UK EU Referendum [In or Out?]

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm fine with there being a discussion Tom, I'm just not agreeing that just because ~ 3 million signed a petition, the voice of the 17 million that already spoke should be silenced.

 

I'm still not sure why you think Expats should get the right to vote. They're not living in the UK, so why should they have a voice in what the UK does? It's highly unlikely that they'll be shunted out of their jobs in the EU just because of Brexit, and even otherwise, there should be theoretical job openings in England and cheap housing in England based on the current followings of Brexit. Unless of course the Government under Johnson gives amnesty, in which case Jobs might be tight. But thanks for admitting that much, and I think that's largely a fair sentiment. 

 

You're forgetting that remain also has a slight edge in that for atleast 2 years post brexit you're going to remain anyway. Inaction is largely in the favor of remain. As for leaving having the edge, hasn't Nigel been fighting for this for 25 years? Leaving the EU isn't exactly easy. The only reason it worked was the global push back against neo-liberalism due to nationalism and anti-establishment sentiment. I'm really not on board with the idea that leave has it any easier.

 

Second Ref. Historically have been massively in favor of remain. Either be ignorance on the part of the population (as in these effects of the pound collapse are neither all that bad nor all that permanent) or by EU heavy handed pressuring.

 

Now the remain people are fear-mongering about Scotland and NI. Yes, of course people will switch over if you tell the. Change your vote or your country will shatter. NI atleast is such a bullshit idea, seeing that 1) The Margins weren't that Drastic 2) Former IRA people are even calling the Sinn Fein move a scam to get some power 3) funking Ireland might leave...there's a lot of pot-kettle-black going on now that Remain has lost. 

 

What if there is a second ref and it says remain? Should we weekly have a ref to see if the opinion has changed? Or should we just have a tie breaker? What if a week after the tie breaker a massive amount goes against the 2/3 result?

 

People knew about the 23rd, and some may have squandered it, Ignorance has a price and will always have a price. 

 

I guess the last part is possible, especially with people trying to oust Corbyn and Cameron already gone. But they did promise that this was the final vote, but with w/o them around I spose it can be take-backs

 

That being said, I'm not entirely sure how the veto deal works with Scotland so gonna go read up on that

How do you lock topic polls?

 

Also, do people think it would be a good idea for me to lock the topic poll, now that the referendum is over?

The 9-3-6 has been pretty constant hasn't it? I think you can change or remove the poll, but don't think you can lock it

What needs to happen is the NHS promise should be kept to some degree. Leave never said all 350 Million would go to the NHS, but you guys can pressure your leaders to make a large portion of it go to the NHS. And from there educate people on how to take advantage of the current devaluation. People in England should be the ones making the profit at the moment, not Soros and other filth like him.

 

If anything disappoints me, it's how people are throwing away this golden opportunity 

 

Edit: How srs is a shadow cabinit revolt? Cause last I checked  it was a resignation of 10 people which seems big enough to push corbyn out

[Aerion Brightflame]

Scotland leaving isn't fear mongering, it's an expected result. Given that a) Scotland's counties voted unanimously to remain. b) Scotland had an independance referendum where EU membership (Which they wanted) was one of the main reasons they stayed in c) The Scottish First Minister said as much before the referendum that a Leave vote would lead to a second Scottish referendum. 

 

Ireland might be fear mongering bull, but the Scottish one isn't. 

 

If we had a second referendum and the result was to remain it would depend on the margin. If it's close, it tells us very little. In which case we probably wait 6 months to a year and then have another referendum on the issue, but without leaving the EU in the meantime. There's nothing wrong with that. If it's actually a solid margin I.E. like 60/40, or 58/42 say, that would quell all doubt. In part because that prevents the EU clause from taking effect,  and in part because unless turn-out tanked you get a result that is close to resembling an actual majority of the electorate. 

 

Except the two years are not an advantage to remain unless I'm mistaken on how article 50 works, because the instant from which article 50 happens we can't go back on the choice. If we don't negotiate a deal within 2 years, unless that period is extended by the council, we are funked. We don't get to change our mind afterwards - Unless we decide immediately to go back into the EU, which would mean all we would have succeeded in doing is staying in the EU with a worse set of terms probably. We have until now and whenever it gets declared (Probably early October at the latest) to have a second referendum on the issue if one is too occur.

