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

[bowlie]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	All fairly irrelevant in the end as the majority wanted to leave. Period.

A majority of the electorate that decided to vote did. Of course under UK law that is sufficient to pass the referendum but it is not a majority of the people, nor is it even a majority of electors.

IMHO questions of this import should require a majority of electors.

[JagWaugh]

	Quote:	bowlie
	A majority of the electorate that decided to vote did. Of course under UK law that is sufficient to pass the referendum but it is not a majority of the people, nor is it even a majority of electors. IMHO questions of this import should require a majority of electors.

The way I see it is if you can vote, but don't, then that means you are indifferent to the outcome.

IMHO questions of this import should motivate a majority of electors.

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	bowlie
	A majority of the electorate that decided to vote did. Of course under UK law that is sufficient to pass the referendum but it is not a majority of the people, nor is it even a majority of electors. IMHO questions of this import should require a majority of electors.

So you propose that for important issues the majority of electors should be required to turn out? What constitutes "important", then? Doesn't staying home also express an opinion - the right not to vote?

Do you believe the result would have been different if the majority of electors had turned out, and if so, why? A significant number of citizens weren't even allowed to vote because they haven't lived in the UK in 15 years. To me, that's a bigger travesty than those who didn't show up out of choice.

Perhaps those from countries with mandatory voting (Aussies?) can share how this works, whether people like it or hate it, etc. and whether folks think that this is more representative of true democracy or something?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	So you propose that for important issues the majority of electors should be required to turn out? What constitutes "important", then? Doesn't staying home also express an opinion - the right not to vote? Do you believe the result would have been different if the majority of electors had turned out, and if so, why? A significant number of citizens weren't even allowed to vote because they haven't lived in the UK in 15 years. To me, that's a bigger travesty than those who didn't show up out of choice. Perhaps those from countries with mandatory voting (Aussies?) can share how this works, whether people like it or hate it, etc. and whether folks think that this is more representative of true democracy or something?

Remember no country can force you to vote, they can force you to turn up but some people will leave the form blank or tick multiple options. This always happens to some extent in UK elections, 25,359 ballot papers were voided in the BREXIT vote.

[John William]

	Quote:	bowlie
	A majority of the electorate that decided to vote did. Of course under UK law that is sufficient to pass the referendum but it is not a majority of the people, nor is it even a majority of electors. IMHO questions of this import should require a majority of electors.

Didn't statistics show that the majority of the electorate that did turn up to vote in the Referendum were ( what one can only politely describe as ) the 'grey haired generation' for whom World War II or being bombed out of their parents home, when they were a toddler by the Luftwaffe was still fresh in their memory and for whom the final years of the British Empire is recent history for them.
Of course recent events like the Calais Jungle camp and the flight of refugees from Syria only served to entrench their anti EU positions.



As to what happened to the Young ( pro EU ) generation not turning up in sufficient numbers, vary from recovering from a raucous night at the Disco, hangover problems and who was that bird I saw you with last night ?

[bowlie]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	So you propose that for important issues the majority of electors should be required to turn out? What constitutes "important", then? Doesn't staying home also express an opinion - the right not to vote? Do you believe the result would have been different if the majority of electors had turned out, and if so, why? A significant number of citizens weren't even allowed to vote because they haven't lived in the UK in 15 years. To me, that's a bigger travesty than those who didn't show up out of choice. Perhaps those from countries with mandatory voting (Aussies?) can share how this works, whether people like it or hate it, etc. and whether folks think that this is more representative of true democracy or something?

Well, if it important enough to have a referendum then it must be important.

And yes I do believe the vote would have been different had it been required, and yes I agree it was a travesty that many British Citizens were not allowed a vote, while Irish and Commonwealth citizens were give a vote.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	John William
	Didn't statistics show that the majority of the electorate that did turn up to vote in the Referendum were ( what one can only politely describe as ) the 'grey haired generation' for whom World War II or being bombed out of their parents home, when they were a toddler by the Luftwaffe was still fresh in their memory and for whom the final years of the British Empire is recent history for them. Of course recent events like the Calais Jungle camp and the flight of refugees from Syria only served to entrench their anti EU positions. As to what happened to the Young ( pro EU ) generation not turning up in sufficient numbers, vary from recovering from a raucous night at the Disco, hangover problems and who was that bird I saw you with last night ?

why not organise a second referendum where only people that can think rationally, are well educated and oversee all consequences of their decisions, are allowed to vote?

[bowlie]

As I stated above the previous referendum was passed in accordance with U.K. law.

I just don’t like to see repeated over and over that the results were the decision of the people. It wasn’t. It was a decision of some of the people. Just over half of those that voted.

Perhaps they should say in advance how abstentions will be counted. Frankly the ‘people’ should know that if they don’t vote then it will be counted for, or against, the proposal.

[John William]

In a nutshell:
Brexit: Pay more to get less and having less money to pay for it.
Brexiteers: I want the rest of the UK to suffer and deprive the young of their future.

