Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well austerity is retarded shit for retards so yes, but the video says, austerity is just one part of it.

[K. A. Pital]

I think austerity is harmful, Thanas. However, what one cannot deny is that Germany could not have forced Britain into austerity; that was their decision.

The implosion of the Eurozone due to austerity could also happen, and in that case the cure would be basically same as the disease.

[Simon_Jester]

There are treaties which involve a relatively minor sacrifice of sovereignty, or which amount to saying "we reserve our right, but choose not to exercise it in this case," or some such.

This, by contrast, is a major and permanent sacrifice of sovereignty, because you are giving away the right to regulate the conduct of international corporations in your territory- or promising to compensate them for lost profits.

That's a very broad, very basic sovereign right- the right to regulate the internal affairs of one's own nation, without being liable to private citizens who are inconvenienced when you declare their actions illegal.

The alternative is to keep ceding the issue to the WTO, which certainly undercuts sovereignty in massive ways too, but operates absurdly slowly to the point of nearly not functioning...

That sounds like a case of King Log versus King Stork, if we're going to talk about replacing the WTO with an organization whose structure was negotiated in absolute secrecy, and which entitles corporations to sue countries for 'lost profits' if they alter their regulatory regime in a way disadvantageous to the corporation. There is a difference between ensuring free trade, and ensuring that corporations have the power to punish nations that do not obey their interests.

Yeah sure, better treaties could be written but people seriously underestimate how much power is already vesting into these organizations. Its all being used like shit, and that isn't good. Something big should change, and nearly zero chance exists in the near future of a reform or indeed any change what so ever out of the WTO.

Even so, one should resist attempts to replace a relatively passive evil that does little (the WTO) with a relatively active evil that has the power to do much (the TTIP).

[Thanas]

Well austerity is retarded shit for retards so yes, but the video says, austerity is just one part of it.

The video is about austerity and Greece, not about the British vote. It has one minute about the referendum, if even that. So maybe stop hijacking the thread?

I think austerity is harmful, Thanas. However, what one cannot deny is that Germany could not have forced Britain into austerity; that was their decision.

The implosion of the Eurozone due to austerity could also happen, and in that case the cure would be basically same as the disease.

Look, I am not opposed to Blyth. I probably agree with about 90% of what he says in longer lectures like this one here, which is worth watching. What I am very much against is somebody coming in and hijacking a thread about a different issue to rail against austerity. Unless one can prove that austerity is the main reason for the referendum, but no.

[Thanas]

That being said, get a load of this.

WTF?

"I voted toget out but did not think we would go out really". What the hell were you thinking voting out was going to do then? Give you magical ponies?

[jwl]

Protest voting exists, Thanas. A large portion of people who vote UKIP or the Green party in the general election don't want or expect them to actually win. The same used to be true of the Lib Dems until 2010.

[Thanas]

I get protest voting, but I also don't get why people the complain about the results of their protest vote.

I mean if I vote for the AFD to get in power I do not get to complain about nazis sitting in parliament.

[K. A. Pital]

You protest vote, but don't bother to check that your "protest" vote is polling near 50% at a crucial referendum?

You are an idiot that deserves everything that's coming your way.

[Simon_Jester]

As someone who was just old enough to know how to swear during the United States' 2000 election, I sympathize with your feelings...

[The Romulan Republic]

The Guardian reports a five-fold increase in hate crime reports following the Brexit-vote.

Draw what conclusions you will.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... xit-result

Incidents of racism in the wake of the EU referendum result have increased dramatically, according to the latest figures.


Complaints filed to police online hate-crime reporting site True Vision have increased fivefold since last Thursday, the National Police Chiefs Council said, with 331 hate crime incidents reported to the site compared with a weekly average of 63.

The vote for Brexit has been blamed for the spate of racist attacks and incidents across the country over the past week, including dozens of Islamophobic leaflets put through doors in Birmingham and reports that far-right leaflets were distributed in parts of West Yorkshire.

A police inquiry was launched in Manchester when vulnerable pensioners were forced to evacuate a day centre after receiving threats of “a backlash against the black community”.

