Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[Crown]

If that's what you're asking for, as I said, it is impossible to give an exact number for racist Leave voters. I could maybe dig up stats. on the number of British people who openly say they are racist, or are members of racist organizations, but I think we all know that the number of people who are motivated by racism is not the same as the number of people who acknowledge it. And before you even got to that, you'd have to define what is or is not racist, which is a hotly contested subject in its own right. You are asking for something that it is literally impossible to give. You can take that as a concession if you like, but I personally do not see that one has to give an exact number for racist Leave voters to demonstrate that their were a substantial number of them, that it was a major factor behind the Leave campaign, which is my contention.

Right, since you can't quantify 'a lot' stop saying it.

I let this slide in my original post but I should also ask; you understand that Nigel Farage isn't actually a part of the Leave Campaign right? I mean he's obviously for it, and campaign for it, but he's not actually a part of it. You know that right?

[ray245]

I think a number of Brexiters would be happy if the UK is in a similar position to Japan. Like Japan, it is a largely homogenous society that have very little immigration and very strict border controls.

If the Japanese are willing to reject immigration despite a stagnant economy and a very eldery, shrinking population, then I think this is the mentality that a number of Brexiters do share.

Well that's not a position that any of the Leave Torries or UKIP even hold so they will be severely disappointed by what Brexit will actually entail.

No, but that is how powerful the forces of nationalism could be. People are willing to tolerate economic problems for years if it means keeping their country homogenous. Japan is probably a good representation of some of the "vote leave" crowd wanted the UK to be. A country that is nearly homogenous, but still welcomes the odd migrants that are considered too good to turn away.

Modern Japan is nearly everything some Brexiters are dreaming off when they want to reduce immigration. Homogenous society with low migrations, takes is very few refugee, but still considered a major global economy with trade links around the world. The fact that being very homogenous also makes it near impossible for hardline Islam to do anything in that country would certainly be something that appeals to them.

If the Japanese can spend years living with their decisions and faces economic challenges as a result, then it is certainly possible that a number of the Brexiters would be willing to tolerate economoic difficulties in the long run if it meant making Britian more homogenous again. This is also probably why no amount of fearmongering would deter them from making decisions to reduce migrations.

[Coaan]

I don't really have much to add to the argument for and against remain/leave other than personal anecdotes. I opted for remain because while we do spend a fair amount to prop up the European project, we also gain a huge amount back, both in support for impoverished areas, ailing agriculture and support for other programmes of the like.

While we might have to foot the bill as one of the more stable economies before this whole mess, the benefits far outweighed the costs of a free market and I honestly believe that the 'leave' crowd were lunatics for voting as they did.

Instead of enjoying (more or less) free trade and little in the way of import/export tariffs, we now have to deal with a potentially decade long trade deal negotiation just to get close to the point we were at. This does not even involve the fact we no longer have a say in how the Euro zone will develop

True, this might open up other trade deals with nations outside the Euro zone such as China or the US, but I am not naive enough to believe that will be a simple process to work out - it is going to take years to sort out and in the mean time, it is the populace that the Conservatives have spent their term time shitting on that will bear the brunt of the hardships to come. This is to say nothing of the potential for Scottish and Irish breakaways that further cripple the British Isles.

In short? my thoughts can be summed up as well fuck.

[Zaune]

On a lighter note:



First good laugh I've had all bloody day.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Be reasonable Crown. One guy does not make the whole campaign. I've had leaflets about the 79 Million Turks that are going to swarm the UK if we stay in the EU. I know the Brexit campaign does have its aspects and supporters that are xenophobic and possibly racist. Neither the exit nor remain campaign was a monolithic block all alike in reasoning and temperament.

There's a reason immigration was the hot topic the Exit campaign hit as much as they could. (Along with sovereignty) Ironically it was the biggest issue in communities with the fewest actual immigrants. Go figure.

I'd make no claim on the proportions though and fuck you for making me take TRR's side.

