David Cameron announces resignation(theguardian.com) |
David Cameron announces resignation(theguardian.com) |
Next PM's in line: Theresa May: Pro snoopers (spying) charter. I don't like the term police state but her actions are worryingly in line.
Boris Johnson? A very charismatic idiot. His selling point being the golden coloured hairy creature that has permanently occupied his scalp.
Yes. We have a great line up of next potential PM's for Britain.
His persona is that of a charismatic bumbling idiot, but idiot he is not. Underneath this persona lies a highly intelligent, disingenuous, manipulative and calculating operator.
I genuinely think that he didn't believe in Brexit; rather he saw a potential route into number 10 and took a gamble on it.
However the key here is, they never spent less than the year before, simply reduced the amount they increased spending. Increasing spending is not austerity
UK needs to vote conservatives out, and it needs to reconsider switching the voting system (this time to a proportional representation one).
And Boris Johnson is no idiot. It's part of his act.
'Military interventions' during Cameron: Libya (2011) , Syria and Iraq are the first to come to mind. The first being politically motivated rather than on humanitarian grounds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783
I agree that Blair was a war-monger.
If this is all we're holding politicians to then it's a really sorry state.
The man has doomed a generation and removed the easiest way for that generation to leave the country and prosper elsewhere.
Talk about lack of perspective. In the long term it's absolutely insignificant. It's like people calling GWB or Obama the worst US president. Can't believe such a poorly thought out comment is at the top.
That was a popular demand by the public as the UK hadn't had a referendum on EU membership in 40 years. He made a promise to hold the referendum because of this and fulfilled his promise. If a politician keeping a promise is a problem, then we're all doomed
It was a deal he striken during last election. To buy UKIP votes (their main goal was to leave EU) he said he will make a referendum. His calculation was that there are not enough UKIP voters (~20% maybe) to pass referendum, but it will allow him to get elected (his voters + UKIP voters).
Before the vote, the consensus estimate by economists was that this would be a 2% hit to GDP. Again, that affects people's daily lives -- it's essentially a self-inflicted recession.
-- Neville Chamberlain
To reiterate what al_chemist has already said, the price for UKIP supporting the Tories to form government was holding this referendum. It wasn't a lark on the part of the Tories. Not even Farage thought UKIP would win - the BBC had quoted him stating they weren't going to win on the morning of the vote.
David Cameron: losing the EU referendum
Gordon Brown: The financial crisis
Tony Blair: Iraq
John Major: Black Wednesday; Tory party "sleaze"
Margaret Thatcher: The poll tax
James Callaghan: The Winter of Discontent
… etc.
I don't think you can call the BMbB name "the will of the voters" in any intellectually honest way. If it had been made a ballot proposition during a regular election, then sure. But not with some silly internet poll.
"Austerity" is not to blame for this. You can argue EU recalcitrance played a part, as did labour party weakness, but it's on him. His legacy will be this vote, this loss, and his failure to see through the consequences of his actions.
Austerity would be to blame for this - it contributed to people being more anti-immigrant, though indirectly.
Him calling the referendum, the outcome - are related to his parties policies without isolation.
That will be controversial in both, the EU and Britain I think.
Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately: if he does not, we should force him to.
Did he?
edit: it seems to as the following quote is frequent (and from as early as February) though I can't find an original citation:
> Mr Cameron previously said he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a Leave vote
though it follows up with this interesting
> but Boris Johnson and Michael Gove who led the campaign to get Britain out of the EU have said he should not rush into it.
And the following "wtf-worthy" declaration:
> They also said they wanted to make immediate changes before the UK actually leaves the EU, such as curbing the power of EU judges and limiting the free movement of workers, potentially in breach of the UK's treaty obligations.
I hope this shit hole of a year turns around for the second half.
If a Brexit-fanatic like Boris somehow gets hold of the UK, and Trump does the same in the US, we'll be looking back at "those good old days prior to June 2016" in no time... The world-economy will get more introvert, like the "me first" kids at school who don't care about the rest. And that will be the fuel of the upcoming unrest in the rest of the world...
Europe will stay Europe and I don't think everything will shatter now.
On the contrary, isn't it a nice demonstration of democracy and treaties can be re-negotiated. I'm quite sure that many people are not happy with the current EU arrangement and would vote to leave (if they could and/or if they weren't so much bound by economic benefits as e.g. Gibraltar). An EU reform is needed and I hope this Brexit serves as another signal that it is really about time to speak honestly about 'some issues' and try to find solutions for them.
You understand how this works, right? As part of the EU the UK has bartering clout. As an independent little island with a huge trade deficit and a weak £ it has nothing. So a trade deal with China, for instance, would end with China trading in the UK, and the UK waiting 15 years before trading in China.
There is hyperbole in what I'm saying, which is probably a result of the disappointing outcome of the referendum, but... the UK as a trading partner has nothing to offer anyone.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/no-benefit-for-uk-trade-from...
(Yes, I know I could Wiki it. For others browsing the thread, however, 2-5 sentences on how it all works would be useful.)
