Web Petition For 2nd EU Referendum Draws Huge Interest (ap.org) 634
From an Associated Press report:An online petition seeking a second referendum on a British exit from the Europe Union has drawn more than 1.6 million names, a measure of the extraordinary divisiveness of Thursday's vote to leave the 28-nation bloc. The online petition site hosted by the House of Commons website even crashed Friday under the weight of the activity as officials said they'd seen unprecedented interest in the measure, which calls on the government to implement a rule that stating if that if "remain" or "leave" camps won less than 60 percent of the vote with less than a 75 percent turnout "there should be another referendum."According to reports, this is the biggest surge of support Parliament's website has ever seen. Looking at the keywords people were hitting up on Google after the news first broke, it was clear that a considerable portion of the population was clueless about the whole situation.
Web. Petition. (Score:5, Funny)
Might as well go pray. Has about the same effect.
Re:Web. Petition. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp. [politico.eu]
Re: (Score:3)
It's over millennials. Your parents know better than you and we're hoping you'll grow up and figure that out at some point.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. The demographics of the vote show clearly that millennials and under-50 voters were solidly in the "remain" camp. [politico.eu]
Indeed. The NY Times has a few articles about this and an Op-Ed titled Brexit and Europe’s Angry Old Men [nytimes.com] mentioning a poll over there indicating the older the person, the more likely they were inclined to leave the EU:
Some 64 percent of the age group from 18 to 24 said they would vote for Remain; just 35 percent of those between 50 and 64 wanted to stay.
Re: (Score:3)
Dear young Remainers..
65yo+ knew rationing
75yo+ knew the Luftwaffe
90yo+ knew Panzers
They didn't "steal your future", they gave you one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A recent web petition revealed that a large majority of US citizens want Muslim immigration stopped.
I find it hard to believe that the majority (50%+1) of US citizens even participated on the petition, let along the vast majority.
And if it wasn't the vast majority actually participating, then you fall into statistics. And statistics require methodology. What was the methodology for the sampling? What was the error margin? Standard deviation?
No wonder you are posting anonymously. You are a moron.
Cute (Score:5, Insightful)
How cute, the democratic result didn't go our way so we'll make a new referendum with skewed option balance. This surely will make our way the only way!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The people never voted on a referendum on gun control.
It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The people never voted on a referendum on gun control.
It would be interesting to see what a referendum on the issue would look like if you took out all the people who are being funded by the NRA.
http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/... [fortune.com]
erm... you mean that big scary organization that is really mostly funded by average citizens? (https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from [quora.com]). I'm not a fan of lobbyists and I wish we could get rid of all of them but the NRA is one that is actually working as intended (giving a group of average citizens a collective voice).
So you're suggesting we exclude the people average gun owners have chosen to support (through donations to the NRA) when it comes to the speci
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm saying that a public referendum has never on gun control has never been put to the American citizens. The only ones who have gotten to vote on the issue are people who get paid directly by the NRA.
And I don't think you want it put to a referendum, because the NRA (and its members) will lose:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/... [cnn.com]
Re:Cute (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can make it to the US Senate, they'll pay you a bribe of up to $7.7million.
http://thinkprogress.org/polit... [thinkprogress.org]
Re:Cute (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
An elected officials job is to represent the people who elected them. That's why they're elected rather than appointed.
Re: (Score:3)
How about we start with this lovely Christian woman and self-avowed Second Amendment activist who shot and killed her two young daughters today?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new... [nydailynews.com]
She had been posting on Facebook recently that Obama was going to come and take away her guns. Well, if he had, she and her daughters would still be alive today. So, I'm suggesting going back to those old days (pre-2008) before there was an individual
Re: (Score:3)
How about we start with this lovely Christian woman and self-avowed Second Amendment activist who shot and killed her two young daughters today?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new... [nydailynews.com]
She had been posting on Facebook recently that Obama was going to come and take away her guns. Well, if he had, she and her daughters would still be alive today. So, I'm suggesting going back to those old days (pre-2008) before there was an individual right to own and carry guns.
We already have laws that take away her guns. Mental instability and violent crime both work for that... And considering how many ways there are to kill people, can you be sure they would be alive, and not run over with a car or drowned in a bathtub? Both have been done before...
Re: (Score:3)
We're talking about Texas. If they took the guns away from the mentally unstable in Texas, it would reduce gun ownership by 80%.
And isn't it interesting how often mental instability, violent crime and gun advocacy (or at least, enthusiasm) intersect? Do you also think we s
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? It works for our elected representatives, why shouldn't it work for direct democracy?
