The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[amogles]

	Quote:	greenmount
	Nothing surprises anymore. Maybe they were thinking of football teams?

Does England have a football team?

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	Will be interesting to see how the Gibraltar situation is finalised.

Spain will give us back Menorca and we will give them Giraltar in return.

Spain will then cede Ceuta and Melilla to Moroccco and will receive a 60 year lease on the Lesser King Edward Islands (South) in return.

The Falklands will be ceded to Paraguay just to wind up the Argentinians.

[Ato]

	Quote:	amogles
	The term republic is however commonly used to avoid ambiguity in situations where it makes a difference whether the speaker is referring to the geographical island of Ireland or to the country. People professing allegiance to the republic often even call themselves republicans. So it's hardly a dirty word.

Standard introduction goes along the lines of.
"I'm from Ireland"
"From the north or south?"
"South"
"Is that the one that belongs to the UK"
"No, I'm from the Republic" or when feeling a bit more confrontational "None of it belongs to the UK"

It's convenient to have something prevent ambiguity. It's peculiar in that a lot of countries have their full name as "The Republic of France", or "The United Mexican States" and have a shorthand that is not ambiguous.

[st2lemans]

	Quote:	Ato
	Standard introduction goes along the lines of. "I'm from Ireland" "From the north or south?" "South" "Is that the one that belongs to the UK" "No, I'm from the Republic" or when feeling a bit more confrontational "None of it belongs to the UK" It's convenient to have something prevent ambiguity. It's peculiar in that a lot of countries have their full name as "The Republic of France", or "The United Mexican States" and have a shorthand that is not ambiguous.

I live in "The Republic and Canton of Ticino".

"The official name of the canton is Republic and Canton of Ticino (Italian: Repubblica e Cantone Ticino) and the two-letter code is TI. It is one of the four cantons of Switzerland officially referred to as "republics", along with Geneva, Neuchâtel and Jura."

Tom

[bowlie]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Crazy was when British diplomats used to refer to Eire in their discussions at EU meets as many other diplomats had not a clue what state they were referring to.

Well; To eire is human; but contrition felt for the crime distinguishes the virtuous from the wicked.

[John William]

	Quote:	marton
	According to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Rockall is in the UK. The Irish Govt., along with others, does not agree.

The Rockall dispute posts are in sore need of a correction because in the event of Scotland voting for independence
from the UK, as a result of any vote for independence returning a majority Yes vote for independence.
Then Rockall will become part of the Kingdom of Scotland which in fact she already is a part of Scotland
but not shared with whats left of the UK after independence.

[JackieH]

	Quote:	greenmount
	Your order includes st2lemans too? Or just JackieH? It is a fairly decent pissing contest. Let's let both sides vent, not only one. Otherwise we're hypocrites.

It was Tom, the other one, who started the ball rolling. A) questionning my right to comment on UK matters b) mis-representing totally what I said c) calling me a hypocrite. I think I am totally entitled to 'vent' about this.

Yes, stay on topic I say- and no personal attacks.

[amogles]

	Quote:	JackieH
	It was Tom, the other one, who started the ball rolling. A) questionning my right to comment on UK matters b) mis-representing totally what I said c) calling me a hypocrite. I think I am totally entitled to 'vent' about this. Yes, stay on topic I say- and no personal attacks.

It takes two to tango.

I think if you scroll back over this thread you will find that you have been baiting quite heavily. It's not polite discourse to call people liars. When people have offered you answers to your questions in good faith you have ignored their suggestions and just repeated what you said previously.

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	JackieH
	It was Tom, the other one, who started the ball rolling. A) questionning my right to comment on UK matters b) mis-representing totally what I said c) calling me a hypocrite. I think I am totally entitled to 'vent' about this.

I didn't write that you shouldn't comment on U.K. matters but criticising the method and not accepting the result in a direct-democracy referendum whilst living in a country where that is the basic way in which policy changes are made does seem a trifle...what?

Personally, I think Switzerland thrives in spite of direct democracy and not because of it.
That's a credit to efficient Swiss government and not a slight on the people.

I also think that the U.K. was not prepared for a referendum in that the population were not given enough information.
The fact that politicians and others campaigned (successfully) for a Brexit vote is neither here nor there - that's free speech and is part of the democratic process.


I see that you still haven't started an initiative to gain enough signatures so that Switzerland can re-visit joining the E.U. as a full member.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander (or something like that).

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Ato
	Standard introduction goes along the lines of. "I'm from Ireland" "From the north or south?" "South" "Is that the one that belongs to the UK" "No, I'm from the Republic" or when feeling a bit more confrontational "None of it belongs to the UK" It's convenient to have something prevent ambiguity. It's peculiar in that a lot of countries have their full name as "The Republic of France", or "The United Mexican States" and have a shorthand that is not ambiguous.

Only in your mind. If you’re Irish you can tell once they open their mouth if they are northern and if they are unionists or republicans.

[Ato]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Only in your mind. If you’re Irish you can tell once they open their mouth if they are northern and if they are unionists or republicans.

Sorry Jim, I've had this conversation many times with many people. Many people out of the British Isles and a fair number within them cannot spot the difference in accents.

[LtSoftDrink]

	Quote:	Tom1234
	Personally, I think Switzerland thrives in spite of direct democracy and not because of it. That's a credit to efficient Swiss government and not a slight on the people.

Interesting opinion: Switzerland thrives because its “efficient” government does it best to subvert direct democracy. The UK government is inefficient because it doesn’t give two hoots for its electorate once in power.

