Some interesting issues have arisen immediately post Brexit. One is just sour grapes by Remain supporters, but some others merit more thought and clarification in shaping the new UK:
Let's deal with the most contentious...
1. A second referendum
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/could-britain-actually-have-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/petition-second-eu-referendum-crashes-house-of-commons-website
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-result-latest-david-lammy-mp-eu-referendum-result-parliament-twitter-statement-stop-this-a7102931.html (IMHO, For David Lammy democracy is inconvenient if it doesn't yield the result he wants. I wonder if his opposing candidates should ask for a re-election on the same basis? ;))
This comes as no surprise, and as I mentioned in previous posts, e.g.
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17250.msg453797#msg453797
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg450139#msg450139
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg454566#msg454566
a democratic referendum resulting in a call for Brexit might be subsequently challenged after the decision to leave was made, as with ignoring the French and Dutch 2005 referendums on the EU constitution, the Irish 2008 referendum rejecting the EU constitution, and the Irish 2009 referendum ratifying the EU Lisbon Treaty, which contains the EU constitution.
It is interesting that now the people have spoken, with 1.6 million more voters wanting to leave, there is a new campaign to call for another referendum.
Not only that but the people calling for another referendum want new thresholds added so that the truly democratic result of more than 52% that gave a Brexit outcome will be skewed to represent the minority vote. Interesting as to what it says of some remain voters and their attitude to democracy... "if we don't get the result we want we'll have another referendum, and change the criteria so we get the result we want" - how predictable, how dishonest, how undemocratic!
It speaks volumes, and we've been here before with referendums in other EU member states.... >:(
2. Should UK resident EU citizens have had a vote in Brexit?
Well certainly the Irish did, and were encouraged by Enda Kenny, the Irish Taioseach (PM) for the benefit of Ireland to vote remain. As he saw it, a remain vote was in Ireland's best interest. http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/enda-kenny-urges-irish-born-voters-to-back-remain-in-visit-to-uk/ar-AAh7YMt . I have no idea, what proportion actually did follow his lead, but speaking to Irish friends the consensus seems to be that a lot did, but not all. This raises the issue as to whether allowing resident Irish EU citizens to vote would vote remain in what they saw as the best interest of the UK, or in the best interest of Ireland, which are not necessarily the same.
But the Irish are only part of the story, and I think there was a reasonable case to enfranchise resident EU citizens into the referendum, as for many when they came to the UK a Brexit wasn't even on the table. In the referendum non EU British citizens who also had a British passport could vote in the referendum, but not otherwise. Clearly those non British EU citizens who have been here a long time did not need a British passport to relocate here, because the legal regime permitted it, and now if the UK does actually secede from the EU they will need to naturalise themselves as British in order to participate in future national elections and in direct politics. But the long term EU migrants to Britain did not get a say in their future, and I think that was unfair. I think that all EU citizens who would have qualified for naturalisation - i.e. had been in the UK for over 6 years, and had amply demonstrated a commitment to living in the UK as their home should have been given the opportunity to have voted in the Brexit referendum as of right. Moreover, if the UK does secede from the EU they should then qualify, at their option, for dual British citizenship, again as of right.
In the long term in many respects, dual nationality is a workable solution for engagement in UK political life as in the UK dual nationality is common, but in several EU member states dual nationality is not recognised. It might be a hard and painful decision for a non British EU citizen to remain in a post actual Brexit UK, as a lot depends on their state of origin recognising dual nationality.
I found this comment from a non British EU resident interesting, but look also at the following comments which are generally quite fair views... https://www.quora.com/Should-EU-immigrants-be-allowed-to-vote-in-the-UK-referendum-on-leaving-the-EU
3. Did ethnicity act as a determinant in Remain voting areas?
There is something that the media has not focused on, and with the PC fear of touching any thing connected with race it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Certainly for London, and a few other areas where white British people are a minority it betrays another dynamic in the general voting mix that is not as widely reflected outside these and metropolitan areas.
It is ethnic identity, and the impact that might have on voting dynamics. The ethnic percentage of white British born people who live in London is the smallest in the UK, with the highest 'vote Remain' voting areas reflecting this in the polls :
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11
The concerns that many white British people have about immigration affecting their identity within the a community was seized upon by the Leave campaign. It is hardly a surprise then that the significant non white immigrant communities, encouraged by vocal non white political leaders from those same communities like Keith Vaz, David Lammy, Chukka Umunna, Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan sought to vote remain. The remain vote is reflected in the demographics of areas of England particularly with higher concentrations on non white British citizens. I think there is clear evidence on the demographics and the voting results, evidencing a clear reaction by immigrant communities towards the issue of immigration affecting the ethnic identity of British communities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#/media/File:United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg
3. Can any parallels be drawn from the issue of identity to the results in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar?
I think it is a fair question although ethnicity, per se, probably isn't as deterministic as nationalism. I won't assume that the issues are treated the same way in Northern Ireland as in Scotland... well it's complicated... and the motivations to leave or stay with the EU depends on who you speak to.
The areas in Northern Ireland that voted for Remain tended mostly to be nationalist areas, and those for Leave tended to be unionist areas. It is no secret that Enda Kenny called Irish voters to vote for Remain, and that might very well be extremely persuasive to someone living in Northern Ireland with Irish republican leanings. I'm speculating here, but by the same token there is evidence for it. https://www.neweurope.eu/article/northern-ireland-calls-referendum-united-ireland/
However, Northern Ireland also has a very strong unionist voice in favour of Brexit http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-news/unionists-overwhelmingly-back-brexit-dodds-1-7371572 , and there are republicans who will have voted for Brexit to pursue their own separatist agenda. http://redo.me.uk/1/www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/northern-ireland-unionists-republicans-brexit-backers
Now I think the overwhelming vote throughout Scotland (62%) is a totally different matter to Northern Ireland, though I do think it has rather more to do with UK politics rather than the relative merits of the EU. Why should I say something so contentious?
If you look at Scottish voting patterns there is a strong historical voting pattern of Scotland being a major supporter of the Labour Party (and to some degree the Liberal Democrats who used to perform well, IIRC in the Highlands, Isles and Orkney), and more latterly of the Scottish National Party http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11586534/scottish-election-results-2015-live.html . Both Labour, the SNP, and the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson were vehemently for remaining in the EU, so I'm not surprised that with the support the combined efforts the SNP, Labour, the Scottish Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats had created that Scotland followed its lead with a remain vote.
There was no major Scottish party political leader who campaigned for Leave, so it is remarkable that so many Scottish voters (38%) actually voted to Leave despite the overweening political pressure to remain. You would have expected the percentage to be much lower. I wonder why 38% of the Scottish voters actually voted Leave, as practically the entire Scottish political establishment were overwhelmingly for Remain. I speculate that their vote was not a politically partisan one, but a canny view on what is developing as a future for Scotland in the EU. As I say I am speculating, but it is still a lot of people in Scotland who voted against the will of the Scottish political class, and the perceived popular will to remain in the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/scottish-brexit-poll-shows-big-drop-support-remain/
As for Gibraltar's 96% in favour of Remain, I think this is something that deserves special consideration. http://thedailyvoicenews.com/2016/06/23/brexit-results-gibraltar-results-released/
Unlike Scotland, and Northern Ireland, Gibraltar is not part of the UK, per se, but is an Overseas Territory, much as Hawaii was prior to becoming the 50th State of the USA, or Puerto Rico is now. Given that Gibraltar is not incorporated into the UK, I think it is conceivable that with careful negotiation and good will between the UK and the EU, a solution should be worked out that gives effect to the will of the Gibraltarian people. I suspect it would be a complicated arrangement, but it is not impossible to create a special arrangement, which achieves the dual aim of staying in the EU, and in the UK as an overseas territory.
I note that Spain has used Brexit to try and get control of Gibraltar, but the Gibraltarian's are having none of it, and we are right to support their wish. They rejected co-sovereignty with Spain back in a 2002 referendum.
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/12/05/how-gibraltar-2002-referendum-foundered-plan-for-joint-sovereignty-with-spain
http://chronicle.gi/2016/03/britain-must-include-gibraltar-in-post-brexit-negotiations-report-says/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36618796
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/hms-ambush-arrives-in-gibraltar-to-protect-it-from-spain-5967455/
4. The media, and Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) have been whipping up anti-EU immigrant fear as to their future in the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36627394
https://jonathanfryer.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/should-eu-migrants-fear-brexit/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf000248-12ce-11e6-839f-2922947098f0.html#axzz4CgTjwyte
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/sturgeon-warns-europeans-could-lose-right-to-stay-1-3475453
Should EU migrants living here be concerned with their own situations? I think not. The immigration debate raised by the Leave campaign did focus on EU migration, but there was no call for deportation, nor lesser employment, or social rights than are presently enjoyed by EU migrants already in the UK. The citizen rights charity - the Citizens Advice Bureau makes it quite clear that the rights of EU citizens are unaffected, unless government should change it in the future. To date that has not been made an issue by the Leave campaign, and there are no plans to do this.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/brexit/brexit/
Could their rights viz their UK counterparts change? In principle, the start point is no. No one, save Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP (more later) has suggested it.
I think that might depend to some extent on the how the EU reacts to UK citizens living in the EU post Brexit. I seriously doubt that the British public would support initiating any legislation that punishes the rights of EU citizens who arrived here legitimately, unless the EU deliberately made life difficult for British expatriates. In which case, I think an automatic option of British citizenship should be offered as a matter of right to EU nationals that have settled here to protect their interest from harm as a result of any spat between the EU and the UK. After all they have been hostage to fortune in a sense with Brexit, and have no influence on EU policy. I think it behoves the UK to do something like that to protect them, as an innocent party, if the EU is not reciprocal with maintaining the status quo for ex pat UK citizens.
The issue on migration by the Leave campaign was always related to future EU migration, and not the current residential status of EU migrants who are legally domiciled in the UK.
Frankly it is disingenuous, indeed malicious, for the media to suggest otherwise. Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP, has also jumped onto the bandwagon. In particular, she has been dishonest in her disgusting, and blatantly fear mongering speech that non British EU residents in Scotland might lose their right of residential status.
No one in mainstream politics on the Leave side of the debate has called for repatriation, nor lesser rights for EU residents if they already live here. Given the anxiety felt by some EU residents, it really needs to be publicly addressed and emphasised that Brexit does not mean they are not wanted. Moreover, it needs public reassurance that they won't be treated unfairly or insensitively if the EU decides it will make life difficult for EU ex pats. The non British EU residents are entitled not to be put in fear so that Nicola Sturgeon can manufacture a political point. She should be ashamed. >:(
5. The voters for Leave, were ill educated, poor, working class etc...
The view of the pollsters maybe
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/24/the-areas-and-demographics-where-the-brexit-vote-was-won
http://www.populus.co.uk/2016/05/brexit-index-whos-remain-leave-supporters/
But no one I know was polled by the polling companies who provide the demographics from the poll samples. I am fortunate to live in an affluent area, on a nice street, with other mostly professionally qualified neighbours, who work in insurance, tax accounting, IT services (a company director), teaching, construction, estate agency, a fire brigade senior officer, nurses, and small business owners etc. In conversations with my neighbours, most were pro-leave and NONE of us have been polled. The attitude of the pollsters and the media is that Leave voters are a bunch of uneducated plebs. My neighbours don't fit that typology, and I hardly think that we are atypical. ::)
The moral being that the polls are misleading and the media relying on them are patronising Leave voters by blanket branding of them as ignorant, and lacking in aspiration. It just isn't true, even if it is cathartic for the media and pundits of the Remain campaign so they can feel better about themselves. :uglystupid2:
If Gibraltar was involved in the referendum, was Bermuda as well? IIRC, it is also an Overseas Territory. Same goes for the BVI ,Falklands, etc.
Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?! >:D
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 26, 2016, 02:31:54 PM
Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?! >:D
Well, technically this is a post-Brexit thread :)
Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux discuss the aftermath of Brexit
Therre's some food for thought.
Molyneux is quite insightful, and as far as I can tell does do his research. I've checked up his sources on other videos, and generally they check out well.
I love this Irish guy. He's accurate and hilarious. His comments on the post Brexit twitter comments are great.
Warning: he is not PC at all ... ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTPJsUGHrUo
The second referendum demand is now being investigated for fraud... C:-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36634407
Quote from: Staggerwing on June 26, 2016, 01:55:58 PM
If Gibraltar was involved in the referendum, was Bermuda as well? IIRC, it is also an Overseas Territory. Same goes for the BVI ,Falklands, etc.
Yes, it is a bit strange. It looks like just Gibraltar, as an overseas territory got a vote in the referendum. I don't know why the others didn't, and can only surmise that they are not subject to EU laws, whereas Gibraltar definitely is.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/649517/EU-referendum-2016-Voting-Voters-Allowed-British-Irish-Commonwealth-Citizens-European
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 26, 2016, 02:31:54 PM
Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?! >:D
that's like asking how many Civil War gaming threads do we need?
What I found amusing is that the 2nd referendum petition was initially set up by a pro-Brexit supporter before the first referendum who thought that they would lose. It had 22 signatures before referendum night, then the pro-EU crowd found it and took it over.
From across the sea, the impression is that UK politics are very chaotic at the moment and that there were no back-up plans in case of a Brexit aside from immediate stabilization of the pound if necessary.
After such a serious step, strong political leadership is needed and in the Netherlands, a close partner of the UK with many similarities in terms of its political and economic stance within the EU, the businessmen and journalists in particular are getting worried. The general public doesn't care all that much for now.
The Brexit was welcomed by some commentators as it allowed us to say goodbye to the British as EU members as friends, before more British demands caused additional problems over those made earlier this year. Continued UK membership was seen as, over time, causing more problems than it would be worth due to the demands they would make.
Dutch newspapers stressed that tabloids, which don't really exist here as our version of the Telegraph is still fairly tame compared to UK tabloids, staged an anti-EU campaign for decades. They also mentioned that the tabloids are mostly in the hands of billionaires who don't like not having influence in the EU, with Murdoch quoted as having said that everybody ignores him in Brussels, implying that he has a say in things in the UK.
Obviously, the UK government and several parties have done their fair bit of pro-EU propaganda that didn't have a factual basis as well, but the headlines and articles in tabloids that I've seen were...not pleasant to read considering how many people are probably influenced by what the tabliods report.
Personally, I see this as the end of the European Experiment. It has clearly failed. I also see this a victory for 21st century politics where emotion and short-term thinking played a greater part than taking responsibility and trying to be part of reforms. A restructuring of the EU is certainly necessary, and I think 28 member states is way too much to be able to make effective political and economic decisions, but you achieve those reforms through decisions by member states. That's also why I support the current decision by the most important EU members to leave the UK largely out of the decision making process and to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, before October. It's somewhat surprising to see strong leadership come from the EU political bodies, but here it is. You can't afford to have large scale political uncertainty in these situations.
It's a sad illusion propagated by the pro-Brexit crowd that the UK would continue to get benefits from EU treaties as a non-members whilst being able to ignore political influence from Brussels. A country like Norway still accepts about 75% of EU regulations in order to comply with the numerous treaties and regulations that allow it its specific position in Europe.
As an aside, I didn't know you had to register to vote in the UK, and it was reported that the majority of the younger British citizens didn't vote or register on time, whilst they were amongst the most pro-EU groups. I've always found it surprising that you can be in favour or against a party or a political idea whilst not attaching political commitments to it through voting.
I hope the UK will economically and politically have a soft landing, but the initial signs are not good.
Man alive, Boggit. Have you always written such long posts, or it this something new?
You make Jason Pratt look succinct by comparison!
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping-this-theory-about-david-cameron-and-brexit-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ
QuoteIf Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-manoeuvred and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
From across the sea, the impression is that UK politics are very chaotic at the moment and that there were no back-up plans in case of a Brexit aside from immediate stabilization of the pound if necessary.
Absolutely correct. A huge part of the political establishment thought in their arrogance that there was no chance of a Leave vote succeeding. I really don't think Cameron would have buckled to pressure from within his party if he thought there was a real chance of a Leave vote succeeding. That it did, and with more than 1.6 million votes more than the Remain side shows just how large the disconnect is between the British political establishment and the voters.
That also explains the present political fallout in the mainstream parties, and the general lack of contingency planning for a Brexit.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
After such a serious step, strong political leadership is needed and in the Netherlands, a close partner of the UK with many similarities in terms of its political and economic stance within the EU, the businessmen and journalists in particular are getting worried. The general public doesn't care all that much for now.
I agree that strong political leadership is needed, given that a substantial number of people (but a minority all the same) wanted to remain in the EU, in order to set a clear road map for progress. I totally disagree that the general public doesn't care about this - unless you are referring to the impression on the Dutch population - we had an unprecedented turnout to vote at over 72%.
In the UK, the media is heavily politicised, with publicly funded television being biased to the left, and the newspapers being generally more disposed to the right. I think the businessmen are ultimately realists, and will know that nothing concrete will arise in the immediate future - we, still remain part of the EU, and there has been no structural change to the economy since Brexit. They will have plenty of time to adjust to whatever changes may result, and will have a far clearer idea of the long term economic prospects by the time the UK secedes from the EU.
Clearly the unexpected vote introduced uncertainty to the markets, which is why the stock and financial markets have reacted as they have. The business community are reacting to what they see as a political crisis, and unless they choose to make it one, it is not a crisis caused for economic reasons. In that respect, the issue is not as bad as the media will have us believe.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
The Brexit was welcomed by some commentators as it allowed us to say goodbye to the British as EU members as friends, before more British demands caused additional problems over those made earlier this year. Continued UK membership was seen as, over time, causing more problems than it would be worth due to the demands they would make.
I don't think the relationship between the EU and the UK has ever been a truly happy one. When the UK voted to join the Common Market as it then was, there was no indication given to the general public that it would become an ever increasing federalist super state. That became clear around the time of the 1992 Maastricht treaty, and has become ever more obvious since. The Lisbon Treaty made the direction of the EU absolutely clear. A lot of people in the UK feel that direction is inconsistent with our desire for sovereignty and national identity, which was reflected in the recent Brexit referendum result.
