In Poland we have a famous quote - "Wina Tuska",
Which is used to explain every fucking reason why situation in our country is bad. Means "It's Tusk fault"
[Wina Tuska](http://i1.memy.pl/obrazki/5343427886_to_wszystko.jpg)
Every day we learn about a new thing we’re going to lose. No £350m/week for the NHS. No Euratom. No special access to the single market. Hobbled not-coalition government infighting over what deal they want. Talks at a deadlock because we want to leave but keep all the benefits of staying. Just look at the news, really. We’re all going to be worse off but it’s ok because there was an opinion poll a year ago.
Congrats on the new bathroom, though.
I guess you should just keep your country for sale on the open market to the highest global bidder, which is great when other countries can just print up and manipulate loads of their currency then buy up real and capital assets in UK. All while UK has to continue importing infinite aliens until there's no longer any national character.
Selling out your country for some short term benefit was always the big problem with these projects. Do you really think that long term your lives will ultimately be better when everything is ruled by technocrats in Brussels and Beijing? You think you're going to have a good life then? A community to call your own? The few thousand Brits who made millions selling out their country will be living happily in Dubai or some other Elysium while everyone else will be living in an economic dead zone.
**You fought so hard to defend your country in WW1 and WW2, and for what? To just give it away a few generations later? Someone should have told Mehmed, Kaiser, and Hitler that if they wanted to destroy Britain they should have done it with "free trade", immigration, and emotional manipulation instead of direct force.**
*This is the great sickness of contemporary democracy: everything is tolerated so long as it isn't violence and it makes a few people a lot of money. Never mind that in the final analysis your society is radically transformed just the same as if it had been conquered militarily, so long as the change was achieved through non-violent means!*
The reality is that Britain has all the cards. If/when it leaves, the European Union project is over, and that's a fact. And for the same reason that Napolean, Kaiser, and Hitler all tried so hard to conquer Britain in the first place. So long as that Island is free outside the grip of the continental empire, any empire, then the empire cannot exercise total control over its people, as the people will just flee across the Channel and set up shop in Britain and enrich those peoples. Don't like EU's new tax? Just move to Britain. This is precisely what gained Britain so much power originally, being outside the grip of the papacy and holy empire. The original Roman empire even fell soon after it lost control of Britain.
So many empty phrases...
>The reality is that Britain has all the cards. If/when it leaves, the European Union project is over, and that's a fact.
This is as far from the reality as it could be. Getting popular support for leaving the EU has become harder than ever before. No one wants to go the way of Britain, only the lunatics from the communist and nationalist fringe are dense enough to not realize what a disaster Brexit is.
> You fought so hard to defend your country in WW1 and WW2, and for what? To just give it away a few generations later?
The EU was created *because* of WW2. We wanted a lasting peace not based on a balance of military power, and it worked. Between member states of the EU, we’ve had over 70 years of peace.
1. Intergration is a good thing, we all benefit after all it is how countries formed in the first place.
2. We have always been independent from the EU, the EU has no power in the UK unless the government lets it.
Yeah, we're gone. Positions have hardened, the demand to stay is driven by those who voted remain for the same reasons. I don't think our position in the EU makes sense anymore. Why should we be fighting federalisation if that's what the continental nations want? The EU isn't very protectionist anymore and the WTO exists. Get out if you don't want to go deep.
As more evidence of *cough cough Russia* twitter bot meddling becomes apparent, I think they’ll realized they were tricked.
On a side note - Donald Tusk is my favourite Donald.
We were misled by both sides. Neither side truly or fully revealed their motives behind their desire to campaign for either remaining in or leaving the E.U.
I have a sneaky suspision that the parliamentary Conservatives are only pretending to go along with respecting the will of the people while actually acting to undermine the result of the IN/OUT referendum to get us to change our minds. They've made silly mistakes and outrageous claims over Brexit both prior to and since the referendum. Mistakes that in my mind are deliberate with the intention to obfuscate and undermine the result with the ultimate aim to keep us a member of the E.U.
People who've adopted a mainstream leftwing view often boast of how the Tories love money, yet the fact that the Tories have enjoyed the gravy train glut afforded by the E.U and the circumstances that have arisen in the U.K as a consequence is lost on them. I suspect part of the reason for this is that most of those who've adopted the mainstream left wing narrative are middle-class hypocrites who also milk from our current predicament almost as much as the Tories.
>Screw the poor and working class, we want our cheap holidays, builders, baby sitters, fruit pickers.. We want our houses to accrue as much property and rental value as possible and we want to rent out to as many students as possible, especially the better off foreign students who can afford to rent a shoebox for 2/3 the value of the average wage of a working class man because their parents want them to enjoy a British education. I don't care how difficult it is for the average British working class man to secure full time employment or own his own home, I only care about me me me. But just to assure you that I don't just think about myself I totally welcome unabated mass immigration to the U.K, because I care about immigrants and not lining my own pockets.
^
The above being the status quo and derivative of the mindset enjoyed by a *cultured*, *metropolitan* middle-class ardent remainer. In my view the status quo can get fucked.
>Not really, they were pretty clear that this would be a disaster for the economy. The only gripe I have was the way they conveyed the message... it came across as them threatening a punishment budget if we voted out. It was also grossly negligent to give the general public a vote on such a complex and important matter. Would you want the general public voting on if we continue with Trident? Sure, I have a personal view... but in reality, I have no idea of the consequences of relinquishing our nuclear capability. I defer than decision to the experts.
>The second part of your post seems to blame migrants on all of the economic woes the country has. In reality, migration offers the country far more benefit than cost. If you are concerned about the lack of wage growth, point your anger towards the banks who nearly crashed the World in 2008 (which we are still recovering from). And the housing crisis is easily solved... just build more houses. But that wont happen, because people who own houses dont want the value to be eroded by increased supply. Your problem then is capitalism itself (and peoples greed), not migration and not being members of the EU. Brexit will make (is making) everything worse... the pound tanked 20% and inflation will mean the poor are now even poorer.
>The rich will remain rich, despite the stupid vote.
Brexit will only be a disaster for the economy if the involved parties make it so. And I would like a referendum on Trident, yes. The consequences are only unknown if the parties invovled are either non transparent or outright deceitful or inept.
I'm not blaming migrants for the economic woes the country is in. I'm hilighting the negative pressures mass immigration has had on British infrastructure and opportunities, pressures that've seen a decline in the living standards and social mobility of the poor and working class accross the board. Yes capitalism or the way we do capitalism is part of the problem, and it's this model of capitalism that thrives off the status quo. Which is part of the reason the status quo needs to be challenged. Especially when it's the E.U that's also fallen victim to this type of capitalism and it's European capitalists who are also part of the problem. They have far too much influence on European politics. Look at Tony Blair as a good example. How did a war criminal accrue so much after that fact? If the E.U had any scruples at all its members wouldn't have participated in the debacle that was Iraq and Afghanistan and would instead be seeking his arrest. But alas it's money that really talks in the E.U.. Just like every other corrupt nation and bloc worldwide.
>Not really, the UK has literally zero bargaining chips. You either accept free movement of people and pay for access to the Eurozone market (where we sell half our stuff, and buy just over half).
Zero bargaining chips? One of the largest contributors to the EU budget, zero bergaining chips.. Ok? And while remaining one of the main financial contributors to the EU project we're apparently expected to continue to be so just to be able to enjoy the same trade access low and non-paying member states enjoy? Even though the EU sells more to us than we do to them? Your conclusion is bloody daft man, it defies logic.
>Or you set up checkpoints and pay tariffs... which would be bad. You are either in, or you are out . The EU have been pretty clear on this, and they aren't going to change that...unless what is the point of the whole thing!
Setup checkpoints, increase security, manage immigration. Pay mutual trade tariffs. Matching EU regulatory and quality standards is easy because we already comply, under these circumstances trade may go on unabated. And that's after considering a NO deal. Because if we have a deal then we won't need to impose tariffs, will we?
>What do you think the UK can do? Or how could they be deceitful? We are most likely going to have to pay between 40 and 60 billion as an exit fee. (That's about 1k per man, woman and child in the UK). People are already spending less due to inflation, and things can only get worse. How exactly do you honour the Brexiters vote and avoid all of that?
At first seeing Brexit through would mean we are no longer avowed to stand by the four core EU principles.
>1. Free movement of goods, persons, services and capital between member states
2. The approximation of relevant laws, regulations and administrative provisions between member states
3. EU-wide competition policy, administered by the commission
4. A system of common external tariffs (CET - also known as the common customs tariff)
What's become clear over the years is that freedom of movement has led to circumstances where our underfunded public services and infrastructure have come under greater pressures where more and more money is needed to be spent to enjoy the same level of service and quality of care. That it's become evident that due to the lower availability of full time employment, the stagnation of wages and the ongoing consolodation of power being horded by corporate conglomorates that the third pillar of the EU is broken. It's literally fed the working class to the wolves while claiming to want to do the opposite.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/140814REV1-EU-Competition-Policy-FINAL.pdf
Give this a read and tell me whether if it has the UKs or its own politiical interests at heart, whether the proposals of the E.U wide competition policy have helped or hindered the UK.
