Brexit: Should the UK stay or go?

TheresaMay ruled out an general election until 2020 and no Article 50 until end of 2016.

So most likely she will try to play hardball with Brussels regarding the EU and won't trigger Article 50 till 2017 or 2018

Maybe they will try to postpone triggering Article 50 in hopes that people might forget about it in due time?

Here's the thing that gets me. I know that the vote was advisory and non-binding on Parliament. Even though I'm a leftist even by European standards, I have a friend who is active in the Conservative Party in Manchester who has been filling me in on some of the ins and outs of this. He tells me that about 75 percent of MPs (including the new PM) are against leaving the EU. If those MPs truly believe that leaving is a mistake, they should stand up and stop it.

This is what infuriates me about politics in the United States. Few politicians actually put the welfare of the people and of the nation ahead of their own aspirations and their corporate sponsors. I would like to think that Britain is better than us, but I suppose we had to inherit our insanity from somewhere. This is why I admire the conservative politicians in Australia who traded their careers to pass the gun laws that put an end to mass shootings there.

And it's probably been covered in this thread, but do all of you believe there's a legitimate chance that Scotland and possibly even Northern Ireland will leave the U.K. if they go through with this?

Moondoggie wrote:Here's the thing that gets me. I know that the vote was advisory and non-binding on Parliament. Even though I'm a leftist even by European standards, I have a friend who is active in the Conservative Party in Manchester who has been filling me in on some of the ins and outs of this. He tells me that about 75 percent of MPs (including the new PM) are against leaving the EU. If those MPs truly believe that leaving is a mistake, they should stand up and stop it.

This is what infuriates me about politics in the United States. Few politicians actually put the welfare of the people and of the nation ahead of their own aspirations and their corporate sponsors. I would like to think that Britain is better than us, but I suppose we had to inherit our insanity from somewhere. This is why I admire the conservative politicians in Australia who traded their careers to pass the gun laws that put an end to mass shootings there.

And it's probably been covered in this thread, but do all of you believe there's a legitimate chance that Scotland and possibly even Northern Ireland will leave the U.K. if they go through with this?

if you want to live under a dictatorship you should move the the Middle East.

Moondoggie wrote:Here's the thing that gets me. I know that the vote was advisory and non-binding on Parliament. Even though I'm a leftist even by European standards, I have a friend who is active in the Conservative Party in Manchester who has been filling me in on some of the ins and outs of this. He tells me that about 75 percent of MPs (including the new PM) are against leaving the EU. If those MPs truly believe that leaving is a mistake, they should stand up and stop it.

This is what infuriates me about politics in the United States. Few politicians actually put the welfare of the people and of the nation ahead of their own aspirations and their corporate sponsors. I would like to think that Britain is better than us, but I suppose we had to inherit our insanity from somewhere. This is why I admire the conservative politicians in Australia who traded their careers to pass the gun laws that put an end to mass shootings there.

And it's probably been covered in this thread, but do all of you believe there's a legitimate chance that Scotland and possibly even Northern Ireland will leave the U.K. if they go through with this?

They really have no right to act otherwise tbh. It's the will of the people. Nobody said democracy was perfect. This is the bad side of it but they have to stick with it. If a KKK leader wins a presidential election in the US, Congress would have absolutely no right to deny him presidency. Will of the people whether you like it or not.

Scotland is definitely leaving. Not quite sure where Northern Ireland stand but it's likely that hey leave as well and rejoin the EU.

Unique wrote: if you want to live under a dictatorship you should move the the Middle East.

How is electing representatives and expecting them to do their jobs a dictatorship?

Blue Barrett wrote:
They really have no right to act otherwise tbh. It's the will of the people. Nobody said democracy was perfect. This is the bad side of it but they have to stick with it. If a KKK leader wins a presidential election in the US, Congress would have absolutely no right to deny him presidency. Will of the people whether you like it or not.

Scotland is definitely leaving. Not quite sure where Northern Ireland stand but it's likely that hey leave as well and rejoin the EU.

If the vote was non-binding then they do have a choice. And putting things such as this up for a public referendum is a horrible idea to begin with. It was political posturing by Cameron to begin with and it backfired. Putting such major decisions up for a public vote often opens Pandora's Box. You elect representatives to make these decisions for you. Let them do their jobs.

Back in 1978, the state of California (once known as the Land of Milk and Honey and a place where many Americans dreamed of living) passed a ballot initiative known as Proposition 13. The amendment strictly limits property taxes.

Great idea, everyone thought. But California's budget has pretty much been a mess for the past 37 years. Local governments no longer had enough tax revenue coming in. They have become more dependent on the state, which has strained the state budget. Often they've tried to make up the difference with other taxes, such as increased sales taxes -- which disproportionately hurt poor people who spend most of what money they have on essentials. Schools, libraries and public services have suffered. In the 1960s and 1970s, California had the best public school system in the United States. But largely because of underfunding, they eventually dropped to 48th out of 50. Also, housing prices shot through the roof. The average house in California sells for $440,000, compared to $180,000 nationally, and rent has spiraled out of control. The average apartment rental in San Francisco is $3,500 a month (while 3,500 people sleep in the street each night).

