Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

That would be impossible after a plebiscite. Who are they going to offer the deal to? The government is not deciding this.

So, Cameron resigns and snap election? No way Cameron is gonna stay after such a huge loss, and it is far too late to ask the Queen to form a new government.

Thread activated:
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,14053.new.html#new

[Josquius]

The pound has utterly crashed. 

[Monoriu]

300,000 votes down now.  I concede.   

[Agelastus]

More parts of Wales going for remain, but only just (Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan.)

The way the night has gone in Wales it's actually a surprise they haven't voted leave.

[Josquius]

Woke up in the night randonmly. And oh fuck. Looks like I was right. Theyre winning.
Scotland have failed us and the northern Irish are looking exceptionally suicidal.
We're relying on London.  But with the flooding.....
Doom. The Trumpites have won.

Don't think North-Easterners get to blame Scotland tonight

Always knew we were going to show our ignorance.

[Sheilbh]

Apparently Labour are now saying their working assumption is that Leave has won.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Apparently Labour are now saying their working assumption is that Leave has won.

I think that is fairly certain.

[Grey Fox]

I am having a grand old time.

[Agelastus]

Apparently Labour are now saying their working assumption is that Leave has won.

I think that is fairly certain.

I'm still not convinced, but I'll admit it's looking likely.

[OttoVonBismarck]

On the issue of refendum I'm pretty openly anti-democratic, and would like to see even less democracy than we have now in America. But, I will say too that for major issues in the United States we have much higher bars to approval than the Brits have (where parliament's supremacy means it can pass laws largely as it pleases.) It takes a 2/3rds ratification of the Senate (essentially meaning 2/3rds of the States) to approve a treaty in the United States. It takes 2/3rds of each House of Congress and 3/4ths of the States to amend the constitution. You have to win a majority of 435 House elections and 100 Senate elections, and then the Presidential election, to have anything close to a rubber stamp, and the Senate is only up for election in 1/3rds every 2 years. So while I would never want such plebiscites Federally here, the huge supermajorities required legislatively to do things of significant constitutional importance are such that for them to ever occur the vast majority of the people would have to be on board anyway.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Our reputation as a boring conservative country is being shattered 

[Sheilbh]

Sheffield for Leave. That surprises me

[Valmy]

The UN doesn't have a body of law that over-rides our constitution. It's not remotely comparable.

I don't think that representatives should have the right to bind the people of a country on major constitutional issues like this.

Well the UN does compel the government to take certain actions. Or at least it was intended to

Wasn't it representative organizations that wrote the entire constitution to begin with? To claim they do not have that right is to undermine their legitimacy as representatives. The Scottish parliament voted in the join the UK did they not? Surely you do not hold that the UK is an illegitimate body?

In the US the Constitution was approved by the representatives not a plebiscite.

[Valmy]

On the issue of refendum I'm pretty openly anti-democratic, and would like to see even less democracy than we have now in America. But, I will say too that for major issues in the United States we have much higher bars to approval than the Brits have (where parliament's supremacy means it can pass laws largely as it pleases.) It takes a 2/3rds ratification of the Senate (essentially meaning 2/3rds of the States) to approve a treaty in the United States. It takes 2/3rds of each House of Congress and 3/4ths of the States to amend the constitution. You have to win a majority of 435 House elections and 100 Senate elections, and then the Presidential election, to have anything close to a rubber stamp, and the Senate is only up for election in 1/3rds every 2 years. So while I would never want such plebiscites Federally here, the huge supermajorities required legislatively to do things of significant constitutional importance are such that for them to ever occur the vast majority of the people would have to be on board anyway.

Yep.

[Zanza]

Hence why it is possible the EU could offer a last-ditch sweetened deal for the UK in exchange for remaining.

That would be impossible after a plebiscite. Who are they going to offer the deal to? The government is not deciding this.

It has happened before in countries like Ireland which require a referendum for every treaty.

Ireland was blocking an initiative that required unanimous consent of all members that was supported by all of the member governments.
Britain leaving is not. Hardly comparable. If the UK wants to leave then it's farewell. The Dutch might have a vote on an association agreement with the UK though.