In the West Midlands, a BBC radio presenter was racially abused in the street.

Sara Thornton, head of the NPCC, said: “The national community tensions team has also analysed reports from forces, which today show an increase in community tension directed at the migrant community since the referendum.

“In a number of forces, migrants are reporting verbal abuse, negative social media commentary including xenophobic language, anti-migrant leafleting and, in very limited numbers, physical assaults. All of these incidents are under active investigation.”

Sara Thornton, head of the National Police Chiefs Council.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Sara Thornton, head of the National Police Chiefs Council. Photograph: PA
A senior Church of England official warned that the rise in hate crimes since the EU referendum could lead to fascism.

Arun Arora, the church’s director of communications and an ordained priest, said the UK faced a choice about what kind of country it wanted to be.

In his sermon at the consecration this week of two female bishops, Arora said: “The rise in hate crimes over recent days has echoes. They remind of how the seeds of fascism, once sown and left to flourish, can grow into a poison fruit, leading to a society which scapegoats, persecutes and dehumanises.”

In Manchester, more than 20 elderly people, some using wheelchairs, had to flee the Hulme-based African Caribbean Care Group after a threatening phone call on Wednesday afternoon.


‘A frenzy of hatred’: how to understand Brexit racism
Read more
Manager Dorothy Evans, who took the call, said she was stunned to receive the anonymous call telling her that people were going to get “fucked up”.

Evans said: “It happened about lunch time, he was blaming older black people for their behaviour and saying that people were going to get hurt because of it. It was very scary – we support people in the community regardless of race, people who are blind, disabled, vulnerable – and worried that there was a risk to those in the centre, so we shut.”

In the West Midlands, police have launched two separate investigations after leaflets were put through doors in Aston, Birmingham, and BBC Coventry and Warwickshire breakfast show host Trish Adudu was abused in the street by a passing cyclist.

Adudu said she was subjected to the racist abuse on Wednesday morning in Coventry after she saw a man of Asian appearance being told to “go home”.

BBC Coventry and Warwickshire radio presenter Trish Adudu.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
BBC Coventry and Warwickshire radio presenter Trish Adudu. Photograph: Richard Stonehouse/BBC/PA
She said: “This type of vile abuse needs to stop and we need to work together to try and get rid of it.

“If the guy on the bike could be so vile in such a short period of time, then what else could he go on to do? Who’s next? Someone is going to get hurt.”

In Aston, the MP Shabana Mahmood contacted the same force after dozens of Islamophobic leaflets were put through doors.


Racist incidents feared to be linked to Brexit result
Read more
Mahmood said she was contacted by concerned residents after the flyers, which she described as “frightening”, were posted on Monday. Police are now looking at CCTV footage in a bid to find out who was responsible.

Mahmood, the Labour MP for Ladywood, said: “They are vile and a disgusting piece of literature designed to frighten the people in my constituency and cause fear and create division in our society.”

That same night, a halal butcher in Pleck, Walsall, was firebombed – but police are saying that they are keeping an open mind over the motive.

In York, police urged a Swedish mother to come forward after receiving reports that she was racially abused in the street while with her two young children.

Although the incident has not been officially reported to the police, a friend of the woman told The Press newspaper that she was abused in the Fulford area of the city on Saturday.

He said: “On a warm summer Saturday in Fulford, a young mother with her two children was told to ‘**** off back to your own country’.”

The man told the paper he respected the result of the EU referendum, but he added: “It is not only sad, but deplorable, that a criminal minority feel that they have been emboldened by the result to abuse others with brainless, racist bile that has no place in any civilised community.”

St Adam Thomson, of North Yorkshire police, said: “I am appealing to the woman who was abused to please contact us and report what happened. This type of crime will not be tolerated in the city of York or anywhere else in our county and anyone who behaves in such a way will face the full force of the law.”

Imam Qari Asim and Makkah mosque in Leeds.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Imam Qari Asim and Makkah mosque in Leeds. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian
In Leeds, a prominent imam said it was “upsetting and disturbing” that leave campaign leaders had been slow to condemn xenophobic and racially motivated incidents across the UK.

