|
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by sunnysider
(Post 11985421)
Are there any figures on turnout for the various age groups? I agree that it was democracy - and although the turnout could and should ideally have been higher it was actually very healthy compared to some recent general elections - in some of those in some areas the turnout has been worryingly low for anyone who believes in democracy - another gift from the sparkly toothed Blair.
Not a cat in hell's chance of a rerun referendum - the very idea is a bad joke. Ps - -if some kind person can point me at a step by step guide that may be on here to posting links on an android tab or phone I would be grateful. I can manage it with ease on many other forums but not on this one. A pm on this may be best so as not to clog the thread. |
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by ononno
(Post 11984989)
Quite. It's called democracy. Don't blame the brexiters, blame the 28% who couldn't be bothered to get their arses into gear and go out and vote. Mainly the younger generation.
A referendum works in a well-educated, well-informed, cohesive community (i.e. not one where one half is driven by hatred of the other), used to taking part in political life, who've learnt and understand from habit what a referendum means. That wasn't the case here. |
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by Sancho
(Post 11985943)
That might be a bit unfair. It looks to me as if large numbers of people voted "leave" to spite the people who'd been telling them to vote "remain", and that they hated. Cameron, Obama, the heads of the IMF and the World Bank and Nato, the Archbishop of Canterbury, heads of Universities, the governor of the Bank of England... all their "betters", who they'd come to hate. Without going into why they'd come to hate them, or whether it was understandable or right or wrong, I'd just make the point that, where you have large numbers of people like that , it's asking for trouble to allow something so important to be decided by referendum. So blame whoever decided to hold the referendum.
A referendum works in a well-educated, well-informed, cohesive community (i.e. not one where one half is driven by hatred of the other), used to taking part in political life, who've learnt and understand from habit what a referendum means. That wasn't the case here. |
Re: "Brexit"
Have to disagree you with you on the 'order out of chaos' argument - Cavours idea to have a plebiscite on te unification of Italy was the worst thing he could have done and certainly didnt bring order out of chaos, rather it led to what was basically a civil war. That after the war merely served to split the country in two again
|
Re: "Brexit"
According to todays FT Hedge Funds are targeting an exchange rate close to £1 to $1.
An outcome of the Brexit vote will soon appear at the Petrol Stations and supermarkets. Farage and Boris could become a bit unpopular. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c22ae866-3...#axzz4CnE9ctf0 |
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by heritagestanley
(Post 11986011)
Good point. I think it's overstating it to describe the attitude of many who voted for Leave as driven by hate; though I'm sure many wanted to give the people who'd done well out of EU membership and globalisation a poke in the eye and to vent their frustration that their concerns weren't being attended to. I hope that we never have a referendum again: the whole idea is alien to the concept and traditions of Parliamentary democracy, in which we elect representatives to make judgments about what is best in the national interest. Where a referendum makes sense is - for example in the case of Italy on unification and after the war - when there is no established representative democratic system in place. In the case of Italy the referendum brought order out of chaos. Alas in the the case of Brexit we have the opposite
There was an interesting thing in the FT yesterday evening. I'm not in a position to say if there may be something in it, but it's food for thought: I do not believe that Brexit will happen There will be howls of rage, but why should extremists on both sides dictate how the story ends? Gideon Rachman All good dramas involve the suspension of disbelief. So it was with Brexit. I went to bed at 4am on Friday depressed that Britain had voted to leave the EU. The following day my gloom only deepened. But then, belatedly, I realised that I have seen this film before. I know how it ends. And it does not end with the UK leaving Europe. Any long-term observer of the EU should be familiar with the shock referendum result. In 1992 the Danes voted to reject the Maastricht treaty. The Irish voted to reject both the Nice treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. And what happened in each case? The EU rolled ever onwards. The Danes and the Irish were granted some concessions by their EU partners. They staged a second referendum. And the second time around they voted to accept the treaty. So why, knowing this history, should anyone believe that Britain’s referendum decision is definitive? It is true that the British case has some novel elements. The UK has voted to leave the EU altogether. It is also a bigger economy than Ireland or Denmark, which changes the psychology of the relationship. And it is certainly true that the main actors in the drama seem to think it is for real. David Cameron, the UK prime minister, announced his resignation following the vote; and Jonathan Hill, Britain’s EU commissioner for financial services, has followed suit. Yet there are already signs that Britain might be heading towards a second referendum rather than the door marked exit. Boris Johnson, a leader of the Leave campaign and Britain’s probable next prime minister, hinted at his real thinking back in February, when he said: “There is only one way to get the change we need — and that is to vote to go; because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No.