He'll go down in history as one of the worst leaders the UK ever had. Which he already was before yesterday. By the way, if he let the people decide on such a super topic as leave/remain in the EU, why does he not let his people vote on whether they want total surveillance or not? If they want a police state? Why can't they decide on stuff that affects their daily lives in a potential negative way?
Or will they ignore the voice of the voters, Boaty McBoatface-style?
Theresa May is one of the scariest contenders as far as I've seen. Very pro-surveillance and anti-open internet. She would be a (nother) disaster for UK tech. If there's anybody left who hasn't moved to Dublin/Berlin by October.
-Enjoy low corporate tax rate of 12.5%? Pro-business government?
-Enjoy friendly, well educated, English speaking, Pro-American people, good beer, decent music, nice quality of life, low crime and safe green natural environment?
(Look how much fun even our soccer fans are http://www.irishexaminer.com/euro2016/euro2016-banter/10-rea...)
Invest in Ireland -> http://www.idaireland.com
This has been a public service announcement from the country next door. #irelandlovesyou :)
As an Irish person, I would like our country to take the opportunity to welcome British business but say "thanks, but no thanks" to finance and banking.
I want our brightest and best to do more useful stuff, engineering and literature and medicine or whatever. We should consider our education system to have failed every time a bright student goes into finance.
It's the only long term sustainable plan. Convert debt to equity and keep the deposit base low.
My god there is some serious whingey nonsense on that thread. Most of the arguments boil down to accommodation being expensive for students in the centre of a relatively wealthy European capital. Well no shit, as if it's not any worse in most other cities. As a software professional you'd be well able to afford it. I do agree there is a shortage of accommodation at the moment, but that's almost certainly a temporary issue. After the property crash in Ireland a few years ago builders and property developers were cast as the root of all evil. As a result (and because banks were broke and so weren't lending for mortgages), housebuilding ground to a halt even though Ireland has the highest birth rate in the EU and most commentators were warning this would lead to problems down the line. And so it has come to pass that now there is a shortage of cheap accommodation, and in particular social housing. However I expect this to resolve itself over the next few years, and the government has already promised to pump money into public housing.
Reddit/r/Ireland is extremely negative about everything. Some of the negativity doesn't make sense. The piece about not living in the city centre and instead the suburb commuter towns is madness. Totally the opposite. The commuter towns to Dublin are boring as hell, housing estates with very little services. Inner City Dublin is rejuvenating very fast, and parts of it feel like a smaller, more intimate version of Shoreditch or Williamsberg (except with better pubs and bars!). You can basically walk across most of the city within 45 mins.
Transport is poor compared to European standards and the cost of living is quite high. But if you live close to the city in Dublin it's not bad and it's a great place to socialise and be within 45 minutes of nature. It's probably one of the few capital cities in world where it's not unusual to strike up a conversation with a random person beside you on a bus.
Also it's a pretty easy place to do business. Our nature is humourously sarcastic and not liking authority which means we are pretty good problems solvers and management tends to be quite flat. The software is also small, so your only ever really a phonecall away from having a pint with whoever you need to speak to in the whole sector - from a graduate you met at a conference to a government Minister.
People also work to live not live to work (like the US) which makes a big difference. Also a big part of worklife is around interactions with colleagues - it's basically an assumption that most offices are full of at least a few characters who like to have the "craic" and banter. When working abroad I found I really missed those tiny interactions you have on a daily basis in Ireland - e.g someone telling you a story and making you laugh. Even in London you don't get that. It's not something you can pickup by getting an MBA but it makes such a big difference to the quality of life - compared to a stale work environment.
The problem we currently have in politics it demography. People get older and older, the baby boomers forgot to "produce" children. Elder people tend to be deeply conservative and anti-technology. And as they are the majority now, they vote for stuff that they think is right ("let's 100% control that freaking thing called internet") and totally strangle the younger generation with their bad taste and shortsightedness.
I think a better way to come at this is to assume that on average, most people have given this decision a reasonable amount of thought, young people as well as old people. The debates have been going on for months, and pros and cons have been discussed at great length.
Further, I don't think it's fair to underestimate the experience and historic perspective old people have, that young people don't. After all, many of the older people who voted yesterday where around before the EU came about, and are able to factor in that extra information, plus their historic perspective in their decision, which, by definition, makes for a more informed decision.
You are right that older people tend to be more conservative, but you yourself may end up being more conservative when you are 90, vs. how conservative you are today, and you may only realize the reasons for it once it happens, and perhaps you will think those are actually quite good reasons, who knows.
The bottom line is that if you just attribute the older population's decision to "bad taste" and "shortsightedness", you may not realize the true reason behind their decision, which diminishes your ability to understand and influence others.
> After all, many of the older people who voted yesterday where around before the EU came about, and are able to factor in that extra information, plus their historic perspective in their decision, which, by definition, makes for a more informed decision.
Not necessarily. You'll still end up with people making decisions based on looking at the past with rose-coloured glasses, which isn't necessarily a fact-based decision. I think it's also equally likely that people will draw conclusions from economic conditions that had zilch to do with whether the EU existed or not. Thinking that experience necessarily leads to a informed decision ignores the way that humans works.
Blaming people (older people, immigrants, whatever) for our problems isn't productive. Let's figure out what's broken about the systems we're living in instead of alienating the people we should be working with to fix them.
In both the US general election and this referendum, the primary forces at play are emotive campaigning backed by false or at the very least misleading information (in our case: portrayal of immigrants, the '£350m a week' figure that has already had some very serious backpeddling, etc. etc.). We have an electorate that is woefully misinformed for a whole host of reasons. How you address this is beyond me.
