Post Brexit political issues within the UK

[ComradeP]

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.

[GDS_Starfury]

I'm going to pull the age card.

It's been NATO light since 92'.

[ComradeP]

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.

[Boggit]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Boggit]

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

[mirth]

This seemed like a remarkably well reasoned piece

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/the-brexit-reality-a-key-opportunity-for-european-reform/

[Boggit]

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.

[undercovergeek]

ive got 3 customers and 3 local businesses who are all taking a pounding since the referendum

[OJsDad]

Why is that Geek.  Nothing has changed since the referendum. 

[Boggit]

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.

[undercovergeek]

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

[OJsDad]

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. 

[mirth]

Sorghum's been steady.

[Boggit]

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.

[Atilla60]

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