So I guess the UK is now officially a true sovereign country. If I lived in the UK I would have also voted for the "Leave" option myself. What do you all think about the UK's exit from the EU?
It may give Great Britain an international land border, if pro-EU Scotland rekindles its referendum process as a result.
I feel pretty good about this, because the EU kept taking it upon itself to write most of the member nations' laws.
As someone who voted Leave, I'm glad. I've been smeared as a warmongering, selfish person who hates immigrants, yet I voted Leave to not be like that and the country of my birth and residence now gets to show that we aren't what the other side has demonized us as.
The Remain side will continue to undermine the financial markets with their scaremongering. And I've just heard some twat talk about border controls between the UK and Ireland - something no one wants and is simply stoking hatred, bigotry and fear (edit - and the Shadow Defence Secretary :bash:). The Northern Ireland Secretary spoke to the Irish ambassador and the Irish Government, and they have no plans (though the Irish Government made some public murmurings about bringing back The Troubles as part of #ProjectFear).
And now #ProjectFear in the form of a BBC reporter is talking about the possibility that the UK would forceably deport Poles - that's a crime against humanity (so it's also #ProjectSmear) and no one has suggested it.
The biggest problem is the the Leave camp have no plan as they (rightly) pointed out that the referendum is about In or Out, not what our newly sovereign nation should decide Out looks like, but the Government seem to also not have a plan, despite Leave saying "you were elected to Govern, this vote is to tell you one small thing". This uncertainty needs to be settled fairly quickly, but it won't be - not least as there's a need to bring the other side in.
I've genuinely been appalled by the responses from Remainiacs to my desire to stop giving the EU member-states and their citizens special treatment just because they are geographically near. Scratch the surface and the Little Europeanism gives off it's disgusting odor. I raised the question of why Belgian immigrants get an open door, whereas Bangladeshis get forced to jump through ever-smaller hoops and got back responses that basically made it clear that how dare I suggest these Bangladeshis get the same treatment as Belgians (whether their bigotry towards Bangladeshi was due to them being Muslim, non-white or simply non-European - I didn't ask, though it seemed odd to demand western values from Bangladeshis when there's a European branch of ISIS in Molenbeek that has carried out a couple of attacks. After that I use Austrians and Australians to try and avoid the race and creed issues). Brexit is a victory for love over bigotry.
The guy who detoxified the Tory party and tried to make it not the nasty party came out for it, calling supporting leaving the EU. He's totally right, and the odd thing where Scottish sovereignty is a 'right on' issue, but Brexit is seen as so regressive and abhorrent that when a Remain-supporting MP was brutally murdered it could be pinned on the entire Leave side, which even if you believed the member of the fascist party over the eyewitnesses that the guy shouted the slogan of an anti-immigrant hate group (as so many 'anti-fascists' did), is completely and utter bigoted ad hominem.
The few Remainers who supported the EU, rather than saw it as the lesser of two evils and in desperate need of reform (and President Junker, tone deaf said that reform wasn't an option), were sidelined (mostly as the idea of joining the Euro would lose Remain votes). The Remain campaign was therefore mostly negative - talking down Britain, it's electorate and especially Leave voters.
As much as I disagree politically with the Labour party - if it was 52-48 the other way round, then they would have been electoral toast in the next General Election, with UKIP hoovering up (and they got a lot nastier when they went from Libertarian to Populist) and that would have been tragic. The working class Labour heartlands were almost all for Leave, and UKIP would have enhanced their decent 2015 showing. A Leave result has pretty much ending Nigel Farage's career - we've made his elected position as an MEP redundant, but the rest is gone too.
So here's the wider world that we weakened ties with in '73 to go all in with Europe - may we build on ties that we can make now we've voted to abolish the walls (esp trade rules) that separate us. And Europe - we're not seeking to leave you, just the Political Union. I'm glad we don't have to apologize to Canada, Australia, India, etc for yet again choosing the countries that are close by over the countries that are our family.
PS: for those worrying that this shows that Drumpf can do it, it doesn't - had Farage been the sole face of the Leave camp, you'd be looking at 60s vs 30s to Remain, despite a horrendously negative campaign from Remain.
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2016, 01:15:24 AM
It may give Great Britain an international land border, if pro-EU Scotland rekindles its referendum process as a result.
They are pushing for it, but the strong showing for the UK in '14 and the EU yesterday suggest that Scots aren't convinced by sovereignty arguments enough to deal with economic risks of leaving political unions - sadly my avatar is highly unlikely to happen.
There's also the issues of whether Scotland could grab EU membership should it leave the UK and what that would look like:
1) the plan was that Scotland would be a new EU member, not a successor state to the UK when the UK hadn't voted to Leave. The likelihood that EU membership for iScotland means the Euro, Schengen and other things they really don't want.
2) All 27 other countries would have to approve iScotland's membership. Spain will veto it due to Calatan/Basque issues.
3) Scotland would have voted to leave a political union off the back of a nationalistic surge - that's the EU equivalent of sedition, that takes a few years to be forgiven.
I think a more realistic proposition would be the unity of Ireland. Being as a clear majority in the north voted remain and strong comments from Sinn Féin for a referendum on joining the Republic I see this is more likely than an independent Scotland.
The last Scottish referendum took place before the fall in oil prices. I don't see another one being successful in light of this.
Quote from: Truvelo on June 24, 2016, 05:23:29 AMI think a more realistic proposition would be the unity of Ireland. Being as a clear majority in the north voted remain and strong comments from Sinn Féin for a referendum on joining the Republic I see this is more likely than an independent Scotland.
Yes, though when the next PM (starting October) solves the 'border problem' that doesn't exist other than in attempts to get NI to vote Remain before the vote, and now to push for a referendum (and a victory) on becoming part of Ireland, the desire to unite will reduce. I'd imagine that referendum would be more divisive than this one too.
Gibraltar is a interesting one - there's no reason why it can't keep the status quo of being in the Customs Union, only without the representation in Brussels that they fought hard for - it's the Andorra/Monaco/San Marino/Vatican option. Spain has been fairly restrained and merely proposed joint sovereignty, rather than sent gunboats to 'liberate' Gibraltar. In the unlikely event they go for that, then job done - represented in the Commission by the Spanish commissioner and can vote as part of the Andulucia region for the EU Parliament. If they want the representation, but don't want it to be Spanish, then a deal with Malta looks a good match: English-speaking, small (and over-represented) and sort of geographically near.
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2016, 01:15:24 AM
It may give Great Britain an international land border, if pro-EU Scotland rekindles its referendum process as a result.
Depending on how you define "nation", it already contains one, of course...
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2016, 08:16:16 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2016, 01:15:24 AM
It may give Great Britain an international land border, if pro-EU Scotland rekindles its referendum process as a result.
Depending on how you define "nation", it already contains one, of course...
Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. (It is part of the UK.)
The EU as origninal conceived, which was just doing away to tariffs (which is to say cutting taxes, always a good thing) and allowing free movement of goods around Europe, with one set of health/packaging/safety rules was a great idea. That is what the UK signed up for back in 73.
The current EU with this "ever closer union" crapola is rediculious. If the EU had stuck to its original vision it would have lasted for centuries. By this disasterous over-reach it has spurend the UK, to be followed by others IMHO, to resume their rightful place as soverign countries.
Quote from: english si on June 24, 2016, 01:38:36 AM
I've genuinely been appalled by the responses from Remainiacs to my desire to stop giving the EU member-states and their citizens special treatment just because they are geographically near. Scratch the surface and the Little Europeanism gives off it's disgusting odor. I raised the question of why Belgian immigrants get an open door, whereas Bangladeshis get forced to jump through ever-smaller hoops and got back responses that basically made it clear that how dare I suggest these Bangladeshis get the same treatment as Belgians (whether their bigotry towards Bangladeshi was due to them being Muslim, non-white or simply non-European - I didn't ask, though it seemed odd to demand western values from Bangladeshis when there's a European branch of ISIS in Molenbeek that has carried out a couple of attacks. After that I use Austrians and Australians to try and avoid the race and creed issues). Brexit is a victory for love over bigotry.
Judging from this, and if others in the UK felt the same way, I'd say it boils down to a contest between the Commonwealth and the EU. I would anticipate closer ties between the UK and the Commonwealth post Brexit.
