Slashdot Mirror
UK's Brexit Cannot Pass Without Parliament Approval (aljazeera.com)
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court ruled on Thursday. This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty -- beginning formal exit-negotiations with the EU on its own. An anonymous reader shares a report on AlJazeera: The UK's High Court has ruled that Theresa May's administration is not allowed to trigger the country's exit from the European Union, or Brexit, without approval from parliament. Three senior judges ruled on Thursday that "the government does not have the power under the Crown's prerogative" to start EU exit talks. The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation. The government plans to appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court. Plans for Brexit are being challenged in a case with major constitutional implications, hinging on the balance of power between parliament and the government. May has said she will launch exit negotiations with the EU by March 31.
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
I'm sure that literally every poster who thinks this is wonderful would have also been OK with an elite ruling counsel deciding to overturn.. oh I dunno... Obama's election to be president. Or maybe Obamacare.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
My understanding is that the House of Lords would have heard this case in the past, before there was a high court. Welcome to the world of appointed judges who legislate from the bench, Great Britain. Fun times - you'll just love it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
can't pass the parliament and get rid of all those shits.
So apparently the PM isn't allowed to unilaterally overturn legislation without a parliamentary vote. Weird.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
so why dont you shove your opinion up your yank arsehole
also did you see the trailer for trainspotting 2
If the Tories want to keep their jobs and not get swept out by UKIP, they're still going to have to pass Brexit. I very much suspect Theresa May would be sacked if she doesn't invoke Article 50 when she says she will: UKIP and its neo-fascist voters seem willing to insist on showing how much they disdain immigrants above all other considerations, the dire warnings of nearly every reputable economist notwithstanding.
The funny part is where the Brits seem to think they have a choice on whether they get a "hard" or "soft" Brexit: As Al Jazeera's commentator argues, the EU is going into negotiations with such a hilariously imbalanced advantage -- the negotiations are likely going to be conducted in French -- that the UK really should consider itself lucky if they can manage to walk away with any agreement at all (instead of the entirely possible scenario of them being booted from the EU and concomitantly the WTO and having to renegotiate all their agreements with everybody).
So long, Brits! You decided to enact the geopolitical equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face in the most ridiculously exaggerated way possible, all to prove how much you despise foreigners, and now it's going to bite you in the ass! Enjoy sleeping in the bed you shit your very own self, because we sure will.
I am against Brexit, but in the interest of democracy it would be wrong for parliament to reverse a vote on the exact same question as was put to parliament. I agree that it should go to parliament, we can do without ancient devices like the PM using royal prerogative to bypass parliament, but the only reasonable direction for the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs would be to vote in favour.
However after an agreement is reached there should be another vote. People voting for and against Brexit did so for different reasons, sometimes contradictory. For example I know some people who wanted reduction of all immigration to very low figures, and others who though that a level playing-field with the same level of immigration would mean that they could bring in curry chefs from Mumbai rather than having to take on and train Polish chefs. Once there is a concrete proposal then MPs should be able to vote for or against it, or maybe even have a second referendum. After all if most people would disagree with a proposal then it's diffcult to argue that pushing it through is the most democratic course of action.
But the point of the referendum was to give parliament an indication of the direction that the people want it to take. If a referendum is taken and then parliament does not follow through with the results of that referendum, then the entire point of having a democratic system is pointless.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Not content with Trumpary stories, we now get Brexit stories as well?
Pointless shouting matches ahead!
The people who count the votes decide everything.
-- Joseph Stalin
This good because the Brexit people clearly are dirty unwashed common ignorant people who couldn't possibly understand what Brexit means. Unlike us Remain folks, who are so much smarter than them and make all of our decisions carefully and logically. Let them eat cake I say!
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win.
Where have I heard that before? Oh right Trumpsky. You fuck off. It was not advisory, it was not mandatory, it was a referendum. The fact you can play tricks and delay the will of the people is your lot being toss pots.
You swallowed a lot of crud about the EU, you didn't look at the real numbers, your lot didn't understand the underlying economics, if you had you'd understand UK cannot stay in or it will become a big Greece collapse economy. The majority of the UK made the right decision, and your lot swallowed a lot of fears about breakup.
Your Parliament should approve for two reasons:
1. You had a referendum that was clean.
2. Your sovereignty is worth more than the conveniences the EU provides.
No one in their right mind should support a second referendum because the first was clean and dissidents had their chance to vote. They lost. Holding a second referendum on any big issue that has been decided in a clean vote is nothing less than "make the plebs vote until they 'get it right.'" It's the most subtle way of undermining the democratic process there is. Who is going to keep taking time off from work to affirm "yes, I really meant that?" If someone didn't understand and "voted wrong" they don't get a do-over. That's not how the democratic process works. "I was too damn lazy to use Google and educate myself" is a confession that one lacks civic virtue, not a valid excuse. If you don't know, don't vote.
