other EU countries.
For some reason this public ire seemed to be focused on Turkish immigrants, and Turkey isn't even an EU member state.

 

[epenguin]

Oh well, a lot of what has been said is now outdated or by the way. The rival has withdrawn, we now have a new PM in waiting, she might take up office in matter of days. To have been without a government with the authority to do anything about our relations with Europe (and let's not mention, no Opposition either) until September was a crazy situation we risked being in.

It was remarkable that out of half a dozen candidates every single one has looked bad and had ugly things exposed in the campaign. (In the case of Ms. May and one other the egg on their face was old and dried.)

Ms. May is really an Outer, only posing as a Remainder. She was very eloquently quiet during the campaign and has said some extraordinary things about immigration, as if it had had nothing to do with her as key Minister like she had not belonged at all to the government of which she was the Number Three! I am sorry the winner was not Johnson, who instead is a Remainder posing as an Outer. He might have had the imagination and skill to be able to pull off a Remain under acceptable conditions. (However I couldn't vote for something on the basis of it having a 1 in 10 chance of happening). Ms. May is said to be tough, but I have never seen in her much indication of flair or imagination.

Anyway she has now made it clear that as the referendum vote was for Brexit that is what it will be. So she now just has the job of: forming a government; forming a policy; forming negotiating and policy aims, teams, strategies.

 

[Buckleymanor]

You use the word contractual to mean the people of the UK were bound to the EU forever, and bound by the choices of people 30 years ago, as if the Article 50 exit procedure did not exist. You know, I know, and everyone else here knows this not the case so why not give it a rest?

The 'because' is 17 million votes to leave. The EU did enable new business, and lots of people in the UK had their businesses or jobs destroyed by EU rules.Right, then it's back to the devine right of kings. Off to the Tower with the dissent.

It is the case Article 50 only came into existence in 2009.

!5 million to stay an employment record the highest it has ever been before we joined the EU GB had a pretty bad economy now it's second within the EU.

It's not the divine right of kings more like the public was sold a sick pup and you support it.
I don't imagine it will get better any time soon.
Just a side observation Anthea Leadsom has quit the race for PM .I will give it to Brexit lot they are exceptional quitters .

 

[Buckleymanor]

What, specifically, has changed?

That's do-over talk, not "the situation has changed". The vote said what it said. It represents the will of the people, to the level of which it is capable, whether the outcome pleases the people who lost or not.

It does not represent the will of the people any more than the election as Mrs, May as prime minister.When push comes to shove as far as the Conservatives are concerned party comes before the will of the people.
They don't even get a vote and if they do it is ignored.

 

[russ_watters]

It does not represent the will of the people...

Huh? What is a referendum if not an attempt to gauge the will of the people? If it had gone the way you wanted it to, would you still say that?

Also, since you didn't say what has changed, can I take that as a retraction of that claim?

 

[mheslep]

However the exit campaign leadership definitely did say on several occasions that the one of the primary aims was abandonment of freedom of movement to the UK for citizens of other EU countries.

Sure, which is different from expelling people already legally arrived in country. That's not going to happen.

From the evidence I've seen, aside from the inflation of the UK payment to the EU made by one group, the case for Exit by Exit leadership was fairly made.

 

[mheslep]

It's not the divine right of kings more like the public was sold a sick pup and you support it.

You stated the country was under some kind of contract to stick to the first result, this, despite the exit clause agreed to Lisbon by the UK. If so, who are you to say when time begins? Why can I not choose the Stuart's proclamation of the DRoK, find a bloke named Stuart, and have you step and fetch for him?

I understand you don't like the outcome, fine, your opinion is as valid as another's and more than mine as I don't live in the UK. But the rest: 17 million people don't count, it was all a fraud by Exit, against the contract - that's all nonsense.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Huh? What is a referendum if not an attempt to gauge the will of the people? If it had gone the way you wanted it to, would you still say that?

Also, since you didn't say what has changed, can I take that as a retraction of that claim?

I don't think you are really interested in what happened if won't to believe that this was a necessary referendum when the rest of Europe has managed to cooperate fore the sake of the greater good then fine.
As for what has changed the Lisbon treaty has been hijacked by a minority to further right wing politics.

 

[rootone]

Ah well, at least there now seems to be the prospect of sane negotiation replacing sloganeering and shouting now that a replacement PM has been decided.
Theresa May has still to announce what sort of 'Brexit' she favours though, (and tbh she has expressed in the past both of remain and exit sentiments)
Options range from the Norway model, a sort of associate membership which still requires freedom of movement,
Through to plain WTO rules, in which UK has no special access at all to EU markets, and has to set up new bilateral trade deals with individual countries, probably involving tariffs on both exports and imports,.

