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.
So apparently the PM isn't allowed to unilaterally overturn legislation without a parliamentary vote. Weird.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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'
The court has ruled that, according to UK law (as legislated by the elected government), the decision must come from the elected government.
Not exactly seeing this as a major setback for democracy.
Not content with Trumpary stories, we now get Brexit stories as well?
Pointless shouting matches ahead!
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.
All referendums in the UK are not legally binding and, as such, merely advisory.
. . . .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. . .
This is good for all those people who voted for Brexit so they could take back democracy; they have actually taken back democracy.
It's not so good for all those people who only saidthey wanted Brexit so they could take back democracy, because now we can see they don't actually want democracy at all.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
It depends on what the enabling legislation for the referendum says. The vote a few years ago to change the electoral system WAS binding because the bill that set up the referendum expressly said it was. The legislation for the EU referendum did not, it said that the referendum was merely advisory and the result certainly not binding.
Fucking moron.
Hey why bother to have the slightest clue. We're in a post factual age and given your attitude it's no wonder you're a rabid Brexit supporter.
This ruling has literally nothing to do with your mindless blithering. But whatever, it didn't stop you having a very loud, very misinformed and very deeply held opinion on it.
This ruling means the PM has no legal power to unilaterally overturn laws just because she really really REALLY wants to. A change in the law has to go through parliament and be voted on by the MPs like oh I don't know, every other law ever.
No. Fucking. Shit.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win. [...] 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.
Go look up the definition of "non legally binding referendum", and then you will be qualified to continue in this conversation. Now elected officials have been informed that a slight majority of the population want to enact a major change to their country's economy and international relations, and have access to exit polls and other demographic data to get a sense of why people voted the way they did and what type of Brexit they wanted. The UK doesn't have a direct democracy for a reason, so now the professionals will take over.
This was not legally binding for the same reason you would let random citizens perform a surgery by committee.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No the court has ruled that only Parliament can overturn an Act of Parliament. As triggering Article 50 would over turn the 1973 EEC Act then Parliament and *ONLY* Parliament can give the authority to trigger Article 50.
This is UK constitutional law 101 and anyone who thought otherwise is simply ignorant of the law. Blame Cameron for not making the referendum result legally binding.
Ok, so I'm guessing your probably not that well versed on how the UK system law works. The legislation that created the referendum did not have an automatic trigger, it's essentially just a preference gathering mechanism, once that preference is collected Government set out its position and parliament debates it, no actions or changes take place until legislation is brought forward and that passes through both houses. The Government wanted to be able to trigger the exit process from the EU, bypassing Parliament and normal legislative process, they can't and that's what the high court confirmed.
It would not be unreasonable for Parliament to go back to the people with a Brexit plan, to consult if this is the Brexit they wanted or do the people no-longer want Brexit now the deal is known.
The referendum just gone, had its flaws as democratic process as it was an overly simple question with a leave/remain answer. The problem is while remain was a know quantity, leave was not. So leave could be anything, and difference parts of the leave camp argued it was different things. Some parts of leave attracted some votes, and other parts of leave others, however large parts of what leave offered are now known to be impossible. I know quite a few leave voters who are not happy about how the leave deal is shaping up, and would now rather be remain as this is version of leave they don't want, I event know some remain voters who have switched to leave as they though leave meant more or less staying in the single market (following it's rules) but losing any control and influence, however they like hard Brexit.
So arguing the results is being ignored is far to simplistic, as any who tries to take on the question of what the votes tells us of the people will soon works out. Leave meant so many different things that Brexit can be any thing, and each person who voted leave thought it meant something different. Until Brexit is defined nobody has had a chance to vote for it.
Also your assertion about the UK economic performance inside the EU seems flawed at best. However if you have any evidence to back up your assertion, or any economic models that have been produced by a credible source then present them.
"That is why we should use secure, networked electronic voting machines"
-- Oscar Wilde
I also love seeing the comments "The will of the people." Let's keep in mind that leave was 52% to 48%. Although it is an outcome to leave by the measure of democracy, it's hardly a decisive result. Furthermore, if you care to look up the most common Google search term in the UK on the Friday after the Brexit vote, you'll find it's "What is the EU?".
