Britain is leaving the European Union

[Brovo]

It's happening. Leave won.

So, here is the arbitrary discussion thread for it. Keep it civil, talk about it here if y'all would like.

I for one have many mixed feelings about this. I was and still am pro-leave, but I have a terrible, unsettling feeling in my gut that the far right of Europe was watching, and will gladly look at this as a rallying cry.

And, if you live in the UK, and y'all voted (leave or stay), why did you vote the way you did? How do you feel about the results?

EDIT

Also, yes, you can still obviously vote in the poll even if you don't live in the UK. It's a hypothetical question about an ideological choice that actually occurred.

 

[Pachamac]

What the hell @ Farage quitting UKIP

 

[Hellis]

What the hell @ Farage quitting UKIP

He, Boris and now resigned other Pro-Brexit people had fuck all when it comes to post-Brexit plans. It felt more like they expected to narrowly be defeated and use it to bolster their ranks and influence by playing up the Euro-Sceptic angle. Now that UKIP No longer have the "Look EU IS BAD MKAY" angle to play at so violently, I imagine Farage is just gonna slink back and be buddy buddy with Ruperth Murdoch and the boys.

 

[Pachamac]

Yeah, I thought the same thing. But it still demonstrates what a load of shit it is though for he and Boris to have essentially won what they wanted and then ran off. For good or ill those dickheads should have stuck by their so called 'principals' and followed through with the consequences of their actions. Cowards.

 

[Hellis]

Yeah, I thought the same thing. But it still demonstrates what a load of shit it is though for he and Boris to have essentially won what they wanted and then ran off. For good or ill those dickheads should have stuck by their so called 'principals' and followed through with the consequences of their actions. Cowards.

They're the kind of populist politicians who openly played on xenophobia card and the big bad Outsider angle. Cut and Run is like second nature for them.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

It's concerning to see the people pushing for Brexit the most now abandoning it the second it actually won the vote... Makes me concerned how effective we can actually expect Brexit to be.

 

[Brovo]

Ooohh boy. Okay. @Name Traitor @Hellis Here's a different perspective.

Nigel Farage: He only ever campaigned for and wanted Great Britain to leave the EU. He built his entire party around that concept, he was repeatedly quoted as saying that it was all he wanted. He's commented before that he never wanted to be a lifelong politician and just wanted to do what he thought was the right thing--leave the EU. In his address where he steps down from UKIP, he mentions that the majority referendum victory he achieved was "the best thing he could hope for" and that he could not top it. He achieved his objective, so he's stepping down, rather than perpetuating himself into several more years of politics and becoming the career politician he hates. If anything, this is him actually standing by his principles for once, and leaving it up to the people who voted themselves out to decide who will lead them out instead of Farage gambling and/or demanding for more power he's said before he doesn't want.

Boris Johnson: His name has been so badly dragged through the mud and his reputation so horrendously sabotaged that there is no way in hell he's going to win the race. Especially after Michael Gove put the metaphorical knife in his back. Do I like Boris Johnson? No. Do I think he should run for leadership considering how badly his name has been sabotaged? No. Is he running for leadership? No. This is one of those "damned if you do damned if you don't" situations for Boris really. If he ran for leadership, he'd continue to be bashed and shamed for reaching for more power and people would be feeding the fearmonger engines by proclaiming that the EU would never negotiate with the leader of the Leave campaign. It doesn't matter what he does, he's fucked either way, he knows it, so he's not running for more power.

If anything, it makes the most sense that whoever should invoke article 50 and lead the country out should be someone that the EU doesn't fucking hate right now. Because if Boris Johnson (or god forbid Nigel Farage) decided to and somehow in spite of things won the leadership position for negotiating at the table in brussels? Do you really think these two would be respected by the EU, or do you think that the EU would do everything in their power to spite them simply out of malice and hatred? If anything, if a Remain or Neutral candidate won the party leadership and invoked article 50, that provides more credibility that said politician is doing it as the will of the people, not out of their own political agenda. That provides less cannon fodder for the media or the EU to use as reasons to deny positive arrangements for the UK when it leaves. That gives a greater chance that certain economic deals the EU has with other countries outside of the EU (like Norway) can include Great Britain.

Really, this makes the most sense. It should not be shocking or surprising for anyone who followed the Leave campaign to see the two people the media fearmongered the most not continuing to run for political power right now. Not when a solid half of the country likely thinks they eat babies, and want to return Great Britain to a feudalistic society.

