Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

25% actually, population of 61 million only 16 million voted remain, 17 million voted leave.

Judges in the UK don't make law; they interpret it. Every judgment is based on an act of parliament but the records of cases and commentary of previous judges are used to determine how the act should be applied with each new case, though there are several rules among judges that allow them to ignore precedent when it would result in a very silly outcome, usually used to negate the effects of a particularly senile, cruel or loony judge of ages past.

Ideally acts are updated and reissued every few decades to accommodate changes in situation, differences in public attitude etc. The oldest act still in force is a 1424 Royal Mines Act of the Scottish parliament which reads:

"Item gif ony myne of golde or siluer be fundyn in ony lordis landis of the realme and it may be prowyt that thre halfpennys of siluer may be fynit owt of the punde of leide The lordis of parliament consentis that sik myne be the kingis as is vsuale in vthir realmys"

That it hasn't been revised to be legible to modern English probably tells you how long it has been since it has come up, but if by some extreme twist it did, that act would be the one acted upon.

Or at least it would be until today's parliament overrules it, because handing over any newly found Scottish gold mines to Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, aka Duke of Bavaria, would be a hell of a thing to explain to the voters.

[Husar]

25% actually, population of 61 million only 16 million voted remain, 17 million voted leave.

I was going with the idea that the referendum is representative. If you'd say it is not, then I'd argue the UK shouldn't leave based on what only 26% of the population want. You also forgot to subtract the citizens who are too young to vote unless babies can already vote in the UK.

Judges in the UK don't make law; they interpret it. Every judgment is based on an act of parliament but the records of cases and commentary of previous judges are used to determine how the act should be applied with each new case, though there are several rules among judges that allow them to ignore precedent when it would result in a very silly outcome, usually used to negate the effects of a particularly senile, cruel or loony judge of ages past.

Well, tell that to the guy in the video who said law in the UK was/is made from the bottom by the people/courts whereas in continental Europe it's a Napoleonic top-down approach.

[Gilrandir]

You also forgot to subtract the citizens who are too young to vote unless babies can already vote in the UK.

Judging by the result of the referendum they can and they did.

And Leadsom backs out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ership-contest

[Greyblades]

I was going with the idea that the referendum is representative. If you'd say it is not, then I'd argue the UK shouldn't leave based on what only 26% of the population want. You also forgot to subtract the citizens who are too young to vote unless babies can already vote in the UK.

The word "citizen" includes the young, the incapable, even the criminal. You seemed to be giving the impression that 48% of everyone in the country actively didn't want to leave.

Well, tell that to the guy in the video who said law in the UK was/is made from the bottom by the people/courts whereas in continental Europe it's a Napoleonic top-down approach.

I'm at work an lacking headphones so I cannot comment on the video beyond what the auto-generated subtitles tell me, but it sort of is.

What I learned from taking a Law A-level 5 years ago is that in the British common law a court set precedent can change the meaning of a law; where every judge/lawyer from then on says "the last judge on your level facing this sort of circumstance said it was interpreted thus; unless you can say the circumstance is significantly different here you must do the same now" with only a bit of wriggle room to avoid absurdity.

Essentially Common Law allows there to be an automatically growing library of instructions for each situation the law applies to that the original document might not have accounted for.

On the other hand Civil Law based on what was used in Napoleonic France have judges who are free to ignore previous cases and instead have to work off the wording of the original document of law. Civil Law relies less on what the judges who came before decided to do in the same situation, and more how many eventualities the men writing the law thought to account for.

Every time something unexpected comes up the Civil courts ends up having to figure it out themselves and have to keep doing that until the government sets down a new rule, resulting in the law only being changeable from the highest level.

Common law can change from bottom up: a magistrate (the lowest rank of judge; and easiest for the common man to become) can tweak a law's use nation wide unless overruled through appeal in a higher court, whereas in civil law the lower courts cant affect the law outside the immediate case, only the parliament/senate/whatever can do so.

TL:DR Common vs Napoleonic is Flexibility vs Uniformity. Change can be Bottom up rather than Top down in British Law.

Fun fact: Napoleon was on the other side of that dynamic when it came to military practices. His enemies' armies, in particular the Prussians, were hamstrung due to inflexibility in comparison to Napoleon's.
I wonder if he ever appreciated the Irony after the code was developed.

[InsaneApache]

[HopAlongBunny]

Looks like May is PM:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...0ZR19P?sp=true

Is a non-binding referendum enough for Britain to actually leave the EU?

[Gilrandir]

I'm at work an lacking headphones

It is outrageous! What does your boss think he is doing? No headphones nor privacy for an employee to pay attention to what really matters (unlike those stupid job resposibilities). This is all EU bureaucracy's fault. But now when you have Brexited things will change. You will be able to indulge in internet chatting as much as you like and no one from Brussels will boss you around.

