Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 [55] 56 57 ... 126

Author Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued  (Read 192004 times)

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #810 on: November 04, 2016, 02:00:39 pm »

He was never popular with me. He was not even popular with the Leave voters I know. But he was a useful bit of grit around which the 'pearl' of Brexit eventually formed.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #811 on: November 04, 2016, 04:19:02 pm »

Dang I have so little respect for Nigel it is like I have a douche filter over everything he says. It doesn't help, I guess, that he kind of is a giant douche... but I should take what he says seriously instead of dismissing it out of hand. Anyhow it isn't a "betrayal" for the courts to rule against Brexit if they consider it unconstitutional. Their job isn't to play partisan politics. And yes it DOES suck when something good is stopped by courts (and great when something bad is stopped by them)... But I don't exactly consider the courts betraying the people. BESIDES there are ways around the constitution... Just do that
Neonivek that's not what Nigel's saying

No Nigel Faraday already said the courts betrayed all of the UK. His word is officially binding, because he is the King of England!
I don't quite know why Nigel portrays it that way mind you... He isn't stupid (A lot of things yes, but not stupid)
It is beautiful how the neoliberal world complains of the ignorance of the unwashed world, whilst proudly displaying their ignorance as highest intellect

I fucking died at King Faraday

If you're going to abandon the virtue of humility and plunge into full-smug, at least sit safely in a comfortable seat of objective superiority. If you can't even get the person right you're smug and foolish. Anyways what Imperator Faraecilius Britanniae said is he fears a betrayal of what British voters voted for by their own MPs. He is not accusing the High Court of betraying British public, what he fears is that if our MPs are given the power to not invoke article 50, then they may very well do so in spite of their constituents wishes. Thus pro-EU MPs will proudly represent their constituents who voted to leave... By keeping Britain in the EU, which would make everyone sad :[

lol 1.9% is decisive.
51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8

Remember when Farage was all "we won't accept a 52/48 split"?
Nick Clegg can fight for a referendum to join the EU, once we've left it - that is fair :]

May has said there's going to be no running commentary on their negotiating position. Far as I can tell, even four months hence, there has been no commentary whatsoever.
wat
There is too much commentary, right down to secret leaks

He's not well liked in the UK. He's well liked by bigots and morons, because he's a bigoted moron.
You're in good company with the ubermillenial

Sorry if I didn't respond to any comments aimed at me, I've been very busy with my projects.
Pretty much agreed


Parliament shouldn't have any say on whether or not the UK leaves the EU, since folk already voted for it - however thin the margin. They should, however, be able to represent their constituents by having a say on whatever terms the UK should push for in the negotiations.
Not everyone voted for the Tories, but as things stand, the Tories are now negotiating for everyone, despite the aforementioned vagueness of the referendum question. Representative democracy ftw.
The court didn't rule against Brexit, it ruled in favour of the basic manner in which our parliament has always worked. They'd do the same if the government tried to ignore parliament on any other issue.
The referendum was not binding, we knew from before it happened that any result would require a further act by parliament to implement.
My thoughts on the whole court ruling is mostly these two posts, and some more. Which I shall now talk on!

So the "Parliament" (for sake of ease I am drawing a distinction between the cabinet and the members of parliament, referring to the MPs as "Parliament", when in full literal terms, Cabinet draws its members from the Parliament) does not have the power or authority to propose its own policies or make its own decisions in regards to things like UK foreign policy. The Cabinet is the executive branch of British government, whilst the Parliament is the branch of government that enacts the Cabinet's policies into law, scrutinizes it before that, and if it does not like it - rejects or repeals it. It then gets passed down to our civil service or MOD, which enacts the law into reality in whatever manner they can. Likewise whilst authority lies with the Cabinet and Prime Minister when it comes to formulating policy, Parliament acts as the arbiter (well, the High Court acts as the literal arbiter, but you get the idea), especially on matters of domestic concern. The most relevant example (to this discussion topic) by far - legislation to enact a referendum on EU membership was shot down for years and years on end (with David Cameron counting on his opposition to ensure he did not have to keep his promise without losing face), accidentally outliving his opposition too well, resulting in parliament approving of the referendum act. Rather annoyingly, the same Parliament that passed this act, is the one in which a coalition is forming to ignore the result of the referendum they approved.
You can see why we're concerned that not all of our MPs are sincere in expressing our views <_<

Parliament has a second mechanism with which they can scrutinize and enforce their will upon Prime Ministers and Cabinet members, the motion of no confidence. If Parliament does not like the PM, they can hold a vote to get rid of them and force the dissolution of Parliament, thereby triggering a new general election. This is pretty rare and no one has suggested it yet, but it exists and is worth mentioning, if for example Theresa May's popularity in parliament plummets over some scandal in the future.