Turkey's decades away from joining the EU (if that), so their population is neither here nor there. And since Turkey's population is the lion's share of the number of people claimed by Brexit to be set to join the EU, then like a zombie that's been eaten from the waist down, they have no leg to stand on.

[mr friendly guy]

B

There's a reason immigration was the hot topic the Exit campaign hit as much as they could. (Along with sovereignty) Ironically it was the biggest issue in communities with the fewest actual immigrants. Go figure.

If I had to guess why this is so, I would say that most immigrants actually have jobs. So communities where there are immigrants might be economically better off. After all people with jobs spend more money, which helps local businesses etc. In those communities without immigrants, I will hazard a guess that they are poor and easy to fall prey to immigrants are taking our jobs etc. Which is funny as I remember some right wing elites admitting that immigrants do jobs Brits don't want to do and their solution to this after ending immigration is to get native Brits off welfare and doing these jobs which they didn't want to do in the first place. Which seems contradictory to the values of the Brits who feel immigrants are taking their jobs.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/latest-on-b ... -1.2959890

Long article, but I quote the most relevant section:

Tens of thousands want a do-over.
So many users are signing a petition for a re-run of Britain's referendum on European Union membership that they've crashed the House of Commons website hosting the document.
The petition passed the 200,000 mark on Friday evening, with a map of the voting indicating that most activity was in London - where most boroughs backed the "remain" camp in the referendum.
The House of Commons said it had seen "high volumes of simultaneous users on a single petition, significantly higher than on any previous occasion."
A second referendum isn't in the cards for now, but experts say it isn't out of the question if those who back a British exit begin suffering from buyer's remorse.

Probably a futile gesture, but I applaud these people for refusing to go quietly into the abyss.

[Zaune]

Probably a futile gesture, but I applaud these people for refusing to go quietly into the abyss.

Trouble is, if we start letting the government run referendums all over again until they get the right result, that might end up being the thin end of the wedge to doing it with elections.

[The Romulan Republic]

Probably a futile gesture, but I applaud these people for refusing to go quietly into the abyss.

Trouble is, if we start letting the government run referendums all over again until they get the right result, that might end up being the thin end of the wedge to doing it with elections.

Fair point, I suppose.

But this is hardly typical circumstances. We're looking at a real possibility of widespread economic disaster and large parts of the country separating over this, not to mention the ramifications for the EU's future.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/latest-on-b ... -1.2959890

Long article, but I quote the most relevant section:

Tens of thousands want a do-over.
So many users are signing a petition for a re-run of Britain's referendum on European Union membership that they've crashed the House of Commons website hosting the document.
The petition passed the 200,000 mark on Friday evening, with a map of the voting indicating that most activity was in London - where most boroughs backed the "remain" camp in the referendum.
The House of Commons said it had seen "high volumes of simultaneous users on a single petition, significantly higher than on any previous occasion."
A second referendum isn't in the cards for now, but experts say it isn't out of the question if those who back a British exit begin suffering from buyer's remorse.

Probably a futile gesture, but I applaud these people for refusing to go quietly into the abyss.

I can't help but think that there should have been a caveat that without a clear majority, that no decision would be made either way. For the sake of <2% we're all being dragged in a direction we don't want.

The hilarious part is that in order to form a Brexit government, the politicians now have to re-unite the fucking country in order to get elected in sufficient numbers to obtain a parliamentary majority.

[Zaune]

But this is hardly typical circumstances. We're looking at a real possibility of widespread economic disaster and large parts of the country separating over this, not to mention the ramifications for the EU's future.

And what would the ramifications for the EU's future be if it were to look the other way when a member state subverted its own electoral process in the name of stability? Or even be seen to do so?

Besides, if Scotland get their second referendum it might be academic; England and Wales could actually be forced to reapply from scratch if the EU decides the Scots are the successor state for membership purposes.