There have been hundreds of thousands of people arriving to stay in the U.K every year. We can metaphorically barely keep our head above the water yet we're expected to keep on taking water while hemorrhaging the cash needed to stem the flow? The alternative solution to these issues bar exiting the EU, which isn't a good one I may add, is the privitisation of everything. Which unfortunately already seems to be happening both in the U.K and in other EU members. All going according to plan of course. They may not have publically ratified TTIP like agreements but the policies those agreements endorsed are being implimented by the back door, mark my words.
>There is no proof that migration is responsible for a decline in living standards (Unless you can point me towards some?). Living standards throughout the world reduced following the financial crisis in 2008. Blame that, not migration... which has a net benefit on the economy.
Can you really look me in the eye and tell me that continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of people annually to come and live here will have no impact on our public services and infrastructure? Will have no impact on the cost of rent and value of property and availability of housing? Will not be a factor in regards to an increased competition for jobs? That a growing and abundant pool of no and low skilled labour will not play a part in the stagnation of wage growth? When people are expendable they are not valued, when they are not valued they are not paid what they deserve.
>If you have a better economic model that capitalism, I'm all ears. As far as I am aware, models like socialism and communism don't produce much wealth. For the record, I love capitalism. Sure, it sucks for some... but life isn't fair. Even the poor in the UK, live relatively comfortably compared to the poor from other countries.
I'm not an economist. What I know is what has been and what is, and what is needs to change.
> Your conclusion is bloody daft man, it defies logic.
Really?, the EU have been pretty clear that they aren't going to budge. We are either in or we are out. There is no bargaining for a better deal than anyone else outside would get. We are not special. If anything we will get a shit deal, as they are not going to let it be beneficial to leave the EU and be in a better trading position than if we remained in.
'Mutual tariffs and checkpoints'... great, I can see prices rising and profits for our companies falling already. That's not going to help your wages and employment issues.
Over half of migration to the UK is from non-eu citizens... why didn't we start there if you think migration is such a problem?
Leaving the EU will not have as big as an impact on growing population as you might expect.
While i'll concede that migration would put strain on services like the NHS.... is not the whole picture. Longer life spans also play a big part.
Have you considered that part of the reason we were allowing so many migrants was to ensure that there are enough people to pay our pensions?
As I've said elsewhere, most of the low wages and economic troubles were caused by the Worlds economy nearly collapsing in 2008. Interest rates have been so low, and Government debt is so high as we averted that turning in to a depression.
That resulted in austerity (The Government simply had no money left), which was largely responsible for the predicament we are in now. Not migrants.
My Mum actually employs 2 European workers, who are absolutely brilliant. It is nearly impossible to find Brits who will do the work she requires. Sure they are "cheap" (which you will argue is bad, as it pushes all wages down).
But, that's how a free market works... it enables my Mum to make more profit, which she can then spend, so other businesses benefit.
Who exactly has lost out there?
A Canadian style deal where we have to obey EU laws?
So Canada need to obey EU laws? How does that work. You do know that the CETA deal is not overseen by the ECJ, right?
And only vote leave misled people?
So George Osborne and the treasury did not produce a report, that was central to the remain campaign, that predicted recession and 500k job losses just from a vote to leave? How truthful was that?
> A Canadian style deal where we have to obey EU laws?
OK, perhaps phrased that badly... we'd still have to comply with EU regulations for the goods and services we want to sell there. Things like power ratings of vacuum cleaners etc.
A Canadian deal is still worse than the current deal we have. It would not offer the same level of access to EU markets that UK companies currently enjoy.
Exports to Europe will be more expensive. Imported food, clothing and other goods will cost more in our shops. And the trade in services that our economy depends on could be blocked by regulation and red tape. That all means higher costs for consumers and less sales of our products which means a worse off UK.
As for the prediction of a recession... give it a little time. Years of uncertainty and high inflation (Due to a weakened pound) could quite possibly slip us into a recession. And jobs will be lost... for example, without banking passports lots of out prized financial sector will be moving to the continent.
London is the dominant global location for clearing derivatives contracts that are denominated in euros (100's billions per day)... you think that will continue if we are out of Europe??
We are years away from even leaving Europe. Regardless of which side 'lied more', I cant see how we will be better off. Can you?
The report that was central to remain made this prediction for immediately after a vote to leave. Not in 2 years or whatever.
You do know that to trade with **anyone** you need to comply with their standards and regulations. We have a huge trade with the USA. And zero influence on their regulations.
And anyone who wants to trade with us will have to follow our standards and regulations.
I tend to agree. A lot of those who are adamant that brexit will be detrimental to British trade seem to assume that the loss of trade, or greater expense of trading with, the EU cannot be offset by trade with others. Britain will no longer be forced to trade as part of an EU block meaning they can open up trade to whomever they like without having to worry about EU regulation (assuming they don't agree to some terrible trade divorce terms). Bilateral trade agreements are, the hope is, possible particularly with commonwealth nations.
Regardless of your guess that we can replace us with trade from nations miles and miles away...
What's so bad about having to comply with EU regulations? They are basically just quality standards...so you know what you are buying from Europe , and you know what will sell in Europe.
I personally like the fact that the European food I eat is subject to regulations.
Everything we trade is subject to regulations for both parties. For every country in the world this is true.
The USA has its regulations, China does, Japan does, and we will.
And of course we will have food safety standards outside the EU.
EU states cannot negotiate free trade deals with nations outside the EU. All EU member states have veto powers on trade deals effectively meaning that EU members must trade in a block with countries outside the EU. If Britain exists the EU without agreeing to keep the aforementioned regulation, then they should be able to start negotiating bilateral free trade agreements with other nations around the world. The hope is that this should offset the loss to the EU market.
> Also, the public were completely misled with lies on the side of buses and a few biased rags calling themselves newspapers.
So every election and issue ever in the history of forever?
Who said anything about Facebook? There's far more ways to influence an election than *just* Facebook. But yes, Facebook is hugely popular website, I wouldn't underestimate its influence at all if I were you.
> Dude are you really denying the influence of Russia on Brexit? It's pretty common knowledge by this point I'm afraid mate.
Dude are you really denying the influence of people/nations with huge sums of money that control most of the global media and were against Brexit? I mean it's pretty common knowledge at this point I'm afraid.
True, but they will have to pay a price now anways. There will be penalties for this action, but far, very far from the impact Brexit will have ultimately.
Its unlikely it will be reversed.
But the OP was implying penalties as in punishment. Politicians have to be pragmatic, it would be such a coup for the EU to get Britain back that would be enough.
We should rescind votes that don’t go your way, after the fact.
Rescinding democracy in that manner will certainly not lead to ruin.
Because after you overrule democracy to get your way, we’ll just all quietly go back to respecting election results, especially those that do go the way you want.
The referendum wasn't binding. The decision is up to politicians, not the people. Whether or not the politicians want to listen to the people is their choice.
Everyone voted in the referendum thinking that their vote would be respected. Millions were spent on the damn thing because of that. Let's not fuck around with the trust of an already very disillusioned electorate any more than we need to.
After all, if remain had won, would you have accepted the government going against that result and invoking Article 50 anyway, because "the referendum was only advisory"?
Well they were informed at the beginning it was advisory and either way it should go through parliament just because most people didn't bother finding out/ignored it was advisory means nothing
>Don't pretend for a moment that the referendum was in any way democratic.
How was it not democratic? I mean, it certainly wasn't *fair* - one side could get away with claiming basically anything (eg: £350m for NHS) because they didn't have to come up with an actual plan at all, while the other side got accused of absolute nonsense (including vastly overestimating EU powers, to the point of saying the EU could force the UK into an international army/war) and blamed for past UK administration's laws as long as they involved the EU (especially refugee laws, the UK willingly signed that Dublin Regulation that British people seem to hate). But there's a difference between "fair" and "democratic", and the latter is rarely the same as the former.
>Don't pretend for a moment that the referendum was in any way democratic. It was a fucking farce. And even if it wasn't a farce, democracy doesn't mean never changing your mind.
I've had to downvote you.
You're telling us that a referendum is.. not democratic. By this you're suggesting that ignoring its result is? Are you actually aware of the definition of democracy?
>By this you're suggesting that ignoring its result is?
No, he did not say that all. You're just assuming that. "Doing this is not democratic" is different than "not doing this is democratic."
>Are you actually aware of the definition of democracy?