The third mechanism is not a Parliamentary one, so much as one of Parliamentary party politics - parties within Parliament can trigger leadership elections to get a new leader in who then reshuffles cabinet (see: firing everyone who lost). Good examples from recent times are the attempts by Labour MPs to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, though they have not had any success there. A very famous example would be Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher getting deposed through the Tory leadership election.

The public can also get rid of the Prime Minister by voting them out of their constituency. Whilst the Prime Minister could legally stay on as they don't have to be an MP, since before WWI every Prime Minister has been an MP for the simple reason that they most command the respect of the Commons and if they can't, they'll get removed soon. An informal check

Theresa May won the Tory leadership election and has support of the Commons and her constituency, so those options have been disabled for the time being. Parliament does however have this one trick up its sleeve, the one we've been talking about - since the high court ruling that the PM can't invoke article 50 without Parliament's support, this sets up an interesting precedent. As it stands now Parliament will vote to invoke article 50, it is simply not politically feasible for them to reject it; that is not where the fears from Leave are focused. The fear is that though Parliament will vote to invoke article 50, they will use the vote to force concessions from the government of the UK, to dictate the terms of Brexit - usurping the authority of the government, and placing effective executive power in the House of Commons.

To this end Nick Clegg is leading a coalition of MPs to try and force Brexit on his faction's terms. Rather exciting to see Nick Clegg back on the stage, as you may have found amongst many of my posts I have made many jokes about Nick Clegg, good to see him doing something relevant these days - my favourite politician with whom I disagree with. Anyways the terms Nick Clegg are describing are a soft Brexit, versus what he calls May's version as - hard Brexit.
Defining these terms and why they're problematic:
Essentially Phillip Hammond is arguing for what he terms 'soft brexit,' which is a formal withdrawal from the European Union that remains within EU institutions like the single market, whereas Theresa May is arguing for what Philip calls 'hard brexit,' which is withdrawal from all EU institutions. Again, rather surprisingly, I agree with Donald Tusk that there is no distinction between 'soft brexit' and 'hard brexit,' only 'membership' and 'brexit.' Reason being if we stay in the common market then our external trade with the rest of the world would be controlled by the EU, which just wouldn't make sense since our world trade is the majority of our trade, and we would have to sacrifice migration & security controls in order to keep that. Sans being one of the negotiators of course, so it would be the worse end of everything for everyone who's not a banker lol
The European Commission does not want a UK enjoying the benefits of the single market and the government of the UK does not want the European Commission overriding any decisions of the UK - thus both will struggle to accommodate the wishes of the Remain faction. To make matters worse, there is a time constraint, given that both the EU and the UK want to start Brexit ASAP with article 50 triggered by March 2017, in order to minimize damage to the UK economy and the Eurozone economy caused by political instability. Parliament holding additional debates on top of the PMQs and Committees they have already held would greatly lengthen the whole ordeal to the detriment of both parties involved.

There is also the whole issue of MPs acting on their own conscience in spite of their constituents' wishes. This is an important guess here: Most MPs will most likely act in accordance with the votes of their constituents. It is for example, not surprising that the Liberal Democrat MPs (pro-EU) representing constituencies in London that voted Remain, want to keep the UK as closely integrated with the EU as possible. If you have no issue with Parliament exercising a newfound authority on the government, you would have no issue with that. Where opposition such as myself takes issue is if MPs representing constituencies that voted to Leave take this as an opportunity to decide the terms of Brexit, placing themselves above the Cabinet on the basis of representing their voters whilst simultaneously acting against their wishes on the basis that they are Oxbridge elite, their voters are plebians. Would an MP be willing to betray its voters who wanted to Leave? In my personal experience, they have more than enough moral rationalizations to do so. Unfortunately, without no general election, there is nothing to replace them with an MP obligated to obey their mandate.

One should expect MPs not to behave so, but given that they are politicians and the stakes are high, naturally constituents are suspicious. There would be an obvious solution here: To hold a general election. This would allow parties to set out their parties' terms on Brexit and ensure MPs who don't represent their constituents would be replaced, however again, there is that blasted time constraint. Our government, German, French, Italian, Dutch, the rest and the Commission are ready for this dual reformation. "Sucks if there is going to be delays because of this," is how I understate this. Honestly if it has to come to it, I would much rather have Europe and the UK suffer & trigger a general election than allow these smug gits a single chance at having their will above the world.

