Comments are open, for now.
~ by Servetus on June 25, 2016.
Posted in Richard Armitage Tags: Brexit, richard armitage
Clear words from Armitage. I like it.
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Reply
Yeah, I’m pleased he’s speaking clearly about what he feels. I think it’s good for him and on the whole good for the fandom. What he’s saying is another matter.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:13 pm | Reply
Absolutely. (I am annoyed with myself for being surprised with that, actually.)
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:15 pm | Reply
That doesn’t surprise me at all. Armitage leads with the feelings. I am upset about the results of the vote as well, and I probably shouldn’t say this, but I’m not sure what the point of this petition is. The UK electorate had its say. I don’t think it’s fair to ask for a second punishing referendum simply in hopes that pre-Remainers will get what they want this time.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Reply
I totally see their point – the margin is small, and the media have whipped up frenzy over confused Leave voters who now regret their vote. But I am not sure whether a petition handed in after the fact, will be more than a symbolic gesture. I guess, they are trying to do anything they can…
And sure, there is an element of “bad losership” in this. It is a democratic decision, and in theory people have to live with it. For me, it also looks as if people are trying to make a point.
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Reply
I think it is probably just people who already voted for Remain signing it — perhaps I am too cynical. But it’s like so many things these days that IMO people don’t understand (free speech is another thing in this category): we protect the outcomes of democratic elections even when we don’t like them because we want those results protected when we do like them. Democracy isn’t “I get what I want and let’s keep trying till I get it,” it’s “I agree to make a decision in a certain way and abide by the results of that decision.” We have problems with people understanding this in the US as well. Pro-Remain had years to convince voters.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:28 pm | Reply
Fully agree with all you said. But still don’t like the outcome of the referendum and have problems accepting it…
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:37 pm | Reply
I think we should bear in mind that referenda in the UK are not legally binding for the government. They will still put it into action though, or at least a variation of what the public thought they voted for/against. I believe there will be a rude wake-up call for all UK residence, but calm minds may still “save the day” 😉
Vanguard said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:23 pm | Reply
They have to act on it – otherwise the tool of the referendum will be deemed worthless. You can’t be more democratic than through a referendum. The people have spoken – the government has to act.
I suppose all sides know that. And yet, it remains hard to accept.
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Reply
There are a lot of people who consider referenda useless. Me too tbh. (How is such a poorly run referendum democratic?) All they achieved is make the nation’s split visible by putting an almost 50/50 number on it. Vitriol continues online, and people are none the wiser as to what they def loose vs might win. “Taking their country back” – it has always been a sovereign state. But I agree with you. They had e now choice but to act in order to avoid riots and social unrest.
Vanguard said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:33 pm
I quite like referenda, but that’s probably motivated because the country of my citizenship does not provide such a possibility and I wish I was able to cast direct votes on matters of such importance.
I don’t know how poorly run this referendum was. I take more issue with the fact that it was a carelessly, flippantly called referendum that was meant to bolster a party leader in trouble. He misused this tool for his own gain – and spectacularly failed. Who pays? An electorate that is split and will have to deal with the fall-out for the next few decades.
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:41 pm
I think referenda are okay when the participants are fairly homogenous and can be assumed to share a lot of common interests. Like, “should we tax the community to build a new swimming pool” — that’s a good referendum question. But in a situation where the electorate is already so divided it primarily creates unrest and doesn’t really settle anything.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:35 pm
What you say sounds right.
Guylty said this on June 26, 2016 at 12:23 am
Exactly, it’s not a matter of choice of what public decision you accept and which you don’t.
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:11 pm
They will have to act on it or they delegitimate themselves entirely. (There’s a joke going around with a twitter account labeled “Franz von Papen” that says “never call a referendum that you don’t already know the results of.”) And they are not the only people who decide, now. Merkel seems to be in a mood to negotiate but Jean-Claude Juncker is emphatically not.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:32 pm | Reply
Schaeuble’s ego paper doesn’t sound good for the UK though (from what leaked). France is having a laugh. Hopefully Juncker will not be too strong in these negotiations. *sigh
Let’s also see what Gibraltar, Scotland and NI will do…
Vanguard said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:36 pm
Sorry Vanguard, but I do not laugh ( with Le Pen’s family). Here in France lot of people are sad .
I think the negotiations would last for years. And may be the successor of D Camperon will not be as anti Europe as he claims?