If the plebiscite was run again, it is likely to be a completely different result again. Right now, London, Scotland and Ireland seem to strongly want to remain.
I can understand why the Brexiteers are running another large campaign now showing "how good the economy is" and don't succumb to "project fear".
Are you really sure the plebiscite was a reflection of the will of the people, or the fear of the people?
Never underestimate the power of Xenophobia to control a populace.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
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.
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.
And its been good so far. Sterling has fallen in value, exports are cheaper, imports are more expensive. Bubble is gently deflating.
No it isn't. The property bubble is still expanding because the weak Sterling is making it cheaper for foreign investors to buy property in the UK. It already looked like a good investment, with a sudden 20% discount it's even better.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If they did, then they ought to abide by the result.
Abide by the result and do what? It's not like the AV referendum where it was on a single, well defined issue.
Technically, leaving the EU and getting a Norway deal where we accept their laws, pay them money and allow freedom of movement but get no voting rights would fit the letter of the referendum as much as just repealing the European Comminuties, closing the borders and expelling all foreigners.
This is rather the problem. We're told "Brexit means Brexit" which is completely meaningless. No one on either side has the faintest clue what has been voted for and the fact it was voted for doesn't mean that anything done in the name of Brexit is OK.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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
I thought that May, like Cameron, wanted to remain in the EU, but decided that she had to implement the will as expressed by BREXIT. How many 'really's are supposed to change all that?
Some details you missed: The referendum was explicitly non-binding, and was performed because the Tory party wanted to steal back some of their voters who were eyeing up UKIP.
UK property only looks like a good investment from places like China, who have even bigger, simultaneous property and market bubbles.
The west coast of the USA has the same 'problem'. But in truth it's a 'check and balance' on China's (mostly, they are the 'elephant in the room') central planners. As always capital controls aren't working. Chinese citizens are able to get capital into less corrupt markets. The ripples they make there are paid for by better stability in China. There will be less rioting because of this.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"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 ??
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.
You understand incorrectly. In the past the law lords were ex officio members of the House of Lords but they were only 12 out of several hundred members. Separating them off into a Supreme Court (which isn't the High Court, btw) to make a clearer distinction between legislature and judiciary was a positive move IMHO.
Secondly, I am amazed that so many Americans, in particular, support the idea that executive fiat should override a law passed in Parliament. Taking the Lord Chief Justice's ruling, which includes the words, "“the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign” as judicial activism is really misguided.
Huh. Obama won in 2008 with 52% of the vote. Do you feel the same way about that?
I thought that May, like Cameron, wanted to remain in the EU
Unclear. She was very very very on the fence and only came down weakly in favour of Remain rather late at the behest of Cameron. Personally I reckon she wants control and will do whatever it takes to get it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This good because the Brexit people clearly are dirty unwashed common ignorant people who couldn't possibly understand what Brexit means.
They were mostly English so, yeah.
You might note that even though Wales voted leave the areas of Wales that voted remain are predominantly ethnic Welsh and Welsh language speaking areas. The areas of Wales that voted leave are effectively English.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
Actually, while you're right about the state and local changes with final bindings... Electing the president isn't quite so straight forward. The short of the procedure for Presidential voting is that when we hit the polls, we're telling the Electoral College for our State/District what our personal vote is for who we want to have as our National Leader. Most of the time the College will place their voice in line with what the popular vote tells them... but they don't have to. There have been 4 times in American History when the Electoral Votes went against the Popular Vote; including the 2000 Election year when Bush held 271 Electoral College Votes to Gore's 266... but Gore had 540,000 more of the popular votes.
And on a more individual level, the college is directed to only treat the popular votes they receive as a strong suggestion of which way to vote for. It's entirely possible for an individual Electoral College member to be given the popular vote for one candidate, but decide to go against that suggestion and place its counter in for the opposite candidate.
Technically, he got 52.9% out of 58.2% turnout in the popular vote, or roughly 1/4 of eligible voters. He got 67% of the electoral college votes. USA voter turnout hasn't gone over 60% since the late 1960s.