. . . .if Parliament is required to have their say. . . the PM can put the question to Parliament, and if the question fails, she can call for elections. . .
If they're replaced by new MPs that support Brexit, it will pass the second time.
That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. I suspect, that in reality, not too many MPs will be replaced: they have similar incumbency to that of the US House: 8.7 years in Parliament vs 9.1 years in the House. . .
The ballots said:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."
Since when does slashdot need to forward enemy propaganda? Aiding the enemy is a capital offence! Stop now!
You have been warned!
Well, this should depend on whether Parlement authorised the Brexit referendum. If they did, then they ought to abide by the result. That is the implication of making such a choice public.
If the Parlement at Westminster did not pass a bill for Brexit and HM govt held Brexit on its' own, then Parlement _has_ been bypassed, and has a legitimate concern.
Indeed. This whole referendum process has shown the gapping problems with direct democracy. Leaving the EU is a very complex decision with various short and long term impacts (both for and against) on different people in the population. Expecting the average citizen to weigh all this up and come up with the best plan for the country is...ambitious, at best. I'm a reasonably engaged voter, but I don't have the time to wade through all the issues involved to see whether it is the best thing in aggregate. All I can really do is vote in my own interests, which is basically the degenerate form of democracy and what representative democracies are designed to protect against. If you go down that path then it becomes 'do you want to pay less tax' - YES! 'do you want to cut services?' NO, which might be democratic but also entirely meaningless.
Every now and then there's a phrase that's put forth in British English that has us Americans gob-smacked. For example, back when the Grexit was all the talk, and there was discussion in the British press of the "potential failure of the Greek government" we Yanks were all up in arms because those words mean "failure of the society's mechanism for sovereign rule." Failure of the government, in American English, only happens during things like revolution or invasion.
But to Brits, and those more familiar with the Parlimentary system, it means (to continue in American English) that the current executive-branch administration has lost power and a new administration will need to be elected through the normal mechanisms of the still-functioning political structure.
A phrase in the summary above makes sharp the distinction: "Plans for Brexit are being challenged in a case with major constitutional implications, hinging on the balance of power between parliament and the government." Americans would think, "what? Huh? Isn't parliment part of the government?" A translation that would make us Yanks understand it better would be something like, "... the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government."
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
If the people's voice is just "advisory" then you've already failed the democracy test.
The people's voice is almost always advisory. The UK isn't a democracy except in a somewhat useless generic sense. It is a Constitutional Monarchy. Similarly the USA is not a democracy either. It is a republic. These are not trivial or pedantic distinctions. The law making bodies and governments are generally under no legal obligation to make laws in accordance with the will of the majority of the citizens.
That said, lawmakers and rulers ignore the voice of the people at their peril. Vox Populi, Vox Dei and all that.
Is poor ickle Special Snowflake still sore about the outcome? Diddums. You and the other remoaners need to grow the fuck up. If you don't like democracy and prefer rule by the minority then piss off to any one of a number of countries that implement that kind of system.
Welcome to the world of appointed judges who legislate from the bench, Great Britain. Fun times - you'll just love it.
Exactly what was "legislated from the bench"? The court ruled that they have to follow the existing laws of the land. Nothing more, nothing less. The referendum was legally non-binding as there were no laws in place to make it binding prior to the referendum taking place. As such parliament would under any circumstances be required to pass appropriate legislation to make the referendum binding. This is NOT "legislating from the bench". It is just ruling on existing laws. No new laws or even novel interpretations of laws were utilized.
I sometimes buy stuff from UK online, but I am planning to stop that shit after brexit goes into effect.
I don't know the mechanism of the Brexit Vote, or the legalities surrounding it, but I must say that the Pro-Brexit side were poor planners if they didn't insure a Constitutional pathway existed for a refferendum to be binding and executable, before placing the question before the people.
... it's cut and dried, there, see that in the Constitution? Go for it.
Naturally they must have had legal opinions that said, yeah, this ought to work, and we have the appeal process, which I have zero doubt will be pursued, but clearly they didn't have one that said
Fail.
Put your cowboy hat back on and ride away into the sunset, you bloody yank.
Democracy has to have legal limits - otherwise the majority can utterly fuck over the minority. If the referendum was asking to "kill all the jews" and received a 'mandate', that does not mean it's a legal thing to actually go implement.
One of the arguments for going through parliament properly is that withdrawal from EU significantly affects rights of people. Up until January this year it was reasonable for someone to travel here from the continent and assume they would be allowed to live here forever. There are 3 million EU non-Brits here, what are their rights going to be after? What happens to the 1.5 million Brits in the EU? What about Gibraltar? What about Northern Irish border? As someone who is British and lives in the UK, but had serious plans in the works for going and living in Amsterdam or Barcelona, I also have been massively affected.
If you're going to change people's rights, it needs to go through parliament properly, and then we can have some debate and answers to what they actually want to get. At the moment it's all secret and guesswork.