†Having been a journalist in Brussels at the time of the Danish referendum on Maastricht, Mr Johnson is very familiar with the history of second referendums. It is also well known that he was never a diehard Leaver, and hesitated until the last moment before deciding which side to back. His main goal was almost certainly to become prime minister; campaigning to leave the EU was merely the means to that end. Once Mr Johnson has entered 10 Downing Street, he can reverse his position on the EU. But would our European partners really be willing to play along? Quite possibly. You could see that in the talk by Wolfgang Schäuble’s finance ministry in Germany of negotiating an “associate†membership status for Britain. In reality, the UK already enjoys a form of associate membership since it is not a participant in the EU’s single currency or the Schengen passport-free zone. Negotiating some further ways in which the country could distance itself from the hard core of the bloc, while keeping its access to the single market, would merely elaborate on a model that already exists. And what kind of new concession should be offered? That is easy. What Mr Johnson would need to win a second referendum is an emergency brake on free movement of people, allowing the UK to limit the number of EU nationals moving to Britain if it has surged beyond a certain level. In retrospect, it was a big mistake on the part of the EU not to give Mr Cameron exactly this concession in his renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership early this year. It was the prime minister’s inability to promise that Britain could set an upper limit on immigration that probably ultimately lost him the vote. Even so, with 48 per cent of voters opting to stay in the union, the result was extremely close. If the Remain campaign could fight a second referendum with a proper answer to the question of immigration it should be able to win fairly easily. But why should Europe grant Britain any such a concession on free movement? Because, despite all the current irritations, the British are valuable members of the EU. The UK is a big contributor to the budget and it is a serious military and diplomatic power. Just as it will be painful for the UK to lose access to the EU’s internal market, so it will be painful for the EU to lose access to the British labour market. More than 3m EU nationals live and work in Britain, with more than 800,000 from Poland alone. Agreeing to an emergency brake on free movement of people might mean some modest limits to future migration. But that would surely be better than the much harsher restrictions that could follow a complete British withdrawal from the EU. Of course, there would be howls of anger on both sides of the Channel if any such deal is struck. The diehard Leavers in Britain would cry betrayal, while the diehard federalists in the European Parliament — who want to punish the UK and press on with “political union†in Europe — will also resist any new offer. But there is no reason to let the extremists on both sides of the debate dictate how this story has to end. There is a moderate middle in both Britain and Europe that should be capable of finding a deal that keeps the UK inside the EU. Like all good dramas, the Brexit story has been shocking, dramatic and upsetting. But its ending is not yet written. |
Re: "Brexit"
In fact, most Italians I know - with their innate knowledge of indietrologia say that it will never happen and there will be a grand fudge to make everyone look rather good.
|
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by modicasa
(Post 11987255)
In fact, most Italians I know - with their innate knowledge of indietrologia say that it will never happen and there will be a grand fudge to make everyone look rather good.
|
Re: "Brexit"
Will the EU EVER learn anything ?
In the meeting of Renzi/Merkel/Hollande yesterday , failing once again to read the mood of the electorate they proposed a much tighter union ,fiscal and political... the cleaver sods, it soon be Heil EU. Tragic. |
Re: "Brexit"
Think of the CAP subsidies that UK farmers stand to lose. :eek:
|
Re: "Brexit"
It is becoming increasing clear that people have misinterpreted the word Leave. It's the immigrants they want to leave. Been reading lots about people not liking the Asian family living next door and wanting them to leave. The Leave lot have now said immigration won't stop however.
If democracy means being able to blatantly lie to voters, then admit you lied and then ignore the opinion of half the electorate by institing on the removal of their citizenship status, then frankly it's a shit system. |
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by Sancho
(Post 11987347)
Think of the CAP subsidies that UK farmers stand to lose. :eek:
When Cornwall Council comes to ask for its £100million per annum from the government there is no guarantee that they will be paid. Similar for farmers or anybody else in receipt of EU money. |
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by modicasa
(Post 11986060)
Have to disagree you with you on the 'order out of chaos' argument - Cavours idea to have a plebiscite on te unification of Italy was the worst thing he could have done and certainly didnt bring order out of chaos, rather it led to what was basically a civil war. That after the war merely served to split the country in two again
On the question of possible prerequisites for a referendum, lack of ill feeling and high levels of education, surely at the end of WW II in italy there was bucket loads of ill feeling (it is my understanding that there were left-right reprisal killings for a long time after the war ended) and extremely low levels of education across the population. |
Re: "Brexit"
Originally Posted by modicasa
(Post 11987255)
In fact, most Italians I know - with their innate knowledge of indietrologia say that it will never happen and there will be a grand fudge to make everyone look rather good.
|
Re: "Brexit"
The following analysis, written the day after, may interest some forum members.
Brexit vote sends shockwaves across European Establishment |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:07 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.