New answers tagged united-kingdom
0
The differences seem to be statistical and a result of the difficulty of obtaining turnout data broken down by age.
The main way we have of understanding the electorate is an analysis of exit polls. But as these are a sample of voters, they cannot directly measure turnout. So turnout estimations are made using post-election surveys, with all the issue of ...
8
I think it would involve far too much of a loss-of-face to do such a u-turn (especially after this government already has such a reputation for u-turns).
If it were to happen it would first involve having to hold another referendum - though one which I believe Remainers would win.
What is far more likely, I sense, is that with Cummings gone, and Biden in the ...
12
The UK cannot remain in the EU because it left. If it was to reapply for membership, all the usual conditions would apply. The UK would be well placed on economic and regulatory convergence and things like that, but it would have to accept the EU rules without some of the traditional opt-outs. At least that is the theory.
As the linked article put it, there ...
2
It's worth digging in on the implications of mail-in voting a little bit. Other answers have already noted two things:
Ballots can arrive in the mail after election day—depending on state law, these may or may not be counted, as the deadline varies
The date the counting of mailed ballots starts depends on state law too. In this election, Republicans in ...
2
Because these Northern constituencies were (historically) extremely safe Labour seats where, as British political types say, "they weigh the Labour vote". They are also very geographically small urban centres where the physical process of collecting votes is very easy.
So it's physically very easy to count the votes, and it is highly unlikely that ...
3
Another point that I don't believe has been mentioned yet is again with regards to mail in voting:
When does the counting of votes start?
In the UK, the process of checking and counting of postal ballots starts as soon as they start arriving. Local authorities have teams of people, mostly made up of council staff, waiting to begin counting mail in ballots.
...
12
In addition to what many said here already, some points:
the 'huge' numbers of votes to be counted should not make any difference. All related tasks could be easily parallelized
basically, every location has a different reason for being slow, often prescribed by century-old laws, processes, or rituals
any changes towards faster and / or easier processes hit ...
23
It actually isn't laborious.
U.K. observers have to realize several things first of all:
Using Sunderland as an example is stacking the deck. Sunderland isn't even a fair comparison to most ballot counting in the rest of the United Kingdom, which takes several hours overnight to well into the next day in most Parliamentary constituencies.
Where "...
17
There are technical reasons for this detailed well in Kevin's answer, but there's an undergirding philosophical position that provides an essential context to questions like this:
We're talking about the United States of America.
Back in ye olden times 13 relatively autonomous polities decided to form a union to promote their collective interests and they ...
39
It doesn't need to be fast
While the popular vote is important, the electoral college will "meet" in mid-December to decide the winner. There is no pressing need within the system to determine the results of all 55 portions before that point. There's more than a month before the popular election results need to be finalized and that's why states ...
92
Mail-in voting and provisional ballots: In many states, mail-in votes are allowed to arrive well after election day, provided they are postmarked on or before election day. Voters who cast a provisional ballot on or before election day are also given an opportunity to "cure" it. In practice, this usually consists of going to the county registrar ...
3
Norway's equivalence is not a valid claim. Norway contributes to EU funding and accepts following a lot more rules from the EU than what it would seem the UK under Boris is contemplating.
These are probably the main reasons the EU is not willing to grant Norway-level terms to the UK.
answered Nov 2 at 16:20
Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
13.5k5 gold badges38 silver badges65 bronze badges
1
Some nuclear weapons, potentially.
Scotland is home to various defense assets of the UK's military, e.g. nuclear subs.
If a part of a country seceedes, then the question of how to split up the military assets arises. Other than immobile assets, e.g. oilfields, military assets are quite mobile. While, you can't move a naval base can definitely can move out ...
4
I will assume that you are asking for the deadline for there to be an agreement so the deal can come into force at or before the end of the withdrawal period. The last day of the withdrawal period is December 31st 2020.
The main difficulty with ratification arises when the deal is a so-called 'mixed agreement', UK in a Changing Europe describes those ...
-1
One of the fundamental rules in any negotiation is that the side in the biggest hurry will get the worst of the bargain. This is why when you ask a car dealer for a discount they go to "ask the manager" and leave you twiddling your thumbs for 5 minutes: it makes you impatient to close the deal.
In Brexit the negotiation is supposedly up against a ...
0
You could only find material evidence of the secession if you searched hard: it would be immaterial for families further south. It would be a loss of power for the UK government and for certain companies and banks.
For wealth, culture, the rest of the UK citizens would barely notice the difference. It is entirely a nationalistic and identity issue for the ...
7
The UK would lose power. A bigger stronger country can field a larger army, wield a larger budget by collecting more taxes, and influence other countries on the world stage with threats like economic sanctions.
Arguably this should not be a consideration in modern Europe, since the citizens of the country itself don't benefit much from the country being more ...
7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil
Jim Sillars, former Deputy Leader of the Scottish National Party, said during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum that “BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have forced to ...
4
If Scotland joined the EU, there would be a new trading border. If free trade was not allowed by the European Parliament, there would either have to be traffic stops or smuggling would be rife, or possibly both. It's difficult to say who would lose or gain most.
57
The Scottish government's 2013 white paper on independence - Scotland's Future - sets out a number of tangible assets that, the paper argues, Scotland would be entitled to a proportion of based on population share. For example, an independent Scotland would seek to take ownership of a share of the United Kingdom's overseas properties, e.g. embassies & ...
15
The 2014 independence referendum was accepted as being a once in a generation referendum, unless there was a "material change of circumstances". The SNP is arguing that Brexit amounts to a material change in circumstances and therefore the criteria have been met for another referendum.
One of the big issues in the 2014 referendum was Scotland's ...
16
The answer is yes. E.g. fishing rights in the North Sea would again be something that could be dictated by the EU. (Assuming they joined the EU)
2
It's cheap and easy for a country like Canada or Australia or even Barbados. The alternative, elections of a figurehead president, would doubtless cost more. The process of rewriting the constitution would raise issues: should the President be given reserve powers. How do you stop the President from abusing their powers? With the Queen as Head of State, ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