The UK leaves the EU and now Greece wants to leave next...there goes the neighborhood. I'm sure the Turks and Russians aren't welcomed, because the EU is an exclusive club to join, an alliance of peace and getting along. The Eurozone crisis along with a strong currency: the British Pound (in Scotland, they use RBS not Bank of England pounds), heightened risk of terrorism from high rates of refugee migration (esp. in Germany) and demands or concerns of wanting "small government" is what made over half of British voters vote their way out of the EU.
Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.
Nationalism is on the rise! Sweden, Poland and Greece were mentioned as candidates for a Leave on CNN last night. Trump is the very essence of nationalism as well. Now those of us who are opposed to the globalists have the winds in our favor for a change.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on June 24, 2016, 10:41:28 AM
Nationalism is on the rise! Sweden, Poland and Greece were mentioned as candidates for a Leave on CNN last night.
I could see Sweden and Denmark making for the exit as well. Denmark, like the UK, has the monetary union opt out. Sweden does not, but has dragged its feet for so long regarding it. Not so sure about Poland. They do get more from the EU than they pay in. As for Greece, who knows.
Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2016, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2016, 08:16:16 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2016, 01:15:24 AM
It may give Great Britain an international land border, if pro-EU Scotland rekindles its referendum process as a result.
Depending on how you define "nation", it already contains one, of course...
Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. (It is part of the UK.)
No, but Scotland is. I think he meant that some definitions of "nation" could classify Scotland and England each as a nation.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 24, 2016, 09:19:09 AM
The EU as origninal conceived, which was just doing away to tariffs (which is to say cutting taxes, always a good thing) and allowing free movement of goods around Europe, with one set of health/packaging/safety rules was a great idea. That is what the UK signed up for back in 73.
No, that's the EFTA that the UK had in '72. the EEC in '73 wasn't much different but was a bit more than that and it did mean reducing our ties with the Commonwealth to get in.
Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2016, 09:46:53 AMJudging from this, and if others in the UK felt the same way, I'd say it boils down to a contest between the Commonwealth and the EU.
Why does it have to be a contest?
QuoteI would anticipate closer ties between the UK and the Commonwealth post Brexit.
Oh, absolutely. We're now able to start talks with Australia that the EU stalled due to Italian tomato growers.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:59:16 AMAnd also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage.
Polling shows that his intervention gave Leave a boost in direct response. TBF to Obama, he just reiterated the long standing US State Department position that the UK needs to be in the EU to be their man on the inside - which (while the UK didn't want these false motives attributed to us) got UK membership vetoed in the 60s by deGaulle and has meant that in later generations there's been 'Anglo-Saxon'-scepticism in the EEC and EU and has mostly been an unwelcome weakening of our influence in Brussels.
Quote from: nexus73 on June 24, 2016, 10:41:28 AMNow those of us who are opposed to the globalists have the winds in our favor for a change.
Err, a lot of people voted Leave for globalism (inc me) rather than insular Little Europeanism - eg, tweets like this were common: https://twitter.com/beleaveuk/status/745692867079790592 https://twitter.com/PrescottBeth/status/746074680365293568 https://twitter.com/KingCapewell/status/746075044665790467 https://twitter.com/RickyLeeCooke/status/744862074963173376 https://twitter.com/RogTallbloke/status/745818092668862464
and all the official campaign big wigs have been talking about improved links with non-EU countries, both before and afterwards. Here's BoGo (http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/boris-johnson-london-is-a-global-city-that-s-why-we-must-leave-the-eu-a3272431.html) for instance, or Gisela Stuart this morning when the gang finally got in front of cameras (and the cameras could then stop looking to an exhausted, and probably drunk, Farage, for Leave comment): "We must continue to be outward looking and forward looking."
Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2016, 10:53:27 AMI could see Sweden and Denmark making for the exit as well.
It's a case of what sort of deal does the UK get. Vote Leave are over-optimisitically working on the assumption that it would be better than EFTA and you'd see Sweden and Denmark move out to have a deal like that, and Iceland and Norway move in.
QuoteNot so sure about Poland.
They are for the concept as-is, but not the Euro or the federal state. They are for the single EU army, due to the borders either side of their Lithuanian border, though not at the expense of NATO, which other states do want. They are EU-skeptic, but not yet skeptic enough to leave.
QuoteThey do get more from the EU than they pay in.
But so does Cornwall, which voted Leave. Of course, Cornwall gets more in as its fishing industry was almost killed off by the EU - leaving a poor area needing to recover from that, and it's a region and so can badger Westminster for replacement funds.
QuoteAs for Greece, who knows.
I'm not sure Greece has the sovereign capability to end its captivity to the ECB.
Czexit and even Nexit have been mooted with an assumption that they could get out, but I think even Denmark or Sweden isn't that likely in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:59:16 AM
Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.
+1
As far as other countries leaving the EU, I'd put Hungary as the most likely to do so next. They've already been building fences around their country to keep refugees out. I don't think their relations with the EU are too strong at this point.
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2016, 11:13:20 AM
Quote from: 1 on June 24, 2016, 08:20:07 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2016, 08:16:16 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2016, 01:15:24 AM
It may give Great Britain an international land border, if pro-EU Scotland rekindles its referendum process as a result.
Depending on how you define "nation", it already contains one, of course...
Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. (It is part of the UK.)
No, but Scotland is. I think he meant that some definitions of "nation" could classify Scotland and England each as a nation.
That's precisely what I meant. I had typed a snarky correction to the idea that Great Britain could have an international land border due to its being an island. Then, right before hitting "Post", I realized that might not have been what you intended by your post, so I changed the content of my reply. Oh, well...
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:59:16 AM
Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.
I've never understood the USA giving Nutty-yahoo bombs to kill people. Why doesn't he use his OWN money?
Quote from: US 41 on June 24, 2016, 11:26:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:59:16 AM
Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.
+1
As far as other countries leaving the EU, I'd put Hungary as the most likely to do so next. They've already been building fences around their country to keep refugees out. I don't think their relations with the EU are too strong at this point.
Which border? Can you see them from GSV?
Pretty sure that Central and Eastern European member states want to stay. They're still recovering from the post-Soviet era and want access to western European capital investment.
Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing just fine outside the EU...I'm sure the UK will manage just fine, despite the initial shock to world markets.
Meanwhile, I don't think the UK will get everything they want. They want to restrict immigration from the EU to the UK, but I bet they still want the right to move to the EU to retire. They don't want to be part of the EU common market, but probably want multinational firms to keep their EU HQ in London. They want to restrict products manufactured according to draconian EU laws from coming into the country, but want to bring back 50 bottles of booze from a day trip to France. There are many citizens who will not want to entirely give up their access to Europe, and that access works both ways.
I bet that a happy medium will be found, where limited access to the European common market is preserved for UK Citizens/businesses in return for controlled, favored status in the UK (i.e. freedom of movement but with strict quotas). Perhaps more for some countries than others. For example, the UK may wish to strike deals with individual EU states, since the large immigration numbers seem to be limited to certain countries (Romania, Poland). In otherwords, they have a lot more to gain by restricting immigration from Poland than from Luxembourg. In exchange for tightening immigration from newer EU countries, they could loosen rules for other non-EU countries with favored status, such as Commonwealth Countries, the U.S. Special Relationship, etc.
At the end of the day, I don't blame the UK for leaving the EU. They signed up for a very different organization many decades ago, an organization that has drastically increased in size and scope in those decades. I personally don't think its a good idea for a country to give up elements of its sovereignty to a super-national body, and after incrementally doing so over a long period of time, the UK voters decided that it was too much. I wish they would have stayed in the EU and tried to fix its problems rather than abandoning it, but that's been tried and hasn't really worked, so eventually, people get impatient and want to try something new. Its no different than Americans wanting something drastically new with Trump and Sanders.
Quote from: mtantillo on June 24, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing just fine outside the EU...I'm sure the UK will manage just fine, despite the initial shock to world markets.
Meanwhile, I don't think the UK will get everything they want. They want to restrict immigration from the EU to the UK, but I bet they still want the right to move to the EU to retire. They don't want to be part of the EU common market, but probably want multinational firms to keep their EU HQ in London. They want to restrict products manufactured according to draconian EU laws from coming into the country, but want to bring back 50 bottles of booze from a day trip to France. There are many citizens who will not want to entirely give up their access to Europe, and that access works both ways.