I cannot possibly understand why you would not want it to be debated... the MPs are clearly going to vote it through, but with a debate we can actually understand what the aims are and pressure them if they are no good.
I'll try to explain (as an ordinary citizen - not a constituional expert).
The UK has a representative democracy which elects members to the House of Commons and a non-elected second chamber (House of Lords) which is supposed to act as a review/checking body. Many people do not like the non-elected part of this, but it is what it is. Both houses notionally advise the monarch who makes the law; these days it is a nicety and she basically rubber stamps everything but she is supposed to be a non-party-political figurehead.
Parliament = House of Commons + House of Lords. In other words all elected members of parliament [in the commons] and all memebers of the lords IRRESPECTIVE OF PARTY
Government = Ruling party (or coalition) - effectively whoever has the most seats in the commons.
The Government proposes laws but they have to be approved by Parliament as a whole; this puts a first level of check in the system unless one party has an overwhelming majority as there has to be appeal not only to the opposition but also moderate members of the ruling party.
For a few, specific cases the Queen can act without parliamentary sanction -- in reality this means that the Prime Minister (leader of the government/ruling party) can act without putting it to a parliamentary vote. After the recent wars in Iraq, Libya ... there is a groundswell of opinion to limit this prerogative.
Now what's happened with Brexit is that there was a referendum. Under UK constitution a referendum is only advisory and there to inform parliament (though in reality it directs action as going against the will of the people is not a good idea). In this case the margin was very close and there have been people calling foul (esp. as one of the campaign promises, widely advertised was reneged upon the day after the count).
David Cameron, the Prime Minister at the time, said he would stand by the result; he's since cut and run. We now have a PM that nobody has voted for (and who is introducing things not in the election manifesto). This is seen as a democratic deficit by many.
Many MPs are remainers, many people are having second thoughts and a lot of people are complaining that the terms of the exit were never spelt out before the vote.
The exit terms are to be negotiated. The current government do not want parliament to have a vote. This has been challenged in court.
One of the big ironies was that a key feature in the debate was to move from "unelected rule and lack of parliamentary sovereignty" -- and now the same people are fighting against these principles in court.
In short - it's a typical British cock-up. We lead the world in muddle and confusion; meanwhile the economy is going down the pan through all of the uncertainty.
âoeThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.â â Winston S. Churchill
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. . . "
"Easy Credit Terms . . . "
"I'll respect you in the morning. . ."
"You can trust me, I'm a lawyer. . . "
Need I go on ??
and once again, some bureaucrats are finding a way to ignore the people's will.
I'm not presuming to talk for everybody, but personally, if that's what the constitution demands, then yes.
We do not have a constitution in the UK just laws and tradition. Since we entered the EU by parliament passing laws it takes parliament to repeal those same laws. It is just common sense. The reason the brexiteers are so paniced by this is because the majority for brexit was very slim and they are worried that any other referendum or vote will show that people have changed their mind.
This is why major changes to the fabric of a country are usually required to pass a far higher hurdle than merely 50% of the voters. You need a convincing margin to persuade those voting for the status quo to accept that the will of the people really has changed and that this is not a statistical blip fed by lies. Nobody is at all convinced that a second referendum, even at 50/50, would yield the same result now that the horrendous lies the leave campaign made have been exposed for what they were which happened within hours of the win.
Even worse was the fact that 2 million British citizens living abroad were excluded from the vote and many of them were enjoying the benefits of EU membership and so extremely likely to vote for remain. So the first vote was not even democratic since it excluded many of the citizens who are most directly affected by the results of the decision and since the victory margin was only 1.4 million this could easily have reversed the decision.
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win.
To put it in a US election context would you accept the results of the US election if 10 million US citizens in a demographic group who were very likely to vote in support of your favourite candidate were excluded from having a vote and the victory margin of the winner was 6 million votes? (although I know the actual number of votes is not actually relevant in the US system).
This is exactly what happen with the referendum: 2 million British citizens (which if you scale the from a population of 60M to 300M is equivalent to 10 million US citizens) were denied a vote because they live abroad. Many of them live in the EU enjoying the benefits of membership and so were extremely likely to vote remain.
If 10 million US republicans (or 10M democrats) were denied a vote would you happily sit by and accept the results of the election? I very much doubt it so why should we accept it in the UK? It might have been legal but it was certainly not democratic.
Actually it *is* OK to "ignore what they say" since in the UK parliament is sovereign and not bound to any referendum's outcome.
That is not actually correct...but in a way which supports the decision of the court even more strongly. Parliament can choose whether or not to make the result of a referendum binding. The proportional vote referendum was indeed binding because parliament passed it that way.
This means that parliament deliberately chose NOT to make the EU referendum binding which implies that they wanted a chance to deliberate on the outcome and not blindly charge into Article 50. Hence the court's decision is absolutely correct: parliament made a deliberate choice to ensure that whatever the result the final decision on how to deal with the referendum rested with them.