In terms of the Conservative Party they don't elect a deputy leader who would take over hence the internal party election for a new Prime Minister in October.
The Conservative Party also have processes to sacrifice their party leader (via the 1922 Committee) which allows the parliamentary MPs to call for a vote of no confidence in the leader and decide new candidates. This is how Margaret Thatcher was forced out.
People can guess, but there's a lot of uncertainty on some points.
> Will UK really leave the EU?
Most likely, as I understand it, the next British government will formally start the (at least) two year process of exiting the EU. In the short term, they are still in the EU.
> Will EU ask them to leave or just wait for UK to initiate the process?
As I understand, under the applicable treaty, the UK has to formally initiate the withdrawal process. The EU has asked them to do so without delay, which is what Cameron had promised before the vote, but Cameron has since said that he plans to leave that to the next PM.
So he leaves a big mess to his successor?
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/europe-plung...
The market volatility isn't because they're out of the EU or will be that soon, rather everyone planning on a 2018-2019 exit.
Well, not just that. There's also other things, like and the resulting lack of certainty of the near-term future for the government of the UK -- and the leadership of its major parties -- which creates plenty of uncertainty on policy and prospects in a much shorter term than the exit itself, as well as the fact that the exit vote, as I understand, kills the agreement that had been negotiated that provided what was described as a "new settlement" on Britain's special relationship within the EU, which was contingent on a "Remain" result in the referendum: that would have taken effect (and, thus, its being cancelled has effects) sooner than the exit now will take effect.
That said, what happens in a global financial center almost certainly will have impacts on Silicon Valley and the startup environment.
All hail Boris Johnson. Crazy hairdos on top of influential Anglo Saxon countries is bull market it seems.
We will live in interesting times.
Let's hope NL will manage to avoid that.
In a way the 'brexit' may be the strongest shot in the arm for the rest of European unity if the consequences are quick and harsh enough. That would be a real pity for the people in the UK, but it may still have some positive effect.
And there is always a way back.
For now, this is a pretty black day in history.
Also the Anglo-Saxon worldview ... and their laizes faire approach is incompatible with the continental worldview. I honestly believe that UK impeded European unity with their "special" status inside.
If the EU plays its cards correctly we may remove the U from UK, take in the parts, and then include England and Whales ... on our terms. Realpolitik is fun thing to play.
Recent polls suggest that the NL will not leave. I certainly hope not, and as a foreigner living, working, and paying taxes in the NL I'm really upset that I'd not be able to vote if such a referendum would come to pass.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/06/after-the-brit...
Except he isn't, really -- he loses his political position, but he and his family won't be existentially affected by what's going to happen, as opposed to probably tens of millions of people all around Europe.
I'm pretty sure that he actually did think of his children.
As much as Sinn Fein might like to think they could exploit the pro-EU majority to push Irish unification, it seems to me that NI still has a unionist majority, and that those who are in the pro-EU/unionist overlap are predominantly going to favor staying with the UK instead of Ireland at the cost of the EU over joining the EU at the cost of unification with Ireland.
Admittedly the pressure was building from UKIP (and eurosceptic tories), but this is very unlikely to be in Britain's interests IMO.
So each party, as long as it holds the majority, can do whatever it likes to pick a PM?
He's resigning (or rather has announced he will resign before October) because he had certainly given the impression to his party that if 'Remain' didn't win, he'd resign. He could try and stay on, but the party might get rid of him and vote to make someone else leader (therefore forcing him to resign as Prime Minister).
Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.
The plan is to sit around until the Tories find a new leader and try to hand over gracefully.
Whether there will be a new general election is also not part of the referendum, but it's a thinkable possibility.
I was pretty happy with Corbyn so far but his complete lack of doing anything throughout this campaign is embarrassing. I'm guessing he didn't want to lose working-class votes but that makes him as bad as Boris Johnson. Deciding the fate of the country base don what's best for his political career.
I'm very my pro remain. People voting to leave is mostly about not understanding what your losing. Strong tightly integrated economies don't start wars with each other.
Ultimately trade deals are important not just to the UK but to the countries it trades with. People in power will make deals happen because they have to.
There's going to be some short term pain - but ultimately everything will balance out.
It's wishful thinking that the deals will be as favourable to the UK, with its now much smaller leverage.
Suddenly Trump doesn't seem so bad.
And it seems like UK people exercised that freedom.
You can go line by line down the list of European countries and their government expenditures. Only a few of them reduced spending, most have increased spending. In actual fact, only two or three nations experienced any real austerity, but they all pretend to have.
What they're really experiencing, is the total suffocation of economic growth by extreme debt. The exact same thing Japan has been enjoying for a quarter century.
There aren't two sides in that war.
Which implies him grabbing the leadership and dismantling the UK is not buffoonery, but deliberate. Scary.
Enoch Powell
I don't agree with that. You're assuming we know the outcome and with shifts like these the real results won't be in for generations to come.