Let's keep in mind that leave was 52% to 48%. Although it is an outcome to leave by the measure of democracy, it's hardly a decisive result.
USian here, but 52/48 is a decisive victory in our Presidential elections (the only really national poll we have). We haven't seen a higher margin since 1984 when Reagan walloped Mondale 58-42 and Madonna released her debut studio album.
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.
"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.
Indeed it is advisory. Now when we clarified this explain please how are you going to deal with the opinion of significant majority of the country?
I can imagine the PMs voting to stay and forget but will this go smooth you think? I personally think the PMs have quite a say in what is going to happen and what mandate UK gov is going to get - this should be a good thing. Government that does not have to care about anything because it believes it has a wildcard mandate from the people (or it can twist it this way anytime it wants) is a massive risk for any society. Look at Germany for example. If Brexit has to happen than parliament should decide how it should go and what are priorities. OTOH if parliament decides to disregard the result of people's opinion it will not make UK society any better. The big issues that caused people to say NO to anything the elites did must be addressed or next time there will be no referendum - instead heads will roll.
Voting is the peasants suggestion box. Remember that when you Americans vote for the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right; both of which are part of the 1%, will continue to launch predator drones on brown people, will continue to use the CIA to start secrete illegal wars and will continue to spend more than the next eight highest defense spending countries combined to continue to fight more war war war.
Voting is symbolic, even is seemingly free representational democracies/republics.
And the UK has a majority government with only a third of the votes cast, only a quarter of the total electorate.
The thing with governments, prime ministers and presidents though is that you have to have someone doing the job. There are some checks and balances to potentially limit what they can do, and you have to have another vote on them in a few years.
Leaving the EU isn't like that. Theoretically we could choose to reapply after we have left, but the terms would be different, and there is no guarantee that we would be welcomed. There is no fixed term to say we will re-evaluate it in four years, or four years after that, etc. It's not an absolutely permanent position, but it's a fundamentally more rigid.
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.
Ok, so I'm guessing your probably not that well versed on how...
Yep, well, that typifies the Brexit movement. It's astonishing how many Brexiteers on this thread have very strongly held opinions based on misinformation.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The big issues that caused people to say NO to anything the elites
Is Boris Johnson somehow not an "elite". He's the public schools toff's public school toff. He is the epitome of "the elite" and his side won in the referendum.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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
What has the result of a foreign election got to do with us? It's a big old world out there and most of us don't have a vote in the US election.
It's a functional eggcorn - possibly even intentional. I see no problem with it.
Our American ignorance of UK laws and customs amazes you? LOL! Most Americans don't even comprehend our OWN laws, and we barely have any "customs" over time compared to the UK. 238 years vs 315 years for just the current UK, or almost 1,000 years going back to the Norman Conquest.
"Any electronic voting machines better be disconnected from the internet and not be able to have firmware flashed"
-- James Keane
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Depending on exactly what question you're asking - yes. I certainly do. Not necessarily in an argumentative way, but it's still valid.
We've got a democratic system that has two parties which have a number of wedge issues on either side. In order to stand out from the other party, each of them continues to push deeper into the territory of their respective base.
As a result, you frequently get people voting not because someone truly matches their ideological stance, but because they don't want someone who is further away from their ideologies. Instead of us having two largely similar candidates debating over nuanced policy measures and differing views of how they feel the country should proceed, we get demagoguery that demonizes the opposition and alienates a decent portion of the people who would otherwise claim to be a part of that party.
I think that with a split that is that close to 50/50 (ignoring the actual voter turnout), you have a population that cares strongly about some hot-button topics, but which probably agrees on other hot-button topics (with the results varying from person to person). Presidents seem to have this opinion that they have a mandate from the masses, when in fact they have at best the accession of a plurality.
This is both good and bad. If we saw 80% voter turnout and a 87% vote for one person, it would suggest that the other party has failed so miserably that America completely agrees on what needs to be done. In general, while the parties appear to be moving ever further apart, the average of where they are still seems to be going more or less in the direction that democrazy is suggesting that it wants to go.
Aside: I saw the typo in the last line there, and decided to keep it because, well, its apropos.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
I didn't realize we were at war with Qatar. When did that happen? Qatar is considered a strategic ally of the US and agreed to let us set up military bases in their territory.
