View Poll Results: Brexit vote
Theresa May wins the Brexit vote 1 2.38%
May loses, calls a snap general election 4 9.52%
May loses, is defeated in a vote of no confidence 6 14.29%
May loses, wins a vote of no confidence 25 59.52%
May postpones the vote yet again 4 9.52%
Something else that you’ll explain 2 4.76%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:59 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The voters who voted for the new University can object to all of those things without giving up the idea that they still want a University.

IOW, the people voted to Leave. How they leave, or what methods are used, or any new referendum should be only based upon the method of leaving, not the revisiting of the question of leaving.
Well, that's another problem with your analogy - comparing Brexit to something positive. It's more akin to being asked 'if we should build a new building' and finding out the building built is a charnelhouse for Soylent Green.
  #102  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:02 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy_wuzzy View Post
No, I don't believe folk would just shrug their shoulders under such circumstances. However, the electorate would have a clear(ish) choice in front of them. They would have a party(the lib dems) on their ballot paper who have remained fairly committed to staying in the EU, or they could choose between either of the main 2 parties and whatever Brexit policy the 2 main parties are then proposing. The electorate can support or kick out whichever party is deems worthy of supporting or kicking out. A Parliamtary U-turn on Brexit though will mean ALL cards are off the table when it comes to future Parliamentary politics.
Will still happen if Brexit happens. Imagine what happens, if May's deal passes, when the first EU regulation that is contentious and unpopular is handed down from Brussels.

Imagine if, under No Deal, medicines run out, food costs skyrocket, and jobs leave in droves.

Both will fuel the far right more than cancelling Brexit will.

Quote:
We have seen the yellow vest movement rock the French political establishment; a movement sparked by a marginal increase in fuel tax. I can only imagine what a Brexit U-turn would spark here in the UK. I predict populism (of some sort of another) on steroids.
I for one am not inclined to think appeasing the far right will make the far right go away. That kind of thinking was bust in 1939.

No.

We stand and stop this now. If we Brexit in future, it should be on a concrete plan, honestly presented and debated.

This? Here? This isn't democratic. It's a mockery, an abortion of democracy. Letting it pass gives the signal that as long as you win, it doesn't matter how you win. Fake news will go into overdrive.
  #103  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:37 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,734
Everyone in politics (which, in a democracy, means everyone) needs to understand the distinction between what [b]can[/i] be done, what may be done, and what should be done. The problem with Brexit, ultimately, stems from a lack of this understanding.

Suppose that there is a referendum asking whether the government should set the value of pi to exactly 4. The referendum passes. What should the government do? The question is irrelevant, because the government can't set the value of pi. The government's failure to change the value of pi doesn't reflect on the government; it reflects (and very poorly) on the electorate, who tried to force the government to do something impossible. And it also reflects very poorly on the previous government, who even asked such a foolish question to begin with.

This is the same situation that the UK faces. The People have spoken, and what they want is a deal with all of the privileges and none of the responsibilities of EU membership. Which is impossible. It was irresponsible to ask the question in the first place, and the only responsible course of action is to either ignore the response entirely, or to ask another question which only admits of answers which are actually possible.
  #104  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:05 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It recognized that position as valid, so much so that it put it to a referendum. Once that is done, they cannot be heard to say that they must be "adults" and override it. That is bad faith.
Not only can they do that, they should do that. They asked the public for advice on whether to leave the EU, it turns out that that advice was dangerously wrong. It is the job of Parliament, representing the interest of their constituents, to ensure that this dangerous event does not come to pass.

Even if the majority of people want to leave the EU, still, that should not be the only determining factor. We want many other things, things that require a strong economy and sensible trade policies, those things including affordable food and medicine, and god jobs. It is the job of the representatives to deliver this, and if not all of it is possible, to have the balls to say so, and to make the right decision. Which in this case is quite clearly not to leave the EU.
  #105  
Old 01-16-2019, 01:07 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,976
Brexit vote prediction thread

Just for curiousity, I looked at the West Virginia state Constitution to see how the people can amend their fundamental document.