 

Contrasted to Leave, who even if attempting to Leave took 25 years, never has the same pressure. Just given how close it is, and the lack of transparency, I would rather we take a second one so we don't rush into a decision the nation actually want. Which we can only do so by having a second. It doesn't mean we will need continual referendums by any means.

 

Expats still hold British citizenship in most cases - They have every right to vote in our elections as a result. Doesn't matter where they live, there are citizens of the United Kingdom and have every right to be apart of our democratic process. 

 

I would also like to highlight this:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037

 

Stepping aside his readily apparent cold feet, (Notice his comment about how slim the vote was, as in suggesting he'd be open to a second vote?) Johnson talking about how we will still have extensive ties with the EU, including travel. Consider the comments another Tory MP made earlier today about how he desired open borders with the EU, it's implying the government would aim for something like the Norway, in which we would be required to obey most of the EU regulations people felt were 'forced' upon us in order to get access to the free market. 

 

In essence it means we will probably end up in a situation where we are still as beholden to Brussels as we were before the referendum, except without any say into the laws that we end up abiding by. We have greater bargaining power than Norway, or even the Swiss example so maybe not but I will laugh at the irony if it's true. That we regain sovereignty over our laws in order to entirely surrender our sovereignty over certain laws. 

 

Of course Leave failed to talk about any of the likely options for the nation post brexit, so people didn't realise the likely outcomes involve very little changing for us beyond actually surrendering powers and increasing racial tensions. (Which has happened, there's been a noticable increase in racist remarks and sentiments towards people who appear to be non british in the past few days)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'll respond when I get a computer again

 

But most people don't want a second referendum Barty

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-opinion-poll-reveals-majority-8283139.amp?client=safari#

[Azure Wolf]

The Ireland point is a bit weird as some Nationalists would prefer to remain but some Unionists like Ian Paisley ( I think that is how you spell it) say leave, despite him and Sinn Fein never getting along, not sure on the SDLP (the other main nationalist part in NI). NI will probably never unify with the Republic as it would mean having to to give up things like the Orange Parades on the 12th of July which would cause upset.

 

Still am sort of surprise NI was 55/45 on the referendum despite us being the only UK country to share a land border with the EU. Then again it was mainly County Antrim and Belfast which is mainly Unionist with the exception of West Belfast which has always been a Nationalist area.

 

Personally I would be for a second referendum or just set up another one for expats and 16-17s to vote in, and add those to it. It would save people changing what they already put down. Then again I'm sort of annoyed that I miss two votes (Stormont and the referendum) this year, leaving it until I'm 22/23 until I can actually vote for something (unless something else comes up).

 

 

There probably is some mistakes in this post as I'm trying to remember stuff off the top of my head so things might have changed.

[Aerion Brightflame]

1) You cited the Daily Mail as a source. 

2) Redacted since for once they gave a sample size. It was a comment on lack of basis, but it gave age group and sample size, so the only thing missing is like social position which is hugely important on a poll like this. So it's not ideal, but it's not as bad as usual.

3) You cited the Daily Mail as a source. 

4) It indicates that 39% of british adults want a second referendum, which ironically is a greater percentage than that who voted to Leave in the first place. It's technically irrelevant as an argument, but it's an interesting point to point out since it adds to the validity of the petition if true.

5) You cited the Daily Mail as a source. 

6) Later in the article it talks about how 45% of adults are less confident in Britains future today than they there before the referendum, and that more people think we are heading to a worse place than a better one (41% to 33%). All of which, if true, adds greatly to the argument that the will of the people has changed following the fallout of the referendum. 

7) And there's an argument that Remain are sore losers as much as Leave are sore winners due to the relative proportion of people upholding things. 

 

I know I said one of those points three times, and that a broken clock can be right sometimes, but it's the Daily Mail, it's not a place for objective information, or even truthful information. It doesn't cite sources for any of the stats beyond 'A poll we conducted'. So it's somewhat discountable for both sides of the argument. 

 

And again - If this is an argument as to the democracy of a non binding opinion poll, then there's arguments both ways as to whether or not a second referendum is more or less democratic than upholding the choice of the first. I just think the arguments for a second one are more in the interests of democracy than not having one. Because again - think of it as one gigantic opinion poll because in terms of law-making that's what it is. The government doesn't have to abide by it, simply take it into consideration. Having a second one doesn't technically infringe on the democratic process, and the arguments are given the lack of transparency and the close and such you very benefit from it because it either clarifies the existing position, or it prevents a decision that's not actually in the interests of the people occurring. 

