Brexit- Update: Britain has voted to leave the EU

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I don't really get some of those voters' rationale. "I voted to leave, but I didn't actually think we would actually leave". So why vote leave in the first place? Its your own fault for not educating yourselves, now you face the consequences.

Is this this the Brexit thread or are we back to talking about the NDP again? Substitute NDP for leave...

[nik-]

A little less permanence in protest voting a new party in.

[ah123]

This came across my Twitter feed...it is an interesting position that I had not thought off; basically arguing that the EU has been good for London, and that that "good-ness" has not flown into the rest of Britain

In shorthand, Britain’s EU problem is a London problem. London, a young, thriving, creative, cosmopolitan city, seems the model multicultural community, a great European capital. But it is also the home of all of Britain’s elites—the economic elites of “the City” (London’s Wall Street, international rather than European), a nearly hereditary professional caste of lawyers, journalists, publicists, and intellectuals, an increasingly hereditary caste of politicians, tight coteries of cultural movers-and-shakers richly sponsored by multinational corporations. It’s as if Hollywood, Wall Street, the Beltway, and the hipper neighborhoods of New York and San Francisco had all been mashed together. This has proved to be a toxic combination.

For the rest of the country has felt more and more excluded, not only from participation in the creativity and prosperity of London, but more crucially from power. That gap had begun to yawn dangerously in Thatcher’s 1980s, when deindustrialization in the North and the finance and property boom in the South East meant that growing inequality acquired a grave geographical component. London was not the sole beneficiary. There are pockets of London-like entitlement scattered all over the country—in university towns like Brighton, Cambridge, and Bristol, in select neighbourhoods of Manchester and Leeds. But the big money—and all those elites—remained firmly in London. In recent decades it has felt as if the whole country had been turned upside down and shaken, until most of the wealth and talent had pooled in the capital. One of the most striking features of this period has been the turnaround in London’s educational performance; in the 1990s, it had among the worst educational outcomes in Britain, today it has the best. Some of this is owing to immigration—striving immigrant groups are helping London’s schools to thrive. But some of it is owing to a different kind of migration—talented and ambitious young people from all over the country thronging to London to teach. London’s gain is the rest of the country’s loss.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog...london-problem

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There's no mechanism for kicking a country out, only the UK can initiate article 50, at this stage it's the only power the UK has but they still control their own destiny.

Personally I think the UK will decide not to leave, which is typical of my people!!

http://newsthump.com/2016/06/21/cats...use-to-go-out/

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ah123

This came across my Twitter feed...it is an interesting position that I had not thought off; basically arguing that the EU has been good for London, and that that "good-ness" has not flown into the rest of Britain



https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog...london-problem

I find it weird that London is only 10% of the UK population (6.5 million) and the next biggest city Birmingham is the size of Calgary (1.2 million). Did you know Manchester and Liverpool are only 500,000. I would have thought they were huge.

In most countries people migrate to the bigger cities. Saskatchewan moving to Calgary for example. But in England once you're in Saskachewan, you stay there for generations. So even if the EU is good for businesses and head offices in London. 90% of the population is not there.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I find it weird that London is only 10% of the UK population (6.5 million) and the next biggest city Birmingham is the size of Calgary (1.2 million). Did you know Manchester and Liverpool are only 500,000. I would have thought they were huge.

In most countries people migrate to the bigger cities. Saskatchewan moving to Calgary for example. But in England once you're in Saskachewan, you stay there for generations. So even if the EU is good for businesses and head offices in London. 90% of the population is not there.

Not that it skews what you're saying much, but population of London is ~8.5 million and it's metro population is pushing 14 million.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Is it? 2011 census has it under 10 million, which obviously is still massive.

That said, the underlying post is still wrong. Birmingham and Manchester are both around 2.5 million people, and Leeds is over 1.5.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Is it? 2011 census has it under 10 million, which obviously is still massive.

That said, the underlying post is still wrong. Birmingham and Manchester are both around 2.5 million people, and Leeds is over 1.5.

Even Newcastle has a metro population of 1.7 million.

[GirlySports]

is metro in england about 20 places?

Manchester
City: 500,000
Metro 2,500,000

what's that mean? They were saying on BBC that Birmingham only has 700,000 eligible voters.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Is it? 2011 census has it under 10 million, which obviously is still massive.

