Brexit

[RegisterMe]

Can I ask what do the pro brexiteers actually think is going to happen when we leave the EU, because reading JSDD he gives me the impression that he seems to think that everything will get better once we leave, that the EU are responsible for all bad thing that is happening in the UK and that all of those problems will just automatically disappear when we leave.

Good question.

[Morkonan]

...nothing could be better than the end of the EU. i´m saying that as a "friend" of europeans cooperation ... the EU has some serious flaws, among them the tax "evasion" problem (luxembourg, ireland and others with their race to the bottom), there is no common law or constitution that binds countries together, regarding immigration everyone just does whatever fits to them (lawlessness), no bigger plan on how to develop the EU further on which all members actually agree ... these are just a few problems.

I don't understand this opinion.

Admittedly, I am only A Stoopid 'Murican ™, so my opinion isn't worth as much as it is in every other area of expertise... I have no direct experience living within the bounds of the E.U.

But, it seems to me that the E.U. is a "Trade Federation" and/or an "Economic Cooperative" more than any "Union" of independent governments. (Confederacy) There are the trappings of a combined government, with shared requirements for certain laws and the movement of peoples, which touches lightly upon the sovereign control of borders. But, only lightly, being a requirement of willing members within the E.U. A truly unified "Currency" is there, but it's somewhat weakened IMO.

But, what you suggest, like "tax" issues and a "constitution that binds countries together" and issues surrounding "immigration"... These are issues of an "Empire." The E.U. isn't designed to be an Empire. It's basically designed to increase collective bargaining, reduce needless impediments to trade, streamline a lot mundane issues and act to promote certain shared values. It is not an Empire dictating citizenship rights, the collection and assignment of "taxes," the assignation of centralized power governing "all things."

In short, what I'm saying is that the E.U. does not seem intended to address some of the issues you are criticizing it for nor should it, IMO. Where these issues bear on economics, shared values, and all the things that promote what constitutes an economic bloc of power, then they're appropriate.

And, I'm not sure where the fault lies, here. Is it that the E.U., in your opinion, is trying to be something it should not be or is it that the people in the member-nations of the E.U think it is something that it is not? Or, what am I missing, here? Is there some shadowy purpose underpinning the E.U. that I am not aware of due to ignorance, willful or accidental?

my hope is to crush this undead zombi structure, and rebuild it from scratch like an actual state (example is of course the U.S.). whoever (= that is european country) wants to join is free to do so (i think of turkey), but has to surrender some of their sovereignty (by referendum of course) beforehand. no negotiations, no backdoor politics, nothing that can be attacked by any nigel farrage as "undemocratic" ...

but thats just my dream ...

You would be considered to be guilty of treason... Take care, for the night is dark and full of intelligence agencies...

i dont think that brexit is the beginning of the end however, without britain (of england/london), there is more room for cooperation for the rest of us ... solving the the economic problem in the south is far more critical

I think it's a dumb idea. I think it would have been much more advantageous for the UK to work towards more favorable policies while it had the power to do so. Now, it's clawing at the fleeting remains of E.U. influence as it fights for some crappy exit plan that it has absolutely no real authority, within E.U. law, to effect. Dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb...

The advantage of "threat:"

"We're thinking about leaving the E.U. What will you offer us to get us to stay?"

vs

"We're leaving the E.U. What will you give us as we walk out the door?"

I wonder which question gets the response of "Go screw yourself."

[BugMeister]

I agree, change comes from within..
by leaving, we just make ourselves look stupid by criticizing the EU..
and, given the enormous toll it will take on the UK economy, can only be described as a massive dereliction of duty..

[Mightysword]

But, what you suggest, like "tax" issues and a "constitution that binds countries together" and issues surrounding "immigration"... These are issues of an "Empire." The E.U. isn't designed to be an Empire. It's basically designed to increase collective bargaining, reduce needless impediments to trade, streamline a lot mundane issues and act to promote certain shared values. It is not an Empire dictating citizenship rights, the collection and assignment of "taxes," the assignation of centralized power governing "all things."

