ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: mako88sb on June 12, 2016, 05:51:18 PM
-
There's a few guys at work from various European countries and this is a bit of a hot topic as I'm sure you can imagine. Not sure how others might think but it seems this political cartoon sums it all up nicely:
(http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/abandonship_large.jpg)
-
This has been the most horrendous campaign in the history of ever. I'm so glad I wasn't in Scotland two years ago.
Anyway, Leave do have some good points about the flaws in the EU setup. But we're here now and I don't want us to be that guy.
-
What the cartoon doesn't show is the drop on the other side of the horizon. Staying with the EU might have consequences, but so will leaving.
-
The big question is how late should I stay up to watch the results? I stayed up all night last year for the GE, but that was one of the most sensational elections of recent times. Gripping stuff. Will this one being as entertaining to watch unfold?
-
I certainly can't pretend to understand all the issues in the debate, but I did get a pretty good laugh out of this video featuring Patrick Stewart:
-
Such a voice.
Although I'm pretty sure we were well rid of slavery long before the ECHR.
-
The slave trade, yes; actual slavery, not so much.
-
That cartoon is awful. It looks like something Punch would have rejected for being too heavy-handed back in 1850.
-
I certainly can't pretend to understand all the issues in the debate, but I did get a pretty good laugh out of this video featuring Patrick Stewart:
Last week I was in a location that wasn't friendly to downloading videos This was my opportunity to view it. A lot of tongue in cheek humor.
-
It's very depressing. I got back from holiday yesterday to find a Vote Leave leaflet called "EU: The Facts". Most of the "facts" don't stand up to any scrutiny, but apparently they are widely believed. At one point in the campaign, Boris Johnson claimed that you couldn't buy more than three bananas in a bunch because of EU red tape. Does he ever shop for food? The EU seems to be blamed for everything people dislike about the country today, regardless.
The Remain campaign is also dismal, consisting of exaggerated claims of what will happen if we leave. Why doesn't anyone seem to actually want to belong in the EU or ever mention the advantages?
I fear a vote to leave will leave us somewhat poorer but with little else changed. I hope the believers in a bright new dawn wont turn to violence in their disappointment, but after the murder of the MP and immigrants saying they are already frightened by changing attitudes, who knows?
-
The EU shot my cat. And I don't even have a cat.
-
The EU shot my cat. And I don't even have a cat.
IMO, and I don't have a horse in the race, I believe that status quo will win out. The devil you know versus the devil you don't know.
-
I'm just cheesed off with the polarised campaigning, one side claiming the UK will drown under the weight of EU migration. The other side saying we will face Economic Armageddon. :D
-
From my visit to Belgium last summer, a photo from inside the Hemicycle. As always with these things, it's smaller than it look on TV. Also a photo of the Commission building on a nice sunny afternoon in Brussels, which is better than the morning when it was pissing it down.
-
I feel embarrassed and ashamed to be British today.
-
I'm sorry to hear it went this way. Just like when Quebec voted on whether to leave Canada, or when Scotland voted on whether to leave the UK, I thought people would realize you're stronger together than you are on your own.
The UK is going to have a hard time in the world economy when everyone else is forming trade pacts and they're going it alone.
And really, what have they gained? If they want to trade with the rest of Europe they will still have to abide by the same rules they would have if they stayed in the European Union.
-
I feel embarrassed and ashamed to be British today.
Just think - when you pass a random person in the street there's a 52% chance that they're an uninformed idiot. Well, it won't be long before they start to realise that their perceived problems have absolutely nothing to do with immigration or the EU.
-
I'm sorry to hear it went this way. Just like when Quebec voted on whether to leave Canada...
I've heard that just holding a referendum damaged Quebec's economy and it has yet to fully recover. Is that true?
-
Just think - when you pass a random person in the street there's a 52% chance that they're an uninformed idiot. Well, it won't be long before they start to realise that their perceived problems have absolutely nothing to do with immigration or the EU.
Well, they can still blame immigration as leaving the EU wont stop it, just means that the immigrants will come from elsewhere. Heard an interviewee today saying that a lot of the Muslim community voted for Brexit because it would mean a better chance of their relatives back in Pakistan getting to the UK. Is this something that the average UKIP supporter would want?
-
I'm sorry to hear it went this way. Just like when Quebec voted on whether to leave Canada...
I've heard that just holding a referendum damaged Quebec's economy and it has yet to fully recover. Is that true?
I'm not really that familiar with Quebec's economy, but I don't think they're doing too bad (I'm sure the Ontario Premiere wishes they had Quebec's economy right now).
I would imagine that having the constant threat of separation hanging over their economy isn't helping them any though.
