Someone told me that the referendum was “nonbinding” and that Parliament has to petition (apply?) to be removed from the EU. Is that true and is there any chance that it will matter? That is, is there any chance that Parliament will not follow the referendum or drag its feet?
(post shortened, underline added)
At secession, some people were outraged, many of the media outlets were livid, politician heads were exploding - BUT THERE WAS NO WAR.
The issues in question could have been handled through treaty, or through the courts if a treaty allowed that option.
As long as no one fired the first shot at a government fortification, there wouldn’t have been war. The northern states did not have an army large enough to force the southern states to return to the Union. The northern states had no major issue to convince farm boys and shopkeepers to join up and risk their own lives to fully restore the Union. Why would northern boys fight to end slavery when four northern states still allowed slavery?
There was no war until the General Beauregard fired on Ft Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Then all heck broke loose.
It’s non-binding in the sense that it carries no legal force in the UK. It would be politically very stupid to ignore the result, though.
The UK doesn’t have to “petition” to leave the EU, in the sense of “make a polite request that could be refused”, but there is a process set down in the EU treaties and the UK will be expected to follow it. The phrase you might hear in the news is “invoking article 50”. At the moment, Cameron has said he will not do this himself, but rather leave it to his successor when he steps down in October.
The UK should have to win a few battles before the US officially recognizes their independence. Upstarts.
I remember that. It’s a cheap tourist trap in the middle of Bexar.
Of course it’s speculation, and a huge “if”, but there isn’t much precedent for a leviathan state giving up a large stream of revenue like that.
Governments do not care. Decisions to go to wage an aggressive war are never sober calculations of maximum utility. The reason a state engages in a war is because the minority in control of the army and tax collecting apparatus decide it is in their interests.
In this case, can we agree that it’s not in anyone’s interest to start a war over #Brexit? I can’t see anything anyone would have to gain from it.
If they had a war with the EU, they probably would win a few battles.
The EU isn’t a state, though. It’s a trading bloc/common market with some quasi-state features, and one with an explicit exit mechanism.
The EU isn’t a ‘leviathan state’, it’s a collection of states within an economic treaty. The closest thing it has to a unified military is NATO, which is a military alliance that includes the UK (and which the UK isn’t leaving), which makes invading the UK a tad difficult. Even if the EU were to go nuts and member states were to withdraw from NATO, they’d be attacking an island nation that has the largest navy in Europe other than Russia, that has an automatically invoked defensive alliance with the country who has a navy larger than all of the others put together. If that’s not enough, the UK also has a nuclear arsenal of its own, and that same defensive alliance with the country with the largest nuclear arsenal around.
You can talk all you want about backroom deals, but the idea is just stupid. Brussels isn’t going to volunteer to turn into a sheet of glass.
So if Scotland had voted for independence, England would have invaded because there isn’t much precedent for giving up all that tasty oil profit?
The EU, in my hypothetical scenario would definitely benefit from a) keeping its revenue stream and b) discouraging repeat secession movements.
Right. The “if” involved the EU having an army. If the EU had an army and could collect taxes throughout the EU, it would indeed be a state.
The discussion posited a hypothetical where the EU had an army, assuming the EU had a more powerful army than the much smaller GB, it would render most your objections moot.
Is GB a leviathan state? I’d argue it’s a rather humble nation at this point. Also, the Englanders would lack an evil bogeyman to rile up the masses to support a war against Scotland. A hypothetical leviathan EU would undoubtedly raise the xenophobic bogeyman and doomsday economic forecasts as well as some high level propaganda about “protecting the rights of EU citizens in GB” to rile up its socialism-addled masses to bring the secessionists to heel. We are dealing in science fiction at this point though.
The under 50’s voted to remain. Why should they work to create something they didn’t want? Along with Scotland leaving, you can expect a brain drain where a lot of young talented people will be voting with their feet and heading off to somewhere else.
In all seriousness, I think the UK has just taken a regressive step. Of all of the myriad players that are affected by this event, I am at a loss to identify a single one that can now say their future is more hopeful.
No, because first off Great Britain is an island. Napoleon and Hitler both had much larger armies and weren’t able to actually use them against GB because of the English Channel. They would actually need a large Navy. And would somehow have to deal with the fact that the UK has a defensive alliance with the US who has an even larger Navy. And even if they did that, they would somehow have to make their navy and cities immune to Britain’s 225 nuclear warheads.
Invading nuclear powers for economic gain is beyond mild hypotheticals, it’s going into complete insanity. 225 nukes is going to cost far more to rebuild from than anything you can hope to extract from the ruins of Great Britain.
Damn Brits! They ruined Britain!
Complete and utter Nonsense. An army would noT change the current Order.
I wonder how the treaty would work if the EU attacked the UK, since both the UK and several EU members are in NATO. 
Oh, I never thought of that!