BREXIT vote aftermath

[jonski43]

Being an American, here's another thing I don't understand, why did they have a referendum on this to begin with?

We have referendums but they are on local relatively simple things like legalizing marijuana or raising the minimum wage, not really complex things like being part of the EU that affects other countries and the whole world economy.

It doesn't seem like the appropriate type of issue to be having a referendum on.

The US Constitution gives the president the exclusive right to negotiate agreements with other countries subject to the approval of Congress. In the US, we don't have referendums on whether to have an agreement or alliance with other countries, which makes a lot more sense to me.

It's generally thought that Cameron offered it as he thought the leave vote would never win. It's similar to the Scottish referendum. I think the point is to offer the people the choice so they feel like they've had their say and then move on.

Britain is a very tolerant place but it cannot be ignored that we are also one of the most densely populated countries in the world with majority living in the bottom half of the country. We have a housing crisis with rents going up, a national health service that is under pressure and it's the working classes and north that feel ignored by the politicians and suffered the most from affects of mass immigration.

None of this is a surprise. After the Tory landslide at the last election it was clear there was a disconnection between the Labour Party and their core demographic of the white working classes.

The Labour Party is now imploding and the Tory party are wondering what the hell they're supposed to do.

The press will be jumping on these attacks over the few weeks but normally these things blow over. We're quite a rational bunch overall.

[karbatal]

We have a housing crisis with rents going up, a national health service that is under pressure and it's the working classes and north that feel ignored by the politicians and suffered the most from affects of mass immigration.

That has happened to 99% of cities in Europe but we don't blame "immigration". Greed is what's making houses go up, unless there's really a real shortage, but i sincerely doubt that the pressure of population in towns like London makes a house go from 90.000 to 700.000 in ten years. Not even after the blitz in the 40s would have rise the price of a house that absurd amount.

Sedondly, health system is ALWAYS under preassure. And governments have to give lots of money. It's everywhere like that, but that's why we pay taxes for, in the first place.

Thirdly, working class is suffering the most because we earn less, compared to the price of living.

And all that has nothing to do with immigration.

[Gaudet]

Five laws the European Union helped stop the Tories from passing

The European Union has acted as a regulatory body for the UK and the Brexit win is expected not only impact Britain's economy, but key legislation too.

Here are five areas in which the EU had a hand in preventing the current Conservative government from enacting potentially damaging laws:

1. Human Rights

Back in 2015 part of David Cameron’s manifesto had been to scrap the Human Rights Act, a creation and key requirement of EU membership which provides a whole host of protections, including the right to life, security, freedom from slavery and forced labour, to name a few.

However when Cameron tried to replace the act with the British Bill of Rights, he faced opposition from the EU and from members of his own party, forcing him to kick it into the long grass.

2. The environment

The UK government had attempted to block the EU from enacting legislation that would limit imports of tar sand oils from Canada, which are a greenhouse gas heavy method of making oil for transportation.

Additionally, the British government tried (and failed) to block the EU pesticide ban, which protects bees.

3. Air pollution

In 2015 the Conservative government tried to block EU legislation which would force member states to conduct random emission checks on cars.

The legislation was passed, and the UK was heavily criticised for attempting to block it on the grounds it was an "administrative burden for industry and government".

4. Animal welfare

The EU has been instrumental in the formation of animal welfare codes in the UK. In 2012 the EU were successful in banning barren cages for battery hens, and in 2013 sow stalls, which keep pigs in confined spaces all their lives, were also banned.

The Conservative government has put de-regulatory policies on animal welfare on the table, including plans to repeal the welfare codes.

5. Workers' rights

The EU safeguards employee rights by ensuring that paid holidays, protected overtime pay for full and part-time workers as well as the right for workers to strike is upheld by the UK.

The Tories attempted to pass the Trade Union Bill last year - which would cripple workers' right to take strike action - but he was prevented from doing so by heavy criticism from the EU and the House of Lords.

The bill was shelved in April 2016 in an attempt to get workers' unions onside ahead of the June EU referendum.

Full article: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/five-laws-the-european-union-helped-stop-the-tories-from-passing--ZygyRM8GAEZ

Yeah, let's blame immigration at every turn, how convenient!

[Glindathegood]

People always say they want to reduce and get rid of the immigrants, but it never happens, because these countries need the immigrants to perform certain jobs especially in the service industry that native born people refuse to do. The US economy would come to a halt if immigration was radically cut back and I'm sure the UK economy is the same.

