BREXIT -0de to the EU

[turboplanner]

Many immigrant nations (Oz, USA, etc) and others that arose from the ashes of war have the benefit of a constitution that requires major changes to pass by two thirds, or by majorities in a majority of states.Many nations have run-off elections to ensure they get a true reflection of the will of the people.

Why does Britain have to undergo a momentous change due to this small margin in a one-off vote across the whole nation?

Very good point OK; as each news bulletin comes out you can see more English people are in shock, and starting to realise the repercussions, the downsides that were never mentioned in the lead up to the vote.

 

It was very telling to see the leading exit advocator, after his win, coming out with his hands in his pockets and absolutely no idea what to do next, other than there was no need to rush; well now the EU leaders have given him that reason.

 

Interesting too that Scotland has now put the wheels in motion for a new referendum next year for seceding. The last one didn't make any sense at all with a United Kingdom, but now we have not only a Disunited Kingdom, but the potential for an EU Scotland with substantially greater trading power differential. If Northern Ireland joined them as a separate EU Country, the trading power and economic benefits would be even greater.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Exit groups are currently in the ascendency, but after the shock has worn off maybe cooler heads will prevail and wind back some of the less popular policies in order to save the Common Market.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Many immigrant nations (Oz, USA, etc) and others that arose from the ashes of war have the benefit of a constitution that requires major changes to pass by two thirds, or by majorities in a majority of states.Many nations have run-off elections to ensure they get a true reflection of the will of the people.

Why does Britain have to undergo a momentous change due to this small margin in a one-off vote across the whole nation?

I think run off elections are mostly for different reasons. They are for general elections to turn multi-candidate elections into final one on one events and produce a two party preferred type system. We get around it by having preferences which count as second and third votes when your first vote is lost on a losing candidate. This referendum was already a run-off as there were only two choices. Which was an advantage over some of our biased pre-outcome determined waste of time and money's.

Ours have been "decide between two sensible options but.... to choose option B you must have it in a form that we know you will not accept." Thus the referendums were doomed to fail.

 

As for requiring a big majority for a change - that's pretty standard in many constitutions (clubs, companies or entities as well as countries). And amounts vary from 2/3's to 3/4ss.

 

It always strikes me as odd that effectively a person voting to maintain the status quo has more votes than someone wanting to change something. If a 2/3 majority is required then the "no" voter has twice the vote power and if its 3/4 then they have 3 times the vote power. Seems very odd to me.

 

But even though I can't see it being an issue for us - I think democracy is about the majority ruling. Not an arbitrary magic number that gives some people more say than others.

 

so 50.0000001 should win.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Since WWII the USA has manipulated policy and organised regime changes across the world. Their alliance with Britain gave them considerable influence in the EU. That may now be over.

 

The right wing nutters in America will no doubt blame Obama for this as well.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Very good point OK; as each news bulletin comes out you can see more English people are in shock, and starting to realise the repercussions, the downsides that were never mentioned in the lead up to the vote.It was very telling to see the leading exit advocator, after his win, coming out with his hands in his pockets and absolutely no idea what to do next, other than there was no need to rush; well now the EU leaders have given him that reason.

I'd take all that with a very large grain of salt. Remember the media in Britain was/is almost exclusively pro-Bremain and have continued that mindset since.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... democracy is about the majority ruling. Not an arbitrary magic number that gives some people more say than others.so 50.0000001 should win.

...which guarantees that almost half the voters will be unhappy.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

...which guarantees that almost half the voters will be unhappy.

If less than the majority are unhappy then that's democracy. As long as its the smaller half - thats what democracy is.

Should one group of voters have some undemocratic sway over the result because they are near to almost half. What about the MORE than half who are happy.

 

There's always going to be someone unhappy. Surely it should always be the group who are less than the majority lose the election regardless.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I just hope Brexit doesn't trigger a wave of migration from England to Australia over the next 20 years. That will only wreck Australia

 

 

[Yenn]

Democracy. The rule of the majority. That means if a bill passes with a majority of 1 it is OK. Now some of the Poms want to have another go because they lost. Reminds me of Qld and daylight saving time.

 

We in Australia have referenda where the majority has to be 75% or some other number. I forget what it is, but it is not a normal majority.

 

The government was going to have a plebiscite on Gay Marriage (2 homosexuals getting married) The reason for a plebiscite rather than a referendum is that it becomes a majority of all the voters, whereas a referendum to pass must be passed independently in every state.

 

For a final fling at democracy, remember how G.W. Bush got to be president of the USA. They just stopped counting when it looked as if he could lose.

 

 

[AussieB1rd]

I don't actually know of a prominant tasmanian

Errol Flynn comes to mind, Truganini, Simon Baker just to name a few and the infamous Tassy Devil, oh well lets see what the future shall bring

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

If less than the majority are unhappy then that's democracy. As long as its the smaller half - thats what democracy is.Should one group of voters have some undemocratic sway over the result because they are near to almost half. What about the MORE than half who are happy.

There's always going to be someone unhappy. Surely it should always be the group who are less than the majority lose the election regardless.

