Brexit: Leave wins!

[Burningvigor]

So it seems a lot of Brits weren't happy with Germany trying to spread refugees to their nation, so that led to people voting to bail out?

I'm probably a heartless bastard, but I don't see why any nation has to accept random people from another country, just cause they're fleeing.

[Cagar]

-

[Illyrian]

So it seems a lot of Brits weren't happy with Germany trying to spread refugees to their nation, so that led to people voting to bail out?

I'm probably a heartless bastard, but I don't see why any nation has to accept random people from another country, just cause they're fleeing.

It is worth pointing out that one of the major reasons for the sudden influx of immigration in the last few years was due to the destabilization of Libya. Gaddafi kept a very strong grip on his ports and borders. The chaos in that country led to a lot of people being able to freely move across the country that wouldn't have been able to before.

Some people feel that our role in middle east destabilization means we are duty bound to accept refugees from that area/those countries.

Others believe it is just our responsibility as a nation to help as many people as we can purely through the lens of idealism i.e. if there are people worse off than us we should help them as much as we can.

There are others as well but those are some of the main ones.

[Skykid]

So it seems a lot of Brits weren't happy with Germany trying to spread refugees to their nation, so that led to people voting to bail out?

I'm probably a heartless bastard, but I don't see why any nation has to accept random people from another country, just cause they're fleeing.

Although that's a simplistic appraisal, it's not incorrect. The anti-immigration sentiment in the UK reached fever pitch some time ago - something was bound to snap. For pearly cheeked Cameron, he probably didn't expect that snap to be in the form of exiting the EU; and while immigration isn't the only reason people voted to leave, it does have an enormous lot to do with it.

[endoKarb]

About this chart:



According to SkyData this was the turnout for the referendum, divided by age groups:

18-24: 36%
25-34: 58%
35-44: 72%
45-54: 75%
55-64: 81%
65+: 83%

If these young people actually wanted to see a different result maybe they should have gotten their asses of their couches and
go vote

Young people aren't getting any "future" stolen from them. They just don't give a damn.

(and the life expectacy column is also wrong. life expectancy increases with age until beyond 100 years of age. On average, people who are already old now will die older than people who are young now.)

[GaijinPunch]

I'm probably a heartless bastard, but I don't see why any nation has to accept random people from another country, just cause they're fleeing.

Maybe not heartless... but probably not experienced with refugees. There is a humanitarian aspect to it for sure, and the idea that the west generally idealizes itself as better than older cultures. My take on immigration is that it's somewhat ridiculous. Let's say humans have been around for 20,000 years, and people are flipping the fuck out from borders established in the last several hundred to couple of thousand. The name of the game for "rich" cuntries to survive is immigration. Let Japan be a lesson on what happens if you don't embrace it. America is way better, but still fucked in the big picture.

[Immryr]

And here we have it, emboldened racists on the rise.

https://www.facebook.com/sarah.leblanc. ... 985&type=3

[Bonus!]

GaijinPunch,

look up the population numbers of Africa vs. Europe and projected population growth. There is absolutely no way that Europe can be a home for even just a fraction of those people. Here is a nice illustration of that principle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj69XxunTo8

Of course, there is as massive difference between planned immigration of people with skills that benefit society as opposed to letting anyone in who claims he has lost his passport, but swears that he is from Syria and who, unfortunately, neither speaks the language of the country he illegally entered nor possesses any useful skills whatsoever.

[Immryr]

interesting take on things here:


From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

[Bonus!]

It's almost cute how the lefties can't process that they have lost. Also, as a quick reality check, the markets are already recovering.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I've thought it in a different context lately, but this reminds me yet again how Egon Olsen had punchlined one of his gang's adventures:
"This country is too small for me. Do with it as you please."

[GaijinPunch]

GaijinPunch,

look up the population numbers of Africa vs. Europe and projected population growth. There is absolutely no way that Europe can be a home for even just a fraction of those people. Here is a nice illustration of that principle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj69XxunTo8

Many people make all sorts of claims in North America... talking about sending illegals home... not realizing many industries would collapse if they did so.

[Skykid]

Second referendum petition reaching 3 million. So much traffic it broke the government site, lol.

I've already signed it as a favour to my fellow citizens in a bid to help them with their ineptness and to get over the shame of ill-educated impulses. If you want to help, the link is here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

[Mero]

So, run the poll again and give Remain a huge advantage?

Democracy at its finest!

[Skykid]

So, run the poll again and give Remain a huge advantage?

Democracy at its finest!

Told you it didn't exist.

[Ed Oscuro]

Democracy is about letting the voice of the people stand - saying that you have to abide by a poll result forever and ever is an additional definition.

