Is anyone but me watching EU Referendum?

[Wychmire he/him]

Is anyone but me watching BREXIT at http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results?

Edited June 24, 2016 by Wychmire

[ThirdGen]

Nope.  The UK just did a duuuuuumb thing.

Edit: I mean yes.  I am also watching it.

Edited June 24, 2016 by ThirdGen
Misread original question.

[Delightful]

Can someone please explain to me what this whole thing is about?

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

There has been underlying discontent in Britain against the EU for decades, of varying strength. Britain has, historically, never been as engaged with Europe as continental countries - and indeed, didn't join the Euro when it was introduced in the EU. One of the main parties in British politics, the Conservative Party, is particularly prone to infighting over the EU. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has promised a referendum on British membership in the case of treaty change since 2009, but supported a 2013 Private Member's Bill to hold a referendum by 2017. He was blocked from introducing this into UK law by the Conservative's coaltion partners, the Liberal Democrats, and so made a referendum a manifesto pledge for the 2015 General Election. The Conservative Party won a majority in 2015, and so Cameron was forced to hold to his pledge. One should note that this is all with a backdrop of growing support for UKIP - an anti-EU party over the last few years putting pressure on Cameron to shore up his right flank, and serious pressure from Conservative eurosceptic backbenchers.

Arguments put forward for 'Brexit' include a desire to restore sovereignty to the British Parliament - many laws are made in Brussels, by the European Commission and European Parliament, a desire to limit immigration from the EU, which is currently unchecked as part of the single market, perceived EU regulation of British business, and British payments to the EU that it does not receive back as a rebate or subsidies.

Arguments against 'Brexit' included predominantly the advantages of membership of the single market, which greatly eases trade within the EU, Foreign Direct Investment into the UK dependent on EU membership, and arguments that immigration has been positive, and EU regulations have protected workers' rights.

The referendum result has been extraordinarily close - with 52% voting to leave and 48% voting to remain. Geographically, results to leave have been overwhelmingly in England and Wales, with London, Northern Ireland and Scotland voting to remain - albeit being outweighed by those votes to leave.

The consequences of leaving are not fully known. The process to leave the EU is the triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which leads to a 2 year negotiation process between the UK and EU as to the terms of leaving. Although the referendum was technically non-binding, and so doesn't automatically trigger Article 50, the Prime Minister is certain to trigger the withdrawal in the near term.

It is not yet known whether the UK will remain in the Single Market, or the terms of trade with the EU - these will be decided on as part of the Article 50 negotiations.

The implications of the vote on domestic politics in the UK is the likely increase in speed of the David Cameron's resignation - if not immediately, then likely in the next couple of years, rather than towards 2020. There have also been suggestions of a revolt against the Labour Party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who is widely seen as not having pulled his weight in persuading Labour supporters to vote in. It is not yet known what will become of UKIP - the party formed solely to ensure the UK leaves the EU.

Internationally, there is now increased agitation in other EU countries for their own referendums on membership - the UK's leaving will likely have a significant impact on the French and Italian elections in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

 

Edit: David Cameron has now announced his resignation, with his successor to be decided by the Conservative Party conference in October. He will not be triggering Article 50, leaving it to his successor to do so. The Conservative Party chooses it's leaders through a sounding process among the parliamentary party, which decides upon two candidates. Conservative Party members nationally then have an opportunity to vote and decide between the two candidates.

There is much speculation that this will lead to a general election being triggered, in order for the new Conservative leader to claim a mandate. This would further delay the triggering of Article 50, and push final exit of the EU back to potentially late 2018 or early 2019.

Edited June 24, 2016 by OrlokTsubodai
Updating with developments

[Windrunner he/him]

28 minutes ago, Delightful said:

Can someone please explain to me what this whole thing is about?

The simple explanation is that the UK has voted to leave the European Union. I've read a bit about it, but you'd need someone better informed than me to explain the rationale for both sides. I personally did not anticipate this happening, but I guess they've made their decision. Hopefully it all works out okay economically for them.

[Wychmire he/him]

And I'm having a cake to celebrate! Tomorrow. And of course it will look like the British Flag.

anyway... I support them leaving!

Mainly because my father does and he hasn't been wrong much anything he talks about...

