PDA

View Full Version : So the UK votes to leaves the European Union


Cyberstrike nTo
2016-06-24, 03:23 PM
Any thought from the UK members here? I'm just curious about this (for either good or bad) historic vote.

slartibartfast
2016-06-24, 03:59 PM
...the lengths you have to go to just to get Cameron to resign.[/joke]

I suppose I'll have to apply for French citizenship, I hope I won't have to choose.

Auntie Slag
2016-06-24, 04:16 PM
The intent is to lay the groundwork for a new Galactic Empire, with the UK at the helm.

This ties in with what we know of the future, where evil space people (the Empire, the big bads in Jupiter Ascending, and that bloke in Serenity) tend to be English.

I already have a mid-level position staked out in an intergalactic mega station of unimaginable destructive power.

Sades
2016-06-24, 05:21 PM
I'm something like 10% British/Scottish, apparently. Predictably, about 10% of me is on the fence about the whole thing.

Brendocon 2.0
2016-06-24, 05:31 PM
From a practical economic perspective, I doubt it'll make much difference in the long term.

If the government actually pass the legislation to pull us out (and there's no actual legal obligation for them to do so), we'll almost certainly do it having negotiated deals to continue the existing trade relations, at the cost of allowing free movement. Which is going to be fun when the people who voted solely because they bought into "omg get rid of teh immigrantz!" realise what's happened. We'll just be giving up our say in how things are run, putting us in pretty much the same position as Switzerland or Norway.

From a political and cultural standpoint... this is a bit of a disaster. Scotland are already pressing for another referendum to gain their own independence (and who can blame them). Cameron's resigned as Prime Minister. The Labour Party are lobbying a vote of no confidence in their leader for failing to stop it. Plus this whole scenario has left Nigel Farage (not even an MP, one of the main faces of the Leave campaign, basically a fascist) as the cackling victorious supervillain, having successfully executed his master plan. The fact the BBC trotted him out this morning to explain what's going to happen next when he is legitimately nothing to do with the government tells you a lot about the political situation right now.

The next general election is going to be carnage.

Basically the Tory Party have used us as pawns to settle their own little private dispute, making us responsible for the sort of decision we specifically elect MPs to deal with, and it's blown up in their face spectacularly. Cameron's spent the last six years creating a massive socio-economic divide, casually suggesting it's all the fault of the EU/foreigners in general, rather than him... stood for re-election on a promise of calling a referendum, then said we should definitely remain.

I've seen several news stories of people who voted Leave thinking a Remain result was inevitable so it wouldn't make a difference. So I can't help but think a lot of the votes were cast out of spite rather than being able to side with DC. Democracy in action.

Short term: country ripped in half because Cameron and Johnson couldn't just have a cock-measuring contest like normal people.

[disclaimer: it is a LOT more complicated than all of the above, with generational conflict, media lies, misrepresentation of facts, lower class resentment at being told what to do by snobby "experts" and other factors have also played a massive part]

slartibartfast
2016-06-24, 05:47 PM
Nicely put I thought :up:

This could also mean the end of the peace treaty in Northern Ireland too.

Knightdramon
2016-06-24, 06:33 PM
The comedy gold in this otherwise awful day is that within the first few hours a few of the major promises of Vote Leave have just suffered a U-Turn.

Fund the NHS with those 350 m you just saved? Uh, no, we never said that.

Leave immediately? Um, no, let's not haste with triggering article 50.

Cameron won't resign? Um he just did. Not even 10 minutes into the opening of the "business day".

I won't continue because this will just be doom and gloom but I hope within the next few months? years? folk will see that they've been conned and migrants were never their problem.

Skyquake87
2016-06-24, 07:25 PM
I was quite sad to wake up to this and, as Brendocon says, its the mess and the people who are celebrating that worry me. The very real prospect of Boris becoming Prime Minister is just... awful.

Some random thoughts...

Its left me feeling pretty bummed out. Amusingly, the poorest regions of our country (anywhere outside of London), are the ones who have benefitted the most from EU membership in terms of funding for infrastructure, various social projects that help the poorest and most vulnerable (Wales for example receives something like £8 billion in EU grants and whatnot but voted 68% in favour to leave the EU) that our government couldn't or wouldn't fund.

There was a good article on the BBC's website too by Mark Easton that pretty much nails the problems the UK has which can be traced back to the industrial revolution, with the huge upheaveals that brought and the divides that created in society which resonates today.

Still, if Norway, Iceland and Lithuania can survive (so, er, in good company there then), then I'm sure we'll muddle through in the same way and continue as we have throughout our EU membership - shouting from the sidelines whilst not playing a more active part.

One thing that did cheer me up was the reactions from the people of York, who voted to remain. A nice tonic to the toothless gibberings of some of "the great british public" who've latched onto this as solely an issue about immigration and funny foreign folk coming over here, taking all our benefits etc etc ad nauseam

Warcry
2016-06-24, 07:26 PM
I wonder what this means for the future of the European Union as a whole? It sounds like a lot of other countries were mulling over their place in the EU, and this is only going to strengthen movements all across the continent. It's also going to put more pressure on strong economies like Germany and France, now that the UK won't be there to share the weight of supporting debt-ridden basket cases like Greece, Italy and Spain. And now I'm hearing talk that there's a lot of support in France for an EU referendum as well?

It's been a bad few years for the EU. First they had the Greek debt crisis, which went to the brink of disaster. Then last year's migrant crisis, which they proved singularly incapable of addressing, leaving the member nations to deal with it (or not) in a patchwork of mutually-contradictory ways. And now a founding member decides to walk out, even in the face of short-term economic damage. This seems like the sort of thing that could snowball really quickly and take the whole union apart, and I don't think that'd be great for anyone in the long run.

I won't continue because this will just be doom and gloom but I hope within the next few months? years? folk will see that they've been conned and migrants were never their problem.
I think the best case you can hope for is that the EU realizes what a disaster this could be on both sides and launches a series of reforms to try and address the issues that have made people (in the UK and elsewhere) so livid. That way the government would be able to walk back from this ledge while still presenting it as a win for UK independence.

Obviously the "**** off we're full" hardcore UKIP types will never be happy until they've deported everyone with brown skin and/or people who can't trace their ancestors back to the time of the Domesday Book, but you'd have to imagine that a good chunk of the 52% who voted Leave could be convinced to stay if it looked like the EU was actually trying to fix itself.

Skyquake87
2016-06-24, 07:42 PM
The biggest flaw in the EU to my mind is the lack of some federal authority to put checks and balances in place to prevent problems. The single currency hasn't worked well because all each state has done is change their individual currency for the shiny space money of the Euro with no one thinking that dodgy buggers like Italy might need watching very closely indeed. As much as people hate the idea, I think Europe would work much better if it was run along the lines of the US.

Shouting from Brussels and hoping people wont f**k up too much isn't really going to get people on side and make sure individual states spending doesn't go bananas.

And yes, the migrant problem and freedom of movement has been so poorly handled. Not helped, it has to be said, by allowing a lot of poor former soviet states join the EU just to p*** Russia off. Whilst that creates a lot of cheap expendable labour that has business rubbing its hands with glee, its meant in some areas, local tradesmen have been undercut and wages in a lot of unskilled jobs and retail have been trapped in a race to the bottom, couple that with zero hour contracts and you've got a lot of people who are suddenly a lot worse off.

I do hope this does make Europe buck its ideas up and realise that whilst the concept of a European super-continent is sound (it was after all devised as a Psot War response to create a situation where future wars would be impossible in Europe), in needs much more robost control and care in being delivered.

Knightdramon
2016-06-24, 07:50 PM
One thing that did cheer me up was the reactions from the people of York, who voted to remain. A nice tonic to the toothless gibberings of some of "the great british public" who've latched onto this as solely an issue about immigration and funny foreign folk coming over here, taking all our benefits etc etc ad nauseam

You're welcome.


I think the best case you can hope for is that the EU realizes what a disaster this could be on both sides and launches a series of reforms to try and address the issues that have made people (in the UK and elsewhere) so livid. That way the government would be able to walk back from this ledge while still presenting it as a win for UK independence.

