Britain's vote to leave EU passes with ~51.8%

[Flonne]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...otes-to-leave/

Britain has voted to leave the European Union, with the Leave campaign securing around 51.8 per cent of the vote.

David Cameron has resigned as Prime Minister.

While England voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, Scotland and Northern Ireland backed Remain. Statements are expected to be made by Sinn Fein and the SNP later today calling for a breakaway from the Union. London backed Remain but the turnout was lower than expected because of bad weather.

The pound crashed to the lowest level since 1985 as sterling fell below $1.35. Complacency about a Brexit outcome will come clear this morning, as out of hours trading suggests that the FTSE 100 will drop by 8.8pc, or by some 560 points. The fall would be the third worst in history if stocks ended the day down as sharply.

Much bigger list of information at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

A couple things that caught my eye in the second article.

How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?

This was a question asked by many people. The minimum period after a vote to leave will be two years. During that time Britain will continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.
Could MPs block an EU exit?

Michael, from East Sussex asks an intriguing question - could the necessary legislation pass the Commons if all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservative MPs were in favour of staying?

The answer is that technically MPs could block an EU exit - but it would be seen as political suicide to go against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum.

The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.

It adds: "If the Commons resolves against ratification, the treaty can still be ratified if the Government lays a statement explaining why the treaty should nonetheless be ratified and the House of Commons does not resolve against ratification a second time within 21 days (this process can be repeated ad infinitum)."

In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one.

Two-thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.

(note, questions answered in the second article become more and more mundane the further it goes on, I wouldn't read all of it unless you are really just interested)

[Malthe]

The UK are pineappleing idiots

[hadriel]

I voted for the in-EU camp. Sadly there aren't enough people who voted with reason, and more who voted out of feelings. It does reflect the reality of the various societal situations in UK, and perhaps a painful lesson for the world and especially UK, but I'm not sure if the cost is worth it.

Hadriel

[MuscleWizard]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but wasn't the vote an opinion poll that isn't legally binding whatsoever?

Now the media is reporting it like it's fact and they're tanking the economy over there because everyone is trying to get out

This creates an opportunity for shareholders to move in and buy up the low value stock before it stabilizes.

Now I'm not too sure here, but if I wanted to make money by destabilizing an economy, I'd do what they just did.

And then when things finally stabilize and they vote to stay in, have everyone pull their money out, destabilizing it once again.

[Flonne]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but wasn't the vote an opinion poll that isn't legally binding whatsoever?

Now the media is reporting it like it's fact and they're tanking the economy over there because everyone is trying to get out

This creates an opportunity for shareholders to move in and buy up the low value stock before it stabilizes.

Now I'm not too sure here, but if I wanted to make money by destabilizing an economy, I'd do what they just did.

And then when things finally stabilize and they vote to stay in, have everyone pull their money out, destabilizing it once again.

In the same way that the entire election process is an opinion poll. Votes are not legally binding in the US, either. If they wanted to, the delegates could vote for whoever they wanted regardless of the popular vote, of which the results are more of a "strong suggestion" to them than anything. As that second article said, it would be career suicide to go directly against the popular vote, though.

[Five Second Pose]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but wasn't the vote an opinion poll that isn't legally binding whatsoever?

Now the media is reporting it like it's fact and they're tanking the economy over there because everyone is trying to get out

Remind me how good of an idea it is for a government elected by its people to go against the will of the people when they're asked to vote on an issue.

[xparasite9]

Remind me how good of an idea it is for a government elected by its people to go against the will of the people when they're asked to vote on an issue.

the people that got disarmed 20 years ago?
idunno, could work out safely.

[MuscleWizard]

Remind me how good of an idea it is for a government elected by its people to go against the will of the people when they're asked to vote on an issue.

I'm looking at it from an investors point of view, and this really, really reminds me of the kind of thing that happens when you liquidate a company.

[Five Second Pose]

I'm looking at it from an investors point of view, and this really, really reminds me of the kind of thing that happens when you liquidate a company.

Which is great but this is a country so it's not really a great comparison.

[Flonne]

the people that got disarmed 20 years ago?
idunno, could work out safely.

By doing that, they would be showing all of their citizens and the entire world that they are just a dictatorship posing as a democracy. Just because you can easily quell a populace that have no weapons to fight back with doesn't mean it's a good idea, the ramifications for imposing martial law to get what you want against the will of your people would be much worse than any that come out of leaving the EU.

Today the stock market did about as badly as expected, tech and financials are both way down, globably the average for banks is down around 10% and banks in Britain are all down 20-25%. From what I understand of this vote, by the way, this isn't actually the end of them leaving the EU even if it passes legislation. The EU members themselves also have to vote (66%?) to ALLOW them to leave unless Britian is special for some reason, which I don't think is the case. I can see widespread riots happening if they don't allow it, though; it would be worse in the long term if they block it, because there would never be any attempt at rational communication from either side from then on, and it would likely tear the entire EU apart from the inside.

[hadriel]

To further add to the point of the power of media and speculative information on... err... speculation, it should be noted that for about an hour or so, when the Remain camp was leading, shares soared to amazing heights. Media polls are often accurate, but when the votes are on the knife edge, I think such reporting is rather unethical. To begin with, there is no quorum to fulfil, so I feel this referendum is a terrible one, like trying to say 52% being greater than 48% is very significant. Bloody hell no. The voters who didn't turn up could have made things different (or not).