[Mestiv he/him]

I'm upset that UK voted to leave. UE was doing such a good job of integrating nations, allowing for easy travel, easy investments. I understand that British people may be afraid of immigrants, they may feel that their jobs are being stolen... Also there is this obvious thing that UK pays a lot cash to UE funds, while it doesn't receive as much in plain cash back. However, it receives other benefits. Easier trade with all other UE members, cheap work force, laws shared with other UE members that make life simply easier.

There are many Polish citizens that want Poland to leave UE. They're currently not in majority, because wherever you look in Poland, you see something that is build using UE-money. They are however rising the same arguments. Some even yell that Poland is giving UE more money than it receives, while driving their car on a road funded in 90% by UE to work in a building that was build with 80% UE funds 

To me, this fight for "independence" from UE is wrong. Can someone tell me what UE laws were harmful for UK or PL citizens? What is the UE doing to you that you don't want? 

British say that immigrants take their jobs... well that's not that simple. The plumber from Poland is gonna need to eat something, live somewhere, have fun somewhere. This one person is going to help create couple of other work places for one he/she takes. It's not like there is a limit number of people that can work in given country. Number of jobs will grow with number of people. Besides, it's not like there were that many British plumbers, nurses or builders willing to work for the money the immigrants are being paid. If in the next couple of years a Ukrainian or Lithuanian will try to get the same job I want, I'm not gonna whine about it, but do my best to present a better offer to the employer. Isolation is not a way to go.

Now I wonder what will be the impact of this decision on British economy, I don't know much about it, but I guess it will be interesting. What will happen with Polish workers that are currently in UK.

I'm also afraid that we'll have France exiting soon... 

A nice video about immigrants:

Spoiler

 

 

[Robinski he/him]

3 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

There has been underlying discontent in Britain against the EU for decades...

...and push final exit of the EU back to potentially late 2018 or early 2019.

Yeah, what he said.

As a Scot, I now fear another referendum on Scottish Independence from the UK. Although the Scottish National Party do not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, they may well be able to win a vote on another independence referendum. While the UK may well be able to operate effectively in world markets, political structures, etc. on its own, I have no doubts that Scotland is not equipped to do the same.

 

[Mestiv he/him]

27 minutes ago, Robinski said:

As a Scot, I now fear another referendum on Scottish Independence from the UK. Although the Scottish National Party do not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, they may well be able to win a vote on another independence referendum. While the UK may well be able to operate effectively in world markets, political structures, etc. on its own, I have no doubts that Scotland is not equipped to do the same.

 

Wasn't there a referendum like that not that long ago? Or my memory is playing tricks on me?

[STINK he/him]

Yeah Scotland recently did a referendum on leaving the UK, but they stayed in. Then this referendum has happened and  62% of Scotland wanted to remain (which is the biggest percentage out of the countries that voted) so some people think that this will lead to Scotland wanting to join the EU / Not leave it (I'm not really sure I always ask Orlok my politics questions)

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

They voted to leave? Storms. It looked like the opposite would happen last night, unless I was reading the early results wrong. Well, this American thinks they made a bad choice, but I'm hoping it works out anyway. 

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Short term, it's going to be a pain. There will be a lot of political finnagling on the part of Parliament to remain, including some attempts to have the EU sweeten the deal for remaining.

Long term, we're all dead.

 

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Aaaannnnnd now Scotland is looking to hold another referendum on leaving the UK and staying with the EU. As if the original vote wasn't enough of a game changer. 

[Mestiv he/him]

They want to strike the iron while it's hot. The whole administration is going to be turned upside down anyway, so they might as well do both things during one reorganization... I wonder if they'll succeed. Scotland being more loyal to UE than to UK... very interesting.

[STINK he/him]

Yeah, at least we got plenty of things happening over here

There's Ireland and Northern Ireland looking to join up (so that Northern Ireland would be in the EU)

Scotland leaving the UK because they all wanna be in the EU.

People on Facebook all sharing a petition to run the referendum again because the results were so close.

People on Facebook all being happy about Cameron resigning (wonder if Orlok will post about that...)

And that's just in the morning! By next week we might have all migrated to the moon.

