Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[mr friendly guy]

The massive numbers of Muslim migrants that are coming to Europe, that are being accepted by leftist politicians. There are already far too many Muslims in Europe as it is, at this rate Europe will ultimately become a Muslim caliphate. Although, maybe that is what the globalists and leftists running the EU want.

I have heard about this, but no one has actually put numbers. Can you actually give us
a. Numbers of Muslims in Europe vs number of non Muslims
b. Define how much is "too many Muslims."
c. Show some maths to how they will become a majority using growth rates

Thanks.

A. Currently the population of non-Muslims in Europe is higher.
B. The current amount is already too much.
C. I would not say that they will become a majority any time in the next couple decades, but will become a very large minority. The European birth rates are going down while millions of Muslims arrive (I believe the number of Muslims arriving in Europe is 1.3 million per year, though I don't remember which article I got that from).

a. Those are not numbers. Saying I have more money than you does not tell us how much you have, nor how much I have. Can you be more specific.
b. This is useless proposition without numbers. The current amount is too much doesn't tell me anything objective you don't tell me what the current amount is.
c. Can you actually do the maths, since you made the claim about Muslims leading to Europe becoming a Caliphate. At the very least you need to show them becoming a majority and that's even assuming all Muslims want a Caliphate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Again, I did not, ever, intend to say that all Brexit voters were bigoted, or that bigotry was the only motive for Brexit. If I said something to give that impression, I apologize.

I think, however, that on the whole I've been fairly clear on this point repeatedly. But I will reiterate:

my feelings about Brexit (that not all or most Brexit supporters were motivated by simple bigotry, but that bigotry was a major driving force behind the campaign and a major beneficiary of its result)

So Brexit is racist insofar as it was motivated in part by racism and is having, and will likely continue to have, racist outcomes. You can disagree with that conclusion, but that is what I am arguing.

You are correct that we do not know the full results, but what's happened so far is certainly illuminating, and disturbing.

[Zaune]

AS far as I'm concerned, what percentage of Brexiters are actually bigoted themselves is immaterial. They enabled this by letting the migration issue drown out any other argument to get these people on side because they couldn't win the vote without them.

[jwl]

Btw, I do find it rather amusing that there are now serious discussions about the various ways Brexit won't happen even though the majority voted to leave. I distinctly recall saying on threads earlier on that the Remain camp would resort to said tactics if necessary and everyone telling me how stupid that idea was. Funny how things change when the expected winners lose, eh?

There were serious discussions before and they sounded equally unlikely. The chances of Parliment (the commons or the lords) blocking an EU exit at this point is nigh-nonexistant. If brexit is going to be blocked, it is going to be because of obscure laws regarding Sthe Scottish Parliment or EU petitions, not Parliment blocking it because they don't like it, and nobody was talking about these laws before the vote.

[jwl]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/ ... 28448a3c5f

Scotland is now warning it could block the move, threatening to withhold “legislative consent”. Its leader, popular First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has suggested Scotland’s only other option would be to remove itself from the UK.
Initially foreshadowing a second referendum that could see Scotland cut its ties from Britain, she said Scottish politicians might be able to derail the move.
“If the Scottish Parliament was judging this on the basis of what’s right for Scotland, then the option of saying ‘We’re not going to vote for something that is against Scotland’s interests’, of course, that is on the table,” she said of the possibility of withholding consent.
Ms Sturgeon said she believed Scotland’s approval was required for the move but conceded the British government would likely take “a very different view”.

In Northern Ireland, which also is part of the UK, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said his priority was forging “special arrangements” to enable Northern Ireland to maintain its EU ties. Some Brexit opponents have also talked of trying to use Northern Ireland’s Assembly to try to block Britain’s departure. Northern Ireland voters also expressed a preference for keeping Britain in the EU.

Can some Brit explain this to me? Your system is set up such that Scotland or Northern Ireland can veto such a decision. WTF? Although if they don't like it, there is always the option of getting out, then everyone is happy. Well ok, not everyone.

I'm not sure if most people had actually heard of the law prior to the leave vote (I certainly hadn't), but from what I heard on the news, it is a bit of a legal grey area. Most likely there is a way for Parliment to legislate around it (seeing as there is a way for Parliment to legislate around pretty much anything), but it might provide a barrier, and some might not be willing to go that far.

[jwl]

OK, TRR, now, you have a valid thesis here and a stupid thesis and you chose to represent the stupid one.

The valid thesis is "racist incidents have gone up." If there have been "over a hundred" such incidents in the three days since the referendum, that is probably an escalation compared to the normal background rate... though you need to go back and prove that. If there are usually about 90 incidents of xenophobic abuse and hate crime in the entire nation of Britain during a three day period, and there were 110 in this three day period, you don't have much of a case.

The stupid thesis, which you seem to have leaped to, is "therefore, Brexit is racist."

Others have already explained why it is wrong and dumb to assert that conclusion, so I will say no more.

It doesn't require all or most Brexit supporters to be racists or have racist motives for Brexit to have highly predictable consequences that benefit racism and racist groups, and to therefore argue that Brexit is racist.

