# The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom



## emigre (May 26, 2018)

So since us Brits voted leave on the 23rd June, I think it's safe to say it's dominated the British political landscape with questions of hard or soft and each member of the UK seemingly developing their own comprehensive opinion of the complexities of Customs Union (THE Customs Union or A Customs Union). It most certainly has put us in the biggest post-war political crisis and instability which leaves us with a minority government being propped by the Northern Irish division of the Republican party.

Now it's been nearly two years since the vote, I'll be intrigued by what the benefits of Brexit are. I recall asking this in the original thread but really couldn't get anything substantive or cohesive. I think now's a  good time to look at what the potential benefits will be. It's never left public discussion and animosity still remains, we've had a general election, accusations of undermining the will of the people and a movement to demand a vote on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal.

I'd be interested in what people's thoughts on the potential benefits would be.


----------



## Flame (May 26, 2018)

none. 

its just sucking one mans dick. Nigel Farage.

expect the US every other country would do anything to be part of the E.U.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 26, 2018)

My problem at the time of the voting is the same one as now; there appears to be no plan, or if there is a plan then it amounts to "it'll be alright on the night" and that seems to apply almost regardless of what goals they have as far as hard, soft, might as well still be there but only observing, remaining or stalling. I don't mind seeing people thrashing out the quirks and the finer points, and similarly I could see the need to keep some cards close to your vest, but from day -1 we have seen infighting, lies, nonsense and blind leading the blind.

To that end there could have been some benefits, maybe the relaxing of some red tape and the ability to flex some muscles further afield, but I do not imagine I will be seeing any.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 26, 2018)

emigre said:


> I'd be interested in what people's thoughts on the potential benefits would be.


Erm... Me too, actually. The brexit had, what? 51% procent naysayers? 
Since then, it's just a circus of politicians setting new grounds of incompetence. Or rather: they would be if they weren't passed by the usa.

As such, i can't really comment. But I'm equally interested: what benefits, if any, are happening in the UK right now? Or are really going to come?


----------



## Xzi (May 26, 2018)

Brexit had 'Russian interference' written all over it from the beginning, which is not surprising since they're one of the few countries that stand to gain from a weakened EU.  From the UK's perspective there's nothing to be gained here, the best they'll be able to claim is, "well, at least the cost of everything didn't go up *too* much."


----------



## Armadillo (May 26, 2018)

350m for the nhs
Bendy bananas.


----------



## emigre (May 27, 2018)

I guess it's safe


Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Me too, actually. The brexit had, what? 51% procent naysayers?
> Since then, it's just a circus of politicians setting new grounds of incompetence. Or rather: they would be if they weren't passed by the usa.
> 
> As such, i can't really comment. But I'm equally interested: what benefits, if any, are happening in the UK right now? Or are really going to come?



It was 52 to 48. Currently, the biggest benefit is taking back control but based on how the negotiations are going, I'm not sure I want the GOvernment to be taking control of anything.


----------



## Searinox (May 27, 2018)

A vanity decision out of bored people who had nothing to do but think back with nostalgia about times that weren't in fact as great as they remember, middle age crisis, and poor understanding leading them to scapegoat everything from income right down to the punk randomly knocking the icecream out of their hand while walking down the street on globalism. Their children will eventually undo what they did and history will remember this bravada shamefully.


----------



## DavidLiam (Sep 22, 2018)

Pound already at it's lowest in 30 years, markets taking a thrashing, calls for independence referendums in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whispers that Brussels will look to make an example of us. Just how bad will the shit show get? Or is there light at the end of the tunnel?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 22, 2018)

From an outsider's perspective, May looks like a rubbish PM. They're already a dime a dozen here, but she really takes the cake.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 22, 2018)

The parallels to Trump are so clear.  "Fantastic negotiator" ends up fucking the country over with his/her "deals."  In Trump's case it's the crushing tariffs he throws around without understanding the repercussions of those actions.  In both cases this has Putin's fingerprints all over it, May and Trump are the perfect useful idiots to make people lose all confidence in established governments that oppose Putin's power and restrict access to his ludicrous amount of wealth via sanctions.


----------



## nando (Sep 22, 2018)

so is it a good time to travel there?


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 22, 2018)

Cameron wasn't much better, either.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 22, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Cameron wasn't much better, either.



Cameron's biggest failing was unfortunately underestimating the amount of common sense in the British public. It was a massive error of judgement which is a shame because he'd done really well up until that point.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 22, 2018)

As DavidLiam insisted on copy pasting from another site again (this time a 2016 post in a forum) I merged with a previous thread. 



nando said:


> so is it a good time to travel there?


The exchange rate if you are pricing in US dollars is pretty sweet right now (I am looking at going the other way... going to be expensive for me).

It is September now and we appear to be firmly in autumn/fall temperatures (usually get a couple of weeks of summer in September) but most of the touristy stuff will still be open. If you are OK with that then riots, stabbings, shootings and such are about the same as ever (so a non issue unless you are a moron and go somewhere you shouldn't). Food on shelves, staff in hospitals, police on streets (in a good way).
I am not entirely sure what there is to see and do that you can't do just as easily in the US unless you like old buildings, in which case there are plenty of those around here. Otherwise a phrase I usually hear about going to Australia -- it is a long way to go just to speak English.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 22, 2018)

there are little to no benefits unless the eu bends over backwards to be nice to the uk despite them stabbing the eu in the back for a very, very very short term political win. from my memory, people regretted their vote as soon as they sobered up the next day.

it was just a bad idea, if you can, turn around, accept the, again, in caparison, very very very short term financial punishment for making the eu go through all that bs for two years and hope people will welcome you more or less like before.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Sep 22, 2018)

DavidLiam said:


> Pound already at it's lowest in 30 years, markets taking a thrashing, calls for independence referendums in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whispers that Brussels will look to make an example of us. Just how bad will the shit show get? Or is there light at the end of the tunnel?



concerning a  Scotish independence vote, 

_*A Survation poll last month found fewer than one in four Scots wants another referendum to be called for this year.

It also revealed that the majority of Scots are in favour of remaining in the UK, with 53 per cent saying they would vote No.*_

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-vote-indyref-nicola-sturgeon-SNP-theresa-may_*
*_
The Scotish National Party had 56 of the 59 seats in 2015, at the last election they lost more than 1/3rd  or 21 seats and are down to 35 now. 

we buy more from Europe than well sell to them, sure it will be diffilcult but things will get better once were free from Brussels bureaucracy


----------



## fatherjack (Sep 22, 2018)

We've had the democratic process and voted........a loooong time back, it's time to leave!

There has been an unbelievable amount of scaremongering since the result, fuelled by political and media sectors with a more than healthy vested interest in 'remaining' for their own financial benefit - this is Y2K all over again, we'll wake up in the morning and the sun will still shine the same as yesterday.


----------



## AmandaRose (Sep 22, 2018)

fatherjack said:


> We've had the democratic process and voted........a loooong time back, it's time to leave!
> 
> There has been an unbelievable amount of scaremongering since the result, fuelled by political and media sectors with a more than healthy vested interest in 'remaining' for their own financial benefit - this is Y2K all over again, we'll wake up in the morning and the sun will still shine the same as yesterday.


Exactly I ldon't think anything will change we wont be better off or worse off than we all are now.


----------



## Originality (Sep 22, 2018)

I voted to stay.

From the beginning, there seemed to be no plan. Personally, I think it’s unfair for such a major decision to be made with such a tiny difference in the votes. Now we just have to live with it and the consequences whilst the politicians work it out.

On the plus side, if things get really bad in the UK, I can just hop the border and live in Europe. I’m a dual national, with an account in both sides, so I’m ready for whatever comes.


----------



## Pleng (Sep 22, 2018)

fatherjack said:


> with a more than healthy vested interest in 'remaining' for their own financial benefit



And nobody in the leave campaign, of course, had financial interest in the result? Hell the campaign was led by somebody who didn't even believe in the cause but just wanted to get one over on Cameron...



AmandaRose said:


> Exactly I ldon't think anything will change we wont be better off or worse off than we all are now.



I think you're right; we won't be much worse off than we are no; we'll continue to be as poorly off as we have been since the vote. Things will probably get a bit better when we inevitably end up with the Norway model and are as good as in the EU, just without actually having a voice.


----------



## fatherjack (Sep 22, 2018)

Pleng said:


> And nobody in the leave campaign, of course, had financial interest in the result? Hell the campaign was led by somebody who didn't even believe in the cause but just wanted to get one over on Cameron...



You're talking about politicians rather than the issue there, does anybody really trust any of them to do the right thing?




> I think you're right; we won't be much worse off than we are no; we'll continue to be as poorly off as we have been since the vote. Things will probably get a bit better when we inevitably end up with the Norway model and are as good as in the EU, just without actually having a voice.



I would welcome some posts from our Norwegian members to let us know just how 'shitty' that's proving - got a be honest, no press coverage in UK lately on how bad they are suffering?


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2018)

I haven't be following this as much as I should, so I wouldn't know, but it seems to not be that beneficial base on this thread so far.

I find it funny that meanwhile, we may become 51 States "soon".


----------



## FamousBug_ (Sep 22, 2018)

Us brits wont need to follow articles 11 and 13.


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Sep 22, 2018)

STRONG AND STABLE BREXIT MEANS BREXIT


----------



## Pleng (Sep 23, 2018)

fatherjack said:


> I would welcome some posts from our Norwegian members to let us know just how 'shitty' that's proving - got a be honest, no press coverage in UK lately on how bad they are suffering?



I have no idea how it's working out for them, but it's not really relevant. The only options are the Norway model or no deal at all. They've only ever been the options despite all this talk of "negotiations". And as no government would be wreckless enough to go with no deal, the Norway model it will be. It'll be sold up as some kind of compromise to give us time to work things out in the long term and then as the economy starts to pick up it'll slowly be forgotten about and this whole thing will have been a waste of time serving only to make a lot of people poorer and a few people richer, and to have failed to give Borris his "go" at running the country for a while.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 24, 2018)

DavidLiam said:


> Pound already at it's lowest in 30 years, markets taking a thrashing, calls for independence referendums in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whispers that Brussels will look to make an example of us.


Erm...I'm a bit confused by the "us". Is your selected country incorrect, or do you think there are negative brexit consequences outside Brittain? 

(and off-topic: I get pretty annoyed that people refer to the EU as "Brussels". Yes, the EU headquarters are there, but it implies that it's just that city - or even those specific buildings - who want a specific course of action. You don't refer to actions by the US government as "Washington DC says...", do you?)



fatherjack said:


> We've had the democratic process and voted........a loooong time back, it's time to leave!
> 
> There has been an unbelievable amount of scaremongering since the result, fuelled by political and media sectors with a more than healthy vested interest in 'remaining' for their own financial benefit - this is Y2K all over again, we'll wake up in the morning and the sun will still shine the same as yesterday.


Sorry, but I disagree. More so: I even think you don't believe that yourself.

Here's the thing: mere DAYS after the referendum, Nigel Farage quit his job, somehow confident that others would follow the plan he had in his head(1). Since then there have been more shifts and discussions than a Shakespearean drama. I gotta respect May for staying the course (okay: "_a _course") for so long, but the nicest description of her government would be that there are disagreements. It sort of polarizes between a "no deal brexit" and a "soft brexit" now, but that's not taking into account that hardly anyone of the bremainders has changed their views.

That in itself is enough to warrant validity to this concern (honestly: how many governments did Y2K threaten to topple, really? You know the answer: NONE!). But I haven't even talked about the actual concerns:

* the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Here's a challenge for the brexiteers among you: GET A FREAKING SOLUTION ON THIS!!! The whole "just get on with it" implies that is a minor deal that will solve itself. That won't happen. It just won't. The government can't agree on what to do with it, but at least they're recognizing that they're effectively bordering the EU there.

* Brittain would like to separate the free movement of persons from the free movement of goods. For the EU, that always was out of the question. Maybe it's because I follow the news a bit longer, maybe British news papers don't deliver quality, but this wasn't new to me. Nonetheless, the last couple of days/weeks, May acts as if the EU pulls this shit out of their ass on a whim. The way I see it (and I guess every European but Brittain) is that this is just picking cherries. Basically, Brittain wants the benefits of getting all the goods, while limiting/blocking the current refugee situation.
...but for some reason, WE are the ones "not paying Brittain respect" when we laugh that kind of nonsense out of the room ("hey, honey: I want to separate from you. BTW: I call dibs on little Alice, the new kitchen and the mustang; you can have the leaking cellar, the ruined garage, our whining brat of a boy and the garden shed. In case you refuse, I'll play the "lack of respect" card and claim these things regardless" )

* yes, the EU costs a lot of money. I get brexiteers in that regards: you pay money that is used (I assume) mostly elsewhere and get back limitations in how to run things. It's almost as if you're a resident in any given country! The thing is: that "mostly elsewhere" means that there is a small part that is used...well...within. These investments are made with European money, so they belong to the EU. Obviously, we can't just lift those things out of the country, so even for a no deal, you still need a deal to work things out on that. Again: I've yet to hear the first brexiteer acknowledge that fact, let alone work out a solution everyone can agree with.






(1): that is, of course, assuming he has an actual, factual plan.


----------



## DragorianSword (Sep 24, 2018)

I agree with @Taleweaver.
I'm not always a big fan of the EU, mainly because of their, sometimes lacking, efficiency, but there are a lot of benefits to it too.
For example, if Greece would not have been a member of the EU, they would have been so much worse of.
They probably would have found another way to lend money, but with higher interest rates. Plus the EU forced (and helped them) to take measures to try prevent  a repeat of the same situation.

I agree that the whole refugee situation could and should be handled way better by the EU though.
The members are comprised of left wing politicians for the most part and they want to help the refugees (which I agree with), but they have no concrete plan how to do it, so they just let the countries themselves flail around with it.

So on topic:
The only real benefit the UK will have is control over it's immigration policy, but since the trading policies are part of the EU they will have no right to these (which is logical).
Life will probably get quite a bit more expensive because of this and it will take quite some time to make that drop.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 25, 2018)

I'm gonna be flat out honest here. I think it's actually a great thing that you've chosen to leave the EU. The more I learn about it as an organization the less Im fond of it. It's like a bunch of countries faking friendliness in the interest of playing nice to create an aristocracy. It's a big ass political circle jerk. The UK will be fine. She's a tough lass and been around the block a time or two.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 18, 2018)

A bit of a bump here.

May is still struggling to find agreement with the EU, but it's getting less and less likely to happen. Apparently, EU governments gave in to a lot of Cameron's demands just before the brexit. Cameron was sure that this would be rewarded by his citizens...but then the majority voted brexit nonetheless. Of course they haven't forgotten that, so of course they're not cutting May some slack. Besides: not to be cynic, but what's really the point of working something out if May might not make deals on behalf of her government? 

What's also fascinating is that at this point, EVERYONE seems to be a loser. The bremainers want to remain in the EU and the brexiteers (Boris Johnson) think it doesn't go far enough. May is damned if she can make a deal and damned if she can't. And the EU...hmm...from what I've read, I feel like this should be a blessing: Brittain has (apparently) always dealed themselves in exceptions and benefits over the other countries, or blocked other proposals for personal gains rather than the common good. If true, I certainly don't mind letting them go (ahem...no offense, but this current bickering seems to illustrate that to be true). But even then: in physical terms, the island isn't going anywhere. I remember the way customs used to be, and it seems like that's coming back with interest. Frankly: I don't think scenes like Children of Men(2) are that unlikely anymore. And the tariffs on both sides will be an income on both sides that will need to be spend on customs (3). So in these regions (both sides of the sea), many things will get more expensive.

...and to get back at that fascinating thing: why hasn't there been a second referendum yet? It honestly seems like the correct thing to do: the initial vote was too close to make drastic measurements like this. Are the hardline brexiteers REALLY SURE they're representing the majority on their dreams? Likewise...a record number of Brits just emigrated the fuck out of there. If that exodus continues, in the end all you really have left are the hardcore brexiteers.
(note: I wouldn't bring up these points if the outcome was above, say two thirds one one side and one third on another. But this whole 48-52 deal is basically nothing).



(1): again: so I've been lead to believe. I've never worked for the EU myself, so I can't attest to that.
(2): the scene where they're entering the harbor. For those who have not yet seen it: SEE IT! It's one of the best dystopian sci-fi movies of recent years
(3): in a semi-unrelated piece of news: the customs of our largest airport are threatening to strike. They get extra personnel, but it won't even be enough to properly maintain a soft brexit, let alone a "no deal" one (they demand 300 extra man force).


----------



## MisterPantsEyes (Oct 18, 2018)

So can we all agree that Britian will become a third world country after they leave?

I should feel sorry for them, but it's just hilarious to me.


----------



## leon315 (Oct 18, 2018)

there's one actually:

Brits can now built a Great Wall to keep incoming muslim and afro refugees out from UK borders, to keep British safe from ISIS's menaces.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 18, 2018)

leon315 said:


> there's one actually:
> 
> Brits can now built a Great Wall to keep incoming muslim and afro refugees out from UK borders, to keep British safe from ISIS's menaces.



we don't need a wall, were an Island. it kept Hitler from invading.

also we can control who comes to the UK. I've nothing against Polish people but it's crazy to have un-controlled Immigration, 1 Million Poles came to live and work in the UK.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> we don't need a wall, were an Island. it kept Hitler from invading.
> 
> also we can control who comes to the UK. I've nothing against Polish people but it's crazy to have un-controlled Immigration, 1 Million Poles came to live and work in the UK.


I'm guessing you never heard of operation sea lion. Hiter had a plan already set in motion where the UK would come under Nazi rule but thanks to France falling he didn't have the means anymore since he had to focus the fight on different fronts. UK being an island wasn't going to keep the Nazi's away if France didn't fall. You also seem to forget about 1915 when German Zeppelins were bombing the UK and was also meant to transport troops to the mainland after anti aircraft guns were taken out


----------



## Song of storms (Oct 18, 2018)

leon315 said:


> there's one actually:
> 
> Brits can now built a Great Wall to keep incoming muslim and afro refugees out from UK borders, to keep British safe from ISIS's menaces.


The country is full of illegals that do criminal stuff and the news is often hidden to cover the narrative of the left. If you drive a scooter in London you are risking to be scooter-jacked in broad light, as if it was Rio or something.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 18, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> I'm guessing you never heard of operation sea lion. Hiter had a plan already set in motion where the UK would come under Nazi rule but thanks to France falling he didn't have the means anymore since he had to focus the fight on different fronts. UK being an island wasn't going to keep the Nazi's away if France didn't fall. You also seem to forget about 1915 when German Zeppelins were bombing the UK and was also meant to transport troops to the mainland after anti aircraft guns were taken out



I would take a rather different interpretation of that one, somewhat more in line with this


As for the topic at hand I already went last time and not a lot has changed -- still blind leading the blind.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> we don't need a wall, were an Island. it kept Hitler from invading.
> 
> also we can control who comes to the UK. I've nothing against Polish people but it's crazy to have un-controlled Immigration, 1 Million Poles came to live and work in the UK.


I think @leon315  is talking about your Ireland border. That "no deal" scenario probably ends up with you building a wall on that side to fend off those pesky EU citizens. 
Digging a canal would probably work as well if you insist on islands being safer, but I suspect that being a tad more costly.



Song of storms said:


> The country is full of illegals that do criminal stuff and the news is often hidden to cover the narrative of the left. If you drive a scooter in London you are risking to be scooter-jacked in broad light, as if it was Rio or something.


I agree, but probably not in the sense that you mean. From when I visited England (years ago, now), I found the news to be pretty much hidden underneath a large pile of rubbish tabloids.


----------



## matthi321 (Oct 18, 2018)

when uk leaves europe will i then have to risk paying custom if i buy somethig in uk from europe?


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 18, 2018)

matthi321 said:


> when uk leaves europe will i then have to risk paying custom if i buy somethig in uk from europe?


Yeah the union already said that everything that comes from the Union will get taxed like other nations outside of the union (no exeptions ) that get stuff shipped from the Union. The brexit deal needs to happen soon since the deadline is soon and the UK still hasn't gotten any deals ready whatsoever so it's likely (90 percent sure ) gonna be a hard brexit where there are only disadvantages and a collapse in many ways including economical since prices of food, clothing well everything will skyrocket for people living in the UK. Driving licenses don't work in the EU anymore, shipping out vegetables and fruits from farmers won't happen anymore since they would loose 2 much money doing so because of tarrifs. A shortage of medicine since the biggest suppliers of medicine in Europe reside in the Union. House prices could plummet by a third over three years and that homeowners could be left with negative equity and spiralling mortgage rates. And so much more


----------



## SG854 (Oct 18, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I think @Leon1912 is talking about your Ireland border. That "no deal" scenario probably ends up with you building a wall on that side to fend off those pesky EU citizens.
> Digging a canal would probably work as well if you insist on islands being safer, but I suspect that being a tad more costly.
> 
> 
> I agree, but probably not in the sense that you mean. From when I visited England (years ago, now), I found the news to be pretty much hidden underneath a large pile of rubbish tabloids.


You’re talking about the wrong Leon


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 18, 2018)

SG854 said:


> You’re talking about the wrong Leon


Oops...my bad. Corrected this.


----------



## CORE (Oct 18, 2018)

If Brexit proceeds the Moon will stop glowing wait and see


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 18, 2018)

MisterPantsEyes said:


> So can we all agree that Britian will become a third world country after they leave?
> 
> I should feel sorry for them, but it's just hilarious to me.



3rd world just like most of the EU states ? , that's why 1M Poles came to the UK. 

you should feel sorry for your own country, it has it's own immigration problems and when jobs start going because the UK buy more from the EU than we sell to them. 

sure things will be tough at first, the EU fat cats don't want anyone else to leave, but in a few years time the UK will recover and be free from the sprouts in Brussels.


----------



## smf (Oct 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> that's why 1M Poles came to the UK.



They came because there was work here that the lazy british wouldn't take, those lazy people are the ones who want to leave.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> you should feel sorry for your own country, it has it's own immigration problems and when jobs start going because the UK buy more from the EU than we sell to them.



The EU will just sell more to the rest of the world, which is one of the things the flag waving brexiteers say we should be doing. I agree, the EU does a much better job of selling to the rest of the world, because they don't manufacture crap. We can only make cars that don't rust to pieces in a few years because Japanese companies built factories here (and they built them here because we were in the EU and bribed them by letting them build on cheap greenbelt land that wasn't supposed to be built on).

I'm not sure how our economy is actually going to survive with less people, they'll either fudge the figures and let more and more people come here or we'll see a crash.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> sure things will be tough at first, the EU fat cats don't want anyone else to leave, but in a few years time the UK will recover and be free from the sprouts in Brussels.



Things will be tough, fat cat Reese Mogg has predicted it will take 50 years. He'll probably be dead and never see it, but it was all about a grudge his dad (another fat cat) had with John Major. He's rich enough that he doesn't care that it's going to disadvantage the people he and his fat cat friend Farage conned into voting to leave.

They've already voted to ditch the human rights that the EU forced our government to implement, look forward to being sacked if you refuse to work more than 50 hours a week.

Without a doubt the best years of the UK will end when we leave and never return, all because it's much easier to talk people into casual xenophobia than it is be open and tollerant.



Taleweaver said:


> * the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Here's a challenge for the brexiteers among you: GET A FREAKING SOLUTION ON THIS!!! The whole "just get on with it" implies that is a minor deal that will solve itself. That won't happen. It just won't. The government can't agree on what to do with it, but at least they're recognizing that they're effectively bordering the EU there.



I think most brexiters wouldn't care if the IRA came back and started killing people, as long as they could stick two fingers up to foreigners.

This whole brexit thing is a pointless pissing contest, you haven't taken back control. You've taken it from one set of elected people to a smaller set who now have less oversight.

Here's a hint, any time anyone says "Our" (especially the NHS, or Forces) they are hacking your brain. It works amazingly, you can con anyone into anything if you talk about doing it for "Our" whatever. It's all about activating the discrimination and xenophobic parts of the human brain, if you're not looking for it then you'll get suckered every time.


----------



## Viri (Oct 21, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> I'm guessing you never heard of operation sea lion. Hiter had a plan already set in motion where the UK would come under Nazi rule but thanks to France falling he didn't have the means anymore since he had to focus the fight on different fronts. UK being an island wasn't going to keep the Nazi's away if France didn't fall. You also seem to forget about 1915 when German Zeppelins were bombing the UK and was also meant to transport troops to the mainland after anti aircraft guns were taken out


Nope. You do know how much of a nightmare an Amphibious invasion is, right? We got really really lucky that we pulled off D-Day.

Germany had a pretty shitty navy during WW2, and could never compete with the Royal Navy. Even Hitler knew this, and this is the same Hitler that decided "fuck it!", let's declare war on Russia, while being at war with the UK. And, if for some reason Germany did get lucky, and cross the channel, then what? The Royal Navy will just destroy their supply line, and strand a shit ton of Germans in the UK. The Germans in the UK will just run of out supplies, and get captured by the UK.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 21, 2018)

Viri said:


> Nope. You do know how much of a nightmare an Amphibious invasion is, right? We got really really lucky that we pulled off D-Day.
> 
> Germany had a pretty shitty navy during WW2, and could never compete with the Royal Navy. Even Hitler knew this, and this is the same Hitler that decided "fuck it!", let's declare war on Russia, while being at war with the UK. And, if for some reason Germany did get lucky, and cross the channel, then what? The Royal Navy will just destroy their supply line, and strand a shit ton of Germans in the UK. The Germans in the UK will just run of out supplies, and get captured by the UK.



your right and one of the reasons Rommel was defeated in El Alamein, lack of supplies and troops.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 21, 2018)

Viri said:


> Nope. You do know how much of a nightmare an Amphibious invasion is, right? We got really really lucky that we pulled off D-Day.
> 
> Germany had a pretty shitty navy during WW2, and could never compete with the Royal Navy. Even Hitler knew this, and this is the same Hitler that decided "fuck it!", let's declare war on Russia, while being at war with the UK. And, if for some reason Germany did get lucky, and cross the channel, then what? The Royal Navy will just destroy their supply line, and strand a shit ton of Germans in the UK. The Germans in the UK will just run of out supplies, and get captured by the UK.


Hitler had a shitty navy ? Lol you seem to forget those u boats wich Germany needed only one of to sink countless of ships. It's true that they had less cruisers but everytime a cruiser would set out you had couple of u boats going with them defending them and it worked. So Hitler had a shitty navy ? Well tell that to all the battleships that got sunken


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 21, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Hitler had a shitty navy ? Lol you seem to forget those u boats wich Germany needed only one of to sink countless of ships. It's true that they had less cruisers but everytime a cruiser would set out you had couple of u boats going with them defending them and it worked. So Hitler had a shitty navy ? Well tell that to all the battleships that got sunken



Lack of supplies was one of the reasons why  the Germans were also  defeated in The Battle of Stalingrad and Hitler must have forgotten why Napoleon was defeated in 1812.


----------



## Viri (Oct 21, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Hitler had a shitty navy ? Lol you seem to forget those u boats wich Germany needed only one of to sink countless of ships. It's true that they had less cruisers but everytime a cruiser would set out you had couple of u boats going with them defending them and it worked. So Hitler had a shitty navy ? Well tell that to all the battleships that got sunken


Germany did have a shitty navy, and they only had 2 landing crafts that could maybe make it across the channel is 1940, and they were both prototypes, lol. I'm well aware Nazi Germany harassed and destroyed UK supply ships. But Germany could never compete with the UK's navy. Once again, it was a miracle that D-Day happened. Hitler was not going to make it across the channel.

If Germany wanted a decent navy to compete with the UK, they'd have to cut back on other things, like tanks. Which was a no go, because they had to invade the Soviets. Germany could barely keep up with tank production, let alone making a navy to compete with the UK's giant fleet.



Spoiler







Pretty much a video on this.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 21, 2018)

Viri said:


> Germany did have a shitty navy, and they only had 2 landing crafts that could maybe make it across the channel is 1940, and they were both prototypes, lol. I'm well aware Nazi Germany harassed and destroyed UK supply ships. But Germany could never compete with the UK's navy. Once again, it was a miracle that D-Day happened. Hitler was not going to make it across the channel.
> 
> If Germany wanted a decent navy to compete with the UK, they'd have to cut back on other things, like tanks. Which was a no go, because they had to invade the Soviets. Germany could barely keep up with tank production, let alone making a navy to compete with the UK's giant fleet.
> 
> ...



You calling it a shitty navy is purely biased. For one they had to demolish all ships they had after losing world war 1 and secondly they had 30 cruisers in world war 2. The navy size was around 35 40 percent that of the Brittish navy wish is a feat in itself to develop that large of a navy in only a couple of years. U boats by itself were destroying Brittish ships over and over again so for you to call them a shitty navy is wrong. A shitty navy itself wouldn't have had the power to constantly destroy ships. Military power doesn't rely on sheer numbers but the technology behind them. I think U boats showed that fact enough. They also were making around 2400 transfer barges to transport tanks over the canal and such


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 21, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> You calling it a shitty navy is purely biased. For one they had to demolish all ships they had after losing world war 1 and secondly they had 30 cruisers in world war 2. The navy size was around 35 40 percent that of the Brittish navy wish is a feat in itself to develop that large of a navy in only a couple of years. U boats by itself were destroying Brittish ships over and over again so for you to call them a shitty navy is wrong. A shitty navy itself wouldn't have had the power to constantly destroy ships. Military power doesn't rely on sheer numbers but the technology behind them. I think U boats showed that fact enough. They also were making around 2400 transfer barges to transport tanks over the canal and such



I am not entirely sure where you are heading with that.

Stuff like the Bismarck-class stuff was of notable quality but so few in number. Numbers very much are a thing if you are of broadly comparable quality (it was not a pre-dreadnought vs dreadnought situation here, though if you want to look at numbers it will note two of them in the mix here) and it is not like you can knock them out over months with the right design -- get a decent design for the materials you have* and you can stamp out a thousand machine guns a day, still going to be years if you even have the locations to do it (Germany did not have many, even occupied lands were not so hot).
Numbers because I mentioned them (I would also say the 30-40% thing is possibly a bit dubious)
https://ww2-weapons.com/fleets-1939/
https://ww2-weapons.com/german-kriegsmarine/

*WW2 era Germany lacking many of the nice alloying materials here which was reflected in a lot of designs (a lot of stamped sheet metal and not so many high end forgings).

Submarines were a fierce foe for many a merchant navy and navy, and represented a threat to various things. The efficacy was diminished rapidly as time went on, it is a longer video but covers good stuff


If you are going to want to talk build/armament quality and training wise then some decent stuff and shitty would be a hard sell. Tactics wise it might depend upon the person you are speaking to but far from out and out hopeless. Total force projection, ability to sustain damage, ability to match forces and otherwise gain superiority or supremacy in notable theatres for notable timeframes? Shitty works here.

I would also refer back to the earlier video for it covers some of their state there
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-ben...the-united-kingdom.505315/page-2#post-8341096

Similarly the means by which the Treaty of Versailles stuff was worked around is fascinating (tank training in Russia being a great jumping off point) but I think you might be doing that part of history a disservice but treating it the way you do.
Same guy as before but still good and provides a nice overview of things here


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2018)

If your unhappy with Brexit then immigrate to Europe and live. 

I will fish in my own backyard again. 

I will sell my sugar to whoever. 

I will trade with whoever. 

No we wont be taking in terrorists Lunatics. 

No I will invest my Billons in Britain not Europa and we can have a trade deal with Trump and together make America and Britain Great Again.

Sure we can renegotiate a trade deal but no you dont own Britain.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

CORE said:


> If your unhappy with Brexit then immigrate to Europe and live.
> 
> I will fish in my own backyard again.
> 
> ...


You do know that there isn't going to be a trade deal without the UK paying that amount of moneym even not in the future. The Union already stated that a million times. Most of your main companies already set up headquarters in the Union because of the Brexit. A lot of products you use today are from the Union so you will see those products going up double in price. Houses prices are going way down and keep going down making people who invested in housing or buying a house as a future investment lose tons of money. You'll also have a big shortage of medicine beginning first since all medicine in the UK is mostly bought from the Union. The scientific research UK does will have problems since most scientists already said they can't survive without the Union funding all their projects, half a billion pounds will be lost only regarding that. 85 percent of British scientists including nobel price winners are leaving the UK and immigrating to other countries in the Union. And there's so much more, i really don't think you know what a hard brexit means wich is gonna happen probably instead of a soft brexit. Well enjoy that overpriced sugar atleast.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 23, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> You do know that there isn't going to be a trade deal without the UK paying that amount of moneym even not in the future. The Union already stated that a million times. Most of your main companies already set up headquarters in the Union because of the Brexit. A lot of products you use today are from the Union so you will see those products going up double in price. Houses prices are going way down and keep going down making people who invested in housing or buying a house as a future investment lose tons of money. You'll also have a big shortage of medicine beginning first since all medicine in the UK is mostly bought from the Union. The scientific research UK does will have problems since most scientists already said they can't survive without the Union funding all their projects, half a billion pounds will be lost only regarding that. 85 percent of British scientists including nobel price winners are leaving the UK and immigrating to other countries in the Union. And there's so much more, i really don't think you know what a hard brexit means wich is gonna happen probably instead of a soft brexit. Well enjoy that overpriced sugar atleast.


Switzerland is not part of the EU and has free trade agreements with them. They have 2x the GDP per capita of UK’s. And exports 10x as much per head compared to UK. They are amoung the most prosperous economies in the world.

You don’t need trade agreements to trade. UK trades plenty with China and Japan and have no agreements with them.

The EU is seen as centralized monsters.
Sure leaving the EU the markets will be more volatile and housing prices will go down, having some difficulties while they adjust. But I think all this would be moot. They have a chance to be more like Switzerland and have a bottom up approach rather then top down planning.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 23, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Switzerland is not part of the EU and has free trade agreements with them. They have 2x the GDP per capita of UK’s. And exports 10x as much per head compared to UK. They are amoung the most prosperous economies in the world.
> 
> You don’t need trade agreements to trade. UK trades plenty with China and Japan and have no agreements with them.
> 
> ...


Switzerland also didn't fuck over the union like you're doing though. It's not going to be that easy for you. Nothing of value to offer. Worst case, EU might punish those that would make a good deal for you, meaning you get nothing. If it's all of EU or UK, no economy in the world will favor you


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Switzerland is not part of the EU and has free trade agreements with them. They have 2x the GDP per capita of UK’s. And exports 10x as much per head compared to UK. They are amoung the most prosperous economies in the world.
> 
> You don’t need trade agreements to trade. UK trades plenty with China and Japan and have no agreements with them.
> 
> ...


They also have a trade deal while the UK doesn't because that's what a hard brexit means in terms compared to  a soft brexit. There's no extra tax importing and exporting from Switzerland to the union back and forth while there is gonna be with the UK in terms of a hard brexit wich is gonna happen. Switzerland also allows free travel from and to switzerland and Europeans can freely immigrate in Switzerland and visa versa so in that terms it is like a union country. In the the end it isn't the union that left the UK but the UK that left the union. UK is acting like a spoiled brat in a shop that doesn't get the toys he/she wanted and then goes on a tantrum still demanding the toys that it wants and it won't stop till it gets that. The Brexit could also be seen as a divorce while one party wants everything leaving the other party empty handed. It doesn't work that way, the UK left the union and not the other way around. The Union doesn't need to give any shit but the UK does.


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2018)

Enough Scare Mongering Everything will be fine and like I said those that dont like it can Immigrate


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 23, 2018)

CORE said:


> Enough Scare Mongering Everything will be fine and like I said those that dont like it can Immigrate


explaining the reality of things isn't scaremongering.
4 years from now, you're gonna be whining and bitching about how bad life has become in the uk and the politicians responsible for it will have left the sinking ship, so instead of being dense about this, you could at least go and make sure the ones responsible get what they deserve while you still could


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> explaining the reality of things isn't scaremongering.
> 4 years from now, you're gonna be whining and bitching about how bad life has become in the uk and the politicians responsible for it will have left the sinking ship, so instead of being dense about this, you could at least go and make sure the ones responsible get what they deserve while you still could


The guy being responsible did as soon as it happened. Nigel Farage is the biggest coward in British history because he left with his tail between his legs as soon as it was set in motion and left it up to others to deal with all the shit.


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2018)

Doing it now so no difference if others like to play Bitch Boy thats up to them I said before we will do fine get over it petal


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

CORE said:


> Doing it now so no difference if others like to play Bitch Boy thats up to them I said before we will do fine get over it petal


Ur not tho. The pound is almost exactly the same as the Euro while prior to the brexit it was almost double the amount. How in your dictionary is that doing fine ? You earn almost half of what you earned prior to the brexit


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 23, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> The guy being responsible did as soon as it happened. Nigel Farage is the biggest coward in British history because he left with his tail between his legs as soon as it was set in motion and left it up to others to deal with all the shit.


Was he responsible for it? He was certainly a key player and agitator (for many years at that) but as far as I can see it was a conservative party (different party to his one) election promise* and ultimately organised referendum (pity they had not organised an actual plan but hey), one in which several of their key players were in turn the driving players in the leave campaign.

*it was noted at the time that it was something of a vote gaining ploy to prevent the conservative base from being split, arguably by UKIP in England but it was not without perks in the other countries. You could then argue some... blame trickles down but that only goes so far.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Was he responsible for it? He was certainly a key player and agitator (for many years at that) but as far as I can see it was a conservative party (different party to his one) election promise* and ultimately organised referendum (pity they had not organised an actual plan but hey), one in which several of their key players were in turn the driving players in the leave campaign.
> 
> *it was noted at the time that it was something of a vote gaining ploy to prevent the conservative base from being split, arguably by UKIP in England but it was not without perks in the other countries. You could then argue some... blame trickles down but that only goes so far.


He was the head of Ukip from my understanding and it was thanks to Ukip that the brexit referendum happened. And as soon as the people said yes he basically said '' i'm out, deal with the aftermath '' and he resigned leaving every politician angry. Everybody still calls him a coward because he is


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 23, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> He was the head of Ukip from my understanding and it was thanks to Ukip that the brexit referendum happened. And as soon as the people said yes he basically said '' i'm out, deal with the aftermath '' and he resigned leaving every politician angry. Everybody still calls him a coward because he is


Again it was a conservative election promise and organised affair. Said conservative party has a long history and notable number of "eurosceptic" members. I don't doubt UKIP played a role (I already mentioned the lack of desire to split bases, and it being a central issue for them), one far greater than their size (whether in terms of parliament seats, EU MP seats, council seats, voter count or registered members) but I am still not sure it is all that easy to place as much of it at his feet as you reckon.


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2018)

Its the bloody Russians I bet they have undermined the Brexit Vote like Trump aint that right.

Hell im telling you now just like the Brexit my Toast got burned I bet a Russian messed with my Toaster.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Again it was a conservative election promise and organised affair. Said conservative party has a long history and notable number of "eurosceptic" members. I don't doubt UKIP played a role (I already mentioned the lack of desire to split bases, and it being a central issue for them), one far greater than their size (whether in terms of parliament seats, EU MP seats, council seats, voter count or registered members) but I am still not sure it is all that easy to place as much of it at his feet as you reckon.


Oh come on it did. Ukip went from 3 percent to 15 percent and Cameron was feeling the pressure of Farage in his neck. So Cameron made a promise in 2013 that if he would win in 2015 he would allow the referendum Farage was constantly asking and so he did and the answer wasn't what he wanted so he resigned and then Farage took his place but also immediatly resigned


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 23, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> So Cameron made a promise in 2013 that if he would win in 2015 he would allow the referendum Farage was constantly asking and so he did and the answer wasn't what he wanted so he resigned and then Farage took his place but also immediatly resigned


"Took his place"? Farage et al were never in the running for PM, negotiator, ambassador... anything like that. I don't know the full reasons for Farage's resignation and I doubt we ever will (unless you are particularly buying the mission managed line).


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> "Took his place"? Farage et al were never in the running for PM, negotiator, ambassador... anything like that. I don't know the full reasons for Farage's resignation and I doubt we ever will (unless you are particularly buying the mission managed line).


his reason was that he wanted his life back and couldn't deal with the brexit negotiations and that his political ambitions were fulfilled. Also in what way wasn't he in that race when he was in the 2015 elections as head of UKIP ? If you're running in the elections then your def in the race regardless of reasons. When Cameron stepped down people looked towards him for the brexit  negotiations because someone needed to deal with that and he said no and resigned.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 23, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> his reason was that he wanted his life back and couldn't deal with the brexit negotiations and that his political ambitions were fulfilled. Also in what way wasn't he in that race when he was in the 2015 elections as head of UKIP ? If you're running in the elections then your def in the race regardless of reasons


For all his beer in the pub, man of the people persona he does seem to have the same dose of 

as all the others and that covers the "spend time with my family" thing as well as it could be.

Also it was 2016 when Cameron resigned, for a vote that happened the same year. That rather bothers the order of things for your example if we are considering the 2015 elections, at least beyond the potential spoiler effect stuff from earlier. In terms of order of government he was so far down on the list (in terms of the UK government he did not even hold a seat and was a MEP) that when you say "take his [the prime minster's] place" I had no idea what you were heading towards. He could have "followed his lead" and resigned but your sentence did not read like that.

All I really wanted to say was that you seem to paint him as some kind of mastermind architect of the situation, one still tugging important strings. I say absolutely an important player and worth noting in the history of it all but really not that.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 23, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Ur not tho. The pound is almost exactly the same as the Euro while prior to the brexit it was almost double the amount. How in your dictionary is that doing fine ? You earn almost half of what you earned prior to the brexit


Double? Hardly. It was about 25% more.


----------



## Technicmaster0 (Oct 23, 2018)

In the end it was more than 50% of the people that spoke. You can't really blame the plitics for leaving the choice to the people. Everyone that voted was adult and should have known what they did and should accept to live with the consequences.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 24, 2018)

Technicmaster0 said:


> In the end it was more than 50% of the people that spoke. You can't really blame the plitics for leaving the choice to the people. Everyone that voted was adult and should have known what they did and should accept to live with the consequences.


I don't necessarily disagree, and find it disappointing so many went for it without anything resembling a plan in place, but I also expect competence out of politicians (I know that makes me an unpardonable optimist but hey).


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 24, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> For all his beer in the pub, man of the people persona he does seem to have the same dose of
> 
> as all the others and that covers the "spend time with my family" thing as well as it could be.
> 
> ...



I do not paint him as the mastermind at all but it was he that was mostly pushing it these last years. Ofcourse there were others in favour of this but he was the most outspoken about it and got the public going with it. The thing was with previous politicians that they all constantly failed to even get a certain backing and def out of the people but he was more of a publics figure so he got the ball running. Not saying he's the mastermind at all because ofcourse you had people like Boris Johnson etc. I guess we can agree on that that he wasn't the reason it happened but played an important role atleast


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 24, 2018)

I can't go there. The history of the "eurosceptic" part of various parties is long* and prominent -- the average news story would list such a thing if they mentioned a politician by name as the first aside ("John Smith, MP for some hole, a prominent eurosceptic" would be typically how that ran, frequently where it was only of passing relevance).

*it was around in name since the campaign/vote to join EU in the first place however many years ago that was but you can easily go back further to the other precursor organisations and bodies. Or go the other way. Pick any of the major news sources for the UK, do a search for that, eurosceptic and the year. If more than a month passes without a major story, especially in the last 20 or so years, with it as a component it is probably more that searching sucks but if it didn't you would easily find it.

If you want to focus on Farage then so be it, however to do so if not exclusively then nearly so would be to miss a massive part of it all.


----------



## kumikochan (Oct 24, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I can't go there. The history of the "eurosceptic" part of various parties is long* and prominent -- the average news story would list such a thing if they mentioned a politician by name as the first aside ("John Smith, MP for some hole, a prominent eurosceptic" would be typically how that ran, frequently where it was only of passing relevance).
> 
> *it was around in name since the campaign/vote to join EU in the first place however many years ago that was but you can easily go back further to the other precursor organisations and bodies. Or go the other way. Pick any of the major news sources for the UK, do a search for that, eurosceptic and the year. If more than a month passes without a major story, especially in the last 20 or so years, with it as a component it is probably more that searching sucks but if it didn't you would easily find it.
> 
> If you want to focus on Farage then so be it, however to do so if not exclusively then nearly so would be to miss a massive part of it all.


Like i already previously said. Ofcourse there were eurosceptics long before nigel farage but it was because of him that it became more popular with the public itself. It was the anti immigration standpoint nigel farage was doing that sweetened up the public to vote for a brexit. Ofcourse there were tons of politicians that did it before but in no way at all did a previous politician, public spokesperson sweeten up the public in the same manner as nigel farage did with his party UKIP. I never said that the brexit was solely because of him and it is because of many factors and many people but only Nigel Farage and his party sweetened up the public the way he did and that no one else achieved that previously to sway half the country of demanding a referendum and voting yes


----------



## AdamFX990 (Oct 24, 2018)

With the EU pushing for article 11 and article 13, I've completely changed my opinion since the vote. Originally I wanted to stay, because I was a student at the time and thought leaving would only make myself and other people my age even more financially screwed than we already were.

Tbh though, with Tories pushing for privatising the police force and some of the utterly idiotic propositions they've made regarding net neutrality. I think this country is boned regardless. 

It doesn't help that the general attitude of British people is that "if you don't vote Labour or Tory its a wasted vote". Which obviously completely defeats the point in having a vote. Then the BBC have the cheek to call themselves neutral by only hearing the voices of those two parties. But, as is mentioned in the OP, the only reason one of two said parties got in was because of the fucking KKK of Ireland. Nobody took notice of them until a coilition become a possibility. Now we're fucked and we have only ourselves to blame.

Imo, the referendum is kind of a scape goat for a much bigger political problem in this country that everybody is ignoring, because nobody wants to admit they're partly responsible for it. Most of all, the people who didn't vote (of which I was one)!


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 9, 2018)

Okay, I...really have to bump this thread. Reason: someone made the most stupid, ridiculous comments I've ever came across:

Dominic Raab: we are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extend of this, but if you look at the UK and you look at how we trade in goods, we're particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.


Raab made this comment in a speech on something different (something of the ICT branch). It's pretty...it's mindboggingly stupid.

Why? Well...because Dominic isn't a random brexiteer passing by Dover and noticing the enormous industry of goods being on- and offloaded all the time. Neither is he a random guy with a map, coming to the insight that the closest distance between an island and the main land is likely where the best trade route might be. He isn't a random economist who somehow slept through his entire career either.

Dominic is(1) part of the government. He's a minister. More in detail: he's the brexit minister.


I kid you not: the brexit minister had only recently learned the true importance of the sea trade with Europe!!! 



...I'm just lost for words here. Two freaking years of bickering, and then you've got this clown coming along who accidentally exposes this whole brexit thing as the scam all the bremainders only assumed it was.


(source)

(1) or 'was', by the time you read this, because Jezus Christ..."political suicide" is an underestimation compared to this situation.


----------



## emigre (Nov 10, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, I...really have to bump this thread. Reason: someone made the most stupid, ridiculous comments I've ever came across:
> 
> Dominic Raab: we are, and I hadn't quite understood the full extend of this, but if you look at the UK and you look at how we trade in goods, we're particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.
> 
> ...









We are so fucked. The actual incompetence displayed by the Tories is incredible. I really hope we get a second vote on this especially if it's proved the Leave campaigns were doing dodgy shit.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 10, 2018)

Well what ever happens we will be leaving the EU. 

it's not all rosy in the EU at the moment. 

PolExit https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811091069671580-eu-warsaw-brussels-tensions/


----------



## emigre (Nov 15, 2018)

The deal has been drafted and so far two cabinet members have resigned with a few more ministers. We really should have voted for Ed Milliband in 2015.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 15, 2018)

So...two days ago, it was suddenly news: "there is an agreement between the UK and the EU!".

I didn't bother reporting it here, as the caveat was that the deal still had to be approved by the UK government and the house of commons. Sure, Theresa May technically speaks in name of the UK, so the news wasn't technically _wrong_, but there isn't much of a point of saying these things when half the government thinks they're being screwed because it doesn't go far enough, the other half thinks they're being screwed because it goes too far and the 48% opposition (aka: the referendum losers) wants a new referendum. Of course, guys like Boris Johnson didn't even had to read it to know that it was worthl...sorry: utter bullocks (ya gotta love the English language  ).


Despite that: she did manage to get it passed through the UK government. All it took was the resignation of two...sorry: _five _government officials (perhaps the tally is higher by the time I'm finished posting  ). If it wasn't for that ruckus last friday, I'd say that Dominic Raab is following in Nigel Farage's footsteps in bailing out before the fallout (yup...the minister who is responsible for the brexit agreement is quitting. This obviously means that the deal is so solid that nothing could possibly go wrong ). Alas...there _was_ a ruckus last friday (just check post #75 above), so we know in advance he quit because he had no idea what he got into.

Other bailouts:
Shailesh Vara...vice state secretary of Northern Ireland.
Esther McVey...minister of work
Suella Braverman...vice state secretary of Brexit
Anne-Marie Trevelyan...vice secretary of education

Oh, and Jo Johnson (Boris's brother) quit last week.


So...anyone wanna bet on the day the UK government's going to fall?  I mean...don't get me wrong: I absolutely hate the fact that our...somewhat neighbor'ish country (?) is hellbent on arguing themselves back to the stone age (assuming this show keeps up, that is). But since they're doing it to themselves, what else can we do about it but laugh at their expense?


----------



## emigre (Nov 15, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> So...anyone wanna bet on the day the UK government's going to fall?  I mean...don't get me wrong: I absolutely hate the fact that our...somewhat neighbor'ish country (?) is hellbent on arguing themselves back to the stone age (assuming this show keeps up, that is). But since they're doing it to themselves, what else can we do about it but laugh at their expense?



It's tangible, it's minority administration which is never stable in the best of times. I can see there being a leadership challenge in the Tory party though. May is undermined time and time again. It's an appaling state of governance0


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 15, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> Well what ever happens we will be leaving the EU.
> 
> it's not all rosy in the EU at the moment.
> 
> PolExit https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811091069671580-eu-warsaw-brussels-tensions/


Hmm...I've read a diagram by the newspaper the other day. You know: with a diagram of "if the government agrees, then go there. If not, go there". You're mostly right in that most of the "final state's" are either a deal-brexit or a no-deal brexit. There was only one option of "another referendum" in about ten of those outcomes. So...yeah, you're probably right.

No idea how that article has anything to do with the brexit, though. If that was your first google result for "find me troubles in the EU", then I would have picked a second result. Of course Poland can investigate to what degree they can leave the EU. It's just that seeing the shitshow in the UK, I don't think the Poles are dumb enough to fall for it.


----------



## emigre (Nov 15, 2018)

Soundtrack for the day as another PPS as resigned. Albeit no one has ever heard of.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Nov 15, 2018)

UK was already quite free from the EU because it isn't chained with the Euro.
Norway and Switzerland aren't in the EU too, and their economies are positive (unlike the economy of Italy, that was positive with its Lira)


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 15, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> But since they're doing it to themselves, what else can we do about it but laugh at their expense?



yes the whole world is laughing but once we're out we can start to rebuild, and sure no other EU country will have the balls to try and leave. but years down the line when things improve maybe other EU countries will be envy.

the EU has its own problems, Poland for one and there are others defying Brussels with their immigration quotas 

last year I was oh holiday in Greece, the hotel owner was telling me he wished they could leave the EU as the UK had voted but they were in debt to Brussels.


----------



## emigre (Nov 15, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> yes the whole world is laughing but once we're out we can start to rebuild, and sure no other EU country will have the balls to try and leave. but years down the line when things improve maybe other EU countries will be envy.



Rebuild? Are you actually serious? Our government will have to go crazy on negotiating trade deals notwithstanding we will be leaving our actual biggest trade bloc, pretty much every forecast sees us poorer in the upcoming decade by leaving. And if the last two and half years has proven anything, it is the sheer incompetence in the political choices available to us, both main parties are on varying levels on civil fracture with themselves. Considering the time and effort that has been placed on this rather than the ever depleting health service (where's the £350M a week?), increases in crime and our education system being unable to rub two coins together. The idea that things will get amazingly better out than in just sounds more fantastical nonsense.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 15, 2018)

EmanueleBGN said:


> UK was already quite free from the EU because it isn't chained with the Euro.
> Norway and Switzerland aren't in the EU too, and their economies are positive (unlike the economy of Italy, that was positive with its Lira)


People keep bringing up those countries but those countries have an entirely different deal alltogether and never really joined up with the union. Ofcourse they're gonna have a deal more favorable than the deal struck with the UK. It's a pointless comparison

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> yes the whole world is laughing but once we're out we can start to rebuild, and sure no other EU country will have the balls to try and leave. but years down the line when things improve maybe other EU countries will be envy.
> 
> the EU has its own problems, Poland for one and there are others defying Brussels with their immigration quotas
> 
> last year I was oh holiday in Greece, the hotel owner was telling me he wished they could leave the EU as the UK had voted but they were in debt to Brussels.


Quite funny tho since it is thanks to the EU that they get to rebuild their own country and mostly govern it itself. Greece was as good as bankrupt and if the Union wasn't there to bail them out they would have never done it themselves. It is thanks to the union that they're now finally on a debt free course. Same with Hungary and Poland. They're mostly arguing now but i lived in Hungary for 10 years before it became a part of the union and believe me before it joined the union it was literally a shithole. People earned as much as 300 euro's a month, all drove cars made out of paper ( Trabant, Warburg, Lada) and cops were corrupt as hell since i drove a motercycle at the age of 16 in Hungary and bribed the cops countless of times because i came from a western family so i had plenty of money living there. Going to school i saw so many dead people laying besides the road frozen to death, it is because them joining up with the union that they all suddenly have all that wealth but ey it's easy to constantly bitch about something you have zero knowledge about and that's what those countries are all doing. I've seen Poland, Hungary and so forth going 30-40 years towards the future in only 5 years time because of them joining up with the union


----------



## emigre (Nov 16, 2018)

People are making reference to this poorly aged tweet from the Pig fucker.







In more relevant news, it looks there's going to be a vote of no confidence in Theresa May which means leadership contest! The Tories really do put themselves before country.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 16, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> People keep bringing up those countries but those countries have an entirely different deal alltogether and never really joined up with the union. Ofcourse they're gonna have a deal more favorable than the deal struck with the UK. It's a pointless comparison
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




I'm just telling you what the hotel owner said and if you've been to Greece you would have seen half built and abandoned buildings everywhere.

one of the reasons why I voted out was to end the discrimination I faced being a Brit in the UK compared to Europeans who came to the UK.

for example. when applying for a visa at a British embassy outside the EU, a EU citizen application would have priority over a UK application. 

If your partner was from outside the EU,  to bring them back to the UK as your spouse/partner you need to earn at least £18,600 a year and provide evidence your relationship is real yet a EU citizen living in the UK has a virtual right to bring their partner to the UK without earning a minimum amount and little evidence about your relationship.


----------



## Pleng (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> for example. when applying for a visa at a British embassy outside the EU, a EU citizen application would have priority over a UK application.



How does that work then considering that the UK is (currently) part of the EU? Ergo a British Citizen *is* an EU Citizen. I smell butt talk.



> If your partner was from outside the EU, to bring them back to the UK as your spouse/partner you need to earn at least £18,600 a year and provide evidence your relationship is real yet a EU citizen living in the UK has a virtual right to bring their partner to the UK without earning a minimum amoun



Right... So if you ever met a girl from Germany, France, Poland it would be nice and easy for her to come and live with you in the UK. And the reverse is true, of course. You and her could live in her home country, or any other member state, without having to go through the headache of visa applications.

I hope you one day need to go through the process of a visa application so you can understand what a PITA it is.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

Pleng said:


> How does that work then considering that the UK is (currently) part of the EU? Ergo a British Citizen *is* an EU Citizen. I smell butt talk.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




err you can not exercise your treaty rights in your own country. so I don't have the same rights as a EU citizen living or even coming to the UK with their non European spouse

https://fullfact.org/education/you-usually-need-earn-18600-year-bring-non-eu-partner-uk/

and it's not just the minimum income, EU citizens have a virtual right to bring their non EU partner and family to the UK and they have the right to work instantly

yes what you say is true, but Europe is not the whole world and I don't want to live in another EU country., its laughable that actually some brits have actually gone and lived in another EU country to get their non European spouse to Europe then the UK. madness. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/surinder-singh-immigration-route/



I've been thru the visa game, my wife is from outside the EU and it's been a long and expensive journey for her to become a British citizen and that's another thing I've paid £1,000s in visa fees and EU citizens in the UK don't have to pay to settle here. 

so I voted out, so EU citizens will be treated the same way as everyone else from outside Europe and this discrimination against people in their own country will end.

I've seen many British citizens who married non Europeans have their visa delayed or refused, having to wait longer than EU citizens , having to pay for a visa, settlement visa for a spouse is £1,526, then you need to pay for FLR * 2 at £1033, then ILR at £1,500, then finally citizenship at £1,330 and the EU citizen in the UK would only have to pay for citizenship. an EEA family permit is free, we know nothing is free and the poor Brit has not only paid to bring their spouse to the UK, but they've also paid for EU citizens to bring their spouse here. how is that fair ?


----------



## Pleng (Nov 17, 2018)

Ah ok so it's based on a simple case of bitterness... "I had to suffer when applying for a Visa then so should everybody else". Pretty typical attitude amongst mankind, but not a nice one.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> err you can not exercise your treaty rights in your own country. so I don't have the same rights as a EU citizen living or even coming to the UK with their non European spouse
> 
> https://fullfact.org/education/you-usually-need-earn-18600-year-bring-non-eu-partner-uk/
> 
> ...


You do know why those rules apply eh ? You have to look at the union as a whole and not as something extra. The system is quite similar to what the states has. One big governing body with states that also govern themselves where different rules and laws apply. Well the Union is basically the same and has to be seen as something similar but instead of having states well it being countries instead. Ofcourse everybody who is a part of the union can freely travel in the union and go live somewhere else in the union. Why ? Because it has to be seen as a whole. If you're being salty because it was a pain to get your wife in the Union because she wasn't from the union doesn't make sense at all. It would basically be the same as an American marrying another American person from another state and then you complaining about it because your wife who isn't American couldn't come that easily to you. Your reasoning just doesn't make sense at all


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

Pleng said:


> Ah ok so it's based on a simple case of bitterness... "I had to suffer when applying for a Visa then so should everybody else". Pretty typical attitude amongst mankind, but not a nice one.



nah your wrong Brits are  known for queuing and for a sense of fair play and no one in their right mind says thats fair play when your a second class citizen in your own country.


----------



## Essasetic (Nov 17, 2018)

Whelp. We're fucked. Theresa May needs to resign but it's probably too late anyway. She'll probably get us a crap deal and make us leave with little to no benefit at all.


----------



## Pleng (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> nah your wrong Brits are  known for queuing and for a sense of fair play and no one in their right mind says thats fair play when your a second class citizen in your own country.



I wasn't talking about Brits in particular, I was talking about people in general. And you can't just say "nah" when you've been called out out for being basically a resentful person by blabbing on about how good "Brit"s are about queueing!


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> You do know why those rules apply eh ? You have to look at the union as a whole and not as something extra. The system is quite similar to what the states has. One big governing body with states that also govern themselves where different rules and laws apply. Well the Union is basically the same and has to be seen as something similar but instead of having states well it being countries instead. Ofcourse everybody who is a part of the union can freely travel in the union and go live somewhere else in the union. Why ? Because it has to be seen as a whole. If you're being salty because it was a pain to get your wife in the Union because she wasn't from the union doesn't make sense at all. It would basically be the same as an American marrying another American person from another state and then you complaining about it because your wife who isn't American couldn't come that easily to you. Your reasoning just doesn't make sense at all



so here's me living in Texas and I marry someone from outside the good old USA,  but I have to wait and apply for a visa, prove my relationship is genunie also pay alot of money to bring my partner to Texas, while you move from sunny Florida only a couple of states away, meet and marry someone from outside the USA, but unlike me you have a virtual legal right to bring your partner to Texas and you dont have to pay and your a prioty over Texans. 

how is that fair ?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Pleng said:


> I wasn't talking about Brits in particular, I was talking about people in general. And you can't just say "nah" when you've been called out out for being basically a resentful person by blabbing on about how good "Brit"s are about queueing!



I was talking about being a Brit and why I voted out, the Gov and courts do little to sort this %$£ out, how can someone from another country have more rights than you in your own country, its nothing but maddness.

I'm not resentful, its called 'fair play' something we Brits are known for. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...ish-sense-of-fair-play-proven-by-science.html
and soon EU citizens will be treated and rightly so, the same as non Europeans.

I use to be a mod on an immgration forum for years and saw countless cases of partners of British citizens being refused a visa for their partner, yet hardly any being refused from EU citizens.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Essasetic said:


> Whelp. We're fucked. Theresa May needs to resign but it's probably too late anyway. She'll probably get us a crap deal and make us leave with little to no benefit at all.



well time will tell, but I watched a bit of question time and I think it was a MP from Wales saying Welsh lamb would have a 70% tax to export it to Europe. ok we stick on a 70% tax on Danish Bacon. 

we buy from the EU more than we sell. so everyone loses out.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> so here's me living in Texas and I marry someone from outside the good old USA,  but I have to wait and apply for a visa, prove my relationship is genunie also pay alot of money to bring my partner to Texas, while you move from sunny Florida only a couple of states away, meet and marry someone from outside the USA, but unlike me you have a virtual legal right to bring your partner to Texas and you dont have to pay and your a prioty over Texans.
> 
> how is that fair ?


That is quite fair. That's how the world works and wich you actually voted for so what's the problem ? If you wanted to change that then you would have had to vote differently seeing a union between countries on global level is the way to go in my eyes and isolation isn't. In a globified union you wouldn't even have the problems of visa's and so forth so i find it quite weird that you find that system to be unfair but here you are voting against that system as a whole and voted to make your country even more isolated. You basically voted to make the European Union pay. Well if we would all do that out of spite then the world would be an even shittier place.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> That is quite fair. That's how the world works and wich you actually voted for so what's the problem ? If you wanted to change that then you would have had to vote differently seeing a union between countries on global level is the way to go in my eyes and isolation isn't. In a globified union you wouldn't even have the problems of visa's and so forth so i find it quite weird that you find that system to be unfair but here you are voting against that system as a whole and voted to make your country even more isolated. You basically voted to make the European Union pay. Well if we would all do that out of spite then the world would be an even shittier place.




fair? give me reasons how you think that is fair that someone from another country has more rights than you in your own country.

am I (not for longer thank god) a citizen of the EU? , yet I dont have the same rights as a EU citizen from another country in my own country and you say that is fair and you wonder why more than half of us Brits voted to leave.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> fair? give me reasons how you think that is fair that someone from another country has more rights than you in your own country.
> 
> am I (not for longer thank god) a citizen of the EU? , yet I dont have the same rights as a EU citizen from another country in my own country and you say that is fair and you wonder why more than half of us Brits voted to leave.


It's not about you gee. Your wife who wasn't from Europe had less rights and not you. That is perfectly fine !!! Everybody in the union can freely travel to union countries. So ofcourse a member from the union is gonna have automatically more rights then your wife who isn't from the union. That is perfectly fair !!! We'll see how that  will work out for you not being a citizen of the union anymore. Ey atleast i can travel visa free to 165 countries over the world and counting  One of the many benefits of a union citizen


----------



## Nightwish (Nov 17, 2018)

Potential good things about Brexit:

Freedom to clamp down on the City's financial speculation nonsense

Freedom to reverse disastrous privatizations
Freedom to float the currency
Freedom to focus on employment and growth instead of non-existent inflation
Ability to focus on work that is needed with the full capacity of a state, instead of leaving infrastructure to rot like a Genovese bridge for the good of meaningless debt ratios

Freedom to have capital controls against those who live off the state
Ability to do a Japan and stop financing debt peddlers; hell, stop issuing debt all together
Not forced to sign agreements like CETA that force the state to use it's power against its citizens
Freedom to have independence in essential necessities like food. Not steel, that's just dumb 

It's not hard to do better than the Euroland. In fact, congratulations, you already do. Of course, if even your opposition is clueless and loves austerity as much as Osborne, you're going to fail, so start questioning economic dogma that doesn't fit the real world.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> It's not about you gee. Your wife who wasn't from Europe had less rights and not you. That is perfectly fine !!! Everybody in the union can freely travel to union countries. So ofcourse a member from the union is gonna have automatically more rights then your wife who isn't from the union. That is perfectly fair !!! We'll see how that  will work out for you not being a citizen of the union anymore. Ey atleast i can travel visa free to 165 countries over the world and counting  One of the many benefits of a union citizen



no your wrong it is about me, you as a EU citizen cannot excerise your treaty rights in your own country. I'm the one who's sponsors my wife, I'm the one who has to meet the minimum financial requirement not my wife.

EU members have more rights than my wife and more rights than me, i don't see how you can say i have the same rights. 

the following are facts, Family permits are treaty as a priority over British visa applcations, a British citizen has to meet the minimum financial requirement a EU citizen does not. A EU citizen has a virtual legal right to a Family permit while a british citizen has to prove their relationship is genuine. the partner of a EU citizen has the right to work, while if your partner came to the UK on a fiancee they cant work until they have FLR.

I'll not start about EU citizens or their family members claiming benefits in the UK, or claiming benefits for their kids back in thier own EU country.

under EU law a minor is someone who is under 21,  under UK law a minor is someone under 18. so if your partner had kids already EU citizens are at an advantage there to.

how fair is it that a family member of a EU citizen can freely work and claim benefits in their name,  while if your British,  your partner cannot claim benefits in their own name til they have ILR (at least 5 years now)

I'll quickly mention the poor NON EU workers who cant claim most benefits until they have ILR. thats at least 5 years of paying taxes and getting nothing back or worse threatened with deportation if you do.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/heart-doctor-nurse-wife-given-13348027

so the Uk gov, Brussels,  UK and EU courts have done nothing to sort this out, so people like me voted out.


----------



## Burai-ha (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> *Ey atleast i can travel visa free to 165 countries over the world and counting  One of the many benefits of a union citizen*



What? The European Union doesn't issue passports, that's up to the countries.
A French citizen has a stronger passport than a Belgian citizen for example, despite both countries being part of the Union.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

Burai-ha said:


> What? The European Union doesn't issue passports, that's up to the countries.
> A French citizen has a stronger passport than a Belgian citizen for example, despite both countries being part of the Union.


a belgian citizen can travel visa free to around 165 countries over the world, i never said anything about a passport but was talking about travelling visa free. French people can visit 184 countries and belgian people can visit 185 countries visa free. Just looked it up so how is that more then a Belgian citizen can ?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> no your wrong it is about me, you as a EU citizen cannot excerise your treaty rights in your own country. I'm the one who's sponsors my wife, I'm the one who has to meet the minimum financial requirement not my wife.
> 
> EU members have more rights than my wife and more rights than me, i don't see how you can say i have the same rights.
> 
> ...


i find that all quite fair, i think it's just you being salty having to deal with strict laws when it comes to people living outside of the union


----------



## Burai-ha (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> a belgian citizen can travel visa free to around 165 countries over the world, i never said anything about a passport but was talking about travelling visa free. French people can visit 184 countries and belgian people can visit 185 countries visa free. Just looked it up so how is that more then a Belgian citizen can ?



Well, visa free travelling is based on reciprocal agreements between different countries. The european union itself cannot make agreements on behalf of every european country.
Maybe I made a mistake about France and Belgium, but that was not my point. If a Belgian citizen can travel visa free in more countries than a french citizen, what does being in the union have to do with that?
Each country has its own agreements. Greece has less, Belgium and France have more, for example.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

Burai-ha said:


> Well, visa free travelling is based on reciprocal agreements between different countries. The european union itself cannot make agreements on behalf of every european country.
> Maybe I made a mistake about France and Belgium, but that was not my point. If a Belgian citizen can travel visa free in more countries than a french citizen, what does being in the union have to do with that?
> Each country has its agreements. Greece has less, Belgium and France have more, for example.


Most union countries because of being in the union can travel visa free all over the world because of trade deals the union has with those countries so you automatically benefit from those deals the union has in place with those countries. Ofcourse it depends on certain countries having more deals then others with certain countries but the union has atleast deals with around 160 countries over the world so every union citizen can freely travel without a visa to those 160 countries. France and Belgium have extra deals so that's why you can visit 184 countries and i can do 185 but if we wouldn't be in the union that number would be way less. Travelling freely without a visa to 184/185 countries is a huge benefit wich i don't want to lose anytime soon.


----------



## Burai-ha (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Most union countries because of being in the union can travel visa free all over the world because of trade deals the union has with those countries so you automatically benefit from those deals the union has in place with those countries. Ofcourse it depends on certain countries having more deals then others with certain countries but the union has atleast deals with around 160 countries over the world so every union citizen can freely travel without a visa to those 160 countries. France and Belgium have extra deals so that's why you can visit 184 countries and i can do 185 but if we wouldn't be in the union that number would be way less



I don't think the United Kingdom passport is going to become weaker, though. All those deals that the EU has probably won't be denied to the UK.
I think this is the main issue with passports, we will see how it's going to evolve: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-eu-commission-france-schengen-a8595991.html


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

Burai-ha said:


> I don't think the United Kingdom passport is going to become weaker, though. All those deals that the EU has probably won't be denied to the UK.
> I think this is the main issue with passports, we will see how it's going to evolve: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-eu-commission-france-schengen-a8595991.html


well the deal that the UK has with the union and got approved makes it so like the UK never even left the union. Not a lot has changed


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> a belgian citizen can travel visa free to around 165 countries over the world, i never said anything about a passport but was talking about travelling visa free. French people can visit 184 countries and belgian people can visit 185 countries visa free. Just looked it up so how is that more then a Belgian citizen can ?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...





kumikochan said:


> a belgian citizen can travel visa free to around 165 countries over the world, i never said anything about a passport but was talking about travelling visa free. French people can visit 184 countries and belgian people can visit 185 countries visa free. Just looked it up so how is that more then a Belgian citizen can ?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



where's these strict laws when it comes to people living outside of the Union when their partner is a EU citizen, I think you don't know the meaning of the word fair.

I think you'll find a Brit can travel visa free to more countires than a Belgian citizen, nothing to do with being a EU citizen.

that reminds me when I went to Greece the Brits didn't even need to go thru immigration, they opened a door and let 100s of Brits thru , we just had to show the outside of the passport and everyone else had to go thru immigration.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> where's these strict laws when it comes to people living outside of the Union when their partner is a EU citizen, I think you don't know the meaning of the word fair.
> 
> I think you'll find a Brit can travel visa free to more countires than a Belgian citizen, nothing to do with being a EU citizen.
> 
> that reminds me when I went to Greece the Brits didn't even need to go thru immigration, they opened a door and let 100s of Brits thru , we just had to show the outside of the passport and everyone else had to go thru immigration.


186, hmmmm doesn't sound that much more to me. Sure that will decline soon when the brexit finally happens  Like i already explained, out of those 186 countries 150 or so are thanks to deals the union has with certain countries. You basically leaving the union will decline that number by a lot and you'll have to strike new deals as a country outside of the union before you'll benefit of that again. Also you going to Greece had nothing to do with you being a brit but you being a Union member


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> 186, hmmmm doesn't sound that much more to me. Sure that will decline soon when the brexit finally happens  Like i already explained, out of those 186 countries 150 or so are thanks to deals the union has with certain countries. You basically leaving the union will decline that number by a lot and you'll have to strike new deals as a country outside of the union before you'll benefit of that again.



i doubt it, like I said no problem in Greece .
being a EU citizen doesn't get you any more  benefits , citizenship thank god is out of the hands of the EU.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 17, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> i doubt it, like I said no problem in Greece .
> being a EU citizen doesn't get you any more  benefits , citizenship thank god is out of the hands of the EU.


You're wrong, you're still a union member. You travelling freely to those countries is because you being a union member. As soon as you leave the union on that day it won't be that simple anymore


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> You're wrong, you're still a union member. You travelling freely to those countries is because you being a union member. As soon as you leave the union on that day it won't be that simple anymore



I doubt there are any countries I couldn't travel visa free to with my British passport once we leave the union. and anyway you need a visa for certain countires even if you are from a certain Eu country.

like the Brits need a visa for Tukey, I was going to book a holiday in Turkey but becuase of the lack of time I didn't bother and went to Spain instead.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Nov 17, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> I'm gonna be flat out honest here. I think it's actually a great thing that you've chosen to leave the EU. The more I learn about it as an organization the less Im fond of it. It's like a bunch of countries faking friendliness in the interest of playing nice to create an aristocracy. It's a big ass political circle jerk. The UK will be fine. She's a tough lass and been around the block a time or two.



I was scrolling down while reading your post and was honestly waiting for the American flag. I can't tell if you're just uninformed, or if you actually know about the effects of being in the EU and are very, very evil for some reason.

The EU is not perfect but there are no viable reasons to leave, especially when EU membership is incredibly desirable to so many other countries out there. It has political and economic benefits to every member. Perhaps not enough even, but it's still something to work on rather than abandon. Claiming that leaving 'allows us to take control' over anything is incredibly stupid and arrogant. Farage and his idiots talk about leaving the EU analogously to gaining independence from an invading state, and it is a completely disrespectful comparison used to promote b******t propaganda. We entered willingly, got a bit bored and started dreaming 'bout the good old days that actually were not better. We are not inherently 'above' anything the EU is 'forcing' us to do. Sure we'll definitely survive, but we will also definitely be worse off because of an utterly senseless decision


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 17, 2018)

Lucifer666 said:


> We entered willingly,



no back in 1973 we voted to join the EEC not what we have now.


----------



## brickmii82 (Nov 18, 2018)

Lucifer666 said:


> I was scrolling down while reading your post and was honestly waiting for the American flag. I can't tell if you're just uninformed, or if you actually know about the effects of being in the EU and are very, very evil for some reason.
> 
> The EU is not perfect but there are no viable reasons to leave, especially when EU membership is incredibly desirable to so many other countries out there. It has political and economic benefits to every member. Perhaps not enough even, but it's still something to work on rather than abandon. Claiming that leaving 'allows us to take control' over anything is incredibly stupid and arrogant. Farage and his idiots talk about leaving the EU analogously to gaining independence from an invading state, and it is a completely disrespectful comparison used to promote b******t propaganda. We entered willingly, got a bit bored and started dreaming 'bout the good old days that actually were not better. We are not inherently 'above' anything the EU is 'forcing' us to do. Sure we'll definitely survive, but we will also definitely be worse off because of an utterly senseless decision


Evil or uninformed ... that leaves a great deal of room for a civil dialogue. I was gonna write a long post with links and counter-points, but after that, nah. For all that EU promise of equality, you sure threw out that American stereotype like it was just fine. But that's ok, enjoy your soapbox.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Nov 18, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> I was gonna write a long post with links and counter-points



but you didn't. post I quoted was months back



brickmii82 said:


> For all that EU promise of equality, you sure threw out that American stereotype like it was just fine.



There is no correlation between these things. Making a joke about someone from a country that operates as though the world is only comprised of its 50 states and nothing else not knowing about EU dynamics hardly constitutes a systematic human rights issue.

I am sorry you found my hot take on Americans and their understanding of how things work outside of the border offensive, it really was just banter and if you won't take the joke then I will heartily apologise.


----------



## Phenj (Nov 18, 2018)

>Brexit
>Future of the UK

Choose one.


----------



## smf (Nov 18, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> It's not hard to do better than the Euroland. In fact, congratulations, you already do. Of course, if even your opposition is clueless and loves austerity as much as Osborne, you're going to fail, so start questioning economic dogma that doesn't fit the real world.



None of the things you list had anything to do with the EU & won't change after we leave, especially if the euro sceptics take over the government. Rees Mog becoming chancellor will make Osbourne look like a dream.

We live in such a divided country and it was only the EU forcing us to protect the interests of the minority. Without that stabilising influence we're going to have some real rocky times ahead of us. Rees Mog has said we'll be past that in about 50 years. The old leave voters who were scared by hate filled propaganda won't be alive to see it, leaving the young who mostly voted to remain the task of rejoining the EU.



Burai-ha said:


> I don't think the United Kingdom passport is going to become weaker, though. All those deals that the EU has probably won't be denied to the UK.



It won't be the leaving the EU which will make it harder. It's the hostile environment for foreigners.

You can't expect to run a campaign of "stop foreigners coming here and abusing _OUR_ country" and then expect other countries to roll over.

I still don't get how they are going to reduce immigration without destroying the economy and our ability to do trade deals with other countries. India for example are really annoyed with us taking university fees for Indian students and then forcing them to leave the country on graduation day. That is one of the countries that leavers go on about as being important in the future. Expect huge numbers of Indian migrants coming here if we do a trade deal with them.

The UK economy has benefited hugely from immigrants and will suffer for their loss.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> no back in 1973 we voted to join the EEC not what we have now.



Is it the EU forcing us to protect the environment or human rights which upset you? Or is it foreigners coming here and contributing to our economy?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

smf said:


> Is it the EU forcing us to protect the environment or human rights which upset you? Or is it foreigners coming here and contributing to our economy?



human rights, you mean the low lifes that May tried to deport but couldn't because of their 'human rights'  yet these same courts do F*ck all for law abiding British citizens when it comes to their human rights and a right to a family life.

google 'spouse visa refused' where are these peoples human rights ? they have to rely on the British courts.

my wife   was a 'foreigner' even thou shes a British citizen now, she contributed a lot paying the higher rate of tax working as a A&E doctor. Foreigners from out side the EU have to contribute to the economy as they can't claim most benefits until they have ILR. while EU foreigners can almost instantly  and having possibily contributed  little or even nothing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 18, 2018)

While I have seen plenty of fun and games with the spousal visa/immigration stuff, and would absolutely want it looked at, the "EU peeps have more" thing seems potentially more like you want the other EU countries to up their game. If the other EU countries hold things to similar standards then if you made it there then then no great sense have redundant/duplicate tests. At this point I don't know if any of the other member states have something of a rubber stamp/open door policy, either practically or theoretically, and lack the time to go looking (given I have heard of those random churches in rural parts of the UK that end up doing hundreds of marriages for a bit of cash under the table I would like to believe I would have heard if Portugal or Bavaria was a disproportionately highly represented in all this).


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> While I have seen plenty of fun and games with the spousal visa/immigration stuff, and would absolutely want it looked at, the "EU peeps have more" thing seems potentially more like you want the other EU countries to up their game. If the other EU countries hold things to similar standards then if you made it there then then no great sense have redundant/duplicate tests. At this point I don't know if any of the other member states have something of a rubber stamp/open door policy, either practically or theoretically, and lack the time to go looking (given I have heard of those random churches in rural parts of the UK that end up doing hundreds of marriages for a bit of cash under the table I would like to believe I would have heard if Portugal or Bavaria was a disproportionately highly represented in all this).



your right about the fake marriages and like I said an EU citizen has a virtual right to a Family permit while a British citizen has to prove their relationship is genuine.

you cannot have 2 systems, it's crazy,  EU citizens should have to prove their relationship is genuine to end farces like this

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/508895/parish-vicar-conveyor-belt-sham-marriages


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> your right about the fake marriages and like I said an EU citizen has a virtual right to a Family permit while a British citizen has to prove their relationship is genuine.
> 
> you cannot have 2 systems, it's crazy,  EU citizens should have to prove their relationship is genuine to end farces like this
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/508895/parish-vicar-conveyor-belt-sham-marriages


again, your wife wasn't a citizen from the union. Ofcourse a union citizen does have more rights then a non union member when it comes to union countries. How many times do i have to keep telling you that your comparison doesn't make sense at all !!!! If i marry another union citizen we can freely move in with each other but if i marry a person outside of the union i would have to deal with the same problems you just described wich is perfectly normal and fair. Ofcourse marriage between union citizen is gonna be different compared to marrying someone outside of the union. I really fail to grasp how you cannot grasp union citizens having more rights then non union citizens.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> again, your wife wasn't a citizen from the union. Ofcourse a union citizen does have more rights then a non union member when it comes to union countries. How many times do i have to keep telling you that your comparison doesn't make sense at all !!!!



and if a EU citizen marries someone from outside Europe, are they a EU citizen ? 

of course not. it's pretty simple to understand

I don't know why you keep talking about my wife, the fact is the British partner sponsors their partner, the same way a EU citizen in the UK sponsors their partner.

the fact is the EU citizen has more rights  than a British citizen in the UK.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> and if a EU citizen marries someone from outside Europe, are they a EU citizen ?
> 
> of course not. it's pretty simple to understand
> 
> ...


Ofcourse not, immigration is a bitch when you marry someone out of the union and that is perfectly normal. If you married someone from the union ofcourse different rules would apply since union members do have more rights in union countries. If that wasn't normal then i could just marry like an American girl and without me being American immediatly expect the same benefits as an American has ? Ofcourse not, that doesn't even make sense


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

no it is not a bitch if you moved to the UK and married someone from out side the EU. as a EU citizen in the UK you virtually have a legal right to bring your partner to the UK.
While it can be a bitch for a British citizen to bring a partner from outside the EU. 
you can exercise your treaty rights in the UK , while you cannot exercise your treaty rights in your own country, why the Fock not ?


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> no it is not a bitch if you moved to the UK and married someone from out side the EU. as a EU citizen in the UK you virtually have a legal right to bring your partner to the UK.
> While it can be a bitch for a British citizen to bring a partner from outside the EU.
> you can exercise your treaty rights in the UK , while you cannot exercise your treaty rights in your own country, why the Fock not ?


You keep saying british citizen but you always were a union citizen and still are a union citizen till the brexit finally is signed and over with. It's as much as a bitch for you as for any other union citizen when it comes to marriage with someone outside of the union. That's how the world works buddy.


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 18, 2018)

Summer is almost here, very hot and a lot of mosquitoes. I'd like if my country joined EU right now, but please put it somewhere without harsh winters or things could get pretty bad.

Honestly though. Either enforce an alternative to democracy or respect the will of the people. This "issue" is long decided. Being part of the "union" warmongers and climate terrorists is a very bad deal and I respect the people of UK for the decision. Leave NATO while you're at it. But your country is still going to shit. The desert people takeover is close and your climate will remain bad, all that (may) remain are the old buildings.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 18, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Summer is almost here, very hot and a lot of mosquitoes. I'd like if my country joined EU right now, but please put it somewhere without harsh winters or things could get pretty bad.
> 
> Honestly though. Either enforce an alternative to democracy or respect the will of the people. This "issue" is long decided. Being part of the "union" warmongers and climate terrorists is a very bad deal and I respect the people of UK for the decision. Leave NATO while you're at it. But your country is still going to shit. The desert people takeover is close and your climate will remain bad, all that (may) remain are the old buildings.


War mongers and climate terrorists ? Excuse me ?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> You keep saying british citizen but you always were a union citizen and still are a union citizen till the brexit finally is signed and over with. It's as much as a bitch for you as for any other union citizen when it comes to marriage with someone outside of the union. That's how the world works buddy.




https://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/

_If a citizen is living in their home EU member state and has not worked in other EU member state, then this Directive does not apply.  All movement of non-EU family members into the home state is governed by national law.
_
so if I want the same rights as you would have in the UK,  I have to go and live in another country for months. this is a joke. 

We are all EU citizens,  but you have more rights if you are living in another  EU country, thats crazy.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 18, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> https://eumovement.wordpress.com/directive-200438ec/
> 
> _If a citizen is living in their home EU member state and has not worked in other EU member state, then this Directive does not apply.  All movement of non-EU family members into the home state is governed by national law.
> _
> ...


I think you need to read it clearly. This has to do with travelling up to 90 days. It has nothing to do with living in another union country. Only when working in that other country you can move there basically and apply for citizenship but if you don't apply then you have to leave every 90 days


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 18, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> War mongers


For their support of NATO. Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc, all against the locals will. Specially Libya. Don't really have time to explain the rest.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> I think you need to read it clearly. This has to do with travelling up to 90 days. It has nothing to do with living in another union country




no your wrong, it's about the right of free movement for citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens’_Rights_Directive

nothing to do with 90 days of travel. 

*It gives EEA citizens the right of free movement and residence across the European Economic Area,*


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 18, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> For their support of NATO. Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc, all against the locals will. Specially Libya. Don't really have time to explain the rest.


Eum you mean the NATO and it's not against the will of all the people but only against some wich usually are the bad ones plus what did you mean with climate terrorists ?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> no your wrong, it's about the right of free movement for citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA)
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens’_Rights_Directive
> 
> ...


It does,
Copied from your own link :
-If a citizen is living in their home EU member state and has not worked in other EU member state, then this Directive does not apply.  All movement of non-EU family members into the home state is governed by national law.
-Easy right to stay for up to 90 days if so desired.  EU citizens and their non-EU family can work if desired in this period, or play.
-Easy right to stay longer if the EU citizen is working, is a student, or has medical insurance and is self sufficient ( Can only stay longer if you have a full time job in another country wich also means you pay taxes to that country ur working in)

And then regarding people outside of the union

There is no requirement that non-EU family members have previously been resident in the EU.   An EU citizen and family members can move from outside the EU to an EU country (but not directly to the EU citizen’s home country!) on the basis of this Directive
Family members must be travelling with or joining the EU citizen, in which case they have the same free movement rights as the EU citizen.  They do not, in general, have an independent right of free movement to new places.
So if you don't work in another country only up to 90 days is allowed
I still don't see the problem


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 18, 2018)

bodefuceta said:


> Summer is almost here, very hot and a lot of mosquitoes. I'd like if my country joined EU right now, but please put it somewhere without harsh winters or things could get pretty bad.
> 
> Honestly though. Either enforce an alternative to democracy or respect the will of the people. This "issue" is long decided. Being part of the "union" warmongers and climate terrorists is a very bad deal and I respect the people of UK for the decision. Leave NATO while you're at it. But your country is still going to shit. The desert people takeover is close and your climate will remain bad, all that (may) remain are the old buildings.



mate, I think you could do with Nato in your country.

_*Brazil has nearly 60,000 murders a year – more than some warzones – and boasts 21 of the world’s 50 most dangerous cities

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-is-on-course-to-be-most-crime-ridden-games/

*_


----------



## bodefuceta (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> mate, I think you could do with Nato in your country.
> 
> _*Brazil has nearly 60,000 murders a year – more than some warzones – and boasts 21 of the world’s 50 most dangerous cities
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...s-is-on-course-to-be-most-crime-ridden-games/*_


That is precisely what happens when a country follows all of UN's agendas for decades, and isn't some globalists lebensraum.