People act like these immigrants sit around doing nothing, just using up social services, but most immigrants I've ever known are hard working people who add a lot to the economy. They work really hard to make money so that they can have a better life and send some back to their relatives that still live in their original country. So immigrants actually add a lot to the economy not take from it.

I don't think recent immigrants are buying the super expensive real estate in the center of London. So I really don't think they are to blame for the inflation of urban real estate.

[karbatal]

Most developed countries could develop precisely because of immigrants. USA in the first place but it's the same for the rest. These sudden attack to immigrants in developed countries really makes me angry

[karbatal]

People always say they want to reduce and get rid of the immigrants, but it never happens, because these countries need the immigrants to perform certain jobs especially in the service industry that native born people refuse to do. The US economy would come to a halt if immigration was radically cut back and I'm sure the UK economy is the same.

People act like these immigrants sit around doing nothing, just using up social services, but most immigrants I've ever known are hard working people who add a lot to the economy. They work really hard to make money so that they can have a better life and send some back to their relatives that still live in their original country. So immigrants actually add a lot to the economy not take from it.

I don't think recent immigrants are buying the super expensive real estate in the center of London. So I really don't think they are to blame for the inflation of urban real estate.

We had in Spain from 1998 to 2008 the most absurd price in the cost of houses. A big giant bubble that crashed and it's the main cause of our problems nowadays. It was pure and simple greed. Greed from constructors, owners and regular people. And specially regular people were the worst, selling at the highest price so they could make easy money.

I bought my flat in 2003 for 100.000 euro and in 2006 I could have sold it for 250.000 and back then my building didn't even have a lift! Previous owners had bought the flat in the early nineties for 20.000. ABSURD

[Gaudet]

Madonna, the visionary, said it best 4 years ago, just merely four years ago:

"What happens when people are afraid? What happens? They become intolerant.

They start pointing the fingers at other people. They say: "You're the reason! You're the problem! You're to blame! They say: GET OUT!"

I remember that night very well - anyway, from 17:23 onward above portion of the speech:

Predictdonna

[karbatal]

The Paris Olympia speech was LIFE. Just in the middle of the Greek crisis, so on point!

[Gaudet]

How to stop Brexit: get your MP to vote it down

We don’t need another referendum. Members of parliament have every right to vote against repeal of the act that led us into Europe

‘Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum.’

It’s not over yet. A law that passed last year to set up the EU referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force. “Sovereignty” – a much misunderstood word in the campaign – resides in Britain with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them. Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.

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.

Many countries, including Commonwealth nations – vouchsafed their constitutions by the UK – have provisions for change by referendums. But these provisions are carefully circumscribed and do not usually allow change by simple majority.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in a majority of the six states as well as in the country as a whole (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland). In other countries, it must pass by a very clear majority – usually two-thirds. In some US states that permit voting on public legislative proposals, there are similar safeguards. In the UK (except, under a 2011 act in the case of an EU expansion of power), referendum results are merely advisory – in this case, advising MPs that the country is split almost down the middle on the wisdom of EU membership.

So how should MPs vote come November, when prime minister Boris Johnson introduces the 2016 European Communities Act (Repeal) Bill? Those from London and Scotland should happily vote against it, following their constituents’ wishes. So should Labour MPs – it’s their party policy after all.

By November, there may be other very good reasons for MPs to refuse to leave Europe. Brexit may turn out to be just too difficult. Staying in the EU may be the only way to stop Scotland from splitting, or to rescue the pound. A poll on Sunday tells us that a million leave voters are already regretting their choice: a significant public change of mind would amply justify a parliamentary refusal to Brexit. It may be, in November, that President Donald Trump becomes the leader of the free world – in which case a strong EU would become more necessary than ever. Or it may simply be that a majority of MPs, mindful of their constitutional duty to do what is best for Britain, conscientiously decide that it is best to remain.

There is no point in holding another referendum (as several million online petitioners are urging). Referendums are alien to our traditions, they are inappropriate for complex decision-making, and without careful incorporation in a written constitution, the public expectation aroused by the result can damage our democracy. The only way forward now depends on the courage, intelligence and conscience of your local MP. So have your say in the traditional way: lobby him or her to vote against the government when it tries to Brexit, because parliament is sovereign.

Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Apples388]

Brexit is happening. Accept it and move on.