In any case, having gotten the result like this and having people see some of the ramifications of just the vote, how would a new ballot be anti-democratic? There's no voter suppression, and the voters would be better informed (and motivated).

[Bonus!]

Sure, let's hold referenda until the desired outcome is achieved, at which point no additional referenda shall be held. Are you serious?

[Immryr]

and, as I mentioned up thread, by ignoring the result of the referendum the government would really be showing its sovereignty, something which the brexiters insist has been lost to Brussels.

so much irony surrounding this referendum.

[CStarFlare]

Sure, let's hold referenda until the desired outcome is achieved, at which point no additional referenda shall be held. Are you serious?

I have to agree. Unless a hypothetical second referendum has a huge swing (say to 60% remain) it'd be hard to view it as anything but reperforming an experiment until you get the desired result. And I have to imagine such a vote would have a hard time not going farther to the leave side; the people who would oppose a perceived attack on democracy would probably outnumber the people who regret trolling the ballot box.

[Tarma]

Second referendum petition reaching 3 million. So much traffic it broke the government site, lol.

I've already signed it as a favour to my fellow citizens in a bid to help them with their ineptness and to get over the shame of ill-educated impulses. If you want to help, the link is here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

That petition is meaningless in the purpose most people are signing it for.

IF the petition was debated in Parliament, and IF a motion was carried that won the backing of Parliament and the House of Lords thus enshrining it in law it would have NO effect on the referendum result.

Why?

Because it would be retrospective legislation and we do not apply retrospective legislation in this country. At best (for those backing the petition) if another referendum was run you could apply those rules being mooted, but I doubt that will happen at the moment on the simple basis that you cannot keep re-running polls because one side doesn't like the result of the previous poll, it would lead to anarchy.

Most of the people signing that petition do so not understanding how ineffective it is to Thursday's result, another prime example that there are too many people making decisions they are not well enough educated (on the issue not in general) to make.

[neorichieb1971]

Democracy shouldn't be about money.


And nobody should be back tracking the poll no matter what the reason. If the winning bid does not win, there will be revolution.

I just want to add that the debates before the referendum were idiotic and useless. We have learned 10000% more about the EU since the vote was counted than we ever did before it was counted.

[Skykid]

Second referendum petition reaching 3 million. So much traffic it broke the government site, lol.

I've already signed it as a favour to my fellow citizens in a bid to help them with their ineptness and to get over the shame of ill-educated impulses. If you want to help, the link is here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

That petition is meaningless in the purpose most people are signing it for.

IF the petition was debated in Parliament, and IF a motion was carried that won the backing of Parliament and the House of Lords thus enshrining it in law it would have NO effect on the referendum result.

Why?

Because it would be retrospective legislation and we do not apply retrospective legislation in this country. At best (for those backing the petition) if another referendum was run you could apply those rules being mooted, but I doubt that will happen at the moment on the simple basis that you cannot keep re-running polls because one side doesn't like the result of the previous poll, it would lead to anarchy.

Most of the people signing that petition do so not understanding how ineffective it is to Thursday's result, another prime example that there are too many people making decisions they are not well enough educated (on the issue not in general) to make.

You know the entire result of the referendum hangs in the balance anyway because it is advisory and does not need to be enacted under governing law?

[Tarma]

Second referendum petition reaching 3 million. So much traffic it broke the government site, lol.

I've already signed it as a favour to my fellow citizens in a bid to help them with their ineptness and to get over the shame of ill-educated impulses. If you want to help, the link is here:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

That petition is meaningless in the purpose most people are signing it for.

IF the petition was debated in Parliament, and IF a motion was carried that won the backing of Parliament and the House of Lords thus enshrining it in law it would have NO effect on the referendum result.

Why?

Because it would be retrospective legislation and we do not apply retrospective legislation in this country. At best (for those backing the petition) if another referendum was run you could apply those rules being mooted, but I doubt that will happen at the moment on the simple basis that you cannot keep re-running polls because one side doesn't like the result of the previous poll, it would lead to anarchy.

Most of the people signing that petition do so not understanding how ineffective it is to Thursday's result, another prime example that there are too many people making decisions they are not well enough educated (on the issue not in general) to make.

You know the entire result of the referendum hangs in the balance anyway because it is advisory and does not need to be enacted under governing law?

Of course. But in my opinion putting forward my vote on the EU has more importance and more relvance than backing a meaningless (in terms of past referendums) petition that most people are signing because they think it will force the Government to hold a second referendum on the issue of Brexit but with more defined rules on what constitues that actual result being valid.

Also if a second referendum was called under the rules of the petition you've personally backed, the result would still be advisory as you've rightly stated. So potentially, as you infer, just as meaningless as the poll we've just undertaken!

