Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[K. A. Pital]

The doompocalypse is coming. Oligarchs, who invested heavily in London property, are now getting smacked by the invisible hand of their God whom they worship so hard. 9 billion GBP of assets frozen due to the rich panicking!

This is getting lovelier day by day!

Those Third World corrupt tinpot dictators who also invested in London and are now seeing their investments fall in price must surely be grabbing their own hair by now.

[Zaune]

And the ordinary British people losing their livelihoods, the EU nationals under threat of being rounded up and thrown out of the country out of sheer spite, the victims of the noticeable surge in racially-motivated violence and everyone else getting screwed over in the process are all just the price of progress?

[K. A. Pital]

No. There is no progress in this at all( except the very likely total demise of EU-US deals, which is 100% progressive).

There is, however, a certain degree of bittersweet irony in that the rich who made housing prices go through the roof in the UK, making purchase of apartments and houses outside the financial capabilities of the working class, can't even withdraw their investments in UK property right now.

[Thanas]

Here is what is going to happen:

The lower and especially the middle class will be crushed as Britain races to the bottom in standards while trying to keep up with the EU. Already there are rumours about a second "Golden Age" happening due to "competitive" trade and mercantilism. This is obvious to anybody.

But yay for sticking it to the evil EU, home of workplace safety regulations.

[jwl]

You are again treating non-binding referendums in the same way as you would a binding election. They are not and Parliament is free to act in the way it thinks serves the country best.

I think you misunderstood this whole democracy concept. In the democratic world governments are not supposed to lead. They are not supposed to overrule the will of the people because they think the people do not know what they are talking about. Quite the opposite in fact. In a democratic country governments are administrators. Their job is to administer the running of the nation so that said nation runs in accordance to the will of the people who elected them. So just because they are not legally bound to obey this vote does not mean that they are not morally bound to do so unless they wish to openly and publicly declare your democracy bankrupt.

I think you misunderstood this whole 'republic' concept.*

There are two reasons republics hold elections. One is so that the people can select the individuals they think most likely to lead the country successfully. The other is closely related, but arguably more important- it is so that the people can remove individuals they deem unfit to govern. And remove leaders whose policies have failed, proving them incompetent to govern. That way, when a government is simply failing to do its job, it can be peacefully removed from office and replaced with a competent government. Dictatorships cannot do this; the dictator invariably uses force to suppress attempts to remove him from office when he makes a mistake. Therefore, incompetent dictators usually last longer than incompetent leaders in republics.

In Britain, the problem is that the electorate has shown narrow support for a course of action that may well be disastrous. So far as I can tell, the leadership of every major political party in England** has stepped down or been forced down rather than deal with the results. Even some of the politicians who theoretically supported the Leave campaign are stepping down. They won, and they're quitting anyway. And I suspect they're quitting because they know something they wouldn't have told the electorate. They're quitting because they cannot realistically expect to govern England through the chaos likely to result from Britain leaving the EU.

So in this situation, it may well be that a government would have to be incompetent to agree to leave the EU. If the electorate disagrees, they need to pick a new government. Happily, under the British system, they can do that fairly soon.

More generally, this is an issue about the nature of authority I'm not sure you understand. In societies that actually work and are not stupid, incompetence-riddled hellholes... Authority doesn't involve having a 'master' who does all the thinking and gives all the orders to a 'slave' who follows them unconditionally. This is true even when we make the 'master' some abstraction like "the will of the people" and the 'slave' into the politicians.

For authority and hierarchy to work, there has to be two-way communication, loyalty, and openness. If the boss gives a stupid order, there are times when the ethical response for a subordinate is to say "I will not do this thing; it is your right to replace me with someone who will, but I personally will not do it."

__________________________

*Some pedant may argue that Britain is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic; for this purpose that argument is a red herring and should be ignored.
**The Scottish National Party is arguably a major party in Britain, but not in England...

Corbyn hasn't been forced out yet, and still might not. If he does, it's reasonably likely it will come with a lot of strings attached. Also, do you not count the Lib Dems as a "major party" now?