[Gaudet]

Wow, such great fighting spirit.

No, I will not accept something so utterly wrong that is not even law-binding, non-mandatory. I refuse the "accept and move on" sheepish attitude when legislatively speaking this referendum has not decided anything, because the real decision is down to parliament vote.

[Glindathegood]

What's the point of having a referendum though if it's not binding and has no effect?

Why not just have Parliament vote in the first place?

Usually, referendums are binding in the US, unless they are in conflict with the US Constitution in some way.

[karbatal]

Wow, such great fighting spirit.

No, I will not accept something so utterly wrong that is not even law-binding, non-mandatory. I refuse the "accept and move on" sheepish attitude when legislatively speaking this referendum has not decided anything, because the real decision is down to parliament vote.

And if Remain had won? What would you say?

[Glindathegood]

Most developed countries could develop precisely because of immigrants. USA in the first place but it's the same for the rest. These sudden attack to immigrants in developed countries really makes me angry

Exactly! That's the hypocrisy of it all. It came out that Donald Trump hired a whole bunch of immigrants to work on this big project he is building here in Washington, DC. But in every speech he says how bad they are and how they are destroying the country!

[billiejean]

[runa]

And if Remain had won? What would you say?

Exactly.

As much as I think Brexit was the wrong decision, people should accept the voice of majority.

[Glindathegood]

Exactly.

As much as I think Brexit was the wrong decision, people should accept the voice of majority.

I agree mostly, but it seems like a lot of people didn't really understand what they were voting on. They didn't fully comprehend all the consequences of leaving the EU.

As I said, I don't think it was really an appropriate thing to be having a referendum on. It affects a lot of people who have EU passports who from what I understand couldn't vote because they weren't British citizens.

I don't think they should have had a referendum on this in the first place, but since they did I think they have to accept the result.

[Raider of the lost Ark]

Exactly.

As much as I think Brexit was the wrong decision, people should accept the voice of majority.

But the term "majority" is really an issue here. While it may be technically correct that 52 percent of the people who voted are the majority. A simple majority. And as I said only the majority among the people who actually made it to the polling station. It is not the majority of registred voters, it is not the majority of the whole population. That's why many countries ask for a two/third majority and/or a quorum at referendums when it comes to important topics to be voted upon. And the irreversible step to leave the EU is certainly a major topic. This is not a normal election for parliament. Those results only change the political environment for the next 4 years or even less if the a parliament dissolves itself. I completely understand why people fight the decision if only 1 million more votes (every 35 vote) are responsible for something that could / will cause serious problems for many people.

[Apples388]

That's not the point. You're all crying over spilt milk.

[Skin]

Howard Stern discusses the situation at 17:50 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_qPGhLuX3w

[runa]

But the term "majority" is really an issue here. While it may be technically correct that 52 percent of the people who voted are the majority. A simple majority. And as I said only the majority among the people who actually made it to the polling station. It is not the majority of registred voters, it is not the majority of the whole population. That's why many countries ask for a two/third majority and/or a quorum at referendums when it comes to important topics to be voted upon. And the irreversible step to leave the EU is certainly a major topic. This is not a normal election for parliament. Those results only change the political environment for the next 4 years or even less if the a parliament dissolves itself. I completely understand why people fight the decision if only 1 million more votes (every 35 vote) are responsible for something that could / will cause serious problems for many people.

You're definitely right about the fact that this "majority" is an issue. I agree about this.

But that's how the system works.

A very bad system, I give you that.

[Moka]

[Rebel Saviour]

Lol of course UK will be fine. This hysteria is stupid. There will be some negative effects and consequences for its economy and that's it. We are still talking about one of the most important political and economical powers in the world. Unless Scotland and Northern Ireland decide to leave and Londonstan becomes reality , nothing really apocalyptic is going to happen.

[billiejean]

People are protesting outside the houses of parliament; It's live on www.facebook.com/channel4

[Skin]

[Raider of the lost Ark]

Lol of course UK will be fine. This hysteria is stupid. There will be some negative effects and consequences for its economy and that's it. We are still talking about one of the most important political and economical powers in the world. Unless Scotland and Northern Ireland decide to leave and Londonstan becomes reality , nothing really apocalypti. c is going to happen.