That said, the underlying post is still wrong. Birmingham and Manchester are both around 2.5 million people, and Leeds is over 1.5.

Wikipedia says 8.6 as of 2015.

But as mentioned, metro population is Pushing 14 million. So that's maybe what the 2011 stat was.

People tend to forget that a city like London is actually like 6 cities put together. London proper is actually not all that big IIRC.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

is metro in england about 20 places?

Manchester
City: 500,000
Metro 2,500,000

what's that mean? They were saying on BBC that Birmingham only has 700,000 eligible voters.

Basically, almost every city in the world is different from Calgary, which encompasses every neighbourhood and region in the area under the heading "Calgary".

Toronto, for example, has about 6 million people in it, but most don't live in the city of Toronto - they live in the York regional district, the Peel regional district, etc., which altogether make up the GTA. Same with Vancouver - Vancouver city proper has about 600,000 people in it, but Metro Vancouver has 2.4 million (500,000 in Surrey, 200,000 in Richmond, 200,000 in Burnaby, and so on).

They're all contiguously attached. If you drive from Vancouver into Burnaby, for example, it doesn't seem as though you've left the city at all. It would be as if you were saying Calgary is just a village because only 8000 or so people live downtown.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

is metro in england about 20 places?

Manchester
City: 500,000
Metro 2,500,000

what's that mean? They were saying on BBC that Birmingham only has 700,000 eligible voters.

Think "major US City"

It's the same thing, it's all suburbs and the well known name city is just a fraction. I'm assuming the UK is less suburbs and more just old ass towns though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

is metro in england about 20 places?

Manchester
City: 500,000
Metro 2,500,000

what's that mean? They were saying on BBC that Birmingham only has 700,000 eligible voters.

Cities in Europe tend to avoid the amalgamation the cities in North American see. It's kind of like how Vancouver actually only has a population of 600k, but the metro population is 2.4 million.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Commons back in session and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove nowhere to be found. Things going pretty disastrously for the Leave side post-referendum, no leadership at all and all of the promises have basically already been admitted as lies. Voters only have themselves to blame ultimately, but you gotta think there's severe punishment down the line for the Leave cheerleaders who are crumbling right now.

[MelBridgeman]

So just call an election and get it decided again...

[peter12]

Yep, they need an election ASAP.

[nik-]

Most politicians don't keep their promises, but I'm having a hard time thinking about such a rapid about face in recent times.

"Read my lips" was close, but that was a two year between statement and reversal. The next day? That's pretty impressive.

[Cyclops]

I don't know all the ins and outs of the EU but I'm looking for an answer around this. Why is Britain screwed for leaving the EU with people forecasting their economy crashing....but the Swiss and Norwegians were never part of it and they both seem to be fine. Is Britain screwed because of a grudge that the EU will hold?

[nik-]

Because as a result of never being in the EU they haven't built their economies around membership.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because as a result of never being in the EU they haven't built their economies around membership.

Even the UK resisted complete EU integration by refusing to adopt the Euro. There are many people in continental Europe who believe that the EU will be better off without the UK in the long run - after some growing pains of course.

Euro-skepticism in the UK has always been one of the biggest contributing factors from making the EU the fully integrated super state originally envisioned and not the awkward Frankenstein's monster of sovereign states it currently is. It's in this middle ground where sovereign states lack the power to deal with issues of grave domestic importance, but they also don't get the support from EU leaders due to too much infighting.

After the initial downturn and power vacuum, optimists believe it may be replaced with something more efficient eventually. Let's face it, the EU has been in "can do better" territory since the 1990s (you don't have to look hard on Google to find many historical condemnations of the EU way before "Brexit" or immigration were ever issues). A lot of UK based firms may also opt to move their operations to continental Europe for better trade positions as well. The UK of course, is one of the wealthiest and advanced nations in the world with a well educated workforce. They will be fine as well in the long run.

It all depends on whether the EU can hold out long enough to adjust. Earlier this year, the Czech leaders said that if Britain left, they would be the next to put it up for referendum. Some (or most) of the smaller EU countries do not want a more authoritative EU as they believe they won't be able to survive as a distinct cultures over several generations if they are in full union with powerhouses like France and Germany. They saw the UK as an important balance between the big 3 (UK, France and Germany).