Some hilarious quotes from The Guardian, which is pro-EU, quality British journalism (when their heads aren't in the clouds)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Oh, and it's worth mentioning that the legal case was started by an anti-brexit campaigner who is butting heads with the Attorney General, who said she was trying to subvert the democratic will of the electorate through the back-door. Top lel, that it was started by fund managers operating from luxury homes in the EU also makes it a goldmine of smugness
Moving aside from the usual shite, what happens in high court with the repeal is gonna set a juicy precedent. On the popular front of things, you get your Sarah Newtons who hate unelected bureaucrats overriding democracy, and thus the unelected judges overriding democracy will not go down well. Then you got those complaining that the likes of Nick Clegg leading the parliamentary faction keen on overturning the clear mandate having been voted out, again same issue. Whatever happens, serious power shifts are bound to happen between the Government, Parliament and High Court. A severe fault line has been exposed in our constitution:
The Government acts foremost in foreign policy, the Parliament acts foremost in domestic policy. Brexit is an act of foreign policy with huge impacts on domestic affairs (indeed, on British sovereignty). Thus a legal precedent must be set.
To get an idea of how seriously the High Court is treating this, it is very rare for 9 justices to sit on a case in the High Court. For this matter, for the very first time in British history, all 11 will be present at and adjudicating at the case. So if you hear someone saying this doesn't matter - tell them though it may be boring, it matters immensely.

Those are just my opinions though lol

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #812 on: November 04, 2016, 04:32:28 pm »

Ahh that makes a lot more sense.

Also I am glad I am entertaining someone. Though I am not sure why I'd be a Neoliberal O_o
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #813 on: November 04, 2016, 04:44:47 pm »

lol 1.9% is decisive.
51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
37.442% - 34.712% = 2.73% (All registered voters)
33.902% - 31.430% = 2.47% (All voting-age)
26.741% - 24.791% = 1.95% (UK population)

I stick with the first of these, but the others are as valid.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #814 on: November 04, 2016, 05:21:49 pm »

Ahh that makes a lot more sense.
Also I am glad I am entertaining someone.
I dunno man, your posts are kinda boring
They don't really explain your view or add any insight or facts to the discussion, they're mostly just affirmations of someone else's opinions with virtue signalling

Are... we allowed to put down Nigel?
I mean... I dislike him greatly and find him to be kind of a bigot who plays off of people's darkest desires.
But I assumed he was popular in the UK and kept waiting for people to get pissed off at me for even questioning his integrity.
This post illustrates all I mean (in good faith). When you post like this, posting only an opinion based on the opinions of those around you, what worth is that? If this forum was entirely composed of those who supported Fāréi Huángdì why would you withhold your opinion based off of opposition - surely then it would be the most appropriate for you to explain why you oppose Nài jié? Conversely, why then do you only seek to reaffirm the opinions of those who already agree with you, preaching to the choir with only smug and no substance? I can tell you now, the Leave campaign did not win because its campaigners locked themselves in a room talking to its own supporters about how much better they were than Remain supporters, so why would you pursue the losing strategy?

Though I am not sure why I'd be a Neoliberal O_o
Just what I got you penned as ~o.o~

lol 1.9% is decisive.
51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
37.442% - 34.712% = 2.73% (All registered voters)
33.902% - 31.430% = 2.47% (All voting-age)
26.741% - 24.791% = 1.95% (UK population)
I stick with the first of these, but the others are as valid.
Glad you agree, the first of these is to be stuck with

Dat 3.8% victory top kek
Are we going to be really that sad and try to manipulate stats to minimize the appearance of Remain's failure cos then you're just gonna open yourself to shitposting about how 75% of the UK's regions voted by majority to leave ;P
Also lmao, even rounding 1.95% down to 1.9
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 05:28:58 pm by Loud Whispers »
Logged

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #815 on: November 04, 2016, 05:36:44 pm »

Just 'cause I'm not a huge fan Ed "too good for this fucking country" Milliband, I will provide one piece of evidence on Farage's moronic bigotry, mostly because I can't find the video I'm looking for in which UKIP was accused of being a racist homophobe by a passerby during an interview, to which he responded "we're not homophobes", which I found to be quite funny.