I can see your perspective very well, that by making exceptions for the UK as to what they have to accept from the EU if they remain can be galling to the Dutch electorate. The Dutch are submitting to the full ambit of the EU decisions in their lives, whereas the citizens of the UK are uncomfortable with that.
My view is if the Dutch electorate want less say in their lives by submitting to the policies of the Commission, then that is a matter for them. The message from the UK is that the UK don't want that world order. But I get perfectly that the Dutch might quite justifiably resent having to follow the EU rules, yet the UK get exceptions for their wider cooperation. It is unfair on the Dutch electorate, but it also shows that the EU principle of one size fits all doesn't work either.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
Dutch newspapers stressed that tabloids, which don't really exist here as our version of the Telegraph is still fairly tame compared to UK tabloids, staged an anti-EU campaign for decades. They also mentioned that the tabloids are mostly in the hands of billionaires who don't like not having influence in the EU, with Murdoch quoted as having said that everybody ignores him in Brussels, implying that he has a say in things in the UK.
That is very true. That said, the sale of physical newspapers has dropped dramatically in recent years, which impacts on their effect. Not so of online news sources, which dilute the effect of the ownership of the traditional newspaper as a means of putting over a view. Public television on the other hand is still very influential, and over recent years the bias of publicly funded news broadcasters such as the BBC, Channel 4 etc, has visibly shifted from a neutral to a leftist view of affairs.
If anything, in the battle for hearts and minds over the EU, the strength of the media in reporting the on the EU has been more to the left and more in favour of the EU. For me, it is a disappointment. It is better in my opinion for news agencies to be neutral, voicing and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both points of view, so people can make informed choices. Sadly, while they will report events, the level of analysis is usually very weak.
The BBC with partisan reporting is probably even more prone to that than ever before. It seems that this has been ever more the case since the government clipped its wings following the MP's expenses scandal a few years ago. The government has since introduced new plans to appoint half of the board members of the BBC, which is supposed to be an "independent trust" (sic), in exchange for continued tax funding. It means that the influence of government will be felt even more in what is supposed to be an "independent" news agency. Well go figure, the truth dies first...
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
Obviously, the UK government and several parties have done their fair bit of pro-EU propaganda that didn't have a factual basis as well, but the headlines and articles in tabloids that I've seen were...not pleasant to read considering how many people are probably influenced by what the tabliods report.
I agree with the view that both sides made exaggerated claims, with Remain being slightly more disingenuous. But you're right both sides have stretched the truth to their ends.
That all said, we haven't since Brexit gone to war with anyone, and the sun still rises. Actually it is quite nice today. :)
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
Personally, I see this as the end of the European Experiment. It has clearly failed. I also see this a victory for 21st century politics where emotion and short-term thinking played a greater part than taking responsibility and trying to be part of reforms. A restructuring of the EU is certainly necessary, and I think 28 member states is way too much to be able to make effective political and economic decisions, but you achieve those reforms through decisions by member states. That's also why I support the current decision by the most important EU members to leave the UK largely out of the decision making process and to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, before October. It's somewhat surprising to see strong leadership come from the EU political bodies, but here it is. You can't afford to have large scale political uncertainty in these situations.
I don't know if it is the end of the European experiment. If you take the view that the EU was a house of cards and that one member state secedes will cause the collapse of all, then maybe.
I don't see it panning out that way. With the rise of euroscepticism throughout Europe, now is the time to give every member state a referendum on whether the citizens consider the EU works in their best interest or not. The member states who remain can be confident that they have the support of their populations, and can move on in relative unity.
To deny the citizens of member states a referendum is far more dangerous. Firstly, those opposed to the EU will be able to legitimately say that the EU is remote and frightened of the will of the people, that it is unrepresentative, and thus its laws are illegitimate. In other words, it will be even more widely regarded as despotic, having the same democratic legitimacy as the Soviet Union did.
So what then? Even people who may have voted to remain in the EU will start waking up to the democratic deficit, that the people who propose the laws have only the most tenuous democratic mandate, and for all practical purposes cannot be deselected if the citizens are unhappy with the laws passed. What then? My prediction is that if the EU refuse fair, or use weighted exit referendums, then you will push people who were not extreme into the extremes of politics. It will be clear to many that the political class do not represent their interest, which the far left and far right will be happy to say they do. Therein lies the path to a widely disaffected and disenfranchised population. We have seen this before with the rise of Fascism, and with the rise of Bolshevism. I predict that will be the outcome, and we all know how that ended. :'(
Am I being overly dramatic? I don't think so. Look at the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, and the rise of far right and far left parties throughout Europe. They capitalise on the lack of representation of the best interests of the people, perceived or otherwise. I watched these clips last night, which gave me further food for thought:
The warnings are all here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XksZYV3-6eg
When democracy fails to deliver, the right capitalise...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ukaXTgI2o
When government is remote and unresponsive extreme politics flourish...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4t5mqxCMX4
Changes in the nature of democracy, and the consequences examined
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkI1U5jesS0
It is no accident that the EU's failure to address wealth differentials, economic failure, and managed immigration is changing the political climate. But the political class are not offering solutions to ordinary people. The extreme right is offering hope, where none is seen or believed from the "mainstream politicians". It isn't working.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWGCaNj1Vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VZfgs_HBo
If the EU effectively disenfranchises people from government that represents their concerns, and they deny them a voice, then don't be surprised that those who claim they will remedy that in the people's interest will gain support. If Frexit is ultimately refused - and I know that Hollande has just done this - then where is the outlet for the expression of people who feel disenfranchised?
There is a good reason why the far right across Europe are supporting Brexit, and it has very little to do with any perceived lack of democracy, and opportunities to trade more freely in the global market. They are relying on the fear of the Euro élites to any more exit referendums, because they can say legitimately - look, "you have been denied a say in your future, by these rich, unelected Eurocrats who care only for their own interest, and the interest of big business." And in very simple terms (and I readily concede there is much, much more to it than that) they will be seen as right. It is no accident that Golden Dawn, which was practically unheard of a few years ago is now Greece's third largest party.
I really don't want to see the far right in control, but I am more than ever convinced that this is going to happen if real democracy, and the positive connection of government policies with the people continue to be suffocated.
While you are right to point out that the UK now needs strong leadership, you need the same in the EU, because after a serious lack of it for years, the chickens are coming home to roost, and some consequences of a lack of moral courage now don't bear thinking about.
I really agree with you that the EU is too big to properly manage. In any event, it doesn't manage itself. It was abundantly clear that many countries now in the Eurozone were never going to match the economic criteria required for admission, yet here we are. The ongoing economic disaster with Greece is no accident, and it will get worse. The EU allowed it to happen, and yet the situation in Greece is not unique in the EU. The EU "leadership" (sic) during last years immigration crisis was a complete bad joke. It's failure has resonated throughout Europe.
I disagree that the rush to force a triggering of the Art 50 provisions is strong EU leadership. It is far better to have a considered and measured approach to the UK leaving the EU to avoid a political crisis becoming an economic one by rushing things. If the UK economy fails, that will impact severely on the rest of the member states, particularly as we a currently a major net contributor to EU funds, and we operate a trade deficit in favour of the EU. To encourage the UK to fail will be disastrous for the long term survival of the EU, as it will put even more intense pressure on member state economies.
I see the EU leader's stance as panic, that unless they get the UK out of the way quickly - and hopefully in a hurried exit resulting in an economic recession - they may stave of the demand for exits in their own countries, as they will say "look what happens if you leave the EU". If the EU wants to show strong leadership they will seek to get an endorsement from the citizens of the member states, and cooperate with any states that express the view that they see their destiny outside of the EU. That will entrench the sense of unity within those member states who wish to stay, while maintaining good relations with those that leave. It's win, win with cooperation in the mutual interest. At the same time the underpinning pressure of euroscepticism is addressed by not forcing it to the extreme right for its expression.
Assume a worst case for the EU that the populations of the EU all decide to abandon it. There is ample evidence that it hasn't worked for a significant number of citizens, but not everything about the EU is bad. There are lessons to be learnt, but I'd rather see a looser European confederation of free, sovereign nations working together in their mutual interest, but maintaining their traditions and identities. It means decentralising democratic control, but it is an effective way of rejuvenating the decline of democracy in a way that is actually more representative of the concerns of ordinary people. I think the phoenix can rise from the ashes of the EU, and in many ways can offer a better way forward for all.
And yes, you are right that there will be large scale uncertainty, which is bad for all, not just if the UK leaves but if the EU collapses as well. An EU collapse will arise either directly from the possibility of exit referenda, or if refused by eventual internal collapse to the rise of the far right exploiting economic, and political issues, and coming to dominate in the government of member states, and then ultimately the EU itself.
FWIW, I think the EU was initially a fine concept, but it has lost its way. Given that some of its main political supporters like Hollande and Merkel have severely disaffected populations - not to mention countries like Hungary, and Poland, whose leaders, let alone their populations are disillusioned with the EU it is on very shaky ground for the future.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
It's a sad illusion propagated by the pro-Brexit crowd that the UK would continue to get benefits from EU treaties as a non-members whilst being able to ignore political influence from Brussels. A country like Norway still accepts about 75% of EU regulations in order to comply with the numerous treaties and regulations that allow it its specific position in Europe.
Well the Norwegians aren't totally happy about that, but there are reasons they still accept some EU laws and pay tribute to have access to markets. But the Norwegian economy is not the basket case that was predicted. They are doing quite nicely, thank you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX71EKDKiY
http://www.thelocal.no/20160627/iceland-president-brexit-is-good-news-for-norway
We operate a trade deficit with the EU. If the EU insisted on harsh terms to the UK, then the UK can equally reciprocate in kind. Who will be worse off? It doesn't take a genius to see that the EU member states (if not the EU institutions) have more to lose by trying to make an example of the UK. It is in no one's interest to be difficult. Moreover, there are markets outside of the EU who will see the opportunity and fill the void. It becomes a long term mistake for the EU if they are not flexible.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
As an aside, I didn't know you had to register to vote in the UK, and it was reported that the majority of the younger British citizens didn't vote or register on time, whilst they were amongst the most pro-EU groups. I've always found it surprising that you can be in favour or against a party or a political idea whilst not attaching political commitments to it through voting.
Voter registration has been in place for years. If it is actually the case that younger voters didn't vote or register in time then whose fault is that? Which is more important to them: Playstations or Politics? ;) Given that UK government, as well as the EU is usually deaf to the concerns of ordinary people, I'm not really surprised that many young people ask themselves what is the point of engaging with politics that is remote from the people. And then the political class wring their hands at the rise of the far right... not that their failure to engage has anything to do with it! :idiot2:
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 12:16:16 AM
I hope the UK will economically and politically have a soft landing, but the initial signs are not good.
Thank you. :)
Anything new brings uncertainty, but I'm an optimist. I think reason will prevail and it will all work out in the end. I send my best wishes too for my friends in the Netherlands, that your future works out well too. O0 I doubt very much that the UK and the Netherlands will want to cease cooperating or be negative towards each other for very long. Where would be the point?
Quote from: Toonces on June 27, 2016, 06:20:04 AM
Man alive, Boggit. Have you always written such long posts, or it this something new?
You make Jason Pratt look succinct by comparison!
LOL! ;D
This IS something new. I never knew I could be so passionate about democracy in action.
I feel like I've been liberated from a tyranny (I know the EU is not tyrannical per se, but it is very undemocratic in practice)! In principle, we will be able to live by our own laws again.
ive heard a lot today about the the possible way forward in 2 years time - which pisses me off actually
Get a new Tory leader in october, general election in November, put forward proposals for UK outside EU before pressing the button on Article 50, and then having a referendum again to see if those proposals are acceptable - possibly reversing the decision taking last week
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 27, 2016, 07:17:35 AM
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping-this-theory-about-david-cameron-and-brexit-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ
Well that is one view, and by the tone of it from a disappointed remain voter. It is not just the conservatives who are split, but Labour too because the remote mainstream parties were happy with the status quo, and the referendum proved the people weren't. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/jeremy-corbyn-clinging-to-labour-leadership-as-11-shadow-cabinet/
We were all being told by the complacent mainstream media and political parties that it couldn't happen. Now it has they are wondering wtf do we do now? As I pointed out before the referendum there will be attempts to subvert or ignore a vote that doesn't reflect the will of the political élites, and that is also exactly what we are seeing.
I suspect that if the result had gone the other way, disappointed Leave supporters would be looking to whoever would support their disappointed views. The issue of questioning a democratic referendum result for another to try and get a different result is proof of this (and the willingness to ignore a democratic decision by either some Leave or Remain politicians shows just how dishonest and ill fitting for office both are). If Leave supporters had lost the far right was an obvious beneficiary as they will "listen to concerns" and will "support" Brexit for their own agenda purposes, quite apart from the efficacy or otherwise of the EU.
As I pointed out to ComradeP, people get attracted to extreme politics when they feel there is nowhere else to go. Look at the situation in your own country. Trump was the GOP outsider, but rightly or wrongly, he offers an alternative to the status quo business as usual approach of mainstream politicians. Is his success proof of the failure of US mainstream politics to provide meaningful answers to the concerns of the electorate? I think so.
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 27, 2016, 08:33:37 AM
ive heard a lot today about the the possible way forward in 2 years time - which pisses me off actually
Get a new Tory leader in october, general election in November, put forward proposals for UK outside EU before pressing the button on Article 50, and then having a referendum again to see if those proposals are acceptable - possibly reversing the decision taking last week
+10000000000000000000000000 O0 And then some!
I'm totally with you. The people made a clear statement to leave the EU with 1.6 million more voters in favour of Brexit, in for what was for once an actually representative vote. (Every vote was counted, each vote mattered).
I have no problem in immediately entering into pre Art 50 negotiations with the EU to decide an exit framework which works for both parties.
I'd be keen to trigger article 50 right now, but I'm concerned that 2 years is a too rigid timescale for sorting out over 40 years of ever closer political union. Yes, the UK should now leave, but negotiations should not be rushed in the interest of both the UK and the EU.
I see this move as an attempt by the supporters of the EU to follow the precedent of ignoring referendums until the EU, or at least, in this case, the supporters of the EU get the result they want. It's a totally dishonest and undemocratic approach. It was particularly obvious with the referenda on the EU constitution. The French, and Dutch referendums in 2005 were ignored, the Irish referendum in 2008 was ignored, and then their government had a second referendum in 2009 to provide their desired result.
I predicted my concern of this both before, and immediately after the referendum:
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg445597#msg445597
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg452799#msg452799
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg454093#msg454093
I sincerely hope that we will not be cheated of our democratic decision too, but I fear that the product of democracy is not the result wanted by the Remain camp now. They want to overturn democracy for de facto dictatorship. That is tyranny! >:(
yup, i snorted at the EUs original knee jerk reaction - 'the remaining members will decide when the UK will leave' but thinking about it now i hope they get really uppity about it and actually kick us out - when the main Leave campaigner suggests there is no rush to leave in the next 2 years - it sets alarm bells ringing
Quote from: Pinetree on June 26, 2016, 09:21:48 PM
What I found amusing is that the 2nd referendum petition was initially set up by a pro-Brexit supporter before the first referendum who thought that they would lose. It had 22 signatures before referendum night, then the pro-EU crowd found it and took it over.
It is the hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. Leave or Remain, whatever the outcome had been, the vote should be respected as the will of the people.
I have waited literally decades for the chance to have my say on the EU. Now I have had the chance to express my view they want to reject it because it doesn't suit. If remain had won would the media and mainstream politicians be mooting a second referendum? ...I don't think so either. >:(
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 27, 2016, 09:16:54 AM
yup, i snorted at the EUs original knee jerk reaction - 'the remaining members will decide when the UK will leave' but thinking about it now i hope they get really uppity about it and actually kick us out - when the main Leave campaigner suggests there is no rush to leave in the next 2 years - it sets alarm bells ringing
+1 O0
Maybe it is best to trigger art 50 now, rather than suffer from Cameron's cowardice to accept the decision.
I don't think the time limits to negotiation are helpful, but so be it. Treaties are commonly varied over time, and in the absence of a reasonable timeframe to conclude all matters from a 40 year union, I wouldn't be surprised if there were breaches of it at a later point.
What we need now is political leadership from Cameron, not his cowardice in the hope he can get the last laugh on the voters. People will be even more distrustful of the EU than ever before if the decision is ignored or reversed. :tickedoff:
I looked at the UK Bookies line a couple of days before the vote. About 10 - 1 against leaving. Why were they so wrong?
According to today's Wall St. Journal a couple of things happened with the odds makers.
1] All of the big bets were on staying in the EU.
2] The big bookies are all based in London and London was big pro-EU.
There were only 3 10,000 pound bets on leaving the EU while the rest of the big bets (including one 100,000 bet) were to stay.
There has been considerable talk about a 2nd referendum, Scotland vetoing the exit vote, etc.....
All I can say is that if a district was strongly for leaving the EU that the MP who votes to stay will lose the next election. Parliament thwarting the will of the voters would have extremely negative consequences politically in the UK. It may turn on the issue of Scotland remaining in the UK (for a while) if Parliament votes not to invoke Article 50.
i think its a risky move for Scotland with a lot more to be considered
they may very well gain their independence from the UK based on our decision to leave the EU. IF the EU breaks up anyway and collapses where does that leave Scotland then - Unionless and EUless - is Scotland strong enough to stand on its own with an EU crutch to lean on. I understand Northern Ireland and Scotlands desire to leave - they are net benefiters from the EU, England isnt, however, Wales is and they still voted to leave but i think that had a lot to do with the steel industry collapse
I predict in a years time the EU will be wanting to join Britain.
Quote from: airboy on June 27, 2016, 10:25:35 AM
There has been considerable talk about a 2nd referendum, Scotland vetoing the exit vote, etc.....