There is going to be no "opportunity to pick a new government" any time soon. Theresa May doesn't want it, Andrea Leadsom doesn't want it, Michael Gove doesn't want it, so it's not happening.

Of course it is one thing to ignore a boss's orders, it is another to offer a binary choice to your boss then ignore it when he picks the wrong option. I don't think I would have a problem with this if this was just polls or even census information. Refusing to honour a referendum you set yourself, and promised to honour, is not fair play.

Also, there is going to be no "opportunity to pick new government" any time soon. Theresa May isn't doing it, Andrea Leadsom isn't doing it, Michael Gove isn't doing it. It's not happening.

[Simon_Jester]

Corbyn hasn't been forced out yet, and still might not. If he does, it's reasonably likely it will come with a lot of strings attached. Also, do you not count the Lib Dems as a "major party" now?

There is going to be no "opportunity to pick a new government" any time soon. Theresa May doesn't want it, Andrea Leadsom doesn't want it, Michael Gove doesn't want it, so it's not happening.

My apologies; I am an outsider trying to talk to another outsider who has cartoonishly simplified and weird views about politics in general I missed some important facts. No excuse.

Of course it is one thing to ignore a boss's orders, it is another to offer a binary choice to your boss then ignore it when he picks the wrong option. I don't think I would have a problem with this if this was just polls or even census information. Refusing to honour a referendum you set yourself, and promised to honour, is not fair play.

That is a distinct point. I was responding in particular to Purple's position (that "the will of the people" in a nebulously defined form must be obeyed or it isn't a democracy), and I got carried away. You're right to point out that a responsible government (the kind that deserves to stay in power) wouldn't do something dumb like deliberately stage a referendum when it isn't prepared to follow through on the results.

Also, there is going to be no "opportunity to pick new government" any time soon. Theresa May isn't doing it, Andrea Leadsom isn't doing it, Michael Gove isn't doing it. It's not happening.

Hm. Okay, if all that happens is musical chairs played with the topmost leadership slots, and no general election, then I am flat wrong about that being the case.

[Tribble]

@ Hillary

I am well aware that the referendum was non binding, I suggested long before the vote that the results wouldn't matter because even if the UK voted to leave the government would ignore it. Also, the Lisbon Treaty came into effect in 2009, which was less than 10 years ago.

My issue here is that the government was specifically elected on a campaign pledge to hold the referendum and to abide by the results. If they did not want to leave under any circumstances, they should not have campaigned on having one. If they wanted the referendum to be only advisory, they should have stated so instead of promising over and over that they would abide by the results. Holding a referendum and claiming that they will abide to it while knowing full well that they intend to ignore the results if they don't get the answer they want is undemocratic. It's not even republican, seing as that would mean they were elected based on a lie (which in this case is one of the biggest lies they could make) "We're giving you a choice but you gave us the wrong answer so we're ignoring you now " is not the appropriate way to behave, even if it's for the greater good.

[Crazedwraith]

Who in fact is planning to ignore it? I'm not aware of any Tory candidate for PM who's said anything like that.

[Zaune]

Who in fact is planning to ignore it? I'm not aware of any Tory candidate for PM who's said anything like that.

They're not exactly falling over themselves to comply with it, though.

[mr friendly guy]

Here is what is going to happen:

The lower and especially the middle class will be crushed as Britain races to the bottom in standards while trying to keep up with the EU. Already there are rumours about a second "Golden Age" happening due to "competitive" trade and mercantilism. This is obvious to anybody.

But yay for sticking it to the evil EU, home of workplace safety regulations.

Yeah I heard this golden age stuff with them harking back to when Britain dominated world trade. Someone should point out to them that since then other nations have industrialised and Britain's position as top dog is long gone as other industrialised and industrialising nations surpass them, starting with the US, Japan, Germany and China being the most recent. Britain's share of industry is only going to shrink as previously low income countries move to middle income range and middle income countries move into high income range.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Corbyn hasn't been forced out yet, and still might not. If he does, it's reasonably likely it will come with a lot of strings attached. Also, do you not count the Lib Dems as a "major party" now?