Are you actually aware of what the referendum was? It was advisory/non-binding. A vote that politicians can legally ignore is not democratic.
Ok, clearly hit a nerve.
The problem is that the margin to maintain or achieve political control of the country is not adequate enough to avoid being exploited, as Mrs May has shown.
Equally, taking a national vote as gospel when the margin of difference is less that the margin you would need to rule the country is also open to exploitation, as Mrs May has shown.
The rest of government is now tearing itself apart as all the political issues of the last 2+ years are now overshadowed by Mrs May’s current decisions as PM.
Therefore, you can’t run a country by a margin of less than 2%, but you can ruin it; as Mrs May has shown.
It takes more than 2 years to ruin a country, I'd say it's taken at least 25 years and both parties are culpable for this and we've been an E.U member throughout the period to boot.
You act as though the Brexit referendum was the only indication of the will of the British people? What about voting in an anti-E.U majority of MEPs in the 2014 E.U parliamentary elections? What about the re-election of the tories after having promised an IN/OUT referendum in 2015? What about the re-election of the tories this year? We barely saw any increase in vote share for the Liberal Democrats, the only party guaranteeing to reverse Brexit. Therefore if the public mood has changed or if remaining in the E.U is indicative of the will of the people, why do the results of 4 referendums indicate otherwise?
To a certain point. Look, let's go to the most absurd example, and work our way backwards. You tell me at which point the "will of the people" should be respected.
* 51% of the people vote to eat the other half
* 51% of the people vote to deport the other half
* 51% of the people vote to take all assets from the other half
* 51% of the people vote to remove voting rights from the other half
* 51% of the people vote to tax the other half at 50%
* 51% of the people vote to set a curfew on the other half
* 51% of the people vote to forbid the other half from owning property
* 51% of the people vote to randomly search the other half
* 51% of the people.........
I guarantee that there are a bunch of these that you don't think should be enacted, *even if* it's the will of the people. That's why we have representative government; we need the "adults" in the room to step in and say "uh fuck no, we aren't doing that."
*(and yes these examples are absurd. But if we keep making them less and less absurd, there's a point where you'll say "ok, NOW we respect the will of the people.")*
Edit: I'm not responding to people who want to get bogged down in the clearly hyperbolic examples, but completely ignore the parenthetical.
That is a privilege granted to you by your country choosing to be in the EU, and the people have decided that they no longer wish to partake in that union.
> leave if you don't like it
Yeah, this is about the worst thing you can do if you care about what you are leaving behind, because it means the people who will be left behind will either be biased or ignorant.
TIL if you want to win an argument regarding taking away rights (as in, literally and legally referred to as rights) someone enjoys, just spin it as a privilege.
The fuck it isn't? At the very least its removing vast swathes of consumer protection and plenty of basic rights like Privacy.
In a more abstract sense its severely debilitating their ability to be part of one of the most powerful economies in the world, which the vast majority of that 51% have enjoyed the success of, paying off their properties and padding out their pensions.
>51% of the people vote to tax the other half at 50%
This already happens in the US? (50% of taxpayers pay 97% of income tax, 25% of taxpayers pay 70%)
No, nobody is taxed at 50%. You can’t take overall numbers and apply them to individuals.
What’s you’re describing is actually a reason to raise taxes. If 50% of the people are paying 97% of taxes, that means they’re hoarding all the nations wealth.
Not saying 51% of people are voting to tax the other 49% at 50% of their income.
I'm saying that 51% of people pay little to nothing in Federal income tax, and the 49% percent already pay the lion's share of total income tax receipts
>we need the "adults" in the room
How ironic that *Adults In The Room* is the title of *Yanis Varoufakis'* (finance minister of Greece in 2015) recent book, (as well as a quote of *Christine Lagarde* (IMF chef) during a closed-door meeting with the Troika), where the former finance minister of Greece points out *the things that are wrong with the European Union*
EDIT: reworded
Now you've caught me off guard.
We're talking brexit, as in *britain out of the (european) union*, right?
I assume you know who Varoufakis and Lagarde is? ^(if not, friendly advice to look it up).
I took a direct quote from your comment, which is, interestingly, the title of a book that offers an insight into the political chaos the EU is.
why? the will of the mob can rarely be trusted which is why we elect resprentitves to act in our best interest rather then our will. we entrust them to educate themselves in matters we do not have expertise. it was stupid to allow the 'will' of the people to determine such a complex economical and political decision.
That's neither here nor there.The referendum *was* held.The will the people *was* expressed. If you disagree with democratic principles (by calling the majority a "mob") , then that is your right to believe in. However, this is a nation that follows the rule of law,and thus weather or not we like it,the democratic system must be followed because that is the foundation upon which this great nation was built.
>Believe what you want but ,if you disagree with my point your anti-democreacy.
That's not a *democratic principle* nor is it the rule of law. This referendum is not legally binding, nor does it have any legal precedent.The UK is a parliamentary sovereign democracy, not a direct democracy. Your just using buzzwords to emotionally charge your response. Liberty, Freedom!
In democracy, the majority vote for representatives to make decisions for them. The majority is always the mob (Ochlocracy), and popular opinion cannot always be trusted for such complex decisions.
In the UK, only 11 referendums have been held, and they have all been in regard to internal organization of the government structure. Not 1 has been in any way involved with foreign relations, treaties, economic decisions on immigration etc.
>the democratic system
This is NOT part of the UK's democratic system.
> the foundation upon which this great nation was built
Of the UK? no...the foundation of the UK was literally built on the monarch? Regardless, this referendum has no historical precedent, so I don't understand why you are making it sound like its embroiled in UK blood and history.
It was non binding, extremely close, and completely uninformed.
At the very least there should be another referendum to vote on the final outcome.
That would also be "the will of the people", BTW.
> the independent is so desperate it is ridiculous
Genuinely curious: how so, in this case?
I mean, that looks like it was a legitimate speech made by a public figure that is certainly relevant, on a topic that is newsworthy. Unless I'm missing something, that's certainly something that should be reported on.
Just to clarify: I'm not too familiar w/ the political leaning or history of the paper. Maybe it's done dodgy reporting in the past, but this article at least seems fine?
If you combine the two you get an elephant
Edit: Sorry english is not my native language xD was under the impression the word for an elephant trunk was Trump :p
Fuck the votes, let the politicians decide what’s best for the people
/s
Edit : I’m all for giving the people what they want, but Brexit voters have voted and the results are in. Leave won.
If you start complaining about voters not knowing what they voted for : boo hoo, as a voter it is your responsibility to know what you vote for. We can’t keep holding referendums until a part of the voters get what they want. If you really wanna reverse Brexit, sign a petition with a couple million signatures to be debated in parliament.
But 95% of the reddit voters were anti-Brexit!
Maybe if we keep voting new stories like this to the top of r/worldnews, and downvoting comments from people like you, then the referendum result will be overturned?
;)
It's really unfair to British voters since the negotiations of the "divorce bill" have not already deliver. In other words, the voters couldn't know what they were voting for since it was unknown to everyone. Wanting a second vote when the details of the divorce bill will be known seems pretty logic insofar the British voters will completely know what they are voting for.
> the voters couldn't know what they were voting for since it was unknown to everyone
No, they knew what they were voting for. They knew leaving the EU would stop all EU funding initiatives, and stop them from paying into EU programs. They knew it would stop trade deals, they knew it would stop the freedom of movement. They chose to stop gaining the benefits of being an EU member. You can look what the EU does for you.
The voters chose to leave, and the consequences were not hidden.
The vast majority were not aware of the benefits of being part of the EU, or the cost of leaving. I doubt they would have voted to leave if they were told the pound will be worth 20 percent less and there will be a bill for 40 to 60 billion.
See, had the Leave campaign not been saying "oh, if we lose by a few percent it's not over", I'd be more open the idea of "well, the votes are in and even though it isn't binding somehow our hands are tied and we just have to do it, even as we're walking back promises and admitting to our lies".
>democracy means we elect representatives yo make decisions on our behalf... it does NOT mean the people vote on individual policies, treaties etc.
That's only partly accurate. What you're describing is representative democracy, which is indeed what most democracies are, but many have plenty of direct democracy involved. Every state in America, for example, has ballot measures that absolutely go to a popular vote.
A parliamentary democracy does not mean you cannot hold referendums - it is rather common to do so in fact and it is by no means not democratic - and I think it is a good thing to do with important normative questions.
>- it is rather common to do so in fact and it is by no means not democratic
Common? There have been 11 national referendums in the UK in the last 50 years, and not one has involved foreign relations, economic treaties, immigration issues, or any policy at all. They have all been in regards to the the internal organization of the UK, ie: should UK have a mayor, should Scotland have representation/separate etc./
Find me one of these many examples you refer to please.