I wish a vision of a brighter future, without a visa for British pensioners who live in the Dordogne, for all French expatriates who have to work in England and at least for all the tourists who would want to cross the Channel.
squirrel.0072 said this on June 25, 2016 at 10:36 pm
squirrel.0072 said this on June 25, 2016 at 10:39 pm
@squirrel – France having laugh, I was referring to some of the headlines and online comments I’ve read. Hollande and Merkel would be foolish to laugh. Then again, nothing is set in stone yet re Brexit. Let the lies emerge and we’ll see….
Vanguard said this on June 26, 2016 at 2:41 pm
OK sorry not to be able to understand every English word well.
squirrel.0072 said this on June 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm
this is to your lower comment, you’re absolutely right, this was the worst decision ever to organise it in the first place. As if the discussions around the Scottish ref. didn’t teach him anything. EU stuff has always been very controversial, it was always going to be a close call and even if it went the other way it would have only deepened existing divides further. But that’s incompetent naval-gazing politicians of their ilk for you 😦 Sadly we pay the price…
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:19 pm | Reply
Sadiq Khan just said something that seems to imply he thinks London can maintain access to the EU single market even if the UK withdraws. It’s like, hello people, do you not understand the basic rules here?
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:35 pm | Reply
Well, there were (jokey) calls for declaring London independent. Maybe then it would work?
In all this, I notice that I am beginning to slip into cynicism mode. Bad outcome.
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:38 pm | Reply
I had said something half jokingly about repeating the Partition of India the other night, and then this morning in the bevy of British colonialist jokes that are now streaming through my feed, I found a really funny one — it’s #7. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/social-humour-real-brexit-happened-in-1947/humour/52899394.cms
I’m not cynical but I believe strongly in the rule of law and I want one of the world’s oldest democracies to abide by it. Just like I want that to happen here and everywhere else. Which means, fine, it is legal to ask this question, and the UK Parliament can do whatever they like, but they really should ask themselves about the precedent they are setting.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Reply
Agree on point 2. Living in a country that habitually calls its citizens to referendums for as long as it takes to get it “right”, I can see how that approach devalues democracy in its own way.
Guylty said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:52 pm | Reply
It is just plain fatiguing. (I’m also reminded of these non-stop meaningless votes in the US House of Representatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I swear they spend a quarter of their time on that legislations — which will at present never pass the Senate — but they can’t pass legislation people actually want to see them work on.)
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:56 pm
i personally wonder how much of the old ‘imperial’ whiff is within the ‘take our country back’.. we are great alone… i feel tempted to say it’s not the 1700 anymore. Thankfully! I too thought democracy in this country today was modern and open but we aren’t in easy times when the principles are used to service some very un-democratic feelings… That’s the danger i think we fear.
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:30 pm | Reply
On another form, I’ve seen it said that Whether a second referendum is actually held is a separate issue, but some people are signing it to signal their anger at what went down so that’s it’s not forgotten when it comes to the exit negotiations. Just like there were many reasons for people voting Brexit – there are many reasons why people signing the petition for the second referendum.
I don’t see any political party being ready for a general election at this time. So the petition is one way of making sure the anger is not forgotten.
Also based on our own experience with a nation-changing referendum, I’m shocked at how shoddy the British ran theirs. To hear people say they had no idea that a pro-brexit vote might lead to the dissolution of their union. There also seems to be a shocking misunderstanding of how tariffs and trade agreements work, what the post-brexit negotiation options were, what exactly the British economy is composed of.
I can’t fault them for wanting a second referendum when the first was so shoddily run. I think it’s just a valid a response as the “accept it and move on” response from Brexiters who are just realizing the folly of their vote.
mimreckoner said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Reply
People are free to do whatever they like. I get that they are angry. Their response is whatever it is and they have a right to it. However — having witnessed a bitter recall election here in 2012 that was a response to “voter’s remorse,” I can only note that these strategies often backfire. Beyond that it is super poor sportsmanship in my view.
re: elections — I think the current UK government may find that events overtake them. They may not want to move fast, but everyone else around them (apparently including Scotland, from what I just read) does. It looks like Labour is going to try to get shot of Jeremy Corbyn immediately because they are worried about elections happening faster than anticipated.
re: tariffs — we’re finding in the US that almost no one in the electorate understands this issue, either. They don’t get that protecting the US labor market in the ways that either Trump or Sanders would have us do might lead to a rise in wages but it would also cause a rise in prices. Since ’45, Americans have gotten very angry when anyone’s challenged our consumption habits. I was trying to explain to Dad yesterday why the UK needs access to the EU single market and he was like, what do you mean, they can’t just sell their stuff there?