The referendum is legally binding but more in a moral sense and as a matter of principles, as they have to honour the consensus by the people (no matter how slim the majority is) i.e. they have to make this democracy a real working democracy. Nevertheless, there are avenues available to reverse the situation, and it also does not mean UK will immediately leave (takes at least 2 years I think?). Unfortunately, the damage has already been done, and the impression on UK from all the countries around the world will change, subtly or tremendously.

The comments uttered by Boris Johnson are... for a lack of more appropriate words due to a failing vocabulary... incredibly irresponsible and goading.

IMO this is where democracy shows it failing, in that 52% might be a majority but it effectively is a lose-lose situation; the numbers are meant to represent the views of the people, and to conclude that the people are more in favour of leaving is not the right nor the primary conclusion that should be drawn from this referendum. Again this is IMO.
Hadriel

[Flonne]

IMO this is where democracy shows it failing, in that 52% might be a majority but it effectively is a lose-lose situation; the numbers are meant to represent the views of the people, and to conclude that the people are more in favour of leaving is not the right nor the primary conclusion that should be drawn from this referendum. Again this is IMO.
Hadriel

I feel like anything near a 50/50 split, leaning either way, should be taken to further voting until it's something more people can actually agree with. The main reason they even won was because Cameron wasn't able to get acceptable renegotiation terms with the EU, wasn't it? If he had gone back and tried again for better terms until it was a 66/33 split for remain that would have been much better, I feel like taking a 50/50 split is a good way to piss off half of all people and make them permanently salty about how close the vote was. An election is obviously different since there will -never- be a close consensus for that sort of thing. This is also assuming people won't be plantains and vote against something no matter what just to be spiteful, which is a bad assumption to make. There is no system that has or ever will exist that people can't pineapple up, basically.

[xparasite9]

>waah 52/48 what a terribly narrow margin of victory

what, is america the only place where margins of victory are this small? people are upset about this?

[Luxeraph]

>waah 52/48 what a terribly narrow margin of victory

what, is america the only place where margins of victory are this small? people are upset about this?

I think people complain because it's not something petty like an elected official which we all know most of the time it doesn't matter who wins it'll be the same thing and doesn't last long(most of the time), meanwhile something like this that has what it is, 50 years in the making? is being undone by about a million people difference when there's around 45 million registered voters and it's going to have a huge impact in the near future(most likely it'll be back to normal in a few years).

[Satellite]

[VerrKol]

In the same way that the entire election process is an opinion poll. Votes are not legally binding in the US, either. If they wanted to, the delegates could vote for whoever they wanted regardless of the popular vote, of which the results are more of a "strong suggestion" to them than anything. As that second article said, it would be career suicide to go directly against the popular vote, though.

Just FYI, this is not 100% true. Many states require delegates to vote according to their constituents for things like presidential candidates.

I was watching the vote results and Cameron's resignation live. I was really shocked and so were my expat friends living there. The 52/48 margin isn't huge, but iirc there was a 70+% voter turn out which is incredibly impressive for a democracy, sad as that may be. I wouldn't use the popular media terms like "mandate", but there's no threshold on their democracy.

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in Scotland asks for another referendum and tries to rejoin the EU.

I don't think anyone can really predict all of the consequences of such an unprecedented event.

[Flonne]

Just FYI, this is not 100% true. Many states require delegates to vote according to their constituents for things like presidential candidates.

Right, state level stuff can override it, but the state actually has to say it outright or the delegates don't technically have to do it. Superdelegates are not bound by anything though, they can vote for whoever they want no matter what the law says. Luckily, they are only a thing in the Democratic primaries, Republicans don't use that pomegranate and they aren't used in the general either.

[Satellite]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36672591

Ex-London mayor Boris Johnson has ruled himself out of the race to be the next Conservative leader and prime minister.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0ZG0GS

Farage says can envisage Britain contribution to EU budget post-Brexit

lmfao

EDIT:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...mment-77205935

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

[Flonne]

First off, as a nonbritbong, what's a decent synopsis of article 50, I don't know what that is.

Second, isn't that an incredibly biased (in the opposite political direction) paper? Of course they will write it to be like they've already won and their leadership are golden gods of political chess. All it takes is one guy who doesn't really give a pineapple about his career and cares more about his ideology and the entire premise of what they are saying will go down the drain. In fact, a puppet who neither knows the consequences nor cares about them could work just as well, there are plenty of idiots in the political world to use then throw aside by the leadership of the parties. The negative ramifications, at least for the rest of the world, have already just about reversed entirely and it's only been a week; the market has been up quite a bit every day now since the drop on Friday, anyway. The doomsayers are always wrong about this type of pomegranate, I saw a bunch of old white guys on Fox and the stock market channels saying this drop was going to be the worst thing they've ever lived through and nothing would stop it, the world was going to go bankrupt because one country made an unpopular decision. Now they are already doing huge Buys on the market and making a pomegranateload of money off of the crash.

[Justin]

@Satellite; are you seriously using the guardian, probably one of the most brain washed extreme left wing media outlets on the Web, as some sort of source for anything? The bias from that article is practically smeared in your face.