Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Traitorfish]

The thing with Unionists, I think, is that they're not operating under any pretense of universal principles. Some people might tend to think in terms of "small polities are generally better" or "large polities are generally better", and indeed, there are some pro-indy/anti-EU and anti-indy/pro-EU people towing each of those respective lines. But mainline Unionism- the kind that's so popular in England, even if the English struggle to recognise it as such- doesn't hold with that sort of liberalism. The Union isn't supposed to be the model of the ideal state, it is what it is, what history has turned over to us, sacred and sovereign, and a pox upon all innovations. The Queen isn't the Queen because that's the best way to organise a government, she's the Queen because she's the Queen, and the rest follows on the same lines.

There's an internal logic to it, if you can overlook the fact that "history" isn't so much the hand of Providence as it is the particular, unlikely outcome of a lot of long-dead bluebloods trying to grab each others' loot. Which, evidently, a lot of people can.

 

[warpus]

Problem is, there's no such thing as "internal English matters", strictly speaking. The highest sub-division of the United Kingdom is the region, not the "nation", of which there are twelve, not four. Three of the region have been accorded national status and had certain legislative rights reserved to them, while the other nine have not, and the inhabitants of those regions have never shown much interest in having such rights reserved to them.

Most sources seem to cite that the United Kingdom is made up of 4 countries. Plus England seems to be identified everywhere as a country.

But then they don't have their own website even. I tried to find it and it doesn't seem to exist. I'm so confused. Does.. England exist?

 

[Dachs]

I admit my faith in bookies has been blown a big hit. Let's just hope they're also not wrong about Trump (they're giving Clinton 75% odds of winning).

Bob Voulgaris talked about this yesterday evening. High-volume bettors don't care about Betfair because there's such a low cap on bets. It's not a very deep market, so there's an excellent chance that it won't be super predictive.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" what is permissible for Jove (god) is not permissible for oxen (people).

Job's problems were of a different sort.

Ah...!

It would be way funnier if it was Job and literal oxen, though

 

[kronic]

I for one also got some good chuckles out of this vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

What?

Oh, and, wait, no more money?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...erwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html

 

[Bootstoots]

I for one also got some good chuckles out of this vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

What?

Oh, and, wait, no more money?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...erwhelmingly-votes-in-favour-of-a7101311.html

Given all the misinformation on both sides, I wouldn't blame UK citizens for being extremely confused about what the EU is and how it functions. The google query "What is the EU?" is designed to bring up basic and relatively neutral information about the EU, which would help to inform people of where they're going from here. I'm rather sure most people had at least some (often distorted) idea of what the EU is; it's not like they had just heard of it for the first time when they went into the polling station and googled it when they got home.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As may be, but I do recall from "The Great Debate", that the UK being in the EU was for many Scots the only reason for them remaining in the UK.

They chose to commit to the UK knowing full well that an EU referendum was on the way and that there was no guarantee that that arrangement would continue.

 

[hoplitejoe]

They have a right to self determination.


If people who voted leave didn't see this coming, brexiters are even more blind to reality than I already thought.

 

[Lexicus]

There's an internal logic to it, if you can overlook the fact that "history" isn't so much the hand of Providence as it is the particular, unlikely outcome of a lot of long-dead bluebloods trying to grab each others' loot. Which, evidently, a lot of people can.

Over here it's even worse People actually think the Confederacy is something to be proud of.

 

[Zkribbler]

Over here it's even worse People actually think the Confederacy is something to be proud of.

I will not laugh. I will not laugh. I will not laugh. I will not laugh.

 

[plarq]

Over here it's even worse People actually think the Confederacy is something to be proud of.

It is a lost cause. So that makes themselves feel more heroic as heroes in Ancient Greek tragedies.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

They have a right to self determination.

They had a referendum less than 2 years ago. How is that not self-determination? You can't just keep having referenda every 5 minutes, it totally undermines the point of them.

