Oh, by the way, "The referendum was non-binding, it's advisory".
Oh, by the way, "The referendum was non-binding, it's advisory".
There have been a number of EU nationals quoted in the media as being aggrieved by this, but in many cases they have lived here more than long enough to become citizens and not chosen to do so.
[0] http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr...
A democracy is about people whose lives will be significantly affected by a decision having a right to take part in the decision-making.
Why this logic was applied to resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens differently from residents from EU?
Regarding Commonwealth citizens - I'm not sure of the logic, but it has something to do with Britain occupying them... At any rate, these are legal loopholes and not the standard state of affairs.
I presume it's related to their historic status as British Subjects (which some of them will still hold, though it's been impossible to gain status as such since the 1980s), which would have granted them the right to vote in Westminster elections and referendums.
Last year I started citizenship proceedings for me and my wife, aggrieved by the darkening mood, but tbh at this point I think I'll save the money for a visa elsewhere. It's clear I'm not welcome anymore, despite paying more taxes and using less services than most beleavers; and it's clear the country as a whole wants to go back to the bad old days of Thatcher, with all its urban decay, racism, violence and permanent Tory majorities. I think my children might get a better chance elsewhere.
I made the exact same mistake, for the exact same reasons.
It costs £1588 [0], which is a lot of money to spend on something which gives no benefits (to an EU citizen) other than being able to vote in general elections (and referenda).
[0] Comprising:
£1236 - citizenship
£72 - passport
£70 - Saturday appointment to check documents (optional)
£10 - passport check
£150 - English test
£50 - life in the UK test
I'd need a citation for that being the reason; anecdotal I know, but I have several non-Scottish/British pals who all voted Yes for independence.
It's generally accepted that the reason that Yes lost was that we had the full might of the British state propaganda machine putting the fear of god into people, i.e. British Government, BBC and practically every newspaper (the exception being the Sunday Herald). It was called "Project Fear" [0, 1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Fear_(British_politics...
53% Yes for Scots-born,
72% No for rest-of-UK born,
57% No for non-UK
Woa. Hang on a minute. Why do I have to become a UK citizen in order to be able to partake in the decisions that directly affect my life?
I've lived here for over a decade now. I studied here, I work here, I pay taxes, I pay contributions to the NHS. Why does it make any difference whether I'm a UK citizen or not?
In fact, the only difference between myself with British citizenship and myself without, is ... whether I have the British citizenship or not.
And yet that difference determines whether I can vote or not. How does that make any sense? It's exactly as reasonable as granting the right to vote to only men, or only Christians, or something completely unacceptable like that.
I live in this country that wants to call itself democratic. Like, it just made a point of how it loves democracy so much it's willing to jump off a cliff singing God Save the Queen because it didn't think it had enough democracy.
So how is it all so democratic that a few million active, productive people living here don't get to have a say in their own affairs?
The difference between a citizen and a resident is that a citizen has made a long term commitment to the country. A citizen has decided that they want to be a part of the country, with all of the privileges and responsibilities that entails.
Take a spectrum of immigration statii:
- Temporary resident working on a visa or similar.
- Long term resident working with indefinite leave to stay or permanent residence.
- Citizen
Now imagine what would happen if they can vote:
- Temporary resident: Doesn't necessarily care about long term effects of their vote on the country. Could vote for short term changes that benefit them then leave. Isn't integrated with the culture and could cause discontent.
- Long term resident: Hasn't committed to a long term relationship with the country so is essentially the same as a temporary resident. Has the option to become a citizen __and has chosen not to__.
Why shouldn't you agree to commit to the country long term if you want the privilege of affecting it long term?
2. I voted 'remain'. If this result is ignored for a.second referendum I will vote 'leave' because I believe democratic respect is more important than EU membership.
3. Your 10% figure is pure conjecture.
4. It was a 4% margin.
5. Whether the referendum is legally binding or not has no bearing on its democratic legitimacy, nor on the potential fallout of ignoring the result.
You've got effectively called me a racist there. You realise this is precisely the sort of rhetoric that's lead us here?
The attack on the Polish cultural centre is "rhetoric"? The murder of Jo Cox is rhetoric?
Feel offended, but at least don't try to paint yourself as subject of hate.
But you know full well that the rhetoric I'm talking about, as exemplified by that post, is the attempt to paint everyone with any 'leave' symapthies as a racist.
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/747080385683660801
I didn't vote leave, for a start.
The shouting down of dissenting opinions by either directly or indirectly labelling them as racist, rather than taking them seriously or even trying to understand them, is one of the factors that has lead to widespread disillusionment with both Westminster and the EU.
That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that this is all voters general opinion, but it sure looks like the majority's. I don't hear anyone coming up with plausible arguments and I really wanted to hear them.
There are many good arguments and many bad ones that don't involve hatred of foreigners. "Take our country back" would, to me, meaning regaining full legislative control. Yes, this includes immigration, and yes I would limit that based on skills and an annual quota.
I don't believe for a second this is racist.
And I'm actually curious about what would those skills be as I don't believe that's a reasonable approach..