Obviously the "**** off we're full" hardcore UKIP types will never be happy until they've deported everyone with brown skin and/or people who can't trace their ancestors back to the time of the Domesday Book, but you'd have to imagine that a good chunk of the 52% who voted Leave could be convinced to stay if it looked like the EU was actually trying to fix itself.

I think the EU is, at the moment, keen on not losing face as the world watches. Here you have arguably their most privileged member, already with a special deal on the side, bargaining for a bigger special deal, getting it, and then telling the EU to piss off.

And what's ironic is that the majority of areas that had a majority vote of leave have received funds from the EU in terms of funding.

I am not sure if this can be turned around in a positive way. It feels more like "okay, you were special, but not special enough for us to bend over backwards. F*ck off" ---this feels like a well-deserved message to the UK and the fact that Boris is [at least in speaking] trying to delay negotiations looks like perhaps the Leavers were not prepared for a victory.

Brendocon 2.0
2016-06-24, 08:09 PM
Cornwall in particular voted Leave having been told that the UK government will make up the cut in funding they currently get direct from the EU.

Er... no.

Meanwhile, have some "man on the street" footage from Barnsley.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/746412178094227456

He thinks movement of EU citizens is fine, but has voted out of the EU so he can stop people coming in from Africa, Syria and Iraq. Which, er, aren't part of the EU... so we... er... already have control of who comes in from those places.

Knightdramon
2016-06-24, 08:19 PM
Just goes to show that you don't put such things to a referendum, you just don't. The public is not remotely aware of the implications such things will have on their lives.

I keep thinking that the falling pound, going back on "promises" and all that will get us some Government official next week saying "ok folks yeah you had your say, we'll work hard for these things while still in the EU".

Warcry
2016-06-24, 09:23 PM
The biggest flaw in the EU to my mind is the lack of some federal authority to put checks and balances in place to prevent problems.
Well...maybe. I think before it can do that, the EU (and so it's members) need to decide what it's meant to be. Sometimes it behaves like a simple economic association, like it used to be, and other times it playacts at being a full-fledged state. But it doesn't actually have the powers or mandate of a state, so when it does flex it's muscles over it's members it does so on piddly shit that just pisses them off. Or at least, that's how it seems from this side of the Atlantic...

I think the EU is, at the moment, keen on not losing face as the world watches. Here you have arguably their most privileged member, already with a special deal on the side, bargaining for a bigger special deal, getting it, and then telling the EU to piss off.
That's definitely possible and it wouldn't surprise me to see that, but in the long run I think they'd be hurting themselves as much as they hurt Britain. After all, an independent Britain would probably be one of the EU's two or three biggest trading partners. Any long-term trade barriers would hurt them both quite a bit.

And what's ironic is that the majority of areas that had a majority vote of leave have received funds from the EU in terms of funding.
This is pretty normal, IMO. Poor people usually tend to be the ones most likely to toss out the status quo, since they've got a lot less to lose. A lot of the people living there would probably tell you (rightly or wrongly) that the EU funding isn't doing any good because they and their neighbours are still poor.

There is irony in the fact that they might end up even poorer once all is said and done, but can you blame them for taking a chance if they're not happy with the way things are now?

He thinks movement of EU citizens is fine, but has voted out of the EU so he can stop people coming in from Africa, Syria and Iraq. Which, er, aren't part of the EU... so we... er... already have control of who comes in from those places.
For the last year there's been a (patently false) rumour circling the internet that countries like Germany and Sweden are going to grant immediate citizenship to ALL OF THE MIGRANTS, so that's probably what he's talking about. So he's definitely wrong, but it's because he's been lied to by people who want to make the immigration situation seem worse than it is.

Do a large number of British people oppose intra-EU migration? As a Canadian, that just seems batty to me. Even the most hardcore bigoted anti-immigration wackos you could find over here are mostly fine with immigrants coming in from other Western countries, they're just racists that want to keep out nonwhites.

Based on the news that filters over to our media at least, it seems like your bigots are more upset about other Europeans coming in than they are about Africans and Indians. That sounds like bizarro-world to me.

Just goes to show that you don't put such things to a referendum, you just don't. The public is not remotely aware of the implications such things will have on their lives.
The public isn't any more aware of what effect electing a political party is going to have over four years, either. Does that mean we should just call it a day for democracy?

People are on the whole fairly ignorant about politics, yes. But it's the job of their leaders to educate them on the consequences that an action like this might have. Considering all of the proper political parties opposed this and it still happened, I think you need to place the blame on Britain's politicians, not on her voters. If leaving the EU is as manifestly terrible an idea as you think, it should have been easy to convince the public of that -- and they utterly failed to do so. This should have been an easy win, but somehow they cocked it up. They're the ones to blame for this, not the public.

I keep thinking that the falling pound, going back on "promises" and all that will get us some Government official next week saying "ok folks yeah you had your say, we'll work hard for these things while still in the EU".
While that might be a good idea long term, it's also a good recipe for riots and mob violence. I can't see a leaderless government having the guts to risk it.

slartibartfast
2016-06-24, 09:54 PM
Ah crap. That would mean that it'd get dragged out until Cameron steps down in October.

EDIT : oh wait, he said it himself:
"I think it's right that this new prime minister takes the decision about when to trigger article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU"

Knightdramon
2016-06-24, 10:28 PM
-removed

inflatable dalek
2016-06-24, 11:52 PM
-removed

Summed up in one word there.

I think most of you will have seen my twitter meltdown so I won't repeat myself too much. I do think that, considering he doesn't truly believe in Brexit as more than a chance for career advancement (he was pro-EU at the start of the year), I think if staying in is the only way to keep Scotland in--and no PM is going to do anything but try and prevent that as hard as they can as no one wants the death of the union on their watch--then the inevitable PM Johnson will do some sort of fancy footwork to keep us in whilst making himself look good, such as a minor redress of the current offer from the EU presented as a bold victory of negotiation before he holds another ref in support of stay.

Though even beyond whether that'd be morally right (I would say we've made our bed of shit and low we have to lie in it because that's democracy regardless. But then this is real lives at stake. Mind, the fact it was Leave who were the first ones to go "A 48/52 divide isn't conclusive enough, we must do it again" when they thought they were going to lose would ease my conscious) I'm not even sure if that'd be enough at this stage.

And who could blame Scotland--and Northern Ireland, though that'll be a much trickier proposition, though it'd be amusing if North and South were brought back together by this--from wanting out when their wishes are so out of step with that of the English and Welsh?

Actually, that was mainly just me repeating myself. Sorry.

slartibartfast
2016-06-25, 02:11 AM
Do a large number of British people oppose intra-EU migration? As a Canadian, that just seems batty to me. Even the most hardcore bigoted anti-immigration wackos you could find over here are mostly fine with immigrants coming in from other Western countries, they're just racists that want to keep out nonwhites.

Based on the news that filters over to our media at least, it seems like your bigots are more upset about other Europeans coming in than they are about Africans and Indians. That sounds like bizarro-world to me.

I believe the bigot rule-of-thumb is that an immigrant is anyone who comes from across the water. Eastern Europeans seem to have a particularly bad press though, like the worn-out joke that all the plumbers come from Poland ?

Knightdramon
2016-06-25, 08:25 AM
Just so we're clear, my -removed- post was edited by me as that was a bit too personal. It was not inflammatory towards any of our members ;)

I do think that at the end this will blow over. The sh!t that has accumulated from just one day, all the Leave figures immediately going back on their promises and the fact that our mate Bo Jo does not want to trigger article 50 makes it look like things might turn around.

Two things in mind---the Greek referendum from last year was not binding. A 67% on "no to austerity measures" was answered by even harsher austerity measures and there were no riots on the street.

I also don't see how this can be constituted as a democratic "vote" when a good portion of the country, the very people that will have their rights challenged while paying taxes and contributing all the while, the EU migrants, did not get a say in this.

Funniest thing in the whole referendum debate were the ethnic minorities talking against immigration, how EU migrants are making things worse for them. That's segmentation at it's worst; once Nigel and co mop up the dirty Europeans, who's the next set of "dirty" expendable non British folk that people will conveniently put all the blame on?

Patapsco
2016-06-25, 12:24 PM
My gut feeling when the Scottish referendum rolled around was that yes, Scotland should absolutely be an independent but the arguments put forward by the Yes campaign were so weak that even if I had been the most pro-independent voter I would have had to say no at the moment.