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

@Mestiv, if it's any reassurance to you, there remains a substantial proportion of the British populace who do not opposite immigration - leave won through building a coalition of those who feel discontent at globalisation and immigration, and substantial elements of the 'traditional' wing of the Conservative Party - voters who would have been far more concerned with sovereignty and self-rule than immigration. Bearing this in mind, certainly less than half, probably significantly so, of the electorate did vote based on immigration from Eastern Europe being a concern.

 

On the question of Scotland, it becomes very interesting. The coalition between the SNP and the Scottish Greens has a very narrow majority in the Scottish Parliament, complicating the process of calling for a second referendum.

Even if the Scottish Parliament calls for a second referendum, a referendum can only be the parliament in Westminster. Given the turbulence leaving the EU will cause to the economy anyway, it is likely that the government would seek to avoid further uncertainty in the economy, and without the SNP becoming part of a coalition in the event of a snap election (a possibility to confirm the mandate of the new conservative leader elected in October), I don't foresee Westminster allowing another referendum.

Also complicating is Scotland's status with the EU, if it did declare independence. Scotland would not necessarily be a member of the EU automatically - with many in the EU instead saying it would have to follow the formal process if accession. This is, in turn, made difficult by the position of Spain. Spain, seeking to set an example to Catalonia (a region of Spain calling for independence) has said in the past it would block Scottish accession - all EU member states have a veto on new members joining. 

Finally, there is there question of whether Scotland could succeed alone. When the last referendum was held, oil prices were at close to $100 per barrel - with oil revenues contributing a significant part of the proposed budget. Now, though, oil prices have plummeted - and are expected to stay roughly around $50 a barrel. This makes presenting any argument for economic security when independent far more difficult, although it may be offset by the promise of greater growth in the single market.

 

@STINK, I mentioned Cameron's resignation and it's implications in an edit to my first post. Personally, I believe Cameron's position was untenable after the loss - he'd have been unable to pass legislation, held hostage by a eurosceptic bloc of his MPs, and wouldn't have had credibility in the Article 50 negotiations. In my mind, though, he's made the right call with regards to staying on until October - providing a little stability whilst the more volatile, short term effects of leaving OK the markets are weathered.

[Robinski he/him]

2 hours ago, Mestiv said:

Wasn't there a referendum like that not that long ago? Or my memory is playing tricks on me?

18th September 2014 - but the Brexit vote changes the landscape.

 

[Robinski he/him]

1 hour ago, STINK said:

And that's just in the morning! By next week we might have all migrated to the moon.

If they've got wi-fi up there, sign me up. Should be safe enough until President Trump decides to build a golf course in the Sea of Tranquillity.

 

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

1 minute ago, Robinski said:

If they've got wi-fi up there, sign me up. Should be safe enough until President Trump decides to build a golf course in the Sea of Tranquillity.

 

These words ought never be spoken in polite company. 

[Robinski he/him]

I'm presuming if he wins, DC will be renamed Trumpton*                    

(*kids TV show in the UK in 1967)

...and if it distracts him from destroying the ecosystem of the East Coast of Scotland...

...No, I'm kidding.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Robinski

[king of nowhere]

Well, I have a few comments to make on this

1) I have mixed feelings about the vote. I totally support european unity and I'd rather britain have remained, but I am fairly sure they leaving the union will have negative consequences, and so I hope seeing britain suffer as a result of leaving the EU may shut up other eurosceptics movements in other countries. With some luck, this vote may actually help the cause of european unity in the long run.

2) I expect both sides of the argument to have wildly exaggerated on the consequences of the vote. Britain will likely lose a few % of GDP over the next few years, but the world will mostly go on as it did. Proponents of this or that cause have always claimed apocalypse if votes won't go their way, but I've never seen it actually happen.

3) My main fear is that other countries may leave EU soon, pushing on emotional reasons. That's dangerous if those hypotetical votes are held soon, because the negative consequences of brexit are long-term and other counntries may vote for leaving on the basis that nothing bad happened to england in the first few months.

