Can brexit be undone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised that they didn't have some kind of two-thirds majority rule built in for a significant change like this, but it is what it is. Britain's exit will actually be easier than most other countries -- they kept their money out and never joined Schengen.

Agree.
Plus,
I'm really surprised how uninformed the voters were (according to Google who revealed there were a ton of "what does it mean to leave the EU?" searches).

Uninformed voters should not be allowed to vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0&list=PLsDaMZkPTS9lV5fPd3FByqMh8LuxESAq_&index=26

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look The UK will carry on. People are acting like the UK has been invade by zombies.

This. There is a lot of spin going on. It will take time, but the UK and the rest of Europe will adjust.

But there won't be a "U.K." Scotland will definitely vote to split and Northern Ireland given the chance might also. Oddly, those latter two will be in the EU.

Short lifetime. Also, how does the argument change? Scotland already determined they were better off staying. All the reasons then are the same now -- there's no new good reason for Scotland to leave the UK.

Have you been following this at all? Scotland's First Minister has stated she may seek a new vote because Brexit will result in Scotland being pulled out of the EU against its will. There have been a lot of press and tv coverage of this as well as Northern Ireland's displeasure wth the outcome of the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look The UK will carry on. People are acting like the UK has been invade by zombies.

This. There is a lot of spin going on. It will take time, but the UK and the rest of Europe will adjust.

But there won't be a "U.K." Scotland will definitely vote to split and Northern Ireland given the chance might also. Oddly, those latter two will be in the EU.

Short lifetime. Also, how does the argument change? Scotland already determined they were better off staying. All the reasons then are the same now -- there's no new good reason for Scotland to leave the UK.

Have you been following this at all? Scotland's First Minister has stated she may seek a new vote because Brexit will result in Scotland being pulled out of the EU against its will. There have been a lot of press and tv coverage of this as well as Northern Ireland's displeasure wth the outcome of the vote.

Yes, but the reasons they decided to stay have't changed. Financially, Scotland needs England, and culturally, they are more alike than different. Certainly Sturgeon wants another vote, she was unhappy with the last one. Brussels isn't signalling that they want Scotland, though. Whatever Sturgeon wants, Scotland may be stuck in the UK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look The UK will carry on. People are acting like the UK has been invade by zombies.

This. There is a lot of spin going on. It will take time, but the UK and the rest of Europe will adjust.

But there won't be a "U.K." Scotland will definitely vote to split and Northern Ireland given the chance might also. Oddly, those latter two will be in the EU.

Short lifetime. Also, how does the argument change? Scotland already determined they were better off staying. All the reasons then are the same now -- there's no new good reason for Scotland to leave the UK.

Have you been following this at all? Scotland's First Minister has stated she may seek a new vote because Brexit will result in Scotland being pulled out of the EU against its will. There have been a lot of press and tv coverage of this as well as Northern Ireland's displeasure wth the outcome of the vote.

Yes, but the reasons they decided to stay have't changed. Financially, Scotland needs England, and culturally, they are more alike than different. Certainly Sturgeon wants another vote, she was unhappy with the last one. Brussels isn't signalling that they want Scotland, though. Whatever Sturgeon wants, Scotland may be stuck in the UK.

The reasons actually have changed, and Brussels will take Scotland, just to poke England in the eye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look The UK will carry on. People are acting like the UK has been invade by zombies.

This. There is a lot of spin going on. It will take time, but the UK and the rest of Europe will adjust.

But there won't be a "U.K." Scotland will definitely vote to split and Northern Ireland given the chance might also. Oddly, those latter two will be in the EU.

Short lifetime. Also, how does the argument change? Scotland already determined they were better off staying. All the reasons then are the same now -- there's no new good reason for Scotland to leave the UK.

Have you been following this at all? Scotland's First Minister has stated she may seek a new vote because Brexit will result in Scotland being pulled out of the EU against its will. There have been a lot of press and tv coverage of this as well as Northern Ireland's displeasure wth the outcome of the vote.