The same applies here: the arguments for Brexit when they weren't invoking out and out fascism were so nebulous that even applying the closest amount of scrutiny to them would have shown them up for the bollocks they were.

Take the "unvoted rules" thing: all the rules, regulations and laws are voted on by MEPs and then ratified so it's surely not UKIP's fault that all these laws got voted in when they couldn't be bothered to vote on them is it? It's the Brussels bogeyman wot did it. And while we're on laws, I'm pretty sure that the EU doesn't set our parliamentary budget or acts of parliament or bills of law in this country either.

And immigration? Megalols. As of now, the British immigration centre is based in Calais and we have the option to send migrants and refugees back to the first EU country they entered as part of the Dublin Agreement. The second we leave, that immigration centre will be moved to Kent, and all migrants and refugees will have to be housed at taxpayer cost while they are processed. And we can't deport them back to the first country they entered because that will be the UK.

I could go on and on but even now Leave is walking back on pretty much all it said so I think there will end up being some sort of concessionary deal done to keep us in the EU. Oh, and there's also the rumour going around that because the winning margin was sub 60% it's perfectly legal to call a second referendum

Clay
2016-06-25, 09:40 PM
As I said on facebook (communicating with several of the people in this thread already), I was just happy that the decision was made without any violence. I was then informed by Mr. Brendocon that in fact, no, the decision was not made without incident and in reality an MP was killed over the matter some days ago. Then I was sad again.

My question is just how binding a single vote on the matter can be, especially with so slim a majority. I would have thought that, in the event of something less than a 2/3s majority, a country would need additional referendums at, say, six months and a year after the initial one to make sure the voting result is consistent. Or, you know, something more. Here in the US, to do something comparatively minor like amending the constitution requires a 2/3s vote in congress just for a proposal and then a 3/4s vote to pass and be added in.

The idea that a country could vote itself out of the EU with one referendum and with so marginal a majority seems like a slapdash oversight in the EU constitution, but I can understand that the process wasn't thoroughly planned out because this situation wasn't really anticipated.

Patapsco
2016-06-25, 09:48 PM
Funnily enough, back in March Nigel Farage said that if Remain won with a 52/48 margin there should be a second referendum as that's not enough of a majority to be decisive. Of course, now his side has won with a 52/48 majority, he won't hear a word of it.

The likely outcome is that whoever is the next PM won't trigger Article 50 (which will lead to a full exit) straight away and will in fact do everything in their power NOT to trigger it. Judging by their body language, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are absolutely bricking it

Warcry
2016-06-26, 12:08 AM
My question is just how binding a single vote on the matter can be, especially with so slim a majority.
My understanding is that the referendum isn't legally binding at all to begin with, whether it was 50%+1 in favour or 99% in favour. The only thing making it so is that the government said it would be, and they didn't seem to want to bring up the "what if the margin is super slim?" topic because they thought that the side they supported was the one that'd be squeaking out a narrow victory.

After Quebec so narrowly avoided separating in the 90s, Canada passed a law dealing with exactly this sort of thing: essentially it left it up to Parliament to decide whether or not a majority was "big enough" so that the country didn't get broken up by a near 50/50 draw. Countries who've never been though this before would have no reason for laws like that, though you'd think the recent vote in Scotland would have at least brought the idea to mind.

Really, it was hugely irresponsible to frame the referendum as a "we'll definitely leave if you vote that way" thing to begin with. The smart thing to do would have been to treat it like a union strike vote, so that they could take it to the EU and say "we've got a mandate to go if you don't give us a better deal".

The idea that a country could vote itself out of the EU with one referendum and with so marginal a majority seems like a slapdash oversight in the EU constitution
Well, that's part of the problem: there's no such thing as an "EU constitution", just a series of treaties between the different members that establish the basic framework. As I understand it, the entirety of the legal framework for leaving comes down to just a single sentence in the Lisbon Treaty: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

They tried to establish a proper constitution at one point, but it was shot down by some of the members, leaving the EU running a framework that's pretty vague and watered down compared to most proper countries. In retrospect they're probably regretting that...

Two things in mind---the Greek referendum from last year was not binding. A 67% on "no to austerity measures" was answered by even harsher austerity measures and there were no riots on the street.
Really? The news has been telling me that you've had violent anti-austerity riots there for half a decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-austerity_movement_in_Greece#See_also), including right after the referendum (http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/rioters-clash-with-police-in-greece-as-vote-looms-on-austerity-measures/news-story/cb5a5aa60d2ea8f488897e6b6bfe5071), and ongoing to this day (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/08/rioters-take-to-the-streets-ahead-of-greek-austerity-vote). Maybe you have different standards for what counts as a riot over in Europe, but masses of rock throwing and shit getting torched is usually enough to qualify over here. And that's not counting Golden Dawn marauding around beating the shit out of Turks or whatever the hell they do, either...

Is the news exaggerating how bad things can get over there? Or are Greeks just so used to that shit that it doesn't even reach the bar of a proper riot for you anymore? Not sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.

I also don't see how this can be constituted as a democratic "vote" when a good portion of the country, the very people that will have their rights challenged while paying taxes and contributing all the while, the EU migrants, did not get a say in this.
You shouldn't take this personally, but I think that's silly. It's up to the British people to decide what direction they want Britain to go in, not anyone else, and I can't think of any country that lets non-citizens vote on things like this. If you want a say in how things are run you should apply for British citizenship (if and when you qualify...IMO it should be easy for EU people to "formally" move to a new member country and become citizens but somehow I doubt it is...). And if you're not willing to go to the trouble, then that says something about how committed you are to living in the UK long-term.

I understand if you disagree, but I've always believed that the right to vote is something that should be part of the full package of rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen.

Funniest thing in the whole referendum debate were the ethnic minorities talking against immigration, how EU migrants are making things worse for them. That's segmentation at it's worst; once Nigel and co mop up the dirty Europeans, who's the next set of "dirty" expendable non British folk that people will conveniently put all the blame on?
Oh, the racists will definitely turn on some other group after they've chased out as many of you Euros as they can. In fact, they'll probably do so even more virulently, because the government is almost certainly going to up the number of people they let in from third-world countries to make up for the workforce they just pointlessly chased off. It makes the whole exercise pointless and silly, and that's something the government should have made clear during the campaign. If the bigots knew that they were just voting to trade Poles for more Pakistanis, some of them may have seen the futility of it all and gone back to their holes.

Patapsco
2016-06-26, 01:01 AM
For the record, it wasn't actual racism that won the referendum, it's just that Leave tapped into the enormous wells of xenophobia this country has. And yes Warcry, the referendum result is absolutely not legally binding and the government can in fact ignore it forever. My guess is that a full on exit from the EU will not happen, and whoever is made leader of the Tories, but Prime Minister in title only, will start negotiations for a "better deal" with the EU because leaving completely and negotiating some sort of Swiss lite deal with the single market will take decades to complete

Skyquake87
2016-06-26, 07:31 AM
@Warcry, you're right that the EU is basically a framework thingy thing. Which is why I think it needs to be something more than that if the EU as a concept is actually going to have legs and a sustained existence and be something more than an organisation that does piddly stuff that annoys its members.


It'll be interesting to see what happens next to Britain.

Knightdramon
2016-06-26, 08:17 AM
My understanding is that the referendum isn't legally binding at all to begin with, whether it was 50%+1 in favour or 99% in favour. The only thing making it so is that the government said it would be, and they didn't seem to want to bring up the "what if the margin is super slim?" topic because they thought that the side they supported was the one that'd be squeaking out a narrow victory.

Really, it was hugely irresponsible to frame the referendum as a "we'll definitely leave if you vote that way" thing to begin with. The smart thing to do would have been to treat it like a union strike vote, so that they could take it to the EU and say "we've got a mandate to go if you don't give us a better deal".