As TFA says, this decision will get appealed. It was expected to get appealed no matter which decision came down.
What we have here is much ado about nothing.
"an elite ruling counsel"
I think you mean council
I don't know what was required for entry but the 1975 referendum on EEC membership (which became the EU) had a 67.23% 'yes' vote which is over a two thirds majority in favour of joining that is typical for major changes.
The most searched term bullshit is debunked nonsense.
52% vs 48% in modern propogandized democracies is in fact definitive.
Your ableist invective certainly changed my mind.
Not.
Note that your smug, superior, nasty response is exactly what your parent poster (pun intended) was pointing out.
So many rabid leftists are never hesitant to dehumanize those who disagree with them, then run home to mommy government crying about tolerance.
I don't have skin in this game. But I will offer this. Everyone on both sides of the aisle at least appeared to have the belief that this vote counted before the vote took place. Does perception matter? I would think so. The UK government made this referendum out to be something important. Therefore, it should be seen as important. To nullify it after the results come in, because you don't like it, is disingenuous and wrong. Either the vote mattered or it didn't.
It is kind of like a crook coming up to you at night, holding his hand in his shirt in the shape of a gun and ordering you to give you money. Your perception matters here. Sure, the guy had no intention to kill, but he got the results he wanted, and he can be charged with an assault or an act of violence because of it. When government have a vote and say there will be consequences, the people should expect to believe that the government is being honest and not crooked like the aforementioned criminal.
When a government creates a vote, bills it as a referendum, then re-bills it as something else when they get an unexpected outcome, it screams to the people that their vote does not matter. And in fact, it probably proves that their vote really does not matter. We can say they found a constitutional loophole or whatever, but in the end, that loophole should have been broadcast all over the place BEFORE the Brexit vote. Otherwise the implied intent of the vote was something completely different from what they now claim.
I completely agree with you. My read is that the polls caused complacency on the part of the stay crowd. I think now that the Torries are paying lip service to Brexit, but are slowboating the process until they can get another referendum or, as we see here, a vote in Parliament that allows the party in power to say, "Oh dear! Those lefties tied our hands. We cannot leave."
The referendum was not binding after all. It was a sop to the right that backfired. The Brexiters are a needed if despised constituency by the Conservative Establishment (as is our far right here in the US) but the Conservatives dare not alienate them. Let us remember that Parliament is 70% against an exit anyway.
Let me go on record by saying that Brexit will not happen. There will be smoke and more smoke signaling Brexit. Smoke, but no fire, just a smoke machine. The EU has made it clear it will not give the UK a soft landing. And why should it? An easy out for the UK would only embolden other restive members. The conservatives will lose every young person in the country forever if they let Brexit go through. And let us not forget Scotland.
But they won't let it happen. How can the UK leave the Common Market that has fed prosperity (on and off) since the end of WWII? Cannot and won't. Wait and see.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
It's a functional eggcorn - possibly even intentional. I see no problem with it.
This is kindof what you get when you don't have a constitution... I've known many Brits who where so proud that they were able to operate w/o a written constitution by simply being *reasonable*. Unfortunately, when the shit hits the fan (like Brexit), sometimes it's better to have a document to rally around rather than unreasonable politicians trying to misapply old precedence for something that has no precedent.
Maybe this will renew the call to formalize a constitution for the Brits? The downside is that that would be a perfect opportunity leverage what Scotland secessionist were attempting to do (e.g., have a written constitution). Therefore it won't happen and the Brits will muddle along their current course...
I have a feeling the Queen is gonna have to step in on this one... That's why you kept her around right?
Government = Ruling party (or coalition) - effectively whoever has the most seats in the commons
So does British English lack a term for the whole ball of wax--what we Americans would call "the government"?
"We lead the world in muddle and confusion" yes, but that has also given birth to amazing TV shows and movies like Monty Python, Red Dwarf, Black Adder...so this is the silver lining. Just imagine what fun a "Monty Python's Flying Circus presents: BREXIT the Musical" or something similarly ridiculous would be.
If life seems jolly rotten, there's something you've forgotten! And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing...
Britain isn't raping the world of its resources anymore so it has nothing.
It is very likely that the UK economy will suffer in the short and probably medium term due to Brexit-related changes and the uncertainty while those changes are worked out. In the long term, the economic implications aren't so clear and could be more favourable.
However, the idea that Britain has nothing of value to offer in its own right is just silly. It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people. It has world class academic and research institutions. It is a global business and finance hub with geographic and linguistic advantages. It has several major industries contributing to its economy beyond the high profile ones like financial services. It is completely implausible that all of this will be catastrophically undermined, even if it takes a long time post-Brexit to sort out new international agreements.
