So...Brexit.

[s_stabeler]

Oh, I agree. I suspect, though, that certain businesses may well have deliberately made tings look like that since if the UK is no longer part of the EU, then it becomes far easier to get regulations changed. (It's far easier to sweettalk the government of the country you operate in...)

I just hope that this isn't used by the Government as an excuse to get rid of some of the particularly useful bits of EU regulation. ( off the top of my head, the Working Time Directive, which has always been the subject of complaints by some companies)

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

What I think should and probably will happen is that the top politicos of Yurp will be taking a long, hard look at themselves. Either their policies and antics have alienated over half the voting population of a member state enough to leave, or they've left the perceptions of them in that state. There needs to be some house cleaning at their end, methinks, before they try any charm offensive to keep us in the union.

Yes and no. I do think they're going to look at how the leave campaign functioned but they won't bend over backwards for the UK. Scotland and NI may be wildcards depending on what affinity they feel for Europe vs. England. The brunt of the economic consequences will (and already have started to) hit the UK. And to top all that off, the margin of victory for Leave was so slim that denying a second referendum is going to be hard over time.

Basically the EU can just attempt to mitigate its damage and let UK work it out for themselves. I think what Merkel was saying is ultimately the approach. Be responsive to helping them leave if they want, but don't do it in a rushed fashion. In one or two years, I suspect as more older people die off and more younger people are in the population coupled with actually dealing with the financial effects, you'll see a very distinct flip.

Ultimately, if exiting the union succeeded in concessions than the Union will fail. Unions are about getting something for giving up something. If you can get more by behaving badly, everyone will do that. EU would have to let them go without going there. It would cost them too much to keep the UK in that case.

[s_stabeler]

the problem is that if the UK start the formal process of leaving the EU- invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty- then they can only change their minds by an unanimous vote of all the member states. So if there is a second referendum, it would need to be before that- which may be unlikely. ( it's predicted the formal process will start in October once Cameron's successor is appointed. They are not going to want another referendum this year, particularly since this one was so divisive)

Ultimately, I think the politicians need to take a month or two before reacting to the referendum. Why? because I get the impression a lot of the reactions are based on shock at the result and wounded pride at the moment, and if Brexit is rushed, then I can see hot tempers making demands that cause bad feelings all around.

[mjr]

Take all the offense you want or not. It's how Texas votes. Texas is solidly purple or Blue in the urban centers that fire its economy.

I don't care if people live in small towns by choice. I do care when politically speaking the voting apparatus is rigged in their favor which Texas is pretty obvious with. And I do care when people start mindlessly popping off about exiting larger unions, especially when it is not up to Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio to honor it.

Hell, how funny would it be if some vote like that passed and the city of Austin immediately held a referendum seceding from Texas?

I think I'll just drop this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Au6qBLgk1A

[Rapscallion]

Yes and no. I do think they're going to look at how the leave campaign functioned but they won't bend over backwards for the UK. Scotland and NI may be wildcards depending on what affinity they feel for Europe vs. England. The brunt of the economic consequences will (and already have started to) hit the UK. And to top all that off, the margin of victory for Leave was so slim that denying a second referendum is going to be hard over time.

Best out of three referendums isn't going to happen. Cameron has rightly put the kybosh on that.

They don't need to bend over just for the UK. There are several other potential candidates for leaving. Greece is one of the frontrunners, though my instincts suggest they need the EU fiscally far more than philosophically. The far right in other countries have already said they want to try something similar.

Basically the EU can just attempt to mitigate its damage and let UK work it out for themselves. I think what Merkel was saying is ultimately the approach. Be responsive to helping them leave if they want, but don't do it in a rushed fashion. In one or two years, I suspect as more older people die off and more younger people are in the population coupled with actually dealing with the financial effects, you'll see a very distinct flip.

There would be a shift, but people aren't dying fast enough to make that much of a difference in this case. I'm not even certain it would swing it that much. What would swing it would be accurate, honest information being presented openly to people, something that hasn't happened.

Ultimately, if exiting the union succeeded in concessions than the Union will fail. Unions are about getting something for giving up something. If you can get more by behaving badly, everyone will do that. EU would have to let them go without going there. It would cost them too much to keep the UK in that case.

That's the interesting thing. See, the perceptions are that we give far more to the EU than we get. We have control over a third of our fishing waters is one aspect, since British fishermen can only get a third of the quota from 'our' areas. We are a net contributor and are thus reminded of this when French farmers are effectively paid by us to go on strike every sodding bank holiday going, and their bureaucrats are paid by us to tell us what to do (no matter the fact that our bureaucrats tell them what to do as well). I could go on, but the perceptions amongst many in my country are often misguided, but real in their heads.

Rapscallion

[mjr]

This Brexit petition could almost be setting a precedent.

I mean, this would be like the U.S. voting for President, and then a bunch of people deciding they didn't like the outcome because "their" candidate didn't win, because some people didn't vote in specific areas, and therefore they want a re-vote.

It's almost like a recall election. "Don't get your way? Just re-vote until you do".

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

That's the interesting thing. See, the perceptions are that we give far more to the EU than we get. We have control over a third of our fishing waters is one aspect, since British fishermen can only get a third of the quota from 'our' areas. We are a net contributor and are thus reminded of this when French farmers are effectively paid by us to go on strike every sodding bank holiday going, and their bureaucrats are paid by us to tell us what to do (no matter the fact that our bureaucrats tell them what to do as well). I could go on, but the perceptions amongst many in my country are often misguided, but real in their heads.