 

I feel like I'm repeating myself at this point, so unless a new point is raised I probably won't reply sorry. 

[ihop]

That's the Mirror. They're anti-Brexit.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I'm clearly blind. 

 

Mail or Mirror both are still fairly shitty in terms of quality of evidence. Tho pro remain bias does undermine the arguments a little I will concede because those will be exaggerated numbers in favour of a second referendum 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm clearly blind.

 

Mail or Mirror both are still fairly shitty in terms of quality of evidence. Tho pro remain bias does undermine the arguments a little I will concede because those will be exaggerated numbers in favour of a second referendum

Yeah, I guess we're both getting repetitive at this point. My only question is: why stop at 2 referendums? Why not keep doing them? Also where was the push to get get 16-17 year olds before? It seems a lot like packing the vote in remains favor now that Remain lost

 

All I was trying to say from that link was its not like a large portion of leave changed or anything

 

Anyway 100k was the mark for a discussion in Parliament. And even I cannot deny that. I just feel the problem with a second ref is the massive misinformation campaign on the remains side. There'd be no problem if people actually informed the people (about the economics) and such. But it's not my country. I think the UK made the right choice, but my primary problem currently is Trump & Clinton. So ya, we'll see what happens

 

 

How do you lock topic polls?

 

Also, do people think it would be a good idea for me to lock the topic poll, now that the referendum is over?

Maybe a poll asking if there should be a second referendum. Cause apparently that's quite popular among our age people

 

 

Putting this out there

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Boris Johnson has the support to get on the ballot paper now. Not that anyone is surprised. 

[vla1ne]

Just have to say, i find it hilarious that the British are using the democratic system to give up their rights to the democratic system.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Just have to say, i find it hilarious that the British are using the democratic system to give up their rights to the democratic system.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-what-is-eu-referendum-petition-david-cameron-a7105596.html%3famp?client=safari#

[Aerion Brightflame]

I wish he didn't call 52-48 'decisive'. 

 

I think (Or at least I imagine) that V1lane's comments were refererinng to the fact that in all likelyhood the UK will just end up in the exact same position we are currently, with the same EU laws and restrictions, the same payment into the EU, the same border policies, except without any say in the laws in the EU seeks to pass. And without Scotland. 

 

Because there has never been a nation that has retained access to the Free Market without also abiding by Free movement iirc. 

 

So we are using democracy to surrender democracy. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I wish he didn't call 52-48 'decisive'. 

 

I think (Or at least I imagine) that V1lane's comments were refererinng to the fact that in all likelyhood the UK will just end up in the exact same position we are currently, with the same EU laws and restrictions, the same payment into the EU, the same border policies, except without any say in the laws in the EU seeks to pass. And without Scotland. 

 

Because there has never been a nation that has retained access to the Free Market without also abiding by Free movement iirc. 

 

So we are using democracy to surrender democracy.

 

Doesn't Greenland have a pretty sweet deal currently? I assume that's what the UK would try for maybe even more lax

[Aerion Brightflame]

Greenland is a Danish territory. It gets given money by the EU through a specific Fishing deal. And it doesn't have full access to the free market, which is what the Leave campaign says it wants. It is not really a position we can hope to end up in as a result.

 

Especially since Greenland has been considering rejoining the EU in the past few years. 

[vla1ne]

outside of the EU, Britain has at least as much to gain from leaving as they do by remaining. leaving, would take more work, but the upper opportunity ceiling for leaving imo would be far higher than the ceiling for staying. on that same note, in the short run, Britain has more to lose by leaving. from what i know, while Britain was inside the EU, they had literally no say in anything, they were ignored, disrespected, and overall just trampled by the EU policies, by leaving, they at least can have their voices matter a bit more inside and outside their country. they would also be able to set their own regulations. now, the EU might not like trading with them after that, and Europe might lose money/pay money to the EU in the short run, but they would not have to stifle their smaller industries with regulations, while their larger industries could continue complying with said EU regulations and trade as usual. there's a lot to gain in a lot of areas by leaving. looking past the initial drop that's going to happen, there are abundant options that will open up, including freeing up prison space by deporting foreign criminals, putting their own cap on immigration speed so that they can sustain growth at a steady pace. no longer having to worry about the EU paying businesses to hire foreign workers over citizens, less competition in the domestic jobs market from outside countries, the ability for smaller businesses to grow without needing to adhere to such strict regulations would increase jobs, while allowing them to change over to suit regulations at their own pace (which is far healthier than simply forcing it upon them) ect...