After all, the UK also trades with other nations outside the EU, accepts people from and sends people to other nations around the world, and so on. It already does more trade with non-EU partners than EU ones, and the gap is widening. If the adults sort out the post-Brexit arrangements between the UK and EU, there will still be some form of mutually beneficial trading relationships there, even if they are on somewhat different terms. If the petulant children who seem to have been running the show lately on both sides of the Channel get to call the shots, we will probably wind up with some sort of very hard Brexit. In that case, it seems more likely that the UK will start to rebalance its economy and diplomacy in favour of more trade with non-EU partners, but there is a lot of room to manoeuvre there if you're free of the EU customs union and the like, so that will probably also work out OK in the long term though it may be a much rougher ride for a few years first.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As I said previously, the Brexit will never happen. It's just a way for rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful.
However, the idea that Britain has nothing of value to offer in its own right is just silly. It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people. It has world class academic and research institutions. It is a global business and finance hub with geographic and linguistic advantages. It has several major industries contributing to its economy beyond the high profile ones like financial services.
I wonder how many of these "well-educated people", "world class academicians and researchers", and others agreed by voting for Brexit.
Ezekiel 23:20
The government have said that they intend to appeal to the Supreme Court, who will hear the case in December.
In the end, it doesn't particularly matter which way the Supreme Court decides, as long as they make a decision. What worried me was that May could invoke Article 50 using Royal Prerogative, and then have that overturned - once invoked. This way, whenever Article 50 is invoked, we know it has legal force in the UK (as there is no court beyond the Supreme Court).
Of course, if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court ruling, then there would have to be a vote in Parliament. As someone who voted Remain, I still expect our MPs to follow the 'Will of the People' and vote for Brexit. However, what I also expect them to debate and decide is what type of Brexit we're in for; Soft, Hard, or somewhere in between. That needs to be known at the start of negotiations, not at the end.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
I always thought that a horizontal white cross on a blue background should be retroactively defined as the Cross of St David, to make the Union Jack a complete union of the 4 crosses - St George, St Andrews, St Patricks and St Davids
Whatever happens, it's already a loss.
If Brexit gets blocked, there will be protests and an image that the process wasn't democratic. Furthermore, it will be seen as kind of a spineless move... country basically threatened leaving EU only to fall back when it realized it was going to be too damaging.
No matter how many people regretted making the choice, or not voting at all, it looks bad that after all the fuzz, things didn't go forward.
On the other hand, if Brexit does happen... well, there has already been plenty of analysis on that.
The key thing is for this decision to come fast. The more time it's kept at a limbo, the more uncertainty it provokes.
I wonder how many of these "well-educated people", "world class academicians and researchers", and others agreed by voting for Brexit.
A minority, though a lot more than some on the Remain side like to acknowledge. According to the Lord Ashcroft poll shortly after the vote:
The AB social group (broadly speaking, professionals and managers) were the only social group among whom a majority voted to remain (57%). C1s divided fairly evenly; nearly two thirds of C2DEs (64%) voted to leave the EU.
Of course, this probably isn't just down to having a better understanding of the issues, as there's surely a large dose of enlightened self-interest at work too. Those with higher education and skill levels and those running large businesses benefit much more from what the EU offers than those doing manual jobs or running small businesses, for example, and many academics are funded via EU-based projects and grants.
In short, more senior professionals and government figures favoured Remain, but there were still plenty of experienced lawyers, economists, diplomats, military officers and business people, including some at the very highest levels, who came down on the Leave side.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Isn't Britain England + Wales, and Great Britain the island - i.e. Britain + Scotland? In other words, Britain =/= UK
It seems then, that parliament is voting on their own sovereignty.
It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Suuuuuuure.
Do you realize that the more educated the Briton was, the more that he/she voted to stay, right? I mean, this claim I'm making is fucking quantifiable.
I mean, this claim I'm making is fucking quantifiable.
It's also irrelevant. Those 60+ million people buy products and services from sources outside the EU today, and they still will tomorrow. For that matter, they'll still be able to buy from sources inside the EU too, even if it's a hard Brexit with no immediate trade deal.
If you want to talk about quantifiable, the UK has roughly as many people in its market as the smallest half of the other EU member states combined, and those in the UK have on average a lot more money to spend.
As for the likelihood of a UK-EU trade deal that overcomes the potential trade barriers raised by Brexit, the EU just spent huge amounts of time and resources setting up a trade deal with Canada, which is roughly half the size of the UK in population and quite similar in most cultural and development respects. The EU has a deal with EFTA, which was essentially founded to represent states who didn't want to be full members of the then-EEC but did want some integration for mutual benefit, and EFTA's members combined have about a quarter of the population of the population of the UK and again broadly similar cultural standards and development. For all the doom and gloom from some quarters, the UK is and will surely remain a huge market for many other EU member states, including some of the most influential ones, and sooner or later some sensible deal will be done even if the doom-sayers and politicos on either or both sides screw up Brexit itself and we get a complete break at first.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Doesn't count once again. That is how the USA was created, you would think they would have learned by now.
