Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    We had this talk once. Oh well...
    Iknow, right? It's really not that difficult a concept. Presidents, elected by some version of vox populi elections, such as Obama, Hollande etc. Prime Ministers, elected by MP's, Trudeau, Cameron, Key, Turnbull etc

    Leave a comment:


  • drhuy
    replied
    those childish losers still wishing their grandparents just lay dead already?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Sigh. Under the British parliamentary system the people elect Members of Parliament, the Members of Parliament elect the Prime minister. Hence prime minister.
    We had this talk once. Oh well...

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    My point was not that the minority should rule the majority, my point was about referendums in general. I mentioned how here in Los Angeles, referendums often require 2/3 of the popular vote to pass. Congress can pass a bill with a mere majority, the prez can veto it, which then requires 2/3 of the Congressional vote to override. There are solid reasons for avoiding a mere majority vote, ESPECIALLY for issues of supreme national importance.

    General propositions are simple majority. All tax propositions are 66.6%

    2016 State 50: simple majority

    SF Bay protection $12/parcel tax: 66.6% needed

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    London is more important than any other piece, unless you're talking about the rest of England minus London.
    Within context, so what? Considering they lost the referendum, London is obviously not the heart and soul of the UK

    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    My point was not that the minority should rule the majority, my point was about referendums in general. I mentioned how here in Los Angeles, referendums often require 2/3 of the popular vote to pass. Congress can pass a bill with a mere majority, the prez can veto it, which then requires 2/3 of the Congressional vote to override. There are solid reasons for avoiding a mere majority vote, ESPECIALLY for issues of supreme national importance.
    Your house. Your rules. Their house. Their rules. To try change the rules after the fact are the acts of sore losers.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    Uhh...no.

    In California, referendums are known as propositions and a simple majority will make it law.

    In order to pass, the "yes" votes on a proposition must exceed the "no" votes (i.e. more than 50% of all voters who vote). Ballots which record neither a "yes" nor a "no" on the proposition are ignored in determining the outcome. In other words, the majority of voters required for passage refers to a majority of those voting on that proposition, rather than a majority of those voting in the election held at the same time or a majority of those who are registered to vote. If the proposition passes, it becomes a part of the state constitution (if it is a proposed amendment) or the state's statutes (if it is a proposed statute) in the same manner and having the same legal effect as if it had been passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cali...ot_proposition
    And you can actually hire professional companies to put your very own on any ballot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    all I am saying is that is a vote by the whole electorate - ie a General Election - carries more democratic legitimacy than a vote from merely 300 odd MPs.
    No it does not. It is the MP's who select the Prime Minister, not the electorate.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post

    My point was not that the minority should rule the majority, my point was about referendums in general. I mentioned how here in Los Angeles, referendums often require 2/3 of the popular vote to pass. Congress can pass a bill with a mere majority, the prez can veto it, which then requires 2/3 of the Congressional vote to override. There are solid reasons for avoiding a mere majority vote, ESPECIALLY for issues of supreme national importance.
    Uhh...no.

    In California, referendums are known as propositions and a simple majority will make it law.

    In order to pass, the "yes" votes on a proposition must exceed the "no" votes (i.e. more than 50% of all voters who vote). Ballots which record neither a "yes" nor a "no" on the proposition are ignored in determining the outcome. In other words, the majority of voters required for passage refers to a majority of those voting on that proposition, rather than a majority of those voting in the election held at the same time or a majority of those who are registered to vote. If the proposition passes, it becomes a part of the state constitution (if it is a proposed amendment) or the state's statutes (if it is a proposed statute) in the same manner and having the same legal effect as if it had been passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cali...ot_proposition

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    No, it's not. Londoners don't represent Scotland nor Wales. London maybe the capital but it's a far cry from being the heart and soul of the country.
    London is more important than any other piece, unless you're talking about the rest of England minus London. What is greater London's population, 15mil? around a quarter of the UK? Greater Manchester isn't in the same ballpark. I don't consider this point important however....