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Reply
ditto and while they bashed the ‘economy’ point to death in the debates they didn’t bother to actually explain what it looks like today and where Britain is truly successful,making it more evident that most of those areas are not the ‘go it alone’ ones… sigh. Must stop regretting and frustrating soon and move on to doing something about the way we move forward, no point at all in regrets.
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:40 pm | Reply
Re “voter’s remorse” – I don’t think the people calling for the second referendum are those that voted Brexit in the first place. It’s a more civilized form of expressing anger than riots in the streets.
I think your ability to have “recall elections” is quite unique – I am curious as to whether any of the constitutional monarchies have that option.
I don’t buy the argument that a second referendum would undermine the democratic integrity of a country’s government; this is an advisory referendum not a binding election. However, I do believe that having a second referendum is a waste of time for anything other than expressing anger. Another “advisory” referendum to overthrow a previous “advisory” referendum, that itself was unnecessary, and plausibly, illegitimate. More importantly, the EU is not interested in Britain having a second referendum, and from that perspective, all Britons have to move forward eventually.
The only way for them to move forward is to have an informed vote on how the Brexit is going to happen. Somebody in that government is going to have to trigger a general election by having a vote of non-confidence in the Conservative party. It’s not going to be Boris Johnson, or Gove. So it’s got to be a Labour MP, and it’s not going to be Corbyn. But eventually they will get a general election, and then each party must put forward their solution to negotiate a Brexit, and the Brits can select between the two basic models of Brexit – the Norwegian model and the Canada model. At this general election, there will be no confusion as to whether voters are choosing Brexit because of immigration, or Cameron, or London.
Re Corbyn – Apparently it’s the first time that a Labour leader has failed to deliver traditional strongholds in the north. It’s embarrassing that he’s forcing his own MPs to publicly denounce him.
Re “poor sportsmanship” – it’s funny enough because I’ve followed this on a football website, but as noted there this referendum was not a game. It is bad sportsmanship to say Leicester are not worthy League champions because they didn’t have the challenge of competing in Europe during this League campaign. They clearly were the best team in the League because they won the most games in the League by a healthy margin. They did it without cheating or doping. There is also no controversy as to what they won – they won the League.
But with Brexit – I have not seen any worthy argument from any of the proponents as to what they “won” especially as two major “promises” have already been retracted (EU fees to be used for NHS funding and closing borders to immigration).
Now the Brexiters are sitting back and saying, “congratulate us on taking you into the unknown based on false promises and racist sentiments, and by the way, you must help us get out of the shit we pulled you into.” I don’t think it’s bad sportsmanship to say essentially “fuck you” to that.
MimReckoner said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:06 pm | Reply
The recall election was in the state of Wisconsin (for Governor), after a situation remarkably like this one (it was essentially a referendum on a highly unpopular step the state government took). The recall was legal, but the consensus of the people who ended up voting was that the people who sponsored the recall acted unfairly in that recall was meant to be used for malfeasance and not simply because of disagreement over policy.
I’m sorry you object to the term “sportsmanship” but it or something like it, that appeals to the notion of fairness, is applicable here. That’s what law is about — an attempt to define the rules that everyone must obey in a situation. The government formulated a simple referendum, as a result of an election promise, UK voters were asked to vote up or down and 52% voted in favor of advising the government that they wished to leave the UK. (How that happened was stupid and frivolous but there is no principle in democracy that says people are not allowed to be stupid or frivolous). That is not a resounding mandate, but it is a clear majority. I’m not exactly sure what qualifies anyone to get a revote in a situation like this except concrete evidence of electoral malfeasance / cheating. As much as people worried about that there seems to be no evidence of it.
The next step in law is that the government considers what to do about that referendum. (And of course, now, according to law, they must also consider what to do about this petition. I’m not sure exactly why a petition was necessary since general public anger is clear already, b again, it’s legal). No editorial I have read today considers it at all likely that there will be another referendum of any kind and most of them argue that it would only make people angrier than they already are. I don’t believe that is in anyone’s interest.