You might want to check your facts Qatar (where Al Jazeera was founded and has its HQ) is an ally not an enemy.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Replying to myself - I realize that the earlier comment was slightly offtopic, given that it was focused on USian politics and not the UKian issues, but I think the overarching theme is the same.
Given a populace driven by misinformation on both sides, a margin this close cannot be considered "What the people want" in the truest sense. The whole reason for representative democracy is that people can't be bothered to get actual facts (or, barring that, some semblance of knowledge for and against an issue). We hire politicians to do that for us.
The fact that the system is populated with humans and is inherently corrupt doesn't change that any. It's still a smaller number of people who can devote considerably more time to the issue than I can, and who have resources to get the necessary information better than I can by using various news sources.
Will they fail? Absolutely. Will they fail as much as if we did phone in voting for every major decision based on which Lord / Senator danced the best? Yeah...I'm not so sure on that one.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
"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...
Indeed it is advisory. Now when we clarified this explain please how are you going to deal with the opinion of significant majority of the country?
The easiest way is probably to devise a specific plan for how to execute Brexit, and then have another referendum. If they choose a soft Brexit then the voters will know immigration policy and EU regulation enforcement will be left unchanged, and voters who cared about that will probably not vote for Brexit. If they choose a hard Brexit then those who don't want to leave the single market will probably not vote for Brexit. And many of the people who didn't even know what Brexit really was until the falling pound gave them a 15-20% pay cut will probably not vote for Brexit.
Brexit won by such small margins that any specific details about how Brexit would work in practice would almost certainly cause a second referendum to result in a strong Remain result.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
People object to elites for what elites do, not who they are. That's usually the case even if we're talking about non-elites. Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character and all that.
People object to elites based on good PR programs founded on scapegoating and pandering. Elites running those PR programs from behind the scenes are given a free pass if their propaganda is strong enough.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
American here....
Fixed that for you.
I actually question if you are in fact an American, as that no one here uses the term that many others in the world use, 'usian'....that just isn't a term we use for ourselves here. That's a foreign term trying to change our name that we've had for 100's of years.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A scary number of people on both sides of the Brexit debate have strongly held opinions based on objectively incorrect information and/or obvious logical inconsistencies. So far in this thread, and in the public commentary since the referendum more generally, my impression is that the Remain side is actually even worse for this than the Leave side, but apparently there's enough nonsense going around for everyone to have their fill. :-(
The sad thing is that much of this could probably have been avoided if the official campaigns had tried to make positive arguments and educate the public, instead of just dropping to gutter politics and character assassination almost immediately, which seemed to be all that most of the prominent politicians on either side knew how to do.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Only 22% of those polled think that Parliament should reject the result of the referendum. Unlike many of the metropolitan "elite" and Remoaners in the media, most ordinary people think it would be wrong to renege on what was a clear referendum result.
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
Listen to yourself ^. Jesus fucking christ. Yes it's complicated. Yes it's difficult. Yes there will be bumps, short and long-term impacts. Some of them will even be good and healthy (amazing!). None of that is a reason not to do it. The only reason you wouldn't want to is because you're scared of the challenge. I mean you're the kind of person who'd probably make this argument if you were, say, Lithuanian and your government wanted to leave the USSR.
Get a grip on yourself and grow a pair of fucking testicles.
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
Triggering article 50 would not overturn the 1973 EEC Act. Repealing the act would overturn it. Repealing the act is what Parliament will have to do eventually. but of course it could choose not to (leading to a constitutional crisis of course and probably a general election). Article 50 is a Royal Prerogative power, the same as the power to enter into or renounce a treaty. The High Court is simply wrong. The Supreme Court will overturn it I'm sure.
The EJC has no jurisdiction here. It's going to the Supreme Court in December. 11 judges will sit (pretty much all of them).
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.
And the existing law of the land says she can invoke an article of the treaty with the Royal Prerogative. Article 50 does not change UK law.
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.
Indeed it is advisory. Now when we clarified this explain please how are you going to deal with the opinion of significant majority of the country?
