Brexit Thread

[InsaneApache]

This thread needs some reggae...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPeCHvAJCEQ

[Sarmatian]

And in latest news, Iceland also supports Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One imagines Norway will support it too.

if the UK rejoins the EFTA then that block suddenly has much more punch. If the UK makes a go of it you may well see Swexit followed by Dexit (Danexit?) and then you could see two trading blocks, a "core" EU and an EFTA that trades in the same market but pays less into the budget and doesn't partake in the Quasi Federalism.

[Sarmatian]

One imagines Norway will support it too.

if the UK rejoins the EFTA then that block suddenly has much more punch. If the UK makes a go of it you may well see Swexit followed by Dexit (Danexit?) and then you could see two trading blocks, a "core" EU and an EFTA that trades in the same market but pays less into the budget and doesn't partake in the Quasi Federalism.

Yeah, right. Basically, at this point you guys should be happy if you keep United in the title.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, right. Basically, at this point you guys should be happy if you keep United in the title.

I offer one possible scenario.

At this point Scottish Independence is inevitable, it's a question of when - not if - and that's been true since the Scottish Parliament was created. It's the logical Conclusion of a process begun more than a century ago when we began granting Self Rule to the Colonies and making them into Dominions.

[Pannonian]

And in latest news, Iceland also supports Brexit.

One imagines Norway will support it too.

if the UK rejoins the EFTA then that block suddenly has much more punch. If the UK makes a go of it you may well see Swexit followed by Dexit (Danexit?) and then you could see two trading blocks, a "core" EU and an EFTA that trades in the same market but pays less into the budget and doesn't partake in the Quasi Federalism.

*Whoosh*

"Seems we're desperate to get out of Europe in all ways." - Gary Lineker (on twitter)

[Pannonian]

Yeah, right. Basically, at this point you guys should be happy if you keep United in the title.

I prefer London City, or South East United. Dunno what colours to wear though. Whatever happens though, England are rubbish.

[Gilrandir]

As such, if London leaves, it will no longer act like a magnet, thus it would give rise to growth and prosperity to other cities such as Manchester, Edinburgh, etc.


Even if London doesn't leave, Edinburgh is likely to.


Yeah, right. Basically, at this point you guys should be happy if you keep United in the title.

I wonder whether it will still be GREAT Britain or will they change that title as well?


Meanwhile, bigotry is gathering momentum:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

*Whoosh*

"Seems we're desperate to get out of Europe in all ways." - Gary Lineker (on twitter)

Oh, that was a football reference, wasn't it?

See - I thought Sarmation had read something I hadn't and was making a serious contribution because Iceland, like Norwary, is part of the ETFA.

Silly me.

[Husar]

I wonder whether it will still be GREAT Britain or will they changed that title as well?

I propose North Britain and South Britain. The North can then worship Farage as the eternal great leader and begin to build a dynasty. His followers will be called Il Farage and Un Farage. Remain voters will be sent to Labour Camps (pun intended) for the glory of the Working Peoples' Republic of North Britannia. :clown:


[...]part of the ETFA.

The European Trade-Free Area? (no offense intended) :clown:

[InsaneApache]

Will anyone join me in sending a petition to Parliament to insist on replaying last night’s match and refusing to accept any result where the winning team scores fewer than 4 goals and is not leading by at least 2 goals at the final whistle?

According to the BBC and the Guardian the Icelanders are beginning to regret winning and, had they known the full facts before the match, would have given England a 2-goal start.

:laugh4:

Some good news at last.

The thick tongued twat Jamie Oliver will leave the UK if Boris becomes PM. I'll personally ring a taxi for him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662597/Jamie-Oliver-vows-quit-Britain-Boris-Johnson-PM-Brexit.html

[Husar]

Someone from Leave should rather ask for a referendum to make the referendum legally binding because otherwise this Brexit thing will have to wait until enough MPs support it or may never go through if such MPs are not elected into office anyway.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-loophole-eu-referendum-mps-law-legal-legislation-constitution-a7105181.html


Mr Robertson said there had been "a lot of stupid statements" suggesting Britain could simply send a note to the EU to trigger "Article 50" of the Lisbon Treaty, which lays out the process under which states can leave. The article itself says a state can only leave in accordance with "its own constitutional requirements".

"Our most fundamental constitutional requirement is that the decision must be taken by parliament. It will require a bill," he said.

"In November, the situation may have totally changed. According to polls, a million vote leavers appear to have changed their mind, that could be five million by the November."

I mean, I've said it before, but now you have an article to go with it.

[AntiDamascus]

It would be funny to see the dog catch the car, not know what to do with it and end up letting it go in shock.
I'm pretty sure these guys don't want to do anything because now they'll actually have to lead and try to solve problems and find out it's tough to do. This whole thing was meant to be a show on everyone's side. This was designed to be a topic to be talked about and used as a tool to gather votes and such, not to actually be passed. It's like the repeal of the ACA, it's more worth their time to yell about it than actually try to replace it because that's hard and then they can't blame anyone else but themselves.

[Pannonian]

It would be funny to see the dog catch the car, not know what to do with it and end up letting it go in shock.
I'm pretty sure these guys don't want to do anything because now they'll actually have to lead and try to solve problems and find out it's tough to do. This whole thing was meant to be a show on everyone's side. This was designed to be a topic to be talked about and used as a tool to gather votes and such, not to actually be passed. It's like the repeal of the ACA, it's more worth their time to yell about it than actually try to replace it because that's hard and then they can't blame anyone else but themselves.

Take back control (https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/746488316510482433)

[Sarmatian]

It would be funny to see the dog catch the car, not know what to do with it and end up letting it go in shock.
I'm pretty sure these guys don't want to do anything because now they'll actually have to lead and try to solve problems and find out it's tough to do. This whole thing was meant to be a show on everyone's side. This was designed to be a topic to be talked about and used as a tool to gather votes and such, not to actually be passed. It's like the repeal of the ACA, it's more worth their time to yell about it than actually try to replace it because that's hard and then they can't blame anyone else but themselves.

That's the funniest part. Most of the politicians who supported or courted with Brexit idea, did it out of the populist reasons, never expecting it will actually happen.

For years they've been spewing populist bollox about uniqueness of Britain, Brussels oppression, lack of democracy, economic slowdown... And now they're actually surprised people bought it. Kinda like American conservatives with Trump. Suddenly everyone is surprised.

As the saying goes, you made your bed...

[CrossLOPER]

This is dumb. Just give your country back to France. Or Italy. Or Denmark. You don't know what you're doing.

[Greyblades]

"fine leave" "you cant leave" "You wont leave" "you're stupid for leaving" "you're stupid for thinking we care" "leave already" "you'll never leave" "you cant survive without me!"


Christ you're like a jilted lovers.

[Sarmatian]

"fine leave" "you cant leave" "You wont leave" "you're stupid for leaving" "you're stupid for thinking we care" "leave already" "you'll never leave" "you cant survive without me!"


Christ you're like a jilted lovers.

Being someone who's unaffected at either end, I'd focus on "you're stupid for leaving".

[Husar]

"fine leave" "you cant leave" "You wont leave" "you're stupid for leaving" "you're stupid for thinking we care" "leave already" "you'll never leave" "you cant survive without me!"


Christ you're like a jilted lovers.

At least you now know that we do/did/want to love you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be funny to see the dog catch the car, not know what to do with it and end up letting it go in shock.
I'm pretty sure these guys don't want to do anything because now they'll actually have to lead and try to solve problems and find out it's tough to do. This whole thing was meant to be a show on everyone's side. This was designed to be a topic to be talked about and used as a tool to gather votes and such, not to actually be passed. It's like the repeal of the ACA, it's more worth their time to yell about it than actually try to replace it because that's hard and then they can't blame anyone else but themselves.

Bold for emphasis - this is why some of us wanted to leave.

You have effectively admitted that you think the EU prevents National Politicians from leading the countries they are purported to govern.

For some of us, nothing is more important than Democracy.

The Population continues to strain against the "progress" made in the "EU Project", the UK Referendum is not the only negative result for the EU, the French and Dutch had Referenda on the EU Constitution and voted it down, the Irish voted down the Lisbon treaty before the financial crash.

The British were denied a vote on that Treaty, which is why it was ratified - though I imagine many other countries would have killed it too in a Plebiscite.

The EU's politicians don't trust their voters though, so they're forcing them into a political union which is palpably against their will.

The people in the UK are so opposed to this that it has poisoned our political life for decades. Cameron sought to put the issue to bed with the Referendum but do to his inability to negotiate any real concessions from Europe along with general distrust and, finally, the intervention of many European politicians and Institutions telling the British they were foolish to consider Brexit... it happened.

This is the Democratic Backlash from the Democratic Deficit - the EU has two choices, loosen its grip or watch the Union unravel. This is only now dawning on French and German politicians after their hard headedness forced the British out.

[Strike For The South]

Im going to laugh when they don't leave. God, that day will be so satisfying. I may even take a personal day, to bask in it all.

[Greyblades]

This is the Democratic Backlash from the Democratic Deficit - the EU has two choices, loosen its grip or watch the Union unravel. This is only now dawning on French and German politicians after their hard headedness forced the British out.

Assuming this is real, they chose unravel:

European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations 'to be morphed into one' post-Brexit (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit)

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged yesterday.

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

Controversially member states would also lose what few controls they have left over their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

9 pages of the "ultimatum" in english can be found here, scroll down:

http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument

Reading the pages, while covered in euphamism and the occasional hyperbole the express article is correct in that this is a push for further integration. A multinational border and coastguard, sharing the fiscal and human burden of the migrants among the nations, a European monetary fund, it seems clear that the EU isnt backing off on what pushed Britain out.

[Pannonian]

Bold for emphasis - this is why some of us wanted to leave.

You have effectively admitted that you think the EU prevents National Politicians from leading the countries they are purported to govern.

For some of us, nothing is more important than Democracy.

According to the articles I've linked to already, maintenance of current levels of funding, by Westminster replacing that which will be lost from the EU, will be just as important. I'd like the south east to break away and leave the regions to their own devices. London in particular clearly has a different worldview from most of the rest of England.

[InsaneApache]

Christ-on-a-bike.

For the final time this isn't about money.

It's about democracy.

Something you seem to have a feeble grasp of.

[Pannonian]

Christ-on-a-bike.

For the final time this isn't about money.

It's about democracy.

Something you seem to have a feeble grasp of.

And yet the first thing these local governments did was get reassurance that their funding won't be cut as a result of the loss of EU subsidies. Why not volunteer to accept these losses instead, as proof of their belief that we're better outside the EU than in, and that this is a price worth paying?

And according to most who've been asked about their reasons for leaving the EU, the biggest issue wasn't democracy, but immigration. This was particularly the case apparently in those regions with the least immigration. London, with the greatest proportion of non-natives in its population, was the most pro-EU in England.

I wonder what the pro-Leavers here will think if we negotiate a deal which keeps us in the EEA, thus preventing our economy from completely collapsing, but this will of course mean accepting freedom of movement as well. As the case of Switzerland shows, the EU does not allow one without the other. Is this insufficiently outside the EU? Would you vote for one of the far right parties if the Tories negotiate this deal?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

According to the articles I've linked to already, maintenance of current levels of funding, by Westminster replacing that which will be lost from the EU, will be just as important. I'd like the south east to break away and leave the regions to their own devices. London in particular clearly has a different worldview from most of the rest of England.

That's much less important to me than Democracy - it's not why I voted, and I live and grew up in one of the areas affected.

That area will also be affected by no longer being subject to EU rules on farming and fishing. We will be able to set our own quotas and cut our hedges at the correct time of year for Britain, not France or Germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet the first thing these local governments did was get reassurance that their funding won't be cut as a result of the loss of EU subsidies. Why not volunteer to accept these losses instead, as proof of their belief that we're better outside the EU than in, and that this is a price worth paying?

And according to most who've been asked about their reasons for leaving the EU, the biggest issue wasn't democracy, but immigration. This was particularly the case apparently in those regions with the least immigration. London, with the greatest proportion of non-natives in its population, was the most pro-EU in England.

I wonder what the pro-Leavers here will think if we negotiate a deal which keeps us in the EEA, thus preventing our economy from completely collapsing, but this will of course mean accepting freedom of movement as well. As the case of Switzerland shows, the EU does not allow one without the other. Is this insufficiently outside the EU? Would you vote for one of the far right parties if the Tories negotiate this deal?

Pannonian, you're constructing a Strawman.

No one here who voted to leave is primarily concerned with subsidies. Nor are we all that concerned with the issue of immigration, really.

Let's assume we opt for the "Norway" model - that immediately gives us control of farming, fisheries, Justice and Home Affairs. Do you realise that one of the reasons all these reasons need constant cash injections is because the CAP and fishing quotas had reduced them to grinding poverty?

No?

That's why you voted Remain.

[edyzmedieval]

Brexit is going to wreck some serious constitutional havoc in the first place - the UK constitution is uncodified (:book:), is based on a common law system, has fundamental constitutional documents that some are as 800 years old... and with 40 years of Europe within this system, breaking those agreements down and making it work within a "post-Brexit" UK is frankly a legal nightmare for those who will be directly involved in making sure that all of this will work out efficiently and properly after the entire dust and debate has been settled. Constitutionally, the UK is in for some very rough seas and the problem is that nobody knows how this will pan out because you have to unravel all of those European Union treaties, essentially some decades old, take them out and then make sure your constitution works efficiently without any imbalances.

The democratic vote has been cast - and you now have a legal nightmare.

And you have to renegotiate some treaties as well. That's going to be a lot of fun and games in the next two years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, the UK Constitution isn't a huge problem, specific legal provisions will need to be looked at but the EU hasn't had a profound affect on our Constitutional Arrangements - we have resisted writing a Constitution and have maintained a system of Common Law subplemented by the Statute Book.

Off the top of my head the biggest change the EU has affected is separating our judiciary from our legislature by forcing us to create a Suprem court. That's certainly no small thing but in reality it's a de jure change rather than a de facto one.

We'll do what we've always do - stick with the status quo until we need to change it, and if it's a legal mess problems will be dealt with as they come up.

In other news - I feel bad for Poland and Sweden et al as we were the biggest anti-Federalist voice and by leaving we've rather left them on the hook, but there's only so much you can do.

[edyzmedieval]

It's not that simple - after the 1972 European Act, every national law was made in accordance to the European law, particularly the doctrine of European supremacy of law. Taking 40 years of national laws out of the common-law system of statutes is not really the easiest feat to do, and it can cause problems.

[Greyblades]

There's a reason the only people who said it would be easy also crapped themselves when the bandwagon they jumped on actually won.

[Fragony]

Christ-on-a-bike.

For the final time this isn't about money.

It's about democracy.

Something you seem to have a feeble grasp of.

Even if it was only about the money, it doesn't matter, after the expected nosedive everything is recovering just fine. I know where I am going to spend my next holiday, not because England is all that awesome but just because I like you.

[HopAlongBunny]

An Ode to Punditry:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/brexit-media-brexperts-213994

[Pannonian]

Boris Johnson's HQ as the EU referendum result comes in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ&feature=youtu.be)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GQZyP_Odio

Branson wants another Referendum, because people didn't realise what would happen.

[Fragony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GQZyP_Odio

Branson wants another Referendum, because people didn't realise what would happen.

Apart from the end of western civilisation, a continental-crisis and ww3?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The impression I gather is that the UK would happily have stayed in the EEC, but not the EU -- that the UK has been progressively less happy with the whole thing since the Maastricht treaty. In other words, that European economic arrangements made sense to them, but not the EU exerting control over internal policy on social or defense issues.

I could be wrong.

[Fragony]

Your not wrong. No different in the Netherlands.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not that simple - after the 1972 European Act, every national law was made in accordance to the European law, particularly the doctrine of European supremacy of law. Taking 40 years of national laws out of the common-law system of statutes is not really the easiest feat to do, and it can cause problems.

While this is technically true it's not an immediate problem. Parliament can pass a new Act stating that all these laws will remain in place and the 1972 Act is repealed. In the long term, yes, we need to sift through all those EU laws, keep some, repeal some, modify others - in the short term we can maintain the Status Quo. One advantage of our Parliamentary System is that we had to pass a Statute to enact every EU regulation, and those don't just go away - they stay on the Book until repealed.


The impression I gather is that the UK would happily have stayed in the EEC, but not the EU -- that the UK has been progressively less happy with the whole thing since the Maastricht treaty. In other words, that European economic arrangements made sense to them, but not the EU exerting control over internal policy on social or defense issues.

I could be wrong.

That's basically it - even the complaints about "immigration" are complaints about wage depression and the fact that nobody asked..

That's the big thing - transfer of power from the EU after Maastrict and Lisbon from the UK Parliament to the EU without consent of the people who elected the UK Parliament. We elect our politicians to hold the reins of power, not to give them away.

The problem is present across the EU but I think it was felt most keenly here because of our particular history. Other countries likely have breaking points that are a bit further down the road.

[Papewaio]

Bold for emphasis - this is why some of us wanted to leave.

You have effectively admitted that you think the EU prevents National Politicians from leading the countries they are purported to govern.

For some of us, nothing is more important than Democracy.

The Population continues to strain against the "progress" made in the "EU Project", the UK Referendum is not the only negative result for the EU, the French and Dutch had Referenda on the EU Constitution and voted it down, the Irish voted down the Lisbon treaty before the financial crash.

The British were denied a vote on that Treaty, which is why it was ratified - though I imagine many other countries would have killed it too in a Plebiscite.

The EU's politicians don't trust their voters though, so they're forcing them into a political union which is palpably against their will.

The people in the UK are so opposed to this that it has poisoned our political life for decades. Cameron sought to put the issue to bed with the Referendum but do to his inability to negotiate any real concessions from Europe along with general distrust and, finally, the intervention of many European politicians and Institutions telling the British they were foolish to consider Brexit... it happened.

This is the Democratic Backlash from the Democratic Deficit - the EU has two choices, loosen its grip or watch the Union unravel. This is only now dawning on French and German politicians after their hard headedness forced the British out.

tl:dr "The more you tighten your grip, the more countries will slip through your fingers."

Thank you your Worshipfulness

[Sarmatian]

The impression I gather is that the UK would happily have stayed in the EEC, but not the EU -- that the UK has been progressively less happy with the whole thing since the Maastricht treaty. In other words, that European economic arrangements made sense to them, but not the EU exerting control over internal policy on social or defense issues.

I could be wrong.

It all boils down to economic slowdown. Everyone then figures out that "it's them foreigners taking our monies and our jerbs".

In this case, it ended with both sides losing. EU will miss UK, UK will miss EU much more. Their will be a significant short term dip in the UK, and partial recovery soon after. The real loss will be in the opportunities lost.

Now, the interesting part is that if UK wants to avoid real damage to its economy, it will have to stay in the economic area in some way, which translates, for the most part, to "them foreigners are still taking our monies and our jerbs", but now UK will have precious little way
of influencing anything, it's gonna be regulation without representation for them.

