After Brexit, U.K. Residents Google ‘What Is The EU?’

[yuna628 9,676]

All of this.

Cameron's hubris has hung the country out to dry, and the elites who say they know what is best for the populace as a whole did jack all to make a case for remain that was compelling enough -- and frankly easy enough to digest -- to overcome the god-awful Little Englandness of the leave campaign. And what is the UK left with? A reduced credit rating, a tumbling FTSE, a devalued pound, and more financial repercussions we do not yet know of. There will be a further recession. There will be real pain for the very areas that voted to leave, since many derive benefit from EU subsidies and European investment. There's likely to be another referendum on Scottish devolution, and while it's unlikely there will be one on whether Northern Ireland should join the Republic (since it's up to Westminster to decide this), it could happen. Meanwhile, significant amounts of legislation will need to be redrafted to remove references to existing European directives. This is a bonanza for lawyers!

None of this is good. This isn't about wresting power away from horrible, oppressive Brussels bureaucrats to benefit a UK that is yearning to be free, and would be better off alone. If they want to keep at least some of their rights to continue to have something like free-ish trade, immigration will still be much as it is now. This is about stoking people's fears of the Other. This is about bigotry, small-mindedness and a yearning for the sort of Hovis-bread-advert England (and I say England on purpose -- this vote was driven by the English) that probably never existed.

The UK deserves better than this. I love and miss my family and friends there, and almost all of them are feeling furious and cheated by fools who voted knowing little to nothing about the ramifications of this vote. And on that note, all of you who would place restrictions on who may vote in this country should hang your heads in shame for your repudiation of and lack of respect for the Constitution. Pathetic.

Wholeheartedly agree with you. The shame of it is...it never had to come to this, it shouldn't have come to this. And things won't get better from here on out.

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwii2Zy3wMnNAhUCGpQKHZRTD-YQqG8ICjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3662030%2FCognac-breakfast-Nazi-father-law-secret-dark-discussions-Europe-s-leaders-Meet-Jean-Claude-Juncker-Eurocrat-blamed-Brexit-trying-force-Britain-out.html&usg=AFQjCNFxgDzyXZmPBI-NLxjoay4QA_FNOg&sig2=XgTMuTYB_dayj2cKdD9lXA

Jean-Claude Juncker!!!! Blame him!

[GandD 5,966]

You can't unfortunately. The founders understood this as well.

Think about it for a minute.. have we ever had a referendum on a country-wide (federal level) to go to war, create or break a treaty, or strip/add a right?

No.

We elect our representatives to represent us in legislative matters involving large scale measures. It's supposed to be difficult to get such things done on purpose. It was Cameron/elected leaders to use their abilities to resolve the matter. They didn't even try. This was a remarkable self-inflicted wound of his government's own stupidity.

On a state level there are a few states that hold ballot referendums, and you'll often find them going by mob rule with bad consequences. Usually such new laws are challenged Constitutionally and are quickly put in the bin.

This is why referendums on this scale can lead to disasters, and are an easy way to erode overall good strides in human equality, because in governments like this, there are no checks and balances.

Uh, the founders only allowed white land owning men to vote. And even then, the actual election was determined by electors. The founders didn't trust the masses to vote. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this as the founders are omnipotent for some. But it's true. Tons of examples of electors voting their voice as opposed to the people's voice. Legally.

[OriZ 3,157]

Uh, the founders only allowed white land owning men to vote. And even then, the actual election was determined by electors. The founders didn't trust the masses to vote. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this as the founders are omnipotent for some. But it's true. Tons of examples of electors voting their voice as opposed to the people's voice. Legally.

Wasn't the whole electoral system basically a compromise between those who wanted congress to elect the president and those who wanted the people to?

[GandD 5,966]

Wasn't the whole electoral system basically a compromise between those who wanted congress to elect the president and those who wanted the people to?

I don't recall that. Possibly. The founders were afraid the people would vote the King back into power. Isn't that awesome?

[OriZ 3,157]

I don't recall that. Possibly. The founders were afraid the people would vote the King back into power. Isn't that awesome?

Just found this:

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in theConstitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

I remembered hearing about it a while back but wasn't quite confident. I still think though that good, bad or ugly, there's no substitute to the people voting for whomever they wish to put in power. You can't, or shouldn't try to save people from themselves. Freedom is paramount.

[yuna628 9,676]

Uh, the founders only allowed white land owning men to vote. And even then, the actual election was determined by electors. The founders didn't trust the masses to vote. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this as the founders are omnipotent for some. But it's true. Tons of examples of electors voting their voice as opposed to the people's voice. Legally.

Yes that is correct, they did not trust the masses to vote (you can also say they didn't trust black people to vote or non land owners to vote etc but they also didn't trust stupid and uninformed people.. hear me out a sec). What I am referring to, is their fundamental understanding of what system a country should be based upon. Pure democracies, or those that are referendum democracies were considered to be inherently flawed and dangerous systems. They understood that such referendums would be based on emotion, lack of insight, uninformed, mob rules, and would ultimately harm minority voters and that voters have a tendency to be self-destructive in their wants. That is how we have the political system we have now, a compromise of sorts and one that has evolved beyond their original thinking (of limiting a person based on their race or wealth). Everyone can vote, from the stupid to the smart, but there are checks and balances in place. We can certainly debate about if the Electoral College and electors is an area that does need work and change, but when it comes down to something of this nature - not even an elector/electoral college has a choice in it either.