All I can say is that if a district was strongly for leaving the EU that the MP who votes to stay will lose the next election. Parliament thwarting the will of the voters would have extremely negative consequences politically in the UK. It may turn on the issue of Scotland remaining in the UK (for a while) if Parliament votes not to invoke Article 50.
I've just been watching PM questions in Parliament. He has reaffirmed that the UK will respect the Brexit referendum result, and the UK will leave. He has said that HMG will seek to obtain the best possible outcome for all of the UK including Scotland, but the implication is that Scotland will not get another independence referendum on the Brexit point.
I have mixed feelings about this, as remaining in the EU was an implied promise of the previous Scottish referendum, and is important to the 62% of those who voted to remain in the UK. That said, a substantial number of Scots (38%) also went against almost the entire political establishment as part of the Leave vote of the UK. As Scotland was not an independent country at the time of the Brexit referendum, I can see their point of view that Scotland and the EU are not automatically entwined.
All that said, I still think with regard to the implied promises made to the Scots in the first referendum, it is only fair and democratic that they have their say in a new Scottish referendum to set the matter to rest without the taint of the EU issue hanging over them.
If the Scots vote for independence, then fair enough. Their vote must be respected. If they choose to remain in the UK, then the issue of leaving the EU must be settled with that decision.
Whether the Scots will actually get accession to the EU, irrespective of achieving independence is a moot point. I suspect there are many vested interests in several firmly pro EU countries who would not like to see it, as it will set a precedent for sovereignty in their own countries. In Spain, the Basque and Catalonian nationalists will be encouraged, in France, the Breton nationalists, in Germany the Bavarian nationalists. The lists go on...
So I can see the justice of giving the Scots a second bite of the cherry, but I can also see that the aspiration of EU membership might be stymied by other EU nations who will be taking a huge risk in endorsing another independence movement, while suppressing their own.
But roll the dice and let them fall where they may. It is up to the Scots in my opinion.
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 27, 2016, 11:08:50 AM
I predict in a years time the EU will be wanting to join Britain.
There may be some irony to that. :)
If the UK subsequently do well, and other member states leave, then there is no reason not to make treaties cooperating with each other in the mutual interest. Only with free nations there will be more flexibility to tailor such treaties to the needs of the signatories, rather than 27 diverse countries.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClwwGnbWIAExFys.jpg)
Quote from: airboy on June 27, 2016, 10:22:58 AM
I looked at the UK Bookies line a couple of days before the vote. About 10 - 1 against leaving. Why were they so wrong?
According to today's Wall St. Journal a couple of things happened with the odds makers.
1] All of the big bets were on staying in the EU.
2] The big bookies are all based in London and London was big pro-EU.
There were only 3 10,000 pound bets on leaving the EU while the rest of the big bets (including one 100,000 bet) were to stay.
Because the government and the media were convinced that no one would really stand up to their world view. They
are were totally disconnected with the concerns of voters in their London bubble.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 27, 2016, 11:27:22 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClwwGnbWIAExFys.jpg)
:2funny:
Maybe, but I think the Scots still have a valid point for another Scottish referendum. I don't want to see it, but it does put the EU issue with Brexit to bed.
I have my doubts whether some member states of the EU will be delighted for them to join, or that the Scots will not later come to regret joining the EU for reasons (mentioned elsewhere) if they overcame the objections of other member states.
That all said, it's up to them as I see it. I wish them the best whatever they decide to do. :)
QuoteQuote from: ComradeP on Yesterday at 11:16:16 PM
After such a serious step, strong political leadership is needed and in the Netherlands, a close partner of the UK with many similarities in terms of its political and economic stance within the EU, the businessmen and journalists in particular are getting worried. The general public doesn't care all that much for now.
-
Boggit: I agree that strong political leadership is needed, given that a substantial number of people (but a minority all the same) wanted to remain in the EU, in order to set a clear road map for progress. I totally disagree that the general public doesn't care about this - unless you are referring to the impression on the Dutch population - we had an unprecedented turnout to vote at over 72%.
In the UK, the media is heavily politicised, with publicly funded television being biased to the left, and the newspapers being generally more disposed to the right. I think the businessmen are ultimately realists, and will know that nothing concrete will arise in the immediate future - we, still remain part of the EU, and there has been no structural change to the economy since Brexit. They will have plenty of time to adjust to whatever changes may result, and will have a far clearer idea of the long term economic prospects by the time the UK secedes from the EU.
The way I phrased it was confusing, I meant Dutch journalists and businessmen were getting worried and that the Dutch general public doesn't seem to care much at the moment.
-
As to Golden Dawn: calling it the third largest party is factually accurate, but misleading at the same time in terms of their real influence. Greece essentially has a two party system with some small parties on the side. Golden Dawn has taken a piece of the political pie, but it's nowhere near taking a big chunk of it.
-
I meant that I thought the decision to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, so not necessarily the Article 50 being carried out, was in my opinion a smart move from the remaining important EU leaders. It leaves less room for speculation and uncertainty.
-
I'm not a big fan of any referendum, for a few reasons.
One, like with any election, a large part of the electorate won't know precisely what they're voting for because party political programs are fairly vague and not read much, and most people still seem to vote based on a handful of issues that are important to them. That's valid for a political election, but for yes/no votes on single issues with other issues that are directly influenced by it, it's not ideal.
Two, there's a high chance it will get hijacked by charismatic politicians like Nigel Farage who normally have little influence, politicians with their own gains in mind like a number of the Conservatives who supported Leave, or people from organizations with an interest in the subject and their own agenda. When a man like Nigel Farage is involved in something, I am immediately intrigued by the option he isn't supporting.
Three, if the government is unpopular or the economy is a bit shaky, there's a high chance it will turn into a vote against the current government, which is also how the Dutch EU "constitution" referendum result can be explained. It was fairly clear afterwards most voters didn't really know what it was all about, but just had pro- or anti-EU feelings and pro- or anti-government feelings.
In the Netherlands, we had a referendum on whether or not the government should support a new treaty with the Ukraine. It was hijacked by people who have issues with immigrants, some populists and some fringe politicians. After the referendum was held, some of the organizers essentially proclaimed it was "just a bit of fun" for the summer.
There you have a fine example of the worst way a referendum can be held: false promises (like the Brexit referendum, it was advisory and unlike the Brexit referendum Dutch law only allows referendums to be held after a political proposal has come into being so not in the preparatory stage), in this case right wing individuals using the referendum for their own agenda, beating the drums to gather as much nationalistic support as possible through spreading fear of immigrants and the resulting poison was consumed to the last drop by a large part of the electorate.
In a democratic system, at least one with more direct votes so not the district system used in some countries, you should be able to rely on your politicians to make the decisions for you. That's the foundation of a democracy: you pledge your support to a certain political program by voting on someone, and he/she in turn indirectly pledges to support the program you voted for. Holding a referendum undermines that process.
I'm quite worried about the rise of populists on the left and right. Regardless of what you think about the current politicians, I'm surprised that people view men like Farage, Wilders or that Austrian pseudo-fascist who almost became president as a good choice to vote for. The same applies to left wing examples, obviously, but we just happen to have mostly right wing populists in Northwestern Europe who are successful at the moment.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
The way I phrased it was confusing, I meant Dutch journalists and businessmen were getting worried and that the Dutch general public doesn't seem to care much at the moment.
No worries. I thought you meant that, hence my comment. It is a much more charged issue here.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
As to Golden Dawn: calling it the third largest party is factually accurate, but misleading at the same time in terms of their real influence. Greece essentially has a two party system with some small parties on the side. Golden Dawn has taken a piece of the political pie, but it's nowhere near taking a big chunk of it.
I agree, but the influence goes far deeper than at the parliamentary level, where they are actually providing help for Greeks where the government has failed. The popular support is far greater than the number of seats in government suggest. They follow the pattern of the Nazi's in the pre 1933 election stage.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
I meant that I thought the decision to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, so not necessarily the Article 50 being carried out, was in my opinion a smart move from the remaining important EU leaders. It leaves less room for speculation and uncertainty.
Oh fine. I agree in the interest of certainty that should happen, but ...
My main concern was really on the fact that a 2 year limit doesn't really provide adequate time to fully resolve all the issues arising from a 40 year relationship. The trouble with the quick article 50 procedure is that it sets the process ticking when we have a government on both sides that has no precedent to follow. If Art 50 was derogated to say you can start the Art 50 process but that the 2 year negotiation period may be extended by either party applying if more negotiation is required to resolve any legal issues.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
I'm not a big fan of any referendum, for a few reasons.
One, like with any election, a large part of the electorate won't know precisely what they're voting for because party political programs are fairly vague and not read much, and most people still seem to vote based on a handful of issues that are important to them. That's valid for a political election, but for yes/no votes on single issues with other issues that are directly influenced by it, it's not ideal.
Two, there's a high chance it will get hijacked by charismatic politicians like Nigel Farage who normally have little influence, politicians with their own gains in mind like a number of the Conservatives who supported Leave, or people from organizations with an interest in the subject and their own agenda. When a man like Nigel Farage is involved in something, I am immediately intrigued by the option he isn't supporting.
Three, if the government is unpopular or the economy is a bit shaky, there's a high chance it will turn into a vote against the current government, which is also how the Dutch EU "constitution" referendum result can be explained. It was fairly clear afterwards most voters didn't really know what it was all about, but just had pro- or anti-EU feelings and pro- or anti-government feelings.
In the Netherlands, we had a referendum on whether or not the government should support a new treaty with the Ukraine. It was hijacked by people who have issues with immigrants, some populists and some fringe politicians. After the referendum was held, some of the organizers essentially proclaimed it was "just a bit of fun" for the summer.
There you have a fine example of the worst way a referendum can be held: false promises (like the Brexit referendum, it was advisory and unlike the Brexit referendum Dutch law only allows referendums to be held after a political proposal has come into being so not in the preparatory stage), in this case right wing individuals using the referendum for their own agenda, beating the drums to gather as much nationalistic support as possible through spreading fear of immigrants and the resulting poison was consumed to the last drop by a large part of the electorate.
Oh I get entirely where you are coming from, but what you say about referendums applies equally for elections, and democracy in general. I agree with you that democracy is imperfect, but like Churchill said "it's better than the alternatives".
The danger is when we start to find reasons however valid they might be, to exclude the electorate from having their say, we reduce the democratic legitimacy of our decisions. Sure, you and I may be better informed than some of our compatriots, but does that give us the right to muzzle their voice? It's a very dangerous path you tread there.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
In a democratic system, at least one with more direct votes so not the district system used in some countries, you should be able to rely on your politicians to make the decisions for you. That's the foundation of a democracy: you pledge your support to a certain political program by voting on someone, and he/she in turn indirectly pledges to support the program you voted for. Holding a referendum undermines that process.
In the UK we usually have a first past the post system that disenfranchises a significant number of voters in a "safe seat". It's different in marginal seats, but again all the votes across the country that did not result in a win for a seat become wasted. This gives rise to tactical voting, or people simply not voting or registering to vote because their vote will not be heard.
When you think that Tony Blair achieved an overwhelming majority in Parliament on 26% of the popular vote, and Cameron 36% for a clear majority (IIRC actually less seats than Tony Blair got on 26% of the vote!) you can see why the electorate don't feel properly represented. I'll put it another way... at the last election just over 1 million people voted for the SNP, just over 4 million voted for UKIP. The SNP got 56 seats in Parliament, UKIP got just 1. It's a broken and ultimately unrepresentative system.
For what it's worth the referendum with every vote of every voter counting was a breath of fresh air. That was democracy, not the twisted system we usually use. For the first time in my voting life my vote actually counted, and it meant a lot to me.
So you can see there is already a major disconnect between the voters and the politicians just at the ballot box. As many politicians are in safe seats, they can afford to ignore their voters and follow party lines in spite of voter concerns. So no I don't think there's much trust or legitimacy in the representation of voters by our politicians. And when you don't trust or consider the politicians represent your best interest, you don't invest legitimacy in their role as your representative as you suggest. Maybe you have a better, more representative, electoral system in the Netherlands, but we don't have a good one here.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
I'm quite worried about the rise of populists on the left and right. Regardless of what you think about the current politicians, I'm surprised that people view men like Farage, Wilders or that Austrian pseudo-fascist who almost became president as a good choice to vote for. The same applies to left wing examples, obviously, but we just happen to have mostly right wing populists in Northwestern Europe who are successful at the moment.
I think the explanation above will go some way to answering this.
At the end of the day, when it appears to people that their concerns are not being listened to by the political establishment they look elsewhere. It is no different elsewhere in Europe. Is it the case that 25-30+% of the French people are naturally extreme right wing supporters? Not at all. They are ignored by the mainstream political élite, and they and Marine le Pen know this. Unless the establishment change the way they deal with citizens, there is a good chance that in the next election, or the one after that Marine le Pen will be President of France.
This is not some random accident. You mentioned Austria. In Austria's recent presidential elections, Alexander van der Bellen of the Greens got 50.3% of the vote, while Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party of Austria by a whisker lost at 49.7% of the vote. It really is approaching that critical level. When you consider that the FPO got 20.5% of the vote in the 2013 elections, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the political trends.
Make no mistake, the far right are on the rise because the mainstream political class are not engaging with the concerns of voters. Hitler after the 1924 Putsch realised that he couldn't seize power like that. He did it through the electoral process, and this is what we are seeing now. The complacent political élite of the UK, EU, and the member states need to wake up now and change their complacent 'Weimar Republic' ways... or it will just be too late. At that point to survive and prosper, whether you believe the dogma or not, you will need to sign up to join the Freedom Party, or whoever is ruling just like ordinary Germans, or Italians had to in the 30's. You are right to be worried. :(
QuoteOh I get entirely where you are coming from, but what you say about referendums applies equally for elections, and democracy in general. I agree with you that democracy is imperfect, but like Churchill said "it's better than the alternatives".
The danger is when we start to find reasons however valid they might be, to exclude the electorate from having their say, we reduce the democratic legitimacy of our decisions. Sure, you and I may be better informed than some of our compatriots, but does that give us the right to muzzle their voice? It's a very dangerous path you tread there.
I'm not suggesting any voice should not be heard, provided it is within the boundaries of what society as a whole finds reasonable at the time, and I understand very little of the precise legal implications of either the Brexit or the treaty with the Ukraine I just voted for so I'm only slightly better informed than the majority of the electorate. However, limiting the number of referendums and elections does protect the system and the electorate against apathy and ignorance having a serious effect on the political process (aside from how the politicians themselves act).
QuoteFor what it's worth the referendum with every vote of every voter counting was a breath of fresh air. That was democracy, not the twisted system we usually use. For the first time in my voting life my vote actually counted, and it meant a lot to me.
So you can see there is already a major disconnect between the voters and the politicians just at the ballot box. As many politicians are in safe seats, they can afford to ignore their voters and follow party lines in spite of voter concerns. So no I don't think there's much trust or legitimacy in the representation of voters by our politicians. And when you don't trust or consider the politicians represent your best interest, you don't invest legitimacy in their role as your representative as you suggest. Maybe you have a better, more representative, electoral system in the Netherlands, but we don't have a good one here.
I can see why it would feel like a breath of fresh air, I was already wondering what it must've been like for the British to actually have their vote directly registered and counting towards a certain result.
The Dutch political system isn't better in a literal sense, but it is more representative in the sense that your vote is always added to the total for a certain party and person belonging to that party (you're voting on a person and thus a party by extension). Of course, you don't directly influence who gets on the list unless you're a party member, and you don't directly influence the eventual coalition or the representatives in the First Chamber, elected by provincial representatives who are in turn elected by citizens again.
QuoteMake no mistake, the far right are on the rise because the mainstream political class are not engaging with the concerns of voters. Hitler after the 1924 Putsch realised that he couldn't seize power like that. He did it through the electoral process, and this is what we are seeing now. The complacent political élite of the UK, EU, and the member states need to wake up now and change their complacent 'Weimar Republic' ways... or it will just be too late. At that point to survive and prosper, whether you believe the dogma or not, you will need to sign up to join the Freedom Party, or whoever is ruling just like ordinary Germans, or Italians had to in the 30's. You are right to be worried.
One thing the European governments continue to fail to do is point out just how wealthy we still are compared to previous generations, at least in the Western Europe member states. Real poverty has been virtually wiped out. What we consider to be poor today is very, very different from what poverty is like in the 3rd World or what it was like in parts of Europe until the 1960's-1970's or so.
If there's one thing I blame the majority of the current electorate, born at a time when the welfare state was being formed or was up and running, is that they've taken every advantage the welfare state offered them, but the politicians of their generation are unimaginitive men and women who can't handle a crisis and the same people who were politically active in their youth now guard their privileges like their parents did. A lot of the bad decisions, like the problems immigration caused, were kept silent until they burst out into the open in the 00's.
There are days where I just can't comprehend how we got from "winning" the Cold War and the prosperity of the 1990's with its increase in industrial efficiency thanks to the computer and the effects of the economy becoming truly global reducing the price of luxury products considerably. A simple stereo cost 1000 bucks in the early 1990's, for example, and inflation was still fairly high. All of that has improved, but there are no ideals anymore worth propagating as the politicians see it. The darker side of capitalism and an ever expanding EU without a message or public support have dramatically altered the way society treats politics and the European Experiment since the start of the millenium.
Quote from: mirth on June 26, 2016, 08:31:23 PM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 26, 2016, 02:31:54 PM
Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?! >:D
that's like asking how many Civil War gaming threads do we need?
Or Star Trek.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 01:58:59 PM
I'm not suggesting any voice should not be heard, provided it is within the boundaries of what society as a whole finds reasonable at the time, and I understand very little of the precise legal implications of either the Brexit or the treaty with the Ukraine I just voted for so I'm only slightly better informed than the majority of the electorate. However, limiting the number of referendums and elections does protect the system and the electorate against apathy and ignorance having a serious effect on the political process (aside from how the politicians themselves act).
