Brexit - in or out

[counter_violent]

bunch of failures who can't deal with the truth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ang-scupper-EU-pull-17-million-voted-for.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...f-told-stands-Britain-voted-against-quit.html

 

[Atilla]

It would I think have been better all round not to call the new show Top Gear. They will fall far short of the original. And as for a Yank in charge ? I don't think so really. Bound to be an advertising slot for GM and Ford.

I reckon bbc sd use same format as have I got news for you and have several bbc reps present the show so it's a rolling format. Like 007, get some fresh n ready faces.

It's the format of the show and the cars that's the star. Faces come n go.

 

[Inquisitor]

Corbyn cannot under any circumstances survive and will not be leading the party by the next election which may even be later this year.

As for Scotland, they will not be able to meet the criteria to join the EU and Spain would almost certainly veto their attempt to join anyway.

As things stand Scotland spends £14 billion more than it takes in taxes and that deficit comes from the rest of the UK. If they were to join the EU they would be expected to contribute which may be about £1 billion a year.

So they need to find an additional £15 billion a year from their own population to be able to join the EU and have a population of 5.3 Million.

That means that every person in the country would need to contribute an additional £2830 each to pay for their current spending plans. Any attempt to shove this onto businesses would result in them leaving the country. It is simply a dream that the people of Scotland would accept this as a price for leaving the UK and joining the EU. People always put their own economic situation ahead of anything else and that alone would stop this happening.

 

[OLdNoob]

Corbyn cannot under any circumstances survive and will not be leading the party by the next election which may even be later this year.

As for Scotland, they will not be able to meet the criteria to join the EU and Spain would almost certainly veto their attempt to join anyway.

As things stand Scotland spends £14 billion more than it takes in taxes and that deficit comes from the rest of the UK. If they were to join the EU they would be expected to contribute which may be about £1 billion a year.

So they need to find an additional £15 billion a year from their own population to be able to join the EU and have a population of 5.3 Million.

That means that every person in the country would need to contribute an additional £2830 each to pay for their current spending plans. Any attempt to shove this onto businesses would result in them leaving the country. It is simply a dream that the people of Scotland would accept this as a price for leaving the UK and joining the EU. People always put their own economic situation ahead of anything else and that alone would stop this happening.

Apparently not we voted for an exit with most of the leave vote admitting that they accept an economic downturn would be the price to pay.

 

[Pat494]

Someone mentioned that Scotland could scupper the EU exit. Can this happen and how. If a vote was taken in Parliament tomorrow the MPs would and could, almost certainly change the Brexit result. If they have any working brain cells between them they could insist on a vote being taken before the November deadline.

A bit like the hokey cokey dance..............put the left side in and shake it all about

 

[Pat494]

Spain is still deadlocked politically. Maybe this is the new norm ?

 

[mike.]

I reckon bbc sd use same format as have I got news for you and have several bbc reps present the show so it's a rolling format. Like 007, get some fresh n ready faces.

It's the format of the show and the cars that's the star. Faces come n go.

It wasn't really about the show , it was more about the three charicter's and the shananigans they got up to, Clarkson and co probably would of beat the current top gear vewing figures doing a cooking show...

 

[swissy]

Someone mentioned that Scotland could scupper the EU exit. Can this happen and how. If a vote was taken in Parliament tomorrow the MPs would and could, almost certainly change the Brexit result. If they have any working brain cells between them they could insist on a vote being taken before the November deadline.

A bit like the hokey cokey dance..............put the left side in and shake it all about

I have my reservations about Brexit but at the end of the day a decision was made, lets get on with it; the more indecisive we are the less confidence other countries and the UK population will have in the result.
Need real leadership and inspiration to drive this forward - they are all sorts of opportunities out there in the future both in the EU and globally - there will be difficulties and challenges of course but also real opportunities.

 

[counter_violent]

Now over half of Labour shadow cabinet quit.

 

[swissy]

Now over half of Labour shadow cabinet quit.

Oh well... at least the referendum has provided some entertainment.

 

[Pat494]

As Splitt pointed out the referendum should have had a change threshold, perhaps 60%. A simple majority won't silence critics. Run it again tomorrow and a different result would be likely.