In mid to long term, it may prove to be the catalyst for Scotland's secession, thus diminishing influence and respect of UK even more.


This was really a "cake or death" choice, and one must wonder how stupid you have to be to get that one wrong.

Addendum: There is a chance that UK might be able to achieve some kind of deal with EU about "freedom of movement" part which would mean a slightly better outcome for UK, but that was a red line for the EU during the negotiations with the UK and it is highly unlikely that they're gonna accept to that now when UK has already left.

[CrossLOPER]

The EU's politicians don't trust their voters though
That's because the voters are braindead.

[Pannonian]

It all boils down to economic slowdown. Everyone then figures out that "it's them foreigners taking our monies and our jerbs".

In this case, it ended with both sides losing. EU will miss UK, UK will miss EU much more. Their will be a significant short term dip in the UK, and partial recovery soon after. The real loss will be in the opportunities lost.

Now, the interesting part is that if UK wants to avoid real damage to its economy, it will have to stay in the economic area in some way, which translates, for the most part, to "them foreigners are still taking our monies and our jerbs", but now UK will have precious little way
of influencing anything, it's gonna be regulation without representation for them.

In mid to long term, it may prove to be the catalyst for Scotland's secession, thus diminishing influence and respect of UK even more.


This was really a "cake or death" choice, and one must wonder how stupid you have to be to get that one wrong.

Addendum: There is a chance that UK might be able to achieve some kind of deal with EU about "freedom of movement" part which would mean a slightly better outcome for UK, but that was a red line for the EU during the negotiations with the UK and it is highly unlikely that they're gonna accept to that now when UK has already left.

The funniest thing about the eff up is that immigration was the biggest issue for the Brexiters, but it's the areas with the least immigration that are most pro-leave, while the areas with the most immigration were the most pro-remain. London, which has by some distance the most immigrants in the UK by number and by proportion, was by far the most pro-remain region in England. Even Scotland only pipped us by 2%. What's perhaps even funnier is that the British Asians were apparently very pro-Brexit. Thus giving fuel to the ukippers who will be abusing them in years to come, encouraged by the seeming prevalence of fellow racists in this country.

Bloody idiots.

[Greyblades]

This was really a "cake or death" choice, and one must wonder how stupid you have to be to get that one wrong. Says the one guy whose country doesnt have to put up with Brussels... hrm I guess it's not the one guy as that's true for me now too.


That's because the voters are braindead.
One vote not going your way and you immediately lose faith in 17 million people.

Indeed some voters are braindead.


Even Scotland only pipped us by 2%

5.3% actually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014).

[Pannonian]

5.3% actually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014).

You've forgotten to mention the Representation of the People Act of 1918 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918), which enfranchised women over the age of 30. Which has as much relevance to the topic as the poll that you linked to.

EU referendum 2016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028)
Scotland: 62.0% remain
London: 59.9% remain

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

tl:dr "The more you tighten your grip, the more countries will slip through your fingers."

Thank you your Worshipfulness

I assume I missed the reference - possibly because I never figured out what tl:dr meant.


It all boils down to economic slowdown. Everyone then figures out that "it's them foreigners taking our monies and our jerbs".

In this case, it ended with both sides losing. EU will miss UK, UK will miss EU much more. Their will be a significant short term dip in the UK, and partial recovery soon after. The real loss will be in the opportunities lost.

Now, the interesting part is that if UK wants to avoid real damage to its economy, it will have to stay in the economic area in some way, which translates, for the most part, to "them foreigners are still taking our monies and our jerbs", but now UK will have precious little way
of influencing anything, it's gonna be regulation without representation for them.

In mid to long term, it may prove to be the catalyst for Scotland's secession, thus diminishing influence and respect of UK even more.


This was really a "cake or death" choice, and one must wonder how stupid you have to be to get that one wrong.

Addendum: There is a chance that UK might be able to achieve some kind of deal with EU about "freedom of movement" part which would mean a slightly better outcome for UK, but that was a red line for the EU during the negotiations with the UK and it is highly unlikely that they're gonna accept to that now when UK has already left.

In the short term I expect we'll accept the terms of the EFTA, including Freedom of Movement. The sticking point is more likely to be the UK's contribution to the EU budget. The EU negotiators will point to Norway and we'll probably retort that Norway pays too much but they've swept that under the rug because it's not a huge proportion of the budget overall. If the UK ends up paying as much per capita as Norway it will effectively be funding the CAP, which isn't logical given that we'll be cut off from all EU subsidies and grants.


That's because the voters are braindead.

Yes, the EU voters are too stupid to know what's good for them!

Ladies, Gentlemen - the reason we left in human form.


The funniest thing about the eff up is that immigration was the biggest issue for the Brexiters, but it's the areas with the least immigration that are most pro-leave, while the areas with the most immigration were the most pro-remain. London, which has by some distance the most immigrants in the UK by number and by proportion, was by far the most pro-remain region in England. Even Scotland only pipped us by 2%. What's perhaps even funnier is that the British Asians were apparently very pro-Brexit. Thus giving fuel to the ukippers who will be abusing them in years to come, encouraged by the seeming prevalence of fellow racists in this country.

Bloody idiots.

UKIP are not a racist party, though they attract racists - to be sure. UKIP is also now a party without a mission and it's likely it will be fading away now, parts of it will fold back into the Conservative party and it will shed most of the racists in that process.

I didn't vote Leave because I'm a racist, indeed Freedom of Movement is not a major concern for me. Having said that, the status quo was clearly causing wage depression in the richer countries, including the UK and this - along with the CAP and CFP was impoverishing rural areas - and that was a big impetus to Leave.

Wage depression would also affect some lower skilled jobs in urban areas, like taxi driving, which has traditionally been an occupation were British Asians are over-represented.

[Greyblades]

Too Long: Didn't Read


You've forgotten to mention the Representation of the People Act of 1918 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918), which enfranchised women over the age of 30. Which has as much relevance to the topic as the poll that you linked to.

EU referendum 2016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028)
Scotland: 62.0% remain
London: 59.9% remain

Ah, sorry, I had thought you had finally calmed down and remembered you were english, silly me.

[Greyblades]

Remember the spain thing?

Spanish Prime Minister warns Scotland has no right to negotiate with the EU (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14587101.Spanish_Prime_Minister_warns_Scotland_has_no_right_to_negotiate_with_the_EU/)


Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has warned Scotland has no right to negotiate with the EU.

The ultra-unionist Conservative declared: "If the the United Kingdom leaves, then Scotland leaves too."

His intervention came as Nicola Sturgeon prepares for talks with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in Brussels in an historic diplomatic breakthrough.

The First Minister has failed to secure a meeting with Donald Tusk, the Polish president of the European Council, while other states, including Germany, signaled they would not commit to talks.

Mr Rajoy added: "Scotland has no powers to negotiate with the European Union."

Brussels watchers have long expected Spain to "huff and puff" - as once source said - over Scottish membership of the European Union.

The president of Catalonia - which has been barred from holding its own independence referendum by Mr Rajoy and his government - on Wednesday declared that the EU's attitude had changed.

Carles Puigdemont said: "The EU will radically change its idea about the independence of Scotland and Catalonia" because of Brexit.

[Papewaio]

UKIP will need to win enough seats to make the major parties MPs actually vote yes to a Brexit Bill, followed by the Lords agreeing to it.

Until then the referendum is just another poll.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

UKIP will need to win enough seats to make the major parties MPs actually vote yes to a Brexit Bill, followed by the Lords agreeing to it.

Until then the referendum is just another poll.

A larger proportion of the electorate back Brexit than has backed any government in over half century.

I don't believe the majority of our MPs will disregard that.

[Fragony]

The funniest thing about the eff up is that immigration was the biggest issue for the Brexiters, but it's the areas with the least immigration that are most pro-leave, while the areas with the most immigration were the most pro-remain. London, which has by some distance the most immigrants in the UK by number and by proportion, was by far the most pro-remain region in England. Even Scotland only pipped us by 2%. What's perhaps even funnier is that the British Asians were apparently very pro-Brexit. Thus giving fuel to the ukippers who will be abusing them in years to come, encouraged by the seeming prevalence of fellow racists in this country.

Bloody idiots.

Racist racist, maybe the just want to keep things as they are? Just a radical thought that people aren't waiting for no-go area's

[Pannonian]

Racist racist, maybe the just want to keep things as they are? Just a radical thought that people aren't waiting for no-go area's

You've missed the calls to "send them back" then.

[I of the Storm]

Johnson has just chickened out. Bit wimpy, I think. But then his support figures were dropping, so I suppose it was the right thing to do.

Interesting times...

[Fragony]

You've missed the calls to "send them back" then.

I got no problem with that. In Switzerland you can lose your papers just because you refuse to attend school-swimming. That is harsh but fair. No special treatment, if you keep putting your toes in the water you bring it on yourself.

[Pannonian]

I got no problem with that. In Switzerland you can lose your papers just because you refuse to attend school-swimming. That is harsh but fair. No special treatment, if you keep putting your toes in the water you bring it on yourself.

And the increased verbal abuse of foreigners on the street "because we've voted out"? Poles have been getting it in the neck. The next time I pass by I will give the local Polish grocer a bunch of flowers as an apology for last Thursday.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And the increased verbal abuse of foreigners on the street "because we've voted out"? Poles have been getting it in the neck. The next time I pass by I will give the local Polish grocer a bunch of flowers as an apology for last Thursday.

It's a thing, it will calm down and it doesn't represent the Leave Camp.

So, I'm betting on Therasa May at this point. Boris apparently didn't want to split the party between her, him, and Michael Gove. He sure as hell doesn't want Gove to win, so hopefully he's going to throw his weight behind May.

[Fragony]

And the increased verbal abuse of foreigners on the street "because we've voted out"? Poles have been getting it in the neck. The next time I pass by I will give the local Polish grocer a bunch of flowers as an apology for last Thursday.

Should do that if you feel like doing so, I am sure it will be apreciated. I am onto immigration from other places, or should I say colonists.

[Pannonian]

It's a thing, it will calm down and it doesn't represent the Leave Camp.

So, I'm betting on Therasa May at this point. Boris apparently didn't want to split the party between her, him, and Michael Gove. He sure as hell doesn't want Gove to win, so hopefully he's going to throw his weight behind May.

Just as democratic deficits doesn't represent the Leave camp either. The issue that most Leave voters cited as the reason why they voted Leave was immigration. Likewise the reason most Remain voters voted that way was the uncertainty of a post-Leave scenario. Leave voters want to stop immigration. Remain voters want stability. That's not you and me, but Leave and Remain voters as a whole.

If we're to remain in the EEA, then we'll have to accept the four freedoms, the most notable of which considering this campaign is freedom of movement. The EU is by far our greatest trading partner. As the German finance minister commented when asked about future negotiations with Britain, the bigger partner will of course hold an advantage over the smaller partner, and the EU is far, far bigger than Britain. If we do indeed accept freedom of movement in return for access to the single market, then the principle issue for Leave voters won't have been satisfied. Either the racists and xenophobes will have their gripe and excuse to vote far right next time. Or our economy will be fecked, even more than it is already.

[Pannonian]

Should do that if you feel like doing so, I am sure it will be apreciated. I am onto immigration from other places, or should I say colonists.

Our problematic immigrants come from outside the EU. One of the "desi" arguments I've seen is that we should exit the EU as a clampdown on EU migrants will make getting visas for Indians and Pakistanis easier.

[Fragony]

Our problematic immigrants come from outside the EU. One of the "desi" arguments I've seen is that we should exit the EU as a clampdown on EU migrants will make getting visas for Indians and Pakistanis easier.

Everything changed since Merkel's birdcall and the consequences, I don't think many people mind guest-workers from the EU, and I don't see how actually do having a problem with it could ever be racist anyway, it's not about them, it's about people from out of Europe who want to have the furniture changed.

[Pannonian]

Everything changed since Merkel's birdcall and the consequences, I don't think many people mind guest-workers from the EU, and I don't see how actually do having a problem with it could ever be racist anyway, it's not about them, it's about people from out of Europe who want to have the furniture changed.

Even before the referendum, we had the powers to deal with extra-EU migrants. Our borders are relatively easy to keep track of, and laws exist that keep them from establishing themselves de facto. The remote threat was that Turkey could be admitted, which would make it an intra-EU problem, but that possibility was remote given that we'd rejected them in the past and they'd gone even further from our standards since. If there was a non-refugee problem, it wasn't one that significantly touched the UK.

But then, like I'd said, most of the arguments for exiting the EU could well apply to many countries in the EU, but they didn't apply to the UK. Eurozone-related problems certainly didn't apply, yet they were apparently given by some as the reason for voting Leave. Similarly for the possibility that the accession of Turkey could lead to an influx of Muslims (Greyblades raised this in one of his posts, and there are accounts that people voted Leave to "get the Muslims out"). Which didn't make sense for the goal and the action we were taking. Meanwhile, the majority of Remainers just wanted tomorrow to be largely like today, without anything that we couldn't adequately plan or allow for. Instead, we've torn up everything, and, as the Leavers here have stated, there are no plans for what happens now, as it's not their responsibility to plan for the aftermath of their decision.

Ugh.

[Greyblades]

It was the responsibility of the government to plan for both results in a referendum they had planned to hold for over a year, that they didnt plan for the outcome they didn't want is thier failing, not the failing of the people who voted that way in the referendum.

Evidently a change in government is in order, and as labour is tearing itself apart and the conservatives are looking like idiots I expect the next government will look nothing like the last, thank god.

[Pannonian]

It was the responsibility of the government to plan for both results in a referendum they had planned to hold for over a year, that they didnt plan for the outcome they didn't want is thier failing, not the failing of the people who voted that way in the referendum.

Evidently a change in government is in order, and as labour is tearing itself apart and the conservatives are looking like idiots I expect the next government will look nothing like the last, thank god.

It's not the failing of the people who campaigned for Leave either, but the failing of the people who campaigned for Remain, to not plan to Leave. It's always someone else's responsibility.

[Fragony]

Even before the referendum, we had the powers to deal with extra-EU migrants. Our borders are relatively easy to keep track of, and laws exist that keep them from establishing themselves de facto. The remote threat was that Turkey could be admitted, which would make it an intra-EU problem, but that possibility was remote given that we'd rejected them in the past and they'd gone even further from our standards since. If there was a non-refugee problem, it wasn't one that significantly touched the UK.

But then, like I'd said, most of the arguments for exiting the EU could well apply to many countries in the EU, but they didn't apply to the UK. Eurozone-related problems certainly didn't apply, yet they were apparently given by some as the reason for voting Leave. Similarly for the possibility that the accession of Turkey could lead to an influx of Muslims (Greyblades raised this in one of his posts, and there are accounts that people voted Leave to "get the Muslims out"). Which didn't make sense for the goal and the action we were taking. Meanwhile, the majority of Remainers just wanted tomorrow to be largely like today, without anything that we couldn't adequately plan or allow for. Instead, we've torn up everything, and, as the Leavers here have stated, there are no plans for what happens now, as it's not their responsibility to plan for the aftermath of their decision.

Ugh.

It's Germany who screwed up not the UK, the Merkel is only making things worse for herself as the Visegrad-countries just disregard her threats. The Brits are in a pretty comfortable position.

[Furunculus]

The funniest thing about the eff up is that immigration was the biggest issue for the Brexiters, but it's the areas with the least immigration that are most pro-leave, while the areas with the most immigration were the most pro-remain. London, which has by some distance the most immigrants in the UK by number and by proportion, was by far the most pro-remain region in England. Even Scotland only pipped us by 2%. What's perhaps even funnier is that the British Asians were apparently very pro-Brexit. Thus giving fuel to the ukippers who will be abusing them in years to come, encouraged by the seeming prevalence of fellow racists in this country.

Bloody idiots.
Two points;
1. The number one reason for voting Leave was sovereignty (49%), versus immigration [&] security (33%). hat-tip Ashcroft polling.
2. Non-EU immigrants voting Leave - an understandable consequence of an immigration policy that actively discriminated against their fellows.... unless the country is happy with a completely open-borders immigration policy.

[Greyblades]

It's not the failing of the people who campaigned for Leave either, but the failing of the people who campaigned for Remain, to not plan to Leave. It's always someone else's responsibility.

The prime minister and his cabinate are responsible, that they campaigned for remain is largely immaterial.

[Pannonian]

Hate Crimes Soar Since Brexit Vote - Police (http://news.sky.com/story/1719853/hate-crimes-soar-since-brexit-vote-police)

"Leave the EU
No more Polish Vermin"

[Greyblades]

Pretty tame as hate crimes go, and 331, wow, that's truely a great amount in a nation of 60-70 million, assuming multiple crimes arent being done by the same people.

[Fragony]

Hate Crimes Soar Since Brexit Vote - Police (http://news.sky.com/story/1719853/hate-crimes-soar-since-brexit-vote-police)

"Leave the EU
No more Polish Vermin"

Kinda sceptical because Polish vermin is so specific, but I am often wrong. But over hete at least these things almost always turn out to be not what it initinally looked like, antifacistslol have been busted sooo many times that I am on hold when I read these things

'leave the EU, no more Polish vermin' is also odd, wouldn't it be 'Leave England', why would nationalist say 'leave the EU' after the referendum, makes no sense

[InsaneApache]

UKIP will need to win enough seats to make the major parties MPs actually vote yes to a Brexit Bill, followed by the Lords agreeing to it.

Until then the referendum is just another poll.

....and then political reality creeps in....

[InsaneApache]

Hate Crimes Soar Since Brexit Vote - Police (http://news.sky.com/story/1719853/hate-crimes-soar-since-brexit-vote-police)

"Leave the EU
No more Polish Vermin"

Reported mate reported. Not the same thing at all.

Still that 'appeal to authority' is endemic on the left.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hate Crimes Soar Since Brexit Vote - Police (http://news.sky.com/story/1719853/hate-crimes-soar-since-brexit-vote-police)

"Leave the EU
No more Polish Vermin"

It's distressing - to be sure. Obviously the majority of the diot racists voted Leave (clever racists would vote to stay) and now they feel empowered. It will take a few weeks to sink in but then they'll slink back to their holes once they realise they're still loathed.

Of more import: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222

"Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner's insistence that the UK must first leave.It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU."

Rather begs the question of why we need the complex exit negotiations, really, if they're just going to screw us anyway.

I rather think that this circumstance is unlikely - if the EU does choose to punish the British people en masse with this then it's just another argument for leaving as quickly as possible.

[Pannonian]

Reported mate reported. Not the same thing at all.

Still that 'appeal to authority' is endemic on the left.

Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove (https://next.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c)

Post Brexit, experts need to reassert their value to society (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130803-500-post-brexit-experts-need-to-reassert-their-value-to-society/)


HOWEVER you feel about the result of the UK’s EU referendum, the campaign itself cannot have left anything other than a foul taste in the mouth. The willingness to bend, ignore or invent facts was depressing and shameful.

Both sides were up to it, but Leave told the biggest whoppers. And to the victors, the spoils. It is from their ranks that the next government will probably emerge, so their abuse of facts needs to be held to account.

