Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

http://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/2016/oct/05/volta-sees-post-brexit-opportunity-data-centre-expansion-revealed/

Oh yeah!!!

Looks good!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/post-brexit-britain-will-offer-more-for-start-ups/amp/?client=safari

Massive Google headquarters in London.

https://news.fastcompany.com/google-is-planning-to-open-a-massive-new-headquarters-in-london-4025076?utm_content=buffer9e302&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Brexit will be a boon, and I hope we all follow suit. After our Trump vote, Obama quietly killed the TPP-- or at least the current version.

I call it the CPP;
Corporate piracy pact. It had zip to do with trade, and everything to do with emptying the public purse directly into corporate coffers.

Brexit will not be a boon for anyone; especially the Brits. Their having to negotiate trade with all countries will be very expensive. Tariffs can also become a big problem.

Look at it this way. What would happen to prices if all states were independent, and they had to negotiate trade with every other state? It'll get so complex, trade will suffer. You would have to add border patrols and customs at all borders. The added cost would become enormous.

Open trade is the most economical and efficient.

That is certainly the picture many are trying to sell. I see good signs, though. Google and Facebook are expanding in London. Doing business in London unrestricted by draconian EU regulations may attract new businesses...

Time will tell.

Quote Bobsal's article:


Well, if the UK is reconsidering their Brexit vote, this might be it. Nothing happens until Article 50 is triggered, and if only just a few Conservatives decide to vote against triggering, Brexit just fades away.

The Conservative Party has 328 members, and not every one was for Brexit-in fact, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron was against it. Just about everyone in the Labor Party, (231 votes) is against it, and the Scottish National Party is similarly against it, (54 votes). That's 280+ votes against Brexit, and something less than 328 Conservative votes for invoking Article 50 triggering it-maybe a lot less than 328 Conservatives votes for doing that.

Brexit looks like a flash in the pan issue that eventually never happened.

I wonder if the powers that be can and will override the people's vote. WOuld that be unprecedented in a democratic country?

It is indeed an interesting turn of events. However, considering the historical primacy of Parliament in the unwritten British constitution, it was at least forseeable. What will happen next may well prove hard to predict. In the immediate aftermath of the surprising result of the Brexit referendum there was immediate and widespread regret about the unexpected outcome. Now with this turn we may see some of an opposite reaction reflected in subsequent actions of Pasrliament. I certainly don't claim any special insight here, but the Brexit vote did indeed reflect something in the will and outlook of the British people. Much of that likely endures, and one can expect the Parliament to reflect those interests to some degree. Hard to tell what will happen next, but I wouldn't rule out an eventual Brexit.

The court challenge to Theresa May's right to trigger the Article 50 process without getting the backing of Parliament has been successful in the High Court - the UK government is appealing to the Supreme Court with a hearing starting on 5 December.

Yes, democracies do have a legal system and courts.
The UK still is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy.

If the appeal fails, Brexit Secretary David Davis has suggested that the judgement implies they will need to bring forward an act of parliament - which would mean both MPs and the House of Lords giving the go-head for the talks to begin.

We'll see what happens next. Parliamentary inaction might enable the whole Brexit process to crash. I believe that would be unfortunate. Better to have the Democratic processes you cite act accountably on the question, one way or the other. I fear that the largely administrative approach that has attended most of the expansion of the EU in the last two decades has created a fundamental weakness. Divisive forces are indeed at work within anf more tests of unity are very likely.

I have noticed, in a couple of places, (one I think the Daily Mail, I can't remember the other one, might have been a UKIP spokesperson) remarks to the effect that it would be undemocratic to interfere with Brexit because "the British electorate" wanted it. The word "electorate" means all the people qualified to vote. The size of the UK and Gibraltar electorate is currently given (in round numbers) as 46,500,000. The number of people who voted for Brexit was 17.5 million (a bit more than one third). The number of people who voted against was 16.1 million (a bit more than one third). The difference between them was 1.4 million (3% of the electorate). I think the Brexit side are trying to make a weak result look like a strong mandate by deliberately misusing language. The leave voters hardly form a broad swath of the British public. I also think it is the democratic right of everyone in Britain who opposes leaving the EU to campaign politically and use all legal means to fight back. Some American commentators have asked why the referendum didn't require a supermajority like is required in the USA to do big important things like to ratify treaties in the Senate, to convict a Federal official who has been impeached by the House of Representatives, and to amend the Constitution itself.

Two different things. The "supermajority" is only used in certain circumstances in the House of Representatives or Senate. Hard to imagine how the concept can be applied to a referendum. We do not have national referendums in the US, only on the state level or county/municipal level. Not sure if I've ever heard of a state or local referendum that required greater than a majority to be passed.

That being said, what your High Court did was the approximate equivalent of a Federal Court in the US ruling a referendum unconstitutional. You have a court higher than that court to appeal to, just as Federal courts have the Supreme Court to overrule them if they decide. I don't see how that is defeating the will of the people, since the people elect the Members of Parliament who ultimately decides these things, (although they don't elect the House of Lords).

Leaving aside the numerous misinformations (from both sides) in the pre-referendum period - the question was, in my opinion, over-simplified for such a complex matter.

What's going on now (and that since months) is a kind of game to decide what sort of Brexit will take place.

Brexit is likely to happen than not, but the battle (and the constitutional crisis) about it will go on. And perhaps, even the Supreme Court isn't the court of last resort: the government may end up having to appeal the decision to the European Court.

Well the majority of those who went to the Polls in the referendum voted to leave. It's likely that both sides on this issue aare claiming to be the broadest swath of the British public and most representative of the "true" aspirations of the British people. Democracy is always a bit messy and uncertain..

In the UK (and the UK is an EU-member) Leave won by 52% to 48%.

But: it's a United Kingdom:
- England voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%; Wales, too, by 52.5% to 47.5%,
- Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave.

Quote Walter:

I wouldn't bet on it. If the decision goes to Parliament I don't think they'd vote to invoke Article 50. Brexit's only hope would seem to be having the higher court reverse the latest court decision-without that, it's hard to see how Brexit happens.

Those results have been quite the boon for Northern Ireland.

A supermajority, or a qualified majority, is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of one half used for majority. Common supermajorities include three fifths (60%); two thirds (66.666. . .%) and three fourths (75%). An example in the referendum context was the 2006 Montenegro independence referendum where a 55% supermajority of votes, with a minimum turnout of 50% was required. This was criticized by some as overriding the traditional practice of requiring a two-thirds supermajority, as practiced in all ex Yugoslav countries before (including the previous referendum in Montenegro).

(Pardon me if this is an ignorant question. I don't live in Britain, so I don't know many Leave supporters personally.)

Do you think that if parliament fails to make Brexit happen, after the referendum, the backlash from angry Leave supporters could propel UKIP to power?

Not necessarily. I think the majority of Brexit folks didn't understand the consequences of leaving the union. Maybe, some changed their minds after learning that Brexit will end up costing everybody more money and jobs.