And what does "society" find reasonable? Who actually makes the decision, and what motives do they have for setting the limits as they do? It's a difficult one isn't it? I don't suggest we have elections or referenda every other week, but with my experience on Brexit they certainly should be more regular to engage the electorate, and encourage participation in civil life. After all the politicians are just the agents of the people if we give any credit to thought like Rousseau's social contract. It doesn't hurt for them to be reminded of the fact once in a while. ;) :knuppel2:
Quote from: ComradeP on June 27, 2016, 01:58:59 PM
One thing the European governments continue to fail to do is point out just how wealthy we still are compared to previous generations, at least in the Western Europe member states. Real poverty has been virtually wiped out. What we consider to be poor today is very, very different from what poverty is like in the 3rd World or what it was like in parts of Europe until the 1960's-1970's or so.
If there's one thing I blame the majority of the current electorate, born at a time when the welfare state was being formed or was up and running, is that they've taken every advantage the welfare state offered them, but the politicians of their generation are unimaginitive men and women who can't handle a crisis and the same people who were politically active in their youth now guard their privileges like their parents did. A lot of the bad decisions, like the problems immigration caused, were kept silent until they burst out into the open in the 00's.
There are days where I just can't comprehend how we got from "winning" the Cold War and the prosperity of the 1990's with its increase in industrial efficiency thanks to the computer and the effects of the economy becoming truly global reducing the price of luxury products considerably. A simple stereo cost 1000 bucks in the early 1990's, for example, and inflation was still fairly high. All of that has improved, but there are no ideals anymore worth propagating as the politicians see it. The darker side of capitalism and an ever expanding EU without a message or public support have dramatically altered the way society treats politics and the European Experiment since the start of the millenium.
I agree with you. Unless politicians rediscover ideals, like actually representing the interests of their constituents, then all they do is perpetuate the status quo, the disconnect between the people and the political process. Nothing will change and the people will find government ever more remote and irrelevant to their daily lives. Laws will be obeyed not for their legitimacy, but only because of the consequences of not doing so.
It becomes a race to the bottom. :( Politics and the European experiment have failed. It is time to learn from the mistakes of the past, start afresh and build a new future. I remain hopeful. :)
Wait, was I supposed to write a massive post about Brexit?
...
...........
...um, I've got nothing.
(About Brexit. I've got a scathing rant about Harvard and the Smithsonian knowingly trying to fob off a forgery for ideological interests and maybe some cash down the line... ;) )
Quote from: JasonPratt on June 27, 2016, 06:19:11 PM
Wait, was I supposed to write a massive post about Brexit?
...
...........
...um, I've got nothing.
(About Brexit. I've got a scathing rant about Harvard and the Smithsonian knowingly trying to fob off a forgery for ideological interests and maybe some cash down the line... ;) )
Feel free... ;D
Quote from: airboy on June 27, 2016, 10:22:58 AM
I looked at the UK Bookies line a couple of days before the vote. About 10 - 1 against leaving. Why were they so wrong?
This morning I was thinking about what effect EU investment in various areas outside of London might have had in the vote.
A while back, I was in Dublin (Ireland) for a family wedding and there were EU projects being done almost everywhere I looked. The level of investment was staggering, to the point that Granny O'Grady's new back fence was an EU structural project. ;) Joking aside, I was taken aback, as in comparison I've never seen such heavy EU investment within the UK.
So were there any parallels that might explain remain voting patterns in areas outside of London that could be linked to EU patronage, either financially, or even on an EU cultural basis?
The UK cities, as part of the European Capitals of culture program sprang to mind, as they involve urban regeneration, and usually an increase in tourism. This program is generously funded by the EU, and is a positive thing, but only a few areas were benefiting. This obviously is a benefit to the prosperity of an area. Could any conclusions be drawn where the local people might conclude a benefit from their association with the EU? The results were interesting, but not entirely conclusive....
The European Capitals of Culture in the UK were -
Liverpool
Glasgow
Interestingly, both these cities substantially voted to remain in the EU, having seen substantial EU investment in their areas. Am I surprised? No. These cities had a clear benefit from being in the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capital_of_Culture
http://europa.eu/pol/cult/index_en.htm On EU funding for Capitals of Culture
Moreover, in 2013 inspired by the EU program the idea was taken further in the UK - though lacking EU funding - to the idea of UK cities of culture.
Londonderry/Derry was the first, with Hull cited as the next for 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_City_of_Culture
Londonderry voted as with much of Northern Ireland to remain, although see point 3. in my first post of this thread for perhaps more persuasive reasons as to why they voted the way they did. http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17285.msg454836#msg454836
The interesting result is Hull who voted heavily to reject the EU. They weren't recipients of EU money, although they did receive money from the UK (and from a pro-EU government). http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/eu-referendum-result-in-hull-overwhelmingly-backs-brexit/story-29439076-detail/story.html
So my conclusion, is that areas that have benefited from substantial EU funding reflected their appreciation of the EU in the Brexit referendum, while those left out of EU funding generally did not.
Geek's observations about the net beneficiaries of EU funding may be significantly insightful into why the voting patterns outside of Scotland, Northern Ireland overwhelmingly reflected perceived economic benefits from the EU. http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17285.msg454980#msg454980
I wish we got more detailed facts like this in the news about Brexit and everything else. Instead of the superficial headlines that even the talking-head newsies can't understand.
Quote from: Sir Slash on June 28, 2016, 09:17:40 AM
I wish we got more detailed facts like this in the news about Brexit and everything else. Instead of the superficial headlines that even the talking-head newsies can't understand.
+1 O0
We have had some truly excellent contributors to the debate, on both sides of the argument. 8)
Toonces pointed out my posts were unusually long, and he is right. I've discovered a deep interest in politics I never had before, and plan to get more involved in it now. I am currently involved in disability activism, but want to get involved in wider politics now.
The trouble with the media is that while they might report events, they are (being generalists jumping from story to story) generally not informed enough about specific areas, or are limited by editorial control. It means events are not given much more than a surface analysis. OK, occasionally that is different with documentaries, but generally that is the case with many news reporters.
It was a political crisis, now beginning to start settling down as the politicians adjust to the new reality.
It isn't an economic crisis. It was a political crisis all along. Despite all the doom and jittery markets due to uncertainty and the shock of being completely wrong last week, the underlying economy is much the same as it was a week ago. The jitters are beginning to settle, as people get over the 'surprise' result. When you look at all the underlying factors, was Brexit actually such a surprise? Honestly? The EU are now being much more reasonable about Brexit than they were, and Cameron is keen to keep things amicable too. It's in the best interest of everyone to be reasonable with each other.
Neither Norway, Switzerland, nor Canada are economic basket cases within the EEA, so why should the UK as the 5th largest world economy (2nd largest in the EU after Germany) be down and out for long? If you look at share trading today you will see that the market is making a significant recovery:
International Markets
Index Value Change
FTSE 100 6,137.48 +155.28 Up
FTSE 250 15,519.69 +551.83 Up
FTSE 350 3,378.25 +91.13 Up
FTSE All-Share 3,325.87 +88.33 Up
FTSE AIM UK 50 3,837.85 +116.90 Up
FTSE AIM 100 3,271.08 +82.31 Up
FTSE AIM All-Share 688.80 +11.84 Up
All data delayed at least 15 minutes
Source http://www.londonstockexchange.com/home/homepage.htm as at 16:27hours GMT
Even if a worst case scenario arose that the EU would not trade with us, I am quite sure that the void would be filled with countries wanting to replace the EU share of the market. Business is business. They would be nuts not to. We are Germany's largest market for cars. If the EU prevents them from trading who will step in? For the US car industry Brexit is a potential Godsend, same for China and Japan, as EU intransigence would be a body blow to the German, French and Italian car industries. It is economic insanity for the EU to be tough on trade with the UK post Brexit. They have much more to lose given the trade deficit, and their global competitors have everything to gain.
Frankly, while I understand the initial EU reaction to Brexit, I think it is in their own interest as much as anything, to be realists and settle this divorce generously. They have more to lose otherwise.
Politically, Brexit is quite rightly a worrying bellweather for the EU. If anything, Brexit creates a flash that will spark other independence referendums in the EU. It would be good for the long term future of the EU for them to listen. If these referendums take place then it is an endorsement, or otherwise of the citizens within the EU. The EU will derive unity of purpose from those who wish to remain, and can still maintain good relations with those countries who see their federal model as incompatible with their values, as people will see the EU had the grace to let them have their say (and respect it).
If they don't permit referenda, the rising Euroscepticism within Europe will demand a voice that is listened to. If only the far right engage with this, then the EU faces a worrying future as this is reflected in elections, in the government of member states, and ultimately their Commission appointees. In turn this will contribute to transforming the EU eventually into a far right, or at least heavily influenced far right state. It's not what the present EU will want, and they can only address it by giving the people their voice one way, or the other. And unlike the past, the EU now needs to respect these referenda not ignore, or otherwise circumvent them.
Farage speaks to the European Parliament
Based on the reaction to his speech, I'll say they still don't get it
That speech, and a man like Farage in general, is an insult to everything that European cooperation has achieved.
Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can support these nationalists, who are all part of the political elite and yet people believe them when they make it look like they do it all for the common man instead of their personal gains.
Regardless of whether or not you're frustrated or not by things which may or may not have been caused by the EU, supporting a man like Farage or a party like UKIP is dangerous on the long term.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 28, 2016, 02:33:53 PM
Regardless of whether or not you're frustrated or not
Hold on there, what makes you think my stance may come from frustration?
Have you ever given it a thought that maybe, just maybe, I could have an informed opinion?
And frankly, I don't even bother to relate to the rest of your post. It's nothing but unsubstantiated innuendo.
Whoa guys :o
I know you both, and respect both of you.
I also know that you both have informed views, but I also know that you're both coming from polar opposites too.
Nigel Farage is a nationalist, ComradeP is correct. But let's put it into context. Some of his party were ex-BNP supporters who have expressed racist views in the past, but they have been expelled from UKIP for their views. He is a nationalist, but is not part of a far right group like the BNP, or the EDL in the UK. His party has ONE seat in the UK Parliament, and it is not his. The BNP has had MEP's in the European Parliament, but UKIP is definitely not the BNP. He has publicly distanced himself from Marine le Pen (and even her party has changed some from the FN of her father. Even Jean-Marie le Pen got expelled!)
ComradeP is right that Farage hates the EU, but he is often factually correct in his criticism of it's weaknesses, particularly on constitutional matters. When we leave the EU his job as an MEP will be finished, and a lot of his party's support will dissipate unless they can develop a national platform that people find attractive. If he doesn't expand his appeal to the UK electorate outside of Euroscepticism it will be hard for his party to sustain itself.
Farage likes baiting the pro-EU side, which is a source of amusement to Eurosceptics, just as much as a source of annoyance to those who identify with the EU. I get that ComradeP who is generally pro-EU will feel justifiably stung by it. That is Farage's intention.
Is the EU an evil organisation? Of course not. It has done some very good things, but it has some serious faults too. A lot of people don't like the federal direction it's heading in, the democratic deficit, the bureaucracy, the corruption, the declining economy of the Eurozone, the unemployment, the waste of resources, and the general remoteness to ordinary citizens, etc.
I know Attilla60 has developed his view about the best future for Denmark over a long time. It's no knee jerk reaction, but one very considered. He's no extremist for being in favour of independence. Like me with the UK, he just feels that Denmark has a better future outside of the EU. One size doesn't fit all.
The point Attilla60 makes about the reaction Farage got in the European Parliament is probably true. The EU still appears to be in denial over the strength of self determination, and desire for national sovereignty to be reclaimed from the EU in a number of member states. As I've mentioned earlier, this denial is a truly dangerous thing if it pushes self determination into the arms of the far right. Nationalism based on the desire for self determination does not equate to National Socialism.
As I've said before, the EU needs to have a vote of confidence from the citizens within it. There is no point dragging member states whose citizens feel that the EU is failing them into ever closer union. That will entrench resentment, which needs expression. It's far better that the EU acknowledge that as many people support the EU, many are also disillusioned with it too. Surely it is better for the EU to clear the air with in/out referendums throughout the EU? If there is a genuine confidence in the EU then it will do more for unity of purpose than anything else. If not it will be seen as the instrument of oppression if people feel they are forced into an ever closer union without their consent.
On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned. Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader? Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?
The Wall St. Journal wrote that the vote was:
London Area - very heavy to stay. London is a big services center for the EU and has a lot of people with EU passports.
Scotland/Northern Ireland - voted to stay for cultural reasons (i.e. they dislike the rest of the UK).
Wales - the more "British" areas voted heavily to leave. The more "Welsh" areas narrowly voted to stay.
Rest of England - voted very heavy to leave.
Is this reasonably accurate?
WSJ also reported that the EU blew it by not compromising on immigration to the UK. With reasonable compromise on that issue their opinion was the vote would have gone the other way. Is that accurate?
I don't have a dog in this fight but that is what I read today (caught up on the last 4 days of coverage).
Quote from: airboy on June 28, 2016, 09:25:49 PM
On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned. Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader? Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?
Jeremy Corbyn's future depends on the vote of the grass roots labour party, not the MP's, and will as I understand it, be settled by the National Executive Committee. Policy may change as Labour wakes up to the disconnect between their voters and their political "representatives" (sic) in the Westminster bubble.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36658985
Quote from: airboy on June 28, 2016, 09:27:56 PM
The Wall St. Journal wrote that the vote was:
London Area - very heavy to stay. London is a big services center for the EU and has a lot of people with EU passports.
Scotland/Northern Ireland - voted to stay for cultural reasons (i.e. they dislike the rest of the UK).
Wales - the more "British" areas voted heavily to leave. The more "Welsh" areas narrowly voted to stay.
Rest of England - voted very heavy to leave.
Is this reasonably accurate?
WSJ also reported that the EU blew it by not compromising on immigration to the UK. With reasonable compromise on that issue their opinion was the vote would have gone the other way. Is that accurate?
I don't have a dog in this fight but that is what I read today (caught up on the last 4 days of coverage).
IMHO, it's an incredibly simplistic view of it. I'd go further and suggest that the reporter was relying more on stereotypes, and stating the obvious re the outcomes, rather than trying to provide any real understanding of the complexities of the issue to explain the reasons for the vote result.
It's sad that the WSJ isn't more inquiring, but this seems to be a common fault with the media on this issue. The EU is a complex issue, and even people like myself who have studied it for years are liars if they say they have a total understanding of it. The media for the most part, generally don't have the knowledge/education to be able to comment on it for much more than a surface analysis - to be fair to the WSJ.
I suggest you have a quick look at the Brexit posts again in Current Events, General Discussion and probably best in R&P, for a better answer. In particular this thread, and this one http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.0 probably has all your answers, if you are happy to persevere with the volume of posts.
The Welsh voting however, deserves special mention. The "Welsh" Welsh areas that voted to remain are typically areas that rely overwhelmingly on farming, then tourism for their local economies. A remain vote was not surprising as these areas were recipients of considerable EU funding, particularly under the Common Agricultural Policy, which provides subsidies to farmers to produce goods they find hard to or can't sell. Few people benefiting from these subsidies would wish to lose them by voting to leave. You see this pattern elsewhere in areas that do benefit from substantial EU money, as the votes outside London tend to follow the money.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/what-would-brexit-mean-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/81314/EU-s-butter-mountain-costs-taxpayers-236m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy
And just to clarify: Wales as a whole did not narrowly vote to leave - there was a slightly lower vote to leave in Wales, but only -0.2% variance to the national vote, so hardly a narrow vote to leave.
Quote from: airboy on June 28, 2016, 09:25:49 PM
On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned. Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader? Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?
50% have gone now, one MP in tears this morning over frustration of his inept leadership - the MPs dont decide if he stays or not the Labour Party do, and he has (maybe had) a massive support from them, people actually joined just to vote for him. If he was a man of principles he would accept the vote of no confidence and then simply put his name back in the running for leader and would probably win again - then sack/assassinate everyone who voted against him - i play too much CK2 but you get the idea
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 29, 2016, 05:35:32 AM
Quote from: airboy on June 28, 2016, 09:25:49 PM
On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned. Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader? Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?
50% have gone now, one MP in tears this morning over frustration of his inept leadership - the MPs dont decide if he stays or not the Labour Party do, and he has (maybe had) a massive support from them, people actually joined just to vote for him. If he was a man of principles he would accept the vote of no confidence and then simply put his name back in the running for leader and would probably win again - then sack/assassinate everyone who voted against him - i play too much CK2 but you get the idea
LOL! ;D Geek is right.
QuoteBoggit: And what does "society" find reasonable? Who actually makes the decision, and what motives do they have for setting the limits as they do? It's a difficult one isn't it? I don't suggest we have elections or referenda every other week, but with my experience on Brexit they certainly should be more regular to engage the electorate, and encourage participation in civil life. After all the politicians are just the agents of the people if we give any credit to thought like Rousseau's social contract. It doesn't hurt for them to be reminded of the fact once in a while.
What society finds reasonable changes with time. It's indeed difficult to pinpoint, but it settles the foundation of both the legal and political system of its time, although the political system more so than the legal system. For example: women in the Netherlands were legally "incapable of taking action" until 1956 in the Netherlands, which meant they couldn't have a bank account or insurance in their name, as their signature carried no legal weight. Women needed permission from their husbands to purchase various expensive goods. They also had to leave their jobs if working for the government when they married. The rapid decline in church visits and openly religious views in general combined with the emancipation of women allowed that to change.
The process of what society finds acceptable tends to have a backlash in terms of economic crisis, when people tend to give up some of their rights in exchange for economic security, or start to look for people to blame. Sadly, I feel the process that is currently going on is similar to that of the 1920's-1930's in a number of ways. In Eastern Europe, the more authoritarian governments of the 1920's-1930's have already made a comeback.
You asked earlier if I thought France had a certain consistent (far) right minority and in my opinion, there is evidence that it does. There's still a strong authoritarian, male-oriented (formerly) catholic minority in the country. In the book
Soumission by Houellebecq, the catholic right is in a way happy with the Islamic president of France as women are forced to go home to stay with the family. Though that could be seen as a joke in some way, it does highlight one of the French political issues.