Well, that's part of the problem: there's no such thing as an "EU constitution", just a series of treaties between the different members that establish the basic framework. As I understand it, the entirety of the legal framework for leaving comes down to just a single sentence in the Lisbon Treaty: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Really? The news has been telling me that you've had violent anti-austerity riots there for half a decade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-austerity_movement_in_Greece#See_also), including right after the referendum (http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/rioters-clash-with-police-in-greece-as-vote-looms-on-austerity-measures/news-story/cb5a5aa60d2ea8f488897e6b6bfe5071), and ongoing to this day (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/08/rioters-take-to-the-streets-ahead-of-greek-austerity-vote). Maybe you have different standards for what counts as a riot over in Europe, but masses of rock throwing and shit getting torched is usually enough to qualify over here. And that's not counting Golden Dawn marauding around beating the shit out of Turks or whatever the hell they do, either...

Is the news exaggerating how bad things can get over there? Or are Greeks just so used to that shit that it doesn't even reach the bar of a proper riot for you anymore? Not sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.


You shouldn't take this personally, but I think that's silly. It's up to the British people to decide what direction they want Britain to go in, not anyone else, and I can't think of any country that lets non-citizens vote on things like this. If you want a say in how things are run you should apply for British citizenship (if and when you qualify...IMO it should be easy for EU people to "formally" move to a new member country and become citizens but somehow I doubt it is...). And if you're not willing to go to the trouble, then that says something about how committed you are to living in the UK long-term.

I understand if you disagree, but I've always believed that the right to vote is something that should be part of the full package of rights and responsibilities that come with being a citizen.


Oh, the racists will definitely turn on some other group after they've chased out as many of you Euros as they can. In fact, they'll probably do so even more virulently, because the government is almost certainly going to up the number of people they let in from third-world countries to make up for the workforce they just pointlessly chased off. It makes the whole exercise pointless and silly, and that's something the government should have made clear during the campaign. If the bigots knew that they were just voting to trade Poles for more Pakistanis, some of them may have seen the futility of it all and gone back to their holes.

You are right, the referendum is not binding. A referendum, actually, is not binding, so any Government can turn around and say "ok you've had your say, we'll think about it" or something as generic and be done with it.

The timing was off---Cameron negotiated his "deal" with the EU prior to the referendum so he played his end card right at the beginning, which might have robbed him of momentum.

I guess you are right, I have become too used to riots like that in Greece, which says a lot about how things are, but the news are also exaggerating things. Such riots are very small scale [comparatively], biggest riot in my lifetime was in 2008 or so, 7th of December, where a teenager was shot dead by a cop. Now yes, -that- was a city wide riot. Golden Dawn have thankfully lost a lot of momentum with a [in theory at least] Leftist Government in power.

I want to have a say into how things are run but I can only apply for citizenship after 5 years [more than halfway through it, and unless the laws change drastically, officially a citizen before the EU exit] but Scotland, as far as I am aware, did let non-nationals vote as long as they exercised residency rights in their last referendum. What's silly is that I can vote [and have done so] on things like local elections, appointed a new police chief and so on, but not on this.

It does not look like anybody is contemplating chasing anybody off at this point [heck, even the Leave Campaign just dismissed their immigration pledge!] but you are right. Give the people false legitimacy to chase off anybody that's labelled an external "threat" to their lives or lifestyle and that's it. EU nationals, selective EU nationals, overseas nationals, commonwealth nationals...the list can continue for quite some time if you amend the "hate" settings to anything other than nationality.

Patapsco
2016-06-26, 11:13 AM
It does not look like anybody is contemplating chasing anybody off at this point [heck, even the Leave Campaign just dismissed their immigration pledge!] but you are right. Give the people false legitimacy to chase off anybody that's labelled an external "threat" to their lives or lifestyle and that's it. EU nationals, selective EU nationals, overseas nationals, commonwealth nationals...the list can continue for quite some time if you amend the "hate" settings to anything other than nationality.

it's already started (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/racist-flyers-left-near-school-tell-poles-go-home-hvffr7jd3?shareToken=676778082ace6f5da459114304def04a)

electro girl
2016-06-26, 05:37 PM
He thinks movement of EU citizens is fine, but has voted out of the EU so he can stop people coming in from Africa, Syria and Iraq. Which, er, aren't part of the EU... so we... er... already have control of who comes in from those places.

Unfortunately the new measures on income that were brought in as part of that control were (to me at least) done so to placate growing far right sentiment or to be seen to be "doing something" about immigration.

I voted remain because it made more sense to me. On a personal level though I voted remain so my girlfriend would not face uncertainty about her future in this country. Which now, thanks to that income threshold for non EU citizens, she is.

The plan was to go to Ireland and work for 3 months, meaning that on my return she would be the partner of an EEA citizen and not a British citizen, thus allowing her to stay. now this seems unlikely to be possible, we just don't know what we'll do when her visa runs out.

Unless we just say "sod it" and make a new life back in Lagos.

Warcry
2016-06-28, 04:04 PM
@Warcry, you're right that the EU is basically a framework thingy thing. Which is why I think it needs to be something more than that if the EU as a concept is actually going to have legs and a sustained existence and be something more than an organisation that does piddly stuff that annoys its members.
I think a big part of the issue is that none of the members want to give up their sovereignty, and that really limits what the EU can do. Countries seem to love the idea of it...right up until it tells them to update their agricultural standards or take in refugees or stop running up their national debt to such ridiculous levels that it hurts everyone else using the Euro. Then they flip out and tell the EU to piss off and get their nose out of the country's business. The only way the EU will ever truly work is if the sovereignty is vested in them with the various national governments being legally and constitutionally subordinate. But how do you convince 28 different countries to give up their national sovereignty to a "super-nation" where they'll be a minority and may have their wishes overridden for the betterment of their neighbours?

Golden Dawn have thankfully lost a lot of momentum with a [in theory at least] Leftist Government in power.
Well, that's good news at least. Fascists can piss off.

What's silly is that I can vote [and have done so] on things like local elections, appointed a new police chief and so on, but not on this.
What's extra silly is that if I lived there, I would have been allowed to vote because I'm a citizen of a Commonwealth country. I'm not entirely sure what the logic is there -- maybe they just never got around to updating the laws since the days when we were all British subjects and technically shared citizenship? That makes just as much (or little) sense as letting EU residents vote, and I can't see any justification for doing one at not the other, so I think I agree with you now. If Canadians or Aussies or Kenyans were allowed to vote then why the hell weren't Greeks or Poles? That's just nonsensical.

I voted remain because it made more sense to me. On a personal level though I voted remain so my girlfriend would not face uncertainty about her future in this country. Which now, thanks to that income threshold for non EU citizens, she is.

The plan was to go to Ireland and work for 3 months, meaning that on my return she would be the partner of an EEA citizen and not a British citizen, thus allowing her to stay. now this seems unlikely to be possible, we just don't know what we'll do when her visa runs out.

Unless we just say "sod it" and make a new life back in Lagos.
None of my business obviously, but if you're looking to dodge immigration rules, can't you do it the old-fashioned way and marry her? I mean, if you're serious enough about the relationship to consider running off to Nigeria with her... Or does that not make it easier to get UK residence?

inflatable dalek
2016-06-28, 04:59 PM
I'm not sure about where Electro Girl's good lady is from, but I know at least two people with non-EU partners who are required to be earning a certain amount of money before that partner is allowed in the country. One is currently working 7 days a week at Tesco on nights to try and meet that criteria.

On EU news generally; I'm mildly surprised how many people aren't bothered about the ecconomic collapse. Not as in, "It's a low priority as the country burns" but who just think it's going to bounce back quickly even though everything so far has been exactly in line with the predicted total disaster and there's no one actually in charge of the economy at the moment.

Plus, all the austerity meassures we've suffered under (which have actively killed people) were originally introduced to deal with the last time we lost our AAA rating. With it gone again all of that was for nothing.

Warcry
2016-06-28, 05:17 PM
I'm not sure about where Electro Girl's good lady is from, but I know at least two people with non-EU partners who are required to be earning a certain amount of money before that partner is allowed in the country. One is currently working 7 days a week at Tesco on nights to try and meet that criteria.
That makes sense to me. The reason I was curious was because he made it sound like she was already there on a visa and they were worried about her being sent home once it expired. That sounds like it would be a different situation than someone trying to get in in the first place, but I don't know your laws so maybe it isn't. I think it would be here, because our immigration policy (to the extent that I understand it, anyway) usually gives preferential treatment to people who are already within our borders.