----------



## smf (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> human rights, you mean the low lifes that May tried to deport but couldn't because of their 'human rights'



I wasn't particularly thinking of that one, because it should still be impossible to deport them once we have left the EU. There is a UN treaty that prevents you deporting someone to a country where they face death or torture. I am pretty sure none of our politicians will want to end up in the hague.

Why would you support deporting someone who would face death or torture, who hasn't been arrested, charged or found guilty of a crime?

What I think is sad is that people gave up rights because they thought they could abuse foreigners and those foreigners will still have the same rights.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> yet these same courts do F*ck all for law abiding British citizens when it comes to their human rights and a right to a family life. google 'spouse visa refused' where are these peoples human rights ? they have to rely on the British courts.



The first point of call is the British courts, they apply the UK and EU law. It's only if they apply it incorrectly that the ECJ overturn it.

The UK government are always messing with peoples human rights, in my opinion it's better that we have the EU to turn to than discard it. It appears you want to cut off your nose to spite your face.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> my wife   was a 'foreigner' even thou shes a British citizen now, she contributed a lot paying the higher rate of tax working as a A&E doctor.



Maybe not in a post brexit UK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-foreign-doctors-british-nhs-eu-a7341256.html

Not that the Junior doctors we're training will want to stay.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> Foreigners from out side the EU have to contribute to the economy as they can't claim most benefits until they have ILR. while EU foreigners can almost instantly  and having possibily contributed  little or even nothing.



EU freedom of movement doesn't require us to take people who can't support themselves, The UK government chose to do that. The statistics show that the majority of EU citizens actually support themselves and contribute to the economy.

If you say it's unfair that EU citizens can easily come here, but not people from the rest of the world. Then sure, I'd love for their to be a global free movement of people, so we can all move to where we want to live and work.



bodefuceta said:


> Honestly though. Either enforce an alternative to democracy or respect the will of the people.



The will of which people? Less than half the population of the UK voted to leave. Anyone under 18 didn't get a chance to vote, UK citizens that had lived outside the UK too long were denied the vote (even though they may have paid tax their entire working life and will be seriously affected by the result of the vote). Leave won by 1.2%, people dying and people gaining the vote will have eroded that lead by the time we actually leave.

I certainly agree that we should enforce democracy. But don't even begin to suggest that the way the referendum was run has any part in a democracy. All we want is a fair vote based on truth and not out and out lies (as Mr Banks has already admitted to).

I'm pretty sure democracy gives us the chance to change our minds as new information becomes available, as our priorities change and as people die and new people gain the vote. Anyone suggesting we should never have another referendum about EU membership is against democracy.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> We are all EU citizens,  but you have more rights if you are living in another  EU country, thats crazy.



There are always anomalies. EU Mobile roaming rules mean that phoning another EU country is cheaper when you are on holiday than when you're at home.

If we break from the EU like the hard liners want, then inflation and job losses are going to cripple the country. Not having to put up with a few weird rules won't help & the uk government will more than make up for it with enough weird rules of their own.

The lack of free movement of people is going to increase crime as people who are trying to escape a life of crime will find it harder to do so as they will will find it harder to make a new life in another country.


----------



## Nightwish (Nov 19, 2018)

smf said:


> None of the things you list had anything to do with the EU


Lol. And this doesn't either, I'm sure. The common market demands subservience to multinational business interests tout court, from macro and employment to city zoning. You could keep hiding the post-modernist head in the sand and blame the deplorable precariat for not believing in a 10 year promise of economic reform that even the Sun President himself failed to make happen in an extremely modest fashion. Or the European Pillar of Social Rights (while this is not an issue, mind), or whatever the next empty promise is that is used as a distraction from the next depoliticization round of enshrining ordoliberalism. 
Realistically, we can either choose a collapse that leads to nationalist fascism or multi-lateral sovereignty, and the former have a pretty good head start.
Someone mentioned the climate, yet another empty, unfulfilled promise where we closed nuclear power plants to open coal ones, or closed local social services and transportation so that people have to drive 17km by car to see the doctor - very clean climate reforms, sure.

Of course, again, this has little to do with May's "plan", because she has none. Or with the Labour's "rolling debt window" "plan" that would prevent them from doing anything - Harold Wilson's great legacy still going strong.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 19, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> Lol. And this doesn't either, I'm sure. The common market demands subservience to multinational business interests tout court, from macro and employment to city zoning. You could keep hiding the post-modernist head in the sand and blame the deplorable precariat for not believing in a 10 year promise of economic reform that even the Sun President himself failed to make happen in an extremely modest fashion. Or the European Pillar of Social Rights (while this is not an issue, mind), or whatever the next empty promise is that is used as a distraction from the next depoliticization round of enshrining ordoliberalism.
> Realistically, we can either choose a collapse that leads to nationalist fascism or multi-lateral sovereignty, and the former have a pretty good head start.
> Someone mentioned the climate, yet another empty, unfulfilled promise where we closed nuclear power plants to open coal ones, or closed local social services and transportation so that people have to drive 17km by car to see the doctor - very clean climate reforms, sure.
> 
> Of course, again, this has little to do with May's "plan", because she has none. Or with the Labour's "rolling debt window" "plan" that would prevent them from doing anything - Harold Wilson's great legacy still going strong.


You do know that Belgium is gonna be nuclear free by 2025 and we've been coal plant free for a long time now. That sounds pretty clean to me


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 19, 2018)

So I was learning about the "backstop" agreement which has apparently been agreed ( https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46188790 ). Can't seem to find a current full agreed text so going with the older draft versions and some analysis/excerpts from people that do have something
https://www.europa-nu.nl/9353000/d/OntwerpVerdragBrexit.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf

Not impressed at all and I can't see anybody really being impressed with it -- nobody that wanted to remain, nobody that wanted a bit more autonomy a la Norway or Switzerland, nobody that wanted to become just another country... 
It is not even one foot in-one foot out but... some (notably one Mr Rees-Mogg) were using the phrase vassal state and I am inclined to agree, except for there being good historical examples of vassal states with better deals. Lengths of time various tax laws would apply, foreign policy being beholden to the EU to a fairly serious extent, various lengths of time EU courts would have jurisdiction (laws being the current ones than ones as they apply at the time, UK having no say in then current laws), Northern Ireland's results (all goods going to NI would have to comply with EU law lest they go into the ROI and onwards, things leaving it for the rest of the UK would just have to do UK law) making a quasi border on the Irish sea. There would be checks on things leaving the UK which might well make Kent something of a car park but that you can kind of deal with/expect), what some would say are anti competitive clauses as far being able to make superior trade deals with non EU states)

This is all supposed to be the negotiated compromise as well.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Nov 19, 2018)

Just one example of many that I have, if the UK stays in the EU Organization then they'll also be blocked from accessing millions of videos on the web specifically YouTube, and being able to visualize websites and use apps because they're part of the EU.

As long as a country is in the EU, these companies block EU-IPs altogether whether people like it or not.

Now, don't confuse EU with Europe because by what YouTube Creators said on Twitter, it looks as though it "only" applies to countries affiliated with the EU.

There's of course far more serious and important matters that the EU is guilty of but this is a good example.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> EU states


That's one of the things the EU wants to enforce and do. Rename European countries as "states" of the EU and have their EU Empire and EU Army.

Isn't that just wonderful!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Clydefrosch said:


> stabbing the eu in the back



Hotel California's song puts it perfectly:

"You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!"

That's why it's so hard for European countries to leave the EU but a breeze to enter the EU.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 19, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> You do know that Belgium is gonna be nuclear free by 2025 and we've been coal plant free for a long time now. That sounds pretty clean to me



how are they going to generate electricity ?


----------



## smf (Nov 19, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> The common market demands subservience to multinational business interests tout court,



They hide it by suing multinationals. They are interested in business, because without it there is no money. But not at the expense of the people, because that is a dumb move. However it is what motivated the leave vote, the rich elite that fund your conspiracy theories so they can make even more money by subjugating you. You bought it hook line and sinker.



FAST6191 said:


> This is all supposed to be the negotiated compromise as well.



If you're a leaver who chants "two world wars and one world cup" and thinks that because you won a referendum that the world owes you a living, then sure it's a bit of a disappointment. If you are attached to reality then you'll realise that it couldn't have been any better and in fact it could have been much worse.

I do think that it should be public knowledge what you voted. Anyone who wants hard brexit should be at the back of the queue when we get ration books.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> how are they going to generate electricity ?



https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/belgium-pledges-to-ditch-nuclear-power-by-2025/



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Hotel California's song puts it perfectly:
> 
> "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!"
> 
> That's why it's so hard for European countries to leave the EU but a breeze to enter the EU.



That is your own racist prejudice. If you look at the facts on how long it takes to join, how many changes (stop abusing your own people etc) that you have to go through, you'd realise how hard it is to join. Just look at Turkey, they started the process nearly 20 years ago but have now decided that abusing their own people was too important to them.

We can easily leave the EU, the problem is that less than half the population wanted to plunge us back into the dark ages and there are still some grown ups that are trying to save the country from the traitor leave voters.

If we want to starve and have renewed fighting in Ireland then we could leave in March. The people brainwashing the leave voters are already setup with money off shore in case things go bad in the UK. What about you?

While https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/poli...-six-possible-brexit-shitshows-20181119179543 is satire, it covers the situation ahead pretty well.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> how are they going to generate electricity ?


half of the country already has solar panels, it's becoming almost impossible to see houses without solar panels these days. half of the country is already filled with windmills and that will only increase future wise. Green electricity companies in Belgium like Lampiris and Eneco are massively investing in solar power plants and windmill parks


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 19, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> half of the country already has solar panels, it's becoming almost impossible to see houses without solar panels these days. half of the country is already filled with windmills and that will only increase future wise. Green electricity companies in Belgium like Lampiris and Eneco are massively investing in solar power plants and windmill parks



well it's good to see *Official data released by the UK government has shown that wind and solar power generation outstripped nuclear in the fourth quarter, for the very first time. *from the link posted by smf
(thanks smf)

well I'm not sure if we save much  with the Solar Panels we have on our roof (not enough sunshine) but I'm one of the 800,0000 

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/social-housing-solar-uk-mb0190/


----------



## smf (Nov 19, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> half of the country is already filled with windmills and that will only increase future wise.



Unfortunately the crooked tories are only allowing off shore windmills in the uk, which are considerably less efficient than on shore. There will be a fiddle going on there somewhere.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> well it's good to see *Official data released by the UK government has shown that wind and solar power generation outstripped nuclear in the fourth quarter, for the very first time. *from the link posted by smf
> (thanks smf)
> 
> well I'm not sure if we save much  with the Solar Panels we have on our roof (not enough sunshine) but I'm one of the 800,0000
> ...


Well the weather here is kinda the same tho since Belgium and the UK are that close 2 each other but good that ur one of the few then.


----------



## smf (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> well I'm not sure if we save much  with the Solar Panels we have on our roof (not enough sunshine) but I'm one of the 800,0000
> 
> https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/social-housing-solar-uk-mb0190/



Unfortunately the solar pv industry is essentially full of criminals.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rable-energy-savings-manchester-a8565851.html

I had a couple of chancers come round to me and I made them backup all the promises they made, when they tried to run the figures it wasn't self funding like they claimed.

Solar panels are great if you have a lot of sunshine or live in an area where it's hard to get electricity. Brexit won't change the former, but it may change the later.

At the moment solar is dead in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...olar-power-subsidies-costs-battery-technology

The increased production of solar power was due to the heat wave, which is kinda difficult to plan for ("we've solved the uk power problem, all we have to do is pray for a heat wave for 12 months of the year and god will make it happen").


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 19, 2018)

smf said:


> Unfortunately the solar pv industry is essentially full of criminals.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rable-energy-savings-manchester-a8565851.html
> 
> ...



on a council estate near me in sunnyless Salford at least half  of the houses have Solar panels and to be honest I'm wondering if they work all . I think they said we would save £10 a week on electric but I'm still spending the same amount on electricity each month. This has to have been a scam funded by the tax payer.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> on a council estate near me in sunnyless Salford at least half  of the houses have Solar panels and to be honest I'm wondering if they work all . I think they said we would save £10 a week on electric but I'm still spending the same amount on electricity each month. This has to have been a scam funded by the tax payer.


well that's not how it works here atleast. Could be a scam if ur still paying the same amount.


----------



## smf (Nov 19, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> on a council estate near me in sunnyless Salford at least half  of the houses have Solar panels and to be honest I'm wondering if they work all . I think they said we would save £10 a week on electric but I'm still spending the same amount on electricity each month. This has to have been a scam funded by the tax payer.



If you went with one of the companies that installed it for free, then the only saving you'll get is if you use electricity when it's really sunny as they take all the subsidies and "fit" payments.

Most people don't use much during the day, which is why using it to power an immersion heater was popular when you weren't allowed batteries. But I don't think the free providers will have fitted one for you and if you have gas then it's not reducing your electricity bill, but your gas bill. It's possible you haven't noticed because energy has been going up, you are potentially slightly better off.

You can have problems with meters, especially if the fitters were cowboys.

It would be hard for me to save £10 a week on electricity, I don't use that much. My energy bills don't work in the scammers dodgy equations.

You always want a standard house. Freehold, not leasehold. Gas central heating, not electricity. 230v lighting, not 12v. I'll consider solar pv when all the downsides have been been worked out, probably another 10 years.

People should have learned their lesson with diesel cars. A similar scam turned up in electric cars, with people buying hybrid cars because they got a subsidy and then never used the electric part of it. They'll have to prise my petrol manual gearbox car from my dead hands.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 20, 2018)

smf said:


> If you're a leaver who chants "two world wars and one world cup" and thinks that because you won a referendum that the world owes you a living, then sure it's a bit of a disappointment. If you are attached to reality then you'll realise that it couldn't have been any better and in fact it could have been much worse.
> 
> I do think that it should be public knowledge what you voted. Anyone who wants hard brexit should be at the back of the queue when we get ration books.



I am going to have to disagree. Clauses in that I would expect any nation to go with possibly outside of a full military defeat, timelines that make little sense and just nothing I would expect a top tier rich country negotiating the deal of a lifetime to allow to slip in there.

It absolutely could have been worse and I fully expect the EU to lord its power and position over the UK, and try to bring some serious weight to bear, to get some timelines pushed up, monies sent a bit higher, maybe some other more favourable things. Unless you were going more cynical and more along the lines of "with the people they put in charge, or hamstrung, then what did you expect?" then I will give you that one. Otherwise I was expecting something like a copy paste of Norway or Switzerland with some of the necessary specifics hammered out.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I am going to have to disagree. Clauses in that I would expect any nation to go with possibly outside of a full military defeat, timelines that make little sense and just nothing I would expect a top tier rich country negotiating the deal of a lifetime to allow to slip in there.
> 
> It absolutely could have been worse and I fully expect the EU to lord its power and position over the UK, and try to bring some serious weight to bear, to get some timelines pushed up, monies sent a bit higher, maybe some other more favourable things. Unless you were going more cynical and more along the lines of "with the people they put in charge, or hamstrung, then what did you expect?" then I will give you that one. Otherwise I was expecting something like a copy paste of Norway or Switzerland with some of the necessary specifics hammered out.


The thing is people keep expecting the same deal as with Norway and Switzerland but the thing is those countries never screwed the Union one over while the UK did. They also never left the union since they weren't a part of it and signed a treaty with the union. What the UK did is basically screwing the union one over so ofcourse they're not gonna get the same deal as Norway and Switzerland. What do people expect ? That somebody is screwing you over and you're gonna give them presents on top of it. The world doesn't work that way and that's for the better


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 20, 2018)

The Brexit debacle shows that democracy does not work.

The existence of the referendum happened by chance (or due to miscalculation of the former prime minister)
even though it is the will of the majority of the people

People then voted for a party that does not want Brexit (they voted "strategically")

Therefore, I predict there will be another election in which, AGAIN, a party which does not really want Brexit will do even worse.
I feel bad for the British, but then again, this nonsense also goes on in other countries.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 20, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> The thing is people keep expecting the same deal as with Norway and Switzerland but the thing is those countries never screwed the Union one over while the UK did. They also never left the union since they weren't a part of it and signed a treaty with the union. What the UK did is basically screwing the union one over so ofcourse they're not gonna get the same deal as Norway and Switzerland. What do people expect ? That somebody is screwing you over and you're gonna give them presents on top of it. The world doesn't work that way and that's for the better




in what ways  has the UK screwed the EU ?

we had a democratic vote and voted out, if anyone screwed any one over its the unelected Brussels Bureaucrats that forced Ireland to vote again on the Lisbon treaty. where's the democracy there ?


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 20, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> in what ways  has the UK screwed the EU ?
> 
> we had a democratic vote and voted out, if anyone screwed any one over its the unelected Brussels Bureaucrats that forced Ireland to vote again on the Lisbon treaty. where's the democracy there ?


are you being sarcastic ? In what way did the UK screw the Union over ? Well i would advise you to learn a bit about all the extra costs that have to be done and so much more that i can't even write here.
Well in the end all i can say is this.
The UK is more dependent on the EU than vice versa given that 12.6% of UK GDP is linked to
exports to the EU wheareas only 3.1% of GDP among the other 27 Member States is linked
to exports to the UK. The EU is the destination of 44% of UK exports and 60% of total UK trade
is covered by EU membership and the preferential access it grants to 53 markets outside the EU. If
TTIP and other current negotiations succeed this could increase to 85%.
The only plausible model for a relationship where the UK could gain substantial access to the Single Market without requiring freedom of movement is the bilateral EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). However, according to
the UK Treasury, such an agreement would result in a 6.2% smaller UK GDP in 2031, a £4,300 decrease in household income and an annual £36 billion “black hole” in tax receipts, equivalent to a little more than one third of the NHS budget.
Upon looking at and assessing a variety of reports and analyses, it is clear that a British exit from the EU will carry with it large economic and political costs. It will also reduce the UK’s standing in the world and its ability to influence the international events that affect it the most. It is also evident that none of the alternative relations with the EU presents itself as more advantageous compared to EU membership. For these reasons we can conclude that leaving the EU will be a historical mistake of paramount proportions, one whose effects will be felt sharply in the short term and have a lasting impact on the UK for many years to come


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 20, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> are you being sarcastic ? In what way did the UK screw the Union over ? Well i would advise you to learn a bit about all the extra costs that have to be done and so much more that i can't even write here.
> Well in the end all i can say is this.
> The UK is more dependent on the EU than vice versa given that 12.6% of UK GDP is linked to
> exports to the EU wheareas only 3.1% of GDP among the other 27 Member States is linked
> ...



predictions for 2031 ! who knows whats going to happen next year never-mind in 13years time.

you mention the UK is more dependent on the EU. but the UK is one of the main contributors to the EU budget, the top few countries will soon have to pay more. we buy more from the EU than we sell to the EU.


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 20, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> predictions for 2031 ! who knows whats going to happen next year never-mind in 13years time.
> 
> you mention the UK is more dependent on the EU. but the UK is one of the main contributors to the EU budget, the top few countries will soon have to pay more. we buy more from the EU than we sell to the EU.


Eum No, ur forgetting who is funding billions of euro's for research done by researchers in the UK, those same top researchers from the UK regarding medicine, technology and so forth just all anounced they will be immigrating to the Union because they can't finish their research without the EU funding them so in order to do research they'll all be moving the union.
Here's a great link showing how the Union funds countless of projects in the UK well atleast till the brexit happens
https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/business-funding/eu-funding/examples_en
Then taken from another link and that's just from 2013
''The UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the EU. Over the period 2007 – 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion out of a total of €107 billion expenditure on research, development and innovation in EU Member States, associated and third countries. This represents the fourth largest share in the EU.

In terms of funding awarded on a competitive basis in the period 2007 – 2013 (Framework Programme 7), the UK was the second largest recipient after Germany, securing €6.9 billion out of a total of €55.4 billion.''
Also https://digitalpublications.parliam.../2018/9/28/European-Union-funding-in-Scotland
Also more funds and money from the union towards the UK that will soon be gone https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/egcl-page/european-union-funding|
And a smaller view on the matter regarding funding from the union
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...uk-receives-most-eu-funding-and-how-does-thi/
Also one of the reason the UK was always complaining was that some get more then others but that's because those countries that have less are way ahead in time compared to other countries wich need additional extra funding to grow and make the union as a whole stronger. A union only works if every country is equal and not one more powerful than the other.


----------



## smf (Nov 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> It absolutely could have been worse and I fully expect the EU to lord its power and position over the UK,



I'm confused, is it only the UK that is allowed to lord it's power and position?

We entered the EU after our Empire failed, we didn't give back all the countries we stole but it was ok because we were all involved in the same union. Now we want to leave that union and the EU quite rightly think we shouldn't have our cake and eat it.

If we gave back northern ireland and gibralta and were happy for our industry to collapse and supermarket shelves to have less food available then we could leave the EU in march easily. Giving in to the tantrum of the leave voters would be a mistake.



FAST6191 said:


> Otherwise I was expecting something like a copy paste of Norway or Switzerland with some of the necessary specifics hammered out.



Norway has ECJ jurisdiction and free movement of people, there is no way Theresa "Go Home Vans/Hostile Environment" May would accept that.

But that is the future trading relationship which hasn't been agreed yet. This deal is just about withdrawing. The racist ERG led by Rees Mog wants shot of the EU as quickly as possible.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> its the unelected Brussels Bureaucrats



You understand that they are appointed by people that we have elected and so it's no different to the house of lords, prime minister & civil servants, where they aren't directly elected but are still democratically appointed?

Any time you make the point about EU being non democratic, you reveal your own prejudice and ignorance. The EU is a far better democracy than the UK banana republic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 20, 2018)

smf said:


> I'm confused, is it only the UK that is allowed to lord it's power and position?
> 
> We entered the EU after our Empire failed, we didn't give back all the countries we stole but it was ok because we were all involved in the same union. Now we want to leave that union and the EU quite rightly think we shouldn't have our cake and eat it.
> 
> ...



Of course not. I expect everybody to play to their strengths and try to use their particular leverages to get a deal that probably satisfies nobody's fantasy but works for everybody. This appears almost like capitulation from a bunch of incompetents.

Gibralta is a weird place so I will contemplate that one later but "give back" Northern Ireland? What is there to "give back"? If it was a recently acquired territory or something then possibly but this is a centuries settled bit of land, some seriously dubious stuff done to do it said centuries agao but I don't see a good reason to uproot things there. To forgo it without its own individual request and negotiations would be untenable from where I sit.

ECJ jurisdiction and free movement are indeed perks for the EU and if the UK is to forgo such things, or go for a lesser version, then I expect it to have a cost somewhere else in the negotiation. I am not seeing that kind of dealing though.



kumikochan said:


> The thing is people keep expecting the same deal as with Norway and Switzerland but the thing is those countries never screwed the Union one over while the UK did. They also never left the union since they weren't a part of it and signed a treaty with the union. What the UK did is basically screwing the union one over so ofcourse they're not gonna get the same deal as Norway and Switzerland. What do people expect ? That somebody is screwing you over and you're gonna give them presents on top of it. The world doesn't work that way and that's for the better
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know if I would amalgamate things that much and go a bit more specific where possible -- I am sure the Lithuanian banking industry is not going to feel the hurt as much as the German car one and thus straight talks of overall percentages is a bit weak.
Still if we take the numbers you have there then the UK is a bit of a do nothing/zero sum entity or even drag for the EU as far as what it adds to what it gets and is thus a net bonus in many respects for the EU for the UK to leave. In that case as it is the UK's own foot to shoot itself in ... and I quite agree that international shipping is not yet such that it is viable to blank or deal with the EU as an outside entity, and that banking/services is largely only done in the UK because English and easy access to the EU. That said it is probably not that clear cut and there are many industries that will face a fair few issues if the UK suddenly becomes far more expensive or non viable to deal with (probably up there in the margins they operate under and had calculated as a serious factor into their growth and income), said industries also have a fair bit of clout within their own countries.
To that end I would have to ask is the UK really screwing over the EU? Probably going to screw over itself, definitely if the quality of diplomats/negotiators on display thus far is anything to go by, and I fully expect the remaining EU parties to play hardball but to say screwing over is something I could see questioned.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 20, 2018)

smf said:


> You understand that they are appointed by people that we have elected and so it's no different to the house of lords, prime minister & civil servants, where they aren't directly elected but are still democratically appointed?
> 
> Any time you make the point about EU being non democratic, you reveal your own prejudice and ignorance. The EU is a far better democracy than the UK banana republic.



EU leaders setting an example to us all, your right it's my  prejudice and ignorance . I thought Merkel was the most powerful leader in Europe and what Merkel wants she gets.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 20, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Of course not. I expect everybody to play to their strengths and try to use their particular leverages to get a deal that probably satisfies nobody's fantasy but works for everybody. This appears almost like capitulation from a bunch of incompetents.
> 
> Gibralta is a weird place so I will contemplate that one later but "give back" Northern Ireland? What is there to "give back"? If it was a recently acquired territory or something then possibly but this is a centuries settled bit of land, some seriously dubious stuff done to do it said centuries agao but I don't see a good reason to uproot things there. To forgo it without its own individual request and negotiations would be untenable from where I sit.
> 
> ...


Ofcourse it is going to screw itself over more then it is going to screw over the union but in a lot of ways it did also screw over the union. Maybe less then screwing itself over but one of the major things the UK screwed the union over is Self image and that is a mighty thing when it comes to business.


----------



## smf (Nov 21, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> EU leaders setting an example to us all, your right it's my  prejudice and ignorance . I thought Merkel was the most powerful leader in Europe and what Merkel wants she gets.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted



If you think that about Merkel then I was right. I don't see any difference in the behaviour there between Cameron and Merkel. It's xenophobia to judge a foreigner bad for something but letting one of your own get away with it.

What they described sounded pretty democratic. Personally I think democracy is overrated, because stupid people get a chance to vote. But all people are stupid anyway as they are making decisions without enough information, it just means democracy gives really dumb results (like brexit and trump) & for democracy to work you have to have the option to reverse all your decisions.

I do think there should be a way of making people pay for the decisions they make & people who disagree shouldn't have to pay.



FAST6191 said:


> Of course not. I expect everybody to play to their strengths and try to use their particular leverages to get a deal that probably satisfies nobody's fantasy but works for everybody. This appears almost like capitulation from a bunch of incompetents.



What do you expect when the leavers fantasy is so far removed from a reality that would work for anyone? If Rees Mog didn't have the backup of his inheritance, plus the parliamentary salary and pension, then he wouldn't be so cavalier with the fortunes of the country. He has nothing to lose, but all the people who listen to him have everything to lose.

Nigel Farage has already been covering his arse by saying that he never promised that the UK would be better off, so even if we end up having to burn poor people for fuel then he would say it was worth it.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 21, 2018)

smf said:


> If you think that about Merkel then I was right. I don't see any difference in the behaviour there between Cameron and Merkel. It's xenophobia to judge a foreigner bad for something but letting one of your own get away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect when the leavers fantasy is so far removed from a reality that would work for anyone? If Rees Mog didn't have the backup of his inheritance, plus the parliamentary salary and pension, then he wouldn't be so cavalier with the fortunes of the country. He has nothing to lose, but all the people who listen to him have everything to lose.



over half of the EU's GDP came from 3 states (germany, UK and France) you really think the 11 states that have less than a 1% share have any real power or say ?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 21, 2018)

I hear the current draft is to still have to follow EU rules but not be on the EU council because the PM has been sabotaging Brexit so that another referendum will be held and people will vote to stay like she wanted.


----------



## smf (Nov 21, 2018)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> over half of the EU's GDP came from 3 states (germany, UK and France) you really think the 11 states that have less than a 1% share have any real power or say ?



They get the same vote. You could argue that countries will do side deals to support something they normally wouldn't in return for something in return. Well that is politics & democracy is never black and white.

We struggled with support because we never contributed our fair share to the EU. We are number 8 with 110 euros. When you take into account the money we saved by sharing the cost of regulatory bodies, customs & border control, it didn't really cost us anything to be in the EU. The "£350 million a week" becoming available when we leave was a lie to con people to vote leave, the people saying it didn't believe it.



Snugglevixen said:


> I hear the current draft is to still have to follow EU rules but not be on the EU council because the PM has been sabotaging Brexit so that another referendum will be held and people will vote to stay like she wanted.



I'm not convinced. She's a proper racist and is desperate to get rid of the ECJ because she has a grudge with them. Brexit is a clusterfuck, you don't need to sabotage it. There is no other way you can implement it in a way that would leave the conservatives electable & ultimately that is her top priority. The EU has given us more compromises than they should have, there aren't any more coming. So if you don't like what Theresa May is proposing, then you better start planning how you'll survive in a no deal scenario.

The only good deal on the table is to remain. It's a pity some people are so ideological about there hatred of foreigners that they can't accept it.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-as-deluded-about-brexit-as-jacob-rees-mogg/


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Nov 21, 2018)

well from the BBC news, France wants the right to fish in UK waters, Spain threatens to vote no and Merkel is angry at the nitpicking at this late stage. who's going to give in. My moneys on Merkel getting her way.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 22, 2018)

smf said:


> The only good deal on the table is to remain. It's a pity some people are so ideological about there hatred of foreigners that they can't accept it.


To remain means giving up more and more sovereignty. It's the frog in hot water method. Long time ago people who warned there would be a debt union or a EU army were called conspiracy theorists etc. Well, look at the EU politicians now.

I don't get why low or no tariffs have to be linked to free movement of people. It had worked fine in the European Economic Union. Unless one sides wants to protect certain industries, both sides benefit from low or no tariffs.

The British don't have to buy German cars or French wine. After this attempted rape, the British should leave without a deal and remember the blackmailing.


----------



## Nightwish (Nov 22, 2018)

smf said:


> They hide it by suing multinationals. They are interested in business, because without it there is no money.


That is not how money works, at all. There's money as long as people need to use it to pay taxes.
But I know what you mean, without "job creators" there is no economy because they'll all stuff it in their mattress, but again, guess what, a sovereign state can do as Japan and create as much as it needs. Hell, that's what the ECB is doing, violating the treaties for the good of the capitalit, so the farce marches on.
As to lawsuits, yeah, poor banks, poor VW, poor cum-cum investors, poor companies that pay foreign wages to local workers, poor privatized monopolies, poor speculative property owners, they're bleeding so much, that's why the need the ISDS and the ECJ to protect them.



> But not at the expense of the people, because that is a dumb move.


Not at the expense of the people, who can no longer afford homes, have left some counties en masse, have crumbling infrastructure, poor health services and higher priced necessities. If only they didn't live above their means, not that we're racist.
The European treaties mandate permanent austerity (if nothing else because no economy can grow as much as Germany's, who uses the Euro as an excuse to pay shit wages), the eurozone much more so. How anyone finds this progressive or sustainable is beyond me.



> However it is what motivated the leave vote, the rich elite that fund your conspiracy theories so they can make even more money by subjugating you. You bought it hook line and sinker.


I don't live in the UK and little money to visit, but nice try. The only ones making money by subjugating me are banks, specifically German ones who, by the way, are still broke from their very responsible investments made possible by politicians who somehow end up working there - such coincidences in this world.
I'd love to hear your theories on the capitalists sponsoring MMT, because I'd like a laugh.


----------



## emigre (Dec 12, 2018)

The vote's been delayed and now there's a vote of confidence in May by her own party. The situation is finding new and amazing ways to make this more a shitshow than previously thought.

Edit: she won it 200 to 117. At least we won't have another leadership contest.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 12, 2018)

Being a party whip these days must be a horrible job.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 13, 2018)

Sorry for not following closely, but is there still an option to not brexit?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 13, 2018)

I don't think anybody knows. If you were thinking more like a convention on something where people could just refuse to sign and come back in a few years. No.

Officially the negotiation period was entered into some time back (note that this is not the same as the referendum -- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39143978 ), the end of which the member state exits regardless. This is what the looming deadline thing is all about as that is rapidly approaching (March next year*), and what this talk about the backstop agreement (the agreement that would go into place if the deadline passes and no final deal is agreed upon) concerns -- https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...an-Brexit-backstop-meaning-backstop-explained .

*of course we also have Christmas and February break before then, and Easter right after, which means about a month less than that as far as time goes. https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/
Christmas 	20 December 2018 	7 January 2019
February 	14 February 2019 	25 February 2019

I don't know offhand what it would take as far as member state votes to prolong talks if that would be the will of the other EU states. While there is talk of a bit of leeway I am not seeing much of anything as far as prolonging talks.

I believe the final deal also has to be voted on by parliament as well (there was a court decision on what needs to go there some years ago, as well as one to even trigger article 50). https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-postpones-brexit-deal-meaningful-vote-eu

Said article 50 also saw some challenges a little while back https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...enge-to-brexit-and-what-is-westminsters-view/

There are no elections likely to happen before the upcoming deadline, and the thing emigre mentioned about the leadership contest (the negotiations, for something generally considered to one of the defining events of probably this and several decades to come, are going poorly to say the least and is pleasing basically nobody at this point**, which meant the prime minister risked being ousted by her own party) means we are not likely to see anything happen on that front. https://www.ft.com/content/eaeac920-feb1-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521
I don't know what would happen if somehow there was an election (one that happened before the deadline) with a party elected that would want to stop it and what they could do. Such a thing would be purely hypothetical though and is not really worth considering.

**there was no official plan at the time of the vote, none by the time article 50 was triggered, and we have still not seen one that everybody agrees on (the first thing to come close to anything was the widely maligned Chequers deal, one that any fool could have seen would have been, in July 2018). Generally speaking there are three camps, though obviously there are people within any one of them that have things they will and will not live with as far as laws, N. Ireland-ROI border, finance....
Said camps are hard, soft and remain. Hard essentially wants to be another country in the world (some like the phrase clean break), soft would probably see the UK remain with one foot in the EU (similar to how Switzerland, Norway and such by virtue of being able to be driven to from everywhere else in Europe reckon it is worth being able to trade easily with them and no have to worry about competing standards, tariffs and such) and remain would likely seek to cancel the lot and go from there. Generally the European negotiators favour the latter two options, UK members of parliament and other figures don't have enough of a majority to do anything outright (for a leadership confidence contest to be called, and for that many votes against them, is not a trivial thing). In case you were curious the US, or at least Trump ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46352463 ), would appear to be more in the hard camp (talks of trade deals say they want the UK out of the EU single market, something only likely to happen with the hard scenario) and that is no small thing -- https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindu...ade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21 .

So I would go with it would take something quite special for it to be outright stopped (and at this point it would likely have to come from the EU side of things). Anybody's guess as to what goes as far as a backstop deal and whether there will be one in place, much less a final deal. If nothing is agreed upon and there is no backstop it becomes a situation known as no-deal. https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-13/how-will-no-deal-brexit-affect-me/


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 13, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry for not following closely, but is there still an option to not brexit?


The ECJ thinks so, all that's needed is UK's request. This opinion is not legally binding, however, since it's possible some argument could turn the court's decision around in an actual trial, and, in that potential trial, the UK would have to show some actual competence on the matter, for once.

Meanwhile, surprising every neo-liberal parrot, the economy keeps doing fine.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 22, 2018)

Looks as though Brexit won't succeed but doesn't mean that'll be the end of it. Far from it.


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 22, 2018)

We need to Brexit. Too much bad blood. British people will never accept a German-dominated United States Of Europe. Thats what Druncker and Verhofstainedteeth wants. The common market... Brilliant idea. This, to throw our sovereignity away is too much. Too many people have died. Too many memories.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 22, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Looks as though Brexit won't succeed but doesn't mean that'll be the end of it. Far from it.


That really should be the end of it until someone actually creates a thorough and detailed proposal on how to exit the EU without massive disruption in every facet of the country.  Brexit was poorly-conceived from the start and I'm amazed that any majority voted in favor of it to begin with.  Any issues the UK has with the EU can be solved within the EU, the only person in the world that is guaranteed to benefit from a sloppy transistion away from it and a weakened EU/UK as a result is named Vladimir.

Not that I'm taking the moral high ground here, the US voted in Trump around the same time, but the point is that both countries need to fight against their isolationist tendencies.  That type of mentality isn't going to fix anything in 2018, only cause more problems by allowing Russia/China/Saudi Arabia take more power and prestige on the world stage.


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 22, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That really should be the end of it until someone actually creates a thorough and detailed proposal on how to exit the EU without massive disruption in every facet of the country.  Brexit was poorly-conceived from the start and I'm amazed that any majority voted in favor of it to begin with.  Any issues the UK has with the EU can be solved within the EU, the only person in the world that is guaranteed to benefit from a sloppy transistion away from it and a weakened EU/UK as a result is named Vladimir.



Wrong. The EU was weakening us. Look at how manufacturing has been decimated in the UK. Firms moving abroad to other EU countries.

A combination of socialist governents led to this.

Issues CANNOT be solved within the EU. Look at what happens when a member state tries to leave! I rest my case.

The whole EU stinks to high heaven. Rotten to the core, however noble it`s original aims were.

We have the last socialist Labour government to thank for this. Signing the Lisbon treaty. Letting far more benefactors in rather than contributors.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> Wrong. The EU was weakening us. Look at how manufacturing has been decimated in the UK. Firms moving abroad to other EU countries.


Manufacturing moves wherever labor is cheapest, that has nothing to do with the EU in particular.  I'm sure the UK relies on a lot of foreign manufacturing to fill all their needs with or without the EU.



mattytrog said:


> A combination of socialist governents led to this.


Well if you have a socialist government then you should have plenty of worker's rights, or at least have the power to negotiate them.  Which means you should be guaranteed a job/healthcare either way.



mattytrog said:


> Issues CANNOT be solved within the EU. Look at what happens when a member state tries to leave! I rest my case.


Like I said, Brexit was ill-conceived.  All the people who led the campaign quit in shame _after _it passed.  The failure in planning and forethought on their part is what led to Brexit's ultimate failure, not anything the EU did.



mattytrog said:


> The whole EU stinks to high heaven. Rotten to the core, however noble it`s original aims were.
> 
> We have the last socialist Labour government to thank for this. Signing the Lisbon treaty. Letting far more benefactors in rather than contributors.


Well I'm not going to say your opinions are invalid or anything, you surely know more in-depth about this than I.  Like I said, if someone releases a more thought-out proposal or study, then perhaps Brexit can be a reality in the future.  All they had this go around was the idea, no plan to back it.


----------



## pustal (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> Wrong. The EU was weakening us. Look at how manufacturing has been decimated in the UK. Firms moving abroad to other EU countries.
> 
> A combination of socialist governents led to this.
> 
> ...



Manufacturing is being decimated everywhere and replace by automated processes in China. That is the same stuff that the Trump campain scream to all corners. Manufacturing jobs will not be coming back and even if you plan is to have smart factories, nothing beats the proximity economy already set on China, let alone if you cut trade agreements with your neighbors.


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 22, 2018)

*Manufacturing moves wherever labor is cheapest, that has nothing to do with the EU in particular.  I'm sure the UK relies on a lot of foreign manufacturing to fill all their needs with or without the EU.*
Fair point. But it brings us back to why is labour so expensive here?

*Well if you have a socialist government then you should have plenty of worker's rights, or at least have the power to negotiate them.  Which means you should be guaranteed a job/healthcare either way.*
The problem with socialism is it creates a false boom and sooner or later, a massive bust. Workers rights mean little when the company has already moved to elsewhere in the EU. And yes. Our NHS. Vastly overloaded. I was going to say underfunded. But it is only overloaded due to the health tourists that come here. Walk into any hospital near me. I live near two fair sized cities. The amount of foreign people there is quite alarming.


*Like I said, Brexit was ill-conceived.  All the people who led the campaign quit in shame after it passed  The failure in planning and forethought on their part is what led to Brexit's ultimate failure, not anything the EU did.*
The remainers think it was ill-conceived giving the people a vote in the first place. However, they now want ANOTHER "peoples vote". The irony!

*Well I'm not going to say your opinions are invalid or anything, you surely know more in-depth about this than I.  Like I said, if someone releases a more thought-out proposal or study, then perhaps Brexit can be a reality in the future.  All they had this go around was the idea, no plan to back it.*
I`m just an ordinary middle-aged male who has seen the country change beyond recognition in living memory. The USA wouldn`t be ruled by a foreign power. Neither will the British.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



pustal said:


> Manufacturing is being decimated everywhere and replace by automated processes in China. That is the same stuff that the Trump campain scream to all corners. Manufacturing jobs will not be coming back and even if you plan is to have smart factories, nothing beats the proximity economy already set on China, let alone if you cut trade agreements with your neighbors.


The whole point is we are completely powerless to do anything about it. If we wanted to place tariffs on certain parts of Chinese manufacturing to give Britain a fighting chance, in the EU, we CANNOT do it. One size does NOT fit all.

And as net contributors to the project for the last 40 years, we are getting very little out of it. We dance to Merkel and Macrons tune. That just is no longer acceptable to people in this country, regardless what the MSM and remain sheeple would have you believe.

And there is all this about a "Poeples Vote". We had one on June 23rd 2016.

People want pride and faith in their country. That is worth far more to the silent majority than a few quid in kickbacks to the EU commission.

The British people know Brexit would be unsettling, maybe make them worse off financially, at least initially. Yet  in spite of this, voted leave.

The silent majority know it is a price worth paying. We aren`t going to be goose-stepping the EU flag around Nuremberg while building a conscription army to fight Russia on Juncker / Merkel / Macron / Verhofstadt / Van Rumpoy`s say-so.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> The USA wouldn`t be ruled by a foreign power. Neither will the British.


Well...we're ruled by Chinese manufacturing and our president is ruled by Russia/Saudis, so probably not quite the same path you guys want to take.


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 22, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well...we're ruled by Chinese manufacturing and our president is ruled by Russia/Saudis, so probably not quite the same path you guys want to take.


We all choose to be ruled my Chinese manufacturing.

The Saudis have far too much power. I know it is all oil money but apart from that, take their crude away, they are still stuck in the 7th century. Their Wahhabist cult and their greed has stifled this world and made us completely dependent on them. That's OPEC for you ..

Money controls sadly. Relying on the middle East is never going to end well.


----------



## Captain_N (Dec 22, 2018)

Looks like world war 3 is the only thing that will change things. People get to comfy and lazy. The UK and the US are not the same countries that won WWII. to many lazy fucks on welfare and government assistance. Only the ones that cant work because of some disability or age should be on government assistance..

I have not kept up on what UK is been up to with this vote. I do know All of Europe is feeling the heat when they accept millions of immigrants and thought their was no consequences. Germany will tell you it was a mistake.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> We all choose to be ruled my Chinese manufacturing.
> 
> The Saudis have far too much power. I know it is all oil money but apart from that, take their crude away, they are still stuck in the 7th century. Their Wahhabist cult and their greed has stifled this world and made us completely dependent on them. That's OPEC for you ..
> 
> Money controls sadly. Relying on the middle East is never going to end well.


Do we, though? When the majority of products purchased for resale by the major retailers are of Chinese origin, I don't know how much of a choice there really is


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> Wrong. The EU was weakening us. Look at how manufacturing has been decimated in the UK. Firms moving abroad to other EU countries.



Other than a few electronics firms moving to/setting up dual setups in Hungary I would probably lay most of that at China's feet, and to a slightly lesser extent Japan's not long before it (especially on the cars and consumer goods front), and not aided by many years of mismanagement/stagnation*. Similarly a lot of that was bulk manufacturing -- specialist stuff exists in one form or another up and down the UK, however that mostly needs highly specialist people and not without a radical rethink could mimic the factories and workshops of old -- everybody, everywhere is all about increasing automation (give or take the Tesla publicity stunt). India (and Bangladesh and Pakistan) also play some role at various points but theirs is more likely to be more prominent in the future, especially as they seem to be upping their game where China is not.

Said loss of bulk manufacturing in a phrased fucked a lot of shit up and the chickens are now really coming home to roost as a result (any middle/working class that does not fit in with finance, retail or the NHS... yeah, even more so if you don't have the discipline to be self employed). In the same timeframe Germany and Scandinavia/the Nordic countries seemed to be getting something done.

*blame Thatcher is a bit of a played out thing at this point but her mishandling of North Sea gas and oil (Norway was gifted the same bounty and is in a very different position today -- have a look at their sovereign wealth fund), nailing the coal mines (while it is it popular to look at the Welsh and their villages I do also have to mention supply side stuff -- all those nice furnaces in Sheffield using a cheap supply and companies all over making stuff that went back into it) and promoting finance in London (the phrase big bang is not so well remembered today but might be a choice search) to mask things a bit (especially when combined with North Sea stuff) paints a rather nice picture of a self own there, and few would call her and her party of the time Europhiles (though it is complicated as most things are https://journals.openedition.org/osb/1778 ). Said car and consumer goods stuff were not in a great position -- compare things from the same timeframe and tell me there was any way Rover could have taken on Nissan and Toyota (and all the others) as is, whether the city failed to invest/extend credit is a different matter (returns on heavy industry are often solid but not great and you can then invest in far more sexy things to get higher ones). Vauxhall has been something of a zombie brand/just a name since the 20s, the history of Ford UK (or Ford of Britain) being even more fun, everything else is too niche, too big (thinking Leyland's various incarnations) or too luxury. Don't know what to think of her treatment of unions as far as this sort of thing goes. For consumer stuff we might look at the nature of patents and the military -- the UK does a lot of stuff and buys off a lot of stuff as well, don't have the greatest sources for this one but you could likely make a case for the walkman to have been a UK invention, and if you want to look at some of the stuff BT research (then still something of a state owned/directed affair) was doing in the 70s through 90s then you might be quite surprised (I went to school with many of their kids, knowing what I know now about what their parents were doing**, or indeed taught me the fundamentals of,... damn).

**I variously still spend some time in some of the same places. Now as they are all dying, retiring, downsizing... I am getting all their books, tools, personal projects and such as it arrives at auction, estate sales and car boot sales. Many with those skills today are valuable, and not as a legacy "they are the only one that knows how to keep it running" sort of thing, decades ago it would have been bleeding edge.


----------



## pustal (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> *Manufacturing moves wherever labor is cheapest, that has nothing to do with the EU in particular.  I'm sure the UK relies on a lot of foreign manufacturing to fill all their needs with or without the EU.*
> Fair point. But it brings us back to why is labour so expensive here?
> 
> *Well if you have a socialist government then you should have plenty of worker's rights, or at least have the power to negotiate them.  Which means you should be guaranteed a job/healthcare either way.*
> ...



And what fighting stance do you have with the tarifs? None. You'd need to basically recreate China outside China to compete with China, you'd need to recreate a whole industry, from top to bottom, from Shenzhen to Yiwu. Even with tarifs, they win any competition and, like we saw in the US, the ones that got hurt were the companies in the West that required production in China to stay afloat.

Furthermore, what put China so further ahead in the competition was being the only single country to have a long term strategy for economy (as it has for alost everything else). The EU provides what is most close to a long term startegy that you see in the West, else individual countries are only planning a few years ahead, as been seen in the UK with the utter lack of planning in this matter.

Not only that, as the scale difference between one or several tribalist economies VS a big united economy makes all the difference between actually providing any possibility of competition and being insignificant to China.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 22, 2018)

pustal said:


> And what fighting stance do you have with the tarifs? None. You'd need to basically recreate China outside China to compete with China, you'd need to recreate a whole industry, from top to bottom, from Shenzhen to Yiwu. Even with tarifs, they win any competition and, like we saw in the US, the ones that got hurt were the companies in the West that required production in China to stay afloat.
> 
> Furthermore, what put China so further ahead in the competition was being the only single country to have a long term strategy for economy (as it has for alost everything else). The EU provides what is most close to a long term startegy that you see in the West, else individual countries are only planning a few years ahead, as been seen in the UK with the utter lack of planning in this matter.
> 
> Not only that, as the scale difference between one or several tribalist economies VS a big united economy makes all the difference between actually providing any possibility of competition and being insignificant to China.



While that is some of the picture* the masses of land, masses of absolutely broke people (average wage today is not awful, though is posing a massive problem for China, but 20 something years ago it was abysmal) and the ability to sacrifice said people as well as the environment is more what China is about (and to a slightly lesser extent so is India). As I like walking about without my eyes and lungs burning and ability to go on holiday a few times a year, call 9-5 a long day and not have to worry about getting fired for no reason (or indeed in general as far as being able to continue eating), don't have to worry about my house being bulldozed to make room (of which there is none), to say nothing of being 66 million people clinging to a small wet rock in the Atlantic, then that is more where the disadvantage comes there.

*I should also note several times when wandering around and doing interviews in the UK it becomes apparent that the main buyers are China -- they seem to recognise that they can't do anything nice in house and so all their complex machinery that has to last or blow up... yeah. Such a thing is also where I see India et all rising up; I have already had several friends and associates make their way over to that part of the world (surprisingly including Pakistan) and it seems the days of "when we had the molten metal the mix was right" (as opposed to the finished article where it matters) to help them up their game.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 22, 2018)

pustal said:


> Furthermore, what put China so further ahead in the competition was being the only single country to have a long term strategy for economy (as it has for alost everything else).


Well. That, and virtually no emissions regulation and a minimum wage that's basically on the floor


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 22, 2018)

*Furthermore, what put China so further ahead in the competition was being the only single country to have a long term strategy for economy (as it has for alost everything else). The EU provides what is most close to a long term startegy that you see in the West, else individual countries are only planning a few years ahead, as been seen in the UK with the utter lack of planning in this matter.

Not only that, as the scale difference between one or several tribalist economies VS a big united economy makes all the difference between actually providing any possibility of competition and being insignificant to China.*

With tariffs, China would not be at such an advantage. Doesn`t get simpler than that really. Of course there is less infractructure here to mass-produce stuff. But it evens things up. It is only corporate greed that keeps China growing. Their economy is like a parasitic twin which is getting most of the blood supply at the expense of others.

China is a giant communist monster. Paying people peanuts, not locking itself into pointless environmental treaties... Poor worker rights etc etc. To even things up, we need to address this.

Now... How? Do we get rid of workers rights / minimum wage etc here? No. That would never be allowed. We made a rod for our own back with that one.
Which leaves us with tariffs.

This country has little worth of itself as it is. British society is fractured down the middle more or less. We need to pull together as a nation and work together.

If you don`t do this in China, you get shot.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> Now... How? Do we get rid of workers rights / minimum wage etc here? No. That would never be allowed. We made a rod for our own back with that one.
> Which leaves us with tariffs.


Tariffs don't do anything if you put them in place and then keep consuming Chinese goods at the same rate.  If anything your country ends up paying more to cover the tariffs.


----------



## notimp (Dec 22, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> We all choose to be ruled my Chinese manufacturing.
> 
> The Saudis have far too much power. I know it is all oil money but apart from that, take their crude away, they are still stuck in the 7th century. Their Wahhabist cult and their greed has stifled this world and made us completely dependent on them. That's OPEC for you ..
> 
> Money controls sadly. Relying on the middle East is never going to end well.


Why is labor cheap in countries with low wages, no social benefits, no environmental standards, no other work available?

Why cant we - just theoretically - take away oil as a factor in the middle east?

Why cant we just not rely on oil?

Ehem.

Also - the US just got energy independant. And now tries to flog their fracking gas all over the world. Update your stories, mate. Thats what the whole "nationalist movement" in the US is about. Essentially "eff the rest of the world". And now spoken like you are talking to a three year old: "America first, america first".





Relying on US gas is bad. So bad. So terrible. Why can't we like, not buy it from them? (International relations.)


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 22, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Tariffs don't do anything if you put them in place and then keep consuming Chinese goods at the same rate.  If anything your country ends up paying more to cover the tariffs.





notimp said:


> Why is labor cheap in countries with low wages, no social benefits, no environmental standards, no other work available?
> 
> Why cant we - just theoretically - take away oil as a factor in the middle east?
> 
> Ehem.



Maybe you are both right. There isn`t a simple answer sadly.

Anyway, I must get some sleep. I`ve enjoyed this little debate. Thank-you!


----------



## notimp (Dec 22, 2018)

To at least make me less wrong. Amerika got mostly energy independent. On natural gas they are now a net exporter, on oil more than 40% of their imports (largest segment) come from Canada. About 20% from Saudi Arabia.

Trying to break this down in oversimplifications:

Oil = highest energy density stuff there is. For like - for free. Like from the desert. Where people dont need it.

America = protectorate power that make cheap oil happen. First (with the british) by directly being there. Later by controlling all shipping and trade routes. (Much easier.) Result: Oil can only be paid for in US dollars. Thats like - a truly great "deal". Because everybody now needs dollars. (Except for countries with oil. But there we have our great dictator friends. (Corruption.))

Globalization = Hey labor is cheaper elsewhere! Great way to make money: reduce production cost. Great equalizer. Also develops other nations. Actually (industrial revolution) is the only way to develop nations, apparently (make them more wealthy, trickle down economics didnt work  ) - if you dont have natural resources you can sell.

Trade = Basically a field where you can set up win/win relationships. Also, you give your friends a little extra. Because its also power politics.

Global economy = People specialize in stuff. Like china specialized in manufacturing. Issue: China does not "play fair" as in adheres to the western ruleset of trade. Which always was "you be the manufacturer - we'll be the inventor". At first they stole our inventions (industrial espionage), then they simply bought the firms owning them (patents being held also by non conglomerate companies). They developed further.  Now their China is Korea - and the circle goes on.

Isolationism (nationalism) = Works for some countries best. America even. For the next several decades. Doesnt work for others. Also - if you retreat, others will fill the gap (Wait - war is good?  ), so America currently is retreating slowly - while complaining every step of the way, that everyone else cant go with lets say China or Russia (Russia only really being a regional power, but they have natural ressources, China doesnt - but China has investment capital and manufacturing (still cheaper labor).)

Digitalization/Automation = If we bring manufacturing back to western countries, then it will only be temporarily, because costs are so high, that everything that can be will be automated. Also automation, we can then sell to other countries.

Digitalization also is very easy to export, meaning that - as those apps, really do nothing they can operate or at least pay taxes from everywhere. Short story short - all the money is now concentrated in tax havens - not being invested in "jobs".

Limits to growth = We seemingly cant simply bootstrap the next great economy using old models - because if "second world" countries (I believe you call them bricks) do that as well - we'll have resource issues (MAGA works, because America can play isolationist for the next few decades) - or at least so do all the people that already have "the money" like to insist. (National interests aside, which also play a role (what is Japan exactly - f.e.)).

Now the West is partly pushing for green technologies to be the next big thing (while certain corporations, try to elongate their business models for as long as possible), the manufacturer of the world also likes it. Who is missing? The US. All in all despite the "saving the planet" trope - this is really more about what the next economies are going to be and where people can exercise new power dynamics. Nato - and the 800 US milletary bases around the world, while very much needed right now - not so much needed anymore, if the dependency on oil lessens.

They still will be important because of shipping routes - but China is looking into securing those themselves. (Japan doesnt like.)

Why is "securing trade" (800 military bases) arguably a good thing? Because usually the alternative is regional "hot zones" (not temperature  ) - especially in the less developed world - where every son grows up dreaming to be a dictator some time - which makes the entire trade thing - stop. Which also makes manufacturing stop (no one is stockpiling raw material anymore - everything basically runs on a "as its needed" basis, which makes things cheaper).

Thats the world explained in one thread. 

Trying to tax "mobile money" - also a big issue currently. Because the country that says "I am cheaper", gets all the customers. Even in Europe. In fact, that basically was the entire businesmodel of Switzerland for the noteable past. They had mountains, so german tanks couldnt reach.

Most of this explanation relies on international trade logic. If you emphasize other factors (millitary, national elections - dynamics change for a while - but usually not for that long).

Ah - and Great Britain is basically effed. They had two years to come up with a better solution regarding the open market situation in Ireland. And they didnt manage. (Situation here is, that both Scotland and parts of Ireland are economically more "linked" to the EU, than to England - which also their populations noted in the Brexit elections. If they take that away from them - they'll have "regional quarrels" to deal with. They dont like that - so they basically let them have free trade with the EU, which also means, that they have to adhere with EU regulations - in which they now dont have a say anymore. Bravo.

Go Nigel, go Boris.

edit: Also they had a big part of the EUs financial industry. Which now - that they arent part of the EU anymore... Go play American exceptionalism ("We can make our own deals!"), chaps!)

Europe has internal problems, mainly because of the domestic market set up, in general because of multiple crisis though. Us importing the financial crisis from america, us loosing the patents game to the chinese in quite a few fields now, us having an entire continent south of us, we dont want to think about how to deal with, if we look at global warming scenarios, ... Us re-importing "nationalism" from the americans, or russia - we are not quite sure yet... (doesnt solve any of the bigger issues - but people are fed up). Them trying to push "more austerity measures" to make us more competitive (why are the wages so high?) now spectacularly failing in france... We'll deal with it.


----------



## pustal (Dec 23, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> While that is some of the picture* the masses of land, masses of absolutely broke people (average wage today is not awful, though is posing a massive problem for China, but 20 something years ago it was abysmal) and the ability to sacrifice said people as well as the environment is more what China is about (and to a slightly lesser extent so is India). As I like walking about without my eyes and lungs burning and ability to go on holiday a few times a year, call 9-5 a long day and not have to worry about getting fired for no reason (or indeed in general as far as being able to continue eating), don't have to worry about my house being bulldozed to make room (of which there is none), to say nothing of being 66 million people clinging to a small wet rock in the Atlantic, then that is more where the disadvantage comes there.
> 
> *I should also note several times when wandering around and doing interviews in the UK it becomes apparent that the main buyers are China -- they seem to recognise that they can't do anything nice in house and so all their complex machinery that has to last or blow up... yeah. Such a thing is also where I see India et all rising up; I have already had several friends and associates make their way over to that part of the world (surprisingly including Pakistan) and it seems the days of "when we had the molten metal the mix was right" (as opposed to the finished article where it matters) to help them up their game.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well. That, and virtually no emissions regulation and a minimum wage that's basically on the floor



You guys are stuck with an old frame of China. Traditional factories rely on a lot of low wages employees, but things have been changing a lot on recent years, and factories are mostly automated, requiring rather a handful of highly specialized employees to keep the machinery running. They are more efficient and less costly than human employees, even if low payed.

PS: about the environment their bet was to increase fossil fuel consumption to develop an economy and means to be able to develop and replace it with alternative green energy, and so they did it. For years yes it was abysmal, and now they are switching to alternative energy sources. That goes along with the long term planning ahead. In contrast, the rest of the world is still struggling to switch to alternative energies and specially the USA is trying for some reason to go back to coal and fossil fuels, when we reached a point that alternative energies are cheaper, and thanks to China.

I'm no way saying that China is perfect, far from it, specially considering that they are a half-dissimulated dictatorship, but as we are we don't stand a chance in competing, specially if alone.



mattytrog said:


> *Furthermore, what put China so further ahead in the competition was being the only single country to have a long term strategy for economy (as it has for alost everything else). The EU provides what is most close to a long term startegy that you see in the West, else individual countries are only planning a few years ahead, as been seen in the UK with the utter lack of planning in this matter.
> 
> Not only that, as the scale difference between one or several tribalist economies VS a big united economy makes all the difference between actually providing any possibility of competition and being insignificant to China.*
> 
> ...



China is everything but communist unless you are living under a rock over the last few decades. This is no longer the China of Mao, and hasn't been for long, its the China of Xi.

China us self sufficient for once, and a major exporter for the entire world, the UK has no significant impact on it. The US has some, true, but the dependency is mostly the other way around, like I said, where many business can only survive by Chinese manufacturing while Chinese manufacturing has far more clients.

Also, like I said above, you also have a very dated view of what is today's Chinese reality. Machines are replacing men. Fewer people, highly specialized and well payed are replacing armies of people, with lower education and poorly payed. As energy production has and still is massively shifting from environmental damaging resources to renewal energy sources.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 23, 2018)

pustal said:


> You guys are stuck with an old frame of China. Traditional factories rely on a lot of low wages employees, but things have been changing a lot on recent years, and factories are mostly automated, requiring rather a handful of highly specialized employees to keep the machinery running. They are more efficient and less costly than human employees, even if low payed.
> 
> PS: about the environment their bet was to increase fossil fuel consumption to develop an economy and means to be able to develop and replace it with alternative green energy, and so they did it. For years yes it was abysmal, and now they are switching to alternative energy sources. That goes along with the long term planning ahead. In contrast, the rest of the world is still struggling to switch to alternative energies and specially the USA is trying for some reason to go back to coal and fossil fuels, when we reached a point that alternative energies are cheaper, and thanks to China.
> 
> ...




While I might be guilty of a measure of oversimplification I am still going to stand by what I said.

You see in modern foxconn or the smaller guys in China and there are still many humans. Every other one I have seen in the English speaking world or Europe has been far less human heavy, by design and by economic constraint.

Compare something like

to the ones with people in rows of paper suits in China.
I have seen the specialist stuff there too so I am not going to argue it being absent (the very same thing that makes it work in the west also helps in China, maybe not to as great an extent but still enough to note).


said specialists though are still paid often considerably less than their equivalents here.



Automation is very much the future, and China is most certainly leaning into it (the rise of Shenzhen and the average wages there all but demanding it nowadays), and as well as sending people I came up with off to India and its neighbours I have seen many highly trained types head out there, along with the specialist parts they might not have cared to make in house.

As far as China and the environment I don't necessarily begrudge them it, and if the others were not going to lend a hand and properly gift/generate some infrastructure for them then taking it is not without justification (or historical precedent). There is also a difference between switching and switched.

I similarly don't see mei ban fa going away under the reign of winnie the pooh. Not sure what odds I give automation being able to counteract the can they kicked down the road either and bubble they are building (quite literally in the case of some provinces -- all those nice ghost cities set to fall over... going to be fun that one).


----------



## notimp (Dec 23, 2018)

Neh.  US is not trying to go back to fossil.  Just the political part financed by the fossil industry (and friends..  ).

What they are currently doing, is playing the margins. 

This is not universally agreed upon, but the following is how some people see it. 

The US turned up fossil energy production in their own country (pump water and air, and gas in the ground, get the last bits out, build new pipelines from canada), which gives them lets say 50 years of "we really dont need that much from anyone" time - that people not necessarily had in their cards. 

They try to manage china using their companies foreign credit (remember, china - although big, doesnt have that many resources - and their economy is booming right now (/or at least was in the past years)). Remember that oil has to be paid for in USD? So the biggest chinese corporations have huge dollar loans in their books. 

America is also raising interest rates, as pretty much the only big country in the world. So dollar investments in outside US countries become less viable. (Risk vs. benefit.) That way they can - or at least try to control economic development in china.

As far as europe goes, hey - we'd need the new economy right about now. But then if america gets back on board on climate goals, oil is basically less needed, which makes their one "great deal" (oil only in dollars) less good.  But they still protect trade, so they should be good. 

But now they have 50 years of "more or less" energy independence. While f.e. europe is still transitioning. So they start playing power games ("you should really start paying for your secure energy routes more - we'd rather get out of there by tomorrow"). While europe and china try to flip them on "you really ought to pay for those CO2 emissions more" in those next 50 years - we already agreed on that.

America both decides how quickly they want to exit the middle east (they also still want stability (might still mean regional wars)), and they decide when they move back into the climate accord. And they have half a century where they can put their fingers in their ears and play *lalalala* we can do whatever games. 

Now contrast that with Europe trying to keep everything at bay (multiple crisis, populations getting old, us being more pissed about the financial crisis than americans (they had a quicker recovery), migration, austerity, ...), China trying to keep their economy afloat, while growth stagnates. (There is a tendency of people wanting to revolt, when they realize that the big "social movability" ("We are becoming middle class!") stops) - which they try to compensate, because it would mean factories closing down, which you might need in a few years.

While the US is leaning back, playing with their poker chips basically. 

How happy the people are, doesnt matter as much, as long as they dont revolt, btw. Let them watch Fox news, let them have their "be best" Melania hour. Let them fight against immigrant trails thousands of miles away. Let them dismantle their own social security systems... Hey, you dont care...  Let them believe, that their manufacturing jobs are getting back and that their children can still work in coal. For about 40 years. Great. 

All that we can shout about is, that your president is dumb and has no plans for the future. Do you think he cares what happens in half a century?


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 27, 2018)

mattytrog said:


> A combination of socialist governents led to this.


A socialist government would protect workers, create jobs and fund public services while caring little for what debt peddlers parrot, so nope, not at all.



mattytrog said:


> The problem with socialism is it creates a false boom and sooner or later, a massive bust. Workers rights mean little when the company has already moved to elsewhere in the EU.



Unlike the still ongoing GFC? Still, worker's rights mean a lot when you have healthy demand created from fair wages that your competitors want, while also not being able to hold them hostage because the government has a Job Guarantee (there's tons of stuff that needs doing everywhere, starting from basic maintenance to new infrastructure). Harold Wilson put you on the neoliberal path decades ago, is it really that great compared to the New Deal? Shit, Reagan would be a pinko these days if he ruled the same way as he did.



pustal said:


> The EU provides what is most close to a long term startegy that you see in the West


The EU has about as much strategy as May: fuck all, hail financial capital. Where's the growth? Where's the plan to save crumbling countries like Greece and Latvia? What's the plan for the 20% average unemployed youth? How are the climate agreement goals going? What about the ongoing, illegal QE that doesn't fit into the economic basis of those plans? Why does infrastructure like bridges and railway keep crumbling from lack of maintenance?  When can I get a CT scan in a public hospital in less than four months? When does the stupid structural deficit start making any sense? What's the plan to deal with rulers who control the media and censor the internet?
Oh, right, the Euro reforms are just around the corner, for realsies this time, that will solve it. Tough shit, they'll be ousted by May, in the midst of a new financial crisis even the IMF tells you is coming.


----------



## pustal (Dec 27, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> A socialist government would protect workers, create jobs and fund public services while caring little for what debt peddlers parrot, so nope, not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The EU and the international fund is what provided our country a possibility to escape the economic crisis and to have some growth at the moment. Greece GDP is in growth as well. Greece benefited the same lending hand as we had, although with the aggravated issue of smoking it's accounts. Youth unemployed is decreasing in Portugal since 2013. All Europe signed the Paris agreement that implicates legal binding to the goals.

The EU is what has been stopping greater corruption in governments.

I can get a CT scan almost for free any day at a public hospial if it is an urgency. Perhaps you are better off with an US healthcare system where people die for not being able to pay for insulin.

Also what rulers do we have that control the media? You have outlets that have connections to political parties, true, but there is no global sensorship

And yes, Roubini and Rosa warned a possible new crisis, fermented by not enough regulation, specially by the US and impacts of trade wars like the one on China.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 27, 2018)

notimp said:


> While the US is leaning back, playing with their poker chips basically.


I wish man.  Our markets are doing the death wobble, and as mentioned above, Europe's economy as a whole isn't looking too hot either.  It's all tied together of course in obscure ways, but we're probably looking at a near-worldwide recession in 2019 or early 2020 at the latest.  There are several economic 'bubbles' waiting to pop in the US as well, student loan debt being one of them.  Not sure about abroad.


----------



## pustal (Dec 27, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I wish man.  Our markets are doing the death wobble, and as mentioned above, Europe's economy as a whole isn't looking too hot either.  It's all tied together of course in obscure ways, but we're probably looking at a near-worldwide recession in 2019 or early 2020 at the latest.  There are several economic 'bubbles' waiting to pop in the US as well, student loan debt being one of them.  Not sure about abroad.



Abroad the US you have some localized housing bubbles, like in here, in our cities, and generally a lesser buying power, particular among younger people - even if it doesn't crash soon, it'll have a long term effect, as life savings are a thing at risk for future generations. The great economic crisis left a greater disparity between rich and poor, and the middle class is a dying breed, that's why you had the later protests in France recently. All this populism, the same that lead to Brexit, is giving power to ultracapitalists. The same tribalist narrative is the same anti-social narrative and it's helping dividing further the rich and the poor, even if concealed by populism supported by the lower classes. And the greed of the ones actually benefiting from this it's what we'll eventually cause bigger, long-lasting problems in the World economy.


----------



## mattytrog (Dec 27, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> A socialist government would protect workers, create jobs and fund public services while caring little for what debt peddlers parrot, so nope, not at all.



Fund public services? How? Where's the money coming from? Taxes rises? Increasing Business rates?

That's why so many companies have left the UK. They are too high already. So the company leaves UK due to spiralling costs. Workers lose their jobs, government loses all the money they get from that firm. So you have less to fund public services.

They still keep tariff free access to our market thanks to the single market. Customs are not an issue due to the customs Union.

Neoliberal policies have decimated our high streets. Low rates for charity shops, pedestrianisation of town centres loses passing trade.

Yes. Liberalism and socialism has worked out brilliantly for this country thus far.

Workers rights are only good if there is a firm there to work for in the first place.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 27, 2018)

Making town centre (or centres in some cases) streets pedestrian only happened decades and decades ago for most places I have ever been, certainly any kind of big urban centre and I have stayed at reasonable length or repeatedly visited most places of note on that front in the UK. They were fine all through the 90s and early 2000s and I have never seen anybody make a correlation between failures of location and time from making things pedestrian friendly. Anecdotally I would also say most places I have ever seen with motorised side streets fare far worse, and when bus routes are knocked out of those it gets worse still.
I would place more blame at high streets not reacting to supermarkets diversifying, the rise of big box locations in former industrial parks (or in some cases newly constructed out of town retail parks) and also failing to meet the internet, and probably the lack of any cheap/free parking (NCP was a niche thing through the 90s in said same places, today they are ubiquitous). Certainly there are problems with rates (I especially like the thing where they give nice teaser rates and massively jack it up a year or so later) and some other bonehead policies but the overwhelming majority of issues come back to the previous things. Back on the internet look at what is still standing that is not a charity shop or coffee shop and tell me which of those don't do online in a big way? Even those two concepts embrace online quite well, even hairdressers that mainly service their given estate do online.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Wow. Great discussion unfolding. 



> The EU has about as much strategy as May: fuck all, hail financial capital. Where's the growth? Where's the plan to save crumbling countries like Greece and Latvia? What's the plan for the 20% average unemployed youth? How are the climate agreement goals going? What about the ongoing, illegal QE that doesn't fit into the economic basis of those plans? Why does infrastructure like bridges and railway keep crumbling from lack of maintenance? When can I get a CT scan in a public hospital in less than four months? When does the stupid structural deficit start making any sense? What's the plan to deal with rulers who control the media and censor the internet?


Plan to fix Greece and Latvia. There is none. Basically because of Italy and Spain, or because of Germany - depending on how you want to see it.  Have open markets and free money flow, and a global crisis, and no one with any idea how to bootstrap the next economy really - and you have all money ending up in Germany - while the other countries can only get more "competitive" by lowering wages. Ups design mistake?

Or - have Italys and Spains economies on the brink of collapsing as well - and do some basic forcasting on what happens, if you help out Greece and Latvia better. Choose one depending on you political standing. 

The "Greeces economy is growing" argument doesnt fly imho - because you can always wrek a countries GDP, then tell everyone five years down the road, hey, its growing again. The issue is the economical design of the union and everyone knows it.

But - from the "international trade and economics" logics perspective, what the EU does currently makes nothing but sense. It even mitigates the immigration crisis, to have countries in the south really not that well off, but thats cynical as well.

Long story short - no one wants to confront the people with money, because everyone is so afraid of them taking their money and leaving to places like New Zealand, which especially the tech elite is entirely capable of.  Or because that never happend in history ever. Pick one.. 

QE isnt so much illegal, as its something everyone does - because economics doesnt work like they taught you in university.  But you have to look at its effects. It keeps markets stable (if you get it right), at the "cost" of everyone equally, while ideally fostering entrepreneurship (which isnt happening  ) - while prolonging current structures, that might not work for everyone. If you get it right. So you could see that as unfair as well - depending if you have all the money, or you dont..  If you get it wrong - you can destroy your country, or the European union. Also within one monetary union you have to do it following one strategy - that ideally isnt Greeces, or Italys.

But now - Great Britain didnt exactly leave, because they wanted to effectively devalue the pound towards the Euro.  So that made no sense here.

Infrastructure is fine mostly == another infrastructure program is NOT the solution. (State puts money into infrastructure projects - everyone so amazed that they can now have better commerce for free (*look at them paved roads*), that they start investing as well) If it were - people would have done that already.

CT scans - populist argument. Make your doctors prescribe less of them - problem solved. 

When will structural deficit make sense? Never. Its a power politics gambit. The goal always is not having to restart the entire monetary system after yet another crash.  You are selling trust to people that are dumber than you are - but because you do - stuff actually works out. 

How to deal with Orban? - Thats actually more of a question regarding how to deal with outside influence (Russia, China, ...). For the people there - eh, they are effed as well. They voted out democracy. No sympathies there. Make sure it doesnt spread, by telling everyone how dumb they were. Hit international politicians on their fingers, do some power plays. Keep talking to everyone. (Not really that big of a problem either.)

//



> The EU and the international fund is what provided our country a possibility to escape the economic crisis and to have some growth at the moment. Greece GDP is in growth as well. Greece benefited the same lending hand as we had, although with the aggravated issue of smoking it's accounts. Youth unemployed is decreasing in Portugal since 2013. All Europe signed the Paris agreement that implicates legal binding to the goals.


They "keep us afloat" prolonging what is - kind of argument. People already see the economic stagnation - and they dont like it one bit. Setting Greece back onto a growth path wasnt a great feat, Paris wasnt a great feat, unemployment is growing (quick invent some jobs), trying to make france "more like germany" just failed spectacularly... I'm just counting the years until I start voting in right wing governments, really.. 



> The EU is what has been stopping greater corruption in governments.


At the expense of making Brussel the most corrupt place within the EU. No - wrong argument. Right argument is - corruption is actually good. It helps politicians write legal texts, and keeps them in touch with who's popular right now. But dont let it seep into lower levels of bureaucracy, or transaction cost for businesses gets so high, that you kill your economy.

People giving money for legislature is still very much a thing, and even "wanted".

If Jan Philipp Albrecht is too successful at the european stage, quickly - give him a higher paying job in the german government, where he can count cows, or something.. 

edit: Oh, forgot the "censor the internet" thing. Every politician. In the world. Wants to control the populus. End of argument. (Chinas "new facebook based social control" is just "polling people 2.0"  )


----------



## Costello (Dec 28, 2018)

I say let them leave the EU, no second referendum.
Five or ten years from now - see are they better off? If so, then everyone's happy.

But if they're worse off then let them have another vote about rejoining the EU. If they can acknowledge their mistake then I would say welcome home. We still love you UK.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Costello said:


> I say let them leave the EU, no second referendum.
> Five or ten years from now - see are they better off? If so, then everyone's happy.
> 
> But if they're worse off then let them have another vote about rejoining the EU. If they can acknowledge their mistake then I would say welcome home. We still love you UK.


Basically. If you think, that what people want matters. 

But hey, It does. They actually left the European Union. 

edit: If you can understand a good joke, and do understand german (because the clip is in german) - this is actually a MUCH better allegory of how politics works:
click

It has everything in it. Ambition, conservative social structures, populism, public image, intelligence, tradition, chance, ...


----------



## Xzi (Dec 28, 2018)

Costello said:


> I say let them leave the EU, no second referendum.
> Five or ten years from now - see are they better off? If so, then everyone's happy.
> 
> But if they're worse off then let them have another vote about rejoining the EU. If they can acknowledge their mistake then I would say welcome home. We still love you UK.


That might be what it takes to get them to realize their folly, but obviously plenty of people within the UK started having regrets almost immediately after the vote passed.  If more people come out for a second vote than the first, I don't see a good reason why the results should be ignored or dismissed.  There was a lot of foreign manipulation surrounding the first vote, after all.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Not how this works. People usually dont regret votes, and realize things, and then change their minds and become better people...

The UK experienced legal inner EU migration of cheap labor, which their political constituencies were all like "they taking my jobs!" about. They had limited exposure to the actual migrant flows (because they control the channel, and most of those people actually wanted to go to germany) - still, this was enough for an ever aging demographic to go like "this is not the Britain I want to grow old in" - and decide that they had to separate from the EU - because, some interest groups told them, that then they could then - well I dont know exactly what, but probably have their houses built by true brits, like they were in the past.

All in all it was a lets bring back them old days revival with populist politicians, and whatever truly local industries the UK has left. (Tourism in the rain? Commemorative plate printing?)

Regardless - its spilled wine.

People make up new stories to complement their decisions. There is no going back. In that sense its really a "lets see how this works out in five, more likely ten years from now" deal.

But for the currently younger generation, they can grow older with the happy notion, that mostly older people did that to them, because they didn't want for Britain to change too much.

Economically I don't see them being benefited by this in any way - but hey, they also are a military factor, and .. well, thats about it. Well and english still being an operating language within the EU now that its not the native language of any country within it - being a little odd - but thats just flavor.. 

edit: If you had any questions, THIS is what this was all about:
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1078206349148708865?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1078206349148708865


----------



## Xzi (Dec 28, 2018)

notimp said:


> Not how this works. People usually dont regret votes, and realize things, and then change their minds and become better people...


Of course some people regretted their votes.  More than that, I'm sure a good portion of people who didn't vote regretted it.  It's a big decision to make without taking as many opinions into account as possible, and at the time, I don't think many people in the UK were aware of just how deeply it would impact their lives.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

On an individual basis I guess yes.

But people didnt regret, that they werent informing themselves before casting their votes? Or did they, and does that make it better? Maybe its just that its "opportune" for a certain political orientation to say, that they regret the decision, so its now popular for people to voice that notion as well. It hurts no one, you cant change it after the fact. So I guess everyone can subscribe to a medium dose of self pitty after the thing's done, why not.

Either people made an entirely nonsensical, voting decision based on a probably racist (more than nationalistic, actually) sentiment - in which case, where does the regret fit there? Sorry we so nationalist?

Or people voted because they didnt inform themselves sufficiently before the fact, in which case. Regret of what? You not informing yourselves, before voting?

I have to say in this specific case I actually have more respect for the hardliners - that actually stick by their conviction and carry it through.

You can't have a second election, without people starting to question the democratic process in a way that wont be healthy if they start doing it, for at least ten years. National elections arent a game. Or something where you mistakingly make an uninformed decision. At least not in concept. Not even participational democracy allows for that in principal..  No one cares about we so sorry, or 30k people on the streets in London weaving EU flags. London doesnt represent the country at large. Its done. Carry it with distinction (the thing thats not quite pride, but people can still look at you and say - yes, they'll make the best of it).


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 31, 2018)

pustal said:


> The EU and the international fund is what provided our country a possibility to escape the economic crisis and to have some growth at the moment. Greece GDP is in growth as well. Greece benefited the same lending hand as we had, although with the aggravated issue of smoking it's accounts.



At the end of three decades of EU-mandated de-industrialization, it's not sustainable. The portuguese right is not wrong in pointing out that there are many small changes that will bring the full might of austerity again - oil price increases, foreign economic crisis, end of QE, housing bubble collapse, problems with our foreign owned monopolies, a terrorist attack or natural disaster killing tourism - but they're incredibly wrong in thinking that not having increased demand wouldn't be much worse.
And, as notimp said, after collapsing the economy, minor growth isn't exactly a feat. Both countries still need decades worth of surplus, which never happened anywhere, let alone on a country that needs imports to grow. The IMF knows the disaster the european austerity was, but it still insists that it was good because... err... if fits their textbooks.



> Youth unemployed is decreasing in Portugal since 2013. All Europe signed the Paris agreement that implicates legal binding to the goals.


Again, after collapsing it and losing a lot of the top tier, we're still throwing two digits to a life of precarity - hardly impressive or sustainable.
The Paris agreement will not be met because there is no investment. At best, it will improve because people will have less and less money for energy.



> The EU is what has been stopping greater corruption in governments.


The whole EU is a revolving door between government and finance, lest we forget the likes of Barroso or that there will never be a control of tax heavens nor cum-ex type schemes. The european funds are usually entangled in schemes because they're a convenient way to entice rulers to promote Europe, I'd say.



> I can get a CT scan almost for free any day at a public hospial if it is an urgency.


Well, I suppose early-ish pancreatic cancer isn't an urgency, because the person I know who died in the São João hospital met quite a few people who didn't have it either for 4 months. Or any effective treatment, for that matter.



> Also what rulers do we have that control the media?


I obviously meant Poland and Hungary, for now - some rules are more important than others. With the hysteria about social media, while having a point, is likely to lead to bad PATRIOT ACT-style censorship laws as well.




mattytrog said:


> Fund public services? How? Where's the money coming from? Taxes rises?


From the same place the rest of fiat money comes from, from the central's banks computers. While there are limits, they are on real resources, not on sovereign currency. After all, MEFO, war bonds and IOUs for the industrialization of Britain didn't bankrupt anyone. "But Zimbabwe and Venezuela!" - lack of essential resources, not money. "But petrodollars!" - trickier, make sure you sell stuff that eventually gets you dollars... like renewables that get you less and less dependent. I didn't way it was trivial.



notimp said:


> QE isnt so much illegal, as its something everyone does - because economics doesnt work like they taught you in university.



It's illegal in the Eurozone, though. It clearly doesn't work like the textbooks, there was no inflation whatsoever and Japan isn't going broke anytime soon - and still, creating money (always and by itself) is the boogeyman, for reasons.



notimp said:


> Infrastructure is fine mostly == another infrastructure program is NOT the solution.


It's a big part of it, because something needs to pull demand up and real unemployment down. And you can only ignore the cost rise of crumbling bridges for so long.


----------



## pustal (Dec 31, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> At the end of three decades of EU-mandated de-industrialization, it's not sustainable.



What the hell are you talking about? there is no such thing as a "EU-mandated de-industrialization". Portugal industry reduced because it became obsolee and uncompetitive.



Nightwish said:


> The portuguese right is not wrong in pointing out that there are many small changes that will bring the full might of austerity again - oil price increases, foreign economic crisis, end of QE, housing bubble collapse, problems with our foreign owned monopolies, a terrorist attack or natural disaster killing tourism - but they're incredibly wrong in thinking that not having increased demand wouldn't be much worse.



What "portuguese right"? We have no righ-wing parlamentary representative parties. Are you talking about social democrats or those loonies at PNR? Or do you even live in this country? If you are talking about social democrats, they are pro-EU, they complied with the economic rescue and built a positive relationship with the EU.



Nightwish said:


> And, as notimp said, after collapsing the economy, minor growth isn't exactly a feat. Both countries still need decades worth of surplus, which never happened anywhere, let alone on a country that needs imports to grow. The IMF knows the disaster the european austerity was, but it still insists that it was good because... err... if fits their textbooks.



The IMF lent us money when we needed and expects return just like any bank. There are no ultirior motives, that's how it works, so they can be here the next time we need them. Without having accepted the rescue, we'd be sunk much deeper on, with no money to pay pensions and people starving. And the EU had no fault in it, just a combination of the internatinal crisis with national corrupt polititians policies.




Nightwish said:


> Again, after collapsing it and losing a lot of the top tier, we're still throwing two digits to a life of precarity - hardly impressive or sustainable.
> The Paris agreement will not be met because there is no investment. At best, it will improve because people will have less and less money for energy.



Again, what the hell are you talking about. What investment is there to do? More than 58% energy produced in our country comes from renewal sources and almost 30% if not more now (last values are from 2016) of consumption is from said sources. We invested plenty and have been collecting the rewards. Most of that infraestructure comes from the EU.




Nightwish said:


> The whole EU is a revolving door between government and finance, lest we forget the likes of Barroso or that there will never be a control of tax heavens nor cum-ex type schemes. The european funds are usually entangled in schemes because they're a convenient way to entice rulers to promote Europe, I'd say.



Again, what are you talking about? The only schemes there are created by who receives them - i.e. us. The funds are only as efficient as the gonerment that receives them. And we can see both examples of effiencency and unneficiency in or country, as energy and aggriculture, respectivelly. The EU provides the money, or a percentage of it, the country manages it.




Nightwish said:


> Well, I suppose early-ish pancreatic cancer isn't an urgency, because the person I know who died in the São João hospital met quite a few people who didn't have it either for 4 months. Or any effective treatment, for that matter.



I know a quite few people who have the oncology assistant they need. Either you are telling me a negligency case or something is missing. Speaking o São João hospital, in this coming year they will receive improvements in the oncology section with a new area. I wonder who will help funding this contruction...




Nightwish said:


> I obviously meant Poland and Hungary, for now - some rules are more important than others. With the hysteria about social media, while having a point, is likely to lead to bad PATRIOT ACT-style censorship laws as well.



Quite on the contrary, the EU Charter of Basic Rights protects freedom of information and things like Hungary’s media law package goes against it. Without the EU, violations to those freedoms are much more likely to happen.


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> It's illegal in the Eurozone, though. It clearly doesn't work like the textbooks, there was no inflation whatsoever and Japan isn't going broke anytime soon - and still, creating money (always and by itself) is the boogeyman, for reasons.


I grouped this in with QE, maybe wrongly so - but, not necessarily.. 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/index.en.html

Those assets they are purchasing, they keep. Indefinitely.  They just "vanish" from the market. 

The funny thing about the "max level of debt is at 90% of gdp" meme is, that it was proven mathematically incorrect by economics students. The professor famous for this theory did "user error in excel sheet" to be able to come up with that value.  (see: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html )

Japan (250% of GDP debt) is a very special case though. They are basically acting like a sect.  They have public wealth within the country, that is at no risk of leaving into other countries (the thing we are afraid the wealthy people will do, when you target them to lessen the inequality gap), because in Japan, thats just not something you do. Same with their businesses - they buy up other japanese businesses, when they are at risk of defaulting, and just take the hit. They are not acting like "homo economicus" or even "only partly rationlal actors" - they are acting like the japanese. 



Nightwish said:


> It's a big part of it, because something needs to pull demand up and real unemployment down.


No one thinks, that investment will shoot back in, if you do infrastructure projects within the EU again. We already get same day amazon delivery.  People are more intelligent than that already. Sadly.  State would invest, nothing would happen.  Those are all schemes to get the ball rolling again, and make people with money invest. But for the last lets say 30 years, all the new wealth created was done so through "virtual efficiency schemes" (closely related to "you take money for nothing" (f.e. transaction efficiencies, that dont produce things, or work)), so I'd say those people know that they are running scams (once market leader, you basically have 0 operational costs ) and are perfectly capable of just "clinking out" when they realize, that the band stops to play. So the band never can stop to play. 