People are bad enough at choosing the politicians to lead them most of the time (the current U.S. Congress is proof enough of that). But they should never be given the keys to the bus. If the duly-elected Members of Parliament believe that leaving the EU is a bad idea that will harm Britain, they should not vote to do it. If the consequences are losing their seat in the next election, then so be it. That's why our countries have a republican form of government. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

Cameron had to give the referendum otherwise at the last general election we would have been left with another hung parliament with a conservative and UKIP government. this is not something out of the blue, UKIPs popularity has been rising at an incredible rate over the past 5 or 6 years as the british public have become increasingly Eurosceptic.
the job of our government is to represent the will of the people. the people have voted in record numbers and the result was exit. if the government go against that, regardless of the referendum being advisory, they are not representing the people.

You can see the limit of democacry tho. At the end of the day 48,11% of the voters didn't want to exit EU. 51% of people wanting out is not enough imo.

oh yes democracy is not perfect and there is always gonna be losers. Democracy means mob rule. more people wanted to exit than remain at the end of the day no matter how you cut it. over a million more people voted leave in the biggest vote turnout in years if not all time.

Democracy is far from perfect and if they change major decisions in the future to the point where you need say a 55-45 split in favour of change then so be it.

But backtracking now just because some people are unhappy would be shitting all over democracy. And if you set the precedent now that the MPs can ignore us in this specific situation, who's to say they don't ignore us again and again?

"Oh but you, the people, said we should ignore the majority when the majority doesn't fall in line with us."

But it was a non-binding "advisory" referendum, so democracy  is not harmed if the MPs who were elected by the people vote for what they believe is in the best interests of the country. In fact, that's what representative democracy -- a republic -- is all about. The people elected every single MP and gave them a job to do. Part of that job is having a better understanding of the consequences of such a momentous change than a "mob" of angry and frustrated people who are voting based on fears that have been stoked by a minority of politicians angling for political advantage.

David Cameron the guy 'we' voted in said that he would act on it. No matter how you spin it, it would be a disgrace.


And what happens when the elected MPs decide that we have too many working rights. They know better than the mob of angry and frustrated people who disagree too, right?

What you're suggesting is that we have some sort of a pseudo democracy where we're allowed to voice our opinions and vote so long as the people who have to act on it agree with us. Ridiculous.

Might as well scrap the illusion of being in a democracy and have our MPs make all of the calls at a moments notice.

Well, Referendum was nothing but an opinion. But the reason it was done was because Tories promised to stick with it regardless of the results. That's why they retained the office in 2015. They can reject the referendum but that will lead to people never voting tories again which they don't want.

The MPs probably know more about the consequences of leaving/staying in the EU than an average voter. However it's too late to do anything now. We are far too deep to do anything drastic.

The only way I can think of UK being united again is if Theresa May could negotiate a deal which favours UK and EU at the same time despite exiting europe.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:David Cameron the guy 'we' voted in said that he would act on it. No matter how you spin it, it would be a disgrace.


And what happens when the elected MPs decide that we have too many working rights. They know better than the mob of angry and frustrated people who disagree too, right?

What you're suggesting is that we have some sort of a pseudo democracy where we're allowed to voice our opinions and vote so long as the people who have to act on it agree with us. Ridiculous.

Might as well scrap the illusion of being in a democracy and have our MPs make all of the calls at a moments notice.

No, I'm suggesting that you have elections and that the politicians you elect act in the best interests of the country, not on whims. That's the whole point of elections.

RealGunner wrote:Well, Referendum was nothing but an opinion. But the reason it was done was because Tories promised to stick with it regardless of the results. That's why they retained the office in 2015. They can reject the referendum but that will lead to people never voting tories again which they don't want.

The MPs probably know more about the consequences of leaving/staying in the EU than an average voter. However it's too late to do anything now. We are far too deep to do anything drastic.

The only way I can think of UK being united again is if Theresa May could negotiate a deal which favours UK and EU at the same time despite exiting europe.

Well, right there is the whole problem in a nutshell. It's the way of life here in the U.S. Politicians act in the interest of protecting their own jobs and in the interests of their corporate sponsors rather than acting in the best interests of the country. Cameron should never have called the referendum in the first place, but was just protecting himself from what was a minority of MPs even in his own party. It's how the Republican Party in this country went insane. The moderates are afraid to do anything but cater to the whims of the far right who are there not to give us a better government but to tear down the government we have.

So David Cameron holding a referendum and declaring that the result would be acted upon is a whim?

You have no argument here. Our (at the time) PM asked for our opinion on the EU and stated that our opinion would decide the outcome.

Yes we had an election, and the man at the head of the elected party started this. So what's your point really?