You are absolutely right, while I am, too. Of course there are progressive, far thinking elderly people and I enjoy being around them. I recently talked to a 71 year old who is into fractal programming and wants to get into Linux, soon (all while being politically liberal). But the elections and polls show always the same picture: the older people get, the more conservative/right wing they vote, which is often not what the younger need. I don't think it helps the younger UK generation, that has been used to think globally/European, that they now are politically separated from EVERY neighbor they have.
Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
- Max Planck
Unfortunately, political progress tends to be the same. For some issues, the only way to move forward is to simply wait for enough old people to die off.
The demographic problem. Highly recommend reading "The Accidental Superpower" as it explains how this, as well as a few other geopolitical considerations, will shape the next few decades. (Hint: it's not pretty.)
No, the problem is that the younger generation is that they don't vote. They whine on Twitter . The only way to take control of the system from within.
Today was a very harsh lesson for young Brits. They'll have to live with the outcome of this decision for three rest of their lives.
The one positive is that those young people might now be encouraged to actually participate.
His persona is that of a charismatic bumbling idiot, but idiot he is not. Underneath this persona lies a highly intelligent, disingenuous, manipulative and calculating operator.
I genuinely think that he didn't believe in Brexit; rather he saw a potential route into number 10 and took a gamble on it.
I agree. I don't quite understand the dynamics of elections and voting but if a candidate looks like a bumbling idiot mixed with charisma and charm, it somehow resonates, at least in the UK and US.
Boris was this before being elected as mayor of London, somehow the image is perpetuated even now. In the run up to his mayoral elections his strong points were hardly discussed and his persona highlighted more than his abilities and skills. People perceiving him as a joke.
This is what eludes most and reinforces the notion that some of the electorate will purely vote on superficial terms.
He is absolutely manipulative and disingenuous who's riding on his buffoonish idiocy image.
Or, it's possible it just so happens his views on a key issue coincided with the views of a majority of the people who voted (and the turnout was large, and it's not as if when things go your way in elections you vacillate by thinking of the opposition who didn't vote).
It feels like this borders on elitism. That the people don't know what they want. I don't often see a similar sentiment when people vote along with the views of the elite (questioning sanity and motives).
Let's be fair here. Liberal bias requires people to either believe anyone with conservative leanings MUST be stupid or the received wisdom that liberal philosophies are naturally correct must be incomplete. There's no real choice here, every single person on earth will assume everyone else is stupid before assuming they may be wrong.
I suspect George Bush's bumbling persona was put-on as well (or possibly honed over years) on the basis of this youtube[1] video comparing his oratory style between 1994 and 2004
>His persona is that of a charismatic bumbling idiot, but idiot he is not. Underneath this persona lies a highly intelligent, disingenuous, manipulative and calculating operator.
People used to say that about George Bush too. The fact he played off his ridiculous gaffes and wasn't always illucid doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot.
Bojo is conniving and he's managed to acquire a good number of strategic allies but he's still not particularly smart.
> Being rich (or your father being rich) only gets you so far.
Your family being rich and extremely well connected politically, both domestically and internationally, gets you much further than your family merely being rich, and you being useful figurehead for people who are quite smart -- and smart enough to realize that you are more useful than them as the public face of leadership -- piled on top of that, gets you even farther.
Still trying to understand how austerity can still mean increasing spending. Looking at their expenditures they peaked in 2009 at 51.5% and dropped to lower forties but much of that has been because the economy finally started recovering faster than the government could spend money mostly because of pressure on politicians not to.
However the key here is, they never spent less than the year before, simply reduced the amount they increased spending. Increasing spending is not austerity
Simply put, there never was austerity in most of Europe. That's a propaganda line to simultaneously cover the lack of economic growth for nearly a decade, and to use as an excuse to acquire a larger State through even greater spending.
You can go line by line down the list of European countries and their government expenditures. Only a few of them reduced spending, most have increased spending. In actual fact, only two or three nations experienced any real austerity, but they all pretend to have.
What they're really experiencing, is the total suffocation of economic growth by extreme debt. The exact same thing Japan has been enjoying for a quarter century.
I know next to nothing to Britain and London's politics but I can't trust/don't want to have leaders that have to put up buffoon front to get elected or get traction. Because next time you risk getting a real buffoon. Or worse, it won't matter wether politicians are buffoons or not.
Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. Imagine the bicycle lanes... Which is not to say that I disagree with you. As mayor of London he knew what was important and it was not what most people would think is important.
Alternate Voting is not a method of proportional representation. It is another voting scheme. The Liberal Democrats wanted a vote for Proportional Representation and the Conservatives agreed to a referendum, but on the rubbish AV scheme instead. Many many people voted against AV because it wasn't as good as PR and didn't want to change multiple times.
PR is superior to AV and FPTP and should be implemented. It shouldn't even have a referendum. It should just be done.
> Alternate Voting is not a method of proportional representation
Alternative Voting (AV) is a single member district voting system that produces results where the representations of policy views in the elected parliament are more proportional to the views in the electorate than first past the post, and thus is a method of enhancing the proportionality of the election system for a parliament when the status quo is FPTP.
It do so less than Single Transferrable Vote (STV) in multimember districts (AV -- known more often to US audiences as Instant Runoff Voting [IRV] -- is just the single-member-district case of STV, which supports any district size).
Its relationship to other PR schemes where not all candidates are directly elected by-name by general election voters (the most frequent being Party-List Proportional and Mixed-Member Proportional) is complicated -- those schemes optimize for proportionality of partisan composition of the legislature, but provide weaker accountability of individual politicians to the general electorate.
But PR itself isn't a system, its a (continuous valued, not even binary) feature of an electoral system. You can't "implement PR", you can adopt a system that increases (or decreases) the degree to which you have PR.
I'm no fan of hers, but home secretaries seem to get house trained by the security service (MI5) soon after taking office. The home secretaries of the previous Blair/Brown Labour administration were also dreadful. Someone once said that every home secretary since Roy Jenkins has been worse than the previous one.