We elect a President and representatives to do a legislative job, and they each have their own counter-measures and maneuvers they can do so screw each other over, get things done, or push things through. Imagine though if we had a pure type democracy structure, where national level referendums happened on critical subjects. Imagine the crazy place we'd be.

Referendums do not happen in our type of government structure, as they can prove to be extremely destructive. Other countries that have used them have either suffered similar problems, or have additional measures in place to ensure limitations on these types of votes.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/brexit-the-american-founding-fathers-had-it-right-direct-democracy-is-a-dead-duck/

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/referendums-cheapen-our-democracy-heres-why

http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-dangers-of-direct-democracy/

Edited June 28, 2016 by yuna628

[Jacque67 7,328]

The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said talks should start as a matter of urgency. An EU source told the Guardian that Juncker had called Cameron on Friday to say the prime minister should trigger article 50 immediately.

Cameron said in his resignation speech that he would leave that task to his successor, expected to be named by October. According to the source, Juncker told him: The decision of the British people was crystal clear, and the only logical step would be to implement their will as soon as possible.

But EU officials said any chance of exit talks beginning imminently was slight. Lawyers had concluded that a member state could not be forced to take the grave and irreversible step of starting the article 50 process, one EU source said, adding that notification has to be done in an unequivocal manner, with the explicit intent to trigger article 50.

Labour crisis: how the coup against Jeremy Corbyn gathered pace

Read more

London is now certain to face severe political pressure to begin negotiations by the autumn and the EU may well reject the idea of informal talks before official notification is made.

Prominent leave supporters including Johnson have said they want to open informal negotiations first in order to avoid locking Britain into the strict two-year timeframe within which article 50 negotiations must be concluded.

In a flurry of further diplomatic activity, Donald Tusk, the European council president who will chair this weeks summit, is due to meet Frances president, François Hollande, on Monday morning, then travel to Berlin to meet Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minister, in the afternoon.

With frustrations mounting at Britains unwillingness to begin the divorce proceedings, Merkel has called for calm, businesslike discussions, making clear the timing should be up to London.

It is not clear whether Camerons successor will seek to keep Britain in the EU single market and so remain subject to EU freedom of movement rules, or press ahead with a total break, the policy of the official leave campaign. Merkel wants to wait until this is known, which may not be until a new prime minister is named.

Merkel is concerned that other EU leaders may try to use the rebuff for Europe that Brexit symbolises as a lever to demand looser fiscal deficit rules on public investment, something both the French and Italian leaders believe could revive the European economy and the popularity of the EU.

Belgian diplomat to head EU's Brexit taskforce

Read more

Merkels chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, said politicians in Britain should take the time to reconsider the consequences of the Brexit

[GandD 5,966]

Yes that is correct, they did not trust the masses to vote (you can also say they didn't trust black people to vote or non land owners to vote etc but they also didn't trust stupid and uninformed people.. hear me out a sec). What I am referring to, is their fundamental understanding of what system a country should be based upon. Pure democracies, or those that are referendum democracies were considered to be inherently flawed and dangerous systems. They understood that such referendums would be based on emotion, lack of insight, uninformed, mob rules, and would ultimately harm minority voters and that voters have a tendency to be self-destructive in their wants. That is how we have the political system we have now, a compromise of sorts and one that has evolved beyond their original thinking (of limiting a person based on their race or wealth). Everyone can vote, from the stupid to the smart, but there are checks and balances in place. We can certainly debate about if the Electoral College and electors is an area that does need work and change, but when it comes down to something of this nature - not even an elector/electoral college has a choice in it either.

We elect a President and representatives to do a legislative job, and they each have their own counter-measures and maneuvers they can do so screw each other over, get things done, or push things through. Imagine though if we had a pure type democracy structure, where national level referendums happened on critical subjects. Imagine the crazy place we'd be.

Referendums do not happen in our type of government structure, as they can prove to be extremely destructive. Other countries that have used them have either suffered similar problems, or have additional measures in place to ensure limitations on these types of votes.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/brexit-the-american-founding-fathers-had-it-right-direct-democracy-is-a-dead-duck/

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/referendums-cheapen-our-democracy-heres-why

http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-dangers-of-direct-democracy/

Yep. I agree. People that know about the issues should decide. There's no way a populous can make an informed decision on such a complicated issue. Most might as well be flipping a coin.

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50

(Link to my post)

[Jacque67 7,328]

Cameron heads to Brussels

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-heads-to-brussels-for-final-awkward-eu-summit-following-brexit-vote-a7106801.html

[Jacque67 7,328]

"ja, bin ich im Wald?

http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-bickers-over-brexit-eu-leaders-uk-article-50/

[GandD 5,966]

Just found this:

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in theConstitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

I remembered hearing about it a while back but wasn't quite confident. I still think though that good, bad or ugly, there's no substitute to the people voting for whomever they wish to put in power. You can't, or shouldn't try to save people from themselves. Freedom is paramount.

I prefer representational government myself.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Tax rises and spending cuts needed

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0ahUKEwihpsL048rNAhVL1oMKHdFBD4QQFghSMAs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-eu-referendum-36647006&usg=AFQjCNHjnrzuD2R4hqvD94OGhSzzvDhl_A&sig2=XhezzLFUD38LQJaX0oVukg

[Rob L 3,811]

WWGJD? Your pick...................