We have to invent new schemes, basically. Imho. Green economy is one. ("Here spend money on high risk, low return stuff - feel better about yourselves". Not that this cant work, it can - but usually those long term high risk R&D investments where driven by state funds, and not private wealth.)


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

pustal said:


> The IMF lent us money when we needed and expects return just like any bank.


Aha ha ha - ha ha - good one.  Sorry, cynicism.
IMF and the World Bank are political instruments.
(see: https://newrepublic.com/article/91249/imf-lagarde-france (didnt vet the source, first thing that came up in google))
So is china giving countries free loans, and taking over their harbors for 200 years in return, btw. 

edit: While looking at the source above, i stumbled over the following article:
https://newrepublic.com/article/152809/dickensian-tragedy-britains-growing-poverty Merry christmas.


----------



## pustal (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> Aha ha ha - ha ha - good one.  Sorry, cynicism.
> IMF and the World Bank are political instruments.
> (see: https://newrepublic.com/article/91249/imf-lagarde-france (didnt vet the source, first thing that came up in google))
> So is china giving countries free loans, and taking over their harbors for 200 years in return, btw.
> ...



I am not sure you read the articles, but for the first one I fail to see how it is implied to be political instruments, rather there being a 'nepotistic' set of nominations.

And for the second, I fail to see you point altogether. For whatever monetary supports the EU provides, it is always the responsibility of the receiving government its management. If the management is faulty, it is not the EU fault.

Btw, you might want to take a look at the EU funding on the UK and where it'll lose out.


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

No.

The same as with the interference the chinese run with their economic policies, the countries loose all sovereignty, when it comes to economic decision making, which is all decision making. It usually is time limited until certain conditions are met, but you can stretch that however you need it.

Countries under the IMF aegis, for example are forced to sell state assets, or make contracts concerning certain investments, that they cant deny.

We are oversimplifying concepts here - and for that purpose it is important to know, that the IMF or the World Bank are not "normal banks", but rather political actors with credit lines.


----------



## pustal (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> No.
> 
> The same as with the interference the chinese run with their economic policies, the countries loose all sovereignty, when it comes to economic decision making, which is all decision making. It usually is time limited until certain conditions are met, but you can stretch that however you need it.



Well yeah. You ask for money to get back on your feet and in return you pledge to make sure you pay back, and they supervise that. The point is to save you when you need but that you avoid the need and use it as last resource. If you need the help, you most likely screwed up at some level and they want to make sure you don't screw again with their money at least. They have to make sure they are there the next time someone needs aid, and for that, they have to make sure you pay your debt. You can't go to the bank and ask for a loan and not expecting to be consequences battached, you get yourself in a loanl debt , you lose financial freedom.




notimp said:


> We are oversimplifying concepts here - and for that purpose it is important to know, that the IMF or the World Bank are not "normal banks", but rather political actors with credit lines.



They are not normal banks, for sure. But political in what way?


----------



## notimp (Jan 5, 2019)

pustal said:


> They are not normal banks, for sure. But political in what way?


When they give you money, they take over your national politics. They tell you what assets to sell, what social programs to cut, not to spend money on education or health, to sell to consortiums that might have similar political backgrounds, they also tell you what your annual rate of growth should be, and what your tax levels should look like.

In essence - if you are going with them - you are f*cked. 

Normally you "get out" of their "care" after you are on a growth path again - and the actual market will start lending you (as a state) money again. But there are the "non normal" cases as well - where their "prescription" tanked economies for decades, and they kept on ruling.. 

Also there are those cases, where people insist, that they've done that on purpose - to essentially keep certain countries in check through dependency (wikipedia: economic hitman), by first making sure - that you would get a loan from them you might not have needed...  Usually they are a bit more civil with western countries though. 

They are what you would call a "lender of last resort". 

Also, political in the sense, that they are founded on actual political agreements and staffed following political criteria.

But, but - I can not vote people in there in or out! Exactly. Kind of the point.


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 10, 2019)

pustal said:


> What the hell are you talking about? there is no such thing as a "EU-mandated de-industrialization". Portugal industry reduced because it became obsolee and uncompetitive.


You know, one of the conditions to join the Euro. It was so unprofitable parts were sold off and eventually taken elsewhere.



> What "portuguese right"? We have no righ-wing parlamentary representative parties.


Yes, we have no parties who cut workers rights, privatize essential services, create private-public partnerships and love regressive taxes and inequality, I must've been dreaming. /s



> The IMF lent us money when we needed and expects return just like any bank. There are no ultirior motives, that's how it works,


"Any bank" doesn't make demands for unconstitutional polity and eternal dependence. The lack of any variation or any learning from outcomes speaks to the real motives.


> And the EU had no fault in it, just a combination of the internatinal crisis with national corrupt polititians policies.


The EU made the worse demands while complying with none of the requisites of a common currency area. The EU makes it worse every day by ignoring the treaty violations of Germany, France and the Netherlands. The EU makes the IMF look like socialists.
I would also advise you to look at where the deficit came from.



> Again, what the hell are you talking about. What investment is there to do? More than 58% energy produced in our country comes from renewal sources and almost 30% if not more now


You know the Paris agreement doesn't revolve around Portugal, right? Even then, there's more to it than the most expensive electricity production of Europe. And exporting people.
Plenty of other countries will not be able do it in the age of austerity, as Macron found out.



> Again, what are you talking about? The only schemes there are created by who receives them - i.e. us.


By the fact that it's the one item the EU doesn't give a fuck about how it's spent, anywhere. They know what's going to happen, and as long as DB profits, it's all good.



> Speaking o São João hospital, in this coming year they will receive improvements in the oncology section with a new area.


I'd tell him the good news, but, you know...



> Quite on the contrary, the EU Charter of Basic Rights protects freedom of information and things like Hungary’s media law package goes against it.


And everyone's fine with it, as long as he provides a surplus for the northern banks. Same with worker rights, really.



notimp said:


> They are not acting like "homo economicus" or even "only partly rationlal actors" - they are acting like the japanese.


That doesn't fit any economic theory and is not believable in a game theory world. At the very least, they should still be terrified if they thought it was an issue, and yet... nothingness.



notimp said:


> No one thinks, that investment will shoot back in, if you do infrastructure projects within the EU again. We already get same day amazon delivery.


And less and less people buying quality products. Actually, Amazon does take less time, everything else seems to take longer, but anecdotes will be anecdotes.
Regardless, roads get old, bridges crumble, woods need clearing and older people need to be taken care of if you expect anyone to have money to keep consuming - which, surprise, they are starting to stop doing. 
If you think permanent austerity and ever increasing precarity mandated by monetarism is sustainable for either the economy or democracy, I've got a few CDO's to sell you. If states don't to back to doing their job of satisfying necessities through creating jobs, Brexit will barely be a historical curiosity.


----------



## notimp (Jan 10, 2019)

Agree. But Amazon was smarter. They built infrastructure to do predictive modeling on what people will buy. Their logistics concept ships stuff around when they estimate demand spikes, and also can do shelfspace allocation better, and they do it large scale (delivery centers are strategically placed over entire regions, based on where they need to be, not where "cities are", ...).

So like in war - logistics wins the battle.  All other players are outcompeted already. They just dont know it yet. 

To "match" Amazon - even regionally is aready impossible - because you are up against the market leader, you lack know how, and you dont have the scale effects that Amazon has. 

And Amazon already went into horizontal markets. Like offsetting shipping costs with streaming subscriptions - or selling stores hosting space on AWS. Everyone else is so effed, its not even funny.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2019)

I laughed tears today. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...world-bank-chief-head-successor-a8724371.html

Second candidate:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley

Questions?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> I laughed tears today.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...world-bank-chief-head-successor-a8724371.html
> 
> ...


We can only hope that they break with tradition and completely disregard Trump's picks.  Ivanka fucking Trump as world bank chief...the world economy would be in shambles within a month.  She's just as vapid as her father, the only difference is she had her T&A (and chin surgery) to get her everywhere in life.

Trump recently fired Nikki Haley from another position, so I doubt he'll nominate her.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 16, 2019)

Erm...I'm not really sure how this thread went from "benefits of the brexit" to "Ivanka Trump as world bank leader", but...I'm curious as to the current situation.

Yesterday, UK finally voted on May's brexit plan. A 'disagree' was expected, but apparently it had much less votes than even expected. Well...okay, than that _I_ expected. But at least it brings one clarification: May's deal is off the table. So what remains is either a 'no deal brexit' or a 'no brexit deal'*.



The way I summarize the situation:

Grumpy men: we don't wanna be in the EU no more!
Cameron: well...if that's your thing, I promise a referendum on it.
Grumpy men: yeeeey!
<* referendum result: 52% leave, 48% remain *>
Grumpy leaders: awesome! We won. Have fun negotiating a deal. We're out of here! 
Remaining grumpy men: oh...okay. Well...better send in Theresa May.
Other grumpy: May? But she voted remain!
First one: yup. But unlike us, she actually knows how to negotiate.
May: <*negotiates long and hard with EU leaders*>
May: here you go: the best possible brexit deal. 
Grumpy men: naaah...we don't like it. <*vote down result*>



So really: what happens next? It's my thing to crack jokes on the situation, but that doesn't mean it's not serious. Because it is. The most interesting thing about it is that the opposition (So Jeremy Corbyn, really) isn't representing the bremainders. It's been two years in which UK politics is a freaking circus**. Sure, there might be some English people who now have more of a grudge against the EU because we don't treat you as the entitled f***s that politicians think you are. But at the same time I think a much larger group now understands that issues like border patrol, the common funding of EU projects and the Irish situation are more of a minefield than they thought when they voted to drift away from the rest of the EU***.


*I made up that pun myself. 
**still a smaller circus than the USA, if that's any comfort
***the weirdest piece of irony is in migration. Migrants who want to get into the UK are apparently HOPING for a 'no deal brexit'. No...really: as border patrol tightens, there'll be longer and larger traffic jams around the border areas, which increase the chance of them climbing aboard trucks. This is so counterintuitive and strange that I'd almost say that if humor was a criteria, then these migrants BELONG in the UK.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 16, 2019)

You reckon she can negotiate? Most of the European leaders laughed at her, and most would say she got in the way of her negotiators (there is a reason so many of them resigned).
Also did you see the proposed deal? Not a great look that one from pretty much any of the camps there are.

I doubt she will be a fondly remembered prime minster, and her stint at the home office before was not much better and likely not regarded as bad because she got to follow Jacqui Smith.

There are doubtless some grumbly old bastards in the mix but I can't lay it all at their feet.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> The way I summarize the situation:
> 
> Grumpy men: we don't wanna be in the EU no more!
> Cameron: well...if that's your thing, I promise a referendum on it.
> ...


Nailed it.  I was just about to ask why people blame May for an idea that was never her own.  Once the vote succeeded and all the architects of the leave campaign completely bailed on it, it should've been obvious at that point that they weren't going to be able to pull a deal from thin air that everyone would agree on.  The lesson here is that you don't vote for half-baked ideas.  Also that you don't bring half-baked ideas to a public vote in the first place.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 16, 2019)

Simple: They should go back to Europe again. They cannot survive without Europe at all.


----------



## xpoverzion (Jan 16, 2019)

emigre said:


> So since us Brits voted leave on the 23rd June, I think it's safe to say it's dominated the British political landscape with questions of hard or soft and each member of the UK seemingly developing their own comprehensive opinion of the complexities of Customs Union (THE Customs Union or A Customs Union). It most certainly has put us in the biggest post-war political crisis and instability which leaves us with a minority government being propped by the Northern Irish division of the Republican party.
> 
> Now it's been nearly two years since the vote, I'll be intrigued by what the benefits of Brexit are. I recall asking this in the original thread but really couldn't get anything substantive or cohesive. I think now's a  good time to look at what the potential benefits will be. It's never left public discussion and animosity still remains, we've had a general election, accusations of undermining the will of the people and a movement to demand a vote on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal.
> 
> I'd be interested in what people's thoughts on the potential benefits would be.




The benefit of Brexit is that it gives England a chance to be it's own, autonomous, independent country, instead of just another vassel state to Israel like the United States of Jewmerica and the Jewropean Union.  That's the biggest benefit of brexit that I can see.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 16, 2019)

xpoverzion said:


> The benefit of Brexit is that it gives England a chance to be it's own, autonomous, independent country, instead of just another vassel state to Israel like the United States of Jewmerica and the Jewropean Union.  That's the biggest benefit of brexit that I can see.


Can you go into more detail about the Jews.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 16, 2019)

xpoverzion said:


> The benefit of Brexit is that it gives England a chance to be it's own, autonomous, independent country, instead of just another vassel state to Israel like the United States of Jewmerica and the Jewropean Union.  That's the biggest benefit of brexit that I can see.


In other words, it's reactionary racism and xenophobia leading the UK to make bad decisions recently.  _Exactly_ like America.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jan 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> In other words, it's reactionary racism and xenophobia leading the UK to make bad decisions recently.  _Exactly_ like America.


Please don't tar the whole of the UK with that racism shit. Both my home country of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted unanimously to remain it was England and Wales that decided to leave. As England on its own has way more people than the rest of the UK combined that is how we now find ourselves in the shit we are currently in.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 16, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Please don't tar the whole of the UK with that racism shit. Both my home country of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted unanimously to remain it was England and Wales that decided to leave. As England on its own has way more people than the rest of the UK combined that is how we now find ourselves in the shit we are currently in.


Well no, when I say that I mean roughly a third of the population, but a vocal third that also votes consistently.  Again, very similar to America in that regard.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 16, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Simple: They should go back to Europe again. They cannot survive without Europe at all.


Hmm... That's a pretty interesting thing to say. They can certainly SURVIVE without the EU. There's industry, import and export  wealth and infrastructure. There's no reason they can't quit the EU. I mean...it certainly has flaws  but it's no prison or something. The problem is mostly that the brexiteer leaders are a bunch of twats. Ironically enough with the exception of May, who had the unthankfull job of attempting to lead a pack of monkeys.

Okay, and perhaps she's also to blame for the unrealistic vision on the future  The problems were real and never properly addressed, let alone solved. Perhaps if the UK gave in on things like giving northern Ireland back to Ireland then there was some hope for negotiation. But the brexiteers never wanted to give up all the comfort that the union provided.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nailed it.  I was just about to ask why people blame May for an idea that was never her own.  Once the vote succeeded and all the architects of the leave campaign completely bailed on it, it should've been obvious at that point that they weren't going to be able to pull a deal from thin air that everyone would agree on.  The lesson here is that you don't vote for half-baked ideas.  Also that you don't bring half-baked ideas to a public vote in the first place.



She was the one that triggered article 50 without a plan in place ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39422353 ). For as much of a farce as the initial campaign was they still had a chance to thrash things out before even starting on the path so trying to paint her as an inheritor of a poisoned chalice/rudderless ship is not going to be an easy thing, and that is before we consider how she has acquitted herself during it all and the utter nonsense that was the proposed deal.



Taleweaver said:


> Perhaps if the UK gave in on things like giving northern Ireland back to Ireland then there was some hope for negotiation.


What? There was never any talk of doing that and the merest suggestion of that would probably get most UK politicians of any stripe thrown out on their arse (if we are going to do the Belgium example it would probably be on par with one suggesting on a whim that Flanders region the Netherlands). There was talk of the nature of the border between them, and them not wanting to either create a third party


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> What? There was never any talk of doing that and the merest suggestion of that would probably get most UK politicians of any stripe thrown out on their arse (if we are going to do the Belgium example it would probably be on par with one suggesting on a whim that Flanders region the Netherlands). There was talk of the nature of the border between them, and them not wanting to either create a third party


That's exactly the point: it never was brought to the table. I know how radical the idea is (and yes, your comparison is spot on*), but it is the logical conclusion. Like it or not, but as it is, the UK borders the EU (in Ireland). From what I understand from a historical perspective, a hard border leads to tensions with the local people (a local paper quoted someone even saying that it'd "threaten the peace", but I personally believe this is mostly scare mongering). And a soft border is also out of the question because that won't stop people coming into the UK through there.

So...yeah. I have no idea what "stripe thrown out on their arse" means, but if it's akin to a tantrum...then let them have it. Perhaps then they'll understand that there needs to be a SOLUTION rather than all this "I don't like this" and denial of responsibility.





*totally off-topic: the few instances someone brings up that Flanders should be independent "because of Wallonia", I always reply that we better join the Netherlands. Thus far, nobody has seen this coming, and I've got plenty of arguments why that'd be better for us. It's not that I want either...I just don't believe for a second we'd be "better off if we did it ourselves".


----------



## kumikochan (Jan 17, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> That's exactly the point: it never was brought to the table. I know how radical the idea is (and yes, your comparison is spot on*), but it is the logical conclusion. Like it or not, but as it is, the UK borders the EU (in Ireland). From what I understand from a historical perspective, a hard border leads to tensions with the local people (a local paper quoted someone even saying that it'd "threaten the peace", but I personally believe this is mostly scare mongering). And a soft border is also out of the question because that won't stop people coming into the UK through there.
> 
> So...yeah. I have no idea what "stripe thrown out on their arse" means, but if it's akin to a tantrum...then let them have it. Perhaps then they'll understand that there needs to be a SOLUTION rather than all this "I don't like this" and denial of responsibility.
> 
> ...


Ugh no, hope we never have to join the netherlands. Netherlands is 2 expensive to live. Almost the entire country lives in social housing and healthcare is around 1200 euro a year instead of the 50 euro in belgium. There's a reason why dutch people immigrate to Belgium but mostly not the other way around.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> That's exactly the point: it never was brought to the table. I know how radical the idea is (and yes, your comparison is spot on*), but it is the logical conclusion. Like it or not, but as it is, the UK borders the EU (in Ireland). From what I understand from a historical perspective, a hard border leads to tensions with the local people (a local paper quoted someone even saying that it'd "threaten the peace", but I personally believe this is mostly scare mongering). And a soft border is also out of the question because that won't stop people coming into the UK through there.
> 
> So...yeah. I have no idea what "stripe thrown out on their arse" means, but if it's akin to a tantrum...then let them have it. Perhaps then they'll understand that there needs to be a SOLUTION rather than all this "I don't like this" and denial of responsibility.
> 
> ...




Also borders in Spain depending upon how you want to consider Gibraltar, though that seems to have been resolved well enough.

The politicians are of a stripe. Means affiliation. Them being thrown out on their arse is as it sounds someone being forcefully evicted from somewhere (think cartoons where someone gets thrown out of a drinking establishment), in this case it would career suicide.

As far as scare mongering there were bullets flying and bombs there until rather recently as these things go (1998 saw the Good Friday Agreement and it coming into force in 1999, the PIRA technically only shutting down in 2005). Similarly there is nothing to "give back" as it were -- the UK's Russia-Crimea moment happening in the 1600s (see Plantation of Ulster), and that point the UK was only just that (England and Scotland only uniting, ish, less than a decade earlier, and Wales formally coming to the fold some 80 years earlier). Even without that the general consensus of those living there has tended to be "this UK lark is nice". If the people there don't see the need and there is not really a sensible historical precent then yeah.
The potential for it all to kick off again... while it would take a serious effort I am not going to rule it out -- there are likely still plenty there still young enough to still squeeze a trigger, and their kids might have grown up on first hand stories.

I very much agree that it is a hard problem without an easy solution (you missed the third option in your ponderings of set the border on the water somewhere).


----------



## Armadillo (Jan 17, 2019)

We can't just give it back anyway. 

It's not up to us. United Ireland is only happening if a majority in both Ireland and Northen Ireland want it. So no one has suggested it, because it's not something the UK can do.

Consitution of Ireland was changed after the GFA to say 

"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island"

Northen Ireland act says

"It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1."

So we can't just "give it back". Which is why no one has suggested it. Even if you ignored the potential for people kicking off again, it's just not a legal option to just decide to give it Ireland.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2019)

Grumpy men were grumpy, because - same as it ever was - they were mostly situated in the former industrial regions of GB and former working belts, and they 'suffered' from inner EU migration most.

Coincidentally they might also be the ones suffering from Brexit most. But those things happen. (With a higher probaility if you give populists your vote..  )

Whats currently happening is the following.

Hard Brexit is lose/lose.

GB 'controls' the option of forcing a hard Brexit.
EU 'controls' the option to give in on the north irish border. (Thats the thing where they now control an option to have "the" say on GB trade deals in the future).

The thing is, everyone short and mid term wants them to agree to an open border (open markets) there - the flipside is, that the EU rightly insist, that open borders for the EU market means, that you also have to adhere to EU rules. And part of those was, that people can move freely - the same as wares, which the UK just voted out. Because people.

The deeper conflict now resides around when and how one of the two can unilaterally decide on making the border towards north ireland (or the EU) a hard one again, or imposing EU trade laws after a grace period again. (In case a UK-EU trade agreement is not successful and active within 4 years).

Currently the british are effed, becaue the only thing they control, is the option to force a hard Brexit, with the short term outcome being horrible for Britain. As in their economy tanks majorly. Much more so, than the one in the EU and recovery will be slower and harder. (Think civil war being a possibility.)

The EU has red line at gifting the UK its markets for free - without having to deal with inner EU migration (freedom of movement of wares and people).

So here is what will happen. 

Short and mid term the EU has all the cards in their hands. The british basically voted to fuck themselves and their economy for the next 20 years, and have a border crises, and potentially loose scotland (overblown..  ). 

Longterm, everyone is interested in doing sustainable "win/win" deals again though.

So if the EU fuck the UK 'too hard' short term, its actually not beneficial for them.

Hard Brexit is the "horror specter" thats used for the EU to move and give concessions. It could be triggered from the perspective of the UK becoming what the "leavers" wanted, but only maybe - the earliest in 20-25 years.

The EU would hate that, because it would be an example of exiting EU - long term having become a viable example. (If somone can do it, its the British.).

So they'd have to act politically against that taking place - any way they could. Which would lock both parties into a "lose/lose" scenario - which no one wants.

Thats why the outcome will be a another deal. Another small concession by the EU, that can be sold to the popolous as a win. "And the very, very best we could do." With there still being a trajectory, that the UK could come back into the EU long term still being the most viable option (win/win).

"Another peoples vote" will never happen, thats just national oppositional politics.

Hard Brexit will not likely happen - because the majorities aren there (in case they want it they have to pull a "national crisis" moment) - think politicians have to explain to their constituencies, that they are not only fucked, but very, very fucked (for the next 20 years).

Most likely scenario is still that they get something online, that sounds great, and can be sold to the public as a success. The EU will not give them open trade under their terms for free. But there is the UK bonus, so they might get it with substantial counter trades in place.

How fucked are the british short and mid term? In any case: Very.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2019)

Remember the days, when the british still searched for "whats the EU" on google?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 18, 2019)

notimp said:


> Currently the british are effed, becaue the only thing they control, is the option to force a hard Brexit, with the short term outcome being horrible for Britain. As in their economy tanks majorly. Much more so, than the one in the EU and recovery will be slower and harder. (Think civil war being a possibility.)


Not at all. The EU is pretty clear on that: the UK has the right to end the whole operation one-sided. No one can say "nope...you started this brexit thing: you've got to pull through!". Everything can go back to the way it was if the political leaders agree on it.

The thing is: nobody dares to admit defeat. That's probably why news commenters can say that May's election result was "horrible", "an historic low" and so on...and she still manage to survive a vote of confidence ON THE SAME DAY.

It's probably also why everyone in the government wants to avoid a second referendum. For the last two years, they've acted as if the first one was won by a major landslide, but if anything it was fifty-fifty. The result could go either way, and the fact that this is hardly being pushed (seriously: why is Corbyn avoiding it? Last I read, 75% of his party wanted a second referendum) is perhaps the weirdest things in this whole situation.



			
				notimp said:
			
		

> Hard Brexit is the "horror specter" thats used for the EU to move and give concessions. It could be triggered from the perspective of the UK becoming what the "leavers" wanted, but only maybe - the earliest in 20-25 years.
> 
> The EU would hate that, because it would be an example of exiting EU - long term having become a viable example. (If somone can do it, its the British.).


Erm...I'm not sure how the EU leaders would feel about this, but I'm inclined to say "no". From what I've read, I have the idea that the UK was always both-in-and-out of the EU. While the rest of the EU set out to standardize rulings and laws between countries, the UK was always one of those "I want to do it _my_ way!" countries. In that aspect, the brexit could be a win-win situation: if UK doesn't believe in the EU project, then - with all due respect - their efforts are indeed better aimed at themselves than attempts to force them into something they don't want to be.

If there's any hatred in the EU, it's because the way the UK government is treating this (and even then: frustration would be the better word). Shortly after the brexit, it became painfully clear that the government had NO IDEA how to handle things. They hadn't given thought on the border, hadn't given thought about trade agreements, had no unified goal as what would become of EU citizens in the UK, perhaps had no clues that EU money was also spent on projects within the UK... So since then, all of these questions and more were talked about and arrangements were made. Apparently solely by May because everyone else was too busy playing Waldorf and Statler*. Nearly two years of work to make sure that within the set limits and requirements, the UK could leave the EU without alienating from their closest neighbors.
...which is then flushed down the drain because twats in the UK government can say "no" to it without having to offer an alternative. GG, guys. If the EU was a band camp, then the UK would be that spoiled little brat with the rich father.

UK: I want to leave this joint! I don't like it here anymore!
EU: that's unfortunate. But okay...go pack up your things and meet me at the exit.
UK: pack up? Meet? Huh??? How do I do that???
EU: *sighs*
<a bit later>
EU: okay...now, then. If you go in that direction and follow that sign saying "exit", then you'll be out. Happy?
UK: NO! I don't want to listen to you! <*throws himself out of the closed window directly next to the exit*>




*for those unfamiliar with the muppet show: being elderly grumps that comment from the sidelines but don't participate in anything.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Not at all. The EU is pretty clear on that: the UK has the right to end the whole operation one-sided.


Not with getting an open/soft border in Ireland.

Hard exit is always an option.

What we are talking about here are called "backstop regulations" - so in case, that an agreement is not reached after a grace period of four years what will happen.

The EU insists it needs to be this:


> *What is the EU's position on the backstop?*
> The EU originally proposed a backstop that would mean Northern Ireland staying in the EU customs union, large parts of the single market and the EU VAT system.
> 
> Its chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, continually emphasised that this backstop could only apply to Northern Ireland.
> ...


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404

Also this regulation somehow is weaved into prior contractual arrangements, I believe (could be wrong) but I've not read deeper around this yet.

The current dispute is around who can trigger a hard border and when. Under the legislation that was just struck down. If negotiations would have failed the backstop stated above would have triggered.

Meaning hard border in Northern Ireland. And any trade still having to follow european regulations and funneled through customs there, european taxes being paid.  Which is a strong position to start the last set of separation negotiations. Because as the EU, if you do nothing - you get an outcome that the UK really doesnt want.

edit: Here is the most important part - also from the same article:


> After months of an impasse, on 14 November 2018, Theresa May said her cabinet had backed a draft deal between UK-EU negotiators that included agreement on a backstop.
> 
> It would see Northern Ireland staying aligned to some rules of the EU single market, if another solution cannot be found by the end of the transition period in December 2020.
> 
> ...



== the UK cant do it unilaterally. 


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Erm...I'm not sure how the EU leaders would feel about this, but I'm inclined to say "no". From what I've read, I have the idea that the UK was always both-in-and-out of the EU. While the rest of the EU set out to standardize rulings and laws between countries, the UK was always one of those "I want to do it _my_ way!" countries. In that aspect, the brexit could be a win-win situation: if UK doesn't believe in the EU project, then - with all due respect - their efforts are indeed better aimed at themselves than attempts to force them into something they don't want to be.


Thats interpersonal logic, so it doesnt apply.  *jokingly*

"Deeper integration" is a project that from the current perspective Germany is supposed to spearhead in the second half of 2020, but its political. We have to see how this pans out.

(Europe of two speeds, being one of the proposed solutions, which would still lead to one political european body.)

The UK will still remain a political factor though. They still will remain a trading partner. And the EU will always be a bigger global player with the UK somewhat integrated into their political decision concepts. So this "idea" will always remain to some extent, and still be worked on.

Especially, if both sides agree on a soft exit.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2019)

Just reading another interesting perspective. 

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/nach...-der-falle.694.de.html?dram:article_id=438481

(German)

In case of a no deal - the EU would potentially have to ask from the north irish govenment to "roll out the backstop scenario" again - unilaterally (one sided). If the north irish government says - no. The EU basically cant do much against that either. 

Which increases the "value" of the no deal Brexit threat for the UK. Interesting.. 

(From a "best for long term" perspective, no deal brexit is still unlikely, but the bartering position of Britain just got better, if this is the case (/most viable solution to deal with Northern Ireland).  )


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> If there's any hatred in the EU, it's because the way the UK government is treating this (and even then: frustration would be the better word). Shortly after the brexit, it became painfully clear that the government had NO IDEA how to handle things. They hadn't given thought on the border, hadn't given thought about trade agreements, had no unified goal as what would become of EU citizens in the UK, perhaps had no clues that EU money was also spent on projects within the UK... So since then, all of these questions and more were talked about and arrangements were made. Apparently solely by May because everyone else was too busy playing Waldorf and Statler*. Nearly two years of work to make sure that within the set limits and requirements, the UK could leave the EU without alienating from their closest neighbors.
> ...which is then flushed down the drain because twats in the UK government can say "no" to it without having to offer an alternative. GG, guys. If the EU was a band camp, then the UK would be that spoiled little brat with the rich father.




I am still at a loss for why you seemingly have such a high opinion of Teresa May's efforts here, and also of the proposed deal she garnered. As far as international diplomacy/negotiations go I can't see how it could be considered a good deal in general, and as far as what the UK citizens seem to want it does not come close to satisfying anybody (those that want out completely are obviously not going to be happy, those that just wanted a bit more autonomy aren't exactly getting anything (and might even be said to be giving something up), and those that want to stay are seeing things rather weakened there as far as their abilities to make and influence policy).
She might have inherited a mess but as mentioned before she was the one that pulled the trigger, still without a plan, and going by comments of outgoing negotiators has not done anything to make their lives that much easier. You can't make the best of a bad situation if you are the one that caused it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 18, 2019)

notimp said:


> Not with getting an open/soft border in Ireland.


Sorry...I think you misunderstand. With "this operation", I meant the whole. If they chose to remain in the EU, _then_ there won't be repercussions. This whole "the EU insists on this" and "the EU insists on that" is all because the UK wants to get out. 



FAST6191 said:


> I am still at a loss for why you seemingly have such a high opinion of Teresa May's efforts here, and also of the proposed deal she garnered. As far as international diplomacy/negotiations go I can't see how it could be considered a good deal in general, and as far as what the UK citizens seem to want it does not come close to satisfying anybody (those that want out completely are obviously not going to be happy, those that just wanted a bit more autonomy aren't exactly getting anything (and might even be said to be giving something up), and those that want to stay are seeing things rather weakened there as far as their abilities to make and influence policy).
> She might have inherited a mess but as mentioned before she was the one that pulled the trigger, still without a plan, and going by comments of outgoing negotiators has not done anything to make their lives that much easier. You can't make the best of a bad situation if you are the one that caused it.


Hmm...it's not that hard to have a high opinion on her when you compare her with her peers. Farage quit almost as soon as the poll results came in. Dominic Raab openly admitted not knowing the importance of the harbor. Boris Johnson undermined May's position even before he quit his job. And most of all (as I said): the brexiteers had nothing realistic to offer to the audience. They scoffed the EU, downplayed their benefits and overplayed their costs. I honestly don't know what they thought would happen, but they started the negotiations in the worst possible way. I mean...if the both of us have 50% of the stakes in a company and I tell all sorts of half-truths about you to the employees to rally them against you, it's pretty unrealistic to then point at one of them and say  "you over there: you seem to like that FAST6191 guy. Get him to agree with everything I came up with, okay?  ". And even that is still a bad analogy because that would mean we'd be equal. The UK is the third largest economy in the EU. Not a small fry, I admit, but you do not have the same (let alone more) economic leverage as the rest of the EU combined.

...yet despite all this pretext, May started, held and finished negotiations. With all the comments she had, I'm fairly sure that some WANTED her to fail. These are the ones pushing for the hard brexit that has even less than what was promised the Brittons.
Is it a good plan? I honestly can't say. It can be a bad plan. It can be a...what's the word...brexit in name only. I can't say. But what I am confident in saying, is that no one in the UK can do it better. If there was, he or she would've shown up by now. But all those other clowns wanted was to critique May. Because that's easier. It IS easier to sit on the sidelines and tell Brittons that they could do it better. But whom have actually convinced a EU politician of that?

Yes, I make puns of most of the politicians in the UK (May included, I'm sure). But I respect politicians who can keep a promise and getting things done. As a left-leaning guy, I normally would put some trust in Jeremy Corbyn. But when he states that he thinks he can negotiate a better deal...then all my hope is lost.

So...yes: May DID inherit a mess (to put it mildly). You can tell all you want that it was her job to turn it into a rose garden, but the truth is that negotiation skills can only go that far. The problem isn't in the execution: it's in the premisse. The brexiteers made promises they couldn't keep. IMHO, May's main mistake is that she attempted to make those promises a reality rather than letting them suffocate in their own words.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...it's not that hard to have a high opinion on her when you compare her with her peers. Farage quit almost as soon as the poll results came in. Dominic Raab openly admitted not knowing the importance of the harbor. Boris Johnson undermined May's position even before he quit his job. And most of all (as I said): the brexiteers had nothing realistic to offer to the audience. They scoffed the EU, downplayed their benefits and overplayed their costs. I honestly don't know what they thought would happen, but they started the negotiations in the worst possible way. I mean...if the both of us have 50% of the stakes in a company and I tell all sorts of half-truths about you to the employees to rally them against you, it's pretty unrealistic to then point at one of them and say  "you over there: you seem to like that FAST6191 guy. Get him to agree with everything I came up with, okay?  ". And even that is still a bad analogy because that would mean we'd be equal. The UK is the third largest economy in the EU. Not a small fry, I admit, but you do not have the same (let alone more) economic leverage as the rest of the EU combined.
> 
> ...yet despite all this pretext, May started, held and finished negotiations. With all the comments she had, I'm fairly sure that some WANTED her to fail. These are the ones pushing for the hard brexit that has even less than what was promised the Brittons.
> Is it a good plan? I honestly can't say. It can be a bad plan. It can be a...what's the word...brexit in name only. I can't say. But what I am confident in saying, is that no one in the UK can do it better. If there was, he or she would've shown up by now. But all those other clowns wanted was to critique May. Because that's easier. It IS easier to sit on the sidelines and tell Brittons that they could do it better. But whom have actually convinced a EU politician of that?
> ...



I am still stuck on it being her that filed article 50 without having first figured out among the politicians of the UK what was going to be happened, where they might give or take something and what was going to be the absolutes. About the only notable pressure she had at the time the articles were filed was that the EU president said no more discussions until you file, and much of the EU standing behind them in that, which is not a lot really. It was all still new enough that the time could have been taken and anybody that wanted to just jump in could have been fended off with "come back with a plan".
As far as held and delivered then when the result is rejected by about a third of her own party, and essentially everybody else (6 people voted for that were not in the conservatives) regardless of their general opinions on the whole affair... yeah. I am still also looking at the outgoing comments of the prior negotiators on her. She has been goodnighted by her own party (she promised not to stand next time) and I dare say she is only still in because nobody else particularly wants to be at the helm here.

Compared to many of her would be peers/those that promoted the whole leave bit then sure, and I completely agree it was a botched campaign from everybody concerned, but being king of the rats is no great position and I expect far more from would be politicos and diplomats.


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> In other words, it's reactionary racism and xenophobia leading the UK to make bad decisions recently.  _Exactly_ like America.


The reasons are bad, the outcome is likely not. There are no clear advantages to the common market.



notimp said:


> Short and mid term the EU has all the cards in their hands.



It doesn't, the Austerityland needs the british market for it's exports so the SGP doesn't fall flat on it's face. It also needs to make sure an exit looks as destructive as possible, so no one attempts it.



notimp said:


> How fucked are the british short and mid term? In any case: Very.


About as fucked as Australia a New Zealand when they were dropped like a hot potato when the UK joined: not much, unless the debt paranoia keeps going.



notimp said:


> "Deeper integration" is a project that from the current perspective Germany is supposed to spearhead in the second half of 2020, but its political. We have to see how this pans out.


I'm not sure how much power Germany will have after May (pun unintended) or when Merkel v2 goes on the ballot. But a 2 speed Euro goes against the Bundesbank neoliberal vision, so it's not going to happen.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2019)

Nightwish said:


> The reasons are bad, the outcome is likely not. There are no clear advantages to the common market.


Thats correct. This depends on your perspective.

A shortcut (of which I'm uncertain if its correct), f.e. would be - if you go with the America+British outpost "nationality first" thing (if thats even a longterm trend..  ) - then it might still be beneficial for the UK. But only long term (20+ years I think are a probably fair timespan).

Usually though "proximity" is a better indicator to look at who your best options for a political partnership would be. Especially when your other partnering options are nationalists..  Reason: Efficiency effects.

But we are leaving the "economical sphere" of decision making, and entering the political one (Brexit is political, it doesnt make economic sense). And there we'd have to see how stuff pans out. If "deeper integration" 2020 within the EU is still a thing. How we deal with countries that currently get filleted by the common currency... All of that is long term stuff.

Only consequence currently is, that we cant fuck the UK over too much. We will still have to deal with them in the future.

The rest is still somewhat unknown.

Apart from one aspect, the british fucked themselves short and midterm. But thats only the voters. Democracy.


----------



## notimp (Jan 20, 2019)

Nightwish said:


> It doesn't, the Austerityland needs the british market for it's exports so the SGP doesn't fall flat on it's face. It also needs to make sure an exit looks as destructive as possible, so no one attempts it.


Mostly Germany (which can stomach that). Also in general the british dependency on the European market (trade deficit) is much higher. This is the part that translates into 20 rough years to "get the dependency out of your economy".

On debt: You'll always be in competition with the other major economical zones out there. You've just made yourself smaller, and your economy is mostly dependant on a market that you want to separate from. Not looking good. 

The British currently are playing a foul game politically. It seems, that they really want to separate. But they also want to be pampered with market access as long as possible. And they want to control - when to make the last 'cut'. (After they have their trade deals in position.)

Now - the only way you get away with this - is to take a page out of the american playbook, and play fast and loose.  > No deal Brexit scaremongering. 



Nightwish said:


> But a 2 speed Euro goes against the Bundesbank neoliberal vision, so it's not going to happen.


Something has to happen. We have a (small  ) revolution in France, rightwing nationalists being in political control of Italy, ... People are still loosing more faith than gaining it. Also AKK (Merkel v2) is "more of a centrist" political actor. (The liberal right still is not in power.) The rest is all about what margins can be moved.

edit: Also - there is one model of "two speeds" that was basically co-drafted by Schäuble. So it all depends on the model that gets put into place..


----------



## notimp (Jan 21, 2019)

Slight tangent here (in response to "but it goes against neoliberal vision, so its not going to happen"):
This is currently on the agenda of the WEF in Davos:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...0-vs-neoliberalism-by-winnie-byanyima-2018-12

edit: Globalization 4.0 seems to be the new "buzzword". Speaking of buzzwords, the author of the article uses several of those. And a hefty dose of lateral thinking..  (Not the best article on the topic, is what I'm saying..  ). But there is some form of recogition setting in. Of course the solution is always global... The same as the source of the issue.. 

edit: Here is an article on how the US has reigned in chinas growth trough their monetary policy (something also touched on in this thread before):
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...policy-has-tamed-china-by-david-lubin-2019-01

Also this: https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...urpose-not-price-by-mariana-mazzucato-2019-01

*end of tangent*

edit: Tangent continues:
h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ--POhN1Pk
(From shareholder to stakeholder focus. Event organized by Burda media group.)


----------



## Pixel_Sweat (Jan 23, 2019)

They've no intention of leaving because that's not part of the NWO agenda. This whole political farce and media circus is designed to wear down the will of the people.


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2019)

(N)WO is a normal term in geopolitical - well - politics. Also, the notion that a small group of people runs all geopolitical or financial agendas is overblown, and almost entirely wrong.

Reason - the bickering and infighting would be unbearable..  Also democratic decisionmacing is a thing - and the influence of corporations f.e. goes through lobbying - not back channels. Its kind of a separation of power system we've got going. Otherwise it wouldnt be sustainable.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 25, 2019)

I just saw this sketch on youtube. It's downright hilarious:


'I'll have the brexit special, please."


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Feb 6, 2019)

The EU is ever so polite and formal or are they...




Only 50 days to go.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 7, 2019)

Misery loves company: I'm both sympathetic and consoled that my country is not the only one fucking up. It seems like this century won't be fondly recorded in the annals of tomorrow.


----------



## CORE (Feb 7, 2019)

Get rid of these F***ing Chains! 

But can we not keep One or maybe Two of the Chains?

NO F*** OFF! 

But we can still be friends?  

OFCOURSE!  

So your going to keep some Chains?

I F***ing Told You No!

There is The Brexit Summed up.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Feb 7, 2019)

The EU wants European homelands to be borderless and allow illegal immigrants to stay in European countries. Poland, Hungary and Italy for example are against it and refuse to do as EU instructs them.

Article from 2017 but still very relevant:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/take-in-migrants-or-leave-eu-tells-hungary-and-poland-rscwfgtwn

More European countries will be leaving the EU too as Britain will be doing on March 29. No deal is always better than staying in the EU. 

The problem isn't that they're immigrants, it's that they're illegal. They need to do the procedure legally like all who want to live in another country, if they want to stay in.

It's a shame that Portugal, Spain, France and Italy all lost their original currency as they entered the EU but thankfully others denied the change. Britain, Hungary, Poland have their own currency as they should. The Pound is almost at the same currency value as the Euro but still vastly better and more reliable.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2019)

Right wingers have really taken some of your believes and taken them on a marry-go-round.

In simple words. Immigrants 'in the EU' are illegal because of the immigration law that was in place at the time (- it still is afaik, but states are not enacting it). This basically stated, that immigrants had to demand asylum seeker status in the country they first set a foot into the EU on.

Here is how this is broken. All immigrants ended up in Italy and Greece (quite poor countries in comparison), those countries didn't want them - so, they opened their boarders/just waved them on. Immigrants left those countries, without making the official asylum request (because that would have sent them back to Italy and Greece - eventually, regarles of where they moved on within the EU), and then most of them tried to move to germany or into the more northern countries.

As soon as they left Italy or Greece, they are illegals.

So the entire system was built, so NO ONE could actually ever immigrate to a center of the union country - legally.

It was known to be broken. For several years.

Everyone was fine with it - because of obvious reasons in the center of the union countries, and because they themselves sent cashbacks into countries like Italy and Greece (and other countries). So their political systems liked it.

Then came the "refugee crisis", and Italy sounded 'alarm' right around 2013, that the numbers where increasing vastly - and that they couldnt handle it anymore.

Then the European Union did nothing for two entire years, then the situation became nothing short of a humanitarian crisis, then Germany opened their borders.

That was all political decision making up to this point.

Everyone that reached Germany by then - basically was an "illegal". Which is why they then had to set up immigration bureaus, and try to deduce the immegration status of each individual - based on the individual case, and their home country - but not upon active EU law - because, going by that - again, they were all illegals.
--

"Boarderless Homecountries"
Whats a homecountry? Trying to find a way to connect the emotional content of home with country?  Ignoring that -

- yes, there is free movement of labor within the european union. Meaning, if you are a citizen, you can move anywhere within the EU and start to work there. Homecountry doesnt matter.

This goes alongside with free movement of goods, and free movement of capital. If it would not, all 'profits' would centralize even more. (We sell into the entire EU, we pay 5% taxes in Ireland, we dont take polish workers - heres hungary for you... Or the UK.).

Now to be entirely honest, this all still benefits corporations most. The entire thing actually. So its not so much "for the people" in that regard you are right.

Corporations, all very much liked the notion of free maybe skilled, maybe unskilled, but cheap workers pouring into EU countries. In fact they lobbied for it. Which is why the politics side said "great - this also solves the overaging issue, and the one working person paying the pensions of three old folks in amounts he's not likely to ever receive on his own" - and was actually greatful.

Then the migrants came in, then there was a counter movement rather quickly (you say that people had enough, after a financial crisis, and not  being able to participate in productivity growth for two decades?). And that was it. Now there is no "welcome culture" anymore.
-

UK was an entirely different case.

THEY controlled the channel (way into their country), they hardly took ANY immigrants at all. What they had their national pride moment over - that made them go idiot and leave the EU, was eastern europe (polish, ...) working migrants. Which legally entered their country, and worked for far less, then their average wages in the sector. That was not living in a protected economy anymore.

People voted, because of xenophobia, to leave with no plan. Now they are clutching at straws to press more time out of the EUs good will to still remain in their markets, while getting things halfway sorted.

And the EU cant say no - because they are our neighbors, its better to part on good terms.

Hard brexit is used as a crowbar gambit, by the british, against the EU, while putting legislature and deals in place.

Thats democracy at work for you - everyone go with a crazed opinion, but have trust in it, that your brightest minds make the best out of it. Nothing more.

And as a result you'll suffer for 20 years for no reason. At least this time, theres some sort of justice in play...  Boy, you really must have hated those polish workers.
--

Neither Poland, Italy, nor Hungary want to leave the EU either (Spain neither, not even the catalans..  ). They are profiting from transfer payments far too much. The UK didint. They just profited from the market.

Its just that their citizens didnt get the concept of "rich countries have to give a little away to help citizens in or from poorer countries" which is backed into the EU principal. More than five times, on political decisions they wanted to have the cake and eat it too - and then their people decided, they didn't want to be part of EU, and then they are back into the 'want to have cake and eat it too' discussions around the leaving process again.

What a surprise.

This took a fairly lengthy thread to lay out. Populists only take one sentence. "Its the illegal immigrants fault". If you want to stay dumb - go with what they are telling you. For them you are only a vote they dont care about either. They have no plans. Just a power wish.

I mean, if you want to do "devide and conquer" FOR chinese, and for US interests on your own - do you really expect for the rest of europe to watch and say nothing about it? What do you want?

UK is a tinsy bit different. They always were part of the five eyes, they've always had allegiances with the other english speaking countries, back from them good old days of colonialism. So they have special status. They were the ones that maybe could afford it. And because it turned out that they really hated polish workers, they did. Disrupters.

I'll enjoy watching their economy struggle in the following years. That much gloating is just just.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> In simple words. Immigrants 'in the EU' are illegal because of the immigration law that was in place at the time (- it still is afaik, but states are not enacting it). This basically stated, that immigrants had to demand asylum seeker status in the country the first set a foot into the EU on.
> 
> Here is how this is broken. All immigrants ended up in Italy and Greece (quite poor countries in comparison), those countries didn't want them - so, they opened their boarders/just waved them on. Immigrants left those countries, without making the official asylum request (because that would have sent them back to Italy and Greece - eventually, regarles of where they moved on within the EU), and then most of them tried to move to germany or into the more northern countries.
> 
> ...




While Saiyan Lusitano's characterisation and approach to the world is rather far from mine I would not follow your characterisation of things either.

First one really ought to distinguish between refugee and immigrant. The latter is typically held as someone willing to go to a country and going through the necessary process to do it. This process may be of varying complexity between countries (the EU, or more accurately in many case the EEA, attempted to harmonise some of this, and in others act as a means for existing citizens of the EU/EEA to do things), and in some cases can be quite stringent such that most people in the world, especially those with minimal education from poor countries, will struggle to do it. With the possible exception of North Korea then every country in the world has some variation on this theme, definitely all those in any flavour of what might be considered Europe, and anybody could have made an application here.
The former, refugee, is held as someone that is fleeing persecution in their country of origin. There are many ways this can happen (typically war or political persecution but not limited to it), and again what different countries do/accept here varies somewhat.
The present world situation is such that many would be refugees that see Europe as a viable option* would appear in Greece or Italy as it is a comparatively easy sea crossing -- air travel is hard for a lot them, land borders for the EU are Russia (not happening) or Greece-Turkey (again not happening as much).
That does indeed mean Italy and Greece bore the brunt of things on this occasion, and indeed the way laws work it is held as the place you first land is where you will want to claim things else you fall into a different category (that being some flavour illegal presence). While there were some measures in place to allow relocation within Europe they were viewed as minimal, and rather lower than might have been ideal if some idea of proportional absorption was to be the order of the day, at the same time also being rather contentious as they often failed to see the newly arrived refugee set integrate that well (the nature of the failures here being a different discussion), and there was a noted component that were better categorised as economic migrants rather than refugees.

*if they are originating mostly in the middle east or North Africa then it makes sense as neither Turkey nor the more stable middle eastern countries are that welcoming, and western parts of Africa north of the Sahara are also not the best choice, though they are more stable which is probably why the often even easier Algeria-Spain thing is tricky.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 7, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The EU is ever so polite and formal or are they...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*sigh* I hate to say it, but: you disappoint me.

See, I read about Tusk's verbal outburst this morning. While certainly controversial (I agree with the Ireland prime minister who told him he'd get flak for this), I thought it'd be pretty reasonable. The whole brexit situation is a wreck. Even if it turns out okay in the long run, there is no excuse for the abysmal lack of planning, the display of arrogance toward the EU and plain stupidity on a good deal of UK government. You haven't forgotten that May negotiated a deal which was denied by the people wanting the brexit to take place in the first place, right? This whole thing is really a "yup...we've negotiated for two whole years and we heard you when you said this was the final deal, but we want to negotiate some more anyway".

That is the situation as it is. Don't go all "oooh...look! LOOK! PROOF THAT THE EU HATES USSSSSS!!!!!". It's not true. It never was true. And if you had a proper plan, handled it in a professional way and had your government act like adults then Tusk's outburst wouldn't have happened.

So when the newspapers predicted hardline brexiteers felt offended, I shrugged. The handful who lobbied for the elimination of EU laws that would give them a tighter grip over the country? Yeah, they'd pretend they would talk in name of the entire country (whereas they only had a 52% majority two years ago), but I assumed the population would be smarter than that. They'd understand that when Tusk said there'd be a special hell for the hardline brexiteers, he just meant those stubborn politicians who mislead the citizens. Not all brexiteers and at the very least everyone else in the country.

You proved me wrong on that. You disappoint me. I thought you were smarter.


Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The EU wants European homelands to be borderless and allow illegal immigrants to stay in European countries.


Here's an idea: try reading your own sources before mistaking your nightmares for truth.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> First one really ought to distinguish between refugee and immigrant.


There is a whitespot in my argument there - yes.

But in terms of numbers, there really isn't. The EU has an issue with illegal immigration from (stupidly broad terms) aftican countries - for example - but this wasnt what brought on the "refugee crisis" moment.

Did real illegal illegals also take the moment at hand and moved to central european countries, when the borders where opened (or illegally using trafficker networks)? Yes - but this didnt bring on the crisis.

The entire crisis, was political decision, as described to the very moment germany opened it boarders because of humanitarian concerns (Italy was about to just send trains) - then public opinion turned quite quickly.
--

The point to be made about real illegal immigrants is, that if they start to "play the system" trying to resist their departure, that actually costs quite a bit of money as well - so the state is actaully  not that incentivized to follow each and every case closely.

Thats a political reality as well.

Could it have been done better? Yes. Could it have been done entirely differently? Not so much...

You know Merkel... Always making decisions at almost the last point (after all the public polls have been done..  ) and the one time she didn't (humanitarian crisis), it almost cost her her political career. 
..

Now reading the rest of the post.
edit: This seems to be it. On the rest of your post I partly agree.


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> hey are profiting from transfer payments far too much.


Which is only true because of all the rules. Without the Euro, and to an extent, the common market, the countries would still have a modern industry and would be exporting competitively to the much higher valued currencies of the center (especially Germany). As is, the shifting nature of the transfers means any blip brings a lot of hardship (in internal devaluation - jobs and wages) that the transfers can no longer mask. The next step, as per Macron, is censoring news and forbidding protests - yes, they are serious problems with those, but you can't legislate them away without paving the way for tyranny.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2019)

Take away the agitational language, and I tend to agree. That said, I'm not an economist by training, and as far as things are indicated on the political level - some form of restructuring should be coming in 2020.

Macron tried to pivot France more into the economical trajectory of Germany - so that Germany would be more willing to agree to a broader unification project.

I've said since he's won the elections, that that would be the wrong direction to take the country entirely - because of people being fed up already at the time, but then - the yellow jacket movement at the moment is also seen by some as a rather "small" revolution, thats easily containable. (Partly because it doesnt have a centralized voice, really... Read Macrons letter to the french. He basically told them I'm a yellowjacket at heart as well, you see... - It was horrible.)

The one thing that does make more sense though is, that if europe wants to play any role on the global political level - and even be it just in the trade game - you need it to be unified, rather than devided. Their financial/political arm will always be stronger that way.

I'd even watch some nationalistic concepts more closely if they had any merrit to them at all. The thing is, that you cant turn back globalization. Either you face it head on - or you tend to dont matter at all in a while (unless you have some special assets or devoted interests).

Whats happening here as well, is russian and chinese interests buying themselves into the decision making process on smaller countries to then be reflected on the EU or global level. We have to tackle that as well. (Thats basically, foreign national investment in a country in a certain commercial sector becoming so important that they can shift your political decision making, or corruption.)

My political opinion at the moment is rather indistinct to begin with. I don't buy into the climate hype - as its sold to people as a common movement (deal with it on a political level). I don't buy into the - the EU is free travel, and no more wars, narrative at the moment - as I believe, that if people aren't profiting from productivity gains, none of this matters.

But I entirely buy into the "we need to hold this thing together" to have any political weight in important shifts that are happening in the future. Basically, the EU has done far too little, for far too long. This needs to change.

But the reason to be angry at them is not "immigration policy" - thats just what you use to get peoples votes, who have no idea about anything.

That principal has been proven times over.

There were elitist voices before WW2 that frustratingly voiced, that if people wanted that idiot who holds all those speeches people cheer for, they should get him, and see after two years, what they have of it...

.. and then it took a little longer than two years, because people where so into that marching stuff, that they forgot to ask questions...

Same as it ever was... 

Immigration actually solves parts of europes issues, not the other way around. And for work related competition, the way the domestic market is set up currently (within the EU) its akin to a race to the bottom (on wages and social security), so you dont fix that either with fewer immigrants, thats a structural issue.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 8, 2019)

Hmm..I was a bit too mercyful on brexiteers the other day. On of the things thrown around was that the UK never got a Marshall plan after the second world war, and therefore was in a disadvantage. I brushed it off as "not really relevant" (hint: the EU didn't exist back then), but it seems that the guy - Kawczynski's his name - was downright lying about it : the UK not only was part of the Marshall plan but got the largest part of it to boot!


----------



## notimp (Feb 18, 2019)

John Oliver did another Brexit show.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> John Oliver did another Brexit show.



I only got around to watching it this morning. It sums up the madness of the situation quite good.

Most striking: "brexit is like pompeii if they voted for the volcano to erupt".


In a masochistic way, it's kind of interesting to see how far the brexiteers are detached from reality. Granted: it won't be total chaos...erm...okay, it won't be total chaos FOR LONG...but WHY? There are huge damaging factors awaiting for real problems that will arise if there isn't a solution...but nobody in that bloody country seems to want to tackle those.

Brexiteers: we're against a backstop because it'll prolong us staying in the EU!
Commenter: okay...so how will a sudden hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland NOT cause problems?
Brexiteers: *flee*

Flowerist: so if custom checks are going to take longer, importing live flowers from the EU will become impossible because they'll be dead by the time they pass through
Commenter: so...when you voted for brexit, you didn't realise it might have had an impact on your business?
Flowerist: I...didn't really think about it


Christ all mighty...just call brexit quits already. Yes, it'll end the political career of just about every politician in the country. So what? I've said it before (as have others): you can just undo this whole stupid process without repercussions(1). Yes, it takes genuine courage to "chicken out" of brexit. But really: in the long run, it'd be the cowardly discussion to just follow along because you were afraid to turn back when it turns out nothing went according to pl...erm...when it turns out nothing went according to that dream of yours.




(1): okay...I won't guarantee that the many people who emigrated the country when you started this mess will return, but ey...you can't have it all.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 26, 2019)

A few interesting developments in this field.

It started with a handful (8, iirc) of politicians leaving labour because they didn't like that their party - the opposition, no less - wasn't in favor of remaining in the EU. Jeremy Corbyn thus far always held a somewhat similar opinion as the actual government. One I'd summarize as "I can make a better deal than May if only someone would let me".

Maybe it's fear of even more people leaving. Maybe it's fear of these politicians banding together with government deserters (there were four of these also leaving these ranks to support the EU). Maybe it's actual analysing the options. Or even actually listening to what the EU is saying. Maybe it's because it's no longer impossible (I'll get to that). But whatever the case: he now supports a second referendum.

Because that's the other thing that's moving: the deadline of the UK leaving the EU. It's no longer set at 29th of March. Well...perhaps it's better said as "it's no longer set* in freaking hardcore solid stone* at 29th of March", because of course nothing will happen without testing the waters. So it probably comes down to which question will be asked, because otherwise it'll probably look a bit like this:

May: okay...so: how about we delay brexit until we can tie up these unresolved issues?
Government: no!
May:  hmm...but what kind of brexit shall it be, then? Further negotiations?
Government: no!
May: ...do you...perhaps want to reconsider my plan, then? I mean...I do have one, y'know.
Government: no!
May: *sigh* so...you're saying you want a hard brexit?
Government: no!
May: damnit! Then what DO you want? 
Government: *silence*
Government: *firmly* we want to vote 'no'!
May: so...how about we get rid of the idea of the second referendum, then?
Government: no!
Government: erm...wait...!
May:


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 10, 2019)

So ... I'm kind of curious what the news papers are saying in Britain these days. 

With the upcoming second vote not looking good (which is hardly surprising as it's literally THE EXACT SAME DEAL that was already rejected) and the 'leaving the eu' deadline coming awfully close, it makes the news... Surprisingly little on our side of the north sea. It's more in the line of "yeah .. Those crazy Britons are still faffing around"

They put up May attempting to turning the tables with "we ask for the EU to help us leave the EU" .. Which I can honestly not believe what was what she literally said or meant (sorry  but WE didn't vote you out).
And now I'm looking at a translated article about Jeremy Hunt that puts it even weirder: he claims that the brexit is "in danger", and that if things aren't put forward, the "risk" is that it won't happen at all.

Now you all know my stance on this (which happens to be the same as every EU member) : we love you  UK. So please stay.  This view was at last count (2 years ago) still the stance of 48% of the UK population.

Which makes this a rather odd thing to frame it as such. I guess that mathematically speaking you can say that 48% of the people is a minority, but why are may and hunt talking as if they represent 100% of the population here? If anything, the support of brexit has waned since it became clear that brexiteers had no plan (hint : it's two years later now). So why are they talking as if nobody wants to remain in the EU to begin with?

The question shouldn't be 'why is Corbyn backing a second referendum?' but 'why did it take so long for someone to step up to this ' 

Here's the thing for brexiteers: do your homework in advance next time. Sell the audience  what you can offer rather than a pipedream. And for fuck sake : don't boo your own prime Minister when she actually does what you want. You should've had a backed plan to begin with. I personally wouldn't like it (again : I'm all for a united Europe), but at least it'd be respected.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 10, 2019)

Aren't politics the _best_? And aren't what politicians doing just _grand _for the majority of the people? Why can't they just make a compromise or something?


----------



## notimp (Mar 10, 2019)

No, thats actually how it works. Democracy follows the rule of the majority principle. So what the majority wants, is what gets done. There are fallbacks so that the minority doesnt get rolled over in the process, or that one person cannot decide everything - but thats actually how its supposed to be done.

You give your politicians a "mandate" with a public vote, so thats now what they are supposed to work towards/fight for.

You dont get to be all "self doubting" after not informing yourself what the heck you voted on, and then blame it on politicians. 

That would be too easy.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 10, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Aren't politics the _best_? And aren't what politicians doing just _grand _for the majority of the people? Why can't they just make a compromise or something?



You know what ? They vote the politics and then blame on politicians. No, blame people who vote them. I am glad that I don't vote nobody for they are always the corrupt. They make me sick and disgusting. This world is gone berserk. Much worse ahead in the future.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 10, 2019)

Interesting Video. Haven’t seen the whole thing because it’s too long. I have to watch bits and pieces at a time.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> You know what ? They vote the politics and then blame on politicians. No, blame people who vote them. I am glad that I don't vote nobody for they are always the corrupt. They make me sick and disgusting. This world is gone berserk. Much worse ahead in the future.



Politicians in general only look out for number one, they don't care about the general population. Then again, they never go for argumentum ad populum, never trust politicians.


----------



## notimp (Mar 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Interesting Video. Haven’t seen the whole thing because it’s too long. I have to watch bits and pieces at a time.



First 6 minutes its him being a BS merchant. All he does is listing the economic changes neither he nor britain (nor the EU) can influence much, then telling people, that we should see them very positively, because there is opportunitiy in the developing world.

Then he hints at Britain seeing Africa as a chance, when Brexit was all about  - well, basically xenophobia.

The interviewer is dumb as rocks.

Sticking with it... Want to hear what the former economic adviser to Boris Johnson has to say on camera.. 

edit: Next point the EU prevented us to be better at domestic policy (what?).

"To have a successful Brexit we have to get three things right: Our domestic policy, our relationship with the EU and our relationship with the world" - its official, that guy is an idiot. Or thinks that hes talking to idiots. Its either or.

The point he derives from that is, that its the EUs fault, that britain has neglected domestic and international politics, while in the EU. France hasn't.  Germany kind of has... but... 

I guess he's pitching a small britain can be nimble and fast acting and.... But thats not an economic strategy. Thats a sentiment he might have gotten from a movie.. 

No he's not, hes simply jumping from one potential argument to the next one. Now its the EUs fault, that the british companies have invested in Britain and the british (wages) people far to little over the past years. (what?)

And he thinks that the future is bright, because they have good universities, and migration is a problem, but also a good thing for an economy... So its important to have the right incentives (they already controlled the channel, they only got qualified work migration - thats supposed to grow your economy, what does he want?).

At 11 min in the guy is all over the place.

At 14 minutes in he is all about explaining Brexit in laymans terms (kick in the groint, strangulation) - he really spends some time on this, because thats all he has thought about on his tuberide over to the podcasters studio.
He puts his own hands around his own neck to illustrate.

Then he explains the backstop and the current standing on the deal and negotiations correctly, so you can watch the video for that one.

At 18 min he now lists Singapore, South Korea, Chile as glowing examples, because they can cut their own trade deals. Britain aiming to become the next Chile. Thats aspiring. (Trade deals are in your favor if your economic power is bigger. Britains currently is poor. And they are loosing the City of London as well. Good luck.)
--

At 20 minutes in hes is first talking about something of substance.

He basically states, that GB cant have more flexibility or independant tarifs on cars (germany), agricultural goods (france), and shoes (haha (Italy)), so that limits their ability to cut trade deals on services they want to offer the entire world.

To unterstand this. Those are the most important economic sectors of the biggest countries in europe, they enjoyed some form of protection for political reasons (stability mainly).

He then explains, that in the past, you cut deals with partners mainly based on "regionality" (regional closeness), but in the new world, trade is more globalized, and any idea to have a political project that would hinder you to go turbo capitalism by selling f.e. services in the agricultural industry (like financial bets on food harvests - again, citiy of london), harms Britains ability to become MAGA again.

Yes. All of that is true. But you are still assholes, if you dont care about the political projects of your neighbor countries, and complain that their biggest industries where protected against you "financially innovating them" to become more market liberal.

What an asshole...

He than explains, that Britain has to become a financial service partner (banker) to the faster growing part of the world, like india and china. And he thinks, that you all should be much more positive about that.
.--

Then he goes into the "you need that new dynamism" small swift little player that britain can be spiel.

At 32 min in uninteresting stuff, and that britain doesnt want to be part of a political project in europe again.

At 35 min in he talks about "we have to flee, because of the further integration plans france has put forward" (they don't want to pay for stability in smaller EU countries).

At 38 min in he talks about helping greece, by not wanting to have anything to do with them. Setting them free to devalue their currency. Its funny. He wants to give no help. But then he wants to put them up as a bad example of EU financial politics, and also get empathy points for telling them "you are better off on your own"? (Greece most certainly is not. It might have been, a few years ago - currently not even Varoufakis is arguing for that position...)

At 38:30 the podcaster moderator doesnt know how percentages work. TOTAL MORON CONFIRMED.

At 40 min in he states, that he (Britain) wants to flee from forming political tensions in the EU ("safety valve").

At 41:30 the IDIOT moderator uses the word sovereignty wrong, while the interviewee just says "jay" and glances over it. He knows, that hes talking to idiots.

At 43 minutes in, people should not look at the near term consequences to britain, but at the direction of travel of the EU (more integration).

At 44 min in - Britain is 5th biggest economy, we are the ones that probably could survive on our own. (And yes hes probably right. They are probably the only former EU country that could - so they decided, fuck them all...)

At 44:05 the five eyes are mentioned. Of course.

At 44:21 he wants to revive the former commonwalth (hah, the age of slavery), "cement" their relationship with nigeria, ...

That seems to be it, the rest is just recap and fluff.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 10, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Politicians in general only look out for number one, they don't care about the general population. Then again, they never go for argumentum ad populum, never trust politicians.



Remember, without us and they are nothing at all. Why should some of us vote in elections? Nonsense. An election proves to be failure and always was and always will be. Why ? Politic corruption. That's 500% clear! People are still vote them and acts really dumb. They never learn anything at all but vote vote vote all the time and system still proof to be failure, indeed.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Remember, without us and they are nothing at all. Why should some of us vote in elections? Nonsense. An election proves to be failure and always was and always will be. Why ? Politic corruption. That's 500% clear! People are still vote them and acts really dumb. They never learn anything at all but vote vote vote all the time and system still proof to be failure, indeed.



I just can't trust the majority of politicians, it's easier for me to cynical in that regard.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 10, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I just can't trust the majority of politicians, it's easier for me to cynical in that regard.



Of course, me too. Indeed, me too.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Of course, me too. Indeed, me too.



It's going to take a lot for me to change my viewpoint


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 10, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> It's going to take a lot for me to change my viewpoint



Not for me. Never.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 10, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Not for me. Never.



Glad we're on the same page


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 10, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Glad we're on the same page



Wow. good to hear that. Me too, my friend.


----------



## notimp (Mar 10, 2019)

Here is a few sentences paraphrasing of the great plan of the former financial adviser to Boris Johnson.

The City of London (britains financial sector) currently is defunct (they arent the financial center of the EU anymore), they want to rebuild it, by offering nations with a higher growth rate (india, china) a deal on financial services. Then they want to spread that money better than they did in the past. (Domestic policy.)

They don't want to be bound by any ethical considerations, that limit them from destroying their neighbour countries in the process.

And they want to use their military power to cut a better separation deal (in negociations of course, not by actually using it).

They want to rekindle old five eyes and commonwealth (slavery) connections. I wonder if the United Fruit Company gets reinstated... 

And I think thats about it.

Go Britannia.

I think you all agree, that thats what you were voting for at the referendum? Or was it nothing of that, but just xenophobia. Because the economic plan actually spelled out at least is news to me. Ok, its not surprising, but still...

edit: Forgot one more thing - they've cut a deal with the US to have the biggest silicon valley outpost outside of the US in the UK.
Why that has to be situated in the UK, I don't know. Favors from friends.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 11, 2019)

Five eyes was/is a combined intelligence effort between the major English speaking countries (UK, US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia) with a few others (mostly European) potentially joining at points. I am not seeing the issue there in and of itself, especially if the EU makes good on threats, promises, predictions or whatever that intelligence will not be as easily shared.

Commonwealth wise. What does that have to do with slavery, much less in the modern world? Most would view this as leaning away from Europe and towards the countries mentioned in the previous bit, plus a few others in said commonwealth. While I am not convinced of its viability (shipping, cultural, technical, other logistical... all the same reasons people have dissed discussions about uniting countries in the past) it would seem to be an easy option to go in for, and in many cases said countries are already significant trade partners. One of the more interesting arguments, one of the few, floated during the referendum campaign was how the initial joining of the EU somewhat put a pin in said relations... the technical hurdles alone make that a serious thing to contemplate (the US is unlikely to change, and thus Canada is unlikely to change, the UK is also similarly incapable of much change and will still likely not stray far from Europe, nor would I actually want it to as I see the US and Canada's efforts here and find them seriously wanting).

Silicon valley. Pretty much every country in the world, and sub region within it (how many times have you seen "our own silicon valley", "it will be ?'s silicon valley" or some other area with silicon before it? In the UK's case there is already silicon roundabout), wants a high end tech sector, and I don't blame them one bit. While the thought that software patents will possibly come as a result (the US tries to take that abhorrence on tour every so often, so far with only Japan succumbing, and I could see this being a major thing there). From the US perspective then same language, highly educated workforce, financially well developed (venture capital firms already exist and do things all the time)... everything but the third world wages really and given how few workers you need for a big tech firm... I don't doubt palms were greased here somewhere along the lines but is that not always the case?

The other things. Unpleasant things I would rather not see, most of them reminding me more of someone surfing a company into the ground, knowing that they will be dead or retired before it collapses. That said if your readings of the others are that dubious I would question those too.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

The financial adviser mentioned commonwealth connections in the same sentence with cementing our relationship with nigeria. And the common wealth is the sucession organisation to the british colonialism structures.

To cut that short, much the same, as the US currently only invade countries "to bring them democracy" and then its really about deals for US based companies to be involved in the natural ressources business in the aftermath -

Colonialism was abolished, setting up the same structures in return. So give them their independence, but have our companies still be the base of their economic infrastructure for years to come.

Its not a UK only thing (looking at france), but its something that will always be in peoples minds, when you try to strike new deals with african countries.

In fact its so much in their minds, that china had to dream up a new investment model, where they dont supply the countries they want to establish their industries in with lines of credit, but actually gift them entire infrastructure projects first. (Then leave the chinese workers who have built them there in new found communities. In the "guest" country.) Because the african union had bad experiences, with paying back credits. (The old model.)

Five eyes is nothing new, or unexpected. I fact, if you read back a little I speculated about the UK wanting to fall back on those networks in the past.

Lets just spell this out as plainly as the financial adviser to Boris Johnson did. You f*ckers left the european union (from the elite perspective), so you wouldnt have to pay for the stability of poorer countries within the european union (political project), and because you wanted to sell financial services to countries with "faster growth rates" - but specifically ones, that the EU forbid you to sell, because it would have hurt the main industries of the largest countries in europe.

So you made your citizens vote xenophobic, and are now selling your services to the chinese, and former colonies of yours - with the support of your other english speaking countries - fuck your neighboring countries.

Questions?

Oh, and you did it, because you really were the only country in the region that probably could.
And now you are playing games in regard to the exit procedure out of the EU.

Oh yeah you so cunning. I hope the EU fucks you over royally in the short term. I hope your non existing industries on the mainland choke on their dependancies for years. I hope your children all get to know the same plain text version of events, that the financial advisor to Boris Johnson represented, but without his spin to mostly see the opportunities.

What you left are a bunch of win/win deals, that only are possible because of regionality. But as the financial advisor mentioned - those arent as important in a changing world, where our financial services dont profit from regionality at all. We want to be able to compete globally. Unrestricted.

Oh, yes and I hope, that the chinese dont take you up on your financial services deals at all. Because they are better at playing the long game, than you showed to be.

You were the ones that bit, when probably russia and china and the US pitched you candy if you divide, so they can better conquer. Maybe. Probably.

edit: Oh, of course, and you f*ckers were one of the main drivers between the eastern expansion of the EU, where a bunch of those poorer countries entered, you now want nothing to do with anymore.

Couldnt hate you more for that as well.

But you so cunning.

And as a true player hater - I dont hate the people, i hate those games.

Oh yeah, and lets not talk about your "financial services" and how instrumental they were importing the US based financial crisis of 2008 all over the world, so the US could recover faster. That was you as well.

Cunning. Britannia the great. Lets have a day for flagwaving only.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

Here, I drew you something.







Those are your 'exciting' new/old business partners for the next 20 years, according to the financial advicer to Boris Johnson.

Do you notice something? They are all pretty far away from your region. And they are all over the place.

Either you are truelly the most cunning player of all, like that Boris Johnson fella likes to imply - or you have been played royally.

Exceptionalist britain. We are truly great at nothing currently britain. Those are the countries you want to sell your services to. Could it be more descriptive?

You truly are a service based economy.

edit:

The sectors that contribute most to the U.K.'s GDP are services, manufacturing, construction and tourism.

I've taken the liberty to strike out the sectors that wont matter so much in your next 20 years, because those would have depended on grouping effects to source their wares. (Those are the sectors that were against brexit. The ones with a (neologism) "dependency issue" that britain has to overcome. But then you pulled the xenophobia card like in the US and like Marry Poppins from the heavens...)


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Silicon valley. Pretty much every country in the world, and sub region within it (how many times have you seen "our own silicon valley", "it will be ?'s silicon valley" or some other area with silicon before it? In the UK's case there is already silicon roundabout), wants a high end tech sector, and I don't blame them one bit. While the thought that software patents will possibly come as a result (the US tries to take that abhorrence on tour every so often, so far with only Japan succumbing, and I could see this being a major thing there). From the US perspective then same language, highly educated workforce, financially well developed (venture capital firms already exist and do things all the time)... everything but the third world wages really and given how few workers you need for a big tech firm... I don't doubt palms were greased here somewhere along the lines but is that not always the case?


Pretty much. But I just dont get what makes britain such an exciting place for the IT sector.

To go into details, the advicer just murmured, that britain really only needs a few 10.000s of working immigrants a year namely - the high skilled ones. And they all flock to london (or ireland?) because those are open and worldly places to work at? Because britain is an exciting developmental prospect? Because the weather is so great there? Because they can travel throughout Europe on vacation? Because all the bright minds want to work in the financial industries?

None of that makes sense. Its literally just, here have a gift, we position local affiliations of big US brand with you to still keep you a draw.

Now many of those workers come from exactly the regions britain wants to "help develop" with financial services in return? Stay in your own countries for gods sake, don't go just for bigger wages here for once... You already have high growth prospects there. Build your own companies.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 11, 2019)

What makes it a bad place for IT? But for the language I would agree most other rich European countries could probably get it going on. Is it a worse choice than any of those though? I already mentioned the developed financial sector being fine with the sorts of things IT needs, the workforce available there already, the education likely to continue pumping out new workers for you, said education/universities also being pretty good at research if you fancied that... and while I somewhat dismissed the language thing it is a thing for a lot of US companies.

The whole brain drain stuff is an interesting one. In some ways it smacks of old school financial incentives (ever one unit of currency given ultimately returning more than it when the resources come back, or simply the loans come due). Not sure I would follow the rest of what you said there though, and many of the countries "affected" probably enjoy remittances. I would also disagree somewhat on growth prospects -- even money almost no object I would struggle to set up a big boy high end IT company in Moldova or the Gambia tomorrow using the natives, and training them up, much less 1000 of them. Maybe some server admins if the bandwidth and power is favourable (see something like Iceland) but I am not likely to find hardcore virtualisation, AI,[insert rest of hot fields in IT], bods there, much less enough to field a company or companies. It would also lack a lot of other things -- not many training courses happening in those places, fewer companies to shift to (most of IT still doing the no promotion but for moving to another job).
On the other hand I have seen it help several countries -- Poland being a great example but a lot of Africa also doing things here.

Ireland, which is a separate country for quite a while now (certainly since before the development of integrated circuits), tends to attract IT companies because of its tax setup and access to nearby markets. It was rocked somewhat a few years back when some other countries decided to do even more favourable setups, though they since recovered it.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> What makes it a bad place for IT?


Good question. Nothing. 
Maybe that they also have the financial industry as an important sector in country and the two working together more closely just seems like a natural fit... While the country basically is descending into another neoliberal episode...

Maybe its that culture wise its another english speaking caucasian country thats supposed to drive technological innovation in that part of the western world.

Ideological centralization. Maybe.

But none of this is factbased arguing. Its just a notion I dont like. So if you press me there, you win the argument.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 11, 2019)

Handouts work reasonably well, for a while anyway, and they typically come with a catch.

That said it is technology so there is always the option to do it better. I collect old books on technology, and tools from the same time as well. They are typically dismissive of what to them, there and then, is "import" or continental materials, tools, designs and such, and in a great many cases rightly so. A couple of decades later they were doing a spectacular job (give or take the USSR after that), and to this day I have many things in frequent or constant use saying W Germany on their name plate. I would again look to something like Poland this last 5 years or so -- they took all those remittances, ploughed it into themselves and have come out swinging.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

And the movie is over, and the personalized human interest story has a positive ending. This is not how I've come to see the world work. Over about the last 10+ years I've been politically interested.

Currently in this topic I'm much more interested to actually flash out whats happening here, so it doesnt get burried in "but look at the potential" narratives.

No - look at whats happening here and now. Much more interesting in terms of getting to understand social and political underpinnings. (Moments of crisis are always more interesting, than economically stable periods in history.)

I've never been a person that you could motivate with "look at all the potential of nothing done yet". I've always been a born critic. 

- Hey lets talk about racism having become socially acceptable in western european countries again. When we have some time. Look at all the potential in that.  And its done - because this time around we really worry about big migration movements.

- Also I freaking hate the "climate industry" movement, because of logical inconsitacies (like germany being politically positioned entirely against it - or no one in the political or established economic field taking it halfway seriously) inconsitancies. I could also say "just look at all the potential" there. And would be much more accepted by my peers.

But I refuse and voice "look at all that designed bunch of activism nonsense, for a non defined goal, with high uncertainty, against peoples own economic and political interests, and with a self sacrifice narrative the likes of which I havent seen since the protestant revival".

So "just looking at the potential" is not something I do well. 'm not an utopian. I'm also not a professionally delusional entrepreneur and go getter.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 14, 2019)

So, what exactly is going on right now? Is "no deal" off the table?


----------



## Reiten (Mar 14, 2019)

As far as I understand the parliament voted, that they don't want a "no deal" brexit. Still, they don't seem to want Mays deal and also don't know what they want.

To be honest I still don't get how the whole brexit got to this point. Can someone more informed answer me these few points:

before the negotiations started, did the parliament forget to sit down and decide on the best outcomes and bottom lines for each point?
did the parliament not follow the negotiations and inform May that they were not ok with what was being negotiated?
did the parliament believe their own lies about the brexit?
are they on some substance or so far removed from reality, that they don't care(more of a joke, but still if anyone has something to share go ahead)?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 14, 2019)

Going for those points.
1) If there has ever been a plan then nobody has shared it, made someone aware of it that can confirm or otherwise outlined it. Certainly was not there during the referendum (one then wonders what was being voted for other than an idea, or with the expectation of some competency down the line, but that is a different matter), was not there when article 50 was triggered, was not formulated in very short order after that and seemingly has not been thrashed out in the time since. With this lack of a plan it also does not help that there are various camps with ideas about what should happen, said ideas often being mutually incompatible with the others despite nominally falling under the same banner (this would be the hard "just another country in the world" approach, soft "Switzerland is a nice example", and also the remain camp (also varying internally in what they desire and will accept)).
2) It as intensely followed and their displeasures with what was happening were made apparent. Seldom did this come with a suggestion for what should be done or trying to force a more complete game plan.
3) For there to have been lies there would have had to be something concrete said of it. I would say it was closer to "make it happen, how? That is all you but I will tell you when I don't like what you are doing".
4) Some have speculated whether it is in fact a long form sabotage play; the referendum was not expected to return leave as a result, mainly done to appease a faction of voters so as not to spoil the election (there has long been a "euro sceptic" set of MPs and while they are not all powerless they were far from the dominant players and not the leadership at the time), the snap election called after the leave vote could have been, and kind of was, viewed as a second referendum actually then served to weaken the conservative party but still keep them in power. While it was not a legally binding referendum it would also be political suicide to not follow through. This leaves dragging your feet and playing the incompetent as an option as you are technically complying.

As for May's backstop then have a read of it. It is an atrocious piece of legislation/diplomacy and I can see why people are so opposed to it, even to avoid a no deal.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 14, 2019)

Okay...I was in two minds about posting something here yesterday, but I didn't have much time and there was a second vote planned shortly after.

Let's start with the simple part: May's deal is rejected a second time. If this was a surprise to you, then you really haven't paying attention. I tooted some posts ago that this was the same deal as before. Upon inspecting, that might not really be true. I can't really tell on the difference, as the EU wants to remain of the stance that they've negotiated well (meaning: any further agreement would only give Brittons hope that they can just continue whine away and keep getting presents for it). But in any case, I've heard a British professor saying that whatever was added was far from enough.

End result: that vote hugely failed to pass. It's somewhat closer than last time, but last time it was colossal (merely a huge failing isn't much of an improving, really. Especially not at this point).


The second vote was on whether a short term 'no deal'-brexit would be preferred over a delay (meaning "something else"). the latter was chosen, but this vote was much closer than what it should be. That's when things got messy. I'm not proficient enough with the differences between "amendments" and "motions" to really understand what the outcome means (heck...I'm looking back and forth between news articles to even remember what really happened). I'll have to take the word of reporters who claimed this was "unseen". I can't say to what degree they're used to things at this point, so I won't exclude this being "yet another day in the British government" at this point.

Still...I consider it pretty likely that these'll be the last days of May's government. There are ministers quitting and not following voting advice by "the whip", which...apparently isn't good. If you ask me, the only reason that the government hasn't fallen is that they have nobody to take over. Corbyn's certainly an open choice with the second referendum, but I fear the individuals in the government are still too stubborn to realise that the pipedream of the advantages of the brexit simply are unattainable. 



Reiten said:


> As far as I understand the parliament voted, that they don't want a "no deal" brexit. Still, they don't seem to want Mays deal and also don't know what they want.
> 
> To be honest I still don't get how the whole brexit got to this point. Can someone more informed answer me these few points:
> 
> ...


Okay...but be warned: these are my personal opinions.

_before the negotiations started, did the parliament forget to sit down and decide on the best outcomes and bottom lines for each point?_
This is an easy answer: this is exactly the case (well...I'm taking "the government" as a whole. Can't say much on the role of parliament). When the EU negiotiations started, the brexiteers had no plan. They had no clear vision on where to go and had given no thought of what the brexit would mean ("what do you mean, we're bordering the EU? In Ireland? Meh...we'll sort something out as we go. Easy peasy").

_did the parliament not follow the negotiations and inform May that they were not ok with what was being negotiated?_
This is a tough one. Seeing how May was clearly not speaking on behalf of the entire UK(1), I would answer this with an obvious "not enough". what I cannot say is to which degree they were informed and consulted along the way. Neither do I know to which degree they even cared (again: this whole shebackle was led by Nigel Farage, who somehow felt triumph when QUITTING mere days after the brexit was voted). I would think that parliament felt pressure of the lobbying groups that actually benefits from a brexit whereas the negotiators truly thought they were representing the people, but it could just as well be the other way around.

_did the parliament believe their own lies about the brexit?_
I'll go with "yes". It's probably not as black and white like that, which harks back to that uninformdness I mentioned earlier. The whole "why can't UK fish in their own waters???" thing is short, snappy, has an antagonist ("the bureaucratic moloch that is the EU") and is a nice illustration on why you want to leave the EU. The thing is...once you start actually THINKING on the topic, it's not as easy. The numbers Farage threw around are simply dead wrong. The quotas didn't originate with the EU either. Oh, and the quotas were not without reason either. So I think parliament had these nitbits of facts dripping in and had to wonder "to which point is the original statement still true, and to which point do we defend it?".


_are they on some substance or so far removed from reality, that they don't care(more of a joke, but still if anyone has something to share go ahead)?_

*sigh*
Look: I don't want to go out scolding others. It's cheap, easy and won't convince actual brexiteers. But I won't deny it: those guys are really making it hard on me to try to keep the situation mature. I mean...


You: are these guys detached from reality?
Me: hmm...not really. Perhaps the government is a bit old fashioned, but I'm sure they're sincere, wise and act with the best...
English government: "oh, no! Someone has seized the Ceremonial Mace! Expel him!!!"
Me: ...Oh, come ON! 


(1): again: the government as a whole. For once I'm not banging on about how brexit only had 52% votes two years ago


----------



## Viri (Mar 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> The financial adviser mentioned commonwealth connections in the same sentence with cementing our relationship with nigeria. And the common wealth is the sucession organisation to the british colonialism structures.
> 
> To cut that short, much the same, as the US currently only invade countries "to bring them democracy" and then its really about deals for US based companies to be involved in the natural ressources business in the aftermath -
> 
> ...





notimp said:


> Here, I drew you something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who are you even talking to...?


----------



## notimp (Mar 14, 2019)

In the first case to no one, thats simply a writeup to prevent people from posting videos, they havent even seen, just so that others only read their titles, and form their opinion based appearance, as they do.

Thats many words for - "you should have noticed".

In the case of the second posting thats just me wanting to illustrate the "cunning plan" britain wants to put forward as per Boris Johnsons economic advicer, which looks like "everyone in the world will give us money for services".

What you dont see is, that if someone thinks about a problem, or an argument, he might do that audibly or publicly - so others could inject their opinions and thoughts, so he/she doesnt make avoidable mistakes.

The person is then not "talking to anyone specifically" but still openly thinking about things, or trying to refute a freaking youtube video title, which is what most people following along usually will remember.

The map is there, so you dont.

Are people now so primed by social media, that they now get irritated, if someone doesnt want to win an argument, by attacking someone else specifically? Hey whats wrong with that image?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 15, 2019)

Doing the video thing

The channel there seems to have done a pretty good job of covering some of the other things surrounding it in depth too if you did want to go further.

Seems the deadline will be extended, possibly for quite a while (as in possibly beyond further UK general elections in May 2022 at the latest and EU elections in May of this year). The main chance for it not going long being if May's deal (the two times it has been voted on being the first and third most defeated bills in parliamentary history), as at the same time the concept of no deal has been rejected so it is being "hoped" that it will be viewed as a compromise. Several of the other things being voted on, and only narrowly defeated in some cases, also bringing things well into uncharted waters if they had passed.

Should be amusing to see what happens next.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 18, 2019)

Hmm...seems like things are still pretty unclear. Unless I'm mistaken, May is going to propose her deal a third time. That's...no, I don't know what that means aside from "stalling time". I don't care how stubborn she is...surely she realises that this only achieves further delay, right? 