Re: (Score:3)
The Commission decides the laws and regulations and it writes them.
The commission writes the laws... just like the civil service here. You don't think MPs actually sit down and write laws do you? Because that's not actually their job.
You're whining because you don't understand the difference between the executive and the legislature and you're prepared to fuck over an entire country to support your own ignornace.
Re:Cute (Score:5, Informative)
How cute, the democratic result didn't go our way so we'll make a new referendum with skewed option balance. This surely will make our way the only way!
Well not really, the petition states:
We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.
The petition does not state how the new referendum should be phrased. What is most interesting is that this petition was started a month ago by an ex political student who supports Leave. This is not the only Leave supporter to suggest a second referendum [mirror.co.uk] if the vote was close. Of course now they have got the result they wanted, suddenly no more are needed. ;)
The leave side suggested many things like taking back control of our borders, sovereignty and saving money but there is no plan and no definition of what leaving the EU means. When people realise that immigration will be about the same, that things cost more and the short term financial volatility harming the UK. They may feel that the Leave campaign "promises" were a bunch of wishful thinking
Re: (Score:3)
Because far away government is best? Fuckwit.
Re: (Score:3)
How's that working in the US these days with Obamacare? Oh right...dismally. And that's why having a group of unelected bureaucrats who make all the decisions away from the people who actually need it is a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:3)
A far away government is better than local government at dealing with some issues, like defence, standards, disaster relief, etc. And local government is better at some things, like deciding where local roads are build. It's a good thing we can have multiple levels of structure.
Re:Cute (Score:5, Insightful)
Brits are not French, Frenchmen are not German, etc. Borders keep the peace and allow more autonomy to local populations. Taking your position to its logical conclusion, a world government would obliterate individual liberty.
Darling you got to let me know (Score:2)
Clueless? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Clueless? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do agree that the reason the result went the way it did is apathy though. Apathy on behalf of the politicians who have ignored the growing disconnect between themselves and the electorate rather than trying to address it, and apathy on behalf of all the voters who couldn't be bother to look up a few things for themselves, or even vote. Given the impact and importance of the vote I'm still amazed that the turnout was a "mere" 72% which, while well above a typical general election turnout, pales compared to the 84% turnout of the Scottish independence referendum.
Re: (Score:3)
Whaaaa ! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta love Twain.
He's like the George Carlin of his time... without all the dirty words.
To clarify one point of confusion over this (Score:2)
Super majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I came here to say that as well. Most "country-altering" things in the USA (constitution changes, adopting new states, etc) are done with a 2/3 supermajority, usually at the state level. It isn't a perfect solution, and you could argue 2/3 is arbitrary, but it's got to be something. Making sure there's a really solid majority behind the biggest decisions seems like a good idea.
As an American watching from across the pond, I was surprised a mere majority was sufficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Would the UK have a constitution there would no doubt be a clause it can only be changed by a +66 or75% majority and after two consecutive parliamentary elections.
But they don't have a constitution and the establishment prefers to keep it that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm as horrified about this result as anyone, but it's hard to argue it's undemocratic.
52% voting LEAVE on a 72% turnout is 37% of the entire population of the nation.
Even the most historic wildly popular presidential victory like Reagan in 1984 only got 59% on a 53% turnout: 31% of the nation. No-one would argue that Reagan didn't have a mandate to govern.
I wish it weren't true, but this is a mistake made decisively.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't usually agree with you but I'm going to throw my hat into the ring on this one. I've seen a lot of shit all over the web about how the young in Britain are getting their future "stolen" by the older generation by this vote. Two things stick in my mind. First of all, what kind of ageist/classist shit is it to pretend that people that by mere virtue of having been around a little longer somehow should have less voice in their future. The idea repulses me. And the second, maybe those old geezers having
Re:Super majority (Score:4, Informative)
Require? Not sure. But it got one: 67% yes in 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Super majority (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. That was a vote on joining a free trade organisation.
The uk has never before Thursday voted on membership of a European superstate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A supermajority requirement is to politics what hysteresis is to control loops. It's not even an analogy, just two words for the same concept really.
Re: Super majority (Score:2, Interesting)
If 50.1% decided a super majority was justified.
Re:Super majority (Score:4, Insightful)
would never involve any significant loss of sovereignty.
We never lost sovereignty and to claim otherwise is an out-right lie. This is literally proven by the referendum and the existence of Article 50: we can at any time walk away and there's nothing they can do to stop us.