Many don't like the 'heavy hands' of Russia, Turkey, China and then here we have a disappointing, difficult voting result and we (you) talk about revanche?
The correct answer should imho be that EU introspects about what needs to be changed that such an important country as the UK would happily vote to participate.
Yes.
> Does the house pick one of its own members for the job, or does the majority party get to pick anybody at all that they want to be PM?
Officially they can pick a member of either house of parliament. In practice picking a Lord would be extremely controversial and probably lead to some rapid constitutional reform.
> Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.
They usually won't stand in the next election, and go off and do something else - either private business or charity, or one of the less direct parts of government (the house of lords, embassies or the like - traditionally Europe was another destination but I guess no longer). In theory they could stay on and work as foreign secretary or whatever for the person who replaced them (or return to the back benches) but yeah that would be weird.
Yep.
> Does the house pick one of its own members for the job, or does the majority party get to pick anybody at all that they want to be PM?
In most countries (the UK included) the majority party will pick one of their MPs. Australia once had a PM die in office (Harold Holt) and have a person in the Senate picked as the replacement, so the replacement ran in the byelection for the previous PM's seat.
> Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.
Yeah, but they've also been house members the whole time they were PM, so it's not that wierd.
The same exact undertones that drive Trump's support in the US (and to a lesser extent Sanders) were what drove the Brexit movement. Many of these people don't even understand the EU, they just want to give the finger to everyone who happened to be on the Remain side.
The vast majority of people who voted for it were older, so won't have to live with the consequences, or working class who outright rejected the arguments of experts/academics/etc. This was a "my heartfelt ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge" situation.
So, yes, 500K more people voted for Brexit than voted to Remain. But what is it that they actually were voting for? If you listen to them talk or look at surveys, it had little to do with the EU beyond immigration.
Want to know something darkly amusing? It's possible that they didn't. This is still anecdotal at this point, and of course the Remain side could be playing it up, but there are reports that at least some Leave voters intended it as a protest vote thinking it wouldn't actually happen: https://twitter.com/AdamWSweeney/status/746261907233988609
How wonderful would that be, if the biggest blunder in Britain's history happened unintentionally because some people wanted to stick it to their council. I need to go drink some more.
Well, the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK might dissolve, but going from four to three countries in the UK isn't really dissolving the UK (NI had a pro-EU majority, but it doesn't sound like it really changes the basic dynamics keeping NI in the UK.)
> "Worst leader ever" seems apt when you directly caused a nation's end.
Peacefully breaking with Europe in a way that might also result in a peaceful break with Scotland vs., for just the first competition that jumps to mind, the Munich Conference? Yeah, I think outside of the passions of the moment, Cameron's likely to be seen as something far less notable than "worst PM ever".
The people voted. Let's see what the people can do now.
The only reason he even vaguely put his support behind remain was so that he wouldn't face a rebellion among his MPs. I'm pretty certain if he was still a backbencher he would have supported leaving.
It's rare that it is so out in the open but the vast majority of decisions are made like this.
And let's be fair English left was pretty much demolished in the last elections the Labour lost just as many votes to UKIP as the Tories did as the British blue collar workers used to be their base and many of those are now UKIP voters.
The Labour also lost Scotland to the SNP and the Greens/LD pretty much got rolled over. The Labour had pretty much zero chance of winning the elections and they knew they had no way of forming a government with the projections for the LD because they could not form a coalition.
If the Labour spent just a little less time attacking the Conservatives and more time reconnecting with the blue collar workers they lost to UKIP and try to maybe not hand over 50 seats to the SNP we wouldn't be in this position.
Heck if the Labour would've done it's job during this referendum we might not have been in this position the so called "Pro-EU" party was silent, the SNP was silent, and the results are well what you would expect.
I do not know the exact mechanisms by which the EU can force the UK out, but one thing I know: we can not allow us the luxury of keeping the enemy inside the gates.
I for one hope this is done with asap. Out is out.
The referendum isn't actually legally binding so in theory article 50 may never get triggered, though as the vote is a reaction against politicians, that would be political suicide.
The final terms will be the result of negotiation and I don't think the UK actually has a good position.
The referendum was always a trap, if UK votes out we're probably screwed, if we voted in it becomes a signal for the political elites for even more political integration (and there seems limited support for that amongst the actual people of Europe)
Got to remember the politicians of the EU don't work for the people - witness how they shafted the people of Greece to save German and French banks, how TTIP is being negotiated in secret and hands more power to corporations etc.
Regarding the activation of article 50, sure the UK could delay it indefinitely, but there also would not be any requirement for the other states to start negotiating before it gets invoked. So I'm not sure if the "delay" strategy is going to work out very well for Britain.
If the UK spends the next 15 years making trouble in the EU, blocking a Brexit agreement, not taking decisions, and basically torpedoing the functioning of the EU, I hope the EU is going to do something about it.
The UK was bad enough for the EU while it was in, let's not allow it to destroy the rest of the EU while it is leaving.
