Brits will either say "Fine, thanks" or not respond at all.
Poles will tell you that yesterday they went to visit their relatives, and now they're tired, or that their cat is sick, or that they having problems with something.
It's a difference between "asking when you don't care about response" vs "asking because you genuinely want to know how the other person is"
In Poland you would just say Hej! = I acknowledge you being there but I don't want to chat. But again, back to the point I was trying to make - the intent behind these sort of questions (and answers) can be cultural
The Brexit referendum was non-binding for important constitutional reasons.
Legally, leaving required an Act of Parliament. To hold a binding referendum, they would have had to pass an Act that says "here are the exact details of how we'll leave the EU, coming into force if the referendum passes".
But that would have required them to figure out all the exact details of what it means to leave the EU, and they didn't bother - they just held the referendum and assumed they could figure out the details later if Leave won, which they didn't expect would happen.
We all saw how well that worked out.
> there was sufficient political capital to push it through without a follow up vote.
This seriously overstates how smoothly things went between 23/6/2016 and 31/1/2020
Maybe you can help illuminate something that confused me about the result of the referendum. I thought it was worded such that voting yes would lead to a committee determining the details, and that that would lead to a second referendum? It felt like the UK population was tricked into voting for a 'sure I'll hear out your plan' which then turned into 'cool, we'll make a plan and then begin implementing it'.
> Maybe you can help illuminate something that confused me about the result of the referendum. I thought it was worded such that voting yes would lead to a committee determining the details, and that that would lead to a second referendum.
The wording of such a famous referendum shouldn't be hard to find if you want to know the wording
> After internal polls suggested that 85% of the UK population wanted more information about the referendum from the government, a leaflet was sent to every household in the UK. It contained details about why the government believed the UK should remain in the EU. This leaflet was criticised by those wanting to leave as giving the remain side an unfair advantage; it was also described as being inaccurate and a waste of taxpayers' money (it cost £9.3m in total). During the campaign, Nigel Farage suggested that there would be public demand for a second referendum should the result be a remain win closer than 52–48%, because the leaflet meant that the remain side had been permitted to spend more money
Thank you for those links. Those are written in a way that it's very obvious what you'd be voting for. I must have been thinking of some other voting measure, unless my memory is (very possibly) faulty.
I don’t remember anyone before the referendum saying it would be the first of two.
A lot of people pushed unsuccessfully for a second referendum after the first one but that was never based on any pre-existing legalities or precedent, it was just an attempt to overturn the first result from people who were upset that theyd lost.
In hindsight, I think I was misremembering that a second referendum was debated beforehand. But the non-binding aspect of the first had me thinking it would lead to further definition before it was embarked upon. Was there elections held between referendum and determining to do it?
I don't get it. They're having a referendum on whether or not to have a referendum? Why bother with two steps?
I googled the Clarity Act and it appears to be recently-passed US (not Canadian) legislation about regulating cryptocurrencies or something. What's its relevance here?
I am not Canadian and know nothing about Canadian politics. Someone please enlighten me.
It's a very complicated situation in Alberta. There were basically two competing petitions. A "Forever Canada" petition which supported Alberta staying in Canada, however it was built to force the provincial government to hold a vote in parliament about separation, therefore forcing all representatives to show their true feelings on separation.
A second petition by "Stay Free Alberta" asked the government to hold a referendum on separating. However, it was blocked by a judge because a previously ruling basically said that separating would violate treaty rights of Indigenous peoples in Alberta. It's also fraught with controversy as the individuals running the petition were able to (likely illegally) obtain the voter rolls for every Albertan. They used it to build an online tool to track their progress. There is speculation (without evidence since the signatures on the petition is not public) that they simply used it to fill out the petition for people they knew. There are pieces of evidence that point to this being a possibility, for example, a Stay Free Alberta leader claimed that in some communities, nearly 98% of residents signed the petition. These are generally right leaning communities, however, getting 98% of people in a community to do a single thing would be incredibly hard.
> I don't get it. They're having a referendum on whether or not to have a referendum?
Exactly. Albertans are scratching their heads, wondering what on earth Premier Smith is trying to accomplish. Utterly ridiculous ''solution'' to some internal problems within her party, I'm guessing.
Interestingly, my state (Wisconsin) has a two step process for constitutional amendments. An amendment has to pass a referendum in two consecutive legislative sessions. It still doesn't prevent us from doing stupid things, but it seems to be programmed as a check on hasty voting, or on people assuming that nobody's going to vote.
I'm not sure what point you're making but there's nothing satirical about the second headline. The UK really did just legislate to decriminalise abortion up to the point of birth.
TLDR: not legalised in the wider sense that any doctors or institutions involved with the abortion can perform the abortion until arbitrary late, but DOES remove liability from the pregnant women. So in case her abortion is aided or abetted those people are still criminally liable, but if she does it on her own somehow, then it is in fact legalised by the recent change. So, it depends on the situation, and if the mother is the sole actor or not. If she is the sole actor, it seems abortion has been arbitrarily legalized according to kuerbels' link. This also makes it important that people like kuerbel disseminate such a correction: the platitude that all abortions are now legalized would send the wrong message / legal advice to any accomplices in the abortion, even if the mother can do this with impunity, if you aid or abet her in it you can be held liable!
> So in case her abortion is aided or abetted those people are still criminally liable, but if she does it on her own somehow, then it is in fact legalised by the recent change. So, it depends on the situation, and if the mother is the sole actor or not.
Wheter acting solo or with aid of others, the mother is no longer liable for criminal charges. Full Stop.
See, much better articles that address the actual ammended bill and passing into law rather than focussing on the confusion spread by various media sources.
This is a change that would have impacted a total of 20 woman in the entire 100 years of the 19th Century and almost the same number of woman from the last two decades.
This is not an issue I care about at all, but even I can recognize that a voluntary abortion the day before a healthy birth would occur is truly a radical extreme that most people would object to.
Do you really think that someone will willingly go through 9 months of pregnancy to abort "the day before" just because???
If someone is aborting the day before they ate due after dealing with everything for 9 months, you can believe that it was the best decision no matter how you look at it.
Most -if not all- late term abortions are carried by people that WANT the baby but learn that is better (for the baby, the life of the mother...) to not carry it to the full end.
You can likely also realise that the UK expunging prosecution and conviction of women convicted of back street abortions isn't equivilant to legalising abortion the day before birth .. however much the hand wringing click bait press try and spin it.
How can you not care at all about the government forcing people to sacrifice their bodies in the most intimate way possible? To put one's sex organs to use against one's will? Disgusting.
reply