QuoteAtilla: Hold on there, what makes you think my stance may come from frustration?
Have you ever given it a thought that maybe, just maybe, I could have an informed opinion?
And frankly, I don't even bother to relate to the rest of your post. It's nothing but unsubstantiated innuendo.
Who said you couldn't have an informed opinion? How am I to know what your opinion is, in order to judge it in the way you mention, based on the short posts you've made in this thread thus far?
A man like Farage
is himself a member of the elite, I don't know why that would be unsubstantiated. He doesn't have much in common with the common man, and he seemingly prefers to spend time with that elite instead of his common supporters based on reports on where he was during and after the referendum.
QuoteBoggit: Nigel Farage is a nationalist, ComradeP is correct. But let's put it into context. Some of his party were ex-BNP supporters who have expressed racist views in the past, but they have been expelled from UKIP for their views. He is a nationalist, but is not part of a far right group like the BNP, or the EDL in the UK. His party has ONE seat in the UK Parliament, and it is not his. The BNP has had MEP's in the European Parliament, but UKIP is definitely not the BNP. He has publicly distanced himself from Marine le Pen (and even her party has changed some from the FN of her father. Even Jean-Marie le Pen got expelled!)
I'm not sure I can classify him as just a nationalist based on his clear implications during the campaign that immigrants and immigration are not welcome, and the way he spread that message. He doesn't have to be a member of a far right party to imply a message that could be interpreted as racist or as discrimination of foreigners. Reports of attacks on foreigners around the referendum are worrying, and men like Farage (or Wilders in the Netherlands, though he is more vocal on the issue than Farage) are smart enough not to attach themselves directly to openly racist groups, whilst still spreading a clear anti-immigrant message.
QuoteComradeP is right that Farage hates the EU, but he is often factually correct in his criticism of it's weaknesses, particularly on constitutional matters. When we leave the EU his job as an MEP will be finished, and a lot of his party's support will dissipate unless they can develop a national platform that people find attractive. If he doesn't expand his appeal to the UK electorate outside of Euroscepticism it will be hard for his party to sustain itself.
Populism works as long as you don't have to take responsibility. You can play the victim and just blame everybody else for the bad things that happen, conveniently ignoring your own flaws. For some reason, people are fine with that as long as the populist has enough force of personality. In the case of the Brexit, the populists had a problem, as they "won". Immediate result: political chaos, just what was to be expected. The Leave campaigners have not taken their political responsibility so far, with both the Labour and Conservative parties in turmoil and UKIP not being much of an alternative in terms of current and probably future political power as most of the electorate prefers a safer vote on a larger party.
His criticism of the EU's weaknesses might be correct, I can't really say as I'm not sure what he has discussed in recent months, but a man like Farage has experts to help him with such matters. When you hear and more importantly: see him in action, he is probably closer to what he stands for as a person. Furthermore, being right on some issues doesn't mean it's acceptable to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric that is inflammatory during the current debate, yet solves nothing. People will just get angrier. As long as they get angrier, they're more likely to vote for populist parties. At this point, I'm still quite sceptical if Farage actually wants to contribute to a solution to the EU's problems, or if he's mostly in the game for his own political power.
QuoteFarage likes baiting the pro-EU side, which is a source of amusement to Eurosceptics, just as much as a source of annoyance to those who identify with the EU. I get that ComradeP who is generally pro-EU will feel justifiably stung by it. That is Farage's intention.
I'm pro-European cooperation, not necessarily pro-EU. The EU is just the main shape European cooperation takes at the moment, which is why I support its policies on that matter. It's fine to criticize the EU, but not without giving a credible alternative. Pointing a finger is easy, but being part of the solution is a lot harder. I haven't seen Farage or his counterparts contribute much to a solution.
The EU is so abstract for European voters that problems that are actually caused by globalization or the specific strengths and weaknesses of a national economy are blamed on the EU. People treat the EU like a European government, which it isn't.
For example: if something like 12 out of 13 new jobs in England appear in the southeastern part of the country, it means the relative importance of London and other cities in that area is too great, similar to smaller countries in Eastern Europe with a large population in the capital. That is the way the UK economy is currently designed it seems, but it isn't caused by the EU. If you're in a place like Blackpool and you're poor, you don't see the benefit of EU membership, but in a more practical sense you primarily don't see much of a benefit of UK economic growth. For those people, tales of how less immigration will magically lead to more jobs are understandably inspiring. They're also misleading.
Another item that was frequently mentioned, at least in the Dutch press, was how people in the poorer areas felt it couldn't get much worse for them as the economic growth of the last decades has passed them by, a sentiment shared by numerous non-urban Europeans. The problem is that things can get much worse, and quite quickly. Poorer people rely more on government subsidies of some sort, so if the government takes hits in the treasury, cuts will have to be made, which in turn will disproportionally hit the poor. Considering that the parents or grandparents of those people grew up in a time where "real" poverty still existed, it's surprising that they believe their situation can't get worse due to being unemployed or not having much of a chance of achieving upwards social and economic mobility.
As predicted, the markets are continuing to settle post Brexit. Reasonable cooperation between the EU and the UK will encourage this for all.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKCN0ZF01O
The markets recovering is good, but there's still a gap between "recovering" and "recovery".
Barclays share and GBP/USD exchange rate.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNwzh5OD.jpg&hash=598ab5b5796325abac381755632df5d9bddf9911)
it never was going to be the armageddon that was predicted, i hope even the remain camp thought that!
whats pissing me off now is a deliberate attempt by the EU to punish us for leaving, to show an example by way of closed trade and tariffs, to teach all other exit wannabes thats what happens to you for leaving - these are nation states FFS, its not nursery where little jimmy has pushed a sand castle over
It's very short sighted for either side to not cooperate for a smooth transition.
Quotewhats pissing me off now is a deliberate attempt by the EU to punish us for leaving, to show an example by way of closed trade and tariffs, to teach all other exit wannabes thats what happens to you for leaving - these are nation states FFS, its not nursery where little jimmy has pushed a sand castle over
When has the EU closed trade, or imposed tariffs on the UK in the last few days?
its what theyre threatening
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
What society finds reasonable changes with time. It's indeed difficult to pinpoint, but it settles the foundation of both the legal and political system of its time, although the political system more so than the legal system. For example: women in the Netherlands were legally "incapable of taking action" until 1956 in the Netherlands, which meant they couldn't have a bank account or insurance in their name, as their signature carried no legal weight. Women needed permission from their husbands to purchase various expensive goods. They also had to leave their jobs if working for the government when they married. The rapid decline in church visits and openly religious views in general combined with the emancipation of women allowed that to change.
The process of what society finds acceptable tends to have a backlash in terms of economic crisis, when people tend to give up some of their rights in exchange for economic security, or start to look for people to blame. Sadly, I feel the process that is currently going on is similar to that of the 1920's-1930's in a number of ways. In Eastern Europe, the more authoritarian governments of the 1920's-1930's have already made a comeback.
None of this is controversial as far as I'm concerned. I agree with your observations.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
You asked earlier if I thought France had a certain consistent (far) right minority and in my opinion, there is evidence that it does. There's still a strong authoritarian, male-oriented (formerly) catholic minority in the country. In the book Soumission by Houellebecq, the catholic right is in a way happy with the Islamic president of France as women are forced to go home to stay with the family. Though that could be seen as a joke in some way, it does highlight one of the French political issues.
I partly agree with you on the strength of the French catholic right, but they were primarily strong supporters of Sarkozy's Republican Party (the conservative former UMP led by Sarkozy). That doesn't explain why Marine le Pen has got ever increasing support from the French electorate. I think this is a significant response to the failure of mainstream politicians to engage with the concerns of the electorate. Marine le Pen is populist, but isn't the whole issue of populism related to responding to popular demands? It is no accident either that Francois Hollande is at an all time low in voter confidence in the polls.
Can you say with any real confidence that the same principle holds true for similar trends in countries like Austria, Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Spain etc?
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
QuoteBoggit: Nigel Farage is a nationalist, ComradeP is correct. But let's put it into context. Some of his party were ex-BNP supporters who have expressed racist views in the past, but they have been expelled from UKIP for their views. He is a nationalist, but is not part of a far right group like the BNP, or the EDL in the UK. His party has ONE seat in the UK Parliament, and it is not his. The BNP has had MEP's in the European Parliament, but UKIP is definitely not the BNP. He has publicly distanced himself from Marine le Pen (and even her party has changed some from the FN of her father. Even Jean-Marie le Pen got expelled!)
I'm not sure I can classify him as just a nationalist based on his clear implications during the campaign that immigrants and immigration are not welcome, and the way he spread that message. He doesn't have to be a member of a far right party to imply a message that could be interpreted as racist or as discrimination of foreigners. Reports of attacks on foreigners around the referendum are worrying, and men like Farage (or Wilders in the Netherlands, though he is more vocal on the issue than Farage) are smart enough not to attach themselves directly to openly racist groups, whilst still spreading a clear anti-immigrant message.
QuoteComradeP is right that Farage hates the EU, but he is often factually correct in his criticism of it's weaknesses, particularly on constitutional matters. When we leave the EU his job as an MEP will be finished, and a lot of his party's support will dissipate unless they can develop a national platform that people find attractive. If he doesn't expand his appeal to the UK electorate outside of Euroscepticism it will be hard for his party to sustain itself.
Populism works as long as you don't have to take responsibility. You can play the victim and just blame everybody else for the bad things that happen, conveniently ignoring your own flaws. For some reason, people are fine with that as long as the populist has enough force of personality. In the case of the Brexit, the populists had a problem, as they "won". Immediate result: political chaos, just what was to be expected. The Leave campaigners have not taken their political responsibility so far, with both the Labour and Conservative parties in turmoil and UKIP not being much of an alternative in terms of current and probably future political power as most of the electorate prefers a safer vote on a larger party.
[/quote]
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
His criticism of the EU's weaknesses might be correct, I can't really say as I'm not sure what he has discussed in recent months, but a man like Farage has experts to help him with such matters. When you hear and more importantly: see him in action, he is probably closer to what he stands for as a person. Furthermore, being right on some issues doesn't mean it's acceptable to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric that is inflammatory during the current debate, yet solves nothing. People will just get angrier. As long as they get angrier, they're more likely to vote for populist parties. At this point, I'm still quite sceptical if Farage actually wants to contribute to a solution to the EU's problems, or if he's mostly in the game for his own political power.
QuoteFarage likes baiting the pro-EU side, which is a source of amusement to Eurosceptics, just as much as a source of annoyance to those who identify with the EU. I get that ComradeP who is generally pro-EU will feel justifiably stung by it. That is Farage's intention.
Farage is a factor in Brexit, but look at who were actually running the official vote leave campaign. You will see that he ran an alternate leave campaign. The Eurosceptic consensus is a cross party consensus. A vast number of Labour, not UKIP voters voted for leave hence the present crisis for the Labour party. Without massive cross party support for Brexit it would not have happened.
You are attaching far more importance to Nigel Farage and UKIP to the Brexit outcome than you should.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
I'm pro-European cooperation, not necessarily pro-EU. The EU is just the main shape European cooperation takes at the moment, which is why I support its policies on that matter. It's fine to criticize the EU, but not without giving a credible alternative. Pointing a finger is easy, but being part of the solution is a lot harder. I haven't seen Farage or his counterparts contribute much to a solution.
I'm for European cooperation too. In that respect, we're on the same side. But I think the EU model is broken and too monolithic to change. What I'd like to see is a loose confederacy of sovereign, independent European nations working in cooperation for their mutual benefit. Do you have a view on such a revised model of European cooperation? I think it goes a long way to preserving the benefits without the concerns felt by Eurosceptics. To me it seems a win-win solution and a no brainer. I'm not saying that it is a magic bullet, but I think it is a better way forward than the route adopted by the EU.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
The EU is so abstract for European voters that problems that are actually caused by globalization or the specific strengths and weaknesses of a national economy are blamed on the EU. People treat the EU like a European government, which it isn't.
You're right it isn't. You were also right that it is too big to be manageable. It is too remote and monolithic to be responsive to the concerns of citizens, and in that are the seeds of its failure.
I think Farage is right that the UK is the first to leave, but there will be others. That doesn't have to be a bad thing for Europe. It may turn out to be the cue for a more flexible and responsive European "community". I think that at least medium term onwards (the markets are already recovering from the shock of Brexit) the UK will do just fine, but I can see that working cooperatively in a system which relies on consensus we are all stronger.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
For example: if something like 12 out of 13 new jobs in England appear in the southeastern part of the country, it means the relative importance of London and other cities in that area is too great, similar to smaller countries in Eastern Europe with a large population in the capital. That is the way the UK economy is currently designed it seems, but it isn't caused by the EU. If you're in a place like Blackpool and you're poor, you don't see the benefit of EU membership, but in a more practical sense you primarily don't see much of a benefit of UK economic growth. For those people, tales of how less immigration will magically lead to more jobs are understandably inspiring. They're also misleading.
Immigration in the numbers we have seen, has put a downward pressure on wages. Big business love it, as the workforce costs drop as the result of the oversupply of labour, particularly at the lower skilled end of the workforce. Thus the workforce subsidise their profits. The principle argument by the Leave campaign focuses not so much on present immigration, but on future immigration without any control with regards to the needs of the UK economy. The open door policy is not economically sustainable, given our own unemployment, the pressure of a higher population on schools, hospitals, housing etc, which are all under considerable pressure.
As, a personal example, having been a school governor a few years ago, I can tell you as the Acting Chair of the Resources Committee it was a huge worry about how we were to cope with the changing demographics putting pressure on the limited funds we had to provide additional classrooms, teaching staff etc.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 07:06:07 AM
Another item that was frequently mentioned, at least in the Dutch press, was how people in the poorer areas felt it couldn't get much worse for them as the economic growth of the last decades has passed them by, a sentiment shared by numerous non-urban Europeans. The problem is that things can get much worse, and quite quickly. Poorer people rely more on government subsidies of some sort, so if the government takes hits in the treasury, cuts will have to be made, which in turn will disproportionally hit the poor. Considering that the parents or grandparents of those people grew up in a time where "real" poverty still existed, it's surprising that they believe their situation can't get worse due to being unemployed or not having much of a chance of achieving upwards social and economic mobility.
You may be right. There is no doubt that voting areas that were net beneficiaries of EU funding voted to remain, and that many areas that voted to Leave have a case to make that their local economies are ignored, both at the UK, but most certainly at the EU level. But economies in the EU don't necessarily improve as the result of membership of the EU. Greece is probably the best example, but >50% youth unemployment in Spain is another good one, that the EU is no silver bullet. I think a lot of people think that given the chance, we will have a brighter future outside of the EU.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 08:04:43 AM
The markets recovering is good, but there's still a gap between "recovering" and "recovery".
Barclays share and GBP/USD exchange rate.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNwzh5OD.jpg&hash=598ab5b5796325abac381755632df5d9bddf9911)
I never said it wasn't. Give it time, it will recover. No one is saying it's there yet. Give it time.
We are only talking 4 days since the Brexit decision, and yet you are showing the dramatic day 1 drop on the money markets with graphs showing the first 4 days and a 3 month trend graph. Given the mere few days that have elapsed, with the stock markets recovering already I think those graphs are potentially misleading as to the real economy. The underlying economy is much the same as it was last Wednesday. What you are seeing is the fallout to what is a political crisis not an economic one. The markets got it very wrong, and they have panicked. It'll come good when they calm down.
When they realise that this matter creates probably more business opportunities than it destroys you'll see even stronger growth IMO. Brexit is a reality, and the first steps to a negotiated divorce are being mooted. The EU are being bullish at the moment, but I think that will change in their own self interest as much as anything. I seriously think that non EU investors have a lot to gain from a Brexit, to the cost of the EU.
The EU being bullish will do nothing to help EU exports to the UK, other than hardening British attitudes too. That won't help anyone. In the meantime, with the media attention on Brexit, the internal economies of many EU member states continue to decline. What will be the fallout with the almost imminent Greek bailout on the EU, and the likely success of anti-austerity parties in the upcoming Spanish elections, both of which deal with ACTUAL economic crises?
This is a political crisis, now starting the process of resolution. But for the politics, there would be no crisis at all.
I don't think they are being bullish but if you get out of the EU, GB has to be treated like it. There's no reason why GB should get a special treatement. Like Switzerland, GB will have to make bilateral deals with the EU and this will take time as every deal has to be accepted by all the members of the EU.
I agree with Boggit. The real effects on the economy can be seen only on a long period. The drop is however a sign on the mental impact it has on the Economic and Financial actors.
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 29, 2016, 08:06:07 AM
it never was going to be the armageddon that was predicted, i hope even the remain camp thought that!
whats pissing me off now is a deliberate attempt by the EU to punish us for leaving, to show an example by way of closed trade and tariffs, to teach all other exit wannabes thats what happens to you for leaving - these are nation states FFS, its not nursery where little jimmy has pushed a sand castle over
I'm going to have to find an automatic +1 button for when you post. Once again Geek states pragmatism, and common sense. O0
I'm not at all convinced that the EU will keep the attitude it is adopting at the very outset of negotiation. They are terrified of giving the citizens of the other member states their say, most likely because with few exceptions they are a house of cards. We could see the iceberg, and when it started to breach the hull as it did a few years back, wanted the chance to get off. Now we are in a lifeboat - ok taking our chances on the open sea - but the EU is sinking. The captains of the EU don't know how to change course, and the pumps cannot cope, so they act in denial. They will have to wake up when the bulk heads rupture.
The simple fact is that the EU will ultimately have to negotiate generously with the EU, whether they like it or not. Trying to be punitive as an object lesson to intimidate other member states who would like to leave shows just how bankrupt in ideas the people who run the EU are. Cooler heads will prevail, and you'll see a different stance within a few months when the time of reactive thinking is over. For the UK, it will be nice to remain cooperative with the EU, but if not so be it. The UK economy represents a huge opportunity to the rest of the world, and they would be utter fools not to exploit that weakness faced by the EU. I don't think the non EU world is populated by fools, but with people who will see opportunity for what it is.
