Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

maybe he's afraid of UKIP taking a lot of Labour seats next GE

Tactically speaking, there's no reason to talk about anything. Just sit. Bluff calling time. Let UKIP and Johnson's bunch take the fall for triggering or not triggering.

Corbyn wants nothing to do with second-referendum talk or other ways of staying in EU, apparently.

Quite right too. Anyone clinging to this is deluded imo, Austritt heißt Austritt.

I had to google that, I thought you were invoking the Anschluss there!

there's no way they won't feel cheated i reckon. it can't "happen" in any way that will sate, pacify, or unite the people who voted for it. nothing will happen.

But if Britain does technically leave the EU and they just feel cheated by continuing poor public services or immigration, then at least they might blame Boris Johnson and Dan Hannan rather than the whole world.

People of other skin colours and accents will still be here

dumb american question: if scotland leaves to join the EU, doesn't that result in a permanent shift towards the right for british politics, since you lose the left-wing scottish voting bloc? that seems bad.

yes

http://i.imgur.com/UsEEkih.png

The EDL were outnumbered ten to one by protesters in Newcastle.

https://twitter.com/ChukaUmunna/status/746694000262905856

Interesting hearing Brexit MPs seeking to disown Vote Leave promises now - we will hold them, Boris & the rest to each and everyone of them

lol

Hannan: We've decided we actually don't want to bar all EU migrants / scrap the Human Rights Act
Blairites: You have to! You said you would!

I've seen a lot of people compare this to the idea of Texas secession, but the legal barriers for Texas leaving the US are much higher. It seems utterly crazy to me that this was all decided by a simple majority vote. Nothing monumental like this in the US ever gets voted via referendum as far as I'm aware.

california does it and that's a bigger economy than the UK (so is france as of friday, btw)

although are CA proposition ballots simple majority?

Nothing monumental like this in the US ever gets voted via referendum really tho i think maybe some states do referendums

yep it's just 50% in california

most people agree the system is a disaster though

they should ask for a referendum on it then

true, California is a good exception. Don't know if they could use a referendum to leave the US, though.

xps

But states can't vote counter to federally legislated international treaties and laws, only on local issues. And even they can't go counter to federal law, or at least, are open to legal challenge.

Another dumber American question: why couldn't this vote have been non-binding and symbolic, just giving the people a chance to voice their opinion and pressure the government? As a first step or something, the first round to express approval/disapproval and get (or not get) the issue on a formal, legal, law-changing ballot, and then the second vote be the binding vote? You'd think for something this huge there would be another step between the vote and implementation.

Did the UK join the EU with a similar public referendum? Can people vote on referendums to break treaties and other laws, lower taxes, go to war or other decisions with huge repercussions? I have no idea how it works over there.

Gah, I meant by my initial statement that US states, even if they voted counter to federal law, still open themselves up to immediate legal challenge. There are checks in place, or at least a legal process that can staunch or stop the most boneheaded of moves, however slowly it may take the courts to decide.

It is non binding and up to the government to implement. They could either ignore it or call a second referendum if they wanted to but it's highly unlikely the grass roots of the ruling party would tolerate either and they're in charge of selecting the new Prime Minister.

There wasn't a referendum to join the EEC, as it was then, but there was one two years later to see whether people wanted to stay.

why couldn't this vote have been non-binding and symbolic, just giving the people a chance to voice their opinion and pressure the government?

technically it was. but the debate was conducted as if it were binding, and i suspect that's how most of the electorate understood it (aside from the "what is the EU" googlers, perhaps). and in any case there's no UK politician in a strong enough position to resist any pressure at all right now.

Scotland may have to rely on a (possibly unilateral) referendum soon, so I'd rather not try to undermine their position too much.

