Brexit

[Kieran McConville]

I get that the US is a special case as it has no national election commission.

For most Australians, their vote doesn't mean anything already, since most of us live in a 'safe' parliamentary seat. It still doesn't help matters to be influenced by kinda-knowing the outcome ahead of time.

[LuckyNumber7]

As long as the GBP stays this low by the time my loan money is dispersed...

[LuckyNumber7]

Also woohoo, I'll be coming to England at such an interesting time!

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

For most Australians, their vote doesn't mean anything already, since most of us live in a 'safe' parliamentary seat.

We say this, forgetting the Senate - and rarely cognisant that even if our first preference is elected, our vote remains in the count at reduced value.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Sometimes I really like the idea of compulsory voting. Then I remember only 36% of Americans can name our three branches of government...

Cliff Branch, Deion Branch and olive branch?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Compulsory or not, it shouldn't be on a regular Tuesday when people -- except for the olds -- have to work. Make it a federal holiday.

A national holiday and move it to Wednesdays... cause let's be honest, a national holiday on a Tuesday will just make people take vacation days on Monday so that they can go away on a long vacation.

We're lazy.

We need to have digital voting with two step verification, perhaps a finger print and a social security number, and give people more places to vote. Make it more convenient and don't make it so that people have to hunting down their place to vote.

We're a society that is so dependant on city living now, where people often move locations between presidential elections without submitting a change of address, and/or work an hour away from where they live. Why can't I just go to any voting station and submit my vote?

I get districts and all that... but if we had a two step verification process, with address, all or hear things can be done digitally.

[mama cass]

i was right in my first post - the referendum is not binding and the exit clause can only be triggered after a vote in the British parliament

"It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.

Britain, absurdly, is the only significant country (other than Saudi Arabia) without a written constitution. We have what are termed “constitutional conventions”, along with a lot of history and traditions. Nothing in these precedents allots any place to the results of referendums or requires our sovereign parliament to take a blind bit of notice of them.

It was parliament that voted to enter the European Economic Community in 1972, and only three years later was a referendum held to settle the split in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of membership. Had a narrow majority of the public voted out in 1975, Wilson would still have had to persuade parliament to vote accordingly – and it is far from certain that he would have succeeded.

Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense."

hallelujah - there is hope



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ent-act-europe

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Cliff Branch, Deion Branch and olive branch?

How fucking ignorant. It's the Washington DC branch, the New York branch, and the branch in the last Super Bowl winning city.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

How fucking ignorant. It's the Washington DC branch, the New York branch, and the branch in the last Super Bowl winning city.

Guess I need to branch out more.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by mama cass

i was right in my first post - the referendum is not binding and the exit clause can only be triggered after a vote in the British parliament

"It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.

Britain, absurdly, is the only significant country (other than Saudi Arabia) without a written constitution. We have what are termed “constitutional conventions”, along with a lot of history and traditions. Nothing in these precedents allots any place to the results of referendums or requires our sovereign parliament to take a blind bit of notice of them.

It was parliament that voted to enter the European Economic Community in 1972, and only three years later was a referendum held to settle the split in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of membership. Had a narrow majority of the public voted out in 1975, Wilson would still have had to persuade parliament to vote accordingly – and it is far from certain that he would have succeeded.

Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense."

hallelujah - there is hope



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ent-act-europe

Question: I know that the UK has a fairly new Supreme Court. Is this the sort of issue that they may eventually intervene in?

I ask because it seems like some people think withdrawing will require a parliamentary vote, while others think that this can be done unilaterally by the PM. I ask because even if Boris Johnson wins the Tory leadership contest and the government isn't dissolved, it sounds like he might have a hard time keeping the Tories together enough to actually get parliament to approve activating Article 50. If he can do it unilaterally, that's another story. So I have to wonder if there will be some sort of constitutional crisis if he tries to activate Article 50 unilaterally.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

england's pull out game on point these days fam

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by digitize

Question: I know that the UK has a fairly new Supreme Court. Is this the sort of issue that they may eventually intervene in?