Let us start with Michael Gove. Pressed in a Sky News interview about expert warnings on the economy, he glibly replied: “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts.”

Given that Gove is likely to land a big job in the next government, this claim is troubling. He was not saying “expert opinion is worthless”. But he was giving voters permission to dismiss it and trust their own instincts, in cynical pursuit of his own goals. If he is prepared to use this tawdry tactic in the most important UK vote in living memory, there are serious questions about how he will conduct himself in high office.

....

We can do better. Sadly, experts must take some of the blame for failing to get their message across. They relied too heavily on spelling out the evidence and scoring factual points – tactics that played straight into the hands of Leave.

For a debate as visceral as this, facts aren’t enough. Reams of research has shown that firmly held beliefs – especially those to do with cultural identity – are resilient to conflicting evidence. Trying to change someone’s mind by bombarding them with facts usually just makes them dig in. Emotion trumps reason.

Academics in general don’t get this. They expect facts and evidence to carry the day, and are left shaking their heads in disbelief when they don’t. The Remain campaign shared this assumption, and made little or no attempt to stir any emotion other than fear.

It was never going to work. Rightly or wrongly, many people felt that their national identity was under threat. That allowed Leave to push emotional buttons with slogans such as “take back control”. Irrational, yes. Vague, yes. But powerful.

[Greyblades]

Experts need to stop allowing thier predictions be inflated by newspapers to bring people into hysterical panic that dont prove nearly as bad as stated.

They also need to stop expecting the people they constantly belittle and decry as uneducated idiots to consider avoiding a temporary economic downturn worth continuing in a democratic defecit.

[Fragony]

An economic expert is someone who can explain why his predictions were wrong. It's all guess-work they should shutup

[Pannonian]

An economic expert is someone who can explain why his predictions were wrong. It's all guess-work they should shutup

One of the predictions can safely said to be guaranteed though. The bigger party in a negotiation holds the whip hand over the smaller party. Especially if the smaller party starts with a bad hand and has a limited amount of time to negotiate. Once article 50 is invoked, beginning the negotiations of the UK's exit, that is the UK's position relative to the EU. The UK will have a limited amount of time (2 years) in which to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, or else be left with the default WTO conditions that no exporter in the UK wants. As an example of the disparities, something like 5% of Germany's exports are to the UK, which can be swallowed up in the overall EU economy, or else find another market elsewhere, which the size of the EU makes it easy to do. In contrast, 50% of the UK's exports are to the EU. If we can't compete, then we'll need to find another market for these goods, and the biggest markets will dwarf the UK, thus worsening any trade deals that we can expect.

No economic predictions, merely a comparison of size and power, and why unions hold more power than fragmented individuals. Is this disputable? Yet this is the position that we've got ourselves into.

[Papewaio]

....and then political reality creeps in....

Which is why the referendum is just another poll.

Yes most modern populist politicians chase polls. However they do not always do what the citizen voter wants.
A) Is there a delta in referendum particaption and normal votes? 72% vs 65%. So 10% aren't voting for an MP to do something.
B) corporate interests - campaigns cost money...
C) party interests - half a dozen of A six of B
D) national interests - aka leadership despite the above

[Fragony]

One of the predictions can safely said to be guaranteed though. The bigger party in a negotiation holds the whip hand over the smaller party. Especially if the smaller party starts with a bad hand and has a limited amount of time to negotiate. Once article 50 is invoked, beginning the negotiations of the UK's exit, that is the UK's position relative to the EU. The UK will have a limited amount of time (2 years) in which to negotiate new trade deals with the EU, or else be left with the default WTO conditions that no exporter in the UK wants. As an example of the disparities, something like 5% of Germany's exports are to the UK, which can be swallowed up in the overall EU economy, or else find another market elsewhere, which the size of the EU makes it easy to do. In contrast, 50% of the UK's exports are to the EU. If we can't compete, then we'll need to find another market for these goods, and the biggest markets will dwarf the UK, thus worsening any trade deals that we can expect.

No economic predictions, merely a comparison of size and power, and why unions hold more power than fragmented individuals. Is this disputable? Yet this is the position that we've got ourselves into.

Sounds easy to solve to me, make a deal with the Netherlands and use it as a proxy.A nexit is unrealistic no matter how much I would like to see it, but the possibility of a nexit is a sword of Damocles hanging over all major industry-zones in Europe. They'll be nice. Haven't you noticed a complete lack of actual powerplay, only fearmoning rhetoric. You guys are safe, might hurt a bit but not for long, year or so

[HopAlongBunny]

One of the predictions can safely said to be guaranteed though. The bigger party in a negotiation holds the whip hand over the smaller party..

That is why I doubt Article 50 gets invoked any time soon...if at all.
The UK just has too much to lose.

[Pannonian]

Sounds easy to solve to me, make a deal with the Netherlands and use it as a proxy.A nexit is unrealistic no matter how much I would like to see it, but the possibility of a nexit is a sword of Damocles hanging over all major industry-zones in Europe. They'll be nice. Haven't you noticed a complete lack of actual powerplay, only fearmoning rhetoric. You guys are safe, might hurt a bit but not for long, year or so

A country within the EU cannot unilaterally make a deal with a country outside the EU. The EU makes deals as a bloc. When Switzerland tried to pick and choose, the EU told it to accept the basic deal as the foundation, or else skedaddle. Four freedoms or no access to the single market. The referendum was, in the Leave voters' minds, fundamentally about one of those freedoms.

As for lack of powerplay, that's because the EU position is that there will be no negotiations until article 50 is invoked. So there will be no deals until we invoke the ticking clock. And even without invoking the formal exit article, our economy is already rolling off a cliff. It'll be a straight drop when we do invoke it. Everyone who will be negotiating knows this.

"A nexit is unrealistic no matter how much I would like to see it"
Which is why exit-mongering from a distance as you did is irresponsible and disgusting. Like I said before the referendum, you get to see the results, but you don't have to pay the price.

[Pannonian]

Which is why the referendum is just another poll.

Yes most modern populist politicians chase polls. However they do not always do what the citizen voter wants.
A) Is there a delta in referendum particaption and normal votes? 72% vs 65%. So 10% aren't voting for an MP to do something.
B) corporate interests - campaigns cost money...
C) party interests - half a dozen of A six of B
D) national interests - aka leadership despite the above

Worst of all, one of the politicians was actively encouraging the voters to disregard the advice of experts, and by extension to disregard evidence and rational argument. "I think this country has had enough of experts". I think this is fundamentally the most irresponsible and damaging line I've heard a politician utter in my lifetime.

[Fragony]

"A nexit is unrealistic no matter how much I would like to see it"
Which is why exit-mongering from a distance as you did is irresponsible and disgusting. Like I said before the referendum, you get to see the results, but you don't have to pay the price.

A nexit is unrealistic because despite the Freedom-party being by far the biggest party in polls nobody will coorperate with them, it's not impossible because it will have consequences, we can't even handle the demand as it is Rotterdam-harbour would have to be twice as big, it going to take at least 50 years before others can even muse about catching up. It's all politics.

As for the rest I think you are overly pessimistic

[AE Bravo]

It was the responsibility of the government to plan for both results in a referendum they had planned to hold for over a year, that they didnt plan for the outcome they didn't want is thier failing, not the failing of the people who voted that way in the referendum.
Why would leavers accept a plan by a remain government? I don't follow extremely Eurocentric issues like this but sounds like "give me some matches so I can light a fire under your ass for takeoff."

[Greyblades]

Because it's not supposed to be a remain government, they got in on the promise of the referendum.

That they now want to go back on it probably tells you how electable they will be in 2020.

[HopAlongBunny]

Make of it what you will:


https://youtu.be/ROj_1R36lX0

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Four freedoms or no access to the single market. The referendum was, in the Leave voters' minds, fundamentally about one of those freedoms.

No it bloody well wasn't - as IA already pointed out, immigration was not the most prevalent reason for voting Leave so stop banging that bloody drum.

As to not invoking Article 50 - the EU has refused to negotiate at all unless we invoke it and now the big powers, after a week, are saying we can't negotiate a trade deal without first negotiating an exit deal - which begs the question of what the point of an exit deal is.

At the same time our MEPs have been sent home, our Prime Minister is excluded from EU talks and our commissioner has resigned.

It's very clear at this point that we're going to be forced to invoke Article 50, regardless of an election or a change in public opinion.

[Pannonian]

No it bloody well wasn't - as IA already pointed out, immigration was not the most prevalent reason for voting Leave so stop banging that bloody drum.

As to not invoking Article 50 - the EU has refused to negotiate at all unless we invoke it and now the big powers, after a week, are saying we can't negotiate a trade deal without first negotiating an exit deal - which begs the question of what the point of an exit deal is.

At the same time our MEPs have been sent home, our Prime Minister is excluded from EU talks and our commissioner has resigned.

It's very clear at this point that we're going to be forced to invoke Article 50, regardless of an election or a change in public opinion.

And at that point, we'll have 2 years to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU, where 50% of our exports go, or default to WTO trade conditions. How long did Canada and the EU take to agree on a trade deal? 7 years wasn't it?

[Fragony]

And at that point, we'll have 2 years to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU, where 50% of our exports go, or default to WTO trade conditions. How long did Canada and the EU take to agree on a trade deal? 7 years wasn't it?

These deals will come, the UK is way to important to dismiss, especially as a Nato-partner for anyone involved. Do you think it's a coincidemce that the eurpian commision is suddenly talking to Erdogan's Turkey, that's desperation. Clueless and in panic. Just call their bluff.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And at that point, we'll have 2 years to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU, where 50% of our exports go, or default to WTO trade conditions. How long did Canada and the EU take to agree on a trade deal? 7 years wasn't it?

Ah, no.

You must have missed the article I quoted.

We have two years to negotiate an Exit, then they'll let us negotiate on trade.

Allegedly.

[Pannonian]

These deals will come, the UK is way to important to dismiss, especially as a Nato-partner for anyone involved. Do you think it's a coincidemce that the eurpian commision is suddenly talking to Erdogan's Turkey, that's desperation. Clueless and in panic. Just call their bluff.

The EU are much bigger than we are. The exports of each individual country to us are a miniscule fraction of their economy, compared with the 50% of our exports that go to them. Under WTO tariffs, our goods won't be competitive, so we lose that 50%, meaning our economy goes even further down the drain than it has already. We desperately need a trade deal. Them, not so much. Remember that post I made above about what happens when one negotiating partner is much bigger than the other, when the smaller partner starts with a bad hand, and there is a deadline to meet? The German finance minister has already described this scenario, ahead of any talks on trade, which won't begin until we invoke article 50.

The Leavers have screwed our economy good and proper.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU are much bigger than we are. The exports of each individual country to us are a miniscule fraction of their economy, compared with the 50% of our exports that go to them. Under WTO tariffs, our goods won't be competitive, so we lose that 50%, meaning our economy goes even further down the drain than it has already. We desperately need a trade deal. Them, not so much. Remember that post I made above about what happens when one negotiating partner is much bigger than the other, when the smaller partner starts with a bad hand, and there is a deadline to meet? The German finance minister has already described this scenario, ahead of any talks on trade, which won't begin until we invoke article 50.

The Leavers have screwed our economy good and proper.

Still ignoring the important bit, I see?

[InsaneApache]

Make of it what you will:


https://youtu.be/ROj_1R36lX0

I met Joe Strummer in Liverpool in '77 and ended up sleeping in his bed. True.

I prefer this one though.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuSrMMANP_U&list=PLw8I74P--tlUjSBeipBPiJ6J4RV5f_3ks&index=2

[Pannonian]

Still ignoring the important bit, I see?

The bit where trade negotiations begin after we trigger the exit article?

The EU won't begin trade negotiations until we formally exit. That means no soft landing and no preparations. But once we formally exit, we have only a limited period of time in which to arrange new deals. We'll have current-ish conditions until that period is done, but at the end of it, if we don't manage to get a deal done, we'll default to WTO tariffs. Which will make our exports, 50% of which goes to the EU, uncompetitive. The onus is on us to get it done, as the EU, which negotiates as a bloc nearly 10 times our size, can absorb this change without blinking. That means lots of concessions on our part, and rather fewer on the EU's part. They may even decide to make an example of us and hold out for an exceptionally bad deal for us. Which we can't really refuse as we're faced with the prospect of losing nearly 50% of our export market once the 2 year period is done.

The prospects once we trigger article 50 are grim. The politicians know this, so they're trying to hold off, do anything except trigger that 2 year deadline. Which puts off the pain in the immediate present, but which means uncertainty, which means companies are redirecting investment and jobs to more stable countries. Which is already happening.

Of course, we can keep our export goods competitive by drastically reducing wages and regulations to second or third world standards, thus reducing costs. Or getting rid of the NHS and other government funded services, thus allowing the government to reduce the tax burden. If we drop living standards and investment in the country, we might be able to make this work.

[Fragony]

They would love to make an example of you, but you are just going to be an example of how fractured europe really is. Do you honestly think that trade-deals aren't already made as we speak. The UK killed only the ideological EU, or at least really damaged it really badly, kudos for that it was needed. Trade will continue the EC is dickless.

[Husar]

Trade will continue the EC is dickless.

That one goes down really well with the whole "Dictate of the unelected EC needs to stop because it changes our lives too much!"

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/news/economy/vodafone-uk-brexit/


British industry giant Vodafone (VOD) says it's considering moving its headquarters out of the U.K. following last week's shock referendum result.
The loss of the company, whose stock helps anchor the benchmark FTSE 100, would be a stinging blow for a country that is struggling to come to terms with the economic consequences of a vote to divorce its European neighbors.
Vodafone said in a statement that Britain's EU membership has "been an important factor" in its growth. It added that bedrock EU principles including freedom of movement of people, capital and goods are all vital for regional companies.

[Fragony]

It's just true, the adieu of a EU-founder leaving is the achiles-heel of ideoligists who never get any furthed than demonising everything they don't like and furiously claim the posr-war peace. There is no pax EU. Timber mia muca, EU is a monster.

[Husar]

It's just true, the adieu of a EU-founder leaving is the achiles-heel of ideoligists who never get any furthed than demonising everything they don't like and furiously claim the posr-war peace. There is no pax EU. Timber mia muca, EU is a monster.

A monster that can't do anything, yes, sounds terrible.

[Fragony]

A monster that can't do anything, yes, sounds terrible.

What they can't do at the moment doesn't change what they want. National democratically elected governments are only a nuissance for the fourth reich

literal quote by Juncker: we decide step by step until there is no turning back

Brits stepped out in time. EU = neo-facism

[Husar]

What they can't do at the moment doesn't change what they want. National democratically elected governments are only a nuissance for the fourth reich

And that's because national democratically elected governments created it and choose all its leaders?

[Fragony]

And that's because national democratically elected governments created it and choose all its leaders?

Feel free to think so

[Pannonian]

And a poll says that two thirds of Leave voters would be happy to lose access to the single market if it means an end to EU migration. This means the Brexit negotiators won't be able to accept freedom of movement as part of a package to retain single market access. Which means custom trade deals as I described above will be necessary, with the ramifications as I've also described.

[Husar]

And a poll says that two thirds of Leave voters would be happy to lose access to the single market if it means an end to EU migration. This means the Brexit negotiators won't be able to accept freedom of movement as part of a package to retain single market access. Which means custom trade deals as I described above will be necessary, with the ramifications as I've also described.

Unemployment is the ultimate form of freedom.

Late edit:


Feel free to think so

Es muss sein!

[AntiDamascus]

I don't want to day I'm done with the Brexit because I feel it is interesting but now the vote is over and it's just rehashing. It was fun to discuss things before and after the vote but now the votes over. Until something else happens like a government shift, someone actually resigns, an article 50 thing or a huge move in the market, it's all just waiting for me.

[Greyblades]

EU tells Swiss no single market access if no free movement of citizens (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens)

Charming people.

[Lizardo]

Hodor makes a cameo at march for EUrope
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uQxcjrJ6FR8

[Pannonian]

EU tells Swiss no single market access if no free movement of citizens (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens)

Charming people.

They got told the same thing last year. And we'll be told the same thing too. Which, given that immigration is the key issue for Leavers, means no single market access and no bespoke trade access, but whatever we can beg for in the 2 year negotiating period.

[Greyblades]

They're consistant, at least.

[I of the Storm]

Now Farage has resigned too.

I'll put it cautiously: There is a slight possibility that integrity and political calibre of the head figures of the Leave camp are not entirely above reproach.

[Fragony]

Job well done, results in. I don't really see a role for him anymore so maybe it's the best this way.

[Greyblades]

Now Farage has resigned too.

I'll put it cautiously: There is a slight possibility that integrity and political calibre of the head figures of the Leave camp are not entirely above reproach.

That's a given with any group with Gove a head figure, though I dont remember anyone actually voting for him, he sort of jumped on the bandwagon and the media just decided he was a leader.

Farage is done, he was a one issue politician and with that issue resolved he's retired, wish some other politicians had such an attitude.

[Husar]

EU tells Swiss no single market access if no free movement of citizens (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens)

Charming people.

Why?

If you don't explain your problem with it, it's hard to talk about it.
Are you saying the EU should apply the rules you want it to? Why can't a sovereign trade block apply the rules it wants to apply when it makes a treaty? Why should a trade partner be given all the advantages with no responsibilites?

It's not like these EU rules were a secret and noone could expect that. It's called being consistent as you said.

[Fragony]

It's of zero consequence and the eurocrtats know that very. As for your quextion when would you consider using a weapon justified, to defend yourselve or use it to get what you want. It's obviously not a question for eurocrats. But they have no weapon.

[Husar]

It's of zero consequence and the eurocrtats know that very. As for your quextion when would you consider using a weapon justified, to defend yourselve or use it to get what you want. It's obviously not a question for eurocrats. But they have no weapon.

You use a weapon to defend yourself and money to get what you want. Any other quextions?

[Beskar]

One thing we can agree on that happened with this referendum result... British politics is getting destroyed.

[Fragony]

You use a weapon to defend yourself and money to get what you want. Any other quextions?

Yes what are you wearing right now

[Husar]

Yes what are you wearing right now

Underwear and overwear.

Anything else?

[Fragony]

Don't know can't see it

[Kralizec]

And a poll says that two thirds of Leave voters would be happy to lose access to the single market if it means an end to EU migration. This means the Brexit negotiators won't be able to accept freedom of movement as part of a package to retain single market access. Which means custom trade deals as I described above will be necessary, with the ramifications as I've also described.

That pretty much confirms what I already suspected.

Most people dislike the EU's remoteness to voters and their opaque bureaucracy, even those in the Remain camp. That's not in itself enough to support an exit from the EU. A large part of the Brexit camp simply does not like Poles.


EU tells Swiss no single market access if no free movement of citizens (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens)

Charming people.

They broke the existing agreements and had it coming. The voters knew this, or at least had no excuse for not knowing.

Honestly, what else could you expect?