It was made quite clear at the start, before the mud slinging began, that the result no matter how narrow, would stand. It has not been a constructive campaign by either side, Cameron should have remained neutral throughout, and the electorate, by and large (young & old), are not educated enough on the machinations of the EU to make a properly educated decision as to whether the UK should have stayed or remained - that issue needs seriously addressing before any future referendum is run because lots of people on both sides of Thursday's argument have made decisions for the wrong reasons.

[tomwhite2004]

Cameron should have stayed neutral? The only reason the referendum came about was because he wanted to silence the eurosceptics and the quell the tory defectors. Cameron instigated the whole thing as he arrogantly thought he would never lose.

[Tarma]

Cameron should have stayed neutral? The only reason the referendum came about was because he wanted to silence the eurosceptics and the quell the tory defectors. Cameron instigated the whole thing as he arrogantly thought he would never lose.

Perhaps. But, he cut off his nose to spite his face by lobbying with the "In" campaign. In the interests of his party's longer term unity he should have stayed neutral during the campaign. That way he could have stayed on after it instead of falling on his sword - which he rightly did because he was so confident the horse he backed would win.

We don't really need a leadership contest right now as well, but that's the reality of it, but it could have been avoided. He was going to step aside in 2020 anyway - that's only 4 years away, and we would be only two years into post EU by then anyway (going on the currently mooted time tables).

BTW, I don't think whether he had stayed neutral or not during the campaign would have affected the outcome and he had already expressed his wish to remain, but it may well have staved off the distraction of a leadership contest for a while at least.

[BulletMagnet]

Even as someone very skeptical of the promises made by the Exit side, I'd posit that a re-vote would be more counter-productive than anything else, only serving to fuel the "if it doesn't go our way, it's a conspiracy" fires, and push its proponents to more drastic action.

At this point I'm in favor of letting the decision stand - IF, and ONLY if, both the country and the rest of the world pay very close attention to what happens next, and place both the credit and the blame for the results precisely where they belong. If you want the bureaucratic meddlers out, here you go - but that means you don't get to scapegoat them anymore the second things start going wrong.

[Mischief Maker]

At this point I'm in favor of letting the decision stand - IF, and ONLY if, both the country and the rest of the world pay very close attention to what happens next, and place both the credit and the blame for the results precisely where they belong.

Bwahahahahaha!

[BulletMagnet]

Bwahahahahaha!

Imagining your avatar doing this takes at least a little of the sting out of it.

[tomwhite2004]

Perhaps. But, he cut off his nose to spite his face by lobbying with the "In" campaign. In the interests of his party's longer term unity he should have stayed neutral during the campaign. That way he could have stayed on after it instead of falling on his sword - which he rightly did because he was so confident the horse he backed would win.

The reason the referendum was called is because there was no party unity, he split the party in two the second he announced that he would not be standing for pm again. The tories are all about personal gain, see gove, boris and Duncan smith...
Neutrality was impossible, its like a boxer putting his belt on the line and accepting the challenger only to not throw any punches when he gets in the ring. He didn't decide to lobby with the "in" campaign, he WAS in "in" campaign! That was his way of shutting down the growing position to his leadership, no way he would have lasted the next four years and he knew it...

[Tarma]

Perhaps. But, he cut off his nose to spite his face by lobbying with the "In" campaign. In the interests of his party's longer term unity he should have stayed neutral during the campaign. That way he could have stayed on after it instead of falling on his sword - which he rightly did because he was so confident the horse he backed would win.

The reason the referendum was called is because there was no party unity, he split the party in two the second he announced that he would not be standing for pm again. The tories are all about personal gain, see gove, boris and Duncan smith...
Neutrality was impossible, its like a boxer putting his belt on the line and accepting the challenger only to not throw any punches when he gets in the ring. He didn't decide to lobby with the "in" campaign, he WAS in "in" campaign! That was his way of shutting down the growing position to his leadership, no way he would have lasted the next four years and he knew it...

The Conservatives have been split on Europe for years, that's nothing new and nothing to do with Cameron. Much of the drive of the Euroscepticism you've seen over recent years stemmed from the fallout of arguments over the Maastrict Treaty in the early '90s. Cameron wasn't even around as an MP back then.

I think you misunderstand or have misunderstood my take on neutrality in all this as I have not stated he was neutral... but he did not have to publicly campaign as it would have been wise not to after he gave his blessing to his MP's to choose whatever side they wanted rather than tow the party line. Cameron was always going to be "In", how could he not after backing his own flimsy "new deal" with Europe back in February? That still did not mean he had to front the "In" campaign during the campaign period... George Osborne could have done that himself.