Brexit Thread

[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/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.

[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/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.

[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

‘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.n...24&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]

[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.

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.