There are mechanism to force the UK out now. One would be to marginalize them from any decision taking, any negotiation, and meeting that the EU participates in, internally or with partners. I do not know the exact mechanisms that the EU can use for this, but I know how I would deal with this in my partnerships: "sorry, I forgot to call you!" "Oh, I thought you were in holidays!" "Did you really not receive that memo? So sorry!" and the like. If the UK starts playing dirty, we should too.
Out is out: we do not want the UK in the EU anymore. Please pack and leave.
The UK has to trigger Article 50, but the Article 50 process sets the terms (or, at least, the process by which the terms will be set), and it doesn't favor the country leaving.
During the negotiations process, the UK should be treated as what it is, a soon to be ex-member. For example:
> Meanwhile, Elmar Brok, a German MEP, CDU member, and chairman of the European parliament committee on foreign affairs, told the Guardian that the European parliament would call on Jean-Claude Juncker to strip the British commissioner Jonathan Hill of his financial services brief with immediate effect and turn him into a “commissioner without portfolio”.
Dozens of measures like this should be taken. Whatever is legal according to the signed treaties should be done in order to hasten the exit of the UK from the EU.
Your interests and the EU's interests are now very loosely alligned, and in this particular matter probably in contradiction.
“EU leaders call for UK to leave as soon as possible“
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/europe-plung...
And even clearer:
“Top EU leader: we want Britain out as soon as possible“
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/top-eu-leade...
This is no joke. This is an existential threat to the EU, and we must act firmly. I fully support these statements.
So, who is the dragger here? Get your house inmediately in order and leave.
> He said that in such a referendum he would campaign for Britain to stay in. As a journalist in Brussels, he "migrated from being quite enthusiastic about Europe to being really very sceptical". But whenever he considered the prospect of Britain leaving, he always came down "narrowly" in favour of Britain staying in.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-...
> Boris has turned his back on his long-held belief in the peace and prosperity the EU has brought but it’s hardly surprising, given that just months ago he was still telling friends he is not an Outer.
etc.etc.etc. He's a political opportunist who follows whichever wind will get him most power. Much like Cameron except that backfired spectacularly.
Thinking in 2012 that the EU is marginally better than the alternative is not exactly incongruous with changing your mind - especially given the past 4 years of the Euro project?
Most importantly, prior to Cameron "renegotiating", Boris took a position of not saying out until he saw the final deal. Again, this is not unreasonable. He was not an Outer - just waiting to see whether Cameron would deliver what he promised (and he didn't).
I have seen people try to spin Boris as just an opportunist but I'm not sold. His ~non fiction~ book about Churchill is not something I'm taking as a primary source on his views...
PR is superior to AV and FPTP and should be implemented. It shouldn't even have a referendum. It should just be done.
Alternative Voting (AV) is a single member district voting system that produces results where the representations of policy views in the elected parliament are more proportional to the views in the electorate than first past the post, and thus is a method of enhancing the proportionality of the election system for a parliament when the status quo is FPTP.
It do so less than Single Transferrable Vote (STV) in multimember districts (AV -- known more often to US audiences as Instant Runoff Voting [IRV] -- is just the single-member-district case of STV, which supports any district size).
Its relationship to other PR schemes where not all candidates are directly elected by-name by general election voters (the most frequent being Party-List Proportional and Mixed-Member Proportional) is complicated -- those schemes optimize for proportionality of partisan composition of the legislature, but provide weaker accountability of individual politicians to the general electorate.
But PR itself isn't a system, its a (continuous valued, not even binary) feature of an electoral system. You can't "implement PR", you can adopt a system that increases (or decreases) the degree to which you have PR.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of the European Union. It implements a system of agricultural subsidies and other programmes. It has been repeatedly criticised for its cost (€57.8 billion in 2014)[1] and its environmental and humanitarian effects, including raising food prices and stalling development in poorer countries by preventing them from exporting food to the EU.
That would be fun to see. How do these small farmers get stuff onto the shelves of Tesco and Lidl (while the latter are still trading here)?
Room for some intermediation?
Also, UK farmers get over half their income from EU subsidies. So many of them are going to go bankrupt unless they get bailed out/supported by the government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11967049/Brexit...
Manufacturing not so much.
And foreign goods less affordable to British consumers...
> which should partially mitigate the trade deficit.
Indeed.
I'm not a fan of Cameron (also, not British and don't have a particularly strong investment in this, though I tend to think Brexit was a bad idea for all involved), but I think there is a fair case to be made that leaving it to the next PM to trigger Article 50 is the right thing to do (promising an immediate trigger -- which was a scare tactic for the vote -- was a bad move.) Here's why: Article 50 provides a 2-year timeline for exit, and provides tht an exit agreement which modifies the default terms takes unanimous approval of the EU members. You want, as much as possible, to have continuous government with a clear mandate during that process so that you can effectively negotiate that agreement and not get stuck with the default terms.
That shouldn't be necessary (the Conservatives have an outright majority, so their new leader should be able to form a government), but, yeah, it would significantly complicate things (especially if Cameron had triggered Article 50 before leaving.)