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Now, that is a whole bunch of horse puckey! So, the minority gets to dictate to the majority? A vote means YOUR CHOICE. Just because you decide to lift a beer or watch a TV instead of waiting in line does not mean my choice to vote is invalid. It means both you and I have to live with the consquences of our choices. The old chose to vote. The young chose to drink. Both have to live with their choices.
    My point was not that the minority should rule the majority, my point was about referendums in general. I mentioned how here in Los Angeles, referendums often require 2/3 of the popular vote to pass. Congress can pass a bill with a mere majority, the prez can veto it, which then requires 2/3 of the Congressional vote to override. There are solid reasons for avoiding a mere majority vote, ESPECIALLY for issues of supreme national importance.
    Last edited by Goatboy; 27 Jun 16,, 01:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Giant bureaucracies do not reform, they merely expand and they never ever stop pushing out more and more regulations its a self feeding monster.
    I don't think all large bureaucracies are doomed to expand until everything explodes in a gigantic "fireball". The creation of the EU was in part brought on in order to reduce bureaucracy, bloat and redundancy. Billions saved in scrapping border customs, streamlining trade agreement law and cross-border business licensing.

    The EU needed to reform. In that, that was at the top of the agenda in the top levels of EU policy making -- it was totally topical. There's no reason to think everyone inside was doomed to walk hand-in-hand to economic/social/political holocaust. I give them much more credit than that.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    Finally a pan-European army

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-v...ach-1466961570
    ‘Brexit’ Vote Complicates Europe’s Terror Fight, Sanctions Approach
    Britain’s departure from the EU will fuel uncertainty over Continent’s security, but could prompt renewed role for NATO
    By Julian E. Barnes
    June 26, 2016 1:19 p.m. ET
    2 COMMENTS

    The British vote to leave the European Union could have a profound impact on global security, weakening Europe’s most powerful military and altering the West’s approach to the twin challenges facing the Continent.

    The prospect of Britain’s exit from Europe’s most important political and economic forum is likely to erode the consensus on sanctions against Russia meant to deter further military action by Moscow, and complicate the U.S. drive to prod European countries to better share intelligence on looming terrorism threats, said current and former European and U.S. officials.

    Long term, the officials said, the vote to quit the EU—known as “Brexit”— could leave Britain’s armed forces diminished, either by a breakup of the U.K. or by reduced military spending driven by economic woes.

    “I worry one of the consequences of Brexit will be a reduced Britain, a less effective Britain militarily,” said Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. ambassador who has written on the security challenges for Europe. “That is something that everyone on this side of the Atlantic is going to look at.”

    Still, the implications of the vote to leave are hardly clear.

    A renewed role for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, one which strengthens Britain’s position as the most important European defender of the peace of the Continent, could be a silver lining, some officials said.

    Further, if the loss of a quarter of the European Union’s combat power prompts new military spending by Germany and other nations, Europe could end up more secure, other current and former officials said.

    But officials acknowledged that the vote created more uncertainty.

    “What Britain does matters, Britain is the biggest provider of security in Europe,” said Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary-general. “It is a more unpredictable situation now than before.”

    The EU, long blocked by Britain from pursuing a larger defense role, is likely to renew a debate over creating a military headquarters or deploying its standing battle groups.

    NATO officials, including Mr. Stoltenberg, are pushing for more cooperation with the EU, but warning against a “duplication of capabilities” such as the creation of a military headquarters.

    The EU, minus Britain, could be tempted to go its own way on security policy and move toward creation of a European Army, which some officials have long seen as undermining NATO.

    Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign-policy chief who supports a broader military role for the bloc, on Sunday finished a new security strategy calling for more defense spending by Europe. While the strategy calls for the bloc to work with NATO, it also calls for Europe to develop its own strategic autonomy. “For Europe, soft and hard power go hand in hand,” she wrote.

    The most immediate security challenge for Europe remains the threat of terror networks.

    The drive by the U.S. to get European powers to share more information on terrorist networks has involved a key role for the U.K., by far the most capable and well-funded intelligence service in Europe, officials said.
    The historic vote to break away from the European Union has plunged the U.K. into political uncertainty. Dipti Kapadia looks at how Europe's political leaders reacted to the news. Photo: Reuters

    U.S. officials have pushed the importance of Europol, the European police agency that is now headed by a Briton, and its new counterterrorism center. They have leaned on the U.K. to have its intelligence services put more of their material on European terror threats into the database. The drive is now in doubt as EU and British officials will need to begin negotiating over Britain’s access to Europol.

    Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio), president of NATO’s parliamentary assembly, said the U.K.’s role in trying to get militaries and intelligence services to cooperate more could be derailed. “There were times information was not shared in a timely manner and Great Britain has been able to short-circuit that,” he said.

    The British vote also threatens to overshadow two European summits, by the European Union and NATO. Designed to showcase Western solidarity, the gatherings could instead become discussions of European fracture.

    “It doesn’t look good for the West when one of the big players says ‘we are done with this,’” said Ben Nimmo, a fellow with the Atlantic Council. “It is an enormous distraction at a time NATO doesn’t need to be distracted.”

    British defense and military officials made a flurry of calls after the vote to assure European officials that the U.K. wouldn’t back off its security obligations—including serving as NATO’s rapid-reaction force and providing a battle group to defend Eastern Europe.

    U.K. Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, who before the vote had warned of the security implications of a decision to leave, called Mr. Stoltenberg, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter and other allies.

    "This does not mean that we will play any lesser part,” Mr. Fallon said Saturday. “This does not mean Britain is turning its back on the world.”

    While the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia are set to be renewed for another six months, some nations, including Italy, Spain and Greece, are anxious to open a discussion of altering them.

    The U.K., according to current and former officials, has been the biggest supporter of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s hard line on sanctions, along with Poland and the Baltic states.

    “The biggest blow is on the Russian sanctions,” said Fabrice Pothier, a former NATO official and senior associate at the Rasmussen Global consultancy. “Sanctions policy is going to be weakened, because the U.K.’s voice will not be as big as we hoped.”

    Current and former U.S. officials have been urging both more defense spending by Germany and for Berlin to take a more forthright role in military operations. American officials have praised Germany for agreeing to position a battalion in Lithuania as part of the new NATO force in Eastern Europe.

    A greater role for Germany in the military defense of Europe is hardly assured. While Ms. Merkel is in favor of additional defense spending by Germany, her political opponents are gearing up to run against her with a more skeptical view.

    For many officials and defense analysts, the gravest long-term worry for security official remains the future of the U.K. itself. Scottish nationalists have signaled that given Scotland’s vote to remain in the European Union they would likely seek a new referendum on Scottish independence.

    A breakup of the U.K. would put Britain’s nuclear deterrent in question. The Scottish National Party has drawn support by advocating a nuclear-free Scotland and said that independence would lead the country to evict the British nuclear submarine fleet based there.

    Nevertheless, in Washington, officials preached caution after the vote. The implications of the U.K. decision, said one Pentagon official, will unfold slowly.

    “People shouldn’t panic,” said the official. “There is a lot of heavy breathing. But we should all be cool and let this thing play out.”

    —Benoit Faucon, Paul Sonne and Laurence Norman contributed to this article.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    It's not just legally possible, it's legally mandatory. It's the exact process that has been followed since 1689
    Why am I educating someone who purports to be English on the basic workings of Parliament?
    Originally posted by citanon View Post
    I thought Snapper was Ukrainian....
    I am Anglo Polish, born in France to in a Polish family with British citizenship (from WW2), educated etc in Britain. Our family home is now in Ukraine following the post WW2 border changes. I hold several citizenship's and have another year (10 months) to decide whether to take full Ukrainian citizenship which would require giving up other citizenship's (you cannot have dual citizenship in current Ukrainian law).

    I do not need educating regarding British Parliamentary legality, all I am saying is that is a vote by the whole electorate - ie a General Election - carries more democratic legitimacy than a vote from merely 300 odd MPs. Gordon Brown was tempted to go for an early election shortly after taking over for precisely this reason - and of course he thought he might win it.

    Leave a comment:


  • troung
    replied
    Can't expect someone to actually want to live there, just to call for young Americans/Canadians/Brits to die there.
    Last edited by troung; 27 Jun 16,, 00:22.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    It's not just legally possible, it's legally mandatory. It's the exact process that has been followed since 1689
    Why am I educating someone who purports to be English on the basic workings of Parliament?
    I thought Snapper was Ukrainian....

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    I am aware that such a process is legally possible.
    It's not just legally possible, it's legally mandatory. It's the exact process that has been followed since 1689
    Why am I educating someone who purports to be English on the basic workings of Parliament?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X