Speaking of delay...yeah. It'll be either a short delay, or a long one. The short one will have the "benefit" of falling before the next EU elections, but either way: what's the point of delaying if there is no agreed plan to work towards?


Meanwhile...I stumbled upon a link that I nearly dismissed as clickbait, but was pretty interesting to me...


(note: Guy Verhofstadt used to be Belgian's prime minister some years ago, btw)

It's interesting because Guy is not the best speaker but puts into words the concern of most - if not all - EU leaders think. Meanwhile, Nigel IS a great speaker...and is clearly heading on a different track than the UK government. You see, I thought it rather trivial that the UK has to _ASK _for brexit to be delayed. I assumed that if the UK wants to leave, it's up to both the EU and the UK to make sure everything's agreed to (meaning: what May's been doing the last year or so), and if the UK government doesn't like the deal - as is clearly shown - that it'll be up to the UK to either bremain or no brexit. But Farage tries something else: rather than blaming the EU as being a "money devouring moloch" (I forgot the exact term), he seems to dare us to throw out the UK. He points out that if the UK remains in the EU for the election, _HE _will be in that EU government as well. Kicking, screaming, lobbying against it...but still in it.

Which is...weird, but very smart in a Machiavellian way. He's tempting the EU to push for a no deal brexit, under the pretence that EVEN THIS SCENARIO is somehow carried by that landslide 52% British voters who voted brexit two years ago. He's clearly in favor of a hard brexit, and I can only assume that he can do that so openly because May nor the EU leaders can throw his ass out of there.


----------



## blahblah (Mar 18, 2019)

I really wish I knew why people use GBAtemp as a website to launder right wing crypto-fascist garbage they were taught from YouTube.

There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 18, 2019)

blahblah said:


> There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.


.
Prove it. If it is so clear and uncontentious then it should be easy to do so.

Also if it did not happen then is that not going against the will of the UK populace?


----------



## SG854 (Mar 18, 2019)

blahblah said:


> I really wish I knew why people use GBAtemp as a website to launder right wing garbage they were taught from YouTube.
> 
> There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.


Nothing wrong with discussing different view points. Too many people dismiss everything as a whole because it’s on YouTube without actually getting into specifics on why you disagree. Your opinion is invalid or whatever because you’re on YouTube. It’s a logical fallacy.

And most of YouTube leans left, there are more left channels. Right wing isn’t garbage and they provide a counter balance so that the left doesn’t become insane and vice versa.

I remember someone saying that leftism dominate Media and Acedemics because left wing policies are better, and Gad Saad makes a good point saying that these people are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. And before you dismiss Gad Saad as a YouTube guy, he’s a researcher, he has written many scientific papers and books.

They say the right denies science, they deny evolution and global warming, so right wing policies and economics should not be taught. But the argument can also be made that the left denies the science of male female biology, denying evolutionary psychology, gender pay gap not to sexism and and other economic and social issues. Both sides deny different types of science to fit their beliefs, and both are idiotic on different things. And many Nobel Prizes have been won by conservative right wing economists, they contributed greatly to the field of economics.

There are also things that are not clear cut with hardly any scientific evidence to support it. Like foreign policy, fisical policy, domestic policy, if affirmative action is a good idea, is the death penalty a good idea, topics on abortion, there are good arguments to be made on both sides, since no science exists to say which one is better. And saying one side should dominate academia, or that right wing is garbage because our policies are better is just stupid. They are suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.


----------



## Armadillo (Mar 18, 2019)

No 3rd vote on May's deal unless it's different.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47614074

EU won't change the deal unless May's red lines move, so interesting times ahead.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 21, 2019)

If I was British I'd stop buying products made in the EU. It's not like they can't get cars, wine etc from elsewhere.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2019)

So... Seems like may 's delay until June 30th is final. At least that is something, but I have no idea what's going to be next. Her deal is certainly of the table, hard brexit and the second referendum are somewhat of the table  and the EU isn't about to "substantially" change the deal  If I had to guess, I'd say there be a fall of the government, but again : I have no idea. 



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If I was British I'd stop buying products made in the EU. It's not like they can't get cars, wine etc from elsewhere.


Okay. And... Just why would you do that? 
If not for anything else  the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course)  But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.


----------



## Reiten (Mar 21, 2019)

So, instead of doing something productive, the parliament decided to drag out an old rule , that you can't vote on the same thing more then twice. Ok, I get that rules and traditions are important, but shouldn't resolving the situation be more important?

@Taleweaver Sorry about the 4. point I asked about previously. I, honestly, wasn't expecting any serious answers to that. I read up a bit more about the brexit, and the more I read the harder it gets to take the British government seriously. In my mind their government stands somewhere between criminally incompetent and plainly stupid.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2019)

Reiten said:


> So, instead of doing something productive, the parliament decided to drag out an old rule , that you can't vote on the same thing more then twice. Ok, I get that rules and traditions are important, but shouldn't resolving the situation be more important?


It's actually more than once (unless it is "substantially different", as speaker John Bercow puts it). But I disagree that it's not productive. This whole "let's have everyone vote on it AGAIN" is just stalling for time, so this refusal is just what should have happened. Erm...that is to say: the governments should've expected what the outcome of those minor changes were at best going to result in minor vote differences, and shouldn't even have had "let's put the same deal up for voting yet a third time" as a strategy to begin with. You really don't have to be Nostradamus to predict the outcome of that, so this blocking was bound to happen sooner or later.

Oh, and I don't mind answering questions. I wouldn't be here if I didn't take an interest in the topic.


----------



## Reiten (Mar 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> This whole "let's have everyone vote on it AGAIN" is just stalling for time, so this refusal is just what should have happened.


But isn't May trying to negotiate a new exit date and tack it to her deal, basically still stalling for time, just in a more drawn out way. Wouldn't it have been better to allow the vote, making it clear that after this the deal is off the table, without proper renegotiation?


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2019)

Reiten said:


> But isn't May trying to negotiate a new exit date and tack it to her deal, basically still stalling for time, just in a more drawn out way. Wouldn't it have been better to allow the vote, making it clear that after this the deal is off the table, without proper renegotiation?


As far as I'm concerned, the deal was already off the table the first time. It was already delayed, so it's not like the second vote could have passed for "but now that you've all had time to think about it...how do you feel now?". But it got voted for anyhow, because there were some changes made to it (or weren't...the EU leaders said that "the deal won't change, but we'll gladly provide information on what we mean by things". I'm not in a position to tell whether they came back on that statement).
So a third time is just silliness. To quote Vaas Montenegro: the definition of insanity is doing the exact… same fucking thing… over and over again, expecting… shit to change.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 21, 2019)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't actually have to follow through with it, right? It's not legally binding? The only downside to backing out would be egg in the face? Or have things changed since last I read up on it?


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't actually have to follow through with it, right? It's not legally binding? The only downside to backing out would be egg in the face? Or have things changed since last I read up on it?


Last I've read (a couple months ago), this was indeed the case: if the UK decides it wants to remain in the EU, there isn't a way the EU can stop it. This obviously changes after the actual brexit, because at that time, the UK would just be like any other country the EU has no special arrangements with.

The thing is: due to the way May negotiated, the UK is more or less on the equivalent of a conveyor belt towards the EU exit. she was probably convinced that this "if we don't accept my deal, we'll leave without a deal" would rally the government behind her, but that plan failed...twice. The others are mostly divided between holding a second referendum and a hard brexit. Support for "just staying in the EU" is marginalized as being "not in the interest of the people" (because representing 48% of the people is obviously unheard of!). I guess that's why the UK is now asking for a delay. So remaining on that proverbial conveyor belt to the exit but walking away from the exit rather than just stepping off the damn thing.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Last I've read (a couple months ago), this was indeed the case: if the UK decides it wants to remain in the EU, there isn't a way the EU can stop it. This obviously changes after the actual brexit, because at that time, the UK would just be like any other country the EU has no special arrangements with.
> 
> The thing is: due to the way May negotiated, the UK is more or less on the equivalent of a conveyor belt towards the EU exit. she was probably convinced that this "if we don't accept my deal, we'll leave without a deal" would rally the government behind her, but that plan failed...twice. The others are mostly divided between holding a second referendum and a hard brexit. Support for "just staying in the EU" is marginalized as being "not in the interest of the people" (because representing 48% of the people is obviously unheard of!). I guess that's why the UK is now asking for a delay. So remaining on that proverbial conveyor belt to the exit but walking away from the exit rather than just stepping off the damn thing.


so those in charge can best summed up as "we don't know what the implications are of this and at this point we're too scared to ask"? Such a dumpster fire of political tomfoolery. And there's always a united ireland (or is it united republic of ireland?), which is another ball of fun.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> So... Seems like may 's delay until June 30th is final. At least that is something, but I have no idea what's going to be next. Her deal is certainly of the table, hard brexit and the second referendum are somewhat of the table  and the EU isn't about to "substantially" change the deal  If I had to guess, I'd say there be a fall of the government, but again : I have no idea.
> 
> 
> Okay. And... Just why would you do that?
> If not for anything else  the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course)  But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.


I can't seem to find anywhere that the EU voted that they can try to make a deal till 30th of june. They're voting at this moment now ? Nothing has been decided yet


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> I can't seem to find anywhere that the EU voted that they can try to make a deal till 30th of june. They're voting at this moment now ? Nothing has been decided yet


Yes.. My earlier post was inaccurate : prolonging until June (but not later) is what may wants, but the EU leaders don't like that this means the UK will still be a member after the EU elections. So it's likely that they'll put the delay at most until may 22nd(1), so the day before the election. But as you said : they're voting on that right now 



(1): I wonder why May proposed june in the first place. It's not like she wants to help with this EU election in the UK


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Yes.. My earlier post was inaccurate : prolonging until June (but not later) is what may wants, but the EU leaders don't like that this means the UK will still be a member after the EU elections. So it's likely that they'll put the delay at most until may 22nd(1), so the day before the election. But as you said : they're voting on that right now
> 
> 
> 
> (1): I wonder why May proposed june in the first place. It's not like she wants to help with this EU election in the UK


It's probably 2 please others in parlement who want to do the european election so that they can undermine the EU even more.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 22, 2019)

Phew...just read the result of the summit. At least it's clear, but it's not exactly a simple sound bite. Let's put it in programming language:

IF (May gets her deal through house of commons) THEN
    there's a delay until may 22nd
ELSE
   there's a delay until april 11th
   IF (on april 11th, the UK will organize EU elections) THEN
       prolonged delay until the end of the year
   ELSE
      no deal brexit
   END IF
END IF


As noted in posts above, the first 'if' is damn unlikely. Aside from the two 'nay' vote results, I don't see what they hope to achieve in that time. If it goes through house of commons, they can just as well use May's deal to brexit that same day. That is, of course, if this goes through a third vote to begin with.

So in practical terms, it all comes down to whether the UK will organize EU elections or not. May isn't intending to do that, but given the alternative as well as how the UK behaves (delay! delay! more delay!), a juicy "even more delay" might sound appealing. It also gives them time to organize new elections and/or a new referendum.


----------



## Reiten (Mar 22, 2019)

I'm somewhat confused, why does the UK, a country that is more or less set to leave the EU, still have the right to participate and hold the EU election? I mean why should they have any say in the EU, an organizations they have decided to leave? Is it some kind of loophole in the jurisdiction, something that hasn't been thought out completely?


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 22, 2019)

Reiten said:


> I'm somewhat confused, why does the UK, a country that is more or less set to leave the EU, still have the right to participate and hold the EU election? I mean why should they have any say in the EU, an organizations they have decided to leave? Is it some kind of loophole in the jurisdiction, something that hasn't been thought out completely?


Because at this moment, they're still a union country and all members have to participate


----------



## Reiten (Mar 22, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Because at this moment, they're still a union country and all members have to participate


That still leaves me with the question, if it's like that by design, or if such a case just wasn't thought of when the legislation was created.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 22, 2019)

Reiten said:


> That still leaves me with the question, if it's like that by design, or if such a case just wasn't thought of when the legislation was created.


Well normally a country doesn't leave so there probably wasn't a rule for that in place just yet because they didn't think about it or something like that. Probably after the brexit a rule like that will be placed that when undergoing article 50 you can't be re-elected anymore. But at the moment there's no such rule


----------



## spotanjo3 (Mar 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If I was British I'd stop buying products made in the EU. It's not like they can't get cars, wine etc from elsewhere.



Wow.. No wonder you are a Chinese. If I was America I 'd stop buying products made in the China. You sounds like a Racist! How would you feel about that? Watch your mouth. What's wrong with you ? EU is wonderful and my friend came from Uk. They prefer UK to be with EU. Shame on you for saying that! SMH. 



Taleweaver said:


> Okay. And... Just why would you do that?
> If not for anything else  the EU trade deals makes importing goods from there cheaper than comparable products from elsewhere. It'd be wilfully ignoring the benefits of the EU to... I guess trying to prove that there are no benefits? If enough people did it, it would be a good practice to see how things would turn out without the EU(minutes some hot angle's, of course)  But I think most simply going to ignore what was voted for and are going to be surprised by the impact.



You said it. I don't understand him and wonder why he would do that.


----------



## notimp (Mar 22, 2019)

Delay at his point is playing for time. Reason sold to the EU was "to have a chance to get people behind the current deal" (Agreement (what if the talks fail) after which the separation talks start.) - which no one believes anymore.

Now it seems to have become a "who is better prepared for a hard separation currently" question, and the answer to that at the current point in time is - the EU.

Thats where the powerplays come in.

"Only if you show intent of actually producing something in return." - is calling a bluff.

At the same time its also raising political pressure. To what result, we currently dont know.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 22, 2019)

The only thing i see at the moment is a no deal or remain. Most politicians in the UK are 2 stubborn. They see the deal as bending to the EU wich it isn't since they decided to leave themselves. At the moment the UK is making a mockery out of themselves in front of the world. It has been 3 years already and they're acting like spoiled children crying on the floor in a toyshop when they don't get what they want. Also that of being stubborn being extremely childish. Especially for them being adults and politicians.


----------



## shado9573 (Mar 22, 2019)

The People were misled by the UKIP. They did not know what would happen and how it can affect the UK adversely incase there is a No deal. People didn't really know what to expect weather leaving or not has its perks. Its like donald trump baby raging to get out of his home. Despite me voting Remain I am willing that the government keep a deal on the table when leaving. No dealing will affect me as well as Britian adversey more than the EU.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 22, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> Most politicians in the UK are 2 stubborn. They see the deal as bending to the EU wich it isn't since they decided to leave themselves.


Have you read the text or general gist of said deal? It is really quite bad if the objective was for the UK to strike out on their own -- the amount of rules, oversight and such the EU would still have under it is considerable, and in many ways it would hamstring the UK. The UK politicos have plenty of blame to take (no plan during the referendum, triggering article 50 still without a plan, fucking around for another few years still without a plan despite technically being at the table to discuss it, not having answers for a lot of hard and rather obvious problems) but as far as that deal goes then I have no idea how those that presented it thought it stood a chance of going through.


----------



## Essasetic (Mar 22, 2019)

Welp we're fucked lmao.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 22, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Have you read the text or general gist of said deal? It is really quite bad if the objective was for the UK to strike out on their own -- the amount of rules, oversight and such the EU would still have under it is considerable, and in many ways it would hamstring the UK. The UK politicos have plenty of blame to take (no plan during the referendum, triggering article 50 still without a plan, fucking around for another few years still without a plan despite technically being at the table to discuss it, not having answers for a lot of hard and rather obvious problems) but as far as that deal goes then I have no idea how those that presented it thought it stood a chance of going through.


Well i can agree with you on that tho but i hope for both parties it will end up in a remain but that will be unlikely


----------



## Armadillo (Mar 22, 2019)

To be fair, the deal might be shit, but end of the day as long as we have the NI border issue, we will be tied to the EU in someway and restricted in what we can do. Only realistic solutions to the issue for now:

Deal including backstop (bad deal, potentially tied to EU forever with no say).
Border down the Irish Sea (splits the UK, already ruled out)
Stay in Single Market and customs union (Brexit in name only, lose seat at table)
Stay in EU (Completely ignore the ref)


No deal is only way to be unrestricted/not tied to the EU at all, but of course causes Irish border issues.

No deal has already been ruled out (although technically still the default), only thing the mps need to decide is what kind of shit they want to eat.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 23, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Wow.. No wonder you are a Chinese. If I was America I 'd stop buying products made in the China. You sounds like a Racist! How would you feel about that? Watch your mouth. What's wrong with you ? EU is wonderful and my friend came from Uk. They prefer UK to be with EU. Shame on you for saying that! SMH.


First of all I'm not Chinese. Furthermore, I may sound like a racist, but you are one: "No wonder you are a Chinese". Additionally, I believe in liberty when it comes to buying products. The EU escalated the conflict by bullying the UK. In fact, there is only a conflict because the EU doesn't allow economic-only membership. Yet this is what the people of the UK were promised when they entered. Many people throughout the EU thought it would be an economic Union.
The EU is also bullying countries like Hungary for not getting in line with regards to immigration policies. Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK are sovereign countries! By throwing its economic weight around to oppress other countries, Germany will break up the EU one day. When it happens, I hope the other countries will remember the Fourth Reich and exclude Germany from tariff-friendly unions.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 23, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> First of all I'm not Chinese. Furthermore, I may sound like a racist, but you are one: "No wonder you are a Chinese". Additionally, I believe in liberty when it comes to buying products. The EU escalated the conflict by bullying the UK. In fact, there is only a conflict because the EU doesn't allow economic-only membership. Yet this is what the people of the UK were promised when they entered. Many people throughout the EU thought it would be an economic Union.
> The EU is also bullying countries like Hungary for not getting in line with regards to immigration policies. Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the UK are sovereign countries! By throwing its economic weight around to oppress other countries, Germany will break up the EU one day. When it happens, I hope the other countries will remember the Fourth Reich and exclude Germany from tariff-friendly unions.


Hungary, poland and so forth are getting billions in funding from the EU. I used to live in Hungary when it wasn't a part of Europe and i can assure you it was a shithole where you could pay off cops, russian mafia, everybody being poor driving trabants, lada's and wartburgs instead of bmw's, mercedes and so forth that everyone has now since they're a part of europe and no social funds whatsoever and so forth. If Orban hates the EU so much then why not stop taking all those billions he gets from the EU changing his country back to the shithole it was prior to becoming a EU country and the same goes for Poland. When Hungary wasn't a part of the EU back in the day i saw homeless death people frozen to death in a ditch constantly when going to school and homeleas kids dead because of sniffing glue. Yeah, Hungary was so much better off in the past eh


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 23, 2019)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said they were better off without the EU.
The former Soviet countries primarily benefit from being no longer part of the Soviet Union and from the single market. The single market could exist without strings attached, however. That's the way the EU was sold to most peoples of Europe.

But if being a net contributor gives countries the right to bully others, I guess azoreseuropa owes an apology to me, his master (if he's Portguese).


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 23, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said they were better off without the EU.
> The former Soviet countries primarily benefit from being no longer part of the Soviet Union and from the single market. The single market could exist without strings attached, however. That's the way the EU was sold to most peoples of Europe.
> 
> But if being a net contributor gives countries the right to bully others, I guess azoreseuropa owes an apology to me, his master (if he's Portguese).


They haven't been a part of the soviet for ages. What are you talking about ? I'm 31 years old, i can assure you when i lived there it wasn't a part of europe or the soviet and still a corrupt shithole


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 23, 2019)

The effects of the Soviet Union are still felt in the East of Germany today. The benefits of being a net receiver of EU money surely helps but the Single market is proabaly the biggest factor.
What are you suggesting? Hungary should let Kaiser Merkel dictate their migration policy and media plurality (as if there was one in Germany) because of the EU benefits for Hungary (and others)?
If Germany wants to argue this way, I'm sure there are still a few countries who would like those World War 2 reparations (which were originally denied due to Germany being needed in the Cold War).


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 23, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The effects of the Soviet Union are still felt in the East of Germany today. The benefits of being a net receiver of EU money surely helps but the Single market is proabaly the biggest factor.
> What are you suggesting? Hungary should let Kaiser Merkel dictate their migration policy and media plurality (as if there was one in Germany) because of the EU benefits for Hungary (and others)?
> If Germany wants to argue this way, I'm sure there are still a few countries who would like those World War 2 reparations (which were originally denied due to Germany being needed in the Cold War).


I'm talking from my own experience wich is a lot more worth than some anti eu rambling. If orban hates the eu so much than he should decline all that funding and go back to driving lada's instead of bmw's and mercedes and so much more. It's that simple. It's easy to complain about a system but still take money from the system that gives it.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 23, 2019)

You're dodging my question: Should Hungary open its borders for the Kaiser the same way a woman is supposed to open her legs if he paid for the dates? Is that part of the EU constitution?
If Merkel wants Orban to take the migrants she invited, there is a simple solution: Give them German (and therefore EU) citizenship and lower the welfare system below the level of Hungary. Voila.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 23, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You're dodging my question: Should Hungary open its borders for the Kaiser the same way a woman is supposed to open her legs if he paid for the dates? Is that part of the EU constitution?
> If Merkel wants Orban to take the migrants she invited, there is a simple solution: Give them German (and therefore EU) citizenship and lower the welfare system below the level of Hungary. Voila.


You keep saying Merkel like she's the president wich she isn't. A bill in the european parlement has to be voted on by each country and not solely by 1 person like ur claiming it to be. The amount of refugees is decided on by the gdp and size of a country. I can assure you the amount of refugees they needed to take in was way less than germany or other bigger richer countries had to take in. And last the eu is a joined union and if you don't take in your quota you push the load to other countries who are a bit more poor than yourself, burdening them. Also Hungary basically almost isn't a union country anymore since they lost the power to vote in parlement as punishment for not taking any in. I'm anti migration myself btw but i do understand that when you join something and you even fully sign everything that says on it and take money because you signed it then that's just how it is. But complaining afterwards while still taking all that money is a load of bull


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 23, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> The only thing i see at the moment is a no deal or remain. Most politicians in the UK are 2 stubborn. They see the deal as bending to the EU wich it isn't since they decided to leave themselves. At the moment the UK is making a mockery out of themselves in front of the world. It has been 3 years already and they're acting like spoiled children crying on the floor in a toyshop when they don't get what they want. Also that of being stubborn being extremely childish. Especially for them being adults and politicians.



I don't think most MP's want to leave, My own MP has voted against May's deal each time even thou the majority of my MP's constituants voted to leave 2 years ago. 

It's the MP's who have made this country a laughing stock, I'm sure if I contact my MP she will say shes voted against May's deal each time becuase the deal was not good enough even thou the real reason is she's aganist leaving the EU.

The majority of MP's have betrayed the majority of it's own citizens with their sabotaging of any deal to leave . I can only see this ending 2 ways.

1. We leave without a deal which I doubt will happen as most MP's dont want this.
2. there is a 'peoples Referedum'  on the deal  and I'm sure the majority of voters will turn the deal down so we stay in the EU. A sad day for democracy that MP's got what they want and not what the majority of it's citizens voted for.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 23, 2019)

The EU is only a confederation, not a federation. Therefore, forcing a country to take in refugees would be unlawful, I imagine. The refugee quote was a joke because it only dealt with a small number of migrants - and even those could not be distributed. Besides, the refugees don't want to go to Hungery. Should the Germans or Hungarians use force against them? That would create negative images, which is something Merkels wants to avoid at all costs.

I thought Hungary did not lose votings rights due to the veto of Poland but I might not be up to date.


----------



## Rafaqat (Mar 23, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The effects of the Soviet Union are still felt in the East of Germany today. The benefits of being a net receiver of EU money surely helps but the Single market is proabaly the biggest factor.
> What are you suggesting? Hungary should let Kaiser Merkel dictate their migration policy and media plurality (as if there was one in Germany) because of the EU benefits for Hungary (and others)?
> If Germany wants to argue this way, I'm sure there are still a few countries who would like those World War 2 reparations (which were originally denied due to Germany being needed in the Cold War).



What I love is when you discuss anything with a brexiter, stuff like kaizer this and "European overlord" that BS starts getting bandied about.   Brexiters are quite quick dropping the mask and letting the xenophobia shine right through.

I look forward (not) to the idiots realising that leaving the EU will only change immigration from Europe. The next argument will be about all those brown people coming over but of course couched in some BS again about preserving culture and some shite about birth rates.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Mar 23, 2019)

Flame said:


> none.
> 
> its just sucking one mans dick. Nigel Farage.
> 
> expect the US every other country would do anything to be part of the E.U.


yeah, I bet the whole world is itching to be ruled by unelected elites.

eurabia for life


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 23, 2019)

Rafaqat said:


> What I love is when you discuss anything with a brexiter, stuff like kaizer this and "European overlord" that BS starts getting bandied about.   Brexiters are quite quick dropping the mask and letting the xenophobia shine right through.
> 
> I look forward (not) to the idiots realising that leaving the EU will only change immigration from Europe. The next argument will be about all those brown people coming over but of course couched in some BS again about preserving culture and some shite about birth rates.



I fully agree (although I am not a Brexiter)


----------



## Rafaqat (Mar 23, 2019)

piratesephiroth said:


> yeah, I bet the whole world is itching to be ruled by unelected elites.
> 
> eurabia for life



You DO realise that we vote in European elections for some UK MP's to represent our interests in Brussels right?   And that we have power of Veto on lots of stuff that gets discussed
"Britain voted on the winning side nearly 90% of the time over the past six years, according to academics at the London School of Economics."

Come on. Do better than trot out that old poop.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Mar 23, 2019)

Rafaqat said:


> What I love is when you discuss anything with a brexiter, stuff like kaizer this and "European overlord" that BS starts getting bandied about.   Brexiters are quite quick dropping the mask and letting the xenophobia shine right through.
> 
> I look forward (not) to the idiots realising that leaving the EU will only change immigration from Europe. The next argument will be about all those brown people coming over but of course couched in some BS again about preserving culture and some shite about birth rates.



Oy, you got a license for that virtue signalling, mate?


----------



## CORE (Mar 23, 2019)

Just as John Dee Foretold the Second Blight is upon us ZBIU.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 24, 2019)

Probably worth mentioning :  there has been a huge pro-EU demonstration in London yesterday. Over a million people matched against the 'circus'. The online petition for a second referendum needs 100'000 votes to be heard by parliament but is now at four million signatures.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Mar 24, 2019)

Honestly, if there is no Brexit, the British people have nobody to blame but themselves. Parliament makes the final decision. If they don't like it, they should not have voted for Labor or May's party. Both of them were against a real Brexit.
It's like the "lesser of two evils" arguments in the USA. Then don't vote for either, you morons!
No offence...


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 24, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Honestly, if there is no Brexit, the British people have nobody to blame but themselves. Parliament makes the final decision. If they don't like it, they should not have voted for Labor or May's party. Both of them were against a real Brexit.
> It's like the "lesser of two evils" arguments in the USA. Then don't vote for either, you morons!
> No offence...


That makes little sense from where I sit. I would still be content to blame the government for triggering article 50 without an agreement as to what was being sought and loads of people having their own ideas (mainly because there was no agreed up setup at the time of the referendum), and proceeding to twiddle their thumbs for the next however long whilst hamstringing what efforts were being made to negotiate. Similarly what would "real brexit" look like? To some I imagine it is WTO agreements, others would probably go for minimal EU oversight but some kind of special relationship owing to the ease of trade and history thereof, others would be content to adopt some of the things the likes of Norway, Switzerland and such have and many remixes of all of those, and some things I likely have not considered. Any of those could justifiably be called "real" and not what another camp in the debate would care for, even if they nominally fall under the leave banner.


----------



## kumikochan (Mar 24, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> That makes little sense from where I sit. I would still be content to blame the government for triggering article 50 without an agreement as to what was being sought and loads of people having their own ideas (mainly because there was no agreed up setup at the time of the referendum), and proceeding to twiddle their thumbs for the next however long whilst hamstringing what efforts were being made to negotiate. Similarly what would "real brexit" look like? To some I imagine it is WTO agreements, others would probably go for minimal EU oversight but some kind of special relationship owing to the ease of trade and history thereof, others would be content to adopt some of the things the likes of Norway, Switzerland and such have and many remixes of all of those, and some things I likely have not considered. Any of those could justifiably be called "real" and not what another camp in the debate would care for, even if they nominally fall under the leave banner.


The thing is with Norway, switzerland and so forth that they never have been a part of the EU to begin with and in general always have been on good terms with each other while the UK has been a part of the EU, constantly slandering the EU, working against the EU and they left themselves and are gonna expect the same deal as Norway and Switzerland have ? That is NEVER going to happen. I'm not saying you do but a lot of people in the UK expect a deal like that and constantly bring up switzerland and Norway


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> The thing is with Norway, switzerland and so forth that they never have been a part of the EU to begin with and in general always have been on good terms with each other while the UK has been a part of the EU, constantly slandering the EU, working against the EU and they left themselves and are gonna expect the same deal as Norway and Switzerland have ? That is NEVER going to happen. I'm not saying you do but a lot of people in the UK expect a deal like that and constantly bring up switzerland and Norway



I don't know if I would say the UK is constantly slandering the EU. The Euro sceptic element as they were called were reasonably prominent but at the same time there were plenty in it to win it. Unless you mean not joining the Euro or Schengen.

I would agree if it is going to be purely done on good will on the EU's part, especially if the EU also has to be seen to make an example of the UK to scare the rest of its members and prospective members. If the UK is some kind of valuable to the EU though then it is not unreasonable to negotiate for something, indeed May's deal includes many elements similar to what those countries have. That said the point of bringing it up was to illustrate the ambiguousness of the quoted poster, and I don't consider some variation on those themes terribly unreasonable or unlikely.


----------



## emigre (Mar 24, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> The thing is with Norway, switzerland and so forth that they never have been a part of the EU to begin with and in general always have been on good terms with each other while the UK has been a part of the EU, constantly slandering the EU, working against the EU and they left themselves and are gonna expect the same deal as Norway and Switzerland have ? That is NEVER going to happen. I'm not saying you do but a lot of people in the UK expect a deal like that and constantly bring up switzerland and Norway



I think the problem is our negotiating team went in there with an actual expectation of having our cake and eating it. The so-called red lines have really dented the prospect of a functional post-exit relationship.

I think it's safe to say the biggest benefit of Brexit to us is the how clear our institutions are a complete shambles and out this generation's politicians are so incompetent yet so self-centered. It's truly amazing at how the Tory party have royally damaged the country to deal with their own internal division.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

This is a top-notch Brexit meme right here.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> right here.


Totally looks like a better version of a dude we "know" 

ernyweigh,


Spoiler: peccadillo #2











Shit, no lie, I thought this was post funny pics--hold for edit.
-------------
After seeing my peccadillo, a question I'd like to ask (feel free), do you think Brexit will cause a revolution?


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Probably worth mentioning :  there has been a huge pro-EU demonstration in London yesterday. Over a million people matched against the 'circus'. The online petition for a second referendum needs 100'000 votes to be heard by parliament but is now at four million signatures.



No, It's really not worth mentioning. Remoaners doing what they've done for the past 3 years .. moaning. The online petition has had every country in the world sign it! This thread has been hilarious. I'm glad you find it newsworthy that the London elite, which is full of middle to upperclass muppets and every EU national you could imagine, managed to walk out their front doors for a quick stroll around London in their echo chamber yesterday. Still, 5million mostly duplicates/fradulent signatures doesn't quite come close to 17.4m real votes. It's great they managed to organise a march but couldn't organise a march to the ballot box 3 years ago.


----------



## blahblah (Mar 24, 2019)

Why is this thread allowed to exist? Lock it, delete it, let's move on. Stop allowing crypto-fascists to launder garbage they were taught by Youtube.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 24, 2019)

I feel good to have both sides.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> It's great they managed to organise a march but couldn't organise a march to the ballot box 3 years ago.


Almost as bad as the 'leave' crew running a marketing campaign before they had any idea what a deal to leave might actually look like.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Almost as bad as the 'leave' crew running a marketing campaign before they had any idea what a deal to leave might actually look like.



Mate your opinion on brexit is about as relevant as mine on Trump. I couldn't care less what you have to say on this subject. But I'll add it makes no difference whatsoever what leave 'looks like' It was a binary choice, in or out. We were all told leaving meant leaving the customs union and single market. It was sold to us as a no deal, that's what we voted for. Obviously, coming from an already independent country that wouldn't dream of ever giving up any sovereignty whatsoever for any sort of trade deals you'll forgive me if I dont care what you think.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> But I'll add it makes no difference whatsoever what leave 'looks like' It was a binary choice, in or out.


Without a pre-established deal, there is no binary choice.  It was more like a false choice, because the 'leave' option didn't really have any substance behind it, and somehow it still doesn't.  Personally I think they never should've held the vote at all, it's clear now that people didn't have the information they needed to make an informed decision.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Without a pre-established deal, there is no binary choice.  It was more like a false choice, because the 'leave' option didn't really have any substance behind it, and somehow it still doesn't.  Personally I think they never should've held the vote at all, it's clear now that people didn't have the information they needed to make an informed decision.



"Without a pre-established deal" It's called trading on WTO terms (that over 70% of the globe outside the EU does, crazy i know) It must suck being on the wrong side of history - twice (brexit and trump) but It's time to move on, you're in the minority. It wasn't a false choice, we voted for what we voted for, nobody has to explain why they voted for it. Nobody owes you an explanation. You think they shouldn't have held the vote because you don't like the outcome - again, that's irrelevant, doesn't affect you. The rest of it was just typical lefty trash, I knew what I voted for thanks. "once in a generation"


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> It wasn't a false choice, we voted for what we voted for


"Voted for what we voted for."  And what did you vote for exactly?  You voted 'leave.'  What does that entail?  Apparently nobody knows since you won't explain it, and neither will the leave campaigners that dipped right the fuck out as soon as the vote passed.

Obviously I don't really have a horse in this race, and Brexiteers are free to shoot themselves in the foot as many times as they'd like.  The rest of us on the outside are just wondering why.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "Voted for what we voted for."  And what did you vote for exactly?  You voted 'leave.'  What does that entail?  Apparently nobody knows since you won't explain it, and neither will the leave campaigners that dipped right the fuck out as soon as the vote passed.
> 
> Obviously I don't really have a horse in this race, and Brexiteers are free to shoot themselves in the foot as many times as they'd like.  The rest of us are just wondering why.



Again, I dont need to explain why I voted to you. It's my democratic choice. Yeah we certainly shot ourselves in the foot when we didn't join schengen and when we didn't join the Euro. We were told all our banks would collapse. Look what happened there. We were told there would be 100,000 job losses on merely having the gall to vote to leave. You'd think after recent history you wouldn't make such powerful assertions like you know everything when quite clearly you don't. Also you're quite welcome to keep wondering why, have fun.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Again, I dont need to explain why I voted to you.


I asked you to explain what the leave vote actually entails, not why you voted the way you did.  Was there a 'leave deal' in the end, or did Britain already leave the EU without any established terms?  Or is this entire fiasco still ongoing?


----------



## Rafaqat (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> No, It's really not worth mentioning. Remoaners doing what they've done for the past 3 years .. moaning. The online petition has had every country in the world sign it! This thread has been hilarious. I'm glad you find it newsworthy that the London elite, which is full of middle to upperclass muppets and every EU national you could imagine, managed to walk out their front doors for a quick stroll around London in their echo chamber yesterday. Still, 5million mostly duplicates/fradulent signatures doesn't quite come close to 17.4m real votes. It's great they managed to organise a march but couldn't organise a march to the ballot box 3 years ago.



Weird.  Second person to have tried to claim that the march is full of middle to upper class people. the Other guy tried to claim it was mostly white people. 
The march had busses coming in from all parts of the country.  We can disagree on the reason for brexit and the pro and cons bu lets not try to sell lies (again).


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I asked you to explain what the leave vote actually entails, not why you voted the way you did.  Was there a 'leave deal' in the end, or did Britain already leave the EU without any established terms?  Or is this entire fiasco still ongoing?



The government spent £9m sending leaflefts explaining what leave actually meant. It meant leaving all the EU institutions. It meant the ECJ (European court of justice)  would no longer supersede our own supreme court (I'm sure you'd be totally fine with Canadas courts overruling yours for a trade deal) We wouldn't be in the customs union, the single market. The EU could no longer impose their own laws on ours (we can't remove a tampon tax as it's made in the EU) and we would no longer be paying in to the tune of billions of pounds each year. There's 28 countries, 3 net contributors, 25 who benefit.. It means EU nationals would lose the automatic right to move here for work and vice versa. Among many other things. It meant the 5 EU presidents (who I didn't vote in, because they cant be removed and was never voted in) have no say on our domestic affairs. Hopefully it's clearer what the referendum was about. I'm sure you've been eagerly awaiting to see whether Russia interfered in your election while gleefully ignoring the fact that Obama interfered in our referendum. "It's okay when we do it"


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> No, It's really not worth mentioning. Remoaners doing what they've done for the past 3 years .. moaning. The online petition has had every country in the world sign it! This thread has been hilarious. I'm glad you find it newsworthy that the London elite, which is full of middle to upperclass muppets and every EU national you could imagine, managed to walk out their front doors for a quick stroll around London in their echo chamber yesterday. Still, 5million mostly duplicates/fradulent signatures doesn't quite come close to 17.4m real votes. It's great they managed to organise a march but couldn't organise a march to the ballot box 3 years ago.


If that's really so  surely you wouldn't mind a second referendum  There won't be duplicates or foreigners falsely influencing what real Britons think. And like you say : it's been nearly three years since the vote  Some where then to young to vote, others may have changed their minds, and I'm sure that everyone in the uk will have discussed it quite often in these years.

Oh,and... The bremainders represented 48%. A bit much to clarify them all as 'the elite'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


----------



## Rafaqat (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Again, I dont need to explain why I voted to you. It's my democratic choice. Yeah we certainly shot ourselves in the foot when we didn't join schengen and when we didn't join the Euro. We were told all our banks would collapse. Look what happened there. We were told there would be 100,000 job losses on merely having the gall to vote to leave. You'd think after recent history you wouldn't make such powerful assertions like you know everything when quite clearly you don't. Also you're quite welcome to keep wondering why, have fun.



Umm. There's been numerous reports saying the economy has already lost billions due to brexit so far.  I don't think we're going ot descend into a Mad Max style scenario if/when we leave but do understand that those deals we were promised that would materialise once the world realised we weren't going to be part of the Europe haven't turned up.  We have most countries salivating at the fact that we're now on our own and they can dictate all sorts to us to sort out various deals.  Just take a look at what the US is asking for in exchange for setting up trade with us. We've absolutely weakened ourselves and the hit to the economy while not enough to send us under will mean we've lost a crap load of money to other countries.  We'll be paying for this for years to come. With the news how it is though, we'll likely blame someone else for it though.  Guaranteed.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I asked you to explain what the leave vote actually entails, not why you voted the way you did.  Was there a 'leave deal' in the end, or did Britain already leave the EU without any established terms?  Or is this entire fiasco still ongoing?


The government spent £9m sending leaflefts explaining what leave actually meant. It meant leaving all the EU institutions. It meant the ECJ (European court of justice)  would no longer supersede our own supreme court (I'm sure you'd be totally fine with Canadas courts overruling yours for a trade deal) We wouldn't be in the customs union, the single market. The EU could no longer impose their own laws on ours (we can't remove a tampon tax as it's made in the EU) and we would no longer be paying in to the tune of billions of pounds each year. There's 28 countries, 3 net contributors, 25 who benefit.. It means EU nationals would lose the automatic right to move here for work and vice versa. I don't want too share borders with 28 countries thanks. It means we will no longer have to bail out countries like Portugal and Spain because they adopted the failing Euro. One currency for 27 different economies is beyond stupid. Also I've no intention of dying as part of an EU army. Among many other things. It meant the 5 EU presidents (who I didn't vote in, because they cant be removed and was never voted in) have no say on our domestic affairs. Hopefully it's clearer what the referendum was about. I'm sure you've been eagerly awaiting to see whether Russia interfered in your election while gleefully ignoring the fact that Obama interfered in our referendum. "It's okay when we do it"

TL: DR - we were told in/out. No deals, in or out. We voted out. Myself and many others are more than happy with WTO terms.



Rafaqat said:


> Weird.  Second person to have tried to claim that the march is full of middle to upper class people. the Other guy tried to claim it was mostly white people.
> The march had busses coming in from all parts of the country.  We can disagree on the reason for brexit and the pro and cons bu lets not try to sell lies (again).



I've genuinely yet to see anybody who wasn't white at the march, just videos of buses full of old white people (whos future im apparently stealing)


----------



## Rafaqat (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The government spent £9m sending leaflefts explaining what leave actually meant. It meant leaving all the EU institutions. It meant the ECJ (European court of justice)  would no longer supersede our own supreme court (I'm sure you'd be totally fine with Canadas courts overruling yours for a trade deal) We wouldn't be in the customs union, the single market. The EU could no longer impose their own laws on ours (we can't remove a tampon tax as it's made in the EU) and we would no longer be paying in to the tune of billions of pounds each year. There's 28 countries, 3 net contributors, 25 who benefit.. It means EU nationals would lose the automatic right to move here for work and vice versa. Among many other things. It meant the 5 EU presidents (who I didn't vote in, because they cant be removed and was never voted in) have no say on our domestic affairs. Hopefully it's clearer what the referendum was about. I'm sure you've been eagerly awaiting to see whether Russia interfered in your election while gleefully ignoring the fact that Obama interfered in our referendum. "It's okay when we do it"



>>There's 28 countries, 3 net contributors, 25 who benefit

Did you know that early on when our economy was nicely shafted we were the ones getting the benefit?
That's how it works. Ones doing well help out the one not doing well. I always laugh when I end up talking to people who get really upset by that notion.  Selfish tendencies everytime.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> If that's really so  surely you wouldn't mind a second referendum  There won't be duplicates or foreigners falsely influencing what real Britons think. And like you say : it's been nearly three years since the vote  Some where then to young to vote, others may have changed their minds, and I'm sure that everyone in the uk will have discussed it quite often in these years.
> 
> Oh,and... The bremainders represented 48%. A bit much to clarify them all as 'the elite'.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Your argument makes no sense. We all voted under the same rules - once in a generation. We didn't re run the vote in 1975 for over 40 years but you want another now because you lost? I was too young to vote in the 2010 general election, shit happens, why do you want to change the rules now? Oh because you lost.




Rafaqat said:


> >>There's 28 countries, 3 net contributors, 25 who benefit
> 
> Did you know that early on when our economy was nicely shafted we were the ones getting the benefit?
> That's how it works. Ones doing well help out the one not doing well. I always laugh when I end up talking to people who get really upset by that notion.  Selfish tendencies everytime.



Did you know after WWII we ended up oweing America alot of money. There economy was better than ours, we've only just paid back the national debt. They should give us more money now though because they're greedy if they dont, amiright.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Hopefully it's clearer what the referendum was about. I'm sure you've been eagerly awaiting to see whether Russia interfered in your election while gleefully ignoring the fact that Obama interfered in our referendum. "It's okay when we do it"


Rofl what?  How does getting Britain to leave the EU benefit Obama in any way?  He's not even in office for the conclusion of Brexit.



shamzie said:


> TL: DR - we were told in/out. No deals, in or out.


That's the thing: you didn't need anything extraneous in place if you were just going to stay in the EU, those agreements and deals were already in place.  Having no legislation or terms for the leave deal in place _before_ giving the vote to the general public was a massive fuck-up, not to mention an abdication of duty for elected representatives.  Now the leavers really have no idea what they're going to end up having to settle for as a result.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rofl what?  How does getting Britain to leave the EU benefit Obama in any way?  He's not even in office for the conclusion of Brexit.
> 
> 
> That's the thing: you didn't need anything extraneous in place if you were just going to stay in the EU, those agreements and deals were already in place.  Having no legislation or terms for the leave deal in place _before_ giving the vote to the general public was a massive fuck-up, not to mention an abdication of duty for elected representatives.  Now the leavers really have no idea what they're going to end up having to settle for as a result.



I didn't say it benefited him, I said he interfered. He flew over here and threatened every single one of us if we dared vote to leave the precious European union, but like I said "It's okay when we do it" I don't expect you to disavow american interference in UK domestic referenda as you're a hypocrite, so that's okay. Sigh, we dont want to stay in! you ignored everything I said and reverted back to blah blah trade deals stay. I'm genuinely not surprised. We voted to leave, we can trade on WTO terms. I couldn't give a fuck about a trade deal with a failing trade bloc. I explained why and you just started blabbering on about a trade deal, like It's you who has to do these deals and it's too much work? It doesn't affect you.


----------



## NANASHI89 (Mar 24, 2019)

Last I checked, you have the EU to blame for that Article whatsit.... the one that bans memes.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> He flew over here and threatened every single one of us if we dared vote to leave the precious European union


Why do I get the feeling we have very different definitions for the word "threatened?"



shamzie said:


> Sigh, we dont want to stay in!


I get that.  All I'm saying is that we _still _have no idea what consequences or benefits Brexit will bring, because nobody did their due diligence ahead of the vote.  From an outside perspective, we've had months of Parliament running around in complete chaos like chickens with their heads cut off.  I've heard British news saying essentially the same thing.  It seems inevitable that we're going to hit the deadline for a 'no deal' Brexit, and still nobody will have a clue about the actions that need to be taken as a result.


----------



## eyeliner (Mar 24, 2019)

I want Britain to leave. No deal. They chose, their right. And that bull of "three years have passed, so ideas can change" is a moot point. After a few minutes a voting takes place, would it be reasonable to ask for a repetition? A lot of people would then be eligible to vote, while others could die.

They voted, they had their say. Let them go. Don't allow them "deals". It was a unilateral decision to split, so they must dance to the tune.

And who cares if the EU cracks? Nations existed before the EU was a damn thing. And we lived on.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Why do I get the feeling we have very different definitions for the word "threatened?"
> 
> 
> I get that.  All I'm saying is that we _still _have no idea what consequences or benefits Brexit will bring, because nobody did their due diligence ahead of the vote.  From an outside perspective, we've had months of Parliament running around in complete chaos like chickens with their heads cut off.  I've heard British news saying essentially the same thing.  It seems inevitable that we're going to hit the deadline for a 'no deal' Brexit, and still nobody will have a clue about the actions that need to be taken as a result.



Watch the clip, he threatened us economically. And I agree, parliament has been a joke. That's what happens when you have a Government at odds with the people. The general election elected MPS who stood on a leave manifesto to the tune of 80%. The government is vastly remain, the people are leave. What happens when you have a government instructed to do something they don't want to do? So you're right, it is a joke, because they've made it one. If they'd have done what we voted for, which was vote to leave with no deal, we wouldn't be in this mess. We'd be trading on WTO terms and striking other deals as we go along. I'm not saying it's going to be all rosy, but it's not about the economy, Its about sovereignity. I'd rather be a poor master than a rich slave to somebody else.




eyeliner said:


> I want Britain to leave. No deal. They chose, their right. And that bull of "three years have passed, so ideas can change" is a moot point. After a few minutes a voting takes place, would it be reasonable to ask for a repetition? A lot of people would then be eligible to vote, while others could die.
> 
> They voted, they had their say. Let them go. Don't allow them "deals". It was a unilateral decision to split, so they must dance to the tune.
> 
> And who cares if the EU cracks? Nations existed before the EU was a damn thing. And we lived on.



The UK and Portugal have already agreed reciprocal rights. Because it would be stupid not too, we spend billions their each year as tourists, why would Portugal want to lose that? I was in Portugal last June, beautiful place. Everything is always negative, were not leaving Europe, just don't want to be in a political union.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> If they'd have done what we voted for, which was vote to leave with no deal, we wouldn't be in this mess.


From what I remember, there was no presumption that there would be no deal in the beginning.  Isn't that why Parliament made May come up with a deal?  More than once even, IIRC.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> From what I remember, there was no presumption that there would be no deal in the beginning.  Isn't that why Parliament made May come up with a deal?  More than once even, IIRC.



It was a presumption of no deal based on the In/Out. It was binary, the leaflet stated we'd leave the EU and all their institutions. Not we'll leave if we can secure a deal, It's only after the vote the remain politicians have ran around trying to sabotage the vote.


----------



## eyeliner (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> It was a presumption of no deal based on the In/Out. It was binary, the leaflet stated we'd leave the EU and all their institutions. Not we'll leave if we can secure a deal, *It's only after the vote the remain politicians have ran around trying to sabotage the vote.*


That's it right there.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> It was binary, the leaflet stated we'd leave the EU and all their institutions.


Sure, but that doesn't mean you'll want to be without any sort of trade agreement.  Not to mention all the other intricacies of the daily interactions between countries.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

WTO is a trade deal. This sums it up better than I can.


----------



## CORE (Mar 24, 2019)

Do as we say or you cant Trade F***OFF!


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 24, 2019)

why didn't these remain marchers and those 5 million who signed the petition to revoke article 50 not vote for the Liberal Democrats at the last general election ?. they were the only  party that pledged to keep us in the EU,  but thier  % of the vote i think fell by .5%


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 25, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Your argument makes no sense. We all voted under the same rules - once in a generation. We didn't re run the vote in 1975 for over 40 years but you want another now because you lost? I was too young to vote in the 2010 general election, shit happens, why do you want to change the rules now? Oh because you lost.


No...I want a second referendum because the government is in complete disarray. If May can have a proposition shot down twice (and potentially a third time) with historical defeat, I don't see why a vote for the people that was extremely close can't be held a second time. The UK is still a democracy, right?

Besides....if the brexit is carried by so many people as you seem to suggest, shouldn't they be holding marches? There's a huge gap between May's deal and no deal, and the way it's going, you might as well flip a coin on the outcome. Since it's apparently so easy to organise a million man march in the UK, surely "your side"(1) will have no problems voicing whatever the UK should do.




(1): I don't really like this identification with political stances. It drags things into a personal realm whereas you should always stay open to what is the best outcome. By making it personal, it makes it harder to change one's view.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> The UK is still a democracy, right?



we had a democratic vote and the majority voted out, I wonder if at the next election these MP's  would  be happy to stand for a second vote if the oppersition kicked up a fuss ?

THe MP's on both sides have caused all the problems, we all know most don't want ot leave the EU, they don't care what the majority voted for, how is that democracy ?


----------



## notimp (Mar 25, 2019)

i actually like the posting above, because it makes you think about structural influences.

Lets get into it for a while.

So UKIP wants to - essentially - leave at all cost. Says ireland issue is overblown. "Just do it." Still gives them political capital, because they are not in power (can curse out the existing admin, if things go wrong).

Labour is useless in regards to this question as of now - their actions currently are done to gain domestic policy capital, with the folks agree, that the vote was idiotic (harms the people who voted for it (lower income) most - in the upcoming years - is a very likely outcome). But to demand a second vote so soon - isnt going to fly from a democratic perspective.

Admin is trying to do the following. Not to provoke a crisis with ireland (just think of it, as one of the countries, that looses the most, when leaving the EU), not lose access to EU markets (thats a thing where both the UK and the EU win, if thats the outcome, but the EU cant do it at "here have it for free" cost, and the costs would always have to be "you have to adher to EU rules, or get a worse outcome on a trade deal", otherwise the thing (EU) blows up) -- and strangely enough, to play for time.

Now the conventional wisdom is, that they play for time, to get the current agreement through parliament for the third time - but that seems idiotic, and not very likely. (Speaker of the house spoke out against it, but that means nothing if push comes to shove.)

Imho - more likely scenario is, that UK is playing for time, to get their preliminary deals in place with important partners all over the world. For that the current back stop deal is "hindering". So publicly delaying serves two purposes. First, buying time. Second, to get the EU moving time after time, after time on an issue that negatively impacts their trade negotiations (preliminary ones, arent called that right now), which buys them "face".

Now the EU essentially has said, stop doing that - we are not believing in your good will anymore, and calling your bluff.

The thing is, that economically, access to the EU markets is still very important for both partners - and what you are seeing right now, is positioning to get a better outcome on each side. In the end, this also goes for ireland (will get subsidized in a harder exit scenario).

I dont believe for a moment, that this is all people running around having no idea what to do. 

Again, thats just UKIP telling you this, so you vote for them.

Brexit - likely - will still mean a very substantial trade deal between the EU and britain. If the EU does that without putting the UK down in the public eye, they loose heavily. So everything that makes the UK seem like total wankers, is good for "face" on the EU side. If a deal is brokered, a "you have to look like total wankers for a bit" clause is likely to be part of it.

If everything turns out no deal, things become hostile, and this logic goes out of the window.


----------



## notimp (Mar 25, 2019)

This is also why the "what he said, she said - and then they said" game of "public" politics is entirely useless, if you want to get a sense of the overall picture on a certain issue. Its fluff. If you are "into politics" for that - you dont understand politics.

Politics to a larger extend is, and always will be "my delegation talks to your delegation behind closed doors - then an outcome is brokered, then somone announces it publicly" - especially in foreign politics.

Concepts like the Chatham House Rule ( ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule) really drive that point home. Which is just a very interesting concept (diplomacy).

If you break it down, it goes like this. If you are intelligent. You always play the "public image" on important issues as well. The public stage, isnt the entirety of "whats done" to begin with, its just part of it. And in the end you cant help but to get drawn into the drama of the public sphere ("whats been announced, and when") as well - so you arent only "the driver" of the whole thing.

This - in concept, doesnt rely on the existence of "elites", it just makes a point for - intelligent people, dont let others see their hands, just because a journalist asks them to. This is universally correct and always will be. Also - deals arent brokered in front of the press, they are brokered in rooms - where the press waits outside - and then after its done, someone goes out to them and announces the outcome. This as well is universally correct, and always will be.

(If you are in an event where the press gets "universal access" and is allowed to write about everything - something has gone wrong substencialy.. 

Those are just deliberations that should make you think about politics less on a "and those where the five things the house did today, and this is what they mean - level". To follow the overall scope of things, those things (and personal politics) matter very little. Yet its all that media usually "is about". Newspapers "the least", but even they have to drum up personal drama and tell you about different faces in public to sell their work.

You'll arrive at this logically without the need of "shortcuts" like, 'fake news', 'elites we cant get rid of'. It just makes sense, on its own.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 25, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> we had a democratic vote and the majority voted out, I wonder if at the next election these MP's  would  be happy to stand for a second vote if the oppersition kicked up a fuss ?
> 
> THe MP's on both sides have caused all the problems, we all know most don't want ot leave the EU, they don't care what the majority voted for, how is that democracy ?


You certainly had a democratic vote. And no matter how you turn it: it has been followed through. There has been huge negotiations with the EU, problems have been found and...erm...with some notable and important exceptions aside, they have at least been addressed somewhat. There was a deal. It didn't fulfill the pipedream that was promised, but it was a deal nonetheless. Like you say: it wasn't the EU's fault that it was shot down twice.

But here's the thing: the no deal brexit won't bring that pipedream of "taking back control" any closer to reality either. Well...perhaps more strictly: it might, but at what cost? What's the point of having the freedom to make deals on your own terms if using that freedom might leave you without trade partners(1)?

You interestingly mention the next election. That got me thinking: why is it that you vote a new government each four years, but is the brexit referendum (that has - no offence to your government - a much larger role on the daily lives of inhabitants) so set in stone?


Look...to me, it's like with Trump in the USA. I don't really mind someone disagreeing with my stance, but I hate it when my stance is being mocked for something that it isn't. The EU certainly has some disadvantages, but has advantages as well. If the UK wanted out because they disliked the disadvantages too much, so be it (the EU isn't a prison). I would've been fine with it if it wasn't for the cherry picking that followed. "We want total independence!!! Oh, wait...skip that...we want total independence, but we'll gladly take that free goods movement advantage from the EU, mmkay? What do you mean 'follow EU regulations for that'? We said we want total independence!".
And it's one thing that you want to negotiate better trade deal than what you currently have, but why would anyone agree to it if that means they're getting a worse deal? And spreading the rumor your trade partner is "a bureaucratic nightmare" isn't the way to go either...that only lessens the chance of any deal to begin with.


...and I realise I'm mostly rambling with something that has only partially to do with your post. Sorry about that.




(1): let's take food safety regulations as an example. There are European guidelines for this. Do you really want the liberty to set up your own regulations if that means that no EU country would want to import your food?


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 25, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> we had a democratic vote and the majority voted out, I wonder if at the next election these MP's  would  be happy to stand for a second vote if the oppersition kicked up a fuss ?
> 
> THe MP's on both sides have caused all the problems, we all know most don't want ot leave the EU, they don't care what the majority voted for, how is that democracy ?


You certainly had a democratic vote. And no matter how you turn it: it has been followed through. There has been huge negotiations with the EU, problems have been found and...erm...with some notable and important exceptions aside, they have at least been addressed somewhat. There was a deal. It didn't fulfill the pipedream that was promised, but it was a deal nonetheless. Like you say: it wasn't the EU's fault that it was shot down twice.

But here's the thing: the no deal brexit won't bring that pipedream of "taking back control" any closer to reality either. Well...perhaps more strictly: it might, but at what cost? What's the point of having the freedom to make deals on your own terms if using that freedom might leave you without trade partners(1)?

You interestingly mention the next election. That got me thinking: why is it that you vote a new government each four years, but is the brexit referendum (that has - no offence to your governme






(1): let's take food safety regulations as an example. There are European guidelines for this. Do you really want the liberty to set up your own regulations if that means that no EU country would want to import your food?


shamzie said:


> WTO is a trade deal. This sums it up better than I can.


I gotta say this is a pretty interesting graph. I was pretty surprised to see the amount of regions that voted 'leave'...until I saw what those regions were. Yeah...if Gibraltar (95% remain) gets lumped up with South West England, then it can be perceived that way. Likewise, apparently Scotland and Northern Ireland are "just" one region each.

But on my end, I have to concede three things:
1) 2% difference in outcome votes still means over a million votes. It's easy to lose track of that when just comparing the difference.
2) the results are less polarizing that I thought they'd be. Or more, depending on how to interpret things. Almost all regions have in the 40-60 scale. With only a few exceptions, there are few regions that were fully backed on either side. To me, it was always implied that "Scotland and Northern Ireland might rebel", but that seems pretty unlikely, going by this kind of outcome. Scotland probably won't attempt to get rid of the UK and join the EU independently, as I've heard suggest...38% brexit votes (or one in every four citizens) is no small minority for such a dramatic action.
3) the MP's indeed do not reflect the general public's view on things.

Hmm...


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 25, 2019)

blahblah said:


> I really wish I knew why people use GBAtemp as a website to launder right wing crypto-fascist garbage they were taught from YouTube.
> 
> There are no benefits to Brexit. It would irreparably harm England, and much of the world with it. It will not wind up happening as a result.





blahblah said:


> Why is this thread allowed to exist? Lock it, delete it, let's move on. Stop allowing crypto-fascists to launder garbage they were taught by Youtube.




So you have been twice now and at neither time have you offered any reasoning for it. You are once more invited to provide some.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> (1): let's take food safety regulations as an example. There are European guidelines for this. Do you really want the liberty to set up your own regulations if that means that no EU country would want to import your food?



Yes, yes I do. Because that's what it's all about. The EU isn't everything, and you're certainly going to struggle when the UK stops paying in net billions each year. There's another 180 countries around the world to trade with.

About your point of a second referendum - the first vote hasn't been enacted yet. The only people who want a second referendum or a "final say" (You'll note they're calling it a final say because they wouldn't want a third referendum if they win, so leave has to win twice but remain only once? lol) There's nothing democratic about it, It was once in a generation. You can't change the rules because you lost. What happens if its remain by even less than vote leave won this time. Like I said, the only reason you advocate another vote is because you want YOUR WAY. It's not going too happen. All another vote does is disenfranchise everybody who voted to leave, it undermines our very process of democracy and further divides the country.



FAST6191 said:


> So you have been twice now and at neither time have you offered any reasoning for it. You are once more invited to provide some.



He's been twice, cried about a differing point of view twice and tried to shut down free speech. I wonder if he's on the left?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 25, 2019)

shamzie said:


> About your point of a second referendum - the first vote hasn't been enacted yet. The only people who want a second referendum or a "final say" (You'll note they're calling it a final say because they wouldn't want a third referendum if they win, so leave has to win twice but remain only once? lol) There's nothing democratic about it, It was once in a generation. You can't change the rules because you lost. What happens if its remain by even less than vote leave won this time. Like I said, the only reason you advocate another vote is because you want YOUR WAY. It's not going too happen. All another vote does is disenfranchise everybody who voted to leave, it undermines our very process of democracy and further divides the country.


There are occasions where laws have been repealed because their effects had some unforeseen repercussions, the ability to implement it was too taxing or just change of will. Given the UK politicos seem to be acting blindly with thumbs up their arses for years now... and as amusing as it is to see demonstrable evidence that this crop could not organise a piss up in a brewery it could see a change in will.
If people had voted leave and expected... baseline competence in politics and diplomacy (a reasonable expectation given the UK is some starving third world shithole just yet) then given what we have got I could see it. To have it happen would represent the proverbial cherry on top of the failure sundae, and erode even more trust in UK politicos than this last few years already has so I am not expecting anything.

As for the other thing I did find it amusing that now sitting in 20 pages of usually reasonable discussion wherein numbers, points of logic and all sorts of things related to economics, history, politics, diplomacy and all the rest are being brought and discussed, counters and further discussion.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 25, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Yes, yes I do. Because that's what it's all about. The EU isn't everything, and you're certainly going to struggle when the UK stops paying in net billions each year. There's another 180 countries around the world to trade with.


*sigh*

Where did I say the EU was "everything"? To my knowledge, nothing was stopping you from making trade deals with others. However, the brexit argument reduces the EU to less than it is. I don't want to tout (okay...I admit: I sort of do) but the absense of tension between Northern Ireland and Ireland hinges on the membership of the same union. I can understand the criticism on May's deal that it doesn't properly addresses that situation, but at least it somewhat addresses it. the 'no deal' scenario basically makes it an incident in the making.

Oh, and...I doubt the EU will be struggling because the UK has about the same amount of EU money flowing into it as UK money was flowing in the EU.



shamzie said:


> About your point of a second referendum - the first vote hasn't been enacted yet. The only people who want a second referendum or a "final say" (You'll note they're calling it a final say because they wouldn't want a third referendum if they win, so leave has to win twice but remain only once? lol) There's nothing democratic about it, It was once in a generation. You can't change the rules because you lost. What happens if its remain by even less than vote leave won this time. Like I said, the only reason you advocate another vote is because you want YOUR WAY. It's not going too happen. All another vote does is disenfranchise everybody who voted to leave, it undermines our very process of democracy and further divides the country.


You think I'd be here "complaining" if the UK government hadn't made such a mess? Leave's promises were flat out lies, which is clearly reflected in the actual deal being denied.

Holding a second referendum on the same topic could be against some legislation, but if Bercow's argument holds water, shouldn't that be only the case if the referendum is "substantially the same"? Again: the brexit deal (or deals if you want to cram May's deal in it as well) is not the one people voted for. If you go out and buy a Rolls Royce, but upon delivery just get a bike with the words 'Rolls Royce' on it, it'd be pretty silly that the salespeople say that you ran out of time to choose a car and therefore have to obey some ancient mystic car dealership rules that say that you can't change your car vote and go with the bike.

Yes, yes...I know: the comparison only works if the proposed brexit is actually different than what would happen under May's deal (or no deal). Well...lemme google this for you:
11 broken brexit promises
the border backdrop situation
more analysis of the difference between promise and reality

I can dig up some Dutch news articles as well (which basically spell the same thing), but I assume these are more credible within the UK.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I gotta say this is a pretty interesting graph. I was pretty surprised to see the amount of regions that voted 'leave'...until I saw what those regions were. Yeah...if Gibraltar (95% remain) gets lumped up with South West England, then it can be perceived that way. Likewise, apparently Scotland and Northern Ireland are "just" one region each.
> 
> But on my end, I have to concede three things:
> 1) 2% difference in outcome votes still means over a million votes. It's easy to lose track of that when just comparing the difference.
> ...



You're knowledge is wrong, the EU is literally stopping us making our own trade deals right now because were still a member of the customs union, so that amazing democractic union (who's never been audited or whos presidents i didn't vote for and i can't remove) is deciding our trade policy. Every vote counted. It doesn't matter if Scotland or London or Gibraltar voted to leave or stay, their votes were tallied the same as everybody elses. It always makes me laugh this argument. The rules were setout before hand. This tired of argument of Scotland voted to stay wahh, It wasn't just England, Wales voted to leave aswell. Wales voted for their own parliamentary assembly by 0.3% and guess what happened? The vote was enacted. You need to get over all the crap the mainstream (lefty) media is spouting. I knew exactly what I voted for, the gravy train is over. You'll have to find another country with Germany and France to subsidise you.

I'm not going over the same old points above, "lies, we didn't know what we voted for! we'll have no medicine!" I'm bored of the same old tired rhetoric above from people who lost the vote. You LOST the vote, the only people complaining are the losers because you didn't get your way, the vote was legal and democratic. If it's turned into such a shitstorm its because of people like yourselves who are unwilling to let go of the fact that you're in the minority and people dont actually agree with your warped world view.


----------



## blahblah (Mar 25, 2019)

At least change the thread's title. Again - zero benefits and won't wind up happening. Fascist-adjacent brexiters (aka all of them) will just have to deal with that reality.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 25, 2019)

blahblah said:


> At least change the thread's title. Again - zero benefits and won't wind up happening. Fascist-adjacent brexiters (aka all of them) will just have to deal with that reality.


The thread's title is pretty neutral, and uses a fairly standard discussion topic phrasing method. The opening post continues with the theme and looks at making something of a dispassionate analysis and seeking further discussion, which is what has been done ever since.

You are the main one crying over things, making baseless claims, insulting people and otherwise making a nuisance when the rest of us are trying to have a conversation (or playing devil's advocate).


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Apparently the 77-year-old lady who started the petition to remain is receiving multiple death threats:

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-be...death-threats-as-it-passes-4-million-11673447

Pretty fucked up.  The petition has over 4 million signatures now.


----------



## AmandaRose (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Apparently the 77-year-old lady who started the petition to remain is receiving multiple death threats:
> 
> https://news.sky.com/story/woman-be...death-threats-as-it-passes-4-million-11673447
> 
> Pretty fucked up.  The petition has over 4 million signatures now.


The petition is actually sitting currently at 5,629,213 signatures


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Apparently the 77-year-old lady who started the petition to remain is receiving multiple death threats:
> 
> https://news.sky.com/story/woman-be...death-threats-as-it-passes-4-million-11673447
> 
> Pretty fucked up.  The petition has over 4 million signatures now.



She has also made plenty of death threats, I've seen the screenshots.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 27, 2019)

She should be our PM


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 27, 2019)

shamzie said:


> She should be our PM





that sums everything up nicely 

I'm in 2 minds about May, shes screwed up calling an early election, if she had not  maybe all this messed would have never happened,  she would not have been in a weaker position to cut a deal the EU.

then shes a strong woman weaked by the bickering remainer MP's,  she was and is determined to take the UK out of the EU

oh breaking news, she will quit if her deal goes thru.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 27, 2019)

She's a remainer. She always planned this, they all did. Come out with an atrocious deal, knowing it will never pass then she can say "oh well I tried" which makes the EU look amazing in comparison.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 28, 2019)

Interesting times in the UK right now. Since it has become personal against May (also in this thread, at quite some times), May offered to resign if it'd get her deal through. Instead, parliament held...erm...I'm not sure if I should call it a petition, a motion or a coup, but no matter the name: they took over. They voted for what kind of deal they wanted to achieve(1)...

And voted no on no less than eight possible alternatives.





(1): which is about two years too late, as the EU was done negotiating before the last two delays


shamzie said:


> She should be our PM



Yeah...the problem is that you currently have such a PM. One that starts with the assumption that the EU needs the UK more than vice versa, and is convinced that all that is needed is a clear vision of what the UK needs to achieve. It's kind of self-evident, but...the EU also wants things. And while I personally disagree with May's deal (as obvious, I just want you guys to remain), at least she understands this. Both the UK and EU have - or should have - a good relationship as common goal, and as such, talking terms used are in the vein of "partners", "trade deals" and "good standing". That news reporter suggests just passing by what terms the EU deems necessary for a union to work, just cherry picking the parts the UK likes and contributing nothing but joined projects (erm...isn't the maintenance of free movement part of that contribution?).


shamzie said:


> She's a remainer. She always planned this, they all did. Come out with an atrocious deal, knowing it will never pass then she can say "oh well I tried" which makes the EU look amazing in comparison.


Yes, she's a remainer, indeed. And do you remember WHY she got that position?
It's because none of the brexiteers had a solid plan to work on, had no idea on the details they wanted to achieve or how to do it. And this isn't even me being sarcastic about things: Farage quit ukip mere days after the brexit result, and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were busy backstabbing each other. I might be wrong (and to be honest: I'm all ears on news sources that point out an alternative narrative  ), but I think May was just chosen because nobody else wanted the hassle of dealing with the EU (well knowing that they'd never agree on the wild promises that were given to the people).


----------



## tooknie (Mar 28, 2019)

Jonathan Pie captures it perfectly


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Yeah...the problem is that you currently have such a PM. One that starts with the assumption that the EU needs the UK more than vice versa, and is convinced that all that is needed is a clear vision of what the UK needs to achieve. It's kind of self-evident, but...the EU also wants things. And while I personally disagree with May's deal (as obvious, I just want you guys to remain), at least she understands this. Both the UK and EU have - or should have - a good relationship as common goal, and as such, talking terms used are in the vein of "partners", "trade deals" and "good standing". That news reporter suggests just passing by what terms the EU deems necessary for a union to work, just cherry picking the parts the UK likes and contributing nothing but joined projects (erm...isn't the maintenance of free movement part of that contribution?).
> 
> Yes, she's a remainer, indeed. And do you remember WHY she got that position?
> It's because none of the brexiteers had a solid plan to work on, had no idea on the details they wanted to achieve or how to do it. And this isn't even me being sarcastic about things: Farage quit ukip mere days after the brexit result, and Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were busy backstabbing each other. I might be wrong (and to be honest: I'm all ears on news sources that point out an alternative narrative  ), but I think May was just chosen because nobody else wanted the hassle of dealing with the EU (well knowing that they'd never agree on the wild promises that were given to the people).



None of what you said is true. The EU does need the UK more than vice versa and you're deluded if you believe otherwise. Nowhere else in the world does a TRADE deal require "the four pillars" what does a trade deal have to do with immigration? Nothing! The EU is a way for Germany to control continental Europe and you're falling for it big time. I suggest you look up how many euro bonds Germany has sold above 5% this week. 

We buy far more from you than you do from us, theres 3x as many EU nationals in the UK than vice versa. Ask yourself why 27 different nationalities flock to the UK but only 1/3 of that number has gone to the EU. Asking for a free trade deal isn't cherry picking it's common sense. The trouble is the EU wants to control our tax our trade and has the audacity to charge £39bn for it. I can't imagine what it must feel like too feel so utterly small that you think you need the EU, I thought Belgium was a proud strong country, It truly is sad to me that you're all so willing to throw away centuries of national culture. But have fun dying in the EU army because Germany says so.

She got that position because like the rest of parliament there are more remainers than brexiteers, they put her in that position to negotiate a terrible deal so we find ourselves exactly where we are now. Leadsom is a leaver and she came close but had to drop out because she made some silly comments on the radio. Her plan was to activate article 50 the day after. To say " you dont have a plan " isn't true, we have one. You just dont like it. You're correct that farage swanned off, but he isn't even an MP, was never in the negotiations and had about as much sway as you and I do. I love that you think that the UK supreme court being the highest court in the land and controlling our own immigration is "wild promises"


----------



## notimp (Mar 28, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Yes, yes I do. Because that's what it's all about. The EU isn't everything, and you're certainly going to struggle when the UK stops paying in net billions each year.


Another effing moron. And you are going to struggle, when you dont have access to our ressource and wares markets.

If you are not a child, or someone that never heard of trade basics, let me explain this to you. In economics, you can make deals - where both parties profit (regionality (efficiency benefits), bigger markets, lower entry costs). And you can make deals where both parties loose. (No you do hard brexit, no you do it, no you vote on what 12 different brexit deals within a week and a half now? Doesnt that seem moronic to you?)

The ONLY thing the UK has in its backpocket are their allied friends of the "we all speak english as our first language front" - which is the weighning world power currently (Europe isnt one to begin with, they just were a big domestic market). So part of UK elites found it funny to suck on uncle sams tits more better, and sell out everyone around them for a worse economic future, for both of them.

"But uncle Sam will pick up our bills." "And we will sell services to the chinese." Good luck. Thats the traitors part.

Also idiots ("Whats the EU!" googling, taking votes on 12 different approaches to leave the EU in the final week or so publicaly deranged looking bafoons, with "I'll resign, if you take the deal" powerplays - everything in those series of events is moronic.)

Two postings above I gave you the benefit of the doubt that this is all show - and the brits are playing for time. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

But all in all I hate the people that think, politics is a game of figureheads and play it like a soap - most. You really havent understood anything.

Also here is the thing about "netto payers" into the EU. Their economies profited most. You were paying taxes, that were reinvented into a common market. If you now dont want to pay in exchange for loosing the market you were part of - guess how your businesses will go short term.

(Thats why you had all your sectors do stress tests, before the Brexit vote - to see if the whole thing would falter, or you'd just make it. You'll just make it.)


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Another effing moron. And you are going to struggle, when you dont have access to our ressource and wares markets.
> 
> If you are not a child, or someone that never heard of trade basics, let me explain this to you. In economics, you can make deals - where both parties profit (regionality (efficiency benefits), bigger markets, lower entry costs). And you can make deals where both parties loose. (No you do hard brexit, no you do it, no you vote on what 12 different brexit deals within a week and a half now? Doesnt that seem moronic to you?)
> 
> ...



I'm a moron? 27 Countries in the EU, 180+ outside the EU. I'm guessing Maths isn't your strong point.

Do you live in Japan or Europe? Or are you in the UK on benefits? If you want to get personal let me know, otherwise drop the attitude you bellend. Doesn't it seem moronic to me that parliament has voted on a load of different options when we've already voted to leave? Yes it does. If you think you're so great without us then why are you crying about it? You seem really aggitated about the UK leaving, is it because the gravy train is over? If you don't need us why are you so mad and bitter. You come across as really pathetic.

-Literally never mentioned America
-Literally never mentioned China

Imagine thinking you're in a position to comment on the future of the UK, dont you need to ask merkel first? I'm pretty sure you're Germanys bitch so from now on dont even acknowledge me until you've asked for permission from the chancellor.

- lol I dont require the benefit of any doubt. I voted to leave the EU, i voted to stop uncontrolled immigration, to stop vast amounts of money being sent your way for "trade" to stop eu nationals coming here for "work" aka benefits. For our parliament to make and control OUR laws not verhofftwat. I'm not playing for time, nobody I know who voted leave is playing for time, we want to be out of the corrupt cabal known as the EU and the sooner you get that in your head the better. The payments will stop. Were done bailing out Greece and Portugal and Spain and soon Italy.

Get over it.


----------



## notimp (Mar 28, 2019)

I just read your last line. Not bothering with the rest of your post. You are a person that thinks, that politics is something like a bar topic, where you exchange how different people feel, and the one with the better football team wins in the end.

It is not.

I brought in America, because because the FREAKING lead economic advisor of Boris Johnson brought "coasting on our five eyes relationships" and "selling services to india and china" to the table as your most exciting prospects economically in the mid term future.

If you'd had read this thread - but of course you havent.

You think, that the way you talk about a failed personal relationship will just be enough in an international politics discussion. Its not.

Here is the thing. When we break down topics to "common language", so more people can participate, we also get a few folks in there, who think, that they should move the bar lower, and win on "whos the winningest face" and "emotion".

If you want to do relationship "get over it" cheap emotional wins on the internet, you havent understood this subforum. We do our damnest, to keep the bar of entry low - but not resort to myths and useless allegories ("its just like in a marriage.." its not - thats just your horizon.

Try to broaden it a bit more. If you get cheap thrills out of a "you guys arent the only ones around, get over it" quote in a political discussion. ) Is that what the US says to mexico? Is that what Japan says to China? You still are at a level where it doesnt benefit any rational argument.)

You are *winning* the argument, on an emotional ground, that simply isnt there. We are not your fiances, you are leaving a political, and trade union. And will probably have to spend billions on ireland and scottland alone, just to have them shut up (because they are the main losers of your "deal" as of now). (If the outcome is true economic separation.)

You destroyed a win/win deal (economically) - for an uncertain future. Thats, where the hate comes from. In your 'relationship' allegory.

And before people are back to fantasizing about who really broke up with whom, because they are a potentially higher status catch - none of this is a thing on the political level. It really isnt. Thats just - phantasy. Its where the allegory breaks.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 28, 2019)

The most ironic part of your post was you telling for me to be more broad. From a guy that can't see past Europe, I find that hilarious. Scotland and Ireland are part of the UK. Just like Gibraltar and many other terrorities. It cost what it cost.

What does it matter to you? It doesn't bother me what Germany spends to keep France happy. You're way too invested in something you have no control over, I'd suggest it's because you realise how much the EU needs the UK and when we leave the collapse will be imminent.

You're trying really hard with all your analogies to come across as the smart european who knows everything, when in reality you just come across as a douche.

Its not a "cheap thrill" It's a big wide world out there we can trade with, we aren't limited to you. We'd like a free trade deal but if not, oh well. I'm bored of going back and forth with you as to be quite frank your rhetoric lacks any basis of argument. You talk about me being emotional when every post you've replied with has been like a rant from a 6 yr old.

The final thing im going to say to you is I dont need to explain why I want to leave, nobody does. Just that its happening, were going to leave, we can have a free trade deal or we can trade on wto terms but the sooner you realise were done paying for europe and you will lose the automatic right to live here (like any normal nation has, borders) the better. You'll be happier.


----------



## notimp (Mar 28, 2019)

shamzie said:


> I find that hilarious.


I drew you a map. Your future "relationships" are all over the place and contradictory.

You know how we call this in politics? Someone who got bought out by another "divide and conquer" player. Again - russia was for you doing it, america was, china probably was as well - none of them had your interests at heart, they only found it funny - to have one of you in the middle of europe, for the rest of our countries to deal with.

Thats the part of BRITISH EXCEPTIONALISM thats left. You were a political anchor for the US on this side of the pond during the cold war. They put money into this, you wouldnt believe - but that perspective is gone. Also - I dont know if you have read it - but the US, geopolitically is at a decline.

So they do what empires always do in that state, and they try to retract. They are not expanding. If your remember - UKIPs political stance was "lets retract as well", but you are not an empire.

So whats so fantastic about "being able to deal with india and china" but outside the EU?

Again, perspectives are what you are sold on - but they arent great. And you really destroyed a win/win configuration (regionality) to get there.

The "look at the perspectives" salesmen, are all over the moron rightwing interthewebs currently. The thing they dont tell you is, that you just harmed both of our economies severely. For no better economical outlook at all.

You spew the idotic and debunked 1 billion netto payer number as if it was a reason. It wasnt. The ONLY POLITICAL REASON for brexit was not to get into further political integration projects within the EU. (Pay more.)

The "get our money back" line was never true from the beginning. Economically you lost. politicaly (ireland, scotland...) you lost.

And the only thing thats left for moron salesmen to sell you is "now the future finally is brighter".

Looking at you currently - really?

You are an agitation mashine - but you know nothing.

Only one thing is important to me - that others dont fall for what you are selling. Lets tell people the real story - not made up prospects, and the political lies, that never were true from the beginning.

Youll see it - your economy will tank in the short term. And after that, who knows.

You dont excell in anything at the moment apart from selling out to interests that arent regional. And the city of london causing financial crisis all over the world. Rejoice in it. The future will be services, not production (where regional flows of ressources is king).

Traitors, splitters. Freaking myth lowing "we left you" spewing, emotional personal relationship allegory snakeoil-mongers.

The hate comes, from the UK having destroyed an economical win win situation, for no clear reason.

(Reason given by the elites, behind that political movement was - because they didn't like the further integration movement within the EU.)


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Youll see it - your economy will tank in the short term. And after that, who knows.



I skimmed over the sheer amount of utter shite you just posted. What you clearly don't and will never understand is that it's NOT about the economy, It's about sovereignity. Obviously you're from some cuckland that doesn't care who your master is. Congrats.


----------



## notimp (Mar 28, 2019)

You freaking lousy (now that could be seen as an offense) buzzword junky.

If thats what you retreat back on...

Sovereignty is just the roundabout way of saying what I've encapsulated with "UKIP elites didn't like the further integration projects within the EU".

But NONE, and I emphasize NONE was discussed in your pre brexit election campaigns, there it was all the completely assinine - immigrants be taking me jobs, and all the money we'd have for the NHS, if we stop paying EU, and a literally sickening amount of Britannia in past wars callbacks.

Here are ALL your arguments refuted so far -

- 1 billion saved! Ts. That was tax money going into common EU projects, part of which were funds and regulation projects, so the common market works. Meaning. You gave this money out, your businesses made it back manyfold. Its designed that way. If you stop funding EU projects, guess what. You stop having equal access to the market. Thats not money saved.

You paid 8bn a year (after all kinds of rebates and couponing.. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...les/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31 ) and that was for the EU budget.

- This leads into your sovereignity argument. Here is your trade deficit within the EU ( https://www.theguardian.com/busines...de-deficit-with-the-eu-is-woeful-and-widening ). Here is your reminder, that the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973 which was probably before you were born.

And there is the other side of that.

Where was your sovereignity, when you influenced the EU expansion in the east, making sure a whole lot of poorer countries joined, because of geopolitical decisions that where at least influenced by US policy? Where was your sovereignity, when your banks started exporting the US home made financial crisis all over the world, hurting former "partner" (/satellite) states the most, and benefiting US and your economy most in the process? ('But its all global now...?!' Was the excuse back then.)

When you look at the net beneficiaries of the EU budget funds, you get:
https://fullfact.org/europe/claim-about-uks-eu-contribution-correct-meaningless/
Poland
Greece
Romania
Hungary
Portugal
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Lithuania

Now contrast and compare this with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

And understand, that YOU as a political force PUSHED for them to enter as quickly as possible.)

- Where was your sovereignity in the freaking five years past, where your entire national politics lie in shambles, which lead to the public unrest, that lead to brexit? You are the only country in Europe that still has a labor party left, presumably - because your income inequalities reached "seconds world" level figures in recent months ( https://www.theguardian.com/society...as-inflicted-great-misery-on-citizens-un-says )

Thats all on you. Thats your freaking local policy making at work. You did nothing. You always were proud to be ultra liberal to the end. And the end was, that you faked out a bunch of poor people to vote xenophobic, and told them their NHS depended on it. Your companies benefited greatly from the common market. You just didn't vote in administrations that would have looked at social cohesion.

Thats all on you. Now the sovereignity part here becomes complaining, tthat you dont have the money, because you also pay for the EU budget? Which benefited you and your political/economic agendas in past years probably most? (Different sectors of the economy (namely production) depend more on an open stream of wares that f.e. financial services)

- And now you want out of the decision making comittees to "pay less", and still have access to our markets? Is that the sovereignity you are talking about.

I almost punched my screen, when I recognized, that the idiot right wing youtuber inteviewing Boris Johnsons evonomic adviser did the best he could, in hiding that he skipped school when they went over percentages in math class, but probably dropped the word sovereignity in every second sentence.

Now what does this ecaxtly mean?

If you were afraid of further integration movements within the EU, you let NONE of that be discussed in the forefront of Brexit discussions. You went with false pretenses (NHS!) and xenophobia instead.

And the poorer folks believed UKIP, and saw it as a protest vote. When it wasnt. When it literally decided the future of the European continent. For you - because Blair didn' refuse free movement of people from the poorer states, as NO EU country can do.

Were they (the poorer folks) voting sovereign? They were voting because of economic pressures brought onto by five years of domestic political inaction. But you blamed the EU.

Because that was en vogue. It was always them - not you. And now we see you in action. What a wonderful image. May your next government be a more competent one.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> Me smart, you dumb.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 29, 2019)

shamzie said:


> None of what you said is true. The EU does need the UK more than vice versa and you're deluded if you believe otherwise.


We'll see.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> We'll see.



We shall, but we can remain friends, don't want to leave Europe, just don't want to be in a political union.

Loving all the “the country will be poorer because of Brexit” rhetoric been spouted by the Remoaners over here.

The NHS is in dire straits, the Police are in turmoil, the prisons are in chaos, 14 million people are living in poverty, our education system is failing, we have inadequate affordable housing available, our armed forces are under resourced, our roads are like a moonscape and we are still recovering from arguably the worst financial crisis this country has ever witnessed - all of which happened whilst we were/are inside the EU.

Wish they would wake up for gods sake - how could it possibly be any worse!? 

Just leave without a deal


----------



## Axido (Mar 29, 2019)

Could the two of you please turn this into a private discussion if nobody else seems to actually care? Or at least please both agree on who of you is a moron and who isn't...


----------



## Phenj (Mar 29, 2019)

>The EU does need the UK more than vice versa 
ok pakistan


----------



## notimp (Mar 29, 2019)

Axido said:


> Could the two of you please turn this into a private discussion if nobody else seems to actually care? Or at least please both agree on who of you is a moron and who isn't...


Do you think I do the research und link articles for someone who equates brexit to a relationship - literally?

Do you think I will stop talking about brexit in the brexit thread - because nobody cares? About brexit. In the brexit thread?

I'm sorry, but if someone uses all, the argumentative force of "there are other suitable business partners in the world despite the EU, get over it", I see this going over very well in their local pub - but by any other standard, its useless.

Also I've ended the argument. But you had do rekindle it to play white knight demands more PC language. Now that urks me to no end.

Here is the thing. Either we can call out false premises, by calling the people who bring them forth repeatedly, by harsher names (they still might be great people), or we can play with sand forms, and let the "everyones opinion is just as valid" approach drive opinion making.

Speaking of political debates, UK style - I could call the moron a right honorable gentlemen, if he prefers it - which has just the same purpose semantically (curse people out by overcomplimenting them, until everyone gets, that thats whats being done), but I'm afraid no one would know the semantic coding of that debate tool in here.

You call someone a fool in public political debates - so that you 'win the argument' - one, but also they doublecheck the points they brought forward, because you deem them, so completely invalid - that no other drebating strategy fits.

So its either kill them with kindness  ('I'm sure you are absolutely right.') Or calling them out for not knowing anything remotely. If you forbid that for PC reasons, you'll have a heck of a hard time doing public debates in a public forum.

