UK Leaves EU

[Chapatrap]

<Snipped quote by Chapatrap>

This be a 'Ra thread now lads.

@Dinh AaronMk

[Dinh AaronMk]

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

@Chapatrap

[The Nexerus]

@ChapatrapYou really didn't need to quote the entire post. That's just a lot of needless repetition to scroll through.

I did not say that most Northern Irish identify with Great Britain (although a larger amount do than identify with the republic). What I said is that the people of Northern Ireland are more likely to consider themselves British than the actual inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, most of whom consider themselves English or Scottish or Welsh by nationality, even as they support the integrity of the UK.

If the republicans find themselves the fairy dust to actually have a border poll called in the first place, it will fail by a wide margin—wider than Scotland in 2014—for demographic reasons I have already described. I would surmise that Sinn Féin is aware of the unlikelihood of a referendum being called, and is demanding one to exploit the EU departure as an opportunity for sabre rattling. Maybe they're even trying, hopelessly, to win over EU supporting unionists.

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Chapatrap>

@Dinh AaronMk

[darkwolf687]

Just going to place this here as I suggested that there were people who voted Leave just as a protest or so they could say they did without expecting to leave.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre..

It does seem there are a lot of leave voters who want to turn back the clock and vote remain and there is a petition for a second referendum with over 1.3 million signatures. Thoughts?

[LPFan]

Just going to place this here as I suggested that there were people who voted Leave just as a protest or so they could say they did without expecting to leave.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre..

It does seem there are a lot of leave voters who want to turn back the clock and vote remain and there is a petition for a second referendum with over 1.3 million signatures. Thoughts?

@darkwolf687

I've just read the article. That's so rich. :DDD Too late for regrets now. The cat's out of the bag! And I doubt there's gonna be a 2nd refferendum. People that voted leave and regret it better start learning to live with their choice.

[Mateotis]

Seeing things like that make me wonder why don't they require a supermajority vote for these massive decisions?

[darkwolf687]

<Snipped quote by darkwolf687>

I've just read the article. That's so rich. :DDD Too late for regrets now. The cat's out of the bag! And I doubt there's gonna be a 2nd refferendum. People that voted leave and regret it better start learning to live with their choice.

@LPFan

Well, it's basically just a glorified opinion poll legally, the country doesn't have to follow through on this. If there is a strong enough feeling of public regret then it might not go ahead at all.

[Dion]

@darkwolf687 I just wanna let you know the Dutch country, my country, held a referendum on the association treaty with that beautiful country called Ukraine.

You know, these guys, and these people.

Same referendum set up, where it was only an advisory referendum. We 'won' aka my side that was against the treaty won with 60% to 30% or so.

However the legally binding aspect came from the fact that leading parties said they'd use the referendum and 'consider it binding' despite being against referendums in general. (They said that, yes, indeed, they are against democratic referendums) Naturally they hoped people would vote FOR the treaty. They didn't, and now they're backtracking and trying to find a way to pull the treaty through without seeming corrupt (and they're failing hard at that.)

Despite the advisory role of referendums, they are sort of legally binding unless you want to lose all political support you have.

David Cameron resigned because he doesn't want to be associated with this referendum, mostly cause his side lost, otherwise because if the results of the referendum turn out to be a bad move, he has a good shot at being chosen again. In the end though the referendum won't matter, because this is who leads the EU:

Europa über Alles, nicht?

[darkwolf687]

@darkwolf687 I just wanna let you know the Dutch country, my country, held a referendum on the association treaty with that beautiful country called Ukraine.

You know, these guys, and these people.

Same referendum set up, where it was only an advisory referendum. We 'won' aka my side that was against the treaty won with 60% to 30% or so.

However the legally binding aspect came from the fact that leading parties said they'd use the referendum and 'consider it binding' despite being against referendums in general. (They said that, yes, indeed, they are against democratic referendums) Naturally they hoped people would vote FOR the treaty. They didn't, and now they're backtracking and trying to find a way to pull the treaty through without seeming corrupt (and they're failing hard at that.)

Despite the advisory role of referendums, they are sort of legally binding unless you want to lose all political support you have.

David Cameron resigned because he doesn't want to be associated with this referendum, mostly cause his side lost, otherwise because if the results of the referendum turn out to be a bad move, he has a good shot at being chosen again. In the end though the referendum won't matter, because this is who leads the EU:

Europa über Alles, nicht?

@Buddha

Yeah, I said earlier that the power it has comes from it being political suicide... but given the very tight result (this wasn't anything like 60% in favour of leave. It was 51.9 to 48.1) and the apparent regret, it isnt a certainty.

