Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

An unbroken horse is better than one made lame.

They arent crazier, thats rather the point: the worst thing that happens is Boris gets in power and turns out to be Cameron 2.0, maybe he's exactly what we need to weather the storm, maybe he wont get in power at all as this is poised to end any semblence of coheisivness the Tories have.

We have the option to remove a Cameron 2.0 and undo what he does, we don't have that option with the EU comission, not in a peaceful manner anyway. And with the comission hanging around his neck Cameron 1.0 or anyone else in power is limited in what they are capable of changing to make things better, even if they want to.

[Beskar]

We have the option to remove a Cameron 2.0 and undo what he does, we don't have that option with the EU comission, not in a peaceful manner anyway. And with the comission hanging around his neck Cameron 1.0 or anyone else in power is limited in what they are capable of changing to make things better, even if they want to.

EU commissioners are appointed by the nation states. So the UK can easily remove one, and it is up to the other countries to remove theirs. Commissars work on behalf of the countries that appoint them.

[Greyblades]

And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.

[Husar]

And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.

You think you're as strong as 27 other EU people/countries?

edit: Terrible assassination, not exactly a way to defend democracy.

[Husar]

I claim victory for Britain.

Do you have a nuke?

No nuke no victory, you cant have one. That's the rules that I just made up, and I'm backing it up with this bomb, that was lent from the National Nuclear Security Administration.

I love Eddie Izzard.

The only one of you who could actually fire back at the same scale as us at this moment of time are the French so I stick to my assessment of us having strength equivilent of 1 out of 2.

Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eapons_sharing

You forget three things:

1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.

2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...

3) Poland has a missile shield.

[Greyblades]

Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...

On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.

Yes, I have a nuke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...eapons_sharing

You forget three things:

1) We also still have US bases, including a hospital, we may get the codes faster than you think...or the US will obliterate you afterwards.

2) IF Russia doesn't feel threatened once you launch something in the direction of Poland and obliterates you first...

3) Poland has a missile shield.

Wiki link:

However, since all U.S. nuclear weapons are protected with Permissive Action Links, the host states cannot arm the bombs without authorization codes from the U.S. Department of Defense

1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.

2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.

3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.

The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.

The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.

A few problems with that:

- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject.

I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.

- the parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population

The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.

- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be.

The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 13 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.

[Husar]

Kind of like the spanish are doing under EU regulations? Coming into our sea, stealing our fish...

On a side note that this sort of thing happens is what I really like about british politics, it holds a sweetspot in political passion between the extremes of tukish punchups and the american snorefest.

If the Spanish are doing that, then I'm right and regulations should be tighter. Mandatory GPs modules that turn the boat around once it leaves the designated fishing zone, for example.

Wiki link:

1) If it got to the point that nato fell to bits and britain went to war with germany those bases would be long gone, as would those nukes.

2) Russia would sit and laugh as we killed eachother.

3) Missile shield fired in poland has a longer way to go to reach western germany than a trident missile fired from the north sea. Plus the missile shield has a chance to fail; if the russians fired 50 missiles at western europe and NATO fired 50 back, russia would lose missiles in transit while all 50 USA missiles got through.

The russians would lose in a straight up fight but if NATO didnt fire back they would win because a percentage of thier missiles getting through would be all but ensured, and against someone who cannot fire back victory is assured. So if Britain fired all 220 of her nukes (or at least the 58 that are currently attached to missiles) straight at poland's shield it is guarenteed that some percentage gets through, and precident tells us that 2 strikes can be all it takes to kill a non nuclear nation's will to fight.

The potential power my friend, between us and everyone else save france, is overwhelmingly british. But of course I am not serious in desiring a voting weight of 50% in the EU comission. It's just semi plausable exaggeration to emphasise the disparity between the balances of voting power in the EU and practical power out of it.

I didnt say we weren't influential I said we do not have the direct influence proporitional to our size, strength and power in the commission, which is the most important part of the EU government.

The issue is the commission has sole control over what gets voted upon. If Britain wants to put forward legislation and cannot gain majority in the commission it wont even be put forward for consideration by the EU parliament or anywhere else in the government.

The germans are very good at getting the other nations to agree with it, but it is still an absurdity that a joint bill from the 14 largest countries in the union can be kept from being voted on by the 15 smallest countries banding together, even though the 14 largest overwhelm the 15 smallest by a titanic amount in everything from population to money to power.

Well:

1) If the Green party wants to put forward legislation in Britain and it never passes, should the Green party leave Britain?

2) Is it not unfair that the Queen doesn't get a higher percentage of votes based on how much land she owns in Britain? And since she is ultimately the owner of all of Britain, could one not argue that she should get 100% of the votes? Or more generally, should rich people get more votes than the poor? And isn't population already a relatively big factor in how influential a country is in the EU? You keep giving hypothetic examples, but do you also have real ones that could be discussed or are you going to vote based on a fantasy theory?

[Beskar]

The song to sum up British feelings about the EU, to the tune of the EU anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy)

https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8?t=13m55s

F**k you, European Union!
Tally-ho, you f**king pr***s!
We are the United Kingdom!
You can eat our spotted dicks!

That being said,
We're not going to leave you,
Turns out we need you!
Nonetheless,
F**k you, European Union!
It feels good to tell you this!

Poland is depressing,
And there's vampires in Romania.
Spain is far too hot
And where the f**k is Lithuania?

To be fair, Slovenia's lovely,
(We're only kidding, it sucks too!)
But we must admit,
Without these countries
We'd be really screwed!

F**k the European Union,
Even though we must admit,
We would all be bats**t crazy,
If we vote for leaving it!

[Kralizec]

Rest in Peace, Jo Cox.

And we have little influence over the others, we are but 1 in 28 despite our size making us more like 1 in 12, our economy 1 in 5, and our strength 1 in 2. If 15 of them agree to block us we are powerless to do anything.

A few problems with that:

- The UK is much more influential than you think in Europe, and often works together on issues with the Netherlands, the nordic countries, and assorted other countries depending on the subject.

- the parity you describe only applies to votes in the Council of ministers. And if it's an issue governed by qualified voting, it has to be 55% of the countries which represent at least 65% of the EU's population

- there's only real parity between the UK and countries like Malta in cases where voting in the Council has to be unanimous. And small countries are very careful in using their veto powers when the numbers are stacked against them. Under your logic, Germany could never be as influential as it is often perceived to be.

[Husar]

As the vote comes closer, civil war breaks out on the Thames:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewel...nbB#.il8VDbgGk

As for the fishermen, has anyone ever considered that they may be overfishing the waters without EU regulations? Much like it happened in the Mediterranean? Didn't the Somalian pirates mostly come up due to EU countries overfishing in Somalian and other countries' waters?
If so, cry me a river...

[Kralizec]

EU commissioners are appointed by the nation states. So the UK can easily remove one, and it is up to the other countries to remove theirs. Commissars work on behalf of the countries that appoint them.

That's not true, AFAIK. Commissioners are supposed to work for the benefit of all the member states. A state cannnot unilaterally withdraw "their" commissioner once he or she is in office. Allthough in practice, if he/she has lost favor it would generally be easy to persuade the president of the Commission to sack him or her.