What, like the Jews?
So people who arrived generations earlier are now more integrated that people who arrived in the last decade? If you need me to explain what the key difference is (hint: it’s not country of origin or religion) I’m not sure you’ve really thought your argument through.
Sure. And recent immigrants will also be more assimilated in a few decades. Hell, the Poles are pretty assimilated right now. Your argument remains silly.
Well he would, wouldn’t he. NI is not Scotland; even a referendum is likely to stir up violence again. That said, if there is a second referendum on Scottish independence - and particularly if Scotland win it - I wouldn’t be surprised to see an NI referendum on the table. But that’s years away if any of it happens.
I wonder if London could declare independence. It worked out so well for Pimlico…
Not sure if you are aware of the contentious nature of Irish sovereignty. Northern Ireland is currently ruled by Britain.
I did. I didn’t expect Cameron to resign either, even if “Leave” won.
I hope it works out.
I haven’t been this sad since my father died. I wish I was kidding.
people of your viewpoint need to stop comparing everyone to the Jews. Jews behave, don’t blow themselves up, don’t engage in more honor killings than all other groups combined, believe in open societies, free economies, not forcing anti-blasphemy laws on people, not supporting analogues to Islamists, etc…
Same with the other non-Muslim immigrant groups.
And by your logic, Obama was elected because the American people as a whole wanted the Affordable Care Act.
Quartz, consider my ignorance fought, about how you view the world and Muslims. Thanks, I guess.
On the contrary, the latter situation is exactly what happened in the U.S.
When the United States was first created (under the Articles of Confederation), it was much more akin to a combination trade partnership/military alliance between independent nation-states, rather than the creation of a new nation. Under the AoC, the federal government couldn’t even raise taxes; instead, it had to request money from the individual States. Congress had also been denied the power to regulate either foreign trade or interstate commerce and, as a result, all of the States maintained control over their own trade policies. The AoC specifically state: "“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
The U.S. Constitution strengthened the federal government, but still it wasn’t until after the Civil War decades later that the U.S. began to be referred to in the singular (i.e. “the United State is…”) rather than the plural (i.e. “the United State are…”). The U.S. was consistently referred to in the plural under the Constitution.
From over here, it does seem like a step in the wrong direction.
This is a warning to the USA. Now we really need to ensure that The Donald is beaten severely this November.
The United States when it was formed was a coming together of English colonies, same language, same culture, same people. That is very, very different from the situation of the EU.
Money mangers are simply seeking safety for their funds while this situation is sorted out. The markets will bounce up and down. That’s to be expected. Or at least it should have been expected. The polls suggested that Brexit would fail. The polls were wrong - AGAIN.
British PM Cameron’s bet his leadership on the assumption that a majority of voters would follow his lead on the Brexit issue. Cameron chose wrong. Under a parliamentary system, when the leader obviously isn’t leading the people where they want to go, it’s time to chose another leader, or party, to lead the country.
The more I think about this (having only seriously paid attention to this in the last day or so), the more I think that it is absolutely ludicrous that the Brexit referendum was not set up from the start as requiring a supermajority to make a change to the status quo.
Not requiring a supermajority means that the outcome can be tipped simply by relative turnout. For example, I heard this morning that 75 percent of Brits 24 and younger backed a Remain vote, but that their turnout was relatively low as compared to older voters. One young voter who was interviewed on the BBC stated that many of her friends didn’t bother voting because they never seriously thought that a “Leave” vote had any chance of passing.
(Incidentally, the results of the referendum vote by age group is striking. It’s notable that the voters who wanted Brexit the least will have to live with the consequences the longest.)
I wouldn’t be surprised that if (hypothetically speaking) another referendum were held next week or next month that the outcome would be different. A requirement for a supermajority to make a change to the status quo avoids this back-and-forth.
That’s not what Cameron is saying this morning, and unfortunately, taking such action would smack of “moving the goalposts.”