Because the barrier of entry is so low.

And if you'd seen already five different right-wing opinion jokeys on the youtubes, doing their 'lets just look at future outlook' spiel, and doubling down on "national souvernity" as a talking point without any reason given - you'd understand my reaction a bit better.

(Being part of a trade-, or (very light) political union doesnt impede national sovereignty. And if all the "impeding" is really about, we had to let polish people work in our great country, then spell it out loud, and dont hide behind sovereignty as an argument.)

So you dont know anything, tackle a political issue with relationship logic, and repeat what you heard from youtube opinion pundits without thinking or research? Should I welcome you with open arms? Let you have a few others to convince just by the way you entered the stage (bravado)?

edit: Also, if someone else does this to me, I usually get pretty silent quickly (because I'm unsure in my argument), or I get highly analytical, and throw around documented facts and sources like theres no tomorrow. I know the other side as well. No one is perfect.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 29, 2019)

Ahem... Meanwhile ... 

There was a third vote on May's befit deal. Not the full deal, but that would only be important if it passed. It didn't. So no matter how you spin it, at least things are really clearing up in terms of outcome. 

Either the UK organizes what's necessary for the upcoming EU election (deadline : April 12th),and there 's more delay possible.
Or the UK doesn't do that, and there'll be a no deal brexit.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 29, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The NHS is in dire straits, the Police are in turmoil, the prisons are in chaos, 14 million people are living in poverty, our education system is failing, we have inadequate affordable housing available, our armed forces are under resourced, our roads are like a moonscape and we are still recovering from arguably the worst financial crisis this country has ever witnessed - all of which happened whilst we were/are inside the EU.


The question is: how much of that is actually the EU's fault and how much is the UK government's fault?  There's no guarantee that any of this will get better simply by leaving the EU, and there is still the distinct possibility that some of it could get worse.


----------



## notimp (Mar 30, 2019)

Remember the 8bn figure (the 'net loss' the UK has in public spending to finance the EU budget? (It spends more yearly, but gets direct payouts as well, thats substracted.)

Here is the yearly public spending budget for the Uk (source not reputable (?) but checks out with others, and has a nice break down).






src: https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

Even if you substract pension costs (dead cost, because it always has to be paid - there you have little leeway) the 8bn that you spent on the EU budget has in no ways ruined you. And it guaranteed that open markets could function.

That money goes into funds that are accessible by poor countries (and countries that get paybacks f.e. for their agricultural sector), so they can develop their economies 'in a way the EU likes' thats there, so those countries dont say f*ck you, we want tariffs back, we import everything from the richer countries.

The money also finances the EU political state.

All money in the current Euro system ended up in germany, because they were so efficient in the production of production goods (and cut social spending at the same time). The same way, the UK profited as well. Free access to 27 markets. Now the UK has an abysmal trade deficit (also buys more stuff than it sells) with the EU - which means, that you werent that competitive - but then, you had other qualities (military, 'former colonies', financial services - I guess...).

Now lets look at EU regulation.

Most of it currently is done for trade purposes (degrees a cucumber should be bent (didnt go through, but is always mentioned). But you also have European law thats deciding which laws get implemented (decision is made in the EU legislature, then countries have two years to adapt that into local laws). Thats basically done, so interest brokers (lobbyists, NGOs, ...) have a central focal point, and dont have to deal with 28 states individually.

As with any parliament, you had your representatives there, which told you 'I'm for the people', then voted whatever when they were in brussels, then went back home and blamed everything on "the darn EU", whenever they could - because media transparency of what happens in Brussels is low. (Euronews and other efforts never worked.)

And thats the thing. The 8bn a year number is so low compared to the gains of your private sector (not part of the numbers above) selling into EU markets, that you literally could have dreamt up one more tax and would have gotten it back. Its almost a none issue. Which is why you heard the entire 'if we werent in the EU we could use the money for sick people (NHS)' first in the brexit marketing. Its a populist argument. It doesnt make sense, compared to what you loose. Just because your local politicians still want to be seen as ultra market liberal and not tax companies more - you dont leave a trading union.

But then you dont want to leave it anyhow, you just want to not pay for it any more. And still have access. Which is dumb. Because thats not going to happen. And if you pay for it, but arent in the EU, then you lost your political voice, and still have to adhere to trading regulations when selling into the EU. At least you could have your tariffs back I guess...

But in the end then this becomes a battle (lose/lose) instead of a everyone profits if there are less trading restrictions (you can think of them as sunk costs, so costs you have to forfeit so specific UK regulation is met, or someone sits in a customs office, looking at goods) win/win situation.

No one disregards, that the UK is in a rough spot in several sectors of their economy / state of public services - its just that the EU had basically no say in how you distribute your tax money as a state, and no say in how you tax different sectors of your economy. No say in what public projects you create (remember the EU budget creates funds do give you incentives to create specific ones, but you dont have to go that way - its a soft modus of power, mainly to incentivize poorer countries to go into a certain direction).

All of that is on you, and you alone. You had at least five years of government not wanting to make tough or impactful decisions whatsoever, they just wanted to coast it out and play "can I become prime minister?" games - while your economy tanked. What great goods or services is the UK known for currently? You were the financial center of the EU, and what good it has done to the rest of the union (financial crisis of 2008) - now you want to pay more for imports your industries are highly dependant on, apparently (leave the common market). Which industry also doesnt like much - at least not the manufacturing industry (blue color jobs).

So basically UKIP made poor people vote against their interests using xenophobia. (Polish people are taking all the jobs.) End of story.

There is an argument to be made, that they did it because they didn't like further integration efforts within the EU (really pay more for poorer countries, military expenses, ...) those are future facing, and something you could have influenced. In a sense, we (on the left) are happy that you are gone, because of it - but looking at the economic impact, we are not (lose/lose).


----------



## emigre (Mar 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The question is: how much of that is actually the EU's fault and how much is the UK government's fault?  There's no guarantee that any of this will get better simply by leaving the EU, and there is still the distinct possibility that some of it could get worse.



The latter completely. Austerity is a huge factor for why Leave won the referendum and one which isn't spoken about. The Tory/Lib Dem coalition in 2010 really is going to prove been a disaster for the country when we look back at this era.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 9, 2019)

I've been very busy the last week. I try to keep up but I may have missed things. Three things are important now  if I'm correct :

1) the deadline gets awfully close
2) may and corbyn are now working together on a deal (one that'll satisfy enough  I presume?)
3) the UK is making preparations for its EU election, just in case that 2) isn't done in time

The last part of 3) strikes me as odd. I thought it was already a given that there wasn't enough time left for another deal (ahem... And that 's not taking the uk government' s habit of delaying everything into account)?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Apr 9, 2019)

I think all this has been planned and has been a great con, 

there will be a deal btw Corbyn and May there has to be , because without a deal there cannot be a 'confirmatory referendum' 

I think any referendum is organised by the Electoral Regulator,\Commission ?  and there can only be 2 options on a referendum, so LEAVE with no deal, Leave with Mays deal or REMAIN cannot be the options, Parliament has ruled out a Leave with no deal, so the only 2 options are Remain or leave with Mays deal.

so if it goes to another referendum then I think Remain will win.

totally wrong, we had a referendum and the result was to leave, so any referendum should be Leave without a deal or Mays deal.

I'm disgusted by many of the Mp's on betraying a Democratic referendum result and its a dark day for democracy and the fall out will damage the Labour party at the next election.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 9, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> I think all this has been planned and has been a great con,
> 
> there will be a deal btw Corbyn and May there has to be , because without a deal there cannot be a 'confirmatory referendum'


Given how many times a deal has been voted down, it certainly doesn't seem to make a no-deal Brexit impossible.  Hell, maybe much less likely but still possible is a no-deal remain, as well.  Who's to say what happens if the people in government who most wanted Brexit to happen can't agree on a deal that they themselves helped write?


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 9, 2019)

I guess things just wouldn't go back to normal for UK, if they remain. What would be the consequence, if that happened?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Apr 9, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I guess things just wouldn't go back to normal for UK, if they remain. What would be the consequence, if that happened?



many of the people who voted leave, like me are Labour supporters,  where I live it was 57% leave to 43% remain . it's a Labour stronghold but in other areas of the Uk, a few % swing of those Labour voters who feel betrayed by the Labour party it could cost labour some MP's. remember not even Labour MPs wanted Corbyn as leader it was the unions who put him in power.

I've already emailed my MP telling her I will no longer vote Labour after supporting them all my life.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 9, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I guess things just wouldn't go back to normal for UK, if they remain. What would be the consequence, if that happened?


Not sure if it still applies, but back in January  the answer was an easy 'nothing'. All those plans and ideas can be stacked up somewhere in a museum. All treaties and agreements with the EU remain. 

The flipside: the UK will still send guys like farage to represent them. Other politicians will continue to blame the EU for their shortcomings  and it's not unlikely that some parties will push for more negotiations (though I wonder how much credit they'll get from voters) or even want brexit 2.0 or a no deal brexit.

All depends on who can be convinced...


----------



## notimp (Apr 9, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I guess things just wouldn't go back to normal for UK, if they remain. What would be the consequence, if that happened?


Ah, the man asks for the services of a philosopher. 

Things will never be the same again.  Some would even say, life is a series of fractals.. 

In short, they'd make something up, that sounds like they'd leave the EU, but have most things remain the same. Then in 20 years with possible upcoming integration efforts, maybe you get annother election.

This is the thing with uncharted territory - no one has been there yet.  And in politics, you can basically make it (the territory) up. 

Whats never going to happen is, that you'd have a nation insist "oopsie" our bad, lets go against a democratic decision - we really were too dumb.

This simply does not happen. Humans are a curious thing...  They are able to capture glory from defeat. At least in the national myths they tell each other - which then become history proper. The story always gets crafted after the fact.  And you never know how it will turn out in the end.

Also, the UK is important enough, that rules on the EU level are flexible. So - whatever you can negotiate, will become the new "tis the law" - if it benefits both sides. (Red lines (no, you can not have what you had, with voting rights, but without paying) as the main actual bounderies.)


----------



## pohaxsf (Apr 9, 2019)

emigre said:


> So since us Brits voted leave on the 23rd June, I think it's safe to say it's dominated the British political landscape with questions of hard or soft and each member of the UK seemingly developing their own comprehensive opinion of the complexities of Customs Union (THE Customs Union or A Customs Union). It most certainly has put us in the biggest post-war political crisis and instability which leaves us with a minority government being propped by the Northern Irish division of the Republican party.
> 
> Now it's been nearly two years since the vote, I'll be intrigued by what the benefits of Brexit are. I recall asking this in the original thread but really couldn't get anything substantive or cohesive. I think now's a  good time to look at what the potential benefits will be. It's never left public discussion and animosity still remains, we've had a general election, accusations of undermining the will of the people and a movement to demand a vote on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal.
> 
> I'd be interested in what people's thoughts on the potential benefits would be.


You are lucky.  you have a strong economy.  in greece in 2007 i invested with my family 10k in stocks.  most have been cut. otjers are gone for good.. so i have 200bucks in my stock walket.. yeah


----------



## Doran754 (Apr 9, 2019)

Just assume the worst case scenario for Britain as our traitorous MP's go ballsack in hand to JC Junker and Verhoftwat. They've legislated all possible benefits of Brexit out of law by taking no deal off the table, they're hell bent on keeping us tied to a customs union so we cant do our own trade deals and we'll have to pay AT LEAST £39 billion, probably closer to £100 billion if this extension goes through and we have to do the EU elections. The Queen has also been useless, we might as well be a republic if the monarchy is willing to push through the cooper amendment so quickly. It's funny when it suits parliament and the 'lords' just how quickly they can get bills through.

The only thing left to do if we get an extension and have to vote is be as disruptive as possible, send 73 Nigel Farage's over. Veto every budget and any "further intergration" aka EU army and lastly, decapitate the conservative party at the election. With the exception of Kate Hoey labour is just as bad and i hope you never vote for labour again @JoeBloggs777 The only way to get our message across is to destroy them at the polls.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The Queen has also been useless, we might as well be a republic if the monarchy is willing to push through the cooper amendment so quickly.



So far as we know (there are all sorts of conspiracies) it has been over 100 years since royal assent was even contemplated as being withheld (and it wasn't on that occasion*), and just over 300 since the last one actually was (and even that was on the advice of ministers). The period before that saw a few more refusals, however it ended in a little thing called the English civil war (Clash song of the same name because it is one of my favourites and so few seem to know of it today).

*the rationale purportedly given being it should only be done if it is clear shit it going to go south in a hurry as a result. Whether the EU is a net positive or negative is still up for debate, and history may yet give us an answer there (or at least something to form one with -- if it comes at an economical cost but grants some political freedom it could go either way), but given most people around today probably weren't alive, never mind voting, when the vote to join happened and the EU has not quite gone tyrannical just yet and everybody is still alive and not starving then I doubt the case could be made.


Anyway neither endorsing nor condemning the following but something interesting to contemplate

As noting the funding of such things is all the rage these days then it should be noted the Falun Gong started their parent company.


----------



## Doran754 (Apr 10, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> So far as we know (there are all sorts of conspiracies) it has been over 100 years since royal assent was even contemplated as being withheld (and it wasn't on that occasion*), and just over 300 since the last one actually was (and even that was on the advice of ministers). The period before that saw a few more refusals, however it ended in a little thing called the English civil war (Clash song of the same name because it is one of my favourites and so few seem to know of it today).
> 
> *the rationale purportedly given being it should only be done if it is clear shit it going to go south in a hurry as a result. Whether the EU is a net positive or negative is still up for debate, and history may yet give us an answer there (or at least something to form one with -- if it comes at an economical cost but grants some political freedom it could go either way), but given most people around today probably weren't alive, never mind voting, when the vote to join happened and the EU has not quite gone tyrannical just yet and everybody is still alive and not starving then I doubt the case could be made.
> 
> ...




I'll watch that video in a minute, but it implies Brexit is bad because communist China approves. The U.K. arrests people for tweets, we don't have free speech, were taxed for watching tv. Soon we will need a license for watching porn, the government wants vast control of the Internet so it can be regulated. They wanted control of every iPhone not long ago. The U.K. Really isn't that different from China, so putting them as a negative doesn't work.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> I'll watch that video in a minute, but it implies Brexit is bad because communist China approves. The U.K. arrests people for tweets, we don't have free speech, were taxed for watching tv. Soon we will need a license for watching porn, the government wants vast control of the Internet so it can be regulated. They wanted control of every iPhone not long ago. The U.K. Really isn't that different from China, so putting them as a negative doesn't work.


While all of those are far from ideal laws and events (though while I don't have a TV purely so I don't have to pay TV tax I can at least see the benefits) I can see them being repealed with relative ease and moving to something I might enjoy*, and a lot of people imagine/act like they already have. For the non Hong Kong parts of China... that would be a far more radical shift and be a fundamental upheaval.
The porn thing also seems to have been softly shuttered and kicked down the road for another year or so, just as it has been in one form or another for many years now (many took great amusement during the expenses scandal however long ago that was that the year before when a similar thing was being pushed that the one doing the pushing... yeah).

For others playing along at home and new to this porn law business the following is a bit long (though to my mind that just means more depth) but covers many things on what led up to today.


*I could even see it happening, such a thing might even see me show some enthusiasm about the country as a whole and not just keep an eye on things to see when I should jump off, which is and has long been my plan.


----------



## pohaxsf (Apr 10, 2019)

may met with angela.. idk.. there might be a delay.. this shit is a mess


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 14, 2019)

So it seems another extension happened, with a bunch of asterisks attached and possibilities. The following video seems to be a decent overview


----------



## Xzi (Apr 15, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> So it seems another extension happened, with a bunch of asterisks attached and possibilities. The following video seems to be a decent overview



What an absolute cluster fuck.  So many years on and the people who most wanted Brexit in the first place still have no plan other than, "we want to leave."  It seems like everybody is just gonna keep kicking the can down the road, and it'll be 2021 before anything significant actually happens.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 15, 2019)

I know we shouldn't be taking this lightly, but this is all pretty amusing. No matter what happens, it is going be a mess.


----------



## notimp (Apr 21, 2019)

If anyone wants to know what (really  ) happened at every step around the Brexit negotiations of Britain with the EU - ARTE has just released the "definite" documentary on the matter (from the DE/FR point of view certainly, but with little PR spin).

Up until the point where stuff got insane - the EU outplayed Britain every step of the way.

https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/078746-000-A/the-clock-is-ticking-das-brexit-drama/

If you are an english speaker you have to watch with subtitles, ger and fr speakers, get audiotracks - as per usual for arte.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Apr 21, 2019)

nice find there @notimp, I've not watched it all yet, but Davis should have told them we were not prepared to negotiate citizens rights in the UK and the financial bill first, everything should be negotiated at the same time or there is no deal. I'm sure they would have given in 

Also they mentioned the Irish border, with the citizen rights and financial bill had to be settled first, after nearly 3yrs what went wrong with the Irish border?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

My personal stance on the EU is neutral - I think it has many benefits and many drawbacks as a geopolitical entity. The most important perk of membership is obviously being a part of the EU market, which comes with the benefit of freedom of movement across the EU zone without having to worry about passports, visas, and more importantly taxation in the form of duty and levies. I think Europe can only stand against the economic might of China if all states in the area collectively agree to cooperate as an economic unit, which was the original purpose of the union. Unfortunately, since then the union has been bogged down with social policy which, for all intents and purposes, should've been left to the member states as opposed to being regulated by Brussels. The member states already have elected governments in charge of their social policy and I see no reason why they should accept any policy prescriptions coming from on high. If the EU rolled back its structure to its original purpose, I'd be pro-EU all day everyday, right now I'm only anti-BREXIT because it cuts into my bottom line. As far as BREXIT itself is concerned, it's completely disjointed. There's no plan, no leadership and it was sold to the constituents on a false premise, and as such it has a veneer of being illegitimate to me. You can't just roll around in a bus promising millions for the NHS that are never going to materialise.


----------



## Doran754 (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> My personal stance on the EU is neutral - I think it has many benefits and many drawbacks as a geopolitical entity. The most important perk of membership is obviously being a part of the EU market, which comes with the benefit of freedom of movement across the EU zone without having to worry about passports, visas, and more importantly taxation in the form of duty and levies. I think Europe can only stand against the economic might of China if all states in the area collectively agree to cooperate as an economic unit, which was the original purpose of the union. Unfortunately, since then the union has been bogged down with social policy which, for all intents and purposes, should've been left to the member states as opposed to being regulated by Brussels. The member states already have elected governments in charge of their social policy and I see no reason why they should accept any policy prescriptions coming from on high. If the EU rolled back its structure to its original purpose, I'd be pro-EU all day everyday, right now I'm only anti-BREXIT because it cuts into my bottom line. As far as BREXIT itself is concerned, it's completely disjointed. There's no plan, no leadership and it was sold to the constituents on a false premise, and as such it has a veneer of being illegitimate to me. You can't just roll around in a bus promising millions for the NHS that are never going to materialise.



If you take political advice from the side of a bus then you get everything you deserve. Also words are important, It didn't say we would, It said we could spend it on the NHS, and that's also still true. I agree with most of the other stuff you said except freedom of movement being a perk, I see no perk to it whatsoever. Id much rather have tax duty than anyone freely coming into this country.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

shamzie said:


> If you take political advice from the side of a bus then you get everything you deserve. Also words are important, It didn't say we would, It said we could spend it on the NHS, and that's also still true. I agree with most of the other stuff you said except freedom of movement being a perk, I see no perk to it whatsoever. Id much rather have tax duty than anyone freely coming into this country.


Not "anyone" - people and goods from the zone. The entire point of being in a single market is that people can move freely and make money by importing and exporting goods across it without being taxed or stopped - without that there is no point having a union in the first place. I fully understand that you don't want people to come to the UK and "take all the jerbs", but that's not what's happening. You do not have an EU citizen migration problem, you have a third-world refugee migration problem. As for the BREXIT campaign, that's still a false premise. The Leave campaigners were using completely made-up stats to peddle their nonsense, this money will never magically appear. The chief benefit of leaving is, and always had been, not being reliant on the hegemony of Brussels telling your government what they can and can't do.


----------



## Doran754 (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Not "anyone" - people and goods from the zone. The entire point of being in a single market is that people can move freely and make money by importing and exporting goods across it without being taxed or stopped - without that there is no point having a union in the first place. I fully understand that you don't want people to come to the UK and "take all the jerbs", but that's not what's happening. You do not have an EU citizen migration problem, you have a third-world refugee migration problem. As for the BREXIT campaign, that's still a false premise. The Leave campaigners were using completely made-up stats to peddle their nonsense, this money will never magically appear. The chief benefit of leaving is, and always had been, not being reliant on the hegemony of Brussels telling your government what they can and can't do.



We can go back and forth on who made what up, the fact still remains the words say we could not we would. I seem to remember Nick Clegg among others stating there would be no EU army, no superstate etc.



Lets not pretend that the remain campaign was 100% above board squeeky clean. Also I never mentioned "jerbs" but I appreciate the relation, ie me being a redneck because I care about immigration. It's funny when the left talk about Immigration.

Take cher for example, a shining light, a beacon of hope! She's been disgusted for years about the rhetoric around immigration, claiming she'd happily see them on her streets. Until it might actually happen.

https://twitter.com/cher/status/1117491420934365185?lang=en-gb

There has never been one chief benefit, there are many. Not least is ending freedom of movement though. Jobs plays a part, so does terrorism, how many times have terrorists moved freely through Europe because theres no checks. You might say it's 1 in a million, It's 1 too many.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I fully understand that you don't want people to come to the UK and "take all the jerbs", but that's not what's happening. You do not have an EU citizen migration problem, you have a third-world refugee migration problem.



what are 925,000 Poles doing in the UK if most are not working ?. I don't have a problem with Polish people, my problem is with uncontrolled migration. It's just crazy that there are no limits on movement of people in the EU. look at the depopulation time bomb in the Baltic states.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> what are 925,000 Poles doing in the UK if most are not working ?. I don't have a problem with Polish people, my problem is with uncontrolled migration. It's just crazy that there are no limits on movement of people in the EU. look at the depopulation time bomb in the Baltic states.


What's your issue with that? You have the same freedom of movement they do. If you're having trouble being marketable on the job market, that's not their fault - it's yours. What's stopping you from doing the exact same thing they did? Besides, we're talking about single digit numbers here in terms of a percentage of the work force, the UK has a population in excess of 66 million. One of those Poles, by the way - it's been many years since I moved. I pay the same taxes you do, I contribute to your economy in the same way you do, I am by no means a burden. If we're going to talk about people who put a burden on the system, we can discuss the droves of people in the UK who made a decision in their life that working is beneath them and they're just going to live on benefits instead, permanently. The Poles didn't do that, your government made it feasible to do so.


----------



## notimp (Apr 30, 2019)

Well - actually... Leave your home country, if you can not find a job - especially if its the UK is a hard pill to swallow. 

The sentiment against uncontrolled migration is actually ... ok ... (weak enthusiasm).

But now, lets look at what happened here (you can also watch the video linked above..  ).

While every other major country in the EU pulled a clause, that allowed for a transitional period, witch limited access to their markets, after they installed free movement of EU citizens - Britain - the free market capitalists, that they were did not. In accordance only with sweden, and ireland.

see roughly: https://theconversation.com/the-hug...n-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077

And instead of about 10's of thousands of immigrants that they expected, came 100's of thousands (Poland had an economic crisis in 2004).

And then the british government for four years did nothing, and then the economic crisis hit. Roughly. 

Then - the British people did nothing for altogether 14 years, held the grudge, and then voted to leave the EU, for no immediate, or real reason?

You have to understand. Internal migration within the EU slowed down to a crawl since then (on average, see: https://www.eib.org/attachments/migration_and_the_eu_en.pdf) - and nothing much was or is expected to happen in that regard again.

But - enter populists - the EU had a migrant crises from OUTSIDE the EU at the time, and then that was used by UKIP to scare the freaking bejeabus out of everyone that didn't know what the EU was. The idiotic thing was, that britain conrolled the channel (sea gap between UK and france) very tidely, and the EU certainly did't give those migrants EU passports and pronounced them citizens. So as a result, the UK almost didn't take any of the outside migrants around the time of the brexit vote, and wasnt in danger of having to do so.

The EU was in talks with several of their countries to voluntairily do so at the time (to share the burden), but there most countries just said - eff germany - and basically no.  UK did the same - you didn't have to leave the EU for that.

Why did you have to leave the EU again? Btw...? Oh, yeah "whats the EU google searches one day after the referendum.. "

Leave me those polish people alone though, they were just fellow EU citizens looking for opportunity.

And the one thing the UK will come to realize yet, is - that you cant demand free movement of money (capital), and goods without free movement of labor in an economic union. Then all the rich folks get into one country, and dont let the poor ones come in, while they still do business all over europe - basically.  Free movement of people also is part of the "integration effort" that was meant to underline, that Europe was supposed to be a one direction project only (unification of european countries). Thats correct as well.


----------



## notimp (Apr 30, 2019)

Here is a quick reminder, of why you dont engage in racist acts though. Because resentment, births resentment.

From one of americas finest actors.


----------



## notimp (May 13, 2019)

I think this fits here. 

The Economist 06.-12. February 2016

How to manage the migrant crisis.

Have fun. 


```
How to manage the migrant crisis

A European problem demands a common, coherent EU policy. Let refugees
in, but regulate the flow


REFUGEES are reasonable people in desperate circumstances. Life for many
of the lm-odd asylum-seekers who have fled Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and
other war-torn countries for Europe in the past year has become
intolerable. Europe is peaceful, rich and accessible. Most people would
rather not abandon their homes and start again among strangers. But when
the alternative is the threat of death from barrel-bombs and
sabre-wielding fanatics, they make the only rational choice.

The flow of refugees would have been manageable if European Union
countries had worked together, as Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor,
has always wished (and The Economist urged). Instead Germany and Sweden
have been left to cope alone. Today their willingness to do so is
exhausted. Unless Europe soon restores order, political pressure will
force Mrs Merkel to clamp down unilaterally, starting a wave of border
closures (see pages 19-22). More worrying, the migrant crisis is feeding
xenophobia and political populism. The divisive forces of right-wing
nationalism have already taken hold in parts of eastern Europe. If they
spread westward into Germany, France and Italy then the eu could tear
itself apart.

The situation today is a mess. Refugees have been free to sail across
the Mediterranean, register and make for whichever country seems most
welcoming. Many economic migrants with no claim to asylum have found a
place in the queue by lying about where they came from. This
free-for-all must be replaced by a system in which asylum applicants are
screened when they first reach Europe’s borders-or better still, before
they cross the Mediterranean. Those who are ineligible for asylum should
be sent back without delay; those likely to qualify should be sent on to
countries willing to accept them.

Order on the border Creating a well-regulated system requires three
steps. The first is to curb the “push factors” that encourage people to
risk the crossing, by beefing up aid to refugees, particularly to the
victims of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, including the huge number
who have fled to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Jordan and
Lebanon. The second is to review asylum claims while refugees are still
in centres in the Middle East or in the “hotspots” (mainly in Greece and
Italy), where they go when they first arrive in the eu. The third
element is to insist that asylum-seekers stay put until their
applications are processed, rather than jumping on a train to Germany.

All these steps are fraught with difficulty. Consider the “push factors”
first. The prospect of ending Syria’s civil war is as remote as ever:
peace talks in Geneva this week were suspended without progress. But the
eu could do a lot more to help refugees and their host countries.
Scandalously, aid for Syrians was cut in 2015 even as the war grew
bloodier: aid agencies got a bit more than half of what they needed last
year, according to the un. Donors at a conference on Syria in London
this week were asked for $9 billion for 2016-about as much as Germans
spend on chocolate every year. Far more is needed and will be needed
every year for several years.

Europe’s money should be used not only to feed and house refugees but
also to coax host countries into letting them work. For the first four
years of the conflict Syrians were denied work permits in Turkey, Jordan
and Lebanon. Recently Turkey has begun to grant them. Donors should
press Jordan and Lebanon to follow. European cash could help teach the
400,000 refugee children in Turkey who have no classes.

Sometimes the answer is no The next task is to require asylum-seekers to
register and be sorted as close to home as possible, probably Turkey,
Lebanon and Jordan. Ideally those who travelled by boat to Europe would
be sent back to a camp in one of those three coun-tries-to prove that
they had just wasted their precious savings paying people-traffickers to
take them on a pointless journey. But that would meet legal and
political objections, partly because of Turkey’s human-rights record
(see our special report this week). So, there should also be processing
camps in the first eu country they reach, probably Greece or Italy.

The cost of this should fall on the whole eu, since the aim is to
establish control over its external borders. Dealmaking is possible. In
exchange for hosting large refugee hotspots and camps on its soil,
Greece should get help with its debt and budgets which it has long
sought to ease its economic crisis.

Refugees will fall in with this scheme (rather than cross the eu
illegally) only if they are confident that genuine applications will be
accepted within a reasonable time. So the eu needs to spend what it
takes to sort through their claims swiftly. And member states ought to
agree to accept substantial numbers of bona fide asylum claimants. Some
refugees may prefer Germany to, say, France-and there is little to stop
them crossing borders once they are inside the Schengen area. But, if
they are properly looked after, most will stay put.

The crisis needs a bigger resettlement programme than the one run by the
un’s refugee agency, which has only 160,000 spaces. Countries outside
the eu, including the Gulf states, can play their part. Priority should
go to refugees who apply for asylum while still in Turkey, Jordan or
Lebanon-to reduce the incentive for refugees to board leaky boats to
Greece.

Ineligible migrants will have to be refused entry or deported. This will
be legally difficult, and it is impossible to repatriate people to some
countries, such as Syria. But if the system is not to be overwhelmed or
seen as unfair and illegitimate by eu citizens, the sorting must be
efficient and enforceable, eu governments should sign and implement
readmission agreements allowing rejected migrants to be sent home
quickly to, say, Morocco or Algeria. If such agreements are impossible
(or if, as with Pakistan, governments fail to honour them), the prospect
of waiting indefinitely in Greece will make economic migrants who want
to reach Germany hesitate before coming.

Once these measures are in place, it will become possible to take the
most controversial step: halting the uncontrolled migrant flow across
Greece’s northern border with Macedonia. It has become clear over the
past five months that Europe cannot gain control over the numbers or the
nature of the migrant stream while border officials wave asylum-seekers
through and bid them safe travel to northern Europe.

Since the start of the refugee crisis, we have argued that Europe should
welcome persecuted people and carefully manage their entry into European
society. Our views have not changed. Countries have a moral and legal
duty to provide sanctuary to those who flee grave danger. That approach
is disruptive in the short term, but in the medium term, so long as they
are allowed to work, refugees assimilate and more than pay for
themselves. By contrast, the chaos of recent months shows what happens
when politicians fail to take a pan-European approach to what is clearly
a pan-European problem. The plan we outline would require a big chunk of
cash and a lot of testy negotiations. But it is in every country’s
interest to help-because all of them would be worse off if the eu lapses
into a xenophobic free-for-all.

There is an encouraging precedent, too. When more than im “boat people”
fled Vietnam after the communists took over in 1975, they went initially
to refugee camps in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia before being sent
to America, Europe, Australia and wherever else would take them. They
arrived with nothing but adapted astonishingly fast: the median
household income for Vietnamese-Americans, for example, is now above the
national average. No one in America now frets that the boat people will
not fit in. ■
```
(Code box can be scrolled.)

Context: This is an example for you to see how some of those bigger decisions are made. So think about several entities (think tanks, foundations, ..) working on those and then competing in a political context.

Kind of exceeds the realm of single issue.


----------



## Doran754 (May 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> I think this fits here.
> 
> The Economist 06.-12. February 2016
> 
> ...



1) They're not refugees they're economic migrants. We know this because they risked their lives passing through many safe countries to arrive at the welfare haven of Europe.

2) The crisis wasn't and still isn't our problem to 'manage' but it could've been managed by doing exactly what hungary did and closing the borders. Again, they're not refugees they're economic migrants. As far as im aware, the war is over, why haven't they gone home and rebuilt. Their country needs them. Why was it only fighting age males instead of women and children? Again - economic migrants.

It really cracks me up when you quote rich off liberals who live in gated communities preaching to the rest of us about how were all xenophobic bigots. 

Lastly, no one has a legal or moral right to live wherever they'd like. No one has the *RIGHT* to jump on a boat and move to another country unless they're invited. You might not like it, that makes little difference. The UK alone is severly overpopulated. Were a tiny little island that somehow has 70m people. If you want to put this into context. I believe the USA has 330m people? (feel free to correct me) the USA is nearly FORTY times the size of the UK but has a population only 4x that size? You do the maths.


----------



## notimp (May 13, 2019)

When the article was written the war wasnt over. And currently its - so..so.  Also remember, that the political regime stayed the same, so those of them that where political refugees... Well in fact, why didnt they stay and fight for their country..  (The welcome currently wouldnt be all roses is what I'm hinting at.  )

Economic migrants. Yes, sure.

Three aspects. If I ever have to leave my home country in my 20ies, I'd go some place, where I can live well. If my fortune, and my money allow it. Second, as mentioned in this thread before, the european immigration system was set up so that the countries on the outer edge take the "legal" impact (in exchange for money, Lisbon Treaty). And impact they took. So after a while the politicians of those countries said - well, we arent paying for them, let them through. Thats inofficially still. Thats also described in the article as "the system isnt working".

Again, still - if I'm the migrant and a greek official offers me the chance to continue on and reach germany or sweden, I'll do it. 

Third. If they are somewhat in need - migrants, even in a larger number are seen as beneficial to your economy, just a few years down the road. Thats why the "number" your country can take - kind of is set by public acception, and not by a fixed calculation model. Up front, they are sunk cost, but that changes, as they are integrated (and in Europe they are integrated - failed examples also possible (Erdogans political influence in certain migrant communities f.e.)).

Now, where this fails is the following. First, if you have a diverse population of migrants, that by default get lower social class - the jobs that are available to them out of the gate - are actually limited. So in the entrepreneurial sector, small dealerships, restaurants, if they have money and the social acceptance is there. Otherwise, service or manual labor jobs. So if the perception is there, that "we dont need them for that - because we have many of those jobs filled by migrants already" (not my view, but its out there..  ), they cant bootstrap economic communities on their own - so the transitioning process takes longer. That actually can usually be somewhat controlled through work permits (which also are tied to cultural integration). The second factor is culture and "cultural acceptance", this actually drives the "we have enough already" sentiment of the general public and formed political decisions all over Europe. So - its a definite factor. We dont have to talk around that.


Now - onwards to "just close the borders". How do you do that.  The article actually tells you how.  With money, in states outside of the European Union. So you actually pay for that (but also gain political influence - so.. its not that bad). And with what hungary did - which was? PR. "We've closed our borders." Catch a few folks, treat them badly, roll off some barbed wire... That you can do, after the influx is over, and before you are expecting another one. If people are already at your borders in the thousands - you cant.

That then spreads around. Together with "we sent a few folks back to italy and greece". Where they'll have a poorer economic life (again, remember, lower social class as they arrive), which then also spreads around as word of mouth. And if you are lucky. The inbound pressure stops.

Inbound pressure stopping - the first out of five to do steps in the article above. So there The Economist actually agrees with you, just in a few less radical words. 


Last bit. There is no such thing as an economic migrant. We kind of invented the concept in 1982:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=economic+migrants&year_start=1800&year_end=2019
Because all migrants have an economic ambition (better life). We just separate which ones we accept, and which ones we dont (usually by nationality - and if the need arises (when entire countries start wandering)).

The sending the "illigitimate" ones back, then also is mostly signaling, that that stuff doesnt fly. (Its actually expensive to do so.) Again - every migrant also has an economic motive. So we dont have to act as if some of them dont, or mostly dont. 

On sending the "illegitimate" ones back (even sending the ones "less likely to get asylum away as fast as possible" even before they reach the EU) the The Economist article is with you. Again, just slightly less colored language.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2019)

1) Some are, some aren't. The trick (and what a lot of that article was about, how viable their proposals are being up for debate) was about weeding those migrants out to go back to the traditional ways of immigrating (though probably with a nice big black mark) and dealing with those that did flee. Similarly many of the war torn shitholes are just the other side of the med, and a med crossing makes more sense than a Sahara crossing, or even a next land border crossing, a lot of the time, to say nothing of the "get a fight somewhere and sort it out when you land". Doubtless some weighed up long term prospects beyond that but if the choice is forgo those things which are ultimately desirable to them and keeping them then I know which one I would pick.

2) Again some are, some aren't. International law and treaties do mandate you help the genuine people that make it to you. That is at least the bare minimum and if you can then helping out in such scenarios is commonly the done thing, whether it is justified by selfless or selfish reasons is a different matter (if a small injection of talent or cash means your trade partner and holiday destination for your people keeps ticking then time for a cost-benefit and all that). What that entails is again up for debate -- whether that means you want to send your language speakers/interrogation peeps to places they are landing by virtue of geography to sort it out, funds for it, agree to shoulder some of the burden or for you to say "you are on your own on that one" being where that one falls.

Land size is a tricky thing to argue, especially that simplistically, and I don't know about overpopulation either (the general abundance of fat cunts around the place and few reports of people starving tending to say much there), to say nothing of the difference in quality of land -- the US and Australia are both modern nations with science at their heart and a fondness for chemicals but the yields per acre of land as far as food production goes are far far lower in large parts of it than the UK and Europe manage to pull off. Now discussions of integration, housing supply (which is artificially low, terribly expensive for what it is* and not keeping up with demand), demand on public services, tax base (rather sensibly nobody is having any kids so the population is not getting any younger and the "not a pyramid scheme, honest" approach to pensions and healthcare (which by virtue of modern science is also getting more expensive) is starting to have effects), job supply/job quality (even without the increased cost the percentage of income required to pull off a house is far higher than it traditionally has been) is all very much worth discussing.

*while some of it is nice building materials being chosen (I don't like the US wooden houses very much) just as much as the amount of arse ache that goes into it -- people trust me to reverse engineer and alter electrical machines costing thousands or even millions, with production runs just a lucrative depending upon the results, and yet I can't replace a socket in my house without being registered to some rubber stamping exercise (I have met those that went through their courses and exams... scary that is), again despite said same and doing woodwork for decades now I can't replace a window without a FENSA ticket, and woe betide you if you want to replace something in a listed building or conservation area (can put in secondary glazing if you want though). I know some people that run a reclaim yard -- they are facing hard times now as the local building control could not do their job and declared that an old beam was an ancient original fitting despite pictures of being raised up by the person that ran said yard, on the flip side someone wanted a nice extension and was similarly compelled to use a nice green bit of oak which is now warping because it is not seasoned fully (for the thickness that is a decades long affair) and causing some fun there. This is getting off topic though.


----------



## notimp (May 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> 1) Some are, some aren't. The trick (and what a lot of that article was about, how viable their proposals are being up for debate) was about weeding those migrants out to go back to the traditional ways of immigrating


I was laughing throughout that entire part. 

How do you differentiate? Do you ask them? Or do you do it by country.  (And then ask them, if its for something like political asylum - where there actually need to be specific circumstances, which need to be successfully argued...)

Are you here to have a better life? No. Ok, next. Are you here to have a better life. No. Yes. I mean, no. Haha, gotcha!

Sorry guys, the entire concept of "economic migrants" only became popular in the 80s, just for funzies..  (Political messaging. )

Here is the usage of the german word for it, in googles ngram book search: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=20&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge;,c0

Same difference as with the english one. Then we have a dip, because it became kind of unpopular again for a while, but still more popular than when it started.

It was literally - the conservative right, thinking about, that according to their values corset, they had do take in migrants, but they didn't want to take all of them, so they invented a separation that basically allowed them to pick countries and still sound political correct.

Which will become very useful, if ever the mass migration from african countries starts.  Because I have a feeling, that people wouldnt want to be very tolerant then.

Now reading the rest.

edit: "Land size" I dont think is a category that plays into arguing about migration flows - although I'm not an expert. Migration population size, actual need (the thing is, nobody wants to see famins, and refugee camp cities - at least not if we have some 'cultural closeness' to a country), potential alternatives (can we help them in the region), education level, and doubled up - cultural closeness (which actually is close to education, because otherwise we then invest in teaching them maybe their first alphabet, which gets expensive in mass - not prejudice mongering, just dang economics, and also prejudices within your own population).

edit2: Maybe the confusion is, that according to Wikipedia the UN calls them "migrant workers", (and we did so as well, before we invented the other term - at least in my country) which sounded too positive, so economic migrants got coined.  So we already had a word for it, then came up with a new one. How convenient. 

edit3: Also, dont use weeding. They are humans. Some ground level respect in conversation, please.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> I was laughing throughout that entire part.
> 
> How do you differentiate? Do you ask them? Or do you do it by country.  (And then ask them, if its for something like political asylum - where there actually need to be specific circumstances, which need to be successfully argued...)
> 
> ...



Not sure what would be funny about the thing quoted. Seems like a fairly reasonable distinction too.

Yes you ask them. Same way customs and immigration has worked for probably centuries at this point, certainly since the advent of global travel for the masses. Same sort of things I get grilled on when I go places, same sorts of things you get tested on when you marry someone and the people come round for a visit -- where are you from, what are the nearby cities/villages, how do you pronounce certain words, what celebrations happen on these days, what are (or were) the local sports teams, what religion are you (they vary after all), if you are religious (and being atheist is often dangerous in those parts, then what was your religious leader's name -- your imam is usually a name you would know and was probably on some database somewhere, yet much like I don't know a priest's name a couple of villages over you probably won't know a simple imam from another country), what school did you go to, what was up with some notable event, where were your parents/grandparents born, if big city what section, name me some of your neighbours, talk to me about [landmark], what do you do for a job, do you have any papers/photos/similar that might confirm this... few people can do a convincing legend here, especially not under something resembling interrogation conditions (probably don't want to be putting too much pressure under someone that probably saw some shit in the recent past and has no clue about their future). Plus more general forensics (DNA sequencing, hair testing, antibody testing), plus corroboration (war torn shitholes weren't always that and they have social meeja like everybody else a lot of the time). Even if you have some savant level super spy that was a recluse in their "home" country then who cares as so few will be, and you could probably do a bit of a deterrent thing as well.

There seems to be a fairly easy distinction to make between person that ran because the bombs were dropping and found themselves by people firing off guns and person that decided to leave a relatively safe and secure place for no other reason than they reckon they can do better elsewhere and can't be arsed to apply for a visa or residency the traditional way (how easy or not such things may be to achieve, and whether it is any kind of fair, is a different discussion). Don't much see a concern with when a term might have been coined or got popular here. If the person did fall on the wrong side of a politician who decided to send in the boys then that is a different matter. Country borders mean less than they might currently in some other places there but yeah if one place is relatively OK and next door is not then you can start with that.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2019)

notimp said:


> Well - actually... Leave your home country, if you can not find a job - especially if its the UK is a hard pill to swallow.
> 
> The sentiment against uncontrolled migration is actually ... ok ... (weak enthusiasm).
> 
> ...


The statistics do not align with the BREXIT narrative, it's as simple as that. Migration of EU citizens to the UK has been steadily decreasing over the years and is now at its lowest point since 2014. In the year 2017 the UK saw 220,000 arrivals and 130,000 departures to/from EU countries, that's a net migration of 90,000. Meanwhile, during the same year, 285,000 arrivals and 80,000 departures to/from non-EU countries led to a net migration of 205,000. I'm no expert, but one of those numbers is much larger than the other, and it's not the EU one, which in fact continues to decrease.




Framing BREXIT as an anti-immigration movement is silly - EU migrants provide skilled workers who contribute to the economy, and they do so right quick because otherwise they simply have to leave. Asylum seekers are the exact opposite - they're less likely to be skilled, less likely to even know the language and less likely to contribute. That doesn't make them "worse people", but their migration involves a different kind of calculus. Sure, on one hand you can argue that EU migrants "take jobs away" from citizens, but it's undeniable that freedom of movement has allowed the UK to fill in skill gaps and greatly benefit economically. It's all fine and dandy to say that foreigners are taking British jobs, but if they're jobs that Brits are either unwilling or not qualified to perform, what does it matter? I can assure you that private companies source employees from all over the world regularly, with or without the EU - that's what visas are for. BREXIT only makes sense as a sovereignty-oriented movement, otherwise it falls apart.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Framing BREXIT as an anti-immigration movement is silly - EU migrants provide skilled workers who contribute to the economy, and they do so right quick because otherwise they simply have to leave. Asylum seekers are the exact opposite - they're less likely to be skilled, less likely to even know the language and less likely to contribute. That doesn't make them "worse people", but their migration involves a different kind of calculus. Sure, on one hand you can argue that EU migrants "take jobs away" from citizens, but it's undeniable that freedom of movement has allowed the UK to fill in skill gaps and greatly benefit economically. It's all fine and dandy to say that foreigners are taking British jobs, but if they're jobs that Brits are either unwilling or not qualified to perform, what does it matter? I can assure you that private companies source employees from all over the world regularly, with or without the EU - that's what visas are for. BREXIT only makes sense as a sovereignty-oriented movement, otherwise it falls apart.



I would say there are a few more shades of grey in there. Skills wise I always remember going for an earlier job after university -- night and day shifts in a foundry doing analysis/batch testing on things. Not sure if they absolutely needed a degree but the interviewer was asking questions I would not expect the BTEC types to be able to answer (granted another quote from that was along the lines of if anything interesting happens we call the people in London to come up and have a look). On the way to the interview I went past a Lidl. Banner on the side of proudly proclaiming their hourly base wage for a shelf stacker was more than I would have earned. Granted this was agency work (albeit billed as long term) but if I were to be doing the good citizen bit and planning to do a wife, house and kids bit (possibly also contemplating sorting my student loans, which at the time were still fairly reasonable) that would have been demoralising as anything, and were someone doing the projected earnings bit when looking at what course to pick... yeah. Fortunately I was not looking to do that (indeed I would probably pay someone to ensure I don't do that) but if that is the lie you are told and believe then it would sting. Got several similar examples from those with things that few would mistake for being as useless as the proverbial underwater basket weaving, or David Beckham studies if I am to remember the terms favoured in the UK. Have also helped those run the numbers and have things change accordingly.
Similarly given the utterly half arsed attempts at IT recruitment I have seen so as ultimately to drag someone in from India or some such... "because there is nobody else". This wasn't for some super slick skillset the likes of which there are maybe 50 in the world that could handle but basis sysadmin stuff.
Nursing also has itself a debate every so often about dragging people across. No qualms about the quality but the wages that seem to work for that one, to say nothing of depriving said country of skilled people,... would more money see more people do things? I have seen quite a few get trained up and be attracted to the private sector as soon as, or to augment their base salary, and still do the same tasks.
Low skilled. While robots is probably the answer (some of the stuff I have seen for fruit pickers in the last few years... going to be fun that one) for some of those of "if labour from elsewhere was not available" then one wonders if wages and conditions might change to match what some of those twiddling their thumbs would be inclined to do for. If one does have the "first and foremost sort your house out" thing as a mindset then it gains some potency.


As it stands I am happy enough with things here (tweaks and improvements of course, and if we can avoid that Windrush lark again then so much the better), and generally find some combo of bone idleness and idiocy to account for a lot, I would say you risk over simplifying some things. At this point we are probably not far off stating positions on top down, bottom up, how right or wrong Keynesian stuff is, what types of control should be exerted and so forth but I will stop it here.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I would say there are a few more shades of grey in there. Skills wise I always remember going for an earlier job after university -- night and day shifts in a foundry doing analysis/batch testing on things. Not sure if they absolutely needed a degree but the interviewer was asking questions I would not expect the BTEC types to be able to answer (granted another quote from that was along the lines of if anything interesting happens we call the people in London to come up and have a look). On the way to the interview I went past a Lidl. Banner on the side of proudly proclaiming their hourly base wage for a shelf stacker was more than I would have earned. Granted this was agency work (albeit billed as long term) but if I were to be doing the good citizen bit and planning to do a wife, house and kids bit (possibly also contemplating sorting my student loans, which at the time were still fairly reasonable) that would have been demoralising as anything, and were someone doing the projected earnings bit when looking at what course to pick... yeah. Fortunately I was not looking to do that (indeed I would probably pay someone to ensure I don't do that) but if that is the lie you are told and believe then it would sting. Got several similar examples from those with things that few would mistake for being as useless as the proverbial underwater basket weaving, or David Beckham studies if I am to remember the terms favoured in the UK. Have also helped those run the numbers and have things change accordingly.
> Similarly given the utterly half arsed attempts at IT recruitment I have seen so as ultimately to drag someone in from India or some such... "because there is nobody else". This wasn't for some super slick skillset the likes of which there are maybe 50 in the world that could handle but basis sysadmin stuff.
> Nursing also has itself a debate every so often about dragging people across. No qualms about the quality but the wages that seem to work for that one, to say nothing of depriving said country of skilled people,... would more money see more people do things? I have seen quite a few get trained up and be attracted to the private sector as soon as, or to augment their base salary, and still do the same tasks.
> Low skilled. While robots is probably the answer (some of the stuff I have seen for fruit pickers in the last few years... going to be fun that one) for some of those of "if labour from elsewhere was not available" then one wonders if wages and conditions might change to match what some of those twiddling their thumbs would be inclined to do for. If one does have the "first and foremost sort your house out" thing as a mindset then it gains some potency.
> ...


All I was saying was that there is a very obvious difference between a migrants who have planned their move out versus those who are migrating due to circumstances completely beyond their control, that's all. I'm not particularly fearful of migration, especially since I'm a migrant myself, but as you yourself say, you have to strike a delicate balance with those things. I personally see freedom of movement as a general good, it allows people to make money and move assets quickly and easily without being burdened by excessive taxation or government interference. That said, this freedom does not encompass the whole globe - it encompasses a very specific set of states with similar traditions, values and level of development. You have to set a bar somewhere, "European" is as good a spot as any, whatever that might mean to you.


----------



## Doran754 (May 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> All I was saying was that there is a very obvious difference between a migrants who have planned their move out versus those who are migrating due to circumstances completely beyond their control, that's all. I'm not particularly fearful of migration, especially since I'm a migrant myself, but as you yourself say, you have to strike a delicate balance with those things. I personally see freedom of movement as a general good, it allows people to make money and move assets quickly and easily without being burdened by excessive taxation or government interference. That said, this freedom does not encompass the whole globe - it encompasses a very specific set of states with similar traditions, values and level of development. You have to set a bar somewhere, "European" is as good a spot as any, whatever that might mean to you.



The problem with this, and the EU in general is the euro. Member "states" are countries each with their very own economy, the euro was the single biggest mistake the EU ever made, that's what led to so many bailouts. How can one currency fit so many different economies? It can't. It doesn't, it was a mistake. Why would anyone do a job in Poland when they can do the same job in the U.K or Germany and get 10x what they would in their home country. This In-turn creates an influx of one way immigration. Didn't Poland have to put adverts out when they jointly hosted the euros with Ukraine asking them to come home because they didn't have the builders/population to build the infrastructure/stadiums as they were in other countries. Naturally you see the good in FOM because it's benefited you personally.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The problem with this, and the EU in general is the euro. Member "states" are countries each with their very own economy, the euro was the single biggest mistake the EU ever made, that's what led to so many bailouts. How can one currency fit so many different economies? It can't. It doesn't, it was a mistake. Why would anyone do a job in Poland when they can do the same job in the U.K or Germany and get 10x what they would in their home country. This In-turn creates an influx of one way immigration. Didn't Poland have to put adverts out when they jointly hosted the euros with Ukraine asking them to come home because they didn't have the builders/population to build the infrastructure/stadiums as they were in other countries. Naturally you see the good in FOM because it's benefited you personally.


It can do it very easily, actually. Let's not forget that currencies globally are pegged to the dollar anyways. Currency is nothing more than an abstraction of value, it's not actually "worth" anything per se. And yes, countries in general benefit from freedom of movement in terms of filling in skill gaps. I see nothing wrong with Polish construction workers working in the UK and Ukrainian construction workers working in Poland. Guess who benefitted from the deal? Poland, because it got a spiffy new stadium on the cheap. Whether we like it or not, we're all a part of the global economy - we do not live in closed ecosystems and migration has been a factor in terms of labour since the dawn of time.


----------



## notimp (May 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The statistics do not align with the BREXIT narrative, it's as simple as that. Migration of EU citizens to the UK has been steadily decreasing over the years and is now at its lowest point since 2014.


This.

(And they controlled the channel, so didnt have to take any. Allthough the UK had a years old issue with internal (EU) migration where in 2004 about 100k polish people entered the country as working migrants (but that was shown to be a one time event). We've been through all of it already.  )

I just posted the migration analysis of The Economist in here, because it shows how those issues are looked at by people who are working on them (usually thinktanks, The Economist has a similar approach). In general, there are many aspects that are looked at and weight against each other - going even down to setting different foreign policies.

Then a proposal like this is brought forward to political actors (who also have thinktanks (polit academies) working on similar ones), and if one is politically viable at the time, it might get enacted.

Its not bad having read such a thing at least once. Just for perspective.


----------



## Superbronx (May 14, 2019)

Globalization = bad
National sovereignty = Good
Open borders = bad
Closed borders = Good
Unregulated immigration = bad
Properly controlled immigration = Good


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 14, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> National sovereignty = Good



This is the best Brexit related joke ever


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> This is the best Brexit related joke ever


Not sure I understand. Can you expand on that?
I think those brave men and women who voted in favor of brexit had the right idea.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Not sure I understand. Can you expand on that?
> I think those brave men and women who voted in favor of brexit had the right idea.



Brave Scottish and Northern Irish men and women whose nations aren’t sovereign I guess.


----------



## kumikochan (May 15, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The problem with this, and the EU in general is the euro. Member "states" are countries each with their very own economy, the euro was the single biggest mistake the EU ever made, that's what led to so many bailouts. How can one currency fit so many different economies? It can't. It doesn't, it was a mistake. Why would anyone do a job in Poland when they can do the same job in the U.K or Germany and get 10x what they would in their home country. This In-turn creates an influx of one way immigration. Didn't Poland have to put adverts out when they jointly hosted the euros with Ukraine asking them to come home because they didn't have the builders/population to build the infrastructure/stadiums as they were in other countries. Naturally you see the good in FOM because it's benefited you personally.


I lived in those countries back when it wasn't Europe quite some time, 8 years in Hungary and 1 year in Poland and they were all basically as good as 3th world countries while they're thriving now because of the EU. Also how different economies when the EU clearly states wages sort of have to be the same as does pricing. Hungarians used to earn around 300 euro's a month when i lived there before joining the EU and now they earn almost the same wage people do here after the EU. In some countries it can be more expensive than the other but give or take the difference isn't astronomical like you're making it out to be. Why wouldn't it work in Europe when exactly the same is in the states ? Or did you really think prices are exactly the same when you travel from one state to the other ? No not at all, actually it is exactly the same as it is in Europe. Even wages differ going from state to state. So why are you complaining about it Europe wise when so many other big countries do exactly the same ? People always talk like they're experts on economics while they never ever have even left the comfort zone of their own country and lived in actually different countries and that makes them expert on all things related Europe how ?


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Brave Scottish and Northern Irish men and women whose nations aren’t sovereign I guess.


Still unclear on your meaning. Why is national sovereignty a joke in your opinion?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Still unclear on your meaning. Why is national sovereignty a joke in your opinion?



In the context of Brexit it is. Northern Ireland and Scotland will leave the EU even though their people voted to remain.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> In the context of Brexit it is. Northern Ireland and Scotland will leave the EU even though their people voted to remain.


I see what you mean now. But trust me. There are greater benefits to leaving the EU than staying.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I see what you mean now. But trust me. There are greater benefits to leaving the EU than staying.



Trust me, you have no idea where I stand on the issue.


----------



## spinal_cord (May 15, 2019)

emigre said:


> Currently, the biggest benefit is taking back control but



Control of what exactly? 



zomborg said:


> There are greater benefits to leaving the EU than staying.



I have yet to see anyone explain a single benefit of leaving the EU that we came do already.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

spinal_cord said:


> Control of what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see anyone explain a single benefit of leaving the EU that we came do already.



*From an article by Jonathan Arnott MEP
A: Benefits of not having to fully comply with European Union legislation*


*
1. The EU Procurement Directive won’t be able to force us to give State contracts to overseas businesses*

At present, we have to put contracts out to tender – often awarded on the basis of price. This means that local businesses often lose out on getting contracts, and creating jobs.

Of course, there may be times when it’s actually in our best interests to award a contract to an overseas firm. But in a lot of marginal cases, the advantages to jobs and the local economy will far outweigh the disadvantage of an additional (say) 1-2% on cost.

*2. You won’t have to comply with the VATMOSS legislation, boosting jobs*

I’ve had various businesses in my constituency contact me, explaining that the legislation makes it very difficult for them to trade with other European Union countries. This requires businesses (even if they’re below the VAT threshold) to charge VAT at the applicable rate in the country they’re selling to within the European Union.

One North East business owner, who sells low-cost technology (e.g. mobile phone apps) told me they were likely to have to stop selling to the EU because compliance costs outweighed the benefit of low-volume sales to other EU countries. Instead, they now trade more with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (English-speaking nations make it easier to sell their products).

Another North East business, below the UK VAT threshold in the UK, told me that by the time they’d added 25% Swedish VAT to their products and postage, they could no longer sell to other EU countries competitively. They had to downsize as a result.

These examples aren’t unusual; I received quite a number of letters and emails from businesses in the North East about the same issue.

Even the EU’s biggest fan, Guy Verhofstadt, has criticised VATMOSS.

*3. Compliance costs will be lower outside the European Union*…

…and I’m not referring to workers’ rights, etc.

Take, for example, the new GDPR legislation. I spoke recently to the principal of an accountancy firm which has had to spend substantial amounts of money on consultancy, take employees out of the office for training on the new legislation, and make substantial changes to the way they deal with clients. None of this has made the slightest tangible difference, but the overall cost of compliance is a substantial portion of the annual turnover of the business.
*
4. You won’t have threats like the Copyright Directive to the free functioning of the Internet*

….and no, I’m not against copyright enforcement.

However, requiring ISPs, search engines, and social media platforms to use automated crawlers to delete content suspected of being copyrighted will result in the removal of substantial amounts of legitimate content as well.

*5. You won’t have to comply with EU State Aid regulations*…

Sometimes it’s necessary to take rapid action to protect local businesses. When SSI in Redcar closed, there were many reasons: the strong pound (at the time), China dumping steel below cost price on world markets, high energy prices, etc.

In such situations, it’s often appropriate to give State Aid to allow a business which should be profitable to survive a tough time (and when the State Aid is less than the redundancy/unemployment payments the State would have to make if it didn’t).

However, Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU prevent the UK from giving such State Aid without the EU Commission’s approval. The UK government could hide behind that, didn’t ask for Commission approval, and SSI went under – costing thousands of jobs both directly and in the supply chain.

The blame here should be attached both to the UK government, and to the EU institutions.

With Brexit, the UK will also regain the power to enforce its own trade defence mechanisms, which would have avoided the delay whilst 28 countries all negotiate what to do. Different countries took different approaches; the result was paralysis at a time when we couldn’t afford it.
*
6. Brexit should finally end the madness of double-testing products*

I visited a business in the North East which lost a significant proportion of its turnover once the EU’s Biocidal Products Regulation had kicked in. The problem: products which had already been fully tested to some of the highest standards in the world required re-testing because of new EU legislation requiring testing to take place at EU level. This led to the disappearance of some products from the market which could not justify huge fees being paid. This was exacerbated by an inability to receive the supposed ‘discounted’ rates.

Jobs were lost as a result in the North East.

This is nothing new; the REACH Directive had a similar impact on chemicals. Products which had already been tested to British standards required re-testing to EU standards, even when the EU standards were lower than the UK ones. This led to products disappearing from the market (Cutlass, for example).
*
7. Brexit means you don’t have to comply with rules restricting ‘natural monopolies*’

There are certain ‘natural monopolies’ in the country – the postal system, for example: it’s inefficient to have competitors duplicating the same work. In these situations, privatisation basically doesn’t work well and national ownership makes sense.

EU legislation has watered this down. There are many examples of this, for example:

i) Postal Services Directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC leading to Post Office closures

ii) Directive 2002/77/EC required the splitting up of the Directory Enquiries service, which has led to consumers being ripped off for £11+ for a 90-second phone call

iii) Directive 91/440/EC impacts upon the UK’s ability to organise the railways, leading to the current mess of a system. (With this benefit of Brexit, there are caveats: it’s very much also the UK’s fault through underinvestment and mismanagement)

*B: Areas where the UK will be free to act differently*


*
1. The North East is a strong fishing region. Outside the EU, our fisheries will recover through reclaiming our 200-mile limit*

Since joining the EU, our fisheries have been decimated. EU quotas have proven to be completely ineffective, leading to the ‘discards problem’ amongst other issues – where dead fish are thrown back into the sea to avoid breaching quotas. The various attempts at EU level to resolve this problem have failed.

In the meantime, EU-flagged vessels have the right to a majority of the value of fish in UK waters. Furthermore, the system of sales means that much of the ‘British’ quota in our own waters still goes to foreign vessels.

Outside the European Union, conservation can be managed more effectively (Australia, for example, does this much better than the EU) – for example limiting time at sea rather than type of catch – whilst also giving North East fishermen more work because EU nations won’t be allowed to overfish our waters.

Defenders of the EU point out that fish don’t respect national boundaries. This is a red herring; they don’t respect EU boundaries either, and much of our boundaries are with non-EU nations (Norway, Iceland).

*2. You can negotiate your own bespoke trade deals with third countries*

This should be an obvious benefit, but one question often asked by people who are pro-EU is this:

Why would we get better deals as one nation than the whole EU27 put together?

The answer is that the issue isn’t about ‘better’ deals but ‘more appropriate’ deals for the UK. Let’s remember that:

i) The EU27 economy is the world’s second-largest; the UK economy (treating the EU as one) is the world’s fifth-largest

ii) The EU27 economy is only around 5 times the size of the UK economy

iii) Therefore, there aren’t many bigger trading opportunities available for third countries; the ‘bulk buy’ argument rarely applies

iv) The EU27 is incredibly slow at negotiating trade deals; getting in there first provides huge opportunities

v) The EU27 has to negotiate its own negotiating position with the Member States; therefore, individual national interests often conflict – the negotiating position itself is often a compromise

vi) The UK would be able to negotiate far quicker and realise the benefits of trade deals before the EU27 does (noting that the European Union is likely to be only the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2050 according to Commission figures)

*3. The net EU membership fee*

The UK will, ultimately, save the net (not gross) membership fee paid to the European Union. The ‘Boris bus’ £350 million per week figure should not have been used (as I pointed out during the referendum campaign). The £180 million per week (or so) net fee is a genuine saving once any ‘divorce bill’ has been paid for the first couple of years.

Pro-EU advocates in the North East claim that the North East is a ‘net beneficiary’ of EU funds. Whilst this is not actually true, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant: the UK could replace every penny of EU funds and still have the £180 million left over.

This is actual cash; whether GDP rises (as I believe) or falls (as Remain adherents suggest) the £180 million per week would still be there.

I also believe that EU funding could be better spent directly by the UK rather than on EU-determined projects, as I argued in more detail in Britain Beyond Brexit.

4. VAT

The EU-mandated VAT is one of the most inefficient forms of indirect taxation on the planet, costing billions every year to businesses and the Treasury through costs of compliance, fraud, etc.

Outside the European Union, the UK will be free to choose a fairer and simpler form of indirect taxation.


C: I disagree with the premise that immigration control isn’t a benefit of Brexit



One of the key problems with uncontrolled immigration from the EU is that an oversupply of unskilled and semi-skilled labour drives down wages. Even if there existed a reasonable mechanism by which the UK might enforce the permitted restrictions on those who do not find work in the UK, uncontrolled immigration does lead to lower wages (hence, why it tends to be supported by big business).

By prioritising skilled immigration over unskilled, this downward pressure on wages will be reversed – whilst developing the skills base within the economy.


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> 2. You won’t have to comply with the VATMOSS legislation, boosting jobs


Example for VAT MOSS: 





> Jackie sells .pdf knitting patterns online. She has customers across the world and her sales are £10,000 a year. Maria buys one of Jackie’s knitting patterns in Spain. Jackie must charge Maria Spanish VAT on that sale, at the Spanish rate of 21%.


src: https://www.freeagent.com/glossary/vat-moss/

Great. So what you are now suggesting is either tax fraud (dont charge any value added tax on digital goods), or to charge the VAT of the source country? (UK 20%) Oh, all the jobs that this will create.. 

Especially because this is only "direct to consumer", if you are dealing with businesses, they can get their VAT back (from their country). Oh all the jobs in the direct to consumer .pdf nitting patterns market. (Digital services - mostly.)

This is also a perfect example of what people will skim off the top of a transaction in get rich quick schemes. Saving there, is not a valid business proposition for "creating jobs".

And if it is (banking sector services...) eff your country. You've become fraudsters. As simple as that. 
-

On the other points made

A1: Valid. But also, thats what a common foreign policy would have looked like. That you dont outcompete germanys, or frances most important industries, the first chance you get. (Not going for 'Divide et empera', got it? Also yes, you could complain, that then thats a cartel.)

A3: Seems odd and counter intuitive. On GDPR certainly (there its valid), if you are in the tech industry - because GDPR was basically made to 'fuck people less' which currently is the tech industries main export (data for nothing in return, that doesnt run totally automated, and at virtually no cost).

A4: Valid

A5: Odd. I cant assume, that there wasnt a vehicle to do so anyhow. Seems odd. But if the case: Valid.

A6: Misleading. Products still need certs that we accept for them to enter our markets. So this is a "if we negotiate well". At best. Its also double standard. You could just as well hawk on the UK certs, that are better, or worse depending on the product category. Also this is directly related to consumer rights, so its a sensitive subject. Simply saying "great, we saved us money there".... But well - double testing eliminated. How, though? (EU will still only accept certain certs.)

A7: Non issue. Lie. EU will not make you privatize your postal system. EU will not force you to close post offices. Followed by creative arguing.


B1: Valid. EU fishing industry fishes more in UK waters than the other way round. BUT UK fishermen sell more product into the EU (by a large margin), than into the UK, or any other countries. So the fishing industry isnt exactly happy. So fake out?

B2: Valid. And (big BUT) you are smaller and matter less. So your deals will be worse. (If not banking on other political connections. (Five Eyes essentially)) Also, your biggest trading partner so far - hates you.  (But that is fine, because other countries around the world are growing faster (thats the thinking behind this.))

B3: Misleading. The amount you've paid for other countries in the EU to be able to catch up - wasnt huge. Especially if you compare that with unrestricted access to the EU markets. How about we ask you for tariffs instead. 

B4: Misleading. Polit speech. I'm sure the UKs tax system was, and will be a mess as well.  (Reasons, its complicated. Everyone is out to defraud their brother.  Also - EU doesnt set VAT amounts. At all. The individual countries do. So - what the heck?)

C: Wrong: Read OECD reports, people arent wandering. The amount of labor mobility has been below expectations on average. UK shot themselves in the foot, when not pulling a transition clause, when "open borders for EU labor" was first put into place (only they, Sweden and Ireland did open their borders instantly and fully) - so they got hit by the first direct "push" of people motivated to make their fortunes abroad. That petered down to a trickle. Also they were not 'unskilled' they were skilled labor competition. You are not complaining that they are taking unemploiment benefits, but jobs.

edit: Also, and this is what shows you how messed up the situation is. People want to "make their fortunes abroad", because disposable income they get there is "worth more" in their countries of origin. So you go abroad for a few years, save up money (or send it home), and then life good in retirement (while having had an 'adventure' in your youth - if it peters out, if not - what a mess). Now - to lessen the pull, you put money in fonds, that allow lesser developed countries (within your union), to develop 'better' faster. Which is what the UK was paying for. But now you dont want to pay. And you want no 'job competition' ("our borders") and you still want full market access. By what measure of reasonable thought, arent you guys complete donkey asses? (Every man is an island?  )


So impressive list of minor and larger points - but heavily skewed to paint a picture, thats not necessarily true. At least not for the bigger points. Probably.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 15, 2019)

So...I only semi-followed the news. But apparently Farage himself is leading a brexit party. Not ukip (though I was lead to believe that that 'i' stood for 'independence'), but a different one. And it's leading in the polls. To me, this is only half surprising. The way the conservatives and even labor have faffed about, it's certainly not surprising that brexit voters aren't going to vote for them.

My surprise is that this brexit party is getting *so much* (poll) votes. This is literally the same guy who left politics days after the brexit referendum. It's the same guy who sits in the EU, sabotaging it from the inside (and, in fact, would be one of the few benefits of the brexit: not having to deal with him anymore). It's the same guy who doesn't even return to his former party but rather starts a new one.

If he wins in the election (and recent US history learns that he will), I give it about thirty procent chance that he'll become prime minister (given HIS personal history, my chances are he'll convince another party to join a coalition with him, the leader of whom will first be prime minister, and later the scapegoat for when the same scenario will inevitably occur).

The chances of him succeeding where May fails...I give that about 0% chance. Turn it how you will, but as long as about 50% of the population wants to stay in the EU, any way to properly leave the EU will be met with severe political resistance.






zomborg said:


> Not sure I understand. Can you expand on that?
> I think those brave men and women who voted in favor of brexit had the right idea.


I can't speak on behalf of @supersonicwaffle , but I don't really understand the appeal of 'national sovereignty' either if in practice this means that everything gets voted down. I mean...wouldn't a European agreement mean more in terms of economic progress than Bercow bellowing "the nay's have it. THE NAYS HAVE IT!!!" all the time? :unsure


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

@notimp
Pretty impressive huh? I'm no expert on the UK or EU, I'm just in favor of national sovereignty. And even though you found many potential negatives to the points laid out in my previous post, you also found several valid ones.
 Personally, I think becoming a part of a global community might benefit some nations but overall you lose more than I can find acceptable.
Disadvantages of being in the EU?

*1.Cost*.
The costs of EU membership to the UK is £15bn gross (0.06% of GDP) – or £6.883 billion net. See UK government spending. (UKIP claim that the cost of EU membership in total amounts to £83bn gross if you include all possible costs, such as an ‘estimated’ £48bn of regulation costs – or  £1,380 per head [1]. The ONS has estimated a net contribution cost of £7.1 bn. See actual cost of EU membership


*2. Inefficient policies*.
 A large percentage (40%) of EU spending goes on the Common Agricultural Policy. For many years this distorted agricultural markets by placing minimum prices on food. This lead to higher prices for consumers and encouraging over-supply. Reforms to CAP have reduced, but not eliminated this wastage. A significant existing problem with CAP is that it has rewarded large land-owners, with little reflection of social benefit. See: Transfer of funds from poor to rich landowners (Guardian) Though the UK is guilty of rejecting limit on CAP

*3. Problems of the Euro*.
Membership of the EU doesn’t necessarily mean membership of the Euro. But, the EU has placed great emphasis on the single currency. However, it has proved to have many problems and contributed to low rates of economic growth and high unemployment across the EU. Fortunately, the UK stayed out of the Euro.

*4.Pressure towards austerity*.
Since 2008, many southern European countries have faced pressure from the EU to pursue austerity – spending cuts to meet budget deficit targets, but in the middle of a recession these austerity measures have contributed to prolonged economic stagnation. In particular, Greece was forced by its creditors to accept austerity, when some economists have argued this is counter-productive.

*5. Net migration*.
Free movement of labour has caused problems of overcrowding in some UK cities. The UK’s population is set to rise to 70 million over the next decade, partly due to immigration (of which 50% is from EU and 50% from non-EU). Immigration has helped to push up house prices and led to congestion on roads. The concern is that in the EU, the UK is powerless to place a limit on immigration from Eastern Europe because free movement of labour is a cornerstone of the EU. See: Impact of immigration on UK economy
*6. More bureaucracy less democracy. *
It is argued that the EU has created extra layers of bureaucracy while taking away the decision-making process further from local communities. For example, the British Chambers of Commerce has estimated that the annual cost to the UK of EU regulation is £7.4bn. The introduction of Qualified majority voting (QMV) means that on many decisions votes can be taken against the public interest of a particular country.

@Taleweaver
This link describes why sovereignty is important. It's a 9 minute read if you have the time it's definitely worth it.

Why sovereignty matters for national unity: a warning


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> A3: Seems odd and counter intuitive. On GDPR certainly (there its valid), if you are in the tech industry - because GDPR was basically made to 'fuck people less' which currently is the tech industries main export (data for nothing in return, that doesnt run totally automated, and at virtually no cost).



It's neither odd nor counter intuitive and most people will have an idea of how much money GDPR compliance has burned particularly in small medium bussinesses, there's barely any people who haven't been affected by it, while it turned out it's mainly a toothless tiger as the games industry for example has been caught multiple times violating the GDPR without any real consequences.

Furthermore it significantly hinders European tech companies to obtain data which is required for machine learning, it was pretty much a death sentence for AI technology based in the EU and in turn for the EU being a major factor in the fourth industrial revolution. It's really funny if you talk to Germans about the fourth industrial revolution, or industry 4.0 as they like to call it, they have significantly different ideas of what it is than americans or chinese.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> I can't speak on behalf of @supersonicwaffle , but I don't really understand the appeal of 'national sovereignty' either if in practice this means that everything gets voted down. I mean...wouldn't a European agreement mean more in terms of economic progress than Bercow bellowing "the nay's have it. THE NAYS HAVE IT!!!" all the time? :unsure



The point I was making is Bercow himself is a member of a union parliament not a national parliament. Brexit is not an argument for national sovereignty. Which is why "National Sovereignty = Good" is funny in a Brexit context.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> *From an article by Jonathan Arnott MEP
> A: Benefits of not having to fully comply with European Union legislation*
> 
> 
> ...



I am dubious of a lot of those.

1. The UK gov outsources endless amounts of stuff to the home grown outfit Capita, usually dubbed Crapita as they are so awful (they do must of the gov IT infrastructure). The benefits of a smaller pool then remain to be seen.

3. I have not gone fully into GDPR and the cookies thing annoys me but most of what I have seen has been fairly common sense data protection/handling stuff, not entirely unlike the data protection act that such people would have been familiar with. 
" take employees out of the office for training on the new legislation,"
They are accountants -- that shit happens every 5 months anyway. Such people tend to go on more courses than IT people.

4. Yes UK gov take care of my internet access... oh wait porn blocks incoming and ISP level blocks on all sorts of weird and wonderful things for many years now ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_Kingdom )... yay such confidence that they know what they are doing.

5. Yet when the Royal Bank of Scotland was after some money look how quickly that got unarsed, and the results of that one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45500384

6. I know MPs are not typically engineers (though this one is supposed to be a mathematician) but hahahahahahaha. Classic. We have had multiple sets of competing standards for multiple countries for... about as long as we have had standards (there is a reason I have a BSW/BSF/BSWS spanner set, a metric spanner set and a SAE/AF imperial sized spanner set). There is a reason why my lovely US DOT certified motorbike helmet is dubious to use on UK roads despite probably being able to handle worse impacts in some cases. The UK might once have been able to dictate a worldwide engineering standard but no chance today so it will be same shit, different face on it though if this does come to pass. Would also count for that other one where they could not be bothered to go beyond the UK only certs, and most EU certs are not that much harder to sort than those seen in US+ commonwealth countries (not to mention what I have seen has been pretty sane too).

7."Post Office closures"
Was that the directive or that nobody uses post any more so you don't need one on every estate? I am sure they will trot out some village somewhere that lost theirs and some rickety old grandma that suffered a bit as a result. Most were said duplicates (one in a town I used to live in had one on an estate, one maybe 600m away in a town, another a few hundred metres after that, and not far beyond that the main sorting office).
Directory enquires is an interesting thing to ponder here. I don't know enough to argue any which way here, however I am drawn to wonder if that is a cherry picked example as most such things would go under very fast should they go in for those kind of pricings.


On VAT. They are not going to kick their third biggest earner in the head -- taxes never get lowered, at best they change shape and more commonly inflation takes care of the raises, and all that. One that has been working for decades, longer if you count its precursor.

Nice to see a bit more effort than soundbites but still came up a bit short from where I sit.


----------



## Doran754 (May 15, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> I lived in those countries back when it wasn't Europe quite some time, 8 years in Hungary and 1 year in Poland and they were all basically as good as 3th world countries while they're thriving now because of the EU. Also how different economies when the EU clearly states wages sort of have to be the same as does pricing. Hungarians used to earn around 300 euro's a month when i lived there before joining the EU and now they earn almost the same wage people do here after the EU. In some countries it can be more expensive than the other but give or take the difference isn't astronomical like you're making it out to be. Why wouldn't it work in Europe when exactly the same is in the states ? Or did you really think prices are exactly the same when you travel from one state to the other ? No not at all, actually it is exactly the same as it is in Europe. Even wages differ going from state to state. So why are you complaining about it Europe wise when so many other big countries do exactly the same ? People always talk like they're experts on economics while they never ever have even left the comfort zone of their own country and lived in actually different countries and that makes them expert on all things related Europe how ?



What? I dont even know where to start. the USA is one economy, Europe is 28 different ones. That's one reason it wouldn't work. I dont need to have lived in a different country for me to understand the basic economic model going on here but if it helps, I've travelled too Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, The Netherlands, Mauritius, The USA and Thailand. Granted I never live there so I bow down on your amazing knowhow because you happened to live somewhere different from your birth country for a while. And yeah, the difference actually was astronomical, if it wasn't people wouldn't upend their whole lives and move to a different country just for work. Wages differ from the North and South of England ... So what? What are you going on about? I told you what my complaint was, one single currency doesn't work for 28 vastly different economies, my proof to back this is up is Greece Ireland and Portugal all needing bailing out (And probably Spain soon too) thanks to the disaster of that currency.  Also yeah Hungary is thriving now while in the EU... Maybe you should do a little more research on what Hungary and their citizens generally think about the EU. But they're thriving, The U.K and Germany says you're welcome.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 15, 2019)

shamzie said:


> the USA is one economy, Europe is 28 different ones.



Careful with that one. While most people that would utter the phrase state's rights in the US I generally find to be... odd to say the least, and often living in their own reality, they are not without basis in their thoughts. Similarly depending upon where you are in the US you might find people identifying more with a grouping than the US as a whole; my favourites to wind up are "New Englanders" but there are all sorts of lines one might draw that mean things to different people -- many things with the word belt in it, North-South, Mason–Dixon, some aspects of Texas culture, the historical German culture, Appalachia.
Historically there have been some considerable differences between things as well -- the rather forceful nature of the union (historical standards, and some other quirks, also being more forging when rights get trampled over in a bit to achieve it) giving it a lot of what cohesion it might be said to have today.

Said cohesion is greater than what the European states have, and I would say the EU is fumbling their attempt somewhat to... heavily promote this greater cohesion before the proverbial chickens come home to roost (if they managed it then it would be a sight to see and a force to be reckoned with, and I don't fault them for wanting to try).

As for Hungary. Orban is hilarious and sure there is a notable... are we using the word Eurosceptic for Hungarian politics? component within it but last polling I saw had generally positive feelings and no particular desire to leave*.

*video because why not.


----------



## smf (May 15, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I see what you mean now. But trust me. There are greater benefits to leaving the EU than staying.



I don't trust you & I know for sure that you are wrong.



zomborg said:


> The UK will, ultimately, save the net (not gross) membership fee paid to the European Union.



The £350 million will just disappear due to the increased costs to operating outside the EU while doing most of our trade with the EU and the drop in sterling.

There are plenty of clever xenophobics and sociopaths putting together some really good sounding stuff, but you don't have to follow them blindly.

Trust me, we're better off in the EU. Although we'd have been better off without the referendum, because having a divided country for the next 50 years is going to be the biggest problem as it's completely and utterly unsolvable.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Careful with that one. While most people that would utter the phrase state's rights in the US I generally find to be... odd to say the least, and often living in their own reality, they are not without basis in their thoughts. Similarly depending upon where you are in the US you might find people identifying more with a grouping than the US as a whole; my favourites to wind up are "New Englanders" but there are all sorts of lines one might draw that mean things to different people -- many things with the word belt in it, North-South, Mason–Dixon, some aspects of Texas culture, the historical German culture, Appalachia.
> Historically there have been some considerable differences between things as well -- the rather forceful nature of the union (historical standards, and some other quirks, also being more forging when rights get trampled over in a bit to achieve it) giving it a lot of what cohesion it might be said to have today.
> 
> Said cohesion is greater than what the European states have, and I would say the EU is fumbling their attempt somewhat to... heavily promote this greater cohesion before the proverbial chickens come home to roost (if they managed it then it would be a sight to see and a force to be reckoned with, and I don't fault them for wanting to try).
> ...




That video says Sweden is a democratic socialist state. It has fun animations but if you claim the EU allows socialism while requiring to privatize railway transport you’re not really qualified to talk abou anything EU. They should stick to animations


----------



## smf (May 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> That video says Sweden is a democratic socialist state. It has fun animations but if you claim the EU allows socialism while requiring to privatize railway transport you’re not really qualified to talk abou anything EU. They should stick to animations



What I find strange is that we're constantly being scared against voting for Labour because they'll nationalise everything & that does seem to be working.

So that means if we actually do leave the EU then we'll be stuck with conservatives forever?

I very much hope that is not the case.

Not that privatization of the railways in the UK has gone particularly well, but we did that for the money and the failure of it seems more down to us than the EU.


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

Have to catch up on reading everything posted already, but as I go - comment on failures of the EU. Now there is something I have to add to. 

Well - lets see... getting fucked by the americans, every step of the way. Not having a political myth thats worth jack. Together with a bunch of yay saying technocrats - half of them not knowing what the heck they are doing. Blatant political corruption (or whatever the step before that is..  ) no idea, where the ship is going - entirely out of touch. Still trying to sell a myth of free movement and liberal thought - that doest do jack for anyone that wasnt part of a student exchange program. 

Now the good part. Technocrats in a liaison with big business. Thats the other half. So they know what they are doing. (Apart from currently only building industries that loose market share.  )

In regards to further (deeper, not wider) integration, we still need to see the proposals. The first group of public german political thinkers on that front turned out to be moronic fraudsters (faked quotes and - coming up with ideas that sounded all kinds of dumb..  ), at least they are out of the media for a while (upcoming elections), so that feels ok.  Germany isnt biting to what france was offering. Everyone else is slowly retracting. Harmonious we only are on one front. You want to harm us financially - well guess what. Suddenly we've found our commonalities.. 

(The difference here is that britain can play free agent with their former five eyes relations. And freaking hurt us. Others - cant.)

I'm still kind of chewing on the fact, that the US simply could export their financial crisis to our institutions. Which scream "satelite states" to me. But thats just a feeling that I cant get over..  Nothing you should take to seriously - or necessarily look into... I'm not sure I could rationalize it to the end..  But then I think about that we were sold on the EU with the image of prosperity and wealth, and just went through year 12 of wage decline for lower and lower medium classes folks.


Britain voting Farage: Thats actually proper. Now - understand, that you are leaving - then leaving a present like Farage on the EU parlaments footstep on your way out is just the way to go.  Cowboy, gung-ho - raise the stakes... For arguing - I'm not sure if it will benefit you currently (I think most people understand what this means) but for morals, its freaking great.  European media titles are "one third voted for him, two thirds voted against him" on it - which means there is still the "we have to somehow live with them as partners down the road" mindset upfront and center.


----------



## smf (May 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Britain voting Farage: Thats actually proper. Now - understand, that you are leaving - then leaving a present like Farage on the EU parlaments footstep on your way out is just the way to do.  Cowboy, gung-ho - raise the stakes... For arguing - I'm not sure if it will benefit you currently (I think most people understand what this means) mut for morals, its freaking great.  European media titles are "one third voted for him, two thirds voted against him" on it - which means theres still in the "we have to somehow live with them as partners" mindset down the road.



Yeah, like trolling or mobbing. The worst kind of people will vote Farage.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

smf said:


> What I find strange is that we're constantly being scared against voting for Labour because they'll nationalise everything & that does seem to be working.
> 
> So that means if we actually do leave the EU then we'll be stuck with conservatives forever?
> 
> ...



Privatization of railways in Germany has gone absolutely horrible and it’s still a 100% state owned corporation, its logistics division makes a lot of money but everything transport has gone to shit.


----------



## smf (May 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Privatization of railways in Germany has gone absolutely horrible and it’s still a 100% state owned corporation, its logistics division has makes a lot of money but everything transport has gone to shit.



I'm not an expert on german railways, but it sounds like that is failure of a state owned corporation.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

smf said:


> I'm not an expert on german railways, but it sounds like that is failure of a state owned corporation.



It is a private corporation, the state just owns 100% of the shares at this point.
Basically it’s mandated to generate profit but gets to play with tax payer money.


----------



## leon315 (May 15, 2019)

Now the question is Will UK ever able to leave EU?

It's seems Mrs. May is in hard struggles.....


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Privatization of railways in Germany has gone absolutely horrible and it’s still a 100% state owned corporation, its logistics division makes a lot of money but everything transport has gone to shit.


Privatization of railways kind of is something that - well mostly benefits the contract holder, because of one simple truth. They NEVER, and I mean ever are willing to pay for the track system. Those (and I dont just mean remote regions, but pretty much in general), are costs that always get put on the state and ultimately the tax payer. So whatever part of the railway system you can segment out and run privately - stands in direct conflict with the rest of the infrastructure system they are then suddenly competing against.

I believe what I've read about germany and railways was, that the part they segmented and had run more competitively then went to more short term business targets, which had all kinds of impacts on overall business performance, that werent foreseen. (The example I've read, I believe had to do with raising the average incline of tracks on newer builds, which the current set of trains could do, and saved cost, but long term wear and tear was higher, and some trains had to traverse them slower - which afair also raised wear and tear - so ... People in management simply didnt know what that percentage number meant for the long howl, they just decided to cut cost. Then were surprised by the results..  (Which they didnt have to answer for, because - look, our targets and projections are only ever 10 years out.) Privately owned isnt always better, especially for infrastructure-, and very long term oriented projects.

Hint - public/private partnerships on motorway segments. Same story - even more of a disaster. In Germany they got the state to guarantee them a road charge quota, that they had to pay even when traffic wasnt there anymore - all kinds of fun stuff. The state in the end then still sits on sunk costs. Thats kind of always the outcome with infrastructure projects. How curious. )


leon315 said:


> Now the question is Will UK ever able to leave EU?
> 
> It's seems Mrs. May is in hard struggles.....