-
Well roger me sideways and call me Mary, I did not expect that. Having spent the last sixteen hours watching all hell break loose, I find myself feeling more depressed today than for a long time. IMO, a country full of old people have just snatched the future away from the young. I have a great deal of uncertainty about the well-being of this country in a few years time.
-
According to the statistics I read (the validity of which I am unsure), it looks like that's exactly what happened--the older the person was, the more likely they were to vote Leave.
-
According to the statistics I read (the validity of which I am unsure), it looks like that's exactly what happened--the older the person was, the more likely they were to vote Leave.
It was in the Labour heartlands, aligned along the old mining and steel producing areas, where a large proportion of the battle was won. So there will be a correlation with age given these communities have become increasingly economically marginalised over many years with the decline of heavy industry.
Commentators have suggested that this section of society perceive those at the front of EU and UK politics as being a privileged elite that do not address their needs. It's not that simplistic, there were many factors at play. I was reading an article that large numbers of campaigners for both sides reported that the issue of immigration was raised with the working class rather than in traditional Conservative areas. In fact, some commentators have suggested that the 'uneducated working class' (not my description) contributed to the leave vote over the 'educated middle class.'
Wales, which is traditionally a Labour heartland voted leave, yet Wales gain from huge amounts of EU investment. The leader of the Welsh Assembly spoke in worried tones this morning, and want reassurances from Westminster that Wales will be compensated with a greater budget for investment.
There's also some of my father's generation that believe we won WW2 so should not be run by the Germans of French.
I would not be surprised with the validity of your statement.
-
Well roger me sideways and call me Mary, I did not expect that. Having spent the last sixteen hours watching all hell break loose, I find myself feeling more depressed today than for a long time. IMO, a country full of old people have just snatched the future away from the young. I have a great deal of uncertainty about the well-being of this country in a few years time.
Agree. Restriction on freedom of movement is a real blow for opportunity and intellectucal development. My concern is that fees in UK univeristies will increase as EU citizens find it harder to obtain visas to study, so UK students will have to take out greater loans. Intellectual exchange will be stifled, which is tragic given how we have many great EU post-grads contributing to research. This vote will really close down exchange and co-operation.
Agree. One benefit of being in the EU was to jointly fund science, sharing costs, exploitation and ideas in the process. Restriction on freedom of movement is a real blow for opportunity and intellectual development. My concern is that fees in UK universities will increase as EU citizens find it harder to obtain visas to study, so UK students will have to take out greater loans. Intellectual exchange will be stifled, which is tragic given how we have many great EU post-grads contributing to research. This vote will really close down exchange and co-operation.
-
I wonder if ESA will be adversely effected by this vote.
-
I would think there is every chance that it will. Most of these European agencies are funded directly by the EU, so buying in as a non-EU country is not going to be the simplest of things. So it will certainly impact the UK participation in such ventures, because I don't see a UK government stumping up directly for such "waste" as I am sure they would regard it.
-
I've been listening to radio vox pops and phone in's all day and it's been depressing to say the least. Most people have been citing 'immigrants' as the reason they voted to leave. I heard an elderly woman attempting to console a young mother concerned for her child's future by saying that she should tell him that he will be able to have a British passport. There was an old man sobbing over the 'soldiers, sailors and airmen' who had died in WW2, apparently believing that this vote meant we were finally free of the Nazi yoke.
Too often I heard people say that 'I've got my country back', without apparently understanding that if it wasn't their country before, it sure as hell won't be now. The whole thing is being sold as the triumph of the working class over the 'elites', when it's obvious that this will only make things worse for them. Any EU laws guaranteeing maternity leave, sick pay, health and safety and limiting working hours can now be swept away as 'restrictive red tape'.
Oddly, there have been a lot of stories of people who voted 'Leave' as a joke or a protest being astonished that they got what they voted for and instantly regretting it. Too late now, bozos.
-
I would think there is every chance that it will. Most of these European agencies are funded directly by the EU, so buying in as a non-EU country is not going to be the simplest of things. So it will certainly impact the UK participation in such ventures, because I don't see a UK government stumping up directly for such "waste" as I am sure they would regard it.
ESA is European in make up, not EU. Switzerland and Norway contribute to ESA and they are not in the EU. The UK could opt out tomorrow (in theory), even as an EU member (at least for a year or two).
-
I've been listening to radio vox pops and phone in's all day and it's been depressing to say the least. Most people have been citing 'immigrants' as the reason they voted to leave. I heard an elderly woman attempting to console a young mother concerned for her child's future by saying that she should tell him that he will be able to have a British passport. There was an old man sobbing over the 'soldiers, sailors and airmen' who had died in WW2, apparently believing that this vote meant we were finally free of the Nazi yoke.