I think it is really unhelpful for anyone who wants to get a pro-Brexit voter on side for a different vote to call them racists. But that’s just me. You can say “fuck you” to whoever you want but I would advise anyone who says that they are unlikely to gain any support from people with whom they already disagree.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:17 pm | Reply
But your first vote and then your recall vote is binding, correct? To me that’s a different kettle of fish than back-to-back advisory referendums.
Re fairness – I think our point of disagreement is that I think this particular referendum lacked legitimacy from the beginning, and that it was not legitimized because it was voted on by the people. This was not an urgent issue for Britain. It was a promise made by a man who thought it was a meaningless promise, in order to get UKIP voters and others on the right to vote for him in the last election. The lack of legitimacy is redoubled for me because of the lies of the Brexit campaign and the lack of fight from the government. It seems that until the Sunderland vote came in, both Frottage and Cameron thought that Remain won it. I think on the Guardian website there was an article saying Frottage accepted a narrow Remain victory.
But I do accept that it happened. I do accept that the majority voted Leave. I do accept that it’s not practical to vote again, mainly because Europe is not going to tolerate a second referendum and have the issue prolonged for god knows how long. It’s also not practical because there is no guarantee a Remain campaign will succeed – those calling for a second referendum, seriously must consider that.
I agree fully there is no limitation on stupidity and frivolity in a democracy. But the way that Cameron’s government went about the referendum did more to damage democracy in my eyes, than angry people who later are signing a petition requesting a second referendum.
With respect to the referendum, there is no statue or common law that the government has to act on a advisory referendum. But our democracy is also upheld by the perception of fairness. We equate majority vote to fairness, and we will protect that perception even to our economic detriment, and notwithstanding that we know the origins of the referendum were bogus. But “hey ho, people voted” so we must observe the result. Therefore, the only option for the government is to invoke Article 50 – it’s just a matter of when. But I also think they must call a general election with it.
Regarding the petition, the government must say “no” to a second referendum for the reasons outlined above.
Re racists – If it wasn’t clear before, I also understand that not everyone who voted for Brexit did so because of anti-immigration or racist beliefs. However, there was a sizeable majority of Brexit voters who voted because of racist, anti-immigrant beliefs and they must be called out on their hate without mincing words. As a person of colour, it’s not my role to persuade a racist to accept me in their society in order to get their vote. I know I cannot change their mind; I’m not even going to waste my breath. As Oprah says: “they just have to die.”
MimReckoner said this on June 25, 2016 at 10:38 pm | Reply
How far do you want to go back in determining legitimacy? I agree the referendum was proposed for cynical reasons, but the Tories were the ruling party. Do you want to say the parliamentary elections weren’t legitimate because they brought cynical politicians to power? that it’s illegitimate for politicians of the ruling party to want to stay in power? Politicians always lie and spin. Does the fact that they lie mean that the elections aren’t legitimate? Isn’t it people’s responsibility to determine their position and vote on the result that squares best with their determination of their position? People regularly vote against their own interests (see earlier post on “when empathy is a lie,” section on Trump voters and false consciousness). Does that mean their votes are illegitimate?
I don’t see how the referendum in the first place is subject to the charge of unfairness. My understanding is that the Referendum Act makes it legal for the Parliament to propose this type of referendum. The duly elected representatives of the British people passed that that law based on an election promise Cameron made. No ballot boxes were stuffed during the election. There was no incidence of voter fraud that I have heard of. I don’t like the result of this election but I can’t find any basis for calling it illegitimate.
re: racism — you and anyone else are entitled to say whatever you like in the political realm. All I can tell you is what forty years of people calling each other “racist” in the US have wrought — a situation in which the targets of that charge are now largely voting for Trump. If your point is to point out that someone is a racist, if that is the end goal, calling people racist is a good strategy. I think Oprah is right that racists have to die, but the problem is those people have children. If we’d just been waiting for racists to die in the US, the race problem would be almost over by now. Instead, it was either never gone or is getting new energy (or both, as I happen to think). How we say things matters (as Pres. Obama keeps pointing out). It may not be fair that people have to create coalitions with the unlikeminded but it is political reality. Insulting people (whether or not the insults are accurate) is not going to get them to vote for what I want.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 11:10 pm
How far back – I want to go back to the moment Cameron gave a promise without a thought to the consequences – to endanger the economy on the basis of a half argued advisory referendum, which he now walks away from, but which everyone feels the pressure to uphold because it was a vote.