All true Jaba, but I'd rather we decided major issues via consensus rather than crude mathematics.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

All true Jaba, but I'd rather we decided major issues via consensus rather than crude mathematics.

Yeah me too but that ain't never gonna happen.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

All true Jaba, but I'd rather we decided major issues via consensus rather than crude mathematics.

And when consensus can not be reached? Human beings, being what they are, have differing views and interests. Consensus is and ideal that would never be reached under any circumstances. The best you can hope for is bargaining or campaigning to get a majority. In this case, that is what happened.

More people voted for Brexit than Bremain. The losers are unhappy about it, as someone made the apt analogy to Qld and DLS, so expect the losers to come back again and again to try an overturn the outcome. With a close vote like Brexit, the losers have a chance to sway some to their views and get the result changed, but the costs of making the changes might be too high.

 

It is done. Time will tell if it is good or bad, BUT, there was a time before the EU and the world didn't end.

 

I suspect the ones who are squawking the loudest right now are the ones who make fortunes by moving money around from country to country. This outcome (Brexit) makes it a bit more difficult for them to profit by doing nothing more than sitting in front of a computer, and just like religious fanatics, they will proselytise to get others to support their interests.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And when consensus can not be reached? Human beings, being what they are, have differing views and interests. Consensus is and ideal that would never be reached under any circumstances. The best you can hope for is bargaining or campaigning to get a majority. In this case, that is what happened.More people voted for Brexit than Bremain. The losers are unhappy about it, as someone made the apt analogy to Qld and DLS, so expect the losers to come back again and again to try an overturn the outcome. With a close vote like Brexit, the losers have a chance to sway some to their views and get the result changed, but the costs of making the changes might be too high.

 

It is done. Time will tell if it is good or bad, BUT, there was a time before the EU and the world didn't end.

 

I suspect the ones who are squawking the loudest right now are the ones who make fortunes by moving money around from country to country. This outcome (Brexit) makes it a bit more difficult for them to profit by doing nothing more than sitting in front of a computer, and just like religious fanatics, they will proselytise to get others to support their interests.

In fact, a lot of "winners" are making loud statements complaining that they didn't realise the implications, and there's a strong case to be made that the arguments put forward for both for and against were woefully inadequate.

 

Can anyone remember what the arguments for or against were?

 

The real moral of this story is the absolute necessity to present a clear and transparent case, outlining the pros and cons without fear or favour if you want to get consensus.

 

Yes there was a time before the EU; does anyone remember the reasons Britain went into the European Common Market, abandoning trade with Australia in the process?

 

 

[cscotthendry]

In fact, a lot of "winners" are making loud statements complaining that they didn't realise the implications, and there's a strong case to be made that the arguments put forward for both for and against were woefully inadequate.Can anyone remember what the arguments for or against were?

The real moral of this story is the absolute necessity to present a clear and transparent case, outlining the pros and cons without fear or favour if you want to get consensus.

 

Yes there was a time before the EU; does anyone remember the reasons Britain went into the European Common Market, abandoning trade with Australia in the process?

How do you define "a lot of the winners" and what are the sources for the numbers? My bet is that the losers are rounding up as many as they can of people who voted for Brexit, then propagandising them into saying "if only I'd known that..." And then using this to claim that they (the losers) were dudded in the vote. I just watched a shining example of this in an interview with ABC morning news with Alistair Campbell, a political strategist of some sort in the UK, who was practically apoplectic about the vote. He made much the same type of claim without any substantive backing for his claim that "a lot of people...". Most of what he said came across as an extreme case of sour grapes, having been strongly for Bremain and now feeling thwarted.

Largely, the people who voted for Brexit, were those left behind by Globalisation. Those people are still there and their living standards are still being negatively impacted by offshoring jobs and industries. Unless their needs are also met, Globalisation in all its forms will meet with increasing resistance. All the Alistair Campbells and all the others who've benefitted from Globalisation can live in denial and they can in future ensure that those left behind never get another chance to have such a say, but the issue will NOT go away.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Do you want their names?

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Do you want their names?

Cute!

A source of a substantive survey would suffice, but if you want to get childish...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not childish, just looking for a logical discussion.

 

However, let's just try Scotland which has just entered formal negotiations to stay in the EU.

 

 

[Methusala]

Perhaps it is timely to reflect on the actions of a conservative government who culpably chased nationalistic voters with the offer of this referendum. It was a solution that lacked a problem. It makes me shudder at the prospect of a national "plebiscite" on whether to allow LGBTI couples to marry. It is within the power of the national parliament to decide. The "Campaigns" launched to convince electors to vote one way or the other will use the normal tricks to inflame emotions and obscure the simplicity of the choice. Damage to our society is bound to result from this cynical ploy. Don

 

 

[cscotthendry]

But Scotland as a country voted to stay. So how does that back up your claim that "a lot of people who voted to leave have changed their minds"? The leaders in Scotland are following what a majority in their country voted for, but that doesn't prove that those in Scotland who voted for Brexit, have changed their minds about it. Howzat for logic?