Too often I heard people that 'I've got my country back', without apparently understanding that if it wasn't their country before, it sure as hell won't be now. The whole thing is being sold as the triumph of the working class over the 'elites', when it's obvious that this will only make things worse for them. Any EU laws guaranteeing maternity leave, sick pay, health and safety and limiting working hours can now be swept away as 'restrictive red tape'.
Oddly, there have been a lot of stories of people who voted 'Leave' as a joke or a protest being astonished that they got what they voted for and instantly regretting it, Too late now, bozos.
So eloquently written and chimes with my experiences and thoughts.
-
The problem with the slogan "we want our country back" is that it omits to specify in how many pieces.
Sturgeon is on the warpath again and so too is Sinn Fein and they have a really decent case if this starts throwing up a noticeable border on Ireland.
There is no a good chance that the country we just got back is really just England and Wales as Scottish Independence and Irish reunification come about.
So for the flag, I recommend a counterposing of the crosses of St George and St David.
-
Do any the British posters here think there is any possibility that the Conservative Government could force an early General Election and then campaign on an election promise that Britain would remain in the EU, then if they get elected (which would be a distinct possibility once the reality hits home for those who voted to leave), they could rightly claim that their victory was a mandate to overturn the referendum result?
I understand that a significant majority of MPs from both sides of the house thought leaving unwise
-
Do any the British posters here think there is any possibility that the Conservative Government could force an early General Election and then campaign on an election promise that Britain would remain in the EU, then if they get elected (which would be a distinct possibility once the reality hits home for those who voted to leave), they could rightly claim that their victory was a mandate to overturn the referendum result?
I understand that a significant majority of MPs from both sides of the house thought leaving unwise
Unfortunately, Boris Johnson, the front runner for the Prime Minister's job once the current incumbent goes (he resigned today but isn't planning on stepping down until October) is also one of the leading lights of the Brexit campaign. He is nakedly cynical and ambitious but I think that would be too Machiavellian even for him. Even if, as some commentators are suggesting, he is as shocked and surprised by this outcome as anyone else.
Besides, the EU isn't going to wait around while the government takes it's sweet time to invoke Clause 50 (the announcement of the intention to leave). They want us gone as soon as possible, with the roughest deal they can negotiate, to help bring other wavering states back into line (there are already rumblings from far-right parties in France and the Netherlands). I somehow doubt the EU would take us back.
No, they've made their crappy bed. Now we're all going to have to lie in it.
-
This is not from The Onion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/
-
Do any the British posters here think there is any possibility that the Conservative Government could force an early General Election and then campaign on an election promise that Britain would remain in the EU.
Not now that Cameron has resigned as PM, but then he never would have called an early election if he stayed in office, not on stay in EU ticket. That would have torn the Tories apart, and despite his pro-Euro stance, the party comes first. The EU Referendum was a huge gamble to hold the Tories together during the 2015 election campaign and one he lost. Forcing a general election is difficult under the fixed parliament act, not impossible, but more difficult. Now that David Cameron has resigned it is likely that the Conservatives will lurch to the right as those that campaigned for Brexit will take the reins of the Tory party. They are hardly going to call an election to overturn the result they wanted.
-
Besides, the EU isn't going to wait around while the government takes it's sweet time to invoke Clause 50 (the announcement of the intention to leave). They want us gone as soon as possible, with the roughest deal they can negotiate, to help bring other wavering states back into line (there are already rumblings from far-right parties in France and the Netherlands). I somehow doubt the EU would take us back.
There is also Darren's observation smartcooky. The EU wants to ensure that other states do not follow suit, so will make an example of Britain to reduce the fallout across the whole EU. We're about to be shafted very hard. There simply is not time to reverse this decision. The only saving grace would be for the Commons and Lords to reject the result as the referendum is not legally binding, but this will not happen either. I cannot see the SNP tabling a motion or supporting a vote to overturn the result, as they are driven by independence and given Scotland voted remain this is their opportunity. Many Scottish people voted to stay in the UK based on us being in the EU. Now we are leaving the EU, it is likely that the Scots will vote for independence. The government will gain support from elements of the Northern Irish parties to carry the vote on the referendum. If the Lords vote it down it would be their death knell.
-
I really hate to ask this at such an especially bad time, but could one of you Brits give this confused Yank a very brief thumbnail sketch of the structure of the British government, especially as it contrasts with the US version? Whenever I think I'm starting to understand it, I realize I don't.