On EU news generally; I'm mildly surprised how many people aren't bothered about the ecconomic collapse. Not as in, "It's a low priority as the country burns" but who just think it's going to bounce back quickly even though everything so far has been exactly in line with the predicted total disaster and there's no one actually in charge of the economy at the moment.
If anything it actually seems like it might be worse than what was being forecast, but is it really a surprise that common people aren't panicking yet? Most people don't really pay attention to the economy until it impacts them personally. If things don't bounce back, and people start to lose their jobs and see their pensions gutted, then the man on the street will take notice. Until then, it's just numbers on a screen that they don't understand, or maybe something they even celebrate because they think it'll hurt the rich the most.

Patapsco
2016-06-30, 03:48 PM
Currency and stocks/shares will be moderately volatile for a while yet, but not excessively so due to the uncertainty. But what will start happening with that uncertainty is investment will start getting pulled, leading to redundancies and the like. And if the government is truly dumb enough to go full Article 50, they're going to have to figure out how to make up those shortfalls in EU subsidies, while funding an enlarging benefits pool and hitting their deficit targets.

And so today, Boris pulled his campaign to be PM leaving us with either Michael Gove or Theresa May to be next in line. On the other side, Labour continue putting the knife into Jeremy Corbyn while they should be attacking an obviously petrified Tory part

electro girl
2016-06-30, 07:05 PM
None of my business obviously, but if you're looking to dodge immigration rules, can't you do it the old-fashioned way and marry her? I mean, if you're serious enough about the relationship to consider running off to Nigeria with her... Or does that not make it easier to get UK residence?

Even marriage won't work. The income threshold still applies.

inflatable dalek
2016-07-01, 02:45 PM
I have litterally no idea what's going on any more. Any EU citizens here I can marry and go live with before it's too late? Slartibartfast?

Patapsco
2016-07-01, 07:58 PM
I have litterally no idea what's going on any more. Any EU citizens here I can marry and go live with before it's too late? Slartibartfast?

I really, really, *REALLY* think people should stop up and panicking about what *might* happen down the line because until Article 50 is invoked, nothing will change, and once Article 50 is invoked, there will be 2 years until a "Brexit" actually happens. And as there is currently no Prime Minister, and won't be one in place until September and then probably subjected to a snap election (if the opposition gets their goddamned act together), the *earliest* Article 50 could be invoked would be October this year, but it's more than likely October next year before it does (if it does, more on this below).

But there is a very high chance that Brexit as proposed by the Leave side will never, ever come to pass and it all comes down to migration: put simply, absolutely any deal made with the EU with regards to access to the single market is dependent on free movement of labour. Switzerland, long held as the sort of trade deal the UK would like to do in a Brexit scenario, has been told that if it does enact its referendum to set a quota on immigration, it will terminate it's access to the single market. So... we obey all EU laws, but pay them no money, but can't control immigration? BAD

Of course, there's the Norway model which is like the Swiss one but on steroids: Norway kicks in to the EU budget and receives a loss on its investment but only receives a moderate say on who that is spent, let alone any new rules, laws and regulations that the EU decides to enforce, or have a veto on any of them. When we're taking back control and follow the Norway model, what control are we taking back because, yup, we still have to allow the free movement of labour and so don't solve this pesky immigration problem.

I'd imagine that should our PM trigger Article 50 if he or she had, you know, gone on a 72 hour coke bender and completely lost their mind, they'd aim for a Norway model with more say on border control and less kickbacks to the EU and those two things will never ever happen.

So as to why Article 50 will not be triggered? Because there is a strict timetable from when it's triggered to when it's enabled. All current EU law has to be separated from UK law and go through the regulatory and statutory process that requires; some sort of trade deal with the EU for access to the single market will need to be hammered out and quickly, unless the Government wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on new safety and regulatory testing facilities at every port and airport in the country; some sort of principle trade deals will need to be signed with everyone else we trade with - and all of this has to be done within TWO YEARS. Oh, and we don't have any trade negotiators employed anywhere within the civil service. Like none.

inflatable dalek
2016-07-01, 10:07 PM
On the other hand, I'd say apathy and "It wouldn't happen here" and "Things will bounce back" is exactly why we're in this situation, the left and the middle have been too relaxed whilst the right and the biggots have been passionate. It's time to stomp feet and get angry and shout because even if it's only a slim chance the absolute worse might happen we should be proactive about preventing it.

Plus the real damage has been done, the schism within the country has been created and the racists feel legitimised. If we do stay or adopt a Norway situation that won't change. We have to do what we can (which fot most of us is just refusing to accrpt these things as normal and loudly saying so) to stop the extremists getting even more of a foothold. One of the people standing to be the next PM thinks gays can be cured. This is not a time for meek acceptance, or it will happen here.

Patapsco
2016-07-01, 11:05 PM
I genuinely don't think that anyone on the leave campaign, after fighting a campaign squarely on racial lines, didn't think we'd devolve as badly as we have done so far. BUT... to say the country is going to swirl down the drain to the far right is perfectly possible but still fixable. And the way to fix it is to get Prime Minister installed, like, now, and a coherent opposition to fight her all the way. Hell, even a Prime Minister who will willing admit "we cannot give you all the bells and whistles Leave wanted because they were absolutely insane, and here's why" would be enough for now. The Anti-Fash will deal with skirmishes as they come up, like the "migrant sweep" they're opposing in Southampton tomorrow

Skyquake87
2016-07-02, 10:10 PM
I'm not sure how this will work out. With the near 50/50 split in the country, if the UK government does go for the option of a Norway deal (the preferred option for most businesses), then they are potentially looking at social unrest. Although I don't know if we'd see anything on the scale of the Poll Tax Riots.

The delay in sorting a new PM is unwelcome, but frankly I didn't see that getting sorted before the Parliamentary recess. Which has made me think it was an odd time to hold the referendum as even if Cameron had remained PM, there'd be this void before anything got sorted.

I dunno, this has just all turned into a huge mess in less than a week and the only good thing to come out of it is that at least we won't have Boris as PM. Or Crabb for that matter.

I think Patapsco, you're spot on in that our politicians really needed to spell out and explain how deeply linked we are to the EU and what undoing all that will actually mean. Sadly, the entire run up to the referendum made such a poor job of doing that. And no one's really explained what undoing our EU membership will mean and how much it will affect us. There's only farmers that are properly bricking it at the moment - and with good reason. I really can't see the UK government pulling 8 billion out of their deficit to keep farming afloat. Suddenly that £320 million we'll be getting back looks like very small change indeed.

Patapsco
2016-07-03, 11:00 AM
If anyone wants an analogy to what's going on in British politics right now: imagine the two ferries scene from The Dark Knight, but instead of bomb detonators, one side has a trigger marked "BREXIT" and the other has a trigger marked "LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION". It works remarkably well

Ryan F
2016-07-05, 12:45 PM
I really, really, *REALLY* think people should stop up and panicking about what *might* happen down the line because until Article 50 is invoked, nothing will change, and once Article 50 is invoked, there will be 2 years until a "Brexit" actually happens. And as there is currently no Prime Minister, and won't be one in place until September and then probably subjected to a snap election (if the opposition gets their goddamned act together), the *earliest* Article 50 could be invoked would be October this year, but it's more than likely October next year before it does (if it does, more on this below).

But there is a very high chance that Brexit as proposed by the Leave side will never, ever come to pass and it all comes down to migration: put simply, absolutely any deal made with the EU with regards to access to the single market is dependent on free movement of labour. Switzerland, long held as the sort of trade deal the UK would like to do in a Brexit scenario, has been told that if it does enact its referendum to set a quota on immigration, it will terminate it's access to the single market. So... we obey all EU laws, but pay them no money, but can't control immigration? BAD

Of course, there's the Norway model which is like the Swiss one but on steroids: Norway kicks in to the EU budget and receives a loss on its investment but only receives a moderate say on who that is spent, let alone any new rules, laws and regulations that the EU decides to enforce, or have a veto on any of them. When we're taking back control and follow the Norway model, what control are we taking back because, yup, we still have to allow the free movement of labour and so don't solve this pesky immigration problem.

I'd imagine that should our PM trigger Article 50 if he or she had, you know, gone on a 72 hour coke bender and completely lost their mind, they'd aim for a Norway model with more say on border control and less kickbacks to the EU and those two things will never ever happen.

