3 ms·

Theoretically, yes. That's sort of like saying the British army ultimately answers to the Queen so the Queen could run the country as a dictatorship if she want

Theoretically, yes. That's sort of like saying the British army ultimately answers to the Queen so the Queen could run the country as a dictatorship if she wanted to. It's not an argument rooted in the real world though. Queenie would be gone tomorrow if she tried that. The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out and of those who voted remain, about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project. Given that the EU wants the UK out ASAP without any kind of concessions at all, the people who want a "soft brexit" (whatever that means) are likely to be disappointed as such an option will not be on the table at all. If MPs attempt to ignore or roll back the referendum in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK, Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties. It'll still happen, it'll just take longer.

sasvari 10y ago
in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK Would you care to elaborate?
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy who wrote Article 50 has said it was deliberately designed to never be used. It's not a workable mechanism for leaving. In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done. They're also briefing about "dirty brexit". Google it.
  - DocTomoe 10y ago
    > they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification And fuel every little fascist's antieuropean campaign in other EU countries? The EU has to make an example about how leaving the Union is a bad idea, one that even the dumbest of voters understand - and that's exactly what they are going to do. > In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened Which is partly due to the fact that the British Referendum vote has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a "Suggestion". > and refusing to talk about anything at all Thus avoiding to making concessions and letting the UK test the waters before they actually decide to jump in. > thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done You do understand that the two years are a maximum length, and that the EU could simply decide not to Play, declaring negotiations over within seconds of May pulling the trigger, thus creating the hardest of Brexits with the UK without the EU and without any newly-set up trade agreements with third parties?
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      Your response is typical of why the EU will eventually collapse in a messy way that will likely make all of Europe poorer. It is simply re-running the story of the USSR in a less extreme way. EU supporters even think of themselves as being "anti-fascist", language identical to what the Bolesheviks used in the 30's and 40's. I absolutely understand that the EU can simply "refuse to play" and that's what I expect them to do. See my comments elsewhere. The EU is held together by fear and needs to make itself a sworn enemy of any country that wants to get out. It's an unstable strategy and it will eventually cause serious chaos, especially when the Euro falls apart. If the EU was willing to undergo massive reform and change itself, the transition could be orderly and yield minimal or even positive economic impact. It never will, so Europe is gonna have a very troubled next few decades.
      - emp_zealoth 10y ago
        UK is bringing this on itself. I'm sorry, time to wake up from fantasyland of sovereignity. Decisions have consequences and it was rather obvious that the incentives become rather misaligned when UK decides to tell EU to go fuck itself. UK did enough damage already, the latest and most glorious example is blocking finance reform so you could protect your criminal banker city (which, ironically will probably pack up and leave after brexit) EU has no obligation to make special concessions, quite the contrary - it is obvious you cannot get a better deal than for example Norway, nor can you continue to benefit from common market without agreeing to it's most core terms Sure, the Euro is in dire need of remaking, maybe explosive collapse of UK will be glorious enough to force some changes in that regard, so...thanks!
        zigzigzag 10y ago
        That's the criminal banker city the French and Germans are so keen to forcibly relocate? Jeesh, you guys.
  - sasvari 10y ago
    I find it kind of amusing that for some/a lot of commentators (from the UK) it is ok for UK politicians to only try to get the best deal possible for the UK, whereas when EU officials and/or representatives from the other EU27 state that they will do the same for the EU/their country/interests, it is considered screwing over the UK. This argument can easily be turned around from the point of view from people living in the rest of the EU, just as a hint.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      There is no assumption on the part of the British that a good deal for the UK is in any way worse for the rest of the EU than what they have now. Why would it be? I'm sure the UK would be quite happy with a reciprocal arrangement - UK imposes immigration quotas on Europeans and the same is true in reverse, but trade continues and other forms of cooperation continue as well. That would be best for all sides. It's the EU that sees the world as a zero sum game: that for the EU to "win" out of this the UK must "lose". As Hollande has so memorably summed up.
- DocTomoe 10y ago
  Well, for one, the EU has (understandably) choosen very anti-Brexit negotiators, hinting at hard and unfruitful negotiations. I guess the UK would have loved if the EU sent Faragne...
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    They should send Van Rompoy and demand that Farange negotiates for UK rotfl :D
  - sasvari 10y ago
    Do you mean the current UK government did not put anti-EU negotiators in charge of handling this issue?
    - DocTomoe 10y ago
      Oh, they did. But they were surprised and angered the EU will send anti-Brexit negotiators nontheless. It's something we have come to expect from the British: They get cranky once they find themselves on a Level playing field.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      There are no "anti-EU" negotiators in the UK, so no.
mavhc 10y ago
17.5 million voted leave 16 million voted remain 11.2 million voted "don't care" 19.6 million weren't allowed to vote 33.5 million voted 44.7 million could vote 64.1 million people total
zimpenfish 10y ago
> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. That's a wild overstatement - 52% of the people who voted (which was about 40% of the eligible voters) voted to leave the EU, sure, but that's not nearly "the vast majority of British voters" by a long margin. > Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties I would put money on this never happening.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  You didn't read my statement. Of those who voted, 52% obviously didn't like the EU. Of those who voted remain, about 45-50% have told pollsters they did so purely out of fear of economic consequences. That is not "liking" the EU anymore than paying the Mafia to make them go away instead of fighting them makes you a fan of the Mafia. If the EU had committed before the referendum to striking a good trade deal with an out UK, continuing cooperation in areas where it was possible etc, then most likely leave would have won by around 80%. Which is why the EU didn't do that. The polls are quite clear on this point. The EU has very little real support in Britain, defined as people who actually like the idea and want it to be extended further. It seems only about 20-25% of the population can be called real federalists. But basically all the EU leaders are.
lmm 10y ago
> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. The vast majority of voters in any country do not like the government. That's not the benchmark for democracy. > about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project. Economic consequences are just as real as "sovereignty" and similar concerns, if anything more so.
Jaruzel 10y ago
> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out Although your comment is clearly articulated, and concludes with a very real and accurate statement, I feel I must redress the opening of your second paragraph. If the vast majority of 'voters' did not like the EU, and 'most voted out' then the result would have been the same, but with much larger majority. This was not the case. The economic fallout of Brexit has yet to be experienced as it will not really kick in until after the UK leaves the EU. The fallout size also depends on the 'deal' (if any) the UK gets when it leaves. Merkel has been very clear that there is no deal on the table and there never will be. Whether the threat of higher prices were a scare tactic or not, many remainers simply did not want a financial hit on their wallet, which is totally understandable. Meanwhile, a large swathe of Leavers simply voted that way because Farage told them it was the only way to keep the migrants out. At the end of the day, both sides were lied to, more or less, by parties whose political agendas and parliamentary jockyings were more important than the well-being of the country. I'm not pro the EU in it's current form, but I do believe that the UK will be worse off as a non-member. This is my view, and I voted accordingly. I also voted in an well-informed away, and I just wish the rest of the country had done so also. The outcome might have still been the same, but at least it would have been for the right reasons.
framp 10y ago
I think you're example is misleading. The Queen becoming a dictator is completely different from the Parliament doing what it should do. To keep it simple: This is a democracy, which means every citizen is giving away his/her power to a selected few. The Parliament - the people you voted, more or less directly - has to act. An ADVISORY referendum is going to be used as an ADVICE. The Parliament has to act - considering the people's will AND what makes sense for the country. This mechanism is in place to protect you from direct democracy - which doesn't make sense because: A. People are easily manipulated - especially in a world where TV and internet make spreading information really easy B. People can choose to vote randomly, erratically C. People can have a different level of understanding on delicate matters - depending on their education and background