And Boris Johnson is no idiot. It's part of his act.
Cameron called for the referendum in the hope of shutting up the eurosceptics in his own party forever. At the time it was not a bad idea, given that literally nobody believed that the leave vote could win.
Yes, people forget that he'd already had two MPs jump ship to UKIP. If he hadn't promised a referendum the party would've split down the middle.
What I don't get, and didn't get with the Scots referendum either, is why on earth they didn't require a super-majority? Surely with something as critical as this, you'd want a bit more convincing than a 2% margin?
It doesn't have to be a 3/4ths or even 2/3rds, but a 60.1/39.9 split would've been nicely convincing that one side is definitely in a minority. Instead we've just proven once again that the UK is fractured politically North/South/Scotland/NI/etc.
> Yes, people forget that he'd already had two MPs jump ship to UKIP. If he hadn't promised a referendum the party would've split down the middle.
Arguably, allowing a partisan realignment wherein people would vote for representatives balancing views on the EU with other policy concerns would have been healthier for the nation (if more disruptive to the elites of the existing major parties) than trying to preserve the existing party structure by splitting out the EU issue to a referendum.
And, it probably would have been more likely to succeed at keeping the UK in the EU.
Do you forget what a shambles Tony Blair was? Led us into a pointless war that cost 100,000s of lives. As bad as David Cameron was, he kept us out of war.
Not really. The UK is bombing Syria at his behest. The joke is that a year or two before that, he tried, and failed, to get the UK to drop bombs on the other side of the war.
Blair is probably the reason many Labour heartlands voted for out, he opened the doors to mass migration without thinking about the implications for those who might be displaced by it (or rather feel they were displaced by it)
> opened the doors to mass migration without thinking about the implications for those who might be displaced by it (or rather feel they were displaced by it)
Please elaborate, as in the Northeast this is exactly what happened. Do you agree or disagree, or are you just saying "wow" as youngtaff has opened your eyes to how many members of the tradition labour vote outside London view Europe?
> As bad as David Cameron was, he kept us out of war.
'Military interventions' during Cameron: Libya (2011) , Syria and Iraq are the first to come to mind. The first being politically motivated rather than on humanitarian grounds.
Semantically speaking, in the case of that war Blair was just following America, not leading anybody (his country happened to be attached to him so it followed America too), so because he wasn't actually a leader at all he couldn't have been the best/worst one.
>He'll go down in history as one of the worst leaders the UK ever had
Talk about lack of perspective. In the long term it's absolutely insignificant. It's like people calling GWB or Obama the worst US president. Can't believe such a poorly thought out comment is at the top.
Normally I would agree with you and say that "worst leader ever" statements are hyperbolic when the leader is still in office, but this time I think it's appropriate. The United Kingdom is probably going to ultimately dissolve as a result of this vote, and Cameron is going to be remembered as the moron who let it happen, all because of a catastrophically failed gambit to pander to the Ukip-leaning Tories. "Worst leader ever" seems apt when you directly caused a nation's end.
What I don't understand is that isn't this what the people wanted? Across the pond it sounds like he tried to call someone's (pro-Brexit) bluff and lost. At the end of the day it sounds like this is what the people wanted though. I'm not seeing a lot of news about how the pro-Brexit people feel about the dissolution of the UK. Surely they knew this was an outcome.
People used the pro-Brexit vote as a proxy vote for other issues: Anti-establishment, anti-politician, anti-immigrant, anti-corporation, etc.
The same exact undertones that drive Trump's support in the US (and to a lesser extent Sanders) were what drove the Brexit movement. Many of these people don't even understand the EU, they just want to give the finger to everyone who happened to be on the Remain side.
The vast majority of people who voted for it were older, so won't have to live with the consequences, or working class who outright rejected the arguments of experts/academics/etc. This was a "my heartfelt ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge" situation.
So, yes, 500K more people voted for Brexit than voted to Remain. But what is it that they actually were voting for? If you listen to them talk or look at surveys, it had little to do with the EU beyond immigration.
> I'm not seeing a lot of news about how the pro-Brexit people feel about the dissolution of the UK. Surely they knew this was an outcome.
Want to know something darkly amusing? It's possible that they didn't. This is still anecdotal at this point, and of course the Remain side could be playing it up, but there are reports that at least some Leave voters intended it as a protest vote thinking it wouldn't actually happen: https://twitter.com/AdamWSweeney/status/746261907233988609
How wonderful would that be, if the biggest blunder in Britain's history happened unintentionally because some people wanted to stick it to their council. I need to go drink some more.
A bare majority of the people, with some outright whoppers of lies told by the side that won. This is a "change the constitution" level of change, and it's been done with a pretty slim majority. Usually a country will require a 2/3rds majority or similar to make such a significant legal change.
> The United Kingdom is probably going to ultimately dissolve as a result of this vote
Well, the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK might dissolve, but going from four to three countries in the UK isn't really dissolving the UK (NI had a pro-EU majority, but it doesn't sound like it really changes the basic dynamics keeping NI in the UK.)
> "Worst leader ever" seems apt when you directly caused a nation's end.
Peacefully breaking with Europe in a way that might also result in a peaceful break with Scotland vs., for just the first competition that jumps to mind, the Munich Conference? Yeah, I think outside of the passions of the moment, Cameron's likely to be seen as something far less notable than "worst PM ever".
I don't think he will necessary go down as the worst leader, but his name is going to be tarred with being the prime minister who started the dissolution of the United Kingdom.
He absolutely deserves the title in this case. What will happen in the UK/Britain over the next decade will likely rival the significance of the Magna Carta, except in a mostly-negative way. And it is his fault.
"if he let the people decide on such a super topic as leave/remain in the EU"
That was a popular demand by the public as the UK hadn't had a referendum on EU membership in 40 years.