Pro forma they have to. I mean, there is a vote. In actual fact, its still hard, economically, and politically. The entire thing kind of was designed in a way, that countries dont leave. So even part of your legal system runs on EU directives (that then get converted to local law), so... I'd understand anyone playing for time on the UK side. (I dont understand half a dozen of failed public votes in parliament on the issue though -- I mean.. If you want to, just do reelections already..  ).


----------



## smf (May 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Pro forma they have to. I mean, there is a vote.



That isn't necessarily true https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rns-referendum-as-voters-were-poorly-informed

We'll see what happens with the result of https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-be-challenged-in-court-on-brexit-vote-claim first.

At this point it's political suicide for the UK to leave or not leave.

This idea that winning a vote can justify doing anything is ludicrous, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

Thank you. I'll keep up on the outcome of that. But then if in the EU elections, a third of brits is voting Farage, I kind of have an idea where that is heading...  I mean, talk about a public demonstration of intent..


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Privatization of railways kind of is something that - well mostly benefits the contract holder, because of one simple truth. They NEVER, and I mean ever are willing to pay for the track system. Those (and I dont just mean remote regions, but pretty much in general), are costs that always get put on the state and ultimately the tax payer. So whatever part of the railway system you can segment out and run privately - stands in direct conflict with the rest of the infrastructure system they are then suddenly competing against.
> 
> I believe what I've read about germany and railways was, that the part they segmented and had run more competitively then went to more short term business targets, which had all kinds of impacts on overall business performance, that werent foreseen. (The example I've read, I believe had to do with raising the average incline of tracks on newer builds, which the current set of trains could do, and saved cost, but long term wear and tear was higher, and some trains had to traverse them slower - which afair also raised wear and tear - so ... People in management simply didnt know what that percentage number meant for the long howl, they just decided to cut cost. Then were surprised by the results..  (Which they didnt have to answer for, because - look, our targets and projections are only ever 10 years out.) Privately owned isnt always better, especially for infrastructure-, and very long term oriented projects.
> 
> ...



AFAIK it is correct that a lot of newer tracks have steeper inclines which I understand is cheaper to build. The problem with steep inclines is that there’s only limited friction between metal rails and metal wheels so heavier trains like cargo trains aren’t able to use these tracks which in turn means less cargo on environmentally friendly rails more cargo on environmentally unfriendly semi trucks.


----------



## notimp (May 15, 2019)

So the new management saved cost and lost more business contracts. Great.  (I'm pretty sure there also was a wear and tear angle on it, but I doubt I'd find sources right now.. ).

The main differences between private and publicly owned to think about are those two though. So shorter business cycles/plans (5 years in private businesses usually). (Which you might not want to have in industries like drink water supplies, railways... because those guys are then gone. They think exactly into the future up to the end of their personal involvement and not a second more.)

And the second one is sunk costs, that still get pinned on the state. (You cant build a railroad proficiently without kind of building 100 year plans around it - upfront costs are that high. So in the end, its always taxpayers money that builds them - nowadays. Go ask the chinese (belt and road..  ).).

Those are pretty quick shortcuts to think about when someone tells you "private is always better". On some things the state always gets stuck with the costs - eventually. And infrastructure kind of is an enabler for so many other industries, that you can afford inefficiencies (state always getting played there), but you cant afford "busts"".


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> So the new management saved cost and lost more business contracts. Great.  (I'm pretty sure there also was a wear and tear angle on it, but I doubt I'd find sources right now.. ).
> 
> The main differences between private and publicly owned to think about are those two though. So shorter business cycles/plans (5 years in private businesses usually). (Which you might not want to have in industries like drink water supplies, railways... because those guys are then gone. They think exactly into the future up to the end of their personal involvement and not a second more.)
> 
> ...



Although I would consider myself liberal I will agree that private isn’t always better and markets fail often enough to require intervention.
German telecom is an utter joke, small and medium businesses are struggling with costs for what should be considered reasonable internet connections outside of the largest cities.


----------



## zomborg (May 15, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I am dubious of a lot of those.
> 
> 1. The UK gov outsources endless amounts of stuff to the home grown outfit Capita, usually dubbed Crapita as they are so awful (they do must of the gov IT infrastructure). The benefits of a smaller pool then remain to be seen.
> 
> ...


I think you are probably correct that these ideas are not as solid and may not work out as solid as he makes it sound. You know better than I because you are from the UK and I'm from the US so maybe I'm not qualified to weigh in on this but allow me to ask you a question if I may. 
 There seem to be a few different arguments going around concerning the possible negative effects of mass immigration in the EU, US and other parts of the world. There also seem to be several different view points as to why the migrant crisis occurred. There is of course the official story that they were fleeing their poor, wartorn land and seeking refuge and shelter in the EU and of course there are opposing view points of which some are considered conspiracy theories. 
 But let's just suppose for a moment or pretend (for the sake of argument) that one of the theories were actually true. What if, the poor migrants were not coming seeking shelter, jobs, peace and a place where they and their families will be secure? What if the migrants flooding across your borders were not migrant families of men, women, children and the elderly but were instead, young military age men?
What if their goal is to flood the EU with so many of them that the end result is to transform European countries into poor 3rd world countries? Or, worse yet, what if, for example in the UK, they have not come to be good model UK citizens who are thankful to be there and only want to embrace your way of life as their own but instead have come to transform the UK into a muslim country and institute sharia law as the law of the land? 
With that hypothetical situation in mind, what would you do if you wanted to close your own borders to try to stem the tide but you couldn't because you don't have national sovereignty because you are a member of the EU? 

Example


----------



## FAST6191 (May 16, 2019)

I am not entirely sure what that hypothetical is supposed to illustrate or get us to contemplate. Were we doing more general computer security it would probably be a so called movie plot scenario.

Not sure what the numbers required for that would be (there is a difference between groundwork and highly trained agents able to infiltrate organisations and positions of power), and would be significant percentages of population in many countries if so. Would also have to overcome decades/centuries of UK law and EU law and tradition -- such legal frameworks would not only be unpopular but antithetical to general law making principles of those countries, and go against the vested interest of a lot of powerful and monied people, probably also likely to be defied by the remainder of the population. You also get the "actually this place is pretty swish" thing wherein good food, clean water, roads, building standards, parties and police all combine to make people that wandered over with a vague ideas planted in their heads about recreating a shithole they might have come from -- well funded true believe sleeper agents is pushing feasibility here far too much. Acting as a drag on the economy is hard when you are not in it, and the baseline benefits package is not enough to do much, and invariably geared towards getting people to actually do stuff.

Still the UK is an island so there is that, but for hypotheticals we will assume relatively porous borders seen elsewhere. If the UK raised the middle finger to the EU, perhaps in a manner similar to Hungary, then the EU would not invade to establish some kind of control wherein it is allowed again, sanctions might be levied but there is only so far that goes (long term it would be pretty neutral but short term many businesses with political power in those EU states do roaring trade with the UK so you get the cutting off your nose to spite your face thing). Within the UK then presumably they would probably make access to services harder (it is not as fun as Germany post Baader–Meinhof but I would say it is considerably harder to get by in the UK without tickets than it is to get by in the US without a green card, even those places that aren't "sanctuary" cities/counties/states), and probably make use of the rather decent intelligence services (assuming there were not already working at a seriously high capacity already/throughout it all).


----------



## zomborg (May 16, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> I am not entirely sure what that hypothetical is supposed to illustrate or get us to contemplate. Were we doing more general computer security it would probably be a so called movie plot scenario.
> 
> Not sure what the numbers required for that would be (there is a difference between groundwork and highly trained agents able to infiltrate organisations and positions of power), and would be significant percentages of population in many countries if so. Would also have to overcome decades/centuries of UK law and EU law and tradition -- such legal frameworks would not only be unpopular but antithetical to general law making principles of those countries, and go against the vested interest of a lot of powerful and monied people, probably also likely to be defied by the remainder of the population. You also get the "actually this place is pretty swish" thing wherein good food, clean water, roads, building standards, parties and police all combine to make people that wandered over with a vague ideas planted in their heads about recreating a shithole they might have come from -- well funded true believe sleeper agents is pushing feasibility here far too much. Acting as a drag on the economy is hard when you are not in it, and the baseline benefits package is not enough to do much, and invariably geared towards getting people to actually do stuff.
> 
> Still the UK is an island so there is that, but for hypotheticals we will assume relatively porous borders seen elsewhere. If the UK raised the middle finger to the EU, perhaps in a manner similar to Hungary, then the EU would not invade to establish some kind of control wherein it is allowed again, sanctions might be levied but there is only so far that goes (long term it would be pretty neutral but short term many businesses with political power in those EU states do roaring trade with the UK so you get the cutting off your nose to spite your face thing). Within the UK then presumably they would probably make access to services harder (it is not as fun as Germany post Baader–Meinhof but I would say it is considerably harder to get by in the UK without tickets than it is to get by in the US without a green card, even those places that aren't "sanctuary" cities/counties/states), and probably make use of the rather decent intelligence services (assuming there were not already working at a seriously high capacity already/throughout it all).




I'm sure you are right. I'm sure there's nothing to be concerned about. 
However, here in the states, Americans have a potentially fatal flaw that I'm sure at least 80% of them do not even recognize. I know because not many years ago I had the same frame of mind. You see, we've lived in comfort and luxury for so long. We've been at ease for so long and felt so safe and secure that we have let our guard down. We have become complacent. This life of ease and contentment has made the average citizen soft and weak. Also because we for several decades, have felt arrogant and the average mindset as a whole is that we are better than they are. Who are they? Any other country around the world. 
 With that smug mindset, whenever a news report comes up or even if another citizen comes and tries to tell you : "Hey! We need to be on guard! We need to prepare ourselves and be ready because I have recently learned that radicals have a plan for America. They plan to move here, inbed themselves deeply into our society and even if it takes 50 to 100 years they plan to supplant us. When they have sufficient numbers they plan to rise up and overthrow us, make us submit, convert or kill us! " How does our average citizen respond to that? They are either cynical or with our smug confidence and feelings of safety and superiority, they reply with :" oh that will never happen. Not here, not in America, the land of the free and home of the brave. Maybe in a 3rd world country like Lebanon but never here." 

So I sincerely hope you are right and that your island could never fall prey to things of that nature. 

Article situations that have already occurred

Article grand design for USA


----------



## Doran754 (May 24, 2019)

Some good news today finally, the worst PM of my lifetime is finally going out the door. This will make a WTO more likely. Hopefully a brexiteer will become PM and the EU might finally take us seriously and work towards a FTA instead of trying to turn us into a colony. If not then WTO is fine with me but the most important step is getting someone who actually believes in brexit in number ten. Boris will probably be favourite but personally I'd like to see Esther McVey get the job.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 24, 2019)

I just read the same thing. 't wasn't much of a surprise, but still...I'm honestly curious what will happen now. Will Boris Johnson become prime minister? Will someone whom he'll rely on (like Michael Gove earlier) drop his support all of a sudden? Will Dominique Raab have learned something of the last three years? And what will Farage do?

Oh, and of course: will the EU budge even an inch at the upcoming new season of political screwballing?


----------



## Flame (May 24, 2019)

so May quit in May, good times ahead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48395905


the bitch cried. Did she cry for Grenfell, Windrush generation, NHS cuts, homeless people dying on the streets, record food bank use. children in poverty in one of the richest countries?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 24, 2019)

Wonder what that means for her "new" deal that was floated the other day.


----------



## emigre (May 24, 2019)

I loathe May but I just know I'm going to 'miss' her when the new person takes charge. The modern Tory parliamentary party is full of self-serving cunts.


----------



## SG854 (May 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Some good news today finally, the worst PM of my lifetime is finally going out the door. This will make a WTO more likely. Hopefully a brexiteer will become PM and the EU might finally take us seriously and work towards a FTA instead of trying to turn us into a colony. If not then WTO is fine with me but the most important step is getting someone who actually believes in brexit in number ten. Boris will probably be favourite but personally I'd like to see Esther McVey get the job.


The Trump victory was not a fluke, Right Wing Populism is on the rise. He won 2,626 counties and Hillary won 487. This should put into perspective how Trump won even though Hillary got the popular vote. Trump overwhelmingly won the popular vote in counties.


Narendra Modi’s party just won India elections. A right wing nationalist victory.

Australia right wing party won also, even though polls showed they were going to loose. Similar to how polls in the U.S. said Trump was going to loose. They keep underestimating how popular right wing nationalism is. The media is so out of touch of what people want. The media keeps thinking the left wing is extremely popular but it’s not. And Nationalism keeps on winning and winning.


Brexit is leading polls (might also be an underestimate), polling higher almost double of labor party and they are projected to win.

These victories keeps happening over and over.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 24, 2019)

emigre said:


> I loathe May but I just know I'm going to 'miss' her when the new person takes charge. The modern Tory parliamentary party is full of self-serving cunts.


I am only lightly keeping track of potentials here but of all those I have seen I don't think any particularly have the pull/juice to tie it all together, and if they do then it is only going to be under threat of the lash and that is seldom a good long term plan. Probably not going to be as weak and ineffectual as May is/was but the ability to decisively lead... nah, especially if the Tory party is also doing a bit of an ideological split (not as much as Labour or the US democrats but there if you go looking).


----------



## smf (May 24, 2019)

emigre said:


> I loathe May but I just know I'm going to 'miss' her when the new person takes charge. The modern Tory parliamentary party is full of self-serving cunts.



I agree, I expect the next leader will either face the same struggle as May or will be a brexiter who wants to start a suicide cult.

It'll be interesting to see if Boris Johnson's _alleged_ misconduct in a public office case goes anywhere. http://www.brexitjustice.com/

It could at least put paid to his disastrous attempt at becoming leader, although that would probably put an end to leaving the eu


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

Guy Verhofstadt (Brexit negotiator, EU) had another camera team with him (Thats actually a first - usually you go by Chatham House rules). This time its more the very obviously public facing part of the Brexit negotiations on the EU side, so more spin - more 'human interest' side of the story.

Arte has it available in german and french only this time  - no english subtitles available.
https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/078744-000-A/hinter-den-kulissen-des-brexit/

Most interesting part for me is their relationship to the press.
If you don't know how negotiations are held its an interesting learning piece as well.

The one argument, that the EU would have to set up the north irish border, if a hard brexit was triggered - we also had in this thread, turned out to be a red line for EU negotiations.

So EU would have gone to the press and told them - negotiations are finished, the british want to make us appear as if we want borders in europe. Its their making.

Thats how you repeal such a gambit. Found that interesting.


----------



## Viri (May 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Australia right wing party won


Oh man, the salt on Twitter when that happened was such a blast to read.



Spoiler



https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Witt/status/1130028775486496769?s=19


Enjoy!


----------



## Doran754 (May 26, 2019)

Viri said:


> Oh man, the salt on Twitter when that happened was such a blast to read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That thread was amazing. I love it, It's always the tolerant peaceful ones wishing death upon those who they disagree with politically, quite striking really. Can't wait for the EU election results tonight. The result in Australia, TBP going to wipe the floor with everyone in the UK, hopefully Tommy Robinson gets his seat, MLP vs Macron in France. 5 star set to become the biggest party in the whole of europe, right wing populism is on the rise and the lefties and the media still dont understand why. Speaking of Tommy Robinson, theres already been election interference. 



But you know the lefty liberals, "It's okay when we do it"


----------



## notimp (May 26, 2019)

If you can swallow snark. Now the EU is supposed to make them stay on track on the Paris climate agreements through trade negotiations. 

Great. *sarc*

But as for the first government that didnt vote pro climate change feel good recession aside from the US, its still interesting to disect.

If you want to make a people on twitter are such loosers story out of it, you have still not understood politics..  Hint, its in the name. Politics.


----------



## SG854 (May 26, 2019)

Viri said:


> Oh man, the salt on Twitter when that happened was such a blast to read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





shamzie said:


> That thread was amazing. I love it, It's always the tolerant peaceful ones wishing death upon those who they disagree with politically, quite striking really. Can't wait for the EU election results tonight. The result in Australia, TBP going to wipe the floor with everyone in the UK, hopefully Tommy Robinson gets his seat, MLP vs Macron in France. 5 star set to become the biggest party in the whole of europe, right wing populism is on the rise and the lefties and the media still dont understand why. Speaking of Tommy Robinson, theres already been election interference.
> 
> 
> 
> But you know the lefty liberals, "It's okay when we do it"



the TOLERANT LEFT. Let’s throw milkshakes at Nigel Farage.

There is a study that says Democrats from the U.S. were faking being overly upset and faking having mental distress about Trump being president to virtue signal. To show loyalty to their party. This is one study so take it with a grain of salt but interesting.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-...istress-after-trump-election-were-full-of-it/



Chelsea Handler a comic, went to see a psychiatrist because Trump became president. That Trump was robbing her of her “happiness”. I swear to God I’m not making this up. People are becoming depressed and suicidal. Jesus, they need reevaluate their lives, tune out of politics, take a breather, and get a hobby or something if this distress is real. Don’t worry, it’s going to be ok. This is the same thing going on in Australia where people think the world is going to end.


----------



## Viri (May 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> the TOLERANT LEFT. Let’s throw milkshakes at Nigel Farage.


You shouldn't throw things at people you disagree with. Use your words, don't throw things at people! Boo them, don't throw things at people!

I didn't follow the whole milk shake thing, but I'm just going to assume that the people throwing things at Nigel made him out to be a sympathetic figure to others, and probably got him even more votes. Also, if you throw something at a major figure to shut them up, you're just going to cause a "Streisand effect". Come on, you'd think people would be aware of this by now.


----------



## SG854 (May 27, 2019)

Viri said:


> You shouldn't throw things at people you disagree with. Use your words, don't throw things at people! Boo them, don't throw things at people!
> 
> I didn't follow the whole milk shake thing, but I'm just going to assume that the people throwing things at Nigel made him out to be a sympathetic figure to others, and probably got him even more votes. Also, if you throw something at a major figure to shut them up, you're just going to cause a "Streisand effect". Come on, you'd think people would be aware of this by now.


You’d think they’d be aware but NOT! Just like the egg boy in Australia. When have they ever learned.

Racist this, racist that, racism is everywhere and on the rise! Oh My God!



They made this big deal about a supposed giant KKK rally in Ohio and we need to stop them! Guess how many people showed up? 9 total. Not even double digits.

Guess how many people showed up to protest? 600. And Guess how much they spent on security? $650,000! Gotta stop those 9 people.

It’s the same like the rally last year where like about 12 showed up. It’s a recurring theme. KKK is literal dead. No one likes them or cares about them. But they act like they’re everywhere, it’s the stupid media’s fault for this. They do this for Australia and for Brexit also. This is why they are loosing. Calling everything racist without actually addressing points the other side brings is a loosing strategy. They are being over dramatic.


----------



## Viri (May 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They made this big deal about a supposed giant KKK rally in Ohio and we need to stop them! Guess how many people showed up? 9 total. Not even double digits.
> 
> Guess how many people showed up to protest? 600. And Guess how much they spent on security? $650,000! Gotta stop those 9 people.
> 
> It’s the same like the rally last year where like about 12 showed up. It’s a recurring theme. KKK is literal dead.


A real white supremacist wouldn't even join the KKK nowadays, because it's just a CIA/FBI honey pot, lol.


----------



## SG854 (May 28, 2019)

Viri said:


> A real white supremacist wouldn't even join the KKK nowadays, because it's just a CIA/FBI honey pot, lol.


It’ll be like saying, “I have this magic rock, It keeps tigers away from where I live.” Then a person responds, “that’s stupid, there was never any tigers where you lived at all”. Then I say, “see the magic rock works”. 

I have these CIA/FBI and 600 protesters and that keeps the KKK from getting big. KKK is small, see it works!


----------



## Doran754 (May 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’ll be like saying, “I have this magic rock, It keeps tigers away from where I live.” Then a person responds, “that’s stupid, there was never any tigers where you lived at all”. Then I say, “see the magic rock works”.
> 
> I have these CIA/FBI and 600 protesters and that keeps the KKK from getting big. KKK is small, see it works!



You definitely watched the simpsons recently.


----------



## SG854 (May 28, 2019)

shamzie said:


> You definitely watched the simpsons recently.


Lol. I’ve seen that Bear Patrol episode. 

Homer: The Bear pays the Bear tax. I pay the Homer tax. 

Lisa: Dad, it’s the Home Owners Tax.



Actually I just copied some else that used this same point. But I did see that episode.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 10, 2019)

So it looks like Boris Johnson is the favorite to be picked as new prime minister?  Not picked by the people of course, just the aristocracy already in place.  And he obviously hasn't got a fucking clue, seemingly making a no-deal Brexit a lot more likely to happen.  Makes me appreciate even the archaic electoral college system a bit more; at least when our president fucks us over we know we mostly did it to ourselves.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So it looks like Boris Johnson is the favorite to be picked as new prime minister?  Not picked by the people of course, just the aristocracy already in place.  And he obviously hasn't got a fucking clue, seemingly making a no-deal Brexit a lot more likely to happen.  Makes me appreciate even the archaic electoral college system a bit more; at least when our president fucks us over we know we mostly did it to ourselves.


Erm... He is the public favorite, yes. But like you mention : it doesn't work like that. There's a short of knock out of candidates until only 2 remain. Then everyone of... A part of government (the house? Commons? I can't recall) has to vote on one of those.

I'd wait until that process is done. Perhaps he doesn't want a no deal, but saying that if he doesn't get better conditions than negotiated, he won't pay the EU its dues.

So basically : it's going to be a no deal brexit with him in charge. I mean... He's parroting that idea from Donald Trump of all people.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... He is the public favorite, yes. But like you mention : it doesn't work like that. There's a short of knock out of candidates until only 2 remain. Then everyone of... A part of government (the house? Commons? I can't recall) has to vote on one of those.
> 
> I'd wait until that process is done. Perhaps he doesn't want a no deal, but saying that if he doesn't get better conditions than negotiated, he won't pay the EU its dues.
> 
> So basically : it's going to be a no deal brexit with him in charge. I mean... He's parroting that idea from Donald Trump of all people.



It goes to the 100k conservative members to vote on when it's down to two. Could be better systems I agree, there's worse though. It somehow wasn't a problem when Gordon Brown walked into the job because Tony Blair quit though? Now all of a sudden it's a problem. Also, the EU isn't "due" anything. Nearly every lawyer unanimously agrees we legally owe them nothing. Morally is a different argument, ask Macron about morals, talking about how the U.K would be 'defaulting' if we don't pay is absurd. We've only just finished paying the USA reperations so we could free his country from tyranny, how quickly memories fade.



Xzi said:


> So it looks like Boris Johnson is the favorite to be picked as new prime minister?  Not picked by the people of course, just the aristocracy already in place.  And he obviously hasn't got a fucking clue, seemingly making a no-deal Brexit a lot more likely to happen.  Makes me appreciate even the archaic electoral college system a bit more; at least when our president fucks us over we know we mostly did it to ourselves.



Why doesn't he have a clue? What's he said that makes you think he can't do the job. There wasn't kids knifing each other in London daily when he was the mayor. Or is it because he seems to actually believe in Britain, a PM with a backbone who doesn't go begging to brussels doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Also, the EU isn't "due" anything. Nearly every lawyer unanimously agrees we legally owe them nothing.


... You just made that up, right? 

Look: as long as brexit isn't happened, you are part of the EU. The EU has programs. These cost money, and until the government dismissed each and every one of them, there will remain at least somewhat of a bill.

Of course brexiteers don't want to pay it. Similar like you or I don't want to pay taxes, but love walking on the streets others people taxes pay for.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> ... You just made that up, right?
> 
> Look: as long as brexit isn't happened, you are part of the EU. The EU has programs. These cost money, and until the government dismissed each and every one of them, there will remain at least somewhat of a bill.
> 
> Of course brexiteers don't want to pay it. Similar like you or I don't want to pay taxes, but love walking on the streets others people taxes pay for.



No I didn't make it up, do some research, legally you aren't owed a penny whether you like it or not. Obligations mean nothing in law. Everything you said means nothing, do you buy a car on money promised by someone before you have the money? We can both use daft analogies. You've already threatened to kick us out of gallaleio satellite project even though we basically paid for it, stop acting like the victim it's boring.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Why doesn't he have a clue? What's he said that makes you think he can't do the job.


You mean other than all the lies he told to sell Brexit in the first place?  He abandoned the leave campaign as soon as the vote was passed.  That doesn't exactly show confidence in his own position.  He also looks like he's related to Canada's Rob Ford, and appears to have the same crack habit too.  Finding a better barber might help a little bit, but it won't fix his one weird eye.  I hate to focus too much on aesthetics, but his overall demeanor gives the impression that he should be wearing a helmet indoors.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Obligations mean nothing in law. Everything you said means nothing, do you buy a car on money promised by someone before you have the money? We can both use daft analogies.


"Obligations mean nothing"
So it is a gentlemen's agreement? So much for being a nation of gentlemen I guess.

As for the car thing... that would be a pretty accurate description of preauthorised credit, something most people have to seek before big purchases like cars and houses, or at least would be considered extremely wise to do so (don't walk into a negotiation from an inferior position and all that). In big business dealing with futures then you do also have the likes of arbitrage wherein future prices are agreed upon regardless of what the market ultimately ends up paying for it (higher or lower).

As for next PM then the following video (about 45 seconds if you want to skip) covers how it works.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You mean other than all the lies he told to sell Brexit in the first place?  He abandoned the leave campaign as soon as the vote was passed.  That doesn't exactly show confidence in his own position.  He also looks like he's related to Canada's Rob Ford, and appears to have the same crack habit too.  Finding a better barber might help a little bit, but it won't fix his one weird eye.  I hate to focus too much on aesthetics, but his overall demeanor gives the impression that he should be wearing a helmet indoors.



He should stay on the leave campaign after the campaign was over is the point you're making? oh I see, you're mad and don't want him to be PM because he looks funny with a weird eye. I thought the left had the moral highground in everything.




FAST6191 said:


> "Obligations mean nothing"
> So it is a gentlemen's agreement? So much for being a nation of gentlemen I guess.
> 
> As for the car thing... that would be a pretty accurate description of preauthorised credit, something most people have to seek before big purchases like cars and houses, or at least would be considered extremely wise to do so (don't walk into a negotiation from an inferior position and all that). In big business dealing with futures then you do also have the likes of arbitrage wherein future prices are agreed upon regardless of what the market ultimately ends up paying for it (higher or lower).
> ...




As for "the car thing" most companies won't allow you to make a purchase for 7 years in advance, we can go back and forth on bad analogies but the underlying point is, backed up by the remainer house of lords, that legally a penny isn't owed. If you find this so abhorrent feel free to pay more vat, I'm pretty sure you can write to HM gov and ask them to tax you more. Legally you're not required too but you know, be a gentleman. Of course the EU is welcome to cry about it, take the u.k to court etc etc, goodluck with that. I'vr no intention of watching TLDR again. I realised months ago it's yet another bias boring lefty channel that claims to have impartiality (like the BBC) but it really doesn't.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> He should stay on the leave campaign after the campaign was over is the point you're making? oh I see, you're mad and don't want him to be PM because he looks funny with a weird eye. I thought the left had the moral highground in everything.


The work obviously wasn't complete, and he could've had a hand in crafting a Brexit deal which would've been acceptable for the pro-Brexit crowd.  Instead he ditched because he knew there was no plan made in advance and the entire process of negotiating a deal was going to be a grand clusterfuck.  He's just flying by the seat of his pants, which would be fine if the British people weren't the ones who are going to have to pay the price for it.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The work obviously wasn't complete, and he could've had a hand in crafting a Brexit deal which would've been acceptable for the pro-Brexit crowd.  Instead he ditched because he knew there was no plan made in advance and the entire process of negotiating a deal was going to be a grand clusterfuck.  He's just flying by the seat of his pants, which would be fine if the British people weren't the ones who are going to have to pay the price for it.



He didn't ditch anything, the official campaign had no power. It moved onto government to implement the decision. He got a job in government as foreign secretary before resignging. The remainer PM surrounded herself by more remainers to ensure after 3 long years we still hadn't left. If you go into a negotiation with people who don't want to leave then yeah you genuinely end up with a big clusterfuck. Thankfully if he's serious we'll finally have someone negotiating who actually WANTS to leave the EU.

First you were mad he's probably going to be PM and handling brexit and then you're saying he didn't have a hand in handling brexit as a negative. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 10, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Thankfully if he's serious we'll finally have someone negotiating who actually WANTS to leave the EU.


Wanting to leave the EU was never the issue, the collateral damage when incompetence ultimately leads to a no-deal Brexit is what's worrisome.  It's not going to affect me either way, but it will likely have a negative impact on the global market.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 11, 2019)

shamzie said:


> No I didn't make it up, do some research, legally you aren't owed a penny whether you like it or not. Obligations mean nothing in law.


You don't understand: I did the research, and couldn't find anything that would disprove my point. That's why I came to my conclusion. If you want to explain yourself, then go right ahead (it's a free forum here  ). Just remember: throwing "do some research at someone" isn't going to convince anyone.

For the record: my sources:
http://theconversation.com/the-brexit-divorce-bill-explained-74466
https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorce-bill-explained-why-the-uk-needs-to-pay-the-eu-to-leave/




			
				shamzie said:
			
		

> do you buy a car on money promised by someone before you have the money? We can both use daft analogies.


Okay, I admit it: I don't get how yours fits in this situation at all. If you want me to explain mine, I'll do it. But I'd refrain from calling analogies daft if you don't understand them.




			
				shamzie said:
			
		

> You've already threatened to kick us out of gallaleio satellite project even though we basically paid for it


Sorry, but the guardian begs to differ:

_May officially announced that the UK would be pulling out of the system and made no mention of any attempt to recoup the UK’s investment._
-> we didn't threaten anyone. It was your government deciding that it wouldn't be worth pursuing.

_Britain has already contributed £1.2bn to the creation of Galileo, which has an overall cost of £9bn, but the EU has begun to exclude Britain from the security aspects of its development._
-> the far majority of the project is paid for by the other EU countries



			
				shamzie said:
			
		

> stop acting like the victim it's boring


Could be boring, but it's also the truth. I know it's not as spectacular as made up stories, but ey...I didn't create reality. I just live by it.

For the record: you've done little to nothing to disprove that Johnson just wants to steal owed money. And perhaps he might convince you that he's right, but that doesn't make it so. And worse: it'll be a serious hindrance when, after brexit, the UK wants to create trade deals with other countries.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 11, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> snip.



I think your analogy was stupid so that means I don't understand it, I love the condescension. Please carry on, remind me how thick I was for voting to leave, I'm sure that'll make us change our mind. The house of lords report (you know that house that's tried at every attempt to block brexit) published a report that showed we legally owe you nothing. As for the rest I can't be bothered engaging, It's irrelevant, sure, we're stealing our own money. Seems legit. We'll be leaving and with any luck you won't be getting a penny. You don't speak for the rest of the world, you love to scare monger. It's amazing what you can find when you actually look at the otherside of the argument.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...deals-Britain-countries-Project-Fear-campaign

But yeah, you're right, countries won't wanna deal with brexit britain the 5th largest economy in the world because we didn't pay you money you weren't legally owed. 

Oh look, in the space of 2 minutes I found someone else willing to disprove the utter tripe you're spewing.



Nah you're right - Australia doesn't wanna deal with us either.


----------



## notimp (Jun 11, 2019)

Five eyes. Trump visit.

The US basically pays separatist britain to be a pain at the EUs doorstep, and the best bought out traitor that money can buy.

Australia - kind of part of that posey. 

Thats the condensed down version thats obviously wrong in detail, but probably right in sentiment.  (Nobody is asking "who caused it" anymore - everyone moved on to use the turmoil as a political chance.)

There never was any possibility - at all - that Australia would deny GB any form of trading deal - for playing such marvelous role in aiding US politics. They are part of the front you chose to side on. More or less..


----------



## notimp (Jun 11, 2019)

That video is sickening btw.

Every halftruth that can be uttered about the EU on accordance to its memberstates brought forward in a way where it crosses the line to be an outright lie the most.

Its not just propaganda, its sickening. Shamzie go home - if thats what you are posting in here.

Of course you need examples.

- Britain not in control of their borders - for internal migration. Which is a non factor currently, and was so during the migration crisis. The basis of this statement is "free movement of labor" you assfucks. Not a rightwing dreamed up new migrant crisis that you used to move idiots to the polls. But which never was real. (Because we didnt hand over citizenships to refugies in mass, we just didnt.) F*ck.

- Half of their laws originate outside of the country. Oh for fucks sake - has no one explained the EU to you? Never? Do you go by the concept of democracies as in movies. Fuck off. EU crafts directives for laws that concern all european countries - then every country decides on how to put them into national law. With space for your own loopholes, and potential to dismiss and combat laws - to set them ineffective (and pay fines), but ultimately - this is an instrument that indeed - at least where trade or democracy matters are concerned  - you have one unifying sentiment that directs every EU legislature. Otherwise - scrap the EU project, every country does what it wants.

- Almost no democratic legitimation. Correct - but. Also kind of the point here. I mean - what do you want? Ukranians striking in Brussels? Mazedonians toppling the government for a local outcome? I mean this debate usually revolves about the initiative rights for law making that the european parlament should be granted. For it to become truly democratic. For 15 years britain hated this with a passion (because it would give smaller countries more power within the union), now not having it is the cause that you left?


Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you and fuck you.
This video is a proverbial blowjob for a sell out position of some lobbying arm of something.You cant be that stupid to actually believe those things to that extent, and move around all of the structural context so expertly at the same time. Thats a speech thats written by assholes, to mindfuck stupid assholes. Spoken at an empty hall of government - just to get the fluff points, with none of the actual impact. Thats a speech that was held for youtube.

I don't know which swamp you drag all your materiual from - but you are actually sickening at this point. If your mind is set - and britain can do no wrong - and your positions of argument always involve using the term democracy in ways the UK wouldnt have dreamt to use it  two years ago - then fuck the hell off and dont bother anyone else.

You are posting utter right wing shit at the moment.

Shit thats three years old no less - and including all the made up talking points, that were used to have britain cause the mess its currently causing in the first place. So you are stuck in the past as well - unwilling to move on any of your convictions which stem from shit. The worst PR you could produce. Utter shit.

And 200.000 youtube bots dont know when statements are expertly crafted around the truth to enrage them. Now - some of whats uttered in that video is no lie. Its just leaving all context out, then weighing your talking points, until you are mere inches from uttering a lie. Idiot bait.


----------



## notimp (Jun 11, 2019)

Cherry on top:

A good way to discern if your opponent is an utter idiot that has somehow managed to get themselves into a political debate is how often they use the terms "constitution" or "democracy".

Because neither one actually means, what idiots usually think they mean in practice.

To the idiots - both of them mean "jesus" - and "power to tha people".

To the sporting interested fellow, they mean "base of governmental law - thats so hard to change - you should hardly ever be able to - which also is interpreted by a set of judges - which are representatives of political fields and power brokers on their own" and "uncontested turnover of power".

Look - no "Jesus" in there. No "but the people would have known better". No "but people were not asked". No one cares. Do you really think britain now is better off, because of a few more morons that get their talking points from facebook?

Its just that when - a common sentiment reaches high popularity that "democracy changes powerblocks" and the rest of it is making sure, that this then indeed results in the change that was voted in. (Which is why you can have brexit  right? So thats democratic, right?) Which (making sure it indeed happens) is the part thats failing in britain currently. So if you are from the UK - better not give out democracy lessons currently.

In two years time - maybe.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> snip .



Do you really think I'm gonna sit and read through not one but three essays of absolute shite you've just posted? Think again. I don't even understand the point you're trying to make half the time, you just blabber on and it turns into an incoherent mess, but to reply to the one point that did catch my eye, I'm already home thanks.

Edit. Unfortunately while scrolling up I caught some more of the crap you typed. Wow you seem like an angry young man, who hurt you? You seem super upset about a video from a neutral party not belittling Britain outside of the EU. Oh no, did i find a video that supports my argument and doesn't support your EU propaganda bullshit? 

Nah but seriously, if you don't like my opinion, tough shit. Silencing retractors is something communists do, so no I won't "fuck the hell off" sort your attitude out if you hope to continue the discourse, otherwise I'll resort to petty insults like you, left wing commie scum.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 11, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Do you really think I'm gonna sit and read through not one but three essays of absolute shite you've just posted? Think again. I don't even understand the point you're trying to make half the time, you just blabber on and it turns into an incoherent mess



I tried to tell him about this--you have to approach him in a minimalist way; try easy "yes or no" sentences, gradually moving a laser-focused topic.


Annnyway, I'm a little sad the same/worse didn't happen to Tronald when he visited last. I only wish 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





↑ could have made farting noises as it moved its mouth.
I'm glad Merkel is doing what she's doing:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...rump-usa-rant-international-labour-conference


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

A few pointers on how democracy ensures, that power can be handed over without a "fight" - is the institutional system. Take any ministry - the bulk of the people working there works there throughout different governments, they are what ensures, that the entire thing runs. When you get a political turnover, all that you exchange is the steering committee - and then there are rules for more structural change , that take longer to be enacted.

Thats democracy. That people go out to polls and get asked is just a factor of public polling. You could replace that with online polls (not really - because public voting also ensures, that people give their vote out of their own volition and cant sell it. Because they vote in private - in a public place - so no one is dumb enough to buy their votes under those conditions - because the seller can change their mind on their own, and fake out the buyer - without the buyer ever knowing - so that, as a concept, has always to be ensured), or freaking facebook metrics, because they know with a good enough error margin, how a country will vote anyhow.

Thats the "power of the people" in most countries. Something that you load up with pathos, and deeper meaning - when it is nothing of that sort.

Its just a system to ensure that power transitions can be made without the entire system toppling and having to be build up from the ground. The power of the individual voter is zero. All that anyone is interested in are collective notions. Because psychologically the power to know that a majority of people around you thinks a certain way - is immense. So large in fact - that you rather not dare going against it in public - because people could literally fill the streets and drag you out of office by your feet. No that this ever happens anymore - but thats the implied power. The one we now have formed rituals around.

And now the UK is failing at enacting democracy - but wants to give democracy lessons. How novel.

All those "its important to vote", "its your right to vote", "its your duty to vote", "theres power in your vote" - stuff is a mere public myth. Not real. It only becomes real at the aggregated level. So when influence of certain power blocks becomes visible through an anonymized vote.

No one trusts democracy to the extent that it is actual "rule of the majority" - because there are all kinds of systems, where you'd have to have a qualified majority, or a 2/3 majority to change systems. That - by definition you would not need, if you dont think - that people are stupid as hell sometimes. Thats your democracy for you.

Also that explaination should strip some of the pathos away people try to use to define whats "right" and "just" all the time. In the end no one cares about you as individuals - in politics. Never has - never will.

Heck, we only are a century away from people telling their workers how to vote, and selling votes to the highest bidder. Thats your democracy as a concept. Also - we have something that is called "representative democracy", which is entirely different from democracy - as it was invented, and for good reasons - but thats also something you dont teach morons - because from them you only ever need a quasi religious "I should be allowed to be heard as well" sentiment that in their hearts they "know to be true" once in a while. So you folks dont rebel.

I mean - we are living in an age where the last truly political idea (as in conceptually new) was enacted about a century ago. We live in an age where people have written acknoledged standard literature about "post democracy" societies. We live in the age of populist uprising, where literally a majority of people would love themselves, a strong leader - even in western societies. Do you really think you should be able to win arguments with but something has a lack of democracy at its core?


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

Want to read something funny?

In Hongkong - the Chinese gouvernment is currently at work, breaking democratic pathos. In public. Under the eyes of every other state in the world. With only one possible outcome - that the dream of democracy instilled in those citizens, will be broken and worn out over time.

It might take 50 years. But then its done.

Do you se anyone caring?

Now where does the "but it wasnt democratic enough" sentiment fall in that case?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 12, 2019)

shamzie said:


> I think your analogy was stupid so that means I don't understand it, I love the condescension. Please carry on, remind me how thick I was for voting to leave, I'm sure that'll make us change our mind. The house of lords report (you know that house that's tried at every attempt to block brexit) published a report that showed we legally owe you nothing. As for the rest I can't be bothered engaging, It's irrelevant, sure, we're stealing our own money. Seems legit. We'll be leaving and with any luck you won't be getting a penny. You don't speak for the rest of the world, you love to scare monger. It's amazing what you can find when you actually look at the otherside of the argument.


If you think it's stupid, then please: disprove it rather than throwing nonsense at it. That's how forums supposed to work. It's no secret I'm for the remain campaign, but with us more or less staying neighbors, there's no point in making things personal. I'm not the EU and you're not the UK. To my understanding, we're residents trying to see why our countries are slipping apart.


It's the second time you mention scare mongering by the EU. However, all I'm reading is brexiteers interpreting things like this fee as such. I see it as cost of operations. There are EU officials in the UK that are to this day, doing work for the UK. Throughout the rest of the EU, the police is busy stopping migrants from overflooding the continent (Calais and Brussels North aren't that long ago). The budget for that comes from the EU. It's not scare mongering to say that if the UK wants to continue to have this policy, it should participate and thus pay for it.

Sure, not paying such a bill would certainly reduce some complexity. But at least you should take a unified stance on it. You can't say AND "we don't pay" AND "we should have continued access to galileo". Of course the EU won't stand for that. You'd do the same if the situation was reversed.




shamzie said:


> https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...deals-Britain-countries-Project-Fear-campaign
> 
> But yeah, you're right, countries won't wanna deal with brexit britain the 5th largest economy in the world because we didn't pay you money you weren't legally owed.


Interesting article. But I've got to be honest: I simply don't believe it. The article (which is written 2 years ago, so from the 'era' that the negotiations still went relatively smooth with the EU) already mentions that Australia reversed its stance. And America...you know damn well that Trump can praise the brexit deal today and totally dishes it tomorrow.


@notimp: calm down, dude. I know that tensions are high because of opposite views, but your message would've hit harder if you didn't personally attack @shamzie like that.


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

It probably would - but I'm rather out for personal understanding this time. I mean - what are we doing, if after 27 pages we can still post the same agitation propaganda speeches, that were posted three years ago - devoid of any of the context - or what happened since then and think that we can lure in people simply because we present blond folks with a senator title to catch people with "theres perceived power in titles" plays. I mean the speech wasnt even held in front of an audience - that would have at least given it context in time (how people reacted and why - because of the point in time).

I mean - its been three years, and 27 pages, and we still arent over the outright paroles, that caused this thing in the first place... They stil have power.

Granted, I overstepped (language). I'm sorry. Maybe I should get another warning.  But this time I dont want to win an argument, I want people to feel - that there is something wrong here. As in believes are so solid, that people resorted to presenting popular people in perceived positions of power again, "to win their argument". Look, that guy cant be wrong. Hes a senator. And democracy.

I mean... This is everything we try to prevent by discussing those things in the first place.

I mean those arguments in the video sound really good. They actually do. Very well crafted. Not much to do with reality if you take a closer look - but then hardly anyone does. Because if you dare to ever say, that democracy might fail all the time - it just failed 'upward' so far (in the long run) - you are the bad guy, because democracy is everything thats right with their societies for some people. A freaking concept people can be talked into going to wars for. Because their way of life certainly has to be better and more pure...

As with every highly abstract concept, thats loved by people - there are flaws. Now dont act like they are all 'caused by bad people' - namely the outgroup. Dont act like a populist for once in your life.


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

I have been officially warned for that language, btw. Everyone that has been on the  receiving end can rejoice about that. 

(And I still think that sometimes stepping over lines has to be proper, just because they are there. Depends on which line and how - but sometimes - try it out if you are so enclined and can gage the consequences. )


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Want to read something funny?


That wasn't _really_ funny.
This was funny





notimp said:


> Do you se anyone caring?


Don't lump everyone in there--if no one cared, you wouldn't have brought it up because no one would have made the info available to you.

ChinaXHK is not Brexit and I damn well did not read everything you posted....but...can I get you to write articles for me in the future? Maybe a cup of coffee with some spit takes....I'm really working on it.


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

800.000 HK residents care. Of course.

The rest of the world looks away, because of stated obvious reasons. Look how much the concept of democracy is worth these days. Not enough to start economic turmoil.

But then I can even understand that (keyword: internal affairs). And I used it to make my point about people believing in political concepts as something inherently good or bad. Its just not there.

That said. I much prefer democracy over any form of authoritarian rule - and wish HK residents all the best in their resistance struggle. But all the mainland has to do in this case is to play for time - and use attrition strategies. We all see it, we dont even comment anymore.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Look how much the concept of democracy is worth these days. Not enough to start economic turmoil.



While there may be _some_ similarities between Brexit and China (being China), there's a lot going on in China. 
"
There's the backlash of one-child, economics, pollution, Tronald being an ass with tariff war, even the fact China is "unified", but oh-so-torn regarding "Iron girls" to "2nd-class citizens", Hong Kong-Taiwan-etc-,. being pushed into the control of China, and so on.

As to how any of this benefits the U.K. from Brexit, I guess there'll be more English teachers? Maybe Mandarin teachers will be a thing you'll see more of?


----------



## notimp (Jun 12, 2019)

No direct parallels implied.

The one sentence that encapsulates Chinas current situation is - they have investment resources (money) _now_.

(And if whatever they are initiating currently (belt and road), doesnt work out (f.e. because america tries to curb their rise to the top (of course they do - I even predicted as much in this very forum  )), they have massive issues 30, 40 years down the road. Their economy isnt sustainable. And by that I dont mean fancy smancy green economy talk - but real "size of the market, assets, resources, ..." -- and their societal peace is heavily linked to economic wellbeing. (If you'd be growing 10% GDP a year, as a society you'd be happy as well.. ) - if that stops - demografic issues, wealth accumulation issues (geographic), food shortages in certain parts... - so basically, Chinas current investments should better pay off. The 'problem' china had was, that it is large, and pretty different from region to region.))

The point I was making is, that "britain should have done brexit - because more democracy" is kind of a limp pony. Everything considered. I dont want to draw other parallels between GB and China for example.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> I dont want to draw other parallels beween GB and China for example.



That's completely fair and understandable--I just didn't (and won't) read some of the other posts in-between

Relating the two on democrazy (with regards to a lack of democracy),


Spoiler: everything







is already planned in advance. I'm sure theres a plan to take as much from the people as they can, while they play grab-ass with hookers or run drunk and naked in the groves of California woods.

The only real thing that matters is if the people (everyday, regular humans that can't buy a $10M yacht or write a law to ___) make enough noise and shun these assholes who think they deserve to be paid to tell you what to do.

So maybe the biggest benefit of Brexit: people will wake up, create a fair balance of power, and maybe, just maybe, get "politics" to where it needs to be to work for the people.


----------



## luisedgarf (Jun 12, 2019)

DragorianSword said:


> I agree with @Taleweaver.
> For example, if Greece would not have been a member of the EU, they would have been so much worse of.



Greece would had ended being a Russian or Chinese satellite, and from both a geopolitical and cultural point of view, that would be unacceptable for both Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the western countries, especially the NATO ones, as Greece is the craddle of the entire western civilization (along Rome) and having Greece as a Russian/Chinese ally would be monumental mockery from them to the NATO and the rest of the western civilization.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 13, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> It's no secret I'm for the remain campaign, but with us more or less staying neighbors, there's no point in making things personal. I'm not the EU and you're not the UK. To my understanding, we're residents trying to see why our countries are slipping apart.



I agree, I'll change the rhetoric, It really isn't you vs me and I dont see it that way. In the last 12 months I've been to Germany Portugal Spain and Benidorm, and after the UK leaves the EU that won't change. I love europe and being apart of Europe. I start to talk the way I was when I feel attacked - when I'm basically told "oh wow you must hate us and europe if you're leaving so we'll punish you" and it's just not the case. I'm basically sick of people on the left acting like they're better and morally superior.

The main problem started with the fact a remainer was made PM and the fact the EU never and still doesn't want us to leave. This has allowed the situation to fester and leave lingering hopes the UK will remain, when we really won't. At this point we can't, the damage done if we don't leave now will be astronomical. It could've been sorted years ago. All that had to happen was we both agree a FTA agreement. That's it. Unfortunately and I do put this down to the EU - they didn't want that, They wanted to punish the UK to show us we were 'wrong' and to make sure nobody else dared to leave. That's why the negotiations have gone so badly.

I strongly believe the only way out of this mess now is to leave on WTO terms, when the UK has left the EU and all It's institutions we can sit down and talk about a FTA, but that's it. No FOM, no ECJ jurisdiction. Just trade, I wouldn't even oppose coming to sort some of compromise on paying towards the money they think were obliged to pay if it lead to a FTA. But that's it, If this isn't good enough on the EU side of things then we'll trade on WTO. I'm more than happy with this, most people i speak to are happy with this, conservative grassroots (I'm not a conservative) prefers no deal to any other options at this point. Then maybe one day we could come to an understanding.



Taleweaver said:


> Interesting article. But I've got to be honest: I simply don't believe it. The article (which is written 2 years ago, so from the 'era' that the negotiations still went relatively smooth with the EU) already mentions that Australia reversed its stance. And America...you know damn well that Trump can praise the brexit deal today and totally dishes it tomorrow



As for not believing the article - yeah it's a few years old now but theres not alot more I can do, all those countries at some point have indicated they want a FTA with the uk after brexit, things may or may not have changed. As the video shows Australia wanted one before the vote even took place.

In finishing - a WTO brexit is the best option for both parties at this point. We can all go home come back and be friends, it might hurt in the short term but in the long term we'll all prosper and as a continent we've certainly been through far worse together.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 13, 2019)

shamzie said:


> In finishing - a WTO brexit is the best option for both parties at this point. We can all go home come back and be friends, it might hurt in the short term but in the long term we'll all prosper and as a continent we've certainly been through far worse together.



British people showed us the way to freedom.

Guys, you can be proud of yourself, looking EU for what it is, a damn prison, plain and simple. Debates regarding FREXIT are strictly forbidden here and people don't seem to give a wooden nickle about industrial dismantling, negatives interest rates, NATO war mongers nor societal consequences of borders destruction...

Please, take care of Nigel


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 13, 2019)

Torina said:


> British people showed us the way to freedom.
> 
> Guys, you can be proud of yourself, looking EU for what it is, a damn prison, plain and simple. Debates regarding FREXIT are strictly forbidden here and people don't seem to give a wooden nickle about industrial dismantling, negatives interest rates, NATO war mongers nor societal consequences of borders destruction...
> 
> Please, take care of Nigel



The media have barely covered the riots and protests happening in Paris for like 26 weeks straight, I dont remember the last time I saw one of them cover it. Luckily we can see for ourselves, the internet allows us to see beyond the propaganda they put out. I hope you achieve this, and Italy, I was upset when France adopted the Euro. I still have some francs from a school trip a while ago. 

Get rid of Macron and the future will be brighter outside the prison for sure. Goodluck!


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Lets talk about this prison for a sec. If france exits that prison - its game over for the EU. As in - it structurally will not survive.

You can exit the prison via a (not so) simple vote. With simple majority.

Britain - if I'm interpreting the latest developments correctly - is currently bought out by the US to push forward on hard Brexit to produce maximum damage - which the US has vowed to compensate for them.
Thats the "Boris Johnson got 1/3 of the conservative vote for next prime minister" play.

Boris Johnson is an abstract idiot. Those you only have in politics as figure heads. So that they prance around in public - basically. Thats also a concept you have to at least think about once.. 


The yellow jackets (frances resistance movement) - for which I actually have sympathies (because a large part of them has worker and lower social classes backgrouds), even though part of the left hats them (because ideologically they basically are at least drifting to the right wing) - chose to engage in violent protest (setting cars on fire - showing the usual mob behavior thats related to that) - for which they have lost "social recognition" in the mainstream. Which also includes coverage - when they are not setting cities on fire again.

By now their numbers have plummeted - which makes the mob people really furious (just mass behavior) - but they still are politically and economically important - because their coordinated actions still can halt the economy in france in certain regions, for days. They have become an internal opposition. Something that also sounds nice - but is the first step towards promoting civil war.


Now, if you look at them politically - same deal as with the UK getting bought out to do max harm by the US - they can be financed by foreign political actors - simply because it doesnt cost that much. They are decentralized - which means, dealing with them is a freaking mess - because they cant even agree on what they want - or who speaks for them.

Which is essential - if you are a "resistance", but is rather idiotic - if you fancy yourselves a political movement.


Now lets look at the statements again.

"Thank you UK - you showed us a way out of the EU." What? Reading the treaties? (Article 50?) Showing you how to do a popular petition? Showing you how to win that by 1.4% points, after six months of unrefuted campaign lies? And after engaging in all the xenophobia you could muster?

Honestly - because that was what it took for britain to mobilize their aging baby boomers society to engage in "I want brish people to attend to my needs, when I'm old" voting patterns.

Thats the way. And that way doesnt work in france.


Yellow jackets by themselves dont even agree on being pro brexit in the first place. Also their anger and their demands werent always unreasonable.


Now lets look at media behavior. If you jump the line towards violent protest - media thats "close to the state" (think they want exclusives  ) kind of is incentivized to neglect you the best they can. You fuckers are instigators. If media gives you a platform - they would sabotage their business models, vote for politically unstable times - and do so as an "amplifier" (which is why you are interested in them in the first place) - so actively supporting your cause. As soon as you set fire to the tenth car or so - mainstream media is out. Now you are getting the "ignore them the best you can" treatment, and you get it for all the right reasons. Tough luck. Britain hasnt taught you that. Now its just a fight to contain you and make you smaller over time - while you try to mobilize idiots with junk on facebook.

And to be absolutely clear - you are both rather intellectually challenged, if you go for emotional bait in the form of paroles (propaganda in the textbook sense), then complain about "tha unjust media" not propagating your causes - neglect all the economic forces at work here -

and at the same time - complain about a "prison" that can be dismantled by a simple majority vote. While that "prison" grants you all kinds of structural economic benefits that allows europe to act as an economic powerhouse in the first place.

Now where the yellow jackets arguably are correct is - that france shifted their politics quite radically towards being more business friendly - and was about to spread costs on their population equally - which impacts poor people the most. That is something you effectively can protest. If you want to dismantle the "prison that is the EU" for it - there is no direct correlation there. Its just paroles and PR. In fact - france wanted to remold the EU as a project only three years ago - to which germany hasnt reacted in due time - which produced a general political crisis, that now has to be tackled. So you actually are one half of the freaking head wardens team in your "prison".

Also - lets all get bought out by the US to act as traitors, might very well be a swell model for the UK, but it will never be for france. Which is why frexit is very, very difficult to imagine. It would be basically - "destroy the union you are one of the major benefactors from - for nothing in return".

Frances right wing political fraction (sponsored by foreign actors (historically thats "normal" - because of course you do) has one third of the public vote - but has become politically isolated. So even if they become the strongest political power in the country - no one else will deal with them, so they never can govern the country. They are in deadlock. Which yes - is politically motivated.



This again took 20 paragraphs to outline. Frexit out of the prison that is the EU! Is a much more catchy phrase - but again, it hardly has any baring on reality. And the UK just showed you how to become a good biatch to the US - if things continue on the trajectory they are currently moving into. (The Boris Johnson vote of confidence. Hes just the idiot that would be needed to move britain into a hard brexit. British people after five years (still short term) will be furious at him - which is why you need an idiot for that position).


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Here is why germany didnt want to react to france proposal to "change the EU" btw.:

Political power in the EU is basically shared between Germany and France (with systems to also make smaller countries benefit disproportionally (more), but then they still remain small politically - usually), with the UK always having been a pain in the ass, that mainly wanted access to markets, but not much to do with the political side of the union. They could do that - because they were 'big'. So as long as they said "we with you" they got special deals and treatments.

France always pushed for "tighter integration" within the EU. Meaning, germany and france having to pay more for other countries within the EU, but in return having a tighter bond.

The "why" is also simple to explain - because germany would have to pay disproportionally more (currently they benefit "most" from not changing the current arrangement) - making them "weaker" in relation to france - with both of them battling for political leadership roles within the EU.

To entice germany to do so - france had to become "more economically sound" (meaning more open to business interests, less protectionists - more taxes for the general public). Which backfired. Partly. As germany didnt bite.

*Tadaaa* Thats the current situation.

The far right is always against that - because - nationalism. If that becomes less important (tighter integration), why should people vote for them anymore?


So "thank you to the UK for showing us the way, said france" is factually moronic.

First - france always pushed for tighter integration - which the UK stated as the reason they were leaving the EU. Now they are buddy - buddy allies with "thank you for showing us the way statements" - because of what? Their love to destroy the EU - instead of gouverning it? I mean - EU already is France keeps checks on Germany, Germany keeps checks on France - the political construct.


You guys are so into your paroles - that you brainwashed common sense out of your brainy regions.

And if you think you are dealing with a battle between good (rightwing?) and bad (leftwing?) people - let me insure you - that no one in politics cares about the common idiot on the street that can be motivated by political propaganda.


edit:

Internal conference of the alt-right in the US prior to the Charlottes Ville disaster:
https://streamable.com/g3xgg (video clip)

Here is what one of alt-right poster boys had to say on video about and then to their perceived "inner cycle".

"Jared and me have different styles. Jared is more on the side of the racial realism - based on scientific reasoning, I'm thinking that we can reach a lot more, if we think magically and appeal outright to emotions."

Same person: "You know, as an old chinese proverb goes - may you live in interesting times. We are doing that. We are probably living at a breaking point. And I'm loving it. I'm very happy to be alive. I'm very happy to wake up every day and be able to do this stuff."

"On August 12th in Charlottes Ville, there is going to be a great demonstration organized by Jason Kessler, who is here also ... Almost the entire alt-right is going to be there and its going to be hugely (sic!) dramatic. And probably also hugely (sic!) traumatic for the liberal people of Charlottes Ville. (laughs)"

I mean - it is what it is. If you cant identify people selling snakeoil - even if they tell you to your face, that you are a mark...

But then you probably still wont react in any reasonable way to that - because once you've found "community" in the people telling you that sort of stuff, reason doesnt work anymore. Then its too late. Until for some reason, you stumble upon a contradiction that is so huge... that it kicks you out of your fixed thought patterns. 

Critical thinking ftw.


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Also as for GB being the fifth largest economic power.

Did you know that indonesia will be the sixth largest in 2030?

Better not get overtaken by indonesia chaps. I mean those are the new economic opponents you chose to now be on the same level with.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 14, 2019)

Hi notimp and Shamzie,


@notimp

Wow, just wow. 
It may be interesting to have a beer with you but dang, I don't have time to handle this wall of text. I could talk for hours about the vital necessity of FREXIT, but online I try to stay concise, otherwise I lose the audience.

A few things:
- *far right in France is pro-EU*, they've been clear on that and removed every independance velleity and article 50 reference from their program. They represent 15% max of enlisted voters (30% max of expressed votes) and, you're damn right, will NEVER be in control
- *The same goes for far left, it is pro-EU*, still demanding 'a social europe' (same demand since 1980...), but strictly opposed to FREXIT. The Melechon's Plan B (leaving) is today in minority in this 3% of enlisted voters party, liberals and ethnic lines are about to rule LFI - The representative of this list is a OXFAM executive, Soros NGO, for F sake !
- *pro-FREXIT are less than 1%* of enlisted voters (UPR-Patriotes), their access to mass media is strictly controled (no more EGALITY in media access, but EQUITY instead, which is an hilarious concept) and debates about EU consequences are simply non existent outside the internet
- yellow jackets sadly didn't voted 'en masse', if they did, it was for pro-EU lists
- government party (Macron LREM), ultra-liberal, pro-EU and francophobic, is only supported by *10% of enlisted voters* (old people and high revenues), but pro EU extremists (far left and far right) guarantee its reelection in 2 rounds votations
- Macron is a young leader of the French-American Foundation, in that regard, he is charged with high trahison political moves (Mistral scandal, Alstom disaster, Arjowiggins liquidation, Syria bombing against parliament and UN decisions, chinese mafia acquaintance in Toulouse airport affair, anti-Russia and warmonging positions...)...but is untouchable due to recent constitution rewritings

I'm quite impressed by your knowledge in France's political situation, you are right on many things.
But please, write less, focus more !


@shamzie 

You're damn right, thanks to the internet, we can see through propaganda, but the average age of voters here is above 58yo, and they HATE internet, cause it is not spoon feeding them with information.

I admire UK for its newspapers, you have some very good information sources, cause INDEPENDANT from government subsides. I can't thank enough Ambrose Evan-Pritchard (Daily Telegraph, IIRC) for its work on US implication on the EU early days (Monet, Schumann, Spaak, Hallstrein, all selected and funded by US governments !).

The support Ukip received in the last election is outstanding, even if UPR was laminated in France, I feel relieved by Nigel farage success. Keep up the good work !

To conclude on a light note, "there are two kind of people in this debate, those who love EU, and those who know how it works" 


Have a nice day guys


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Wall of text is necessary to confront five words or less paroles. And I'm dumbing concepts down to even condense them in paragraphs that short.

Right wing in france is pro EU as in "we want the construct - to make nations more independent again". As in "destroy it from within".

Which is even more questionable, because now you require an EU wide right wing majority to do so - which just isnt there.

So at this point it becomes "say whatever you think resonates most well with the people".

We 1% frexit people are the most pure, and fair, but are treated so badly - kind of doesnt fly against the simple concept of - hey the EU is there to benefit france and germany most. Guess I found your reason for why only 1% of your populous is pro frexit.

Also frexit has "special status" because frexit means, the end of the EU. Not even other concepts (smaller unions in the same vain) thinkable.


So your two points

1. Right wing movements arent for "frexit" only the pure 1%ers are
2. People who parttake in political action thats wrong on moral grounds arent pure (because "transatlantic treaties!")

are in large parts - smoke and mirror.

When I talk about the potential of the UK currently being bought out by US interests to become the biggest possible pain in the ass possible for the rest of the continent - thats one part of US centered interests. (As in current administration).

French governments honoring transatlantic treaties is another part (long term oriented preexisting foreign relations).

One is current political action, the other one is "the basis of foreign politics" - where morals dont count. Where even universal human rights (UN charta) mostly dont count. (To attack any ruling figure on that basis is easy (morals in the general public), but not something the right wing historically was ever out to change in concept. So - as sad, and emotionally disturbing it is - its fluff. In foreign politics, this will always be seen as part of "necessary evil/unjustness". This will never (+/-) change.)

The rest of your points (hope I havent missed some trap you laid out  ) are actually more or less proper

You have to answer me one question still though. Because you thanked them for the example of their action, how has the UK shown france in any way how to deal with the EU conceptually? How will what the UK did benefit you in concept, or practically?


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 14, 2019)

The UK are getting their identity back. We are British foremost. European comes a very distant second.

There is far too much history between Europe and the UK. We can never be considered an equal. Our whole logic and history is completely incompatible with the EU model.

Many thousands of British people have died saving our freedom. It is in our blood. Regardless of what the left-wing propagandists / BBC have you believe.

The EU have nothing but contempt for the UK sadly.

Sidenote:

Just had replacement passport delivered...




We are on the way to becoming a sovereign nation once again. Notice the lack of "European Union" on the passport?

And not before time.


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Yes - identity politics. Nothing new - nothing completely exceptional. The true gage of stuff working is - this working out economically for you as well. In the long term.

It still could - I'm not saying that it wont (long term). We'll have to see. it kind of all depends on what happens next. 

But then you have to agree, that "everything will turn out better, because finally we'll have our national identity back" - is kind of based on 'magical thinking'. (All PR is, on every side - not saying, that that makes you bad pad people.. But - if the US wouldnt have come to your "rescue" in terms of "you might want to move towards hard brexit, boys" - it would have been very hard to see economic benefit to your voting behavior over the short and mid term. It still is. (How much the US will support you over time - is still not certain.)


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> the EU is there to benefit france and germany most



No. 
Overrated Euro, no economic protections toward sheer foreign predation, no strategy...In 20 years (in fact, more 30 due to "monetary snake"), *France has been decimated by the EUtopia. Even Delors and Giscard D'estaing, UE dervishes, admitted it*...Only Eastern Europe, a few northern countries and Germany benefit from this madness. Our oligarcs don't give a damn as long as France, the empire killer during 1 000 years, has to disappear (Jean Monet and Robert Schuman wet dream), it is simple as that. 




notimp said:


> "necessary evil/unjustness"





notimp said:


> How will what the UK did benefit you in concept, or practically?




See, that's exactly why there has never been and will never be such thing as "European people", despite EU propaganda.
For Anglo-saxons, *freedom* is everything.
For French, *justice* is everything.
"Necessary evil" is full Machivel/SunTzu bull****, that discard long term consequences for immediate satisfaction. The legitimity of our kings always depended on their actions, republicans don't bother with such things. 

I support BREXIT because british people will, even already, benefit from it. It is* THEIR* insterest.
France will not benefit from Brexit, first and mostly EU WILL TAX FRANCE MORE to compensate the end of UK fundings, simple as that.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> Wall of text is necessary



It's really not. I promise you everybody who's in this thread will have skipped 99% of what you wrote, It's just too much and Torina is right, if you write less and more precise myself and others will gladly read and engage with it. Out of that whole post you put what I've highlighted here is the only part i actually read.




notimp said:


> Britain - if I'm interpreting the latest developments correctly - is currently bought out by the US to push forward on hard Brexit to produce maximum damage - which the US has vowed to compensate for them.
> Thats the "Boris Johnson got 1/3 of the conservative vote for next prime minister" play..



What makes you say this, do you have any source to back this up? Last time I checked an American president came over here threatening the U.K if we voted to leave. The snowflakes in london have been embarrassing themselves with the baby trump balloon, from where I'm sitting the exact opposite of what you're saying looks to be true. Also I find it just absurd that you think a country can "buy out" the UK. The UK has a lot of similarities with the USA but alot of disagreements too. We have stupid hate speech laws, we don't own guns, we have mass surveillance, that's off the top of my head. Three things the USA fundamentally disagrees with.


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Torina said:


> Overrated Euro, no economic protections toward sheer foreign predation, no strategy...In 20 years (in fact, more 30 due to "monetary snake"), *France has been decimated by the EUtopia. Even Delors and Giscard D'estaing, UE dervishes, admitted it*...Only Eastern Europe, a few northern countries and Germany benefit from this madness. Our oligarcs don't give a damn as long as France, the empire killer during 1 000 years, has to disappear (Jean Monet and Robert Schuman wet dream), it is simple as that.


Germany cant get bigger politically, or economically - because of france. France is the "limiter". That in recent decades they have chosen to outperform everyone economically through price dumping - is kind of fucked, but then its your "role" to remind them that they kind of shouldnt be able to - at least not beyond a certain extend. Thats the concept. And for that you get open communication channels on the highest levels, and half of the actually important political positions within this construct.

That they should be able to outperform other countries to some extend, and also maybe ensure that in france work place securities can get worse - on the flip side makes the entire EU construct more competitive internationally, so even thats a give an take. (Not looking at greece, because stuff is still pretty one sided in those economies.)

Also france has benefited from the EU, greatly so - just not as much as germany or maybe some scandinavian countries (exports, stability). The eastern block you can marginalize in that specific discussion (that was mainly our (yours and germanies, and the UKs) business folks "developing their regions" for profits in our pockets (if things would have panned out as planned).)

Now - people vs. countries.

If a country is benefiting, that doesnt mean that their people are equally thats correct.

Now look at whats happening on the international stage.

Europe and the US are fighting a retractionist battle.


The former german secretary of foreign affairs gets teased by chinese business partners, that the future of the EU will be as split - independent entities. Thats basically his main concern. 

Whenever we wanted to talk about tax carousells we got booted by the smaller countries within the union. Whenever we wanted to talk about the big tech and internet commerce companies, we got booted with threats of tariffs by our foreign partners.

Did we still benefit from being able to act as a larger market - yes. Did that trickle down to the individual level (income disparity), no.

That recognition has sunk in - and germany has to do something within the next five years to try to prop that up - so the "political ideal" becomes something that people dont feel is hollowed out to a large extent.

Rich people not caring about income disparities - kind of will never change. The've always rectified that with "investment potential" - but then in the last two decades investment strategies havent benefited national economies - much. That said - during all of this we kind of are on a path towards structural recession (slower growth) anyhow... so frustration is obvious, and to be expected.

But then there is nothing inherently bad about acting as a bigger economic block.


"The EU" is mostly not responsible for nearly half of what you are projecting on it in terms of negative outcomes.

Yes "market openness" means less protectionist interventions possible (borders, tariffs, case laws), but in return it also means, more stable markets and higher economic potential. The later part should always be more important. Now does that mean, that the benefits are distributed equally within countries? Heck no. But then your figures to address would be local politicians - and not necessarily the EU. Also - this is happening currently (France has seen a drift to the right, Germany has seen a drift towards the left. Entire majority parties have all but been dismantled in both countries. The issue now is - that no one has new concepts thought out and available - so progress is slow, and the general econmic environment (where we are loosing relevance by the decade).)

Now - looking at the business models of the UK chaps (services for developing countries), they dont seem especially riveting either. So that will never be a solution for even "most of europe". Which is probably why the european union will not fail - because the alternatives are actually not that great.

National pride cant make up for it in most countries. Neither can "first mover advantage" ("we been so restricted by the EU (!) (were you really?)".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Torina said:


> "Necessary evil" is full Machivel/SunTzu bull****, that discard long term consequences for immediate satisfaction.


Other way around, it discards short term consequences, for long term stability. Thats why you overlook things such as Rammstein in germany through witch the US fights their drone wars in the southern hemisphere.

For societies it was always enough "not to look too closely - where their resources are coming from" - they never wanted to know - they still dont want to if you give them the choice. Thats the stuff, that as a concept never will go away.

If it gets too outrageous, stop it. I'm not saying that activism in those fields is bad. Just that - structurally its kind of supposed not to win.


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

More information that I'm not making this stuff up - here, read this:



> Traditionally, boosting growth has been seen as the best way to create job opportunities and raise living standards. But governments should now look at this the other way around: by better equipping their citizens to navigate the world of work, countries can most effectively boost their economic growth and development.





> GENEVA – Growth is decelerating in Europe, the United States, China, Japan, and other leading economies, as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank recently highlighted by revising their global forecasts for this year substantially downward. At the same time, political and business leaders know they need to do more to prepare workforces for the labor market in an age of rising automation, stagnant wages, and greater part-time, temporary, and contingent employment.


src: https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...ities-by-guy-ryder-and-richard-samans-2019-06

I hate it as much as you do - but this is currently happening.


----------



## ChibiMofo (Jun 14, 2019)

Putin wants chaos in the West. His minions pushed Brexit in the UK and Traitor Trump in the US. In the UK, even after violating legal spending limits and flat out lying about things such as the "$350M per week" that was allegedly going to the EU" and having Putin's bots run never-ending anti-immigrant memes on social media, Brexit barely won 51.9 to 48.1. It's (exposed) supporters are scared to death of another referendum because they no there is no chance it would pass.

In the US, Putin's Puppet got three million less votes than Hillary Clinton and won only because of illegal interference in our election and outright voter fraud. The Traitor in Chief is the most hated president the country has ever had with the worst polling numbers in recorded history. Even Putin can't save him from a landslide loss now.

But Traitor Trump has done everything Putin has asked of him, allowing the Russian dictator to get out of arms agreements with the West and make his top lieutenants billionaires with one-sided arrangements with American companies that want to lobby the Trump administration. Trump also praises Putin at every meeting with either Putin himself or his henchmen. He has no choice, of course. Putin can send a deputy to Congress any time he wants to admit that his people own Trump so he blackmails him with this.

It's really quite amazing that Putin was able to install a puppet government in Washington. I would not have thought it possible before the career corporate criminal and admitted serial sexual-assaulter took office (illegitimately).


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Putin doesnt matter. (Sad russia. Putin so sad.)

Political influence on elections through "opinion hacking on facebook" in europe (recent european election) was practically zero. Political influence through financing of political parties isnt transparent (and probably didnt change much).

Trump is only a "traitor" in as much as he represents a certain segment of US business. In germany, we rather think, that the close cooperation with the US is more or less a thing of the past - so something that will be a new reality, Trump or not. Trump speeded up the process - but his foreign politics in the first year of the administration werent developed by him or his team. 

The US isnt suddently going to think that Europe is a great investment hub (now that the UK is gone), just because Trump is out of the office.


Again - if you can, dont think about politics in terms of faces. The faces usually matter less than people like to give them credit for. Imho.


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 14, 2019)

1MiinMofo said:


> Putin wants chaos in the West. His minions pushed Brexit in the UK and Traitor Trump in the US. In the UK, even after violating legal spending limits and flat out lying about things such as the "$350M per week" that was allegedly going to the EU" and having Putin's bots run never-ending anti-immigrant memes on social media, Brexit barely won 51.9 to 48.1. It's (exposed) supporters are scared to death of another referendum because they no there is no chance it would pass.
> 
> In the US, Putin's Puppet got three million less votes than Hillary Clinton and won only because of illegal interference in our election and outright voter fraud. The Traitor in Chief is the most hated president the country has ever had with the worst polling numbers in recorded history. Even Putin can't save him from a landslide loss now.
> 
> ...



Jesus, this post is embarrassing. I'm reluctant to even reply to somebody this deluded but i'll give it a go. No, he's not a traitor, theres just been a near 3 year investigation and found no wrong doing. No, putin didn't interfere in the election, there's no evidence for this. I know evidence doesn't matter to you, I can tell by the absolute state of your post. No, putin didn't interfere in brexit. The only outside interference came from then US president Obama - in favour of remain.

Have you got any sources that quite clearly prove Leave.eu broke electoral rules on spending limits? I'm asking this despite you willfully ignoring the fact Remain outspent Leave by £5m (this doesn't even include the £9m spent so the government could send out their pro eu leaflet to every household in the country) by all evidence your claim is silly and just willfully ignorant. If anything, REMAIN had an unfair advantage, It's not leave's fault they relied on your tactics of fear and incompetence. Nobody is 'scared' of another referendum, that kind of talk is pathetic, the only people who want one are the losers. The key is, the decision has already been made.





Feel free to ignore everything above as this perfectly sums up your whole post.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> In germany, we rather think, that



So you're not japanese ? 

As far as I remember, there was a massive movement in Merkel's party last year to move germany toward Gerxit.
The goal was to save their (economic) war funds before the target-2 Tsunami, that may be triggered by Italy.

The cash amount stored in german banks is the very reason EU is structurally flawed: no solidarity=no homogeneous economy.
In fact, germany excedents are exactly equal to all the other country losses. 

As the British queen once cleverly asked "Give me three good reasons to stay in the EU".


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

I'm not. I refuse to change that flag for silly reasons. 

There are always murmurs about a "northern euro" economical zone, or a europe of "two speeds", but the issue there then will be structural stability. China is building their trade routes through southern european countries. (And lays train tracks in the north.) Europe with an actual land border to the south would be problematic as well (migration pressure from africa is only assumed to increase) - and every deal with the southern countries you could strike up as a separate union would be worse than what they currently have, and they all know it.

Its hard to imagine a future like that. Its not impossible - but its rather "what would happen after another crisis" - imho.

Currently at least the Soros foundation (*hrhr*) seems to believe, that the left wing push in Germany will make them less growth focused in the near term, see: https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...-institutional-reform-by-george-soros-2019-06

Again, next five years should be interesting.


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Economist also says - neh - Italy is still fine. 



> The Economist June 8th 2019
> 
> Italy
> 
> ...


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Macron in france is about to launch the second set of his political/economic reforms.



> France
> 
> *Emmanuel Macron's Act II*
> PARIS
> ...



The Economist June 15th 2019 (tomorrows issue)


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> Lets talk



OMFG; G, WTF _I.T._???!!!!!

My dude, I didn't even hire you yet. I damn well know you can type, but, shit! I can't even....

We all know you can type words, but fuck! This is not how you go about it.
We will talk soon™.

I liked what you said for the sole reason that's how you go about it, for now.


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 14, 2019)

1MiinMofo said:


> Putin wants chaos in the West. His minions pushed Brexit in the UK and Traitor Trump in the US. In the UK, even after violating legal spending limits and flat out lying about things such as the "$350M per week" that was allegedly going to the EU" and having Putin's bots run never-ending anti-immigrant memes on social media, Brexit barely won 51.9 to 48.1. It's (exposed) supporters are scared to death of another referendum because they no there is no chance it would pass.
> 
> In the US, Putin's Puppet got three million less votes than Hillary Clinton and won only because of illegal interference in our election and outright voter fraud. The Traitor in Chief is the most hated president the country has ever had with the worst polling numbers in recorded history. Even Putin can't save him from a landslide loss now.
> 
> ...




Haha You sound like a demoprat.

Guess you voted for Killary.

You democrats make me laugh. The REAL enemy isn`t Russia...

It`s a place in the Middle East... Like chopping body parts off... We sell billions of £$ of arms to them.

Them poor sods in Yemen know what arseholes the Saudis are. But (I include Trump in this, same as I include our Tory govt) we apparently "need" their oil, so we are "friends" with these stone-age neanderthals completely obsessed with Western money...

But yeah... Russia the enemy.

How many heads have Russia chopped off in public because someone wants to leave their Christian religion?
How many women has the Russian regime lashed to death for having a fling with another man? None.

Putin isn`t perfect by any means. But he IS a leader and acts as such. Take a look at Russian economy overall. Very encouraging.

You leftist globalist fools are delusional and YOU pose the biggest thread to nationality and democracy.

Expecting Mr wall-of-text to pop up about now... Evening @notimp .


----------



## Xzi (Jun 15, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> You democrats make me laugh. The REAL enemy isn`t Russia...
> 
> It`s a place in the Middle East... Like chopping body parts off... We sell billions of £$ of arms to them.


Whataboutism.  Russia is a threat to free and fair democratic elections around the globe.  So is Saudi Arabia.  Only problem is that the US president and other global power players are beholden to both.  Not to mention Israel.  The one thing that all three want is the US to start a war with Iran, and right now our government is trying to find absolutely any excuse to start said war under false pretenses.



mattytrog said:


> Putin isn`t perfect by any means. But he IS a leader and acts as such.


A dictator is not the same thing as a leader.  Putin does not care about the well being of Russian citizens.


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Whataboutism.  Russia is a threat to free and fair democratic elections around the globe.  So is Saudi Arabia.  Only problem is that the US president and other global power players are beholden to both.  Not to mention Israel.  The one thing that all three want is the US to start a war with Iran, and right now our government is trying to find absolutely any excuse to start said war under false pretenses.
> 
> 
> A dictator is not the same thing as a leader.  Putin does not care about the well being of Russian citizens.



Those "isms" again that the left wing seem to love.

They ARE beholden to Saudi. Thats my point. Saudi Arabia`s regime is evil and barbaric. Yet we continue to buy their oil and sell them our arms.

Unfair to single out Israel. Wonder what your feelings on Palestine are? Genuine question.

But WHY is Russia a threat? Are they against our religion? No.
What makes them a bigger threat than Saudi or Iran, or China?

They annexed Crimea. Most of Crimea are Russians. The Crimeans were hardly kicking and screaming were they?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 15, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Those "isms" again that the left wing seem to love.


It's the right that loves to use them, they just don't like getting called out on it.



mattytrog said:


> Unfair to single out Israel.


I didn't single them out, I also mentioned Russia and Saudi Arabia.



mattytrog said:


> But WHY is Russia a threat? Are they against our religion? No.


They're a threat because they're good at weaponizing and spreading misinformation.  Comes with the territory of having a KGB agent ruling the country.  Ultimately their goal is to erode trust in our longstanding institutions and the rule of law, as well as to create a deeply divided American populace.  They want to see America become a failed state like Russia did after the Cold War.



mattytrog said:


> What makes them a bigger threat than Saudi or Iran, or China?


Russia isn't necessarily a bigger threat than Saudi Arabia or China, but that's largely irrelevant.  They're still a threat.  And as I said, a combination of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Israel are trying to use the US for their own gain by manipulating us into a war with Iran.  Not that there aren't warmongers in the Trump administration happy to cooperate, of course.


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's the right that loves to use them, they just don't like getting called out on it.



It is strange that the first "ism" stone is always cast by the left, wouldn`t you agree? You don`t see many GENUINE centrists or centre-right throwing the Waycism or Seckcism card around do you?



Xzi said:


> Ultimately their goal is to erode trust in our longstanding institutions and the rule of law, as well as to create a deeply divided American populace.



That doesn`t answer the question. I want to know WHY. Lets pretend that Russia are trying to do those things. Could you explain to me the purpose? 

Why would they want a divided populace? Is it for world domination? If so, whats the reason for this world domination? 

You say they want to see a weak and divided America. But WHY?

Is it to overthrow Christianity? To replace with what?
Overthrow democracy? To replace with what? A constitutional monarcy? We have one of those.

Do they consider their religion superior, for example?

Same with NationalISM. The left throw this word around like it is a bad thing. What is bad about wanting to protect and be proud of your history and not lose your national identity?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 15, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> It is strange that the first "ism" stone is always cast by the left, wouldn`t you agree?


If the right would simply engage in intellectually honest discussion without constantly trying to change the subject at hand, it wouldn't be an issue.



mattytrog said:


> That doesn`t answer the question. I want to know WHY. Lets pretend that Russia are trying to do those things. Could you explain to me the purpose?


We don't have to pretend, this isn't a hypothetical.  Russia engaged in misinformation campaigns in 2016, and they've already begun ramping up efforts in that same vein for 2020.  As to why: there are several reasons.  If the US and other democracies around the world are paralyzed from in-fighting, Russia can get away with a lot more operations, both covert and overt, without being noticed.  Russia is also finding it easier to knock their global adversaries down a peg rather than attempt to fix all their own internal issues, having the net effect of giving Russia more power on the world stage.  Lastly, Putin simply hates democracy and wants to see it fail, just as the USSR and Russia have been failures.  That way he can point to his own dictatorship as somehow being successful.



mattytrog said:


> Is it to overthrow Christianity? To replace with what?
> Overthrow democracy? To replace with what? A constitutional monarcy? We have one of those.


Big fat negative there.  The largely ignorant Christian population in America is just another tool for Putin, used to widen the divide between us.  And he doesn't care about replacing our current system with something else, as an adversary he only wants to see our current system crumble.



mattytrog said:


> Same with NationalISM. The left throw this word around like it is a bad thing. What is bad about wanting to protect and be proud of your history and not lose your national identity?


“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war." - Sydney J. Harris


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 15, 2019)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 169852
> Feel free to ignore everything above as this perfectly sums up your whole post.



Why didn't I joined this thread earlier, your posts are pure gold !





notimp said:


> Economist also says - neh - Italy is still fine.



Like france, Italy is suffering an abundant blood loss due to overevaluated money. Germany doesn't give a ****, cause the euro is almost a renamed deutschmark (under evaluated for them, which artificially boosts their exportations).


Euro Overevaluation for several countries- 
average/max/difference with Germany min-max

France 11,0% 16,0% 26-43%
Italie 9,0% 20,0% 24-47%
Espagne 7,5% 15,0% 22,5-42%
Belgique 7,5% 15,0% 22,5-42%
Pays-Bas – 9,0% – 21,0% 6-6%
Allemagne -15,0% – 27,0% –

Source IMF - _External Sector Report 2017_



Thanks to its hinterland politic blended with insane EU decisions on 'foreign workers', germany can legally exploit eastern slaves, like they did during the war, then during the iron curtain period (yes, only people couldn't circulate, but services, goods and funds could), nothing has changes. 

Not mentionning the ridiculously low interest rates on their bonds since the 50s and all the foreign help to their internal production, their reconstruction skyrocketted thanks to these. But I digress.


No biggie Merkel and her goons suck the UE ba**s dry, they don't care pushing million of untermench to starvation. History taught us that Europe is at peace only when germany is weak. Should only the US stop exploiting this insane thirst for domination to weaken Europe since Woodrow Wilson (if we entered Berlin in 1918, it is almost certain that nothing of that would have happened). On a side note, Trump is the first US president not to play this card, thankfully !


----------



## Doran754 (Jun 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Whataboutism.  Russia is a threat to free and fair democratic elections around the globe.  So is Saudi Arabia.  Only problem is that the US president and other global power players are beholden to both.  Not to mention Israel.  The one thing that all three want is the US to start a war with Iran, and right now our government is trying to find absolutely any excuse to start said war under false pretenses.
> 
> 
> A dictator is not the same thing as a leader.  Putin does not care about the well being of Russian citizens.



Is Putin chopping his own citizens heads off and imprisoning them illegally or sending them to forced work labour camps. What evidence is there to say he doesn't care about Russians? 

Also I'd argue war can be a necessary evil, Iran IS a rogue state, why on earth would you appease them by sending them billions. Its backwards, stuck in the 17th century, just a shithole, the people of Iran need liberating. I'm not advocating war here, and I hope it doesn't happen as I certainly wouldn't want my son or daughter dying there. I'm just playing devils advocate, if any place needs an invasion it sure as hell is Iran, It's easy to say otherwise though when you're not a female. Iran in the 1970s compared to now is night and day, It's disgusting how females are treated there. 

Now compare Iran to Russia or generally any middle eastern state compared to Russia, but Russia is the easy target so you do you.


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 15, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Is Putin chopping his own citizens heads off and imprisoning them illegally or sending them to forced work labour camps. What evidence is there to say he doesn't care about Russians?
> 
> Also I'd argue war can be a necessary evil, Iran IS a rogue state, why on earth would you appease them by sending them billions. Its backwards, stuck in the 17th century, just a shithole, the people of Iran need liberating. I'm not advocating war here, and I hope it doesn't happen as I certainly wouldn't want my son or daughter dying there. I'm just playing devils advocate, if any place needs an invasion it sure as hell is Iran, It's easy to say otherwise though when you're not a female. Iran in the 1970s compared to now is night and day, It's disgusting how females are treated there.
> 
> Now compare Iran to Russia or generally any middle eastern state compared to Russia, but Russia is the easy target so you do you.


Tell you what... Iran IS a rogue state...

So different when it was Persia in the 1970s with the Shah in charge... Tehran was (albeit with poverty issues) a forward thinking free, cosmopolitan city.

Then the Islamic Revolution came. People actually WANTED this revolution?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 15, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Is Putin chopping his own citizens heads off and imprisoning them illegally or sending them to forced work labour camps.