I bet that a happy medium will be found, where limited access to the European common market is preserved for UK Citizens/businesses in return for controlled, favored status in the UK (i.e. freedom of movement but with strict quotas). Perhaps more for some countries than others. For example, the UK may wish to strike deals with individual EU states, since the large immigration numbers seem to be limited to certain countries (Romania, Poland). In otherwords, they have a lot more to gain by restricting immigration from Poland than from Luxembourg. In exchange for tightening immigration from newer EU countries, they could loosen rules for other non-EU countries with favored status, such as Commonwealth Countries, the U.S. Special Relationship, etc.
At the end of the day, I don't blame the UK for leaving the EU. They signed up for a very different organization many decades ago, an organization that has drastically increased in size and scope in those decades. I personally don't think its a good idea for a country to give up elements of its sovereignty to a super-national body, and after incrementally doing so over a long period of time, the UK voters decided that it was too much. I wish they would have stayed in the EU and tried to fix its problems rather than abandoning it, but that's been tried and hasn't really worked, so eventually, people get impatient and want to try something new. Its no different than Americans wanting something drastically new with Trump and Sanders.
Don't count on it. The whole point of the EU is the single body of law (the 'acquis'), not a 28 (soon 27) different legal codes covering the same things.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 24, 2016, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: US 41 on June 24, 2016, 11:26:16 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:59:16 AM
Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.
+1
As far as other countries leaving the EU, I'd put Hungary as the most likely to do so next. They've already been building fences around their country to keep refugees out. I don't think their relations with the EU are too strong at this point.
Which border? Can you see them from GSV?
They recently built one with Croatia, Serbia, and I think Romania as well to stop the flow of Syrian refugees. The fences are very new so I doubt they're on GSV yet.
The very early ideas of the EU circled around trying to get France and Germany not to fight with each other. Until they're out, I sort of shrug at the other departures.
That said, I've always thought that either country just needs a wave of ultra-nationalism and the EU is kaput.
Quote from: mtantillo on June 24, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing just fine outside the EU...I'm sure the UK will manage just fine, despite the initial shock to world markets.
AFAICS, most of the financial issues were created thanks to #ProjectFear saying that there would be recession. There was a sudden shock, the market over corrected and then after reassuring speeches were made, the market started climbing back again with probably a good two thirds of what was 'lost' in the freefall regained today.
QuoteMeanwhile, I don't think the UK will get everything they want. They want to restrict immigration from the EU to the UK, but I bet they still want the right to move to the EU to retire.
Indeed, but given that treating all immigrants equally and not discriminating based on passport has been smeared as racist, and given the massive circlejerk of hate that has been Remainers on the internet today, it's pretty clear that we will keep free movement of people as nothing else would be politically acceptable. We'll keep the hatred of some towards immigrants as we won't have fixed the issues of control and we'll keep the shitty treatment of non-EU migrants and we'll call it 'tolerance'.
QuoteThey don't want to be part of the EU common market
Don't we - now, sure, some do, but saying we can't be part of the single market without meeting various requirements was a repeated attempt to try and scare voters into voting Remain. An EFTA/Swiss style deal seems to be what we'll end up with.
QuoteThey want to restrict products manufactured according to draconian EU laws from coming into the country
Nope. the idea of leaving the single market is to be able to not have to keep to the EU regs for products made in and for our own market. We'll happily buy their goods.
Quotebut want to bring back 50 bottles of booze from a day trip to France.
It's not the late 90s - the booze cruise doesn't pay anymore as France upped their taxes. Unless you are buying 50 bottles, of course! And obviously, you've misread the situation wrt what Brexiteers want
QuoteThere are many citizens who will not want to entirely give up their access to Europe, and that access works both ways.
Access how? Being a full citizen of every country and entitled to benefits and all that as if you were from there? Or being able to work/study there? The latter isn't going away and the only people who've suggested it were straw manning Remanians!
QuoteIn exchange for tightening immigration from newer EU countries, they could loosen rules for other non-EU countries with favored status, such as Commonwealth Countries, the U.S. Special Relationship, etc.
The issue with Polish immigrants isn't that they are Poles and we'd prefer Kiwis. The issue with EU immigrants is that there's no control over who or how many, and meanwhile we're subjecting non-EU migrants to tight restrictions as to minimum earnings, etc. It has to be treat ALL migrants (from all countries) the same or it's no change from now.
QuoteIts no different than Americans wanting something drastically new with Drumpf and Sanders.
No, it's different from that - the high vote shares last year for the Greens, UKIP, SNP were that. What this was like was like that thing you'll celebrate the 240th anniversary of next Monday, though not quite as extreme. It's not a shift of the sides in the debate, it's changing the rules of the debate.
Quote from: mtantillo on June 24, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
At the end of the day, I don't blame the UK for leaving the EU. They signed up for a very different organization many decades ago, an organization that has drastically increased in size and scope in those decades...
Exactly, the EEC as it was known then consisted of a small bunch of countries with similar economies and standards of living. What ruined things was when it started expanding eastwards where living costs are considerably different to the west. It's no surprise to see mass immigration westwards where a cleaner in the UK can be on similar wages to a skilled job in the former eastern bloc countries, not to mention those who come purely to milk our generous welfare system. Rather than a Brexit it would be better if all the countries east of Germany and Austria exited.
Quote from: Truvelo on June 24, 2016, 03:32:07 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on June 24, 2016, 01:25:59 PM
At the end of the day, I don't blame the UK for leaving the EU. They signed up for a very different organization many decades ago, an organization that has drastically increased in size and scope in those decades...
Exactly, the EEC as it was known then consisted of a small bunch of countries with similar economies and standards of living. What ruined things was when it started expanding eastwards where living costs are considerably different to the west. It's no surprise to see mass immigration westwards where a cleaner in the UK can be on similar wages to a skilled job in the former eastern bloc countries, not to mention those who come purely to milk our generous welfare system. Rather than a Brexit it would be better if all the countries east of Germany and Austria exited.
One of the main issues, IMO, is that the EU expanded too fast. They went from 15 mostly similar countries (in terms of cost of living, living standard, prior history) to 25 overnight in 2004. Then before they were fully integrated, Bulgaria and Romania came on board in 2007. There was no time to really learn the effects of integrating the eastern countries in when all of a sudden they make up nearly half the EU.
This is why I suspect the UK may try to negotiate individual "freedom of movement" pacts with some of the pre-2004 expansion (The "EU-15") member states but not with the former Eastern bloc members.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 09:59:16 AM
Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.
Obama hardly got 'poked in the eye'. He has nothing to do with British or EU politics or policy, he's a spectator like the rest of us in America. You should be cheering Obama, given your politics, not only is he droning the shit out of poor sods on the other side of the world, he's got US forces dicking around right next door to Putin. Not even Saint Ronnie had those kinda balls. Not even when they shot down KAL 007.
XT1585
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 11:13:23 AMObama hardly got 'poked in the eye'.
He came an told us to Remain else we'd be 'back of the queue'. Leave gained a couple of points as a result of his intervention.
QuoteHe has nothing to do with British or EU politics or policy
Hence why the British people acted negatively towards him.
Though, obviously, he is part of the wider world, and his intervention was sought by Cameron to try and scare people like me, who wanted out of the EU to escape the Little European mindset and be able to make trade deals with the world (of course, the USA was low down the list of priorities because it tends to act in a protectionist way, like the EU, and so it wouldn't be a Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc low hanging fruit where the deal could be done very quickly).
Quotehe's a spectator like the rest of us in America.
So why did he come and intervene? He flew across the Atlantic and back just to visit the UK, and other than smooze with the Royal family, his speech asking us to Remain is the only thing he did. The UK responded with a big "sod off" then, and again on Thursday.
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 11:13:23 AMObama hardly got 'poked in the eye'.
He came an told us to Remain else we'd be 'back of the queue'. Leave gained a couple of points as a result of his intervention.
QuoteHe has nothing to do with British or EU politics or policy
Hence why the British people acted negatively towards him.
Though, obviously, he is part of the wider world, and his intervention was sought by Cameron to try and scare people like me, who wanted out of the EU to escape the Little European mindset and be able to make trade deals with the world (of course, the USA was low down the list of priorities because it tends to act in a protectionist way, like the EU, and so it wouldn't be a Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc low hanging fruit where the deal could be done very quickly).
Quotehe's a spectator like the rest of us in America.
So why did he come and intervene? He flew across the Atlantic and back just to visit the UK, and other than smooze with the Royal family, his speech asking us to Remain is the only thing he did. The UK responded with a big "sod off" then, and again on Thursday.