He made a promise to hold the referendum because of this and fulfilled his promise. If a politician keeping a promise is a problem, then we're all doomed
And his laughably bad (if it weren't so serious) handling of the 'renegotiation' with Europe months before the referendum. He certainly comes across as a blustering public-schoolboy, which was never going to go down well with his European counterparts.
> if he let the people decide on such a super topic as leave/remain in the EU
It was a deal he striken during last election. To buy UKIP votes (their main goal was to leave EU) he said he will make a referendum. His calculation was that there are not enough UKIP voters (~20% maybe) to pass referendum, but it will allow him to get elected (his voters + UKIP voters).
Yeah he's a nasty weasly only likely marginally better than Bliar. I still think this is going to be a bad move. Yes Europe is very very broken but I think better to try to fix it than go it alone
A vote that causes an instant 5-8% downgrade in the market's evaluation of pretty much an entire country is something that affects people's daily lives, unfortunately. (I guess it's similar in scope to electing George W. Bush, but it was not clear how bad a decision this was for a couple of years.)
Before the vote, the consensus estimate by economists was that this would be a 2% hit to GDP. Again, that affects people's daily lives -- it's essentially a self-inflicted recession.
> if he let the people decide on such a super topic as leave/remain in the EU
To reiterate what al_chemist has already said, the price for UKIP supporting the Tories to form government was holding this referendum. It wasn't a lark on the part of the Tories. Not even Farage thought UKIP would win - the BBC had quoted him stating they weren't going to win on the morning of the vote.
All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
In defense of the Boaty McBoatface incident, that was not democracy by a long shot. That was an internet poll, not any kind of official vote. It was a poll of people who actually knew about it, and bothered to get online and vote about it. That's nothing at all like a proper election where there are proper ballots (though a lot of government elections these days lack those too, but that's another discussion...), voters are notified, there's independent monitors, etc.
I don't think you can call the BMbB name "the will of the voters" in any intellectually honest way. If it had been made a ballot proposition during a regular election, then sure. But not with some silly internet poll.
I just watched his talk. He lost. He fought that he can avoid crack in his party and anti-eu members will be pleased if he make this move - referendum. Then he thought he will get what he wants from EU and then all citizens will vote remain. He was wrong on all this points. He is the biggest looser in this situation and he really knows it.
Except he isn't, really -- he loses his political position, but he and his family won't be existentially affected by what's going to happen, as opposed to probably tens of millions of people all around Europe.
A lot of hate for him came from his inherited wealth. He had no idea how austerity was hitting people. Everyone I know who works has given up going on holiday, buying cars, buying nice food. We're all sick of it. There is plenty of money in the UK and watching a rich PM tell us to tighten our belts.... psh.
Really!? Everyone I know who works is very pleased with how the economy has recovered, many friends under 30 have bought a house (without parental help), many are nearing 40% tax bracket and my Facebook feed is full of people going on holiday. Not sure which UK you are living in but the one I'm in is pretty nice - well it was, until this vote.
And before you say I'm in some kind of elite I run a small factory in the north east of England and even my lower paid members of staff go on holiday once a year.
> many friends under 30 have bought a house (without parental help)
Wow really? Do you live up north? Or have rich friends?
I mean I think the UK economy is in pretty good shape (especially compared to the rest of the world), but let's not pretend that houses are remotely affordable.
Property market here in the north is nowhere as crazy as in London. Which is why the constant moans about it in national media are extremely grating for us (it's actually hard to flog houses, over here).
You can buy a house in the North for 100-200k without any problems, and saving 10k for a deposit is not exactly difficult if you have a job. I'm in the same situation as OP, live in UK, everyone I know is quite well off and the economy is doing very well for us(or was until today).
The UK where waiting times for A&E are at the longest they've been for years; where waiting times for NHS consultant-led treatment are at the longest they've been since they introduced maximum wait times; where there are no in-patient MH beds for adults (seriously, just last week all adult inpatient MH beds in the country were occupied. (This significantly increases risk of suicide)); where the rates of suicide are increasing (after many years of decline) (and we know that economic decline increases rates of suicide).
That's nothing to do with the EU. That's years of neglect, lack of investment and poor management by a series of UK governments both Tory and Labour.
If we want a good health service and good schools then we need to invest. There problem is the only way that is going to happen is if we borrow the money (Labour tried that - no thanks), or you raise taxes. Raising taxes political suicide, which no party wants to do, especially the Tories. Then it needs to actually be managed wisely with a clear plan of operational action for a longer period than five years between each national election. These things take time, and each time we swap leadership they throw out the plan and start from scratch. It's like a constant series of pivots in no particular direction.
The EU's common agricultural policy was actively favoring and subsidizing large EU based multinationals and blocking entry into the market by small scale farmers and producers in developing countries. Seems to me like a huge new market called "the UK" just opened up for genuine and fair trade. So overall, this is probably good for hundreds of millions of people around the world.
The policies don't have to change. It's not like the UK severs all the connections with everyone. Multinationals will stay and ensure the new policies and trade treaties allow them to continue.
Just what.
Poland pretty much had only small scale farmers (Apart from some post-communist behemoths that were gangrenic) when it joined the EU. Our farmers have never been better or stronger, 15 years ago going to a countryside was like time travel to 1950. Now the countryside actually is a place to live. Same in Austria or Italy. The cooperatives there function properly. What are you on about?
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of the European Union. It implements a system of agricultural subsidies and other programmes.
It has been repeatedly criticised for its cost (€57.8 billion in 2014)[1] and its environmental and humanitarian effects, including raising food prices and stalling development in poorer countries by preventing them from exporting food to the EU.
Not without trade agreements that may take years to negotiate.
Also, UK farmers get over half their income from EU subsidies. So many of them are going to go bankrupt unless they get bailed out/supported by the government.