If he wanted it to be legitimate, the question should have been part of a general election – not the promise to ask the question; the actual question itself – with all the parties taking clear positions including the government.
the illegitimacy is from the carelessness of it all – to hold an advisory referendum that will have real consequences that will either take decades to unravel or be irreversible.
At the end of the day, regardless of which side won, there shouldn’t be any uncertainty as to whether the vote is binding on the government, and there shouldn’t be any uncertainty as to what the next step is. The government didn’t support brexit, so who has the mandate to negotiate the exit or trigger article 51?
re racism – no, the goal in calling people out on their racism is to speak candidly on the subject. To be frank, I thought you valued candid speech, even in politics.
I don’t think you can persuade someone not to be racist – at least not with words. Usually after prolonged exposure to a person with dark skin, a racist might mellow into benevolent tolerance. That might be the best we can hope for.
But calling racism as it is also identifies the problem with structural institutions like universities, banks, entertainment (movies and theatres), law, police etc. These things are not going to change by having discussion with “unlike minded people”. It’s is changing because POCs are becoming more economically powerful and just simply outnumbering whites by population. That day will come and it’s coming soon. In fact the sheer numbers of Latinos, blacks, Chinese, and Indians might save America from Trump. So I’m not too worried about insulting Trump supporters if I call them what they are.
Why do you say 40 years by the way?
mimreckoner said this on June 26, 2016 at 2:38 am
I think there’s a difference between “illegitimate” and “ill advised”. Cameron and the Tories had the right to do everything they did. There’s no example I’ve been able to find of anyone breaking any laws in all of this. Was it stupid? Was it playing with fire? Was it destructive? Yes. Was it illegitimate? No. I also don’t see how there’s any uncertainty as to the next step. The next step is for the government to take up in Parliament the question of how to trigger Article 50. Which I assume they plan to do, although not on the timetable that many pro-Brexiters would approve of.
I value candid speech, even in politics, but I also value considering the impact of what one says before one says it. I often read something and think “what an idiot” but the number of times I say that is proportionally minuscule in comparison. There’s a pretty simple rule here about how to build coalitions between different groups of people and one involves “don’t insult people who disagree with them.” I frequently see epithets hurled where they are either inaccurate or destructive, and this willingness to apply labels indiscriminately reduces sympathy for real problems of racism and its consequences. Perhaps we have different definitions of who is a racist or what constitutes racism. But my main reaction to seeing this play out in classrooms over the last two decades is that students who get called out as racists immediately tune out. They are no longer willing to consider abandoning their privilege. If we can’t talk with people we disagree with, we might as well abandon attempts at political and historical education. Which is maybe one of the things the results of this particular referendum point at. In which case, why are we even talking about this at all?
re: POC outnumber whites — yes, the demographics are on the side of non-Whites and this has been a great comfort to me since approximately 2008. But that won’t really hit until 2040 or 2060, by which time I at least will be dead. And even at that point, whites will still be in control of financial assets, political institutions, etc., and POC are likely to be just as internally split as they are now (Blacks have issues with Hispanics and vice versa, no one can stand Koreans, etc., etc., etc.). I just saw voter registration statistics for the southern US states in an article about the likelihood of voter suppression of current minorities in the general election. If your argument is to hold, something big is going to have to change in terms of these populations’ participation in elections. I hope that will be the case. I see my own interests and principles as tied up with those of many of the minority communities I am familiar with.
Maybe you don’t live in a community with any Trump supporters. But those of us who do have to consider how to navigate our everyday lives and yes, engage in governance with these people. Politics doesn’t have to be winner takes all. There is room for cooperation.
I’m 47 and I’ve been reading political news actively for about four decades.
Servetus said this on June 26, 2016 at 2:56 am
I assumed that his comment about the petition was mocking and sarcastic, esp given his tweet yesterday about how clueless so many Leave voters were about what they were actually voting for. I agree with what you say about the petition itself.
piffle said this on June 25, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Reply
Thanks for the comment and welcome. I didn’t consider that it might be sarcastic.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 4:03 pm | Reply
It’s now very clear that I assumed incorrectly! 😃
piffle said this on June 25, 2016 at 6:45 pm | Reply
No, it’s not bad loosing.. it’s sheer desperation and fear, which is a very different state of mind. You have to experience grown ups in a state of shock walking about and people leaning on each other literally crying in fear to believe it. I fully understand the feeling as well as the dread of things being ‘done’ to you that you have no control over, and none of them good. However, i don’t think this will make a difference because no working political system can afford this kind of backtracking. Add to this that the politicians on the winning side will never let the possibility be opened. Sadly, it will be up to both halves to try and be rational and try and keep this together against all odds. Ie the same people will have to pull together to salvage what can be saved.
