Humanities desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 25

Berkshire Hathaway 2016 Annual Shareholders Meeting

Anybody know where I can get the full transcript to this meeting. The full transcript not the abridged version. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.107.158 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for any company to produce a full transcript of any meeting - minutes record the main issues discussed and the decisions taken - anything said during a discussion is irrelevant. Wymspen (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meeting was live-streamed, and you can see a (full?) recording of it here (first result of googling the exact text of the question). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Scottish Parliament have the power to legislate referendums, or does that rest with Westminster?

2.102.186.168 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is a matter within its own competence, no doubt yes. But in a matter reserved to the UK government (e.g. foreign policy) it would be a waste of time because it doesn't have legislative power. The Devolution Act goes into great detail what powers are reserved to the Westminster government. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum on Sunday trading but not on whether Scotland should become an independent country? 2.102.186.168 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could hold an independence referendum but the Westminster government would not be obliged to take any notice of the result. 80.44.162.99 (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically the Westminister government could try and stop them holding the referendum if they wanted to, like the Spanish government tried with the Catalan self-determination referendum, 2014. How far each would go if this does happen is unclear. That includes what happens if civil servants etc are told to do one thing by the UK government and courts, and another by the Scottish government. (Also parliamentary sovereignty means technically the UK parliament (including Scottish MPs if they desire) can say "Fuck you, Scotland, and fuck your Macsween Haggis?" to whatever they can do under their existing devolved powers even this seems unlikely.) I.E. It can complicated even before you bring up Monopoly on violence and the seeming unlikelihood of either government using force (and getting people to use that force).

Incidently, if this happens after the UK completes withdrawal from the EU, possibly the Court of Justice of the European Union wouldn't come in to play although the European Court of Human Rights may still unless the UK also withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights (which even Russia is mostly a part of).

The wider issue getting back to what 80 said, is what happens even if Scotland runs a succcessful referendum? Where do the governments go next and how will these work out? Especially if the UK government has already said it's irrelevant which may depress turnout which ends up being low. (There's a fair chance most the points I brought up about the referendum won't be tested until both still can't agree after.) As we've seen in many cases, unilaterally breaking away tends to be complicated.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For purists, though, unilteral action is the only way. If freedom depends on the agreement of another party, what's to stop that party changing its mind? The UK Parliament is not bound by any earlier decisions it has made. And how would its agreement fit with "We Scots are free because we say so"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although in practical terms, if you're going to break-up your country, it ought really to be by mutual consent. There was a legitimate opportunity for Scotland to leave the Union a few months ago and they said "no". Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect things would have been very different had that referendum followed Brexit rather than preceding it. Timing is everything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone knew that the EU referendum was scheduled and that it could go either way. Some people want to keep having referenda until they get the result that they want. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it even a done deal? There seems to be a move afoot to override the referendum in Parliament. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, Parliament could do that, but then the rioting would be more costly than leaving the EU--Lgriot (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about rioting that might result from leaving? It's becoming clear that the Leave politicians lied about a few things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As did the Remain politicians, for example George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said before the Referendum that a 'Leave' result would mean he would have to introduce a (very unpleasant) Emergency Budget, and this morning (27 June) has announced that the economy is in robust shape, can well cope with the temporary fluctuations, and there is no need for any emergency budget.

Of course they all lied, they're politicians. Everyone knew they were all lying, just as they were all lying in 1975 (and later admitted it) when I last voted on this question.

There will be no immediate changes at all, a number of undramatic adjustments over the next several years, and there will be no rioting unless deliberately whipped up by people with an entirely different agenda. What is your skin in this game, Bugs? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading a CNN analysis of 3 key points the Leavers mis-led the public about. There's also Trump pushing the idea that the Brexit will help his campaign (although praising it while in Scotland might not have been the best idea.) And as one with British heritage, it's Kind of sad to see the possibility of England, Scotland and Ireland all going their separate ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a similar analysis of the key points the Remainers misled the public about?

Trump is being as entertaining and clueless as always.

As for a UK break-up, eventual Scottish independence has always been likely since the Scottish Nationalist Party became the governing party in the Scottish Parliament and demonstrated a reasonable degree of competence. As an Englishman (with Scots ancestry) who lived in Scotland for 7 years, I wish them all good luck if that's what they want – after all, they only united with England by their own Parliamentary vote in 1707 in order to be bailed out of an economic crisis. Most of Ireland has been independent since 1922, and most people in England and I dare say Wales would be happy to see full Irish re-unification: the obstacle is the stubborn resistance of a slight majority of the NI populace whom pesky democracy compels us to accommodate, and the private horror of the Eire government at the prospect despite their public constitutional aims. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on the "private horror" business. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, one of the long-term frustrations of the Brexiters was the loss of the British Empire during the last 70 years or more. Given that, apparently the Brexiters want to take it all the way back, to where there's nothing left but England itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that supposition was made by somebody unfamiliar with British politics. That said, there is growing support for England to be given the same devolved powers enjoyed by the other Home Nations, and especially on the right. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the right wing would be OK with Scotland joining the EU? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The 4 home countries of the UK each have their own separate teams at the Commonwealth Games (even though they have no separate representation in the Commonwealth of Nations itself, which is a bit of a mystery to me. Isn't it the "United" Kingdom? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, apparently). With that precedent, why not let the 4 countries decide for themselves whether they want to be members of the EC or not? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Process of Brexit