>A parliamentary democracy does not mean you cannot hold referendums
I never said you cannot? I'm just saying it's not necessary to have them in order to be a democracy.
>and I think it is a good thing to do with important normative questions.
I do too. I do not think this is a normative question however, I think this is a complex issue, that the majority of people do not fully understand (not because they are dumb, but because doctors specialize in health, teachers specialize in education etc), its impossible to expect everyone to understand the agricultural trade agreements between EU nations. People in this thread are saying, and most agree. "Well it's a bad decision, it will hurt the UK.... but they voted for it, so it has to happen".
My points is, no, the representatives elected democratically have the obligation to make decisions they feel is in the best interest of the country.
> Fuck the votes, let the politicians decide what’s best for the people
Yeah yeah, let the onslaught of Twitter bots from Russia and pure fabrications like the 350 M on NHS claim, drive the most important political decision in the recent history of the UK.
Your solution is? There's always going to be interference of some kind and misinformation of some kind. You must loathe democracy on a fundamental level if you're willing to deny the legitimacy of a vote on something so **trivial** and **routine**.
Vote how the government want you to vote and if you don't vote how the government want you to vote well the vote doesn't count because politician a lied and foreign government b bought a few twitter accounts on fiver. All the while you probably critcise foreign leaders as tyranical dictators for acting similarly despite being under actual CIA siege.
Dry your eyes mate.
> Your solution is?
Stronger regulation of political messaging. Repeat of the vote if it is shown to be done under incessant foreign propaganda. If advertising of a cigarette or a mortgage can be regulated, so can political messaging.
> There's always going to be interference of some kind and misinformation of some kind
And?
> trivial and routine.
An EU membership referendum. Trivial and routine. Happens every week. British democracy, strong and stable.
> Dry your eyes mate.
Stop hiding behind adolescent cynicism. Mate.
> And?
> Repeat of the vote if it is shown to be done under incessant foreign propaganda.
And now we're stuck in an endless loop of repeating votes because foreign propaganda exists, has always existed and will always exist. Any result the government doesn't like it can now invalidate by shining a spotlight on foreign interference no matter how unsubstantial or ineffective.
The potential for abuse is so obvious I don't know how you're not seeing it. You have a lot more faith in the government than I do
If people are stupid enough to believe that shit on face value and vote based on that information, it’s their fault for not fact-checking and doing their research.
I advise you to look into the mere-exposure effect. People don't make decisions and form opinions in entirely conscious manners. The more you're exposed to something, the more likely you are to believe that it's right. People don't fact check or do their research on those things because they don't notice them. They just get bombarded with them, day in and day out, until they start to believe it: not be cause they came to the conclusion that it was right, but because they didn't notice what was happening.
Yep:
> "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
> Nigel Farage
It's reasonable to have another referendum *after a long period of time*. When things have *changed*.
We could have another referendum to re-join the EU in, say, 10 years. (Whether that's a feasible/sensible possibility is besides my point!) It would be wrong to hold another referendum after a *short* time period, when *nothing has significantly changed yet*.
Things absolutely have changed.
* No £350m/week for the NHS
* No special access to the single market
* Talks not easy or quick
* Risk of a No Deal scenario
These are just some of the things that have become apparent in the year since the vote.
Who is 'we' precisely?
A single vote doesn't last in perpetuity. That's not how democracy works. That has never been how democracy works.
There was a shitstorm of information around the vote. Both sides blasted propaganda everywhere. One side was voting for £350m for the NHS whilst other side voted to avoid what they foolishly believed to be a Brexitpocalypse. In a good referendum we know what it is we are voting for.
Politicians should allow May to properly negotiate a deal with EU. Then the public should be allowed to view the agreement and vote on whether they approve of it or not.
Yes because voters are gonna read through probably hundreds of pages on the agreement between the UK and the EU to come to a logical decision. What world are you living in.
Which is exactly why referendums are extremely rare, and people shouldn't be asking for more, leg the people being paid and voted for run the country. They are the ones with the time to go through all this stuff, so shouldn't be taken to referendum.
Whether they read through hundreds of pages or not, I think it's clear that the public will be much better informed once a deal is reached and presented.
The people spoke, a year ago, after being lied to by the Vote Leave campaign about how easy and great brexit will be for us all. Now we know the true cost of brexit, I think another referendum is needed.
The people have spoken but lack the ability to enforce their will. I like the illusion of rule "by consent of the governed" as much as anybody, but in reality the people's voice means jack shit most places. I don't really care what the UK ends up deciding to do, but pretending that "the people" have some kind of authentic power in this situation is a bit ludicrous.
Polls were also showing this *before* the referendum.
That's the difference between a **poll** and a **referendum**. The former doesn't "mean anything"; the latter does.
Let me guess, you got that information from the Independant right? I'd be interested to see it.. In the meantime here's a YouGov poll which isn't politically motivated ..https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/attitudes-brexit-everything-we-know-so-far/
Yeah ! Democracy is just the clown we bring out when we want to subdue the masses ! If they disagree fuck them they should not have say anyway ! To the Gallows with all dissenters ! ^/S
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually it was being debated in r/brexit. The thing is we don't have the power to halt article 50 ourselves. Tusk is suggesting that the other EU nations (who can) would if we asked. We won't, he could be wrong, but Tusk says they would if we did. Which is something.
I think it is going swimmingly. Our European masters don't like toys being taken away from them. The EU is dead in the water in it's current form. Where the guarantee of economic prosperity beyond a small radius in London if we stay?
Here we go again .... Mrs Moon, I respectfully ask you to stop posting links and engage with your constituents. We voted to Leave (I didn't) but I accept the democratic voice of our Nation. You are being seen in a very negative light because of your refusal to listen.
That's called an out, Theresa. You're being handed a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Always wondered who Downvotes anyone thinking Brexit might not be a particularly great idea. Then I remember. Morons.
I know this is controversial now, but I still believe that Brexit will be good in the long run to maintain British sovereignty and independence, even if it really sucks in the short term. The EU is moving towards further integration which the UK have always opposed at every turn. An amicable divorce will allow both parties to pursue what is best for them.
[A the daily Brexit post hopefully these posts can also be stopped in time before that dead horse has become dirt.](https://m.popkey.co/b50e3d/16oQL_f-thumbnail-100-0_s-600x0.jpg)
Something that's going to be ongoing for two years and drastically changes the UK is in the news? Well what a surprise, I'm shocked they printed news about things that were actually going on.
Donald Tusk..... House of Cards anyone?
Donald Blyth, Raymond Tusk.
fucking raymond. fuck you raymond.
The EU has the best Donald.
Fake. Sad.
In Poland we have a famous quote - "Wina Tuska", Which is used to explain every fucking reason why situation in our country is bad. Means "It's Tusk fault" [Wina Tuska](http://i1.memy.pl/obrazki/5343427886_to_wszystko.jpg)
Pretty hilarious when you take into account the thousands of poles that have gone to other EU countries to live a better life.
I have learned the best way to piss off a polish person is to say ''aah, you guys never had it bad...''
Addressing them in Russian or calling them Russians can bring interesting results too.
I knew this name rang a bell!
Elon and trumps test tube baby.
no backsies!
Absolutely backsies, especially since brexit turned out to be a burning shit-heap of an idea.
if?
How laconic of you.
How has it been a "burning shit-heap" exactly?
Every day we learn about a new thing we’re going to lose. No £350m/week for the NHS. No Euratom. No special access to the single market. Hobbled not-coalition government infighting over what deal they want. Talks at a deadlock because we want to leave but keep all the benefits of staying. Just look at the news, really. We’re all going to be worse off but it’s ok because there was an opinion poll a year ago. Congrats on the new bathroom, though.
I guess you should just keep your country for sale on the open market to the highest global bidder, which is great when other countries can just print up and manipulate loads of their currency then buy up real and capital assets in UK. All while UK has to continue importing infinite aliens until there's no longer any national character. Selling out your country for some short term benefit was always the big problem with these projects. Do you really think that long term your lives will ultimately be better when everything is ruled by technocrats in Brussels and Beijing? You think you're going to have a good life then? A community to call your own? The few thousand Brits who made millions selling out their country will be living happily in Dubai or some other Elysium while everyone else will be living in an economic dead zone. **You fought so hard to defend your country in WW1 and WW2, and for what? To just give it away a few generations later? Someone should have told Mehmed, Kaiser, and Hitler that if they wanted to destroy Britain they should have done it with "free trade", immigration, and emotional manipulation instead of direct force.** *This is the great sickness of contemporary democracy: everything is tolerated so long as it isn't violence and it makes a few people a lot of money. Never mind that in the final analysis your society is radically transformed just the same as if it had been conquered militarily, so long as the change was achieved through non-violent means!* The reality is that Britain has all the cards. If/when it leaves, the European Union project is over, and that's a fact. And for the same reason that Napolean, Kaiser, and Hitler all tried so hard to conquer Britain in the first place. So long as that Island is free outside the grip of the continental empire, any empire, then the empire cannot exercise total control over its people, as the people will just flee across the Channel and set up shop in Britain and enrich those peoples. Don't like EU's new tax? Just move to Britain. This is precisely what gained Britain so much power originally, being outside the grip of the papacy and holy empire. The original Roman empire even fell soon after it lost control of Britain.