There's going to be pain, but I have confidence that we'll get deals in place that on average over the next five to ten years will see things balance out.
Five to ten years is a very long time to bet on. I do not share your confidence. And it looks like you will have less than two years time to settle things. BTW, is that five to ten years with or without Scottish oil?
Just remember: if you're wrong, the people who voted for leave and those who advocated it are to blame, no one else. Not the EU, not "the experts", not the "scaremongerers".
I have friends that used to work for BP and Co in Aberdeen and their take on it is that the good old days of oil production in Scotland are well and truly dead.
Dead dinosaurs to one side - whatever the actual truth, the media here in the UK (including the BBC in my opinion) did a terrible job of providing fact based, balanced views on the situation. Scaremongering might be a bit harsh - but the UK public are currently running scared and nothing good will come of that short or long term.
It was a reasonable gamble that failed.
What I don't get, and didn't get with the Scots referendum either, is why on earth they didn't require a super-majority? Surely with something as critical as this, you'd want a bit more convincing than a 2% margin?
It doesn't have to be a 3/4ths or even 2/3rds, but a 60.1/39.9 split would've been nicely convincing that one side is definitely in a minority. Instead we've just proven once again that the UK is fractured politically North/South/Scotland/NI/etc.
And now you have a country split down the middle.
Arguably, allowing a partisan realignment wherein people would vote for representatives balancing views on the EU with other policy concerns would have been healthier for the nation (if more disruptive to the elites of the existing major parties) than trying to preserve the existing party structure by splitting out the EU issue to a referendum.
And, it probably would have been more likely to succeed at keeping the UK in the EU.
just... wow
We've had an onslaught of austerity measures and public cuts too many to list in a sitting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Belgium
It's still pretty much an unresolved situation at the present, in the longer term it could go either way.
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/brexit-wins-an-illusion-di...
"Britain has voted to leave the EU. The reason? A large section of the working class, concentrated in towns and cities that have been quietly devastated by free-market economics, decided they’d had enough.
[...]
Neither the political centre or the pro-remain left was able to explain how to offset the negative economic impact of low-skilled migration in conditions of (a) guaranteed free movement (b) permanent stagnation in Europe and (c) austerity in Britain. "
Were you think physically displaced, rather than "taking over the role of" displaced?
If they don't trigger Article 50, they have exactly the same role in the EU as if they never chose to leave (except that they lose the special concessions that they just got approved which were contingent on a "Remain" result in the referendum, which, AFAICT, is the only actual legal effect of referendum.)
Once they trigger Article 50, they are out in 2 years (barring an agreement to extend the process.) The only purpose of an exit agreement is to provide an alternative to the default exit terms, which would, e.g., leave trade relations between Britain and the EU reverting to WTO rules.
-Want to stay in the EU?
-Want to trade in the Eurozone?
-Enjoy low corporate tax rate of 12.5%? Pro-business government?
-Enjoy friendly, well educated, English speaking, Pro-American people, good beer, decent music, nice quality of life, low crime and safe green natural environment? (Look how much fun even our soccer fans are http://www.irishexaminer.com/euro2016/euro2016-banter/10-rea...)
Invest in Ireland -> http://www.idaireland.com This has been a public service announcement from the country next door. #irelandlovesyou :)
I want our brightest and best to do more useful stuff, engineering and literature and medicine or whatever. We should consider our education system to have failed every time a bright student goes into finance.
It's the only long term sustainable plan. Convert debt to equity and keep the deposit base low.
Transport is poor compared to European standards and the cost of living is quite high. But if you live close to the city in Dublin it's not bad and it's a great place to socialise and be within 45 minutes of nature. It's probably one of the few capital cities in world where it's not unusual to strike up a conversation with a random person beside you on a bus.
Also it's a pretty easy place to do business. Our nature is humourously sarcastic and not liking authority which means we are pretty good problems solvers and management tends to be quite flat. The software is also small, so your only ever really a phonecall away from having a pint with whoever you need to speak to in the whole sector - from a graduate you met at a conference to a government Minister.
People also work to live not live to work (like the US) which makes a big difference. Also a big part of worklife is around interactions with colleagues - it's basically an assumption that most offices are full of at least a few characters who like to have the "craic" and banter. When working abroad I found I really missed those tiny interactions you have on a daily basis in Ireland - e.g someone telling you a story and making you laugh. Even in London you don't get that. It's not something you can pickup by getting an MBA but it makes such a big difference to the quality of life - compared to a stale work environment.
If your thinking about moving, drop me a mail!
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/t...
And before you say I'm in some kind of elite I run a small factory in the north east of England and even my lower paid members of staff go on holiday once a year.
Jeremy Corbyn is already taking flak for this outcome: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/24northnational/Labour-inq... https://next.ft.com/content/a035f3d2-39c4-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-blamed-f...
It's a conflict that cuts through both parties and perhaps it is better described in terms of cities versus rural.