We ALWAYS had sovereignty.
There seems to be a lot of confusion between sovereignty and "making other people doing exactly what we want all the time". They are not the same and not having the latter does not mean we didn't have the former.
Re: (Score:3)
If you cannot limit immigration, you are not a sovereign nation.
We didn't lose it, we morphed it into something better.
You really love twisting the meanings of words to pretend to be correct, I see.
Re: (Score:3)
If you cannot limit immigration, you are not a sovereign nation.
We could invoke 50 and limit immigration from the continent, so we were never not sovereign.
The only thing we couldn't do is limit immigration from the continent while benefiting from all the privileges of being in the EU without shouldering the responsibilities. That's not a loss of sovereignty, that's just duhhhhhh.
And so what ?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For those not aware, that's how you cancel your EU membership, the Brexit boys in the establishment had never expected this outcome and are shitting themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
About 22 million of people voted for "stay". They can have all of them to sign the petition, they still remain the minority. This is supposed to be they way democracy works, or is internet changing the rules ?!?
This is not internet changing rules, this is using internet as medium to lay their rules, this is not a random internet petition, it is part of the uk democratic system.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is "on the internet", so if the legislation of the past few years is any indicator ... yes, yes it does.
No (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what? Tough shit. You had plenty of time to research the issue *before* the vote. But no, it only occurred people to even do something as paltry as a freaking google search, AFTER the vote had already taken place.
It's about fucking time people actually started taking responsibility for their actions. It's this "Oh whoopsie! I didn't mean to do that! I want backsies!" bullshit that is the reason why the entire world is deteriorating before our very eyes.... because people can't be bothered to spend two lousy seconds to stop and think about what they're going to do, before they actually do it.
What's the phrase? Measure twice, cut once? Well guess what... That little rule applies to a hell of a lot more than just cutting wood.
But of course, I'm just pissing in the wind. (Which is amazingly difficult to do from a squatting position, let me assure you...) The average person isn't going to make any effort to change, and the world is going to get even more fucked up than it is now.
The only thing that is going to happen is that those with both the foresight and the means to protect themselves, will hunker down and wait while everyone else blows a gasket and likely start killing each other.
Re: (Score:3)
If a large enough fraction of any electorate wants a do-over on a referendum, then why not? Why does this have to be a winner-take-all scenario?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you want to screw over a entire country of people so that they learn a lesson? Let's face it, if they could not see that the capital classes were using the racists as a smokescreen to dismantle labour laws - it is not because they have failed to learn from experience. It is because they are terminally stupid. A lesson is not going to help and you are simply being a giant dick about the whole thing.
The Leave campaigners did not call out "no take backs" before the vote, so fuck that result right in the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You had plenty of time to research the issue *before* the vote.
They did. And people chose to leave. This is just butthurt remainers trying to fuck the system until they get the result they want, regardless of majority opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it's a minority any more. The Leave campaign has reneged on many of their key promises and been proven wrong on any of their predictions. Buyer's remorse is completely understandable.
No deal (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd prefer a united Ireland and an independent Schotland in the EU and a high Trump-like wall between Scotland and England to secure the EU outer frontiers, like the Brits always wanted. :-)
Germand car companies repatriating their English car factories (Mini, Vauxhall, Rolls Royce, Bentley etc) is a given, 5 Chinese banks already moved to Luxemburg, others will follow.
It will be a mighty small empire when this is finished.
Re:No deal (Score:5, Interesting)
England and Wales should do the decent thing and secede from the United Kingdom, taking themselves out of the EU that way. Note: I'm English.
Edit: This is priceless - the CAPTCHA was 'penance'!
Re: (Score:3)
I'd prefer a united Ireland
Ain't gonna happen. There might be a republic of Northern Ireland though.
and a high Trump-like wall between Scotland and England
We've already got one. It's very nice.
No really, the Romans build it, since those pesky Picts wanted their independence so badly. It's called Hadrian's wall and you can walk along it.
a rule that stating if that if (Score:3, Funny)
Is that perl?
Why don't the Leave groups want to leave? (Score:3)
The leaders in the Leave groups have gotten very bitchy when asked about when the UK will leave and how they will conduct the negotiation. You would think that if they were campaigning for a Leave result in the referendum they would be eager about getting to the leaving part.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how government works. Keep having referendums until the voters get it right.
Or gun control bills that keep getting defeated. Or privacy slashing "trade deals" that keep getting defeated... It is like politicians are stuck on Dori, and "just keep swimming..."
