This was never in doubt amongst anyone credible/not being paid to obfuscate and turn the sideshow into something important.
The actual debate was always wether it mattered Vs all the other times they interfere and all the actors interfering. And then the question is what to do something about it.
Obama "interfered" by telling the unvarnished truth; the US wouldn't rush to make a deal with the UK if it left the EU, contrary to what some Brexiteers were claiming.
It was kind of obvious at the time. I thought it could be an argument for having a confirmation, "are you sure you want this?" vote and went on a couple of marches but no, we have the glorious thing we have.
It was a non-binding referendum. It don’t really understand why that exists but it seems kinda silly to do a non-binding one followed by a binding one.
The UK has only had 3 referendums nationally, and all have been non-binding. Constitutionally, they have to be, as Parliament is sovereign and can pass any laws it wants, it is never bound by previous laws.
However, that doesn't mean politicians can ignore the outcome. The reason David Cameron offered the referendum was because his party's voters were being wooed away by UKIP and a vote split would mean both lost to Labour. UKIP got 3.1% of the vote in 2010 but 12.6% of the vote in 2015! As UKIP voters are mainly ex-Tory voters, and the Tories won over Labour in 2015 with only 6% more voteshare, you can see the direction of travel.
Cameron was also a betting man and had vanquished his enemies (the Lib Dems and SNP) by letting them have referendums and then campaigning strongly against them. The public voted "no" in both cases. So one more gamble of asking the public couldn't hurt, right?
The same dynamics were in play after the result, the Tories couldn't ignore the "will of the people" or they'd lose more votes to UKIP and never get elected again.
How is the EURO going for European members like France or Spain ?
Some businesses not people are winning, the vast majority are stuck on a train that is speeding towards a crash. Nobody is winning in this new world of consolidation, the average person always loses. The gains of peace and prosperity after WW2 are all being erased. I dont think the Spanish people who cant afford to live in their own home cities do not appreciate the mass tourism economy. Then again with or without these modern economies, the result is always things get worse.
You fail to appreciate that consequences are more than one level deep. Sure airbnb was the fail nail in the coffin, but there are many others fact that enabled mass tourism.
The modern global economy amongst its concentration of corporations is also concentrating jobs in fewer and fewer cities, which of course causes far more housing problems.
It turns out that an opt-out isn't strictly necessary.
New EU members must agree to join the Euro as soon as they meet the Maastricht Convergence Criteria, one of which is that their currency must have been part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years... but there's not actually any requirement to join the ERM!
Countries including Sweden, Poland, and Czechia have all taken advantage of this to retain their own currency - and the UK could do the same.
The other main opt-out held by the UK was around the Social Chapter, but that had already been given up in the late 1990s.
Labour are leading a concerted misinformation campaign to push us back in to Europe ... Where members of the union are going bust ... Just like we will under Burning cash Burnham
19 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] threadThe actual debate was always wether it mattered Vs all the other times they interfere and all the actors interfering. And then the question is what to do something about it.
Let's hope the left can be booted from Europe quickly, their policies are the largest existential threat to the average person.
> Dude stop bringing politics into everything. Cover yourself in mud if you like that stuff, stop spraying it around though.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50047577
The immediate contrast in your two back to back comments is interesting.
> Backlash after Barack Obama EU referendum intervention
Ten years on, people have forgotten allowing politicians to change the past from "US interfered" to "Russia interfered".
Russian interference, on the other hand, was a lot more extensive and subversive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
If you want to count "US" interference, ya boy Steve Bannon interfered a hell of a lot more than Obama.
However, that doesn't mean politicians can ignore the outcome. The reason David Cameron offered the referendum was because his party's voters were being wooed away by UKIP and a vote split would mean both lost to Labour. UKIP got 3.1% of the vote in 2010 but 12.6% of the vote in 2015! As UKIP voters are mainly ex-Tory voters, and the Tories won over Labour in 2015 with only 6% more voteshare, you can see the direction of travel.
Cameron was also a betting man and had vanquished his enemies (the Lib Dems and SNP) by letting them have referendums and then campaigning strongly against them. The public voted "no" in both cases. So one more gamble of asking the public couldn't hurt, right?
The same dynamics were in play after the result, the Tories couldn't ignore the "will of the people" or they'd lose more votes to UKIP and never get elected again.
Some businesses not people are winning, the vast majority are stuck on a train that is speeding towards a crash. Nobody is winning in this new world of consolidation, the average person always loses. The gains of peace and prosperity after WW2 are all being erased. I dont think the Spanish people who cant afford to live in their own home cities do not appreciate the mass tourism economy. Then again with or without these modern economies, the result is always things get worse.
The modern global economy amongst its concentration of corporations is also concentrating jobs in fewer and fewer cities, which of course causes far more housing problems.
It's likely that most of those accommodations would be a requirement for the UK to rejoin the EU.
New EU members must agree to join the Euro as soon as they meet the Maastricht Convergence Criteria, one of which is that their currency must have been part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for two years... but there's not actually any requirement to join the ERM!
Countries including Sweden, Poland, and Czechia have all taken advantage of this to retain their own currency - and the UK could do the same.
The other main opt-out held by the UK was around the Social Chapter, but that had already been given up in the late 1990s.
"Burnham did not provide further details about the type or extent of Moscow's activity during the Brexit referendum."
Some people still have trouble understanding half of the population can disagree with you
There were dozens of TV debates, government politicians making statements on TV, news interview, workplace heated debates, family dinner debates
The EU scepticism has always been present