 

[The Dovah]

Apparently, a second vote would be legal.

Please do not let these people have their way. What done is done and well, it'll harm us to go back to the EU. We'll be in a bad position, gives them reasons to ask more of us and well, it comes off as a small portion of the nation(I'm sure we are at least 20 million in terms of people) and this sets a dangerous trend. Don't like that opposite party won? WE WANT ANOTHER VOTE. Don't like the result of a debate or a bill? WE WANT A VOTE. And keep on demanding one every time they don't get their way.

 

[The Dovah]

Second vote petition has been rejected. Somehow, i doubt they will accept it and will force the issue through at any cost.

Brexit: Petition for second EU referendum rejected - BBC News

Won't be surprised if they keep trying to get their way for a few more months.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

 

[The Dovah]

We have Boris interacting with....


No, we're not apologising for unleashing Boris on the world. It is rather amusing for us. :D

Anyway, the Remain crowd have either gone silent or are up to something to force through their thing and are trying to use a lot of lawyers to do so. I hate the english sometimes. And yes, I am English. I am aware that i am hating myself sometimes.


Our new PM is Thersa May and already, the papers are calling her the iron lady. No. Just no.


But Brexit shall happen. EU won't take us back and if they did, it is likely to be against our interests. E.g. higher contribution rates, less power over ourselves etc...

And i just realised that Boris and Trump could interact at some point. Boris is our forgien sect.

*grabs a giant cup of popcorn*

 

[Lysander]

Boris and Trump would be an amazing buddy cop comedy.

That is all.

 

[The Dovah]

But instead of solving crimes, one beats up anyone that ain't American, the other tries to order a simple meal but takes forever due to how Boris tends to say everything and nothing at the same time.


It is going to be amusing for us. What? COuntry is said to be more or less screwed so we may as well relax, enjoy the ride and wait, what? Tea is going to be banned!? NOOOOOOOOOOO! YOU CAN TAKE OUR FREEDOM BUT NOT OUR TEA!

Yeah, i've kinda ran out of worthwhile things to say about this. But at least Farage is out of the picture.


Also, our PM(David Cameron) gave his advisers over 200k in severance. Wow. Just couldn't leave office without a final middle finger to the rest of us. I mean, really? most don't even make that much and here you are, using tax payers cash to reward your cronies. It was advised against it but screw us, right? Oh and kicking out 4 welsh MPs from their offices with less then a day's warning. Wow. I mean, the Welsh are Welsh and kinda just there but really? That was a joke. But yeah, DC is an utter pillock.


Apparently, we may have a fish shortage. If so, then.... *gets up, looks out of window, sees the sea if the hills weren't in the way* We're an island surronded by sea! How can we have a shortage of fish?! HOW!? I mean, we no longer have to pay attention to quotas when we offically quit the EU. But how!? HOW CAN WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF FISH!?

 

[Lysander]

But instead of solving crimes, one beats up anyone that ain't American, the other tries to order a simple meal but takes forever due to how Boris tends to say everything and nothing at the same time.

As I said. Amazing. I'd watch that. Just to see them get beat up and lose in the end, but the journey there would be a treat as well.

 

[The Dovah]

*sigh*, the lawyers have gotten to the high court and seem to intend on forcing a vote in parliment. Erm.... wasn't the point of the EU thing to vote to decide if we remain or leave and for Parliment to adhere to the wishes of the people?

 

[Brovo]

*sigh*, the lawyers have gotten to the high court and seem to intend on forcing a vote in parliment. Erm.... wasn't the point of the EU thing to vote to decide if we remain or leave and for Parliment to adhere to the wishes of the people?

Hahahahahaha did you just propose democracy?

Democracy only works if the people vote correctly.

 

[Jorick]

*sigh*, the lawyers have gotten to the high court and seem to intend on forcing a vote in parliment. Erm.... wasn't the point of the EU thing to vote to decide if we remain or leave and for Parliment to adhere to the wishes of the people?

Ah, the beauty of politics.

The referendum was non-binding. It was basically asking the people of Britain what their opinion was, and then the government could tell them to go shove it up their arses the next day if they felt like it. A parliamentary vote would in fact be legally binding, and my presumption without looking up the nonsense is that these lawyers are arguing that the non-binding referendum does not have any actual legal sway so an act of Parliament is required before formal severance from the EU can legally occur. It's perfectly reasonable, though not perfectly democratic.