I know the main difference is we have a presidential system in which a separately elected chief executive runs a separate executive branch of government while you have a Parliamentary system in which the executive is the leader of the majority party in the legislature. While our elections occur on fixed timetables and it is intentionally difficult but not impossible for our Congress to get rid of the US president before an election, you have something called a "vote of no confidence" and seem able to call elections and change prime ministers on short notice.
I know that although we both have two houses in the legislature, our "higher" house is elected and yours isn't. Our system seems structured to perpetuate two dominant political parties because of a "prisoner's dilemma" type situation discouraging votes for third parties; in your system, multiple parties and coalitions seem common.
In our system, impeachment is just one element of what seems to be a much more explicit separation of powers and "checks and balances" between branches of government. And of course we have all this in a written constitution that everyone at least claims to hold in very high regard, and which is formally interpreted by a separate branch of government, the judiciary, using a system of common law that we inherited from you guys.
So, what important differences did I miss?
-
I really hate to ask this at such an especially bad time, but could one of you Brits give this confused Yank a very brief thumbnail sketch of the structure of the British government, especially as it contrasts with the US version? Whenever I think I'm starting to understand it, I realize I don't.
Elements of the structure changed during the 2010-15 Coalition government. 5 year fixed terms parliaments were introduced, but an early parliamentary election can still be called. A government cannot call an early election, but an election can be triggered if a motion is passed that the House of Commons has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
However, the party can change leader and therefore change PM without a general election. We vote along the lines of party through first past the post system and vote on manifesto rather than leader. The government deliver on their manifesto through a series of bills which are in the Queen's speech each year. If a Government tries to introduce legislation outside their manifesto they generally won't get far, but manifestos are often written in weasel language for reasons of post election interpretation. Also, Governments regularly sit on areas of manifesto that they are less interested in, basically they go back on promises they made to woo elements of the electorate.
The Brexit vote is interesting, as there is talk of a general election this year or early next year. How this is feasible in fixed term parliaments, I'm unsure. The electorate voted this government to deliver their manifesto over a fixed term - that's one of the founding principles of the fixed term parliament.
The House of Lords scrutinises bills that have been approved by the House of Commons. It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons. While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the House of Lords acts as a check on the House of Commons that is independent from the electoral process. The Lords is complex in that is has gone through numerous reforms over the last 20 years.
-
I really hate to ask this at such an especially bad time, but could one of you Brits give this confused Yank a very brief thumbnail sketch of the structure of the British government, especially as it contrasts with the US version? Whenever I think I'm starting to understand it, I realize I don't.
I know the main difference is we have a presidential system in which a separately elected chief executive runs a separate executive branch of government while you have a Parliamentary system in which the executive is the leader of the majority party in the legislature. While our elections occur on fixed timetables and it is intentionally difficult but not impossible for our Congress to get rid of the US president before an election, you have something called a "vote of no confidence" and seem able to call elections and change prime ministers on short notice.
As with many parliamentary systems, monarchical and republican, executive is vested in a head of state who does not in practice wield it. Instead, a head of government is derived from the lower chamber of the parliament, the Commons in our case, appointed by the head of state to wield it in her name. It would be like the majority house leader becoming president.
The individual who is appointed is the person best placed to command a majority in the Commons, which usually means the leader of the largest party. If that party changes leader, the Prime Minister changes without need for a general election. Internal party politics is probably about as common a way for the Prime Minister to change as a general election where his party loses MP's to the point that he stops being able to command a majority. In Australia, it seems to be a weekly ritual.
Until recently, dissolving Parliament to call an election was part of the Royal Prerogative, so could be done anytime the Queen felt like it. In practice, this meant whenever the Prime Minister asked her to. 5 years ago, the Fixed Term Parliament act ended that. Now to dissolve Parliament requires a super-majority vote in the Commons. Instead Parliament will expire after 5 years.
Every year, there is a Queen's Speech in Parliament, delivered by Queen by written by the government and usually accompanied by mêmes in the press suggesting the Queen is thinking little of what she is having to say. A vote on the Queen's Speech is a vote of confidence in the government and so if it fails (highly rare) the government is sacked and a new one formed. If necessary a general election may need to be called to find a new one. However, I'm not sure how this works in the world of fixed term parliaments.
I know that although we both have two houses in the legislature, our "higher" house is elected and yours isn't. Our system seems structured to perpetuate two dominant political parties because of a "prisoner's dilemma" type situation discouraging votes for third parties; in your system, multiple parties and coalitions seem common.
The Lords were originally supposed to represent the aristocracy, hence the name. The positions were hereditary up until 20 years ago. Now there is the thing called a life peerage where an individual is enobled by the Queen on advice of someone governmental and serves for life, but the position is not hereditary.
