Slashdot Mirror
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.
Update 6/24 09:33 GMT: David Cameron has resigned.
Ummm. Isn't this want everyone wants? A weak currency? Everyone says China is getting stupid rich and kicking everyone's ass because their currency is weak. It isn't fair! Weak currency == unstoppable.
So now the pound has dropped a lot. All of England's exports just got cheaper. We need US businesses to call them an unfair currency manipulator and push for high tariffs. That will fix things! (this is sarcasm. Something no one seems to get here.)
Me thinks those Savile row suits just became a lot better looking.
Seriously, A weak pound will help the UK. It is a plus when selling your goods. More people will visit.
Agreed, it was Greece that mismanaged its finances. But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures just when the country needed a boost from fiscal spending. Austerity does no good in the short term. Remember, when Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns et al went down, if US govt prescribed austerity where do you think US economy and unemployment would have been? Instead, the Fed bailed out all and sundry. And that resulted in a quick recovery and a return to stability of the markets. In the long run, the country needs structural reforms and a return to fiscal discipline. But in the short run its fiscal spending that delivers a shot in the arm. So Germany didn't give Greece a shot in the arm when it was ailing. Also, Greece unfortunately is also in the currency block. And the ECB is... well no body understand how its supposed to function including the people running ECB. If Greece had its own currency, a currency devaluation, and may be a QE would have helped Greece. But the Euro is not in its control. And Germany does not want a devaluated Euro because they are doing good. I think its best in the long run that the the Euro is disbanded.
Scotland certainly has a good case for a new vote, as it is clear they remained in the UK only to avoid being thrown out of the EU.
There is no chance that Northern Ireland would choose to join the Republic of Ireland. There are deep seated sectarian divisions that make this impossible.
Let this vote act as a warning to the US electorate on the impact xenophobia and anti migrant feeling can have on disenchanted voters. Donald Trump is poised to take advantage of the same irrational emotions. A Trump presidency could have an even greater global impact than the UK exit from the EU.
Even we uncouth Americans recognize the UK for what it is—a country that liked to be in the EU whenever it suited them, to the extent that they wanted to be, but also pretended that none of the rules applied to them. They've basically been an EU nation in name only for as long as I can remember. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the EU didn't throw them out years ago.
And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up. If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. The impact on the rest of the EU would be small compared with the impact on the UK. Then in five years, they could offer to reluctantly let the UK back in with an exchange rate of two pounds to the Euro, but only if they actually started acting like real members of the EU. Some of the EU member nations might well decide to do that just out of spite.
Frankly, I'm surprised the pound is still worth as much as it is, given how tenuous their economic outlook is without the backing of the EU. I suspect that things will get a lot worse for the UK before they stabilize. The good news is that the U.K. can expect plenty of us yanks coming as tourists next summer when a pound is only worth 75 cents. Cheers.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I thought that wasn't true, post-Treaty of Lisbon? I'm an American so I could be uninformed on the issue. This is my impression:
Voters directly elect their Members of European Parliament. And I assume they directly elect their heads of state, which make up the European Council members.
The Council, those elected heads of state, nominate the Commission President, who then has to be approved by the directly elected MEPs.
The Council nominates Commissioners, with the agreement of the President. Then the Parliament, through directly elected MEPs, has to approve them. Basically to me Commissioners are like U.S. Executive branch Cabinet members.
Commissioners propose legislation to the Parliament but the Parliament has full power to pass, modify, and/or deny legislation.
The only thing I've seen that looked shady was that Commissioner-proposed legislation can maybe pass on Parliament inaction.
And maybe some cases where the elected heads of state can bypass Parliament and approve Commission proposals but I think the European Court of Justice has cracked down on both of those?
Mostly it seems very much in keeping with democratic republic ideals. At least as much as the U.K. parliament.
I don't get why people focus on the Commissioners when it really seems like the power struggle has been between the Council and Parliament, with the Lisbon Treat increasing Parliament's power and thus decreasing the Council's.
Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith
HOW AGES VOTED
(YouGov poll)
18-24: 75% Remain
25-49: 56% Remain
50-64: 44% Remain
65+: 39% Remain#EUref
6:24 PM - 23 Jun 2016
If they would have waited some years it would been a remain.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
Great, I'm really looking forward to competing with China on standards and wages.
The EU is going to punish us hard now. There are already rumblings from the far right about referendums, and they will want to stamp down on those hard. The Pound and markets are crashing. It's already too late, and those non-EU countries we want to do deals with are now going to pray on our weakness and desperation to do some kind of deal, any kind of deal as soon as possible.
Oh, and we will probably have Boris in charge, so double, sorry triple fucked.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So, how Mexican is Texas?
Maybe those other places aren't much like Iraq either?