Quote from: Anguille on June 29, 2016, 09:50:51 AM
I don't think they are being bullish but if you get out of the EU, GB has to be treated like it. There's no reason why GB should get a special treatement. Like Switzerland, GB will have to make bilateral deals with the EU and this will take time as every deal has to be accepted by all the members of the EU.
I agree with Boggit. The real effects on the economy can be seen only on a long period. The drop is however a sign on the mental impact it has on the Economic and Financial actors.
I agree. The drop is the shock effect of being very wrong on the minds of the economic and financial actors.
Both sides will do the best they can by themselves. The UK market is much more important to the EU than is Switzerland (and I do not mean that in any derogatory way, merely in terms of the volume of trade). Even the Swiss and Norwegian economies are functioning far better than those of many member states, which says something of itself.
I am sure that if the UK agrees a free trade agreement but refuses to pay tribute, accept an unmodified free movement of people to the EU, they will seriously consider it. It is certainly convenient for the UK to trade with the Eurozone, but trade we will and I doubt very much that any vacuum in the markets will last long. At the end of the day the EU is an inward looking protectionist trade bloc. The UK's future is with free trade, not protectionism.
At the end of the day we have rejected EU membership, so why would we remain de facto members by accepting their internal rules, and paying tribute in exchange for access to their markets? It is not as though the EU is running a trade deficit with the UK, quite the opposite. So I think we can negotiate a unique UK model of relationship with the EU over time. When we do so, I am sure that Canada, Norway, and Switzerland will all want to renegotiate a less one sided agreement with the EU for the benefit of their own citizens, and the EU will have to seriously consider it.
Whether there will be an EU in 10 years time, who knows. They cannot silence the Eurosceptic voices throughout the EU forever, without long term consequences to its future. The EU might well break up some more on a voluntary basis. If some vote to remain, that is for them, but I'd suggest in that scenario the citizens remaining in the EU will at least be those that believe in it.
QuoteI partly agree with you on the strength of the French catholic right, but they were primarily strong supporters of Sarkozy's Republican Party (the conservative former UMP led by Sarkozy). That doesn't explain why Marine le Pen has got ever increasing support from the French electorate. I think this is a significant response to the failure of mainstream politicians to engage with the concerns of the electorate. Marine le Pen is populist, but isn't the whole issue of populism related to responding to popular demands? It is no accident either that Francois Hollande is at an all time low in voter confidence in the polls.
Can you say with any real confidence that the same principle holds true for similar trends in countries like Austria, Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Spain etc?
One of the difficulties with judging how many people support the Front National, UKIP and similar parties, is determining the number of "true" supporters as opposed to those who vote anti-government. You're right that there are many European countries where mainstream politicians and parties are unpopular. The question is how much support for populists is genuine in the sense that the program of their parties is supported, as opposed to their criticism of the politicians of the (more) mainstream parties.
In the European countries you mention, history has in my opinion made its contribution to the current trends.
In Austria and Germany, denazification after World War II was only partially completed, and with the communists next door there remained a strong conservative powerbase that could be exploited. Whereas Germany had to wait a few decades due to having to shake the mark of having started the war and the crimes committed by the Nazi's, Austria was proclaimed "the first victim" of Hitler which has given the right more room. The FPÖ has been participating with success at the national level for decades, more than German conservative parties who are only now starting to appear. Previously, conservative voters could find a home in the CDU/CSU, but with the current immigration issues that is no longer always the case.
The other countries you mention have limited experience with democracy, and had or have self-serving and corrupt political parties, with various degrees of dislike aimed at them. I don't find it surprising that people look for an alternative as reform within the parties didn't work, particularly in Eastern Europe. In my opinion, the Northwestern European countries having experienced political turmoil during a period when they had a functional democracy made them more resilient to populistic trends until very recently than the countries in the rest of Europe.
QuoteFarage is a factor in Brexit, but look at who were actually running the official vote leave campaign. You will see that he ran an alternate leave campaign. The Eurosceptic consensus is a cross party consensus. A vast number of Labour, not UKIP voters voted for leave hence the present crisis for the Labour party. Without massive cross party support for Brexit it would not have happened.
You are attaching far more importance to Nigel Farage and UKIP to the Brexit outcome than you should.
With both the Conservatives and Labour (temporarily) in chaos, Farage is the man we see in Europe. Considering the narrow margin in favour of Leave, I'm sceptical if the current result would've been achieved without the voters he could mobilize.
QuoteImmigration in the numbers we have seen, has put a downward pressure on wages. Big business love it, as the workforce costs drop as the result of the oversupply of labour, particularly at the lower skilled end of the workforce. Thus the workforce subsidise their profits. The principle argument by the Leave campaign focuses not so much on present immigration, but on future immigration without any control with regards to the needs of the UK economy. The open door policy is not economically sustainable, given our own unemployment, the pressure of a higher population on schools, hospitals, housing etc, which are all under considerable pressure.
There are fewer jobs for the lower skilled end of the workforce due to how the economy has changed in the last 30-40 years with mines closing, factories moving to low wage countries and computers taking over their jobs. Immigrants create more competition for the remaining jobs, but the changing economy did more to harm lower skilled living standards than immigrants, yet the trend is to blame the immigrants.
QuoteYou may be right. There is no doubt that voting areas that were net beneficiaries of EU funding voted to remain, and that many areas that voted to Leave have a case to make that their local economies are ignored, both at the UK, but most certainly at the EU level. But economies in the EU don't necessarily improve as the result of membership of the EU. Greece is probably the best example, but >50% youth unemployment in Spain is another good one, that the EU is no silver bullet. I think a lot of people think that given the chance, we will have a brighter future outside of the EU.
Both Greece and Spain suffered heavily due to their own social, political and economical flaws. The EU is not the great equalizer that can nullify all mistakes. I blame the EU for not coming up with a quick and efficient solution to the euro and Greek crisis, but not for the start of the problems in any member states. The Dutch economy also had and has flaws that we paid a price for. Again, the EU didn't cause them. The EU didn't close the mines or factories in England either.
As to the EU attitude: if the EU is weak (again) they will only encourage Farage's counterparts throughout Europe. I'm convinced that if EU referendums would be held across the entirety of the EU, the results might not be appealing to the European Parliament although I don't think many nations will gladly depart. I'm also convinced that the people who vote on those referendums will be heavily influenced by the economic situation in their own country instead of what the EU has done or will do for their countries. Judging by the results seen thus far, it's easy for populists to ride a wave of popular resentment to get the result they want. You can't guarantee people will vote based on their opinion on the actual subject of the referendum.
Less than half of the total UK electorate voted to Leave, but those people formed the majority of the people who did vote on the referendum, leaving others with the feeling that they've been royally had. A similar referendum would be unlikely to improve the tense mood in a number of EU countries with political problems or upcoming elections.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/13528722_1823509174539025_4799102701962925425_n.jpg?oh=3232b62d83e284151b11b71c942f363d&oe=57E88CF3)
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
One of the difficulties with judging how many people support the Front National, UKIP and similar parties, is determining the number of "true" supporters as opposed to those who vote anti-government. You're right that there are many European countries where mainstream politicians and parties are unpopular. The question is how much support for populists is genuine in the sense that the program of their parties is supported, as opposed to their criticism of the politicians of the (more) mainstream parties.
In the European countries you mention, history has in my opinion made its contribution to the current trends.
In Austria and Germany, denazification after World War II was only partially completed, and with the communists next door there remained a strong conservative powerbase that could be exploited. Whereas Germany had to wait a few decades due to having to shake the mark of having started the war and the crimes committed by the Nazi's, Austria was proclaimed "the first victim" of Hitler which has given the right more room. The FPÖ has been participating with success at the national level for decades, more than German conservative parties who are only now starting to appear. Previously, conservative voters could find a home in the CDU/CSU, but with the current immigration issues that is no longer not always the case.
The other countries you mention have limited experience with democracy, and had or have self-serving and corrupt political parties, with various degrees of dislike aimed at them. I don't find it surprising that people look for an alternative as reform within the parties didn't work, particularly in Eastern Europe. In my opinion, the Northwestern European countries having experienced political turmoil during a period when they had a functional democracy made them more resilient to populistic trends until very recently than the countries in the rest of Europe.
I don't disagree. You make some good points. :)
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
With both the Conservatives and Labour (temporarily) in chaos, Farage is the man we see in Europe. Considering the narrow margin in favour of Leave, I'm sceptical if the current result would've been achieved without the voters he could mobilize.
At present, I think you overestimate him. He has one seat in Parliament. I agree with you that his party is presently well placed to capitalise on his popularity, but I have my own doubts post Brexit how long his party will survive long term unless they develop appealing policies beyond those tied to a Brexit. UK independence has been the flagship of his party, so it remains to be seen how UKIP will adapt post Brexit.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
There are fewer jobs for the lower skilled end of the workforce due to how the economy has changed in the last 30-40 years with mines closing, factories moving to low wage countries and computers taking over their jobs. Immigrants create more competition for the remaining jobs, but the changing economy did more to harm lower skilled living standards than immigrants, yet the trend is to blame the immigrants.
I generally agree with you. But the volume of immigration has increased competition for jobs, driving down wages. It is not the fault of individual migrants per se, it is the global effect. Most people were they in a similar situation, would do exactly the same as the EU migrants. I don't blame them, but understand the effect the phenomenon of mass unrestricted EU migration has had on ordinary people. It hasn't helped them, and they expressed their view on it.
I certainly don't support any of the xenophobic attacks by extreme nationalists on some EU migrants post Brexit. I have spent time today writing to my MP, town councillors and my local paper asking them to publicly reassure EU migrants that they are welcome in the UK, and their rights unaffected. Brexit was never about these people, but in part on the control of future immigration. The migrants who are legally here have every right to be reassured of their rights and right to residency. I am comforted by emails from both Polish and Greek friends that overwhelmingly the British people, many of whom have told them they voted leave, are being supportive towards them.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
Both the Greece and Spain suffered heavily due to their own social, political and economical flaws. The EU is not the great equalizer that can nullify all mistakes. I blame the EU for not coming up with a quick and efficient solution to the euro and Greek crisis, but not for the start of the problems in any member states. The Dutch economy also had and has flaws that we paid a price for. Again, the EU didn't cause them. The EU didn't close the mines or factories in England either.
No one is saying that the EU is responsible for pre-existing economic and political conditions. That said they are responsible for failing to apply their own criteria for accession to the Eurozone, and for failing to supply credible leadership in the crises that followed. Moreover, Frau Merkel's unilateral decision (without any other consensus) to open the EU to unrestricted immigration caused chaos and again the EU attempts to manage it were weak and late. The rampant bureaucracy, opaqueness, and perceived corruption in its dealings with big business, has done nothing to improve these economies, or its legitimacy as a good model of government.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
As to the EU attitude: if the EU is weak (again) they will only encourage Farage's counterparts throughout Europe. I'm convinced that if EU referendums would be held across the entirety of the EU, the results might not be appealing to the European Parliament although I don't think many nations will gladly depart. I'm also convinced that the people who vote on those referendums will be heavily influenced by the economic situation in their own country instead of what the EU has done or will do for their countries. Judging by the results seen thus far, it's easy for populists to ride a wave of popular resentment to get the result they want. You can't guarantee people will vote based on their opinion on the actual subject of the referendum.
I don't think it was weak to have Brexit. It was a courageous decision that on 72.5% turnout - which is unprecedented in any national election for decades - reflected the general will of the British people. Now we can move on. Even within the Leave campaign there were a lot of people who don't hate Europe, but don't share the federal vision. It's just my opinion, but I think now the genie is out of the bottle, you have to let other nations have their say to determine their future. It doesn't automatically mean that they will leave the EU, though they might. Again it is just my opinion, but I think denying the people of Europe a say in their political future is a moral cowardice.
Like you I am a great believer in European cooperation. I just think the EU is the wrong vehicle to achieve it. It doesn't mean that the same general aims we both have common ground in are doomed simply because the UK and other member states find a looser relationship is more compatible.
As to the guarantee that voters will vote on the actual issue, it's a fair point. That's democracy. Would you rather someone who claims to know better should tell them? That's dictatorship. You have to trust the people and keep your fingers crossed that good sense will prevail. Again that's democracy.
The irony in all this is that we're not too different to the end result, it's just the vehicle we use to get there.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
Less than half of the total UK electorate voted to Leave, but those people formed the majority of the people who did vote on the referendum, leaving others with the feeling that they've been royally had. A similar referendum would be unlikely to improve the tense mood in a number of EU countries with political problems or upcoming elections.
Well there was nothing stopping those who didn't vote from voting. The government even extended the voting deadline by a couple of days when the registration website was down for a few hours, meanwhile pummelling the public to vote remain. Even then, this has been on the cards for months, so if someone did not vote they had absolutely no excuse. Seriously? That is a most desperate and weak argument. :(
Your other point regarding tensions in Europe is valid, but we've had just the same here. Have the courage to roll the dice, and respect the decision. We'll all be there the next day, and if we respect the votes we can cooperate. If anything I think the remaining EU will gain prestige from it, and there is no reason for exit member states not to wish to cooperate with each other either. Quite the opposite.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 29, 2016, 11:49:22 AM
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/13528722_1823509174539025_4799102701962925425_n.jpg?oh=3232b62d83e284151b11b71c942f363d&oe=57E88CF3)
:2funny:
A free space. Now is Obama's chance to put you in it! Lol! Good luck! >:D
Before I forget: good points as always.
QuoteI don't think it was weak to have Brexit. It was a courageous decision that on 72.5% turnout - which is unprecedented in any national election for decades - reflected the general will of the British people. Now we can move on. Even within the Leave campaign there were a lot of people who don't hate Europe, but don't share the federal vision. It's just my opinion, but I think now the genie is out of the bottle, you have to let other nations have their say to determine their future. It doesn't automatically mean that they will leave the EU, though they might. Again it is just my opinion, but I think denying the people of Europe a say in their political future is a moral cowardice.
I meant the EU was weak during the euro and Greek crisis, the Brexit being a national UK thing that the EU has no direct influence over.
QuoteNo one is saying that the EU is responsible for pre-existing economic and political conditions. That said they are responsible for failing to apply their own criteria for accession to the Eurozone, and for failing to supply credible leadership in the crises that followed. Moreover, Frau Merkel's unilateral decision (without any other consensus) to open the EU to unrestricted immigration caused chaos and again the EU attempts to manage it were weak and late. The rampant bureaucracy, opaqueness, and perceived corruption in its dealings with big business, has done nothing to improve these economies, or its legitimacy as a good model of government.
At the time of Merkel's speech about "wir schaffen das", refugees were already pouring into Europe. From my perspective, it was an attempt to make the until that point uncontrolled migration more controlled both by letting immigrants know they would be welcome and prodding the other EU members into action. Before that point, little had happened and Greece was slowly being turned into a 3rd world country under the burden of immigrants coming in.
QuoteWell there was nothing stopping those who didn't vote from voting. The government even extended the voting deadline by a couple of days when the registration website was down for a few hours, meanwhile pummelling the public to vote remain. Even then, this has been on the cards for months, so if someone did not vote they had absolutely no excuse. Seriously? That is a most desperate and weak argument. :(
I'm also not sure why it is implied by some of the people who didn't vote that they were somehow limited in their chance to do so, it indeed seems like a desperate argument from the people who suddenly find out they belonged to the Remain camp, but didn't actually vote. Personally, I don't think there's ever a legitimate reason not to vote, either directly or by giving someone permission to vote for you if you're ill or otherwise not physically able to vote. If you don't agree with any political party, you can always make a blank or invalid vote.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 02:10:06 PM
Before I forget: good points as always.
Thank you Pieter. I appreciate the courtesy. :)
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 02:10:06 PM
QuoteI don't think it was weak to have Brexit. It was a courageous decision that on 72.5% turnout - which is unprecedented in any national election for decades - reflected the general will of the British people. Now we can move on. Even within the Leave campaign there were a lot of people who don't hate Europe, but don't share the federal vision. It's just my opinion, but I think now the genie is out of the bottle, you have to let other nations have their say to determine their future. It doesn't automatically mean that they will leave the EU, though they might. Again it is just my opinion, but I think denying the people of Europe a say in their political future is a moral cowardice.
I meant the EU was weak during the euro and Greek crisis, the Brexit being a national UK thing that the EU has no direct influence over.
Fair enough. I may have misinterpreted what you said.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 02:10:06 PM
QuoteNo one is saying that the EU is responsible for pre-existing economic and political conditions. That said they are responsible for failing to apply their own criteria for accession to the Eurozone, and for failing to supply credible leadership in the crises that followed. Moreover, Frau Merkel's unilateral decision (without any other consensus) to open the EU to unrestricted immigration caused chaos and again the EU attempts to manage it were weak and late. The rampant bureaucracy, opaqueness, and perceived corruption in its dealings with big business, has done nothing to improve these economies, or its legitimacy as a good model of government.
At the time of Merkel's speech about "wir schaffen das", refugees were already pouring into Europe. From my perspective, it was an attempt to make the until that point uncontrolled migration more controlled both by letting immigrants know they would be welcome and prodding the other EU members into action. Before that point, little had happened and Greece was slowly being turned into a 3rd world country under the burden of immigrants coming in.
Maybe, but her unilateral action was a red rag to a bull, and compounded the problem. It would have been better just to deport the migrants back to Turkey where they had come from. Save perhaps the Christians and Kurds, where there is evidence that they were unsafe in Turkish camps and were therefore legitimate refugees. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that the Turks were putting their co-religionists in a dangerous situation. Going to Greece, most were no longer refugees, but economic migrants.
Sure there is a valid case for the EU to help Turkey with earmarked financial and practical help, but there was no obligation for the EU to open their doors and precipitate a crisis, which has a good chance of many migrants becoming citizens of the EU rather than eventually return to their country of origin.