Qari Asim, the senior imam at the Makkah mosque in Leeds, said anti-Muslim hate monitoring group Tell Mama reported a 326% increase in incidents against Muslims in 2015, and warned that Brexit could make it worse.

“What has been most upsetting and disturbing is that there have been no immediate statements from leave campaign leaders condemning such xenophobic and racially motivated incidents.”

He added: “There is no doubt that the repercussions of this historic vote will be felt for many years, and potentially decades, to come. But this decision of over 17 million people must be respected and we must remain positive.

“Now is not the time for fallouts. Unity, stability, reconciliation and tackling of inequality and bigotry must be our priorities post-Brexit.”

[Ace Pace]

As said in similar discussions elsewhere, we should be very careful drawing conclusions from this report. We're in the same situation as rape statistics. Are hate crimes going up (people feel more open about their bigotry) or are we witnessing more awareness of the problem (more reports) or more coverage (more of this reaches media and NGOs). Without more information we can't separate the incidents.

[Zaune]

In other words, maybe Britain's always been this racist and we just didn't realise 'til now.

Somehow that's even more depressing than the possibility that there has been a sudden surge.

[K. A. Pital]

In other words, maybe Britain's always been this racist and we just didn't realise 'til now.

Somehow that's even more depressing than the possibility that there has been a sudden surge.

But wouldn't the surge mean just the same: it was racist before, and now all the racists who were hiding got an excuse to act boldly?

[Zaune]

Well, yes, I suppose. At least a surge would mean that we'd been enjoying some success in encouraging what some call "political correctness" but I prefer to think of as good manners.

[jwl]

In other words, maybe Britain's always been this racist and we just didn't realise 'til now.

Somehow that's even more depressing than the possibility that there has been a sudden surge.

By "this racist" do you mean 331 hate crimes per week? Without looking at the statistics, what did you think it was previously?

[Zaune]

Depends how you define a hate crime, I guess; that could mean anything from shouting racist insults to pouring petrol through someone's letterbox. I must admit I'm surprised it was 'only' an average of 63 incidents per week beforehand though, given how often seemingly ordinary and pleasant people have blindsided me with some really ugly views on race in the past.

[His Divine Shadow]

Here's the same guy again, condensing it into 30 seconds, ending on a hopeful note though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lD474zXIzc

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I get protest voting, but I also don't get why people the complain about the results of their protest vote.

I mean if I vote for the AFD to get in power I do not get to complain about nazis sitting in parliament.

People will complain about anything which is why they would protest vote anything. It is after all an impotent hand wringing.

The only problem is if too many do it, it becomes more than impotent hand wringing.

[Tribble]

IMO that's not a sufficient excuse to overturn a referendum result.

The rules for leaving (50% + 1 vote, no 2nd referendum) were known well beforehand, the question was clear, the government had been elected on a mandate to hold that referendum, and 51.9% voted to leave.

IMO ignoring that result would be even worse than leaving in the long run, because if UK politicians can feel to ignore results like that when it suits their purposes, they will almost certainly ignore all referendums in the future. And the time may come when those in the Remain camp seek a referendum on some other issue, win that issue, then are bitterly disappointed when those results are ignored. IMO when you start gaming the system and demanding that the rules be retroactively changed to suit the result you wanted, you are setting a very bad precedent. Naturally this is par the course with the EU - apparently referendums only count in the EU when the bureaucrats in Brussels get the answer they were looking for.

Besides which, the argument that the status quo should be maintained unless a clear majority voted to leave (judging from posters in other threads they want anything from 60% - 2/3) is a pretty damn hypocritical position to be taking given the UK signed the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty* (thereby changing the existing status quo) without a referendum and without a clear majority voting to do so, and this despite the Labour Government being elected on the specific campaign promise that they would hold a referendum on that issue. You cannot call the signing of the Lisbon Treaty to be democratic in the slightest (though it is legal given that parliament can do whatever the hell it wants, voters be damned), yet I don't see the Remain Camp's moral outrage there. And were not talking about something that happened during the times of Charlemagne- the Lisbon Treaty was enacted less than 10 years ago. If anything, the failure to hold a referendum before signing the Lisbon Treaty was what ultimately started the Brexit campaign, since that's what the Conservatives used to get themselves elected, and they knew that sooner or later a referendum would have to be held (though they held out as long as possible).