In short, what I'm saying is that the E.U. does not seem intended to address some of the issues you are criticizing it for nor should it, IMO. Where these issues bear on economics, shared values, and all the things that promote what constitutes an economic bloc of power, then they're appropriate.

And, I'm not sure where the fault lies, here. Is it that the E.U., in your opinion, is trying to be something it should not be or is it that the people in the member-nations of the E.U think it is something that it is not? Or, what am I missing, here? Is there some shadowy purpose underpinning the E.U. that I am not aware of due to ignorance, willful or accidental?

It seems to be the case of either people want to have a cake and eat it too, or just don't want to admit the big elephant in the room. Regarding your first paragraph, the United States basically have all that, because we are a "country". But in return, each states must willfully and forcefully complies to the common rule, and it's also "enforceable". Probably not the way some will put it, but remember the last time someone tried to break away from the union they were brought back at gun point, and told not to do it again.

My mother never really believed in the Europe dream. She was an accountant and a banker, overall a pretty smart lady with a good understanding of how the economy works, and her company had a lot of dealing with European telecom companies. However, she was also living in a backwater Asian country at the time with minimal access to outside information. So things like European's politic and rule set are alien to her. Yet, her judgement was made base on one very simple reason: the EU model doesn't make an ounce of sense to her. In fact, now that I think about it, maybe because her judgement was made in ignorant of politic, it is actually an objective one from a pure economy POV. Basically, she believes that no matter how much short term benefit the EU can demonstrate, it will never sustainable long term. Without a golden-unified-enforcable rule set, cracks will destine to appear and fester. She was especially thought the idea behind the common currency is stupid. She believe you can only do something like that once you bring every member economy to the same structure and similar level, not one where eveyrone do their own thing. Look at the Greece's crisis ... it's hard to argue with her on that point.

Now I'm not saying her opinion is entirely correct of course, like I said it was one made without a lot of contextual information. But I still think it makes sense, I think each member of the EU are not willing to give up enough individually to realize the vision that they want. Everyone want to have the benefit of such a Union has to offer, but at the sametime want to selfishly keep to their own convenience (the Brexit basically is the prime example of this). "Finding a rule that can work for everyone" is a wishful and pleasant thought, but my mother said that's actually not an important priority. She said: "it's about to write a rule and make everyone follow".

[JSDD]

Can I ask what do the pro brexiteers actually think is going to happen when we leave the EU, because reading JSDD he gives me the impression that he seems to think that everything will get better once we leave, that the EU are responsible for all bad thing that is happening in the UK and that all of those problems will just automatically disappear when we leave.

Good question.

about the EU in general:
it was said that first we do the "economic union", and the "political union" will automatically follow.

Wrong.

now we have a economic "part-time union" (some have the euro, others dont), and noone really cares about deepening the political union (the right to collect taxes, build a joint army, maybe a european FBI so that we dont have to wait for americans to get the crooked FIFA boss ^^, in short: giving the EU permission to act like a country), in fact many EU countries complain about it if we want to create legislation so that the EU actually acts like a union. for example: migration, the polish dont want a single refugee, germany took a million (or more), italy has a big chunk too. waht about sharing responsibility? nope, if there´s no gain, noone participates ... the question i´m asking myself is: WTF is this union for? shouldnt we just replace it with a simple free trade agreement (like we now have with japan or so)? why the euro? it brings more problems than benefits (just take a look to south europe and their inability to devalue their own currency in order to stay competitive).
the current situation is just f***ked up, so: either improve it quite a bit, or if thats not possible (blocking members), destroy it, in order to rebuild it with those members that want a real union (maybe spain, france, germany, italy?, belgium, netherlands, ... i dont know)

about britains role in the EU:
britain is known to hold the EU back in many topics (as if we dont have any other problems to solve ^^), especially in financial regulations. it too doesnt really want to share the burden of refugees and closes its border. britain has its own currency and is better of with it instead of the euro.

why should britain leave?
--> i dont really know, but without britain, there is 1 country less that blocks deepening the EU.
--> if britain wants to leave (referendum results), then just let them ...
--> i dont care about who voted, the age structure of those who voted for remain within, and all that
--> 1 man 1 vote, no matter how old the guy is.
--> in democracy the mayority decides what happens, if thats 50.001%, so what ...

is there a benefit for britain in leaving?
--> with deal? i guess no, it will stay as it is now .. except britain has no say in the EU parliament
--> without deal? i guess no, trade will become a bit more difficult ... thats about it

=> and whats the point?
britain voted to leave. now leave! ... was is an uninformed decision? i dont know/care.