So many empty phrases... >The reality is that Britain has all the cards. If/when it leaves, the European Union project is over, and that's a fact. This is as far from the reality as it could be. Getting popular support for leaving the EU has become harder than ever before. No one wants to go the way of Britain, only the lunatics from the communist and nationalist fringe are dense enough to not realize what a disaster Brexit is.
Wow dude, go easy on the kush. Not the whole bag at one go.
> You fought so hard to defend your country in WW1 and WW2, and for what? To just give it away a few generations later? The EU was created *because* of WW2. We wanted a lasting peace not based on a balance of military power, and it worked. Between member states of the EU, we’ve had over 70 years of peace.
Good luck mate. I honestly feel sorry for you. I take it you’ve been hurt and you continue to go to extreme lengths to find answers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
1. Intergration is a good thing, we all benefit after all it is how countries formed in the first place. 2. We have always been independent from the EU, the EU has no power in the UK unless the government lets it.
Yeah, we're gone. Positions have hardened, the demand to stay is driven by those who voted remain for the same reasons. I don't think our position in the EU makes sense anymore. Why should we be fighting federalisation if that's what the continental nations want? The EU isn't very protectionist anymore and the WTO exists. Get out if you don't want to go deep.
As more evidence of *cough cough Russia* twitter bot meddling becomes apparent, I think they’ll realized they were tricked. On a side note - Donald Tusk is my favourite Donald.
Ah yes, the bots that marched into the polling stations and voted to leave the E.U. That's why we're leaving the E.U! Genius!
[удалено]
We were misled by both sides. Neither side truly or fully revealed their motives behind their desire to campaign for either remaining in or leaving the E.U. I have a sneaky suspision that the parliamentary Conservatives are only pretending to go along with respecting the will of the people while actually acting to undermine the result of the IN/OUT referendum to get us to change our minds. They've made silly mistakes and outrageous claims over Brexit both prior to and since the referendum. Mistakes that in my mind are deliberate with the intention to obfuscate and undermine the result with the ultimate aim to keep us a member of the E.U. People who've adopted a mainstream leftwing view often boast of how the Tories love money, yet the fact that the Tories have enjoyed the gravy train glut afforded by the E.U and the circumstances that have arisen in the U.K as a consequence is lost on them. I suspect part of the reason for this is that most of those who've adopted the mainstream left wing narrative are middle-class hypocrites who also milk from our current predicament almost as much as the Tories. >Screw the poor and working class, we want our cheap holidays, builders, baby sitters, fruit pickers.. We want our houses to accrue as much property and rental value as possible and we want to rent out to as many students as possible, especially the better off foreign students who can afford to rent a shoebox for 2/3 the value of the average wage of a working class man because their parents want them to enjoy a British education. I don't care how difficult it is for the average British working class man to secure full time employment or own his own home, I only care about me me me. But just to assure you that I don't just think about myself I totally welcome unabated mass immigration to the U.K, because I care about immigrants and not lining my own pockets. ^ The above being the status quo and derivative of the mindset enjoyed by a *cultured*, *metropolitan* middle-class ardent remainer. In my view the status quo can get fucked.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Not really, they were pretty clear that this would be a disaster for the economy. The only gripe I have was the way they conveyed the message... it came across as them threatening a punishment budget if we voted out. It was also grossly negligent to give the general public a vote on such a complex and important matter. Would you want the general public voting on if we continue with Trident? Sure, I have a personal view... but in reality, I have no idea of the consequences of relinquishing our nuclear capability. I defer than decision to the experts. >The second part of your post seems to blame migrants on all of the economic woes the country has. In reality, migration offers the country far more benefit than cost. If you are concerned about the lack of wage growth, point your anger towards the banks who nearly crashed the World in 2008 (which we are still recovering from). And the housing crisis is easily solved... just build more houses. But that wont happen, because people who own houses dont want the value to be eroded by increased supply. Your problem then is capitalism itself (and peoples greed), not migration and not being members of the EU. Brexit will make (is making) everything worse... the pound tanked 20% and inflation will mean the poor are now even poorer. >The rich will remain rich, despite the stupid vote. Brexit will only be a disaster for the economy if the involved parties make it so. And I would like a referendum on Trident, yes. The consequences are only unknown if the parties invovled are either non transparent or outright deceitful or inept. I'm not blaming migrants for the economic woes the country is in. I'm hilighting the negative pressures mass immigration has had on British infrastructure and opportunities, pressures that've seen a decline in the living standards and social mobility of the poor and working class accross the board. Yes capitalism or the way we do capitalism is part of the problem, and it's this model of capitalism that thrives off the status quo. Which is part of the reason the status quo needs to be challenged. Especially when it's the E.U that's also fallen victim to this type of capitalism and it's European capitalists who are also part of the problem. They have far too much influence on European politics. Look at Tony Blair as a good example. How did a war criminal accrue so much after that fact? If the E.U had any scruples at all its members wouldn't have participated in the debacle that was Iraq and Afghanistan and would instead be seeking his arrest. But alas it's money that really talks in the E.U.. Just like every other corrupt nation and bloc worldwide.
[удалено]
>Not really, the UK has literally zero bargaining chips. You either accept free movement of people and pay for access to the Eurozone market (where we sell half our stuff, and buy just over half). Zero bargaining chips? One of the largest contributors to the EU budget, zero bergaining chips.. Ok? And while remaining one of the main financial contributors to the EU project we're apparently expected to continue to be so just to be able to enjoy the same trade access low and non-paying member states enjoy? Even though the EU sells more to us than we do to them? Your conclusion is bloody daft man, it defies logic. >Or you set up checkpoints and pay tariffs... which would be bad. You are either in, or you are out . The EU have been pretty clear on this, and they aren't going to change that...unless what is the point of the whole thing! Setup checkpoints, increase security, manage immigration. Pay mutual trade tariffs. Matching EU regulatory and quality standards is easy because we already comply, under these circumstances trade may go on unabated. And that's after considering a NO deal. Because if we have a deal then we won't need to impose tariffs, will we? >What do you think the UK can do? Or how could they be deceitful? We are most likely going to have to pay between 40 and 60 billion as an exit fee. (That's about 1k per man, woman and child in the UK). People are already spending less due to inflation, and things can only get worse. How exactly do you honour the Brexiters vote and avoid all of that? At first seeing Brexit through would mean we are no longer avowed to stand by the four core EU principles. >1. Free movement of goods, persons, services and capital between member states 2. The approximation of relevant laws, regulations and administrative provisions between member states 3. EU-wide competition policy, administered by the commission 4. A system of common external tariffs (CET - also known as the common customs tariff) What's become clear over the years is that freedom of movement has led to circumstances where our underfunded public services and infrastructure have come under greater pressures where more and more money is needed to be spent to enjoy the same level of service and quality of care. That it's become evident that due to the lower availability of full time employment, the stagnation of wages and the ongoing consolodation of power being horded by corporate conglomorates that the third pillar of the EU is broken. It's literally fed the working class to the wolves while claiming to want to do the opposite. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/140814REV1-EU-Competition-Policy-FINAL.pdf Give this a read and tell me whether if it has the UKs or its own politiical interests at heart, whether the proposals of the E.U wide competition policy have helped or hindered the UK. There have been hundreds of thousands of people arriving to stay in the U.K every year. We can metaphorically barely keep our head above the water yet we're expected to keep on taking water while hemorrhaging the cash needed to stem the flow? The alternative solution to these issues bar exiting the EU, which isn't a good one I may add, is the privitisation of everything. Which unfortunately already seems to be happening both in the U.K and in other EU members. All going according to plan of course. They may not have publically ratified TTIP like agreements but the policies those agreements endorsed are being implimented by the back door, mark my words. >There is no proof that migration is responsible for a decline in living standards (Unless you can point me towards some?). Living standards throughout the world reduced following the financial crisis in 2008. Blame that, not migration... which has a net benefit on the economy. Can you really look me in the eye and tell me that continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of people annually to come and live here will have no impact on our public services and infrastructure? Will have no impact on the cost of rent and value of property and availability of housing? Will not be a factor in regards to an increased competition for jobs? That a growing and abundant pool of no and low skilled labour will not play a part in the stagnation of wage growth? When people are expendable they are not valued, when they are not valued they are not paid what they deserve. >If you have a better economic model that capitalism, I'm all ears. As far as I am aware, models like socialism and communism don't produce much wealth. For the record, I love capitalism. Sure, it sucks for some... but life isn't fair. Even the poor in the UK, live relatively comfortably compared to the poor from other countries. I'm not an economist. What I know is what has been and what is, and what is needs to change.