IMO it's precisely that kind of attitude which drives Euroskeptics in the first place. This isn't a uniquely UK situation - remember when France, the Netherlands and Ireland rejected the European Constitution via referendums with even bigger majorities than Brexit? Yet there they are as signatories for the Lisbon Treaty- the ladder having had a 2nd referendum in 2 years "to get things right" while the former two simply decided that ignoring the referendum and pretending it never happened was the best way to go. "Ignore referendums results when they are not to our liking" does not endear people to the EU cause, and IMO that will end up breaking the EU apart in the long run, if Brexit has not already started the process.

*Yes I am well aware of the fact that the two of them were technically separate treaties, however it is also well known and acknowledged that they were pretty much identical.

[Hillary]

IMO that's not a sufficient excuse to overturn a referendum result.

The rules for leaving (50% + 1 vote, no 2nd referendum) were known well beforehand, the question was clear, the government had been elected on a mandate to hold that referendum, and 51.9% voted to leave.

Obviously not well known to you, as you are completely wrong - the referendum is NOT BINDING on the government at all.

IMO ignoring that result would be even worse than leaving in the long run, because if UK politicians can feel to ignore results like that when it suits their purposes, they will almost certainly ignore all referendums in the future. And the time may come when those in the Remain camp seek a referendum on some other issue, win that issue, then are bitterly disappointed when those results are ignored. IMO when you start gaming the system and demanding that the rules be retroactively changed to suit the result you wanted, you are setting a very bad precedent. Naturally this is par the course with the EU - apparently referendums only count in the EU when the bureaucrats in Brussels get the answer they were looking for.

The referendum was NOT BINDING. It was purely a referendum to gauge the opinion of the British people on the subject. It is extremely clear that the country does not have an overwhelming desire to leave the EU. Of the 72% who voted, less than 52% voted Leave and it's becoming more obvious by the day that a fair percentage of those either voted as a protest against the Govt or had a completely lack of understanding of what the EU actually is and does. Of the 28% who didn't vote, the vast, vast majority were either Remains who didn't show up (for various reasons) or don't knows.

Looking at all the above, can you honestly say that the referendum shows a big desire from the British public for a Brexit?

Besides which, the argument that the status quo should be maintained unless a clear majority voted to leave (judging from posters in other threads they want anything from 60% - 2/3) is a pretty damn hypocritical position to be taking given the UK signed the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty* (thereby changing the existing status quo) without a referendum and without a clear majority voting to do so, and this despite the Labour Government being elected on the specific campaign promise that they would hold a referendum on that issue.

Yes, our Govt took us into the Common Market over 40 years ago without a referendum. This is true - apologies for not feeling rage at something that happened when I was 5 years old and which has proven to be entirely the right decision. You are massively overstating the importance of the referendum to the Labour party in their victory in 1974 though. Far more to do with miners and the three-day week.

You cannot call the signing of the Lisbon Treaty to be democratic in the slightest (though it is legal given that parliament can do whatever the hell it wants, voters be damned), yet I don't see the Remain Camp's moral outrage there.

Yes you can call it democratic. Should we hold a referendum on every fucking treaty the Govt signs? We elect people to make these decisions on our behalf. What has been abundantly clear during this referendum campaign is that the 95% of the general public know the square root of fuck all about the EU and are not capable of making these decisions themselves. It's what we employ politicians to do.

And were not talking about something that happened during the times of Charlemagne- the Lisbon Treaty was enacted less than 10 years ago. If anything, the failure to hold a referendum before signing the Lisbon Treaty was what ultimately started the Brexit campaign, since that's what the Conservatives used to get themselves elected, and they knew that sooner or later a referendum would have to be held (though they held out as long as possible).

Yes, that's all true. But something is not wrong because it upsets people on the right wing of the Conservative Party. As I said, these are the sorts of policy decisions we elect our politicians to deal with. We do not run our country based on countless referendums.