So as to why Article 50 will not be triggered? Because there is a strict timetable from when it's triggered to when it's enabled. All current EU law has to be separated from UK law and go through the regulatory and statutory process that requires; some sort of trade deal with the EU for access to the single market will need to be hammered out and quickly, unless the Government wants to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on new safety and regulatory testing facilities at every port and airport in the country; some sort of principle trade deals will need to be signed with everyone else we trade with - and all of this has to be done within TWO YEARS. Oh, and we don't have any trade negotiators employed anywhere within the civil service. Like none.

But Norway and Switzerland don't have anywhere near the sort of clout the UK does - they are drastically smaller economies, for a start.

In spite of all the recent turmoil, the UK is still a major player (economically, of all the EU nations, we're only trumped by Germany). We'll certainly have more leverage to negotiate terms than the Swiss or Norwegians did.

I'm as in the dark as anybody else as to what the negotiations might bring. However, to say the only two possible outcomes are either the Swiss-type deal or the Norwegian-type deal is, I think, a bit simplistic. Both these nations have completely different agreements in place with the EU; who's to say our deal won't be different again?

Knightdramon
2016-07-05, 06:23 PM
I think we've really shot ourselves in the foot on this one.

Britain has more clout than Norway or Switzerland but how much of that clout is from our EU connections?

How much of our macho financial bravado was just wiped off last week, and how turned off are investors in this uncertainty, not to mention legit xenophobia now?

It's "great" to see that EU citizens are treated as pawns by the UK government. When people are referred to in those terms you might as well be back a few fecades during the apartheid in Africa.

I wonder how nice it'll be if all EU citizens just say f*ck off to the Tories and we take off with all our savings and vacate all the jobs we're doing. Would be absolutely delighted to see the aftermath of that.

Because, honestly, f*ck off. Take your Farage and your Johnson [both of which conveniently stepped down] and f*ck off.

On the upside, I haven't been as impressed and inspired as I am now by Scotland. There's a Government with a decent person in charge. So despite not being part of Scotland, thanks.

*This post might come off as more derogatory than it is intended, but being treated like garbage and a pawn by a country that I've done nothing but contribute is a bit too much.

Patapsco
2016-07-05, 07:20 PM
But Norway and Switzerland don't have anywhere near the sort of clout the UK does - they are drastically smaller economies, for a start.

In spite of all the recent turmoil, the UK is still a major player (economically, of all the EU nations, we're only trumped by Germany). We'll certainly have more leverage to negotiate terms than the Swiss or Norwegians did.

I'm as in the dark as anybody else as to what the negotiations might bring. However, to say the only two possible outcomes are either the Swiss-type deal or the Norwegian-type deal is, I think, a bit simplistic. Both these nations have completely different agreements in place with the EU; who's to say our deal won't be different again?

regardless, the UK will not be able to do any sort of deal with the EU to access the single market that includes restrictions to free movement. The EU are never going to budge on it, no matter how "attractive" and "Clout +1" the UK is. Unless the government does want to completely and utterly tank the economy of course...

KingMob
2016-07-06, 01:55 AM
On the upside, I haven't been as impressed and inspired as I am now by Scotland. There's a Government with a decent person in charge. So despite not being part of Scotland, thanks.
Moving up here might not be the worst thing to do in the next two years.

Ryan F
2016-07-06, 01:02 PM
It's "great" to see that EU citizens are treated as pawns by the UK government. When people are referred to in those terms you might as well be back a few fecades during the apartheid in Africa.

I wonder how nice it'll be if all EU citizens just say f*ck off to the Tories and we take off with all our savings and vacate all the jobs we're doing. Would be absolutely delighted to see the aftermath of that.

Because, honestly, f*ck off. Take your Farage and your Johnson [both of which conveniently stepped down] and f*ck off.

On the upside, I haven't been as impressed and inspired as I am now by Scotland. There's a Government with a decent person in charge. So despite not being part of Scotland, thanks.

*This post might come off as more derogatory than it is intended, but being treated like garbage and a pawn by a country that I've done nothing but contribute is a bit too much.

Think that's fair. The problem is, no-one wants to guarantee rights to current EU residents because it can then be used as a bargaining chip for any trade deal. 'Give us a beneficial deal or we'll start sending everybody home' it's why none of the current Tory leadership candidates have promised anything in this regard as yet, because they think they can use it as leverage in any deal.

Whilst you can see why they're doing what they're doing, it absolutely stinks - gambling with people's lives like that, and all because a handful of MPs wanted to further their careers.

Totally agree on the Scotland thing, however. I was dead against Sturgeon during the Scottish referendum, but she's been the one ray of light in British politics these last few weeks.

regardless, the UK will not be able to do any sort of deal with the EU to access the single market that includes restrictions to free movement. The EU are never going to budge on it, no matter how "attractive" and "Clout +1" the UK is. Unless the government does want to completely and utterly tank the economy of course...

The thing is, the UK public were sold on Brexit - in the main - because of promises to curb immigration. Most of the rhetoric from The Sun, The Mail and UKIP had immigration at the top of the agenda. Whoever becomes Tory leader has got a massive fight on their hands, because if they agree to free movement a lot of Brexiteers, whose votes were cast on the promise of such curbs, are going to be right royally cheesed off if/when their promises come to nought. How many times was the phrase 'Australian-style points system' bandied around during the course of the debates?

I know Farage is now out of the picture, but if the Tories concede free movement, it could conceivably push a lot of 'average joe' Brexiteers into the arms of far-right parties like UKIP, especially if they begin to realise they've been 'betrayed' by the mainstream parties.

Patapsco
2016-07-06, 03:56 PM
The thing is, the UK public were sold on Brexit - in the main - because of promises to curb immigration. Most of the rhetoric from The Sun, The Mail and UKIP had immigration at the top of the agenda. Whoever becomes Tory leader has got a massive fight on their hands, because if they agree to free movement a lot of Brexiteers, whose votes were cast on the promise of such curbs, are going to be right royally cheesed off if/when their promises come to nought. How many times was the phrase 'Australian-style points system' bandied around during the course of the debates?

I know Farage is now out of the picture, but if the Tories concede free movement, it could conceivably push a lot of 'average joe' Brexiteers into the arms of far-right parties like UKIP, especially if they begin to realise they've been 'betrayed' by the mainstream parties.

pretty much this, and no wonder BoJo TwatTwat and Nigel F***** pissed off as soon as they got the chance. They've essentially built a bonfire, poured petrol on it and walked away.

Tetsuro
2016-07-06, 03:56 PM
I wonder how nice it'll be if all EU citizens just say f*ck off to the Tories and we take off with all our savings and vacate all the jobs we're doing. Would be absolutely delighted to see the aftermath of that.
Don't forget kicking out the Brits currently working in the EU outside UK!

Skyquake87
2016-07-06, 07:14 PM
I wonder how nice it'll be if all EU citizens just say f*ck off to the Tories and we take off with all our savings and vacate all the jobs we're doing. Would be absolutely delighted to see the aftermath of that.

I wouldn't..! Who would I buy random fancy Transformers from? :(

Amusingly, a potential stemming of the 'tide of migration' ((c) all lazy newspapers) is being used by Jeremy Hunt to force through the untested and unpopular junior doctor's contract.

I am disappointed that a load of our political lords and masters have f**ked off out it because they didn't like the result or are happy enough that we've got a vote to leave, and aren't so bothered that there's no plan in place for what comes next. Brilliant. Its that kind of attitude that leads to nonsense like our brilliant 'liberation' of Iraq!

"You're all free to do as you like now! We're off now! Byeeee! Sorry the place is a bit of a mess, but I'm sure you'll think of something.Pip Pip!"


...well thanks very much.


I think if we do end up doing a deal with Europe and still have freedom of movement, whoever our next PM is (wouldn't actually mind if it was May, she seems capable and diligent, if not terribly showy - ideal for her current job- although her position on internet snooping isn't my cup of tea. And hello to GCHQ if you're reading this. Which you probably are) will just have to come out and tell it like it is; 'you can't have your cake and eat it, not with the chronic skills shortages we have in this country'.

inflatable dalek
2016-07-08, 01:05 PM
So we're going to have our second female PM regardless of who actually wins the vote. With a choice between a homophobe who has tried to push policies that actually restrict female rights and someone no one has ever heard of who makes up her CV. What a country.