He was late 'cause of the immigrants doing... something? to the M4.

The man is a bit of a tit.

Anyhow, you did bring up an early GE, LW; what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

the way your fingertips plant meaningless soliloquies makes me think you are the true evil among us.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #816 on: November 04, 2016, 05:56:39 pm »

Just 'cause I'm not a huge fan Ed "too good for this fucking country" Milliband, I will provide one piece of evidence on Farage's moronic bigotry, mostly because I can't find the video I'm looking for in which UKIP was accused of being a racist homophobe by a passerby during an interview, to which he responded "we're not homophobes", which I found to be quite funny.
WHO IS UKIP
WHY DOES HE WEAR THE PURPLE
Also I'm surprised by your supposed quote, I would've thought it'd be the other way around

He was late 'cause of the immigrants doing... something? to the M4.
The man is a bit of a tit.
Why the ellipses, you know what he says from the quote
Quote
“It took me six hours and 15 minutes in the car to get here. It should have taken three and a half to four,” he later said. “That has nothing to do with professionalism. What is does have to do with is a country in which the population is going through the roof, chiefly because of open-door immigration, and the fact the M4 is not as navigable as it used to be.
More people = more drivers
At any rate, he was jokin lol

Anyhow, you did bring up an early GE, LW; what do you think the chances are of that actually happening?
Depends on the court ruling
As of now unlikely, since May believes the House of Commons (well, enough of it) supports her, that she could press on and continue with Merkel and Tusk
If however Parliament gets the vote, May may not take it in good faith that those supporting her will not manage to get their way. To trigger an early general election she'd have to get the assent of Parliament, but to that end Labour and the Tories both support an early general election, so unless Corbyn changes his mind she would be able to

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #817 on: November 04, 2016, 06:06:18 pm »

lol 1.9% is decisive.
51.9 - 48.1 = 3.8
37.442% - 34.712% = 2.73% (All registered voters)
33.902% - 31.430% = 2.47% (All voting-age)
26.741% - 24.791% = 1.95% (UK population)
I stick with the first of these, but the others are as valid.
Glad you agree, the first of these is to be stuck with

Dat 3.8% victory top kek
Are we going to be really that sad and try to manipulate stats to minimize the appearance of Remain's failure cos then you're just gonna open yourself to shitposting about how 75% of the UK's regions voted by majority to leave ;P
Also lmao, even rounding 1.95% down to 1.9
a) For deliberately misinterpreting me, I shall now point out that in 51.9% vs 49.1% then it is true that just 1.9% (give or take small change) of votes need to switch to alter the result.

b) I'm not minimising the Remain failure, I'm pricking the thin membrane being used to over-inflate statements such as thar of Leave's 'overwhelming' success.  Seriously, 'vast majority'? 'The country's mind is clear'? 'We all voted Leave to <insert speaker's own personal reason to vote Leave here>'?  It's a mess. We haven't got a clear mind to Leave, just a slight swing to possibly doing so, and even those who want to Leave can' t agree what kind of Leave we want.

c) 50% of the UK's nations voted to Leave, about two thirds of the districts (strict district numbers) or 63% of the population (residents of those districts) or maybe half of the area (district sprawl), and you can have those 'justification figures' for free...

d) Wasn't me who "rounded 1.95 to 1.9", but if you want to know, I rounded 1.9497783... up to 1.95, to give you 2DP (reasonable enough, given I'd used 3DP for the subtraction*), but I could have rounded to 1DP and actually said 1.9% and you wouldn't have known a thing.


* Clarification, I'd displayed 3DP in the subtractions, and 2DP is a reasonable choice for the result as 1DP can easily get 'lost' in the rounding, but I'd actually used the whole display (10DP, although it was technically 2DP for the whole percentile and the other 8 for the percentile fractions) and/or calculator memory in the sum and only reproduced the truncated/traditionally rounded decimals for your delight and delictation.  The point is that I was very thorough.  A pity the 2016 population number was an estimation, but I religiously used the figure of "forty-six million, five hundred thousand and one" registered voters where relevent. Maybe that "one" was me, and without me it would have been the unbelievably rounded "46,500,000" instead.  Like with Mt Everest.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 06:19:53 pm by Starver »
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #818 on: November 04, 2016, 06:16:10 pm »

Having an independent court that ensures that the government is acting within the law is an important part of democracy.