The EU had no obligation to these illegal migrants, and in spite of the concerns throughout Europe - not just by the extremists who loved the support they got as a result - these concerns were ignored for a long time. Now the far right can legitimately point to the uncontrolled immigration, the islamisation, the cultural differences leading to the mass sexual assaults an put the blame on the EU.
Of course, the problem is down to the EU in that they failed to robustly deal with the issue at the outset, but tell that to the citizens that have been robbed, raped, or sexually assaulted. We all know about Germany's New Years day, but there are lots of incidents that have been either unreported, or under reported. One of the guys at my local Aldi is from southern Hungary and he was telling me of some horror stories from his village near the border with Serbia a few weeks ago. Of course the media don't report these things unless like in Germany the truth could not be suppressed any more. I'm not surprised that the far right is rising in Hungary, when the government is trying to calm things down and the EU just seems powerless to provide any direction.
Quote from: ComradeP on June 29, 2016, 02:10:06 PM
QuoteWell there was nothing stopping those who didn't vote from voting. The government even extended the voting deadline by a couple of days when the registration website was down for a few hours, meanwhile pummelling the public to vote remain. Even then, this has been on the cards for months, so if someone did not vote they had absolutely no excuse. Seriously? That is a most desperate and weak argument. :(
I'm also not sure why it is implied by some of the people who didn't vote that they were somehow limited in their chance to do so, it indeed seems like a desperate argument from the people who suddenly find out they belonged to the Remain camp, but didn't actually vote. Personally, I don't think there's ever a legitimate reason not to vote, either directly or by giving someone permission to vote for you if you're ill or otherwise not physically able to vote. If you don't agree with any political party, you can always make a blank or invalid vote.
The answer is obvious. Sour grapes... and a heavily biased public media in favour of Remain.
The Remain campaign did not get the result they wanted and have resorted to the most specious arguments in their desperation to try to win allies to overturn the legitimate result. You register to vote once a year, and the voting period was like I said even extended for two days long beyond the actual time their registration servers were down (around 7 hours before cut off), as the government were desperate to get more Remain voters.
I speculate, but I doubt that if many more Leave voters were likely to vote they would have done that.
I share exactly the same view as you regarding the vote. People fought and died so that we could have one. I always vote, even though I live in a Conservative safe seat and will never be represented unless I vote for the incumbent. It is the principle of the thing. You can see why for me, the direct voting system used in the Brexit referendum was so liberating, compared to the sh*t system we usually have to vote under.
As predicted...
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/684231/FTSE-100-Brexit-stock-market
As ComradeP said, not a "recovery" but "recovering." Please be patient folks. :) In the meantime, it seems that the UK is a good place to invest.
Renault cars have been toying with the idea they will put up prices in the UK. Go ahead. I'm sure the US car makers will be glad to take your market share... Watch out EU, you're not the only player in the world. ^-^
http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?code=8n96iplc
Wonder how those who dump their shares are feeling now?
Just my luck. I invested in 'Remain' Posters futures and England Soccer teams.
Now the fun begins - you have tusk and junker, unelected and accountable to no one banging their fists and demanding punitive deals for the uk and then Germany and France who have to get reelected, because you know, democracy and they have to promise all the wine farmers and car makers they'll have jobs next year saying 'hold on' let's talk nice
Interesting times
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 30, 2016, 03:11:09 AM
Now the fun begins - you have tusk and junker, unelected and accountable to no one banging their fists and demanding punitive deals for the uk and then Germany and France who have to get reelected, because you know, democracy and they have to promise all the wine farmers and car makers they'll have jobs next year saying 'hold on' let's talk nice
Interesting times
Geek's auto +1 again O0
I think cooler heads will prevail in the interest of all too. The "let's talk nice" is going to be the way it will be despite the initial EU horror. No one in the UK (save perhaps for a small minority of xenophobes who have jumped onto the Brexit bandwagon for their own reasons) wants to be unreasonable with the EU, but the EU must also realise that we've rejected their rules. The door will be open for business. The EU has everything to gain on trade with a reciprocal trade arrangement. While I note that the currency markets are still depressed, the stock market ha now nearly recovered to where it was last week before the referendum. I reiterate the crisis is political not economic, and even that is showing progress towards a resolution.
I was chatting with my local butcher today about post Brexit. He's an Australian, and apparently he's hearing on the Australian grapevine that there is a lot of interest in investment opportunities with the low pound to dollar ratio, supported by the recovering stock market. With the low pound this is great for our exports, but should be a point of interest for foreign investors who will get much more for their investment money re UK stocks. I'd be interested in knowing from our US friends how they see the US benefiting from eventual Brexit. For sure if they don't open their eyes at the opportunities there are others that will. I hope that Europe has a good trading relationship with the UK, but I think the prospect of global trade is even more exciting.
The danger of being too close to the Brexit issue is that you might risk a too narrow perspective. :-[ A good friend of mine sent me this US perspective, which sheds some light on opinions without having a dog in the race. (Well maybe no dog so far, but with a 'new world order; there are opportunities to be had). Time to share: :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LuRwo3GnuU
Actually some of their views are quite accurate, but some are a little more interpretative, IMO. Anyway an interesting set of comments by Americans looking in.
It's not like the BBC to say anything negative about the EU, so I was surprised to see that they reported that corruption within the EU was staggering. I note that the chapter in the report that related to corruption within the EU institutions was dropped. Now that is a puzzle. Why would they do that? >:D ::)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26014387
Getting with the the British program.
As I had feared, it's turning into another classic example of politicians not taking responsibility after moving their country towards a dramatic change. Johnson and Farage are gone from the scene, with only Gove left and it being unlikely he'll be the man the Conservatives want as the next leader.
This is what I simply hate about these events: a big mess is created, and then the politicians responsible for it just throw the towel into the ring and make it somebody else's problem. They rage against "unelected" politicians in the EU and claim they'll do things differently, but they act in the same or worse way than the politicians they blame for the problems of their country. The other politicians are not much better, but they don't tend to campaign from a moral highground of being right or having a right to do certain things their way.
It's also why I find it so difficult to believe that many people continue to believe them. Yes, there were a variety of non-political reasons for the Brexit, but based on the interviews with voters and the commentary in the news that I've read, there were certainly people who believed that the politicians who have left the political stage a short while after the Brexit referendum were different and would change things. I feel sorry for those people.
I can only admit to disappointment so far, there's nothing farage can do but be a voice for leaving, Boris going is a big blow and the current front runner for leadership is a remain campaigner - here's what I think will happen - in the light of total inactivity and not waking up to a country with unicorns and rainbows the day after the vote I think if may wins she will just wait and wait until apathy sinks any Brexit enthusiasm and then go back to a referendum where by the decision will be reversed on the basis it made not a jot of difference before
There is a legal battle starting today by a group of remain business leaders and scientists saying that it doesn't matter what the public said the decision and actual program of leaving the Eu should be a parliamentary decision and process thereby needing a vote in the commons to proceed - this will also be a remain victory if it's true
In short the result I wanted has been given, the people I expected to steer us through that have walked away and the likely new leadership will force a remain decision on us somehow - I personally think a remain campaigner should not be allowed to stand - Cameron had the good grace to admit defeat and recognise his leadership wasn't right for 52% of the country that should hold true for all the remain contenders
Quote from: ComradeP on July 04, 2016, 08:24:39 AM
As I had feared, it's turning into another classic example of politicians not taking responsibility after moving their country towards a dramatic change. Johnson and Farage are gone from the scene, with only Gove left and it being unlikely he'll be the man the Conservatives want as the next leader.
... It's also why I find it so difficult to believe that many people continue to believe them. Yes, there were a variety of non-political reasons for the Brexit, but based on the interviews with voters and the commentary in the news that I've read, there were certainly people who believed that the politicians who have left the political stage a short while after the Brexit referendum were different and would change things. I feel sorry for those people.
It's very annoying having seen democracy in action achieve the Brexit vote, then the political leaders driving the campaign disappear from the scene. If anything they have a duty to provide post Brexit Britain with the leadership needed to push forward with the EUSSR negotiations and beyond. It's very frustrating having such weak politicians. This can be a very workable separation, but the politicians are the only people in the frame to move it forward.
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 04, 2016, 09:25:49 AM
I can only admit to disappointment so far, there's nothing farage can do but be a voice for leaving, Boris going is a big blow and the current front runner for leadership is a remain campaigner - here's what I think will happen - in the light of total inactivity and not waking up to a country with unicorns and rainbows the day after the vote I think if may wins she will just wait and wait until apathy sinks any Brexit enthusiasm and then go back to a referendum where by the decision will be reversed on the basis it made not a jot of difference before
There is a legal battle starting today by a group of remain business leaders and scientists saying that it doesn't matter what the public said the decision and actual program of leaving the Eu should be a parliamentary decision and process thereby needing a vote in the commons to proceed - this will also be a remain victory if it's true
In short the result I wanted has been given, the people I expected to steer us through that have walked away and the likely new leadership will force a remain decision on us somehow - I personally think a remain campaigner should not be allowed to stand - Cameron had the good grace to admit defeat and recognise his leadership wasn't right for 52% of the country that should hold true for all the remain contenders
+10000000000
Why is May the favourite? Because she is part of the Tory élite, and part of their majority cabal for Remain. I think you are right that she will wait and ignore the democratic decision made by the country. This will be the French and Dutch 2005 referendums, the Irish 2008 all over again where the EU has got the wrong result so the politicians ignore the will of the people. This will be like the Irish 2009 referendum if we're not careful, where the Irish were thrown a few political scraps for a second referendum. If a second referendum happens, we will all know why, and it is the proof that democracy is dead in the UK.
The trouble is that few of the political class thought the referendum would pass in favour of Brexit, and being the out of touch, self interested bastar*s they are may try to overturn it. Like you I am disappointed with the turn of events, which is also turning to anger and frustration that the will of the people may be circumvented. I hate to say it, but I predicted this sell out before the referendum had even taken place.
Sir Slash (IIRC) before the referendum likened the EU to the Hotel California? It's no joke. I don't want to be part of the EUSSR. >:(
I may be panicking a bit prematurely. Andrea Leadsom seems a good Leave PM candidate, having a strong background in financial services, she seems a credible alternative. Anyway, we should know the outcome very soon of that leadership race, and can watch from there.
It seems that Farage has resigned perhaps more to do with his health, after 2 serious accidents (one car, one plane), it turns out that he had testicular cancer too. I'm not surprised he is standing down from the leadership of UKIP due to health reasons as much as any. He will remain an MEP though.
I think farage is leaving on a high - the best it's going to get for him, I'm a bit puzzled as to the point of ukip now - their reason for being was to get us out of the eu, now we are I'm not sure what their appeal is - I think he goes out on a mission accomplished vibe and fair play, he wanted it, worked for it and even had his day in parliament sticking it to his opponents
Common sense tells me one simply can't pretend we voted out but I think that's what's going to happen - hunker down, wait til it's blown over, paint us all as racist thugs (are you really telling me no one yelled ***** go home before the referendum?) and then call it again
I shall remain in my customary state of total confusion. :uglystupid2:
I think this was always part of the issue the leave camp had. They wanted a binary decision Stay or Leave but never presented a plan and strategy of what would happen if they won the leave vote. Now you are seeing that with no one being held responsible they are all leaving. Maybe its a MPExit. One of the issues a US candidate for presidency is asked is what their plan for the first 100 days in office are. (I dont know if this is a requirement or just hot air as in how much they can actually achieve). It does however ensure that they have at least got something of a plan in place that has been communicated to the voters prior to the election; whether they follow it or not is the variable.
Con
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 04, 2016, 12:43:14 PM
I think farage is leaving on a high - the best it's going to get for him, I'm a bit puzzled as to the point of ukip now - their reason for being was to get us out of the eu, now we are I'm not sure what their appeal is - I think he goes out on a mission accomplished vibe and fair play, he wanted it, worked for it and even had his day in parliament sticking it to his opponents
I think so too. I mentioned in an earlier reply to ComradeP that to survive long term, UKIP will now have to widen it's appeal post Brexit. Of course if the Conservatives betray the will of the people post Brexit, then they still have a purpose. Although, I still think they should think about what other things they stand for their long term survival. I'm not keen to see a return to 2 party politics, along with the anti democratic Lib Dems in tow. A multiparty state tends to represent a wider spectrum of views.
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 04, 2016, 12:43:14 PM
Common sense tells me one simply can't pretend we voted out but I think that's what's going to happen - hunker down, wait til it's blown over, paint us all as racist thugs (are you really telling me no one yelled ***** go home before the referendum?) and then call it again
Maybe. I'm hoping Andrea Leadsom will gain traction in the Conservative leadership race. She seems a pretty intelligent individual and was a Leave supporter. Interestingly, she is in favour of leaving EU nationals already in the UK as they are re: rights and residency, which is in line with a recent poll of Leave voters (77% wanting the Brexit not to harm the interest of EU nationals) http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/andrea-leadsom-eu-nationals-in-uk-wont-be-brexit-bargaining-chips whereas Remain campaigner Theresa May is vague as to their future.
Quote from: Con on July 04, 2016, 01:20:33 PM
I think this was always part of the issue the leave camp had. They wanted a binary decision Stay or Leave but never presented a plan and strategy of what would happen if they won the leave vote. Now you are seeing that with no one being held responsible they are all leaving. Maybe its a MPExit. One of the issues a US candidate for presidency is asked is what their plan for the first 100 days in office are. (I dont know if this is a requirement or just hot air as in how much they can actually achieve). It does however ensure that they have at least got something of a plan in place that has been communicated to the voters prior to the election; whether they follow it or not is the variable.
Con
A good point. Andrea Leadsom, one of the Leave campaigners, and in the conservative leadership race is a bit more advanced in her planning, but it's still a very good point you make. It speaks volumes about how out of touch the politicians are. Few of them thought Brexit would happen, so didn't have a plan B. An insane place to be, but that's the politicians in power for you.
More tribute to be wasted by the EU. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/686048/EU-referendum-Brussels-Britain-pay-12billion-budget-Brexit-vote
Does the EUSSR really need it's own army? NATO has kept the peace for decades. The EU as such has only been in existence since 1992, and can only show failure in its dealings with the Balkans, and Ukraine. It scares me to think of why they think they need an army for the EUSSR.
The sooner Art 50 is triggered the better. I won't be surprised if we are the last to want an exit referendum.
I'm not sure what the problem is here, this issue seems to be one of those tabloid attacks at the EU that is blatantly anti-EU without it being a rational complaint.
1) The referendum has no immediate legal power to change the status of the UK.
2) The UK, thus, remains a member of the EU until its government completes its withdrawal.
3) EU members pay a certain amount of money which goes to the EU budget, and they receive certain benefits in return.
I don't see what's strange about that at all. The tabloids still seem to be misleading the electorate into believing in immediate results that are simply not possible.
Considering that the EU doesn't have an army, and doesn't control the defense forces of its member states, it isn't responsible for the direct aftermath of the military intervention in various Muslim countries. It is, to a significant extent, responsible for the way the immigration crisis grew out of proportion, but it isn't responsible for its start, caused by the removal of various strong men, poverty or revolution.
As nice as it sounds, EUSSR is a bit too harsh a phrase in my opinion. The EU isn't nearly as undemocratic as the Soviet Union was. The EU is also not a state to begin with.
European military integration, provided each nation maintains control over the composition of its forces and when they're going on a mission, is not a bad thing in my opinion. A light version of NATO, so to speak. European armed forces already cooperate when on missions when working with NATO or various multinational military task forces.
I'm going to pull the age card.
It's been NATO light since 92'.
In terms of willingness to support the organization and military capabilities, maybe, but until Desert Storm NATO members didn't actually fight together in a large or lengthy conflict. It was prepared to face the Warsaw Pact, but that war didn't materialize. Since 9/11, NATO members have had to cooperate more during actual conflicts than they ever had to during the twentieth century, for the simple reason that there were no larger conflicts multiple NATO members fought in aside from Desert Storm, the ground phase of which was a short operation compared to the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Quote from: ComradeP on July 05, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
I'm not sure what the problem is here, this issue seems to be one of those tabloid attacks at the EU that is blatantly anti-EU without it being a rational complaint.
1) The referendum has no immediate legal power to change the status of the UK.
2) The UK, thus, remains a member of the EU until its government completes its withdrawal.
3) EU members pay a certain amount of money which goes to the EU budget, and they receive certain benefits in return.
I don't see what's strange about that at all. The tabloids still seem to be misleading the electorate into believing in immediate results that are simply not possible.
Oh, I generally agree with you. However, I think you may be overreacting at the rationality behind the complaint. I think the paper was just pointing out the vast sums paid to Europe, but including the extra for the European army posited in the Lisbon Treaty, despite the UK and Denmark opting out of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. So why should we be contributing towards it?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2015/03/10/ukrejectseuarmy/24697089/
http://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/publikationer_2015/diis_report_06_european_defence_cooperation_after_the_lisbon_treaty_web.pdf
Quote from: ComradeP on July 05, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
Considering that the EU doesn't have an army, and doesn't control the defense forces of its member states, it isn't responsible for the direct aftermath of the military intervention in various Muslim countries. It is, to a significant extent, responsible for the way the immigration crisis grew out of proportion, but it isn't responsible for its start, caused by the removal of various strong men, poverty or revolution.
But clearly it plans to have its own army. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty provides a framework for one within the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and more recently Jean Claude Juncker has called for one.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1141286a-c588-11e4-bd6b-00144feab7de.html#axzz4DerFip5V
http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/uk-central-europe-frown-at-juncker-s-european-army/
With the dogmatic "leadership" of the Commission, I have little confidence that an EU army will do anything more than undermine NATO. Moreover, I think that any such army is in dangerous hands, considering the overwhelming democratic deficit of the EU. Far better for the EU to sort out it's own issues of democracy first before arming the unaccountable EU élites with military force.
Quote from: ComradeP on July 05, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
As nice as it sounds, EUSSR is a bit too harsh a phrase in my opinion. The EU isn't nearly as undemocratic as the Soviet Union was. The EU is also not a state to begin with.
