Brexit might not happen after all

[sdifox]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/uk-brexit-pass-parliament-approval-161103101737902.html


apparently the Parliament has to approve Brexit and the current bunch will certainly not. Hopefully they block it.

 

[IronWing]

MPs is so screwed. Should be an entertaining winter.

 

[Genx87]

I called this the day after the vote. I figured the parliament wouldn't vote to leave the EU(what sane member would?). Now they have a real easy excuse as well.

 

[cytg111]

This would be great news.
This and drumpf fading into the void would put my world perspective barometer back to "outlook : a chance for sun".

 

[Thump553]

I agree with the results but certainly not the method (which distinguishes me from the run of the mill Trump supporter). IMO Brexit was a stupid move for Great Britain and for the world as a whole, but Parliament is the elected representative of the people and the people have spoken on this.

A far more appealable solution would be to have a revote. I have not seen anything the limits the number of such votes or says they are permanent and irrevocable.

 

[cbrunny]

So, there's a distinct difference between a typical referendum and passing of legislation that (I think) is different from how the USA votes on policy during their elections.

In Canada, when we have referenda, usually it isn't a very clear "vote yes on this specific piece of legislation as it is written with no changes". Instead, its some generic statement like "do you support some policy thing written vaguely so joe blow can understand it"

The result is a non-binding referenda. Even if it passes, there's no guarantee it is policy because the policy itself hasn't been written yet.

To an extent this is splitting hairs but it also does make sense.

Put another way, a referenda is really just one big state sponsored public opinion poll.

 

[sportage]

And Trump is not going to build any wall, impose taxes on goods entering the country to force industry back into the US, no deportation of illegals nor banning of Muslims.
Why?
Because just as with Brexit and the British Parliament, in America the congress always has the last word.
All that republicans want from a president Trump is securing the US Supreme Court for the next 4 years. And that is it...
After that, republicans in congress have little use for a Donald Trump.
Nor will they go along with his ideas because as with British Parliament, the US house and US senate have the last word. Not some egomaniac "outsider".
Congress will get through only the US Supreme Court justices that they want to get through.
Not necessarily those that Donald Trump would prefer.

What I want to see will be how the British people react to the reality that all their efforts and voting boiled down to meaningless nothingness.
And back over here in our neck of the woods, how those that elected Donald Trump will react when after 4 years they realize no wall will be built, no illegals were deported, no Muslims were denied US entrance.
Add to that, no more healthcare options other than the old uninsured ER visit, privatized social security into the hands of wall street market greed, worthless voucher-ized medicare, and further loss of US industry and US jobs to Mexico.

There is no fat lady back stage waiting to sing.
All we have is that giant huge big foot that extends from the establishment onto the backs of the people.
I want to see exactly what grand plan the disgruntled US citizenry might then try next?

 

[sdifox]

There are enough threads about US election. Please leave that out of this one.

I blame Cameron for this mess. Who the fuck does 50% plus one vote for earth shaking decision like this? Two thirds should be the norm.

 

[theeedude]

There is no fat lady back stage waiting to sing.
All we have is that giant huge big foot that extends from the establishment onto the backs of the people.
I want to see exactly what grand plan the disgruntled US citizenry might then try next?

''
By that time, GOP SCOTUS would likely sign off on all sorts of voter suppression and dirty tricks, so a democratic course correction could be foreclosed. Not that I'd necessarily feel sorry for the country, because we would deserve whatever is coming to us if we elect Trump.

 

[sdifox]

Best case, the MPs reject the referendum and tell the public if they are not happy they can elect a different MP come election time. National interest trumps all.

 

[cytg111]

I agree with the results but certainly not the method...

I know. We had a vote on some EU regulations years back, I voted yay and the result came out the against, now some 6 months later our gov issued about the same vote again(after much pr and marketing), this time I voted nay, cause, well, the people have spoken, dont screw with us. Alot of people did that, and the proposition was voted down again.

 

[Sunburn74]

They really should just have a second referendum. Why am I the only one who thinks this a reasonable thing to do?