I feel no need whatsoever to defend myself from accusations of racism based on support of the idea of quota and skill-based immigration.
Anyway, it was your vote, I don't really care.
My idea of racism, it sure is wide.
Who is John to limit people from going wherever they want, while trying to make a living? Does the place where John was born makes him different or special somehow? I consider this racism. Isn't John going to end up making bricks same way as the migrant?
It just sounds way more rational to let the market decide. If immigrants can't find a job in here I'm sure they will leave and move some place else. If they happen to find a job and contribute to our society, then this should mean they have their place here. They should be able to stay and live.
And I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs, without the need for a specific skill set, that they will be willing to do. Jobs that many people in this country refuses to accept, because 'it's just £7 an hour' or because 'I didn't study for this' or whatever.
How dare you paint me in that light when you know absolutely nothing about me or my motives for wanting to remove my country from the clutches of an undemocratic state. Your narrow-mindedness is part of the reason I want out.
This all reeks of bitterness and toy-throwing by those that voted remain.
It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind.
That we also have them at the UK level is irrelevant to me, we're not having a referendum on that (yet).
Your definition of xenophobic is so wide that it would cover the very existence of nation states within the EU. I don't think all that many people share it.
Then democracy itself is too
> The EU is no less democratic than the UK itself
MPs are elected
> they don't impose on us because we are part of it
Not for much longer.
We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
To use UKIPs line, why aren't moderate anti-immigrationists condemning this violence?
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/747404962242633728
UKIPer in that thread calls Sima Kotecha a liar, manufacturing fake outrage, when she describes someone calling her a paki.
> We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
Have we?
Yes. We need to National Crime Survey to be certain, but police forces are already reporting an increase in reported incidents, and affected groups are reporting an increase in incidents.
But you have done exactly that, associated anyone bringing up the subject with a fascist ideology.
The probelm is that those who raise objections to immigration never seem to have anything constructive to say after that. So if you're not a racist or xenophbe, how about we have a discussion about allowing freedom of movement but actually SOLVING the problems that have been brought about by it?
The EU are going to demand freedom of movement if we are to stay in the EEA - so what's your answer?
It's not xenophobic to want to curb the net migration number.
And even if UK doesn't remain in EEA, immigration will be a fact of life. Hell, half of all immigrants in the UK don't even come from the EU!
Other countries may well demand a get-out, if they perceive it's to their advantage. And if it is, I'm not sure why the EU should seek to stop them either.
I guess we'll see one way or another.
Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I wanted sovereignty over everything: Border control is just one part of the whole argument.
> Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I don't, however, agree with your stance that having a say who can and cannot come into the country is racism. How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
You may call it discrimination but that takes many forms, not all of them bad.
Racism it is not.
Edit: spelling, clarification
Agreed.
> How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
Discrimination and racism sound like the same to me. I read people saying they would like to choose based on peoples skills, which is a complete nonsense. Why not let the market decide? People would be able to come in as they like, if they wouldn't get a job nor benefits, I'm sure they would go away. Otherwise, it would mean they have a place in here. Wouldn't that be a wiser decision?
People with pre-existing xenophobic/racist have found vindication & legitimisation with the referendum result.
Many papers today are carrying stories of attacks along these lines, I'm sure the rest will in the following days also.
"It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind."
The back-pedalling has only just begun. People voted leave for a lot of reasons, and they will have their displeasure at progress heard to differing degrees.
I'd suggest you give it a little while before you take it as read that any side won for the cause they voted for.
At the very least this is unhelpful, and devalues the impact of such words.
While I'd agree such terms are being carelessly banded about, there's no need to go looking for reasons to be offended here.
So it was "just" xenophobia and bigotry. That's all fine then. Carry on.
Overall it's not particularly diverse. One of the larger towns (Cheltenham, pop about 110,000) is 96% White British in last census. Nearby Gloucester is much more diverse - one street has over 70 different languages spoken as a first language, and the school in the UK (but outside London) with most different languages spoken as a first language is in Gloucester.
So, while I believe the UK is diverse it's a bit more complicated than that.
But that makes your point stronger, no? That even in this small (by population, not geographical) rural county there's still a mix of not much diversity and lots of diversity.
I'm reminded of the proposal of "managed decline" for Liverpool in the 80s. Give up rather than fixing the problems. Ironically Liverpool has since prospered enough to vote Remain, although that vote may also be due to the longstanding boycott of the Sun newspaper there.
At least 100 countries are more diverse, ethnically, linguistically, racially, you name it. Germany is among them, so is the US. France is about the same level of diversity. A majority of EU countries are more of a melting pot than the UK, in fact.
The UK is 87% white, 95% English speaking, 92% Christian/atheist/agnostic. It doesn't get much less diverse than that.
And of course the places that aren't homogenous (inner London for instance), all voted "remain" by a huge margin.
Some sharia "courts" operate in the UK, as do Beth Din and Ecclesiastical Courts.
They're mostly for mediation and actual courts feel free to ignore them.