 

[Kagayours]

Ah, the beauty of politics.

The referendum was non-binding. It was basically asking the people of Britain what their opinion was, and then the government could tell them to go shove it up their arses the next day if they felt like it. A parliamentary vote would in fact be legally binding, and my presumption without looking up the nonsense is that these lawyers are arguing that the non-binding referendum does not have any actual legal sway so an act of Parliament is required before formal severance from the EU can legally occur. It's perfectly reasonable, though not perfectly democratic.

Not to mention, if the point of the referendum was just to see what the majority opinion was, then the idea of asking for a re-vote -- even if it was another referendum just like the last one -- doesn't sound completely unreasonable. It's possible that, in the time that's passed since the first vote, some people who voted leave might be re-thinking their decision. And I'm sure there are a lot of people who might not have been very informed about the pros and cons of leaving the EU at the time of the vote, or were just plain on-the-fence about it, and now they might not only be more informed but also have a much stronger stance on the matter. And there are probably also a lot of people who regret not voting, and who would make a greater effort to get to the polls if given another chance.

It's like, the first vote was, "do you want to leave the EU?", and the potential second vote would be, "are you sure you want to leave the EU?" And with a decision as big as this, I don't really see the harm in asking twice, especially since leave didn't exactly see a landslide victory.

And then, if this hypothetical 2nd referendum did happen, maybe we would see remain come out as the winner -- OR maybe leave would win again, perhaps by a wider margin this time. And if leave does win a 2nd time, then I think that would really solidify it as being the people's choice. But if remain wins the 2nd time, then, well, that could also paint a better picture of how the UK at large feels about it. Especially since, if remain won by a large margin the 2nd time around, then I think that would show that a lot of people have changed their minds and decided that trying to leave was a bad idea after all.

I mean, I'm sure a lot of the push for a second vote is in fact coming from people who voted remain and who aren't happy about the outcome of the first vote, but, despite that, I don't think it's such a bad idea in theory...

But anyway!! I'm rambling. I realize that a parliamentary vote is a completely different thing than a second non-binding referendum, so, sorry for going on that 'what if' tangent, but uh, yeah -- food for thought, I guess.

 

[Brovo]

It's like, the first vote was, "do you want to leave the EU?", and the potential second vote would be, "are you sure you want to leave the EU?" And with a decision as big as this, I don't really see the harm in asking twice, especially since leave didn't exactly see a landslide victory.

Leave won by over a million votes. In a country of about 64 million people. That's about as huge a landslide victory as any divisive, two sided issue with pros and cons on both sides is going to get.

It sets a very dangerous and ugly precedent to constantly allow re-dos on votes one after another rapid-fire. If this same attitude was applied to the Québecois referendum back in 1995, we might have a very different, significantly uglier version of history. (That vote was much closer--off of the top of my head, it was about 55,000-ish votes that separated leaving and remaining.) You at least want a few years between each referendum.

I mean, really, what kind of message does this send?

1. It weakens the UK's debating position with the EU if leave wins again, because it hesitated the first time.
2. It weakens the UK's position if Remain wins, because it will be assumed the UK was too scared to leave. The EU will still punish it.
3. It sets the precedent that if the government doesn't like what you voted for, then it will just keep forcing you to vote over and over again until it gets what it wants.
4. It invalidates the first vote.
5. It's more expensive, cumbersome, and complicated to run multiple referendums back-to-back.
6. There's nothing stopping people from demanding a third referendum if the results fail to pan out the way they want.
7. This undermines the validity of democracy in the first place.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The people have spoken. The fact that 70% of the young voters were too stupifyingly, bafflingly, atrociously lazy to vote, is not a good excuse to suddenly rerun the vote. This isn't kindergarten, you can't be indecisive with government policy and the future of your country. I mean, really, apply this idea to elections. "My party didn't win, let's redo the vote again just to be sure this is what the people want." Nothing would get done.

Hell, this is why we don't normally have a direct democracy in the first place. We have representative democracy--we vote in individual people to represent thousands of people at a time because otherwise, the country would always be too slow and too cumbersome to respond to anything. As is, democracy is a form of government that is notoriously slow in comparison to other styles of government to get anything done. This is why referendums are saved for special circumstances. Agree with it or don't, the people got their chance to vote, and expressed what was on their mind. A second referendum is just going to undermine the results of the first one and tell the people that if they vote incorrectly then the government will force them to vote again, and again, and again, until it gets what it wants. If that's how democracy works now, then there's no point in calling it a democracy. One may as well just call it authoritarianism-lite.