Yes, all that affected his standing in America profoundly, as well as the American people. The only people who noticed were American Rightists, who hang on any little crumb of negativity they can get to reinforce their loathing of the man for no particularly good reason(as they seem to be oblivious to any legitimate criticism of him).
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 12:00:59 PMYes, all that affected his standing in America profoundly, as well as the American people.
Where was I talking about America? Why are you only looking at America, especially as this is a thread about the UK and EU?
The UK was a country that hadn't really stopped deifying Obama in the way that many Americans did in 2008. But in the space of a few moments in April, the shine wore off and the reaction was to defy him. As the 'leader of the free world' who came and intervened and was not only not successful, but reacted to negatively, he should have some egg on his face.
Showing everything wrong with the EU - Merkel organised talks for today to look at EU-strategy, but only between Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy - ie the pre-1973 block, ignoring 21 other countries! And the institution itself wasn't represented.
The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2016, 06:05:28 PM
Showing everything wrong with the EU - Merkel organised talks for today to look at EU-strategy, but only between Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy - ie the pre-1973 block, ignoring 21 other countries! And the institution itself wasn't represented.
The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.
Who said anything was 'right' with the EU? Leaving may have been the right decision in the long term, despite the immediate sequelae, which reeks of petty vengeance being wrought by financial entities dissatisfied with the vote. Largely, the way Leave was sold may have been wrong, playing on people's fears of immigrants and whatnot, but in and of itself, it's not a bad idea, and it gave globalisation a big kick in the slats.
XT1585
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2016, 05:57:21 PM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 12:00:59 PMYes, all that affected his standing in America profoundly, as well as the American people.
Where was I talking about America? Why are you only looking at America, especially as this is a thread about the UK and EU?
The UK was a country that hadn't really stopped deifying Obama in the way that many Americans did in 2008. But in the space of a few moments in April, the shine wore off and the reaction was to defy him. As the 'leader of the free world' who came and intervened and was not only not successful, but reacted to negatively, he should have some egg on his face.
I was just pointing out the effect or lack thereof in America, nothing more. It's good that the English saw him to be a shill for globalisation interests. It'd be nice if his American fan base would wake up...
XT1585
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/
So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.
XT1585
Problems that I have with Brexit:
(1) May well lead to the end of the United Kingdom and Great Britain as we know it (plenty of Americans like to confuse Britain and England anyway) - I think there's a pretty good chance that Northern Ireland and Scotland will be leaving - and though Wales voted to Leave, when they see the cut-off of EU aid, I think they may leave remain as well. That leaves England as a not-so-Great Britain, with one or two land borders with the EU (and the Channel Tunnel). This is a strategic problem for the United States.
(2) Bad for an assortment of economies (including the UK and the United States), with little or no reward for anyone.
(3) The immigrants that the English codgers have been complaining about are already there (and I doubt that they will be sent home to Poland or Estonia or Romania or Bulgaria or wherever they are from).
(4) The analysis of the vote reveals that it was the English elderly that won it for the leave side. Reminds me of the elderly protestors against the 2009 Affordable Care Act in the U.S. claiming to be "Tea Party" and carrying signs that read "Keep the federal government away from my Medicare," a remarkably stupid and misinformed position - though I also strongly suspect that the young people of Britain, just like the United States, are not very interested in voting, which enables the political power of those codgers.
(5) The only big winner in all of this is the kleptocracy that Czar Vladimir Putin runs in Moscow. Getting the EU (and its constituent nations) and eventually NATO to break apart (while he makes modest investments in disinformation outlets like RT.COM and covertly funds right-wing extreme parties like Marine LePen's operation in France) allows him to achieve objectives of re-establishing the Soviet Empire and perhaps even taking over nations that were never east of the Iron Curtain (so his oligarchs have more economies to plunder).
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 09:21:06 PM
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/
So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.
Emphasis added. Pun intended?
QuoteXT1585
Color (white text) removed. What's that all about? Something automatically added to your post?
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 09:21:06 PM
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/
So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.
Pretty clear that it can. And if the UK government falls and elections have to be held (seems a good possibility), then Labor would be pretty smart to give Jeremy Bernard Corbyn the axe and run on an overtly pro-EU campaign, and if they win, Brexit is effectively nullified.
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2016, 06:05:28 PM
The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.
If Texas were to want to pass a bill asking for secession, my response would be that's fine, but the United States will cede all of what is now Texas back to its original owner, Mexico - with the understanding that all Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D payments to anyone living in Texas are turned-off permanently on the effective date.
Also submitting this for consideration http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Varoufakis-Blames-Neoliberals-Like-Hillary-Clinton-for-Brexit-20160625-0008.html
XT1585
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 25, 2016, 09:34:11 PM
Quote from: english si on June 25, 2016, 06:05:28 PM
The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.
If Texas were to want to pass a bill asking for secession, my response would be that's fine, but the United States will cede all of what is now Texas back to its original owner, Mexico - with the understanding that all Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D payments to anyone living in Texas are turned-off permanently on the effective date.
Texas gained independence from Mexico and then requested to join the US. And Mexico gained independence from Spain in the 1820s, so really Texas was part of the Spanish empire longer than part of Mexico or the US
If any state seceded successfully, there would be payments to the US government... like West Virginia having to pay Virginia back
There would be tons of negotiating
Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2016, 09:29:23 PM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 09:21:06 PM
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/
So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.
Emphasis added. Pun intended?
QuoteXT1585
Always.
Color (white text) removed. What's that all about? Something automatically added to your post?
Maybe the NYPD was just saying howdy :-D
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 25, 2016, 09:26:50 PMthough Wales voted to Leave, when they see the cut-off of EU aid, I think they may leave remain as well.
1) Like all areas of the British isles eligable for EU RDF funds (Cornwall, West Wales, with Western Ireland falling back into qualification) - the problems that caused them to be in need of development money is EU policy: the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agriculture Policy, the Euro (in the case of the Irish areas).
2) They haven't really liked where that money has gone - for every part-funding of the Eden project, superfast-broadband or Falmouth College, there's much more money spend on crap that does nothing and doesn't seem to be meant to (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/europhiles-shouldnt-be-surprised-that-cornwall-supports-brexit/) - it's really not surprising that they wanted to Leave, being screwed over by membership and thus qualifying for money that is then spend incredibly inefficiently (6 times less efficiently than the British government reckons it costs to create a job).
3) Where do you think the EU gets the money to spend in Cornwall in the first place? There is no reason why the UK can't give development money to these places (and the ones that, due to the Eurocrisis haven't got any richer, but don't qualify now because the EU average income has fallen) out of the money it used to give to Brussels.
Quote(2) Bad for an assortment of economies (including the UK and the United States),
You are still living at 8am (BST) on Friday :banghead: By 9am the economy had already started recovering and most of the losses of the night before were recouped before close of play.
The FTSE finished on Friday 2% higher than at the beginning of the week (when almost everyone was thinking Remain would win 60-40), the borrowing rate is good, our credit rating is still high (even though the media are calling the second highest possible score as 'negative'). The pound is at the same rate as the dollar as it was in February - before the referendum date was announced (which was the 20th of February), though a low pound can be a good thing (lowering its value was a key part of how the UK recovered quicker from 2008 than the Eurozone). And all this despite the markets believing the fearmongering, the media saying it's the apocalypse, and also the market betting the wrong way and massively over-correcting.
And then the lower barriers Britain is now free to seek with it's nature trading markets across the world will surely help both us and them. A bit more competition in Europe will also help, forcing EU countries to become more friendly for investment and business (Ireland, whose 'Celtic Tiger' successes are owed to free-market policies of low taxes, limited Government interference kept getting told by the EU to raise their taxes. Post-bailout it has struggled to recover as the ECB keep trying to get it that they aren't undermining other EU nations by having lower taxes than them, but is thankfully able to assert enough autonomy that there was a recovery in Dublin at least).
Quotewith little or no reward for anyone.
Because being able to govern ourselves isn't something worth it? Will you attack the celebrations in your country next weekend because they caused short-term economic issues? Even 'back of the queue' Obama has called for closer UK-US ties as the UK escapes the Little European tendencies of the continent: Canada is the most European country outside Europe, but the UK was forced to loosen ties to be allowed in the EEC and then spent 30 years trying to get the EU to talk with Canada, which then took 10 years and, several years later the deal isn't ratified.