Especially thinking that all decisions will be calm, collected and will result from evaluation of all sides
Most people will base a vote on false facts, spite and stuff like "following their heart"
Further, seems in UK there's quite a big difference between working and actually having enough to live comfortably. A lot rely on support or barely can afford anything.
Anyway, that is my impression and don't mind being proved wrong.
I mean, working is not the same as working full time. I couldn't live on 16 hours a week at minimum wage. I could live on full time minimum wage (though not easily if I were still London based). There are benefits and support available to working people, but not in the sense that it's a bad thing.
Unemployment only counts people actively looking and not employed at all - but the ONS publishes all those definitions. There hasn't been any new/recent fiddles that I recall.
I should add I'm not a fan of what the Torries have been doing, I favour a larger state, it's the use of the term austerity I don't like.
Further, I don't think it's fair to underestimate the experience and historic perspective old people have, that young people don't. After all, many of the older people who voted yesterday where around before the EU came about, and are able to factor in that extra information, plus their historic perspective in their decision, which, by definition, makes for a more informed decision.
You are right that older people tend to be more conservative, but you yourself may end up being more conservative when you are 90, vs. how conservative you are today, and you may only realize the reasons for it once it happens, and perhaps you will think those are actually quite good reasons, who knows.
The bottom line is that if you just attribute the older population's decision to "bad taste" and "shortsightedness", you may not realize the true reason behind their decision, which diminishes your ability to understand and influence others.
Not necessarily. You'll still end up with people making decisions based on looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses, which isn't necessarily a fact-based decision. I think it's also equally likely that people will draw conclusions from economic conditions that had zilch to do with whether the EU existed or not. Thinking that experience necessarily leads to a informed decision ignores the way that humans works.
Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
- Max Planck
Today was a very harsh lesson for young Brits. They'll have to live with the outcome of this decision for three rest of their lives.
The one positive is that those young people might now be encouraged to actually participate.
I misread that as "demagoguery", and was going to vigorously agree.
Wow really? Do you live up north? Or have rich friends?
I mean I think the UK economy is in pretty good shape (especially compared to the rest of the world), but let's not pretend that houses are remotely affordable.
Property market here in the north is nowhere as crazy as in London. Which is why the constant moans about it in national media are extremely grating for us (it's actually hard to flog houses, over here).
The UK where waiting times for A&E are at the longest they've been for years; where waiting times for NHS consultant-led treatment are at the longest they've been since they introduced maximum wait times; where there are no in-patient MH beds for adults (seriously, just last week all adult inpatient MH beds in the country were occupied. (This significantly increases risk of suicide)); where the rates of suicide are increasing (after many years of decline) (and we know that economic decline increases rates of suicide).
If we want a good health service and good schools then we need to invest. There problem is the only way that is going to happen is if we borrow the money (Labour tried that - no thanks), or you raise taxes. Raising taxes political suicide, which no party wants to do, especially the Tories. Then it needs to actually be managed wisely with a clear plan of operational action for a longer period than five years between each national election. These things take time, and each time we swap leadership they throw out the plan and start from scratch. It's like a constant series of pivots in no particular direction.
PS: Good luck with it, lovely part of the country.
The later not the former. You can inherit wealth and retain humanity.
In other words you do not want the EU to respect the terms of the treaty.
I guess you approve of Juncker. When asked why the Commission was not punishing France for failing to meet the fiscal discipline targets, his answer was "because it's France". Sharp rebuke from the Dutch swiftly followed.
What part of the treaty spells the exact details? None. You have the right to leave, but not to drag your feet while you clarify your internal petty politics, hurting the rest of the EU.
So, please leave. Now. Otherwise we'll make sure the interests of the EU are respected, above the interests of the UK.
It is time to stop talking about UK interests and rights, and start talking about EU'interests and rights. You are defending your interests, and we'll defend ours.
If this sounds harsh, it is because today you didn't make a lot of friends in the EU. But mind you, you made some: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-36606184
And I say all this while fully respecting your decission to go. Just don't expect us to care about what your interests are, except when they happen to agree with ours. Having you on board of the EU now is absolutely not in our interest. Invoke article 50, and we get two years to part ways, which is more than enough.
Leave, or be marginalized. Once you leave, we can renegotiate treaties, one by one.
As much as London is Labour supporting it's only a very small part of their supporter base, their traditional heartlands are Wales and the North of the UK, both of which overwhelmingly voted to leave.
The funny thing is that basically Cameron used a similar gamble to be elected.
Push Brexit referendum, and hope for a Remain outcome.
I mean, it would be funny if the well-being of millions of people would not be impacted by all this gambling.
Neither Boris nor David made a unilateral decision. The people took action and voted against the EU. Lots of people are in shock but should not be.
Boris was this before being elected as mayor of London, somehow the image is perpetuated even now. In the run up to his mayoral elections his strong points were hardly discussed and his persona highlighted more than his abilities and skills. People perceiving him as a joke.
This is what eludes most and reinforces the notion that some of the electorate will purely vote on superficial terms.