My take is that you do not approve of direct democracy. Perhaps things are a bit better around here because even a subverted DD tends to keep a check on our dear leaders?

[amogles]

I wouldn't describe the Swiss government as efficient.

The whole way people get put forward to a place where they can even be considered suitable for office is very much "design by committee" and not very meritocratic. The system is biased towards getting people into the Bundesrat who are chummy and sing along and tow the line rather than being too different. That leads to stability and not much ever changing, which can be good or bad depending on the matter at hand.

I think Switzerland does well precisely because

1) the government is spineless and useless
2) the government knows its useless and thus doesn't rush headlong into anything but keeps on checking back and asking whether they are doing the right thing.

The real power is wielded by all the various think tanks and lobbying organizations, who all try to act with constraint because they don't want to overstep the mark.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	amogles
	I wouldn't describe the Swiss government as efficient.

What's the aim, and what are the criteria for efficiency?
The answer probably applies to every government (state altogether) that's supposed to work for the people.

I'd say the aim is economic wellbeing, plus giving hope to the current grownups for a better life for their offspring - see social mobility, among other stuff.

[amogles]

	Quote:	amogles
	I wouldn't describe the Swiss government as efficient. The whole way people get put forward to a place where they can even be considered suitable for office is very much "design by committee" and not very meritocratic. The system is biased towards getting people into the Bundesrat who are chummy and sing along and tow the line rather than being too different. That leads to stability and not much ever changing, which can be good or bad depending on the matter at hand. I think Switzerland does well precisely because 1) the government is spineless and useless 2) the government knows its useless and thus doesn't rush headlong into anything but keeps on checking back and asking whether they are doing the right thing. The real power is wielded by all the various think tanks and lobbying organizations, who all try to act with constraint because they don't want to overstep the mark.

In case my point wasn’t clear , I was suggesting the UK government is the opposite . All the PMs , well in my lifetime at least , have been self styled heroes who thought they were smarter then anybody else .

Sometimes it takes leaders like that , because there are problems that you cannot solve through consensus and playing it low .

But obviously Switzerland has by and large done better with their system .

[amogles]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	What's the aim, and what are the criteria for efficiency? The answer probably applies to every government (state altogether) that's supposed to work for the people. I'd say the aim is economic wellbeing, plus giving hope to the current grownups for a better life for their offspring - see social mobility, among other stuff.

I don’t know if a good government should necessarily be a good architect , planning the future in great detail .

Visionary governments often tend to get overly dogmatic

I think a good government is ultimately one that gives the people what they want . Right or wrong. That’s what democracy is about .

[greenmount]

	Quote:	JackieH
	It was Tom, the other one, who started the ball rolling. A) questionning my right to comment on UK matters b) mis-representing totally what I said c) calling me a hypocrite. I think I am totally entitled to 'vent' about this. Yes, stay on topic I say- and no personal attacks.

I know you have all the rights to comment on Brexit and UK politics, much more than some of us here. (me, curley, musicchick, ursmax, st2lemans etc)

I really appreciate your input, in spite of all those silly attempts at gaslighting you. I'm gonna read this thread as long as the two sides are represented.

	Quote:	amogles
	I think a good government is ultimately one that gives the people what they want . Right or wrong. That’s what democracy is about .

I can't agree with this, especially when "what the people want" is determined by referenda with low rates of turn-out and wafer-thin margins. Sometimes (Brexit being a prime example) the people just don't have sufficient information, nor the legal and/or economic knowledge, to make the best decision. Additionally, governments make many diplomatic decisions with long-term consequences that the man on the street would never make—invoovement in foreign wars, for example—which may sometimes be necessary but unpopular. And finally, in conservative countries like Switzerland, there might be no social support.structures if it weren't for governmental oversight that didn't strictly follow the will of the people. (Even in Switzerland, the government has to find ways to work around "what the people want"—again, based on low voter turnout—to enact legislation that doesn't contravene other local and international laws.)

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	I can't agree with this, especially when "what the people want" is determined by referenda with low rates of turn-out and wafer-thin margins. Sometimes (Brexit being a prime example) the people just don't have sufficient information, nor the legal and/or economic knowledge, to make the best decision. Additionally, governments make many diplomatic decisions with long-term consequences that the man on the street would never make—invoovement in foreign wars, for example—which may sometimes be necessary but unpopular. And finally, in conservative countries like Switzerland, there might be no social support.structures if it weren't for governmental oversight that didn't strictly follow the will of the people. (Even in Switzerland, the government has to find ways to work around "what the people want"—again, based on low voter turnout—to enact legislation that doesn't contravene other local and international laws.)

Comparing the U.K. to either Switzerland or Ireland just does not fly. I have voted in both Irish and Swiss referenda and I’d say that both provide adequate information.

I think tradition plays a big part in it. Switzerland and Ireland have a tradition of making strategic (how do I want the country run in the long term) and tactical (who do I want to carry it out in the short term) and certain rules of thumb have grown up such as never punishing a government with a vote in a referendum. This is very different to other countries such as the U.K. where all politics are party politics. It should not be surprising if voters from one tradition don’t do so well when asked to make a decision under the rules of another tradition.

In Switzerland and Ireland the decision is owned by the people and that means that revisiting the decision is much easier. Politicians are not invested in the decision they can simply hand it back saying we can’t make your decision work, you need to come up with something else. Likewise a government loosing a referendum they supported does not create a crisis in either country, it is just how they work.

Using a referendum in the U.K. was always going to be problematic because it is not their tradition.

[JackieH]

Indeed- combined with the fact no information was given about the realities of Brexit and which form it would take. NONE, apart from lies and more lies, before, during and after.