sasvari 10y ago

in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK Would you care to elaborate?

zigzigzag 10y ago
If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy who wrote Article 50 has said it was deliberately designed to never be used. It's not a workable mechanism for leaving. In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done. They're also briefing about "dirty brexit". Google it.
- DocTomoe 10y ago
  > they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification And fuel every little fascist's antieuropean campaign in other EU countries? The EU has to make an example about how leaving the Union is a bad idea, one that even the dumbest of voters understand - and that's exactly what they are going to do. > In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened Which is partly due to the fact that the British Referendum vote has no legal standing whatsoever. It is a "Suggestion". > and refusing to talk about anything at all Thus avoiding to making concessions and letting the UK test the waters before they actually decide to jump in. > thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done You do understand that the two years are a maximum length, and that the EU could simply decide not to Play, declaring negotiations over within seconds of May pulling the trigger, thus creating the hardest of Brexits with the UK without the EU and without any newly-set up trade agreements with third parties?
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Your response is typical of why the EU will eventually collapse in a messy way that will likely make all of Europe poorer. It is simply re-running the story of the USSR in a less extreme way. EU supporters even think of themselves as being "anti-fascist", language identical to what the Bolesheviks used in the 30's and 40's. I absolutely understand that the EU can simply "refuse to play" and that's what I expect them to do. See my comments elsewhere. The EU is held together by fear and needs to make itself a sworn enemy of any country that wants to get out. It's an unstable strategy and it will eventually cause serious chaos, especially when the Euro falls apart. If the EU was willing to undergo massive reform and change itself, the transition could be orderly and yield minimal or even positive economic impact. It never will, so Europe is gonna have a very troubled next few decades.
    - emp_zealoth 10y ago
      UK is bringing this on itself. I'm sorry, time to wake up from fantasyland of sovereignity. Decisions have consequences and it was rather obvious that the incentives become rather misaligned when UK decides to tell EU to go fuck itself. UK did enough damage already, the latest and most glorious example is blocking finance reform so you could protect your criminal banker city (which, ironically will probably pack up and leave after brexit) EU has no obligation to make special concessions, quite the contrary - it is obvious you cannot get a better deal than for example Norway, nor can you continue to benefit from common market without agreeing to it's most core terms Sure, the Euro is in dire need of remaking, maybe explosive collapse of UK will be glorious enough to force some changes in that regard, so...thanks!
      - zigzigzag 10y ago
        That's the criminal banker city the French and Germans are so keen to forcibly relocate? Jeesh, you guys.
- sasvari 10y ago
  I find it kind of amusing that for some/a lot of commentators (from the UK) it is ok for UK politicians to only try to get the best deal possible for the UK, whereas when EU officials and/or representatives from the other EU27 state that they will do the same for the EU/their country/interests, it is considered screwing over the UK. This argument can easily be turned around from the point of view from people living in the rest of the EU, just as a hint.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    There is no assumption on the part of the British that a good deal for the UK is in any way worse for the rest of the EU than what they have now. Why would it be? I'm sure the UK would be quite happy with a reciprocal arrangement - UK imposes immigration quotas on Europeans and the same is true in reverse, but trade continues and other forms of cooperation continue as well. That would be best for all sides. It's the EU that sees the world as a zero sum game: that for the EU to "win" out of this the UK must "lose". As Hollande has so memorably summed up.
DocTomoe 10y ago
Well, for one, the EU has (understandably) choosen very anti-Brexit negotiators, hinting at hard and unfruitful negotiations. I guess the UK would have loved if the EU sent Faragne...
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  They should send Van Rompoy and demand that Farange negotiates for UK rotfl :D
- sasvari 10y ago
  Do you mean the current UK government did not put anti-EU negotiators in charge of handling this issue?
  - DocTomoe 10y ago
    Oh, they did. But they were surprised and angered the EU will send anti-Brexit negotiators nontheless. It's something we have come to expect from the British: They get cranky once they find themselves on a Level playing field.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    There are no "anti-EU" negotiators in the UK, so no.