Turns out it's a four step process, under Article XIV:

1. People who want to call a constitutional convention can petition the Legislature to call a referendum on establishing a constitutional convention. If both chambers pass a law for the convention, there will be a referendum three months later.

2. At the referendum, the people vote whether they are in favour of holding a constitutional convention.

3. If the people vote for a constitutional convention, the convention meets and can propose constitutional amendments.

4. There is then a second referendum, where the people vote whether or not to enact the proposed amendments.

That strikes me as a well-balanced, orderly process for something as significant as a constitutional amendment, which can have major effects for years. The people initiate it, through their elected officials and then by an initial referendum; an elected convention studies the issues in detail and come up with a proposal; the people then decide whether to approve what the smaller body came up with.

Pity Britain didn't think the process through with that much attention.

http://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/...cfm#articleXIV

Last edited by Northern Piper; 01-16-2019 at 01:11 PM.
  #106  
Old 01-16-2019, 01:20 PM
Fuzzy_wuzzy Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
Will still happen if Brexit happens. Imagine what happens, if May's deal passes, when the first EU regulation that is contentious and unpopular is handed down from Brussels.

Imagine if, under No Deal, medicines run out, food costs skyrocket, and jobs leave in droves.

Both will fuel the far right more than cancelling Brexit will.



I for one am not inclined to think appeasing the far right will make the far right go away. That kind of thinking was bust in 1939.

No.

We stand and stop this now. If we Brexit in future, it should be on a concrete plan, honestly presented and debated.

This? Here? This isn't democratic. It's a mockery, an abortion of democracy. Letting it pass gives the signal that as long as you win, it doesn't matter how you win. Fake news will go into overdrive.
Just to point out that I am predicting more populism. It could be of the left or right wing variety. The centre/establishment of both main parties will become less relevant. I do believe right wing populism will benefit more but I say this only tentatively.
  #107  
Old 01-16-2019, 01:39 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree. The particular method of Brexit was known to be a difficult and as yet unknown proposition in June, 2016. Maybe a second referendum should be held as to the particular method of Brexit, but not on Leave itself.

You have done an excellent job of trying to paint it as otherwise, but you are in essence asking for a do-over.

Imagine a referendum on building a new State University. The opposition argues that there is no way to build a new university without deep cuts in healthcare. Notwithstanding the opposition argument, the people vote for it anyways.

Now, as construction is about to begin, the opposition argues that there needs to be a re-vote because we would have to make deep cuts in healthcare. That proposition was understood and is not a new circumstances that just gobsmacked everyone.
I don't see the problem. If the drawbacks to Brexit were fully understood by the people who voted for it, then a second referendum would surely yield the same result, no? On the other hand, if you think there's a genuine chance that Remain would win a second referendum, then you must be tacitly admitting that the Leave side was misled during the first referendum.
  #108  
Old 01-16-2019, 01:43 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 6,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I don't see the problem. If the drawbacks to Brexit were fully understood by the people who voted for it, then a second referendum would surely yield the same result, no? On the other hand, if you think there's a genuine chance that Remain would win a second referendum, then you must be tacitly admitting that the Leave side was misled during the first referendum.
Exactly. UltraVires is basically arguing that a majority of the electorate were successfully tricked into starting to walk towards a cliff the first time around; and that we should heroically defend democratic values by insisting that they all continue to walk off the edge of the cliff hand in hand - even if the majority now don't want to die.
  #109  
Old 01-16-2019, 02:07 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,456
Division! Clear the lobby!

Vote is underway...

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-16-2019 at 02:07 PM.
  #110  
Old 01-16-2019, 02:16 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,456
306-325...VONC fails.

UNLOCK!

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-16-2019 at 02:17 PM.
  #111  
Old 01-16-2019, 02:30 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
306-325...VONC fails.

UNLOCK!
Are you going to watch the next debate - the one about car production in Solihull? It's one for the Parliament TV purists. I admit the appeal is less than widespread.
  #112  
Old 01-16-2019, 02:52 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Are you going to watch the next debate - the one about car production in Solihull? It's one for the Parliament TV purists. I admit the appeal is less than widespread.
I'm afraid I will miss that one.