All it does in the end is serve as a harsh reminder that when it really matters you need to fight for it and not expect that logic, ration, tolerance, ideals and common sense will win. And make sure you talk to people and involve society because if you don’t for good, there sure will be plenty to tap into that for bad 😦
Pity it will be mostly the young generation who already was at the receiving end of the worst of austerity measures who will have to fight through this as well in isolation and with a political class who has anything but their interest at heart. It is a very tough lesson for society and the hardest bit is that to make this shit work and not drag everyone down, the same people who saw the risks and understood the consequences will be the ones who have to pitch in and prevent things from going worse as the ones who have done this have clearly no plan, no ideas, no clue of what they want and how to get there. Pardon my French but it really sucks, twice as much …
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:07 pm | Reply
No one remembers this anymore, but I experienced the Bush / Gore election of 2000, so I’m going to say I know something about experiencing grownups walking around crying and in fear in response to a political event.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Reply
But you can can rid of them in another election… no option like that here. What infuriates me is that there were enough people able to understand the consequences but who didn’t do enough. This could have been prevented with a better campaign and more people involved. Too late to cry about it now. What is needed is chipping in and not letting these muppets run loose with the decision and make things even worse :-S
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:14 pm | Reply
yeah, that episode was pretty meaningless to us and the world as a whole in the long term. A partisan supreme court intervention that broke every rule of judicial procedure led to the insttution of a man as President who started a war in the middle East that will destabilize the region for the next century and that is a direct contributor to the very refugee situation that is creeping up on the EU and the UK.
But by all means, yes, we just erased all that at the subsequent election. Iraq and Afghanistan are in great shape now and there are no refugees flying Syria.
I may not be suffering in the same way as you about this situation, but this is heartbreaking to me, as well. Nonetheless i don’t think it’s worth breaking the basic rules of democracy over. In the end, yes, there are always people who could have done something else — voted, campaigned differently. But they didn’t do it.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:19 pm | Reply
i fully agree with you, i wouldn’t sign it even if i could and i don’t believe in contestations either. That is not how democracy works. …. Well, democracy as we see it internally.
Don’t get me started on the hypocrisy of all our governments about democracy and how we treat others 😦 sigh. Still you had Obama 🙂 Politicians, they are all flawed, but at least some of them do try and do some good 🙂 Exception to the rule maybe.
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Reply
I remember it well. Charges of voter fraud, disenfranchisement and hanging chads. This election is a landslide compared to that one. Do petitions in the UK asking for a re-vote result in new elections? I don’t know if this is a symbolic gesture or UK voters can get a “do-over” when there is a close outcome. Does the majority rule in voting, or do percentages required to pass a law change according to the issue?
Kathy Jones said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Reply
Gawd. Given the way a lot of the primaries came out this year, 52% is not a mandate but it’s a pretty clear majority. I may not like it but it is more than 50 percent.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Reply
Kathy Jones said this on June 25, 2016 at 5:34 pm | Reply
If it helps at all, the person who set up the petition did so before the referendum, at the end of May. It’s only received a lot of attention after the result. I don’t think it will go anywhere.
I’m still struggling to accept….
I live in one of the parts of the country where the majority of people voted to remain. Everyone at work yesterday was stunned. It’s all anybody could talk about.
I wonder if opinion will change when the hens come home to roost, and the effects are felt on the ground.
Hope springs eternal? Or maybe I’m just deluding myself.
I am glad that RA is expressing his opinion on this.
AG said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:10 pm | Reply
I think the only solution to this is a vote of no confidence / dissolution of the government, but I can’t see that happening yet. And I’m not confident given my read of British politics that it would lead to anything better.
I am glad to hear that this petition didn’t just spring out of thin air after the election, though. That points to objections to the electoral process before the result, at least.
