4 ms·

Please correct me if I am wrong - as I understand, the referendum for the BREXIT is not binding. As such, there is a lot of fuss and hot air about things that

by wuschel 10y ago

Please correct me if I am wrong - as I understand, the referendum for the BREXIT is not binding. As such, there is a lot of fuss and hot air about things that will possibly not materialize. Not to mention all those speculative business affairs..

m0nty 10y ago
It isn't legally binding, and although the Prime Minister said she doesn't intend to consult parliament about it, parliament will still need to repeal the European Communities Act which took us into the EU in the first place. So they could say "no", but I think it unlikely in the current political climate. It is binding in the sense that it's "the will of the people", albeit by a slender margin, and it's kind of tricky to just ignore that. I personally suspect the Prime Minister is not highly committed to Brexit (she campaigned against it) but can't be seen to be "sabotaging" it by action or inaction, so she's got her game-face on. But she might come back later and say "it just won't work" or "Europe has offered us a better deal on immigration if we remain in", so let's have another referendum. > a lot of fuss and hot air about things that will possibly not materialize Or they might materialize, and it could turn out to be a Bad Thing, which is why people are worried about it. The continuation of the current status quo seems highly unlikely, whatever happens.
- wuschel 10y ago
  I understand, thanks for elaborating on that matter. In a way, a clean way to do it would to be a call for elections, and a proper mandate - either to stay in, or stay out. But that might not happen, considering the nature of the political game. I agree about the reasons to worry, and to have a proper discussion. Things tend to get out of hand sometimes when it comes to media.
  - m0nty 10y ago
    > a clean way to do it would to be a call for elections Absolutely, but the weakness of the opposition Labour party and the near-annihilation of the Liberal Democrats at the last election mean (as things stand) it's mostly a foregone conclusion that the Conservatives will win. So to their way of looking at things, they will have two mandates to leave. It's an extraordinary situation, though. I said to my son on the morning the result was announced, this will affect all of us for the rest of our lives. I still don't think I was being hyperbolic. Seasoned politicians and commentators are saying it's our biggest political crisis since WW2 or Suez, and that's even coming from people who seem to support Brexit.
    - gsnedders 10y ago
      The Labour situation probably also makes it unlikely for it to be plausible to call for elections, as to call an early election in the simplest way requires a 2/3rds majority of the House in favour (i.e., 431 votes, 101 seats more than the Tories hold). The alternative, which the Tories in principle could do alone, is pass a motion of no confidence in the Government, wait two weeks, and then the House falls to an election (this assumes that all Tories would vote as a block, thereby making it impossible for a motion of confidence to be passed in those two week).
  - sverige 10y ago
    I thought the vote for stay in or stay out was already had. Are you proposing to do it over and over until you get the result you want, then declare that this is the mandate?
    - wuschel 10y ago
      As mentioned above, the vote has been made - but is not legally binding. I completely agree that one should respect the vote of the voters - after all, isn't that one of the basis of our western political systems? On the other hand, what if the electorate did not vote out of protest, was misinformed by the politicians or media, or simply not educated enough to make the proper choice? Apart from the shocking failure of an established western democracy to make a good economical and political choice, what are the consequences at stake here? For our startup, for instance, it means that we considered dropping potential R&D partners from the UK. For the UK economy, the consequences might be devastating. In general, I am all for removing UK's special privileges, and their counterproductive attitude towards the EU. But I also do not want to see them go. The EU would loose a member state, and the UK might desintegrate (Northern Ireland and Scotland sure want to stay in the EU!).
      - sverige 10y ago
        > On the other hand, what if the electorate did not vote out of protest, was misinformed by the politicians or media, or simply not educated enough to make the proper choice? Apart from the shocking failure of an established western democracy to make a good economical and political choice, what are the consequences at stake here? Well, that has always been the risk with democracy. People disagree, one side of a vote wins, the other side loses. But you can't simply accuse the winning side of being misinformed or uneducated or irrational unless you are willing to accept that they view you in the same light. And making that argument publicly, as the Remain side has very vocally since losing, only hardens the position of those on the other side that you know nothing and are not worth listening to since you obviously don't see the good that will come from their victory. So all the rest (economic devastation, EU disintegration, counterproductive attitudes) might be exactly what they desire. And they're in the majority, in a democracy. If you dislike that, perhaps democracy isn't really your preferred form of government.
mattmanser 10y ago
No, it's happening. As in like the most likely thing to happen next is that it will happen. It's not binding as in they could theoretically put it to an MP vote and reject it, but it would be utter political suicide for any party that did. So it's only not binding only if you're completely and utterly delusional. There would be riots, a major swing to UKIP, lots of 'safe' MPs would lose their seats, etc., etc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  I'm sure it would get put to another vote based on some material change to the situation. My guess is with restrictions on free movement many people would change their mind.
georgeecollins 10y ago
It is fundamentally undermining of the legitimacy of a democracy to ignore the popular vote in a national referendum. Although the majority now may believe it is the right choice, the precedent would inevitably come back to haunt you.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  There's precedent, though, in the form of the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. 51.6% voted in favour of a Scottish Assembly, but as enacted to be considered to pass it needed 40% or more of the registered electorate to vote in favour—with only 63.7% turnout, it was only 32.9% of the registered electorate.