They've all been involved in pretty severe human rights abuses. Christian courts moved abusing priests around the country rather than reporting them to the police; Christian courts did little to prevent the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children by nuns. Beth Din are currently involved in not giving Jewish women "Gets" - a religious divorce that can only be provided by the husband. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-wo...
Sharia Zones, as talked about by US media, don't exist.
For example, many powerful free-trade Libertarian think-tanks backed Brexit: the Hoover Institution [0], the Cato Institute [1], the Adam Smith Institute [2], etc.
These certainly aren't racist dumb-dumbs or protectionist "little Englanders", and their opinions are well worth a read. While bigots exist and certainly voted 'Leave' that does not mean that there are not good, open, free-market reasons to leave the EU.
[0] http://www.hoover.org/research/cautious-yes-brexit
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bullet...
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/files/2016/06/brexit-education-re...
You are right that there are lots of people without University educations which backed Brexit. Rather than hating them perhaps you could try to understand their struggles and feelings on how they have been betrayed by the establishment [0]?
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/meet-10-brit...
But they clearly believed so strongly, that they didn't think it was wrong to stoke immigration fears to win, and then turn round and explain that actually, free market economics suggests that low wage immigration is actually a good thing. This is playing with fire, and may end tragically.
Cornwall mostly voted Leave (higher the UK average) but have since asked for the EU funding for Cornwall to be protected.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwa...
The main reason given by Leave voters was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK"
Decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland
Or even dissolving England.
Decisions about London should be taken in London.
In fact, the argument you just quoted is basically "representative democracy is bad".
Edit: if you downvote, please leave a comment arguing why.
I really hope we don't find out how a second referendum goes, as I think it would paint the EU and westminster in a worse light, and put UKIP firmly into ascendancy.
*I really hate all these portmanteaus...
Cameron saying "I will campaign for in or out depending on whether I get a good deal for Britain". Reality: he got nothing and then claimed leaving the EU would be morally wrong.
Cameron saying "this isn't about me, I'll stay on no matter what". Reality: resigning the very next day, having known full well he'd do that if he lost yet he openly lied to the public about it.
Osborne saying "there'll be a punishment budget". Reality: that has now mysteriously vanished.
But I don't think any of that will really matter in a rerun anyway. The pro-remain side seems to think voters are spreadsheets that weigh up the output of yet more spreadsheets which pretend to represent the real world, and then make their decision based on that.
In reality most Leave voters clocked ages ago that politicians were not trustworthy and made up their minds based on other factors. If the referendum is ignored then expect a lot of Remain voters in the regions to switch to Leave: it will be widely interpreted as the end of democracy itself if they don't.
True - though the gov white paper mentioned that it was, in effect, binding because ignoring its result would irreversibly damage representative democracy.
Even if the UK were somehow to backtrack: they broke any faith and goodwill on EU side (not the entire EU but key members).
Politically, the Tories have to rally Brexit - or they will get killed by UKIP in the next election run.
The box is open. At some point in 10-20 years, a new agreement will probably bring the UK back to most of its EU membership. Until then, there's no way back.
In Sweden, several national referendums have been ignored by the government (shutting down nuclear power, switching to right hand traffic, new pension system). It has had no negative effect on either parties or politicians really. People are only angry as long as it stays in the public eye.
The truth is. To carry out politics you need politicians, and the No-side in the EU question is made up of a clique of populists joined by mass media. Without broad support by most politicians in the UK, the actual act of leaving will never actually come to pass.
Refusing to leave at this point will make things worse, not better.
Obviously, the losing side of any politcal battle will always want a redo. And obviously the winners will always prefer to keep the results as they are. Letting the losers try again until they win is like a DOS attack.
Btw, I totally agree though that leaving something like succession up to a simple majority is crazy. Seems 2/3 is more appropriate for big things like this, going to war, and what not.
I wonder where do you get the 10% figure; how on earth would you know that in the three days since polling? It's difficult to know what to make of folk who given three months of intense EU/Out/In discussion across the land suddenly discover that they didn't think their vote mattered or that they couldn't make up their minds and tossed a coin. They need a lesson in how democracy works.
It was expected that the pound would fall and markets react negatively in view of the immediate uncertainty. Aside from that, what's happened that would make someone say "I didn't know it would be like this"?
Even Paul Krugman, a would-be remainer says " I’m finding myself less horrified by Brexit than one might have expected – in fact, less than I myself expected. The economic consequences will be bad, but not, I’d argue, as bad as many are claiming. The political consequences might be much more dire; but many of the bad things I fear would probably have happened even if Remain had won."
> “I said to him, so where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?” Islam told Botting, without naming the MP specifically.
> He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
> According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”.
https://twitter.com/PED7/status/747063871765086208?ref_src=t...
I have spent a significant portion of my life living in countries where I was not a citizen, paid taxes and was unable to vote. Just like there are millions of Europeans paying taxes in the USA and unable to vote. This applies to most countries and does not make them any less democratic.
At the end of the day Democracy is a shit system. A really shitty system, but we keep it around because it is better than the other systems.