Brexit Thread

[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.

[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.

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.