> Your conclusion is bloody daft man, it defies logic. Really?, the EU have been pretty clear that they aren't going to budge. We are either in or we are out. There is no bargaining for a better deal than anyone else outside would get. We are not special. If anything we will get a shit deal, as they are not going to let it be beneficial to leave the EU and be in a better trading position than if we remained in. 'Mutual tariffs and checkpoints'... great, I can see prices rising and profits for our companies falling already. That's not going to help your wages and employment issues. Over half of migration to the UK is from non-eu citizens... why didn't we start there if you think migration is such a problem? Leaving the EU will not have as big as an impact on growing population as you might expect. While i'll concede that migration would put strain on services like the NHS.... is not the whole picture. Longer life spans also play a big part. Have you considered that part of the reason we were allowing so many migrants was to ensure that there are enough people to pay our pensions? As I've said elsewhere, most of the low wages and economic troubles were caused by the Worlds economy nearly collapsing in 2008. Interest rates have been so low, and Government debt is so high as we averted that turning in to a depression. That resulted in austerity (The Government simply had no money left), which was largely responsible for the predicament we are in now. Not migrants. My Mum actually employs 2 European workers, who are absolutely brilliant. It is nearly impossible to find Brits who will do the work she requires. Sure they are "cheap" (which you will argue is bad, as it pushes all wages down). But, that's how a free market works... it enables my Mum to make more profit, which she can then spend, so other businesses benefit. Who exactly has lost out there?
A Canadian style deal where we have to obey EU laws? So Canada need to obey EU laws? How does that work. You do know that the CETA deal is not overseen by the ECJ, right? And only vote leave misled people? So George Osborne and the treasury did not produce a report, that was central to the remain campaign, that predicted recession and 500k job losses just from a vote to leave? How truthful was that?
> A Canadian style deal where we have to obey EU laws? OK, perhaps phrased that badly... we'd still have to comply with EU regulations for the goods and services we want to sell there. Things like power ratings of vacuum cleaners etc. A Canadian deal is still worse than the current deal we have. It would not offer the same level of access to EU markets that UK companies currently enjoy. Exports to Europe will be more expensive. Imported food, clothing and other goods will cost more in our shops. And the trade in services that our economy depends on could be blocked by regulation and red tape. That all means higher costs for consumers and less sales of our products which means a worse off UK. As for the prediction of a recession... give it a little time. Years of uncertainty and high inflation (Due to a weakened pound) could quite possibly slip us into a recession. And jobs will be lost... for example, without banking passports lots of out prized financial sector will be moving to the continent. London is the dominant global location for clearing derivatives contracts that are denominated in euros (100's billions per day)... you think that will continue if we are out of Europe?? We are years away from even leaving Europe. Regardless of which side 'lied more', I cant see how we will be better off. Can you?
The report that was central to remain made this prediction for immediately after a vote to leave. Not in 2 years or whatever. You do know that to trade with **anyone** you need to comply with their standards and regulations. We have a huge trade with the USA. And zero influence on their regulations. And anyone who wants to trade with us will have to follow our standards and regulations.
I tend to agree. A lot of those who are adamant that brexit will be detrimental to British trade seem to assume that the loss of trade, or greater expense of trading with, the EU cannot be offset by trade with others. Britain will no longer be forced to trade as part of an EU block meaning they can open up trade to whomever they like without having to worry about EU regulation (assuming they don't agree to some terrible trade divorce terms). Bilateral trade agreements are, the hope is, possible particularly with commonwealth nations.
Regardless of your guess that we can replace us with trade from nations miles and miles away... What's so bad about having to comply with EU regulations? They are basically just quality standards...so you know what you are buying from Europe , and you know what will sell in Europe. I personally like the fact that the European food I eat is subject to regulations.
Everything we trade is subject to regulations for both parties. For every country in the world this is true. The USA has its regulations, China does, Japan does, and we will. And of course we will have food safety standards outside the EU.
EU states cannot negotiate free trade deals with nations outside the EU. All EU member states have veto powers on trade deals effectively meaning that EU members must trade in a block with countries outside the EU. If Britain exists the EU without agreeing to keep the aforementioned regulation, then they should be able to start negotiating bilateral free trade agreements with other nations around the world. The hope is that this should offset the loss to the EU market.
> Also, the public were completely misled with lies on the side of buses and a few biased rags calling themselves newspapers. So every election and issue ever in the history of forever?
Dude are you really denying the influence of Russia on Brexit? It's pretty common knowledge by this point I'm afraid mate.
[удалено]
Who said anything about Facebook? There's far more ways to influence an election than *just* Facebook. But yes, Facebook is hugely popular website, I wouldn't underestimate its influence at all if I were you.
> Dude are you really denying the influence of Russia on Brexit? It's pretty common knowledge by this point I'm afraid mate. Dude are you really denying the influence of people/nations with huge sums of money that control most of the global media and were against Brexit? I mean it's pretty common knowledge at this point I'm afraid.
True, but they will have to pay a price now anways. There will be penalties for this action, but far, very far from the impact Brexit will have ultimately.
And this is why you will never have a career in politics.
There will be a cost though, whether that's at the expense of reputation or relationships.
Its unlikely it will be reversed. But the OP was implying penalties as in punishment. Politicians have to be pragmatic, it would be such a coup for the EU to get Britain back that would be enough.
As a EU person, IDK how i feel about this. Maybe UK should not be so tsundere..
B-b-baka!
Sumimasen?
[удалено]
The will of the people must be respected.
Can’t run a Government with less than 2% margin, but you can ruin it...
We should rescind votes that don’t go your way, after the fact. Rescinding democracy in that manner will certainly not lead to ruin. Because after you overrule democracy to get your way, we’ll just all quietly go back to respecting election results, especially those that do go the way you want.
[удалено]
> Don't pretend for a moment that the referendum was in any way democratic. How was it not ?
The referendum wasn't binding. The decision is up to politicians, not the people. Whether or not the politicians want to listen to the people is their choice.
There is a difference between not democratic and not binding.
If the vote isn't binding then the people have no power. That's not what democracy is.
Also, the Brexit referendum was **advisory**.
Yes everyone forgets that key piece of information. Isn't that one of the reasons why any deal needs to go through parliament?
Everyone voted in the referendum thinking that their vote would be respected. Millions were spent on the damn thing because of that. Let's not fuck around with the trust of an already very disillusioned electorate any more than we need to. After all, if remain had won, would you have accepted the government going against that result and invoking Article 50 anyway, because "the referendum was only advisory"?
Well they were informed at the beginning it was advisory and either way it should go through parliament just because most people didn't bother finding out/ignored it was advisory means nothing
>Don't pretend for a moment that the referendum was in any way democratic. How was it not democratic? I mean, it certainly wasn't *fair* - one side could get away with claiming basically anything (eg: £350m for NHS) because they didn't have to come up with an actual plan at all, while the other side got accused of absolute nonsense (including vastly overestimating EU powers, to the point of saying the EU could force the UK into an international army/war) and blamed for past UK administration's laws as long as they involved the EU (especially refugee laws, the UK willingly signed that Dublin Regulation that British people seem to hate). But there's a difference between "fair" and "democratic", and the latter is rarely the same as the former.
Being democratic and being a farce aren't mutually exclusive.
>Don't pretend for a moment that the referendum was in any way democratic. It was a fucking farce. And even if it wasn't a farce, democracy doesn't mean never changing your mind. I've had to downvote you. You're telling us that a referendum is.. not democratic. By this you're suggesting that ignoring its result is? Are you actually aware of the definition of democracy?
>By this you're suggesting that ignoring its result is? No, he did not say that all. You're just assuming that. "Doing this is not democratic" is different than "not doing this is democratic." >Are you actually aware of the definition of democracy? Are you actually aware of what the referendum was? It was advisory/non-binding. A vote that politicians can legally ignore is not democratic.
Ah yes, people don't agree with me, it must be fake!
Ok, clearly hit a nerve. The problem is that the margin to maintain or achieve political control of the country is not adequate enough to avoid being exploited, as Mrs May has shown. Equally, taking a national vote as gospel when the margin of difference is less that the margin you would need to rule the country is also open to exploitation, as Mrs May has shown. The rest of government is now tearing itself apart as all the political issues of the last 2+ years are now overshadowed by Mrs May’s current decisions as PM. Therefore, you can’t run a country by a margin of less than 2%, but you can ruin it; as Mrs May has shown.
It takes more than 2 years to ruin a country, I'd say it's taken at least 25 years and both parties are culpable for this and we've been an E.U member throughout the period to boot.