To be fair, instead of full-blown internal market access the UK could try to negotiate (and plausibly get) associated status, similar to what Turkey and some north African countries get. It would be a lot better than defaulting on WTO trading terms, but still a net loss compared to the status quo.

[Fragony]

Not that sure about the brexit camp disliking Polish people it sounds like framing to me, attempting to make brexit supporters look lower-class white-trash. Maybe some are but most probably aren't, just ordinary people who (rightfully) hate being told what to do by the ultra-undemocratic EU, and legitimate worries about the tsunami of migrants from islamic countries and how the childless mutti wants everyone to fix things for her, the brexit-camp doesn't exist of intellectual lightweights they have a good story, remain-camp never got any further than insunuations.

[Greyblades]

Sadly there will allways be the sort of idiot that cannot tell the blame for unrestrained immigration lies not with the poles coming but the politicians letting them in. But as exhibited they are a tiny minority.


Honestly, what else could you expect?

Realize ther demands for freedom of movement are unreasonable with the situation they have created and stop demanding it?

I'm just pointing out how the EU is still sticking to the same behaviour that drove the UK out 2 weeks later , They are rather slow learners.

[Gilrandir]

Underwear and overwear.

Anything else?

So no middlewear?:crazy:




I'm just pointing out how the EU is still sticking to the same behaviour that drove the UK out 2 weeks later , They are rather slow learners.

Like many British who hold pro-EU demonstrations NOW while it should gave been done BEFORE the referendum.

[Husar]

Not that sure about the brexit camp disliking Polish people it sounds like framing to me, attempting to make brexit supporters look lower-class white-trash. Maybe some are but most probably aren't, just ordinary people who (rightfully) hate being told what to do by the ultra-undemocratic EU, and legitimate worries about the tsunami of migrants from islamic countries and how the childless mutti wants everyone to fix things for her, the brexit-camp doesn't exist of intellectual lightweights they have a good story, remain-camp never got any further than insunuations.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
When you make an entire post with no real argument and then accuse "the other side" of not having any arguments....


Sadly there will allways be the sort of idiot that cannot tell the blame for unrestrained immigration lies not with the poles coming but the politicians letting them in. But as exhibited they are a tiny minority.

You may blame the politicians but you're still saying you want no Poles.
Unless you actually meant poles, in which case you shouldn't have sold all the steel works to China.


Realize ther demands for freedom of movement are unreasonable with the situation they have created and stop demanding it?

I'm just pointing out how the EU is still sticking to the same behaviour that drove the UK out 2 weeks later , They are rather slow learners.

Their demands are reasonable, it's the English who have to realize that their Brexit is unreasonable and that sticking to this xenophobic behavior means not having a future. But they pride themselves on being slow learners ("Our democracy developed so slowly but it's so great now!"), so....


So no middlewear?:crazy:

There's no future for the middlewear, it's all replaced by digitalization.

[Greyblades]

You may blame the politicians but you're still saying you want no Poles.
Unless you actually meant poles, in which case you shouldn't have sold all the steel works to China.No I want fewer poles, and anything else for that matter, I find to allow immigration to reamain greater than jobs and housing growth to be counter productive whne trying to tackle the problem of unemployment and homelessness.


Their demands are reasonable, it's the English who have to realize that their Brexit is unreasonable and that sticking to this xenophobic behavior means not having a future. But they pride themselves on being slow learners ("Our democracy developed so slowly but it's so great now!"), so.... Your definition of unreasonable is abnormal, no wonder those that share it are making the EU unpopular.

[Fragony]

Of course I have arguments Hussie, and if you disagree with them you plunge the world into chaos and hate peace, and are probably gay.

I am just as good as europhiles in debating.

[Husar]

No I want fewer poles, and anything else for that matter, I find to allow immigration to reamain greater than jobs and housing growth to be counter productive whne trying to tackle the problem of unemployment and homelessness.

How many is fewer and why are people in Britain homeless in the first place? Are you saying there were no unemployed or homeless people in Britain before the Poles came? Tell me at which point before the Poles came you would have solved this and how that would have worked. There has to be something, such as steadily decreasing rates and/or an increase when the Polish flood came or something like that, no?


Your definition of unreasonable is abnormal, no wonder those that share it are making the EU unpopular.

Your definition of unreasonable is unreasonable, no wonder you Brexiters are wrong and incredibly unpopular outside England.


Of course I have arguments Hussie, and if you disagree with them you plunge the world into chaos and hate peace, and are probably gay.

I am just as good as europhiles in debating.

So far we aren't really debating, you just make statements and assure me that you have arguments which you never seem to mention. So I say you're wrong. And why do you mention being gay in the same sentence as a lot of bad things? Are you insinuating that being gay is a bad thing?

[Pannonian]

No I want fewer poles, and anything else for that matter, I find to allow immigration to reamain greater than jobs and housing growth to be counter productive whne trying to tackle the problem of unemployment and homelessness.

Your definition of unreasonable is abnormal, no wonder those that share it are making the EU unpopular.

So much for the protestations that it was sovereignty that drove the Brexit vote. Sooner or later Brexiters let slip that it's all about the foreigners in their midst, taking their jobs and houses.

[Kralizec]

Realize ther demands for freedom of movement are unreasonable with the situation they have created and stop demanding it?

No, what is unreasonable is breaking a deal and then accusing the other side of being unreasonable for responding in kind.

If anything it speaks well of the EU that they're putting their foot down. Countries get away with violating the rules too often as it is. If the Swiss people don't want free movement of persons then the EU single market is not suited for them and they should negotiate for a less far reaching agreement instead; i.e. a trade agreement and nothing more.

[Pannonian]

How many is fewer and why are people in Britain homeless in the first place? Are you saying there were no unemployed or homeless people in Britain before the Poles came? Tell me at which point before the Poles came you would have solved this and how that would have worked. There has to be something, such as steadily decreasing rates and/or an increase when the Polish flood came or something like that, no?


EU migrants, as a group, contribute more in taxes than they draw in benefits. The British state, and by extension the British people, profit from the EU migrant demographic in the UK. If the British government has not been using that profit wisely, that's the responsibility of the British government, not the EU. But it's easier to blame the foreigners.

Unlike the EU migrant population in the UK, which is mostly young and working and thus tax paying, I'd imagine the British demographic in, let's say Spain, is considerably older and less of a net positive fiscally. Any negotiations about the deportation of EU citizens from the UK will probably see the reciprocal expulsion of these UK immigrants (so-called "ex-pats") back to the UK, with the loss of tax paying EU citizens and the addition of non-tax-paying UK citizens.

[Greyblades]

So much for the protestations that it was sovereignty that drove the Brexit vote. Sooner or later Brexiters let slip that it's all about the foreigners in their midst, taking their jobs and houses.

Have you considered the brexiters are human being and capable of having more than one reason for wanting something done? Have you considered that you can hold opinions on immigration that arent "let them all in" and still not be a racist?

Have you considered that you are wasting everyones time with such idiotic insinuations?


No, what is unreasonable is breaking a deal and then accusing the other side of being unreasonable for responding in kind.

If anything it speaks well of the EU that they're putting their foot down. Countries get away with violating the rules too often as it is. If the Swiss people don't want free movement of persons then the EU single market is not suited for them and they should negotiate for a less far reaching agreement instead; i.e. a trade agreement and nothing more.

Isnt that what they're trying to do, renegociate? And the EU is refusing to trade without enforcing freedom of movment, so yeah unreasonable.

[Fragony]

A lot of immigrants from eastern Europe come to work yeah. But taken as a whole 80% of the immigrants still live on wealthfar after 10 years, that's here mind you, it costs billions a year

The childless mutti's litttle children will never stop being a burden at best, but a lot who followed her birdcall think a little hmmmm different about some things, ghetto import

[Husar]

Unlike the EU migrant population in the UK, which is mostly young and working and thus tax paying, I'd imagine the British demographic in, let's say Spain, is considerably older and less of a net positive fiscally. Any negotiations about the deportation of EU citizens from the UK will probably see the reciprocal expulsion of these UK immigrants (so-called "ex-pats") back to the UK, with the loss of tax paying EU citizens and the addition of non-tax-paying UK citizens.

To be fair, if they're retired, they just siphon their retirement money out of the UK and pay a lot of sales taxes in Spain while they're also helping the Spanish economy with their consumption (money which is then ideally/hopefully also used to pay corporate and income taxes). Income tax is not the only tax there is.


Isnt that what they're trying to do, renegociate? And the EU is refusing to trade without enforcing freedom of movment, so yeah unreasonable.

How or why is it unreasonable? Is it not working for the EU so far?
You're just being unreasonable because the EU can demand what it want, you're free to not accept it, but if you say it's unreasonable you have to explain why exactly. So far you just repeat the claim that it were unreasonable without giving a good reason, that's unreasonable.

[Pannonian]

A lot of immigrants from eastern Europe come to work yeah. But taken as a whole 80% of the immigrants still live on wealthfar after 10 years, that's here mind you, it costs billions a year

The childless mutti's litttle children will never stop being a burden at best, but a lot who followed her birdcall think a little hmmmm different about some things, ghetto import

There may be arguments for e Nexit. But those arguments don't apply to a Brexit. EU migrants pay more in taxes to the British state than they claim in benefits. The UK's main problems with immigration come from non-EU migrants. Which has been under the full control of the UK government all this time, outside the EU's responsibility.

[Greyblades]

How or why is it unreasonable? Is it not working for the EU so far?
You're just being unreasonable because the EU can demand what it want, you're free to not accept it, but if you say it's unreasonable you have to explain why exactly. So far you just repeat the claim that it were unreasonable without giving a good reason, that's unreasonable.
Is it working so far? There's a camp in calais, a multitude of ghettos and an ongoing terrorist campaign that indicate otherwise. That's not even getting into the issue of employment and housing. Christ we've been going on about this topic for months any reasonable person would think it would have sunk in that freedom of movment wasnt such a cool idea when you started to include poor nations and any random migrant that managed to cross the border.

Also I dont get why you and pannonian keep going on about it being their right to do so, as if that has an automatic "reasonable" stamp.

You have the right to burn your larder in a famine but it is still unreasonable for you to do so.

[Pannonian]

Is it working so far? There's a camp in calais, a multitude of ghettos and an ongoing terrorist campaign that indicate otherwise. That's not even getting into the issue of employment and housing. Christ we've been going on about this topic for months any reasonable person would think it would have sunk in that freedom of movment wasnt such a cool idea when you started to include poor nations and any random migrant that managed to cross the border.

Also I dont get why you and pannonian keep going on about it being their right to do so, as if that has an automatic "reasonable" stamp.

You have the right to burn your larder in a famine but it is still unreasonable for you to do so.

How is all that the EU's responsibility? All that you talk about has been within the UK government's power to do something about it, even inside the EU.

And AFAIK, it's free movement of labour, not free movement of individuals. The UK never signed up to the Schengen zone which allows free movement of individuals. The UK has rules in place to ensure that EU citizens in the UK are indeed labour, or else self-sufficient. Otherwise they lose residency rights.

[Husar]

Is it working so far? There's a camp in calais, a multitude of ghettos and an ongoing terrorist campaign that indicate otherwise. That's not even getting into the issue of employment and housing. Christ we've been going on about this topic for months any reasonable person would think it would have sunk in that freedom of movment wasnt such a cool idea when you started to include poor nations and any random migrant that managed to cross the border.

So then if London wants to wall itself off from the poor areas around it, that is perfectly reasonable, too. After all that would help London fight its unemployment and homelessness. Obviously a homeless Londoner is more important to a fellow Londoner than a homeless guy from Leeds for example. Opening London up to all the unemployed and homeless poor people from Leeds is not gonna help London solve its problems.

Having nations instead of tribes really wasn't such a cool idea when they began to include poor tribes, was it?


Also I dont get why you and pannonian keep going on about it being their right to do so, as if that has an automatic "reasonable" stamp.

You have the right to burn your larder in a famine but it is still unreasonable for you to do so.

The issue is that you still haven't explained what you mean by reasonable. As I've shown above, making up arbitrary borders and saying that it is only reasonable to help the people within one, is not reasonable because one can make up other arbitrary borders until Kingdom come. Even within your country the rich may build walled houses and ask why they should help the poor people who live outside the walls of their house. This happens every day and you still don't see that this wouldn't somehow magically not be so if you just had a glorious nation state.

Why do you think tax evasion exists? Because your fellow British nationals who are rich are so much more eager to help your homeless and unemployed than the EU bureaucrats? What is the major reason tax evasion is possible? The existence of other nation states and the non-cooperation between them.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Bank of England is trying to stay ahead of events:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36712040

I guess whether it acts as a cushion or stimulus will depend on what the government actually does.

[Greyblades]

I have to say it is reassuring that the Bank of England is trying to mitigate the damage, it was the only thing that came out of the referendum actually looking competent.


How is all that the EU's responsibility? All that you talk about has been within the UK government's power to do something about it, even inside the EU. I was unaware that the UK was capable of making merkel shut up about all the free stuff europe was willing to give those who wanted a handout, nor was I aware that the UK was responsible for the entire continent's counter terrorism effort or had sole control over it's immigration controls.


And AFAIK, it's free movement of labour, not free movement of individuals. The UK never signed up to the Schengen zone which allows free movement of individuals. The UK has rules in place to ensure that EU citizens in the UK are indeed labour, or else self-sufficient. Otherwise they lose residency rights. Free movment of labour means that instead of training the locals companies can just import skilled labour into the nation from elsewhere, great for the immigrant not so great for the local who is having a hard enough time getting a job as it is.


So then if London wants to wall itself off from the poor areas around it, that is perfectly reasonable, too. After all that would help London fight its unemployment and homelessness. Obviously a homeless Londoner is more important to a fellow Londoner than a homeless guy from Leeds for example. Opening London up to all the unemployed and homeless poor people from Leeds is not gonna help London solve its problems.

Having nations instead of tribes really wasn't such a cool idea when they began to include poor tribes, was it?Nations are tribes, just expanded to larger size, a tribe has a resposibility to help its own before it helps others, that London has 2.2 out of 5.4 million of it's electorate that has voted in a way that indicates at least some of them have forgotten or never learned what tribe they are gives a rather depressing commentary on the effects of propagating the idea of multiculturalism.


The issue is that you still haven't explained what you mean by reasonable. As I've shown above, making up arbitrary borders and saying that it is only reasonable to help the people within one, is not reasonable because one can make up other arbitrary borders until Kingdom come. Even within your country the rich may build walled houses and ask why they should help the poor people who live outside the walls of their house. This happens every day and you still don't see that this wouldn't somehow magically not be so if you just had a glorious nation state.

Why do you think tax evasion exists? Because your fellow British nationals who are rich are so much more eager to help your homeless and unemployed than the EU bureaucrats? What is the major reason tax evasion is possible? The existence of other nation states and the non-cooperation between them. The borders are not arbitrary to those who actually value a culture, that's the point.

It is detrimental for the EU to push hard on a major issue that previous pushes resulted in it's weakening.
Continuing to allow freedom of movment will increased unemployment of the swiss people, not to mention the increased risk of terrorism that comes with some of the immigrants.
Free trade agreements do not require freedom of movement aside from those operating the mode of goods delivery, it is an arbitrary addition added for the sake of ideals.

The EU expects a country to keep hurting itself for the sake of the ideals of the people running the EU commission, knowing that it is an arbitrary ideal and that pushing it likely to further weaken itself.

Coercing a nation into a path of mutual damage for an ideal of a minority detached from reality: that is what I mean by unreasonable.

[Husar]

Nations are tribes, just expanded to larger size, a tribe has a resposibility to help its own before it helps others, that London has 2.2 out of 5.4 million of it's electorate that has voted in a way that indicates at least some of them have forgotten or never learned what tribe they are gives a rather depressing commentary on the effects of propagating the idea of multiculturalism.

The EU is a tribe, just expanded to a larger size. Just look at the EC as the village elders and everything is fine. :dizzy2:
And who says that this is the responsibility of a tribe?


The borders are not arbitrary to those who actually value a culture, that's the point.

So you agree that Scotland should secede because it has a different culture?
Or are you saying that the people in Lemiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemiers) for example, should be separated by a border wall due to their completely different culture?


It is detrimental for the EU to push hard on a major issue that previous pushes resulted in it's weakening.

So you're saying that people other than the British think just like the British right after you said that cultures are too different across borders?


Continuing to allow freedom of movment will increased unemployment of the swiss people, not to mention the increased risk of terrorism that comes with some of the immigrants.
Free trade agreements do not require freedom of movement aside from those operating the mode of goods delivery, it is an arbitrary addition added for the sake of ideals.

The EU expects a country to keep hurting itself for the sake of the ideals of the people running the EU commission, knowing that it is an arbitrary ideal and that pushing it likely to further weaken itself.

Coercing a nation into a path of mutual damage for an ideal of a minority detached from reality: that is what I mean by unreasonable.

But noone forces the Swiss to take the deal, they can also have no deal. That it actually hurts nations if they do take the deal is something you have to prove first. And why should a trade partner not be allowed to add things for the sake of idealism? Is the only ideal worth having to earn more money?
Is it then not logical for Polish people to demand freedom of movement so they can earn more money? Is it not Poland's first task to look after the well-being of its people, which requires freedom of movement? Why should Poland give up what it needs just so Switzerland can be better off?
The whole path of mutual damage is something you need to prove, too. How were the EU countries damaged since they made these deals?
As for "pushes" leading to a weakening of the EU, that's also not very concrete, the Brexit was one event, not several, so why plural? And how do you know that the Brexit weakens the EU? Maybe the EU will emerge stronger from it than it ever was, how can you know after two weeks and before anything actually happened?

What I see is a load of assumptions but no proof for anything. Everything you say is merely your opinion so far that you state as though it were a fact.

[Pannonian]

I have to say it is reassuring that the Bank of England is trying to mitigate the damage, it was the only thing that came out of the referendum actually looking competent.

I was unaware that the UK was capable of making merkel shut up about all the free stuff europe was willing to give those who wanted a handout, nor was I aware that the UK was responsible for the entire continent's counter terrorism effort or had sole control over it's immigration controls.

Free movment of labour means that instead of training the locals companies can just import skilled labour into the nation from elsewhere, great for the immigrant not so great for the local who is having a hard enough time getting a job as it is.

Presumably you're not a fan of the proposed points system then. Since it allows skilled labour to enter this country, even after exiting the EU. It sounds like you're a hardliner, even by the Tory party's standards. No immigration at all, even if they're skilled and highly qualified workers that this country lacks.

[Beskar]

Presumably you're not a fan of the proposed points system then. Since it allows skilled labour to enter this country, even after exiting the EU. It sounds like you're a hardliner, even by the Tory party's standards. No immigration at all, even if they're skilled and highly qualified workers that this country lacks.

Clearly that industry is better in another country.

What about the jobs the locals refuse to do? Cleaning, Farmwork, and so on. Should we go without cleaners and farmhands?

Even then, upping those wages... it would be even cheaper to buy food from another country, for example. So those jobs are gone.

Ultimately, the best policy is to have no jobs at all.