As a side question...is there an office called the "clark" of the House? They seem to be referring to a clerk. Is that the same thing or is that just a silly way that you all pronounce it?
  #113  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:01 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 6,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm afraid I will miss that one.

As a side question...is there an office called the "clark" of the House? They seem to be referring to a clerk. Is that the same thing or is that just a silly way that you all pronounce it?
It's a silly way we all pronounce it.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.../english/clerk
  #114  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,734
To be clear, for a Yank not familiar with Parliamentary procedure: The vote of no confidence failing means that May retains power, correct?
  #115  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:03 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The vote of no confidence failing means that May retains power, correct?
Yes.
  #116  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:05 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 6,505
Unless Labour takes a firm position on being pro-referendum, it just seems like this indecisive clusterfuck will continue indefinitely. I actually hope that the EU refuses to countenance an extension without some decisive path forward, either general election or referendum or both. I think that they should insist that we get our shit together at least on a process for moving forward to a decision before they grant an extension; or just insist that our only other option is to rescind Article 50 altogether.
  #117  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:31 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Unless Labour takes a firm position on being pro-referendum, it just seems like this indecisive clusterfuck will continue indefinitely. I actually hope that the EU refuses to countenance an extension without some decisive path forward, either general election or referendum or both. I think that they should insist that we get our shit together at least on a process for moving forward to a decision before they grant an extension; or just insist that our only other option is to rescind Article 50 altogether.
I'm wondering if there's some way they could package an "extension" that would continue until some decisive agreement was made thereby letting the clusterfuck work for the status quo instead of the cliff's edge. Does the wording of Article 50 specifically only allow calender extensions?
  #118  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:37 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
To be clear, for a Yank not familiar with Parliamentary procedure: The vote of no confidence failing means that May retains power, correct?
As a followup to this, what would be the consequence of a Tory MP voting in favor of the no confidence motion? Nothing at all or would he or she be assigned to the Falkland Islands Committee on Argentinian relations? Somewhere in between?
  #119  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:44 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I don't see the problem. If the drawbacks to Brexit were fully understood by the people who voted for it, then a second referendum would surely yield the same result, no? On the other hand, if you think there's a genuine chance that Remain would win a second referendum, then you must be tacitly admitting that the Leave side was misled during the first referendum.
That's not what I am saying. I am saying that Remain had a full and fair chance to argue its point during the first referendum. It failed. It is unfair to hold successive referenda until the "right" result is reached, and then the process is stopped after a single victory supported by the Government.

If the Government is going to do that, then the proposition should not be submitted to a referendum in the first place, which, as a political matter, I am not opposed to doing for the reasons Budget Player Cadet mentioned upthread.
  #120  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:45 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 6,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm wondering if there's some way they could package an "extension" that would continue until some decisive agreement was made thereby letting the clusterfuck work for the status quo instead of the cliff's edge. Does the wording of Article 50 specifically only allow calender extensions?
Well, I think simply rescinding Article 50 would amount to that. It would mean that we remain in the EU and nothing changes. If we develop a coherent consensus plan for leaving at some time in the future, we can always re-start the process.

But surely Leavers will be even less happy with that than with a referendum.
  #121  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:51 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As a followup to this, what would be the consequence of a Tory MP voting in favor of the no confidence motion? Nothing at all or would he or she be assigned to the Falkland Islands Committee on Argentinian relations? Somewhere in between?
In a generic sense, there's more range than that. The Conservative party could theoretically not allow him to run as a Tory next election. Practically, that would probably be difficult with a sitting MP and a weak PM.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-16-2019 at 03:52 PM.
  #122  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:52 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Just for curiousity, I looked at the West Virginia state Constitution to see how the people can amend their fundamental document.

Turns out it's a four step process, under Article XIV:

1. People who want to call a constitutional convention can petition the Legislature to call a referendum on establishing a constitutional convention. If both chambers pass a law for the convention, there will be a referendum three months later.

