4 ms·

I live in London, this is silly and seeing so many remain/pro-eu people chuck toys out of prams and be frankly akin to upset children being told no you can not

by Zenst 10y ago

I live in London, this is silly and seeing so many remain/pro-eu people chuck toys out of prams and be frankly akin to upset children being told no you can not stay up past 9pm as it is a school night, play out in many forms. Still, more people voted to leave the EU than voted for the current government, so can see how some things are viewed by the loosing side and some people sore losers would be putting it mildly.

ChrisClark 10y ago
I'd be seriously upset if my country voted to destroy itself too. Luckily we're doing pretty good in Canada.
- no_wave 10y ago
  Yeah, I even heard there's a little land in Vancouver that's still owned by Canadians
  - SuddsMcDuff 10y ago
    aaaaaaand it's gone. For 25 million. To a Chinese tycoon.
- codys 10y ago
  A vote to leave EU is hardly a vote to destroy itself. Saying it is is blatant fear-mongering.
  - trelltron 10y ago
    Clearly you haven't been paying attention
Analemma_ 10y ago
Explain to me why London's clearly expressed democratic desire to stay is less valid than the overall nation's vote to leave (especially when the margin in London was much larger than for the nation overall). This is the problem with direct referendums, and why this Brexit vote should never have happened: as soon as you say that "we need direct democracy so the people can have a voice", smaller geographic areas which hold the opposite view have equally valid claims. (EDIT: a lot of my replies seem to be missing the point. I mean why is London's desire less valid philosophically, not legally. Obviously London could not legally depart without a vote in Parliament, but if Londoners clearly express their desire to leave the UK and the UK doesn't let them, well, that seems awfully antithetical to the direct democracy that the Brexiters say they want)
- mac01021 10y ago
  I'm not sure this has any impact on the validity of the desire, but it sounds like a border-control nightmare.
- robotresearcher 10y ago
  Because London isn't a sovereign nation.
  - lmm 10y ago
    Nor is Scotland or Northern Ireland, but they're talking about independence.
    - robotresearcher 10y ago
      These are completely different cases. Scotland has been its own traditional country for a very long time, and the union with England was formed when the King of Scotland became also King of England and not the other way around. Northern Ireland is the vestige of a brutal occupation of Ireland by England. The Catholic population traditionally loyal to Ireland now outnumbers the UK-supporting Protestants. London has never been a country. This is obviously a protest demonstration and not a serious proposition.
      - deadfish 10y ago
        Not strictly true. The 'City of London' (not to be confused with London) is and has always been its own country. Whilst the argument is for all of London to be independent. It would surely be possible for the 'City of London' to remain in the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
        robotresearcher 10y ago
        The City of London, as shown in that link, is a city and COUNTY in England, and not a country. That 'r' makes a difference.
SandersAK 10y ago
I think people are scared of the very real financial implications this will have on London. What interest does the EU have now in keeping the key finance entities in London now that Britain has made clear its not interested in controlling or actively participating in The EUROPE economy.
alexchamberlain 10y ago
I don't necessarily agree with the parent's sentiment; however, I agree with the observation that there seems to be more hysteria on the remain side, than celebration on the leave side.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Possibly due to the fact that we can see the immediate negatives and nobody - not event he people who campaigned to leave - can honestly say they know what's going to happen in the long-term. There are things they hope will happen but there are no immediate benefits, only immediate harm.
  - alexchamberlain 10y ago
    Again, playing devil's advocate: what are the immediate downsides? We're still in the EU today, and will be for apparently 2 and half years. The currency movements are positive for as many people as they are negative. The share movement has taken us to last weeks level on the FTSE 100 (FTSE 250 is down on a week). Interesting impact on Euro and european stocks, which suffered worse than UK stocks. Again, I must emphasise I'm not making an opinion either way. Just pointing out there are statistics and opinions both ways.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
Yes, bad losers that's it. It wouldn't anything to do with sterling dropping to incredibly low levels? Scotland and NI both calling for independence? Farage admitting on live TV that one of the major leave adverts was completely false? The fate of a country being decided by a public that is very uninformed and swayed, on both sides, by baseless propaganda?