[Dion]

@darkwolf687 They are re-negotiating first. I hope something comes out of that for the entirety of the EU. The EU needs serious reforms (such as the 20 million move from Brussels to Strasbourg once a year.) We need to reduce it to economic and military cooperation, not political.

[darkwolf687]

@darkwolf687 They are re-negotiating first. I hope something comes out of that for the entirety of the EU. The EU needs serious reforms (such as the 20 million move from Brussels to Strasbourg once a year.) We need to reduce it to economic and military cooperation, not political.

@Buddha

Yeah, there's a two year period to negotiating the exit, isn't there? Things can change in two years, this can serve as a wake up call rather than an actual "we are leaving" and the UK could remain a part of a reformed EU. Depends on whether European Politicians are actually willing to budge though.

[Dolerman]

@ClocktowerEchos@Vilageidiotx@Dinh AaronMk



since humor doesnt work on you people, how about logic?

[ClocktowerEchos]

@Dynamo Frokaneif you can't tell, I'm here for shuts and giggles. Am I salty about Bre it's outcome? Yes but that's something I'll just have to live with as i sit back and enjoy the ride.

[scribz]

Indyref2

[scribz]

I have a question: if Scotland, north Ireland and Wales break off from England, wtf is the Union Jack going g to become? The Queen's Jack?

@ClocktowerEchos

[scribz]

@The Nexerus

What sinn fein are trying to do is essentially change the goal posts of the debate between a unified ireland, as while sectarianism and Westminster support has kept it entirely separate, NI i think had either one of, or the highest remain vote out of all the UK states. Personally I'm all for it if northern ireland are - so, while it may not work entirely now, it does open a path towards it.

[scribz]

@The Nexerus

<Snipped quote by ClocktowerEchos>

Wales and Northern Ireland aren't real countries and therefore aren't likely to leave the UK. Wales has never actually existed (and also voted in favour of Leave), and most folks in Northern Ireland identify more with Great Britain than the actual inhabitants of Great Britain. Northern Irish Unionists weren't united behind Leave and yet still managed to win 44.8% of the vote in the EU referendum. Add onto that 44.8% figure all of the Unionists who support the EU, and you have a very hefty majority in favour of remaining a part of the UK. The possibility of a return to sectarian conflict is also probably enough to convince at least some Republicans to support the status quo. Aaaand all of that is only relevant if the government in Northern Ireland actually calls for a border poll, which isn't terribly likely because the incumbent First Minister of Northern Ireland is Arlene Foster, leader of the very unionist DUP.

The only real possibility for a withdrawal from the United Kingdom is in Scotland. That's something the British government is going to have to work against, but they're going to be helped by three factors that weren't there in September of 2014.

1. The last referendum on that topic was just two years ago. Circumstances have changed, absolutely, but is this going to be the new normal for the SNP? Trying to call a referendum every few years until their side wins one? With the last referendum there was no doubt as to the legitimacy, this time around there will be at least some. Alex Salmond called the last referendum "the chance of a lifetime", saying that these sorts of national decisions come "once in a generation". Not so much, Salmond.

2. The SNP doesn't have a majority in Scottish Parliament any more. They could conceivably still initiate a call for a referendum, perhaps with support from the separatist Greens, but they would face strong opposition before they even got a referendum bill out of Holyrood. That wouldn't bode well for the referendum itself.

3. The price of oil is less than half of what it was at the time of the last referendum, and an independent Scotland would depend on oil revenue for a very large portion of its financial needs. The SNP would have a tough time convincing undecided folks that the Republic of Scotland is even viable, let alone desirable.

@The Nexerus

Okay good I can address these.

1. SNP stated if a constitutional change was to occur, like the UK leaving the EU - that another referendum should or would be an option to take place. The SNP didn't outwardly state this however, because as a political party they don't want to back peddle if that doesn't bring about independance for all the reasons you mentioned. What they'll be looking for is a national call for one. Which has steadily rised coming up to the brexit vote and has spiked since the results. Now, whether it's genuine or not, the SNP did rally for a remain vote - partly to ensure scotland's vote was in stark contrast with england, but they did target the outer regions of the UK too. So, on all ends it's only political spin that could assert their call for another referendum is taking advantage of the brexit vote as opposed to a genuine and valid response. So far, the ground support for the SNP is larger than it was during the scottish referendum, and polls are showing that those likely to vote yes to scottish independence and to remain/return into the EU is now 55% to 45%, a decisive indication.

