Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?
With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.
There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.
See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:43AM (5 children)
Huh?
The tense is past because -- short of some political miracle very soon -- Brexit will happen (in an orderly or disorderly fashion).
British voters COULD HAVE done these things, but they can't now if they are no longer part of the EU.
If by some miracle they remain in the EU, they still CAN do such things. No dodging of the question here, Mr. Nobody Modded Me Up For Complaining About Modding, Because I Haven't Bothered To Think About Why The Grammatical Choice Makes Sense Here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:06AM (4 children)
It's not the past tense which is the problem but the hypothetical, tentative nature of "could". I don't think the problems of the EU will be addressed until there are more departing parties.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:12PM (3 children)
the majority of people in europe, and indeed in the UK, consider freedom of movement to be a great thing.
Many brits living in europe voted to leave because their arrogance didn't make the connection that they benefited from freedom of movement. I relish them getting kicked out of their homes.
Spaniard in Britain? Immigrant. Brit in Spain? Ex-Pat.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:36PM (2 children)
Then why can't Syria and North Africa just move freely into Europe? Answer: just dumping tens of millions of poor immigrants is highly disruptive - thus, there isn't freedom of movement from those regions. Let us recall that a large number of immigrants just showed up throughout the EU due to a single country, Greece, deciding not to enforce that restriction on movement. Higher levels of immigration are apparently a concern to pro-Brexit voters and here, we have an example where a single country decided immigration policy for the EU and let a bunch of people in.
Sorry, Brits living in the rest of the EU aren't going to suck down society resources like poor immigrants from North Africa who haven't paid a dime to the EU before their move. It's dishonest to equate the two.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:48PM (1 child)
Freedom of movement in the EU has nothing to do with "poor immigrants from North Africa". When Poland and several other eastern european countries joined the EU there were limits put on freedom of movement. Before that happend, Poles were already in the UK, working illegally, cash in hand, not paying any taxes. Since Poland joined, they have paid taxes -- EU immigrants make a net contibution.
Sadly I've recently found that one of our friends voted leave, and would again. Her son has just moved to Croatia to work there, she doesn't seem to grasp the idea that when we leave the EU, he won't be able to do that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 18 2019, @04:21AM
But it does matter to the point that freedom of movement is relative.
Because?