This is a great cause of controversy and Lords reform is on the agenda still. The Lords is one of the few upper chambers in the world which is bigger than the lower chamber, which is taken as a sign it doesn't work properly. Basically, whenever a government changes, the old Lords stay in place while new Lords are appointed to "better reflect" the new mandate of the people. This means more party apparatchiks and worse party candidates defeated at the ballot box but favoured by the party leadership getting enobled.
There is a drive for changing to an elected chamber, a sort of Senate in form if not in name, but the Commons are sceptical because they don't want the Lords challenging their supremacy. Being a pig's ear of a house allows them to function in their role of reviewing and revising legislation while delegitimising them to the point that they know who the real legislators are. Elections are also not universally supported because it is considered there is an advantage to getting people who bring certain expertise who are not normally full time politicians. The Lords does have a high proportion of cross benchers who do not have a party loyalty.
Our political landscape has fractured a lot of recent decades. The Commons is elected by First Past the Post, which means there are 650 constituencies who elect a single MP on the basis that whoever gets the most votes wins. This helps to keep the two main parties dominant but allows for local variations, for example nationalists in Scotland and Wales, while Northern Ireland has a completely different set of parties to Great Britain. This is also controversial. We had a referendum on voting reform a few years ago, which was resoundingly rejected.
So, what important differences did I miss?
So in summary, key differences:
Parliamentary vs executive presidency.
Separation of role of head of state and head of government.
Unelected upper chamber, which hangs in limbo for reform.
Governments can be toppled by general elections but also failing to get a Queen's Speech through Parliament and through internal party politics.
-
Too often I heard people say that 'I've got my country back', without apparently understanding that if it wasn't their country before, it sure as hell won't be now. The whole thing is being sold as the triumph of the working class over the 'elites', when it's obvious that this will only make things worse for them. Any EU laws guaranteeing maternity leave, sick pay, health and safety and limiting working hours can now be swept away as 'restrictive red tape'.
Not to mention, from what I've read, gay rights protections and climate change policy, though I'm sure a lot of the people who voted Leave don't care about either of those.
A friend of a friend on Facebook was complaining that the EU was "undemocratic." Several of us pointed out that, since Parliament is half a republic and half an aristocracy, led at least on paper by a woman who's both a monarch and a theocrat, complaining about an outside force as being undemocratic was an odd place to start.
-
Not to mention, from what I've read, gay rights protections and climate change policy, though I'm sure a lot of the people who voted Leave don't care about either of those.
A friend of a friend on Facebook was complaining that the EU was "undemocratic." Several of us pointed out that, since Parliament is half a republic and half an aristocracy, led at least on paper by a woman who's both a monarch and a theocrat, complaining about an outside force as being undemocratic was an odd place to start.
Studies have already revealed that most Leave voters are broadly similar to those who support Donald Trump - older, white, working class, with a resistance to things like feminism and green policies. I've been hearing some odd stories from people about their parents and neighbours who voted Leave. I have a friend whose family own a farm and seem to think that they will be able to make up for losing the EU subsidies....somehow. They haven't bothered doing the sums. This friend's mother works in a nursing home and voted leave because she thought it was unfair that the Filipino women who also work there have to jump through more hoops to be in the UK than European citizens did. Admirable enough, except Britain leaving the EU won't make a blind bit of difference to those women.
Another friend has elderly neighbours who voted leave because, and I quote, you used to be able to get two loaves of bread for a £1 and now you can't (actually you can - depends where you shop), and somehow that's the EU's fault. Honestly, some of this stuff is so ridiculous you have to laugh.
And you're right, Gillian, the machinations of the EU are a damn sight more transparent and accountable than the ramshackle system we've cobbled together in the UK over the last few centuries. Though you wouldn't know that if you'd listened to EU sceptics over the last few years. Trouble is, people were depressingly prepared to believe all the BS they were being sold, with the result that we've ended up in a situation which came as a surprise, even a shock, even to most of those clamouring for it.
-
UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised the referendum in a speech have gave in London on 23 January 2013. He must surely have understood that a the higher the turnout the more likely it would be that the vote would go in favour of remaining.
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.
-
UK Prime Minister David Cameron promised the referendum in a speech have gave in London on 23 January 2013. He must surely have understood that a the higher the turnout the more likely it would be that the vote would go in favour of remaining.
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.
A high turnout in General elections tends to favour the Labour vote.
-
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.
Parliament would be dissolved, it would be unconstitutional to hold a referendum when no party has a legitimate mandate to deliver policy.
Further, had Labour won the 2015 election and a referendum delivered the same result, Labour would have ignored the result. The referendum is only advisory, so a pro-European Labour party would not pay it lip service.