by Zenst 10y ago

ChrisClark 10y ago

I'd be seriously upset if my country voted to destroy itself too. Luckily we're doing pretty good in Canada.

no_wave 10y ago
Yeah, I even heard there's a little land in Vancouver that's still owned by Canadians
- SuddsMcDuff 10y ago
  aaaaaaand it's gone. For 25 million. To a Chinese tycoon.
codys 10y ago
A vote to leave EU is hardly a vote to destroy itself. Saying it is is blatant fear-mongering.
- trelltron 10y ago
  Clearly you haven't been paying attention

Analemma_ 10y ago

Explain to me why London's clearly expressed democratic desire to stay is less valid than the overall nation's vote to leave (especially when the margin in London was much larger than for the nation overall). This is the problem with direct referendums, and why this Brexit vote should never have happened: as soon as you say that "we need direct democracy so the people can have a voice", smaller geographic areas which hold the opposite view have equally valid claims. (EDIT: a lot of my replies seem to be missing the point. I mean why is London's desire less valid philosophically, not legally. Obviously London could not legally depart without a vote in Parliament, but if Londoners clearly express their desire to leave the UK and the UK doesn't let them, well, that seems awfully antithetical to the direct democracy that the Brexiters say they want)

mac01021 10y ago
I'm not sure this has any impact on the validity of the desire, but it sounds like a border-control nightmare.
robotresearcher 10y ago
Because London isn't a sovereign nation.
- lmm 10y ago
  Nor is Scotland or Northern Ireland, but they're talking about independence.
  - robotresearcher 10y ago
    These are completely different cases. Scotland has been its own traditional country for a very long time, and the union with England was formed when the King of Scotland became also King of England and not the other way around. Northern Ireland is the vestige of a brutal occupation of Ireland by England. The Catholic population traditionally loyal to Ireland now outnumbers the UK-supporting Protestants. London has never been a country. This is obviously a protest demonstration and not a serious proposition.
    - deadfish 10y ago
      Not strictly true. The 'City of London' (not to be confused with London) is and has always been its own country. Whilst the argument is for all of London to be independent. It would surely be possible for the 'City of London' to remain in the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
      - robotresearcher 10y ago
        The City of London, as shown in that link, is a city and COUNTY in England, and not a country. That 'r' makes a difference.

SandersAK 10y ago

I think people are scared of the very real financial implications this will have on London. What interest does the EU have now in keeping the key finance entities in London now that Britain has made clear its not interested in controlling or actively participating in The EUROPE economy.

alexchamberlain 10y ago

I don't necessarily agree with the parent's sentiment; however, I agree with the observation that there seems to be more hysteria on the remain side, than celebration on the leave side.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
Possibly due to the fact that we can see the immediate negatives and nobody - not event he people who campaigned to leave - can honestly say they know what's going to happen in the long-term. There are things they hope will happen but there are no immediate benefits, only immediate harm.
- alexchamberlain 10y ago
  Again, playing devil's advocate: what are the immediate downsides? We're still in the EU today, and will be for apparently 2 and half years. The currency movements are positive for as many people as they are negative. The share movement has taken us to last weeks level on the FTSE 100 (FTSE 250 is down on a week). Interesting impact on Euro and european stocks, which suffered worse than UK stocks. Again, I must emphasise I'm not making an opinion either way. Just pointing out there are statistics and opinions both ways.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

Yes, bad losers that's it. It wouldn't anything to do with sterling dropping to incredibly low levels? Scotland and NI both calling for independence? Farage admitting on live TV that one of the major leave adverts was completely false? The fate of a country being decided by a public that is very uninformed and swayed, on both sides, by baseless propaganda?