Their approaches to religion in their borders is very suspect (between that pokemon go in church dude and the recent stuff with the Jehovah's Witnesses you get the worst of both approaches from where I sit), the press freedoms are not great, political opposition has a nasty habit of taking two in the back of the head while falling down some stairs (possibly in public, and despite Moscow being second only to London in CCTV cameras they happened to stop working right then. Mind you they did find some Chechens that were... persuaded to confess.), their bodily autonomy stuff is not what I would call nice and free (see the rules on getting a vasectomy there), along with the police their court system is a bit of a farce really, corruption is a way of life (until you cross the wrong person then not much life)...

Stalin was probably a bigger cunt but Mr Putin will probably not being vying for a World's nicest man award any time soon.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 15, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Is Putin chopping his own citizens heads off and imprisoning them illegally or sending them to forced work labour camps.


It's not like anyone outside of Russia would know either way, their media is entirely state controlled.  Putin is known to have political opponents and protesters poisoned/killed on a regular basis, though.  It's also very dangerous to be openly LGBTQ in Russia.  Russian citizens basically have no inherent rights, they're just playthings for the oligarchs.



shamzie said:


> Also I'd argue war can be a necessary evil, Iran IS a rogue state, why on earth would you appease them by sending them billions.


I assume you're talking about Iran's own assets that we had seized, and then gave back when they agreed to allow full, thorough inspections as part of the nuclear production freeze deal.  The deal Trump tore up because he wants them to start working on nuclear weapons again in order to have an excuse for war.  There is no benefit to the US in starting another war, and for the moment at least, the "threat" of Iran is entirely fabricated by the bad actors I listed previously: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia.  I have no problem with it if they want to do their own damn dirty work instead of trying to use the US military as their puppets.


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's not like anyone outside of Russia would know either way, their media is entirely state controlled.  Putin is known to have political opponents and protesters poisoned/killed on a regular basis, though.  It's also very dangerous to be openly LGBTQ in Russia.  Russian citizens basically have no inherent rights, they're just playthings for the oligarchs.
> 
> 
> I assume you're talking about Iran's own assets that we had seized, and then gave back when they agreed to allow full, thorough inspections as part of the nuclear production freeze deal.  The deal Trump tore up because he wants them to start working on nuclear weapons again in order to have an excuse for war.  There is no benefit to the US in starting another war, and for the moment at least, the "threat" of Iran is entirely fabricated by the bad actors I listed previously: Saudia Arabia, Israel, Russia.  I have no problem with it if they want to do their own damn dirty work instead of trying to use the US military as their puppets.


The main dangerous nations are China and Saudi.

Excluding the little fat bond villain in Pyongyang.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 16, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> The main dangerous nations are China and Saudi.


Again, it doesn't really matter who the biggest threat is, ignoring _any_ threat to the US for the purposes of political expedience would be a huge mistake.



mattytrog said:


> Excluding the little fat bond villain in Pyongyang.


Oh, but he and Trump wrote beautiful letters to each other.  They fell in love.  So NK can't possibly be a threat.  /s

Anyway, that's enough de-railing, let's stick to Britain in this thread.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jun 16, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> The main dangerous nations are China and Saudi.
> 
> Excluding the little fat bond villain in Pyongyang.



China is the biggest threat, you only have to look at what's going on in HK and the Philippines 


https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...-china-Philippines-xi-jinping-rodrigo-duterte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Anyway, that's enough de-railing, let's stick to Britain in this thread.



Good idea.

By hook or by crook, the 2016 vote result will be implemented.

The limp d!ck lefties can swing.

I wonder why Blair scrapped the death penalty for treason in this country in 1998...


----------



## Xzi (Jun 16, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> By hook or by crook, the 2016 vote result will be implemented.


Indeed.  No matter how much lasting damage is inflicted upon the country, at least the citizens can take pride in knowing they inflicted it upon themselves.  But who knows, maybe Boris will surprise me and manage to somehow avoid a no-deal Brexit.


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Indeed.  No matter how much lasting damage is inflicted upon the country, at least the citizens can take pride in knowing they inflicted it upon themselves.  But who knows, maybe Boris will surprise me and manage to somehow avoid a no-deal Brexit.


Lasting damage?

Do me a lemon.

Tell that to all the manufacturing firms that have moved abroad via EU funding.

The amount of jobs lost due to socialist labour governments making this country uncompetitive, exacerbated by the EU actually assisting the firms to relocate, and our own government now forbidden to help bail out struggling domestic firms by EU law eg British Steel (due to past socialism and trade unions thinking they own the country).

We are out of this joke political union.

Leftists... Off you trot to Belgium. Take comrade commie Corbyn with you.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 16, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Tell that to all the manufacturing firms that have moved abroad via EU funding.


They've moved abroad because manufacturing is exponentially cheaper and/or automated elsewhere.  The US Midwest is seeing the same thing happening.  You're deluding yourself if you think those jobs are coming back, Brexit or no.  Just another feelgood lie for the leave campaign to stick on the side of a bus.


----------



## notimp (Jun 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A dictator is not the same thing as a leader. Putin does not care about the well being of Russian citizens.


There is a wonderful documentary out there called Putins Witnesses, that chronicles the transition of power from Jelzin to Putin from the view of Putins own PR filmmaker at the time, who by now defected to Lettland - and made this documentary afterwards.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8647924/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

German/French Version is online on Arte again:
https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/078708-000-A/putins-zeugen/

To keep consistent with the "no one cares about people on the individual level" it should be no surprise that a Putin doesnt either.  Whats surprising though is, that out of the top personal of about a dozen people that was part of his first election team - only one (Medvedev) is still alive..  Stuff like that...  Lets say the russian power elite has a different concept of how to sustain stability, than most democratic countries..


----------



## barronwaffles (Jun 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> Whats surprising though is, that out of the top personal of about a dozen people that was part of his first election team - only one (Medvedev) is still alive..  Stuff like that...  Lets say the russian power elite has a different concept of how to sustain stability, than most democratic countries..



At a cursory glance it seems like the majority of the prominent campaign team membership are in fact still alive - and still holding notable/lucrative positions. The only (public) account of a 'suspicious' death would be that of Anatoly Sobchak.


----------



## notimp (Jun 16, 2019)

That said - in russia entire industry sectors were privatized in the past 30 years. Those are power shifts that we usually dont see in the west. So stakes - much higher there over the past years. This has to impact "political culture".

#notanexcuse


----------



## notimp (Jun 16, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> At a cursory glance it seems like the majority of the prominent campaign team membership are in fact still alive - and still holding notable/lucrative positions. The only (public) account of a 'suspicious' death would be that of Anatoly Sobchak.


I'll rewatch and name names.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jun 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> I'll rewatch and name names.



Sure, but the fact that I can already look up and find that other campaign leadership besides Medvedev are in fact still ticking over kinda~ invalidates the previous statement.


----------



## notimp (Jun 16, 2019)

Mikhail Yuriyevich Lesin - dead
Boris Jefimowitsch Nemzow - dead
Xenia Ponomarjowa - dead (natural death?)

Named by the documentary as "moved into the opposition":
Alexander Voloshin
Gleb Pawlowski
Mikhail Kasyanov (public humiliation by state media)
Anatoli Tšubais (russian rightwing democrat leader, opposition after the first term and from then onwards)

Demoted:
Wladislaw Jurjewitsch Surkow

Lucked out:
Valentin Jumaschew (married Jelzins daughter)

"Out of a dozen of people majority not alive" doesnt hold up.  Only two or three deaths. 

A year after Putins election the news channel NTW, that people in Putins election committee were watching in the election night was broken up and moved under state control, ...

Stuff like that.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 16, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Lasting damage?
> 
> Do me a lemon.
> 
> ...




That British Steel stuff is an oversimplification of matters. Bailing that out (again) would in many ways be good money after bad -- all those nice shots on the news as it was going down just served to show me how behind the curve they actually were, and looking at their general approaches there were in serious need of a stupendous cash injection to not only keep running but not get taken out for good in maybe 10 years when India or Pakistan decides to pull their thumb out of their arse and do more than cheap and simple things*. One might still make the argument as some kind of pragmatic thing if it is a one trick pony/source of all things for the area that it would be cheaper than a repeat of Thatcher vs Wales (though that might even be more apt of a comparison if the state of the mines there leading to it and lack of adoption of high tech in the fields), though it is not an argument I would normally expect to hear pass the lips of one such as yourself. Be careful you don't treat British industry like Americans treat farmers -- some kind of romantic historical notion of what it is and means to the country somehow bleeding through into the modern world. Unlike said farmers though I can see some future for it, and not just to save my own skin.

*India, and increasingly Pakistan, have some decent abilities here, and I will not discount China either and south America could come up (all those fun loans in the 80s that the UK et al sent out there to kickstart their industry did actually make some infrastructure, even if the market did not give a crap about the resulting products despite the claims of the finance peeps initially offering the loans). Their quality control is shit and thus I would hate to presently have any kind of complex, critical work done there -- a lot of what I fix and have to sort is people cheaping out there, what casting/forging shops I do deal with in the UK (though usually non ferrous ones) often (or indeed as their main revenue stream) send things out to there, China, South America... From what I saw of British Steel's machines and setup in those news reports and pity pieces they were not geared for tight tolerance work with complex forgings (not to mention they would be screaming this from the rooftops if it were the case). Their main claims to fame then being that they actually did proper material sampling, product testing and such for what amounts to fairly basic products. Judging by where my friends and associates are heading out to, and looking at the demographics of international students in UK Engineering departments (for all else that might be said the UK educational system, as much as it now costs https://www.statista.com/statistics...-average-debt-on-entry-to-repayment-timeline/ , can and does produce some top tier engineers) then it will probably click for India and Pakistan that testing at all the proper points on the chain (something they already have all the gear to do) is a good plan before too long -- many of those I did follow the stories of have the companies (usually family ones) resultantly punch well above their weight. Once that happens and if wages have not gone like the tier 1 cities of China before then it is going to be a fairly big shake up akin to China and electronics 15 years ago.
Worse is I just dragged up a profits by year thing for its various incarnations and they were considerable at times so it is not like they have even been limping by for however long and could not afford to reinvest.


Industry wise. I would look at a variety of factors here. The UK does not really dig anything up any more (importing is then a relative expense), environmental laws are fairly harsh (some not without reason, some I find dubious, many also the reason things are not dug up any more), energy costs are pretty high (there is a bit of nuclear but not France or Japan levels, and the geography is not there like Iceland or something), labour costs are pretty high (especially compared to Asia), the financial sector (if we have to play to your "leftists ist the root of all ills" idea you will not find too many of those in the higher echelons of finance) was far more attracted to paper pushing and software and frequently denied or gave shit terms, effectively then denying, on finance (the returns on investment there are several times higher than even a well optimised factory, and said factories don't even have the massive stability for said lower rates of return that you can also find in areas of finance), the firms themselves have not been inclined to take new people in (there is a reason so many of my friends and associates are fucking off abroad, and I have seen just as many take things way below what they were trained for (presumably displacing others or denying advancement in the process) if they can even break in before toddling off to finance to program their computers or something and having it be a hobby rather than a career). 
One might look at Japan (lots of often very small industry, including hand work too, though Japan's finances are an interesting one that I don't know if we would emulate) or Germany (ignoring their brown coal bonus, which will probably taper off but I am not sure of current goings there) and see something, though I am not sure it entirely applies. Also unlike the US which can try to mandate it has its massive and hideously bloated military to outfit itself by itself and thus allow for something I don't see the UK having a similar option.


Anyway we might be getting off topic a bit there. You speak of the will of the people. It seems of those that voted back then that the result was over the whole nation the desire to leave, even with the shockingly poor state of the campaigns around it. Fair enough. The job then is to do it well. It also behoves one to consider how very close it was -- much of politics is trying to balance things (or if you prefer despite how UKIP and such never held much actual power their effects are considerable with politics as a whole, and this is near enough half that cared to engage), as well as the breakdowns within the union that is the country (or would you dismiss Scotland's still also recent referendum results in a similar manner to how you approach this? If you can keep people reasonably happy then it makes sense to do it). This was not however a job well done.
Maybe it will be that it is all so irrecoverably hosed up that no deal is the best that can be hoped for in the present circumstances -- if my doctor through incompetence and inattention left my infection to go on for so long that rather than some antibiotics and a bit of bedrest I ended up with an amputated leg following a bout of gangrene I would be within my rights to be a bit upset about it all, despite the plus of not being dead.


As far as blaming labour. They have much to answer for, and I don't think history will look favourably upon this iteration of the conservatives either. They have however held power local and national, up and down the land no less (give or take the SNP since that became a thing, though it is not like they are absent there either), for how many years now ( https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7529 )? If they are too toothless to undo the ills wrought by previous governments, and they seem to be able to push through utter bollocks like the various things concerning speech, the porn blocks and if we are going back to industry and trades the amount of red tape that goes on there and that has increased in the last however many years (beyond that which other countries see either, give or take Australia) then what I am supposed to think here? Some of it might be the fault of them shooting themselves in the foot with that snap election and becoming less able as a result. I would still look however at them pulling the trigger on article 50 without even seemingly the outline of a plan in place, much less a workable series,


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jun 16, 2019)

*Channel 4 debate: Tory leadership candidates take part in first TV hustings without Boris Johnson 

Boris to scared to show up ? 

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-tv-hustings-without-boris-johnson-live-news
*


----------



## mattytrog (Jun 16, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> *Channel 4 debate: Tory leadership candidates take part in first TV hustings without Boris Johnson
> 
> Boris to scared to show up ?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-tv-hustings-without-boris-johnson-live-news*


1) you cited the grain. That makes further points invalid.

2) when you are that far in front, why bother? Let them scrap it out for second place.

3) guessing it's a channel 4 debate. He would be well advised to keep those far left quislings at arms length.

4) by all accounts, he will be at the BBC debate.

Think we are done


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jun 16, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> 1) you cited the grain. That makes further points invalid.
> 
> 2) when you are that far in front, why bother? Let them scrap it out for second place.
> 
> ...



yes your right 
Boris said he wouldn't appear on the Channel 4 show but he said he would take part in a BBC one after Tuesday.


----------



## notimp (Jun 21, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> That wasn't _really_ funny.
> This was funny
> 
> 
> ...



On the proceeding currently going on in Hong Kong (introduction of the clip):


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jun 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> On the proceeding currently going on in Hong Kong



I....don't have time for that? Can you summarize the video, while drawing out the most crucial elements? 

I'm trying to connect the dots, but it seems like the 0:42 clip I posted, only relates to the 33:27 clip you posted by .05% (+-).


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 3, 2019)

Some interesting updates to the EU this week.

The new European Commission president, a German defence chief building the EU army: "My goal is the United States of Europe - based on the model of the federal states of Switzerland, Germany or the US" Loony remainers have been banging on for years about how there won't be a federal superstate and how we've been wrong all along.

If that wasn't bad enough they've also appointed a convicted fraudster to be in charge of the European bank. You couldn't make this up. Does anyone remember voting them in? Or seeing any leadership debates? Me neither, the EU has also never been audited, they aren't transparent and are so undemocratic it's laughable.


----------



## notimp (Jul 4, 2019)

The new ECB President isnt decided yet - neither is the next President of the European commission.

Germany and France are still battling it out (Van der Leyen vs. Barnier and Lagarde vs. Weidmann). Other possibilities still open, as well.

The European Army being built up is a necessary known known - because the US are acting like dudebros on a moodswing based midlife crisis - and migration pressures are believed to increase.

This one is all about the resources game again - and if the US is retracting from the middle east, Europe is expected to pick much of that up. There are new traderoutes with China they also need to be stabalized, after they've been established. (Probably less of a hazzle.)

If that statement about the "United States of Europe" comes from van der Leyen - she is an odd joice for leading political figure, half a wild card - and not necessarily in the loop at all. At the moment. Her talk will slightly change, when she gets a higher office.  She is not a campaigner, more a functionary type. And the swiss model isnt something that Europe can be molded upon. (Interests usually too varied.)

So its still to early to tell - what will be happening, except for the parts (military union spending up), that are already known.

Also the far right suddenly opposing military spending - and going 'told you so' on something that literally has been in the talks for more than ten years - in the form of talking points (united states of europe) - is nothing substantial.

For the moment. Doesnt mean that the further integration push isnt coming, or happening - but its more complicated that what right wing radio jockeys tell their audience.

You still are on a political knowledge level of kindergarden. Jumping at soundbits that politicians utter if they dont know anything and want to talk phrases that they think are expected of them.. 

As soon as something happens - the flare up will be much larger..


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 5, 2019)

https://twitter.com/standup4brexit/status/1147090870493241344?s=21

I guess Andrew Neil is still in kindergarten and you know better than him too


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 6, 2019)

shamzie said:


> https://twitter.com/standup4brexit/status/1147090870493241344?s=21
> 
> I guess Andrew Neil is still in kindergarten and you know better than him too


Erm... Your Twitter quote basically proves notimp's point : it really is a soundbite from a politician who doesn't know anything but says things that his audience wants to hear.


----------



## notimp (Jul 6, 2019)

Even if it might proof my point - its a good hitpiece, but its partly wrong. 

People who have failed upwards in an institution - are reliable. People who have had public corruption cases in court and media, went through "baptism of fire", and presumably have good relations to the business side.

Not always. So its not a rule - but its also not an exception.

You never even want the "pure souls" in there, because they "lack experience".

Thats why von der Leyen is such an odd choice. She basically was sidelined in the succession game for Merkels position - and stuck in the one ministry - no one cared about at the time. Then by a stroke of pure luck - military reform became pretty important again - and she kind of fit her position well. Shes stupid enough to let her department being "remodeled" by hip consulting firms. (Or intelligent enough not to let the blame of it not working fall on her shoulders, I'm not sure how that specific one works..  )

The thing with fighter planes that cant fly and submarines that dont work - was actually the fiscal planning of the state at the time - the military was unnecessary and unpopular in the public opinion.


The gag here rather is, that in all complex decisions, there is always a bit of the 'morally bad' in there with the morally good. This 'we want absolute separation between institutions' also is something that you actually dont want (looks at the lobbying system). You just want enough transparency (moral judgement), that the position on the other spectrum are at least heard. Then politics works. (As a rough cut.  ) And yes - this favors undemocratic decision structures, and personal ambition. This is what public opinion acts as a counter balance to.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 6, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Your Twitter quote basically proves notimp's point : it really is a soundbite from a politician who doesn't know anything but says things that his audience wants to hear.



Andrew Neil isn't a politician, and the full 45 minute show is available, you're welcome to watch it yourself. So I didn't.

He points out in a better way than I do because he's far more articulate that she will be appointed, despite court cases, fraud etc. Being the second most UNPOPULAR politician in Germany, despite the fact nobody voted her in, that she'll get the job because the EU is an undemocratic shit show. Soundbite? No, fact.


----------



## Hambrew (Jul 6, 2019)

emigre said:


> So since us Brits voted leave on the 23rd June, I think it's safe to say it's dominated the British political landscape with questions of hard or soft and each member of the UK seemingly developing their own comprehensive opinion of the complexities of Customs Union (THE Customs Union or A Customs Union). It most certainly has put us in the biggest post-war political crisis and instability which leaves us with a minority government being propped by the Northern Irish division of the Republican party.
> 
> Now it's been nearly two years since the vote, I'll be intrigued by what the benefits of Brexit are. I recall asking this in the original thread but really couldn't get anything substantive or cohesive. I think now's a  good time to look at what the potential benefits will be. It's never left public discussion and animosity still remains, we've had a general election, accusations of undermining the will of the people and a movement to demand a vote on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal.
> 
> I'd be interested in what people's thoughts on the potential benefits would be.


I'm american, but Brexit = NO article 17!


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 6, 2019)

Quick reminder of the inner workings of the EU and how it promotes democracy


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jul 6, 2019)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 172385
> Quick reminder of the inner workings of the EU and how it promotes democracy




when people vote against a treaty as Denmark did with  the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty. EU  Democracy is to force another referendum because they don't like the answer.
_
_


----------



## Xzi (Jul 6, 2019)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 172385
> Quick reminder of the inner workings of the EU and how it promotes democracy


Hard to say that the British system is much better when the people have no power in selecting the new prime minister.  Not that the US is faring any better at the moment either, what with the electoral college and gerrymandering being given the go-ahead by the supreme court.  True democracy seems to be dying out globally at an alarming pace.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Hard to say that the British system is much better when the people have no power in selecting the new prime minister.  Not that the US is faring any better at the moment either, what with the electoral college and gerrymandering being given the go-ahead by the supreme court.  True democracy seems to be dying out globally at an alarming pace.



This is a terrible example. The British people had a say at the general election. Nobody complained when a labour PM quit and brown walked into the job. But still, It's terrible because the next PM is being selected by British people, just not all of us. They'll get their chance at the next general election. Voting ballots to conservative members have already gone out, where as Sweden's elected representatives had absolutely no say and were forced to accept it despite Sweden overwhelmingly rejecting it. Surprised you even tried to defend it to be honest.

I'm not sure what you mean about the electoral college and gerrymandering, can you give me an update? The U.S has always used the Electoral College as far as I'm aware, why should it change now. Unless you mean something else and I completely missed the point which is very possible.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 6, 2019)

shamzie said:


> This is a terrible example. The British people had a say at the general election. Nobody complained when a labour PM quit and brown walked into the job.


IMO it's a bad system regardless of who's benefiting from it, as you can have several PMs quit during a single term.  If selecting the new PM required a popular vote each time, perhaps there would be a greater sense of accountability to the people, and they'd be less inclined to abandon their duty.



shamzie said:


> I'm not sure what you mean about the electoral college and gerrymandering, can you give me an update? The U.S has always used the Electoral College as far as I'm aware, why should it change now. Unless you mean something else and I completely missed the point which is very possible.


Representation within the electoral college has failed to keep pace with population growth over the years.  As a result, states like Wyoming get the same amount of electoral votes as states that have twice its population or more.  Gerrymandering only compounds this problem through oddly-drawn districts where representatives get to pick their voters instead of the other way around.  It helps the minority to stay in power.  The Republican-majority supreme court recently ruled that partisan gerrymandering couldn't be challenged in the courts, setting up 2020 as the election to end all elections.  The party that wins will have the power to re-draw the district maps to favor themselves in all future elections, unless the ruling can be repealed by changing the make-up of the supreme court.

Here's a visual representation of how gerrymandering works:


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

On the future political development of Europe.

Here - this sounds correct. I'll translate on the fly:

--
How you successfully negotiate, parisien politician aspirants already learn at the elite administrative school ENA. Their graduate Emmanuel Macron showed in textbook style, how you gain allies and how you play others against each other – and how shortly before the third act, you stage a little tamper tantrum. The EU-meetings would go on much too long, and would only consist of "hours of useless talks", the frech president ranted last monday evening, after another round of negotiation poker in brussels. This would forfeit "international credibility" and would not be "reputable" he added shrewishly.

The next day arriving - he had what he wanted. EU president of the commission shall be the frankophile german Ursula von der Leyen, Head of the EZB the french Christine Lagarde. Both also are women, the same as the parity-supporter Macron had promised, and both are close to his political vision in regards to defense - or fiscal politics. Not angry anymore, but "happy" as the newspaper "Libération" writes, Macron returned to Paris – triumphant like Napoleon from his war campaigns.

*The third block bites*
The european parliament has still to agree to the deal. But Macron has already won: He has established himself on the european stage as a power factor that can not be navigated around. Many already doubted if he could repeat in brussels what he had shown in Paris first: the de-facto liquidation of the socialist and conservative established but old parties by means of his "En Marche" movement. After the european elections he formed a third block with the liberal fractions and blew up the german  leading candidate concept with his version of back room diplomacy.
(...)
by Stefan Brändle (Austrian newspaper correspondant in Paris), 6.7.2019
src: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000105967136/macron-siegreich-in-der-eu-le-president-ist-wieder-da (german)
--


Thats all fun and well said. The short of it is, that shamzie was right here - and we get further integration in the European union. By what model is still outstanding.

Also - this was basically the only progressive plan that was there for the entire european union to move anywhere. Which is also how you do those kinds of things  - is something that pops into my mind immediately. Good, that the first sentence of the article hints at that as well, then.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 16, 2019)

Democracy


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

More information on that:

PiS source tells me that the decision to vote for @vonderleyen came after "instructions from Warsaw", indeed as a result of a call from Merkel (though he pointedly didn't say anything about her apologizing for anything). One could say UvdL owes her election to Kaczyński (&Merkel) https://t.co/tyV07Pubve— Oskar Górzyński (@OskarGie) July 16, 2019


Good that I went to the european election in May. Oh, wait - I didn't.

(Regardless - minus the "omg people didn't get to decide the president of the European Commission" alarmism, because they never could in the past. There was a movement to change it this time, and let the frontrunners of each fraction become president, but then they all were stuffed with - ehem 'backbenchers' so one kind of saw that one coming...)

Background again was the backroom stuff that Macron apparently left "very happy". France got the president of the ECB, and a president of the European Commission that should be very sympathico to expansion of european military forces, which France also likes. Apart from that von der Leyen should basically turn out to be a party devotee, and by that I mean the german fraction of the conservative party..


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 17, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Democracy View attachment 173279


That's not how it works, she can't do jack shit on her own. Power isn't absolute in the Union and even less than in the States where a Jackass like Trump can decide on shit on his own. Also she isn't the president but Charles Michel is plus the president even has less power.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Also no, the president of the European Commission doesnt "decide on laws", the european parliament does.

But the parliament cant "initiate" new laws, it can only vote and demand changes on proposals that come from the commision.

see. https://www.esomar.org/what-we-do/news/23/news/159/news

The president of the commission doesnt have much to do with "law making" either. In a direct sense.

This is done, so that the european union acts more or less 'unidirectionally'. States within the union may have widely differing interests - so parliament proposing laws is kind of a tough thing to realize. Regardless, this is not how most direct democracies work - and this has been a point of contention for years. (With initiatives to change it, which still failed..  The european parliament became more 'powerful' and thus involved regardless, just not as much, as in most direct democracies.

The smaller states usually get kickbacks through other channels, but the direction of the european union is more or less decided by the bigger member states.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

Still, none of the lead candidates ended up as the president of the commission which was supposed to give the office legitimacy. Ultimately someone was put into office who didn't run for anything, not even MEP, who was Germany's secretary of defense 5 seconds ago and is seemingly fleeing to Brussels because of multiple scandals.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

They (german conservative parties) had no other candidates. More or less. Also, france liked a pro military expansion one. So europe doesnt get an aspiring new figurehead. No charismatic person needed for that job in the following years...  Apparently.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> They (german conservative parties) had no other candidates. More or less.  So europe doesnt get an aspiring new figurehead. No charismatic person needed for that job in the following years...  Apparently.



Of course they had other candidates, the European People's Party lead candidate was a German CSU politician who apparently wasn't put into office because there were major questions regarding his qualitifications because he has never held a significant office. However, people still turned out and voted for his party that he was the face of the campaign of. The lead candidate model was put into place specifically to prevent the situation that is happening now, putting someone into office who hasn't received a mandate from the sovereign.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Manfred Weber?

The guy that was against big data for a week, when he thought, that the public scandal around facebook would earn him votes, then never spoke about it again?

(Hint: As facebook got fined 5 billion USD by the US government, their stock price rose.)

That guy? Or the other ones, in that debate?
https://gbatemp.net/threads/eu-debate-of-the-candidates-for-presidency-of-the-ec.538666/

Let's just say that I'll go consiracy nut on that one and think for myself - that that was just useless theatre.

(The production quality for the 'debate' alone, was so low... There was no money spent on it. It had no visibility on any meaningfuil news network, Weber was a moron, ... I paint my picture out of that, and the actual outcome.. 

Oh, but Macron did argue in backrooms so superbly that the great charismatic Manfred Weber wasn't elected... Partly true as well I guess.)


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Manfred Weber?
> 
> The guy that was against big data for a week, when he thought, that the public scandal around facebook would earn him votes, then never spoke about it again?
> 
> ...



Yes Manfred Weber. Whether he was the right guy for the job or not isn't the point. The party which earned the most votes saw it fit to have him be their candidate for the commission presidency and communicated as much to the voters throughout the campaign only to have it end up in a bait and switch.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

So you put up a politically inexperienced candidate, that has no pull in any of the fractions of his party - because you think that he is 'the best man for the job', or because he is just motivated enough to drive through europe and do an entire election circus (as the only one of the candidates, btw), because he thinks it matters?

Lets talk about Martin Schulz for a minute. The 'candidate that ran against Merkel' in the last german election season. The socialist party put him on a speaking trail that had him visit cities at a high pace, and without as much as a personal assistant. So he openly complained about, that he couldn't do the schedule anymore, because he was forced to go up on stages without having changed, in sweaty shirts - and then 'connect' to the people. And when he would change, he had to do it in his car, five minutes before stepping on stage.

So for what its worth - the lesson I draw from that is - that sometimes as a political party you put up candidates - where you don't mind if they loose.

You dont put up the experienced ones, the highly networked ones - but some poor shmuck that does it out of a duty to his party, or who has little to loose.

Manfred Weber didn't seem like a valiant effort to change the system presidents of the commission get elected by in the EU. Furthermore - the personell issue ('Personalfrage') was openly put out there as to why this time it would take longer to have a President of the EC elected. Probably to calm markets.

In the end - it doesnt matter in terms of outcome - I just dont think that many people will cry over Manfred Weber, not having become a (somewhat) more democratically elected candidate to the office of the EC. More democratically, because he got to speak to crowds, on an election trail.

More in demand people, hardly ever have the time for that - which is an issue as well. (UvdL probably falls on neither side of that..  )

Also Manfred Weber came with his own program - that he actually was allowed to develop (with his constituency - hence the big data jab), which nobody wanted - so bye. Or in the other interpretation. Germany couldnt keep up with the back room diplomacy of france - so they had to conjure up another (more viable than Manfred Weber) candidate on short notice.

I've posted both views in this thread. In the end - it doesnt matter.


----------



## Youkai (Jul 17, 2019)

This will totaly help the right wing to start the next anti EU campaign


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> So for what its worth - the lesson I draw from that is - that sometimes as a political you put up candidates - where you don't mind if they loose.



Again, Weber hasn't "lost" the election, his party has the biggest caucus in the european parliament effectively having won the election, the council just refused to recommend him for the presidency of the commission which can easily be seen as going directly against the will of the sovereign.



notimp said:


> In the end - it doesnt matter in terms of outcome - I just dont think that many people will cry over Manfred Weber, not having become a (somewhat) more democratically elected candidate to the office of the EC. More democratically, because he got to speak to crowds, on an election trail.



OK, I'll just assume the point flies over your head so let me spell it out for you.
With the rise of EU critical populists across the untion came a lot of questions regarding the democratic legitimacy of the commission and council, them flexing their muscle to effectively topple the sovereign will fuel them even more, as seen in this thread. The Post by @shamzie started this whole exchange about the commision presidency for christ's sake.
On top of that, having taken measures to ensure the legitimacy like introducing the lead candidate model just to have it overthrown by the council makes it look like they're exactly right.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Youkai said:


> This will totaly help the right wing to start the next anti EU campaign


Not necessarily.

Center right will move more right it seems (with promises to appease to green voters in the first 100 days (if I've got that right)). France isnt necessarily out there to make Europe more socialist either. And the social democratic parties were the ones basically "dropped/divided" in the current backroom election drives (in the european parliament, they are more important still than in germany.).

The right wing cant really openly protest a tighter military union in europe, which is the next outstanding project.

Now it all depends on what france will actually do with having 'a better connection' to the ECB. Small steps.

Of course, if you see the ENA educated Macron as the peoples tribune - you might think, that this is another socialist takeover..


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> The right wing cant really openly protest a tighter military union in europe, which is the next outstanding project.



You really don't have your finger on the pulse of the 'right wing' at all, do you?


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> You really don't have your finger on the pulse of the 'right wing' at all, do you?


I don't. But I don't see how they could openly oppose tighter military integration of europe on 'national sovereignty' grounds, and keep their voter numbers.

(Center right could open with - its because of the immigrant scare - and far right stands there devoid of their main political argument.)

That the president of the EC has been elected the same as in past years, also isn't that much of political dynamite..


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> I don't. But I don't see how they could openly oppose tighter military integration of europe on 'national sovereignty' grounds, and keep their voter numbers.
> 
> That the president of the EC has been elected the same as in past years, also isn't that much of political dynamite..



If you think the (still growing) appeal of populism is based on what you consider rational rather than emotional talking points, then I've got a boat to sell you.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Again, Weber hasn't "lost" the election, his party has the biggest caucus in the european parliament effectively having won the election, the council just refused to recommend him for the presidency of the commission which can easily be seen as going directly against the will of the sovereign.


My argument: If you'd want to sovereign to really care, you don't put a Manfred Weber in that position.

But yes that interpretation is a little out there - and doesnt rely purely on facts. I guess it was all just bad luck, and maybe not as dependable political connections for Manfred Weber then..  Regardless. It doesnt matter. The outcome is the same.

Trust in the democratic function of all election processes in the EU will take a dip, but then people mostly don't care - and want 'a clear direction' more than that. Based on some polls, based on feeling. The outrage, that Manfred Weber didn't get elected in a "first try to do it that way" - was slim to none. Again - lets look at this from a political analyst stance for a while.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> That the president of the EC has been elected the same as in past years, also isn't that much of political dynamite..



Technically you're correct, because of course you are, since not doing it that way is quite literally impossible but you're still ignoring the fact that Jean-Claude Juncker has been EVP's lead candidate in 2014. This system was put in place for a reason.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> My argument - if you'd want to sovereign to really care, you don't put a Manfred Weber in that place.



My argument - you are in no position to tell the sovereign what it cares about other than your vote.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Technically you're correct, because of course you are, since not doing it that way is quite literally impossible but you're still ignoring the fact that Jean-Claude Juncker has been EVP's lead candidate in 2014. This system was put in place for a reason.


Noted. I'll keep it in mind. We'll see if it matters.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 17, 2019)

Sorry, but what's going on with Brexit? How is Brexit being affected right now?


----------



## Youkai (Jul 17, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry, but what's going on with Brexit? How is Brexit being affected right now?



Nothing is going on at all ... the EU gave them more time, they are wasting it doing nothing.
Next time the EU will give them more time again and they will waste it again ... 
Never ending Cirlce even though the EU will say "last time" every single time over and over again.


----------



## leon315 (Jul 17, 2019)

the situation of UK is ridiculous, Brexit nowdays is highly impossible at this point and UK with May-xit is literally headless XD hahahahaha

My British friends, just stay with us italian, spanish and greek, and deal those black afrikan muslim refugees who land monthly on Italy.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 17, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry, but what's going on with Brexit? How is Brexit being affected right now?



After the UK prime minster caused what little of a team there was from the UK to quit or be fired she got utterly trounced when she tried to sell her resulting deal and quit herself. The EU offered a further extension to the deadline. Her party is now deciding upon a new leader/prime minister, which will determine the new direction taken as the various candidates being voted on by said party members have different approaches (the most likely winner/new PM having a somewhat dubious plan, or at least a couple of the key concepts of their plan, though as a general rule it favours the harder approach to the issue). Whatever the result of that might be there are still some massive hurdles to overcome with regards to the Irish border, getting parliament to agree to things, balancing some internal politics and other things, and not a lot of time to do it in -- the new deadline being October the 31st also coincides with a fairly serious budget assessment/creation for the new 7 years for the EU and the UK still being in then would not just be a few MEPs that get to be there but the UK having to factor into that so the EU extending beyond that is deemed unlikely.

The EU is also having a bit of an internal shakeup/new people coming in, what effects this will have on the matter remains to be seen -- the EU is in a fairly good position at this point and the shuffling is unlikely to change focus radically. That said to the casual observer the processes underpinning said shuffle would serve to reinforce one of the UK leaving the EU campaign notions of the EU being a not so democratic body (just don't pay too much attention to how the new UK PM is being selected, it does follow established rules though).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSMqateX8OA2s1wsOR2EgJA/videos?disable_polymer=1 goes into a bit more depth if you wanted it.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 17, 2019)

Von der Leyen's incompetence and clear fanaticism for a United States of Europe with EU army, foreign and immigration policies has seen her appointed as President of 500m people, with NO democratic mandate. The EU is a corrupt, totalitarian disgrace, as is its new leader.

Hard brexit (aka brexit people voted for) more likely than ever.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 17, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Hard brexit (aka brexit people voted for) more likely than ever.



Did the people vote for hard brexit? I don't recall an especially concrete vision of what was to come during the campaign, much in the way of consultation after the event before the article 50 thing was triggered, or in the subsequent years. This is also without considering the other essentially half of the population (which voted against) care to do.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Did the people vote for hard brexit? I don't recall an especially concrete vision of what was to come during the campaign, much in the way of consultation after the event before the article 50 thing was triggered, or in the subsequent years. This is also without considering the other essentially half of the population (which voted against) care to do.



I believe so for many reasons. People were told a vote to leave meant leaving the customs union and single market. This was repeated many many times, I believe it was also in the leaflet but not only this David Cameron said it on live TV, I can find it if needed. For these reasons alone It's safe to say people voted for a clean exit, Its only after vote leave won the rhetoric around "people didnt know what they voted for" started appearing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 17, 2019)

shamzie said:


> I believe so for many reasons. People were told a vote to leave meant leaving the customs union and single market. This was repeated many many times, I believe it was also in the leaflet but not only this David Cameron said it on live TV, I can find it if needed. For these reasons alone It's safe to say people voted for a clean exit, Its only after vote leave won the rhetoric around "people didnt know what they voted for" started appearing.


The messages, even if we ignore nonsense on buses, were decidedly mixed and different between leaders of the campaign at the time. Though looking around the times the customs union was mentioned "probably mean leaving" would be it so maybe you have that one.

It is also somewhat amusing said leaflet gets brought up as a positive -- the expense and the taxpayer burden of it, and the rather washy nature of it among those that were vying for the UK to change its position within the EU and if we are thinking the same thing ( https://assets.publishing.service.g...ean-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf ) then gov headed page titled "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.". It does also mention the Canada deal in the same page it details the leaving the market thing, and contemplates the nature of the eventual deal in it (as opposed to saying we will aim for).

What a shambles it all was and continues to be.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 17, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> The messages, even if we ignore nonsense on buses, were decidedly mixed and different between leaders of the campaign at the time. Though looking around the times the customs union was mentioned "probably mean leaving" would be it so maybe you have that one.
> 
> It is also somewhat amusing said leaflet gets brought up as a positive -- the expense and the taxpayer burden of it, and the rather washy nature of it among those that were vying for the UK to change its position within the EU and if we are thinking the same thing ( https://assets.publishing.service.g...ean-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf ) then gov headed page titled "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.". It does also mention the Canada deal in the same page it details the leaving the market thing, and contemplates the nature of the eventual deal in it (as opposed to saying we will aim for).
> 
> What a shambles it all was and continues to be.



It wasn't brought up as a positive, it was brought up because it was government position and government said they'd implement the decision. I mentioned David Cameron specifically because he was the PM and he was the leader of the country. The leader said many many times a vote to leave meant hard brexit, It's just after leave won people are trying to muddy the waters. By people I obviously mean those whose interests are to remain.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Von der Leyen's incompetence and clear fanaticism for a United States of Europe with EU army, foreign and immigration policies has seen her appointed as President of 500m people, with NO democratic mandate. The EU is a corrupt, totalitarian disgrace, as is its new leader.
> 
> Hard brexit (aka brexit people voted for) more likely than ever.


UvdL is not a fanatic she is anything but. In fact, she sometimes leaves the impression, that one should check if she's still breathing.. 

The way the president of the EC is elected hasnt changed since the UK entered or left the EU.

Deciding on a top candidate, that people should vote on, as a EU fraction, and then showing him around in most EU states during election - but not his competition for the job wouldnt have been much more democratic.

That the President of the Commission isnt directly politically elected isnt that much of an issue either. Its equivalent to maybe our version of the Queen. (Not entirely similar - more in public perception.)


The issue with the european comission having an initiative right on coming up with law proposals, and the EU parliament not having that - again is a separate issue. That is a proper/real issue in terms of democratic representation, but again - its organized that way, otherwise the EU would have a leadership/direction issue. This comes from there being very different national interests being subsumed within the EU. So it would be possible to get floating majorities for contrary positions, which would then leave the EU not able to act moreso than its an issue already.

Please remember, that the UK formally didn't exit the EU, because it was so horrible, and anti-democratic (what now the remaining 27 member states are all undemocratic and to dumb to see it?), but because of the super fun super savings and the better financial perspective Britain will apparently have over the next 20 years, and the non existing imigration crisis scare - of course.

British prime ministers REGULARLY boasted, that they were able to get undemocratic, special deals, that were more beneficial for the UK than for the rest of the EU.

Remember?

No?

This is an instance, where someone found his moral outrage, after they left. So its worth nothing. Disgruntled former member. Ignore.


Also, that we now have to spend more on military spendings - literally is the result of a refusal of out Nato member states US and UK to provide support as per usual over the past decades. So you took that an invented the "war mongering intents of that fanatic Ursula" out of that.

Bravo?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 17, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Von der Leyen's incompetence and clear fanaticism for a United States of Europe with EU army, foreign and immigration policies has seen her appointed as President of 500m people, with NO democratic mandate. The EU is a corrupt, totalitarian disgrace, as is its new leader.
> 
> Hard brexit (aka brexit people voted for) more likely than ever.


She in the position for two days. A bit early for a slander campaign, no?


----------



## notimp (Jul 18, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry, but what's going on with Brexit? How is Brexit being affected right now?


British fraction in the EP cheered a little, then boo'ed a little then was silent. throughout the 'here I am speech from UvdL.

UvdL signalled, that there is limitless time for discussions with the UK, if there is a proper reason. And that the UK will always be partners and friends. So nothing new.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> She in the position for two days. A bit early for a slander campaign, no?



So we just ignore her previous body of work? Like I said earlier it seems like she is fleeing the national politics stage in Germany because she's been involved in multiple scandals which are still under investigation by the parliament.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> So we just ignore her previous body of work? Like I said earlier it seems like she is fleeing the national politics stage in Germany because she's been involved in multiple scandals which are still under investigation by the parliament.


I'll probably sound like the devil's advocate, but...yes, indeed. I've briefly looked into those scandals you mentioned. As you said: the investigation is still ongoing. She won't be holding her current position long if she's found to be guilty of that, but until then I see no reason for assuming guilt.



But okay...for sake of the argument: let's say that she IS guilty of personally purposefully awarding lucrative contracts to outside consultants (and NOT, as I currently assume, " a mixture of negligence, corner-cutting and mistakes by individuals overwhelmed by their work.", which is her own defence on the matter).

If that were the case...then that would still be way too early to accuse her of "incompetence and fanaticism", as @shamzie put it. The former doesn't apply because it's a different job and the latter doesn't showcase in the scandal.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 18, 2019)

Oh critizing the assertion of fanaticism is fine. But you make the case for incompetence yourself, even going as far as stating that incompetence is her defense strategy.
That alone BTW, doesn't even imply guilt in a legal sense.



Taleweaver said:


> I currently assume, " a mixture of negligence, corner-cutting and mistakes by individuals overwhelmed by their work.", which is her own defence on the matter



So the reversal in the following paragraph is a bit of mental gymnastics on your part.



Taleweaver said:


> that would still be way too early to accuse her of "incompetence and fanaticism"



Even while playing devil's advocate you still arrive at she's either guilty of fraud or incompetent but argue at the same time that it's too early to accuse her of either.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Oh critizing the assertion of fanaticism is fine. But you make the case for incompetence yourself, even going as far as stating that incompetence is her defense strategy.


Yes. More specifically "by individuals overwhelmed by their work.". I don't assume she's speaking of herself there, though it's covert enough not to downright blame her employees. Employees she won't bring to her new department.

So I really don't arrive at your conclusion. If you're leading others (and what politician isn't?), it's perfectly possible that people under you screw up or are up to no good. It doesn't relieve you of your responsibilities, but whether or not she is guilty is really what the investigation is to point out.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Yes. More specifically "by individuals overwhelmed by their work.". I don't assume she's speaking of herself there, though it's covert enough not to downright blame her employees. Employees she won't bring to her new department.
> 
> So I really don't arrive at your conclusion. If you're leading others (and what politician isn't?), it's perfectly possible that people under you screw up or are up to no good. It doesn't relieve you of your responsibilities, but whether or not she is guilty is really what the investigation is to point out.



I guess we operate under different definitions of incompetence then, which is fair, to me a leader who allows the people working under them to makes errors of this magnitude has shown incompetency as a leader.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I guess we operate under different definitions of incompetence then, which is fair, to me a leader who allows the people working under them to makes errors of this magnitude has shown incompetency as a leader.


We might. But seeing you're German, you probably heard of Von der Leyen before. To me, her name means as much as I assume Charles Michel (the upcoming president of the European counsil and current Belgian prime minister) means to you. So of course I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt for now. I wasn't kidding when I said I only briefly checked the potential scandals. In our newspapers, it's at best a footnote in an article...and given the media, it was probably more like a single sentence in an article that is itself a footnote (this is Europe, after all. It's not like our leaders do controversial things like singlehandedly making important decisions).


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> As you said: the investigation is still ongoing. She won't be holding her current position long if she's found to be guilty of that, but until then I see no reason for assuming guilt..



Why won't she be holding the position for long? There's no way to remove her, that was my point. There's no mechanisms whatsoever to remove her.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Why won't she be holding the position for long? There's no way to remove her, that was my point. There's no mechanisms whatsoever to remove her.


Okay, fine. You choose to believe that she can't be removed, no matter what the outcome of investigations will be. We'll see if that holds true... Provided she is guilty of anything, of course. I'm not convinced of that either.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 18, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Why won't she be holding the position for long? There's no way to remove her, that was my point. There's no mechanisms whatsoever to remove her.



That's just false. The parliament has the power to remove the entire commision including the president.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 23, 2019)

...and Boris Johnson is now the new prime minister of the UK.

Not really a surprise considering his popularity, but that doesn't mean the future's looking bright. The whole "do or die" promise seems like a huge gambit: either leave the EU with a better deal than what we have or without a deal at all. Considering the EU has tauted that there would be no re-negotiations for months, it essentially comes down to "we'll be leaving the EU without a deal".

Small note: the rhetoric wouldn't have been much different under his opponent (Jeremy Hunt). It's just that Johnson has less ambiguity when it comes to being straightforward.


----------



## emigre (Jul 24, 2019)

BoJo is now PM and it looks like we're going to get a hard Brexit cabinet. Gotta be honest, it's hard to look at the situation and not think we as a nation are pretty fucked.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 24, 2019)

emigre said:


> BoJo is now PM and it looks like we're going to get a hard Brexit cabinet. Gotta be honest, it's hard to look at the situation and not think we as a nation are pretty fucked.


You are not alone, friend.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 24, 2019)

Benefits likely aren't the ideas going through British people's heads right now. I think the better question would be to ask how we might mitigate all the possible negative outcomes of crashing out of the EU which seems to be the current plan.

The one benefit, which Farage and Johnson clamour on about all the time, is greater sovereignty which means having greater control over laws and economy. Though, the EU hasn't done anything that the British public have generally disagreed with. So the one benefit is moot at best.


----------



## Flame (Jul 25, 2019)

I woke up with Boris Johnson as our PM and 37°C outside. let me translate that for you.

I woke up with the Devil as our PM and in hell.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 25, 2019)

Welp, so not brexit is looking less likely.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 25, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Welp, so not brexit is looking less likely.



Brexit and especially no deal is more likely than ever. Hence all the liberals and lefties in london are in here complaining.


----------



## leon315 (Jul 25, 2019)

Flame said:


> I woke up with Boris Johnson as our PM and 37°C outside. let me translate that for you.
> 
> I woke up with the Devil as our PM and in hell.


BUT HE seems a reasonable guy: he do buzinezz with HUAWEI/CHINA (5G will be available at end year in UK), contrary to his EVIL TWIN Trump who's still fighting Trade war tho!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 25, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Brexit and especially no deal is more likely than ever. Hence all the liberals and lefties in london are in here complaining.


We'll see about that. The negotiated deal is buried, yes. But that 'will of the people' never was more than a suggestion 52% of the voters made two years ago. Yes, Johnson and his team are in charge of the government and willing to go for a no deal, but I don't see a single reason why things will be different under Johnson than under May.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> We'll see about that. The negotiated deal is buried, yes. But that 'will of the people' never was more than a suggestion 52% of the voters made two years ago. Yes, Johnson and his team are in charge of the government and willing to go for a no deal, but I don't see a single reason why things will be different under Johnson than under May.



Because Johnson voted to leave, he's appointed 90% of his cabinet as leavers. They've all signed a pledge for no deal if the EU won't renegotiate. Everything he's done so far is the polar opposite of May. Juncker has already said the WA won't be renegotiated, paving the way for the UK to keep their money and leave on WTO. If parliament try and block it then there'll be a general election and that's when we'll truly find out what people want, i suspect all the career politicians and remainers will be booted out. Naturally the media will say the opposite much like they did for Trump and Brexit and got it horribly wrong. The biggest taste for public opinion as of late was the MEP votes last month where the UK overwhelmingly voted for the brexit party. 99 days left to find out.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jul 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> We'll see about that. The negotiated deal is buried, yes. But that 'will of the people' never was more than a suggestion 52% of the voters made two years ago. Yes, Johnson and his team are in charge of the government and willing to go for a no deal, but I don't see a single reason why things will be different under Johnson than under May.



but in many places it was more than 52% to 48% to leave, for example where I live it was 58% to 42% and I'm in a Labour strong hold. Maybe that's why  Corbyn has been dithering  so long on where the Labour party stands because they know in many of the Leave areas they have Labour MP's and with the Brexit party and tactical voting even some of the safe Labour seats could go.

It will be very interesting at the next election, as a life long Labour voter I'll be voting tactically to vote for who ever can beat my local Labour MP.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 26, 2019)

Good luck to you allies overseas.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 27, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> but in many places it was more than 52% to 48% to leave, for example where I live it was 58% to 42% and I'm in a Labour strong hold. Maybe that's why  Corbyn has been dithering  so long on where the Labour party stands because they know in many of the Leave areas they have Labour MP's and with the Brexit party and tactical voting even some of the safe Labour seats could go.
> 
> It will be very interesting at the next election, as a life long Labour voter I'll be voting tactically to vote for who ever can beat my local Labour MP.


That's the thing about an average: the situation is different in regions. Why do you think Scotland and Northern Ireland are pondering to get into the EU/Ireland? The UK simply isn't united in the resolve to leave.

It clearly isn't resolved to remain either (what was it? Wales and the Midwest were strong leave regions, iirc). The delay on Corbyn's stance is possibly just that. I think he really wants to avoid the polarisation that is consuming the US right now, but it's happening regardless.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

I can't help feeling that it was someone's plan all along to make Boris and Trump the figureheads. It just doesn't seem feasible that it could've happened naturally. In fact, nothing about the current climate feels natural.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jul 29, 2019)

subcon959 said:


> I can't help feeling that it was someone's plan all along to make Boris and Trump the figureheads. It just doesn't seem feasible that it could've happened naturally. In fact, nothing about the current climate feels natural.


It has already been proven that Russia actively affected both US presidency and UK Brexit.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 29, 2019)

"People disagree with me politically, something is wrong. This can't be right, ahh Russians" good contribution guys.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> It has already been proven that Russia actively affected both US presidency and UK Brexit.


Was it definitely proven? I haven't been following it for a while. I wonder what ultimate goal was of all this.. or what the end game is going to look like. It can't just be as obvious as self-destruction, that seems too simplistic.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 29, 2019)

subcon959 said:


> Was it definitely proven? I haven't been following it for a while. I wonder what ultimate goal was of all this.. or what the end game is going to look like. It can't just be as obvious as self-destruction, that seems too simplistic.



Yes it was definitely proven, infact a Russian took me at gun point to my local ballet box and forced me to vote brexit. I told him I didnt know what i was voting for but he didn't care :\


----------



## CORE (Jul 29, 2019)

The Russians melted my Ice Cream just the other day sick Bastards.


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Yes it was definitely proven, infact a Russian took me at gun point to my local ballet box and forced me to vote brexit. I told him I didnt know what i was voting for but he didn't care :\


That remark looks suspiciously like it came from a Russian bot!

The problem with frivolity in these situations is that it provides nothing helpful to people who might genuinely be trying to work through issues. It's actually pretty hard for anyone to wade through the BS to get real information these days... and they call it the Age of Information!


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 29, 2019)

subcon959 said:


> That remark looks suspiciously like it came from a Russian bot!
> 
> The problem with frivolity in these situations is that it provides nothing helpful to people who might genuinely be trying to work through issues. It's actually pretty hard for anyone to wade through the BS to get real information these days... and they call it the Age of Information!



Look for information yourself then instead of jumping to the conclusion that everybody's thick, dont know what they're voting for or screeching RUSSIA! 

But in all seriousness if you want 100% evidence of foreign interference. All you have to do is go on youtube and type in Obama brexit, Youll find many many clips of the then US president on national TV threatening the uk if they dared to vote against his wishes. But that quite blatant interference doesn't fit your agenda so...


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Look for information yourself then instead of jumping to the conclusion that everybody's thick, dont know what they're voting for or screeching RUSSIA!
> 
> But in all seriousness if you want 100% evidence of foreign interference. All you have to do is go on youtube and type in Obama brexit, Youll find many many clips of the then US president on national TV threatening the uk if they dared to vote against his wishes. But that quite blatant interference doesn't fit your agenda so...


You are spewing your own side's rhetoric  based on an assumption you've made reading a passing remark on a gaming forum. An incorrect assumption btw, but regardless perhaps the real problem here is people like you who jump to attack mode at the slightest provocation without affording anyone the basic courtesy of at least finding out what they actually bloody think first.


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 29, 2019)

subcon959 said:


> You are spewing your own side's rhetoric  based on an assumption you've made reading a passing remark on a gaming forum. An incorrect assumption btw, but regardless perhaps the real problem here is people like you who jump to attack mode at the slightest provocation without affording anyone the basic courtesy of at least finding out what they actually bloody think first.



Nowhere did you acknowledge the fact that a sitting president of another country interfered in a national referendum, thus proving my point that you don't care about election interference unless it helps you.


----------



## notimp (Jul 29, 2019)

Also language. If a US president "threatened people in the UK not to vote against his wishes" - that would be a major international incidence.

So it probably didn't happen. 

In foreign politics there is one rule everybody agrees on, and that is 'do not meddle with other countries national affairs (publicly)'.

Because the outcome would be alongside your rant.

So people don't do that.

If you only do as much as say that Trump is an idiot, and a pretty considerable moron, and you do that as the UK ambassador to the US - you can kiss your job goodbye.

Trump is the first high level politician in the west that broke with international protocol, and told countries on twitter, that he thought about invading their neighbors, or what international leaders he would like to have killed.

I wonder what videos you are watching now. Link a few. 

Political influence attempts of 'bigger powers' visiting smaller states during election times, usually are tame as can be. Meet and greets, where everyone is very polite, and waiting for the big handshaking moment in front of camera. You do those - to signal to people of a country, that their leader is a real big honcho, that knows even bigger honchos, and that he/she does such a good job at that. That the public likes very much.

This is how you do real political campaigns in that field. Not threatening another nation not to vote a certain way on TV. (Again, all before Trump. Oh how time flies...)


----------



## subcon959 (Jul 29, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Nowhere did you acknowledge the fact that a sitting president of another country interfered in a national referendum, thus proving my point that you don't care about election interference unless it helps you.


There you go again. Go back and read my actual posts, I'm not even the one that mentioned Russia, I merely asked a question to someone that did. Your the one trying to push me on a particular side based on an assumption you've made. I can't stand this tribal bollocks so you're wasting your time. Unlike you, I have no personal agenda no matter how much you'd like me to.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 31, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> It has already been proven that Russia actively affected both US presidency and UK Brexit.


Erm... Is like to keep these instances separate, if you don't mind. For the US, it's indeed pretty clear that there was meddling. I can name names, witnesses, anekdoten evidence and so on. It's not for nothing that the agencies have reached an unanimous agreement on this. 

But on the UK? The best I've found is speculation in that direction. Which agencies make these claims? None that I've heard of. Warnings that it might have happened, yes. And a response from may that the UK won't stand for it. But concrete meddling? Not quite.

The closest I've heard is the funding from the brexit campaign. They spent more on pr than was legal (which would be a reason for disqualification if anyone gave a damn)... And it isn't exactly clear where the money donated from Arron Banks to Farage originated from. But again: I've got no reason to assume that it was Russia (1). From what I read, the investigation is still ongoing on at.

(1): my personal opinion is more in the direction of a few large companies that want some strict EU (or even UK) laws removed. After all : it started with the idea that trade deals wouldn't be a problem


----------



## Doran754 (Jul 31, 2019)

This is a good watch.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 1, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Is like to keep these instances separate, if you don't mind. For the US, it's indeed pretty clear that there was meddling. I can name names, witnesses, anekdoten evidence and so on. It's not for nothing that the agencies have reached an unanimous agreement on this.
> 
> But on the UK? The best I've found is speculation in that direction. Which agencies make these claims? None that I've heard of. Warnings that it might have happened, yes. And a response from may that the UK won't stand for it. But concrete meddling? Not quite.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clearing that up, perhaps it isn't quite "proven" that Russian influence affected Brexit, yet, but they sure as hell influenced it, even if only minimally.

"They reference University of Edinburgh research showing more than 400 Russian-run Twitter accounts that had been active in the US election had also been actively posting about Brexit.

In addition, the senators noted that research conducted by a joint team of experts from the University of California at Berkeley and Swansea University reportedly identified 150,000 Twitter accounts with various Russian ties that disseminated messages about Brexit.

The report also points to the vast flow of Russian money into the UK, including the London property market." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...fluence-brexit-vote-detailed-us-senate-report .

"242.The Government also cannot state definitively that there was “no evidence of successful interference” in our democratic processes, as the term “successful” is impossible to define in retrospect. There is, however, strong evidence that points to hostile state actors influencing democratic processes. Cardiff University and the Digital Forensics Lab of the Atlantic Council have both detailed ways in which the Kremlin attempted to influence attitudes in UK politics.270

243.Kremlin-aligned media published significant numbers of unique articles about the EU referendum. 89 Up researchers analysed the most shared of the articles, and identified 261 with a clear anti-EU bias to the reporting. The two main outlets were RT and Sputnik, with video produced by Ruptly.271 The articles that went most viral had the heaviest anti-EU bias.272 The social reach of these anti-EU articles published by the Kremlin-owned channels was 134 million potential impressions, in comparison with a total reach of just 33 million and 11 million potential impressions for all content shared from the Vote Leave website and Leave.EU website respectively.273 The value for a comparable paid social media campaign would be between £1.4 and 4.14 million." - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/179109.htm#footnote-079

"Researchers at the University of Edinburgh identified that 400 of the Internet Research Agency-linked accounts were active in the Brexit conversations, generating 3,468 individual tweets. Larger degrees of involvement have been suggested by researchers at Swansea University who used open-source Twitter data and Russian-style account features to suggest that up to 150,000 accounts linked with Russia tweeted about Brexit in the run up to the referendum. Similarly, researchers at City University London identified 13,493 accounts that tweeted about the Brexit referendum, only to disappear shortly after the vote. Research by BuzzFeed News used a database of 17 million Brexit-related Tweets and applied network analysis to uncover an additional 45 accounts that were shown to interact heavily with the known Russian accounts published by Twitter (suggesting they are being run in a combined way). Of these new accounts, 21 showed a huge spike of activity on 23 June 2016 – the day of the referendum." - https://www.cybersecurityintelligen...in-the-brexit-referendum-is-unclear-3032.html .

"Concern about Russian influence in British politics has intensified as it emerged that more than 400 fake Twitter accounts believed to be run from St Petersburg published posts about Brexit." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-run-fake-accounts-posted-bogus-brexit-tweets .

"An email, seen by The Daily Beast, was sent to Banks at 11.57am on Friday by Cadwalladr advising him that _The Observer_ had obtained copies of his emails which laid bare the scale of his interactions with Russia. They appeared to show that he and Leave.EU colleague Andy Wigmore had multiple meetings with high-ranking Russian officials, that Banks visited Moscow in February 2016, and that he had been introduced to a Russian businessman by the Russian ambassador who allegedly offered him a multibillion dollar investment opportunity in Russian goldmines." - https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-journalist-kept-russias-secret-links-to-brexit-under-wraps .

There was definitely influence, although how much it affected the vote is still debated.

It's also worth noting that Russian influence of Brexit is still being heavily investigated.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

shamzie said:


> This is a good watch.



It actually is - if you can identify the made up parts.  The rest really is somewhat interesting.

First, context. The AFD is the german far right party (11% of votes on the last EU elections, which is a downwards trend compared to their results at the last national elections) - its the party that noone wants to cooperate with (they are politically ostracized) and its also the party that follows the nationalists drumbeat (Farage, Trump, ..) of destroying europe from within. Their current main pre election campaign topic is a 8 year old that was killed by a foreigner.

But also - being against further integration (Germany paying more for social projects throughout the EU). As context for that you have to know, that in the current economical and financial configuration - 'all the money' ends up in germany (lowest investment risk, high industry percentage, export focused - no growth opportunities in the european south - really. This has to do with the comparative strength of the german economy. They even lowered income (Harz 4) to outcompete other markets better. And they reaped benefits for the last ten years (now its different, as global growth and export opportunities are declining again) (thats why we now have signed Mercosur.))

Now - Europe has been created in a configuration where you really have tied together France and Germany (which have very different economies, and 'competitiveness' levels, so that if germany outcompetes the rest of europe again, france is there to 'remind' them, that they have to be more considerate to their other partners as well. Mainly france. ) politically - that kind of was how the EU was conceptualized (designed).


So - considering, that britain now left and germany might not have as easy of a blocking majority as in the past (33%), they will now have to cooperate with france more often - that is correct.

Now from a position of "Germany first" (which the AFD is selling), this is bad. The speaker is correct on that one.

The speaker also mentions, that 'the only thing the UK wanted was to remain more independent - and not be forced into tighter social integtrration' (paying more for people in the poorer countries) - this is correct as well and can be seen as the actual reason, why the political forces behind the brexit campaign started to write the populist playbook for brexit. 

A few things that arent correct at all: "We now need to quickly write laws that allow "countries that exit the EU to remain better economical friends". No - not at all, no need. (The UK is big enough so that those decisions will get made in that specific case - through negotiations, without needed established 'common' law.) Because there arent many other countries that want to follow the british 'example' (of now being fed by the US), and because as the EU you dont want them to be many. If smaller countries would also leave the EU, they would have to negotiate outcomes individually (just as the UK did), and have worse negotiation positions than the UK has. Which kind of is the point.

Now - why are you demanding "common rules" for exiting countries? Again, because the AFD is part of the fraction, that wants to 'destroy' the EU from within. (National independance movement.)

Did the UK really just "want what it had"? No - a path was set for further integration - and as they saw it THEY came up with the entire movement to leave the EU. LEAVE the EU.

Is further integration necessary? Kind of - because of the way the Euro works - which doesnt allow smaller countries in the south, in the monetary union to compete with germany - so they will go into perpetual crisis - if we dont solve that somehow/better. And further integration kind of always was the project of the EU in the first place.

If we don't fix the issues with our more southern countries, economy wise (which will cost the states in the north more money, hopefully not in perpetuity) - that will also become an existential issue for the EU - which again, the AFD - likes. 

Did Germany or France make so many mistakes in not giving the british, what they would like to have (everything, without paying), not really. The issue here always was - if you give them what they demanded (free movement of money, but not people) - all the rich boys would have moved from the enitre EU to GB, wile running their EU businesses remotely - being pampered by the UK tax wise - and not having to fear public resentment - because all the poor workers wouldnt be allowed in country. (Thats the populist version - you can also make an argument, that kind of draws the same story, but for banking and finance sectors only - so without people.) GB would have loved that - the rest of europe wouldnt have. Then GB would have refused to pay more for the problems of the European south, and celebrated all the way to the year 2100.

Does hard Brexit (no access to UK markets) hurt the UK as well as Germany. Yes. That was allways the point. Its a loose-loose configuration.

But it (no access to EU markets) hurts the UK more. Because its the smaller market, with more dependency on EU ressource and supply chains.


So what the speaker in the video is saying, is kind of correct - but then she is in the exactly same political fraction as Farage and Trump ('Germany first'), she has no political power whatsoever, and as a smaller opposition party leader in germany, her job is to make up excuses, why the current government failed in everything they did. Thats literally her job. (To make the public more angry, to vote for opposition parties.) And she is in a direct coalition with the parties responsible for Brexit, and Trumps america first stance (they exchange campaign managers, and other experts.)

So - if thats your sole source of information - you by now outed yourself as a far right banner carrier - that never thinks beyond the party line.

Again - the UK cant blame germany, or france for the situation they are in currently. They did it to themselves.

"We need to harm GB greatly, so they will come into the union again, defeated - out of necessity" - was a potential political tactic, thats not compatible with endless negotiations. Endless negotiations result in "a middle ground". But its a perfectly arguable political stance - if the UK wants to move towards hard Brexit (=hurt the EU most) it will become the palybook again - no doubts about it.

But again - its the UK that first decided, we want to hurt the EU, by leaving the union. Not the EU. You cant pin that onto EU member states.

With the far right you have to always be careful of populistic "reality reversals", they try to make up fake continuities that, start from a point - where brexit was just something that doesnt have to concern anyone too much - right, right? And then end up being the victims somehow. Its boring. Thats all they ever do.. 

Then they make and finance youtube channels like "Cassius", that takes the time, to subtitle german right wing politicians speaking in the german parliament. Then they share that to their twitter army. shamizie kind of is part of that movement. 

(Sole source of news for him.  Carrying allong the youtube searchwords, people should use, to end up with far right content on the net. What was it last time? Obama threatens the people of the UK, not to do brexit?

If you type in the right search terms into google - more than half of all results will be non mainstream opinions. So the far right do SEO in that field to recruit peoples minds.)


----------



## kevin corms (Aug 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Brexit had 'Russian interference' written all over it from the beginning, which is not surprising since they're one of the few countries that stand to gain from a weakened EU.  From the UK's perspective there's nothing to be gained here, the best they'll be able to claim is, "well, at least the cost of everything didn't go up *too* much."


Just how much MSNBC do you watch? Russian interference usually is them just telling the truth, thats all they have to do. RT.com even usually just prints articles with links to the western media to point out when they get caught in a lie.


----------



## Pipistrele (Aug 1, 2019)

As an actual Russian, ruining everyone's day on this subforum by merely existing is kinda fun to be honest .u.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Just how much MSNBC do you watch? Russian interference usually is them just telling the truth, thats all they have to do. RT.com even usually just prints articles with links to the western media to point out when they get caught in a lie.


RT spins stories as well. RT plays to "contrarian" positions, and leads emotionally, and...

But something they do indeed is, that they dont outright spread lies. They spin. Which makes them harder to deal with. And yes, they only ever show you one viewpoint, and yes - which is always compatible with the russian governments position.

They are against nazis in the ukraine - and against political corruption in brussels, but they never are against political corruption in the ukraine, and nazis in poland, f.e. 

Which kind of is how that works.  So they only ever show you a part of the picture as well, and yes they do it while being 'guided politically'.

It might be fun to look at them for a while, but if you find yourself only doing it, because you get the emotional payoff, that you looked for (and they have very pretty female news ankers..  ). Read some of the other positions as well. They are not impartial.  But they are a great source for interviews with south american dictators, that analyze the US' involvement in potentially ongoing coups for example..  Just know what to expect.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 1, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> As an actual Russian, ruining everyone's day on this subforum by merely existing is kinda fun to be honest .u.


From my viewpoint, it's not Russian citizens, it's the Russian government that's fucking with everyone. But then again, that's been the world's governments' job for centuries.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 1, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> As an actual Russian, ruining everyone's day on this subforum by merely existing is kinda fun to be honest .u.



From my viewpoint, It's not the Russian citizens or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails. Instead of facing upto this, they resort to usually one of two things. 1) Russia, 2) Racism.


----------



## kevin corms (Aug 1, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> From my viewpoint, it's not Russian citizens, it's the Russian government that's fucking with everyone. But then again, that's been the world's governments' job for centuries.


From my viewpoint the DNC are the new Nazis and Russians are their Jews. The DNC also uses Marxist like tactics and tons of useful idiots who dont even realize they are going against their best interests. And yes I know the GOP is corrupt as well, but I dont feel the need to uncover what they do since its right in our face.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 1, 2019)

shamzie said:


> or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails



Oof


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Just how much MSNBC do you watch? Russian interference usually is them just telling the truth, thats all they have to do. RT.com even usually just prints articles with links to the western media to point out when they get caught in a lie.


I get my news online, I don't watch cable news at all.  And RT is literally state-sponsored media, but I suppose Republicans are comfortable with that sort of extreme spin coming from Fox.  The two might as well be partnered.



kevin corms said:


> The DNC also uses Marxist like tactics and tons of useful idiots who dont even realize they are going against their best interests. And yes I know the GOP is corrupt as well, but I dont feel the need to uncover what they do since its right in our face.


You're right, McConnell's connections to Russian oligarchs have been in our faces the whole time as he continues to block the vote on one election security bill after another.  So if you're such a "free thinker," why are you repeating his talking points for him?


----------



## Pipistrele (Aug 2, 2019)

shamzie said:


> From my viewpoint, It's not the Russian citizens or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails. Instead of facing upto this, they resort to usually one of two things. 1) Russia, 2) Racism.


To be fair, the left so far was pretty civil when it came to international political discussions - there are some obvious disagreements, but at least it rarely didn't feel like an actual discussion. It's the right wing where I get the biggest amount of personal insults and xenophobic remarks in my adress.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 2, 2019)

shamzie said:


> From my viewpoint, It's not the Russian citizens or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails. Instead of facing upto this, they resort to usually one of two things. 1) Russia, 2) Racism.


...I take it that's why you're debating on gbatemp, where that stuff rarely happens? 

Yes, about the last two pages just about everyone has jumped on a "it's (not) Russia"-bandwagon. Most of the 33 pages before that barely mentions either of the things you mention.


I'm not really sure how to imagine political left being racist, btw. Is that people complaining that potential immigrants might pollute or destroy the natural habitat of the squirrels? 



EDIT: meanwhile, in the UK: an intermediary election (midterms?  ) lowered Johnson's majority in the district Brecon&Radnorshire. Result: he has a majority...of 1 (320 vs 319). Not really the news you want to hear when you just get elected.


But (somewhat?) in his favor: apparently he's surrounding himself with capable ministers who all follow the hard brexit line. Of course, as a bremainder, this isn't the best news for me (and it's probably no coincidence that this caused this election result), but at least it's clear. Per comparison: the moment Trump got into power, he threw out his entire prepared transition team to start over with people who in some cases had barely heard of the departments they were set to be running. So at the very least, Johnson isn't joking around when he's preparing to accept a no deal brexit.
Whether the rest of the country will accept it is, of course, an entirely different matter.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 2, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I'm not really sure how to imagine political left being racist, btw. Is that people complaining that potential immigrants might pollute or destroy the natural habitat of the squirrels?



You completely missed my point, I didn't say the left was racist, I said they either blame everything on Russia or racism. And I stand by that, the left is completely incapable of winning a debate without putting everything down to racism. The democratic debate the othernight proved that. Did any of the candidates go 2 minutes without saying racism?

Also It's pretty damn easy for the left to be racist.










Imagine thinking It's okay and not racist to assume black people must vote democrat. Imagine saying ALL white people are racist. This is the pollution of the left, your bs racism makes it okay for you to say things like this. "It's okay when we do it"


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 2, 2019)

This Russia stuff is boring. How about we discuss the recent by election wherein the Conservatives lost and now have a lead of 1 in parliament overall (the speaker and deputies thereof don't vote save for tie breaking and even then).

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...con-and-Radnorshire-by-election-boris-johnson

Somewhat amusing to some might be that the Monster Raving Loony Party (a joke party dating back to 1983) scored higher than UKIP (though the brexit party there got 10% and if they are to be considered UKIP's sucessor party after a fashion then eh). Speaking of brexit party then despite this byelection being called as a result of the MP in question being forced to step down they fielded the same guy and still managed 38% so do we contemplate spoiler effects here (the lib dems, who won, only got 43%)?

Turnout was a pretty high 59.7 percent which is pretty high as these things go.


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2019)

Going the unconventional, not at all socially accepted route on this one.

That person.





Might not be very bright. Judging form her writing, not her photo. So why are we discussing her œuvre here in this thread? 

You can also judge her from the photo, I dont mind. Thats what humans do.. 

edit: Exhibit two, your honor:





Hey, its the same blouse! 

Somebody was wrong on the internet syndrome? Again? 

edit: Glasses do help a little:





Uh, and this one got boka!


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2019)

I'm sorry - I showed prejudice.

Let her speak for herself. There she is with a talkingpoint that shamzie might enjoy:



(Talkinpoint: Democratic establishment have done nothing over the past decades, that wouldnt have caused wide spread disillusionment.  )

Out of interest, shamzie, what does an image like this one do to you:






She was featured in Huffpost once, with this image, and a provocative statement.

Now you tell me that the same person might use provocation on twitter to gain mass attention? 

Wow, the far right is even more naive than I thought... Now you are propagating her message? To then attack her?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 4, 2019)

shamzie said:


> You completely missed my point, I didn't say the left was racist, I said they either blame everything on Russia or racism.


Okay. Fair enough. I can see that's what you meant to say.  I accept your correction on your earlier post. 

It doesn't mean I agree with it, of course. But ey... At least we're on the same page. So then... Since neither of us want to discuss these points, shall we get back on the topic about Johnson losing all but the narrowest majority possible? Or potential advantages of an actual brexit?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 4, 2019)

As well as margins there are some interesting things that could happen with the timings of things, and still the possibility of some real fun things as far as the UK's constitution.


Advantages sounds like an interesting topic to get back to, though will be tied to what deal is made (or not made). As the EU seems to be going for basically in but now an observer status or something more akin to that, especially if trade is involved, we can probably skip that as we already know how that works.

Striking out cold into the world without a deal at all and the EU (which represent the geographically nearest locations surrounding it, give or take a few tiny islands and non Eu members of Europe, most of which are absolutely tiny or effectively in the EU but for some quirks) being if not hostile then an unknown entity for a few years before new trade relations are generated and solidified (probably not the most favourable ones at that) could make for interesting times.

But the US, Canada and Australia...

If Canada is harmonising with the EU over many things that would still mean playing to EU standards if Canada is supposed to play, which is something of a bugbear for some though nothing I particularly find troubling -- I would like to be able to deafen myself with my electronics if I so choose but can see why it is not done (even if that might be more of a France thing and people just make a model for the EU).

Australia is pretty far away and does not play that much outside it and its nearby places in Asia. Does import some stuff though. New Zealand is a bit better in some regards but somewhat lacks population (as in less than 5 million, London alone is more than 8), and is also further still.

US. I don't know how many scraps the UK would have to beg from the US' table to make up for whatever is lost or lessened. I would also object to having to adopt more US style practices and standards for a lot of things -- I definitely do not want their IP laws coming over here and looking around the place the US definitely loves to try exporting those where it can. That said is trade that hard now and what might happen if a non trade el presidente gets in at some point soon (or soon as far as policy goes)? Does the US make that much that is worth importing and does the UK export that much that they would care about, including the export of paper pushers (the US seems to have its own finance thing going on pretty well and a big chunk of the UK's stuff for quite a few years has been English speaking gateway to Europe).

China? Does the UK really want this? What can be done that could not realistically be already done? Chinese companies already send loads of stuff, buy up infrastructure, send their kids to school, take back trained people, and handle more things. Also is China good for the long term? The wheels might not yet have come off but they are looking somewhat shaky if you look at the ghost cities stuff and reasons for that, and rising costs of doing business there (amusingly we have seen China export their low skilled labour from China as China is too expensive).

India? More of a possibility, and a better long term bet than China is looking right now.

Outside the traditional commonwealth* and "Asian tigers"?
Mid east and North Africa? How tantalising.
sub Saharan Africa? The space economy there is probably not going to kick off for a while (come back and have a chat in about 2070). Could be interesting to get in on the ground floor of some of the east African stuff though as their greater unity thing looks like it might be going places.
South Africa... ignoring the brics thing then what are the long term prospects for it right now?
Brazil? More possibilities here.
Russia? Other than gas which the hippies tell me we are supposed to be getting away from then do they export much of note and import much either? What are their long term prospects (their population/population age is going to be a fun one in a few years)?
Japan? They do have nice right hand drive cars, a lot of debt and some tech still hanging around.
As China gets a bit expensive and rather inward looking does that mean the UK can catch the wave of non China, non India countries starting to dabble in tech, finance and and pharma in a big way?

*one of the main things the leave campaign was sure of, and one of the things the joining the EU lark said to have snubbed years earlier. Not entirely sure it was as great a raising of the finger as some said but prepared to hear the case of how it was.

Would some combo of the lot offset things? I could just about see it in the short-mid term. Not sure it is particularly worth the effort, and quite a lot of instability there as time goes on.

This Irish border lark is also going to be fun. For those unfamiliar then the UK has Northern Ireland as part of it. It is thus the only major part of the UK (Gibralta is small and otherwise sorted) that shares a land border with another nation (the Republic of Ireland). A hard border there would, for complicated historical reasons, be completely untenable (as in more than decent chance of violence if it went into effect), one tends not to slice off portions of your own country from the rest of it (there is still a short water crossing between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK) and while technological options are a possibility they are probably years out, not something you could deploy in a few months (not to mention come with their own quirks). An unenforced border is not a great plan and a selectively enforced border... remember that violence thing from the previous sentence?

Some mention immigration controls (which the UK does have some of already) but OK. What benefits and troubles might be had or created here? A lot of things rely on cheap labour, and quite a few people pop over to Europe for things, if not spend much time there already.


----------



## notimp (Aug 9, 2019)

The official 'british version of the story' documentary is out:

Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E01
and
Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E02

You can thank me later.  (Thats a strong recommendation that you all should watch it.)
It gives more credence to shamzies position.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 20, 2019)

In a strange way, the summer recess has almost more news items than during a similar period 2 or more years ago. Yet at the same time, there is a standstill.


Over the last weeks, I've read numerous reports that Johnson complains that the EU ministers don't want to negotiate a better deal. That's obviously true: there has been negotiations for the better part of two years (with Johnson as foreign minister, no less). If for no other reasons that fatigue, their stance is at least understandable. Why should the positions change when the prime minister changes?

Problem is also that there's hardly ever any talks about content. It would seem fair that if you want to strike a better deal for the UK, you should offer something for the EU that May wouldn't want. Instead, there's all this "no, we won't pay the agreed transfer sum!", suggestions that free travel for EU residents in the UK immediately ends with the deadline and dismissal of the Irish backstop. We get it: you want to leave the EU. We get it, Boris: you want to 'prorogue' the parliament if they dare to vote against a 'no deal'(1). We get it: you're more prepared for that one-in-a-million-chance of a no deal scenario than ever(2). We get it: you're very skilled at dancing around the issue of the Irish backstop. But come on...it's not realistic to expect the EU ministers to budge even an inch when all you do is (at least publicly) propose something that's strictly worse than what May negotiated.

Actually...let's talk about that Irish backstop some more. It was perhaps an issue before. I've currently revised that opinion, because issues can be resolved. Unless I'm missing something, it's an impossibility. Lemme explain...

Brexiteers are against the Irish backstop because it would, in effect, tether them to some EU regulations that would prevent them to strike trade negotiations with other countries. Okay...fair enough. Thus far, I've(3) pointed out that the reason the backstop is there is because it'd keep the peace in that borderline region. It's that "good friday" agreement thingy that people on both sides of that borders happy. This is the EU's (and my) stance, and brexiteers turn that into a mere opinion that can be dismissed. That isn't very fun (I wouldn't consider the possibility of armed conflicts "merely a disagreeing opinion"), but I can't deny that this is, indeed, my opinion.

In favor of the brexit camp is, you guessed it, the USA. Trump has been promising a great trade deal(4), and John Bolton said he'd get this deal through congress as quickly as possible. Sounds great, right?
Unfortunately...Bolton simply isn't in a position to make such claims, because congress isn't part of his department. And Pelosi recently came out and said that congress simply would refuse any trade deal that endangers the aforementioned good friday agreement.

This is a situation that's referred to as a deadlock. Or a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation:
By agreeing to the backstop, there can be no real trade deals with other countries (damnit!)
By removing the backstop, the largest economy (the US) won't ever pass a trade deal with the UK (damnit again!)


Of course this is a pretty simplified explanation. I'm sure there's wiggle room between these two broad options. Maybe there's a way to somehow keep the trade deals with a backstop? Maybe Canada doesn't give a damn about good fridays? Maybe there's a way to get rid of the backstop in a way that somehow doesn't threaten the good friday agreement? Maybe that something is even somehow something DIFFERENT than what May already proposed three f***ing times? 

In any case: this is a pickle. One that need to be looked into, checked, considered and regarded as something that could make or break the whole project(5). but it somehow is not. I'm not saying that things like stocking up on foods and supplies (and...even making the first of november a bank holiday?  ) aren't necessary steps(6), but it's like taking steps without properly making sure you're heading in a right direction.



(1): of course: wanting something won't mean it'll happen. Bercow's pretty straightforward on this: it simply won't happen.
(2): leaked documents from your government disagree on this, of course. But these are anonymous sources from within the government...what do they know?
(3): okay, okay: when I say "I", I of course mean EU officials. i'm saying "I" because they're not active on gbatemp
(4): again: no concrete propositions. But even under Obama or any other president, it'd be a safe assumption that this would mean "first and foremost for the US". After all: a modern country like the UK depends heavily on imports and exports. Cutting off ties with the EU means a need for another import FAST.
(5): yes, I'm dismissing the fact that nearly half of the UK residents don't want any sort of brexit in the first place (or even more...it's three years since that bloody referendum). 
(6): they are. At the very least, everyone at least agrees that there will be delays as customs have to spend much more time checking everything that goes in and out of the island


----------



## Pipistrele (Aug 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Going the unconventional, not at all socially accepted route on this one.
> 
> That person.
> 
> ...


She looks kinda wholesome, imo. Dunno why you're so overfocused on the photos


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

Disruptive strategy.  If someone picks out a maybe not so well argued text from twitter, saying 'this is whats wrong with the world' I focus on the potential that the text maybe is not that well thought through.

Photos where the easiest way to do so. (But initially it was the text and the circumstance, that her claim to fame was getting into HuffPo - also with a rather provocative statement made on social media.)

Some people use social media as a tool to advance personal careers. Some of them might matter less, than they try to make you think on social media. Kind of that logic.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 20, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> (4): again: no concrete propositions. But even under Obama or any other president, it'd be a safe assumption that this would mean "first and foremost for the US". After all: a modern country like the UK depends heavily on imports and exports. Cutting off ties with the EU means a need for another import FAST.


It's not like there will be no more import/export between the UK and EU countries. You can bet German car makers still want to sell to British consumers etc.
The EU politicians think highly of themselves, however, in a way they are just like Trump: mixing politics and economics. The political divide in Europe during the Cold War was as harsh as it could be but both spheres were kept separate. The USSR needed the money and the European countries needed their natural gas.
Abusing economics for political gains only hurts everyone in the long run because it impedes on long-term planning (and therefore the world economy).


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

Abusing politics for economic gains - is basically the entire game. Like - everywhere.  Its like they are different sides of the same coin. 

Also if you speak about "long term political planning" how long term do you mean? 100 years? 200?

Because the planning horizon of a big established company is 50-100 years (one, maybe two successful generational and orientation shifts), if thats too short term for you - boy, I'm interested in your political views...


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 20, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It's not like there will be no more import/export between the UK and EU countries. You can bet German car makers still want to sell to British consumers etc.
> The EU politicians think highly of themselves, however, in a way they are just like Trump: mixing politics and economics. The political divide in Europe during the Cold War was as harsh as it could be but both spheres were kept separate. The USSR needed the money and the European countries needed their natural gas.
> Abusing economics for political gains only hurts everyone in the long run because it impedes on long-term planning (and therefore the world economy).


True. But I capitalized the word 'fast' for a different reason. Cars are a luxury good. Sure, it might hurt a bit if your ordered German car takes a few days to make it through customs, but in the end you still have the same car. Food that isn't kept in proper environments during custom checks simply goes bad. So either the UK adjusts to this situation beforehand or risk trade deals going (literally) sour.

Also think of the impact of import taxes. German car makes might want to keep selling their cars after a (hard) brexit, but when their goods are taxed, it means that the prices goes up for the consumer as well. So they'll probably at least lower their production for cars with the steering wheel on the right side.

And...isn't the whole job of a politician to have a (hopefully positive) impact on his country's economy? I mean...brexit gets sold on sovereignty, sure...but that sovereignty is also explained as "to be able to make better treaties with others", right? 

EDIT: heh...ninja'ed by @notimp. I guess you could call it "abusing" the economy, but I really don't see a way how it is an illegitimate use (yes, even when someone like Trump does it).


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

Yes, the issue is, that with hard brexit, political protection of trade is gone (WTO rules arent very 'functional' at the moment). So tariffs on cars, f.e. look like a very juicy leaver, every time the UK has a point to make towards the rest of europe. Also the other way around - although I'm actually not quite sure what britain is producing at the moment, other than financial derivatives and tourism.

But now back to your (second to last poster  ) argument that democracy is bad - and long term political planning is good. 

Democracy = Basically a process to ask individual people - who more often than not are driven by their own economic states ('health of the business sphere'), more so than anything else. Its basically a constant question of "are you comfortable with the current economic state" as filtered through populations.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 20, 2019)

Which is it? Can't have it both ways! Are we stockpiling or aren't we? How can we be stockpiling because of brexit while simultaneously not be spending because of brexit. Such constant negative bullshit all the time.

The backstop isn't an issue. Both parties have said they won't enforce a hard border, It's simply a non issue that's been weaponised by the EU.

I'm just gonna dismiss everything else said in here recently.

Were doomed without our EU overlords, no water no food no stamps no medicine, god knows how we survived before tusk told us what to do. The more you argue about how bad it'll be the more we want to leave.

To be fair, I'm worried about the risk of shortages, I've started stockpiling fucks.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old be arguments. "ONE MILLION JOB LOSSES SIMPLY ON A VOTE TO LEAVE!!" "RECESSION!!" "IF YOU DONT JOIN THE EURO YOU'RE DOOOOOOMED"

I've heard it all before, were bored of it.