[Pannonian]

Clearly that industry is better in another country.

What about the jobs the locals refuse to do? Cleaning, Farmwork, and so on. Should we go without cleaners and farmhands?

Even then, upping those wages... it would be even cheaper to buy food from another country, for example. So those jobs are gone.

Ultimately, the best policy is to have no jobs at all.

And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.

[Beskar]

And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.

Yup, referred to that in the selection for Arch-Villain thread.

[Husar]

And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.

You need to be competitive and take care of your own first. :clown:

[CrossLOPER]

Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing.
That's pretty much the US.

[Greyblades]

The EU is a tribe, just expanded to a larger size. Just look at the EC as the village elders and everything is fine. :dizzy2:
And who says that this is the responsibility of a tribe? ...Human nature. Unless you are a psychopath you should have noticed at least somewhat by the age of twenty that you have greater empathy with those you identify as similar to yourself than those alien to you, it's why you keep trading forum thanks with people that agree with you.

And no, the EU is not a tribe it is an political and economic institution, "Europe" is a tribe, one whose shallow connections and abstract identifiers is making the attempts to override the deep rooted tribes of national identity fail impressively.



So you agree that Scotland should secede because it has a different culture?
Or are you saying that the people in Lemiers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemiers) for example, should be separated by a border wall due to their completely different culture? I agree that Scotland should have the option to secede because it has it's own distinct culture. And I think that if lemiers were to become culturally polarized it should have the option of whatever border controls the political entities it stradles allow it to have


So you're saying that people other than the British think just like the British right after you said that cultures are too different across borders?
I occasionally ask rhetorically if people dont read my posts but in this case I am legitimately baffled as to how this relates to what I said.

I'm saying that an economic union that wants to preserve itself should not keep enforcing what is fracturing it in the first place. It is unreasonable to be damaging that which you want to preserve.


That it actually hurts nations if they do take the deal is something you have to prove first. [...] The whole path of mutual damage is something you need to prove, too. How were the EU countries damaged since they made these deals?Unemployment hurts nations.
Importing workers faster than you can create jobs makes more unemployment which hurts nations.
Agreements that require you to allow workers to be imported faster that you can create jobs makes more unemployment which hurts nations.
The EU is demanding an agreement that requires the swiss to allow workers to be imported faster that it can create jobs which makes more unemployment which hurts Switzerland.

I cant say it more simply. It hurts the nation and is doing the same thing to Britain caused it to leave the EU, which weakened the EU, (see value of the Euro and European markest before and after brexit), it stands to reason that continuing to enforce such deals on the nations in the EU will cause more to leave which will hurt the EU further


But noone forces the Swiss to take the deal, they can also have no deal. [...] And why should a trade partner not be allowed to add things for the sake of idealism? Is the only ideal worth having to earn more money? Again I am not they can't do it I am saying they shouldn't do it.


As for "pushes" leading to a weakening of the EU, that's also not very concrete, the Brexit was one event, not several, so why plural?And how do you know that the Brexit weakens the EU? Maybe the EU will emerge stronger from it than it ever was, how can you know after two weeks and before anything actually happened?

What I see is a load of assumptions but no proof for anything. Everything you say is merely your opinion so far that you state as though it were a fact. I think the real question is why not plural? There are independance movements all over europe, and with the success of the UK independance movment they will be enboldened and will try harder.

My opinion is based on trends in humanity that I was under the impression you were quite familiar with and considered fact. I did not feel I had to explain how humans have a tendency to be kept from actions by uncertainty but can become encouraged into action by seeing one man succeed. Nor did I feel I had to explain that restrictions, that would not be tolerated without the paralysis of uncertainty, are liable to be challenged once the uncertainty is removed.

I remember being shown a video a while back that exhibited this phenomenon, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO8MwBZl-Vc

Note that the crowd didnt form for a long time until a second person nutted up and joined the leader, then it formed very quickly. You are right to say that the UK leaving could be a one off event but that is itself an uncertainty, one that the EU will have to rely on to maintain what cohesion it still has and one that is not likely to remain uncertain when they do stuff like what they are doing with Swizerland.

Switzerland is in prime position to be the second person. If it does not back down and instead chooses to forcibly shed itself of the EU, even with it's special status, you can basically say goodbye to the rest of the unhappy EU members.

Now what I have just said is based on reasoning, my opinion comes in here: I think the EU can afford to accomodate Switzerland without encouraging the others to leave, it already has special status so I think that it will hurt less if the EU extends that status to include an exception to free movment. The swiss being given and exception here will be less likely to cause that watershed than if you gave the exception to, say, Italy, as it can be brushed off as just another in a long line of priveledges Switzerland has.

That makes me think that what they are doing now, basically a game of chicken, is utterly unreasonable. The EU is potentially risking everything over intimidating an entire country back into line. An attempt I cant see succeeding considering the Swiss take foreign bullying about as gladly as we British do.


Presumably you're not a fan of the proposed points system then. Since it allows skilled labour to enter this country, even after exiting the EU. It sounds like you're a hardliner, even by the Tory party's standards. No immigration at all, even if they're skilled and highly qualified workers that this country lacks.

I like the points system, because it spreads the pain among the self-styled middle class who prop up the thatcherism of both sides and encourages them to support immigration limits.

My ideal immigration system would be a points system with a limit, and any immigration over that limit has to be a temporary sponsership: the skilled worker is paired with a local trainee and works in the period of time it takes to train a local to do the job then gets sent home again with the British standard of wage he earned and and unfixed property he accumilates while here.

We get the skilled labour in the immediate, while retaining the job for a local and also having the benefit of having developing nations become infused with a new middle class who have tasted the benefits of British system and have earned a sizeable amount of money. Hopefully at least some of them will use that money to help to develope thier own nation to our own standards. An indirect and less costly method of nation building.

[Gilrandir]

I did not feel I had to explain how humans have a tendency to be kept from actions by uncertainty but can become encouraged into action by seeing one man succeed. Nor did I feel I had to explain that restrictions, that would not be tolerated without the paralysis of uncertainty, are liable to be challenged once the uncertainty is removed.


In case of Brexit, it did cause more uncertainty. And other countries who were inclined to do the same now will watch the unfolding of the experiment with interest. Before taking rush decisions.



I remember being shown a video a while back that exhibited this phenomenon, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO8MwBZl-Vc

Note that the crowd didnt form for a long time until a second person nutted up and joined the leader, then it formed very quickly.


That about sums it up for me. Likening Brexit to a "nutted dance" and hoping the onlookers would join in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One thing we can agree on that happened with this referendum result... British politics is getting destroyed.

Not really - the Conservatives are having an entirely normal leadership election. Given that we have a parliamentary system, and not a presidential one, the change of leader and Prime Minister is not a matter of concern for our democracy. A lot of people have been talking bollocks about an "unelected Prime Minister" but whoever replaces David Cameron will have been elected by their constituents.

As to what's happening with the Labour Party - it's only a crisis because Corbyn, having utterly failed to convince the working class even in Labour's heartland, not to Brexinate refuses to resign - even after having lost the support of the majority of the parliamentary party. Such a man can never be Prime Minister because he can never command the Confidence of Parliament, and also because he is an avowed Republican.

Lo, see the man who has strong principles and an unshakeable belief in his own moral superiority.

As to the "lies" told or the "divisions" revealed by the vote - these have been present for decades. It's just now suddenly obvious that politicians obscure the truth to get votes and London is completely divorced from the rest of the country, much of which lives in poverty relative to the Capital.

Aside from which, your comment is anti-democratic.


So much for the protestations that it was sovereignty that drove the Brexit vote. Sooner or later Brexiters let slip that it's all about the foreigners in their midst, taking their jobs and houses.

For many it was about sovereignty - for me it's about the right to determine our own fisheries and farming policy, and to be able to unelect politicians when they make bad decisions.

For a small minority it's about racism, but the dissatisfaction with Polish immigration has little to do with racism and a lot to do with wage depression, and it is brutally obvious that restricting EU immigration will open up jobs and force wages to rise.

Raising the minimum wage isn't a solution because it increases the problem of wage "leveling" where higher-skilled jobs are paid at the same rate as lower-skilled ones, pumping more money into social services isn't practical either, given the huge amounts we already spend.

The only long-term solution is actually to improve the situation in Poland, but all the EU has done since the financial crash is make things worse in poorer countries.


And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.


Yup, referred to that in the selection for Arch-Villain thread.

I wanted to quote these two together - because describing the leader of the Conservative Party as the "Arch-Villain" is risible given Pannonian's quote.

[Husar]

...Human nature. Unless you are a psychopath you should have noticed at least somewhat by the age of twenty that you have greater empathy with those you identify as similar to yourself than those alien to you, it's why you keep trading forum thanks with people that agree with you.

So unless you can't read, you should have noticed that a lot of the people I agree with are not from "my tribe", so you basically prove my point that arbitrary borders don't really matter.


And no, the EU is not a tribe it is an political and economic institution, "Europe" is a tribe, one whose shallow connections and abstract identifiers is making the attempts to override the deep rooted tribes of national identity fail impressively.

What deep rooted national tribes? Germany only became a nation in 1871, the UK is a nation that consists of several smaller nations, one of which is suddenly questioning these "deep rooted" "similarities". Obviously the UK is failing impressively as well as a "national tribe", which also proves your nationalist ideals wrong. If you want to bring up the 40% of Scots who want out of the EU, then you just prove that even within a small nation such as Scotland the idea of a common national direction makes no sense. You can go even further and look at families, a divorce rate somewhere around 50% clearly proves that we care so much about the ones closest to us. As do the people who hate their fathers or the fathers who molest their children. Wherever you want to draw the "ultimate border of kinship", I can pretty much always find some flaws. That's why the idea of what we currently call nations being superior to the EU is ridiculous to me.

You seem to have more in common with a German AfD voter than with Pannonian even though you share a line in your passport with Pannonian. Superficial cultural traits such as habits and food can be incredibly weak, just look at how McDonald's and Disney movies are easily accepted all over Europe and even the rest of the world. Or how no nationalists ever seem to rage about the existence of Italian restaurants in their neighborhoods...



I agree that Scotland should have the option to secede because it has it's own distinct culture. And I think that if lemiers were to become culturally polarized it should have the option of whatever border controls the political entities it stradles allow it to have

The point is that you can always find "cultural traits" that can be used to seperate people,, the emos and the jocks at school would also like to live in seperate nations, the parents of rich and poor children also infuse them with completely different behaviors and other cultural traits within pretty much any given modern nation. There current borders are simply historical developments that are otherwise rather arbitrary.
The sooner the elders would accept the EU as their nation, the sooner the young ones would grow up as EU citizens and accept that as their culture and their norm. The only thing stopping us are pointless ideas in our heads, whereas the benefits of having a bigger nation would seem to outweigh those ideas easily.



I occasionally ask rhetorically if people dont read my posts but in this case I am legitimately baffled as to how this relates to what I said.

I'm saying that an economic union that wants to preserve itself should not keep enforcing what is fracturing it in the first place. It is unreasonable to be damaging that which you want to preserve.

You said that the EU is more likely to fall apart now because every other or many other nations will react to this just like the British did.
On the other hand you claimed that the EU cannot or should not be together because the people of the various nations are too different.
Yet they will all behave in exactly the same way... :dizzy2: :inquisitive:


Unemployment hurts nations people.

Corrected that one for you.


Importing workers faster than you can create jobs makes more unemployment which hurts nations.
Agreements that require you to allow workers to be imported faster that you can create jobs makes more unemployment which hurts nations.
The EU is demanding an agreement that requires the swiss to allow workers to be imported faster that it can create jobs which makes more unemployment which hurts Switzerland.

The movement of money to Switzerland faster than the ICC in The Hague can get a hold of the mass murderers it belongs to kills people.
And if the EU were one nation, the internal movements wouldn't hurt it. Might as well say Northumbrians who move to London faster than London can create new jobs hurt Londons.
Since a nation is a just construct in your head that doesn't really exist, why does it matter if it gets hurt? What does a nation getting hurt mean anyway, blood falling from the sky? Yes, I'm questioning on a very, very basic level, because you just accept this idea of a hurting nation as a given and don't seem to think about why. The Brexit vote could also be said to have hurt nations going by how the stock markets reacted...


I cant say it more simply. It hurts the nation and is doing the same thing to Britain caused it to leave the EU, which weakened the EU, (see value of the Euro and European markest before and after brexit), it stands to reason that continuing to enforce such deals on the nations in the EU will cause more to leave which will hurt the EU further.

Again I am not they can't do it I am saying they shouldn't do it.

I think the real question is why not plural? There are independance movements all over europe, and with the success of the UK independance movment they will be enboldened and will try harder.

[shortened quote for aesthetics]

Switzerland is in prime position to be the second person. If it does not back down and instead chooses to forcibly shed itself of the EU, even with it's special status, you can basically say goodbye to the rest of the unhappy EU members.

That's a nice theory and all, but at least in Germany the opposite happened: http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/index.html

People who think the EU has advantages for us is up from 39% to 52%.
People who think it has more Detriments is down from 21% to 11%.
People who think the advantages and detriments are about the same down from 37% to 36%.

Maybe you forgot the part where people think more and harder about the advantages of the EU now and maybe quite a few now find out that it's not quite as bad as they used to think before they actually informed themselves or were properly informed by the media. If Britain gets itself into a lot of trouble with its Brexit, that may convince even more people that the EU is better for them. A few big corporations came out after the Brexit saying they want easier access to a big market so may move their headquarters/operations out of Britain into a country that stays in the EU, Vodafone was one of them. If people care about jobs so much, I guess Britain just lost quite a few of those.

That the unchangeable try-hard outers will feel emboldened now does not have to mean much, they may also get pushed into a fringe corner if Britain fails.


Now what I have just said is based on reasoning, my opinion comes in here: I think the EU can afford to accomodate Switzerland without encouraging the others to leave, it already has special status so I think that it will hurt less if the EU extends that status to include an exception to free movment. The swiss being given and exception here will be less likely to cause that watershed than if you gave the exception to, say, Italy, as it can be brushed off as just another in a long line of priveledges Switzerland has.

That makes me think that what they are doing now, basically a game of chicken, is utterly unreasonable. The EU is potentially risking everything over intimidating an entire country back into line. An attempt I cant see succeeding considering the Swiss take foreign bullying about as gladly as we British do.

The Swiss flooding the market with cheaper products while giving nothing in return hurts nations...
Might as well buy an German-/EU-made watch to support a local business according to your nationalist logic.
If they want to a competitive advantage on our watch market, we want a competitive advantage on their jobs market.
Why treat human resources any different than any other resource in a trade agreement?
You're making completely arbitrary exceptions here instead of thinking like a true capitalist, are you sure you belong to the Western Capitalist Culture? ~;)

[Gilrandir]

There current borders are simply historical developments that are otherwise rather arbitrary.

Are you quoting Putin?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/vladmir-putin-accuses-lenin-of-placing-a-time-bomb-under-russia

He [Putin] said Lenin’s government had whimsically drawn borders between parts of the USSR, placing Donbass under the Ukrainian jurisdiction in order to increase the percentage of proletariat in a move Putin called “delirious”.



Since a nation is a just construct in your head that doesn't really exist, why does it matter if it gets hurt?

I'm afraid this concept is far from being born and existing in just one head. Is is one of the keystones of modern world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

It doesn't mean it is devoid of ambiguity, though.



A few big corporations came out after the Brexit saying they want easier access to a big market so may move their headquarters/operations out of Britain into a country that stays in the EU, Vodafone was one of them.


On a linguistic sidenote: one of the poorest choices as a brand name (or logo or what-do-you-call-it). Everytime I hear it, I hear rather "what the f*ck".

[Greyblades]

Vodafone is ukranian for WTF?

[Husar]

Are you quoting Putin?

No, but great minds think alike? ~;)


I'm afraid this concept is far from being born and existing in just one head. Is is one of the keystones of modern world.

If you really want to make a case about national borders having to be in a certain place on the map based on inherent national territry, let's talk about what Poland, France and Belgium STOLE FROM US: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Germanborders.svg/2000px-Germanborders.svg.png

I mean, seriously?
And doesn't Texas belong to the nation of Mexico? What's Iraq? I only know Persia, no I mean Assyria, and then there is this:
http://www.crystalinks.com/romanempiremap.gif

That worked more or less for a few hundred years and now that we are so modern we can't even make an EU work?
What's next? The English can share a Caesar with Egyptians but Polish culture is too different?
As for being a cornerstone, so was slavery or serfdom for thousands of years and we changed it anyway.

What about the US?
Originally a British colony full of British people who were then joined by people from all over the world and the place just formed it's own new culture. Was that such a huge failure? Did the different cultures clash so hard that the place just had to fail?


On a linguistic sidenote: one of the poorest choices as a brand name (or logo or what-do-you-call-it). Everytime I hear it, I hear rather "what the f*ck".

As a pronunciational reply, I think you're pronouncing it wrong. ~;)

[Gilrandir]

Vodafone is ukranian for WTF?

It sounds similar in English, especially if one slurs as it sometimes happens in rapid speech and with "da" instead of "the" as it is the case with the so-called "American black English" and with "v" and "w" interchanged as is the case with cockney.


No, but great minds think alike? ~;)

A lame attempt to cover for plagiarism.



If you really want to make a case about national borders having to be in a certain place on the map based on inherent national territry, let's talk about what Poland, France and Belgium STOLE FROM US: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Germanborders.svg/2000px-Germanborders.svg.png


My case with national borders is that they NOW are where they are, and start revisioning the map on the pretext that something was wrongfully wrung from someone (as Putin does) leads to what it has led. I'm sure every nation has some territories which it considers stolen.



As a pronunciational reply, I think you're pronouncing it wrong. ~;)

Which one of them?

[Shaka_Khan]

I'd like to read the Brits' perspectives on this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbiqq4T7ObM

[Husar]

My case with national borders is that they NOW are where they are, and start revisioning the map on the pretext that something was wrongfully wrung from someone (as Putin does) leads to what it has led. I'm sure every nation has some territories which it considers stolen.

But that argument could have been made at any point in the past and can still be made at any point in the future. An EU superstate would solve it as far as the territories within it are concerned. And it shows that arguments such as "this space belongs to nation A, people from nation B cannot live there" are ultimately futile as nation B may be willing to change this through war. A good way to prevent this is that nation A and B just cooperate and ultimately merge or nation A joins a big superstate that nation B cannot afford to go to war with.
Ultimately nation B may then want to join the superstate, too, because being outside is quite lonely, but joining it means trying to fit in, like not being a dictatorship, not torturing prisoners and all these annoying moral codes that the people inside take for granted but also find really obnoxious to ask from others in return for a trade deal. Probably better to buy the blood diamonds without asking how many children died in the mines. :dizzy2:


Which one of them?

Vodafone, here's an Italian saying it a few times: http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/careers.html

I can somewhat understand the "voda" = "who da", but the rest is just in your mind. ~;)

[Beskar]

Ian Hislop: 'Remainers are entitled to go on making the argument'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36742691

I definitely agree with the 2nd half of his speech.