There should be one strong enough to shape the pressure though. "The people were lied to, look!" will find tons of fertile ground on both sides. And help to undermine the legitimacy of the result xp

David Lammy calls on parliament to disregard the result: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-result-latest-david-lammy-mp-eu-referendum-result-parliament-twitter-statement-stop-this-a7102931.html

Really wish the Labour leadership would take a similar stand here tbh, considering Leave are reneging on their pledges left right and centre

You know how their is a legal age where you are allowed to start voting? Could we just also cap when it ends, like 75 or something? You are too old and riddled with dementia and soz its over.

this idea has been floated a bit recently by ppl including jeremy paxman but with our political system I think there is no chance whatsoever of it happening

The political system of democracy?

maybe I am underestimating how self-destructive the grey vote is

Lord Greville Janner voted in the House of Lords 203 times after being diagnosed with dementia and giving power of attorney to his children, it has emerged.

I was about to say, they'd need to clear out half the House Of Lords.

they should probably have noticed after voted 'faust arp' 203 times

The EU don't want Britain out. The moderate conservative leadership at the EU may -- imagine this! -- have have actually communicated with their party cousins in the UK and have some reason to believe that the referendum was a bit of a bluff and has more symbolic than actual weight. A different question could have been written -- this one, the one with no dates and no directions and the word "should" -- is the one that we are dealing with.

― Three Word Username, Saturday, 25 June 2016 14:03 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Many xps - TWU, can you elaborate on what you mean by the word 'should'? I've written elsewhere about my reaction to that word but haven't seen much discussed about the language of the question.

Hugh Abbot: He actually said this is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing.

Malcolm Tucker: What did he actually say?

Hugh Abbot: He said this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.

Malcolm Tucker: 'SHOULD' be doing. 'Should' does not mean 'yes'.

The British people would rightly expect triggering article 50 to start straight away.
We could give that £350m to the NHS
Diet lemonade, made "with" "real" lemons

ordinary lemons, decent lemons

lemmings more like

https://twitter.com/sayeedawarsi/status/746721412942073857

OUT 17,000,000 IN 48%

She talks passionately about extending the provision of English language education, and it sounds wonderful. But if that's what she's really talking about, why not announce that her government will move heaven and earth to help everyone in the country learn English? Why frighten immigrants with the threat of a health service that won't treat them in an emergency unless they know how to say "cardiac arrest" in English?

"Because it's about working out which direction we're going in."

Thx Baroness Warsi. Who could have predicted this?

Forgot all this stuff from earlier about Scotland having a veto over Brexit. That'd kill the patient to cure it though http://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/746733571952369664

Lawyers say Cameron's remarks could count as Article 50 notification. Ffs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36631518

I would imagine there's at least a form to fill in

following on from stet, looks like an interesting doc probably worth reading in full: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf

can someone plot out the timeline for me
- unclear whether PM can notify under prerogative or parliament has to ratify
- if latter, current parliament is roughly 70% remain so they won't vote in favour of notifying
- we'll need a new parliament then
- safe assumption that the requirements of the FTPA can be got round?
- tory manifesto pledges to enact manifesto
- can tories win GE on that? assume a whole bunch of ppl who voted them in currently assumed their referendum pledge would be inconsequential
- UKIP voters would presumably coalesce around them tho

- if latter, current parliament is roughly 70% remain so they won't vote in favour of notifying

i guess we'll see over the next few days, but my impression is that most of them think of themselves as too "honourable" to vote their personal opinion in opposition after an explicit referendum mandate.

If it's unclear whether the PM can use prerogative, it means he can.

Even if it went to parliament as a delaying tactic, i think you'd have a fair proportion of MPs voting to leave because they feel the result of the referendum needs to be respected (and they fear getting turfed out by UKIP if they don't).

idk if Labour could win a GE campaigning to ignore the referendum even if they wanted to (which they appear not to).

Honestly, if it's not going to happen, i think the Scottish / NI veto is the most likely route.

i'm sure there's plenty of ways it could legally be stopped. i just don't think there's anyone who wants to who is also able to.

Looking at all the possible 'escape routes' being sought, a question for you remainers: would you really want gov to pass by the result of the referendum? Or to have a second referendum even? I'm all about remain too, but the petition for a second referendum, within 48h after the result, is rather rich.

the petition is a load of shit and not relevant to anything