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realise, that it is a petition from the citizens, not the government. I guess, many of the signers were disappointed voters who believed the bullshit about giving the EU money to the NHS. Unfortunately for them Farage changed his mind after the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't change his mind. He just lied. I vaguely remember a similar thing happening during the US 2008 campaign and while passing their health insurance bill. Same shit, different day.
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:4, Informative)
I guess, many of the signers were disappointed voters who believed the bullshit about giving the EU money to the NHS. Unfortunately for them Farage changed his mind after the vote.
It is true that the UK currently pays the EU a net £13.5 billion (about $20 billion, at least until yesterday)) a year in contributions. That's after deducting the payments that come back from Brussels - although it should be noted that the EU bureaucrats choose who gets "their" largesse. So the equation is roughly like this: the British government takes a lot of British taxpayers' money and gives it to Brussels. Brussels then gives chosen "good causes" in the UK about a third of that money, and keeps the rest.
What Nigel Farage (and many others) think is that it would be nice if the UK government kept that money and spent it on whatever useful priorities it thinks best. The NHS is certainly one of our biggest and most resource-hungry public utilities, and I don't see why it shouldn't get some of the £13.5 billion the UK could save by not being in the EU.
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to check your math, son.
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to the stock exchange crash after the vote UK has lost more money than it has paid into the EU budget for the past 20 years. It is like cutting the nose to spite the face.
But by all means, go. UK has caused far more problems to the EU than it was worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:5, Insightful)
The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision. A lot of people are expressing regret, the victorious side instantly reneged on a number of promises and the predicted economic meltdown that people didn't believe would happen happened.
Given all that, a second opportunity to vote, especially now that young people are realizing that if they had bothered to turn out they could have overcome the baby boomer vote stealing their future away, seems like a reasonable request.
Even if it isn't granted, Scotland will likely leave the UK, and maybe Northern Ireland too, so they have the power to reject the result anyway and it's not fair to deny the rest of the UK the same opportunity.
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:4, Informative)
Reporter on public radio was saying that Google UK search terms on 'what is Brexit' and 'consequences of Brexit' jumped AFTER the vote. I think a lot of people listened to the activists and voted based on emotion. Now they are thinking "What the f*** did we just get ourselves into?" Some accounts of the British vote had a primary reason for Brexit as fear of the refugee crisis in the EU. But Britain is not part of the Schengen Area [wikipedia.org] and has maintained independent control of immigration and visas.
Pretty much the same thing hapens in our town. Politicians don't like something, so they scare the shit out of the public and it gets voted down. OTOH, if it's something the pols want to do, they sell it and even if it's riskier and more expensive, the public votes it up.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people have been on radio, on TV and on social media saying that the voted as a protest or not really expecting leave to win, and are now regretting it.
People are talking about coming together to weather the storm. That clearly won't happen. Scotland will leave, and the rest of us blame the leave voters for creating the storm. An apology for the lies and the miscalculation won't be enough. A generational war is likely too, with young people realizing that the boomers have screwed them and fighting
Re: (Score:3)
There's no legal reason to overturn it or attempt to overturn it by holding another vote.
If we can successfully petition our representatives to do that then not only is that legal, it's precisely what democracy is about.
Re: (Score:3)
What economic meltdown? A few % lower stock prices and a lower off the pound? Doesn't sound like an "economic meltdown" to me. And most of the economic damage will probably be at the expense of bankers, stock traders and wealthy property owners in London. Most ordinary people don't care about that.
The UK can now drop the stupid EU sanctions against Russia and open new trade opportunities.
Re:Standard Operating Practice (Score:5, Informative)
The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision.
That turns out not to be the case. The turnout was 72.21%, and the number of votes cast for "Leave" was 17,410,742 - the highest number of votes ever cast for one candidate or option in any British election. While the margin of victory was a relatively narrow 3.8%, that represents over 1.25 million votes.
Re: (Score:3)
52-48 is so narrow that even the head of Brexit declared that it was too narrow for a decisive decision.
Well he said that when he thought he might lose, back in may.
Anyway I signed the petition for what good it might do. Given how fast Bojo is back pedalling (he actually said there's no need to leave, or specifically there's no need to invoke Article 50---which means precisely leave) and the large amount of buyer's remorse, it isn't over yet.
Having a do-over (Score:5, Interesting)
The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision. A lot of people are expressing regret, the victorious side instantly reneged on a number of promises and the predicted economic meltdown that people didn't believe would happen happened.