The backlash against the judges for making a legal decision really worries me.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 06:19:08 pm by Leafsnail »
Logged

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #819 on: November 04, 2016, 06:25:02 pm »

« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 06:27:10 pm by martinuzz »
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #820 on: November 04, 2016, 06:49:56 pm »

And it's that they are just so, so, so goddamn boring.
I beg to differ, as I will soon prove to you with this 3-hour long Powerpoint presentation that I have prepared in advance for this exact situation... Now, bear with, as it starts with a joke embedded in a Victorian-style acrostic, which I may have to carefully explain to you.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #821 on: November 04, 2016, 06:56:04 pm »

a) For deliberately misinterpreting me, I shall now point out that in 51.9% vs 49.1% then it is true that just 1.9% (give or take small change) of votes need to switch to alter the result.
A nice sounding statement that is ultimately meaningless, except for making Remain's failure appear diminished.
The decisive victory was caused by a margin of 3.8%, when the original claim made was that it was 1.9%. That first claim is just wrong. The second statement that 1.9% of the votes switching would alter the result has nothing to do with the original claim and is completely irrelevant; 50% of the votes switching would have altered the vote, 0.1% of the votes switching would have altered the vote, and they didn't. Why should I abandon the legitimacy of victory to cater to alternate realities? In another dimension, let it be

b) I'm not minimising the Remain failure, I'm pricking the thin membrane being used to over-inflate statements such as thar of Leave's 'overwhelming' success.  Seriously, 'vast majority'? 'The country's mind is clear'? 'We all voted Leave to <insert speaker's own personal reason to vote Leave here>'?  It's a mess. We haven't got a clear mind to Leave, just a slight swing to possibly doing so, and even those who want to Leave can' t agree what kind of Leave we want.
I can tell you now what would've pricked Leave more would be Remain getting 2,5M more votes it never had, and I'll do you one better for statements

I walked in on that day with so many Britons into the ballet box. I like all others read this question: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

Presented with two options:
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

I don't understand where all these pro-EU MPs seem to get the idea that their constituents who ticked Leave the European Union were under some illusion that that meant, "Remain a member of the European Union," or "Remain a member of the European Union." Bit curious that? I'll keep to it lol that's the one thing we got definite clarity on

c) 50% of the UK's nations voted to Leave, about two thirds of the districts (strict district numbers) or 63% of the population (residents of those districts) or maybe half of the area (district sprawl), and you can have those 'justification figures' for free...
d) Wasn't me who "rounded 1.95 to 1.9", but if you want to know, I rounded 1.9497783... up to 1.95, to give you 2DP (reasonable enough, given I'd used 3DP for the subtraction*), but I could have rounded to 1DP and actually said 1.9% and you wouldn't have known a thing.
Tyvm good netizen

The Telegraph tones it down a bit, but still worrisome: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/the-plot-to-stop-brexit-the-judges-versus-the-people/
Ofcourse my newspaper's cartoonist couldn't resist. http://www.volkskrant.nl/foto/collignon-2~p4368444/4176159/
Quote
The Prime Minister pledged to face down any attempt to thwart Brexit, suggesting that she intended to dare MPs who support Remain to vote against her in Parliament, in a move which would provoke a constitutional crisis.
Rofl half expecting May to roll into Parliament atop a Challenger 2, pointing a chain gun just above the benches

And it's that they are just so, so, so goddamn boring.
I beg to differ, as I will soon prove to you with this 3-hour long Powerpoint presentation that I have prepared in advance for this exact situation... Now, bear with, as it starts with a joke embedded in a Victorian-style acrostic, which I may have to carefully explain to you.
Sounds interesting tbh

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #822 on: November 04, 2016, 07:13:21 pm »

There were people who read "Leave..." as "I want to annoy David  Cameron", there were others who wanted "No purely hypothetical EU superstate, but everything else is Ok, thanks" and there were others who just don't like mayonaisse on their chips. The "I don't like Syrians, they're all terrorists" crowd are at the other end of the list and may or may not have good reasons to vote Leave, but that one wasn't it.