 

[zinfamous]

This would be great news.
This and drumpf fading into the void would put my world perspective barometer back to "outlook : a chance for sun".

I hope all of this means that I'm going to be rich again!

 

[zinfamous]

They really should just have a second referendum. Why am I the only one who thinks this a reasonable thing to do?

"OK guys, OK, seriously, now. Guys? For reals now, this is the real vote, OK?"

 

[Zorba]

"OK guys, OK, seriously, now. Guys? For reals now, this is the real vote, OK?"

Hey, every time a ballot measure around here gets voted down it is back on the ballot at the next election until it passes. Why not go the other way, keep voting until it get a no vote .

Personally I think the Founding Fathers (of the US) had it right to create a representative government, instead of a direct democracy and I think this issue is why too big to leave in the hands of uninformed voters.

 

[cbrunny]

Hey, every time a ballot measure around here gets voted down it is back on the ballot at the next election until it passes. Why not go the other way, keep voting until it get a no vote .

Personally I think the Founding Fathers (of the US) had it right to create a representative government, instead of a direct democracy and I think this issue is why too big to leave in the hands of uninformed voters.

The USA has more referenda (ballot initiatives, props, etc) than any country I've ever heard of, by a wide margin.

 

[Zorba]

The USA has more referenda (ballot initiatives, props, etc) than any country I've ever heard of, by a wide margin.

True, except those are all at the local and state level. I've never seen or heard of a federal ballot initiative.

At the local level it makes more sense because the issues are much simpler, easier to understand, and general have a much more direct and obvious effect. State less so and federal would be much less so.

 

[Blackjack200]

''
By that time, GOP SCOTUS would likely sign off on all sorts of voter suppression and dirty tricks, so a democratic course correction could be foreclosed. Not that I'd necessarily feel sorry for the country, because we would deserve whatever is coming to us if we elect Trump.

The problem with this is that "the country" is not a sentient being for which pity makes any sense. The people that would suffer the most under a Trump presidency are the strongest supporters of Clinton.

It's similar to the leave vote. A bunch of shitheads casting ballots to make misery of the lives of others.

 

[RichUK]

HAPPY FUCKING DAYS!!!

Hopefully the whole idea of brexit just falls through. That'd be a nice slap in the face for the monkeys who voted leave.

Oh, how's the Trump situation panning out?

 

[RichUK]

I agree with the results but certainly not the method (which distinguishes me from the run of the mill Trump supporter). IMO Brexit was a stupid move for Great Britain and for the world as a whole, but Parliament is the elected representative of the people and the people have spoken on this.

A far more appealable solution would be to have a revote. I have not seen anything the limits the number of such votes or says they are permanent and irrevocable.

Parliament is supposed to represent the people yes, but they're the people we should rely on to steer the country in the right direction. After all, we are the simpletons and they are the elected intellectuals who should be better informed to make such decisions.

Boris Johnson is just a fucktard that completely misrepresented the Brexit benefits and drivers for his own political gain.

 

[cbrunny]

True, except those are all at the local and state level. I've never seen or heard of a federal ballot initiative.

At the local level it makes more sense because the issues are much simpler, easier to understand, and general have a much more direct and obvious effect. State less so and federal would be much less so.

Perhaps. But it kind of sounds like you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, how's the Trump situation panning out?

Somehow, this is all your fault. Drunken Brits always trying to influence our elections!

 

[theeedude]

The problem with this is that "the country" is not a sentient being for which pity makes any sense. The people that would suffer the most under a Trump presidency are the strongest supporters of Clinton.

If those supporters turn out, Clinton will win, if not, they get what they get.

 

[RichUK]

Somehow, this is all your fault. Drunken Brits always trying to influence our elections!

Trump FTW.

 

[sactoking]

Interesting article this morning on, I think, the NYT website. I'd link but I'm on my phone, shouldn't be too hard to find. Essentially said that Brexit is still a done deal, this just changes how involved Parliament can be in the negotiating strategy.