 

[Buckleymanor]

You stated the country was under some kind of contract to stick to the first result, this, despite the exit clause agreed to Lisbon by the UK. If so, who are you to say when time begins? Why can I not choose the Stuart's proclamation of the DRoK, find a bloke named Stuart, and have you step and fetch for him?

I understand you don't like the outcome, fine, your opinion is as valid as another's and more than mine as I don't live in the UK. But the rest: 17 million people don't count, it was all a fraud by Exit, against the contract - that's all nonsense.

You keep going on about the 17 million who don't count what about 15 million don't they count either.
Who are you say when time stops.
If you purchase something with a guarantee you expect that to be honoured.
Should you put up with slimy toths corrupting the original contract for there own ends pretending it's in the interest of democracy.
Most people never understood the implications of article 50 or even it's existence and for you to pretend that well you should understand and stand by it is quite frankly smug.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I'm still hoping the legal people will come up with a Brexitexit option, i.e. cancel Brexit, as at a regional level it was a "draw" (Scotland and Northern Ireland v. England and Wales) and I feel that the trouble that would be caused if Scotland and Northern Ireland tried to leave the UK would be far worse than putting up with the EU.

And as I said before, this referendum was implicitly about whether people were satisfied with the status quo or not, not about specific constructive alternative suggestions, and I'm certain that no specific realistic alternative would have as much support as Remain.

 

[mheslep]

You keep going on about the 17 million who don't count what about 15 million don't they count either.

They do count, but not as much. Votes have consequences.

Who are you say when time stops.

I don't say. I new era has begun, because a majority say so, in agreement with a treaty that allowed them to do so. Votes have consequences.

If you purchase something with a guarantee you expect that to be honoured.

That's more self-invention bull. There was no guarantee.

Most people never understood the implications ...

And now more of the same, telling people what they do or don't understand. Give it a rest.

 

[rootone]

I... (Scotland and Northern Ireland v. England and Wales) and I feel that the trouble that would be caused if Scotland and Northern Ireland tried to leave the UK would be far worse than putting up with the EU..

England and Wales, but excluding London!, which itself is a distinct and populous region where the remain vote 'won'.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think you are really interested in what happened if won't to believe that this was a necessary referendum when the rest of Europe has managed to cooperate fore the sake of the greater good then fine...

As I said before, I don't have a stake in the fight either way. As a 3rd party observer, what disturbs me is peoples' willingness to abuse or discard democracy when they didn't get their way. It's fine to be mad and surprised by not getting your way, but what you and others are saying comes off as pouting.

 

[russ_watters]

You keep going on about the 17 million who don't count what about 15 million don't they count either.

Of course: 17>15. That's what democracy is!

 

[Jonathan Scott]

England and Wales, but excluding London!, which itself is a distinct and populous region where the remain vote 'won'.

True. And that's despite the fact that former popular Mayor of London Boris Johnson was promoting Leave. If you count that regional result as equivalent to, say, Scotland or Northern Ireland, then that would be 3 to 2 regions in favour of Remain!

More seriously, I obviously don't really consider that approach particularly meaningful, but it is clear that the result was far from unanimous, and ...
(a) much of the Leave vote was a protest again the status quo
(b) the Leave side clearly made grossly misleading statements (labelled as being "simply untrue" by the UK treasury) which may have seriously influenced the result
(c) there was little discussion of the potential nasty side-effects e.g. on border controls in Ireland or Scotland leaving the union
... so I don't feel there is a clear mandate to continue at this point, and neither do at least 1000 legal experts, as mentioned in this morning's news.

 

[rootone]

Of course: 17>15. That's what democracy is!

Yes personally I accept that to be the case, although I am a Brit now living elsewhere in the EU, and would have voted remain.
I believe though that a referendum which in effect changes the country's 'unwritten constitution' in such a drastic way really needed to better thought out than a two horse, first past the post poll.
As far as I know constitutional changes in the US require a 60% majority of the senate to become law, (and as far as I know a public opinion poll, call it a referendum if you like, has no legal weight at all).

 

[russ_watters]

I believe though that a referendum which in effect changes the country's 'unwritten constitution' in such a drastic way really needed to better thought out than a two horse, first past the post poll.
As far as I know constitutional changes in the US require a 60% majority of the senate to become law,

That sounds reasonable. You Brits are too cavalier about your democracy for my taste: "unwritten Constitution" and "non-binding referendum" sound like self-contradictions to me. How was the entrance into the EU approved?

(and as far as I know a public opinion poll, call it a referendum if you like, has no legal weight at all).