It should (ignoring that first of all it wasn't even a sensible thing to ask) have been a three-hander. Leave/Status-Quo/Deeper-In. Then the lean (probably to Out) could have been recorded, but likely with the middling-ground prevailing. It would have stopped the 'feared' Superstate (the UK being "of Europe but not in Europe") but not have wrecked all the decent cooperative elements about it that few people utterly dismiss, if I'm not too far from imagining this.
Logged

Leafsnail

  • Bay Watcher
  • A single snail can make a world go extinct.
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #823 on: November 04, 2016, 07:14:39 pm »

Since the margin was so small many MPs will have constituencies that voted against Brexit.
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #824 on: November 04, 2016, 07:37:25 pm »

There were people who read "Leave..." as "I want to annoy David  Cameron", there were others who wanted "No purely hypothetical EU superstate, but everything else is Ok, thanks" and there were others who just don't like mayonaisse on their chips. The "I don't like Syrians, they're all terrorists" crowd are at the other end of the list and may or may not have good reasons to vote Leave, but that one wasn't it.
We've gone over this, it didn't say "Leave..."

It said "Leave the European Union."

It should (ignoring that first of all it wasn't even a sensible thing to ask)
Why? Seems obvious enough to you, not obvious at all to me.

Remain a member of the European Union.
Leave the European Union.

These are the choices the European Union presented us. David Cameron did not promise a referendum on integration, he promised a referendum on membership. There is no way for you to wiggle in all this nonsense without ignoring the very clear choice made

Then the lean (probably to Out) could have been recorded, but likely with the middling-ground prevailing.
Haha, two option choices for EU membership on the card and one to leave. I'm glad you weren't in charge of the voting ballots xD
As for what the results would be, I don't particularly care, though I'd place my money on Leave still winning since this referendum itself was a rejection of status quo. I wonder as well, if splitting Remain's vote into two options wouldn't just stack all of Leave into one super-majority. Anyways my boredom is sourced from all up through the referendum, three months worth of hypothetical results and poll predictions saying Remain would win, I don't need even more hypotheticals even after they've lost xD
I'm happy to continue talking about this subject though, the hypotheticals of it all. Just not right now, too exhausted - I'll be off now till Sunday :<

It would have stopped the 'feared' Superstate (the UK being "of Europe but not in Europe") but not have wrecked all the decent cooperative elements about it that few people utterly dismiss, if I'm not too far from imagining this.
Yeah you're pretty far off. The European Commission has made it pretty clear, you're either a member of the European Union or you're not, and there is only one direction for European Integration - further. When even Germany was saying the EU needed to slow down its pace of integration and reform, their reforms were further integration. What makes you think the EU would listen to a British referendum that said "give us all the benefits but you have no power over us unlike every other nation state within your fold." Every other nation would just seek the same agreement, so it would represent a unique challenge - for example how would we remain in the single market without also having the EU control our external tariff rates?

Since the margin was so small many MPs will have constituencies that voted against Brexit.
Noted, see here:

There is also the whole issue of MPs acting on their own conscience in spite of their constituents' wishes. This is an important guess here: Most MPs will most likely act in accordance with the votes of their constituents. It is for example, not surprising that the Liberal Democrat MPs (pro-EU) representing constituencies in London that voted Remain, want to keep the UK as closely integrated with the EU as possible. If you have no issue with Parliament exercising a newfound authority on the government, you would have no issue with that. Where opposition such as myself takes issue is if MPs representing constituencies that voted to Leave take this as an opportunity to decide the terms of Brexit, placing themselves above the Cabinet on the basis of representing their voters whilst simultaneously acting against their wishes on the basis that they are Oxbridge elite, their voters are plebians. Would an MP be willing to betray its voters who wanted to Leave? In my personal experience, they have more than enough moral rationalizations to do so. Unfortunately, without no general election, there is nothing to replace them with an MP obligated to obey their mandate.

One should expect MPs not to behave so, but given that they are politicians and the stakes are high, naturally constituents are suspicious. There would be an obvious solution here: To hold a general election. This would allow parties to set out their parties' terms on Brexit and ensure MPs who don't represent their constituents would be replaced, however again, there is that blasted time constraint. Our government, German, French, Italian, Dutch, the rest and the Commission are ready for this dual reformation. "Sucks if there is going to be delays because of this," is how I understate this. Honestly if it has to come to it, I would much rather have Europe and the UK suffer & trigger a general election than allow these smug gits a single chance at having their will above the world.
Tl;dr is no one's too bothered by an LD representing one of the London constituencies doing exactly what their mandate says on the tin: Campaign for EU membership til the end. We're a lot more worried by those leftover Tories and Labour who sit on constituencies that voted Leave, some of whom have said anonymously they'd respect their constituents, some of whom rather euphemistically say they will vote with their conscience against their constituents' "self harm." Cheeky authoritarians
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 [55] 56 57 ... 126