Brendocon 2.0
2016-07-08, 01:15 PM
Leadsom thinks that all new businesses should basically be exempt from pretty much every worker-related law, while May seems to think that everyone should be exempt from the human rights act.

It's great fun, it really ****ing is. Especially considering that whoever wins is basically a sacrificial lamb to decide exactly which half of the country is going to revolt.

Leadsom seems to think that we can definitely get free trade with the EU without free movement, and also that the Pound devaluing had absolutely nothing to do with the vote, but is just because the markets "hadn't correctly anticipated result of referendum".

So we've a straight choice between somebody who's not in favour of rights and somebody who's not in favour of rights and blatantly has no idea how the economy works despite having (supposedly?) worked in the city.

Well, I say "we've got a straight choice". The people who are members of the Conservative party have a straight choice. This whole "taking back control" thing has gone marvelously.

inflatable dalek
2016-07-08, 01:24 PM
I'm guessing the spectre of Gordon Brown means the whole fixed term thing will go out the window and we'll have a general election as soon as possible (we don't usually have them in winter, but considering the weather during the referendum that may be a moot point), even if the same papers who made such a fuss of him being "Unelected" suddenly remember PM isn't an elected office this time around.

I would say I don't think anyone, leave or stay, could argue the result hasn't been a massive **** up. But it seems Leadsom would.

I've always thought it was a shame Ken Clarke clearly isn't liked by a lot of his party, if you have to have a Tory PM he's always struck me as having more sense and integrity than most of them (or most MP's to be fair) even though I don't hugely agree with his politics.

Skyquake87
2016-07-08, 06:32 PM
Same with David Davis. The reasonable ones always get drowned out by the 'personalities'. No wonder Corbyn's having such a hard time. He's not enough of a t***.

Patapsco
2016-07-08, 06:43 PM
Corbyn's fighting a losing battle though. Most of the PLP desperately want to return to glory days of Blairism and New Labour, except that was only slightly to the left of where the Tories are now. But what the country needs is a left wing opposition to stamp down on the Tories, and the PLP ain't going to deliver that

Knightdramon
2016-07-08, 09:50 PM
So that Government petition you might have seen on FB and signed...got a response from the Government.

It basically amounts to tough sh!t, Cameron said we're going.

There was a staff consultation the other day about this. Nobody knows how it's going to play out. Even the concerned political parties are trying to opt for a very similar agreement to what's happening now.

Which brings up the point...why the f*ck bother with this mess in the first place?

Denyer
2016-07-08, 10:00 PM
Illusion of control.

Cyberstrike nTo
2016-07-08, 10:42 PM
Corbyn's fighting a losing battle though. Most of the PLP desperately want to return to glory days of Blairism and New Labour, except that was only slightly to the left of where the Tories are now. But what the country needs is a left wing opposition to stamp down on the Tories, and the PLP ain't going to deliver that

It's pretty much the same here with the Democrats being only left on most social issues and more like the GOP are on everything else.

So that Government petition you might have seen on FB and signed...got a response from the Government.

It basically amounts to tough sh!t, Cameron said we're going.

I understand the reason as too why the ones who wanted to stay in the EU want a second vote. It wasn't exactly a landslide victory by any means (the sources across the pond say it was roughly 52/48) and that some want a second vote with a 60% threshold to determine to stay or leave. I don't think that is a good idea, look it sucks I get that, but lets say that a second Brexit is called and the stay votes win but fail to get the 60% threshold what then? A third vote? Would there have to be a 3 out of 5 Brexits to final decide once and for all?

All the while the UK economy would still go down drain and the EU might get fed up with the UK's back and forth and just kick the UK out of the EU regardless what the voters of the UK say (which I'm sure the right-wingers of the UK would love that and probably some on the left as well), I watched a video somewhere (it was on either The Young Turks, The Ring of Fire, or RT America I can't remember which) where the German Chancellor said she wanted the UK out the EU as fast as possible.

Look it sucks, but IMHO turning Brexit into a series is not a good idea.

Death's Head
2016-07-10, 03:14 PM
Angela ****ing Eagle.

Knightdramon
2016-07-11, 06:22 PM
So thanks to a series of vote outs and quitting, we now have a new unelected Prime Minister.

Pretty much every Brexiter supporter pulled out or quit. David Cameron pulled another U-turn and will be out by Wednesday.

The only exciting thing is that these days will be taught in history and politics in the coming decades, quite possibly under the title "that time where the British electorate failed at life".

Only way an electorate can be stupider than this is if America elects Trump later this year.

Skyquake87
2016-07-11, 07:18 PM
In fairness, PMs don't have to be elected by us plebs. cf Gordon Brown, as a very recent example. We vote in the party, not the leader of the party.

I think May's the less mad choice and seems a fairly sensible pair of hands. God knows what'll happen next though. The economic enormity of what we've done really is just starting to dawn on people, all the farmers going 'oh f**k, we've lost EU protected status' for everything they produce and export, George Osborne just seems to have hit the panic button and asked the bank of England to just flush some more money into the system because that always helps...

On the plus side, at least the shambles that is the Hinckley Point nuclear power station might finally be put out of its misery (15 years of nothing happening is an embarrassing indictment of not only our failure to get this sorted, but also spells out the difficulty of getting major public infrastructure sorted under the EU where cheaper government borrowing is heavily restricted in deference of getting the private sector to build such projects. Hence our love of the PFI wheeze.).

General feeling seems to be that we want all the trade we have with Europe at the moment, but none of the stuff we have to put up with in exchange. I don't think we've realistically got a cat in hells chance of negotiating something like that.

Knightdramon
2016-07-11, 08:08 PM
I can't argue that of all the backwards thinking chavs in suits Theresa May is the best option, but that still feels like somebody asking you to pick up a piece of turd by its clean side.

If I'm feeling vindictive enough, yes, I hope farmers shov£ their lack of funding and protection up their ass*s---I was at a debate months ago and the farmer representative said he wants out of the EU because the EU gives him an additional 20k a year for nothing in exchange.

Hands up for all those who believe we'll get the exact same package but with an increased contribution and no say on the table---ie like Norway.

Just today I got an email from a customer of ours, saying he does not wish to come to the UK anymore because the UK does not feel like a welcoming place to foreigners anymore. There you go, money lost. And I don't blame them. If my prospects were better back in Greece I'd quite possibly kiss this xenophobic backwards thinking place goodbye.

Brendocon 2.0
2016-07-13, 07:57 PM
Boris Johnson is the Foreign Secretary.

You couldn't make this shit up. This is why they don't make The Thick Of It anymore, we've hit the point where we're literally impossible to satirise.

I can't take much more of this. And there's not an English-speaking country in the world that I haven't ridiculed at length on the internet. None of them are gonna take me. ****'s sake.

Skyquake87
2016-07-13, 08:14 PM
Hmm.

Boris would have made a better international trade minister. That's a really odd choice. Maybe she's hoping some diplomacy on the international stage will stop Boris being such a tit. Some hope.

Nice to see David Davis back - he's a sensible chap, but again, an odd role for him.

My eyebrows have been raised so much that I look even more bald than normal. Whilst the choices do seem risible, they do seem to be aimed at mixing things up and designed to stretch peoples abilities. Interesting.

And at least f***ing Osborne's gone.

Patapsco
2016-07-13, 08:50 PM
No, Boris should have absolutely nothing to do with anything outside the UK's borders. After all, this is the man who claimed the President of Turkey had sex with a goat in a poem two months ago (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/7-reasons-boris-johnson-probably-8416540) amongst other eye-rolling casual racism. And now he's in charge of MI6

Skyquake87
2016-07-14, 07:11 PM
Yep, and I think it'll probably teach him to buck his ideas up, becasue he can#'t keep trolling around saying sh*t like that.

Overall, I'm quite impressed with May's cabinet and who she's moved where. I do like that she's put the Brexiters in charge of sorting out, well, Brexit.

I've started to feel a bit more positive about how things might progress. Lets just hope they don't f**k it all up.

inflatable dalek
2016-07-14, 07:21 PM
If he could get away with being like that as Mayor of London I don't think this will change him.