 

[timsk]

Interesting interview with Mervyn King, former BoE big cheese on Radio 4's World at One in which he hinted we're right to come out. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but Martha Kearney - the show's presenter - picked up on it and suggested as much. In response, and in a bid to appear impartial, he said that neither side fought a good campaign and that he deliberately refrained from taking sides - both before and after Thursday's vote. However, he was very clear that remain's 'project fear' was a big mistake and criticized Osborne for coming out with specific figures regarding how much worse off we'll all be if we vote leave and for threatening to have an emergency budget.
Tim.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I have just seen Johnson leaving home saying, " pensions are safe, the pound is stable, the markets are stable" !!!!!!
And this man might be the next PM !!!!!
Which planet is he on?
Anyone old enough to remember that other arch manipulator Harold Wilson saying that devaluation “does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued” ?
I despair for my country.

 

[Atilla]

It wasn't really about the show , it was more about the three charicter's and the shananigans they got up to, Clarkson and co probably would of beat the current top gear vewing figures doing a cooking show...

Oh

 

[barjon]

I have just seen Johnson leaving home saying, " pensions are safe, the pound is stable, the markets are stable" !!!!!!
And this man might be the next PM !!!!!
Which planet is he on?
Anyone old enough to remember that other arch manipulator Harold Wilson saying that devaluation “does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued” ?
I despair for my country.

Well, you can't say we don't have influence in the world. One word from us and the world's markets go into meltdown

 

[Mr. Charts]

We WERE the world's fifth largest economy.

 

[Signalcalc]

Why is Osborne still in position, he's lied ( more than the others) throughout the campaign. No emergency budget, no immediate tax rises, no changes to pensions? I'm disappointed I was really looking forward to falling on hard times.

Oh well, I just hope they don't install a remainian at the top otherwise we could be in for a very long Brexit indeed.

 

[samfarrell]

It was a vote based mainly on immigration, not economics
The economic argument is not at all sound
No one voted for Boris to be PM either

 

[new_trader]

Everything is Brexit.

Well, you can't say we don't have influence in the world. One word from us and the world's markets go into meltdown

That’s funny, but I actually think that from now on, everything is Brexit.

• Fed doesn’t raise rates, it’s Brexit.
• Markets crash, it’s Brexit.
• Terrorist bombing, it’s Brexit.
• Can’t get a mortgage, it’s Brexit.
• etc

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
- Adolf Hitler

 

[Atilla]

Sour grapes or valid points to ponder about???


Opinion: The Brexit vote wasn’t democratic at all

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate) — The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the “Leave” campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.

This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence — far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) — has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No. Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not. Did the U.K.’s population really know what they were voting on? Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the U.K. in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability. I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––




The current standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.
Mind you, citizens of the West are blessed to live in a time of peace: changing circumstances and priorities can be addressed through democratic processes instead of foreign and civil wars. But what, exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions? Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup on a rainy day?

In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU. Brexiteers did not invent this game; there is ample precedent, including Scotland in 2014 and Quebec in 1995. But, until now, the gun’s cylinder never stopped on the bullet. Now that it has, it is time to rethink the rules of the game.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term. Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

That’s why enacting, say, a constitutional amendment generally requires clearing far higher hurdles than passing a spending bill. Yet the current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

With Europe now facing the risk of a slew of further breakup votes, an urgent question is whether there is a better way to make these decisions. I polled several leading political scientists to see whether there is any academic consensus; unfortunately, the short answer is no.

0:00 / 0:00
Clinton: 'Brexit' means the U.S. needs an experienced leader(1:22)
For one thing, the Brexit decision may have looked simple on the ballot, but in truth no one knows what comes next after a leave vote. What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum, the majority ought to be demonstrably stable. A country should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion. Even if the U.K. economy does not fall into outright recession after this vote (the pound’s decline might cushion the initial blow), there is every chance that the resulting economic and political disorder will give some who voted to leave “buyers’ remorse.”

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard. In the Spartan assemblies of ancient Greece, votes were cast by acclamation. People could modulate their voice to reflect the intensity of their preferences, with a presiding officer carefully listening and then declaring the outcome. It was imperfect, but maybe better than what just happened in the U.K.

By some accounts, Sparta’s sister state, Athens, had implemented the purest historical example of democracy. All classes were given equal votes (albeit only males). Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies.

What should the U.K. have done if the question of EU membership had to be asked (which by the way, it didn’t)? Surely, the hurdle should have been a lot higher; for example, Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons. If Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.

The U.K. vote has thrown Europe into turmoil. A lot will depend on how the world reacts and how the U.K. government manages to reconstitute itself. It is important to take stock not just of the outcome, though, but of the process. Any action to redefine a long-standing arrangement on a country’s borders ought to require a lot more than a simple majority in a one-time vote. The current international norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen, a formula for chaos.

Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist of the IMF, is professor of economics and public policy at Harvard University.

This article was published with the permission of Project Syndicate.



Let's think about this carefully for one short second.