-
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.
Parliament would be dissolved, it would be unconstitutional to hold a referendum when no party has a legitimate mandate to deliver policy.
Further, had Labour won the 2015 election and a referendum delivered the same result, Labour would have ignored the result. The referendum is only advisory, so a pro-European Labour party would not pay it lip service.
OK, but our Parliamentary Democracy is based on your Westminster system (the only thing absent is the Upper House), and yet we regularly have Referenda at the same time as our General Elections, eg
1990 (electoral period 3 or 4 years)
1993 (electoral system FPP/MMP)
2011 (electoral system MMP/STV/FPP/SM)
-
Cameron didn't have the majority to call such a referendum prior to the 2015 general election.
-
Cameron didn't have the majority to call such a referendum prior to the 2015 general election.
This was because, although he was Prime Minister, he was in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are strongly pro-EU.
-
An interesting comment that's doing the rounds:
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
-
And I thought that this piece from AA GIll pretty much sums up those that voted to kick the country in it's own nuts:
AA Gill
June 12 2016, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times
It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”
It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”
Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.
We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.
The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.
And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.
All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.
There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.
The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.
You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.
Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.
The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.
There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.
The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.
Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?
I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in."
-
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
There are some elements of truth in this. I think BOJO and Mr Gove have realised they have unleashed forces that they cannot possibly control, and talking up the reigns of the Conservative Party will be a poison chalice. However, I do not think it will lead to the nullification of the referendum, unless it triggers an election an a new progressive left learning government nullify its results, but then they would have to make that clear in their manifesto, and that would probably not get public support.
The only hope for this to be reversed is for the young to mobilise and vote this crowd out, but we need another 10 years to see a shift in the demographics, such as in Scotland and the SNP vote. The result is not a vote about the EU, it's about disgust and distrust in the political class, and it would take a huge shift in voting to reverse the result in what we think is an imminent general election.
-
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.
Parliament would be dissolved, it would be unconstitutional to hold a referendum when no party has a legitimate mandate to deliver policy.
Further, had Labour won the 2015 election and a referendum delivered the same result, Labour would have ignored the result. The referendum is only advisory, so a pro-European Labour party would not pay it lip service.
OK, but our Parliamentary Democracy is based on your Westminster system (the only thing absent is the Upper House), and yet we regularly have Referenda at the same time as our General Elections, eg
1990 (electoral period 3 or 4 years)
1993 (electoral system FPP/MMP)
2011 (electoral system MMP/STV/FPP/SM)
One small difference. We have a Queen. When a Prime Minister dissolves parliament, (s)he in effect ends the business of HMG which is delivered through the Queen's speech. Parliament is sovereign, so trying to shape legislation after telling the Queen that her government is dissolved would be utterly unconstitutional. Take the two scenarios:
1) A referendum is called after dissolution.
2) A referendum is called during a sitting Parliament and then parliament is dissolved for the GE.
Both are unconstitutional as the government could be seen to be doing business when parliament is dissolved, business that could sway the result of a general election. The government deliver on the Queen's speech in which the Queen expressly refers to my government and what it will deliver. That speech is the ratified by a vote in Parliament. If rejected it triggers a GE.
Once parliament is dissolved the Queen's speech is effectively in the bin as there is no legislative Government. So, conducting government business to shape policy without a sitting sovereign government is unconstitutional.
That’s how it should be too. A referendum on the same day as GE day could potentially alter turnout based on a single issue rather than cross party manifesto pledges. For instance, a sitting party could introduce a referendum to repeal capital punishment. An issue such as that could affect the outcome of the GE. Further, given that referendum is not legally binding, it could be simply voted down in the next parliament.
-
And I thought that this piece from AA GIll pretty much sums up those that voted to kick the country in it's own nuts:...............
I normally view AA Gill as a pompous stuffed shirt who regards anything North of Cockfosters as a culture-free wasteland but I've got to take hat my off to him here. He's spot on.
-
It beggars belief, therefore, that the Tories did not arrange the Referendum to be held at the same time as the 2015 General Election thereby maximising the voter turnout for both.
Parliament would be dissolved, it would be unconstitutional to hold a referendum when no party has a legitimate mandate to deliver policy.
Further, had Labour won the 2015 election and a referendum delivered the same result, Labour would have ignored the result. The referendum is only advisory, so a pro-European Labour party would not pay it lip service.