Iceland's President came out yesterday and said that they find their non-membership of the EU a good thing, that we would too, and that Brexit is good news for Iceland. Not everyone shares the doom and gloom of those that backed the wrong horse.
Quote(3) The immigrants that the English codgers have been complaining about are already there (and I doubt that they will be sent home to Poland or Estonia or Romania or Bulgaria or wherever they are from).
Indeed they won't be sent home. They are already there, but the immigration argument took two main forms
1) The negative one worrying about numbers due to EU expansion in the Balkans and Turkey, plus the issues of Schengen meaning ISIS (and those fleeing ISIS) in Syria and Iraq would be one border away from Calais, thanks to plans hashed out in prep for talks between the EU and Turkey that were to start this week (delayed because of the British vote because they knew, like various regulations that will hit Britain harder, that the British people wouldn't be happy with it). There was an element of Islamaphobia against Turkey (though the UK has supported their membership in the face of severe EU xenophobia against Turkish membership - until last week, when the Turkish ambassador rebuked Cameron whom they thought was their closest ally for abandoning their bid), but the main issue was the population of Turkey - numbers, not nature.
2) The positive one, attacking the passport descrimination that treats Austrians as more worthy of living in the UK than Australians, Belgians than Brazilians, Spanards than Sri Lankans, Czechs than Canadians. The 'ConservativeIn' group, which were basically the mouthpiece of the Government (who recently upped the minimum income required for non-EU migrants to come and work to £30k - that's $42k!) stated in a leaflet that a Remain vote would see the banning entry of non-EU families - ie that if you wanted to come and work here, you couldn't bring the family unless their also qualified for entry as individuals (rather than as your dependents). The rather anti-immigrant
Daily Mail has been running a story about once a month where some (English as first language and white, of course) immigrant is to be deported due to not being EU and not earning enough, despite being a nurse or something that people who read the Mail are very happy for people to come over to do. The Mail has taken the side of immigrants it's supposed to hate, because the free movement of people means discrimination that even this anti-PC paper detests. The leftist papers don't care about South African nurses being deported away from their family (but supports Hate Preachers not being deported rather than imprisoned, because their family is in Britain), and consider it racist to not be a European-supremacist.
Quote(4) The analysis of the vote reveals that it was the English elderly that won it for the leave side.
Nope - it was an own goal by the Remain side.
1) The apathy of young vote who didn't turn up.
2) The arrogance of the Remain campaign, who thought that running a campaign saying that the EU was shit, but it's better than the T-Rex attacks that would happen if we leave, would inspire its side to victory. :confused:
3) The arrogance of the EU - despite the Remain camp pinning all their hopes on people seeking to make Europe better (ie fit their politics, be they LabourIn or ConservativesIn or GreenIn or whatever) by reforming the EU so that it works, Junker speaking as the EU's representative to try and keep us in, had two points - that leaving was leaving (that no one was suggesting otherwise) and that there was no more reform to be had :eyebrow:.
4) The arrogance of Labour. They kept saying that the EU referendum was a Tory civil war and Labour areas would all vote to Remain. They didn't - the deeper the working-class red vote was, the more likely it was to go for Leave (Liverpool excepted).
5) The arrogance of Scotland. Because there was little question that Scotland would vote Remain, there wasn't much debate - the questions were all about IndyRef2, not Leave/Remain. As there wasn't much debate, there wasn't much enthusiasm, there was lower turnout than in the rest of the UK (other Remain areas had lower turnout too, though in London it was due to the weather and transport situations more than anything, and Richmond managed 80% turnout and a Remain victory, so those things were all overcome-able).
QuoteReminds me of the elderly protestors against the 2009 Affordable Care Act in the U.S. claiming to be "Tea Party" and carrying signs that read "Keep the federal government away from my Medicare," a remarkably stupid and misinformed position -
Were most of them old or is this your stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry? The pictures I remember of the Tea Party were of middle-aged and young people.
Which actually fits well for the northern/midlands/welsh people who tipped the balance on Thursday - the people who lost out the most by free movement with Eastern Europe where our minimum wage is a decent wage there: poor, working-class people of employment age. The Chairman of the Remain campaign said that post-Brexit wages would go up, food prices would go down - that's bad news if you are a CEO like him. It's telling that the Cotswolds, Chilterns and Chelsea were in favour of Remain, despite being Tory strongholds (who were meant to be where the support for Brexit was happening, if you believed Labour) - they are where people have au pairs from poorer parts of Europe, where house prices are sky high due to demand and people don't want to see them reduce due to lower population growth. However, higher wages and lower food costs are great if you are a poor person - so the Labour heartlands went massively for Leave.
The Labour party was just beating to UKIP to second last year (who, thankfully, killed the far worse BNP who were filling a similar gap in the market) and in response, the grass-roots elected a hard-left, highly EU-skeptic Leader. And then they wanting him to lead their Remain campaign and are now seeking to sack him because he didn't convince their natural demographics of something he wasn't commited to because of how it screws over the people for whom the party is all about (the working class) but was forced to push for as it was party policy.** The left in the UK will now be almost solely a middle-class pursuit due to a refusal to listen to people that these parties claim to represent - it needs to hear, not smear, the Tea Party equivalent. Or in walk people like Donald Drumpf (who is just as much a protest against the Democrats as the Republicans - many primary voters who voted for him were not registered Republicans: he won states by Dems/Inds voting for the authoritarian centrist) to replace them in the halls of power!
**though only 36% of actual Labour voters voted for Leave - just one percent more than SNP voters, and the Leader of the SNP is suggesting that there is no one in Scotland (not just the SNP voters) who voted Leave. :crazy:
Quotethough I also strongly suspect that the young people of Britain, just like the United States, are not very interested in voting, which enables the political power of those codgers.
I gather that, had they turned up at the average turnout rate, the result would have been different. However the least embarrassing figure I've seen was that something like 35% of under-35s showed up, when over 90% of their parents (well 55-65) turned up to vote about 57-43 to Leave.
Those blaming old people for (to a small extent - even the oldest groups - the ones that lived through WW2 - were only about 60-40 in favour of leaving, rather than the 79-21 in favour of Remaining that under 25s voted) reversing the small-minded and xenophobic decision to have a UK foreign policy where Europe is massively more important than anywhere else are seeking a scapegoat, seeking to vilify, other and condemn a demographic group out of hatred and prejudice. :banghead:
18-35 is the biggest generation in the UK and the one that leant one-way the hardest. They had the result in their hands, and they chose to barely bother to show up. It's their fault Remain lost but Generation Snowflake must bigotedly blame the people who put us in the EEC in 1975 in the first place for the reason we won't be in it post-2018 as they can't take responsibility for their own inaction, unlike the generation that has now corrected the mistake they made 41 years ago to massively weaken our ties with places outside Europe in favour of a quick buck.
Quote(5) The only big winner in all of this is the kleptocracy that Czar Vladimir Putin runs in Moscow.
The small noises he made were mostly that he would prefer us in - we get the EU imposing sanctions that keep his approval rating up as he can rely on the 'no one likes us we don't care' nationalism (the EU's disdain for opening some sort of mutually benificial relationship with Russia, but rather keeping the Cold War mindset from 1990 on saw him rise in popularity over the less hardline people like Yeltsin, even though he's fairly moderate these days), we'll stop the EU army where the justification the Eurocrats are giving is to show Putin who's boss - something that (like the anti-Russian law the EU-backed coup in Ukraine made to try and convince the EU that Ukraine was willing to work with the EU) Putin will have to act on by going to war. When the EU basically says to the US 'thanks, but no thanks' then MAD has disappeared and Russia is fighting the military might of France* with some ground troops, mostly from Poland.
*whom the UK will keep its military alliance formed in recent years, though not to the extent of being sucked in military action against Russia - we learnt from the mistakes of the Bush-Blair years.
QuoteGetting the EU (and its constituent nations) and eventually NATO to break apart
The two are mutually exclusive - the EU is actively trying to supplant NATO (as the US is involved and they are not European and therefore shouldn't be involved - petty regionalism at its most stupid).
Quoteallows him to achieve objectives of re-establishing the Soviet Empire and perhaps even taking over nations that were never east of the Iron Curtain (so his oligarchs have more economies to plunder).