He is absolutely manipulative and disingenuous who's riding on his buffoonish idiocy image.
It feels like this borders on elitism. That the people don't know what they want. I don't often see a similar sentiment when people vote along with the views of the elite (questioning sanity and motives).
People used to say that about George Bush too. The fact he played off his ridiculous gaffes and wasn't always illucid doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot.
Bojo is conniving and he's managed to acquire a good number of strategic allies but he's still not particularly smart.
Your family being rich and extremely well connected politically, both domestically and internationally, gets you much further than your family merely being rich, and you being useful figurehead for people who are quite smart -- and smart enough to realize that you are more useful than them as the public face of leadership -- piled on top of that, gets you even farther.
In 5 years time we'll just be talking about England alone. With maybe Cornwall and the North splitting from London and the South East.
Might be time to dig up my Scottish ancestry and get a dual passport...
That's the point - people were told by Brexit that leaving the EU would free up £350m per week, and the money would be spent on NHS.
I know that was a lie, you know it was a lie, but many people believed them.
The Sustainability and Transformation Plans were looking rough before brexit. I dread to think what they'll be like now.
There are working people who will just get laid off, because they have been hired to - let's say - coordinate a "shared service center" enlargement, but now that won't happen, because the company will instead freeze every expansive project in the UK due to the suddenly increased uncertainty, and that guy (gal) will probably won't go on holiday, though he (she) will have a lot of free time to like the holiday posts of others on Facebook.
Asking "the people to have their voice heard" on international organizations and trade agreements is particularly ill advised because those are "how" questions instead of "what" questions, and to a first approximation nobody actually cares about how. People care about whether their job is secure, or their groceries are affordable, or their culture is preserved.
Leaving the EU may or may not be a good idea for Britan, but crucially very few people really know whether it would or not. The level of specialized training necessary to reasonably predict the effects of leaving on any of the core interests that people do actually care about is prohibitively high. Directly asking whether to leave the EU is a bad idea because it doesn't capture what "the people" really want and it forces a specific course of action even when there may be safer and more effective methods for achieving the same ends.
One problem in the UK was that people were answering different questions to the one asked.
Does that money go to the EU? Yes.
Would that money be freed up for other uses? Yes.
Would some of it end up being reallocated to the NHS? Very likely, given the politics of the UK.
If you'd said ALL of it WILL go on the NHS then you'd be right, but you aren't arguing with that statement.
https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048
"Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week"
https://twitter.com/mgtmccartney/status/746245181532418048
"We send the EU £350 million a week
Let's fund our NHS instead"
The clear implication is that £350m per week is available, and that it will be spent on the NHS.
£350m is the gross figure, it ignores the > £200m per week we get back.
There is not going to be any increase in NHS funding. Anyone who voted leave because they thought there would be an increase in NHS funding hasn't been paying attention - the NHS has seen deep cuts in recent years and those are only going to get worse after Brexit.
Oh and by the way even Nigel Farage has said it's not like that http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-...
Are you going to learn from that and change your ways?
There was lots of flatly false and misleading crap coming from the Remain camp as well. Just look at how Cameron see-sawed on the consequences of an exit. Before his negotiation it was "things will be OK even if we leave, the economy is fundamentally strong". Then it was chaos, doom, "economic self harm", permanently worse off etc. Now the vote went against him it's back to "everything will be fine".
When the leader of the campaign can't even stay consistent on such a basic thing, that campaign cannot claim a monopoly on truth.
Misinformation, fear campaign, memes, troll farms. It seems in social media age that's how you do politics. Viral marketing means you never have to say you were wrong.
But you are mistaken in blaming the electorate. The "misinformation, fear campaign, memes..." have always been around. The primary reason people voted out the previous bunch is corruption and tunneling of the wealth created to a narrow group of people (a problem not limited to Poland only)
But they currently don't because the older generations actually show up on voting day.
[1] http://graphics.wsj.com/brexit-whos-voting-what/?mod=e2fb
I guess nobody followed up on your citation, because the link you supplied clearly states:
> Sources: YouGov online poll of 1694 likely voters conducted June 15–17; (demographics); YouGov online poll of 2001 likely voters conducted June 9–10 (economy and immigration); margin of error for both: +/- 3 percentage points
Absolutely nothing about the actual vote, just polling predictions.
There are plenty of intelligent people in all parties, disagreeing with them doesn't make them idiots. Greenspan comes to mind, I think his basic market beliefs are wrong, but don't think he's an idiot, I have read his book. GW is a lot closer to idiot level because of his demeanor AND his actions, but let's be serious few actual idiots make it that far, just not all of them are way above average intelligence.
Knowing you're outclassed isn't the mark of an idiot, but of a brilliant mind. Trump thinking he has an excellent memory and is the best in everything is the mark of a true idiot.
I don't think Trump is an idiot, more of a huckster with extreme emotions, but certainly loves to pander to the idiot mentality.