There is nobody left to pick it. We are about to throw out ask the Romanians and Bulgarians who do that hard graft, because no Brit will do the hard work for little money.
As someone from Ireland I'm really not sure I could be bothered dealing with all the shit that could entail. Would prefer if they just went independent and joined the EU as a separate country.
Unfortunately Northern Ireland doesn't have the economy or infrastructure to realistically function as an independent state at this point. You never know about the future, but it's likely not on the table any time soon.
Why does it need to be large to function independently? There are a bunch of far smaller nations in the EU/Europe: Luxembourg, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, etc. If Northern Ireland became independent, it could just join the EU (regular Ireland is also an EU member), so they wouldn't have to maintain their own currency at least, and would benefit from the free trade. If Luxembourg can function as it is, I don't see why Northern Ireland can't do the same.
This may be offset by the fact that Ireland will be the English speaking country in the EU in which multinational corporations can maintain a base of operations.
> With emerging talk of Irish unification and Scottish independence after the referendum, some legacy he is going to leave behind.
As much as Sinn Fein might like to think they could exploit the pro-EU majority to push Irish unification, it seems to me that NI still has a unionist majority, and that those who are in the pro-EU/unionist overlap are predominantly going to favor staying with the UK instead of Ireland at the cost of the EU over joining the EU at the cost of unification with Ireland.
Never going to happen. The Britain transfers about GBP £11 Billion a year into Northern Ireland, to keep it afloat. The Republic could never afford that and the people in the Republic would never vote for it. Never mind the Unionist community up North.
This is ridiculous. London and Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay. I have no love for labour after the alternate vote referendum but anyone who blames this on labour is clearly trying to rewrite history for scumbag David Cameron.
As a Swiss this argument kind of baffles me. Governing according to the people's will should be the norm in a democracy, not some kind of strategic play.
Exactly. If the majority want out then we should come out - and I say that as a Remain voter. Really interested to see what the future has in store. Thankfully us tech people should weather it better than most.
I find it very amusing that England stopped Scotland from leaving (among other arguments) by saying "You would have to enter EU again", and then left EU the next year :)
Nothing to do with that. He threw out the referendum promise in order to secure power, and then failed to get Europe to agree to the headline changes which would easily have secured the vote in his "renegotiation".
"Austerity" is not to blame for this. You can argue EU recalcitrance played a part, as did labour party weakness, but it's on him. His legacy will be this vote, this loss, and his failure to see through the consequences of his actions.
We've not had austerity of the same severity as Spain or Greece but that's not to say we haven't had it. We have. Cameron (and Boris, Gove, etc) have no idea how it's affected poor people.
If the UK starts muddling through, the EU should firmly act and suspend UK membership: we can not allow uncertainty, and a future ex-member abusing the good will of the rest of the EU.
Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately: if he does not, we should force him to.
> Cameron promised to trigger article 50 immediately
Did he?
edit: it seems to as the following quote is frequent (and from as early as February) though I can't find an original citation:
> Mr Cameron previously said he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a Leave vote
though it follows up with this interesting
> but Boris Johnson and Michael Gove who led the campaign to get Britain out of the EU have said he should not rush into it.
And the following "wtf-worthy" declaration:
> They also said they wanted to make immediate changes before the UK actually leaves the EU, such as curbing the power of EU judges and limiting the free movement of workers, potentially in breach of the UK's treaty obligations.
You are not suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will be done on UK terms only, do you? Like "we get that funding chunk and then we leave" or "we attend that EU parliament session and then we leave" or "we don't say how or when, we'll just leave, whenever it suits us, and please don't disturb because I am too busy doing important things which you can not hope to comprehend". How long do you think the EU will wait for the princess to make up her mind?
I do not know the exact mechanisms by which the EU can force the UK out, but one thing I know: we can not allow us the luxury of keeping the enemy inside the gates.
I for one hope this is done with asap. Out is out.
The UK gets to decide when they trigger the process but the 'official' process can't start until the UK triggers it.
The referendum isn't actually legally binding so in theory article 50 may never get triggered, though as the vote is a reaction against politicians, that would be political suicide.
The final terms will be the result of negotiation and I don't think the UK actually has a good position.
The referendum was always a trap, if UK votes out we're probably screwed, if we voted in it becomes a signal for the political elites for even more political integration (and there seems limited support for that amongst the actual people of Europe)
Got to remember the politicians of the EU don't work for the people - witness how they shafted the people of Greece to save German and French banks, how TTIP is being negotiated in secret and hands more power to corporations etc.
Actually, Greece's problem was that the politicians of the EU do work for the people - namely, their own. It would have been electoral suicide for the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Finland etc. to be seen as too lenient for the Greeks.
Regarding the activation of article 50, sure the UK could delay it indefinitely, but there also would not be any requirement for the other states to start negotiating before it gets invoked. So I'm not sure if the "delay" strategy is going to work out very well for Britain.
> The UK gets to decide when they trigger the process but the 'official' process can't start until the UK triggers it.
If the UK spends the next 15 years making trouble in the EU, blocking a Brexit agreement, not taking decisions, and basically torpedoing the functioning of the EU, I hope the EU is going to do something about it.
The UK was bad enough for the EU while it was in, let's not allow it to destroy the rest of the EU while it is leaving.
There are mechanism to force the UK out now. One would be to marginalize them from any decision taking, any negotiation, and meeting that the EU participates in, internally or with partners. I do not know the exact mechanisms that the EU can use for this, but I know how I would deal with this in my partnerships: "sorry, I forgot to call you!" "Oh, I thought you were in holidays!" "Did you really not receive that memo? So sorry!" and the like. If the UK starts playing dirty, we should too.
Out is out: we do not want the UK in the EU anymore. Please pack and leave.
> You are not suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will be done on UK terms only, do you?
