Brexit Thread

[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.
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 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.

[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.
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 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:


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:


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...

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/deut...end/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/20...b-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/wikiped...orders.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/wikiped...orders.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:

[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.

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.

[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.