Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[JohannaK]

So you are saying that any reason why someone would have voted Remain has been nullified because Leave won? This is disingenuous at best.

EDIT: Especially with regards to D), because if this people have an economic incentive to stay in the EU, this will not disappear just because the money dries up because the UK has left the EU. They should be expected to always vote Remain in the hope of once more getting that money. Then there is also a subtype of A), assuming that your four reasons are the only possible reasons, and that is people who might not be directly benefited but who appreciate benefits and believe that the whole country is better off with them. These have no reason to stop voting Remain either.

 

[EnglishEdward]

So you are saying that any reason why someone would have voted Remain has been nullified because Leave won?

No, that is not what I am saying.

But some of the reasons for voting Remain may not be as
important next time round.

Although for other reasons such as true belief in an ever closer union,
their motivation to re-vote Remain would presumably remain.

Especially with regards to D), because if this people have an economic incentive to stay in the EU, this will not disappear just because the money dries up because the UK has left the EU. They should be expected to always vote Remain in the hope of once more getting that money.

The money dries up. The EU subsidised job ends. The person gets a different job.
Their interests then become about the security of income from their new job.

Then there is also a subtype of A), assuming that your four reasons are the only possible reasons, and that is people who might not be directly benefited but who appreciate benefits and believe that the whole country is better off with them.

I did not say that there are only four reasons why UK voters voted Remain.
It is really for the Remainers to explain their reasons and all I can do is comment
on some of the more obvious reasons put forward by remainers or remain campaign.

 

[Akka]

The EEC and later the EU was an american project for Europe

I mean...

No, just

 

[Lohrenswald]

Warsaw Treaty, 1970?
http://www.documentarchiv.de/brd/1970/warschauer-vertrag.html

you assume knowing that is common knowledge?

thanks for refence now, though

 

[Arakhor]

The fact is that the pro Remain side was only united in being anti vote Leave.

As opposed to the Leave campaign being totally (not) united, you mean?

 

[Wastl]

You are wrong:


The bold roughly translates to:
[The FRG and Poland] affirm the inviolableness of the existing borders, now and in future.

Well, technically that agreement didn't do much in terms of actually dealing with the issue once and for all. As the German constitutional court stated after the treaty, any change in the borders of Germany could not be decided by the government of Germany as long as Germany was under allied supervision. Any such decision would have to be made by the four powers as a whole, as Germany did not have the necesary sovereignity to make such a decision. The treaties of Warsaw and Moscow actually state quite clearly that neither agreement fulfills that criteria. The whole thing was about Brandt assuring Poland that they didn't have to worry about Germany trying to get its land back, without technically breaking the law and international agreements.

Innonimatu is quite clearly wrong though, because there most definately wasn't any revanchism or even German re-militarisation anywhere on the horizon, nor did Kohl actively try to get the eastern lands back. What he did was what he had to do, because he was bound by the German law and the order of the constitutional court, which did not grant him the ability to officially hand over those territories. It wasn't about making changes, it was about keeping the status quo of not officially giving up those territories, while silently agreeing that Poland was in control of them anyway.

So the quote he gave from Kohl was actually true and not some sort of tactic. The position of the CDU had always been - and this was supported by decisions by the constitutional court . that it wasn't allowed to hand over these territories. As such, he couldn't make this decision, which explain his demand that it is something a sovereign Germany would have to decide.

They found a way around this, by having the Bundestag and the Volkskammer release an identical statement that the eastern borders with Poland were final. If the Allies hadn't been deadset about this issue, the only difference would have been that the issue wouldn't be officially settled. In practical terms nothing would have been different, because the territories still would have been controlled by Poland, with Germany doing nothing to gain it back.

 

[EnglishEdward]

As opposed to the Leave campaign being totally (not) united, you mean?

I quite happily admit that the various Leave campaigners had quite
different ideas as to the direction an independent UK might go.

But that does not change the point that the Remainers were and are
divided between advocates and opponents of ever closer union.

 

[Arakhor]

Given that was common knowledge to anyone who paid any attention at all, I'm not sure why you even bothered making the point.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Given that was common knowledge to anyone who paid any attention at all, I'm not sure why you even bothered making the point.

I'm not following closely, but I'd guess it's a reaction to the constant portrayal of Leave voters as a bunch of deluded morons who hold a mish mash of incompatible goals and beliefs. Saying that about one side, and only one side, kind of implies that it's not true of the others, so it might be worthwhile to counter it occasionally.

 

[Arakhor]

You know, you keep popping up in this thread to say variations on that theme, as if this thread is filled with such comments. It really isn't.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No of course not. Nor is it repeated all over the internet. It's barely ever been said in fact. Nothing but respect for Leave voters.

 

[Arakhor]

Yet somehow this is my fault? You keep responding to my posts with variations on this theme, after all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Representative democracy is a substitute for direct democracy because the
UK is too big for citizens to walk to the city of London (cf ancient Athens) and
vote in person, so the referendum was rather more than a consultation.

What I meant was, the referendum was not legally binding. The legislation providing for the referendum did not private for any obligations or time-frame for enacting Article 50, so parliament are not and have never been under any strict obligation to uphold the result of the referendum.

 

[Lillefix]

What I meant was, the referendum was not legally binding. The legislation providing for the referendum did not private for any obligations or time-frame for enacting Article 50, so parliament are not and have never been under any strict obligation to uphold the result of the referendum.

Imagine a prime minister saying that Cameron was wrong in holding the referendum and leaving is simply not in Britain's best interest despite what the majority thinks. So Britain stays. What would happen?

 

[Traitorfish]

Imagine a prime minister saying that Cameron was wrong in holding the referendum and leaving is simply not in Britain's best interest despite what the majority thinks. So Britain stays. What would happen?

The political consequences of ignoring the referendum result have no bearing on parliament's obligation to enact the referendum result; however, the lack of an obligation to enact the referendum result does have a bearing on the possible political consequences of ignoring it.

It's hard to organise a revolution because parliament didn't do a thing it had no obligation to do, and which you agreed it had no obligation to do, but which you now regret to doing so. People tend to require something a bit more blood-and-thunder to get them to the barricades.

 

[Takhisis]

Nothing. From legal point of view, nothing at all.

You could end up with a shambles if, say, you had demonstrations in England in favour of Leave and in Scotland for Remain.

 

[JohannaK]

Well, Parliament would be ignoring the will of the people, even if that was more of a massive opinion poll organised by the government than a binding referendum. I can see how that would upset a lot of people. On the other hand, I dont envision any PM either backtracking on the referendum or invoking article 50 in the nezt few years.

 

[Traitorfish]

In Britain, parliament is sovereign, not the people, so even if a slim plurality could be said to represent the popular will, parliament has no strict obligation to respect or even acknowledge that will.

The same, incidentally, applies to the Scottish independence referendum, in which I firmly supported a "yes" vote. (The trick there, mind, is that we have out own parliament of ill-defined sovereignty, so the avenue for "revolution" was a little clearer. The Scottish parliament could, hypothetically, declare unilateral independence, but Britain can't declare independence from itself.)

 

[Takhisis]

But the current incarnation of the Scottish Parliament originates from an Act passed by the Parliament down in London…

 

[Traitorfish]

Certainly, and so ultimate sovereignty remains with the Westminster parliament.

But if the Scottish Parliament were to assert itself the sovereign parliament of an independent state, well, you've entered Schrodinger territory where the claim is simultaneously true and untrue, and we don't know until it's resolved.