One thing I spent a lot of time reading about yesterday was the question of in whose interest a quick exit might be. Clearly British politicians have realized it’s not in theirs. The EU still seems pretty ready to push hard. I don’t think they are going to want to wait until October, even though UK politicians might want to wait until everyone calms down and/or there could be new elections. The real problem is that after all of this theater, if the UK does take steps to get out, it will be doubly hard for them to get back in. The EU can’t be seen to be lenient on this kind of behavior or its entire Eastern boundary will fall apart.
I’m glad he is expressing himself, too. Makes him seem more “robust,” for lack of a better word.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:23 pm | Reply
I agree with your conclusion – it’s not in the UK’s interest to rush this. However, the EU will probably try to make an example of Britain, to prevent others from going down the same road. I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want the stability of the EU to be shaken any further. I suppose we’ll hear more on Tuesday, once they have their meeting.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to the 2 major parties in the UK. They both have to sort themselves out.
I hope that London doesn’t diminish. It’s such a wonderful, vibrant city. They’re talking about withdrawing its banking passport.
Did you hear about the Cornwall council?
AG said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:34 pm | Reply
Cornwall council: yes. I was kind of dumbfounded.
From the EU perspective, Britain has been endangering integration (or to put it more nicely, stalling it, I suppose) for quite a long time already. I seem to remember the EU offering the UK quite a nice deal about two years ago, i.e., you’ll always keep the pound. So it’s not like this isn’t an old problem, and an old story, for EU politicians.
I don’t know about London; I’m guardedly optimistic just because of how much money is there — but I did hear a lot yesterday about the big banks moving employees out if this sticks. Morgan Stanley is supposedly already pulling out 2000 employees to countries staying in the EU.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Reply
Yes, about Morgan Stanley.
Apparently Yorkshire will be imitating Cornwall in their requests. It’s stupefying. A couple of the campaign “promises” have already been withdrawn.
I need to stop thinking about this. It’s driving me nuts.
AG said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:22 pm | Reply
LOL, we love those EU subsidies, we just hate the EU? Defies comprehension. But we have the same issue in the US in some places. We just don’t allow states to leave the union. That’s what the EU needs!!! A bloody civil war!!!! (sarcasm).
I know what you mean about thinking about it too much. It’s all I’ve been reading about for two and a half days now, and I’m overwhelmed, and I’m not even a UKer. Hang in there!
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:24 pm | Reply
Well, this has also emphasized how much of a bubble we live in, in our University city with its multicultural, heterogeneous population, where most everybody is of a similar bent on issues like this. We knew it was close, that much was obvious from the polls, but everybody assumed that it would go the other way!
I’m going to go watch some North & South. Maybe that will help distract me.
Doubtful, but it’s worth a try. Haha.
AG said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:40 pm | Reply
The kiss. I’m tellin’ ya.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:50 pm | Reply
I’ve never felt the difference between London and outside quite as acutely. It hit me this week, before the referendum traveling around. Very likely part of the problem… these differences. Read an article about 10 people and their reasons to leave… there was a stunning amount of resentment towards the capital … people calling it obscene and that recession and austerity is not visible here.. False of course as the bustling tourist center is not London but there is a problem which is real if perceptions are like this. The opinios also made it evident that people unloaded a lot of unhappiness about recent austerity measures on this vote… except this was not an anti Cameron vote…
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 11:46 pm | Reply
I read that article too. You’re absolutely spot-on. There’s a lot of vitriol directed at London. They see it as an epitome of wealth, and they resent what they see as the unfair investment in this part of the country. There’s no acknowlegement that the majority of Londoners have to face the incredible costs that are associated with living/working there.
Some people used this as a protest vote, perhaps without considering the ramifications. Others accepted the Leave campaign’s promises…and I’m not going to say anything on that.
So many misconceptions. It’s something that the politicians and media have contributed to over the years. What do you do about them?
AG said this on June 26, 2016 at 8:04 am | Reply
just wanted to say I am not sure why this comment went to moderation.
Servetus said this on June 27, 2016 at 2:18 am
Also read articles about Frankfurt welcoming the move of potentially about 10,000 jobs… i am sure over-estimated but let’s put it this way:economics will not wait for politics to sort itself out
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 11:37 pm | Reply
And the affordable housing problem around Frankfurt becomes five times worse …
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 11:38 pm | Reply
And won’t make London’s any better as the financial peeps have no problem affording crazy London prices… they’ll just vacate more properties for foreign investors to chuck money at but never live in.