Not since the Lib Dems were virtually wiped out at the last general election, in part because they went into coalition with the Tories. That Labour didn't have enough MPs to go into coalition with was apparently lost on voters

Does anyone know who actually has the authority to invoke article 50? One would assume it's whoever becomes the next PM.

I find it very illuminating that people like Farage quit after getting the vote they want while not being willing to accept the consequences when they get the result they want. I reckon that if in a few months there's no sign of leaving, that he'll make a return...

[jwl]

Corbyn hasn't been forced out yet, and still might not. If he does, it's reasonably likely it will come with a lot of strings attached. Also, do you not count the Lib Dems as a "major party" now?

Not since the Lib Dems were virtually wiped out at the last general election, in part because they went into coalition with the Tories. That Labour didn't have enough MPs to go into coalition with was apparently lost on voters

Does anyone know who actually has the authority to invoke article 50? One would assume it's whoever becomes the next PM.

I find it very illuminating that people like Farage quit after getting the vote they want while not being willing to accept the consequences when they get the result they want. I reckon that if in a few months there's no sign of leaving, that he'll make a return...

Yeah, the Lib Dems are a bit lacking in terms of Parlimentary seats. They do still control quite a few councils, though. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "major party".

My understanding on invoking article 50 is that any MP can put the bill forward, but without the prime minister's backing, the Tory whip is not going to get them to vote for it, so it can probably only pass with the prime minister's support.

[Dartzap]

Does anyone know who actually has the authority to invoke article 50? One would assume it's whoever becomes the next PM.

Yep, it'll be May who activates it, but there are a number of constitutional lawyers saying that the Lisbon treaty states there has to be a vote in the commons for this to happen, as it is a sovereignty issue.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Corbyn hasn't been forced out yet, and still might not. If he does, it's reasonably likely it will come with a lot of strings attached. Also, do you not count the Lib Dems as a "major party" now?

Not since the Lib Dems were virtually wiped out at the last general election, in part because they went into coalition with the Tories. That Labour didn't have enough MPs to go into coalition with was apparently lost on voters

Does anyone know who actually has the authority to invoke article 50? One would assume it's whoever becomes the next PM.

I find it very illuminating that people like Farage quit after getting the vote they want while not being willing to accept the consequences when they get the result they want. I reckon that if in a few months there's no sign of leaving, that he'll make a return...

Yeah, the Lib Dems are a bit lacking in terms of Parlimentary seats. They do still control quite a few councils, though. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "major party".

My understanding on invoking article 50 is that any MP can put the bill forward, but without the prime minister's backing, the Tory whip is not going to get them to vote for it, so it can probably only pass with the prime minister's support.

How rigid is party discipline? I know it is stronger here than in the US, but can the Tory Whip actually *make* them vote for it?

[Dartzap]

Party discipline is entirely based on how dominant the leader of the party is. Cameron can still muster up the numbers if needed, but will, I suspect, go for a three- line whip when Trident is voted on in a week.If they don't vote in the intended manner, that's basically guaranteed parliamentary terms worth of backbench dwelling.

Contrast that to Corbyn, who has lost the support of his colleagues to the extent that they mostly wont support in even in their official role as the opposition - the SNP asked waaay more questions in last week's PMQ's as an example.

[Darth Nostril]

Yeah, but Corbyns 'colleagues' are the asshats who want to drag the Labour party back to being Diet Tory again.

[Dartzap]

True, but they are not fulfilling their constitutional role as the opposition. What, exactly, are they for? We desperately we need a fighting opposition.

[Zaune]

A Labour party whose agenda is basically a slightly watered-down version of the Conservative one might as well not be an Opposition at all. Especially when the party rank-and-file and the MPs are now clearly so thoroughly at odds that they might as well be separate parties.

Maybe we should give the job to the SNP.