[Tribble]

I can't help but think that there should have been a caveat that without a clear majority, that no decision would be made either way. For the sake of <2% we're all being dragged in a direction we don't want.

Actually a decision would have be effectively made if there was a clear majority rule, since that rule would have almost certainly been along the lines of "unless a clear majority vote to leave, the UK will remain in the EU." Given that this was a "yes" or "no" vote without any other options it is not going to be perfect, but although I am uncomfortable with having a small majority decide the issue, I am even less comfortable having the minority of voters deciding the issue.

I guess one way could be "until a clear majority decide the issue a referendum must be held every X number of years" but who would be willing to do that?

The hilarious part is that in order to form a Brexit government, the politicians now have to re-unite the fucking country in order to get elected in sufficient numbers to obtain a parliamentary majority.

Which is why I'm not sure that the UK will actually leave the EU, it's conceivable that the issue is delayed until the next election and a pro-EU party ends up winning and treating the referendum as moot. They wouldn't even have to have a majority of voters to do that, seeing as in first past the post majority governments can be formed with as little as 35-37% of the vote. To be clear I'm not directing this at you, but I wonder how many Remain people complaining about the close vote right now would complain if a Remain party ended up forming a government with only 35% of the total actual votes due to fptp, then declared the referendum results non-binding?

Or perhaps another referendum will be held in the near future so that UK voters can get it "right" this time, like they did in Ireland.

[Grumman]

I do agree with the idea that the government shouldn't turn everything on its head on the back of a 50%+1 vote. There is value in government policy being predictable, so having a rule that you need a 55-45 split to enact any new policy removes the absurd - if unlikely - possibility the law might change every time one tiebreaker changes his mind.

I don't agree with applying such a rule retroactively just because you lost.

[Crown]

We didn't get the result we wanted so we we want to subvert the democratic process until we do ... that's what we're all okay with then?

[Darth Nostril]

Nobody has said that you trolling fuckwit, most people seem to be in agreement that a 51% threshold was stupid, should have been something like a 2/3rds majority, but it's too late now the deed is done.

Do learn to read.

[gigabytelord]

If I might add an (another) american point of view to this mess. Like in most major political issues I find myself very much divided on the Brexit problem. On the one hand I'm completely in favor of a united Europe under the EU with a single currency and a unified government that is capable of levying taxes and maintaining a strong military. Cultural, linguistic, and historical differences aside I believe that united you're stronger together than apart. However, from what I've read, seen, and heard about the EU's government I have to wonder if the current union is capable of achieving this at all. The current system, from what I've read so far, seems to be even less capable or perhaps willing to change than the US government.
Here in the states I would politically be referred to has a "Unionist" as I am pro union and believe in a strong central government, and perhaps this is coloring my view of the EU as I find the current system to be inherently unstable and in the end unsustainable. It seems to me that the nations of Europe are demanding national sovereignty while simultaneously trying to reap the benefits of a federalized union. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I very much doubt that's possible. You either give up national sovereignty and accept a united economy, single military, and strong central European government or switch back to a loose trade focused union that allows it's member states to print their own money and operate their economies without external interference. It seems like you're, to use a common idiom, trying to have your cake and eat it to. It also seems that many EU members are working at cross purposes to one another. Some of you appear to be working toward an actual strong union while others are only here for the trade money and this conflict in interests is threatening the bring the whole house down. This isn't just a UK issue it's a wider European issue and it's one that's likely to keep getting worse not better until the underlying issues are resolved. I will add that I hope to see a true united Europe one of these days preferably at some point in my lifetime.

[Darth Nostril]

Which is why I'm not sure that the UK will actually leave the EU, it's conceivable that the issue is delayed until the next election and a pro-EU party ends up winning and treating the referendum as moot.