Yes, but the reasons they decided to stay have't changed. Financially, Scotland needs England, and culturally, they are more alike than different. Certainly Sturgeon wants another vote, she was unhappy with the last one. Brussels isn't signalling that they want Scotland, though. Whatever Sturgeon wants, Scotland may be stuck in the UK.

You are whack. Scots voted against independence only because they wanted to stay in the EU. Now that being in the UK means not being in the EU, they want to be independent and stay in EU. Try reading an article instead of making stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear not everyone in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU

What about Wales?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well....

Last week it was reported in the press that the Queen had asked a number of guests to Buckingham Palace to give three good reasons for remaining in the EU. The Palace refused to confirm or deny the report.

Her biographer has stated she's a sceptic of the EU and would support leaving the EU.

We will never know for sure. But I would definitely not assume that the Queen supported remaining in the EU.

This is what I suspected. What difference does it make to her?
If staying in the EU was so all-fired important to the country she would have let her opinion be known

Are you one of those who thinks teachers should be voicing their personal opinions about Trump/Hillary in this election, because it's different this time? No, teachers should remain neutral, and the queen should/did remain neutral. That's what being neutral means.

Why should teachers remain neutral?

Teachers can have opinions w/o necessarily being rabid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised that they didn't have some kind of two-thirds majority rule built in for a significant change like this, but it is what it is. Britain's exit will actually be easier than most other countries -- they kept their money out and never joined Schengen.

Agree.
Plus,
I'm really surprised how uninformed the voters were (according to Google who revealed there were a ton of "what does it mean to leave the EU?" searches).

Uninformed voters should not be allowed to vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0&list=PLsDaMZkPTS9lV5fPd3FByqMh8LuxESAq_&index=26

. Should that had true for the US, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well....

Last week it was reported in the press that the Queen had asked a number of guests to Buckingham Palace to give three good reasons for remaining in the EU. The Palace refused to confirm or deny the report.

Her biographer has stated she's a sceptic of the EU and would support leaving the EU.

We will never know for sure. But I would definitely not assume that the Queen supported remaining in the EU.

This is what I suspected. What difference does it make to her?
If staying in the EU was so all-fired important to the country she would have let her opinion be known

Are you one of those who thinks teachers should be voicing their personal opinions about Trump/Hillary in this election, because it's different this time? No, teachers should remain neutral, and the queen should/did remain neutral. That's what being neutral means.

Why should teachers remain neutral?

Teachers can have opinions w/o necessarily being rabid.

Teachers should absolutely remain neutral. Would you want them espousing pro-life, anti-immigration, etc.?

[Anonymous]

I saw this in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/27/were-brits-really-googling-what-is-the-eu-after-voting-to-leave/

It suggests maybe only around a thousand people were googling the question.

Anonymous wrote:This article doesn't say what you think it does.

Anonymous wrote:False.

http://www.geektime.com/2016/06/25/no-brits-are-not-googling-what-is-the-eu-because-they-dont-know-what-the-eu-is/

The link explains how google searches are structured.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised that they didn't have some kind of two-thirds majority rule built in for a significant change like this, but it is what it is. Britain's exit will actually be easier than most other countries -- they kept their money out and never joined Schengen.

Agree.
Plus,
I'm really surprised how uninformed the voters were (according to Google who revealed there were a ton of "what does it mean to leave the EU?" searches).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised that they didn't have some kind of two-thirds majority rule built in for a significant change like this, but it is what it is. Britain's exit will actually be easier than most other countries -- they kept their money out and never joined Schengen.

Agree.
Plus,
I'm really surprised how uninformed the voters were (according to Google who revealed there were a ton of "what does it mean to leave the EU?" searches).

Uninformed voters should not be allowed to vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0&list=PLsDaMZkPTS9lV5fPd3FByqMh8LuxESAq_&index=26

While this would seem logical on the surface, in practice it's completely unreasonable. First of all, how do you define uninformed? Once you've defined it, how do you determine whether someone is uninformed? We can't even enforce ID card verification in the US without the Liberals crying racism and you think we will be able to put in place "informed voter" requirements?

Sure, some voters are uninformed, but what I do trust is that they will vote based on what matters to them the most in their lives. They may not have sophisticated understanding of the major issues, or have lost sight of the forest for the trees. But every one has the right to vote his/her conscience and no one can take that away from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well....