The UK has to trigger Article 50, but the Article 50 process sets the terms (or, at least, the process by which the terms will be set), and it doesn't favor the country leaving.
We signed a treaty, as did the rest of the EU; we will comply with that treaty and they should too. And according to the treaty it's us who kick off the article 50 process. If the EU doesn't believe in following its own treaties then what is it even for?
We will respect that treaty. But, as all treaties, there is room for interpretation, which requires good will. Good will towards the UK has run out, and EU should be looking at its interests and nothing more.
During the negotiations process, the UK should be treated as what it is, a soon to be ex-member. For example:
> Meanwhile, Elmar Brok, a German MEP, CDU member, and chairman of the European parliament committee on foreign affairs, told the Guardian that the European parliament would call on Jean-Claude Juncker to strip the British commissioner Jonathan Hill of his financial services brief with immediate effect and turn him into a “commissioner without portfolio”.
Dozens of measures like this should be taken. Whatever is legal according to the signed treaties should be done in order to hasten the exit of the UK from the EU.
I think dragging it out and muddling through probably suits the EU's interests very well - after all that's very much what they've been doing when dealing with Greece.
I wonder if he is hoping for more EU concessions and another referendum. About the only thing that would do it is some restriction on free movement, I don't know how likely that is.
Wow. A new Prime Minister and a new President within about a month of each other. At this point though, it doesn't seem like the former will matter much anymore.
I hope this shit hole of a year turns around for the second half.
If a Brexit-fanatic like Boris somehow gets hold of the UK, and Trump does the same in the US, we'll be looking back at "those good old days prior to June 2016" in no time... The world-economy will get more introvert, like the "me first" kids at school who don't care about the rest. And that will be the fuel of the upcoming unrest in the rest of the world...
> He said that in such a referendum he would campaign for Britain to stay in. As a journalist in Brussels, he "migrated from being quite enthusiastic about Europe to being really very sceptical". But whenever he considered the prospect of Britain leaving, he always came down "narrowly" in favour of Britain staying in.
> Boris has turned his back on his long-held belief in the peace and prosperity the EU has brought but it’s hardly surprising, given that just months ago he was still telling friends he is not an Outer.
etc.etc.etc. He's a political opportunist who follows whichever wind will get him most power. Much like Cameron except that backfired spectacularly.
I think the former is a fairly accurate description of his position. I remember as a teenager reading his articles from Brussels and the slow slide into the ever more ridiculous facets of the political sphere there, and his frustration with a lot of what he saw.
Thinking in 2012 that the EU is marginally better than the alternative is not exactly incongruous with changing your mind - especially given the past 4 years of the Euro project?
Most importantly, prior to Cameron "renegotiating", Boris took a position of not saying out until he saw the final deal. Again, this is not unreasonable. He was not an Outer - just waiting to see whether Cameron would deliver what he promised (and he didn't).
I have seen people try to spin Boris as just an opportunist but I'm not sold. His ~non fiction~ book about Churchill is not something I'm taking as a primary source on his views...
There are a lot of trad labour voters who are interested in the UKIP message (or what they perceive it to be). Good mileage for splitting what is left of Labour vote in marginals in next election.
I think 'religion is the opium of the people' cuts both ways. Politicians will push through popular socio-economic policies (e.g. gay marriage) in order to be able to get enough support to also push through their unpopular economic policies.
Yes, the resignation speech mentioned the equal marriage legislation and foreign aid specifically. I suspect that is a semaphore for the successor (who will be further to the right) to leave those firmly alone.
Maybe the EU as is should also resign and reappear in a better shape.
Europe will stay Europe and I don't think everything will shatter now.
On the contrary, isn't it a nice demonstration of democracy and treaties can be re-negotiated. I'm quite sure that many people are not happy with the current EU arrangement and would vote to leave (if they could and/or if they weren't so much bound by economic benefits as e.g. Gibraltar). An EU reform is needed and I hope this Brexit serves as another signal that it is really about time to speak honestly about 'some issues' and try to find solutions for them.
"...isn't it a nice demonstration of democracy and treaties can be re-negotiated..."
You understand how this works, right? As part of the EU the UK has bartering clout. As an independent little island with a huge trade deficit and a weak £ it has nothing. So a trade deal with China, for instance, would end with China trading in the UK, and the UK waiting 15 years before trading in China.
There is hyperbole in what I'm saying, which is probably a result of the disappointing outcome of the referendum, but... the UK as a trading partner has nothing to offer anyone.
Agree, independent little is ..difficult. My main argument though was that the EU must somehow? reform and that this vote was a (partly dissapointing, partly brave) request for it. UK belongs to Europe and a re-negotiated 'Union-solution' can and will be found, I'm quite sure. EU also has nothing to offer if too many countries leave...
For those of us who do not live in GB, could somebody ELI5 about how these things work? Does the Prime Minister just hang out until he decides he's had enough?
(Yes, I know I could Wiki it. For others browsing the thread, however, 2-5 sentences on how it all works would be useful.)
It's slightly different depending on the party but essentially the Prime Minister can resign at any time.
In terms of the Conservative Party they don't elect a deputy leader who would take over hence the internal party election for a new Prime Minister in October.
The Conservative Party also have processes to sacrifice their party leader (via the 1922 Committee) which allows the parliamentary MPs to call for a vote of no confidence in the leader and decide new candidates. This is how Margaret Thatcher was forced out.
Yep. The PM is actually appointed by the Queen. But they have to demonstrate that they have enough support in parliament to form a working government. In practice this means that whatever party holds the majority gets to pick the PM. If there is no party with an overall majority (as in 2010) then two or more parties have to reach a coalition agreement.
Prime Ministers in countries that have them are usually the leader of the largest party in the lower house of their Parliament. David Cameron doesn't have to resign immediately, because he's still the leader of the largest party.