But at the very least I think that the next time we DO have one we really need to sort all this crap out BEFORE we have it. We need to have it all laid out in black and white exactly what will happen in the event of either vote winning. We also need to be clear what is the minimum winning margin (if any) in order for the vote to be valid. Otherwise we're just going to get this pathetic squabbling every time where the losing side acts like a child who isn't getting their own way, constantly altering the rules of the game. You don't get to participate in a referendum and then only abide by the result if it's the one that you wanted*, and throw your toys out of the pram otherwise. It's pathetic.

*Obviously, and unfortunately, this is a statement of principle more than a statement of fact in practice.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I have always thought the EU was just a Swedish game with the latest version being the most sophisticated and interesting. I must have got it wrong somewhere.

 

[HAND]

They have a right to self determination.


If people who voted leave didn't see this coming, brexiters are even more blind to reality than I already thought.

Some are regretful without the prospect of Scotland leaving the UK.

There will always be a sense of regret for conflicted voters. Had the opposing side won, there still would have been shock and regret just for different reasons.

 

[Rashiminos]

You guys are about to lose your fifth column in Europe.

#Frexit?

 

[Bootstoots]

There will always be a sense of regret for conflicted voters. Had the opposing side won, there still would have been shock and regret just for different reasons.

For fence-sitters, there would probably not have been shock so much as continued resignation to the status quo, and maybe a tinge of regret for not trying to change things. Things would go on in the usual unsatisfying but fairly predictable manner.

Business as usual normally evokes less passion than substantial changes to business as usual do, which is a big part of why the Leave campaign supporters were more aggressive while Remain supporters just trotted out all the experts and predicted financial doomsday but appeared less fanatical in person.

In US politics, this is a big part of why the Sanders supporters were both more enthusiastic and more obnoxious (flaming, spurious claims about rigged elections, etc) than Clinton supporters. Clinton is an uninspiring status quo candidate that few people have strong positive feelings for, while Sanders is inspiring (to some) and polarizing. Likewise on the GOP side with Trump versus e.g. Kasich or Bush.

 

[onejayhawk]

I have two questions:

Was anyone here seriously surprised that the movement succeeded?
What is not for the EU?

J

 

[qwerty25]

They had a referendum less than 2 years ago. How is that not self-determination? You can't just keep having referenda every 5 minutes, it totally undermines the point of them.



But at the very least I think that the next time we DO have one we really need to sort all this crap out BEFORE we have it. We need to have it all laid out in black and white exactly what will happen in the event of either vote winning. We also need to be clear what is the minimum winning margin (if any) in order for the vote to be valid. Otherwise we're just going to get this pathetic squabbling every time where the losing side acts like a child who isn't getting their own way, constantly altering the rules of the game. You don't get to participate in a referendum and then only abide by the result if it's the one that you wanted*, and throw your toys out of the pram otherwise. It's pathetic.



*Obviously, and unfortunately, this is a statement of principle more than a statement of fact in practice.

I'm neither Scottish nor British, but couldn't one argue that the British lied in their original case and have broken many guarantees?

Arguments for Scotland remaining in 2014:
Staying in the EU. Well that obviously isn't happening.

Better economy and currency. As one can see from the British stock market being possibly excluded from the Eu is detrimental to the economy.

There's various more arguments but the largest ones have been removed.

 

[plarq]

UK quit EU, Scotland will quit UK!

 

[Bootstoots]

I admit my faith in bookies has been blown a big hit. Let's just hope they're also not wrong about Trump (they're giving Clinton 75% odds of winning).

The bookie odds were always a bit strange on the Brexit question. UK polls are fairly bad relative to US ones and usually bias left when they are wrong - for instance, they were off by a lot in 1992 and 2015. The polls coming up to the referendum showed a narrow edge for Leave before the Cox assassination, but the oddsmakers never had Leave above the low 40s, IIRC. After Cox was killed, the polls shifted to a very slight Remain lead of 2-3 points, and the odds were dropped to ~15%, far below the odds a 2-3 point lead would usually imply. I have no idea why the bookies were so confident in Remain despite the very close polls and Britain's spotty polling history.