Last week it was reported in the press that the Queen had asked a number of guests to Buckingham Palace to give three good reasons for remaining in the EU. The Palace refused to confirm or deny the report.

Her biographer has stated she's a sceptic of the EU and would support leaving the EU.

We will never know for sure. But I would definitely not assume that the Queen supported remaining in the EU.

This is what I suspected. What difference does it make to her?
If staying in the EU was so all-fired important to the country she would have let her opinion be known

Are you one of those who thinks teachers should be voicing their personal opinions about Trump/Hillary in this election, because it's different this time? No, teachers should remain neutral, and the queen should/did remain neutral. That's what being neutral means.

Why should teachers remain neutral?

Teachers can have opinions w/o necessarily being rabid.

Teachers should not be neutral. Kids should have to learn to deal with authoritative figures that they sometimes do not agree with. Working within the system is a skill that every one need to develop and master in order to be successful in life. My kids all come home saying that Trump is a racist, for example, or that Brexit is racist because the pro-leaving camp did it partially due to immigration concerns. Kids don't form these opinions on their own. These are teaching opportunities, however, as I tell my kids to examine the evidence and realize that some times, the people we respect are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well....

Last week it was reported in the press that the Queen had asked a number of guests to Buckingham Palace to give three good reasons for remaining in the EU. The Palace refused to confirm or deny the report.

Her biographer has stated she's a sceptic of the EU and would support leaving the EU.

We will never know for sure. But I would definitely not assume that the Queen supported remaining in the EU.

This is what I suspected. What difference does it make to her?
If staying in the EU was so all-fired important to the country she would have let her opinion be known

Are you one of those who thinks teachers should be voicing their personal opinions about Trump/Hillary in this election, because it's different this time? No, teachers should remain neutral, and the queen should/did remain neutral. That's what being neutral means.

Why should teachers remain neutral?

Teachers can have opinions w/o necessarily being rabid.

Teachers should absolutely remain neutral. Would you want them espousing pro-life, anti-immigration, etc.?

I don't want our teachers shackled to the point where they can't teach effectively. School is an aspect of life and it should reflect life, including people expressing opinions you disagree with. Pro-life/Pro-choice is a rather mature and personal subject, and I would implore teachers leave that discussion up to the parents. But immigration is certainly a thought provoking topic that can get kids engaged into thinking about the pros and cons of a very complicated question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well....

Last week it was reported in the press that the Queen had asked a number of guests to Buckingham Palace to give three good reasons for remaining in the EU. The Palace refused to confirm or deny the report.

Her biographer has stated she's a sceptic of the EU and would support leaving the EU.

We will never know for sure. But I would definitely not assume that the Queen supported remaining in the EU.

This is what I suspected. What difference does it make to her?
If staying in the EU was so all-fired important to the country she would have let her opinion be known

Are you one of those who thinks teachers should be voicing their personal opinions about Trump/Hillary in this election, because it's different this time? No, teachers should remain neutral, and the queen should/did remain neutral. That's what being neutral means.

Why should teachers remain neutral?

Teachers can have opinions w/o necessarily being rabid.

Teachers should not be neutral. Kids should have to learn to deal with authoritative figures that they sometimes do not agree with. Working within the system is a skill that every one need to develop and master in order to be successful in life. My kids all come home saying that Trump is a racist, for example, or that Brexit is racist because the pro-leaving camp did it partially due to immigration concerns. Kids don't form these opinions on their own. These are teaching opportunities, however, as I tell my kids to examine the evidence and realize that some times, the people we respect are wrong.

I think these teaching opportunities should wait for high school, or at least middle school. Elementary school kids are simply too young to be expected to know when to listen to the teacher and when to question and ignore. My kids teachers should stay neutral or I'll be talking to the principal and higher.

[Anonymous]

The process of withdrawing from the European Union
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf

This is an interesting legal discussion about how complicated this will be.

The Brexit leaders are completely incapable of pulling this off and have boxed themselves in politically from making the concessions that would be required.