[JSDD]

I agree, change comes from within..

when it comes to the EU .. no so fast:
real change comes if only ALL 28 member states agree on something ... which almost never happens!
if london wants to protect the interest of their financial industry, it can simply block any new legislation on it, doesnt matter if that would implement common-sense .. or fairness .. or whatever
if germany and france want to protect hteir auto industrys interest, all of europe has to comply, doesnt matter if new legislation would promote climate protection ..

for real change, you can wait all day long, it (almost) never happens (in a structure like the EU).

[A5PECT]

I wonder what would happen if Brexit was put up for vote again? Is this a possibility? Do you think the interest in leaving EU has faded?

I think if it were to go to the vote again, the remain camp would win. I also think it would spark some pretty serious riots.

That said, if what I read a while back is right, if we were to revoke leaving now, we'd lose just about every perk the UK has garnered over the last few decades.

If the UK calls off Brexit, they lose the extra perks of being an EU member state.

If the UK doesn't call off Brexit, they lose the extra perks and the standard perks of being a EU member state.

[BugMeister]

yeah, ok..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mtet4-dJy8

- it's even crazier in real life..!!

[Mightysword]

2nd no confident vote in a week? And I thought Republican trying to repeal Obamacare under Obama was a waste of time.

[RegisterMe]

2nd no confident vote in a week? And I thought Republican trying to repeal Obamacare under Obama was a waste of time.

Any notion that these idiots on either the Tory or the Labour side of the political divide, pretending that they are doing this in the national interest, is a load of complete shite.

[Bishop149]

But, it seems to me that the E.U. is a "Trade Federation" and/or an "Economic Cooperative" more than any "Union" of independent governments. (Confederacy) There are the trappings of a combined government, with shared requirements for certain laws and the movement of peoples, which touches lightly upon the sovereign control of borders. But, only lightly, being a requirement of willing members within the E.U. A truly unified "Currency" is there, but it's somewhat weakened IMO.

It seems to be the case of either people want to have a cake and eat it too, or just don't want to admit the big elephant in the room. Regarding your first paragraph, the United States basically have all that, because we are a "country". But in return, each states must willfully and forcefully complies to the common rule, and it's also "enforceable". Probably not the way some will put it, but remember the last time someone tried to break away from the union they were brought back at gun point, and told not to do it again.

I think you two have hit the nail on the head here.
The EU would probably function much more effectively if it was a full on Federal Republic (like the USA) rather than this weird halfway house between one of those and a free trade area.
The reason it is like that however is pretty simple. . . . Nationalism.
As fond of your individual States as you might be, most Americans (a few wierdos in the south aside) primary loyalty is to the United States as a unified country.
This is not at all true of Europe, we have many 100s of years of both independent national identity and conflict between nation states to unpick before we could ever consider ourselves "European" first and "[Insert nationality here]" second. I suppose this might change eventually but I think recent events have thrown into sharp contrast how even a relatively small amount of stress on the European system starts causing yawning cracks to appear, all driven by popularist nationalism.

Funnily enough, Brexit itself might be a catalyst for such change. Speaking for myself I never realise quite how much a I valued my European identity until 26% of the UKs population decided to voted to remove it from me against my will.
Its now something I would fight for every bit as much as for my British. . . . I think many of my generation and younger feel the same.

"We're leaving the E.U. What will you give us as we walk out the door?"

I wonder which question gets the response of "Go screw yourself."

Lol, yep that's our negotiating position in a nutshell.
Why anyone believed this was "strong" is utterly beyond me.

[pjknibbs]

Lol, yep that's our negotiating position in a nutshell.
Why anyone believed this was "strong" is utterly beyond me.

But...Boris said it would be the easiest negotiation ever! Surely he wouldn't *lie* to us?

[RegisterMe]

But...Boris said it would be the easiest negotiation ever! Surely he wouldn't *lie* to us?