Don't forget the tinfoil hats to stop him reading our mind! :pan:
Putin doesn't want power over all Europe - he wants to be allowed in the club, but if he's excluded (like he is now) he wants a strong EU, backed by NATO, so that he isn't forced to do this to keep the serious hardliners out of office who will make Drumpf look sane.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 10:21:44 PM
Also submitting this for consideration http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Varoufakis-Blames-Neoliberals-Like-Hillary-Clinton-for-Brexit-20160625-0008.html
What I don't get is why Varoufakis - who was given office on an anti-EU mandate, and was thwarted time and time again, supported Remain given that Remain was always going to be seen as a vote of confidence in the current scenario. As he says "OUT won because the EU establishment have made it impossible, through their anti-democratic reign (not to mention the asphyxiation of weaker countries like Greece), for the people of Britain to imagine a democratic EU." Britain left because the Remain camp's desire to see Reform was treated with not just apathy, but revulsion by the EUrocrats.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
3) Where do you think the EU gets the money to spend in Cornwall in the first place? There is no reason why the UK can't give development money to these places (and the ones that, due to the Eurocrisis haven't got any richer, but don't qualify now because the EU average income has fallen) out of the money it used to give to Brussels.
The best analogy might be the Appalachian region of the United States. The states that make up that part of the nation have not had the resources or will to support expensive development projects there, but the federal government, through its Appalachian Regional Commission has - and the result has been (relevant to AAROADS) new and expensive highway projects like Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Corridor H and the rest of the ADHS corridors (http://www.arc.gov/adhs). I believe the EU has a program similar to ADHS (perhaps this (http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/projects/items/road_infrastructure_projects_bridge_gap_between_newer_and_older_eu_member_states_en.htm)).
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
And then the lower barriers Britain is now free to seek with it's nature trading markets across the world will surely help both us and them. A bit more competition in Europe will also help, forcing EU countries to become more friendly for investment and business (Ireland, whose 'Celtic Tiger' successes are owed to free-market policies of low taxes, limited Government interference kept getting told by the EU to raise their taxes. Post-bailout it has struggled to recover as the ECB keep trying to get it that they aren't undermining other EU nations by having lower taxes than them, but is thankfully able to assert enough autonomy that there was a recovery in Dublin at least).
Trading markets with whom? Red China? Trading with them is more like exporting as many jobs as possible to Shenzen, and the resulting profits used to further Red Chinese imperialist objectives. Like it or not, the closest nations to (formerly) Great Britain are across the Channel.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
Iceland's President came out yesterday and said that they find their non-membership of the EU a good thing, that we would too, and that Brexit is good news for Iceland. Not everyone shares the doom and gloom of those that backed the wrong horse.
Iceland?
Iceland? The UK has regional authorities with greater population than Iceland, and while I like and respect them (and have visited there), statements by Icelandic politicians on the subject of Brexit carry little weight with me.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
Indeed they won't be sent home. They are already there, but the immigration argument took two main forms
1) The negative one worrying about numbers due to EU expansion in the Balkans and Turkey, plus the issues of Schengen meaning ISIS (and those fleeing ISIS) in Syria and Iraq would be one border away from Calais, thanks to plans hashed out in prep for talks between the EU and Turkey that were to start this week (delayed because of the British vote because they knew, like various regulations that will hit Britain harder, that the British people wouldn't be happy with it). There was an element of Islamaphobia against Turkey (though the UK has supported their membership in the face of severe EU xenophobia against Turkish membership - until last week, when the Turkish ambassador rebuked Cameron whom they thought was their closest ally for abandoning their bid), but the main issue was the population of Turkey - numbers, not nature.
The U.S. Republican Party has tried (and mostly failed) to use claims of massive immigration of Syrian terrorists to the United States as a reason to vote for them and the presumptive presidential nominee. Turkey has long been a member of NATO, strengthening its southern flank against Soviet Russian (Russian today) imperialist objectives.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
4) The arrogance of Labour. They kept saying that the EU referendum was a Tory civil war and Labour areas would all vote to Remain. They didn't - the deeper the working-class red vote was, the more likely it was to go for Leave (Liverpool excepted).
It was a failure of leadership in Labor (for failing to support remain) and the Conservatives for setting the referendum in the first place. Cameron's done, and Corbyn ought to be done as well.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
Were most of them old or is this your stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry? The pictures I remember of the Tea Party were of middle-aged and young people.
The Republican Party is an
elderly party above all else (and the so-called Tea Party is just the right wing of an already very conservative Republican Party). The holders of those signs were
elderly (at least above the age of eligibility for Medicare, usually 65). They see government-funded health care as something that they are entitled to (even if they seem to be unaware that it is funded by the U.S. federal government), and nobody else should be able to get health care unless they have a generous employer or are independently wealthy.
U.S.-based and non-partisan Politifact waded into the fray as a result of statements made by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) - Tim Kaine on Brexit vote: Young people voted to stay, old people voted to leave (http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/26/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-brexit-vote-young-people-voted-stay-old-/).
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
3) The arrogance of the EU
Agreed.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
18-35 is the biggest generation in the UK and the one that leant one-way the hardest. They had the result in their hands, and they chose to barely bother to show up. It's their fault Remain lost but Generation Snowflake must bigotedly blame the people who put us in the EEC in 1975 in the first place for the reason we won't be in it post-2018 as they can't take responsibility for their own inaction, unlike the generation that has now corrected the mistake they made 41 years ago to massively weaken our ties with places outside Europe in favour of a quick buck.
Generally correct. But like it or not, Europe, not the former Empire, are the natural trading partners for Britain.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
Which actually fits well for the northern/midlands/welsh people who tipped the balance on Thursday - the people who lost out the most by free movement with Eastern Europe where our minimum wage is a decent wage there: poor, working-class people of employment age. The Chairman of the Remain campaign said that post-Brexit wages would go up, food prices would go down - that's bad news if you are a CEO like him. It's telling that the Cotswolds, Chilterns and Chelsea were in favour of Remain, despite being Tory strongholds (who were meant to be where the support for Brexit was happening, if you believed Labour) - they are where people have au pairs from poorer parts of Europe, where house prices are sky high due to demand and people don't want to see them reduce due to lower population growth. However, higher wages and lower food costs are great if you are a poor person - so the Labour heartlands went massively for Leave.
Has anyone given any thought to the damage done to the British (or maybe I should just say English) economy by trading with Red China and India and other nations with
really low-wage economies? And there's this from the Washington Post: The startling human toll of Brexit (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/26/the-startling-human-toll-of-brexit/)
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
The small noises he made were mostly that he would prefer us in - we get the EU imposing sanctions that keep his approval rating up as he can rely on the 'no one likes us we don't care' nationalism (the EU's disdain for opening some sort of mutually benificial relationship with Russia, but rather keeping the Cold War mindset from 1990 on saw him rise in popularity over the less hardline people like Yeltsin, even though he's fairly moderate these days), we'll stop the EU army where the justification the Eurocrats are giving is to show Putin who's boss - something that (like the anti-Russian law the EU-backed coup in Ukraine made to try and convince the EU that Ukraine was willing to work with the EU) Putin will have to act on by going to war. When the EU basically says to the US 'thanks, but no thanks' then MAD has disappeared and Russia is fighting the military might of France* with some ground troops, mostly from Poland.
*whom the UK will keep its military alliance formed in recent years, though not to the extent of being sucked in military action against Russia - we learnt from the mistakes of the Bush-Blair years.
I was no fan of the military (mis)adventures promoted by the Dick Cheney/George W. Bush Administration in Iraq. Hugely expensive, and the nation that has benefited the most is Iran.
But containing Russian imperialism and Putin and his oligarchs is an entirely different matter. Putin is no friend of England or the Western system of democracy (and the oligarchs understand full well that war against the West is bad for
beezniss - war against NATO never happened during the Cold War, and it will not happen now). One more from the Post: How Brexit is a win for Putin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/how-brexit-is-a-win-for-putin/2016/06/25/800e4d3c-3b06-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html) and one from the NYT: The Security Consequences of Brexit (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/the-security-consequences-of-brexit.html)
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
The two are mutually exclusive - the EU is actively trying to supplant NATO (as the US is involved and they are not European and therefore shouldn't be involved - petty regionalism at its most stupid).
The Baltics were certainly happy to join both NATO and the EU (and there are U.S. Marines in eastern Estonia right now, much to the rage of Vlad Putin). Norway and Iceland are members of NATO but not the EU.