A public opinion poll and a referendum are totally different/unrelated things. It is my understanding that the Brexit vote was, in fact, a referendum. Am I wrong?

 

[rootone]

A public opinion poll and a referendum are totally different/unrelated things. It is my understanding that the Brexit vote was, in fact, a referendum. Am I wrong?

As far as I know a referendum amounts to the the government asking for the public's opinion on what policy would be preferred.
The result is not legally binding in itself, an act of parliament still is required and it can take different forms, but I can't imagine any situation in which parliament would recommend to the queen ( who techically must approve acts of parliament). that a referendum should be ignored.

 

[Astronuc]

How was the entrance into the EU approved?

As far as I can tell, an act of Parliament.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents/enacted

It is my understanding that the Brexit vote was, in fact, a referendum.

Yes, it was a referendum.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887
http://www.parliament.uk/eu-referendum
http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/referendums-held-in-the-uk/ (official commentary on referendums)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom (it's Wikipedia. Corroboration with the UK Parliament's information on referenda in the UK is recommended).

http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm

Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom join the European Union on 1 January 1973, raising the number of Member States to nine.

It seems to me that Cameron and others didn't take it seriously, and lots of folks simply assumed the UK would remain in the EU. There apparently wasn't much discussion as to the actual consequences regarding the withdrawal.

Cameron definitely should resign in light of the mess he helped create.As practiced, at least in regard to the present referendum on UK membership in the EU, it would seem that a referendum is an invitation for "democracy on a whim". That was a chief concern of the Federalists when establishing the US Constitution and the US.

 

[rootone]

Cameron definitely should resign in light of the mess he helped create.

He has, and now Theresa May is almost certain to be the next PM. (as decided by internal Tory party grandees, not a public vote.)
All the outspoken exiters have vanished, and she herself has been on both sides of the argument at different times.
Though not a Tory voter myself, I guess she is at least a competent manager type of person,
I might not like her policies that much, but she isn't a low IQs raving 'take the empire back' sort of looney that seemed to dominate discussion during the campaigning.

 

[Astronuc]

He has, and now Theresa May is almost certain to be the next PM. (as decided by internal Tory party grandees, not a public vote.)
All the outspoken exiters have vanished, and she herself has been on both sides of the argument at different times.
Though not a Tory voter myself, I guess she is at least a competent manager type of person,
I might not like her policies that much, but she isn't a low IQs raving 'take the empire back' sort of looney that seemed to dominate discussion during the campaigning.

Perhaps, I should have prefaced my statement, by saying if Cameron, hadn't resigned. I was simply agreeing with his decision.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Rolling Stone had an interesting article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627

A sample:

Were I British, I'd probably have voted to Remain. But it's not hard to understand being pissed off at being subject to unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Nor is it hard to imagine the post-Brexit backlash confirming every suspicion you might have about the people who run the EU.

Imagine having pundits and professors suggest you should have your voting rights curtailed because you voted Leave. Now imagine these same people are calling voters like you "children," and castigating you for being insufficiently appreciative of, say, the joys of submitting to a European Supreme Court that claims primacy over the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

This is Rolling Stone, hardly a bastion of xenophobic right-wingers.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I don't think anyone's saying all Leave voters were misled or racist, but I very suspect enough of them were to make the difference.

I voted Remain as the "lesser evil" but I could see there were good reasons why many people voted Leave, which had to be weighed up against the potential disruption and disunity. However, there were spurious or unacceptable reasons why many more people voted Leave (including lies by the Leave campaigners and general hostility to foreigners). If the campaigns had been conducted in a more honest and acceptable manner, I'm fairly sure the result would have been significantly the other way, although obviously it's difficult to prove that. Of course it's also possible that some more people would have voted Leave if they hadn't been scared of the consequences as predicted by the Remain campaign, but I don't think that was anything like on the same scale as the other side.

I also agree that such a fundamental change should never have been considered approved on the basis of a simple majority, when the consequences are so major. This is like a constitutional change, which should require a two-thirds or at least 60% majority.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think anyone's saying all Leave voters were misled or racist, but I very suspect enough of them were to make the difference.

The point that I, V50, mhslep, the Rolling Stone article, etc, are making is that if you want to call your country a democracy, you (Remainers) are not entitled to tell people (ANY of them) they are misguided, so their votes should not count.

[Edit] And validates their concern that you (the EU, Remainers) are a threat to democracy/sovereignty.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The point that I, V50, mhslep, the Rolling Stone article, etc, are making is that if you want to call your country a democracy, you (Remainers) are not entitled to tell people (ANY of them) they are misguided, so their votes should not count.