I have already clarified that I am not arguing the former. I will stand by the latter.

At the end of the day, I don't really care why people supported Brexit. The result is the same- a surge in intolerance and the far Right, on top of destabilizing the economy and sacrificing Britain's global reputation and political unity.

While the full ramifications are yet to be felt, I think that it will likely be fit to be ranked among the three most blatantly, bafflingly obviously stupid and destructive political decisions of the last thirty years- the others including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the selection of Donald Trump as Republican nominee. That is the level of face-palming stupid that this vote occupies.

Would you argue that speaking out against terrorism is islamophobic if it benefits islamophobia?

[Borgholio]

And now it looks like the S&P has downgraded the UK's credit rating by two levels.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/mar ... /86436658/

[bilateralrope]

I'm not sure if most people had actually heard of the law prior to the leave vote (I certainly hadn't), but from what I heard on the news, it is a bit of a legal grey area. Most likely there is a way for Parliment to legislate around it (seeing as there is a way for Parliment to legislate around pretty much anything), but it might provide a barrier, and some might not be willing to go that far.

According to the BBC, of the current MPs: 479 supported remain, 158 supported leave as of June 22. So the majority of them have to decide between what they think is right and what the population said that they want. I'll be surprised if Brexit manages to get past their attempts at obstruction before the next election.

[Captain Seafort]

I'll be surprised if Brexit manages to get past their attempts at obstruction before the next election.

I'd be astonished if they tried to obstruct it. Parliament has received an unambiguous instruction from the people who put them there, and it is now their job to execute that instruction. To do otherwise would be a body-blow to British democracy. The fact that all major party leaders have said the same thing reinforces that point.

[jwl]

Not only that but pretty much any MP outside of Scotland when asked said they would not try to block article 50.

[The Romulan Republic]

OK, TRR, now, you have a valid thesis here and a stupid thesis and you chose to represent the stupid one.

The valid thesis is "racist incidents have gone up." If there have been "over a hundred" such incidents in the three days since the referendum, that is probably an escalation compared to the normal background rate... though you need to go back and prove that. If there are usually about 90 incidents of xenophobic abuse and hate crime in the entire nation of Britain during a three day period, and there were 110 in this three day period, you don't have much of a case.

The stupid thesis, which you seem to have leaped to, is "therefore, Brexit is racist."

Others have already explained why it is wrong and dumb to assert that conclusion, so I will say no more.

It doesn't require all or most Brexit supporters to be racists or have racist motives for Brexit to have highly predictable consequences that benefit racism and racist groups, and to therefore argue that Brexit is racist.

I have already clarified that I am not arguing the former. I will stand by the latter.

At the end of the day, I don't really care why people supported Brexit. The result is the same- a surge in intolerance and the far Right, on top of destabilizing the economy and sacrificing Britain's global reputation and political unity.

While the full ramifications are yet to be felt, I think that it will likely be fit to be ranked among the three most blatantly, bafflingly obviously stupid and destructive political decisions of the last thirty years- the others including the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the selection of Donald Trump as Republican nominee. That is the level of face-palming stupid that this vote occupies.

Would you argue that speaking out against terrorism is islamophobic if it benefits islamophobia?

Um... no? Because you can argue against terrorism without falsely equating it with Islam if you have two brain cells? And opposing terrorism (which includes Right-wing/white supremacist terrorism) can ultimately lead to a reduction in Islamophobia? And this is all rather off-topic anyway?

[jwl]

Um... no? Because you can argue against terrorism without falsely equating it with Islam if you have two brain cells? And opposing terrorism (which includes Right-wing/white supremacist terrorism) can ultimately lead to a reduction in Islamophobia? And this is all rather off-topic anyway?

Obviously I was talking about Islamic terrorism. And in the same way you can argue against Islamic terrorism without equating it with islam itself, people can and do argue against the EU without equating it with racial arguments. The analogy stands.

[The Romulan Republic]

Um... no? Because you can argue against terrorism without falsely equating it with Islam if you have two brain cells? And opposing terrorism (which includes Right-wing/white supremacist terrorism) can ultimately lead to a reduction in Islamophobia? And this is all rather off-topic anyway?

Obviously I was talking about Islamic terrorism.

Then you should have specified that, not simply said "terrorism" and assumed everyone would add the word "Islamic" to it automatically.

And in the same way you can argue against Islamic terrorism without equating it with islam itself, people can and do argue against the EU without equating it with racial arguments. The analogy stands.

And your point is? That not every argument for Brexit was racist? I've kind of already acknowledged that repeatedly.

[Zaune]

I'd be astonished if they tried to obstruct it. Parliament has received an unambiguous instruction from the people who put them there, and it is now their job to execute that instruction. To do otherwise would be a body-blow to British democracy. The fact that all major party leaders have said the same thing reinforces that point.

A majority of 1.9% is stretching the definition of "unambiguous" a tad, even before you take into account the number of people having second thoughts now the consequences are starting to sink in.