Dan Quayle is really the only true idiot I can call to mind who had a major position in a US party I can recall.
We can not legally trigger article 50, but we can LEGALLY do lots of things, including putting huge amount of political and economic pressure on the UK to STAND for your decissions.
You have voted leave, so please leave. You have two years to negotiate a deal, so start now.
The UK government -- the entity that would leave the EU -- has not made a decision to stand by (except a decision to hold a legal nonbinding referendum.) The only thing that was absolutely contingent on the referendum was the package of new arrangements for Britain the EU had approved.
No doubt, Britain will have a government soon that will invoke Article 50, but it is in the interest of Britain, the rest of the EU, and the long-term health of the markets for that to be a government with a clear policy and vision for an exit that can work with the EU on a minimally disruptive exit agreement, and the Cameron government absolutely is not that government.
Sure there is not. The details are necessarily vague, since it is not possible to know the exact situation in which a withdrawal from the union is done. It can be a referndum or any other process. But the vote is clear: you have chosen to leave.
> The UK government -- the entity that would leave the EU -- has not made a decision to stand by (except a decision to hold a legal nonbinding referendum.)
Up to now I have not heard a single politian (british, EU or otherwise) which puts into question whether the UK is going to leave or not.
But it seems that instead of accepting the consequences of your decissions, you have started to play internal politics (actually the same petty politics which brought about this disaster). But frankly, the EU is not interested in your petty internal quarrels anymore. All EU politicians seem to agree too: they want to start negotiations asap.
> that can work with the EU on a minimally disruptive exit agreement
Let me quote here Mr. Juncker (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683042/EU-referendum-Brexit...):
> Talking from Brussels after an emergency meeting with EU leaders, Mr Juncker told Britain the other 27 member states wanted to negotiate its exit plan “as soon as possible, however painful this process will be”
We do not care if it suits you or not. Just go.
- Cameron organizing a referendum without a plan in case he loses, and stepping down? Check!
- Boris disappearing in moments of crisis? Check!
- Power vacuum in all political parties? Check!
- UKIP and Vote Leave backpedaling in some claims? Check!
So yes, lots of things were unclear. But we in the EU not want any of this. You have spoken, now please let's negotiate a deal. Two years! You have two years to do it!
Your internal politics are none of our business.
If you're a factory worker, you might not care that the EU makes the UK richer through free trade. That the EU benefits you overall doesn't matter - you would prefer a system where the pound is weaker, and imports/exports are tough, if it means that the manufacturing needs of British workers are served by British citizens like you. Having a manufacturing job, even if it is less lucrative, is more appealing than having no job and watching the rest of the country enjoy a slightly higher quality of life. Open borders mean you let in foreign doctors and scientists; it also means that you let in cab drivers and factory workers, in greater numbers. The British are pushing back against this. Unskilled workers would rather have a dose of protectionism than the possibility of a vacation in Spain.
For what it's worth, I think that the leave vote will not bring the kind of protectionism the British want.
Putting petrol and groceries on the credit card is getting boring now. How many maxed out credit cards does one family need?
Rich folk keep saying "Why? Why? Why?" and we say "Why not?"
You're in the top 10% of the country:
You can be outside the top 1% and still be significantly better off than many.
Welcome to the United States?
There is a difference between a consensus among politicians and a decision of the government; the UK is almost certain to leave, and to invoke Article 50 in the near future, but no British government has actually made a decision to do that.
But it doesn't benefit anyone -- the EU as much as the UK -- for there not to be a consistent hand at the wheel for the exit negotiations.
> But it seems that instead of accepting the consequences of your decissions
As an American who thinks the Brexit is a ill-considered idea, they aren't my decisions.
> But frankly, the EU is not interested in your petty internal quarrels anymore. All EU politicians seem to agree too: they want to start negotiations asap.
With whom? The present government of the UK doesn't represent the will of the people who voted to leave. That seems to be a big part of why Cameron is leaving -- the referendum was, in clear message if not in the formal, parliamentary sense, a vote of no confidence in both the present government and even the institutional party system in the UK, as much as it was a vote against the UK's future in the EU.
When (and if) we send you notice as per Article 50, we can all follow that process. In the meantime, talking about "enemies" and kicking us out is utterly counterproductive.
As is (sadly) customary with major elections and campaign promises, I think you'll feel cheated again. There certainly are (were) good arguments to be made for leaving (the inability of the EU to fundamentally change its structure, the EP giving all of Europe the big finger when it happily elected Juncker as president instead of a reformist, the ideal of self-determination); but economics isn't one of those.
"I'm fed up with being poor. I'm going to show those big-wigs that we've had enough! By voting to... leave the EU. Yeah. I'm like, 15% sure it has something to do with the EU."
If there's another Scottish independence referendum, Scotland would gain independence from a NON-EU country (UK) and then apply to join. This is similar to the situation with Slovenia, which gained independence from Yugoslavia and then joined the EU. Spain didn't veto that.
Very slim chance though, seeing as it was mostly the Labour heartland that voted for Leave.