I don't blame the voters. I would just like to give them a chance to vote based on facts, not on deliberate fantasy.

 

[mheslep]

I don't blame the voters. I would just like to give them a chance to vote based on facts, not on deliberate fantasy.

Which is to say the voters can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy but you can, i.e. you say they are misguided, as Russ indicated. This is growing tiresome.

 

[mheslep]

...
As practiced, at least in regard to the present referendum on UK membership in the EU, it would seem that a referendum is an invitation for "democracy on a whim". That was a chief concern of the Federalists when establishing the US Constitution and the US.

A "whim"?

The UK citizenry has for years shown strong anti-EU sentiment, though their MPs in London have not reflected that sentiment. In response, the voters elected dedicated EU MPs like Farage that regularly go forth to their seats in Brussels and loudly savage everything about the EU leadership. Recently, in response to the EU status quo among Labor and Tory, voters have begun showing strong and quickly increasing support for the new anti-EU UKIP party, creating a real threat to existing parties, all based on a single issue. The UK does not generally hold referendums, but I think common sense directed Cameron to respond in this case, or preside over the destruction of his party. Exit was going to happen either way, though if it had happened via UKIP parliament I suspect there would still be the cries of shock as now, pointing at some luck-less PM who, they would say, was mad to have "allowed" this or that vote to happen.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no problem with adopting a system of government where the smart and wise and least likely to be swayed by rhetoric are given more (or all) political power. But be aware that such a system:

1. Is not a democracy
2. Is unlikely to have the support of the future "have nots"
3. Is unlikely to last long: history shows that "government by the smartest" is quickly replaced by "government by the strongest".

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The UK's national statistics office told the Leave camp to stop making certain specific false statements quite early in the campaign, but they continued doing so until the referendum, and only afterwards gave in. I don't know the legal position, but to me that seems utterly fraudulent. Surveys close to the referendum showed that many people were influenced by those statements.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Which is to say the voters can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy but you can, i.e. you say they are misguided, as Russ indicated. This is growing tiresome.

No what is getting tiresome is your interpretation of the facts can't you and Russ get it into your sculls that the electorate was lied to wholesale before the election.
Winning by cheating is not cleaver or democratic.

 

[jim hardy]

There is no problem with adopting a system of government where the smart and wise and least likely to be swayed by rhetoric are given more (or all) political power. But be aware that such a system:

1. Is not a democracy
2. Is unlikely to have the support of the future "have nots"
3. Is unlikely to last long: history shows that "government by the smartest" is quickly replaced by "government by the strongest".

Isn't that what the US has , the masses choose "the best" representatives in hopes they are a cut above ?

 

[russ_watters]

No what is getting tiresome is your interpretation of the facts can't you and Russ get it into your sculls that the electorate was lied to wholesale before the election.
Winning by cheating is not cleaver or democratic.

You aren't entitled to -- oh, nevermind, I give up. I do have a story for you, though:

Back in 2008, before Obama was elected President of the US, he made a campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in his first 100 days of office. His supporters (including many on PF) gushed over it even though he gave no plan for how he'd do it. I knew he was full of crap and would never keep that promise, but none of them believed me. Turns out, the only possible plan (floated after the election) for making it happen was to ship all of the prisoners to Chicago, which the American people overwhelmingly opposed.

Another campaign promise that his supporters cared less about but I cared more about was his plans for nuclear power, including a Blue Ribbon Panel to figure out what to do about nuclear waste (a problem that didn't exist/had been legally bindingly addressed 20 years earlier). I knew that was just a fraud designed to distract people from a string of illegal actions he was planning to take with regard to nuclear waste (later overturned by the courts).

I knew Obama was lying to his supporters, but by the time they realized they'd been duped, it was too late and Obama had already won. "Do-over, do-over!" I screamed to all of the fools who shouldn't have been allowed to vote because they weren't up to the responsibility*. If only we had a ruling class of intelligentsia who could have seen their folly and voided their votes or called a do-over and berated them into changing to the "correct" vote, we could have avoided Obama's election+.

*Er, no I didn't.
+No, I didn't really believe that either. I like democracy and accept the reality that people lie and over-promise during campaigns and that it is the responsibility of the public (and media) to sort out the truth, vote as they see fit, and then accept the results, win or lose.

(See also: "SwiftBoating")

 

[mheslep]

but to me that seems utterly fraudulent.

It seems to me the statement of EU fees were exaggerated to some 350 millions from actual 250 millions a week (IIRC), and the rest about uncontrolled immigration, self-government, less regulation was not in dispute. It's hardly a "fantasy" that Britain will soon keep many millions.