IMO it's precisely that kind of attitude which drives Euroskeptics in the first place. This isn't a uniquely UK situation - remember when France, the Netherlands and Ireland rejected the European Constitution via referendums with even bigger majorities than Brexit? Yet there they are as signatories for the Lisbon Treaty- the ladder having had a 2nd referendum in 2 years "to get things right" while the former two simply decided that ignoring the referendum and pretending it never happened was the best way to go. "Ignore referendums results when they are not to our liking" does not endear people to the EU cause, and IMO that will end up breaking the EU apart in the long run, if Brexit has not already started the process.

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.

[Purple]

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.

[Crazedwraith]

Junker's got a point

Brexit leaders 'leaving the boat' - EU Commission boss Juncker

EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has accused Brexit campaigners Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage of quitting when things got difficult.

"The Brexit heroes of yesterday are now the sad Brexit heroes of today," he told the European Parliament.

There was anger among MEPs over the UK's 23 June vote to leave the EU.

Mr Juncker spoke of Leave camp "retro nationalists". "Patriots don't resign when things get difficult, they stay," he told MEPs in Strasbourg.

He also said he did not understand why those in the Brexit camp in the UK would want to wait before beginning the formal withdrawal process.




"Instead of developing the plan, they are leaving the boat," he said.

Boris Johnson, former London mayor and a leading Brexit campaigner, caused a sensation last Thursday when he pulled out of the Conservative leadership race.

He had been considered a favourite to replace David Cameron as party leader and prime minister.

UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage resigned on Monday, saying he wanted his "life back", as he had fulfilled his political ambition of putting the UK on a path to exit from the EU, nicknamed "Brexit".

Mr Farage has clashed repeatedly with Mr Juncker in the European Parliament.

Brexiteers accuse the Commission of dictating policy to the UK and expanding its powers to the detriment of Europe's citizens. The Commission drafts EU laws and polices the bloc's regulations.

Once the Leave camp's victory was clear, David Cameron resigned, having led the Remain camp's attempt to keep the UK in the 28-nation bloc.

UK 'collapsed'

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte told MEPs that the Brexit vote was "extremely unfortunate", especially for the UK. "That country now has collapsed - politically, economically, monetarily and constitutionally, and you will have years ahead of you to get out of this mess."

The referendum result caused political and economic turmoil in the UK. The pound slumped to a 31-year low against the US dollar and there are fears that the UK is heading for a recession again.

The result also hit stocks, especially banks and housebuilders, and the FTSE 100 index remains more than 8% down in dollar terms.

UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall told MEPs that "the UK and Europe are joined by geography, culture history and trade and that will not change".

He said "it's imperative that we are good, healthy, trading neighbours". "We need negotiations conducted in a grown-up manner so we can get the best deal for everyone."

EU Council condemned

The head of the liberal group in the parliament, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, lambasted the European Council, the forum where EU governments decide policy.

He said the Council's reaction to Brexit was "we shouldn't change anything, just implement existing European policies". "I find this shocking and irresponsible," he said angrily.

There had been warning signs for the EU from previous referendums in Denmark and the Netherlands, he said.

"What are you waiting for? When will the Council recognise that this type of EU - you cannot defend it any more. Europe needs to be reformed... European citizens are not against Europe, they're against this Europe."

I've seen people float the idea that Boris & Co didn't really think they'd win. But I don't know how that works, how were they going to get an advantage out of losing? But everyone cutting and running does seem to suggest they weren't prepared to either win or for the backlash that followed.

[AniThyng]

If they lost narrowly they can continue to make political hay out of it without having to actually follow through.

[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.

It easily be argued that the public wants several contradictory things, and it ia the job of Parliment to make a compromise on the conflicting ideas. The will of the people is for the uk to have a good economy and, it seems, to leave the eu. Some might say you can't have both, so Parliment have to decide which they think is more important.

Not that I think they should ignore the result of the referendum, however. If they weren't willing to carry the result of the referendum out they should never have held it in thw first place. Since it does seem they are willing to carry it out however, it's all good.

[Simon_Jester]

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...