Yep. Lots of reasons to disavow a democratically voted referendum.
Can you think of any reason why disavowing the vote would be bad?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but a (Brit) friend asked me about this a couple of months ago. The conversation went like this:
Him: Should I vote for the UK to leave the EU?
Me: Yes, absolutely.
Him: Why?
Me: Because if you don't, nothing will change
Expounding on that last bit, note that if the vote had happened 5 years ago the results would probably have been 55% stay/45% leave. If you'd done the vote 10 years ago it would have been 60% stay/40% leave, and the poll actually taken in 1975 was 67% stay/33% leave.
Leaving the EU right at this moment may seem like a bad idea, but from the historical perspective it's the most efficiently timed revolution that's ever been.
It's clear that being part of the EU was causing a slow buildup of problems for the English people. Dissatisfaction was on the rise, and there were valid reasons for wanting change.
The EU is blithely unsupportive of the needs of its members - it's like any government who, once they are in power, tends to ignore the needs of its people. Looking at Greece as an example, it's clear that the EU puts the needs of the banks ahead of the needs of Greece as a country. As many people pointed out, the EU could have just let Greece default and the banks take a loss. That would have been the best outcome for Greece and its people, but the banks...
The EU management saw the referendum coming and did nothing about it. They could easily have swung the vote by making concessions.
And note that earlier, Cameron went to the EU to ask for some relief. It's my understanding that not only did they say "no", they treated him disrespectfully. (And probably were chuckling to themselves saying "what 'ya gonna do - leave? HAH HAH HAH!)
And now I hear that even if the UK manages to reverse the referendum, France, Germany, and Brussels won't let them. The EU in general didn't like the UK to begin with, are glad to see them go, and will enforce the referendum in any case.
Really, it was a bad situation and there'll be tough times at first, but when the dust has settled I think you'll see that this is much better for the English people.
Oh, and about "this is sooooo bad", note that no one has accurately described the flip side of the situation. John Oliver's treatment of the flip side could be summed up as "yes, it's not perfect". It was clear that he, and all the woo in the media, was trumping up all the disadvantages of leaving without addressing or even describing the reasons people wanted to leave.
Lots of people used extreme rhetoric to try to get people to stay (Cameron's various statements were particularly transparent), and it was transparently bullshit.
Once the dust settles, I think the UK will be stronger, more secure, and more satisfied.
Re:Having a do-over (Score:5, Insightful)
Me: Because if you don't, nothing will change
That's a stupid reason. Change is not good if it's not for the better.
And note that earlier, Cameron went to the EU to ask for some relief. It's my understanding that not only did they say "no", they treated him disrespectfully. (And probably were chuckling to themselves saying "what 'ya gonna do - leave? HAH HAH HAH!)
Yeah no shit. Cameron was basically going and asking:
Hi, you know that club I'm in that I pay membership fees for that are used to run the club? Yeah, I'd like to pay less but I'd like to keep all the benefits of being in the club please. Oh and while you're at it, I'd actually like bigger benefits too, thanks.
I can't imaging why that went down badly.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Lots of reasons to disavow a democratically voted referendum
Hell, if you didn't vote in something you thought was important and then don't like the outcome, you deserve no right to bitch about the outcome. Clearly some folks didn't think it was a serious enough issue to go do so and now have slackers remorse. Tough. Elections can have consequences. This should be an example to anyone too smug to think "there's no way (candidate you don't like) could win" or "clearly (issue I care about) is going to happen" and stays home instead of voting.
Now I think it's silly to h
Re:Having a do-over (Score:5, Insightful)
To give you an idea how fickle and overrated referendums are as a form of democracy, if we had waited 5 years enough old people would have died to give the opposite result.
In a few years the result will no longer reflect the will of the people. In fact, it probably doesn't today, now that the truth has come out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah really. *I had no idea that Trump would actually become president [telegraph.co.uk] just because I voted for him!*
Re:No take backs!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah really. *I had no idea that Trump would actually become president [telegraph.co.uk] just because I voted for him!*
Trump analogy usage aside (#), the interesting thing about that "regretful Brexit voter" story is it appears on the Daily Telegraph website; the Telegraph being the quintessential "quality" broadsheet rag of the right-wing, conservative, "Middle England" [wikipedia.org]- and indeed, "Little Englander [wikipedia.org]"- demographic whose stereotypical reader is a retired colonel in the English home counties.
In short, the paper whose readers- and editors- you would expect to be among the most enthusiastic Brexiteers.