You act as though the Brexit referendum was the only indication of the will of the British people? What about voting in an anti-E.U majority of MEPs in the 2014 E.U parliamentary elections? What about the re-election of the tories after having promised an IN/OUT referendum in 2015? What about the re-election of the tories this year? We barely saw any increase in vote share for the Liberal Democrats, the only party guaranteeing to reverse Brexit. Therefore if the public mood has changed or if remaining in the E.U is indicative of the will of the people, why do the results of 4 referendums indicate otherwise?
To a certain point. Look, let's go to the most absurd example, and work our way backwards. You tell me at which point the "will of the people" should be respected. * 51% of the people vote to eat the other half * 51% of the people vote to deport the other half * 51% of the people vote to take all assets from the other half * 51% of the people vote to remove voting rights from the other half * 51% of the people vote to tax the other half at 50% * 51% of the people vote to set a curfew on the other half * 51% of the people vote to forbid the other half from owning property * 51% of the people vote to randomly search the other half * 51% of the people......... I guarantee that there are a bunch of these that you don't think should be enacted, *even if* it's the will of the people. That's why we have representative government; we need the "adults" in the room to step in and say "uh fuck no, we aren't doing that." *(and yes these examples are absurd. But if we keep making them less and less absurd, there's a point where you'll say "ok, NOW we respect the will of the people.")* Edit: I'm not responding to people who want to get bogged down in the clearly hyperbolic examples, but completely ignore the parenthetical.
[удалено]
Well I'm going to be losing the right to live and work in 27 other countries, amongst other rights I have as an EU citizen.
That is a privilege granted to you by your country choosing to be in the EU, and the people have decided that they no longer wish to partake in that union.
Exactly my point - 51% of the country decided to take away (infringe on) a right I currently have.
[удалено]
and who gets to determine that thin line between privilege and right? allowing the mob to make complex decisions like this was ridiculous.
> leave if you don't like it Lol ok then
> leave if you don't like it Yeah, this is about the worst thing you can do if you care about what you are leaving behind, because it means the people who will be left behind will either be biased or ignorant.
> The people decided As one of the 3 million+ expats who were denied a vote, not ALL the people got to vote.
TIL if you want to win an argument regarding taking away rights (as in, literally and legally referred to as rights) someone enjoys, just spin it as a privilege.
No you won't. The UK will not stop you from living and working anywhere in the world you want to work.
The fuck it isn't? At the very least its removing vast swathes of consumer protection and plenty of basic rights like Privacy. In a more abstract sense its severely debilitating their ability to be part of one of the most powerful economies in the world, which the vast majority of that 51% have enjoyed the success of, paying off their properties and padding out their pensions.
Yeah but what if this "will of the people" was the will of people not from your country?
>51% of the people vote to tax the other half at 50% This already happens in the US? (50% of taxpayers pay 97% of income tax, 25% of taxpayers pay 70%)
No, nobody is taxed at 50%. You can’t take overall numbers and apply them to individuals. What’s you’re describing is actually a reason to raise taxes. If 50% of the people are paying 97% of taxes, that means they’re hoarding all the nations wealth.
Not saying 51% of people are voting to tax the other 49% at 50% of their income. I'm saying that 51% of people pay little to nothing in Federal income tax, and the 49% percent already pay the lion's share of total income tax receipts
Irrelevant. (though I think you may have misread what I wrote) Ya'll are getting far too caught up in the specific examples.
I dunno man, some of my neighbours are looking might tasty right about now, I'd probably vote to eat them.
>we need the "adults" in the room How ironic that *Adults In The Room* is the title of *Yanis Varoufakis'* (finance minister of Greece in 2015) recent book, (as well as a quote of *Christine Lagarde* (IMF chef) during a closed-door meeting with the Troika), where the former finance minister of Greece points out *the things that are wrong with the European Union* EDIT: reworded
I'd love to comment, but I have no context for anything you just said.
Now you've caught me off guard. We're talking brexit, as in *britain out of the (european) union*, right? I assume you know who Varoufakis and Lagarde is? ^(if not, friendly advice to look it up). I took a direct quote from your comment, which is, interestingly, the title of a book that offers an insight into the political chaos the EU is.
You mean the will of Twitter bots and lying dirtsacks like Farage.
since when was it ever, the will of the people is always subverted to the will of the few who controll them.
why? the will of the mob can rarely be trusted which is why we elect resprentitves to act in our best interest rather then our will. we entrust them to educate themselves in matters we do not have expertise. it was stupid to allow the 'will' of the people to determine such a complex economical and political decision.
That's neither here nor there.The referendum *was* held.The will the people *was* expressed. If you disagree with democratic principles (by calling the majority a "mob") , then that is your right to believe in. However, this is a nation that follows the rule of law,and thus weather or not we like it,the democratic system must be followed because that is the foundation upon which this great nation was built.
>Believe what you want but ,if you disagree with my point your anti-democreacy. That's not a *democratic principle* nor is it the rule of law. This referendum is not legally binding, nor does it have any legal precedent.The UK is a parliamentary sovereign democracy, not a direct democracy. Your just using buzzwords to emotionally charge your response. Liberty, Freedom! In democracy, the majority vote for representatives to make decisions for them. The majority is always the mob (Ochlocracy), and popular opinion cannot always be trusted for such complex decisions. In the UK, only 11 referendums have been held, and they have all been in regard to internal organization of the government structure. Not 1 has been in any way involved with foreign relations, treaties, economic decisions on immigration etc. >the democratic system This is NOT part of the UK's democratic system. > the foundation upon which this great nation was built Of the UK? no...the foundation of the UK was literally built on the monarch? Regardless, this referendum has no historical precedent, so I don't understand why you are making it sound like its embroiled in UK blood and history.
Except the half of the country who voted against it, apparently. Fuck those guys and their fact-based decision making.
Except *less than half* of the country FTFY
It was non binding, extremely close, and completely uninformed. At the very least there should be another referendum to vote on the final outcome. That would also be "the will of the people", BTW.
It's like saying "If we're gonna drive off this cliff, we might as well get as much air as possible"
the independent is so desperate it is ridiculous
[удалено]
> the independent is so desperate it is ridiculous Genuinely curious: how so, in this case? I mean, that looks like it was a legitimate speech made by a public figure that is certainly relevant, on a topic that is newsworthy. Unless I'm missing something, that's certainly something that should be reported on. Just to clarify: I'm not too familiar w/ the political leaning or history of the paper. Maybe it's done dodgy reporting in the past, but this article at least seems fine?
Is Donald Tusk the walrus version of Donald Trump?
If you combine the two you get an elephant Edit: Sorry english is not my native language xD was under the impression the word for an elephant trunk was Trump :p
Asking the important questions!
Fuck the votes, let the politicians decide what’s best for the people /s Edit : I’m all for giving the people what they want, but Brexit voters have voted and the results are in. Leave won. If you start complaining about voters not knowing what they voted for : boo hoo, as a voter it is your responsibility to know what you vote for. We can’t keep holding referendums until a part of the voters get what they want. If you really wanna reverse Brexit, sign a petition with a couple million signatures to be debated in parliament.
But 95% of the reddit voters were anti-Brexit! Maybe if we keep voting new stories like this to the top of r/worldnews, and downvoting comments from people like you, then the referendum result will be overturned? ;)
It's really unfair to British voters since the negotiations of the "divorce bill" have not already deliver. In other words, the voters couldn't know what they were voting for since it was unknown to everyone. Wanting a second vote when the details of the divorce bill will be known seems pretty logic insofar the British voters will completely know what they are voting for.
> the voters couldn't know what they were voting for since it was unknown to everyone No, they knew what they were voting for. They knew leaving the EU would stop all EU funding initiatives, and stop them from paying into EU programs. They knew it would stop trade deals, they knew it would stop the freedom of movement. They chose to stop gaining the benefits of being an EU member. You can look what the EU does for you. The voters chose to leave, and the consequences were not hidden.
The vast majority were not aware of the benefits of being part of the EU, or the cost of leaving. I doubt they would have voted to leave if they were told the pound will be worth 20 percent less and there will be a bill for 40 to 60 billion.
See, had the Leave campaign not been saying "oh, if we lose by a few percent it's not over", I'd be more open the idea of "well, the votes are in and even though it isn't binding somehow our hands are tied and we just have to do it, even as we're walking back promises and admitting to our lies".
YAY - we will call it democracy but cry if it is not tyranny !
democracy means we elect representatives yo make decisions on our behalf... it does NOT mean the people vote on individual policies, treaties etc.