He's resigning (or rather has announced he will resign before October) because he had certainly given the impression to his party that if 'Remain' didn't win, he'd resign. He could try and stay on, but the party might get rid of him and vote to make someone else leader (therefore forcing him to resign as Prime Minister).
So he resigns, but he was elected as a representative in the lower house. That means he won't be PM anymore, and he goes back to being a member of the lower house? Does the house pick one of its own members for the job, or does the majority party get to pick anybody at all that they want to be PM?
Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.
> So he resigns, but he was elected as a representative in the lower house. That means he won't be PM anymore, and he goes back to being a member of the lower house?
Yes.
> Does the house pick one of its own members for the job, or does the majority party get to pick anybody at all that they want to be PM?
Officially they can pick a member of either house of parliament. In practice picking a Lord would be extremely controversial and probably lead to some rapid constitutional reform.
> Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.
They usually won't stand in the next election, and go off and do something else - either private business or charity, or one of the less direct parts of government (the house of lords, embassies or the like - traditionally Europe was another destination but I guess no longer). In theory they could stay on and work as foreign secretary or whatever for the person who replaced them (or return to the back benches) but yeah that would be weird.
> So he resigns, but he was elected as a representative in the lower house. That means he won't be PM anymore, and he goes back to being a member of the lower house?
Yep.
> Does the house pick one of its own members for the job, or does the majority party get to pick anybody at all that they want to be PM?
In most countries (the UK included) the majority party will pick one of their MPs. Australia once had a PM die in office (Harold Holt) and have a person in the Senate picked as the replacement, so the replacement ran in the byelection for the previous PM's seat.
> Do PMs that leave go back to being house members? Seems like that would be kinda weird.
Yeah, but they've also been house members the whole time they were PM, so it's not that wierd.
I guess it depends on whether they think they can win or not, my guess is we will get one quite quickly (before people find out exactly what they have done).
Technically the PM serves at the pleasure of the Monarch and could theoretically be dismissed by her should he try to remain in power in an untenable situation.
Can someone explain what happens next? Will UK really leave the EU? If yes, how long will it take? Will EU ask them to leave or just wait for UK to initiate the process?
People can guess, but there's a lot of uncertainty on some points.
> Will UK really leave the EU?
Most likely, as I understand it, the next British government will formally start the (at least) two year process of exiting the EU. In the short term, they are still in the EU.
> Will EU ask them to leave or just wait for UK to initiate the process?
As I understand, under the applicable treaty, the UK has to formally initiate the withdrawal process. The EU has asked them to do so without delay, which is what Cameron had promised before the vote, but Cameron has since said that he plans to leave that to the next PM.
I'm not a fan of Cameron (also, not British and don't have a particularly strong investment in this, though I tend to think Brexit was a bad idea for all involved), but I think there is a fair case to be made that leaving it to the next PM to trigger Article 50 is the right thing to do (promising an immediate trigger -- which was a scare tactic for the vote -- was a bad move.) Here's why: Article 50 provides a 2-year timeline for exit, and provides tht an exit agreement which modifies the default terms takes unanimous approval of the EU members. You want, as much as possible, to have continuous government with a clear mandate during that process so that you can effectively negotiate that agreement and not get stuck with the default terms.
Also, what if the new PM has to pass through general elections? You might end up having someone which promises to trigger article 50 and someone who does not. A second referendum.
> Also, what if the new PM has to pass through general elections?
That shouldn't be necessary (the Conservatives have an outright majority, so their new leader should be able to form a government), but, yeah, it would significantly complicate things (especially if Cameron had triggered Article 50 before leaving.)
Cameron steps down in October. A new Prime Minister will then initiate leaving the EU (per Treaty of Lisbon I think). This will take at least two years, possibly longer.
The market volatility isn't because they're out of the EU or will be that soon, rather everyone planning on a 2018-2019 exit.
> The market volatility isn't because they're out of the EU or will be that soon, rather everyone planning on a 2018-2019 exit.
Well, not just that. There's also other things, like and the resulting lack of certainty of the near-term future for the government of the UK -- and the leadership of its major parties -- which creates plenty of uncertainty on policy and prospects in a much shorter term than the exit itself, as well as the fact that the exit vote, as I understand, kills the agreement that had been negotiated that provided what was described as a "new settlement" on Britain's special relationship within the EU, which was contingent on a "Remain" result in the referendum: that would have taken effect (and, thus, its being cancelled has effects) sooner than the exit now will take effect.
It's highly unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn would remain as the leader of the Labour either since there seems to be an outrage amongst Labour MP's due to the overwhelming number of their core constituencies voting to leave.
The low turnout in Scotland and the lack of major involvement from the SNP during the final weeks almost seems like both the SNP and the Labour at least partially just wanted to sit and watch the world burn.
It seemed that both of them looked at a possible BrExit as a way to get what their want - a Labour Government and a push for another Scottish independence referendum.
To me this is really mind boggling I don't even want to start to estimate how much people including myself (a non-EU/EEA resident of London) would stand to lose over the coming months.
People underestimated just how effective the propaganda and the cheap shots that the pro-BrExit camp spread over the past few weeks were, the EU and every sane political party in the UK should've been up in arms against it and sadly they weren't.
This is just the first crack in the iceberg the full shockwave hasn't hit yet this will fracture the British economy and society for years to come and will have global ramifications.
And while I don't really enjoy of taking a personal jab at you this attitude of hey at least we got rid of Cameron like there was or is an actual sane alternative is exactly how we got here.
Too many people on the left used this referendum not to cast their actual wishes but to settle political scores hoping if they'll set the field ablaze a better and leftier government would eventually come out standing, it won't, and even if by some miracle it eventually will you would be paying the price for the next 30 years.
The UK has forgotten how things were when it was the "sick man of europe" it sure is on it's way for a harsh reminder now.