2. At the referendum, the people vote whether they are in favour of holding a constitutional convention.

3. If the people vote for a constitutional convention, the convention meets and can propose constitutional amendments.

4. There is then a second referendum, where the people vote whether or not to enact the proposed amendments.

That strikes me as a well-balanced, orderly process for something as significant as a constitutional amendment, which can have major effects for years. The people initiate it, through their elected officials and then by an initial referendum; an elected convention studies the issues in detail and come up with a proposal; the people then decide whether to approve what the smaller body came up with.

Pity Britain didn't think the process through with that much attention.

http://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/...cfm#articleXIV
Well, that is the method for a Constitutional Convention. A regular amendment can be passed by 2/3s of each House of the Legislature followed by a majority vote of the people, but your point is well taken: a drastic change should be more than a one time majority vote.

But that wasn't how it was presented to the British people. It was a one time, majority rules vote, and I even commented at the time that a 52-48 vote for such a major change seemed an awfully thin mandate for such a drastic change, but I was told by our UK posters here that it was part of the deal for the Tory Government when it was elected.

As a matter of how it affects my life, I don't have an opinion one way or the other of Leave v. Remain. I do think it is fascinating to follow UK politics because my country and my state, as well as your country and your province have both gained our traditions and common law from the UK, and it is interesting to see how we have parted ways, both from each other and from the UK.

But I do think it is fundamentally unfair that if any government says, we want position "not Y", but we will let you silly fools vote for Y, and then to the government's shock Y passes, the government should not in fairness get to say that the vote was only a practice and that we will keep voting until we get "not Y." And once we get "not Y" we stop voting.
  #123  
Old 01-16-2019, 03:53 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
But surely Leavers will be even less happy with that than with a referendum.
Are there polls showing how a new referendum would go? It may be a few days too early, granted.
  #124  
Old 01-16-2019, 04:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Well, I think simply rescinding Article 50 would amount to that. It would mean that we remain in the EU and nothing changes. If we develop a coherent consensus plan for leaving at some time in the future, we can always re-start the process.
Yes, of course but that would be point blank public rescinding the results of the referendum. That's why I said "package". There needs to be political cover for all sides and some nebulous extension could do that. All the serious people want to kick the can down the road, so what's the fig leaf for a super long kick?
  #125  
Old 01-16-2019, 04:07 PM
ShadowFacts ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Well, that is the method for a Constitutional Convention. A regular amendment can be passed by 2/3s of each House of the Legislature followed by a majority vote of the people, but your point is well taken: a drastic change should be more than a one time majority vote.

But that wasn't how it was presented to the British people. It was a one time, majority rules vote, and I even commented at the time that a 52-48 vote for such a major change seemed an awfully thin mandate for such a drastic change, but I was told by our UK posters here that it was part of the deal for the Tory Government when it was elected.

As a matter of how it affects my life, I don't have an opinion one way or the other of Leave v. Remain. I do think it is fascinating to follow UK politics because my country and my state, as well as your country and your province have both gained our traditions and common law from the UK, and it is interesting to see how we have parted ways, both from each other and from the UK.

But I do think it is fundamentally unfair that if any government says, we want position "not Y", but we will let you silly fools vote for Y, and then to the government's shock Y passes, the government should not in fairness get to say that the vote was only a practice and that we will keep voting until we get "not Y." And once we get "not Y" we stop voting.
I understand your position here and it is a principled one. As presented, I tend to agree: in a democracy, you don't get a second bite at the same apple. If the Cameron government had turned around after the last referendum and said, "Um, whoops! That's not what we intended," and called for a re-vote, then what you're saying here would be absolutely true and I doubt many (or any) would disagree. I think what others in this thread have been trying to articulate is that that is not where the UK is now. It's been 2.5 years since that referendum vote. A lot has been learned. New information is available. There is different "leadership" now (I use that term loosely).

It's not the same apple.

I personally think a new referendum with more specific questions based on the current situation, as others have already suggested, would not qualify as a "re-vote."
  #126  
Old 01-16-2019, 04:09 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
That's not what I am saying. I am saying that Remain had a full and fair chance to argue its point during the first referendum. It failed. It is unfair to hold successive referenda until the "right" result is reached, and then the process is stopped after a single victory supported by the Government.