Quote from: english si on June 26, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
Putin doesn't want power over all Europe - he wants to be allowed in the club, but if he's excluded (like he is now) he wants a strong EU, backed by NATO, so that he isn't forced to do this to keep the serious hardliners out of office who will make Drumpf look sane.
I strongly disagree. Putin, just like Joe Stalin and before him, most of the Czars, were all imperialists at heart. What bothers Putin the most is that Mikhail Gorbachev gave up the Soviet Russian empire in East Germany, Poland and the other nations behind the Iron Curtain, and he wants that empire back, though not if it means war against NATO.
And there's a significant difference between Russian imperialism and British imperialism. Britain left most of its empire in at least somewhat better condition after withdrawal (an exception might be Pakistan, but that came about as much because of the hatred between Islam and Hinduism), but only thanks to the EU are the former nations of the Soviet Eastern European empire better-off now (though I have major problems with the neo-fascist government of Hungary and the extremely conservative government in Poland).
Finally, there's this: An astute online comment has some wondering whether Brexit may ever happen (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/26/an-astute-online-comment-has-many-wondering-whether-brexit-may-ever-happen/)
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/
XT1585
Quote from: Rothman on June 24, 2016, 02:37:13 PM
That said, I've always thought that either country just needs a wave of ultra-nationalism covertly funded by the Russian Putin regime and the EU is kaput.
FTFY.
If nothing else, the vote will remind voters of the importance of actually showing up to cast your ballot.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 12:35:03 PMTrading markets with whom? Red China?
Communist China doesn't produce goods or buy goods - it's little more subsistence-level farming in the few places in China where it is still practised. It's Capitalist China (whose produce is mostly stuff that we don't make (we shipped our low-end manufacturing to Europe and beyond decades ago) or won't travel, so we have almost nothing to lose - but you'd have known that if you'd had any understanding of the UK economy). And I don't recall suggesting China - in fact a search through this thread says that the first mention of it in this thread is what I'm quoting here.
I could continue to type a lengthy reply showing how your post was a big load of nonsense, but this quote is an example to show, in microcosm, that you are almost completely ignorant of the relevant information and rely on outdated notions (the 'red scare' - what is it, 1985?), prejudice, fear-mongering and bigoted xenophobia to make your points (which explains why you didn't think the Remain campaign was bad - you are using the same hate-stirring fallacious bollocks). That you used the straw man fallacy on top of all that too, just adds to why I shouldn't bother typing a lengthy reposte: you'll either not understand it, or will wilfully misunderstand it.
Oh, and to answer your question:
- Iceland (never underestimate Iceland - which is indeed smaller in population than most of the Regional Authorities in the UK, because there's only one and it has the population of Austria, ie it is bigger than 38 of your United States (up to and including Virginia) - England, Portugal, and hopefully tonight France, did so to their peril), who were so keen that they announced it within the 60 hours between the result and my post, despite most of those hours being weekend.
- Mexico (who have a draft proposal for a deal written up already!)
- New Zealand (who have offered to second their trade deal negotiators so we can deal with the influx of requests)
- Australia (pretty sure both main parties said they would - if it's only one, well they will have at least 49.9% of the vote in the election and so a lot of say!)
- South Korea
- Ghana
- the EU (now waiting for us to leave formally so it can offer us the proposal its already worked out)
- the US
- and all other people who want to do business with us, and we would them, but haven't yet said.
10-some other EU member nations have minorities of parliaments express interest in withdrawal from the EU. They are Greece, Italy, Sweden (non-Eurozone), Poland (also non-Eurozone), the Czechs (same), the Netherlands (they voted strongly against the rejected EU constitution proposal), Portugal, Spain, and even Denmark, Ireland and France. In the former East Germany, there's a joke: "we changed our money twice: the first was reunification adapting to the West German Mark, and then was solely the Euro, expect the Eurozone to collapse and we change again", LOL.
Quote from: english si on July 03, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 12:35:03 PMTrading markets with whom? Red China?
Communist China doesn't produce goods or buy goods - it's little more subsistence-level farming in the few places in China where it is still practised. It's Capitalist China (whose produce is mostly stuff that we don't make (we shipped our low-end manufacturing to Europe and beyond decades ago) or won't travel, so we have almost nothing to lose - but you'd have known that if you'd had any understanding of the UK economy). And I don't recall suggesting China - in fact a search through this thread says that the first mention of it in this thread is what I'm quoting here.
China is still run by Communists. Need I say more? Even the "capitalist" part.
Quote from: english si on July 03, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
I could continue to type a lengthy reply showing how your post was a big load of nonsense, but this quote is an example to show, in microcosm, that you are almost completely ignorant of the relevant information and rely on outdated notions (the 'red scare' - what is it, 1985?), prejudice, fear-mongering and bigoted xenophobia to make your points (which explains why you didn't think the Remain campaign was bad - you are using the same hate-stirring fallacious bollocks). That you used the straw man fallacy on top of all that too, just adds to why I shouldn't bother typing a lengthy reposte: you'll either not understand it, or will wilfully misunderstand it.
1985? When the United States was run by a president that was hugely popular with some (not me - I consider that man to be one of the
worst presidents of the 20th century), not exactly the sharpest tool in the box (compare and contrast with your PM at the time, Margaret Thatcher).
I do not like imperialists, be they with names like Putin or Mao or Stalin or Catherine the Great or James Knox Polk.
Quote from: english si on July 03, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
Oh, and to answer your question:
- Iceland (never underestimate Iceland - which is indeed smaller in population than most of the Regional Authorities in the UK, because there's only one and it has the population of Austria, ie it is bigger than 38 of your United States (up to and including Virginia) - England, Portugal, and hopefully tonight France, did so to their peril), who were so keen that they announced it within the 60 hours between the result and my post, despite most of those hours being weekend.
- Mexico (who have a draft proposal for a deal written up already!)
- New Zealand (who have offered to second their trade deal negotiators so we can deal with the influx of requests)
- Australia (pretty sure both main parties said they would - if it's only one, well they will have at least 49.9% of the vote in the election and so a lot of say!)
- South Korea
- Ghana
- the EU (now waiting for us to leave formally so it can offer us the proposal its already worked out)
- the US
- and all other people who want to do business with us, and we would them, but haven't yet said.
Do you think that all of those nations are going to have more economic heft than the 27 nations of the EU? Note that I am not saying that you should not trade with most of them, because nations should trade with each other.
The North Korean example of
juche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) does not seem to work especially well.
And FWIW, I admire Iceland and the Icelandic people. The embassy of Iceland in Washington is a tenant of the Swedish embassy - smart move on the part of the Icelandic government.
Have you considered the damage that will be incurred by Britain as companies move away? Consider this (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-finance-cities-pounce-on-london-after-brexit-vote-1467345602) from the Wall Street Journal.
Bottom line - the remain people ran a terrible campaign, and apparently did not bother to reach out to young voters - not sure if that was a matter of laziness or stupidity or arrogance or something else.
But a Britain (or just England or maybe England and Wales) will be a diminished nation without Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that is
inevitable if Brexit happens.
In personal terms, I consider myself a friend of Britain and admire many aspects of the British nation (with the possible exception of driving on the left). I consider Brexit a self-inflicted wound and I find it interesting that the leaders involved in Brexit are leaving politics either of their own will or being forced out.
The only thing that happened is that the UK voted to be a sovereign country that is not controlled by Brussels. The UK is now free to negotiate their own trade agreements just like the US and Canada (and almost every other country) already do.
The alarmist idea that this was a black and white vote is, of course, silly. Free of the EU, the world's 5th largest economy will still trade with Europe, be it a continued EU or the much more likely (and better) eventual result of a former EU, as now. Just freed of the silly "ever closer union" idiocy of currency union, Euro armies, Euro foreign policy, and having to accomodate the "refugees" (combination of economic migrants and people who are just as extreme as those they are fleeing from, just with a different Caliph in mind), all the while being subject to a "court" where nations that gased people two generations ago and shot people trying to leave their socialistic paradise not 35 years ago lecture the birthplace of the Rule of Law.
The UK, free and soverign, will be just fine and some Eurocrat will eventually have to find actual work.
As to Northern Ireland, the idea the borders will be put in place is silly. As to Scotland, the idea that it can make it as an actual country is moreso. Once the oil runs out, you have golf, sheep, and far-left politicians issuing IOUs.
The state of the EU 2016:
An Irish, Portuguese and Greek customers enter the bar.