mavhc 10y ago

17.5 million voted leave 16 million voted remain 11.2 million voted "don't care" 19.6 million weren't allowed to vote 33.5 million voted 44.7 million could vote 64.1 million people total

zimpenfish 10y ago

> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. That's a wild overstatement - 52% of the people who voted (which was about 40% of the eligible voters) voted to leave the EU, sure, but that's not nearly "the vast majority of British voters" by a long margin. > Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties I would put money on this never happening.

zigzigzag 10y ago
You didn't read my statement. Of those who voted, 52% obviously didn't like the EU. Of those who voted remain, about 45-50% have told pollsters they did so purely out of fear of economic consequences. That is not "liking" the EU anymore than paying the Mafia to make them go away instead of fighting them makes you a fan of the Mafia. If the EU had committed before the referendum to striking a good trade deal with an out UK, continuing cooperation in areas where it was possible etc, then most likely leave would have won by around 80%. Which is why the EU didn't do that. The polls are quite clear on this point. The EU has very little real support in Britain, defined as people who actually like the idea and want it to be extended further. It seems only about 20-25% of the population can be called real federalists. But basically all the EU leaders are.

lmm 10y ago

> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. The vast majority of voters in any country do not like the government. That's not the benchmark for democracy. > about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project. Economic consequences are just as real as "sovereignty" and similar concerns, if anything more so.

Jaruzel 10y ago

> The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out Although your comment is clearly articulated, and concludes with a very real and accurate statement, I feel I must redress the opening of your second paragraph. If the vast majority of 'voters' did not like the EU, and 'most voted out' then the result would have been the same, but with much larger majority. This was not the case. The economic fallout of Brexit has yet to be experienced as it will not really kick in until after the UK leaves the EU. The fallout size also depends on the 'deal' (if any) the UK gets when it leaves. Merkel has been very clear that there is no deal on the table and there never will be. Whether the threat of higher prices were a scare tactic or not, many remainers simply did not want a financial hit on their wallet, which is totally understandable. Meanwhile, a large swathe of Leavers simply voted that way because Farage told them it was the only way to keep the migrants out. At the end of the day, both sides were lied to, more or less, by parties whose political agendas and parliamentary jockyings were more important than the well-being of the country. I'm not pro the EU in it's current form, but I do believe that the UK will be worse off as a non-member. This is my view, and I voted accordingly. I also voted in an well-informed away, and I just wish the rest of the country had done so also. The outcome might have still been the same, but at least it would have been for the right reasons.

framp 10y ago

I think you're example is misleading. The Queen becoming a dictator is completely different from the Parliament doing what it should do. To keep it simple: This is a democracy, which means every citizen is giving away his/her power to a selected few. The Parliament - the people you voted, more or less directly - has to act. An ADVISORY referendum is going to be used as an ADVICE. The Parliament has to act - considering the people's will AND what makes sense for the country. This mechanism is in place to protect you from direct democracy - which doesn't make sense because: A. People are easily manipulated - especially in a world where TV and internet make spreading information really easy B. People can choose to vote randomly, erratically C. People can have a different level of understanding on delicate matters - depending on their education and background