UK Brexit, questions from an American

[emjay]

I've just realised that that polling thing on the debate was just for the studio audience... 50 undecideds in the studio. I didn't catch it from the beginning so I didn't see them say anything about that, but they have now at the end. So I don't know what the current state is in the real polls... so I don't know if it could go either way or not.

[Ben Davis]

@Ben Davis

How do you measure if a law has been implemented with a positive outcome?

'Successfully implemented' simply means that legislation is doing what it's designed to do. 'Positive' means net positive gain. We'll be here for years if we try to discuss the pros & cons of every single EU legislative decision. There are problems, I'm sure I've been explicit that I don't like certain things that are going on at the moment but if we examine long-term effects of membership, we see an upward trend in almost every measure of societal health for member states.

I live in Portugal and with the € as currency coming in circa 2001 most people thought it would be entirely positive - While there are benefits for a single currency, an example of a negative aspect I can instantly think of (that I remember well despite being a kid back then) is that the prices for almost everything rose due to the € being a more "powerful" coin than our previous currency. Obviously, this is something seriously troubling for lower class people.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about Portuguese politics but I understand the issues of strong currency. One of the benefits is that employment tends to increase over time as does lending confidence, leading to more money going back in to the economy. Did you see that occur?

Would those nations benefit considerably, or would the USA and Canada benefit the most?

In theory, all member states would benefit. That's the purpose of a democratic union. It's Aractus' model, maybe we should ask him

Again, this is a problem of corruption. If politicians are corrupt and represent interests of outsiders and do not follow the will of the people, the supra organizations formed by states will be, by definition, corrupt.

Indeed, I agree however corrupt politicians are easily defeated by an electorate that cares. All that's needed is for them to be voted out. Remember, leaders can only be selected from democratically elected members.

While you mentioned a world government I actually believe the opposite will happen - regionalization. We are already seeing a perfect example with the situation of Catalonia in Spain. Catalonia wants its independence and a significant part of the population doesn't consider themselves Spanish. How does this scenario fit in a world government when a minuscule piece of land (compared to the size of the entire planet) has trouble keeping itself "attached" to a slightly larger institution?

In a world where information and resources can be distributed quickly and easily, the overall trend has been towards larger, gestalt political organisations due to the greater spans of control and increased influence. Over time, this is likely to result in super-states but not necessarily. Of course in any distribution curve, there are exceptions and outliers but they aren't indicative of the norm.

[Iroscato]

Everything's racist. I think we've established that by now!

I'm scared. Seriously. It's dawned on me recently what a massive decision this is.

*Definitely not homoerotic shoulder massage*

Relax, dude. Our votes have been cast, we've done our part. Nothing more we can do to change the outcome except wait for the result. What will be, will be.

[Pat Mustard]

Hey can anyone answer this:

Say the leavers win the vote. Does that mean we will leave, for definite? Or is the decision still in the hands of the government ultimately?

Legally the decision remains with the government, because referenda are not binding. But then again, you've got to think of the political implications of going against a majority vote.

[robvalue]

Okay, cheers

As a country, we've pretty much come to expect politicians not to keep their promises. But I agree that in this case, it will be rather hard to get away with.

[account_inactive]

Hey can anyone answer this:

Say the leavers win the vote. Does that mean we will leave, for definite? Or is the decision still in the hands of the government ultimately?

Legally the decision remains with the government, because referenda are not binding. But then again, you've got to think of the political implications of going against a majority vote.

Riots, riots everywhere.

[emjay]

Yeah, it would be political suicide to weasel out of it, and never forgotten... some things they can sweep under the rug and pretend like they never happened, but not this. So tomorrow and in the coming days it looks like we'll find out whether we're staying or going, for pretty much sure.

[robvalue]

Cameron is on his way out fairly soon anyway. So the noble and honest thing to do would be to dishonestly weasel out of it, throwing himself on the sword of history or something.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Cameron is on his way out fairly soon anyway. So the noble and honest thing to do would be to dishonestly weasel out of it, throwing himself on the sword of history or something.

Yeah but he's an Etonian.

[robvalue]

Cameron is on his way out fairly soon anyway. So the noble and honest thing to do would be to dishonestly weasel out of it, throwing himself on the sword of history or something.

Yeah but he's an Etonian.

Really? That's disgusting. But I suppose what people want to do with their own feces is none of my business. I saw a chimp at Monkey World catch one and paint on the wall with it!