Plus it's a senior cabinet position isn't really a "Learn how to be a ****ing human being" kind of job. He's had more than enough chances to change, and this is really only going to give him the chance to try for PM after May has dealt/failed to deal with the mess he created. He needs to get in the ****ing sea, not be rewarded with a promotion.

Denyer
2016-07-14, 08:49 PM
Best move so far has been sidelining Osbourne. Probably wise move on education but health worrying.

Skyquake87
2016-07-15, 08:15 PM
Health is a basket case no matter who gets it, its under-funded, has massive staffing issues, a culture of intimidation and bullying with whistle-blowers hung out dry. The best successive governments have thought to do since New Labour is open the NHS up for competition, as if that's going to help. Oh, and lumbered the NHS with crippling debts thanks to all those PFI contracts. Hunt was pretty well respected, if not universally exhalted, by healthcare professionals until the debacle with the Junior Doctors contract. Its disappointing he's had tunnel vision on that one.

Denyer
2016-07-16, 09:12 AM
Yeah. Was talking to someone in the profession a while back and the fact this even has to be a thing is terrifying --

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/never-evnts-list-15-16.pdf

Knightdramon
2016-07-16, 09:18 AM
Only saving grace from this is May appointing Andrea Leadsom as the environment minister.

This reads more like "you thought it'll all be roses outside the EU? Take the ministry that pretty much receives all its funding and has all its directives from the EU, bitch".

From May's recent visit in Scotland I think that article 50 might be a very distant thing.

Tetsuro
2016-07-17, 11:46 AM
If EU still lets Turkey in after the recent events, I'm gonna say that UK will probably be better off out of it.

Cliffjumper
2016-08-13, 12:53 PM
Yep, and I think it'll probably teach him to buck his ideas up, becasue he can#'t keep trolling around saying sh*t like that.

Overall, I'm quite impressed with May's cabinet and who she's moved where. I do like that she's put the Brexiters in charge of sorting out, well, Brexit.

I've started to feel a bit more positive about how things might progress. Lets just hope they don't f**k it all up.

Boris is being filed out of May's way in a job he can't handle to neuter him as a threat. Plus it's going to be a godsend for distractions, think of the stuff the government can put out while the tweeters are spamming everyone about him asking a Chinese minister what type of dog he's eating.

The referendum itself is a brutal lesson in the danger of cultural elitism and the insularity of social media. It's a shame that no-one's learnt the lesson.

Denyer
2016-08-13, 03:01 PM
Think Boris'll be very quiet, precisely because he's not just the buffoon persona.

Semi-agree on the rest, although potted terms are the same kind of simplification. Mainstream media is as much a feedback loop as social media, publishes what sells and is owned by money that benefits either way.

Several decades of negative reporting and scapegoating is an even harder sell against in an economic downturn that leaves huge numbers of people behind.

Cliffjumper
2016-08-13, 05:00 PM
Certainly an interesting battle between old and new media with the former not being as dead as thought; the Sun is still ridiculously powerful and no amount of sneering retweets about accuracy have helped. There's been far too much of a willingness to tar all leave voters as frothing xenophobic rather than listening to genuine-seeming concerns with an open mind.

The referendum itself is probably the worst thing to happen to this country in a long time. There's a reason we pay MPs an indecent amount of money to do this site for us.

Brendocon 2.0
2016-11-04, 01:47 PM
And an update for foreigners/people under rocks...

So some lawyers noticed that the nation's laws state that shit like this actually does have to go through a parliamentary vote before it can be passed, and the PM doesn't have the authority to just act on behalf of the entire country. Because if referendums are legally binding then it defeats the entire point of actually having a sovereign parliament in the first place.

So they took the government to court. And the judges looked at it and basically said yeah, that's actually correct.

So now the right wing media/leading Brexit politicians are up in arms because actual UK legal procedure needs to be followed. The judges who passed the ruling are being labelled traitors to the will of the people and absolutely nobody on that side of the argument seems to have noticed that putting power back in the hands of UK judges/parliament was one of their main arguments for leaving the EU in the first place.

Will it still go through? Who the **** knows. Depends how many MPs are going to toe Theresa May's party line. But at least now whatever happens will be done legally and not solely off the back of a marginal opinion poll.

Of course if Parliament block it then that'll cause another absolute shitstorm come the next general election, but we'll fall off that bridge when we come to it.

inflatable dalek
2016-11-04, 01:56 PM
The reaction has been ludicrous considering this does nothing to stop Brexit happening, indeed it doesn't offer an opinion on it either way. As Brend says, t's just about the due process of law to let it happen. They've lost nothing yet, and coming after weeks of "You lost, get over it" they're hypocrisy in reaction to this loss is borderline nuts.

And I think it's very unlikely this will do anything to stop Brexit (who's going to lead any opposition?), I'm not sure it'd even be worth stopping it, the real damage has been done. But it could at least lead to a more sensible post EU situation than May's scorched Earth plans.

Also for foreign Archives, the right wing press, in their efforts to deomonise the three judges responsible ("Enemies of the people", lucky we don't have any recent political assassinations caused by the sort of fevour that type of language creates), has tried to make them all look as scummy as possible. So in 2016 "Openly gay former Olypmic fencer" is being used as an insult.

Warcry
2016-11-04, 03:35 PM
Of ****ing course Parliament needs to pass a bill in order for something to become law. How do these people think their government works?

Of course if Parliament block it then that'll cause another absolute shitstorm come the next general election, but we'll fall off that bridge when we come to it.
I think you'd better hope that doesn't happen. If getting rid of the EU is such a big deal to so many Tory and Labour voters that they'd set their own bank accounts on fire while voting against the will of their own parties, then Parliament blocking Brexit sounds like a good recipe to wind up with Prime Minister Nigel Farage in a couple years' time. Which isn't quite as frightening as the spectre of having President Trump next week, but doesn't sound like a very good idea either.

Brendocon 2.0
2016-11-04, 03:52 PM
Of ****ing course Parliament needs to pass a bill in order for something to become law. How do these people think their government works?

A worrying amount of people seem to operate under the belief that "we had a vote, so it's decided" is how it works. Because we're a democracy. We're not. We're a parliamentary democracy, and a lot of people are suddenly getting a reality check on exactly what that means.

Most of the referendum campaigns were built around misinformation and empty promises anyway, so it's hardly a surprise that folks don't know how it works.

I think you'd better hope that doesn't happen. If getting rid of the EU is such a big deal to so many Tory and Labour voters that they'd set their own bank accounts on fire while voting against the will of their own parties, then Parliament blocking Brexit sounds like a good recipe to wind up with Prime Minister Nigel Farage in a couple years' time. Which isn't quite as frightening as the spectre of having President Trump next week, but doesn't sound like a very good idea either.

Pretty much. Farage isn't going away just because he got his referendum and resigned as party leader twice. We've burnt enough bridges with the EU since the vote that going back now would make us a laughing stock.

We've gotten ourselves into this mess so it's probably best in the long-term to to just ride it out rather than antagonise everyone further.

inflatable dalek
2016-11-04, 03:53 PM
I think either way we're screwed. After all, it was as close to being a 50/50 split as makes no odds. Throw in the fact that there are three or four different ways of doing Brexit and it's basically impossible to come up with something that will make a majority happy. Whether we are in 2020 there's going to be lots of ****ed off people.

Denyer
2016-11-04, 07:43 PM
Reasonable odds at least one more politician's going to get murdered and the pattern become a bit more obvious even to Mail and Express readerships.

If getting rid of the EU is such a big deal to so many Tory and Labour voters that they'd set their own bank accounts on fire
Hasn't really hit yet -- hedging of commodity prices is still protecting markets.

A lot of people at either end of the financial curve don't feel they've got much to lose. A proportion of those in the middle or that do will buy into racist claptrap or that it's someone else's fault.

Skyquake87
2016-11-05, 07:01 AM
Most of the referendum campaigns were built around misinformation and empty promises anyway, so it's hardly a surprise that folks don't know how it works.

Was entertaining watching Have I Got News For You last night, with MP Tim Loughton moaning about the judges' decision, with Ian Hislop saying to him "But this is what you wanted! British judges making british decsions!"

...I dunno, its like everything else. No one sweats the small stuff these days and those small oversights then become a massive problem down the line.

And now the news is reporting death threats against the judges and shrieking headlines from our idiotic press. Brilliant.