You're not wrong, though. There are a number of excellent reasons not to adhere to the referendum results this time, but if we can justify doing it this time it'll be easier justify doing it for some future referendum where there was a clearer majority and fewer immediate negative repercussions, and even easier for the referendum after that... And maybe that'd be for the best, because I'm starting to think the only reason British democracy has sort-of worked for as long as it has is that politicians used to just make speeches and sign on the dotted line where they were told and let the Civil Service do all the complicated thinking.

Not that I expect there's going to be such a thing as 'British' democracy for much longer.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Btw, I do find it rather amusing that there are now serious discussions about the various ways Brexit won't happen even though the majority voted to leave. I distinctly recall saying on threads earlier on that the Remain camp would resort to said tactics if necessary and everyone telling me how stupid that idea was. Funny how things change when the expected winners lose, eh?

Ain't that the truth?

[Crazedwraith]

Pretty sure most of us have still being saying 'but it would political suicide for them to ignore the referendum' which is still true and borne out be events today.

Aside from in Scotland obviously.

[jwl]

Um... no? Because you can argue against terrorism without falsely equating it with Islam if you have two brain cells? And opposing terrorism (which includes Right-wing/white supremacist terrorism) can ultimately lead to a reduction in Islamophobia? And this is all rather off-topic anyway?

Obviously I was talking about Islamic terrorism.

Then you should have specified that, not simply said "terrorism" and assumed everyone would add the word "Islamic" to it automatically.

And in the same way you can argue against Islamic terrorism without equating it with islam itself, people can and do argue against the EU without equating it with racial arguments. The analogy stands.

And your point is? That not every argument for Brexit was racist? I've kind of already acknowledged that repeatedly.

When I am talking about terrorism in relation to islamophobia, it's pretty obvious I'm talking about islamic terrorism, don't be deliberately dense in order to try to prove a rhetorical point. When I talk about terrorists in northern ireland I'm not talking about stalinist revolutionaries.

You haven't said that every brexit argument is racist, but you have said that, since there were racists arguing for brexit, brexit is racist. Shouldn't it then follow that if there are islamophobes are condemning islamic terrorism, movements condemning islamic terrorism are islamophobic?

[Tribble]

Btw, I do find it rather amusing that there are now serious discussions about the various ways Brexit won't happen even though the majority voted to leave. I distinctly recall saying on threads earlier on that the Remain camp would resort to said tactics if necessary and everyone telling me how stupid that idea was. Funny how things change when the expected winners lose, eh?

There were serious discussions before and they sounded equally unlikely. The chances of Parliment (the commons or the lords) blocking an EU exit at this point is nigh-nonexistant. If brexit is going to be blocked, it is going to be because of obscure laws regarding Sthe Scottish Parliment or EU petitions, not Parliment blocking it because they don't like it, and nobody was talking about these laws before the vote.

They don't have to block the referendum, all they have to do is not invoke Article 50 until a government forms which is Pro-Remain (likely as the result of an election). Then the new government can claim that its mandate invalidates the referendum results. IMO that's the most likely thing that's going to happen, but we'll see.

[K. A. Pital]

Meanwhile TTIP negotiations are in complete disarray and thanks to UK's departure as America's henchman in the EU, opposition is intensifying among national leaders too.

I wish only complete death would come sooner to the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact, but even if it is a reprieve produced by the chaos, it is still very welcome. A solid "No" to shitty US standards of life, employment, food and goods quality in Europe, ever, that is what we need to hear loud and clear.

[Hillary]

I'd be astonished if they tried to obstruct it. Parliament has received an unambiguous instruction from the people who put them there, and it is now their job to execute that instruction. To do otherwise would be a body-blow to British democracy. The fact that all major party leaders have said the same thing reinforces that point.

A majority of 1.9% is stretching the definition of "unambiguous" a tad, even before you take into account the number of people having second thoughts now the consequences are starting to sink in.

Not to mention the numbers of people who clearly voted Leave for reasons that had nothing to do with our membership of the EU.

Finally, the fact that the official Leave campaign clearly lied in the presentation of its campaign and that it made promises that it knew it would not be able to keep

The idea that this is anything but a muddied mess of a result is farcical. The fact that we may make such a monumental and irrevocable decision based on it is utterly reckless.

Nobody can say with any confidence that this is "the will of the people". It's ridiculous.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Given that the Leave campaign has lied quite blatantly and (as Hilary pointed out) made promises they are now rapidly recanting, would that (along with the close result) be enough for Parliament to ignore the result?

[Borgholio]

Seeing as how the referendum is non-binding, I think it could be easy enough to say "The proponents of the Leave campaign lied to you and had you vote on something different than you were led to believe. We consider the results of this referendum to be invalid, as they were obtained by false pretenses."

[Zaune]

That's not going to satisfy the people who voted Leave based on those promises, though, is it?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Probably not, but the Leave campaign leaders are the ones that lied to them about it, repeatedly and blatantly, so I think the Leave voters would (or should be) more pissed at them than Parliament.

[K. A. Pital]

The lie was that they could control immigration and remain in the single market.

But what if those who voted leave actually don't want to remain in the single market and only care about stemming the tide of em forreignurs? A repeat vote would alienate a huge part of the nation and destabilize the political system even further.