I'm looking for a link explaining what needs to be disentangled between the UK and the EU and why it is expected to take two years or so. Thanks in advance! Loraof (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article 50 sets a two year deadline for Withdrawal from the European Union. What they plan to do with that time, I don't know but at the EU end they've been saying it needn't take nearly that long. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although in all likelihood we will leave by the Article 50 Mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, some politicians are claiming that it is not the only way we can withdraw, for example Parliament could just repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, although given the need for a negotiated settlement, this is unlikely --Andrew 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Andrew 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This from UCL seems pretty authoritative and this too by Adam Lazowski at the LSE. Basically - this is all unknown, and the government will literally need to start hiring experts to tell them how to do it or cutting deals to take them on loan from businesses and universities. Obviously though there are many possibilities not named on here, most likely of all the new prime minister being given a tough deal and deciding to sign it instantly despite the problems in order to give business some clarity on the future, or a global financial crash causing a rethink. Blythwood (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some information (but no estimate of time) at What happens now the UK has voted Brexit - and what is Article 50?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "We can just do whatever" argument seems pretty bogus. I mean, strictly speaking the UK could just cease all compliance with EU law and then refuse to enforce any judgments against the UK that result from that noncompliance, essentially telling the EU to just try making them. I don't think this is particularly likely, and the claim that it's possible seems more of a soundbite to silence arguments that it could be blocked at the EU level. The actual damage to the UK economy—and I mean actual, directly attributable damage, not simply loss of currency value that has been argued as a result of investors relying on incorrect poll data, and the panic that followed their readjustment—would be substantial. There would definitely be judgments in international courts against the UK, which would be enforceable by seizing UK assets—whether held by the government or by multinationals—that happen to be present in other countries. The result would probably be similar to Iranian assets in the US being frozen, or Albanian rights to Nazi gold being frozen following their refusal to pay the judgment to the UK in the Corfu Channel case. States absolutely may breach treaties, just as individuals absolutely may breach contracts, but there are costs associated with those breaches that will eventually be satisfied, whether through direct payment, indirect payment (e.g., seizing and auctioning of assets), or as part of future treaty dealings (i.e., country A forgives this judgment if country B agrees to support these treaty terms).

As to how Article 50 works, there are definite questions I would have. For instance, whether at any point following the formal notification that the two-year time limit is mandatorily tolled, such as during a case interpreting the treaties during which negotiation is necessarily suspended. Also, what happens if a state refuses to negotiate in good faith? There is an obligation to do so under general principles of international law. Could the time limit be tolled by such wrongful conduct on the part of a member state? Finally, there's absolutely no clear provision for canceling an invocation of Article 50, except by implication that the Council can (by unanimous agreement with the departing state) extend the deadline—thus could the deadline be extended indefinitely? Finally, what happens if there's formal notification and then there follows a successful legal challenge in the UK's domestic courts against the referendum act? Does the formal notification become ineffective because Article 50 requires the decision to leave be compliant with the member state's law? Of course, standard treaty interpretation and common sense (as far as common sense exists in these matters) would control. But there are definite issues that require legal exploration, and certainly will hold up Brexit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. So it looks like there are four main issues: (1) status of EU citizens in the UK and vice versa; (2) tariffs etc. between the EU and the UK; (3) the UK's relationship with the WTO; and (4) approval of the existing members of the European Economic Association for Britain to join (if relevant). Loraof (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you mean the European Economic Association. Do you mean the European Economic Area? Also, maybe by "if relevant" you meant if the UK want to join, but I would suggest this is also a main issue not just an afterthought. I.E. The views of both sides is a main issue. The UK seems to want to join the EEA, but doesn't seem particularly happy (as it's normally suggested it was one of the fundamental issues in the referendum) with what a number of members of the EEA consider a fundamental part of the modern EEA i.e. the free movement of people. Note that this also means 1 could easily become mostly moot if the UK does join the EEA. (I think also most of 2.). The UK would also need to join the European Free Trade Association if they wanted to join the EEA, but I haven't seen it suggested this is likely to be much of a separate problem. (I.E. If they'd have no problem joining the EEA they'd probably be fine joinining EFTA.) Joining the EFTA and aiming for a Swiss style or even less relationship with the EU does seem less clear but the UK is significanly more concerned about their relationship with the EU. P.S. There may be slightly greater latitude to impose restrictions on free movement of people under the EEA but there's no strong evidence these will sufficiently allay the concerns of those who wanted out. Nil Einne (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard plans for 1862 for All Saints Church, Weston, Newark, Nottinghamshire

I would like to see grave yard plans for 1862 for all saints church weston newark nottinghamshire please86.181.235.182 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting the vicar? Blythwood (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contact details are here. Alansplodge (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]