4) there will be less changes than those who votes "leave" think. For example, they complained about european regulations, but europe is the main trading partner of britain, so if they want to sell in europe they still must respect european regulations. And britain never really wanted to integrate in europe: they didn't adopt the euro, they rejected most european standardizations, they kept driving on the left and they demanded exemption from a number of european laws (europe is quite peculiar because it make laws that should be binding for all members, but in practice the individual states can choose to ignore european regulations with little or no practical consequences). I went to britain a few times, and I got the impression that it has never really been part of the EU but in name.

5) This is the direct result of europe failing on many fronts, first and foremost on immigration. And we face a big problem with immigration because the political debate has extremized in two positions: idealistic naivety on one side, and racism on the other. I've heard plenty of politicians make big ideological claim on sinking the boats of the immigrants (yeah, killing hundreds because they are inconveniencing us, that's totally acceptable; this includes paying the african countries to make those immigrants disappear and then pretend to not be responsible for what they do), or on giving them a home and a job as soon as they arrive (because absolutely there are jobs and homes for everyone. It's not like there's a large part of our own citizens that are already unemployed and would be treated better by their own nations if they painted their face black and pretended to be foreigners). I've heard nobody proposing realistic solutions. Controlled immigration brings benefits. Unchecked immigration brings crime and unemployment. As long as the idealistic front will keep being naive, people like trump or farage will keep getting more votes. Frankly, if the alternative is people who will pretend the problem does not exist, I'm not sure which is the lesser evil.

[Mestiv he/him]

49 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

As long as the idealistic front will keep being naive, people like trump or farage will keep getting more votes. Frankly, if the alternative is people who will pretend the problem does not exist, I'm not sure which is the lesser evil.

I believe that those that are more open to immigration are just forced to idealize it by their opponents. If they admit that there are security risks, if no precautions are made, the xenophobic side will say "see, they agree with us", implying that the middle ground agrees with everything those against migration stand for. Same mechanism works the other way I guess. This discussion is very polarized, but I think most people don't have such extreme views on the matter.

[Wychmire he/him]

I think it's good they left. partially because of all the money the UK pays the EU can now be focused elsewhere. Here is a few issues and both sides opinions on them.

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, Mestiv said:

I believe that those that are more open to immigration are just forced to idealize it by their opponents. If they admit that there are security risks, if no precautions are made, the xenophobic side will say "see, they agree with us", implying that the middle ground agrees with everything those against migration stand for. Same mechanism works the other way I guess. This discussion is very polarized, but I think most people don't have such extreme views on the matter.

yeah, i fully agree with that, and everyone i talk to is more or lesss in the middle ground. But the politicians only express polarized opinions, and so they are not proposing solutions. At least not in italy; they make great declarations, but they don't actually do anything. Basically, in italy the immigrants are rescued in the sea, then they should be brought into specific housing structures where they should be identified and admitted or rejected. Except those structures are all full, and so the immigrants are sent wherever it happens, mostly in hotels (there's plenty of people getting rich by working in the assistance to immigrants). They should be detained until they are accepted or rejected, but it is illegal to detain someone who is not guilty of a crime, so they can leave quite easily. Then there is the commission that should decide whether the immigrants are to be allowed, but they are revising two or three persons every day. While one thousand arrives on average. And even when one immigrant is declared to be irregular and expelled, all they do is give him a piece of paper that says that he has to leave the country. Of course the guy will just hide. Even if he were caught again, all it would be done would be to give him another piece of paper with written that he has to leave.

Basically, there are big holes in the laws that should regulate how immigrants are handled, and those legislative holes lead to newly arrived immigrants doing more or less as they please.

It doesn't help that italian law is very soft on petty crime, which is the kind of crime mostly committed by immigrants. This is not exactly an immigrants-related problem, but it is becoming seen as such more and more. Petty crime is generally punished with fines, but since the irregular immigrants officially own nothing, they cannot be punnished. In my city there was a woman who almost every day was stopped by the police for robbery or theft or minor acts of violence, and every time the judges would let her go. she committed well over one hundred crimes before she was finally put in jail. And the left-wing politicians are proposing even more tolerance towards petty crime. Right-wing politicians talk racism, but they often are the guys who are making money out of assisting the immigrants.

I hope your countries have better laws on the subject...

 

[Mestiv he/him]

Poland has no such problems. Nobody wants to come here, they go to Germany