Besides, if you still aren't sure that this might be a good idea and that the stuff the Leave campaign was saying was hyperbole, the EU just proclaimed that water doesn't prevent dehydration. The autocrats in charge of the EU are mentally unhinged. They're making a breadbasket and attempting to legislate and regulate every ounce of every individual person's life. They long since passed being an economic union and are trying to entrench themselves so deeply in managing the affairs of every country that they can obtain total control. They are not a democratic institution, the people who legislate the laws are not beholden to any electorate. The people who lived under their rule and remember what Britain was before the EU overwhelmingly voted to leave. The people were not consulted in the first place to join the EU, and the majority did not want to join back then.

Right about now, the EU needs a massive kick in the balls to be told to become more responsible, more democratic, to stop having private shopping malls for the beaurocrats funded by taxpayer money.

Instead, they're telling water bottle companies that they're no longer allowed to advertise that water prevents dehydration under the threat of financial ruination.

Let that settle in.

 

[The Dovah]

Erm... as someone that falls within the young voter group, we kinda have a lot of problems to focus on and well, we're kinda put down whatever we do. We're either struggling to get jobs, studying, have a job but not included in the living wage or just trying to build our lives and well, stuff like this tends to be deemed as extra stuff we could do without focusing on. Granted, we should vote but people like me, who are trying to get a job just don't have the time to research the EU or don't want extra pressure. Then have our voices dimissed as "inexperienced."

This whole thing hasn't been clear. Most assumed it was an actual vote and were led to believe tat this would happen. I am positive about the EU exit. A fresh start for us and we already have countries lining up to do trade with us. Sure, they'll have to wait until we are actually out of the EU but we're not going to suddenly become bankrupt and well, the EU kinda has a bit of a bad history with bankrupcy. Greece, Italy, Spain, they kinda went bust and had to be bailed out. Us? Ok, we're billions in debt and i think, a few years ago, we just managed to pay off our WW2 debt to America but we're doing ok. This will help us in the long term.

However, if Nicola sturgoen gets her way, it won't happen as she refuses to accept that Scotland is part of the UK and it was the UK that was asked. Not England,Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland but the UK. We gave them the a chance to leave a while back. They did not. Yet, she keeps trying to force the issue. Yes, Scotland's Majority wanted to remain but the majority of the UK wants to leave. Yet, she has gone behind our backs to speak to the EU before speaking to us. Granted, we're likely to say No to her but she is kicking up a storm and well, from what i've heard, it's more about her own ambitions then Scotland. But she hasn't even waited to see what we plan to do. If it was does Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland wish to remain in the EU, then fair enough. But it's not. It's the UK that was voting as a single entity. I hope May doesn't give her what she wants. Apparently, it may be possible for Scotland to be both part of England and the EU. Which makes no sense. But I doubt the EU wants just Scotland. They want the UK. Not Scotland or England. The UK as a single entity and we have voiced our desire.

It is dangerous to go against the voices of the people and apparently, there are a lot of businesses involved with the Remain lawyers. Which is dodgy. If the Government bows to their wishes, well, it confirms what we all suspect the Tories of being.

I think delaying Article 50 is a good idea but it must be done asap next year. Safeguards, trade contracts to be drafted up, new policies to replace EU ones etc.. could take a long time and i could see it being quick for us to exit. Apparently, Boris was booed, insulted and treated like shit at an EU meeting. Granted, it is boris but it kinda confirms what the EU thinks of us. They did it to Farage(or so i heard) and well, two of our represenatives being treated that way is one hell of a concidence. Granted, we didn't have the best choices but still.

They'll never do that to America. We should send Scotland to deal with them. Like to see them treat a true scotsman like that. Not even we can get away with it. Dey are **** scary when angered! :P

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I wouldn't go as far as to say "Younger Voters shouldn't be lazy", because they do tend to have a number of barriers (not legally, but practically).

However I do agree that repeat votes, even if just polling effectively set's a dangerous precident for violating what's meant to be a Democracy. If you want to make sure people are more informed of and more motivated to attend votes, then make it so that happens the first time. Like, with most jobs you wouldn't expect say a Doctor or an Engineer to fail a few times and keep trying, you'd expect them to get it right the first time. Shouldn't the legal system, the thing that dictates how millions of people live have that same level of professionality?