According to the Telegraph, which being a strongly Tory paper is hardly pro-EU, their estimate as of a month ago was that the vote exclusion affects 3 million Brits. So my apologies for getting it wrong, it should be 3 million but I'll admit that I expect this has a large margin of error but not large enough to drop it to 700k and almost certainly enough to call into question the referendum result.
So if the story I linked is true and they do scrap the exclusion how about a rematch after we all get to vote? If it is only 700k of us who are affected and support for Brexit has remained constant since the referendum what have you got to lose?
This is the problem with calling a whole side of an argument uneducated xenophobes. It's rarely a correct judgement. The models had UK economy down 5 points over 50 years. Hardly crushing. Perhaps worthy of independence even.
It is a global business and finance hub
.. in (large) part because it has easy access to the EU.
Many businesses are already working out plans to move operations to Amsterdam and/or Frankfurt ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07... ).
If the petulant children who seem to have been running the show lately on both sides of the Channel get to call the shots
Remember that the UK has always had the most special deals and exemptions in the EU, mainly attained by being obstructive. You're a fool if you think they'll get back what they now still have in terms of a deal. Forget about politicians for a moment: Even though some EU citizens are sortof sympathetic with the Brexiters, a large majority sees Brexit as betrayal (which is a source of unison among EU citizens, ironically) and believes the UK should be 'punished'. Politically, and democratically, it makes sense for the politicians of the remaining EU member states to be harsh on a Brexiting UK. Petulance don't enter into it.
You know the old saying:
None of us are as dumb as all of us.
Doesn't matter how intelligent or educated the few are. They are far outnumbered by the rest.
Welcome to Democracy. Where the end result isn't always the best one. Just the most popular one.
They did jackass or have you forgotten both the GWB elections? We have the electoral college and the supreme court. Both have screwed over the will of the people multiple times.
Yes, this is one of the most frustrating things since the result. About 17 million people voted Leave, apparently for quite a wide range of reasons. And yet since that time, a disturbing number of normally reasonable and intelligent people seem determined to dismiss the entire Leave group as some sort of extremist, racist and/or xenophobic savages, obviously too stupid or ignorant to listen to. It's a complicated issue, but there are people on each side who don't seem to want to do more than hurl playground insults at each other, which isn't exactly moving the debate forward or helping to find the best outcome from where we now find ourselves. Ironically, the incessant negative comments might be doing more to create damaging fear and uncertainty today than any of the real issues.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Farage said, before the result, that if the vote to remain was as close as 52-48% then it was not over - now he's changed his mind because leave won. but 52% of the vote actually turns out to be 37% of the actual voting public.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Reading the comments of Bremain/Bregret people here who think they have a way to sneak their way back in...
Just so you know, the overwhelming feeling of the non-UK Europeans I've spoken to and who do not reside in the UK is (thus do not have an interest in the UK staying in the EU) is : now will you please get out, and the sooner, the better.
Sick and tired of UK's antics, requests for diva treatment, usw. Don't expect to be handled with care.
If Brexit does not happen, I will make sure my vote as continental European goes whereever it's needed so that Brevict does.
"Parliament = House of Commons + House of Lords."
Wrong, Parliament = the Commons + Lords + QUEEN.
Leave would win by 63% in parliament, not 52% in the referendum.
MP's represent what the majority voted for in their constituency, this is how representative democracy works.
The markets and the players within are not basing their actions on anonymous comments. The uncertainty is entirely due to the referendum result and the shit-storm which will happen. The wonderful industries you mentioned are only wonderful because of the strong position they are in, and any change to their situation means you can't simply expect them to continue as they currently are. It's like saying a plane doesn't need wings because it's already flying.
Ironically, your post is exactly what I'm talking about. It contains no factual information, because we don't know the facts yet. It contains dubious assumptions, because a lot of what is happening in the business and finance worlds right now is based on little more than anonymous comments ("sentiment") since they don't know the facts yet either. However, you've apparently concluded that the sky will inevitably fall. You even threw in some profanity, just to help the rest of us understand.
As I've been saying all along, there are real and serious concerns about what happens next. There will be a lot of things that could go wrong. But there will also be some opportunities. Sometimes a change may be both of those things, but to different people. My point is that it's far too early to know the final result here, and in the meantime, uncertainty is causing more damage than anything else, and adopting some generic "sky is falling" position just pours oil on that fire.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
.. in (large) part because it has easy access to the EU.
In part, sure. How much is debatable. The UK has been a global hub since long before the EU existed, and it still has the advantages I mentioned before whether it remains in the EU or not.
Many businesses are already working out plans to move operations to Amsterdam and/or Frankfurt ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07... ).
Says the article from just after the surprise result, like a lot of other articles from just after the surprise result. But talk is cheap, and in this case talk is also leverage for big businesses over a government on the back foot, so actions speak louder than words.
p>Remember that the UK has always had the most special deals and exemptions in the EU, mainly attained by being obstructive.
