EU Referendum - La Deuxième Partie

[Proteus_MST]

It may be possible that there will be a second referendum

At least there is a petition, already from May, that the UK government should hold a 2nd referendum if the outcome is less than 60% pro (or against) Brexit and the turnout is less than 75%.
The Petition has much more than the necessary signatories to be considered for debate in the parliament ... and the turnout of the Brexit referendum was ~72% -> less than 75%.
So, if the british government wants a loophole to get out of the Brexit, they have all means necessary

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

I guess, the 2nd referendum would be contra Brexit (as many Pro-Brexit voters already regret their vote and also because a 2nd referendum surely would motivate lots of people to vote, who are contra Brexit, but were too lazy to go to the voting booths during the 1st referendum)

[Dauphin]

Vote again is a terrible idea. It stinks of "I didn't win" petulance. I would only be in favour of a second referendum if it was to approve the exit deal - Remain in the EU, or accept the new deal on the table.

[Proteus_MST]

Vote again is a terrible idea. It stinks of "I didn't win" petulance. I would only be in favour of a second referendum if it was to approve the exit deal - Remain in the EU, or accept the new deal on the table.

Well, the parliament would have a good justification ...
i.e. the existence of the referendum, which was made 1 month before the referendum, has a large number of signatories (~1.5 million) and also gives very specific preconditions that have to be fulfilled in order for the 2nd referendum to take place (i.e. less than 75% voter turnout and less than 60% of the votes pro or contra Brexit)

So, the decision to hold a second referendum wouldn't come out of thin air

[Dauphin]

I don't think you can (morally or democratically) change the rules after the result, even if the alternative rules were floated by someone before the result was known. Maybe if the vast majority of folk wanted the result voided, but the outers will never agree to that.

[korn469]

Well, the parliament would have a good justification ...
i.e. the existence of the referendum, which was made 1 month before the referendum, has a large number of signatories (~1.5 million) and also gives very specific preconditions that have to be fulfilled in order for the 2nd referendum to take place (i.e. less than 75% voter turnout and less than 60% of the votes pro or contra Brexit)

So, the decision to hold a second referendum wouldn't come out of thin air

While I am completely in favor of mandatory voting and compulsory voting registration, it doesn't appear that the referendum had either in place. Once again voters disappointed some significant portion of people who care about this particular vote, both residents of UK and people in other nations. While this election is just another case of a minority imposing it's will on the majority (only about 37.3% of people voted to leave), the other side did even worse (only about 34.5% of people voted to remain).

While a 60% majority and 75% voter turnout would be a far better outcome, it still doesn't make an absolute majority, so I don't see what's so special about it. Unless there was a rule that stated unless any given vote/referendum constitutes 50% +1 of the total voters, there must be a another vote, then it's basically just an arbitrary rule makes no sense. Also the fact that 1.5 million people favored this, should pale in comparison 17+ million that voted to leave. If you are just relying on arbitrary rules, you might as well say, if it's not 90% in favor of one position with at least 95% turnout then the prime minister gets to choose.

I agree with Dauphin. It's not like you can go into a casino, lose a bet and then just repeatedly say "double or nothing" and do that until you finally win. What if remain wins the hypothetical 2nd vote, but it doesn't meet the threshold set in the in the document you reference. Does the second vote count? Or does it become a best out of 7 series like the US professional baseball and basketball championships? Does it become like a race, and you hold several, maybe 20 or 30 or 150 votes and count up the total winning percentages of each sides until one sides gets to 100%?

[Bereta_Eder]

having a second referendum will make the UK the laughing stock of the world

[Dauphin]

I think you are confusing referenda with bailouts.

[Bereta_Eder]

If they were bailouts I would

[Bereta_Eder]

meanwhile, the commercialization of knowledge the UK has and was selling its "educational product" to losers from all over the world that couldn't get in their own educational system universities is crumbling since fees are now tripling which will mean that all the losers go somewhere else to study and the UK automatically losses a large chunk of revenue

it's a joy to watch them squirm on national TV

hmmm also no erasmus for brits.
interesting

[Bereta_Eder]

also the city wants to hold its own referendum and stay
it's literally a great day for everyone

the brits are mortified they did the wrong choice but now they can't take it back
the germans (and all the little *****es dannubis style) are fuming and demand blood fast "lest the global financial system faces difficulties due to the uncertainty"

I think this flattering for everyone pic describes it best

[ZEE]

If moar countries would be like Greece then the world would be a much bettar place.

[Bereta_Eder]

we have our own braindeads here unfortunately

[giblets]

Greeks drilled a hole in the hull

[Elok]

Mexican immigrants, particularly illegal ones, don't compete with native born Americans who have at least a high school diploma as a practical matter.

Do bear in mind that you're talking to an expert in looking for work while lacking meaningful job skills. I have many advantages over the typical American prole: I have a (useless) college degree, I have a much larger network of resources to fall back on, I'm not addicted to anything and have no criminal record, I'm naturally parsimonious, I learn much faster, and I talk and act like the respectable white middle-class spawn that I am--not at all scary. Despite this, I can tell you from experience that job prospects are wretched if you don't have any particular skillset. Granted, these people are on average less neurotic and socially stunted than I am, so that balances things somewhat, but even if I were outgoing and confident I don't think I'd get all that far.

The bubbas who know how to fix cars and such will do okay. The rest, well, what are they going to do? I mean, seriously, what do you expect them to do to support themselves? Name a decent job they can get for themselves. They're unlikely even to make shift manager at their Wendy's or Dollar General; those slots tend to go to slummers like me, or else go-getter college students.

Anecdotally, I've observed a lot of anxiety about the idea of people here speaking Spanish. Language rather than race seems to be more a factor for xenophobia. It's of course ridiculous; their children will speak English. And culturally, Mexican immigrants are a lot more similar to rural Americans than they are to urban liberals.

That's not really relevant. Middle- or upper-class liberals have no reason to fear Mexican immigrants because their worlds barely touch. They don't live in the same neighborhoods, shop at the same stores, or do any of the same jobs. They know Mexicans as those guys who run this amazingly authentic taco restaurant they found on Yelp, or possibly the fellows who prune their azaleas in ninety-degree heat every summer. It's your lower-class conservative who actually rubs elbows with Latin immigrants. Rubbing creates friction.

I used to believe that the racism issue was a more or less resolved one until Donald Trump started picking up support. Liberals have been spending forever castigating this or that conservative as being racist for decades, and it's mostly hogwash, but every once in a while when they cry wolf there actually is a wolf.

It's more that racists (and the larger umbrella group of protectionists) were more typically in the conservative camp, even if they were seldom allowed a dominant voice. They were ignored as an irrelevance because they were assumed to be a dying force purely on the grounds of their moral inferiority. "The wrong side of history," and all that horse****. Surely all the wrong things will just dry up and blow away from the force of their very wrongness! It's a very seductive idea, first because it absolves you of all responsibility for dealing with such people as actual people and second because it lets you paint yourself as clever and a hero for doing so.

Now it turns out that, nope, they're still here, despite everyone talking quite loudly about how wrong their ideas were. But do we react constructively? Of course not! Wrong ideas must not be engaged with; trying to understand them or their origins is a sign of bad character. Just keep scolding and they'll disappear eventually.

[Dinner]

You're a piece of **** racist **** and everything you say is wrong and depends on your racist prejudisms.

And now the UK is out of the EU and you still suck.

Article 50 says negotiations start now not in october like cameron said so that he won't take part in them (or so he thinks)

next

Like usual you are just wrong. Article 50 says the two year time clock starts ticking when the UK submits article 50 papers. They get to decide when they do so.