Guess now it's all over there isn't much to lose, given that even Nigel Farage announced the morning after that the "£350m a week for the NHS" figure the Brexit campaign had been spewing about was actually BS. (##)(The same figure that pretty much any unbiased observers had been saying was BS for weeks, but if you repeat a lie enough...)
Anyway, yeah. I bloody regret that she and her countrymen voted that way as well. I also regret that there wasn't an easy way to have her live with the consequences of her decision while I didn't have to. Believe me, I've no sympathy for any of the Little Englanders who for years swallowed (and regurgitated) the endless anti-EU propaganda that used it as a whipping boy for everything under the sun while failing to acknowledge its successes. Oh, what? You didn't really want to leave the EU despite years of saying you did? You didn't realise the consequences of voting leave?
Fuck off. It's too late for you to start crying now. You shat the bed; now you have to lie in it.
(#) It's a legitimate analogy, and makes a point I already suspected regarding Trump voters' "we're voting for him to punish the establishment" mentality. But as someone who lives in Scotland- i.e. currently part of the UK- you'll forgive me if I'm currently more interested in the actual story than its reduction into an analogy for US-centric purposes.
(##) As if- even if they *did* have that extra £350m- UKIP would spend it on the NHS they're ideologically opposed to. [google.co.uk] (Given UKIP's stereotypcal popularity with defecting members of the right wing of the Conservative party- a faction which is itself known for being blatantly anti-NHS, what the hell would anyone expect?!)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not over, it's barely started. Parliament has to notify the EU that it wants to withdraw. And it appears that it's going to need some legal changes made by the Parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland before it's allowed to do so. And both of those areas were staunchly "remain", so they may be reluctant to make the needed legal changes.
Also, Scotland appears to have started negotiations for remaining in the EU after Britain leaves. Who knows what the result will be, but if might need to vote to
Re: No take backs!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant people considering a vote for Donald or Hillery.
There corrected that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant Americans considering not voting, when faced with a vote for Donald or Hillery.
That's more correct.
Re: No take backs!! (Score:5, Funny)
I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant people considering a vote for Donald or Hillery.
There corrected that for you.
I hope this serves as a warning for the ignorant people considering a vote for Donald or Hillary.
There I corrected that for you.
Re: No take backs!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment is ignorant. There's no proof whatsoever that going against free trade had hurt anyone. Call it protectionism or whatever you want. In America we've had NAFTA and WTO free trade agreements that have killed the American labor force. I've seen it since the 1990s. The corporations lead a strong PACs that want you to believe how much better off you are now than going against their wishes. People like Romney fill their pockets at the expense of the middle class.
You people that support free global trade are the same ones whining about H1B, product dumping, and speaking to foreigners whilst calling Concast.
Can't have it both ways folks.
Re: No take backs!! (Score:4, Insightful)
No one really wants to be free. It's much safer to have your betters make decisions for you.
Re: LOL (Score:2)
Re: LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Another European here. Basically what you said, except the exact opposite.
Most of what you say should result in you looking inward to your own country, not outwards to the EU. Welfare is alive and well (pun intended) in many EU member nations, as is societal integration, pensions, and ... wait what job losses? Unemployment has been steadily dropping the past several years, it's low as it was in 2000 there was this niggling little thing called a global recession in between in which the EU fared quite well compared to many industrialised nations.
There is quite a bit of bureaucracy, but that's the only thing I'll agree with.
As for breaking up the common currency. Pass thanks. Ideally we combined the central banks to prevent each country screwing with the system, but really screw going back to the driving for 1 hour and having to have 3 difference currencies because ... reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I am also an EU citizen.
The only good thing about Brexit is that people like you are soon going to realize what a terrible idea it was. So this poisonous propaganda will stop, and the rest of the union will be saved. I feel sorry for the Brits, though, they will suffer through this crap so that the rest of us don't need to.
Don't believe me? Let's just wait one year, and see what were the short-term consequences of this vote. Then we talk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And thus the pro-EU media speak for them.
Re: Predictably, they think their citizens == idio (Score:2)
And (pick your favorite US minority) are American citizens, too, so Congress speaks for them?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are advocating allowing vote-buying?
Seriously, in order to get that data you would need an economic system of some sort. The best one we have is capitalism. So if you want people to vote the strength of their preference, charge per vote and allow multiple votes.
If you don't want the voting biased towards people that are successful at making the economy work, give everyone 100 votes when they are born, and 10 votes per year.