BBC: UK Votes To Leave The European Union (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The UK has voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union after 43 years in a historic referendum, a BBC forecast suggests. London and Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU but the remain vote has been undermined by poor results in the north of England. Voters in Wales and the English shires have backed Brexit in large numbers. The referendum turnout was 71.8% -- with more than 30 million people voting -- the highest turnout since 1992. London has voted to stay in the EU by around 60% to 40%. However, no other region of England has voted in favor of remaining. Britain would be the first country to leave the EU since its formation -- but a leave vote will not immediately mean Britain ceases to be a member of the 28-nation bloc. That process could take a minimum of two years, with Leave campaigners suggesting during the referendum campaign that it should not be completed until 2020 -- the date of the next scheduled general election. The prime minister will have to decide when to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would give the UK two years to negotiate its withdrawal. Once Article 50 has been triggered a country can not rejoin without the consent of all member states. British Prime Minister David Cameron is under pressure to resign as a result of the decision. UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage called on him to quit "immediately." One labor source said, "If we vote to leave, Cameron should seriously consider his position." Several pro-Leave Conservatives including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have signed a letter to Mr. Cameron urging him to stay no matter the decision. Mr. Cameron did say he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a leave vote.

Update 6/24 09:33 GMT: David Cameron has resigned.

Comments

Democracy restored

[divec]

For the uninformed, the EU is undemocratic: no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats (the European Commission) which voters cannot feasibly remove from power (because the system for appointing them is highly indirect and opaque). Much opposition to the EU stems from this. UK democracy isn't perfect (e.g. voting isn't proportional, and the unelected House of Lords can delay legislation) but voters can and do change the government and change policy direction through the ballot box.

Re:Democracy restored

[Koen Lefever]

You have a point that the EU is not democratic, basically because the European Parliament has little power.

no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats (the European Commission)

This is not correct: the European Council stands above the European Commission and can over-rule them in everything.

Re:Democracy restored

[AmiMoJo]

For the uninformed, the UK is undemocratic. We have a broken "first past the post" electoral system rather than some kind of proportional representation, which means that the government of the day is only voted for by a small minority but gets all the power. We also have a legion of unelected "peers" in the House of Lords, many of whom inherited their title or are there because they are religious leaders. It's a job for life and we don't get any say on who is appointed.

The EU on the other hand has a directly elected parliament, and governments appoint the members of the Commission for a few years at a time. It's much more democratic than the UK and we are diminished without it.

Re:Democracy restored

[Luctius]

The members of the european commission are chosen by the national governments and the european commission as a whole is then either accepted or rejected by the european parliament. Every proposal they do, must then be accepted by the european parliament. The members of european parliament are selected by voting on a certain party on a national level. Those national parties can, and probably will, have alliances with similar parties from other countries. While it is not ideal, it certainly is democratic.

Re:Democracy restored

[hughbar]

However the Council of Permanent Representatives (COREPER): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... prepares and 'adjusts' the agenda for the European Council, they are unelected.

The parliament pretty much rubber stamps. The one nuclear power they have is to sack the Commission, last time they chickened out though. Junckers himself is Luxembourger, Luxembourg is a major tax haven (yes, that's ad hominem, but it's an 'indicator').

I worked for both for nearly ten years and came out a marginal 'leaver'. That said, there's going to be some long term chaos now, that I'd prefer to avoid.

Re: End of Great Britain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Northern Ireland has the potential to be an absolute cluster fuck. There are still hardcore elements here who are literally violently in favour of a United Ireland or a United Kingdom, any suggestion of leaving the UK with inflame those old tensions. The pro-UK vote could get split between a non-EU England/Wales and an EU-Scotland.

NI has done disproportionately well from the EU but we're small fish in the UK, I seriously doubt we'll get the same support now.

Re:Good for them

[bkmoore]

The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country....What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

The reasonable alternative would have been to allow Greece to declare bankrupcy and allow those banks who invested in Greece to fail.

Re: Good for them

[Cyberax]

No, it wasn't. It was restructured for a longer payoff and is still unsustainable. During the last year's standoff, the Troika dangled a carrot of 20% write-off - it failed to materialize, even though Greece imposed austerity on the level that has not been seen in a peacetime in Europe.

Re: Good for them

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation. As desirable as a more lenient approach from Germany and others would be, it won't change Greek history of the 2000s.

Re:Good for them

[arglebargle_xiv]

Had Greece been out of the EU, they could have devalued their currency and/or defaulted on their debts. After a couple of years of turmoil they could have achieved sustainable growth.

While I agree with the first part, I can't see how you can get the second from it. Have you ever worked/lived in Greece, or tried to run a company there? I'd rather try running a company in Nigeria, it has the same level of dysfunctionality and corruption but at least it's out in the open, and you can buy your way past any obstacles. In Greece, everything is unfuriatingly broken but you also typically can't buy your way past the obstacles (exceptions being for medical treatment and similar). I honestly don't know how you can fix that country short of some sort of reformat-and-reinstall.

I'm not saying this to bash Greece, just that having experienced it as a business environment I can't imagine how you'd fix it, there's just no easy solution I can think of.

Re:Good for them

[Kjella]

Huh what? GDP from 1960s until today, please do tell when we had a "decade long recession".