4 ms·

Many people voted pro-Brexit in the referendum due to the increasing disparity and alienation between the ruling/political class and the rest of the country. B

by bb101 10y ago

Many people voted pro-Brexit in the referendum due to the increasing disparity and alienation between the ruling/political class and the rest of the country. By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen. That's a sound result for the politicians and chiefs of industry based in London, but what will it mean for the wider UK? Both the courts and parliament demonstrating they are ready to meddle and overrule the majority will of the people, I have a feeling we are going to see many, many more votes for UKIP and BNP in any subsequent election. It's a ratchet effect along the lines of "if they didn't get the message with this vote, perhaps they'll get the message with this one." For the Americans out there, this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of course it would be Clinton.

antouank 10y ago
> By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen. By what logic?? Most reports says otherwise.
dabeeeenster 10y ago
"By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen." That's hugely uncertain.
exox 10y ago
However in comparison to the American election, where Trump has been explicitly clear in his plans and prejudices. A number of voters opting for Leave did so based on information provided by the Leave campaign, a lot of which turned out to be very misleading or just plain false. Edit: And so it's not unreasonable to think that a portion of Leave voters may have already changed their minds in the wake of what has transpired.
laurent123456 10y ago
> By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen There's nothing sure about this. In general most MPs are against Brexit but they are expected to roughly follow the will of the people, so there's a good change they'll still vote in favour of article 50. I mean the whole government right now is working hard to make Brexit happen, while at the same time being against it.
notahacker 10y ago
> this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of course it would be Clinton It's more like Americans voting in a referendum that a trade agreement with Canada should be scrapped in favour of something new, and then the Supreme Court ruling that the date of departure and negotiation objectives are set by Congress debating and voting and not by the House Majority Leader exercising prerogative powers.
Desustorm 10y ago
>For the Americans out there, this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of course it would be Clinton. Um, not really. It means that we are applying the law, not meddling... The prime minister doesn't get to decide what she wants to do regardless of whether it can pass in the commons, and an advisory referendum is certainly not legally binding.
pjc50 10y ago
Or like Gore getting an incredibly thin majority based on interpretation of ambiguous ballots and then having it overruled by the Supreme court? (George W. Bush: 50,456,002. Al Gore: 50,999,897. Yes, I do know how the electoral college works, but if the same election had been counted under referendum rules the result would have been different)
selimthegrim 10y ago
That eventuality is perfectly legal and the reason the founders designed the Electoral College in the first place, as a last ditch emergency brake. Not that I would want that to happen but it is well known that only democratic convention binds the electors.

by bb101 10y ago

antouank 10y ago

> By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen. By what logic?? Most reports says otherwise.

dabeeeenster 10y ago

"By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen." That's hugely uncertain.

exox 10y ago

However in comparison to the American election, where Trump has been explicitly clear in his plans and prejudices. A number of voters opting for Leave did so based on information provided by the Leave campaign, a lot of which turned out to be very misleading or just plain false. Edit: And so it's not unreasonable to think that a portion of Leave voters may have already changed their minds in the wake of what has transpired.

laurent123456 10y ago

> By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen There's nothing sure about this. In general most MPs are against Brexit but they are expected to roughly follow the will of the people, so there's a good change they'll still vote in favour of article 50. I mean the whole government right now is working hard to make Brexit happen, while at the same time being against it.

notahacker 10y ago

> this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of course it would be Clinton It's more like Americans voting in a referendum that a trade agreement with Canada should be scrapped in favour of something new, and then the Supreme Court ruling that the date of departure and negotiation objectives are set by Congress debating and voting and not by the House Majority Leader exercising prerogative powers.

Desustorm 10y ago

>For the Americans out there, this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of course it would be Clinton. Um, not really. It means that we are applying the law, not meddling... The prime minister doesn't get to decide what she wants to do regardless of whether it can pass in the commons, and an advisory referendum is certainly not legally binding.

pjc50 10y ago

Or like Gore getting an incredibly thin majority based on interpretation of ambiguous ballots and then having it overruled by the Supreme court? (George W. Bush: 50,456,002. Al Gore: 50,999,897. Yes, I do know how the electoral college works, but if the same election had been counted under referendum rules the result would have been different)

selimthegrim 10y ago

That eventuality is perfectly legal and the reason the founders designed the Electoral College in the first place, as a last ditch emergency brake. Not that I would want that to happen but it is well known that only democratic convention binds the electors.