
U.K. Parliament Gives Theresa May Permission to Start Brexit - ayanai
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-13/may-set-for-late-march-brexit-trigger-as-parliament-clears-way
======
lettergram
Apparently, this triggered Scotland to call another referendum to disolve the
united kingdom[1].

[1] [http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-
politics-392551...](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-
politics-39255181)

~~~
synicalx
Purely alt-history, hypothetical, might-turn-it-into-a-novel idea here - but
what would happen if the UK 'occupied' Scotland post succession Crimea-style?

I'd pay to see that movie!

~~~
MagnumOpus
We have had that sort of thing. Look at Northern Ireland fifty or a hundred
years ago, that is exactly what will happen.

And given that Scotland has thrice the population of Ireland, and an
unpoliceable land border with England, you would see bombings in England like
you haven't seen in 70 years.

------
nodesocket
Regardless of your political beliefs and opinion this is democracy in action.
I didn't know that the queen has to sign bills though, but that's purely a
ceremony and legacy process.

~~~
tarikjn
Actually I think Brexit is a demonstration of what happen when people don't
understand democracy and the powers exploit that ignorance.

Here is what one of the Lords said today: > The Lib Dem peer Lord Taverne says
that peers are entitled to refuse to back down on this issue because MPs have
abandoned their commitment to representative democracy. They are now acting as
delegates, not representatives, because they are giving primacy to the views
of the people as expressed in the referendum.

    
    
      1. the MPs acted as delegate, the easy way out to protect their career
      2. the referendum in was >2/3, while the referendum out was barely
         >50%, you need a supermajority threshold on such a long-term issue
         where the opinion can swing bellow/above 50%
      3. most know a democracy needs a free and honest press to function so
         that the people can be informed, which essentially is good
         information, and not be deceived, especially for a referendum.
         However after the referendum a number of leave voters were
         disappointed to learn that one of the top promises of UKIP was a lie
    

Democracy is not simply about following the rule of the 50% (also known as the
rule of the mob), which populists love to lean on, but all the finer details.

~~~
ldjb
1\. MPs acted as delegates because the government was elected on a manifesto
promising a referendum and to deliver on the result. The referendum happened,
the UK voted to leave, and so the majority of MPs respected the will of the
people and voted the bill through.

2\. Considering we didn't have a referendum to join the EU in the first place,
I'm not sure it makes sense to have a threshold. If the threshold wasn't met,
I'm not sure how the default can be to be part of something the British people
never said they wanted.

3\. I absolutely agree that people need to have accurate information to base
their decisions upon. So it was a real shame a lot of the information
published by the remain campaign was not entirely true. I'm not sure what
promise UKIP made you're referring to.

It is true that democracy requires more than simply going with what the
majority want. But in this case, there was a clear choice between leaving the
EU or remaining. I really don't see how it can be democratic to keep the UK in
the EU after the result of the referendum.

~~~
oddlyaromatic
I think parent was referring to the "let's fund our NHS" idea... The one on
the big bus.

In my opinion the referendum was too simple to mean much. So much about
leaving was not known. When a concrete deal is proposed and the terms and
consequences are more clear, I think the public should have another vote on
whether that specific deal passes muster. Leave voters surely did not all
intend "leave in any way possible no matter what the conditions".

~~~
ldjb
I think much about remaining was not known either. One thing that was clear
was that a vote to remain was not a vote for the status quo.

But sure, it would have been nice to have been provided with more detail on
what sort of Brexit we'd have. Perhaps the government at the time could have
given greater clarity regarding that. Although, given the fact the government
underwent a massive reshuffle, and the fact that the UK still has to negotiate
terms with the EU, it might have been rather a challenge.

~~~
ptype
What was unknown about remaining?

~~~
ldjb
For one thing, how much further the "ever closer union" would go. There had
already been chattering about an EU army, and it was only until after the
referendum vote went through that we got concrete details on it. There was
also the prospect of other countries joining the EU. Was that going to happen
or not? We simply didn't (and still don't) know.

------
edko
If Scotland were to have a referendum, and if they elected to leave the UK,
would it be a possibility that, instead of Scotland leaving the UK, and then
having to rejoin the EU, it was England, Wales, and Northern Island who left
the UK, forming their own independent country, leaving Scotland as the "UK",
and a member of the EU, and saving a lot of trouble for everyone?

~~~
peteretep
Last Scottish referendum, the EU was playing hardball, largely because other
countries have restive separative regions. I suspect a region wanting
independence because its parent country wants to leave will play out rather
differently this time.

~~~
edko
I'm not too sure about that. Mariano Rajoy, until very recently, was still
against.

~~~
peteretep
The Spanish were always going to be the strongest against though.

~~~
edko
I am not sure if all the Spanish. The Partido Popular is against, but I am not
too sure about the left.

------
hackuser
Follow the money (and power): Who benefits from a dramatic cutback of the
'administrative state"?

I'm not sure I know the answer. Industries that are regulated may think they
benefit (but a regulatory and legal framework also provide stability that
attracts investors and allows businesses to focus on productive work). Those
interested in fraud benefit, but that's far too broad to be meaningful and I'm
not sure it's a large number of people. Wealthy and powerful people benefit:
Essentially the withdrawal of the power of voters (government) leaves a vacuum
at the top; but again, that is very broad.

~~~
chillacy
A lot of private companies stand to profit for things which were done by the
government. In the US for instance we pay Intuit for tax prep software,
private prisons to run detention centers, and insurance companies for
healthcare.