OK, but our Parliamentary Democracy is based on your Westminster system (the only thing absent is the Upper House), and yet we regularly have Referenda at the same time as our General Elections, eg
1990 (electoral period 3 or 4 years)
1993 (electoral system FPP/MMP)
2011 (electoral system MMP/STV/FPP/SM)
One small difference. We have a Queen. When a Prime Minister dissolves parliament, (s)he in effect ends the business of HMG which is delivered through the Queen's speech. Parliament is sovereign, so trying to shape legislation after telling the Queen that her government is dissolved would be utterly unconstitutional. Take the two scenarios:
1) A referendum is called after dissolution.
2) A referendum is called during a sitting Parliament and then parliament is dissolved for the GE.
Both are unconstitutional as the government could be seen to be doing business when parliament is dissolved, business that could sway the result of a general election. The government deliver on the Queen's speech in which the Queen expressly refers to my government and what it will deliver. That speech is the ratified by a vote in Parliament. If rejected it triggers a GE.
Once parliament is dissolved the Queen's speech is effectively in the bin as there is no legislative Government. So, conducting government business to shape policy without a sitting sovereign government is unconstitutional.
That’s how it should be too. A referendum on the same day as GE day could potentially alter turnout based on a single issue rather than cross party manifesto pledges. For instance, a sitting party could introduce a referendum to repeal capital punishment. An issue such as that could affect the outcome of the GE. Further, given that referendum is not legally binding, it could be simply voted down in the next parliament.
No, its not a difference. The Queen is our head of state as well, but since we are 12,000 miles away, we have a Governor General (https://gg.govt.nz/role) who is the Queen's representative in New Zealand. The Governor General performs ALL of the same duties with regards to Parliament that the Queen does for you., so you would think that all of the arguments you make for not having a referendum during a General Election ought to apply here, but they don't.
-
No, its not a difference. The Queen is our head of state as well, but since we are 12,000 miles away, we have a Governor General (https://gg.govt.nz/role) who is the Queen's representative in New Zealand. The Governor General performs ALL of the same duties with regards to Parliament that the Queen does for you., so you would think that all of the arguments you make for not having a referendum during a General Election ought to apply here, but they don't.
Being a representative and performing the same duties are not comparable to her sovereign power here in the UK. She's your head of state, but the Queen is conventionally bound to the Lords through her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, where the CofE is represented in the Lords by the Lords Spiritual. That's the first major difference, and that difference is fundamental to the relationship between the common people, the Lords and the monarch. It underpins conventions that are unique to the UK.
Since New Zealand ratified the Statute of Westminster 1931 with the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 in 1947, the British Crown and New Zealand Crown are legally distinct. The remaining role of the British parliament was removed by the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 and the Statute of Westminster was repealed in its entirety.
New Zealand (along with other colonies) have long since been granted responsible governments. Since the Statute of Westminster 1931, the governors-general acting solely on the advice of the local ministers, and generally they are the ones who secure the passage of bills. Therefore, they are unlikely to advise the sovereign or his or her representative to withhold assent. Royal assent is deferred locally on advice of your local ministers because New Zealand have been granted responsible government. By equal measure it would also be unconstitutional for the UK Government to interfere in the business of New Zealand when Royal Assent has been deferred to the Queen's representative. So yes, she might be your Head of State but you have a different relationship with the monarch to us in the UK.
In general we let you get on with ruling yourself. I believe there are exceptions in recent history, with NZ and your neighbours across the Tasman Sea. So while the Queen is Head of State, define what that means in terms of her relationship between NZ governance and UK influence of that governance. She is rather a figure head nowadays.
Further, our constitution is unwritten and is really a series of conventions that are enshrined by our culture, history,
church and politics. An act of parliament cannot be overturned by the courts as the act of parliament is supreme (so I understand). There is also the Salisbury convention which outlines the relationship between the Lords and how they vote on proposals outlined in the government's manifesto. It is like having a gentlemen's agreement, but we take the relationship between the commons, Lords and Queen as sovereign. The major difference between us and NZ is that we have the upper house, so we have a unique relationship between the commons, the Lords and the monarch, thanks to Cromwell and Charles 1.
So back to your question:
Firstly, the Conservatives could not have held a referendum at the last election as it had not been passed as an Act. It so happened that proposals for a Referendum Act were outlined in Conservative Manifesto as it had been passed as a Bill by the previous coalition government. This allowed Cameron to promise a referendum during the his second term.
Secondly, if you want to have a referendum, you needed to have it outlined in a manifesto to get past the Lords. You cannot just call it at a GE, as that would be unconstitutional.
Thirdly, if you have a referendum on your manifesto and pass the vote as an Act of Parliament, it would make you an ineffective PM if you held it during a GE. Hanging around with a manifesto pledge for 5 years, when a new government could simply refuse to enter it onto the statute books as an act would be nonsense. It makes no sense to have a referendum during a GE when we have a 5 year fixed parliaments or GEs that used to come around every 4 years. You need to have the referendum and then use it to shape policy, and that needs to occur during the parliamentary term before another party takes office.