The Republican party are already undermining him and cutting off the money supply. It's unlikely that he will make it on his own fortune. If he does, then I agree with you that a lot of people are going to get a shock since they appear to see him as something other than the grasping casino owner who blew a vast amount of inherited money to get to where he is. He'll make Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Clinton and all the rest look like saints in comparison. He'll make Carter look like a political mastermind.
I don't understand this. GB is already part of one of the biggest free trade blocks and they decided to withdraw. And, now you want them to go to negotiate yet more free trade agreements with distant countries, with their diminished negotiating power? That's a very bizarre way of reasoning.
I have a couple of ideas:
- strengthen parliament.
- toss out the likes of Juncker et al, which always have misused EU to the advantage of their country
- vote the corrupt mass which is the EVP out of parliament. They've been in "power" for too long and are too well lubricated by lobbies
- start working on an "EU for the people". We'd had enough of an "EU for the money".
Not to mention that Britain stood alone in keeping its inherently unjust common law system, resisted every push for democratisation of the EU, resisted every push for establishing what the core European values are, constantly supported American interests within EU over the interests of Europeans or even its own citizens, and that it's the only major European country with an anti-democratic political system so twisted that it's almost got a US-style two party system.
Speaking from a Dutch perspective, the basic problem of having Britain in the EU is that it simply isn't on board with the European project. Culturally, the British aren't European, they're more American than anything else. Economically, they were only in it for the money. Socially they oppose everything that's just. Politically, they're a twisted screwed-up country. Having Britain within the EU held us back because it made any kind of reform towards a better place where Britain doesn't want to be very hard, and at the same time I imagine it held Britain back too. We're simply too different, so let's peacefully go our separate ways.
Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.
Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.
In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.
No. What Europe needs and has always lacked is a proper constitution. That absolutely has to come first, and the fact that we have no constitution has always been a (very, very dangerous) problem in the EU. Its lack is the root cause for our weak parliament, weak democratic oversight, martinets like Juncker and van Rompuy popping up in positions of power, the worrying shift of democracy to bureaucracy (not meaning lots of red tape, but being ruled by an uncontrolled system that has become a goal unto itself), and Brussels ever seeking to expand its sphere of political influence. And in case anyone feels a need to mention that the EU does in fact have a "constitution", I'd say: read the damn thing first. That's right: you can't, really. It's a pile of treaties rewritten in legalese, not a constitution.
An EU constitution must set out how the (central) state operates, what its relation is to the people and member states, and last but not least it outlines (and limits) the state's mandate. And in case of the EU, a statement about the overall objectives of the Union might have been nice as well. We have none of this. And we have gotten to the stage where meaningful reform (such as your suggestions) is never going to happen anymore. Not without some very strong incentive... perhaps in the form of more influential member states threatening to leave after the UK has. The popular vote is already approaching a majority for "leave" in many member states.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Haha... hahahaha... If you think that the UK has a better negotiating position alone than in the EU about free trade, you are seriously deranged.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Even we uncouth Americans recognize the UK for what it isâ"a country that liked to be in the EU whenever it suited them, to the extent that they wanted to be, but also pretended that none of the rules applied to them.
(...)
And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up. If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. (...) Some of the EU member nations might well decide to do that just out of spite.
Yes, Britain was in a relationship with the EU but didn't want to commit as the EU was going more and more in the direction of the United States of Europe, one border, one currency, one everything. And now they finally said "I think we've grown apart, I'm breaking up with you" and you want them to go into full psycho ex-girlfriend mode? I'm surprised it actually came to this, but I think retaliation from the EU would only hurt their reputation and strengthen the UK resolve to go their own way.
I think this is a good opprtunity to show that this is not the US, we're not going to start a civil war if you want to secede. This is not the Soviet Union where tanks will roll in your streets to occupy you. If you don't want to be a part of the EU, nobody's forcing you. I'm from Norway, a country that has rejected the EU twice in 1972 and 1994 and one of the reasons has been the feeling that this loss of sovereignty is permanent, you can join but if we find out this was a bad idea we can in practice never leave. Well now we'll see.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them.
This is exactly what is going to happen. Other far right parties in the EU are now calling for their own referendums, and there is no way that the EU will want to do anything to encourage them. Even if it means having a 10% tariff on German cars and French wine exports to the UK, it's a relatively small price to pay to keep the EU together.
The UK is going to be punished hard for this. We can't expect to walk away from the EU and get a better or even the same deal that we had, that's just a fantasy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
From now on there will be no serious player within EU who would try to stop further federalization.
That's probably a good thing! I'm not kidding.
I strongly believe Europe is at the wrong level of federalization, one doomed to fail by which I mean the level of federalization by necessity will change, not that Europe will fail. The reason is the central currency without central taxation.