 

 

now, the largest issue is British politics, where the government never listens to the people, but even on that note, you have agency upon leaving, fight to get people in office who aren't going to screw you over, 52% of your country has apparently decided that they take more pride in governing their own laws than having an outside agency do it for them. put hem to work (literally and metaphorically) setting their government straight. if there's no referendum, then i agree that they shouldn't rush the departure, leaving immediately would hurt both the EU and Britain, and neither side want's that i assume. make a clean break, but neither side would benefit from rushing said break. 

[cardgameking]

Just a little comment, as I've seen Ireland mentioned here. I don't know much about politics in NI, but I can say that Ireland is going to suffer here, due to the number of people who work on both sides of the border and how much we export and import with Britain. Doesn't help we've a crappy government in place, with Fianna Fail having their finger on the button at all times and the Independents being prats. A big thing this affects is the Good Friday agreement, which the EU was involved in. It doesn't change it per say, but nationalists are using it as an excuse to say a referendum is needed as a result. Could actually go through, considering how many people in NI want to stay in the EU, which would have an impact I can't really imagine.

[Azure Wolf]

Just a little comment, as I've seen Ireland mentioned here. I don't know much about politics in NI, but I can say that Ireland is going to suffer here, due to the number of people who work on both sides of the border and how much we export and import with Britain. Doesn't help we've a crappy government in place, with Fianna Fail having their finger on the button at all times and the Independents being prats. A big thing this affects is the Good Friday agreement, which the EU was involved in. It doesn't change it per say, but nationalists are using it as an excuse to say a referendum is needed as a result. Could actually go through, considering how many people in NI want to stay in the EU, which would have an impact I can't really imagine.

It's being talked about that Britain and the Republic will keep open trade and won't impose higher tolls for people in NI. I also don't see NI actually leaving the UK. Sinn Fein is just doing what they normally want with some Unionists agreeing that we should reunite, though some members of the SDLP don't agree with a unified Ireland.

 

I'll probably edit this post if I can fin more info and I get on a computer rather than my phone.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Britain may be able to limit the free movement of EU migrants and retain access to the Single Market,

 

France suggests Britain may be able to limit the free movement of EU migrants and retain access to the Single Market, France has suggested in a significant boost to Boris Johnson, Steven Swinford reports.

 

Earlier this week all 27 of the other EU leaders said Britain would have to continue to allow EU migrants to enter Britain if it wants to keep free market access. However Michel Sapin, France's finance minister, said that "everything will be on the table" during negotiations with Britain.

 

In a significant break with the EU line, Mr Sapin told BBC Two's Newsnight: "Everything will be on the table because Britain will make proposals and we will negotiate all aspects of these proposals. "We discuss all subjects. Under what conditions there is freedom of movement of people, freedom of movement of goods, of capital." The comments represent s significant boost to Mr Johnson and Michael Gove, who insisted throughout the referendum campaign that Britain could continue trading freely with the single market while controlling migration.

 

They were accused of trying to "have their cake and eat it" by both the Remain campaign and European leaders. Mr Johnson, however, has argued that Germany and other EU nations will not damage their own industry by imposing tariffs on Britain or restricting free trade. Mr Sapin said that he wanted negotiations to conclude "as quickly as possible". He said: "[We want this to happen] as quickly as possible, not because we want to punish the UK. One of the problems, the most important today, is uncertainty."

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/jeremy-corbyn-pmqs-labour-angela-eagle-david-cameron-eu-brexit/ 

 

 

 

This is the ideal I'm guessing?

[Aerion Brightflame]

He said all elements are on the table. That doesn't contradict what existing EU leaders have said - It's just now incredibly unlikely that countries can get full access to the free market, but be free of open borders or monetary contributions, or EU regulations. It's counter productive for the EU to do that because it just incites more nations to leave. It literally looks like the guy just said - 'Yes all things will be discussed'

 

Like I'm sure a deal could be reached that would get us free market access and control of our borders, but it'll cost us a f*** tonne. Like say 50 million a week without a rebate this time, and without any of the EU funding that made a difference. Won't make it a good deal for us by any means.

