I'm just waiting for the eventual realization of people that their leaders basically gambled with the country for personal gain while simultaneously fooling into everyone they were sincere. It's been slowly happening but eventually enough people are going to realize they've been lied to and maybe they'll come to some sort of personal realization. That might be wishful thinking but I really hope for such a thing since it seems a large percentage of England (and Wales) need to do this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
David Cameron's Brexit Poison Chalice and Potential Way to Stop Brexit
- Thread starter Bleepey
- Start date
- Status
ConfusingJazz
Member
Article 50 is when a country formally notifies the EU they are withdrawing from the EU.
After that, there is a process that takes at least three years of negotiations (probably longer) for the country to finally leave the EU.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/article-50-brexit-debate-britain-eu
It sounds like the British Leavers were hoping for informal talks before actually invoking Article 50. Germany, France, and Italy said fuck that shit, you invoke, then we talk. Cameron has no interest in being the one that invokes Article 50, so he is just letting this shit hang until the Conservatives have a leadership election.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Parliament determines what happens. Citizens elect members to parliament to determine what happens. Most of the members of parliament do not support an exit from the EU. Most were not elected on a platform to leave the EU.
The United Kingdom is a representative democracy, not a direct one. For an in-the-moment glorified opinion poll to be given priority over the will of the members of parliament that were elected to office by the people would be the bad idea, especially considering the immense damage that it would inflict on the nation.
If a country wants to leave the EU they have to evoke Article 50 of some treaty. Once the article is evoked the country has a hard limit of 2 years to negotiate what happens after leaving while still being in the EU, if negotiations aren't finished after 2 years they're just kicked out without framework agreement for your future relations with the EU. Two years is a very short time for such negotiations.
If they destabilize the union with a referendum and then want to turn it around yelling 'it's just a prank bro!', then sure.
Flying Toaster
Member
deciding a massively destabilizing decision with global implications through a simple majority spanning 4 countries is among the examples of why direct democracy is a pretty dumb method of governance
JoeyJungle
Banned
Politicians supporting Leave definitely put themselves in a corner, but there's no way that they can avoid triggering Article 50 without explicitly ignoring the will of the people. It's political suicide, and the next PM is definitely going to be from the Leave camp, and will almost definitely trigger Article 50. It's possible that it could be avoided, but I don't think it's likely. The referendum isn't binding legally binding, but Cameron's already stated without stipulation that it will happen, and that he mentioned in his speech today that parliament is in agreement that it will happen.
Total voter turnout was 70%, higher than the general election. The 4% margin is a relatively large margin (we routinely have presidential elections with a smaller margin between the national votes for the candidate, though the outcome is decided by electoral college). I think Brexit is a terrible idea, but arguing that it shouldn't happen because of turnout or margins isn't persuasive.
Small correction, Article 50 actually says that negotiations have a max of two years to finish. An extension in the timeframe would need unanimous approval from all remaining EU states.
I totally think this was the case, but Cameron's replacement is almost guaranteed to trigger Article 50. If it was a general election, there would be the (good) chance that someone campaigning not to trigger Article 50 could win, but Cameron's successor is going to be chosen by Parliament. It would be political suicide not to approve a PM vowing to invoke Article 50, and his successor is only decided by parliament (I believe), so there's not much to do in the way of campaigning against it. I would love to be surprised though.
Total voter turnout was 70%, higher than the general election. The 4% margin is a relatively large margin (we routinely have presidential elections with a smaller margin between the national votes for the candidate, though the outcome is decided by electoral college). I think Brexit is a terrible idea, but arguing that it shouldn't happen because of turnout or margins isn't persuasive.
Small correction, Article 50 actually says that negotiations have a max of two years to finish. An extension in the timeframe would need unanimous approval from all remaining EU states.
I totally think this was the case, but Cameron's replacement is almost guaranteed to trigger Article 50. If it was a general election, there would be the (good) chance that someone campaigning not to trigger Article 50 could win, but Cameron's successor is going to be chosen by Parliament. It would be political suicide not to approve a PM vowing to invoke Article 50, and his successor is only decided by parliament (I believe), so there's not much to do in the way of campaigning against it. I would love to be surprised though.
He was pro-EU until about 6 months ago, where he started campaigning against it as a political play to weaken Cameron's leadership. Hoped to get a slim loss, so he could then appeal to the racists among the tories as the more right wing leader.