The problem was exemplified by Greece to some extent, though there were other things involved there. For example, Germany has strong exports meaning there is essentially a net flow of money in. Without being to float their currency, the flow of money out of somewhere like Greece does not work well and is not sustainable. This is ALWAYS the case on any national level. There are richer, more vibrant areas (e.g. London in the UK) and poorer, less vibrant ones (say, Wales) and the central taxation means that the money can be redistributed so that the trade hubs don't end up acting as giant black holes.
Now the EU has a central currency, I believe that an EU Federal taxation scheme will eventually happen because there is no way of operating something country sized without shifting money around. It's also the way the US works with the blue states subsidizing the red ones for the greater good (i.e. keeping the country whole).
What may well happen is we leave and stop fucking up Europe. Europe will get stronger and we'll have a recession. Eventually we'll re-join the single market and accept all of the rules. That way we'll have a nice strong Europe to trade with which will be god for us but no influence with which to fuck it up.
Yes that's cynical and no the world isn't that simple but I don't have a whole hell of a lot of faith in my fellow countrymen just now, so cut me some slack, OK?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
UK crippled and The Donald in power; I for one welcome our Russian defenders against globalism and against Islam.
There, I fixed that for you.
>but I didn't expect that someone would compare the House of Lords (basically powerless) to the European Commission (basically all-powerful).
Their power is virtually identical. The House of Lords has the power to veto any act of parliament. They can block any law they want to. In theory their purpose is to be a check on the power of parliament and being unelected and job-for-lifed is a key requirement in your "check" organisations (same reason in the US the supreme court judges can't be fired and are not elected).
In practice the HoL pretty much fell apart after the right to appoint lords was extended to the P.M. it was sold as increasing democracy by having somebody who was elected able to ensure there were some voices in the house that represented the will of the people. In practice it meant PMs have been handing out lordships as gifts to their friends in return for things like campaign funds and the like - and in return, those friends rubber-stamp whatever lunacy parliament sends their way.
The problem with the House of Lords is not a lack of power - it's that it has become so completely watered down that it is utterly unwilling to use that power for the purpose it was given it when it actually mattered.
The house of lords had the power to keep Britain out of the Iraq war - they chose not to because Blair had stuffed the house with his buddies. The interesting thing is that the hereditary lords overwhelmingly voted against that - they were just too outnumbered to matter.
I'm not a fan of aristocracy but Britain actually found a use for the aristocrats they had lying around which, for quite some time, worked very well and to the benefit of the British people. When they allowed the PM to make new aristocrats - the whole thing went completely to shit.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.
Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.
Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.
I found these comments really interesting because you're basically saying that the UK has now become just like the USA. We have the same issues here. People in small towns with no higher education have completely different values and desires from the educated people who live in cities. I can't speak to UK politics, but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc. In fact, I'd point out that Sarah Palin has made her career out of promoting anti-intellectualism as the solution to all of America's problems. Sorry to hear you're now one of us, UK people.
Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this. The primary objection was that "the loser could win", demonstrating beyond any doubt that most people can't understand simple mathematics.
In other words you're an authoritarian that doesn't actually believe in democracy unless it gets you what you want.
Om, nomnomnom...
Putin, maybe. The right wing parties in the EU, less so.
Because one thing is certain, the EU will not tolerate easily the exit of a vassal. They will do their worst to punish the Brits for this act of high treason, and it should be pretty tough for the right wing parties in Europe to picture the now most likely dropping economy on the island up there as something they should aspire to.
Especially the right wing populist governments of Poland or Hungary that have been throwing dirt (while at the same time accepting the influx of EU money with open arms) will have a hard time convincing anyone in their countries that it's a good idea to go as well.
Even though if the rest of Europe could vote them out, they'd be gone before they have packed their junk.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, it's more like vaccination. I'd rather have elected officials listening to experts and making the decision, than having a popular vote where fear and stupidity are the dominant factors. One of the reasons we have elected representatives is to provide this buffer.
No-where has direct democracy for everything. It would just be the tyranny of the majority, unrestrained by laws and constitutions and emboldened by the democratic mandate. If I were as disingenuous as you I'd call you a tyrant.
Look at it another way, it was only the over 50 vote that took us out. All other age groups voted in, by some margin. In about 5 years time enough people will have died of old age to swing it the other way, but of course we can't expect to have another vote or re-join, can we? How is that democratic or fair?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors.
Sure you can. Not guilty in a criminal law kind of way, but definitely in a civil law kind of way. Many people who are alive today have inherited massive profits from the crimes of their ancestors, and it is at least theoretically possible to put a number on that profit, and award that to the people who inherited the corresponding losses from their disadvantaged ancestors.