A German pays for their tab.
DUN DUN DUN DASH!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2016, 10:36:07 PMChina is still run by Communists. Need I say more? Even the "capitalist" part.
"Communists" - in name only. Sure they are one party totalitarians, but they have mostly rejected the ideology, especially the economic stuff. It doesn't make much difference anyway, my main point was how your argument that Brexit is bad is based on fear and hatred of those not like you and Red scare is very much that.
Quote1985? When the United States was run by a president that was hugely popular with some (not me - I consider that man to be one of the worst presidents of the 20th century), not exactly the sharpest tool in the box (compare and contrast with your PM at the time, Margaret Thatcher).
And the point goes wooosh over your head. Unsuprisingly - I said as much.
QuoteI do not like imperialists, be they with names like Putin or Mao or Stalin or Catherine the Great or James Knox Polk.
Or Jean-Claude Junker or Donald Tusk or Martin Shultz?
Anti-imperialists sided with Leave and voted Leave out of anti-imperialism. Remain spent a lot of energy lying through their teeth about the EU Army (the official announcement from the Commission was meant to happen late last month, but events have overshadowed it) and other imperialist trappings of the EU, because they knew they were screwed if they didn't portray official EU policy as myths made up by xenophobic Leavers.
QuoteDo you think that all of those nations are going to have more economic heft than the 27 nations of the EU?
Given they include the 27 nations of the EU, then duh! Did you even read the list?
QuoteNote that I am not saying that you should not trade with most of them, because nations should trade with each other.
Exactly - and that was the problem with the EU - it wasn't about trade, but about blocs.
QuoteThe North Korean example of juche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) does not seem to work especially well.
And no one voted for juche! OK, maybe a few hardcore EU-philes who wanted Remain to keep us inside the EU's disdain for the world outside Europe (which is growing as the Eurozone economy continues to stagnate and there's the brink of the population collapse - a more inward-focussed EU is part of the managed decline strategy starting to gain traction).
QuoteHave you considered the damage that will be incurred by Britain as companies move away? Consider this (http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-finance-cities-pounce-on-london-after-brexit-vote-1467345602) from the Wall Street Journal.
Yes - we've lost none. Yet again (try reading around the subject - all you've posted is WSJ articles) the WSJ is completely clueless. Frankfurt and Paris have been trying to get in on the London action for years and failed. Frankfurt even got EU laws passed designed to scupper the City of London (the UK vetoed a tax we'd have paid 93% of, but that veto wasn't allowed to stand) and they have done jack shit to move business to Germany. EU markets are falling faster than the UK - it's not just Brexit (Italy looks close to imploding like Greece), but Brexit was the trigger for a massive collapse in Frankfurt and Paris.
Today, Siemens announced that they were staying (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnJ0vr1XEAAbs-K.jpg), despite saying otherwise on the orders of Osborne (out of his job tomorrow? I hope so!) before the vote.
QuoteBottom line - the remain people ran a terrible campaign
Yes - it was xenophobic, bigoted and hateful
- to non-EU countries and their inhabitents.
- 'Red China', etc aren't to be trusted
- Iceland/Albania/Norway/Switzerland are rubbish and who wants to be like them
- Russia needs a strong EU to be able to stop it (a strong and aggressive EU is what's provoking Putin to attack, having tried to be friends and it falling on deaf ears). Putin was actually never supportive of Brexit (or Czexit or Nexit, and was happy for Ukraine to seek closer ties with the EU, provided they didn't loosen ties with Russia - it was the EU who demanded an either/or approach) and issued a statement saying that there were good and bad things about it for Russia.
- Americans are rednecks who
- Turkey is definitely not joining the EU (said by the biggest pusher for Turkish membership of the EU)
- to those who were voting Leave and on the fence
- that Leave was racist, despite many like me voting for Leave to end the Euro-supremacy of our trade and migration policies
- that Leave was Little Englander, despite Wales (and not small proportions of Scots and Irish) voting Leave, and the Leave campaign being fronted by classic Liberals who wanted to leave Little European mindsets behind
- that Leave killed Jo Cox (even UKIP horror rhetoric didn't kill Jo Cox - someone stark raving mad did) - Will Straw (who is having a bad time recently - heading up the official Remain campaign that failed to everyone's dismay, then his father's being torn to pieces by Chilcot a week later) actually made this campaign strategy
- to the other 27 countries, and the EU itself
- that they would illegally (EU treaty law, and WTO rules) put up barriers between them and their best customer out of spite
- that it needs reform and therefore we must be in it to make it not a shitty organisation as the other 27 countries don't seem to care about it
- that they'd deport UK citizens living in their countries, despite that being a horrific act under international law - of course, PM (well tomorrow) May has refused to say that EU citizens won't be as her Remain stance means she feels she needs to keep the threat of deportation as a bargaining chip (despite every major Leaver, and a majority of the Commons, demanding that assurances to EU nationals living in the UK are given ASAP) as she believes the Remainiac bullshit that the EU27 aren't to be trusted to act in a sensible manner.
- that it will mean a return to the Troubles in Ireland, Gibraltar invaded and World War Three.
Quoteand apparently did not bother to reach out to young voters - not sure if that was a matter of laziness or stupidity or arrogance or something else.
Just yesterday, the low turnout was found to be wrong, and it's actually the case that young voters did vote in fairly high numbers, and the alleged 70-30 splits for Remain were bad polling.
Certainly Labour's arrogant stance, that Corbyn was forced to go along with, that Labour is for Remain as no Labour people would ever dream of Brexit (71% of Labour-held seats in Westminster voted Leave), is hilarious as someone who despises Blairism and Brownism and thinks Bennism (now Corbynism) is honourable, but very very misguided (right on the EU though). But it's terrible for our country: either Labour have a leader that can't lead and has most of the parliamentary party against him but is fairly popular with the wider party (though less so the general population), or Labour have a leader who is out of touch with the party outside of parliament and is even less likely to lead them to victory. There's no real opposition, and Theresa May has just been coronated as PM without much of a fight.
QuoteBut a Britain (or just England or maybe England and Wales) will be a diminished nation without Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that is inevitable if Brexit happens.
Scotland will not leave the Union - the EU has made it clear that the Scottish Government need to respect the vote of 2014 that the Scottish people want to be part of the UK and the vote of 2016 where the UK decided to Leave. Independence will not mean EU membership, which would be the key reason to get it (Spain and Belgium will veto membership for internal issues and are openly saying so, the EU itself refuses to talk and will need a lot of winning around).
Northern Ireland has had everyone involved say that there's not the conditions for a vote - specifically a lack of a clear majority. Wales definitely isn't going from the UK - it was for Leave more than England!
QuoteIn personal terms, I consider myself a friend of Britain and admire many aspects of the British nation
Then why do you despise 17m+ of its people's choice so much? Why do you think it re-gaining the right to self-determination is so bad?
QuoteI consider Brexit a self-inflicted wound
Remain would have been a self-inflicted wound. Unless you think a whiter, less open to the outside world, country that's part of a collapsing bloc that isn't democratic, but it's law sits above this country's parliament's law, is a good thing.
Quotethe leaders involved in Brexit are leaving politics either of their own will or being forced out.
Corbyn is last Brexiteer standing ;)
Farage has done his live's ambition and it's time for a more 'red-UKIP' person (ie one who'll appeal lots in Labour areas and thus clean up in the next GE, rather than a middle-class former stockbroker who'll get a lot of votes, but not take them over the line in the north) to take over. Boris got stabbed in the back by Gove and then Gove got shunned as the Conservatives don't like that sort of thing. Leadsom was well out of her depth and gaff-prone, leaving May to claim number 10.
Corbyn is clinging on because they know that Corbyn will win any leadership ballot (and his Leave-leaning and lukewarm support for Remain suits the heartlands more, but the party itself are still in denial about that) as the parliamentary party is completely and utterly unrepresentative of the membership (OK, the electorate isn't behind Corbyn, but probably is more so than any one who might throw their hat into the ring) and not just on Brexit. Angela Eagle, who threw her hat into the ring and started a leadership challenge at the wrong time yesterday, has been threatened with deselection by her constituency party for doing so (and these aren't entryists who paid £3 to elect Corbyn). I gather that he's got the votes from MPs to be allowed to stand against Eagle (despite rule changes that meant he had to), so perhaps the parliamentary party isn't totally hating Corbyn.