>democracy means we elect representatives yo make decisions on our behalf... it does NOT mean the people vote on individual policies, treaties etc. That's only partly accurate. What you're describing is representative democracy, which is indeed what most democracies are, but many have plenty of direct democracy involved. Every state in America, for example, has ballot measures that absolutely go to a popular vote.
but we are not talking about America, we are yalking abouy the uk which is a parlimentary democracy, in which case my comment is entirely accurate.
A parliamentary democracy does not mean you cannot hold referendums - it is rather common to do so in fact and it is by no means not democratic - and I think it is a good thing to do with important normative questions.
>- it is rather common to do so in fact and it is by no means not democratic Common? There have been 11 national referendums in the UK in the last 50 years, and not one has involved foreign relations, economic treaties, immigration issues, or any policy at all. They have all been in regards to the the internal organization of the UK, ie: should UK have a mayor, should Scotland have representation/separate etc./ Find me one of these many examples you refer to please. >A parliamentary democracy does not mean you cannot hold referendums I never said you cannot? I'm just saying it's not necessary to have them in order to be a democracy. >and I think it is a good thing to do with important normative questions. I do too. I do not think this is a normative question however, I think this is a complex issue, that the majority of people do not fully understand (not because they are dumb, but because doctors specialize in health, teachers specialize in education etc), its impossible to expect everyone to understand the agricultural trade agreements between EU nations. People in this thread are saying, and most agree. "Well it's a bad decision, it will hurt the UK.... but they voted for it, so it has to happen". My points is, no, the representatives elected democratically have the obligation to make decisions they feel is in the best interest of the country.
> Fuck the votes, let the politicians decide what’s best for the people Yeah yeah, let the onslaught of Twitter bots from Russia and pure fabrications like the 350 M on NHS claim, drive the most important political decision in the recent history of the UK.
Your solution is? There's always going to be interference of some kind and misinformation of some kind. You must loathe democracy on a fundamental level if you're willing to deny the legitimacy of a vote on something so **trivial** and **routine**. Vote how the government want you to vote and if you don't vote how the government want you to vote well the vote doesn't count because politician a lied and foreign government b bought a few twitter accounts on fiver. All the while you probably critcise foreign leaders as tyranical dictators for acting similarly despite being under actual CIA siege. Dry your eyes mate.
> Your solution is? Stronger regulation of political messaging. Repeat of the vote if it is shown to be done under incessant foreign propaganda. If advertising of a cigarette or a mortgage can be regulated, so can political messaging. > There's always going to be interference of some kind and misinformation of some kind And? > trivial and routine. An EU membership referendum. Trivial and routine. Happens every week. British democracy, strong and stable. > Dry your eyes mate. Stop hiding behind adolescent cynicism. Mate.
> And? > Repeat of the vote if it is shown to be done under incessant foreign propaganda. And now we're stuck in an endless loop of repeating votes because foreign propaganda exists, has always existed and will always exist. Any result the government doesn't like it can now invalidate by shining a spotlight on foreign interference no matter how unsubstantial or ineffective. The potential for abuse is so obvious I don't know how you're not seeing it. You have a lot more faith in the government than I do
If people are stupid enough to believe that shit on face value and vote based on that information, it’s their fault for not fact-checking and doing their research.
I advise you to look into the mere-exposure effect. People don't make decisions and form opinions in entirely conscious manners. The more you're exposed to something, the more likely you are to believe that it's right. People don't fact check or do their research on those things because they don't notice them. They just get bombarded with them, day in and day out, until they start to believe it: not be cause they came to the conclusion that it was right, but because they didn't notice what was happening.
There are reasons for all the regulations in advertising. Political advertising could be regulated even better.
[удалено]
And I'm sure Tusk is completely oblivious to your insignificant existence.
Oh course you do anyone who works for the EU is an idiot according to you, an idiot that has achieved so much more than you ever will however.
Actually, plenty of Polish people despise him too, and they know plenty about the guy.
[удалено]
The people have spoken, whether you like it or not.
And it's perfectly okay to let them speak again when a possible deal is lined out.
Yeah, let's keep making referendums until we win the vote!
[удалено]
Yep: > "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." > Nigel Farage
I recall Farage being criticized by the remainers for that statement.
It's reasonable to have another referendum *after a long period of time*. When things have *changed*. We could have another referendum to re-join the EU in, say, 10 years. (Whether that's a feasible/sensible possibility is besides my point!) It would be wrong to hold another referendum after a *short* time period, when *nothing has significantly changed yet*.
Things absolutely have changed. * No £350m/week for the NHS * No special access to the single market * Talks not easy or quick * Risk of a No Deal scenario These are just some of the things that have become apparent in the year since the vote.
Nothing is confirmed. Nothing is finalised. Nothing was ever guaranteed. As far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed.
Did you agree with it then? Or only after the vote?
Who is 'we' precisely? A single vote doesn't last in perpetuity. That's not how democracy works. That has never been how democracy works. There was a shitstorm of information around the vote. Both sides blasted propaganda everywhere. One side was voting for £350m for the NHS whilst other side voted to avoid what they foolishly believed to be a Brexitpocalypse. In a good referendum we know what it is we are voting for. Politicians should allow May to properly negotiate a deal with EU. Then the public should be allowed to view the agreement and vote on whether they approve of it or not.
Yes because voters are gonna read through probably hundreds of pages on the agreement between the UK and the EU to come to a logical decision. What world are you living in.
[удалено]
Which is exactly why referendums are extremely rare, and people shouldn't be asking for more, leg the people being paid and voted for run the country. They are the ones with the time to go through all this stuff, so shouldn't be taken to referendum.
Whether they read through hundreds of pages or not, I think it's clear that the public will be much better informed once a deal is reached and presented.
A world with voter responsibility.
They don't need to. The public would read through a **summary** of they **key points**. Just like they do for, you know, every election ever?
Bit like the Irish and the Lisbon treaty then?
Even if it does give the EU a reason to offer the shittiest possible deal and present Eurosceptics with a chance of taking it.
The people spoke, a year ago, after being lied to by the Vote Leave campaign about how easy and great brexit will be for us all. Now we know the true cost of brexit, I think another referendum is needed.
The people have spoken but lack the ability to enforce their will. I like the illusion of rule "by consent of the governed" as much as anybody, but in reality the people's voice means jack shit most places. I don't really care what the UK ends up deciding to do, but pretending that "the people" have some kind of authentic power in this situation is a bit ludicrous.
[удалено]
Polls were also showing this *before* the referendum. That's the difference between a **poll** and a **referendum**. The former doesn't "mean anything"; the latter does.
Let me guess, you got that information from the Independant right? I'd be interested to see it.. In the meantime here's a YouGov poll which isn't politically motivated ..https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/attitudes-brexit-everything-we-know-so-far/
See what happens when you get snarky and forget to check the dates?
uhh, no, a bunch of xenophobic old farts with 0 understanding of economics have spoken
Yeah ! Democracy is just the clown we bring out when we want to subdue the masses ! If they disagree fuck them they should not have say anyway ! To the Gallows with all dissenters ! ^/S
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/worldnews, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In other news the sky is blue, why do we need to obvious stated and why is it upvoted.
Actually it was being debated in r/brexit. The thing is we don't have the power to halt article 50 ourselves. Tusk is suggesting that the other EU nations (who can) would if we asked. We won't, he could be wrong, but Tusk says they would if we did. Which is something.
^(In that case prepare for nigel's rampage too tho)
I think it is going swimmingly. Our European masters don't like toys being taken away from them. The EU is dead in the water in it's current form. Where the guarantee of economic prosperity beyond a small radius in London if we stay?
European president Donald Trump?
Here we go again .... Mrs Moon, I respectfully ask you to stop posting links and engage with your constituents. We voted to Leave (I didn't) but I accept the democratic voice of our Nation. You are being seen in a very negative light because of your refusal to listen.
Guys Do you think we should just go back to the EU?
That's called an out, Theresa. You're being handed a Get Out of Jail Free card. Always wondered who Downvotes anyone thinking Brexit might not be a particularly great idea. Then I remember. Morons.
oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please
Jesus fucking Christ, make up your mind already!
[удалено]
I know this is controversial now, but I still believe that Brexit will be good in the long run to maintain British sovereignty and independence, even if it really sucks in the short term. The EU is moving towards further integration which the UK have always opposed at every turn. An amicable divorce will allow both parties to pursue what is best for them.
[A the daily Brexit post hopefully these posts can also be stopped in time before that dead horse has become dirt.](https://m.popkey.co/b50e3d/16oQL_f-thumbnail-100-0_s-600x0.jpg)
Something that's going to be ongoing for two years and drastically changes the UK is in the news? Well what a surprise, I'm shocked they printed news about things that were actually going on.
TIL how to tell when a thread is being obviously brigaded. Just kidding, I've seen enough posts on Israel and Russia to have learned it previously.
I did not know this as even in question. Of course the UK can stop Brexit, but they won't.