Elections for political office are different, because somebody has to be elected. If you require a supermajority for elective office, and a supermajority fails to be achieved, there is no status quo to return to. Either the office remains unfilled, or the incumbent remains in office (which is even more problematic, if it is even possible).
Also, an election for political office is not permanent, but only lasts for the length of the term of office. If a politician is elected with a simple majority or even with just a plurality of the vote, and doesn’t do a good job, then the voters can simply vote him/her out of office at the next election.
On the other hand, a permanent change (like a change to the Constitution in the U.S., or the Brexit referendum under discussion herein) should absolutely require a supermajority to change the status quo, IMHO.
Morgan Stanley appears to be doing the hokey-cokey in the news today - first there were news reports that they were moving 2000 jobs to Dublin and Frankfurt, then there were news reports that they weren’t, etc etc. It’s all very jolly.
There’ve been a few entertaining television interviews with people this afternoon saying “Well, I voted Leave but I didn’t think we’d win…”. Nice going, Poindexter.
ETA in response to robby: I agree that supermajorities should be required to make changes of this magnitude to the country. When you can get 50.1% one day and 49.9% another day it’s too slim a margin on which to base such a significant action and there’s too many people on the other side of the fence who will be affected by it. I think at least 60% should be required, with at least 50% of registered voters taking part, in order for referendum results to be binding.
By your logic, at most 48% of the 76% voter turnout voted to remain. That’s even less of the British people as a whole.
So what? Your original comment was about giving up sovereignty, and how “Americans” would never do this. As I posted above, this is demonstrably false (as least so far as the individual States are concerned).
A 18th century Virginian could have written the following:
“When Virginia joined the U.S. we were told it was an economic union. But over the years Washington has expanded its remit to cover matters such as justice, policing, foreign affairs, etc. We didn’t sign up to be ruled from Washington.”
Nevertheless, despite this loss of sovereignty, and despite a bit of unpleasantness in the 1860s as to whether or not a State has the right to unilaterally opt out of the Union, I think that, on the whole, the United States has ended up in a much better situation than if we had remained independent States.
You know, to hell with the British people, and to hell with them wanting to live the way they want to live and to hell with their livelihoods. I want my money. George Soros NEEDS money. Don’t you selfish people realize that poor George Soros is not going to make as much profit as he wants? Shame on you for not making him as rich as he wants to be.
(post shortened)
The rules are the rules. If things were different, things would be different. In order to create an EU, the rules had to be made palatable to order to entice the participants. Changing the rules now doesn’t overturn the Brexit vote. Talented, level-headed people will lead G.B. beyond the Brexit vote.
People are acting like they’re in shock that a leave vote would pass. But, but, but, the polls said it wouldn’t. People know that the polls have been wrong and they still chose to believe the polls. Oh well.
Many/most companies will be forced to make changes to their existing plans for the future. Maybe they will chose to wait weeks, or months, before deciding on a new direction or may chose to stay their course. Either could result in a profit for a well run, well managed company.
I was with you right up until the end. Laziness should not be given the same weight as a “No” vote.
I do so love to see people playing the “George Soros!” card, as if there weren’t a huge fucking group of billionnaires on the other side of the equation far more actively meddling in international politics, with Rupert Murdoch at the front of the queue.
FTR I wasn’t suggesting a retroactive change. I just find it odd that these things can be decided by such a slim margin; this has been my view for a long time, going back to before the Scottish referendum.
The surprise is that some people who voted for Leave are surprised and are suggesting that they wouldn’t have voted that way if they known it would win. These people are a minority, and also idiots.
Except an 18th century Virginian didn’t write that. The 13 former colonies, which were now free states, chose to form a central government where all of the states joined in mutual protection and for economic benefit (those who chose not to join would be tariffed as foreign powers). It was also established that, except for State’s rights issues, they did sign up to ruled by representatives in Washington that had been elected by the people.
They did not consent to be ruled by an unelected someone in Brussels.