I ask because it seems like some people think withdrawing will require a parliamentary vote, while others think that this can be done unilaterally by the PM. I ask because even if Boris Johnson wins the Tory leadership contest and the government isn't dissolved, it sounds like he might have a hard time keeping the Tories together enough to actually get parliament to approve activating Article 50. If he can do it unilaterally, that's another story. So I have to wonder if there will be some sort of constitutional crisis if he tries to activate Article 50 unilaterally.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

digitize, i honestly can't say for sure - i haven't got the confidence to say 100% based on my own knowledge as it was completely new to me also (i am a political rather than a legal beast and had just assumed the referendum would be respected - Cameron had said this all along and had said Art 50 would be triggered immediately, and i didn't know all the legal ins and outs in that respect so was taken aback when i heard about the need to put it to parliament), but what i've been told is any attempt to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary backing could be considered unconstitutional and challenged in the courts... now, once Art 50 has been triggered it's meant to be irreversible, but as it's meant to be done in accordance with national constitutional obligations maybe, if ruled not to have been done so, it could be revoked - but it has never been tested and it is all soooo unclear, not to mention the fact that the politicians are still acting as though Brexit is all going ahead and Cameron/Boris have made no mention of the obligation for a parliamentary vote (although this has been mentioned by the MP David Lammy i believe)

i'm checking info both sides of the Channel and French (reputable) press is reporting it in the same way, i.e., a constitutional nightmare to even invoke the exit clause due to the need for a parliamentary vote...

so i cannot understand why, other than in the Guardian today, it's getting very little coverage... many people basically seem to be rolling over and accepting a Brexit as an inevitability, but i refuse to give up hope just yet...

also, i don't trust Boris (or any of them actually) an inch! he is saying he doesn't want to be hasty, and is in no rush to invoke the exit clause (that would be suicidal anyway, as fuck all could get negotiated in the 2-year time frame), so he is playing for time... not to mention retracting all his promises... he even said today he wants to "intensify European relations", the guy is ridiculous and should be publicly discredited - i cannot believe he might actually be a leadership prospect!!

[zuma]

The media is really bugging me on this one. Calling for another referendum because some people are stupid, or because old people have voted the wrong way and they die soon anyways, or even an elected MP tweeting that the referendum is non-binding. Jesus fucking christ people, it's called a democracy. You can't demand a rerun because you don't like the result. That's not how it works.

Instead of wasting time on this, it would be much more beneficial to stop squabbling and start thinking about how to make the best out of this shitty situation and hopefully negotiate terms similar to what Switzerland or Norway has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by DaveC

england's pull out game on point these days fam

Everyone knows pulling out isn't 100% effective

[martha]

I have to say it's kind of nice watching lying, grandstanding conservatives having to live with the bullshit they promulgate. They always seem to forget that at some point, someone's going to call their bluff. They won't get bailed out every time.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by zuma

The media is really bugging me on this one. Calling for another referendum because some people are stupid, or because old people have voted the wrong way and they die soon anyways, or even an elected MP tweeting that the referendum is non-binding. Jesus fucking christ people, it's called a democracy. You can't demand a rerun because you don't like the result. That's not how it works.

Instead of wasting time on this, it would be much more beneficial to stop squabbling and start thinking about how to make the best out of this shitty situation and hopefully negotiate terms similar to what Switzerland or Norway has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no, that's not the problem - the problem is the narrow win - 3.98% is not sufficient to be democratic! in the 1975 referendum to join the EEC, there was a 34% majority (67/33), so a huuuuge difference

if there had been a similar outcome, it would be much clearer and much more democratic

the Leave campaign also made it very clear during the campaign that if there was a narrow win for Remain, they would demand a second referendum

a 3.98% majority out of a 72% turn-out just isn't high enough to demand such far-reaching changes to the status quo

even in government, with proportional representation, power is proportional to the number of votes - a small majority gets a small majority of seats or bargaining power - that's how our democracy works

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by martha

I have to say it's kind of nice watching lying, grandstanding conservatives having to live with the bullshit they promulgate. They always seem to forget that at some point, someone's going to call their bluff. They won't get bailed out every time.

It's also nice seeing a major country more fucked up politically than we are.

Nice and frightening. But nice.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

It's also nice seeing a major country more fucked up politically than we are.

Nice and frightening. But nice.

Agreed.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

It's also nice seeing a major country more fucked up politically than we are.

Nice and frightening. But nice.

if we're going down we're taking you all down with us

[nielsgov]

Originally Posted by zuma

The media is really bugging me on this one. Calling for another referendum because some people are stupid, or because old people have voted the wrong way and they die soon anyways, or even an elected MP tweeting that the referendum is non-binding. Jesus fucking christ people, it's called a democracy. You can't demand a rerun because you don't like the result. That's not how it works.

Instead of wasting time on this, it would be much more beneficial to stop squabbling and start thinking about how to make the best out of this shitty situation and hopefully negotiate terms similar to what Switzerland or Norway has.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's bullshit. If the result of the vote and also the revelation of all the populist lies makes the public opinion change, then it's not democratic to just carry out whatever the result was.