>> "It's highly unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn would remain as the leader of the Labour either since there seems to be an outrage amongst Labour MP's due to the overwhelming number of their core constituencies voting to leave."
I was pretty happy with Corbyn so far but his complete lack of doing anything throughout this campaign is embarrassing. I'm guessing he didn't want to lose working-class votes but that makes him as bad as Boris Johnson. Deciding the fate of the country base don what's best for his political career.
He didn't campaign strongly because he's been consistently opposed to European integration for most of his parliamentary career. He believes it has a hugely negative effect on job prospects and wages for the poorest in society.
The only reason he even vaguely put his support behind remain was so that he wouldn't face a rebellion among his MPs. I'm pretty certain if he was still a backbencher he would have supported leaving.
I'm really not that invested in this. I just think it's amazing that Cameron would let it happen. What a massive mistake. And what a way to to end your career and cement in your legacy as the person who to get short term gain (ukip support) at an election with the cost of destroyed an economy.
I'm very my pro remain. People voting to leave is mostly about not understanding what your losing. Strong tightly integrated economies don't start wars with each other.
I don't understand why people blame this on Cameron, no one else would be in a position not go a ahead with this, this is a divisive matter but it's clear that the people wanted a vote on the subject.
And let's be fair English left was pretty much demolished in the last elections the Labour lost just as many votes to UKIP as the Tories did as the British blue collar workers used to be their base and many of those are now UKIP voters.
The Labour also lost Scotland to the SNP and the Greens/LD pretty much got rolled over.
The Labour had pretty much zero chance of winning the elections and they knew they had no way of forming a government with the projections for the LD because they could not form a coalition.
If the Labour spent just a little less time attacking the Conservatives and more time reconnecting with the blue collar workers they lost to UKIP and try to maybe not hand over 50 seats to the SNP we wouldn't be in this position.
Heck if the Labour would've done it's job during this referendum we might not have been in this position the so called "Pro-EU" party was silent, the SNP was silent, and the results are well what you would expect.
The government has a responsibility to govern. Cameron shirked his. He didn't have to offer a referendum; he did it not out of some commitment to democracy but as a ploy to win the election.
There has been so much scaremongering in the UK press that the markets are now reacting accordingly.
Ultimately trade deals are important not just to the UK but to the countries it trades with. People in power will make deals happen because they have to.
There's going to be some short term pain - but ultimately everything will balance out.
> Ultimately trade deals are important not just to the UK but to the countries it trades with. People in power will make deals happen because they have to.
It's wishful thinking that the deals will be as favourable to the UK, with its now much smaller leverage.
If the so-called scaremongering proves to be true (foreign investment shifting away from UK, etc.), I'm afraid, people like you will call it a conspiracy and a global plot facilitated by a vengeful EU.
Will I call it a conspiracy? That's very insightful of you, thanks for your fortune telling.
There's going to be pain, but I have confidence that we'll get deals in place that on average over the next five to ten years will see things balance out.
Your comment raised a red flag for me, because "scaremongering in the UK press" implies some kind of concerted effort, a conspiracy, to subvert the truth. That is why I, probably unfairly, placed you in a certain camp.
Five to ten years is a very long time to bet on. I do not share your confidence. And it looks like you will have less than two years time to settle things. BTW, is that five to ten years with or without Scottish oil?
Just remember: if you're wrong, the people who voted for leave and those who advocated it are to blame, no one else. Not the EU, not "the experts", not the "scaremongerers".
The Scottish oil industry is already on its arse so I don't see that coming in to play? From Wikipedia: The North Sea oil and gas industry contributed £35 billion to the UK economy (a little under 1% of GDP) in 2014 and is expected to decline in the coming years.
I have friends that used to work for BP and Co in Aberdeen and their take on it is that the good old days of oil production in Scotland are well and truly dead.
Dead dinosaurs to one side - whatever the actual truth, the media here in the UK (including the BBC in my opinion) did a terrible job of providing fact based, balanced views on the situation. Scaremongering might be a bit harsh - but the UK public are currently running scared and nothing good will come of that short or long term.
The economy is not everything. I know most people including leaders these days think all political decisions should be made keeping the economy in mind, and that's the most important thing. But I don't think this to be the case. Sovereignty and the right for people to make the rules that govern them are just as important if not more important than the economy.
As if the pound needed more beating today. Oh well he was not at the level of Disraeli, Churchill or Thatcher. He made that mess and didn't even had the balls to pull the trigger of brexit himself.
All hail Boris Johnson. Crazy hairdos on top of influential Anglo Saxon countries is bull market it seems.
> Crazy hairdos on top of influential Anglo Saxon countries is bull market it seems.
Let's hope NL will manage to avoid that.
In a way the 'brexit' may be the strongest shot in the arm for the rest of European unity if the consequences are quick and harsh enough. That would be a real pity for the people in the UK, but it may still have some positive effect.
I am optimistic ... The EU has leverage. And the revanche towards UK may unite the continent.
Also the Anglo-Saxon worldview ... and their laizes faire approach is incompatible with the continental worldview. I honestly believe that UK impeded European unity with their "special" status inside.
If the EU plays its cards correctly we may remove the U from UK, take in the parts, and then include England and Whales ... on our terms. Realpolitik is fun thing to play.
> I am optimistic ... The EU has leverage. And the revanche towards UK may unite the continent.
Many don't like the 'heavy hands' of Russia, Turkey, China and then here we have a disappointing, difficult voting result and we (you) talk about revanche?
The correct answer should imho be that EU introspects about what needs to be changed that such an important country as the UK would happily vote to participate.
Recent polls suggest that the NL will not leave. I certainly hope not, and as a foreigner living, working, and paying taxes in the NL I'm really upset that I'd not be able to vote if such a referendum would come to pass.