That and being a relatively valuable and powerful member, which gave enough influence to win concessions.
As for the rest of your last paragraph, you are describing exactly the sort of petulance I meant. It does not make sense, economically speaking or for long-term relations in other areas, for the remaining EU member states to be harsh on a Brexiting UK. It makes sense for all concerned to look for an alternative arrangement that is still of mutual benefit and is acceptable to all involved.
Unfortunately, so far, the attitude of some of the other political leaders in the EU, and in particular of Juncker and Tusk, seems far less constructive than it could be. Their behaviour since the result, as well as some of the other potential changes in EU direction post-Brexit that have been mooted by senior politicians from other member states, are enough to make some of us wonder whether the Leavers might have been right all along.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So it looks like the Bankers who "own" the country have bought the judges of the high court!
they may still trade, but they no longer get the benefits of being an EU member.
benefits that include easier, simpler, and cheaper trade.
or the economic opportunity afforded by EU citizenship, the ability to easily take a job in another country than they now will be able; that economic opportunity, and economic mobility conferred by it, is now lost.
brexit was an outburst of anger that now once uttered they dearly wish they could take back.
only they cant.
Because it's the changing of current law is protected here. HOWEVER, leaving the EU does not MANDATE a change in the law, so exiting the EU can go ahead without parliament voting on it, it's just that the changes in law that "brexiting" meant to bring about will have to be argued in parliament.
But exiting the EU doesn't require a change in law. The change in law is what leaving the EU was supposed to allow.
I voted remain. WE voted leave. I was overruled by some faceless beurocrats and people I have nothing in common with. Which is why that "argument" for leaving the EU was bullshit.
But you can bet that if it was "remain", there would still be politicians running on the "Leave the EU" flag. UKIPers for one.
So why is it wrong for remainers to do the same?
they may still trade, but they no longer get the benefits of being an EU member.
benefits that include easier, simpler, and cheaper trade.
When trading with the EU or those the EU has a favourable existing trade deal with, yes, and that's going to be a significant loss if we wind up with one of the harder options for Brexit.
On the other hand, being outside the EU customs union would give more options for the UK to make its own trade deals with partners outside the EU, and it would immediately lift EU-imposed barriers that currently exist when trading with nations the EU does not currently have a deal with, such as the US and much of Asia.
Being outside the customs union would also mean that UK businesses wouldn't have to comply with EU rules even if they weren't actually exporting to the EU, which could have significant benefits both for those businesses primarily serving the home market and for those exporting outside the EU.
The big difficulty at the moment is that no-one knows whether those potential benefits from being outside the customs union would outweigh the potentially heavy losses on the EU side in the longer term, hence all the debate about hard vs. soft Brexit.
or the economic opportunity afforded by EU citizenship, the ability to easily take a job in another country than they now will be able; that economic opportunity, and economic mobility conferred by it, is now lost.
That seems pessimistic. UK citizens go to work in other countries around the world all the time, and we have immigrants coming to live and work here from all over the world as well. Outside the EU, depending on any deal that gets done, it might not be as easy for people to move in either direction. But again, we don't know yet what the EU-UK relationship will be post-Brexit, and no-one knows yet what any system for immigration into the UK from the EU or for emigrating to the EU from the UK will look like.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Have you been out of your house recently? Drive to your local supermarket. On the way count the number of European cars on the road. (French,German,Italian,) Imagine that in every town in Britain. When you enter the shop look around at the produce. Fresh fruit and salad in the winter where does most of it come from? Finally you will arrive at the wine and spirits section, wow,chocablock with bottles from all over Europe. Do you think the suppliers, with strong connections with their governments are going to allow them to stifle this market? We are a massive market for industry and agriculture they will not cut off their nose to spite their face. Anyway big business won't allow them to.
Just a formality. Being part of the EU is stupid and I think everyone in the UK understands that. Take back your sovereignty. Then you can kick out the invading force, sometimes called refugees. Get rid of the Soros funded destruction of Europe.
France, we're looking at you do Frexit. Germany - Gexit. Rest of you, get the idea and exit too, or lose your countries.
"It has world class academic and research institutions."
Research funding in the UK was a strong net recipient of funding from the EU. Without any clear mandate from the UK government to guarantee that funding levels will be maintained post Brexit, by the time the dust has settled most "world class academics" will have fucked off to greener pastures in countries where their contributions are actually valued. Hopefully the UK will eventually realise its mistake and re-supply the funding for research, but we're looking forward to a 10-20 year slump until things are back on track.
I work at one of these "world class institutions" and the mood is very sombre and most colleagues are already looking for work elsewhere. Certainly there have already been reports of EU grants being denied to UK researchers due to the uncertainty of Brexit.
