Brexit Thread

[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?

[Greyblades]

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

The green party can still put it forward even if they dont have a significant majority, that's the point.

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?

I have mentioned I have a double standard when it comes to nations and indiviudals correct? And that my recent appreciation for the plight of the gerrymandered does make me believe we are already in a position where the rich get more votes than the poor.

My point is that whether you count votes by population or money or power we do not hold the vote share we should where it matters: We only have one in 28 where the argument can be made we deserve 4, 7 or even 14. That this union is driving towards becoming a federal government and has no plans to amend this is a reason to leave in itself. One of may reasons I'm voting out.

We dont need the EU. The EU and our own politicians have made a titanic effort to make us not want the EU either.

[Fragony]

France needs the EU, UK doesn't. First tanks now banks, thank you Germany, the childles mother is the best thing ever

[Husar]

The green party can still put it forward even if they dont have a significant majority, that's the point.

How often does such legislation pass? I.e. where is the use of that if the chance that it actually passes is around 1% or so?

I have mentioned I have a double standard when it comes to nations and indiviudals correct? And that my recent appreciation for the plight of the gerrymandered does make me believe we are already in a position where the rich get more votes than the poor.

My point is that whether you count votes by population or money or power we do not hold the vote share we should where it matters: We only have one in 28 where the argument can be made we deserve 4, 7 or even 14. That this union is driving towards becoming a federal government and has no plans to amend this is a reason to leave in itself. One of may reasons I'm voting out.

But that is only in one body of the EU and we seem unable to actually figure out how powerful it really is compared to the EU parliament. Of course you will now say it's the most important body of the EU and basically decides everything by itself, but I have my doubts about that, just like I do about the usual argument that the EU only works for the corporations. Because so do a lot of national governments and it doesn't even explain all the punishments and legislation the EU dished out against certain corporations. For example several tech fiants from the US are under constant scrutiny by the EU, discriminatory business practices by online shops are being reviewed, misleading advertisement on water and regarding other food was banned and so on. The idea to privatize all basic water supply seems terrible though, I'll agree with that. The point is that it's not nearly as one-sided as Brexiteers make it out to be. The EU is what the members make of it, much like a national government. In both cases you have to make concessions and fight corporate influence.

We dont need the EU. The EU and our own politicians have made a titanic effort to make us not want the EU either.

We'll see about that once you have left.

[Beskar]

[Greyblades]

I need to be in a better mood to deal with that video beskar right now I almost mistook it for a repeat of that patrick stewart skit over the human rights court.

How often does such legislation pass? I.e. where is the use of that if the chance that it actually passes is around 1% or so?

How often does legislation get voted upon by MEP's that dont get approved by the Comission? Around 0% or so?

But that is only in one body of the EU and we seem unable to actually figure out how powerful it really is compared to the EU parliament. Of course you will now say it's the most important body of the EU and basically decides everything by itself, but I have my doubts about that, just like I do about the usual argument that the EU only works for the corporations. Because so do a lot of national governments and it doesn't even explain all the punishments and legislation the EU dished out against certain corporations. For example several tech fiants from the US are under constant scrutiny by the EU, discriminatory business practices by online shops are being reviewed, misleading advertisement on water and regarding other food was banned and so on. The idea to privatize all basic water supply seems terrible though, I'll agree with that. The point is that it's not nearly as one-sided as Brexiteers make it out to be. The EU is what the members make of it, much like a national government. In both cases you have to make concessions and fight corporate influence.

It's the most important because without it's consent nothing gets voted on; it is the only body that can present legislation for vote, the parliament can only say yes or no it cannot alter or rewrite anything the comission puts out.

It's performance thus far might not be as tyranical as some believe but it is much less representative of the people and is basically impossible for the people to hold it to account if it doesnt present what the people wants it to. Britain's House of Parliament despite it's faults is a better democratic body than it is.

We'll see about that once you have left.

Finally lost hope Husar?

I hope the shock will be enough to reform it, I really do.

[Furunculus]

The long answer:

I give my consent that you may govern in my name, and assent to be bound by the actions you take in my name as if they were my own.
However, the authority to govern that you possess in consequence is never to be leased out to a third party, and I will not deem those actions as were they my own.

What it boils down to is who ‘us’ is.

Am I a European? Why yes, how could I not recognise, respect, and admire the nations that have in so many ways shaped what is the UK today. Do I not desire the peace and harmony among peoples that is bred by cooperation and collaboration between us? But of course!

Why do I not love the EU? Because I celebrate the differences, and believe that – post Mastricht – the peoples of Europe have become enslaved by conformity. Arguably, the eurozone periphery has become enslaved by poverty too, given the unwillingness of participating nations to surrender to the logical consequence of their shared currency; economic and political union.

It is a technocratic machine that has no understanding of the concept of Demos, and in attempting to assume the mantle of Kratos, is failing to be both representative of and accountable to the people[s] of Europe.

The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.

The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.

This cannot be achieved when the aims and expectations of the peoples of Europe are so divergent that every policy response is a protracted argument resulting in a lowest-common-denominator solution. It is a recipe for indecision, aimless triangulation, and unhappiness. It is the ultimate example of the principle-policy puzzle.

Back to first principles. What do I want?