The leaders of the Leave campaign are saying there's no rush, on the other side the EU are insisting that Article 50 be invoked ASAP. Even saying that waiting until October is too long. After that we have two years to renegotiate trade deals, once that time limit is up the UK is out of the EU, trade deals or no trade deals.
There are rumblings from the far right parties all over Europe over referendums in their respective countries, so the EU wants us out as early as possible to stem this rise in short sighted parochial nationalism.
Also look at it from the EU's point of view, after decades of putting up with our truculence, obstructionism and recalcitrance we've turned round and spat in their face.
Wouldn't you want to be rid of such an obnoxious bunch of wankers as fast as is feasible?

[Patroklos]

Here in the states I would politically be referred to has a "Unionist"...

You would most certainly not be referred as such as no such thing exits.

[J]

Brexit came up in conversation while I was out with my husband's friends last night. An interesting point was raised by a person from Quebec who had lived through several referendums for the province to separate from Canada. We didn't threaten Quebec to make them stay, rather, we showed them the benefits of remaining part of the country. And though there cultural differences and some grumblings over the special privileges which the province enjoys, we want them to be part of the nation.

We don't really see that from the EU, at least not from this side of the ocean. The message seems to be "if you leave, we'll sanction you to death, like we did to Greece, you'll lose everything if you don't stay". If the EU is unable to sell its member nations on the benefits of membership and needs to resort to threats of sanctions & economic destruction, well, one has to question the value & morals of such a political entity Especially after what they've already done to Greece.

[gigabytelord]

Here in the states I would politically be referred to has a "Unionist"...

You would most certainly not be referred as such as no such thing exits.

I am an American from the south. I am opposed to any and all attempts to dissolve the union and support a strong central government. Before the civil war we were referred to as federalists. However the term "unionist" gained popularity during and after the war. The term was, and still is, used primarily to describe southerners who, like myself, oppose secession. Nationally I reckon I would be a democrat.

It was even the name of a southern pro-union political party during the war.
Thank you very much good sir.

[Crown]

Nobody has said that you trolling fuckwit, most people seem to be in agreement that a 51% threshold was stupid, should have been something like a 2/3rds majority, but it's too late now the deed is done.

Do learn to read.

"Nobody" except the people who are signing the petition and well the person who posted this in the thread ... that's a pretty dismissive way to refer to them. I'm sure they are somebodies.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm actually rather conflicted on the subject.

On the one hand, going against the result of a fair vote is pretty much anathema to everything I believe about how government should operate.

On the other hand... this result is, objectively, already proving to be a disaster for Britain, with potentially severe global ramifications.

Its all likely a moot point in practice, though. I don't expect the result to be ignored.

[Terralthra]

So the GBP has rebounded to "only" having lost 10% of its pre-referendum value. It's currently around 1.35 in USD, as opposed to hovering up near $1.45-$1.50 last week and month. Similar percent losses vs. the Euro, Chinese Yuan, and Japanese Yen.

[K. A. Pital]

What's there to be conflicted about?

It's democracy. In action. People vote - people face (possibly severe) consequences. That's all.

There should be no attempt to sabotage or reverse Britain's leave as it would make a mockery of the will of the people and direct democracy in general.

[The Romulan Republic]

What's there to be conflicted about?

It's democracy. In action. People vote - people face (possibly severe) consequences. That's all.

There should be no attempt to sabotage or reverse Britain's leave as it would make a mockery of the will of the people and direct democracy in general.

That seems reasonable on the face of it, but of course nations have, rightly, revisited and corrected past mistakes in time. Politics and government are not a finished project, but a work in progress.

For example, American once banned alcohol by constitutional amendment. Some years later, we realized what a fucking stupid idea that was and passed another amendment to repeal it.

So, how much time would have to pass before you would consider it appropriate to revisit the issue? Presumably not until after the separation has gone into effect? But supposing that in the time between now and when it goes into effect, their was a major change in circumstances, government, or public opinion on the matter?

Or to take another, very relevant example, how would you feel about Scotland revisiting the independence referendum now that Britain has voted to leave the Union in which they wish to remain?