2. The SNP doesn't have a majority, but more proportional votes were made to the SNP last council elections than ever before. I don't mean in (how many people voted) as voter turnout is huge amongst all parties after the SNP's rise in the general elections, what I mean is the amount of people that voted for them for every person that voted for another party. The reason they lost a majority by either 1 or 2 seats is entirely how our voting system works, which is made entirely to ensure there can't be single party domination. Now, this only hurts them on a parlimentary level, as public support for the SNP is massive ( which is already swinging the political window in their favor with other parties), now the SNP has to get a little support from some parties when it comes to things like taxation, which - thankfully - the green have enough power to then hold leverage on the SNP. For independance however, we already have some of the labour party, all of the green party, and the SNP to cover that. So, no problem there.

3. Oil - yep. This is a valid point. Oil has dropped. But it will rise again, and again, and drop again. It always has and always will as long as middle eastern oil rich countries flood the market when it suits most summit countries. It suits the UK in terms of the westminister bubble because trading it was more beneficial (at least to the upper classes) in profit than exporting it, and it suits canada and america, so that will always happen. But it's still a finite recourse with very small steps in terms of renewable energy taking place to replace it, god forbid - so prices will, again, go up and up and up and up and then down and so forth.

That said, it's only a strict demographic of the scottish population that's actually pro oil anyway. Scottish people from center to left all are in favor of renewable energy. An oil fund wants to be made for any economic crisis, but the narrative was only highlighted when under attack when the no camp attempted to state that it was scotlands only valid trade, it's never been the Yes camps sticking point (but having 60% of all of EU's reserves for one small country ain't bad btw). We've made the argument that scotland can have a growing and stable economy without it, as we have fishing, hydro, agriculture, tourism, whisky (biggest buyer is china), engineering and a growing contemporary market.

[mdk]

@The Nexerus

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

Okay good I can address these.

1. SNP stated if a constitutional change was to occur, like the UK leaving the EU - that another referendum should or would be an option to take place. The SNP didn't outwardly state this however, because as a political party they don't want to back peddle if that doesn't bring about independance for all the reasons you mentioned. What they'll be looking for is a national call for one. Which has steadily rised coming up to the brexit vote and has spiked since the results. Now, whether it's genuine or not, the SNP did rally for a remain vote - partly to ensure scotland's vote was in stark contrast with england, but they did target the outer regions of the UK too. So, on all ends it's only political spin that could assert their call for another referendum is taking advantage of the brexit vote as opposed to a genuine and valid response. So far, the ground support for the SNP is larger than it was during the scottish referendum, and polls are showing that those likely to vote yes to scottish independence and to remain/return into the EU is now 55% to 45%, a decisive indication.

2. The SNP doesn't have a majority, but more proportional votes were made to the SNP last council elections than ever before. I don't mean in (how many people voted) as voter turnout is huge amongst all parties after the SNP's rise in the general elections, what I mean is the amount of people that voted for them for every person that voted for another party. The reason they lost a majority by either 1 or 2 seats is entirely how our voting system works, which is made entirely to ensure there can't be single party domination. Now, this only hurts them on a parlimentary level, as public support for the SNP is massive ( which is already swinging the political window in their favor with other parties), now the SNP has to get a little support from some parties when it comes to things like taxation, which - thankfully - the green have enough power to then hold leverage on the SNP. For independance however, we already have some of the labour party, all of the green party, and the SNP to cover that. So, no problem there.

3. Oil - yep. This is a valid point. Oil has dropped. But it will rise again, and again, and drop again. It always has and always will as long as middle eastern oil rich countries flood the market when it suits most summit countries. It suits the UK in terms of the westminister bubble because trading it was more beneficial (at least to the upper classes) in profit than exporting it, and it suits canada and america, so that will always happen. But it's still a finite recourse with very small steps in terms of renewable energy taking place to replace it, god forbid - so prices will, again, go up and up and up and up and then down and so forth.

That said, it's only a strict demographic of the scottish population that's actually pro oil anyway. Scottish people from center to left all are in favor of renewable energy. An oil fund wants to be made for any economic crisis, but the narrative was only highlighted when under attack when the no camp attempted to state that it was scotlands only valid trade, it's never been the Yes camps sticking point (but having 60% of all of EU's reserves for one small country ain't bad btw). We've made the argument that scotland can have a growing and stable economy without it, as we have fishing, hydro, agriculture, tourism, whisky (biggest buyer is china), engineering and a growing contemporary market.

@scribz

TL:DR -- there's not much USA in here, so it's a pointless read. Watch this instead.

[Dolerman]

@Dynamo Frokaneif you can't tell, I'm here for shuts and giggles. Am I salty about Bre it's outcome? Yes but that's something I'll just have to live with as i sit back and enjoy the ride.

@ClocktowerEchos

I was joking too, I didnt vote either way, I just love watching people react to Paul Joseph Watson.