[aSwissInTheUS]

	Quote:	bowlie
	Perhaps they should say in advance how abstentions will be counted. Frankly the ‘people’ should know that if they don’t vote then it will be counted for, or against, the proposal.

Neither. The people which do not vote say: I can't be bothered, I will go with what the majority of the people decides which actually do care, go to the poll, and cast their Yes or No vote.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	I just don’t like to see repeated over and over that the results were the decision of the people. It wasn’t. It was a decision of some of the people. Just over half of those that voted.

That applies to every vote with less than 100.0% turnout, which is impossible to achieve.

[bowlie]

Perhaps, but we don’t hear that ‘the people’ didn’t give the Conservative Party a renewed mandate. Or ‘the people’ favoured a coalition government with the DUC.

Many people, a majority of those that voted favoured the U.K. leaving the EU. But that wasn’t ‘the people’.

[Blueangel]

This corresponds with a tv interview with a freight port boss a few days ago. He highlighted how narrow the margin or depay currently is with the movement of car parts around Europe.

	Quote:
	'No-deal' Brexit could cost £60m a day, Jaguar boss warns Ralf Speth is concerned delays in the supply chain could halt production and repeats warnings a hard Brexit could cost £1.2bn.

https://news.sky.com/story/no-deal-b...warns-11495300

And though I've been closely following progress with regards to the airline industry, I hadn't accounted for this...

	Quote:
	UK to reissue pilot licences in 'no-deal' Brexit Documents warn thousands of aviation licences for pilots and aircraft may have to be reissued in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-rei...rexit-11494922

[bowlie]

Yes, UK resident pilots will have to convert their EASA licenses to U.K. ones. That is an obvious consequence of Brexit, hard or soft.

But Brexit in itself wouldn’t invalidate EASA licenses and pilots do not need EASA licenses to fly to EU airports. Just ask the Australian, Kenyan, Moroccan, Brazilian, etc. pilots that do it every day.

So a lot of paperwork to come, but it won’t be a disaster. There is no reason why a British pilot cannot hold both an EASA and a British pilots license.

[marton]

	Quote:	bowlie
	Yes, UK resident pilots will have to convert their EASA licenses to U.K. ones. That is an obvious consequence of Brexit, hard or soft. But Brexit in itself wouldn’t invalidate EASA licenses and pilots do not need EASA licenses to fly to EU airports. Just ask the Australian, Kenyan, Moroccan, Brazilian, etc. pilots that do it every day. So a lot of paperwork to come, but it won’t be a disaster. There is no reason why a British pilot cannot hold both an EASA and a British pilots license.

Currently UK issued licences, ratings and certificates display EASA references. If UK no longer belongs to EASA then these documents are no longer valid.

A British pilot can hold both an EASA and a British pilots license but the EASA pilot licence must be issued by an EASA member.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	marton
	A British pilot can hold both an EASA and a British pilots license but the EASA pilot licence must be issued by an EASA member.

Hence why Easyjet are getting their pilot's EASA licences issued in Austria. Also be aware that any case involving an EASA pilot or EASA registered aircraft, is subject to the ECJ, which is precisely what Brexiteers do not want.

I watched IDS this morning and it's blindingly obvious that he didn't think this through before trotting out all the usual jingoistic slogans that got us into this mire of shite. Call themselves politicians?!!

[John William]

Jacob Rees-Mogg proudly presents the Brexiteers version of Queens greatest hit
from the 1980's - I want to break free !!
and fulfill Brexit's greatest dream of a return to the British trading empire.


BBC News - Do claims of a Clean Break add up

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	why not organise a second referendum where only people that can think rationally, are well educated and oversee all consequences of their decisions, are allowed to vote?

I have always believed that only net tax payers should be aloud to vote, how can you vote for something that your not financially responsible for. Strangely bribing the electorate is legal, bribing anyone else is an criminal offence.

[marton]

	Quote:	John William
	Jacob Rees-Mogg proudly presents the Brexiteers version of Queens greatest hit from the 1980's - I want to break free !! and fulfill Brexit's greatest dream of a return to the British trading empire. BBC News - Do claims of a Clean Break add up

Defaulting to WTO rules may not be as easy as they suppose!

The UK has already applied to the WTO to join as a member country but the application was rejected by our "friends" US, Australia and New Zealand plus other countries.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I have always believed that only net tax payers should be aloud to vote, how can you vote for something that your not financially responsible for. Strangely bribing the electorate is legal, bribing anyone else is an criminal offence.

So by this logic... this would rule out those made redundant or those on long term disability benefits or potentially even those on maternity leave at the time of a GE, particularly if it fell in the gap between 39 weeks and going back to work. Getting dangerously close to voting eligibility going back to males over 21 and women over 35 who own property!

Should those tax payers whose incomes put them in a higher tax bracket have a "weightier" vote than the part-time workers and/or those scraping by on 16k who therefore pay less tax?