Finally, and linked into the last post, you cannot dissolve Parliament and then carry on conducting government business when there is effectively no government. That is unconstitutional. Especially now that parliaments have a fixed term and you are working beyond that term. I am fairly sure Elizabeth would not be amused as it would be an abuse of sovereign authority. I know that when I was working for the Government, decision making stopped during a GE as there was no executive power. Carrying out a referendum after a parliamentary term would be a unilateral act without consent of the Queen, as she has no government. On who's behalf are you acting? I would go as far as suggesting that it would be an act of treason, but that it my naïve and ill qualified judgement rather than deep legal knowledge .
-
IMO, and I don't have a horse in the race, I believe that status quo will win out. The devil you know versus the devil you don't know.
I guess my intuition was dead wrong, and I did have a horse in the race, my stock portfolio has suffered by about 3-4%. >:(
-
Maybe you could have words with Canada and see if they'd like another province? Put in a good word for us. We come with Turks and Caicos and Bermuda as well and I know they've been eyeing them for a while.
-
On behalf of Canada, welcome aboard!
-
I guess my intuition was dead wrong, and I did have a horse in the race, my stock portfolio has suffered by about 3-4%. >:(
3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
-
3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
The markets tend to make some allowance for uncertainty, so if the vote had gone the other way there would have been an equivalent rise in both shares and the pound.
-
3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
That was before yesterday another 3% tacked on at the end of the day.
-
3-5% is nothing but normal day-to-day volatility.
That was before yesterday another 3% tacked on at the end of the day.
A buying opportunity then ;D
I've just stuck a couple of £K on Barclays....could be worth a bounce.
-
A buying opportunity then ;D
I've just stuck a couple of £K on Barclays....could be worth a bounce.
I think you're right, futures up here 1% :)
-
Can somebody explain the dramatic difference in votes between Scotland and Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other?
-
Can somebody explain the dramatic difference in votes between Scotland and Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other?
In all honesty ; it's complex and pretty baffling. The standard explanation seems to be that it was a revolt of the white working class against the metropolitan elites who neither know nor care about their lives. The vote to leave was highest in former industrialised areas that have now become areas of high unemployment or low job security. This would explain Wales, except parts of Wales are heavily dependent on EU subsidy. It also doesn't explain why Scotland and Northern Ireland, which also fit this pattern, leaned so heavily to Remain. It may be that the Scots and the Irish are just more outward looking. They also both have long traditions of emigration allied to a strong sense of national identity which doesn't veer into a suspicion of foreigners (unless it's the English). However, the 'former industrial areas' explanation doesn't explain areas like Manchester and Liverpool, which also voted Remain. I suspect that it's because these areas, like London, are heavily cosmopolitan, with large immigrant populations and a long history of integration.
It may also be something to do with the other demographic that voted Leave - the elderly. As facetious as it sounds, life expectancy in Scotland is the lowest in the UK - there just aren't as many old people in Scotland. Many coastal towns in England and Wales, where elderly people retire to, voted for Leave. Same with rural areas. It's also the case that, as usual, there was a low turnout amongst the young, who would be more likely to vote Remain.
-
Can somebody explain the dramatic difference in votes between Scotland and Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other?
Darren covered it all really. It's complex.
One other aspect that springs to mind is the surge of the SNP in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon is an astute politician, and has run an effective campaign in Scotland to gain the votes of the Labour and LibDem supporters. Labour and LibDem have been all but wiped out in Scotland. Commentators suggest that Scottish Labour and LibDems have been abandoned as voters feel they are English-centric and no longer understand the needs of the Scottish population. There only real option is the SNP, and Sturgeon has done a great job capturing these voters. The SNP firmly aligned itself with remain, and with Sturgeon at the wheel the vote went that way.
Another consideration is that TV in the UK is very regional, and the exposure to the campaigns would have been very different.
Further, Scotland has the right to set its own budgets, so arguments south of the border would not have applied to Scotland. The battleground in England was divided over different issues to Scotland. The devolved parliament in Scotland gave a different campaign focus, a focus that resonated with the people more.
Also, it may be that Scottish people are far more progressive and outward looking. The clan system and highland way of life is still embodied in the culture of Scotland.
Northern Ireland showed divisions between Unionist and Republican areas, but I would have to find out a little more to really comment on Northern Ireland. The Irish vote is probably the most bitter pill to swallow, as Ireland is in the EU. Once the UK leaves the EU, control of the border could become an issue and there is potential to open old wounds.