by wuschel 10y ago

m0nty 10y ago

It isn't legally binding, and although the Prime Minister said she doesn't intend to consult parliament about it, parliament will still need to repeal the European Communities Act which took us into the EU in the first place. So they could say "no", but I think it unlikely in the current political climate. It is binding in the sense that it's "the will of the people", albeit by a slender margin, and it's kind of tricky to just ignore that. I personally suspect the Prime Minister is not highly committed to Brexit (she campaigned against it) but can't be seen to be "sabotaging" it by action or inaction, so she's got her game-face on. But she might come back later and say "it just won't work" or "Europe has offered us a better deal on immigration if we remain in", so let's have another referendum. > a lot of fuss and hot air about things that will possibly not materialize Or they might materialize, and it could turn out to be a Bad Thing, which is why people are worried about it. The continuation of the current status quo seems highly unlikely, whatever happens.

wuschel 10y ago
I understand, thanks for elaborating on that matter. In a way, a clean way to do it would to be a call for elections, and a proper mandate - either to stay in, or stay out. But that might not happen, considering the nature of the political game. I agree about the reasons to worry, and to have a proper discussion. Things tend to get out of hand sometimes when it comes to media.
- m0nty 10y ago
  > a clean way to do it would to be a call for elections Absolutely, but the weakness of the opposition Labour party and the near-annihilation of the Liberal Democrats at the last election mean (as things stand) it's mostly a foregone conclusion that the Conservatives will win. So to their way of looking at things, they will have two mandates to leave. It's an extraordinary situation, though. I said to my son on the morning the result was announced, this will affect all of us for the rest of our lives. I still don't think I was being hyperbolic. Seasoned politicians and commentators are saying it's our biggest political crisis since WW2 or Suez, and that's even coming from people who seem to support Brexit.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    The Labour situation probably also makes it unlikely for it to be plausible to call for elections, as to call an early election in the simplest way requires a 2/3rds majority of the House in favour (i.e., 431 votes, 101 seats more than the Tories hold). The alternative, which the Tories in principle could do alone, is pass a motion of no confidence in the Government, wait two weeks, and then the House falls to an election (this assumes that all Tories would vote as a block, thereby making it impossible for a motion of confidence to be passed in those two week).
- sverige 10y ago
  I thought the vote for stay in or stay out was already had. Are you proposing to do it over and over until you get the result you want, then declare that this is the mandate?
  - wuschel 10y ago
    As mentioned above, the vote has been made - but is not legally binding. I completely agree that one should respect the vote of the voters - after all, isn't that one of the basis of our western political systems? On the other hand, what if the electorate did not vote out of protest, was misinformed by the politicians or media, or simply not educated enough to make the proper choice? Apart from the shocking failure of an established western democracy to make a good economical and political choice, what are the consequences at stake here? For our startup, for instance, it means that we considered dropping potential R&D partners from the UK. For the UK economy, the consequences might be devastating. In general, I am all for removing UK's special privileges, and their counterproductive attitude towards the EU. But I also do not want to see them go. The EU would loose a member state, and the UK might desintegrate (Northern Ireland and Scotland sure want to stay in the EU!).
    - sverige 10y ago
      > On the other hand, what if the electorate did not vote out of protest, was misinformed by the politicians or media, or simply not educated enough to make the proper choice? Apart from the shocking failure of an established western democracy to make a good economical and political choice, what are the consequences at stake here? Well, that has always been the risk with democracy. People disagree, one side of a vote wins, the other side loses. But you can't simply accuse the winning side of being misinformed or uneducated or irrational unless you are willing to accept that they view you in the same light. And making that argument publicly, as the Remain side has very vocally since losing, only hardens the position of those on the other side that you know nothing and are not worth listening to since you obviously don't see the good that will come from their victory. So all the rest (economic devastation, EU disintegration, counterproductive attitudes) might be exactly what they desire. And they're in the majority, in a democracy. If you dislike that, perhaps democracy isn't really your preferred form of government.

mattmanser 10y ago

No, it's happening. As in like the most likely thing to happen next is that it will happen. It's not binding as in they could theoretically put it to an MP vote and reject it, but it would be utter political suicide for any party that did. So it's only not binding only if you're completely and utterly delusional. There would be riots, a major swing to UKIP, lots of 'safe' MPs would lose their seats, etc., etc.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I'm sure it would get put to another vote based on some material change to the situation. My guess is with restrictions on free movement many people would change their mind.

georgeecollins 10y ago

It is fundamentally undermining of the legitimacy of a democracy to ignore the popular vote in a national referendum. Although the majority now may believe it is the right choice, the precedent would inevitably come back to haunt you.

gsnedders 10y ago
There's precedent, though, in the form of the Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. 51.6% voted in favour of a Scottish Assembly, but as enacted to be considered to pass it needed 40% or more of the registered electorate to vote in favour—with only 63.7% turnout, it was only 32.9% of the registered electorate.