 

Just as an aside, where did you hear/read that "a lot of people who voted to leave, have now changed their minds"? ie what was your source for that claim?

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Perhaps it is timely to reflect on the actions of a conservative government who culpably chased nationalistic voters with the offer of this referendum. It was a solution that lacked a problem. It makes me shudder at the prospect of a national "plebiscite" on whether to allow LGBTI couples to marry. It is within the power of the national parliament to decide. The "Campaigns" launched to convince electors to vote one way or the other will use the normal tricks to inflame emotions and obscure the simplicity of the choice. Damage to our society is bound to result from this cynical ploy. Don

Don:

Welcome to the age of spin.

 

FWIW, My take on what happens in the media now is this:

 

In the 80's when Clinton, Blair and Hawke were in power, they promised (and indeed delivered) that they would move the left side of politics to the centre. This captured a lot of votes from the Right. The Right's response was twofold and ongoing; First the Right moved further rightward and second, the Right started to personalise their opposition to the "Left" to distinguish themselves and try to recapture those lost votes.

 

Using Oz as an example, we saw Tony Abbott installed by 1 vote as LOTO (without doubt an extreme Right winger) and the spectre of the "Ditch the Witch campaign and a lot of other really odious personal attacks come out of the Abbott led opposition and their Hard Right supporters.

 

We saw similar stuff in the US where the Republicans hounded Clinton and tried to obstruct everything Obama tried to do, even when it was their own policies he was trying to implement (So-called ObamaCare, was a policy originally brought in by Mitt Romney!).

 

BTW why does the prospect of a plebiscite on gay marriage "make you shudder"? How will it affect you directly?

 

Personally, I am neither for nor against it. Given a choice only of "for" or "against", I would probably vote "For" on the simple principle of "Live and let live". What other people do with their lives mostly doesn't affect me. So what right do I have to impose my views/beliefs on them?

 

PS: I heard it said, but I don't have any evidence for it, that Cameron called the referendum as a way of fending off a leadership challenge. If that is the case, it backfired spectacularly! But that's politics, I guess.

 

 

[turboplanner]

But Scotland as a country voted to stay. So how does that back up your claim that "a lot of people who voted to leave have changed their minds"? The leaders in Scotland are following what a majority in their country voted for, but that doesn't prove that those in Scotland who voted for Brexit, have changed their minds about it. Howzat for logic?Just as an aside, where did you hear/read that "a lot of people who voted to leave, have now changed their minds"? ie what was your source for that claim?

I had moved on from your question; maybe you don't have the same breadth of news sources in your area, but the number of people interviewed or making statements in the full media scene adds up to a lot.

The 5.4 million Scottish people are currently moving in a different direction, with the first strategy being apparently acceptable to the EU provided Scotland applies to join the EU after the UK exits, so they are currently ahead of where the English are.

 

 

[Methusala]

G'day C Scott Henry, You are correct about the strategy to move the "left" towards the "centre " as a ploy to harvest conservative votes. I saw the same thing happening under Hawke & Keating and forsaw that this would only give the "Right" room to shuffle even closer to their ultimate destination. It in fact gave them "cover" to put forward an agenda which would have been seen as extreme previously. The question of LGBTI(Q?) whatever only resonates with me because I believe that individual freedom is the only correct way to go. The cynicism of representative democracy is obvious. Today, following Newspoll detecting that the Lying Negative coalition will probably win, the government announces that they have other (unspecified) plans to cut programs (I call this "leaving the door open"). BTW the ABC has not highlighted polling results since they started going bad for Turdball, now they change tack! Yes, I am very wise to the ways of our politicians. Don

 

 

[kasper]

Might as well hand in my British passport now. Without the EU writing on it its worthless to me. My Aussie passport is far more useful now.

and all my friends in the UK are now scouring the family tree for any OTHER EU country in their past to grab a second passport on ... not surprising that my UK hubby was a vote for remain as were nearly our UK friends and family.

 

 

[kasper]

I had moved on from your question; maybe you don't have the same breadth of news sources in your area, but the number of people interviewed or making statements in the full media scene adds up to a lot.The 5.4 million Scottish people are currently moving in a different direction, with the first strategy being apparently acceptable to the EU provided Scotland applies to join the EU after the UK exits, so they are currently ahead of where the English are.

Yes and no.

Scotland as a country really wants to remain in the EU on the same terms and conditions as apply to the current UK membership of the EU ... the UK has a LOT of opt outs and exclusions from very detailed EU regulation and alignment that are NOT available to new entrant countries ... that was a big thing in the Scottish referendum on exit where there was a lot fo exit supporters basically saying 'look the other way' on facts and impacts and go with emotion.

 

So yes, Scotland would appear, as a country separate from the UK, have a stay in the EU view ... but the practicalities on that from an EU legal perspective remain unchanged from the Scottish referendum ... if you separate from the UK then enter the EU you come in on basic terms as per all the current crop of accession countries ... unless the fundamentals fo the EU are well and truly shaken by the UK exit and allow accession on non-standard/historic terms ... and that will right royally pi$$ off recent accession countries.

 

Head I win, tails you loose ...