[Gilrandir]

But that argument could have been made at any point in the past and can still be made at any point in the future.

Not in the past, I'm afraid. Back then people thought in terms of "more territory - more power". Some of them still do now. But I believe contemporary world has realized (perhaps it was just impossible before) that a country can become powerful through other means. You don't need to annex some land to spread your influence over it. All you need is to inundate this territory with your goods, films, TV produce, companies, technologies, in a word - your material and spiritual culture - and the land is yours. So not in the past, now and in future - yes.



An EU superstate would solve it as far as the territories within it are concerned.

You don't look further than Europe. Nations exist beyond it. So it will take more than one uberstate to solve the problem ultimately.




I can somewhat understand the "voda" = "who da", but the rest is just in your mind. ~;)
"Voda" sounds more like "What da", not "who da". And when you hear "what da..."+ F, the mind easily anticipates the completion of the phrase.

[Husar]

Not in the past, I'm afraid. Back then people thought in terms of "more territory - more power". Some of them still do now. But I believe contemporary world has realized (perhaps it was just impossible before) that a country can become powerful through other means. You don't need to annex some land to spread your influence over it. All you need is to inundate this territory with your goods, films, TV produce, companies, technologies, in a word - your material and spiritual culture - and the land is yours. So not in the past, now and in future - yes.

The problem is that governments are not doing that, but corporations.
So you think that corporations will replace governments in the future?
The whole powerful through other means thing basically relies on having a big technological and therefore economical and military advantage over others. For this to remain true, others need to be actively stopped from developing to reach similar levels as your own, that's like a slave owner mentality except that the ones you keep down live beyond a border fence and you always claim that they're sovereign and responsible for their own issues while you intentionnally try to keep them worse than you to maintain your power. How that is morally any better than outright conquering them or joining with them and allowing them the same basic rights and standards is something you need to explain to me.


You don't look further than Europe. Nations exist beyond it. So it will take more than one uberstate to solve the problem ultimately.

You say that as though I were not aware even though I specifically mentioned that.
And no, it does not, once the EU grows into the OWG, the problem can be ultimately solved for everyone.


"Voda" sounds more like "What da", not "who da". And when you hear "what da..."+ F, the mind easily anticipates the completion of the phrase.

You and your dirty mind, I cannot relate, sorry. :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ian Hislop: 'Remainers are entitled to go on making the argument'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36742691

I definitely agree with the 2nd half of his speech.

That's funny, because I only really agree with the first part.

Getting particularly fed up with everyone blaming David Cameron.

[Beskar]

That's funny, because I only really agree with the first part.

Getting particularly fed up with everyone blaming David Cameron.

He messed up royally, whatever side of the brexit debate people are on. So it is rather deserved.

[Greyblades]

Yeah but the pro brexit dont count the referndum as a screw up.

[Devastatin Dave]

Will the UK still have terrible food and no sunshine?

[Greyblades]

We had our first day of sunshine in 50 years the day the referrendum result came in, it made the remain vote's sense of despair all the more wonderful to witness.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He messed up royally, whatever side of the brexit debate people are on. So it is rather deserved.

Did he?

He's a democratically elected politician who fulfilled a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on a subject of importance to our Constitution and our Democracy.

You can go through his speeches and trace a line from the controversy over the Lisbon Treaty to now, and make an argument this was an issue of principle for him - or at least keeping to his commitments.

So...

How did he​ mess up?

[Greyblades]

It's a matter of perspective, Remainers like Beskar think Cameron screwed up because what he did resulted in something they didnt want to happen.

On the other hand we Brexiteers think Cameron didnt screw up because what he did resulted in something that we did want to happen.

[Husar]

It's a matter of perspective, Remainers like Beskar think Cameron screwed up because what he did resulted in something they didnt want to happen.

On the other hand we Brexiteers think Cameron didnt screw up because what he did resulted in something that we did want to happen.

It also resulted in something he didn't want to happen. Actually two things.
He saw it as a way to reinforce his politics and his career and he lost both in the gamble.
He retired and he didn't get the reassurance that he got elected to keep Britain in the EU.

He promised a vote expecting a remain result, got elected based on that promise and then it completely backfired. You could almost say he got trolled by the voters.

I personally don't blame him in the aggressive sense though, no need to kick a man who is already down and mistakes are human. His response to step down was at least consistent IMO.

[Beskar]

David Cameron never had a plan or contigiunency for an actual Brexit either, and he implied that Article 50 would have been activated Asap. He was so sure of his own victory, arrogant in his political choices that he set the country down a direction he did not want, and did nothing to plan for his own failure.

That is pretty damning.

Also, trying to throw away legitimate and serious arguments with going 'lol he is just a remainer, brexit forever' doesn't reflect poorly on me, especially the points I am making are still the same regardless of the result and pro-brexit individuals in real life agree and have have the same concerns. Only shows you're not understanding the argument and being unnessecarily biased.

Plus, I have previously said I found my referendum choice to be difficult. As planned and properly implemented Brexit had the potential of actually achieving some good results. Unfortunately, the state of the Brexit so far is shambles and displayed massive incompetence of those involved.

[Gilrandir]

The problem is that governments are not doing that, but corporations.
So you think that corporations will replace governments in the future?


Someone here said that governments do whatever corporations tell them. The governments may go crazy sometimes and try to get away, but sooner or later they will find themselves in harness again. The example of this could be anti-Russian sanctions, which are found more and more burdensome by corporations and are likely to be lifted in December, though governments can't offer any political reason why (nothing has changed since they were introduced).



The whole powerful through other means thing basically relies on having a big technological and therefore economical and military advantage over others. For this to remain true, others need to be actively stopped from developing to reach similar levels as your own, that's like a slave owner mentality except that the ones you keep down live beyond a border fence and you always claim that they're sovereign and responsible for their own issues while you intentionnally try to keep them worse than you to maintain your power.


Once you have taken the lead and are richer than others, you don't need to anchor them where they are. You just drain their best minds, which is happenning on a large scale now. So once you have lagged behind, there's hardly any chance you catch up with the leaders.



You say that as though I were not aware even though I specifically mentioned that.
And no, it does not, once the EU grows into the OWG, the problem can be ultimately solved for everyone.

Right now it seems that the EU is growing into OMG. And what's OWG? Olympic Winter Games? Osteoporosis Working Group?

Anyway, creating a world-wide federation is only a wishful thinking. Look at UNO and tell me how effective a world government can be. Unless it is headed by a North Korean guy, of course.

[Greyblades]

It also resulted in something he didn't want to happen. Actually two things.

Actually I covered that under the first sentance and I wasnt taking into account his lack of preperatory action, that was a screw up from any perspective.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

David Cameron never had a plan or contigiunency for an actual Brexit either, and he implied that Article 50 would have been activated Asap. He was so sure of his own victory, arrogant in his political choices that he set the country down a direction he did not want, and did nothing to plan for his own failure.

That's all right. Blair and Bush DID achieve victory in Iraq...and still didn't have a plan for after. At least you can ascribe this non-planning to optimism.

[Pannonian]

That's all right. Blair and Bush DID achieve victory in Iraq...and still didn't have a plan for after. At least you can ascribe this non-planning to optimism.

Blair and Bush didn't abandon responsibility for their mess a week into their ground victory. Farage criticised the 350m/day for the NHS claim the day after the Leave victory, while others have disclaimed immigration controls within 3 days of the victory, and Greyblades and possibly PVH have said that Leave supporters have no responsibility whatsoever for the aftermath. One of the Labour MPs has set up a record listing all the promises that the Leave campaigners have abandoned after they got their result. And it's not yet 3 weeks after the result. They were idiots, but on following through with their promises and planning for the aftermath, Blair and Bush were far, far more responsible than the Brexit campaigners.

Among the Brexit leaders, Farage and Johnson, the two faces of the campaign, have either quit leadership or quit the leadership contest of their own free will, thus voluntarily abandoning ownership of the referendum result. Both within 10 days of the result. Blair left his premiership in 2007, Bush his presidency in 2008.

[Husar]

Someone here said that governments do whatever corporations tell them. The governments may go crazy sometimes and try to get away, but sooner or later they will find themselves in harness again. The example of this could be anti-Russian sanctions, which are found more and more burdensome by corporations and are likely to be lifted in December, though governments can't offer any political reason why (nothing has changed since they were introduced).

I think they can just claim Russia improved because there is hardly going to be a huge uproar trying to prove them wrong. Statements like "We think that we can say the Russians are showing good fairth and that we are moving into a good direction since our latest talks, so the sanctions can be lifted to reward the promises."
Whether governments just do what corporations tell them, well, that is my point and also isn't. Because what I think is that the smaller the government and the bigger the corporation, the more likely that the corporation has more control over the government than vice versa. That is because the EU politicians represent a market of say 400 million relatively rich potential customers, the politicians of say, Luxembourg on the other hand...
Take the following quote about a from Rupert Murdoch: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-stay-or-go-the-lack-of-solid-facts-means-it-s-all-a-leap-of-faith-a3189151.html


I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”

This exemplifies exactly what I mean. Congrats for being "sovereign"!


Once you have taken the lead and are richer than others, you don't need to anchor them where they are. You just drain their best minds, which is happenning on a large scale now. So once you have lagged behind, there's hardly any chance you catch up with the leaders.

Well, yeah, I'd call draining their best minds keeping them down, so we basically agree on that I guess.


Right now it seems that the EU is growing into OMG. And what's OWG? Olympic Winter Games? Osteoporosis Working Group?

Anyway, creating a world-wide federation is only a wishful thinking. Look at UNO and tell me how effective a world government can be. Unless it is headed by a North Korean guy, of course.

I thought it was a common abbreviation for One-World Government, but I could be mistaken.
The UNO is a bad example, it was not created with the aim of actually governing anything, it was just meant to provide alternative means of conflict resolution and conflict prevention.

[Greyblades]

Greyblades and possibly PVH have said that Leave supporters have no responsibility whatsoever for the aftermath.
No more responsibility for the aftermath than you would have for running the country on a remain victory. I mean thus far I havent exactly had anyone give me position of tyrant and told me to sort out this mess, the order must have gotten lost in the mail.

I also am not entirely convinced that Farage has actually jumped ship, he's stil in the european parliament calling juncker at twat and now that brexit is a go UKIP is dead anyway, resigning seems more a formality than anything else.

[Gilrandir]

I think they can just claim Russia improved because there is hardly going to be a huge uproar trying to prove them wrong. Statements like "We think that we can say the Russians are showing good fairth and that we are moving into a good direction since our latest talks, so the sanctions can be lifted to reward the promises."


Moving into a good direction presupposes some steps amounting to fulfulling Minsk agreements. None of those were taken, starting with point 1 - ceasefire. So they will have to invent something more credible - or disregard possible uproar completely. Especially if uproar is going to be small as you expect.



Whether governments just do what corporations tell them, well, that is my point and also isn't. Because what I think is that the smaller the government and the bigger the corporation, the more likely that the corporation has more control over the government than vice versa. That is because the EU politicians represent a market of say 400 million relatively rich potential customers, the politicians of say, Luxembourg on the other hand...
Take the following quote about a from Rupert Murdoch: http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/anthony-hilton-stay-or-go-the-lack-of-solid-facts-means-it-s-all-a-leap-of-faith-a3189151.html

This exemplifies exactly what I mean. Congrats for being "sovereign"!


The problem with such governments as the EU has is that they take all decisions by consensus. Having politically diverse members with historically different ties makes the whole machinery very unwieldy and easily subject to outward influences piecemeal. As a result, decisions favored by most (but not all) are harder to take and easier to botch. Corporations, on the other hand, are under one hand, so their decision taking process isn't that complicated. Thus, it is hard for corporations to influence the EU government as a whole (which isn't true of national governments), but they can prevent some steps they don't like by working with national factions within the united goverment.



The UNO is a bad example, it was not created with the aim of actually governing anything, it was just meant to provide alternative means of conflict resolution and conflict prevention.

Since they aren't good at either of those, the example is good - just think how an organization this big and clumsy would govern anything.

[Idaho]

No more responsibility for the aftermath than you would have for running the country on a remain victory. I mean thus far I havent exactly had anyone give me position of tyrant and told me to sort out this mess, the order must have gotten lost in the mail.

I also am not entirely convinced that Farage has actually jumped ship, he's stil in the european parliament calling juncker at twat and now that brexit is a go UKIP is dead anyway, resigning seems more a formality than anything else.

Rebels without a clue.

[Greyblades]

Verses Conformists without a concience.

[Fragony]

Rebels without a clue.

Who have a very solid story. It's true that multinationals are planning to go elsewhere, is that bad? Nah. Perfect chance for smaller companies to escape from the lobbyists in Brussel, they can't compete with those. Not that I sm going to wager one of my testicles on a happy outcome per sé but the grabbings for are more stable economy are in reach it will just take a while and probably hurt. But England will be just fine.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

David Cameron never had a plan or contigiunency for an actual Brexit either, and he implied that Article 50 would have been activated Asap. He was so sure of his own victory, arrogant in his political choices that he set the country down a direction he did not want, and did nothing to plan for his own failure.

That is pretty damning.

It's very embarressing, it's not "damning".

Cameron didn't have a plan for something that pretty much everyone thought wouldn't happen - and if he had a plan it would have given credence to the claims he was a "secret Brexiter" Added to that, much as it has been claimed that the EU Commission had a plan it's pretty clear the EU as a whole does not, it was not until a week AFTER Brexit that they first said the UK would have to leave the EU and THEN negotiate a trade deal.

You're also assuming that Cameron's "political choices" are just that - purely political. There's no room in your evaluation for his moral outrage at the British people being denied a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

https://youtu.be/ocIuvi_QqXk

The Youtube poster called this a "WIDE open goal", that Cameron refused to say he would hold a referendum whatever the outcome in Poland in the Czech Republic - remember that at this point Britain has already ratified the treaty in the House of Commons. What Cameron is trying to avoid is to admit in that interview is that once the Treaty is ratified he can't hold a referendum on it, only on leaving the EU.

Fast Forward 6.5 years and he holds a Referendum on the UK's Membership of the EU because he believes the Lisbon Treaty was a bad treaty and the British people should have a say. Holding the Referendum is the only morally defensible course given what he was saying in 2008-09. He tried to repatriate powers from the EU, he did get a few concessions but not enough to mollify the people who were angry after what the last Labour Government did.

I was paying attention back then, maybe you weren't, but I can see a direct line from Blair's refusal to hold a Referendum up to Brexit, Cameron was following that line - it's ironic that his consistency is something he's now being criticised - along with adhering to the platform he was elected on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Rebels without a clue.

Did you bother to vote this time?

[Greyblades]

Brexit: Government rejects second EU referendum petition signed by 4.1 million (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-government-rejects-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html)


‘We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU,’ the Government says

The Government has rejected a call for a second referendum on European Union membership in a petition that was signed by more than 4.1 million people following the Brexit vote.

It was the most-signed Government petition since the process was introduced in 2011.

However in an official reply, the Foreign Office said 33 million people had had their say and “the decision must be respected”.

“We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU,” it said.

The petition, which was set up by a Brexit supporter before the referendum was held, had called for the Government to annul the results if the Remain or Leave vote won by less than 60 per cent on a turnout of less than 75 per cent.

Government petitions which reach over 100,000 signatures must be considered for debate in parliament.

The Foreign Office said: “The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

“As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say.

“The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once-in-a-generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.”

[Husar]

Moving into a good direction presupposes some steps amounting to fulfulling Minsk agreements. None of those were taken, starting with point 1 - ceasefire. So they will have to invent something more credible - or disregard possible uproar completely. Especially if uproar is going to be small as you expect.

Uproar where?
https://scontent.ftxl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13631420_10153707662031711_6150418299113473927_n.jpg?oh=b8bdd8dac1f168feb4cfb43e7625f924&oe=582D3A73

This one claims 2/3rds of Germans are against stationing troops near Russia and 9 of 10 wish for more dialogue with Russia.
Even if the numbers are inflated, I think you would hardly find anyone in (Western) Europe against it willing to start an uproar even if politicians claimed it was a mistake in the first place.


The problem with such governments as the EU has is that they take all decisions by consensus. Having politically diverse members with historically different ties makes the whole machinery very unwieldy and easily subject to outward influences piecemeal. As a result, decisions favored by most (but not all) are harder to take and easier to botch. Corporations, on the other hand, are under one hand, so their decision taking process isn't that complicated. Thus, it is hard for corporations to influence the EU government as a whole (which isn't true of national governments), but they can prevent some steps they don't like by working with national factions within the united goverment.

The goal is political integration, given that most member countries have very similar democracies and democratic "traditions", I'd assume that shouldn't be too hard once nationalism is out of the way. If it breaks apart due to nationalism before that, well, too bad...You get what you vote for as a people.


Since they aren't good at either of those, the example is good - just think how an organization this big and clumsy would govern anything.

You keep assuming that it would have to be big and clumsy, or were you arguing that we'd all be better off if efficient super corporations ruled over us?

[Brenus]

"it was not until a week AFTER Brexit that they first said the UK would have to leave the EU and THEN negotiate a trade deal" Not I am really interested, but the EU has rules. A referendum is not legally binding (see ours in France), so until UK officially declares UK is out by going for Article 50, nothing can be done. You can't expel a country from EU, even if politicians try to persuade Greece they could.
Then it is in the interest of every body NOT to speed-up the process, because all treaties signed by EU with UK in it will become non-applicable.
And for this as well:
https://youtu.be/uyyOyoeqKfM

[Greyblades]

I think this comment on that video sums up my feelings rather well:


That's true: If one party loses a general election, it doesn't stop giving its opinion. But nor does it attempt (as various rich and influential Remainers have) to overturn democracy by suggesting we ignore the vote entirely, or by asking for a second election next week so that everyone can pick the "correct" result.

If Donald Trump wins the US election, Americans who voted for Hiliary won't be able to say, "Well, let's just ignore that result and put Hiliary in instead! Trump voters are stupid." Or: "Surely the Trump voters didn't have all of the information. Now they're better informed, let's have another election and maybe they'll get the right answer this time." lol

So, even using an election to draw an analogy, many Remainers are out of line.

P.S. I didn't vote Leave. I abstained from voting because I was too torn on the issue. But some of the condescending and downright undemocratic rhetoric coming from certain embittered members of the Remain camp has made me more supportive of the Leave result.

This is what the people chose. People need to deal with it, and everyone needs to muster a little pride and confidence in their country and come together to make independence work ... the way it worked for hundreds of years before the EU was even conceived.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"it was not until a week AFTER Brexit that they first said the UK would have to leave the EU and THEN negotiate a trade deal" Not I am really interested, but the EU has rules. A referendum is not legally binding (see ours in France), so until UK officially declares UK is out by going for Article 50, nothing can be done. You can't expel a country from EU, even if politicians try to persuade Greece they could.
Then it is in the interest of every body NOT to speed-up the process, because all treaties signed by EU with UK in it will become non-applicable.
And for this as well:
https://youtu.be/uyyOyoeqKfM

Yes, Brenus, I know all that. You missed my point - nobody from the EU Commission said during the Referendum campaign that we would negotiate an exit and THEN a trade deal. Why not?