Well I'd say one thing people don't honestly discuss anymore is politics. People are heartfelt, but they're not honest. And because of it, I think some of the things you're talking about gets in to the minutae of how trade agreements and international agreements work and citizens expect to be protected in a vague sense, but any agreement is fundamentally about giving and getting. Not everyone gets protected, some get hurt. And if people were being honest, the next law on the table would be about helping the people got hurt move to something else.

But because we treat policy instead as "This policy is great!"/"This policy is the devil!" and the public should be relying on their elected officials for the correct follow up policies to any decision but because no one trusts them battle lines tend to stay drawn and you just end up with a mess. Hell, it reminds me of when Merkel on the heels of some in the US being vocal about not necessarily bringing in Syrian refugees essentially said "bring them on." Only no one was prepared for assimilation so kapow. Ironically in the US, statistically Muslim immigrants are amongst the least ghettoized and most assimilated.

I mean, this would be like the U.S. voting for President, and then a bunch of people deciding they didn't like the outcome because "their" candidate didn't win, because some people didn't vote in specific areas, and therefore they want a re-vote.

Honestly, I think it's just a flaw in EU voting. I've dealt with Presidents I don't like. Even if it was someone like Trump, the decision is for an executive that can make policies but is checked by something. The American system by design doesn't let him smash the wheel although they can arguably get us all killed. I live with those decisions because I was a part of them in a system that makes sense. A simple majority can pick a President by law and that's been the rule for hundreds of years. But anything constitutional? 2/3rds of the House and Senate or 2/3rds of the States.

The EU referendum represents a constitutional change on steroids as they are literally excising large chunks of EU law and policy. It would be like rewriting the constitution any time one side has a majority (thus invalidating existing law regularly or massively changing scope). So in that case I GET the idea of demanding another referendum. Unless there's a law against it, its using the same logic of the original. IF UK voters don't like that, I'd suggest amending their system to accommodate for what types of votes cause existential change in a less chaotic manner. But they didn't, and now they're leaving. It's fine for people to feel wronged by it and fine for them to seek redress.

[Gravekeeper]

I am already all Brexit'd out from arguing about it with Republicans ( how quickly the far right became champions of a cause they literally knew nothing about a few days ago ). Though I will say two things:

Number one:
Johnson is a flesh muppet who just promised the UK the world without asking the world about it first. I don't know how he thinks he's going to get a better free trade deal with the EU, free trade deals with the rest of the world, keep all the EU investment money, have a better relationship with the EU than before and stop Scotland from leaving.

Number two:
If both Sarah Palin and Donald Trump congratulate you on your decision you have made a terrible mistake.

[Tama]

On a random note, I'm feeling very sad about the state of humanity when I learn more about Brexit here than anywhere else, because anywhere else is busy shouting at each other over it...

[EricKei]

*un-lurk*

Obligatory John Oliver linkage

Pre-vote (from a week before)

Post-vote:
Part One

Part Deux

*re-lurk*

[Rapscallion]

/Number two:
If both Sarah Palin and Donald Trump congratulate you on your decision you have made a terrible mistake.

The far-right parties of Yurp have congratulated him and Farage quite a bit as well.

It's ... not a good look.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

The far-right parties of Yurp have congratulated him and Farage quite a bit as well.

It's ... not a good look.

Farage is 12 angry ferrets in a suit being held together by Crisco and the nervous sweat of old white people.

[Rapscallion]

You're Shakespeare reincarnated, aren't you?

With the crashing out of England from some sort of sports tournament, jokes are going around about how we crashed out of Yurp twice in a week...

Rapscallion

[Password]

Sure, until ratified the vote isn't legally binding, but despite the monarchy and so forth we're still a democracy, and as David Cameron said, he has to go with what the people wanted, and since he couldn't find it in himself to do that, he's stepping aside to let someone else do it. Any politician who refuses to do what the public say is going find themselves distinctly unpopular between now and the next election that they lose.

I think politicians could well go against the public vote, and plenty of them wouldn't lose popularity if they did. The vote itself was a reasonably close run thing and the country hasn't turned round and given an overwhelming support for leaving the EU. Reactions since have clouded the picture still further.

This is one, if not the, biggest political decision in my lifetime and crucially one that isn't ever going to be reversible and the result we've got (particularly with the younger sections of society favouring to remain) is probably the worst one we could have had. Information fed to voters on both sides has been misleading, even moreso than usual for what is a complex issue.

We've now got the two biggest political parties in the country imploding which is hardly helping things here. This should be the cue to look into political reform as our politicians have become far to detached from a large proportion of the electorate, espeically in certain areas of the country which do feel rather disallusioned with politics.

[Gravekeeper]

To be blunt: I don't think desicions that can have such a profound and long term effect on not just a country but the world at large should be made by conducting a public opinion poll.

Nor do I think when such a terrible desicion is made that the leaders of said country are bound to abide by it consequences and public opinion be damned. As the public opinion has certainly shifted after the intial fallout hit and the moppets responsible for this half wit ochestra started walking back their campaign promises.

And I especially don't think you can make such a desicion with only a 2% margin to go by.

But when I argue such things I am told, exclusively by right wing Americans I might add, to shut the fuck up because "democracy" has spoken. Since apparently democracy means never having to admit you made a mistake even if it means driving the car off a cliff.