I appreciate that holding the referendum only to invalidate its result will have ultimately caused a lot of unnecessary suffering, but you've yet to link that to any specifically progressive or conservative policies. You could argue that holding the referendum is, in fact, the most democratic option available (even, though, as was evident from the beginning, it was not held for the purpose of democracy). Cameron has already greatly tarnished his reputation as a result of the referendum's outcome, and rightly so, while both major British parties are by the day showing themselves to be more and more inadequate. Recklessness, however, is not logically the opposite of progressiveness, however.
As such, you don't really refute my suggestion that if we were to exit countries from the EU on the basis of un-"progressive" policies it might be more reasonable to first remove the country currently being investigated by the EU for its constitutional crisis.
The idea that an ex-Mayor of London could earnestly campaign for leaving the EU suggests a vast ignorance of the integration of the City of London with the EU or an ulterior motive, or both.
Aztechnology
Member
Do they still? If they held a vote right now after a lot of new information coming to light. After the leadership showing they were not prepared. Do you think that vote would still stand? Isn't that a point of direct democracy in that if the will of the people has changed that they listen to it?
JoeyJungle
Banned
The referendum was always presented as a one-and-done. There's very little chance of a second referendum.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Is it not fair for Cameron to hold off on doing anything until a replacement takes over? I mean, clearly Cameron isn't the one to guide the UK out of the EU. How can he represent the view of the voters when he was so clearly against it from the start? The more democratic thing should be to let his more representative replacement have complete control over all aspects of the exit.
And is not fair if the will of the people shifted heavily to remain by the time the replacement takes over in October, then the more democratic view would be to listen to the voters you were elected to represent? Alternatively, if the leader of the entire leave movement gets cold feet, then isn't that proof enough that the leave campaign wasn't getting what it was expecting?
It all seems pretty democratic to me. If the leave movement can't withstand a few months of inaction, or the leave leader himself can't handle enacting the actual brexit, then it seems totally fair to overturn the result.
JoeyJungle
Banned
His successor is chosen by parliament, it's not a general election.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Don't conservative party members get to vote on it?
But this doesn't make sense either. EU was heading towards closer and closer political union. Should we say that we need a 2/3 majority to allow that? Otherwise all future British governments are obliged to block it? No, it has to be in or out, and we have to let the rest of the EU go in the direction that they wish.
JoeyJungle
Banned
I'm not really sure. MP's whittle it down to two candidates, and then I think a subset of the Tory party are allowed to vote on it.
bet that number has plummeted faster than the £ in the last few days.
"The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction."
Just ignore it and let the leave voters whine about it. What would happen if Britain formally apologized to the EU for this referendum and offered to punish themselves in lieu of an EU punishment?
"The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?"
No one and that is why politicians have to take the rhetoric down a notch. This is a direct result of out of control rhetoric and voters not educating themselves, IMHO.
"Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished."
Foreign governments should invest more in the UK and establish a foothold somehow in order to prevent stuff like this from happening. The sad irony for leave voters is their vote essentially dooms them for the foreseeable future. That 350 million per week number looks small compared to what it will be after negotiations with US, China, etc. occur.
How sad did students that voted to leave feel when they found out about the impact on their studies? There's a chance financial aid dries up if Britain leaves the EU. I feel bad for that Mandy person named in the video that voted to leave only to find out the global ramifications on her actions.
Just ignore it and let the leave voters whine about it. What would happen if Britain formally apologized to the EU for this referendum and offered to punish themselves in lieu of an EU punishment?
"The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?"
No one and that is why politicians have to take the rhetoric down a notch. This is a direct result of out of control rhetoric and voters not educating themselves, IMHO.
"Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished."
Foreign governments should invest more in the UK and establish a foothold somehow in order to prevent stuff like this from happening. The sad irony for leave voters is their vote essentially dooms them for the foreseeable future. That 350 million per week number looks small compared to what it will be after negotiations with US, China, etc. occur.
How sad did students that voted to leave feel when they found out about the impact on their studies? There's a chance financial aid dries up if Britain leaves the EU. I feel bad for that Mandy person named in the video that voted to leave only to find out the global ramifications on her actions.