The supremacy of Parliament, and a Supreme Court that acts only to make sure that Parliament acts in accordance with the laws that it makes.
I want a happy and content Europe, that allows the UK to focus its energy to the best of our ability on ensuring the rest of the world is likewise happy and content.
A low taxation/low regulation society, able to continue with our Negative Liberty bent, happily between the extremes of the continent and the US.
An interventionist Foreign Policy, with both the means and will to see it employed in the pursuit of our enlightened national interest.

We have the principle. How does this translate to a problem?

The interference of the EU and its supporting bodies is breeding discontent at home, and encroaching on our fundamental sovereignty.
In forcing the smaller nations of Europe to march in lock-step towards ever-closer-union it breeds discontent that dissipates our focus on the wider world.
Eurozone convergence with consensus managed by QMV will see our taxation and regulation ‘harmonised’ upwards, and our society more beholden to Positive Liberty.
The EU fails to understand that an interventionist Foreign Policy requires direction and purpose, the decision to spend blood and treasure cannot be ‘calibrated’.

We have the problem. What is the solution?

For the UK, a Europe that is interested in cooperation and collaboration, through trade and other means, via the intergovernmental method.
For the nations of Europe, to choose individually an identity that fits their aims and expectations, whether that results in more integration or less.
For us to continue with a society that is more individual than collective, a liberal democracy that celebrates eccentricity rather than merely tolerating it.
For Britain to avoid supranational constructs that bind both our capability and our will to intervene, and pursuing instead bilateralism and multilaterlism.

Hold on, you say. This does not require us to leave the EU, surely?

No, the UK could determine the application of the ECHR via subsidiarity and the margin for appreciation… if the EUropean zeitgeist rejected judicial activism.
No, Sweden and Poland could de-jure back out of euro-accession, and Denmark Schengen membership… if the EU zeitgeist respected national autonomy.
No, the UK could continue within the EU as a fundamentally individualist liberal democracy… if the EU zeitgeist respected national autonomy.
No, the nations of Europe could continue to cooperate and collaborate effectively through NATO… if the EU zeitgeist respected national autonomy.

But, none of these things happen. For the EU is a stasis-machine, trapped by its inability to represent the interests of its people[s], and so it must further remove itself from accountability to those same people[s]. It cannot move forward, and it cannot move backward, all it can it do is breed resentment in its compromise.

What is needed is rupture.

To paraphrase text more familiar to the discussion of climate change: “that the EU has been chaotic and quasi stable long before the euro and schengen crises arrived, and that the real argument is whether eurosceptic input is disruptive enough to re-position Europe into a new and wholly desirable quasi-stable state.”

What is needed is an EU that does not force non-eurozone nations to constantly guard against encroachments on their fundamental sovereignty, thus freeing the eurozone to integrate to whatever degree necessary to provide stable and legitimate governance. What is needed is an EU that does not force new and existing member states to march up in lock-step with every integrationist measure, regardless of whether they would willingly choose it or otherwise. Achieving this will move Europe beyond lowest-common-denominator solutions, to a place where selective collaboration through shared interest produces a stronger outcome.

A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate.

Do we have to leave to enable this rupture? No, perhaps it is enough that we vote to remain on a wafer thin margin, but, what cannot happen is a decisive 60/40 vote to remain. For the good of Europe.

For the avoidance of doubt, things that don’t matter:

Straight bananas. Symptom, not cause.
Strasbourg. Symptom, not cause.
Immigration. Insomuch as I care, it is only because HMG is forced to unfairly discriminate against Commonwealth countries.
EU budget. It’s chicken-feed in the grand scheme of things.

These matters are best determined by ‘us’ regardless of whether the ‘us’ is Britons, Poles, Swedes, or a new federal state comprising the regions of France, Germany, Belgium, etc..

Vote leave.

[Husar]

How often does legislation get voted upon by MEP's that dont get approved by the Comission? Around 0% or so?

What does it matter if the result is usually the same? Seems like nitpicking.

It's the most important because without it's consent nothing gets voted on; it is the only body that can present legislation for vote, the parliament can only say yes or no it cannot alter or rewrite anything the comission puts out.

It's performance thus far might not be as tyranical as some believe but it is much less representative of the people and is basically impossible for the people to hold it to account if it doesnt present what the people wants it to. Britain's House of Parliament despite it's faults is a better democratic body than it is.

Yes, but what your member of the Commission wants can be influenced by who you vote for nationally?
Is Britain such a special snowflake that noone else in the EU every agrees with it or where is the issue?
Doesn't Britain have quite a few exceptions regarding EU membership? How did that ever happen if all the other mean countries are constantly bullying poor little Britain?

Finally lost hope Husar?

I hope the shock will be enough to reform it, I really do.

You're assuming that I ever had the kind of hope you are referring to. Maybe Britain getting out will finally allow the EU to reform.

[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!

[Greyblades]

If one man's action is going to change your mind, maybe I can change it back with this one's?

[Pannonian]

If one man's action is going to change your mind, maybe I can change it back with this one's?

Does this mean that the killer was indeed doing this in connection with the referendum campaign, rather than this being some kind of baseless anti-leave allegation?

[Greyblades]

Who knows, I'm just trying to lure back an Old-labour fan who appeared to be starting to sympathise with brexit before the assassination.

[Fragony]

yay, 48% want nexit, 45% don't. Italy hates the EU even more, Germans aren't very enthousiastic either to my surprise 36% want out.