Johnson, Gove, Davis, Fox, Farrage, Aaron Banks, Tim WhateverhisnameisWetherspoons, The Daily ****** Mail etc etc etc etc.

[Morkonan]

...It seems to be the case of either people want to have a cake and eat it too, or just don't want to admit the big elephant in the room. Regarding your first paragraph, the United States basically have all that, because we are a "country". But in return, each states must willfully and forcefully complies to the common rule, and it's also "enforceable". Probably not the way some will put it, but remember the last time someone tried to break away from the union they were brought back at gun point, and told not to do it again.

Well, there's still a jury out on the verdict of the "Right of Secession." But, there is no argument against a people's "Right of Revolution."

...Basically, she believes that no matter how much short term benefit the EU can demonstrate, it will never sustainable long term. Without a golden-unified-enforcable rule set, cracks will destine to appear and fester. She was especially thought the idea behind the common currency is stupid. She believe you can only do something like that once you bring every member economy to the same structure and similar level, not one where eveyrone do their own thing. Look at the Greece's crisis ... it's hard to argue with her on that point.

Knowing little of international trade and economics, I'd agree with her. The only way I can see continued success is by the E.U. being a unified economic and trade front. It does that, to one extent or another, but not consistently without internal bickering and a lot of growing pains and setbacks in less industrious nations that already had problems before the E.U.

... "Finding a rule that can work for everyone" is a wishful and pleasant thought, but my mother said that's actually not an important priority. She said: "it's about to write a rule and make everyone follow".

So, your mother aspired to become a Tyrant?

An "Empire" could work in Europe. But, a collection of semi-autonomous city-states with a unified currency? I dunno... Somehow, I don't think most of them liked Florins when they were commonly used and there happened to be a metric buttload of mercenaries "evening the odds" and "balancing the ledgers" for everyone way back then.

Personally, I hope it all works out. If it makes standardized trade easier, it's better for everyone. (YAY, my economic conservatism shines through!) But, if nations are forced to handicap themselves in order to comply... I'm against that, of course.

[Mightysword]

So, your mother aspired to become a Tyrant?

And why must it be that extreme?

People often ask which is more important for leadership: being feared or being loved? And the answer I think is "both". She held two position: a member of the board and head of the union. The first position is appointed, the second is voted in. Can't survive the former without an iron fist, and can't last in the latter without being loved. When she quit to move to the US, people above her freaked out on how to replace her, and people below her weep because they believe there wouldn't be another one like her. She lifted up many people, many of colleagues were able to build their houses and send their kids to school thanks to her, but those who crossed her wrongly were set as examples for why it's a really bad idea to do so. For comparison, I think the closest American figure I can relate to is she is like a white collar George Patton.

What it means in this situation is "making a rule that will work for everyone" is either at best an idealistic and foolish aspiration in equal measure, or at worst it's just merely lip service to a political correctness notion that no one actually believe - which I'm more willing to bet is actually the case. When you try to make a rule for a whole bunch of individuals, the reality everyone must accept that there will be some that benefit you, and some that works against you, but everyone have to follow regardless. I don't think that has anything to do with tyranny, just simply the necessity of reality.

And I think, again, that's why an objective view is important. The Brexit discussion is just like any other political discussion, were polarized with a clear line: one side only talks about the benefit as if there is nothing bad, while the other side only focus on the drawbacks as if nothing good ever came out of it. Sure, if the 'narrators' are not being objective, you can argue since both sides are out there, the voters can mix in between and weight their own conclusion, right? But we all know that the voters are as bad about being objective as the politicians, once we chose a bias and narrative we like, often time we just gonna decide to believe one over another.

[notaterran]

[...] and, given the enormous toll it will take on the UK economy, can only be described as a massive dereliction of duty..

What would happen if London took the plunge like Switzerland and relaxed financial regulations a bit more (i.e. to become a friendlier haven)? That would be a nice source of revenue and would diminish the impact of leaving the EU.

Link1

Link2

[BugMeister]

- I seem to remember the tory chancellor suggesting that very idea several months ago..
- the oligarchs have become over-confident, if you ask me - they consider their wealth to be of paramount national importance..
- they would happily turn to entire UK into a massive corporation if they could - provided they were all given permanent seats on the board, natch..!!