Probably because the relevent people ignored the Referendum, or nobody checked the rulebook viz Article 50.

[Fragony]

Make it easy on yourself, tradedeals that were made in the eec before there was such a thing as the EU still stand, they will tell you they don't but they do

[Gilrandir]

This one claims 2/3rds of Germans are against stationing troops near Russia and 9 of 10 wish for more dialogue with Russia.

Yet NATO summit adopted a decision to increase the number of troops billeted in Poland and the Baltic states.



The goal is political integration, given that most member countries have very similar democracies and democratic "traditions", I'd assume that shouldn't be too hard once nationalism is out of the way. If it breaks apart due to nationalism before that, well, too bad...You get what you vote for as a people.

Democratic traditions amy be similar, but historical background of friendly relations can be a factor to count with.



You keep assuming that it would have to be big and clumsy, or were you arguing that we'd all be better off if efficient super corporations ruled over us?
The former.

[Brenus]

"Why not?" Could be because it will be no negotiation. Cameron did negotiate something, UK said you are out, end of. Next step is UK get out, then will "negotiate" (only question allowed being where do I sign) if UK wants access to common market.
Which of course will blow-up all the reasons which were sold to the public as reasons to exit EU.
The main "brexiters" are out, the next Prime Minister might be a woman who wasn't one of them.
And yes, nobody really knew what exit means, what were the steps, which is a little bit a shock when you campaign for something not to at least have a look..
A bit like to go to surgery operation and be surprised you will be sedated and cut...
So, next country that want to exit, please come with a plan, and don't let the Extreme-Right and Tories to impose the agenda.
I can't see any of the left-wing reason to leave actually put on the table.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvlg8YK3iSU

[Husar]

(video)

He seems like a nice guy but his argumentation is strange.
First he mentions the English being proud of having defended their sovereignty in WW1 and WW2, but then again those people have mostly died out by now. He later says the English/UK people are not nationalist and don't want to hang on to laws made by people who are dead. Why then hang on to the WW2 victories?
His claim that England defended itself from the Lebensraum-ambitions of the Nazis could also hardly be more wrong since the Lebensraum thing didn't apply to the UK at all, it was directed toward the East, Poland and Russia, while the English were seen as fellow aryans.

The argument about where laws come from is just a matter of perspective, according to him, the UK has most laws from appointed (not elected) judges and that is somehow better because it is based on conflict resolution between citizens. But why then criticize the EC for not being elected but appointed law makers if your own judges are just the same? Meanwhile judges make quite a few decisions which basically become law in other European countries as well, so I'm not even sure if the difference is as big as he makes it out to be. Going by the British argument that the British parliament is elected while the EC is not, I'd assumed that the parliament is a very important law maker in Britain as well. :dizzy2:

If there's one thing I have learned, it's that you island people do indeed see the world differently, but I'm not sure if that is as positive a thing as you think. So as I said before, maybe it's better that you do leave so we can move forward and you can do whatever it is that you want to do. It's just sad for the 48% of UK citizens who just have to live with that, but otherwise it'd be 52% who'd have to do that I guess.

[Greyblades]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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


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

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

[Gilrandir]

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


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

And Leadsom backs out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-11/may-to-succeed-cameron-as-leadsom-quits-u-k-leadership-contest

[Pannonian]

He seems like a nice guy but his argumentation is strange.
First he mentions the English being proud of having defended their sovereignty in WW1 and WW2, but then again those people have mostly died out by now. He later says the English/UK people are not nationalist and don't want to hang on to laws made by people who are dead. Why then hang on to the WW2 victories?
His claim that England defended itself from the Lebensraum-ambitions of the Nazis could also hardly be more wrong since the Lebensraum thing didn't apply to the UK at all, it was directed toward the East, Poland and Russia, while the English were seen as fellow aryans.

The argument about where laws come from is just a matter of perspective, according to him, the UK has most laws from appointed (not elected) judges and that is somehow better because it is based on conflict resolution between citizens. But why then criticize the EC for not being elected but appointed law makers if your own judges are just the same? Meanwhile judges make quite a few decisions which basically become law in other European countries as well, so I'm not even sure if the difference is as big as he makes it out to be. Going by the British argument that the British parliament is elected while the EC is not, I'd assumed that the parliament is a very important law maker in Britain as well. :dizzy2:

If there's one thing I have learned, it's that you island people do indeed see the world differently, but I'm not sure if that is as positive a thing as you think. So as I said before, maybe it's better that you do leave so we can move forward and you can do whatever it is that you want to do. It's just sad for the 48% of UK citizens who just have to live with that, but otherwise it'd be 52% who'd have to do that I guess.

When Virginia voted to leave the Union, the western bit broke off as they wanted to remain inside.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When Virginia voted to leave the Union, the western bit broke off as they wanted to remain inside.

We handled the whole thing rather quasi-legally (or expediently and the laws be damned if you prefer).

Union Position: Secession is illegal as there is no provision for it in the Constitution. But if you want to secede from a Rebel Secession state, that is just hunky-dory by us.

Confederate Position: A procedure to join in as a new state implies the right of the state to depart though no procedure is specified. We want out.

Resolution: Fight a war, amateurishly, and kill 600-800k soldiers and civilians, mostly by disease. Union position adopted by right of conquest.

[Greyblades]

I was going with the idea that the referendum is representative. If you'd say it is not, then I'd argue the UK shouldn't leave based on what only 26% of the population want. You also forgot to subtract the citizens who are too young to vote unless babies can already vote in the UK.
The word "citizen" includes the young, the incapable, even the criminal. You seemed to be giving the impression that 48% of everyone in the country actively didn't want to leave.


Well, tell that to the guy in the video who said law in the UK was/is made from the bottom by the people/courts whereas in continental Europe it's a Napoleonic top-down approach. I'm at work an lacking headphones so I cannot comment on the video beyond what the auto-generated subtitles tell me, but it sort of is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBq1dZGrR3c#t=176

[HopAlongBunny]

Looks like May is PM:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0ZR19P?sp=true

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

[Gilrandir]

I'm at work an lacking headphones


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

[Greyblades]

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

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

Let's deal with the point one by one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a legitimate question.

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

[Husar]

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

I need to sleep now but thanks for the explanations.

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

I recognize my understanding of the matter is flawed. Would it be possible for you to walk me through it? I am not entirely sure which bits I got wrong and leaving me to figure it out myself is likely to just give me a different, equally wrong idea.

[CrossLOPER]

By the way, a micrometer and a nanometer are smaller than a 30th of an inch. ~;)
Please, please you are being too practical. You don't want to be like those scientists, do you?

[Kralizec]

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

Apparently there are 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1760 yard in a mile....or 63360 inch. Yep, clearly better than the metric system in many ways.

AFAIK among British and American scientists and engineers metric units have been used since time immemorial...but those are experts, and Michael Gove says that Britain has had enough of them :shrug:

[Brenus]

"The British, especially English, legal system was built up from the bottom" And I though that the Magna Carta, base of the entire legal system in UK I was told, was imposed to the King by the Barons... Your bottom is not that deep...
And by the way, you should go to the Ceremony held in a Church were new and old Judges show the Sovereign's power... The symbolic is quite telling...

[Husar]

Apparently there are 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard and 1760 yard in a mile....or 63360 inch. Yep, clearly better than the metric system in many ways.

AFAIK among British and American scientists and engineers metric units have been used since time immemorial...but those are experts, and Michael Gove says that Britain has had enough of them :shrug:

Ok, now you gave me an excuse to post this again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"The British, especially English, legal system was built up from the bottom" And I though that the Magna Carta, base of the entire legal system in UK I was told, was imposed to the King by the Barons... Your bottom is not that deep...
And by the way, you should go to the Ceremony held in a Church were new and old Judges show the Sovereign's power... The symbolic is quite telling...

No, that's just the first Statute, English Law, as you well know, predates Magna Carta by several centuries.


Ok, now you gave me an excuse to post this again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk

Except, as he demonstrated, it does all hang together. Nobody uses all those measures, people use some of them depending on what they're doing, and all those measures were applicable in their given context.

For example, a Nautical Mile was originally 1/60th of the distance between two lines of latitude, which makes it useful for traditional navigation using the sun and starts - now it isn't, so if you use a modern Nautical Mile and a Sextant you're going to have odd numbers.

A League in Imperial (on land) in three statute miles, which is about what a man can walk in an hour carry a pack/leading a pack horse. Therefore, a distance of 8 Leagues can be understood as a day's walk.

Interestingly (and I just discovered this) a Roman League is 1.5 Roman miles, which means a Roman League is roughly the distance you can walk in half an hour because the Romans had miles 5% shorter than Statue Mile, and they generally reckoned you covered ground somewhat faster than in later periods.

[Husar]

Except, as he demonstrated, it does all hang together. Nobody uses all those measures, people use some of them depending on what they're doing, and all those measures were applicable in their given context.

For example, a Nautical Mile was originally 1/60th of the distance between two lines of latitude, which makes it useful for traditional navigation using the sun and starts - now it isn't, so if you use a modern Nautical Mile and a Sextant you're going to have odd numbers.

A League in Imperial (on land) in three statute miles, which is about what a man can walk in an hour carry a pack/leading a pack horse. Therefore, a distance of 8 Leagues can be understood as a day's walk.

Interestingly (and I just discovered this) a Roman League is 1.5 Roman miles, which means a Roman League is roughly the distance you can walk in half an hour because the Romans had miles 5% shorter than Statue Mile, and they generally reckoned you covered ground somewhat faster than in later periods.

Amazing.
How many sextants are used to fly an aeroplane from London to New York?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Amazing.
How many sextants are used to fly an aeroplane from London to New York?

None - but if your computer breaks in the middle of the Atlantic and your pocket calculator falls overboard you'll be cursing the metric system whilst you're there with charts and tables, repeatedly carrying the one.

The point is, all he did to "rubbish" the Imperial system was reel off all the different sub-divisions, he spent no time talking about why they all exist. That could have been a really interesting video.

For example, a Nautical Mile is is 1/60th of the distance between two line of latitude, or one navigational Minute, this is then divided into 10 cables, Cables being a usable measure at see. So, if you know the location of one ship and then run a cable to another ship, and take a bearing, you can likewise detmine the location of the other ship even without making any observations from it. This has navigational implications with regard to undersea hazards and is generally useful.

By contrast, the Statue mile is 1/3 of a League on land, which is the distance a man can walk in an hour. One explanation for the variation of the length of a mile is the difficulty in traversing the ground (and therefore the time taken) in different parts of the country.

The point is, for many day-to-day activities Imperial works better than metric, it arguably even works better when you're building a house, say, because Imperial works on multiples of 12 and so do degrees.

But no, he just rubbished the system by referring to a medieval English Statue that defines an incg in relation to three dry barley corns.

[Gilrandir]

Your bottom is not that deep...


Now, Husar, do you still think low of my reading of Vodafone?




For example, a Nautical Mile was originally 1/60th of the distance between two lines of latitude, which makes it useful for traditional navigation using the sun and starts - now it isn't, so if you use a modern Nautical Mile and a Sextant you're going to have odd numbers.

For example, a Nautical Mile is is 1/60th of the distance between two line of latitude, or one navigational Minute, this is then divided into 10 cables, Cables being a usable measure at see. So, if you know the location of one ship and then run a cable to another ship, and take a bearing, you can likewise detmine the location of the other ship even without making any observations from it. This has navigational implications with regard to undersea hazards and is generally useful.


:rolleyes4: For God's sake, let them Leave.

[Kralizec]

For example, a Nautical Mile is is 1/60th of the distance between two line of latitude, or one navigational Minute, this is then divided into 10 cables, Cables being a usable measure at see. So, if you know the location of one ship and then run a cable to another ship, and take a bearing, you can likewise detmine the location of the other ship even without making any observations from it. This has navigational implications with regard to undersea hazards and is generally useful.

By contrast, the Statue mile is 1/3 of a League on land, which is the distance a man can walk in an hour. One explanation for the variation of the length of a mile is the difficulty in traversing the ground (and therefore the time taken) in different parts of the country.

The modern nautical mile is derived from the metric system: it's defined as exactly 1852 metres whereas you can only give an approximate conversion in yards or feet. It was established at an international convention and is included in the SI system, the traditional imperial unit is obsolete.

Having 1.000 different kind of measurements for different crafts and professions might be beneficial for those people themselves, but not for others who are trying to make sense of it. If I want to buy a rope, it would be much preferable to measure it in a unit that is clear and understandable to everyone rather than some arbitrary measurement that's only relevant to salesmen in the 17th century. In a few cases (such as the nautical mile) it might be worth to use a non-typical measurement, but otherwise it's much preferable to use universal, decimal units.

I wonder why I bothered to reply though...PVC seems to ignore my posts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The modern nautical mile is derived from the metric system: it's defined as exactly 1852 metres whereas you can only give an approximate conversion in yards or feet. It was established at an international convention and is included in the SI system, the traditional imperial unit is obsolete.

Yes, I am aware of this - I was pointing out that the traditional Nautical Mile is not, in fact, an "Imperial" unit but a navigational one ultimately determined by the diameter of the Earth. The Modern Nautical Mile is an arbitrary metric measurement, this is preferable when using a computer but disadvantageous when using a Sextant and chart.

Obviously, in an age of GPS the modern Nautical Mile is more convenient, but if your GPS goes down and you have to rely on a chart, Sextant and and a piece of paper for your sums you suddenly have to work with bits of numbers.


Having 1.000 different kind of measurements for different crafts and professions might be beneficial for those people themselves, but not for others who are trying to make sense of it. If I want to buy a rope, it would be much preferable to measure it in a unit that is clear and understandable to everyone rather than some arbitrary measurement that's only relevant to salesmen in the 17th century. In a few cases (such as the nautical mile) it might be worth to use a non-typical measurement, but otherwise it's much preferable to use universal, decimal units.

In practice the Imperial System uses yards, feet, and inches for most measurements. Despite what that video implies most of the other measures are either nautical (and therefore only applied at see) or they are measurements "of record", used in land deeds and they are standardisations of common practice.

For example, paces. Say you were going to buy a house and, when first viewing the property, you want to know how long the garden is. You pace it out, you'll get a surveyor in to check everything with fixed measures later before you buy, but first thing you do is pace it out, because you know how long your pace is. So, naturally, when you get the surveyor's report it's in standardised paces and multiples of paces (rods and chains).

Given how many people have trouble visualising area and volume an anthropomorphic measure is useful even if a measure of mm is more accurate. The last part is debatable, though, as an inch rule is usually divided into 1/32 of an inch, which is smaller than a mm.


I wonder why I bothered to reply though...PVC seems to ignore my posts.

In response to your previous post - did you know you can half a mile 32 time and still retain a measure in whole inches? 55", to be exact, and you can divide it again (64 times) for 27 1/2". Division of a kilometre 64 times gives 15.625cm.

[Gilrandir]

If I want to buy a rope, it would be much preferable to measure it in a unit that is clear and understandable to everyone rather than some arbitrary measurement that's only relevant to salesmen in the 17th century.

What? You want to drop ells and fathoms?

[CrossLOPER]

though, as an inch rule is usually divided into 1/32 of an inch, which is smaller than a mm
I am convinced that, at some point, you were replaced with a chatbot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am convinced that, at some point, you were replaced with a chatbot.

I just don't sound as pithy when not smacking a religious fanatic.

Look, I take iss ue with the contention that the Imperial measure is based on "barleycorns" and I take issue with someone pretending to be intelligent whilst rattling off all the various different Imperial Measures. I'm not saying the Imperial system is more or less accurate, or that we should use Imperial for everything. I merely pointed out that the Imperial measures are more useful in certain contexts and have certain advantages.

Imperial measures are always easier to divide into fractions, a 32nd of an Inch IS smaller than a millimetre and back when everything was in Imperial all measurements, like the length and diameter of screws, were in fractions of an inch which were marks on an inch rule.

A half-inch bolt is a simpler measure to work with than a 12.7mm one. Of course, it's all arbitary anyway - if we had used a Metric system originally we'd just have 15mm bolts and 10mm bolts.

Before you chortle too much at the "barleycorns" though you should think about WHY we didn't start with a base-ten system and why one had to be invented arbitrarily.

[Husar]

A half-inch bolt is a simpler measure to work with than a 12.7mm one. Of course, it's all arbitary anyway - if we had used a Metric system originally we'd just have 15mm bolts and 10mm bolts.

Exactly, a 1000th of a millimeter is also smaller than a 32nd of an inch... :dizzy2:


Before you chortle too much at the "barleycorns" though you should think about WHY we didn't start with a base-ten system and why one had to be invented arbitrarily.

That may all have been valid in the middle ages but we now live in the 21st century.
I still wonder how you're going to use a sextant from the cockpit of an airplane by the way.
The base 10 system is a lot easier to use and the old system was even more arbitrary given that not every barley corn has exactly the same size. A meter always has the same size unlike the distance a person can walk in a day.

[Greyblades]

That may all have been valid in the middle ages but we now live in the 21st century.
Insert John Oliver "it's current year" meme here

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exactly, a 1000th of a millimeter is also smaller than a 32nd of an inch... :dizzy2:

Jolly hard to mark on a ruler, though - I have me steel rule here with me and it's obvious the Imperial side is more accurate than the Metric one, not by a huge amount but it's clearly visible to the naked eye. So, if I was minded to, say, build a cabinet I'd use the Imperial side.


That may all have been valid in the middle ages but we now live in the 21st century.

It's just as valid today if you don't have a calculator - Imperial is often easier to do in your head. It also exercises the brain - there was a noticeable drop in the scores in the Maths O-Level after Britain abandoned Charlemagne's denarius-based coinage. The fact we were persuaded to do so by the French and Germans is somewhat ironic.


I still wonder how you're going to use a sextant from the cockpit of an airplane by the way.

And I'm still not saying you are, although apparently the jokes on you because they did.

https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/navigating-air/challenges


The base 10 system is a lot easier to use and the old system was even more arbitrary given that not every barley corn has exactly the same size. A meter always has the same size unlike the distance a person can walk in a day.

Well, the old system was taken from the length of Henry I's arm, so it's actually based on the Body of a King (and therefore ordained by God). This explains why the EU wanted us to get rid of it, because the Metric system was created by mere men.

:yes:

[Gilrandir]

So, if I was minded to, say, build a cabinet I'd use the Imperial side.


It is a matter of taste, not of precision/imprecision of either system. Each system's unit is liable to fracturing and it is no use to argue which fracturing is better. Though I don't understand what part of your cabinet would be 1/32 of an inch.



It's just as valid today if you don't have a calculator - Imperial is often easier to do in your head. It also exercises the brain

Either counting exercises the brain, but if you meant that the imperial system exercises the brain MORE than the metric one, then the two sentences contradict each other. It is like saying that lifting a small weight is easier and it exercises your muscles better that lifting a great weight.