 

What is more likely is that we get something like Greenland - Specific agreements that allow specific goods and services to be apart of the free market. Not complete access to the free market as Gove and Boris were campaigning on. It still feels insane to think that's a reasonable outcome for us to achieve. 

 

I still think the government will find some way to weasel out of this result. Not immediately, but maybe 3 months or 6 months down the line they'll have enough of an excuse (And a second PM) with which to call a second referendum. Or flat out never invoking article 50. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He said all elements are on the table. That doesn't contradict what existing EU leaders have said - It's just now incredibly unlikely that countries can get full access to the free market, but be free of open borders or monetary contributions, or EU regulations. It's counter productive for the EU to do that because it just incites more nations to leave. It literally looks like the guy just said - 'Yes all things will be discussed'

 

Like I'm sure a deal could be reached that would get us free market access and control of our borders, but it'll cost us a f*** tonne. Like say 50 million a week without a rebate this time, and without any of the EU funding that made a difference. Won't make it a good deal for us by any means.

 

What is more likely is that we get something like Greenland - Specific agreements that allow specific goods and services to be apart of the free market. Not complete access to the free market as Gove and Boris were campaigning on. It still feels insane to think that's a reasonable outcome for us to achieve. 

 

I still think the government will find some way to weasel out of this result. Not immediately, but maybe 3 months or 6 months down the line they'll have enough of an excuse (And a second PM) with which to call a second referendum. Or flat out never invoking article 50. 

It seems to me like England would have to play hard to get. As in show that the EU would hurt more than it would by it leaving. Which depending on what Ireland does and the US Election might be a case to make.

 

Pretty much everyone has shut down the idea of a second right now, it feels a lot like those hoping that Trump would somehow manage to not reach 1237 and Paul Ryan would swoop in. 

 

Also freedom from certain regulations might offset costs. Did you mean 450 million? Cause 350 is the current amount and 50 seems good relative to that.

 

England ending up with a trade agreement similar to the US might work too maybe?

[Aerion Brightflame]

50 Million a day I meant to say. So 350 a week. 

 

And Winter we don't pay 350 million a week. In theory we do, but we get like 2/3's back before any of it is spent in the form of a rebate. Every nation in the EU gets a rebate. It's part of the reason why the comment and promise Farage and the Leave campaign made was disingenuous because we never actually spent that much in the first place. It wasn't free money. 

 

I'm not saying a 2nd referendum now (We will have one at some point even if it's just to clarify which of the likely options the government should pursue because they have to know which option the public wants for the sake of negotiation)  , I'm saying the next government will find a way to not have to go through with this. Be it a backdoor deal, be it a second referendum, be it the Scots. Somehow they will find a way, even if it's just buying time till the choice is made for them (I.E. some massive event that destabilises the EU too much anyway). 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Boris ruled himself out.

 

Barty England is too important to lose though. Giving England, a major part of the EU, an easier deal doesn't mean you'd have to give the same deal to a country that contributes less. Stratify by impact

[Aerion Brightflame]

He'll run after the next guy had to do all the hard stuff. I've been expecting this course of events. 

 

Except from an outside perspective if one nation can get only good stuff from the EU, why would the people of the nation accept any of the harder stuff? It doesn't matter if England has more negotiating power than they do - It will encourage more nations to have there own referendums which is the last thing the EU wants to have right now. It's a matter of perception, not fairness. Given the rise of Euro-scepticism, the EU has to show to the people within the EU nations that staying in the EU is the better choice, that you can't pick and choose what parts of the EU you want. 

 

They can't do that by telling England 'It's okay you guys can have all the financial benefits without any of the migrant issues so many people are blaming'. 

[cardgameking]

The Brexiters all backing down now that things are looking hard is funny. Boris being all humble, even more so because who isn't going to see through to his real reasoning? 

The only problem with the EU is that it can't, in my opinion, decide what it wants to be- an economic union or an actual country. The whole "EU law can overrule UK law" deal makes me think that the EU does have a sort of nation state mindset. But considering how rampant opposition to this idea is (for whatever reason) means it'll never become so.

Of course, losing Britain may actually tighten the Union as Britain has always been separated from the rest of the continent, geographically, historically and politically. 

[cr47t]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-how-britain-stays-in-the-eu-214005

 

Thoughts?