[Morkonan]

...What it means in this situation is "making a rule that will work for everyone" is either at best an idealistic and foolish aspiration in equal measure, or at worst it's just merely lip service to a political correctness notion that no one actually believe - which I'm more willing to bet is actually the case. When you try to make a rule for a whole bunch of individuals, the reality everyone must accept that there will be some that benefit you, and some that works against you, but everyone have to follow regardless. I don't think that has anything to do with tyranny, just simply the necessity of reality. ...

You can make rules/laws that work for everyone, but you just have to make them using a bit of sense.

"Don't claim property that isn't yours." - ie: Don't steal.

That's pretty straightforward, right? It's a law or something... But, what happens when someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family? They're still guilty, right? At that point, while they're guilty, they're now subject to "sentencing" by a judge. A rational judge would likely not choose to punish such a theft by sending the person to prison.

Tyrannical rules come about when you don't have the power to influence a rule that effectively means you will be immediately guilty of violating it as soon as it is put in force.

"Don't be black."

Well, golly... That'd sort of be a sucky rule for a lot of folks, right? Should they then be subjected to punishment? Or, should they be forced to pay the expenses of getting their skin bleached? What prevents this sort of "rule" from being tyrannical?

Rights.

If you have a firmly established set of "principles" that everyone can agree on and that are designed to prevent "tyranny" you'll have a lot easier time when it comes down to establishing rules that aren't tyrannical. For instance, the US's "Bill of Rights." All law must not infringe upon those "rights" and all law is judged by them.

Apply that to the E.U. What is their "mission statement?" That's often a guidepost that tells others what an organization aspires to. The E.U. has a set of principles:

https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... n-brief_en

Those seem to be pretty good ideas, right? If everyone truly agrees with those principles, then all of their "rules" must abide by them. What is supposed to be served by any rules that they establish is, after all, the principles for which the E.U. was formed to promote. Unfortunately, "politics" doesn't always favor benevolence and altruism. For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits. But, the opinion of a people does not always translate into fact... And, people's opinions can be influenced by others, even to the point where their opinion is based on "non-facts."

[Mightysword]

You can make rules/laws that work for everyone, but you just have to make them using a bit of sense.

"Don't claim property that isn't yours." - ie: Don't steal.

That's pretty straightforward, right? It's a law or something... But, what happens when someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family? They're still guilty, right? At that point, while they're guilty, they're now subject to "sentencing" by a judge. A rational judge would likely not choose to punish such a theft by sending the person to prison.

Sure, but the examples you're offering are so simple they are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's similar to how knowledge taught in the classroom used to be (and probably still are in some place) useless for real jobs. Not because what are taught is wrong, but because they often lack the "realistic" context. Anyone can come up with a idealistic theory using "common" sense, the problem is it's not like reality lack common sense, it's just often not ideal.

Tyrannical rules come about when you don't have the power to influence a rule that effectively means you will be immediately guilty of violating it as soon as it is put in force.

And like I said, why does it have to be that extreme? Is it Tyranny because it is tyranny, or is it because you just want to slap that label on it? Studying, most kids don't like to do it. A kid got grounded by the parents for not studying can scream "MY PARENTS ARE TYRANTS!!!", to other adults, we just call it "parenting".

"Don't be black."
Well, golly... That'd sort of be a sucky rule for a lot of folks, right? Should they then be subjected to punishment? Or, should they be forced to pay the expenses of getting their skin bleached? What prevents this sort of "rule" from being tyrannical?

Again, this kind of example is so far out there that I can't find a way to address them in a way that will add something meaningful to the discussion. Here is some suggestion for more relatable examples in this context:

- Look at the rule of conduct for the military.
- Look at the rule of conduct for professional sport players.
- Look at the law of some old/conservative oriental cultures.
- Look at the rule of Asian education institutions.

Unfortunately, "politics" doesn't always favor benevolence and altruism. For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits.

Like I said, welcome to reality.

[BugMeister]

For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits.

- could you possibly be more uncharitable..??