Hysteria? So far I have only seen people having normal discussions what the result could mean. Some negative effects? I like your optimism. There'll be alot of negative effects. People still don't see the whole picture. Now they concentrate on the stock exchange and the pound. People are still looking at the immediate and direct results of the outcome. The real problems will start with the indirect results. And it has already begun. The downgrade of the UKs credit rating will result in higher interest rates for the UK to borrow money which they need for the household to fill the deficit. That means the UK will have less money for other things, usually social things because the costs of borrowing money has increased. What the outcome has brought is a lot of uncertainty. The worst thing for an economy. As a result investments will be lowered or even put on hold. That means no additional jobs will be created, no extra income from taxes. All of this may even result in job losses once the UK loses access to the European market or taxes and fees will be imposed on UK goods which will make it hard for UK goods to be competitive (because they are more expensive) in comparison to EU / American / Chinese goods. This job loss will result in a further decrease of tax income from either companies and employees. In return, costs for benefits for unemployment will increase. After all people will have lower disposable income which is bad for the national market. People not consuming means decrease of income from VAT. You see, all of this is disastrous for the national household and I wonder where all the promised money for the NHS is supposed to be coming from when a huge deficit as a result of the Brexit is more than likely.

[Guest]

Wow, such great fighting spirit.

No, I will not accept something so utterly wrong that is not even law-binding, non-mandatory. I refuse the "accept and move on" sheepish attitude when legislatively speaking this referendum has not decided anything, because the real decision is down to parliament vote.

PJ, read this blog. You have every right to fight and not accept this.

https://katyboo1.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/happy-now/

[rebelvvv]

Hysteria? So far I have only seen people having normal discussions what the result could mean. Some negative effects? I like your optimism. There'll be alot of negative effects. People still don't see the whole picture. Now they concentrate on the stock exchange and the pound. People are still looking at the immediate and direct results of the outcome. The real problems will start with the indirect results. And it has already begun. The downgrade of the UKs credit rating will result in higher interest rates for the UK to borrow money which they need for the household to fill the deficit. That means the UK will have less money for other things, usually social things because the costs of borrowing money has increased. What the outcome has brought is a lot of uncertainty. The worst thing for an economy. As a result investments will be lowered or even put on hold. That means no additional jobs will be created, no extra income from taxes. All of this may even result in job losses once the UK loses access to the European market or taxes and fees will be imposed on UK goods which will make it hard for UK goods to be competitive (because they are more expensive) in comparison to EU / American / Chinese goods. This job loss will result in a further decrease of tax income from either companies and employees. In return, costs for benefits for unemployment will increase. After all people will have lower disposable income which is bad for the national market. People not consuming means decrease of income from VAT. You see, all of this is disastrous for the national household and I wonder where all the promised money for the NHS is supposed to be coming from when a huge deficit as a result of the Brexit is more than likely.

There's no point explaining basic economics to people here.

[Rebel Saviour]

Hysteria? So far I have only seen people having normal discussions what the result could mean. Some negative effects? I like your optimism. There'll be alot of negative effects. People still don't see the whole picture. Now they concentrate on the stock exchange and the pound. People are still looking at the immediate and direct results of the outcome. The real problems will start with the indirect results. And it has already begun. The downgrade of the UKs credit rating will result in higher interest rates for the UK to borrow money which they need for the household to fill the deficit. That means the UK will have less money for other things, usually social things because the costs of borrowing money has increased. What the outcome has brought is a lot of uncertainty. The worst thing for an economy. As a result investments will be lowered or even put on hold. That means no additional jobs will be created, no extra income from taxes. All of this may even result in job losses once the UK loses access to the European market or taxes and fees will be imposed on UK goods which will make it hard for UK goods to be competitive (because they are more expensive) in comparison to EU / American / Chinese goods. This job loss will result in a further decrease of tax income from either companies and employees. In return, costs for benefits for unemployment will increase. After all people will have lower disposable income which is bad for the national market. People not consuming means decrease of income from VAT. You see, all of this is disastrous for the national household and I wonder where all the promised money for the NHS is supposed to be coming from when a huge deficit as a result of the Brexit is more than likely.

I was referring to the title of the video of course...I'm not expert in economics and I think UK made a huge mistake leaving EU, but I don't think it will turn in some sort of a third world country, pleaseeee!

[Apples388]

It may be funny or amusing to some ignorant people here but the fact of the matter is that the decision was made and we as British people now need to get on with it. Sorry but some of the things said here by some American posters here and videos posted are pure bullshit.