[Greyblades]

The Joys of zero hour contracts, where productivity is punished by the fact that once the work is done they stop paying you, but too little productivity and they can call someone else in to do your job. I'm stuck walking the tightrope of efficiency, and that's when there's any work at all, Brussels did jack to stop such becoming widespread.

Fortunately I have a good boss that helps me avoid insanity in repeptetive work by allowing breaks, probably should be using those breaks better.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First of all, to those who are confused by Greyblades' comments on that video - that's because Greyblades is wrong.

Let's deal with the point one by one.

1. "We Won the War" or, how we see Europe. Unlike the other nations of Europe we were neither aggressor now victim in either world War and ther is a sense that, perhaps, we could have stayed out of both and kept our Empire, or at least have disposed of it with more grace. Instead, millions of our men were killed and maimed so that France remained France, Belgium Belgium and Poland Poland. Our view of Europe has, therefore, more in common with the US than with either France or Germany. We are essentially immune to both the French sense of vulnerability or the german sense of Guilt. To ask why we still "harp on" about the war is like asking why the Germans still have war-guilt that prevents them deploying troops en masse even in peacekeeping efforts despite the size of the German army. Nor do we have hangups over Russia from being part of the Warsaw Pact.

In essence - we have no psychological investment in the EU, only a desire to trade

2. The British, especially English, legal system was built up from the bottom, Roman and Napoleonic law was codified at the top. While it's true that French judges interpret the legal code and the English Parliament makes laws the difference is in the way our laws were developed. French/Roman Law was created when a group of jurists sat down and attempted to codify a legal system to cover all eventualities, this law was then interpreted by judges and sent back to the legislature for amendment. In the British system the law is created by judges when they hear cases, it is then sometimes refined by Parliament but the crucial difference is that rather than senior jurists in Paris or Rome deciding the shape of the law the law is instead decided by a local judge in a small town, and it then filters up through the courts as the decision is applied and then appealed. As the decision is appealed it passes from Magistrate, to District Court, to High Court, to Appeals Court and finally to the Law Lords.

So, in the British system law is created by judges as needed which is why the British press will make a thing out of EU regulations defining the difference between a Class 1 and Class 2 cucumber - this is not a necessary regulation (they taste the same) and therefore its imposition is the imposition of a foreign concept. Interestingly, since we joined the EU we have seen the Law Society try to "codify" our legal system through "repeal acts" that seeks to "clean" the Statue Book of laws no longer deemed applicable.

Another example that deeply offended people at the time was the metrication of coinage, and then of weights and measures. This was, at the time, an entirely top-down imposition which had no benefit to the British people - not least because metric measures actually tend to be less precise (a 30th of a inch is smaller and a millimetre, for example).

3. Finally, we have the language and movement issue. It is completely true that the British are, along with the Americans, inflicted with a peculiar handicap. Being British abroad is a study in embarrassment if you are not a complete oaf. You pull out a phrase book, or you try to speak in the language you learned in school only to be met with "oh, you're English!". I feel sorry for the Scots and welsh - but aside from that the fact is that children soon get wise to this and don't bother much with other languages in school. At the same time, Britain is an attractive destination for everyone else in Europe because you all speak out language and can get on and find a job without that barrier.

at the same time, we DO have an issue of overcrowding, and people ask "we are we allowing more people in when we can't even house our own people and find jobs for them?"

It's a legitimate question.

To be clear - he's talking as much about British perception, as reality.

[Husar]

To ask why we still "harp on" about the war is like asking why the Germans still have war-guilt that prevents them deploying troops en masse even in peacekeeping efforts despite the size of the German army.

I need to sleep now but thanks for the explanations.

The quote was amusing to read, as just this week the Dutch announced that they will retreat from Mali.
And our government was quite annoyed because it means we may have to retreat as well as we depend 100% on Dutch helicopters for everything that requires helicopters, such as patrol support or flying out wounded soldiers. Our army may be big in size and may also be ready to take on a ground assault in Germany, but it's incedibly ill-equipped to operate outside Germany. There were even reports about problems with sea rescue as the army used to provide the helicopters for that but their fleet is so old that some 90% or so of it can't fly anymore and the NH-90 keeps getting delayed because somehow it ended up with a dozen major design flaws or so and wouldn't be able to operate properly in its current state...

By the way, a micrometer and a nanometer are smaller than a 30th of an inch.

[Idaho]

The Joys of zero hour contracts, where productivity is punished by the fact that once the work is done they stop paying you, but too little productivity and they can call someone else in to do your job. I'm stuck walking the tightrope of efficiency, and that's when there's any work at all, Brussels did jack to stop such becoming widespread.

Fortunately I have a good boss that helps me avoid insanity in repeptetive work by allowing breaks, probably should be using those breaks better.

Seriously? So you are a tory Brexiter on a zero hours contract and you blame the EU for this? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week... And it's been a ridiculous week.

You really have no idea who your enemies are.

[Greyblades]

...you think I am a Tory? Worst mind reader ever.