Hariclea said this on June 25, 2016 at 11:52 pm | Reply
I was reading this somewhere yesterday — if there is a housing bubble in England and prices fall because of this (some building firms’ stocks down up to 25% on Friday), it just opens up more properties to foreign investors.
Servetus said this on June 26, 2016 at 12:02 am | Reply
Yes particularly in London we owe much of it to the future PM Boris the clown Johnson. Prices would have to plummet by multiples for it to become affordable for most people in non-city jobs who work here to live here. And we still love the city.. go figure 😉
Hariclea said this on June 26, 2016 at 12:06 am | Reply
Thanks for the clarification. Do you mean the petition was created in advance of the referendum vote, to be activated if Brexit won? A kind of “just in case” petition?
Kathy Jones said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:29 pm | Reply
The petition was set up requesting the goverment to mandate a second referendum if the turnout of the first was <75% and the majority vote was <60% in either direction, i.e. irrespective of whether leave or remain won.
I don’t know what the person who set it up intended, but I think it has now become a way for people to express their frustration/disappointment/anger.
AG said this on June 25, 2016 at 8:56 pm | Reply
Thanks, I am having trouble understanding the process. I hope I am not the only one.
Kathy Jones said this on June 25, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Reply
I should have added that any petition that garners 100,000 signatures has to be considered by parliament.
AG said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:23 pm | Reply
For me there’s a reminiscence of the Danish vote of no to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The result sent shock waves through Europe. As it turned out, most weren’t really sure what the referendum was about, and so they voted no. It was a no to the EU.
Then in 1993, Danes voted yes to the Edinburgh agreement, which gave us the four opt-outs, which remain in force to this day.
This was a case of voting, not liking the outcome/regretting the decision, renegotiating, and having a new referendum. It’s been done before.
Mermaid said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:38 pm | Reply
Yes, but it wasn’t done by means of a petition that a fraction of voters signed. It was done through an agreed upon process. Renegotiate, fine, but first the UK government needs to follow the process and decide how to deal with the results of this referendum. Not have another referendum because many people didn’t like the results of this one. There is an established procedure. This petition will be considered because it exceeded the signatures, and my guess is that that is the answer that people will get — that we just had a referendum.
Servetus said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Reply
True. I don’t believe there was a petition, because that’s not how politics usually works here.
There was more information about what the decision would entail and more focus in the benefits of an EU membership.
It still takes me back though. The turmoil and uncertainty.
Mermaid said this on June 25, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Reply
I just read an interesting commentary that suggested that Cameron’s resignation was essentially an instance of falling on his sword to kill the Brexiteers. The decisive question in the attempt to replace him will be: will you trigger Article 50? Anyone who wins that election, if they don’t trigger Article 50, is done. If they do trigger Article 50, the chaos will be such that they will be done. And if they stand up and say essentially, we can’t afford to trigger Article 50, they will be done. Supposedly, by refusing to trigger Article 50 immediately, the argument goes, Cameron more or less prevented anyone else from doing so either without ending their political career.
Servetus said this on June 26, 2016 at 3:27 am | Reply
Interesting and very likely as the negotiations and economic consequences will be such that whoever is in charge will inevitably feel the backlash. At this point not triggering article 50 is not an option i think EU officials have also made it clear that they want it happening soon. I don’t think politicians can afford to ignore 52%of voters and EU is not prepared to sit and wait. Unfortunately i don’t think they are prepared for the negotiations at all…
Hariclea said this on June 26, 2016 at 5:28 am | Reply
Me either. Although they did at least organize that 250 bn pounds to keep the pound liquid.
Servetus said this on June 26, 2016 at 4:38 pm | Reply
I’ll leave it after this:
I don’t think anybody in Britain has any idea of what is going to happen next: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/fightback-against-brexit-on-cards-remain-eu-referendum-heseltine
mimreckoner said this on June 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm | Reply
Guardian also reports at least 77,000 fraudulent signatures on the “petition.” 39,000 people “signed” in Vatican City. (Just so you know, I pretty much read that paper constantly so you can assume I have read whatever’s in there).
The fact that events have spiraled out of control and that the parties don’t have their affairs in order is not the fault of a supposedly illegitimate referendum, however. Everything’s been done legally.
Servetus said this on June 26, 2016 at 7:08 pm | Reply
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Click on the image to see fan support and donate!
Like / Friend / Follow me on Facebook [click here]
Blog at WordPress.com.