If the Government is going to do that, then the proposition should not be submitted to a referendum in the first place, which, as a political matter, I am not opposed to doing for the reasons Budget Player Cadet mentioned upthread.
Leave lied and cheated. Massively and brazenly, on a level unknown before in British politics. So arguing about 'unfair' is moot. Remain were not given a fair chance in 2016, because Leave never engaged with Remain. They played the demagogue.

Look: in 2016, we considered the merits of opening a door. Remain said we should not open the door, because beyond it is nothing but misery. Leave said beyond the door were untold riches and we just have to open the door to get to them. We opted to open the door. It turns out beyond the door is a gaping chasm with bloody spikes at the bottom. For two years, the government has been trying to build a bridge across, but there's no material in existence strong enough to withstand the stress and pressure, and it's clear attempting to cross will mean many people will slip off, fall, and die. And we can see the other side - it's barren and lifeless, unlike what Leave said was there.

If we cancel Brexit, we close the door, until a workable plan to cross that chasm has been formed, and with the understanding that we will be knowingly going to a barren wasteland.

Finally, Ultra, it's rich saying it's wrong to have as many votes until you get the result you want when that's what leading Leave politicians were advocating before the referendum. The moment they won, they shut up.
  #127  
Old 01-16-2019, 04:12 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As a followup to this, what would be the consequence of a Tory MP voting in favor of the no confidence motion? Nothing at all or would he or she be assigned to the Falkland Islands Committee on Argentinian relations? Somewhere in between?
They'd cease to be a Tory MP, losing the party whip. They'd remain an MP though - at least until the next election - as they are still the elected member for their constituency.

Veering off-topic slightly, but it isn't as straightforward as you might think for a living MP to cease being one in the absence of a fresh election.

Being declared bankrupt is one way, as is being sentenced to prison for more than a year - a shorter prison sentence is AOK apparently.

If an MP wants to just resign, well, technically they can't. They have to apply for one of two jobs instead: Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds or Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. These are two ancient positions that nowadays carry no responsibilities, but crucially they are nominally paid offices of the Crown, and an MP taking one of those positions means an automatic disqualification.

Some parts of parliamentary procedure have yet to emerge blinking into the 18th century, never mind the 21st...
  #128  
Old 01-16-2019, 04:17 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 6,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Are there polls showing how a new referendum would go? It may be a few days too early, granted.
If nothing else, some old bigots will have died and two-years-worth of teenagers have become enfranchised.
  #129  
Old 01-16-2019, 07:42 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If policies prove to be a mistake, AFTER they go into effect, then that is a change that the people should revisit. Not the hypotheticals that were previously argued to stop the agreed upon change.
You have managed to hijack this into your problems with school bonds, closing public swimming pools, and Trump's wall proposal. Those are very different things in nature as well as in scale. You're not British, but you're going by what the British press say. (Granted, I'm in the same boat, being a Yank.) Well, the British press are notoriously awful. I am sorry I diluted my point by compulsively responding to you. I mistook you for a concerned Brit.

So, let me bring it back to this:

[paraphrased from post 69]
If Leave:
  • The UK will lose Scotland.
  • The UK will lose Northern Ireland.
  • Britain will go through an immediate economic contraction.
  • The Empire will not bring Canada, Australia, & America back into the fold.
There will just be a broken, bleeding Kingdom of Britain, and it might well end up with a right-wing coup or a civil war, because economic contraction does that.

With that information, are you still voting Leave? Nah, son.


Prime Minister May knows this. Far from trying to ram Remain down the public gullet, she is respecting democracy, even as it is dangerous to Britain. And for her trouble, she will lose Scotland, she will lose Northern Ireland, & Britain will go into some kind of depression. That is a recipe for war. I thought it would be a fascist coup in Britain and a civil war, but it could even be war on a continental scale, because the EU will take a hit as well.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 01-16-2019 at 07:46 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017