Yoda
Member
This article is nonsense, the only poison pill is having your voters tell you to do something via record turnout and in-acting selective democracy (we'll listen to the plebs when we they tow the line). We won't have a picture of the longterm economics for a few weeks once everything has calmed down. Right now all we have is sensationalism and 908273409238470293 pundits pretending they can predict the future.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I will not stand for this attempt to rehabilitate David Cameron's crooked tenure. Recap of what Cameron accomplished in his life:
- Born silver spoon in hand
- quite literally fucked a pig in college
- made a boatload of money which he stashed in a shady offshore scheme, violating at least the spirit if not the letter of the law
- imposed a failed austerity regime on the UK
- almost lost Scotland in a referendum
- inexplicably gambled the future of England and Europe so he could fend off an intra-party challenge, figuring there's no way the vote would be for Leave
- lost the referendum, ending his shitty career
- single-handedly obliterated over 2 trillion dollars from world markets
If God has any mercy at all on the poor English, Boris' career will also be over, but in the mean time let it never be forgotten that David Cameron is a failed statesman and an awful Prime Minister, perhaps one of England's worst, and his ego and pride have collectively cost the world.
If the kingdom is further lost to Irish reunification and Scottish separation, then pin those medals on Cameron's long record of failure too and let us put him front and center in the annals of history's blundering fools
- Born silver spoon in hand
- quite literally fucked a pig in college
- made a boatload of money which he stashed in a shady offshore scheme, violating at least the spirit if not the letter of the law
- imposed a failed austerity regime on the UK
- almost lost Scotland in a referendum
- inexplicably gambled the future of England and Europe so he could fend off an intra-party challenge, figuring there's no way the vote would be for Leave
- lost the referendum, ending his shitty career
- single-handedly obliterated over 2 trillion dollars from world markets
If God has any mercy at all on the poor English, Boris' career will also be over, but in the mean time let it never be forgotten that David Cameron is a failed statesman and an awful Prime Minister, perhaps one of England's worst, and his ego and pride have collectively cost the world.
If the kingdom is further lost to Irish reunification and Scottish separation, then pin those medals on Cameron's long record of failure too and let us put him front and center in the annals of history's blundering fools
The way I see it, at least he had good intentions. Leave campaigners though, they lowered the bar.
Democracy failed, let's hope it is not honored and we can save our country
DizzyCaffeine
Member
Wait, Cameron fucked a pig in college?
hydragonwarrior
Member
DCU gets shafted again.
Yes i totally missed that :B apologies
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
It depends if you consider Cameron sticking his penis in a pig's mouth and thrusting "fucking", I guess.
If it makes you feel better for the pig, it was dead at the time.
They call it the Eton Mess ~
Bonfires Down
Member
Correctly implemented direct democracy would have voters choose a representative or party to vote for them as default, but they would also be able to vote for themselves in any matter where they have a different opinion. In such circumstances I assume that remain would have won?
Tallshortman
Member
That's assuming Boris won't happily lead Britain (soon just England and Wales) off a cliff.
Not sure if "face-fucked a dead pig" is any sort of improvement.
Holy shit.
Someone give this man a tag.
Edit: He already has one, nice job mods!
freeofgreed
Member
Cameron is a tool. Him saying that he's not going to trigger article 50 and that he won't step down down until October is him essentially screwing over the UK a second time. The longer things stay in this period of uncertainty the worse things will be for the UK and Cameron essentially just made that period of uncertainty last 4 more months.
that isn't direct democracy.
direct democracy has been effectively correctly implemented on much smaller scales with much lesser implications, e.g. ballot measures or gubernatorial elections.
it's safe to say that a remain vote would have won in the parliamentary houses but nobody really knows for sure
BearFlexington
Member
A good read on the Brexit. Worth your time if you would like to understand a little more about the factors that went into the split.
GoldenEye 007
Member
So basically blaming the media and "elites?" And comparing some of this to Trump(in which they don't seem to understand demographic differences in the US)? And liberals are actually the ones ruining economies(privatize and "trickle down" are liberal policies?) which in turn causes xenophobia and racism?
That's what I got out of that piece.
This article is a sickening attempt to simplify the Brexit vote to a case of "establishment vs. non-establishment".
Well it's Glenn Greenwald and the intercept. They're mentally incapable of viewing any issue outside of that paradigm.
- Status