[Idaho]

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

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

:laugh4:

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

You really have no idea who your enemies are.

[Greyblades]

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

[Pannonian]

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

You're a kipper?

[Greyblades]

I'm a nothing, I do not identify with a party and no party covers all my concerns and views. Before the last election I considered the Tories and Labour as each holding half of my wants/needs and to get what I want they need to be cycled out every 10 years or so to get the desired outcome.

Now I think the Labour and Conservative politicians have become too alike and have abandoning the parts I wanted them in for: workers rights/social responsibility and national interest/economic responsibility respectively. They need a kick up the backside to get back to thier pre blair/thatcher dichotomy, and thankfully Corbyn and UKIP seem to be doing a good job moving them that way.

[Husar]

Jolly hard to mark on a ruler, though - I have me steel rule here with me and it's obvious the Imperial side is more accurate than the Metric one, not by a huge amount but it's clearly visible to the naked eye. So, if I was minded to, say, build a cabinet I'd use the Imperial side.

It's just as valid today if you don't have a calculator - Imperial is often easier to do in your head. It also exercises the brain - there was a noticeable drop in the scores in the Maths O-Level after Britain abandoned Charlemagne's denarius-based coinage. The fact we were persuaded to do so by the French and Germans is somewhat ironic.

That's both sad and hilarious at the same time.


And I'm still not saying you are, although apparently the jokes on you because they did.

https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/navigating-air/challenges

The word challenges is all over that page, do you think everyday air travel should be made more dangerous by introducing more challenges? I suggest we begin by removing all police and body scanners from airports and itroduce sextants instead of GPS. Because hey, in the Middle Ages, airports didn't need police either!


Well, the old system was taken from the length of Henry I's arm, so it's actually based on the Body of a King (and therefore ordained by God). This explains why the EU wanted us to get rid of it, because the Metric system was created by mere men.

Oh hey, it's the Middle Ages again, where a loving god, whose son said to love your enemies, told us to go slay all the brown people and conquer their land and follow the personal ambitions of a dozen kings whom he all selected as rulers of men and then told to try and kill eachother. :dizzy2:
Now I get it, makes perfect sense.


I'm a nothing, I do not identify with a party and no party covers all my concerns and views.

I'm sure you are the only very special snowflake who is like that. :rolleyes:

[Greyblades]

Must you keep acting the inflammitory idiot?

I dare say most of the nation, nay, most of the world doesnt identify with a single political party anywhere.

[Husar]

Must you keep acting the inflammitory idiot?

I dare say most of the nation, nay, most of the world doesnt identify with a single political party anywhere.

Which was my point, I'd still think a lot of them prefer one party though. And you completely left out the notion of there possibly being a party that would cover all the most important things that you want.

I do however admit that my reply was a bit more inflammatory than it should have been, I misread your post a bit at first, my apologies. :bow:

[Greyblades]

Apology accepted.

Britain lost it's "give a toss about the poor" party with blair and it's "I still want to be British" party with thatcher, I dont know why, pundits blame neoliberalism I just know that neither main party of the last 20 years have been willing to do more than pay lipservice to what I care about. Lib dems are sellouts the national movements are opportunistic traitors and UKIP is but a protest vote begging for the main parties to pull their heads out of thier arses.

I dont consider myself loyal to a party because the parties I identify with were coopted by those enthralled to some golden calf they call multiculturalism to the expense of everything else before I left primary school.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's both sad and hilarious at the same time.

Which part?

The part where we went from base-12 to base-10 coinage and our score in Maths (which used to be very high internationally) declined, or the part where I build in inches?


The word challenges is all over that page, do you think everyday air travel should be made more dangerous by introducing more challenges? I suggest we begin by removing all police and body scanners from airports and itroduce sextants instead of GPS. Because hey, in the Middle Ages, airports didn't need police either!

OK - for the last fucking time, and I'm getting really angry now, I am not suggesting we start using Sextants on planes. HOWEVER it is a matter of historical fact that aerial navigators did prior to the advent or more modern positioning systems, it is also a fact that the astrologically based Nautical Mile would be easier to work with when navigating using astrological observations and a compass rather than a GPS. Now, at no point did I say we should turn off the GPS receivers and use sextants, I merely pointed out that before you decide to be so smug about the metric system you should consider how royally fucked a lot of modern navigators would be if they had to use Trig Table, a compass, a Sextant and a piece of paper.


Oh hey, it's the Middle Ages again, where a loving god, whose son said to love your enemies, told us to go slay all the brown people and conquer their land and follow the personal ambitions of a dozen kings whom he all selected as rulers of men and then told to try and kill eachother. :dizzy2:
Now I get it, makes perfect sense.

You know what, I really want to pick apart all the historical fallacies in this but I know you've seen me write at length about religion, heresy, theory of kinship and the Crusades

So I'll just point out that I was joking, although there are political and cultural motivations behind metrication.

I mean, really, we should convert back to the Roman System.


I'm sure you are the only very special snowflake who is like that. :rolleyes:

You really shouldn't mock Greyblades, he's just going through that phase.

[Pannonian]

Apology accepted.

Britain lost it's "give a toss about the poor" party with blair and it's "I still want to be British" party with thatcher, I dont know why, pundits blame neoliberalism I just know that neither main party of the last 20 years have been willing to do more than pay lipservice to what I care about. Lib dems are sellouts the national movements are opportunistic traitors and UKIP is but a protest vote begging for the main parties to pull their heads out of thier arses.

I dont consider myself loyal to a party because the parties I identify with were coopted by those enthralled to some golden calf they call multiculturalism to the expense of everything else before I left primary school.

Have you thought of aligning yourself with the British National Party? As its name denotes, it's very big on patriotism and the idea of pure Britishness.

[Greyblades]

Do kindly get stuffed.

You really shouldn't mock Greyblades, he's just going through that phase.
If you think it is a phase, why would you think dismissing my concerns as such would help end it any quicker?

[Gilrandir]

I dare say most of the nation, nay, most of the world doesnt identify with a single political party anywhere.

The US is an exception. There the whole states identify themselves with a party. And North Korea, of course.



The part where we went from base-12 to base-10 coinage and our score in Maths (which used to be very high internationally) declined, or the part where I build in inches?


These two events may not be cause and consequence, or even not connected. Since the times of the USSR there has been a decline in Maths proficiency in Ukraine as well, however we had had nothing to do with doudecimal system. Perhaps it is the general tendency of the world to get poorer at Sciences and better at Arts.

[Pannonian]

The US is an exception. There the whole states identify themselves with a party. And North Korea, of course.



These two events may not be cause and consequence, or even not connected. Since the times of the USSR there has been a decline in Maths proficiency in Ukraine as well, however we had had nothing to do with doudecimal system. Perhaps it is the general tendency of the world to get poorer at Sciences and better at Arts.

Or more relevantly, the greater tendency of younger generations to rely on technology. As technology advances and becomes more available, people get poorer at the tasks that are now done by technology.

[Husar]

OK - for the last fucking time, and I'm getting really angry now
[...]
So I'll just point out that I was joking, although there are political and cultural motivations behind metrication.

You see, maybe my jokes are not the only ones that don't translate well, my replies are not always as serious as they come across, although that doesn't mean that I caught every one of your jokes...
I think at this point we should measure the success of our arguments in metric units and then call it a (metric) draw. :flowers:


I mean, really, we should convert back to the Roman System.

That is the kind of joke I can understand coming from you.
Intentionally dry reply

[Pannonian]

The British civil service has no trade negotiators, the former head of the government’s EU unit has confirmed. (https://next.ft.com/content/bbbdf998-4a6c-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab)

The admission makes clear the scale of the challenge facing Whitehall as it prepares to negotiate its exit from the EU, along with a new economic arrangement with the bloc and agreements with non-EU countries.

“The trade negotiators who are Brits at the moment are basically working for the EU,” Oliver Letwin told BBC Radio 4. Asked if Britain currently had any negotiators, Mr Letwin, who left the government this week after not being included in Theresa May’s government, replied: “No, no.”

Canada, which recently agreed a trade deal with the EU, had “300 trade negotiators”, the country’s trade minister Chrystia Freeland told the BBC. The European Commission, which handles trade negotiations on behalf of member states, has about 600 specialists.

[Gilrandir]

Meanwhile up north...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/17/nicola-sturgeon-would-consider-2017-scottish-independence-referendum-brexit
Winter is coming?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The US is an exception. There the whole states identify themselves with a party. And North Korea, of course.

Both major parties have sizable support in all 46 states and the 4 commonwealths. Admittedly, when you are the 30% in Alabama who are Democrat, the 60% who are GOP do end up running most of things so it can FEEL like a one party approach.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meanwhile up north...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/17/nicola-sturgeon-would-consider-2017-scottish-independence-referendum-brexit
Winter is coming?

If I were Scotland I would wait until after the UK exits the EU - the EU has already made it clear that Scotland has to leave with the UK, then possibly leave the UK and rejoin the EU. If, once exit is completed, the Scots feel they want to leave the UK they should have that option, but not before. Holding a Referendum next year will divert a lot of political resources from the EU exit to the Referendum and if Scotland DOES leave the UK it will find itself outside both the UK and EU - without any trade relationship with either.

The Scottish position is somewhat childish at the moment anyway, trying to cling to the doorframe whilst the rest of the UK tries to drag them to the exit. What's moor, it's foolhardy. If Scotland insists on holding a Referendum on leaving the UK so that it can remain in the EU what happens to those parts of Scotland (and there likely will be some) that vote to remain part of the UK? Will Scotland try to drag those parts out of the UK like it is being dragged out of the EU?

[Pannonian]

If I were Scotland I would wait until after the UK exits the EU - the EU has already made it clear that Scotland has to leave with the UK, then possibly leave the UK and rejoin the EU. If, once exit is completed, the Scots feel they want to leave the UK they should have that option, but not before. Holding a Referendum next year will divert a lot of political resources from the EU exit to the Referendum and if Scotland DOES leave the UK it will find itself outside both the UK and EU - without any trade relationship with either.

The Scottish position is somewhat childish at the moment anyway, trying to cling to the doorframe whilst the rest of the UK tries to drag them to the exit. What's poor, it's foolhardy. If Scotland insists on holding a Referendum on leaving the UK so that it can remain in the EU what happens to those parts of Scotland (and there likely will be some) that vote to remain part of the UK? Will Scotland try to drag those parts out of the UK like it is being dragged out of the EU?

It's not much more childish or foolhardy than Brexit. Canada with 300 specialist trade negotiators took 7 years to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. The UK currently has 0 specialist trade negotiators, and little idea what qualities are involved for such a position (according to civil servants who are recruiting for that role). Once we hit article 50, we have 2 years to negotiate a deal before WTO tariffs apply, on which our exports instantly become uncompetitive in a market where 50% of our exports go.

[Gilrandir]

Both major parties have sizable support in all 46 states and the 4 commonwealths. Admittedly, when you are the 30% in Alabama who are Democrat, the 60% who are GOP do end up running most of things so it can FEEL like a one party approach.

Yet I hear "this state traditionally votes for Republicans" as often as not.


if Scotland DOES leave the UK it will find itself outside both the UK and EU - without any trade relationship with either.


If Scotland hurries up to hold the referendum while the UK is still within the EU, it will stay within the EU.



The Scottish position is somewhat childish at the moment anyway, trying to cling to the doorframe whilst the rest of the UK tries to drag them to the exit.


Or we may say that the UK behaves childishly trying to make the WHOLE family leave Granny's place because it found no candy in the jar. Just a different perspective.

18710



What's poor, it's foolhardy. If Scotland insists on holding a Referendum on leaving the UK so that it can remain in the EU what happens to those parts of Scotland (and there likely will be some) that vote to remain part of the UK? Will Scotland try to drag those parts out of the UK like it is being dragged out of the EU?
Again a different perspective. Right now it also seems that the UK is dragging away the parts of it that voted against it.

Evidently, Scotland has a separate identity which allows it to take such steps being sure it will stay united. After all, it did stay united after the Scottish referendum, the loser side acquiescing to the result. Seeing the uproar caused by the Brexit referendum it may take precautions against any cessation attempts within Scotland.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not much more childish or foolhardy than Brexit. Canada with 300 specialist trade negotiators took 7 years to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. The UK currently has 0 specialist trade negotiators, and little idea what qualities are involved for such a position (according to civil servants who are recruiting for that role). Once we hit article 50, we have 2 years to negotiate a deal before WTO tariffs apply, on which our exports instantly become uncompetitive in a market where 50% of our exports go.


According to members of the EU Commission we have two years to negotiate an exit - THEN we negotiate a trade deal. I covered this a few pages back but you either skipped over it or are choosing to ignore it. Now, maybe they'll break their own rules (this is the EU) and negotiate a trade deal, but if that's the case they'll likely extend the 2-year deadline if needed.

As far as Trade Negotiators go - we don't have zero, we have an unknown number. It all depends on how many UK-born EU Commission Negotiators decide to come home to Blighty and how many seek asylum as political refugees in France - I'm half-joking.

Also - apparently Parliament was told by a Civil Servant we have 20 Trade Negotiators in the Foreign Office:

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-uk-doesnt-have-enough-skilled-trade-negotiators-for-brexit-so-were-going-to-have-to-hire-foreigners--ZyxdleNdBrW

Clearly this is a problem, the most likely solution is that we'll borrow them from Australia and Canada, they being our largest and friendliest allies with government departments devoted to Trade.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If Scotland hurries up to hold the referendum while the UK is still within the EU, it will stay within the EU.

Spain has already said it will Veto such a move - several other European countries have active independence movements they do not want to encourage by making it easy for secessionists to gain access to the EU and the Common Market. At the same time there's no real incentive to let Scotland in quickly, an Independent Scotland would be a small country with a number of quite poor regions requiring EU support, it would have a small economy, an at best average per-Capita GDP and the EU would be on the hook to support this new nation without the big cheque that used to come from the UK every month.

At the same time it would greatly antagonise whatever was left of the UK and might increase secessionist violence in Northern Ireland, for which the UK would blame the EU.

So I'd put that under "possible but not likely".


Or we may say that the UK behaves childishly trying to make the WHOLE family leave Granny's place because it found no candy in the jar. Just a different perspective.

We could - but the reality is the UK as a whole has decided to leave, and Scotland is part of the UK - it is not an independent country and the other EU nations have refused to negotiate with it as such.


Again a different perspective. Right now it also seems that the UK is dragging away the parts of it that voted against it.

Ah, you miss my point, which is this: Scotland is claiming it is being dragged out "against its will" which is a somewhat foolish claim to make if you plan to have an Independence Referendum of your own. It's unlikely every region of Scotland will vote to leave the UK - while most voted to stay in the last Referendum (except parts of Glasgow) there was a wide variation. A 10%, possibly even a 20% swing , would see regions of Scotland like the Borders and Isles vote to remain part of the UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014


Evidently, Scotland has a separate identity which allows it to take such steps being sure it will stay united. After all, it did stay united after the Scottish referendum, the loser side acquiescing to the result. Seeing the uproar caused by the Brexit referendum it may take precautions against any cessation attempts within Scotland.

The difference last time was that there was a 10-point margin in the vote and only a very small number of regions voted to beak away, so the yes side lost decisively. If the Yes side wins narrowly and a significant number of regions, like the Borders and the Isles, vote to stay, then Scotland cannot secede cleanly, they would either have to let those regions go or (more likely) hold further Referenda asking them if they want to stay part of Scotland or stay part of the UK.

Basically, if the second Scotland Referendum has a similar result to the EU Referendum then the Scottish government has the same problem with their regions as the UK Government has with Scotland right now.

[Greyblades]

Also - apparently Parliament was told by a Civil Servant we have 20 Trade Negotiators in the Foreign Office:
I wonder what the educational requirments are for Trade negociator.

[Idaho]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544

Knee jerks? People who have a limbic response to social issues?

[Greyblades]

Christ, for a second there I was starting agree with the politicians want to defund the BBC, I feel disgusting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"The British Election Study's internet panel survey of 2015-16 asked a sample of over 24,000 individuals about their views on [the death penalty] and whether they would vote to leave the EU. The graph below, restricted to White British respondents, shows almost no statistically significant difference in EU vote intention between rich and poor. By contrast, the probability of voting Brexit rises from around 20% for those most opposed to the death penalty to 70% for those most in favour. Wealthy people who back capital punishment back Brexit. Poor folk who oppose the death penalty support Remain."

So at least some of this data is based on voting intentions, doesn't really account for people like me who got into the Booth and thought "you know what, I want us out".

The second graph is even stranger, it measures one axis from 0.05 to 0.25.

We're also lacking the curve indicating what percentage of people actually hold what view. How many people "Strongly agree" that the Death Penalty is appropriate, and under what circumstances?

Finally, if you look at that first graph again it looks like people who are ambivilient about the Death Penalty were predicted to have a roughly 40% probability of voting to leave the EU - if that's correct it suggests that the average Briton is somewhere between "Don't know" and "Agree". That's probably true, at far as I know every survey taken of the general UK population comes back with a majority in favour - except for one last year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

It'll be interesting to see what this year's survey brings in data, it might go up again.

[Husar]

So the next referendum will be about reintroducing the death penalty and harsher punishments for sex offenders?

[Gilrandir]

Spain has already said it will Veto such a move - several other European countries have active independence movements they do not want to encourage by making it easy for secessionists to gain access to the EU and the Common Market.

Merkel has a way of talking people into what she wants. So the question is whether she does.



At the same time there's no real incentive to let Scotland in quickly, an Independent Scotland would be a small country with a number of quite poor regions requiring EU support, it would have a small economy, an at best average per-Capita GDP and the EU would be on the hook to support this new nation without the big cheque that used to come from the UK every month.

Why does the UK need such a nuisance then? Let them go!

But on the other hand, the EU had accepted even poorer countries, so it won't be a problem once the EU sets its mind on it.



At the same time it would greatly antagonise whatever was left of the UK and might increase secessionist violence in Northern Ireland, for which the UK would blame the EU.


Judging by the EU's rhetorics ("get out quicker if you want it so much") it doesn't bother the EU, still less it bothers Scotland.




We could - but the reality is the UK as a whole has decided to leave, and Scotland is part of the UK - it is not an independent country and the other EU nations have refused to negotiate with it as such.


It is not an independent country, but it has vestiges of independence (Parliament and football national team), so if there is a will on the part of the EU...



Basically, if the second Scotland Referendum has a similar result to the EU Referendum then the Scottish government has the same problem with their regions as the UK Government has with Scotland right now.

So far I haven't heard of any part of Scotland voicing its desire to secede in case Scotland leaves.

And again, Scotland may learn the lessons of the Brexit referendum and do it nicer then the UK did.

[Greyblades]

Not if sturgeon is in charge.

[Gilrandir]

One more referendum imminent?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/17/micheal-martin-says-ireland-could-see-reunification-referendum

[Greyblades]

No. Michael martin is a much worse barometer for public sentiment than sturgeon.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_I2rfApYk