Anyway, as the sibling posters here point out: those with the best education and prospects will simply go elsewhere. It will eventually self-correct, but it will put the country back decades. Is that really what everyone wants? The pound is down 18% already and nothing has even happened yet. The irony is most of the older (50+) people who voted leave have just shot themselves in the foot as by the time they retire their pensions will be quite literally, fucked.
I live in Cambridge, and I've heard a lot of this discussed in person by those on the sharp end. Cambridge University is one of the biggest beneficiaries in terms of funding from the likes of Horizon 2020, as well as the European Research Council. Concern is understandable.
If we look at the facts, the UK government, right up to the Chancellor himself, has already given some assurances about honouring funding agreements made with the EU even if they extend beyond Brexit. However, there is also the supporting infrastructure to deal with, some of it also receiving funding from the EU, and there is collaboration with academic partners from elsewhere in the EU to consider, just to highlight two other prominent issues of concern. And there is always the question of what happens after any assurances given so far run out. There has been much less commitment from the government so far in these related areas.
It does at least appear that the government realises this is a significant issue and is willing to intervene to protect the UK academic and research community. Although it's still early days in terms of figuring out the future relationship between the UK and EU, there already appears to be support for funding potentially as far away as the mid 2020s, assuming a Brexit in 2019, which if you think about it is actually quite remarkable within a few months of the surprising result and before we've even had the new Chancellor's first Budget.
So I'm a little disappointed in some of my academic peers, because you would have hoped that they of all people could have offered a measured and proportionate response to changing circumstances. Most of all, you would hope they would base that response on the evidence more than the fear, and consider that it's going to take time to work through these issues, just like everything else around Brexit. So far, unfortunately, that considered approach mostly seems to have been overcome by the fear and uncertainty, and that is doing more damage than any real changes so far. Hopefully things will improve over the months to come as the picture becomes clearer.
The pound is down 18% already and nothing has even happened yet. The irony is most of the older (50+) people who voted leave have just shot themselves in the foot as by the time they retire their pensions will be quite literally, fucked.
That is debatable. For those whose pensions are using funds traded in Sterling but invested in foreign assets, the weakening of the pound is a huge boost. Have you looked at the FTSE 100 lately? It's strongly negatively correlated with the value of the pound.
More generally, I wish people understood that changes in the exchange rate aren't necessarily a bad thing. Although Brexit has surely been a catalyst and exacerbated the recent fall in the value of Sterling, many economists had been arguing that it was somewhat overvalued and due for a correction since well before Brexit was an issue. The recent drop will make going abroad or investing in foreign assets more expensive for Brits in the future, but on the other hand, it also helps our tourism industry, our creative industry, our exporters, and our savers who had already invested in foreign assets, to give a few examples.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Great post, thanks.
You are right to lament the lack of confidence in the UK academic community, yet it's hardly surprising when the UK already offers one of the lowest postdoc wages in the EU. For the younger scientists, their position was already on shaky ground any way, and Brexit is just a nail in the coffin. The more senior academics will probably stay the course, but with less grant money they will fire their postdocs and not take on any more students and their research groups will wallow until the grant money can flow again.
As for foreign pension investments benefiting from a weaker pound, you are absolutely correct. I am possibly incorrect in my assessment, but I am expecting the lower value of the pound to reflect a general decrease in perceived value in the UK economy. Surprisingly the FTSE 100 has grown consistently throughout 2016, so perhaps the economy is not recoiling from Brexit as much as I had thought. Of course the full ramifications are hard to predict, since it will be years before the full effects will come to light. As a scientist with only passing economic experience but who is widely read and tries to keep up with the business news, my impression is that actually leaving the EU will be bad for the UK in the short to medium term. Long-term is anyone's guess, but my national pride does lead me to believe that long-term things will recover. That is perhaps quite irrational, but no-one's perfect.
It looks like we agree on much of this. I'm a little disappointed with what seems like an unnecessarily negative response by the academic community, but it's hard to be too critical of their cautious reaction. After all, it's their careers that are going to take a hit if things don't work out.
One of the things I've had difficulty understanding myself is how much of what we've been seeing is a "real" consequence of any likely form of Brexit, how much is a rational response to Brexit-related uncertainty but might be expected to stabilise as more details are known, and how much is in the mysterious third category of "things that weren't great anyway but Brexit is a perfect scapegoat". When it comes to issues like the value of the pound or the support for younger scientists, I'm pretty sure there are elements of all three in there, but I find it hard to separate them in any objective way.
I reached a similar conclusion to you about Brexit as a whole. Economically, it will almost certainly cause harm in the short term, from the uncertainty if nothing else. Maybe we'll be worse off in the medium term as well, depending on any deal that is done as part of Brexit. If we get one of the harder variations of Brexit, then our future prosperity is likely to be influenced at least as much by how any opportunities for developing relationships outside the EU play out, and I don't think anyone really knows for sure whether that could leave us better off than being in the EU.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.