The easiest way is probably to devise a specific plan for how to execute Brexit, and then have another referendum. If they choose a soft Brexit then the voters will know immigration policy and EU regulation enforcement will be left unchanged, and voters who cared about that will probably not vote for Brexit. If they choose a hard Brexit then those who don't want to leave the single market will probably not vote for Brexit.
The UK doesn't get to decide how hard or soft Brexit will be, the EU does. And the EU has already stated in no uncertain terms that they will not discuss terms of Brexit until the UK invokes Artilce 50. A lot of people in the UK got sold a bill of goods over Brexit, and it's going to hurt when the EU comes to collect.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Isn't Britain England + Wales, and Great Britain the island - i.e. Britain + Scotland? In other words, Britain =/= UK
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.
The UK doesn't get to decide how hard or soft Brexit will be, the EU does.
That is not true at all. The EU cannot stop the UK from leaving the single market, so if they choose this option the EU has no say at all. If the UK wants to stay in the single market, this is the best option for the EU. The EU gets money from the UK and the UK has to follow all of their regulations, but the UK doesn't get any say in the governing of the EU (just like Norway).
The only thing voters wouldn't know is how good the trade agreements will be if they leave the single market, or how generous the terms of staying in the single market are. But they have a pretty good idea of how it will work out since they know their existing WTO trade agreements (if they choose a hard Brexit) and Norway provides a good example of a non-EU member being part of the single market (soft Brexit).
Both are horrible options, which is why the very act of admitting there is no third option of "get everything we want without giving up anything" will torpedo the chances of a Brexit result in a second referendum.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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?
If Parliament decides to go against the referendum, and the people as a whole really do want Brexit, they can express that in the next election. That's where the will of the people overrules everything else.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Rejoining would require approval from 100% of the member countries, which isn't going to happen once you leave. If I recall correctly, the first time around already required Germany's influence to get you in. Even if it were to happen, that would mean no more sweet deals and exemptions.
No. Deciding on a figurehead in a representative democracy where a lot of the power is ultimately handled by a senate is an issue that can be decided on a clear majority.
Now if the USA wanted to do something dramatic enough requiring a referendum they'd need a 2/3rds majority, like many western democracies.
There would be comedy if the Government appealed to the ECJ to be allowed to invoke Article 50 without a vote in parliament.
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.
Or, triggering article 50 would effectively overturn the 1973 EEC Act, as it would remain on the books as formally the will of parliament, subverted by the prerogative power being used in direct opposition to it.
When the will of parliament is expressed, the government is supposed to follow it, not openly subvert it.
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.
Well no, article 50 is a requirement of the treaty. If the government decides to leave the EU, it "shall" notify the EC. The treaty is law, so one can easily argue the government is bound to invoke the article. I think the Supreme Court will decide this. But it makes no difference really because Parliament will vote to invoke it in any case.
I'm not sure. There will be a lot of Tory rebels over this one, and their majority is small. If Labour decides to be difficult and actually manages to provide a united front, and the Northern Ireland parties vote against (and I'm taking it as a given that SNP and Lib dems will), the government might be defeated.
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)
i'd be interested to see a link explaining your claim of 25B GBP trading loss. please don;t quote daily mail or express
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"Parliament = House of Commons + House of Lords."
Wrong, Parliament = the Commons + Lords + QUEEN.
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.
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.
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.
It depends on what the enabling legislation for the referendum says. The vote a few years ago to change the electoral system WAS binding because the bill that set up the referendum expressly said it was.
It's still the same concept of parliamentary sovereignty, just with an extra delegation step. The vote was binding because the Parliament, which is the sole entity vested with the power to change the system (or, really, do anything), delegated to the referendum voters the specific subset of that power, namely picking between the choices provided. So the referendum did not enact a law that made the changes - the law was enacted in advance, but in dormant state until triggered by referendum results. The Parliament could kill that law at any point, even as the votes were counted, and thus not accept the result.
Or it could wait for referendum to activate the law, and then immediately repeal it via another bill. Because "no Parliament can bind a future Parliament", there's effectively no such thing as a binding referendum in UK, since results of any referendum can be so reversed.