Brexit Thread

[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.

[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.

[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/co...-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.

[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/co...-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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.