Come on ComradeP. ??? Why are you trying to persuade against the reality of what is happening? There is plenty of evidence to show that is the way it is going, even if not "quite" there yet. ::)
Well maybe not the exactly the same as the USSR, but the legislative model is very similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tn2wbT5L9w
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/v%C3%A1clav-klaus-wants-czech-republic-out-eu/
The 2009 Lisbon Treaty has created sovereign powers for the EU, and the proto federal state can be traced back to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty has fleshed this out and there is clear evidence that this is what the EU is intended to become even if we're not quite there yet.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/video/merkel-preaches-federalism-to-meps-warns-britain-against-eu-exit/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10041817/Federal-Europe-will-be-a-reality-in-a-few-years-says-Jose-Manuel-Barroso.html
http://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/00/00f0101-04.html
To suggest, against the evidence that the EUSSR isn't starting to happen already is dishonest.
Quote from: ComradeP on July 05, 2016, 11:44:04 AM
European military integration, provided each nation maintains control over the composition of its forces and when they're going on a mission, is not a bad thing in my opinion. A light version of NATO, so to speak. European armed forces already cooperate when on missions when working with NATO or various multinational military task forces.
I have no problem with cooperation between European armed forces. What I do have a problem with is central control of European armed forces by the EU, which has no meaningful democratic control over its policy.
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 04, 2016, 09:25:49 AM
There is a legal battle starting today by a group of remain business leaders and scientists saying that it doesn't matter what the public said the decision and actual program of leaving the Eu should be a parliamentary decision and process thereby needing a vote in the commons to proceed - this will also be a remain victory if it's true
This Irish guy has no dog in the Brexit race, but makes some good points along the lines you are concerned about. He focuses on the recent Remain march in London...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MzIOOAwzQ
This seemed like a remarkably well reasoned piece
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/the-brexit-reality-a-key-opportunity-for-european-reform/
Quote from: mirth on July 06, 2016, 07:24:04 PM
This seemed like a remarkably well reasoned piece
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/the-brexit-reality-a-key-opportunity-for-european-reform/
I thought it a very good piece. Accurate and perceptive. However, even Post-Brexit I suspect that the existing structures of the EU will not give it the flexibility to achieve meaningful reform, which is what is needed. If the current EU is allowed to peacefully disintegrate, my hope is that cooperation will remain amongst member states, and a looser confederacy of sovereign, but cooperative European states will arise.
There are some very positive issues that can be taken from the EU, but there really needs to be a much better vehicle to achieve them than the present system. It cannot be the case that a Euro élite unilaterally, and remotely decides everything for the disconnected voters. The EU clearly works very well for the few that directly benefit, but it is also a remote, unhelpful burden that ignores concerns of the majority. I wasn't using the term "EUSSR" glibly, and Brexit hopefully will be, as the author suggests, a catalyst for positive change across Europe.
ive got 3 customers and 3 local businesses who are all taking a pounding since the referendum
Why is that Geek. Nothing has changed since the referendum.
Quote from: OJsDad on July 08, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
Why is that Geek. Nothing has changed since the referendum.
The money markets have been spooked, but the stock market has benefited. Otherwise you're right, as we are still in the EU, and it is 'business as usual' until such time as we leave. I don't think that will be anytime soon though.
a lady who deals with farmers as her clients - cattle feed just went up £50 a bag and their machinery came from Europe - suppliers will not supply the farmer until they know the markets have regulated themselves
pretty much the same with the other 2
as for the other businesses - one of them has been here 40 years and has never known it so quiet and can draw a line directly to the referendum date as the dip
i voted out, i havent a problem with it - just reporting some facts
Interesting. You said cattle feed went up. But following Brexit, crop prices fell as much as the stock markets. Today, the DOW is trading higher than the day before the vote. Not sure what crop prices are doing today, but would be surprised if they aren't back or close to where they were before the vote.
Sorghum's been steady.
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 08, 2016, 11:11:42 AM
a lady who deals with farmers as her clients - cattle feed just went up £50 a bag and their machinery came from Europe - suppliers will not supply the farmer until they know the markets have regulated themselves
pretty much the same with the other 2
as for the other businesses - one of them has been here 40 years and has never known it so quiet and can draw a line directly to the referendum date as the dip
i voted out, i havent a problem with it - just reporting some facts
I don't think anyone's criticising you - we're just surprised, is all.
Like OJ's Dad has said it seems strange as apart from Brexit, we are still in the EU - all the rules etc still apply, and apart from a future change in governance (and certainly not in the short term) has anything legally changed. It sounds like your farmer friend might be better off getting her feed/machinery from Canada, or the US if the euros are playing silly buggers with her.
Quote from: Boggit on July 08, 2016, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 08, 2016, 11:11:42 AM
a lady who deals with farmers as her clients - cattle feed just went up £50 a bag and their machinery came from Europe - suppliers will not supply the farmer until they know the markets have regulated themselves
pretty much the same with the other 2
as for the other businesses - one of them has been here 40 years and has never known it so quiet and can draw a line directly to the referendum date as the dip
i voted out, i havent a problem with it - just reporting some facts
I don't think anyone's criticising you - we're just surprised, is all.
Like OJ's Dad has said it seems strange as apart from Brexit, we are still in the EU - all the rules etc still apply, and apart from a future change in governance (and certainly not in the short term) has anything legally changed. It sounds like your farmer friend might be better off getting her feed/machinery from Canada, or the US if the euros are playing silly buggers with her.
+1
In addition to what Boggit said.
Obviously, if what your clients experience now, turn out to be a long term condition. There will be a market to supply that wasn't there before. I'd say there's an opportunity to be explored by both British agriculture and industry.
Here and now it blows though
I mentione before that my company which employs over 5000 people in the uk has been actively working on exit strategies. First it is a pharma/life science company that is German owned. However we have been assessing brexit impacts in strategy long term planning. While nothing is decided and at my level I don't sit anywhere near the CEOs I can only speak of my impressions and my own opinion
Based on the way the strategy planning is goin for our industry having to deal with parallel regulatory concerns from a uk body compared to an EU one has def pushed the needle towards the leave the uk part. We have alr day closed one factory and are accelerating plans for several others. The main reasons are good manufacturing practice Gmp regs are arcane to start with without having clarity on how the uk independence from a universal Reg body in the uk will impact us. Also to put it bluntly the uk is not a big enough market to independently run pharma manufacturing.
The assem by among my peers is that we will all be exiting the uk in the near future. I will be in Ireland next week meeting with pharma companies headquartered there and I have already been asked to provide a brexit exit strategy.
For me at least all signs point to a long term pivot by one of the largest and fastest growing markets that's proven to be recession resistant moving away from the uk.
Just wanted to give my impressions so far
Con
Ps excuse spelling doing this on an iPhone in a bar
The marketplace will adapt to tbe Brexit. The UK camnot be ignored or marginalized. It is too big an economy. It serves no one good to punish or undermine the economy of the UK. Europe is struggling enough as it is.
Con,
I think your companies full of crap. There are other reasons your companies pulling factories. Except for the referendum vote, there has been no other action has been taken, nor may it take place. And if the UK does trigger an exit, then there is no way at this time to know what effect on regulations and trade an exit will have.
I can understand not wanting to open a new business or expand until the UK decides what to do next. But that's a lot different than pulling out.
Quote from: Con on July 08, 2016, 04:11:32 PM
Also to put it bluntly the uk is not a big enough market to independently run pharma manufacturing.
That *is* a blunt statement ;D
Meanwhile Novo Nordisk runs R&D and production in Denmark
http://www.novonordisk.com/about-novo-nordisk/novo-nordisk-in-brief/facts-and-figures.html (http://www.novonordisk.com/about-novo-nordisk/novo-nordisk-in-brief/facts-and-figures.html)
I don't know anything about the pharmacy industry, but wouldn't it be fair to assume that your company's decision making comes down to an overall business-strategy, rather than the size of the UK market?
Quote from: OJsDad on July 09, 2016, 10:11:34 AM
Con,
I think your companies full of crap. There are other reasons your companies pulling factories. Except for the referendum vote, there has been no other action has been taken, nor may it take place. And if the UK does trigger an exit, then there is no way at this time to know what effect on regulations and trade an exit will have.
I can understand not wanting to open a new business or expand until the UK decides what to do next. But that's a lot different than pulling out.
Its the world I live in and have worked in for the past 20 years so I do think I have some experience around this. Plus its not my company that is the only one doing this (which by the way has 50,000 people worldwide and sales of 12.8 Bn Euros last year so we are not a small fish in this pool).
Again I dont want to imply I have specialized or any type of insider knowledge here because I am just a cog in the machine however I am involved in the planning and business development which deals with trends and analysis and customers (we make drugs and service the drug manufacturers). So its not crap it is happening and as most companies are in heavily regulated industries we prefer stability and will move proactively towards it when possible.
To give you another real world example we are working on a decision to invest over 1 US Billion in a new state of the art manufacturing facility. Our choices are Asia, or Europe of which one site was an existing facility in the UK. Want to guess which one was just removed from the potential list to the not happening list? That happened last week.
I could go on and on about Mab bioprodcution bioSimilars emerging markets single use technology CMOs Cispr, gene editing clinical trials etc etc etc. Where the UK is strong is drug development not manufacturing and that strength will be significantly weakened by lack of access to EU budgets and duplication of regulations for ultimately a much smaller market.
Here is some light reading I have had to deal with in the last three months. Pretty much all these articles say that Pharma is damaged by a brexit situation. So ask yourself where all the global companies are going to invest for their future growth. The difference in 3-6 months in getting a drug to market can mean the difference of over 500 million dollars over the lifetime of the patent and these decisions are being made daily by pharma companies.
http://www.pharmexec.com/brexit-and-uk-pharma-industry
https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/06/27/brexit-uk-pharma-ema/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a5df2de-13a2-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#axzz4DwAGInM2
http://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/will-brexit-mean-a-controversial-exit-for-drug-regulation-too-minister-won-t-rule-it-out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/big-pharma-might-have-shrugged-off-brexit-but-britains-life-scie/
http://blogs.deloitte.co.uk/health/2016/02/what-would-brexit-mean-for-the-pharma-industry.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36599417
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-pharmaceuticals-idUSKCN0ZN1W0
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/keeping-a-stiff-upper-lip-despite-brexit/81252874
Lastly its not pulling out its pivoting away because the UK market will be diminished because of the many different ways that the Brexit vote will impact the pharma through access, regulatory and investment. If I stated pulling out above that was a mistake on my part I wanted to emphasize that the UK was at a crossroads where there was potential more involvement and investment into pharma by the market or less. And now the needle has moved to the less side.
Quote from: Boggit on July 08, 2016, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 08, 2016, 11:11:42 AM
a lady who deals with farmers as her clients - cattle feed just went up £50 a bag and their machinery came from Europe - suppliers will not supply the farmer until they know the markets have regulated themselves
pretty much the same with the other 2
as for the other businesses - one of them has been here 40 years and has never known it so quiet and can draw a line directly to the referendum date as the dip
i voted out, i havent a problem with it - just reporting some facts
I don't think anyone's criticising you - we're just surprised, is all.
Like OJ's Dad has said it seems strange as apart from Brexit, we are still in the EU - all the rules etc still apply, and apart from a future change in governance (and certainly not in the short term) has anything legally changed. It sounds like your farmer friend might be better off getting her feed/machinery from Canada, or the US if the euros are playing silly buggers with her.
@Geek
I had some time to reflect on this. The present rules and regulation are still all in place, and likely to be so for two years (indeed probably a lot longer), so the refusal to supply on the same terms seem odd.
I'd suggest your friends take a look with their solicitors at their existing contracts for supply. Particularly, if there are no provisions for unilaterally changing the terms of supply, or for failing to provide notice of change of terms, then your friends might have a right of action against the suppliers.
I can think of a few other causes too off the top of my head, but I suggest your friends, in the first instance, contact their solicitors regarding the possibility of a breach of contract action against their EU suppliers.
ones a barrister, ones a solicitor boggit!!
awesome lesbian legal eagles who hung up their wigs to be green organic landscapers - both brienne of tarth lookalikes and can eat full english breakfasts like youve never seen!!
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg445640#msg445640
I mention the above post by Con as it has an interesting paragraph...
Quote
Also I work for a large mutli national conglomerate which has significant amounts of business in the UK. I have been part of several planning scenarios where we are pivoting that business away from the UK due to the potential Brexit problems (mostly to do with drug regulations now requiring a third independent party and the impact of the trade and tarrifs on those regulations). We have accelerated moving one factory from the UK to Ireland already (though to be fair this decision was made several years ago however one of the conditions of the move was to retain more favorable manufacturing rights with the EU aligning with the thought that the UK is skeptical on the EU and not going to get as favorable trades as they think see chart above)...
It's interesting that he says
"We have accelerated moving one factory from the UK to Ireland already (though to be fair this decision was made several years ago however one of the conditions of the move was to retain more favorable manufacturing rights..." So with the decision to move a factory to Ireland several years ago, the Brexit issue is hardly a big motivator, as a few years ago, it was little more than a political discussion topic within the Conservative party and UKIP. I am surprised that Con didn't mention that a likely primary reason for the move is that Ireland has had the lowest rate of Corporation Tax anywhere in the EU, and as such is very attractive to multinationals as they don't pay that much tax.
I get exactly where Con is coming from, and it's purely business convenience with regard to profit. The issues of regulation, tax rates, ease of access to sizeable markets, and quite possibly a cheap workforce that can be exploited are all factors that motivate many global corporations.
The issues of democratic representation, social issues, national identity, concerns about EU federalism etc, etc, are completely irrelevant to many large corporation's, and apparently Con appears to agree with this world view because they are seen as potential road bumps to the maximisation of profit. For many ordinary mortals, these issues are more important than the greed of multinational corporations who will deal with any regime, so long as there is a good profit in it.
The irrelevance of a political regime to multinational profits is nothing new. For example, with good profits to be made with the Nazi's, large multinationals like Coca Cola, Ford Motor Company, Dupont, Standard Oil etc, to name but a few were happy to turn a blind eye to the regime so long as they made a good profit in a "stable" business environment. Now, I'm not suggesting for a second that the EU operates the same way as the Nazi regime did, although there are some worrying parallels with the democratic deficit, the corruption and cronyism, and growing federalism that are hallmarks of the EU as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
http://www.historyanswers.co.uk/history-of-war/how-coca-cola-won-a-place-in-adolf-hitlers-heart/
http://www.iahushua.com/WOI/us_nazis.htm
The point is that what concerns multinationals is profit, not morals, nor representation. Look at the number of large multinationals that like working with, for example, China, which again as a one party communist state has a more extreme democratic deficit, rampant corruption and cronyism, and even less attention paid to the rule of law than the EU. Ordinary citizens have other concerns than the greed, and moral bankruptcy of global corporations who want to deal with undemocratic regimes solely for their convenience and profit.
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/celebrating-35-years-of-coca-cola-in-china
http://www.dupont.com/corporate-functions/our-company/global-locations.html
http://www.fordfoundation.org/regions/china#lang-en
http://www.ford.com.cn/
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/worldwide-operations/locations/china
I understand multinational corporations will always happily invest in "stable" countries where inconvenient factors like regulations, lack of unions, a "business flexible" political hierarchy (read open to "lobbying [bribery]" by big business), large potential markets like China, India and Russia all present the best opportunities for profit at minimum cost to the corporation. It doesn't mean that the citizens of those countries are necessarily happy with the forms of governance they have to put up with. Brexit gave the UK citizens an opportunity to have their say on the supra-national government. If some multi nationals don't like that, they will mini-max elsewhere for their profits, but that will create a niche in the market for someone else to fill.
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 10, 2016, 10:05:26 AM
ones a barrister, ones a solicitor boggit!!
awesome lesbian legal eagles who hung up their wigs to be green organic landscapers - both brienne of tarth lookalikes and can eat full english breakfasts like youve never seen!!
Lol! ;D
Well in principle, they are well placed to bite back. ;) Of course, if they have not specialised in commercial law, it would still pay them to take legal advice. Even if they did specialise, speaking as a former solicitor myself, the law can change subtly over time, and there is value in having a more dispassionate view. Despite spending years in the study and practice of law, I still believe there is a lot of truth in the old adage that:
"A man (or woman) who is his (her) own lawyer has a fool for his client, but a lawyer who represents himself (herself) has a client who is an even bigger fool."
So... Boris as the Foreign Minister eh?
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/a-map-of-all-the-countries-boris-johnson-has-offended--W1zaTLC63rW
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Findy100.independent.co.uk%2Fimage%2F17300-xeri5s.jpg&hash=d48b3d09f1d6a8712bd1fdcf13be08469d83fbeb)
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 10, 2016, 10:05:26 AM
ones a barrister, ones a solicitor boggit!!
awesome lesbian legal eagles who hung up their wigs to be green organic landscapers - both brienne of tarth lookalikes and can eat full english breakfasts like youve never seen!!
You English types have the worst sort of porn.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 14, 2016, 01:46:40 PM
So... Boris as the Foreign Minister eh?
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/a-map-of-all-the-countries-boris-johnson-has-offended--W1zaTLC63rW
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Findy100.independent.co.uk%2Fimage%2F17300-xeri5s.jpg&hash=d48b3d09f1d6a8712bd1fdcf13be08469d83fbeb)
Its ether a typical po-faced English joke, or, much more likely, it just proves that we really have lost the plot.
Awww hell. Trump can beat that on a slow weekend.
Quote from: Sir Slash on July 14, 2016, 03:45:51 PM
Awww hell. Trump can beat that on a slow weekend.
Yep. The real talent is in the US. Trump and
"a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital" (Boris Johnson speaking of Hillary Clinton) :2funny:
Speaking about Clinton that way I wonder is Boris is becoming a good guy for you after all? >:D
http://www.inquisitr.com/1865466/london-mayor-boris-johnson-compares-hillary-clinton-to-a-sadistic-nurse-in-a-mental-hospital/
I for one could learn to love him. But the hair.....