The reason Cameron was elected is because he said he would give us the referendum, its not a whim its been a major topic in this country for years now. that's how he won a majority government otherwise the UKIP vote would have been much more impressive and we would have another coalition government. I would argue that the resignation of David Cameron has produced more negativity in the financial sector etc than the actual exit vote.

Theresa May has so much Thatcher about her that it worries me.

Was looking at some of her decisions.

Voted against Gay rights
Voted against smoking ban
Voted against hunting ban
voted against laws to promote equality and human rights
voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
Consistently voted for the Iraq war
Generally voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
Generally voted for increasing the rate of VAT

Tomwin Lannister wrote:So David Cameron holding a referendum and declaring that the result would be acted upon is a whim?

You have no argument here. Our (at the time) PM asked for our opinion on the EU and stated that our opinion would decide the outcome.

Yes we had an election, and the man at the head of the elected party started this. So what's your point really?

David Cameron is not a dictator. He does not speak for the majority of MPs, even in his own party. According to the BBC, even Conservative Party MPs supported Remain by a 185 to 138 margin. Virtually all Labour MPs supported Remain and every single SNP member supported Remain. So support for Leave in Parliament was and is a distinct minority. I see no reason why MPs who believe leaving is not in the best interests of the country should do so just because a slim majority of people voted for something in a referendum that featured a lot of sensationalist claims and scare tactics in order to manipulate votes (and it seems even many of those Leave voters are now regretting it).

The issue should be thoroughly debated in Parliament and the body should take the action that they deem to be best for the country. There is going to be division and bad feelings either way, so why act rashly?

I think it will be debated in the parliament anyways. It has to be discussed before invoking article 50.

RealGunner wrote:Theresa May has so much Thatcher about her that it worries me.

Was looking at some of her decisions.

Voted against Gay rights
Voted against smoking ban
Voted against hunting ban
voted against laws to promote equality and human rights
voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
Consistently voted for the Iraq war
Generally voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
Generally voted for increasing the rate of VAT

Can't wait to bail from this country

By the way, I found these interesting articles about the differences between the Anglo-Saxon and German economic models:
- Anglo-Saxon Model
- German Model
- Germany's orderly 'social market'

"The concept was very simple: West Germany would have capitalism with a market economy, but the government would provide a significant amount of regulation to ensure fair play; much more regulation than in Anglo-Saxon capitalism, the system which had developed in Britain."

Tomwin Lannister wrote:So David Cameron holding a referendum and declaring that the result would be acted upon is a whim?

The problem is that the referendum wasn't sensibly set up in the first place. For a question of such a dimension, there should have been margins set up beforehand, like that you'd need at least a 60% majority and 75% voter participation. That way you'd have ensured that it would only have gone through with at least 50% of the population really wanting it.

Right now the result is only carried by 37% of the population. Of course you can say that the people who didn't vote forfeited their right, but nonetheless it is a fact that only a few over a third of the population actually gave a clear vote on the exit.

Those who did not vote do not have any say, no. No good reason not to vote on something like this.

As far as i'm concerned no voters have no right to complain about the fallout and there should not be a 2nd referendum to give people who don't care enough to spend 10 minutes voting another chance.

As I have already said though, in future a 55-45 split would be better. I'd say 60 is too high, votes could be easily decided by one portion of the country I.E London voting in their own best interests every time.

Why should such measures benefit the status quo?

At least 75% should vote, out of which at least 60% should vote to stay in, or we leave. How about that?

These mental gymnastics directed at circumventing a democratic outcome you are displeased with are pathetic.

Btw London's mayor is elected with a far lesser turnout and less Londoners voted for him than voted for Brexit. I hearby decree a second London mayoral election is to be held and we keep doing it over and over again until 75% of Londoners vote for their mayors . (Now it's 45%)

Well, there are always

DuringTheWar wrote:At least 75% should vote, out of which at least 60% should vote to stay in, or we leave. How about that?

Well, that's because it is usual to have a change needing a certain number of votes, not the other way round, because that is what the people originally had and which was fine for years.

If you want to change the constitution, you also need to have a majority for the change (and usually even a 2/3 majority, not just 60%) and not have the change as default, and an event like the UK leaving the EU is a major change that you can't consider the default as it isn't the default - the status quo was the default.

Otherwise you could make a referendum in the US saying "All weapons will be banned, unless 60% people show up to vote that the status quo is maintained." I wouldn't want to see the outrage if that would be put into action!

As for voting for a mayor - that is a comparatively minor event and not a huge change like the Brexit with involves the economy of the whole country, the whole set up of the laws, subsidiaries that get cut, trade deals that get voided etc.

rwo power wrote:Well, there are always

DuringTheWar wrote:At least 75% should vote, out of which at least 60% should vote to stay in, or we leave. How about that?

Well, that's because it is usual to have a change needing a certain number of votes, not the other way round, because that is what the people originally had and which was fine for years.

The majority of people who originally voted in favour of the EEC and lived throughout the "fine" years voted to leave the EU.