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The backstop isn't an issue. Both parties have said they won't enforce a hard border, It's simply a non issue that's been weaponised by the EU.


The backstop is not an issue of 'whats been said' but 'whats been written'.

Lets say: Hard Brexit.

EU is forced to separate on their terms, creating a hard border in ireland, while being coined "the bad guy" in public in Ireland for doing so. Ireland would also be significantly economically impaired (see routes), so people in irland would be mad at the EU.

With backstop: UK is violating international law.
Without backstop: Less clear responsibilities.


So what actually saying "we want the backstop clause out" is - is playing a game of 'chicken', which would significantly increase both the outcome benefits and the likelyhood of a hard brexit for the UK.

So it is like taking the EU safety clause for a hard brexit (making it extremely unlikely that the UK will trigger one) out of the preliminary agreement.


Its literally the following. In final negotiations. One party holds kind of the golden ticket for 'whom the public in ireland will blame (the other side)', if the negotiations fail - and there is going to be a hard border.

The party thats holding the ticket (currently the EU) is in a slightly better negotiation position for a soft brexit (because they can always say - you dont want the hard brexit, do you?).

And this "ticket" doesnt go away, if the EU drops it. It just changes over to the other side.

So its actually a real political issue.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> The backstop is not an issue of 'whats been said' but 'whats been written'.
> 
> Lets say: Hard Brexit.
> 
> ...



I understand the point you're making, it could and would be an issue but for the fact both parties have said numerous times they wont, under any circumstances enforce a hard border. If nobody is willing to enforce the harder border, It's a non issue.


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

Yes. But said, and international law - are two different things. 

And even if. It can be used as a "pressure point" in negotiations, so it will be used as a pressure point in negotiations.

And you have to let one side "have it (the golden ticket)" for there to be the potential of a truly open outcome.

(As in negotiations also have to be allowed to fail.)

Dont ask me how to solve this one, I'm not paid enough to do..


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

shamzie said:


> I understand the point you're making, it could and would be an issue but for the fact both parties have said numerous times they wont, under any circumstances enforce a hard border. If nobody is willing to enforce the harder border, It's a non issue.



Yeah, the back stop is an agreement that guarantees negotiation in good faith.

Contrary to popular belief there is no benefit to the EU of trapping the UK against it's will.

The ONLY reason someone would be against the backstop is IF they ALREADY had decided to negotiate in bad faith.

The fact they want the EU to swap the backstop for an identical, but not legally enforceable, plan is absolute proof of that.

It would be like going to work for someone and when you ask to sign the contract your employer says, "well actually I don't want to sign anything. I want you to work here and I intend to pay you at the end of the month but I don't want anything legally enforceable. I'm totally trustworthy though, so my asking you this shouldn't be a sign at all that I won't pay you." Nobody, including the EU, is dumb enough to fall for that.

The UK has a long history of being bullies, the EU is just making sure they aren't susceptible to that.

What is laughable is that the far right politicians hoodwinked voters by saying it would be the easiest negotiation in history & that shows either a fundamental lack of judgement on their part, they are just terrible at their job or they cannot be trusted to tell the truth in any circumstance. We are worse off for them even existing.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 20, 2019)

smf said:


> What is laughable is that the far right politicians hoodwinked voters by saying it would be the easiest negotiation in history & that shows either a fundamental lack of judgement on their part, they are just terrible at their job or they cannot be trusted to tell the truth in any circumstance. We are worse off for them even existing.



If you ever leave your london bubble I might attempt to reply to you but when you finish with the same old liberal crap about it being all racist right wingers, you kinda bored me and this is the sum extent of my reply to you.




notimp said:


> Yes. But said, and international law - are two different things.
> 
> And even if. It can be used as a "pressure point" in negotiations, so it will be used as a pressure point in negotiations.
> 
> ...



I decided to do a little more research on this, It might appear the EU's position has changed, I can no longer find the source that said the EU won't impose a hard border either. I can easily find the UK's position. Weve committed to no hard border.

How can it be an insurance policy when it is actively preventing us from negotiating a mutually beneficially trade deal. The backstop is categorically not happening. We can either agree a beneficial trade agreement or we can leave without a deal - either way, no backstop. The UK won't be installing a physical border in the island of Ireland, if the EU want to protect their internal market (which is what they really care about, lets not for one minute pretend like they care about peace in Ireland, it's 100% to protect the SM) then they need to inform the Irish they plan on ripping up the Good Friday Agreement, It'll be the EU's fault. Not the U.K's.

The EU refused to discuss future framework without being given £39billion of UK money, now they're refusing to rule out a hard border after the U.K has. Again - It's the EU weaponising the backstop.


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

shamzie said:


> If you ever leave your london bubble I might attempt to reply to you but when you finish with the same old liberal crap about it being all racist right wingers, you kinda bored me and this is the sum extent of my reply to you.



I hate to break it to you, I am not living in a london bubble. However I do live in a leave area and I can guarantee you it's full of racist right wingers, who like you lake the ability to understand what being racist means.



shamzie said:


> How can it be an insurance policy when it is actively preventing us from negotiating a mutually beneficially trade deal.



If you intend on negotiating a mutually beneficial trade deal then the backstop wouldn't be an issue for you. If what you mean is beneficial to the UK and you think so little of foreigners that you assume you know what is good for them and what they should see as important, then you need to take a long hard look at yourself. It's really patronising.

They've told you enough times what is important to them, when are you going to stop forcing your idea of what a mutually beneficial deal would look like on them.


----------



## Doran754 (Aug 20, 2019)

smf said:


> I hate to break it to you, I am not living in a london bubble. However I do live in a leave area and I can guarantee you it's full of racist right wingers, who like you lake the ability to understand what being racist means.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congratulations, took you all of two replies to call me a full on racist. You literally know nothing about me, but I can already tell alot about you, keep proclaiming everybody who disagrees with you is racist. That'll definitely bring people around to your way of thinking. Deluded scum.


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

shamzie said:


> You literally know nothing about me,



If you don't want people to get that impression then don't look at foreigners with distrust and claim you know whats best for them, because those are really accurate tells.

I've discussed brexit with many leavers and not all of them give off the idea they are racist, some of them just want to remove employement laws that protect uk citizens and the environment. I actually respect that view point more than yours.

It's hilarious that you started off with insults about me spouting liberal crap because I live in the london bubble, but you then get upset if someone calls you out on your prejudice.



shamzie said:


> That'll definitely bring people around to your way of thinking.



What gave you the impression that I think you have the capacity to do that? I certainly don't think it's possible to deprogram prejudice on a message board.


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

smf said:


> I've discussed brexit with many leavers and not all of them give off the idea they are racist, some of them just want to remove employement laws that protect uk citizens and the environment.


Strike the environment (UvdL has just promised pro climate legislation in amounts member states are scratching their heads on, how to get set in place - just numbers wise (never mind financing), so you didn't leave the EU 'for the environment'). Strike the employment laws, because britain traditionally was a very free (as in little state interference) free market economy (they basically invented neoliberalism).

Strike every leaver is racist (no, its just that racist tropes were used in not insignificant amounts, to get the public to vote that way).

And there you have it.. Imho.


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Strike every leaver is racist (no, its just that racist tropes were used in not insignificant amounts, to get the public to vote that way).



I didn't say every leaver was racist, I didn't even call him racist. But he's obviously sensitive enough to misread my post in that way.


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

I know. I just meant - strike the notion. Its not something we have to argue about, because it was obviously not the case.


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> I know. I just meant - strike the notion. Its not something we have to argue about, because it was obviously not the case.



Right, it was the racists that drove brexit and farage especially used some really racist imagery and misinformation.

Those who followed him allowed themselves to be seduced by racist ideology, even if they don't consider themselves racist. But then sleepwalking into racism is just as bad really.


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

And there were those who saw that the EU impeded on national power structures, and didn't like it from that perspective.

But the bulk probably was motivated by "more popular" arguments. 

(Again if you have the chance, watch the Michael Portillo production on it (named episode titles on the previous page).)


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> And there were those who saw that the EU impeded in national power structures, and didn't like it from that perspective.



There are pros and cons of course to EU membership. Failing to see the pros is also prejudice.

If you thought, well we can get all the benefits of EU membership and get those foreigners out of our hair then that is prejudice.

Even now a lot of leave voters aren't willing to accept that things will get bad and it's not the EU's fault, which is also prejudice.

What is annoying is that we could have had an honest debate about it, but everytime we bought it up it was labelled project fear.


----------



## notimp (Aug 20, 2019)

smf said:


> There are pros and cons of course to EU membership. Failing to see the pros is also prejudice.


Its also is a position, but yes. Its in the Michael Portillo documentary as well.  ('If you (directed at an interview partner) would have taken that stance as a spanish or greece MP - you would be classified "highly euro sceptic"'.)

The UK has more national 'ethos' and stories around being 'exceptional' coming from their common wealth backgound (and before), and they are one of the few countries in Europe that could arguably go the "independent" (being payed off by the US..  ) route.

For other countries in Europe 'giving up - some national power', doesnt sound nearly as bad - considering the benefits.

edit: Also, I found out (edit: recently) when watching the two episodes of the documentary series, that Michael Portillo voted for Brexit. I like him, and I'm pretty sure he is not a racist. 

So thats really all it took for me to consider that a viable position.


----------



## smf (Aug 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Michael Portillo voted for Brexit. I like him, and I'm pretty sure he is not a racist.



He's a rich right winger who will either benefit from brexit or can afford the consequences.

I would need to listen more to how he talks about the EU to determine whether he was prejudiced or not & of course he may just be better at hiding it. To be as successful as he was as a politician requires you to hide your true feelings. The express loves him & they are in a competition with the daily mail for most prejudiced paper in the UK.

After a bit of googling, I'm not sure he's particularly sensitive to the situation in ireland.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/o...-ireland-referendum-on-the-backstop-1-8966016
https://www.dailyedge.ie/bbc-pundit-ireland-disruptive-3738869-Dec2017/

Someone who wasn't prejudiced probably wouldn't have thought or said those things. He has a great voice though, a lot of people are swayed by that.

Prejudice is a common problem on the right https://www.independent.ie/life/what-a-bloody-awful-country-the-tory-story-of-ireland-36609376.html

I'm not accusing anyone of dressing up in white gowns and going out burning crosses on peoples lawns, just prejudiced in their thinking.

I've still yet to hear an argument for leaving the EU that isn't based on prejudice either against foreigners or against people from certain social groups in the UK. I'm an eternal optimist, but it's taken 3 years. People get upset when you point out their prejudice, like it's my fault.​


----------



## notimp (Aug 21, 2019)

smf said:


> He's a rich right winger who will either benefit from brexit or can afford the consequences.


If you watch the documentary (which you really should..  (interviews with all the major right wing politicians and party heads, and party strategists in the May era, on the concept of brexit)) - you'd find out that he was head researcher for Thatcher who in the later part of her political life held famous speeches against the further integration concept of the then starting to form EU.

Watch the two episodes, if you can. 
Its another perspective.

Here, I list them again:

Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E01
and
Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E02


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Also think of the impact of import taxes. German car makes might want to keep selling their cars after a (hard) brexit, but when their goods are taxed, it means that the prices goes up for the consumer as well. So they'll probably at least lower their production for cars with the steering wheel on the right side.


Indeed. Therefore the Germans (and others) will hurt themselves by not heaving an agreement with the UK. The UK trade deficit is roughly £20 billion. So the EU is doing to itself what the USA are doing to China.
And why are the majority of EU countries willing to do it? It's basically ideology and a higher loyalty to the EU instead of their individual country. They can't allow the UK to do well (so that nobody else dares to leave in the future) and are willing to take a hit in the process.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 21, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The backstop isn't an issue. Both parties have said they won't enforce a hard border, It's simply a non issue that's been weaponised by the EU.


Partially true. The EU has to protect their internal market. I mean...there's not much use having regulations on all sorts of goods in the EU if there's a 499 kilometer long open door through which basically anyone can just pass with unregulated goods. I'd say "neither side wants that scenario to happen"...but then I'm talking about the EU and May's government. I'm not saying that Johnson disagrees, but due to his lack of any clarity on this point, I'd honestly say that HE attempts to use this as a trump in negotiations (reasoning: "we don't give a damn about regulation, so enforcing your market is effectively YOUR problem. Oh, and...our Northern Ireland outskirt doesn't really fancy physical borders, so you can't really enforce anything, can you? ").


PS: a hint: if you don't want to discuss the crazy liberal/leftist/democrat/whatever ideas...don't fuel their fire. Saying what you won't discuss is triggering them into a response. 



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Indeed. Therefore the Germans (and others) will hurt themselves by not heaving an agreement with the UK. The UK trade deficit is roughly £20 billion. So the EU is doing to itself what the USA are doing to China.
> And why are the majority of EU countries willing to do it? It's basically ideology and a higher loyalty to the EU instead of their individual country. They can't allow the UK to do well (so that nobody else dares to leave in the future) and are willing to take a hit in the process.


It's not the first time I've heard that "the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving", but nobody could ever explain why. I don't personally believe that the UK can do better on their own, but IMHO they're very welcome to try. Having a wealthy neighbor is always better than having a poor one.
_"but that'll lead to others leaving the EU as well"_
Yeah...so? The point of a union is that it provides more than the individual sum of parts can achieve. If the individual parts (the UK, in this instance) really does better alone, then it BETTER lead to others either leaving the EU or at least advocating a strong overhaul of the EU's role. Again: I don't believe this. But it's not like I'm an expert on the field.

Also: you make it sound like the EU members don't want agreements with the UK. That's pretty strange, as the EU is barely more than agreements between members. And even when half the country decided that going solo would be better, there's been two years of negotiation. I get that Johnson didn't exactly inherit the best cards he could for his position, but at this point it's absolutely reasonable to say that the UK government simply _doesn't want_ any sort of trade deal. Sorry if that sounds controversial, but it's not the EU that shot down May's deal three times. It's not the EU that had a majority of leave voters. It's not the EU that filled the UK government with hardline brexiteers willing to go with a no deal.

or let's say for sake of the argument that the EU agrees to whatever it is that Boris actually wants (aside 'no backstop', that is). Who's to say that whatever he comes back to the UK with won't be equally refused by parliament? Result: more delays, more kerfuffle, perhaps even yet another prime minister pretending he or she will save the day...and come YET AGAIN knocking on the EU's door with "we want more" ?


----------



## notimp (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> And why are the majority of EU countries willing to do it? It's basically ideology and a higher loyalty to the EU instead of their individual country.


Why arent individual countries giving away the right to have EU level free market access to a non EU state? (Because it could flood our markets, destroy our economies, ... Which the british already have publicly stated as their reaon for leaving (we want to outcompete france in agriculture, germany in cars, both of them in financial services, we want to outcompete italy in cheap shoes, and...) When EU law states, that they cant negotiate individual trade agreements, it has to go through the EU - which is the point of the EU (single market)? While they are actually currently negotiating to have some form of that anyhow? (Soft brexit, soft borders, no border control.)

While the UK has just changed government - same party though - to scare us with hard brexit a little more (you've got the roles reversed...).

What?

Here is another perspective, should we just lay down and let us be fucked 3 times over?

Why is the US doing it to china? Because who gets "world reserve currency" or "who can decide what oil is paid in" matters? As in "free money printing - everyone has to take the inflation, not just your country" matters?

But why cant china just overtake the US economically without them - just like, letting it happen?

Boy...


Here is as far as your argument can go. "The EU shouldnt have moved forward on the 'tighter integration' part, because that was politically motivated". Well. Great. Do you realize, that we have kind of 'biggly' economical issues in the south? That itally always is on the brink of being insolvent? And that the issue is the Euro? (Common currency.) Do you realize, that if we just drop the Euro, or make 'the North-Euro' it would either hurt our economic status - or lead to political instability, because the south would hate us?

If you design unification projects - you kind of design them in a way that cant have anyone just say - ok, now I'm bored - I want to go. Like the UK just did.

Most likely cause - btw? US payed them off, to hurt the EU economy. Although the jury isn't in if that was before, or after the brexit vote.

(Come to think if it, i did make a thread that stated, that tradewars are good for nothing (loose/loose) - but I was never _that_ naive..)


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Indeed. Therefore the Germans (and others) will hurt themselves by not heaving an agreement with the UK. The UK trade deficit is roughly £20 billion. So the EU is doing to itself what the USA are doing to China.
> And why are the majority of EU countries willing to do it? It's basically ideology and a higher loyalty to the EU instead of their individual country. They can't allow the UK to do well (so that nobody else dares to leave in the future) and are willing to take a hit in the process.



As I mentioned in another thread, the EU has done this for a very long time. Import taxes on bicycles from china are almost 50%.
There's no indication that I'm aware of that any tariffs with the UK would be close to this, these tariffs are mainly employed to protect the local manual labor and low skill labor jobs.

As a matter of fact the EU does have incentive to negotiate a reasonable trade deal with the UK as Airbus has a lot of manufacturing in the UK and Rolls Royce, who supply the jet engines to Airbus, are very important to the EU economy and military. That is at least until they move out of the UK, AFAIK Rolls Royce has already moved parts of its R&D to Germany in anticipation of brexit and is considering moving more of its business here. PSA (owners of Renault, Peugeot and Opel/Vauxhall) are considering moving their manufacturing out of the UK as well.


----------



## smf (Aug 21, 2019)

notimp said:


> you'd find out that he was head researcher for Thatcher who in the later part of her political life held famous speeches against the further integration concept of the then starting to form EU.



How does that relate to your point? Two rich white people who have a poor track record of their dealing with foreigners were in government in the 80's.



notimp said:


> While the UK has just changed government - same party though - to scare us with hard brexit a little more (you've got the roles reversed...).



Are you saying that you think Boris was put in power to scare us against brexit? Project Fear was never Project Fear, all the fear was coming from the leave campaign.

I think you'd be shocked at how leave voters would have reacted if they were living in 1920's germany when that "nice man hitler" was going to sort out the country.



supersonicwaffle said:


> As a matter of fact the EU does have incentive to negotiate a reasonable trade deal with the UK as Airbus has a lot of manufacturing in the UK and Rolls Royce, who supply the jet engines to Airbus, are very important to the EU economy and military. That is at least until they move out of the UK,



Right, for anything movable there is no real incentive to keep it within the UK after brexit. A lot of jobs only came to the UK in the first place because we were in the EU.

I'm reminded of the Star Wars quote "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers". The more the UK tries to take back control, the more control we will lose.


----------



## notimp (Aug 21, 2019)

Just an interesting tidbit.  (Where Michael Portillos motivation comes from.)


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 21, 2019)

If the EU does NOT treat the UK the way it does due to ideological reasons or to prevent other member states from leaving, then why can't the UK go back to how things once were, i.e. low or no tariffs but no political unity?

The US withdrew from TPP but imagine if it hadn't and years from now the US would demand free movement of people between member states, e.g. between Japan, Peru and Vietnam. None of these countries would except this level of limitation on their sovereignty. But if they don't listen, they have to be economically punished. Sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it?

Now I'm aware the people in the UK kept voting for parties who engaged in an ever tighter political union. So in the end, it's their own fault. But let's be honest, people are gonna be sheeple. Very easy to manipulate... There are many yellow vest idiots who actually voted for Macron and keep complaining now.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If the EU does NOT treat the UK the way it does due to ideological reasons or to prevent other member states from leaving, then why can't the UK go back to how things once were, i.e. low or no tariffs but no political unity?



First of all, where are you getting from that the tariffs would be unreasonably high? Going back to how things were before 1972 is exactly what they're doing. Demanding import taxes from foreign markets is not an ideological position it's literally what every country is doing.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The US withdrew from TPP but imagine if it hadn't and years from now the US would demand free movement of people between member states, e.g. between Japan, Peru and Vietnam. None of these countries would except this level of limitation on their sovereignty. But if they don't listen, they have to be economically punished. Sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it?



Are you drunk? The UK is withdrawing their membership of the EU, not getting the benefits of being a member anymore isn't blackmail, the British people chose this.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 21, 2019)

I was under the assumption that being part of the pre-EU economic union had benefits compared to non-member states. Weren't there lower tariffs?


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If the EU does NOT treat the UK the way it does due to ideological reasons or to prevent other member states from leaving, then why can't the UK go back to how things once were, i.e. low or no tariffs but no political unity?
> 
> The US withdrew from TPP but imagine if it hadn't and years from now the US would demand free movement of people between member states, e.g. between Japan, Peru and Vietnam. None of these countries would except this level of limitation on their sovereignty. But if they don't listen, they have to be economically punished. Sounds a bit like blackmail, doesn't it?
> 
> Now I'm aware the people in the UK kept voting for parties who engaged in an ever tighter political union. So in the end, it's their own fault. But let's be honest, people are gonna be sheeple. Very easy to manipulate... There are many yellow vest idiots who actually voted for Macron and keep complaining now.


People voting Macron is because of this jackass (see youtube vid) complaining Russia is intervening with American elections but here he's doing exactly the same thing because it's only a good thing when the US does it placing them always above everyone else but when somebody else does it well all hell breaks loose. Secondly, Macron didn't have the majority vote but came to power because all the other parties backed him and he came to power because he formed a coalition with ALL parties against Le Penn. Le Penn actually had the majority vote but didn't get enough votes to become President because as a member of a single party she didn't have 50 percent wich you need atleast because all the other parties backed Macron instead. So nope, in that regard not a lot of people voted Macron. Also the EU can't treat the UK the way you're claiming they should because the EU treaty clearly states free travel of people, food and more within member states wich all the other shengen countries agreed to while the UK is saying no to that so ofcourse they can't be treated the same way because they're acting like small entitled brats screaming while laying on the floor in a shop '' MOMMIE I WANT THAAAAAAAAAT AND I WON'T STOP TILL YOU GIVE ME THAAAAAT ''. I remember  around 5 years ago the UK was complaining that the European parlement was in Brussels despite the union being founded on the BELUX wich was Belgium, Luxembourg and were threatening the Union already back then that they wanted to leave since they had the audacity to say that the European parlement should be in London because the UK well being the UK. When it came to Union countries, the UK always acted like an entitled brat and them leaving now is just that entitled childish attitude of not getting what it wants.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 21, 2019)

Can there be trade without or low tariffs between EU and USA or does USA first have to join the EU?


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Can there be trade without or low tariffs between EU and USA or does USA first have to join the EU?


A simple google search does a lot. 
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/


----------



## fatherjack (Aug 21, 2019)

.....too much reading......all i know is there was trade before there was even money. little thing like brexit isnt gonna see it off


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I was under the assumption that being part of the pre-EU economic union had benefits compared to non-member states. Weren't there lower tariffs?



Yes but that union has developed into the EU as we know it of which the UK has been a founding member in 1992. One of the things that was clear from the start would be the concept of an EU citizenship that would allow you to live wherever you want within the union. The European Economic Community does not exist anymore.


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 21, 2019)

fatherjack said:


> .....too much reading......all i know is there was trade before there was even money. little thing like brexit isnt gonna see it off


How is that so ? Almost all medication comes from the union and it is already said the UK will have a big shortage medicine wise if there's a no deal brexit since new deals have to be made before trade can happen again. Almost everything imported goes through the Union so new deals will have to be made before trade can happen so shortage on almost everything, The gas pipe goes through the Union so new deals have to be made before gas can be supplied, Gasoline, oil and everything goes through Union territory so shortage of that in case of a no deal brexit, big companies and even tons of British companies are setting up headquarters Europe so tons of jobs will be lost since they aren't UK based anymore plus a shortage again since they fall under Union legislation and new deals have to be made again before trade can happen. All of that is also the primary reason the UK is acting like America's bitch at the moment attacking countries like Iran and blocking vessels from Iran since they have to rely on trade deals mostly with the US and that's why they're the only ones in the entire world acting that way towards countries the US has problems with while the Union does not.


----------



## notimp (Aug 21, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Can there be trade without or low tariffs between EU and USA or does USA first have to join the EU?


Yes. International trade agreements (usually bilateral), or agreements based on trade union (f.e. WTO) rulesets. States prefer bilateral agreements, because they can then be more 'tailored'.

(But also - within WTO rules, and within bilateral agrements, the 'stronger' fraction usually somewhat can 'impose' their ruleset. To a point of course, but it is a thing.)

This doesnt mean "no tariffs" ever, because as seen recently the US (or any other state) can one-sidedly announce, that they will put tariffs on certain goods, basically whenever (its a political tool - usually to signal 'we need to talk again'). But it means 'managed' trade relations, and usually - low necessity for tariffs.

The EU just established such an open trade agreement with the Mercosur states, and we (and the US and every other major trading block) has many of them throughout the world.

But open access to a market is more than that. F.e. same ruleset for safety regulations, same ruleset for norms and standards, ...
so a 'common market' is more than just no tariffs.


Trade agreements also are there to ensure 'investment safety'. Meaning - a company says - we want to mine your rare earth elements, we buy a license - which guarantees us x conditions and amounts of product. If then a protest comes along and destroys our operation for local interest reasons, you (state) have to reimburse us. Those are usually specific contracts, but to get them set up, you need a framework and thats usually fixed (set up) in WTO laws, or a bilateral trade agreement as well.

In the case with China, the chinese government currently accuses the US to use trade 'as a weapon' hurting (/containing  ) the chinese economy on purpose.

And in that case, thats not wrong.  The US has an interest in slowing down chinese growth (Which they can do by controlling certain supply chains (f.e. because you have to pay for some stuff in USD (or some credit lines can be controlled by them, ...).  ).

And/or because they impose tariffs (which slows income flow  of lets say USD).

Companies ((/natural) monopolies) can do that as well btw. So if a large part of lets say batteries internationally is produced by Samsung and lets say germany wants to set up an electric car production, and then orders x million cells from Samsung, and then Samsung says - we can only deliver a fifth of your order in three years... It also slows down economic growth. 

(And then Europe has battery summits, and founds a battery production industry, and then finds out, that the resources for battery production are mostly controlled by China - so now they have to source some of their own, and get into resource mining as well, and all of it is expensive - but not only having monopolies is good for production security, and so on and so forth..  )

And this is why - when canada arrests the daughter of the Huawai owner on behest of the US, stuff like this develops:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/world/asia/china-canadian-arrested.html


edit: Sorry, should have edited the last post. Next time. I promise.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 22, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> A simple google search does a lot.


...
It was a rhetorical question. Obviously trade deals are possible without free movement of people. But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.


----------



## kumikochan (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> ...
> It was a rhetorical question. Obviously trade deals are possible without free movement of people. But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.


It's not making an example, it is in the treaty all countries signed and is the groundwork of the union. It's like asking a country to change their entire constitution . It is the constitution of Europe so no it's not making an example out of the UK, making an example out of the UK would be kicking them out long ago for the constant bickering they did, they left on their own rejecting the constitution so they have to deal with that if they don't want anything to do with the constitution. It's not the place of Europe to do that but theirs and theirs alone, that's it


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.



Look, if you cancel your gym membership you don't get access to the gym. It doesn't mean the gym owners or the other members are extorting you or that you're being made an example of.
The victim narrative is really tiresome. The british people voted to leave the EU and they will get their will.
They negotiated a deal that didn't make it through the british parliament.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 22, 2019)

Let's take your gym example.
The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.

Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Let's take your gym example.
> The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.
> 
> Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?


Let's assume that you have a point and that the actions of the EU are punitive... So what? It's the UK that's choosing to leave. Preventing any future "exits" is in the EU's interest, there is nothing "unfair" about it, it's cause and effect.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Let's take your gym example.
> The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.
> 
> Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?



I believe you're wrong. I take it you're referering to Switzerland and Norway as non-members? It's not a 10€ training session, Norway for example has accepted more than 75% of the EU guidelines and adopted more than 6000 EU laws as national law as a non-member. The british don't want to do that, it's been one of the main arguments to leave the EU, the whole shtick about sovereignity.
These non-member states are operating almost like a full member to get access to the market.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Let's assume that you have a point and that the actions of the EU are punitive... So what?


It was denied even though I find it obvious. I'm okay with it if sb has this position. I just wanted people to be honest about it.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I take it you're referering to Switzerland and Norway as non-members?


No, I meant in general. Do you think there will be trade deals or lowering of tariffs post Brexit? Because the EU has trade deals with other countries (besides Switzerland and Norway).


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It was denied even though I find it obvious. I'm okay with it if sb has this position. I just wanted people to be honest about it.


I think it would be completely ridiculous to think otherwise, there's just nothing wrong with that. The UK is not being victimised here because the UK is not a defenseless toddler - decisions like this have consequences. Any carrot needs to necessarily come with a stick, I don't understand why people are even trying to defend that point when it's moot.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> No, I meant in general. Do you think there will be trade deals or lowering of tariffs post Brexit? Because the EU has trade deals with other countries (besides Switzerland and Norway).



I don't really get your point. After Brexit the EU will default to the same import taxes for UK imports as any other third party country.
Like I said earlier I believe the EU does have incentive to negotiate a good trade deal because there's industry in the UK that is important to all of the EU and its military. However, this industry has indicated that they're considering leaving the UK because it's supplying almost exclusively to EU customers, especially Airbus which is spread across the whole EU and in some cases they've already moved business to the EU.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 22, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> But the EU wants to make an example out of the UK so that other member states don't have the same idea.


Meh...I don't think it'll scare off other countries that much.

"oh, noes! Whenever we want to leave the EU, we better make sure that we'll limit the exit negotiations to two maximum two years, extend the deadline no more than three times and need to find a way to make sure our EU neighbors can maintain their single market!!!"

Face it: Brexit politicians just started the process completely unprepared. They had done no research, lied about costs and benefits and completely underestimated the amount of actual trade that would be impacted. If the process scares potential other politicians into doing a proper analysis ("hey...should it be a good idea to check with our own parliament whether we can actually DO an exit before we start making promises to the public?"), then it's just all the better.

Thus far, I've heard nothing from the EU that I've deemed even remotely unreasonable in this process. And truth be told: the same goes for whatever pieces I've read about May's plans. I was against them, but a least they were reasonable.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 22, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Look, if you cancel your gym membership you don't get access to the gym. It doesn't mean the gym owners or the other members are extorting you or that you're being made an example of.
> The victim narrative is really tiresome. The british people voted to leave the EU and they will get their will.
> They negotiated a deal that didn't make it through the british parliament.





UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Let's take your gym example.
> The gym still offers non-members a 10€ per day training session. Except for those non-members who used to be a member. Thereby the gym owner wants to motivate current members never to become non-members.
> 
> Of course the UK can't expect the same tariff situation as before, but the EU is signaling no deals at all, especially not by single member states with the UK. Or am I wrong?


I'd like to comment on both of these.

The original gym example is meant to explain why the UK can't really hold a grudge or play the victim (they decided to leave. Not checking for potential consequences beforehand is ignorance on their behalf). If you want to bend it for another meaning, then it's indeed not sufficient. Neither your counterexample, @UltraDolphinRevolution .


A less flawed analogy would be a gym offering multiple options for potential sporters. The most common ones would be 'members' and 'guests'. The "members" would be the EU members, the non-members would be the ones the EU has no specific trade agreements with. Erm...say Madagascar(1). Is there trade possible between the EU and Madagascar? Of course. That would fall under WTO trade rules. The thing is: this is the most basic of trades. And way too unfitting for the UK.

But this EU gym has more options than mere 'members' or 'guests'. Switzerland, for example, isn't a member but does have some sort of special status (erm...honorary guest?). They have an unique deal. And I'm not too sure how countries like Canada or Denmark are, but they have some sort of special membership as well. If you've got time, I can suggest some TL;DR news video's on the topic. They explain in detail what each country's situation is, and compare it to the UK's situation. Each time, the conclusion is a "...but this isn't what the UK wants". and that isn't so strange, because the UK simply isn't one of those other countries.

And that's why the negotiations started. And proceeded. And ended. This "the EU is signaling no deals at all" simply is untrue. What do you think May has been doing for the last two years? She proposed and negotiated a deal in name of her government. It took so long because she wanted more than the EU was willing to allow, but in the end there was an agreement both sides could live with.
Yes, I know: the deal got shot down in the UK parliament three times. Sorry, but that's not the EU's fault. And it doesn't mean that they somehow should get back into negotiations because someone else comes asking for more.
Extra note: since yesterday I looked into the other side as well. Parliament may have refused May's deal three times, but it was at best a small minority that wanted the backstop out, whereas there were more members _wanting_ the backstop. So while the EU is actually signaling TWO possibilities (1. May's deal; 2. remain in the EU), Boris is attempting an option that has even LESS chance of making it through parliament. Try putting yourself in Macron or Merkel's shoes...would you give in to this guy(2)? 




(1): note: but I'm honestly picking a random country here. To my knowledge, it doesn't have any sort of agreement with the EU. If I'm wrong on this, just replace Madagascar with "any country the EU has no specific deal with"
(2): its actually even a bit more complex than that. The backstop wasn't th EU's idea. Unless I'm mistaken, it was a negotiated compromise because the EU rather wanted Northern Ireland to remain in the EU customs union, which was out of the question for the UK/May. Not maintaining a single market was (and still is) a breaking point for the EU, so the backstop became the negotiated result. So Johnson is really arguing against a negotiated deal when he was part of the government (but, granted, not as prime minister).


----------



## smile72 (Aug 28, 2019)

This may make me sound like a bad person. But I love reading about Brexit! It's so exciting! I mean the possibility of a United Ireland in my lifetime is honestly quite interesting.


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 28, 2019)

So did anyone ever point out any benefits of leaving?


----------



## smile72 (Aug 28, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> So did anyone ever point out any benefits of leaving?


Not sure? I checked a few pages but didn't really see many "benefits" for the UK at least.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 28, 2019)

smile72 said:


> This may make me sound like a bad person. But I love reading about Brexit! It's so exciting! I mean the possibility of a United Ireland in my lifetime is honestly quite interesting.



Is Ireland so divided and having its people suffer or be held back because of it or something? Seemed OK to me and everybody I met from there or that visits.



DBlaze said:


> So did anyone ever point out any benefits of leaving?


While I have still yet to be sold on the concept people seemed to reckon
Some more money theoretically for the UK if the UK is indeed a net contributor to the concept.  What effects it will have on trade costs, research costs, costs to certain fields*, recruitment costs to make the gross cost/outcome of the project remains to be seen but is not looking great in the short term.
The ability to not have to harmonise with EU law (usually referred to as [various amounts of invective] unelected bureaucrats in Brussels). As this is the same government that is trying porn blocks, pretty much abandoned notions of free speech (not the EU and various courts there are doing much better), sat there with their thumbs up their arses for the last however many years with this leaving the EU lark, has also overseen some fairly bad education missteps, some less than stellar crime stats, failed to encourage much building, by many metrics has not done brilliantly on healthcare and more besides I don't know if that is a particular perk, to say nothing of their opposition being no better.
The ability to not have to harmonise with EU standards on things; most of the ones I have seen for tech and finance are about what national bodies seem to cook up themselves and are not any more onerous than anywhere else I see in the world that I would care to pay attention to -- Canada, the US, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, NZ... sort of thing, though each of those do have some downsides in some of the things I have see (the US' approach to patents and various food additives for one)
The ability to control immigration both from within the EU and levels of refugees taken in where before the EU set something of a threshold/requirement (not a terribly small one either). Both are interesting concepts and have upsides and downsides so remains to be seen what will happen there; the UK does not train enough skilled workers for its needs, though at the same time low skilled workers that are also able to come over with the whole free movement thing do have something of a depressive effect in various fields. This also says nothing about people from the UK being able to float around the EU to work and retire.
The ability to conduct trade negotiations (not sure with whom and why they would be much better than those people over a couple of hundred KM of ocean away rather than thousands)
The ability to fiddle with the economy in ways the EU might not care for (the EU regs could be said to have blocked certain interventions into things), and also not be tied to the likes of Greece and Spain when they hose it up next time.

*save for a bit of high tech (both computing and more nuts and bolts engineering, neither of which are particularly big employers with computing being famously so) the UK gave up industry some time back and mining even further back, though that is a longer story, and became a nation of paper pushers (though they like to call it a service economy). One of the perks of the EU thing being able to act as an English speaking (so most of the UK commonwealth, US and everybody else's second language as it were) gateway to it. While there is always paper that needs pushing to not take the easy meal is a potentially questionable choice.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 28, 2019)

... And now for a move I totally did not see coming (and to be honest, I'm not sure whether to believe the news). Boris Johnson got queen Elisabeth to suspend parliament for five weeks (link : https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/08/2...gbr-intl/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/)

While it makes some earlier actions to make sense (why is he pursuing a path that has less chance of making it through parliament?), what I really don't understand how he pulls this off.

The suspense means parliament simply doesn't have enough time to stop a brexit (with our without deal). So... 
Okay, okay : I assumed the position of the queen was strictly for protocol. That's apparently wrong, so even if I personally hate it, I've got to admit it's a brilliant move. 

Those comparing Johnson to Trump can stick this situation up their arse : this sort of cabal is way outside Trump's league.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Those comparing Johnson to Trump can stick this situation up their arse : this sort of cabal is way outside Trump's league.


I'm not so sure.  We don't have a queen, but Trump uses Mitch McConnell in a very similar manner: to block the senate from voting on bills which might otherwise save the country from some of the damage being done by this administration.  A no-deal Brexit has always seemingly been the worst possible outcome for the UK, and it certainly leaves Ireland in a nebulous position, but I'm sure Boris and his ilk will personally profit from it in one way or another.  When it comes to self-serving motives, there are plenty of comparisons to be made with Trump.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, okay : I assumed the position of the queen was strictly for protocol. That's apparently wrong, so even if I personally hate it, I've got to admit it's a brilliant move.


Democracy. 

edit: Ah, I just saw, that parliament could overrule it with a simple majority. But they aint gonna.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not so sure.  We don't have a queen, but Trump uses Mitch McConnell in a very similar manner: to block the senate from voting on bills which might otherwise save the country from some of the damage being done by this administration.  A no-deal Brexit has always seemingly been the worst possible outcome for the UK, and it certainly leaves Ireland in a nebulous position, but I'm sure Boris and his ilk will personally profit from it in one way or another.  When it comes to self-serving motives, there are plenty of comparisons to be made with Trump.


Sorry, but that's not a good analogy. McConnell was doing that shit well before Trump took office (probably best example was the replacement of Antonin Scalia. McConnell flat out denied Obama from even nominating a supreme court judge). And for this example more importantly: McConnell is a part of the political system. The queen of England...she obviously has some influence on the directions of politics, but to downright steer it like this is something unheard of in a modern monarchy.


@notimp: okay...you wanna clarify that a bit? Sorry, but "democracy" is a bit vague to know what you mean.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Sure. But nothing too interesting here. Going to your (in this case unelected) head of state which has the power to dismiss your parliament for a few weeks, to prevent it from staging political action against your move to set hard brexit into place (at least as a political option) - didn't seem very democratic.

Thats why I read up on it a little, found out, that parliament could overrule it with a majority vote - and that it wasn't very likely to happen in this case (because of domestic polical considerations  ) - and now I learned to worry less about that intervention. 

In our country we have a similar system in place ("Presidential Democracy").


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but that's not a good analogy. McConnell was doing that shit well before Trump took office (probably best example was the replacement of Antonin Scalia. McConnell flat out denied Obama from even nominating a supreme court judge). And for this example more importantly: McConnell is a part of the political system. The queen of England...she obviously has some influence on the directions of politics, but to downright steer it like this is something unheard of in a modern monarchy.


There is no good analogy because there is no vestigial branch of government in the US equivalent to the royal family of the UK.  Boris didn't need the queen's permission to suspend parliament, so her role in this is ultimately meaningless and hardly even worth the mention.  That's also why I don't see Johnson's move of asking her permission as notably clever; he might as well have been asking a magic 8-ball since he was going to ignore a negative response regardless.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

What. This is all useless protocol then? PR signaling? Not separation of power?


> Three Conservative members of the Queen's Privy Council took the request to suspend Parliament to the monarch's Scottish residence in Balmoral on Wednesday morning on behalf of the prime minister.
> 
> It has now been approved, allowing the government to suspend Parliament no earlier than Monday 9 September and no later than Thursday 12 September, until Monday 14 October.


Really asking - I don't know. You tell me.  (Don't want to look it up.)

src:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49493632


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 29, 2019)

I did some more reading as well. Part of the brilliance is - of course - that it's not illegal. Proroguing parliament is apparently something that is done every year. Not this long, but because it has been delayed a bit by May - ironically enough because of brexit - it's not THAT unheard of that it takes longer than a week. But even then: Boris plays innocence and says it has nothing to do with brexit but nobody's falling for it.

I'm not sure, but my earlier statement that "Johnson got queen Elisabeth to suspend parliament"  may have been misleading. In a piece I've read was a footnote that she got the question, but that denying the request would be making a political statement...which she...cannot do? 
(note: I know for sure that in Belgium, our king is strictly forbidden to mingle in politics outside of protocol functions. But again: I do not know the situation in the UK)

But @Xzi: you're probably right in that he could have done it without her permission. I can't 100% confirm it yet, but it certainly seems that way.


Xzi said:


> That's also why I don't see Johnson's move of asking her permission as notably clever; he might as well have been asking a magic 8-ball since he was going to ignore a negative response regardless.


Hmm...no. This might be a European thing, but we do not "just" go against our monarchs. Our king has no political power, but perhaps just because of that, they see some support from people I know that I can only describe as "somewhat similar to religious fanatisme". He certainly wasn't going to get away with a negative response. But there'd be a different kind of political crisis. Johnson's request hinged on the premisse that she cannot really refuse(1). It certainly gives context to that earlier pompous talks ("taking back our country", "sovereignty"...those thingumies): how can Elisabeth be against THAT?

Of course, suspending parliament in this time period is a powder keg no matter the context. It's undemocratic, and I'm also of the opinion that this is, in practice, a coup d’état. I know brexiteers will probably disagree with me. They'll point out that parliament brought this on themselves by voting nay against everything and being against brexit in the first place. I agree to that. But it'll take more to make me change my mind on that.

@notimp: I really hope you're right on this, but if I'm honest, I can't find anything on that "overrule it with a majority vote". I've read reports of what I already know, yes: that the opposition could file a motion of distrust against the government(2). That wasn't new, but they've got a new and even better argument for it than ever. But that parliament themselves can say "nope...thanks for the offer, but a majority of us decided we stay open for business." is something I simply haven't read anywhere yet.



(1): I might be mistaken, but isn't that the same situation as with US electoral votes. The people vote, and the electors have to respect the outcome to vote for the president; they can't really vote different.
(2): until now, I never feared a no-deal brexit because there were two "impossible" hurdles, to overcome. One less and one more likely. The more likely one was parliament simply 'nay'-ing again. They've got experience in that. The other option's if the opposition brings the government down. Since the government literally has one seat more than the opposition, it should be a cakewalk. The only reason this is (okay: _was_) the less likely option is because these are politicians looking at themselves rather than the whole. Labour's the largest opposition party, so a fall of government will bring Corbyn more in the spotlight, likely becoming prime minister after the election. And that's just something the other opposition parties won't like.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Sorry, I likely got it wrong.

I made the call based on older information. Here is what I've got.


Interview with a german corespondant from yesterday:

[...]some people speculate that a vote of no confidence against Boris Johnson would become more likely next week. This motion had just been rejected Tuesday at a meeting of the Heads of the opposition parties. Instead they intended to concentrate on a law that would make no Brexit illegal, the assembly decided, which had congregated on invitation of the Labour Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn.

*Question: *How can the Parliament foil Johnsons Plan?

*Answer: *The opponents of no Deal now have to move. Under current planning the lower house only comes together after their summer break after 3. September for two weeks before the session will be interrupted again for three weeks because of the political conventions for Tories, Labour and Libdems. A cancelation of this Interruption would have to be agreed on by a majority in parliament. The likelyhood of that happening is slim, because none of the parties has any interests in canceling their - very lucrative (donors), yearly conventions, or shortening them.

src: https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000107909547/johnson-will-parlament-auf-urlaub-schicken (german)

So all of this was talk about a potential vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson. And gaining more time.

Someone from the UK with a proper school education in here?


Can the lower house - still produce a vote of no confidence against the Boris Johnson gouvernment - even though parliament will halt action by September 9th? (as per the Queens decree).

The lower house would have one week - after their vacation to do so at least...

A vote of no confidence into the current administraton apparently also only needs a simple majority.
see: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46890481

But they would not overrule the Queens decree (is the point). They would have to fire the government before that goes into action.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

A deeper background level discussion on the outcomes of Brexit:
https://alpbach.apa-ots-video.at/video/94144dc4cc8b49d1944dc4cc8b49d10e


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 29, 2019)

38 pages and I STILL have no idea how British politics work.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2019)

My rough guesstimation, May(s Team) was wrong for negotiations. Johnson raises the 'gang ho' factor (maybe), no deal brexit has to be on the table to be used as a gambit.

Or in case no deal brexit gets to be what we are dealing with within the next few weeks, US sponsored enough that it made sense.

Easy.  As for the queens role, if she can suspend parliament it probably shouldnt be overulable with a simple majority on second thought.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 30, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> 38 pages and I STILL have no idea how British politics work.


For a start get used to the phrase "for complicated historical reasons" as it will come up all the time.

If you are curious though then the Politics Unboringed video series does well here.

Things have changed somewhat over recent decades but generally 

The country is split up and the splits (population based, though accounting for historical and regional ties, and susceptible to some gerrymandering) send MPs to parliament. They all vote on what goes as far as policy, law and whatever, and is what you see in the room with the green benches, in normal business clothes and most TV on the matter of UK government.
The leader of the party with the most seats is then invited to form the government and appoint people to government positions (those without an official position becoming the back benchers). Said leader can change without forcing an election as part of it, indeed one technically does not vote for the leader (that is done within parties by whatever means they employ, which you can join as a normal person) but for most practical purposes they will be the one on the advertising you see, talking about their manifestos and engaging in debates during elections (indeed I would wager many which do care to vote don't know the name of their local MP, or their chosen party's representative as the case may be) and so on.

Though before it becomes law the house of lords (they will usually dress up in robes, and have red benches) has to give it the go ahead. This has undergone some reforms too in recent decades (despite some attempts going back to the 1800s then at one point they served somewhat as the supreme court for all sorts of interesting legal cases and appeals, as of 2009 there is a supreme court. Judicial functions of the House of Lords being a reasonable term if you care to know more there). Shockingly to many there are people granted a peership for life* (by a prime minister, or lords appointment commission) and others by virtue of having a family that stayed in good stead with a monarch hundreds of years ago (this would be hereditary peers), also a few religious folks (originally just the Anglican church but they have a few other spiritual lords these days from other religions). For the most part the lords are there to keep a check on craziness and make sure things are well worded but they do have some considerable power as part of that.

*retirement is actually an issue here as you can't officially retire. There are workarounds but they are not ideal for some.

The UK has a constitution of sorts but it is not as firm as the US approach you might be more familiar with. Said constitution is more of a guideline for law making and conducting parliament, and by virtue of that you will have to look a bit harder to find an expert on UK constitutional law where I imagine every US law school has classes and experts on it and it is considered a major part of law there. The person you might have seen speaking most on the matter is the speaker of the house of parliament (the guy shouting order a lot), technically another MP but the major parties don't run anybody in their region and they upon becoming speaker they step down from their party, and also don't vote on bills except under fairly select circumstances).

The reigning monarch (queen in this case) technically has all the power but practically speaking has none (while the house of lords has to OK a bill she still signs it into law, though in practice it has been centuries since the royals refused assent, and even that was a special case and done on the advice of ministers) and is generally not seen to express opinions publicly (though it is available -- it is nominally their job to stay aware of things and the current one has a few decades of experience at this point).
You might have also heard the term prorogue in recent weeks. Normally it is the holiday that MPs take in the summer to do holidays and also go speak to their constituents (today you can email them but historically if you were a dude on a horse that had to go a few hundred kilometres to catch up with people or get a message...), however if things break down the suspension of it in that case also goes by the same term. Much like the monarch has the final say they are also officially the one to appoint a prime minister and can shut down parliament, though again it is largely ceremonial. Here though the concept is being used for what some consider a quite radical step to run out the clock on certain means by which the government could be blocked, this despite no breakdown in parliament. For an American analogy this move is somewhat between a government shutdown and filibuster.

The UK is also a "country of countries" (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, plus a few small islands and other territories with various levels of autonomy + the wider realm but the last two are not really relevant at this point). For many years (and after the point the UK joined the EU) these countries were more or less one block with only local government (similar sizes to the areas MPs represent) doing the minor local functions in much official capacity, however starting with probably the Good Friday agreement for Northern Ireland then Wales and Scotland properly agitated for (and got) some more autonomy in various "devolved" parliaments and councils, Scotland going so far as to have a referendum in recent times on whether to stay a member of the union with staying only getting a fairly narrow victory (somewhat amusingly the uncertainty about whether Scotland would be able to join the EU afterwards being part of the push for the stay campaign). This means said other countries have a fair amount of sway over national politics (even if the national politics might not be able to do that much locally these days, despite the reverse not being the case -- see the West Lothian question as the MP from the tippy top of Scotland or one of the further north islands could well have a say in a matter that only troubles England or a small portion of it that does not even border Scotland).
Furthermore in this case as the various parties in parliament don't presently have enough elected members to form a clear majority government** a few of them ganged up (technically they call it a coalition), this time the Conservatives joined with the DUP (democratic unionist party) of Northern Ireland to make numbers (and even then it is only the slimmest of majorities, which recently got slimmer still) so if the Conservatives/government fuck over Northern Ireland (by either making them a cut off part of the country or seeing a hard border arise where there was a bit of a conflict before then, and it also having a bit of a longer history that is almost as long as country of countries thing) they won't be able to whip their members into line to get a vote through (while they generally vote with the party they are not absolutely required to -- you are supposed to serve the wishes of your region and all that) and at that point things get a bit tricky for them.

**for many years the UK was something of a two party system as far as practical concerns go (few different names, various mergers and twists but nothing quite as fun as some of the US stuff). However various other parties, ones formed for regional concerns and ones that were all regions but philosophically different, gained various amounts of traction. However as it is still a "first past the post" electoral system and enough the folks within the UK don't care about that they still vote for the smaller parties and reduce numbers at the top and have fun with the spoiler effect. There was an attempt to move to a slightly different voting system that would avoid many of these problems a few years back but it was defeated.

The EU, which the UK is supposedly in the process of leaving, also has a say in UK law. What they are varies by the person you are speaking to but eh. At its heart it is a trade and policy director to try to harmonise trade within the EU, act as a big block for trade outside the EU and make sure laws are reasonably similar between EU member states (being in the EU the members agree to pass their laws into their national laws, though it can take a little while for it to filter down). Each EU member sends their own members of parliament (called MEPs) which are elected in separate elections to national ones, often with different rules (and far lower turnouts) and have no power within national borders.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2019)

> Traditionally, a monarch’s consent to a Parliamentary suspension comes at the advice of the Privy Council, or a formal body of advisers. A suspension also usually precedes the Queen’s Speech, when the queen officially opens the session of Parliament and declares the government’s coming agenda in front of the legislative body. Three Conservative members of the Privy Council met with the queen today on behalf of Johnson at Balmoral Castle in Scotland. Following Her Majesty’s approval, the Queen’s Speech will fall on October 14, after which Parliament will reconvene.





> *Can the queen’s agreement to the suspension be legally challenged?*
> The queen’s prerogative powers—which, in addition to proroguing Parliament, include appointing the prime minister and the granting of honors—cannot be legally challenged, BBC reported. Still, it’s possible to mount a legal challenge to the counsel the prime minister gives her. A judicial review of the prime minister’s advice to the queen could result in ruling whether or not the advice was lawful.


https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celeb...abeth-parliament-suspension-brexit-explained/

So it is separation of power.
And she is making a true political move.

But it is in line with the concepts of a "presidential democracy".

(Where in uncommon cases a president can dismiss parliament. Or in this case order them to go on break.)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 4, 2019)

Lots of Brexit news today.  First, Boris' stunt in suspending parliament cost him the majority when one of the Tory MPs defected to another party.  Then he was defeated 328 to 301 in a vote by the Commons to take control of the agenda.  Which means a no-deal Brexit has again become unlikely, and more delays seem inevitable.



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> The Commons voted 328 to 301 to take control of the agenda, meaning they can bring forward a bill seeking to delay the UK's exit date.
> 
> In response, Boris Johnson said he would bring forward a motion for an early general election.  Jeremy Corbyn said the bill should be passed before an election was held.
> 
> ...


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 4, 2019)

I've read that as well, but hadn't found an answer to the "what now?" scenario.

BoJo wants new elections. Kind of obvious, as it would legitimize his power (May overplayed her hand, which resulted in poor election results. Johnson doesn't HAVE a hand, but since he's interrupted he can continue to act as if he has a plan). I hadn't thought of the situation where he could somewhere change the date until after the deadline, but yeah...that would indeed be pretty likely. It would also get him lynched by bremainers, but ey...it's not like being a political criminal is punishable in any way (see also: Tony Blair).

So the bickering currently is on whether or not a bill should be implemented that prevents a no deal brexit. Johnson's position has always been that it's a bargaining chip, so he's obviously against. The rest - Corbyn on the front line - want it implemented.

That's all interesting, and all, but really: the UK needs a second referendum on the matter. It's been three bloody years since a very slight majority voted leave. Since then, most if not anything that was promised the brexiteers turned out to be a lie. And I'm sick of all politicians (yes, including Corbyn) claiming that what they're doing is in favor of 'the UK'.
So hold the fucking referendum already. If the majority of UK people still want a (no deal) brexit, then at least we know it's their choice rather than what some spin doctors claim would be their choice.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Lots of Brexit news today.  First, Boris' stunt in suspending parliament cost him the majority when one of the Tory MPs defected to another party.  Then he was defeated 328 to 301 in a vote by the Commons to take control of the agenda.  Which means a no-deal Brexit has again become unlikely, and more delays seem inevitable.


Dat backfire. 

Sorry, wasn't completely following and I don't quite understand, did the suspension actually happen or was it stopped before it happened?


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 4, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Dat backfire.
> 
> Sorry, wasn't completely following and I don't quite understand, did the suspension actually happen or was it stopped before it happened?


Neither of the two: the suspension (or 'prorogation') of the parliament is still set to happen from september 10th until october 14th.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 4, 2019)

Parliament appears to be in favor of postponing Brexit yet again. Political satire. It feels like a play or movie Kim Jong Un would produce to make fun of the West.


----------



## emigre (Sep 4, 2019)

In the latest twist of Brexit, it looks an amendment to put Theresa May's deal back in the commons accidently passed. Like legit it happened.

I've got to be honest, every time I think things couldn't get more chaotic, it does.


----------



## emigre (Sep 4, 2019)

Boris' election for the 15th October is off. Not enough MPs voted for it.

I'm no fan of the guy but he's really proving to be pretty fucking useless.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> That's all interesting, and all, but really: the UK needs a second referendum on the matter. It's been three bloody years since a very slight majority voted leave. Since then, most if not anything that was promised the brexiteers turned out to be a lie. And I'm sick of all politicians[...]


This is enough to give you three upvotes on its own.  People hate politicians.. 

But not how this works.

The law to prohibit No deal Brexit went through the british parliament.

So now we know how everything will go from this point.

To summerise:

If you have a referendum of that magnitute, you have to honor it. Otherwise you'll have a third or more of you population talking about democracy being a scam - and being absolutely right, which is the bigger problem.

Johnson as PM served to inject a new negotiation team.

The no hard brexit law serves as a minor backstop (signaling good will) as well (dont know for whom but their own population this would be important), but first and foremost signals to the brexit hardliners, that whatever they wanted will not be honored, because 'it didn't work, and think of all the future cost for people (and more affluent political sponsors.. )".

If Johnson now stays - stuff can move forward. If not give the britsh another year, heck - why not... 

In negotiations every side still will want to ef the other one over, but if you've got good negotiators - usually this ends in a compromise which both sides can live with. Also british want an outcome in the near future - because currently... they look chaotic. But thats just public perception stuff, so thats nothing that should impact negotiations too much. If they have to - they'll repeat this for another year. But they dont necessarily want to.
-

edit: So every sentiment of: We have to do something now - because look how we look!!11! In essence is false.  It would be silly to accept a worse than necessary outcome just because of looks.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 5, 2019)

-To you wish to get a divorce?
-Yes.
-Okay, then let's proceed.
-No, wait. I want to get a divorce, but I need the guarantee that I will still sleep with her regularly.
-Can't you deal with this after the divorce?
-I need that guarantee though.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> This is enough to give you three upvotes on its own.  People hate politicians..
> 
> But not how this works.
> 
> ...


This is why I'm glad I'm not a politician: I don't have to be politically correct. Honestly: that part of the population needs to grab a straw and seriously suck it up. Sure, it's not fun being them, but they were fed lies after lies to make them vote "leave". If they think democracy is threatened when they are asked to vote for an actual REALISTIC choice (which would be either May's deal, no deal or no brexit at this point), then they can cry me a fucking river for all I care.

Here's an analogy:
Me: hey guys: let's all vote for me punching Rowan Atkinson in the face. I promise everyone a car who agrees with me!!!
<somewhat later>
Me: okay...the car industry doesn't want to give everyone free cars, but I still get to punch him in the face because enough people turned up to vote.

How's that for "it's not democracy if you change the outcome when all the factors that lead to that outcome change" ?




			
				notimp said:
			
		

> The no hard brexit law serves as a minor backstop (signaling good will) as well (dont know for whom but their own population this would be important), but first and foremost signals to the brexit hardliners, that whatever they wanted will not be honored, because 'it didn't work, and think of all the future cost for people (and more affluent political sponsors.. )".


It's a step in the direction to common sense, yes. But why take these baby steps if you can just, y'know...USE COMMON SENSE NOW!

The problem with that stupid end result is that everyone and their mum has opinions on what 52% of the UK voted three years ago while it's perfectly clear that this is the OPPOSITE of what 48% (also three years ago) wanted.



			
				notimp said:
			
		

> In negotiations every side still will want to ef the other one over, but if you've got good negotiators - usually this ends in a compromise which both sides can live with. Also british want an outcome in the near future - because currently... they look chaotic. But thats just public perception stuff, so thats nothing that should impact negotiations too much. If they have to - they'll repeat this for another year. But they dont necessarily want to.


...but the UK does NOT have good negotiators. You can't negotiate when the goal post isn't clear. Say what you want about May, but at least she had a goal. Yes, Johnson had less time, but both he and parliament just threw away what she achieved. For opposite reasons, no less. From that, it's pretty clear to me that the brexiteers are just a divided bunch that just want to say "nay" to everything. 



			
				notimp said:
			
		

> edit: So every sentiment of: We have to do something now - because look how we look!!11! In essence is false.  It would be silly to accept a worse than necessary outcome just because of looks.


It's about two years too late to care about looks, mate. Brexiteers should have thought about that backstop before their campaign and came up with a proper solution BEFORE telling everyone that it'd be fine. They shouldn't have told lies to the public about how much the EU took, which regulations were their and which ones where their own, and I can continue on a bit on that.

I'm all for granting people with different opinions the right to disagree, but they have to be fair as well: the entire brexit process was a circus from the start. If they had their shit together, they could've convinced me that the EU was too bureaucratic, too complex, too self centered or even plain evil. Instead, they just showcased that one of the oldest democratic countries in the world (if not thé oldest) is flat out clueless.


----------



## Reiten (Sep 5, 2019)

Wasn't Johnson one of the politicians, who could have become PM after the referendum. I recall him turning it down at that time, something about not being the right person to lead. So if not then, why now?


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> ...but the UK does NOT have good negotiators. You can't negotiate when the goal post isn't clear. Say what you want about May, but at least she had a goal. Yes, Johnson had less time, but both he and parliament just threw away what she achieved.


Oh come on - you have diplomats and the public service branche, and a history of empire, a few centuries ago - there are bound to be some able people among the bunch that arent hardline Pro-EU folks. 

Raid Oxford or Cambridge if you are short stocked.. 

Up until now you only were up in arms over the preliminary stuff. Basically - because there was a 'revolt' in the conservative party over goals - if that gets settled - you can move the process forward. Maybe Mays team was seen as 'too lax'. Maybe it was all about the internal power game.

During the time it took you to get no where in terms of brexit, you finished at least two other major trade deals for the times you will be separate from the EU. So stuff gets done. It just, that if you are only into public face politics, that you get the impression, that you can't do anything right. And public face politics is for the gossip section of the newspapers, and the everyman. (Real politics is often done by party strategists and diplomats.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also - and I should mention that. If you were to plan to ever reenter the EU in 20 years time - I couln't have set up Brexit more perfectly to do so myself. Three years of inaction to then end up at square one again (but with an exchanged negotiating team) - is, something (else).


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 9, 2019)

Lots of things happening the last couple of days. And not that much at the same time.

-Parliament voted on a law that basically prohibits the UK to leave the EU without a deal. It got passed. So the PM (Johnson) is going to have to ask for yet another extension if a deal isn't reached by then
-BoJo isn't happy with that. He'd rather die in a ditch than having to ask for another extension
-he also wanted a general election. Not too unsurprising, really: an election before the brexit it would only legitimize his power (at this point, a lot of the protests are about never having voted for Johnson to begin with).
-...unfortunately, the opposition only wants a general election AFTER asking for an extension. Politically, I can see the reason, but jezus...talk about powerplay. I'd almost feel sorry for Johnson(1).
On the other hand, the opposition has a point: Boris could indeed write out an election before the deadline...and then delay it until afterward (with parliament suspended, it's not like they can stop that). I'd say it's unlikely, but come on...it's not like he prorogues parliament for giggles.
-a bit of other news: France is really getting fed up with the prospect of yet another delay. Macron is thinking of throwing in a veto on yet another extension request. 



I can't say I'm a fan of that part. Yes, I can understand Macron's frustration on the idea that yet another PM is going to come negotiate on something proclaimed non-negotiable by the EU and non-acceptable by UK's parliament (as if THAT is going to somehow make a difference  ). But really: I think it's better to accept that the UK is going to be in some sort of eternal state of "not involved but still a member" concerning the EU. Because of course: the moment we (because of course all other EU members are going to follow suit) throw out the UK, then it's an all-out lose for the EU:
1) the result is an economic collapse. Then it OBVIOUSLY isn't the fault of the UK government, who just needed a few months extra on top of the full year of extension to fix everything.
2) the result is an economic boom in the UK. Then it OBVIOUSLY is thanks to the UK standing firm against the evils of those who threw them out for the very civil act of leaving the EU (but lingering in the doorway on the way out).

Yeah...no. Sorry, Emmanuel. But I disagree. Let them embarrass themselves a bit more. They'll grow tired of it eventually.



(1): except not really: if his statement that a no-deal brexit was only a one-in-a-million chance was true, then he still has 999'999 chances left to make a deal. So he shouldn't be a crybaby about it when it's been taken from him. 




Reiten said:


> Wasn't Johnson one of the politicians, who could have become PM after the referendum. I recall him turning it down at that time, something about not being the right person to lead. So if not then, why now?


Sorry, but I recall things a bit different.

He was indeed in the running shortly after the referendum. But as was with his latest "election", it was all a matter of having enough support. And that's where things went wrong: at almost the latest second, Michael Gove (who was his support at that time) decided that he would no longer back Johnson and rather run for PM himself. This caused his following to split between either him and Gove, which resulted in a win for neither (quick link). It was one of the first stumbles in the brexit camp, and pretty likely the incident what caused the UK to end up with May (who was a bremainder) as prime minister.

@notimp: I...honestly have no idea if you're being ironic or not.


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2019)

30% yes, mostly no. 

I'm trying to bring in the pragmatic angle, because I'm bored after 3 years.. Probably.


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2019)

Mitchell Ash (historian, author, professor of recent history at the university of Vienna) on the topic:

General issue. Representative vs. direct democracy. People wanted Brexit (remember you cant just repeat until your happy), peoples representatives (parliament) don't want Brexit 'at all cost'. The entire quarrel is about that difference. ('What that vote meant.')

BJs current strategy would be to fire left wing members of his own party - then provoke reelections, tailoring a narrative - where all party differences wouldnt count for much - but It would be an election campaign 'for or against' 'real brexit'.

In doing so he should be able to gain back rightwing voters, which left the conservative party in rather large numbers in recent elections - so this would be a 'reunification' attempt.

Current polls indicate that this strategy is reasonable and hard to counter for the british left - who would have to forge alliances between Labor and Libdems, and bring their voters to vote for the one of the two in relevant districts - that would be more likely to win. So dissolve party politics to counter it - basically.

According to pollsters, BJs current strategy could make sense. People on the far right would come back to the tories more likely - and this is something they very much would want to happen anyhow.

(Much of the conflict about Brexit in the past years was national politics, as in 'a quarrel within the Tories' - that had them significantly split - which historically is rather rare).

Roughly translated from german -
original src:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000108423977/brexit-chaos-oder-hinterlist


----------



## Reiten (Sep 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but I recall things a bit different.


You' re right, seems like I remembered it a bit wrongly. I mostly remember Johnson and Farage jumping ship after the referendum. After reading the news you provided, seems like Johnson was somewhat forced from the PM at that time. Well thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 11, 2019)

So...UK government really stroke a Pyrrhic victory, it seems.

Yes, parliament is suspended. But they got their important votes held and voted for. Boris Johnson straight up lost all six out of his proposals. That's...pretty tough on him, especially considering that these are ALL his proposals in parliament. That's a historical low. 

Even more interesting: the Scottish court of session has ruled in favor of the opposition, who claimed that Johnson's proroguing of parliament was done under false pretenses. Or to put it more colorfully: he lied to the queen about his reasons.

While I agree with parliament that the timing for a prorogation is all but coincidental, I think this course of reasoning is, frankly, overrated. It's not like these suspicions weren't voiced the moment the idea was brought up. I thought (and thus far, still do) that invoking the queen's opinion was a great move. And that is also because of the way this gets battled. Saying that Johnson invoked the prorogation under false premises is implying that the queen is too dumb to see right through whatever Johnson told him. The queen doesn't live under a rock, so if she agreed to it, you've got to come with some convincing evidence of lies.

And yes, I know opposition demanded all communication regarding this parliament suspension from the involved party members (including Dominic Cummings(1) ), but afaik either those aren't handed over or there wasn't anything out of the ordinary in them.


To make matters more complex...the Scottish court's ruling is apparently an important one, but it's unclear to me just HOW important. It's not the only court in the UK, but how they relate to each other is rather unclear to me. So at this point I can but gather that there is a chance that parliament will be reopened soon, depending on what the other court(s) say. But I honestly can't say anything on the chance of that happening, nor on what the repercussions would be for the government if this reasoning is accepted.

(I mean...illegally removing parliament? Sure, it's not the sort of crime you see every day, but how would you even punish a government for doing something like that?)


EDIT: forgot one part. The speaker of the house, John Bercow (aka: "OOORRRRRDAAAAAAAARRRRRR"  ) has announced his retirement. Kind of a pity, as imho he is the perfect referee in this circus. On the other hand, he's been doing that job for a very long time, so I can't really blame him.



(1): who the fuck is Dominic Cummings anyway? My local newspaper brings him up as being "the guy who pulls Johnson's strings", but thus far I mostly read that as speculation from reporters.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Saying that Johnson invoked the prorogation under false premises is implying that the queen is too dumb to see right through whatever Johnson told him.


I've now heared other opinions, that the queen is simply yolo and just dont care - like she (her cabinet) would literally sign anything you give her, just to be able to - at face value - remain impartial (and have no perceived political power).

(In colorful words, but more or less.)

Why you'd have such a separation of power thingy there then strikes me as odd though.

So in effect you are probably talking about backchannels here. So when a proposal goes this route it triggers something that has a few back benchers talk to each other and... Usually (in our country) the presidential office, has much more of a facilitating and public affairs kind of role. So they make sure, that different branches talk to each other f.e., or fastlane certain issues.

Regardless, in this case its mostly fluff, because parliament could counter it, so there were legal (creative) ways to do so, it just raised pressure. So for the overall notion/issue at hand its not that important.


The new puzzler now maybe is, why BJ is firing his own party members, to now have less of a chance of getting what he wants - one possible explaination is, pandering to the far right on produced elections ('look, I didnt compromise'), the other explaination would be - he is dumb and thinks its necessary symbol politics to be able to remain 'strong'.

What the. Shambles.

I'd rather watch fawlty towers.  Ping me if something of importance happens.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 18, 2019)

Okay...it's getting to the point where I just want cameras in those negotiation chambers, because it's just getting silly.
...more so than usual. Not quite "Donald Trump" silly, but it's heading there.

BJ was in Luxemburg yesterday. They had a scheduled press meeting outside. This was public, so some were present to boo Johnson for his parcours (or for brexit in general). So BJ doesn't want to get out there. I can understand that, and IMHO it's not in our EU favor that the Luxemburg prime minister doesn't want to hold one indoors, but rather goes out by himself with an empty seat next to him (gotta give brexiteers points for this: that sort of humiliation isn't helping anyone).
The interesting part is that he says that BJ is just running out the clock. That he has nothing new to say, doesn't put anything on paper, and that the best their team is doing is just making sure that communication lines are open (which at least they have the decency to admit that this ought to be common sense).

...but meanwhile, BJ holds an interview with sky news in which he claims that there is actual progress being made.

So...WTF is this? What's the point of negotiations if both sides come out with completely different visions of what's going on in there?
This is the point where the media gotta draw the line. Tie UK and EU negotiators literally together if they have to. But this sort of stupidity has to stop. I'd say "NOW!!!", but it should never have started to begin with.


----------



## notimp (Sep 19, 2019)

Thats normal. Probably running down time the diplomatic way. Or not.  The british side later brought in a formal complaint - that a press conference indoors was promised - and the promise not abided by.

This came after afair - the crowd booed BJ in this setting.

So 'conference indoors' is probably simply an allegory for 'control the crowd'.

PMs oddly enough - when doing diplomatic appearances have to keep an eye on public appearance.

So if you get the impression, that all that you are getting out of a meeting is bad press the next day, because of an unfavorable crowd - seemingly you just leave.

Or you give that as a pretext, because you can.  To BJs defense, people apparently were booing..


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 24, 2019)

... And parliament is back in action. Supreme Court decided to follow the earlier mentioned Scottish court in that the prolonged prorogation was prone to being too long to condone (1). 

Johnson doesn't like the decision, but ey... That's just his opinion,apparently. 



(1): try reading that part out aloud fast


----------



## Xzi (Sep 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> ... And parliament is back in action. Supreme Court decided to follow the earlier mentioned Scottish court in that the prolonged prorogation was prone to being too long to condone (1).
> 
> Johnson doesn't like the decision, but ey... That's just his opinion,apparently.
> 
> ...


BoJo's Bizarre Adventure continues on.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> BoJo's Bizarre Adventure continues on.



Wait... Who's Dio (aka "I FORSAKE MY HUMANITY!!") in all this?


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2019)

Current recap. (Canadian source)


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 27, 2019)

So has anything been done since the initial Brexit vote? Like, _at all?_


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> So has anything been done since the initial Brexit vote? Like, _at all?_



It's been, what, two years since I laste read about Brexit? When I was on Wikipedia and found out they're still screwing around I banged my head into the wall.


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> So has anything been done since the initial Brexit vote? Like, _at all?_


Yes, talks were held, plans were drafted. British side underestimated the extent to which economic integration already took part. British side found out about the irish border issue a little late.

Here is the smoking gun. (Imho) As as said in the video - if you look at the body language of the 'pro brexit politicians' after their referendum victory, it spelled 'shit we've won, now what' in big letters. 

But dont worry - if the inteded outcome always was hard brexit - all the work you have to do is to prepare your economies for it 'better' - thats been under way.  That probably took all the time.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 27, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> So has anything been done since the initial Brexit vote? Like, _at all?_


Yes. Article 50 was triggered. This is the formal declaration of leaving (and has a time limit, since extended a few times and a further one is a hot topic right now but tricky for a whole bunch of reasons on both the EU and UK side of things*) as the vote was essentially an internal matter, technically not legally binding either -- direct democracy is not a major feature of UK politics, certainly not a common one (if you are more familiar with the US style of things where everybody down to fire commissioners are voted upon as are individual bills then such a notion is alien to most UK peeps), but ignoring it entirely is rather hard to justify.
However said triggering happened seemingly without much of a plan on what was going to be asked for (the original referendum had no particular choices here, and little in the way of "we will be doing this if you vote this") and wide division across all the various concerns. Said concerns, though there is obviously overlap and pragmatism that blur things, fall into four main camps which are roughly 
The essentially hard exit to become just another country in the world, though presumably some negotiations done in short order as geographical location, historical and cultural ties and richness mean it is worth it. I don't know if this has been legally ruled out at this point but to attempt it would be a legal minefield, though the EU could also turn around and say you are done and have it happen by default as it were.
The so called softer approach where the seat at the table is lost but some of the rulings still apply so as to facilitate trade more easily. Harder to sell to some people as Brussels is used much the same as Washington/DC is used when people talk about federal rulings in the US, and much of the campaigning was about taking back power. However also not a position without its supporters among those that voted to leave.
While the opposition side has recently been seen to somewhat coalesce around the the "stop it if we can" types (though still not enough of a majority to do anything real**) then there was the "it is a bad move but if the people want it then make sure it is a good deal". 

None of said camps are anything close to dominant over the process as a whole and while party lines are a reasonable predictor there are some very notable exceptions in all of it -- the conservatives (the people that promised and held the vote in the first place, that lost a lot of support but still just about retained power in the subsequent election, albeit by teaming up with a local interest party in Northern Ireland) have some major dissenters here (some left, some were kicked out of the party, and today they are very much in a minority in government and have taken an absolute hammering at various other levels) there are others on the other sides that vote differently (sometimes pragmatism, sometimes their assessment of the thing, sometimes because that is what their constituents voted for in the original referendum).

Internally in the UK as a lot of this is uncharted territory, and the UK does not have something like a codified constitution as much as lots of doctrine on the matter, then there has been a fair bit that has been figured out about what goes in such scenarios, and internal UK laws passed about what needs to happen (one of the main ones being that the UK parliament gets to approve the deal first, and seemingly another saying that leaving without a deal is not an option).

A few quirks have been cleared up (the territory of Gibralta borders Spain for instance) and while the main negotiations have somewhat stalled there was the agreement the EU and negotiators (despite various flavours of incompetence, being without direction, being hamstrung and various resignations, firings and prime ministers/major ministers going themselves instead) came to concerning what to do in the meantime while the main negotiations could be continued (the so called backstop agreement) but that was rejected so harshly (on essentially multiple occasions, which itself is rare as returning things multiple times is not the done thing) that said series of rejections is now going to be a major historical note in UK politics. That said present UK politics is something of a series of major historical notes so that might end up being drowned out somewhat.

Outside the EU there have been some overtures made to various countries as far as increased trade relations but most of those are waiting to see what will happen with leaving the EU lark first, the US among the more vocal for the harder exits (at least this presidency, the previous one differed a bit) where others do other things (For instance Canada, which has its own historical and current political ties with the UK, at this time being in the process of creating greater ties with the EU, indeed it forming one of the major models people looked at when considering what position to take).

*the UK side of things is probably obvious here but EU wise their next major budget plans for the next however many years are set to begin (this being one of the major functions of the EU) and if the UK is still involved then that makes things a bit tricky -- the UK being both a source of revenue and a cost centre within it (in simple terms on a balance book the UK is a net profit for the EU but you still have to allocate spending and predict income), to say nothing of having a leaving party in a vote on direction, as well as their own vested interests, being a less than desirable thing to have.

**the calls for an election came thick and fast for months, however during this proroguing lark the notion was floated and rejected as "not enough time" or something. If they thought they had a chance to enact their will then do you think they would have blocked an election?

So yeah cynicism is quite justifiable, and the notion that the UK is some kind of old hand punching above their weight at international politics has taken a major kicking, and a lot more things should have happened but to say nothing happened is also not correct.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 7, 2019)

So... What's happening now?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 7, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> So... What's happening now?


For the most part you might want to hold off on that for the next couple of days, maybe even a few weeks as the EU leader summit is where much is set to go down. Much speculation now is whether Hungary will be rejecting the negotiations extension request (which is required by UK law to be asked for), as such things need to be unanimous among EU voting countries, if emergency meetings with various Hungarian diplomats is anything to go by*.

*the Hungarian prime minister is about as Eurosceptic as they come (though I believe polls there don't have support for them leaving) and seemingly prepared to take a kicking from the EU, not to mention Hungary does not do that much with the UK (they have some cheap but technologically capable labour so a few manufacturing firms for electronics and such use them to still technically make things within the EU and that is about it really) so no big loss to them if the UK has a hard time trading.

Anyway the UK wide supreme court (a somewhat new concept in UK politics) upheld the Scottish ruling that the extended prorogation was not good and stopped it, which itself is a fairly bold political stance for a court that is somewhat famously apolitical, so now parliament is back in. This also means various party conferences (which were planned for a while prior to this) have been happening while parliament is in session.

Some politicians complained about mean words but eh really. The prime minister also stuck his foot in it by saying the best way to honour that MP that got murdered the other year would be to get it done, this despite her rather firm stance being against it and the dude that did the deed giving that as a reason for doing it. Soundbite politics is boring though so I will skip anything more there.

The prime minister proposed a fairly unlikely to pass alternative for Northern Ireland that leaves EU regulations on Northern Ireland (and not the rest of the UK) but has a measure of technological customs means and some checks "away from the border" (they call it two borders, 4 years as it is supposed to be a temporary thing while things get sorted out) thus leaving Northern Ireland within the UK for the purposes of internal UK trade and movement.

At the same time an election is pretty much not if but when so there is a lot of fancy words in anticipation of that, and the EU is also watching to see what goes here as someone actually getting a majority (no idea how likely such a thing is) would allow things to happen.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 10, 2019)

Alas... To my complete lack of surprise, Johnson didn't pull a white rabbit out of a hat. The current proposal isn't accepted by the EU. And both sides are starting to blame the other. 

Farage obviously enjoys this, and takes the opportunity to boost his own agenda ("Your wretched treaty is off the table, support for a clean-break Brexit is growing and it will be the winning ticket at the next general election"). Johnson is technically required by law to ask for an extension but it's unclear whether he'll do it (or that it'll be given, as pointed out by @FAST6191).
The EU, on the other hand, is calling the proposal 'unrealistic' and 'not a real offer'. Verhofstadt calls Johnson a traitor multiple times. 
Varadkar puts it best (IMHO) by saying the following :
"_Essentially, what the UK has done is repudiated the deal that we negotiated in good faith with prime minister [Theresa] May's government over two years and have sort of put half of that now back on the table, and are saying that's a concession. And of course it isn't really,"
_
I'm not saying it's impossible, but... Unless there's a huge and sudden change, a deal with the EU is going to be off the table pretty soon. 

Source :
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/10098347/brexit-talks-leo-varadkar-breakthrough-talks-barnier/


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Varadkar puts it best (IMHO) by saying the following :
> "_Essentially, what the UK has done is repudiated the deal that we negotiated in good faith with prime minister [Theresa] May's government over two years and have sort of put half of that now back on the table, and are saying that's a concession. And of course it isn't really,"_



I don't see how anyone can say a deal is negotiated in good faith when one party forces you to put your cards on the table first (exit fee and EU  rights for citizens in the UK) and then when they've got the deal they want give you a deal on what you want. This was 2 deals and May should have stood her ground and said everything should be on the table at the same time.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 10, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> I don't see how anyone can say a deal is negotiated in good faith when one party forces you to put your cards on the table first (exit fee and EU  rights for citizens in the UK) and then when they've got the deal they want give you a deal on what you want. This was 2 deals and May should have stood her ground and said everything should be on the table at the same time.


Let's see... The Irish prime Minister said its done on good faith,and it's an idea that's been shared both by the EU as May's government. Sure, parliament shoot it down, but that was on the content rather than the way the deal came to be. I've read that "we've been forced into accepting a deal", but every time I try to get to the bottom of what that means, it turns out that there's no real substance behind the soundbite.

But ey... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Convince me : why are you thinking you know politics better than the Irish prime Minister?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Let's see... The Irish prime Minister said its done on good faith,and it's an idea that's been shared both by the EU as May's government. Sure, parliament shoot it down, but that was on the content rather than the way the deal came to be. I've read that "we've been forced into accepting a deal", but every time I try to get to the bottom of what that means, it turns out that there's no real substance behind the soundbite.
> 
> But ey... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Convince me : why are you thinking you know politics better than the Irish prime Minister?



the way the deal came to be was Michel Barnier, if I remember correctly, telling May that the exit bill and EU citizens rights would have to be dealt with first. May should have told him no way, everything is on the table at the same time or you leave us with no option but a Brexit without a deal. 

can you see it happening the other way around, May getting  the deal she  wanted and then Barnier wanting to talk about the exit bill and EU citizens rights who are in the UK, of course not   

you mention the content was shot down by the MP's because many think it is a  deal, and it demonstrates my point that May should have stood her ground and refused a deal on the exit bill and EU citizens rights first.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 10, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> the way the deal came to be was Michel Barnier, if I remember correctly, telling May that the exit bill and EU citizens rights would have to be dealt with first. May should have told him no way, everything is on the table at the same time or you leave us with no option but a Brexit without a deal.


The first part is true. The second your opinion. May never resisted this because it was pretty obvious : the exit bill was because as a EU member, Britain had contributed a lot to shared projects that had to be untangled or in some cases continued (intelligence was one of those, iirc). So the exit bill was just a formality on both sides until some hardcore brexiteers decided to misinterpret its meaning. 
The EU citizens rights was another non - issue. You've got plenty of EU people living and working in the UK. With anti EU on the rise, what sorts of legislations are added to make sure they're not reduced to personae non grata? 

Look... I know the latter is the sort of politics that Johnson follows. It's about creating and using leverage and power play. The thing is : the EU sees this as extortion,as holding EU citizens hostage and irresponsible behavior (try using that 'oh, you want me to pay for my groceries? I'm willing to do that if you give me something extra' powerplay in your local supermarket and see what happens). 
And more relevant : May was more a traditional politician. One who believes that the best deals are win - win ones that benefit everyone. 


> can you see it happening the other way around, May getting  the deal she  wanted and then Barnier wanting to talk about the exit bill and EU citizens rights who are in the UK, of course not


I see your logic, but it has a flaw in it. May never went against the hard limits of the EU, and she drew similar red lines in the sand for the UK as well. The deal got worked out from there. So i yes... In the end she got the deal she wanted. Whether the eu's lines were drawn before or after may brought up hers doesn't really matter in the end. 

The logic flaw in your reasoning is that of the zero sum game. You seem to assume that possibilities are either good or bad, and therefore have to be weighed in order not to 'give anything away for free'. Basically : the mere assertion that a due bill can be blockers about isn't aimed at not paying in the end, but to get something in return for... Well, for nothing, really. 

So the 'the other way around' isn't what you think it is. Similar would be more in terms of the EU making power plays like 'considering a complete economic blockades on the UK' or 'annexing Gibraltar'. It's nonsense because despite what some dumb tabloids think, we're not evil. May understood that. Johnson most likely as well, but he knows better than to think playing nice will wield him a different result than May. 




> you mention the content was shot down by the MP's because many think it is a  deal, and it demonstrates my point that May should have stood her ground and refused a deal on the exit bill and EU citizens rights first.


To be fair, I'm pretty sure parliament thinks ALL exit deals (including no deal) are 
. May clearly underestimated that. Johnson doesn't, but his plot to get around them failed.

Johnson isn't making the same mistakes as May, I'll give him that. Unfortunately, and this is my opinion, he makes a worse mistake. Attempting to extort the EU either won't work or will have long term repercussions. 
... And that's assuming that parliament will even agree to the best possible deal Johnson can get in the first place.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 16, 2019)

A small bump... Seems like things are moving in the negotiations. From what I read, there are ACTUAL negotiations going on between the two states.

However... Part of the agreement would be that northern Ireland follows regulation of the EU(with the actual customs in the Irish sea), so even if that's true it may as well not make it through parliament. The proposal would certainly be different than what May ever proposed, but I don't think it's going to make much of a difference if those guys still say no to everything.


----------



## Henx (Oct 16, 2019)

Going back to how this started... it is perplexing that this referendum happened in the first place. People were manipulated into voting to leave.
For the past month I encountered several interesting articles that opened my eyes to a subject I wasn't aware in the first place.
This podcast is pretty much on point, about how digital manipulation impacts politics, and how dangerous that is https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/740767821/digital-manipulation?showDate=2019-07-12

Second, and more importantly is the British government own agenda. This article describes our own tax heavens, and how UK will benefit from it, following its exit from EU https://www.taxjustice.net/2019/01/23/brexit-and-the-future-of-tax-havens/
Worth mentioning is the EU's blacklist on these. This is where it gets dark, or grey as referred to in the article https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-havens-and-puts-caymans-and-jersey-on-notice

Just wanted to have other points of views on what is going on with this. Certainly, it only benefits the rich and makes the poor, even poorer.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 16, 2019)

They really should just have another vote and make it clear what "leave" is. Even if you question the idea of leaving at all, I would guess that most people wasn't expecting or wanting a no-deal, if they did leave.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 16, 2019)

Henx said:


> Going back to how this started... it is perplexing that this referendum happened in the first place. People were manipulated into voting to leave.
> For the past month I encountered several interesting articles that opened my eyes to a subject I wasn't aware in the first place.
> This podcast is pretty much on point, about how digital manipulation impacts politics, and how dangerous that is https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/740767821/digital-manipulation?showDate=2019-07-12
> 
> ...




Perplexing that the referendum happened in the first place?
Seems like a fairly obvious ploy to avoid the spoiler effect from UKIP (they might not have got many MP seats but they had enough percentage vote to note in this), loss of power to UKIP in locals and Europe, and internal defection in their parties, and if they were presuming a narrow loss then being able to point at that and say "see how close you were... wouldn't take much to tip it now and you wouldn't want that to happen now would you?" in EU negotiations for years to come (see also Scotland independence, Quebec independence and anywhere else there was a narrow result in such things).
Appeasement actions towards such ends have been a staple of big party politics for... centuries really.

I have my issues with the framing of the original vote (no plan, much less a public plan, no consensus, no particular framework for it, lots of dubious claims) and I don't doubt for a moment there were some fucking smart people playing with all sorts of numbers, polling, psychology and tactical advertising (if various news reports are to believed maybe even some what could technically be insider trading too to help finance a few thing) which coupled rather nicely with the cluelessness of the voting public but whether they reach into the realms of voter manipulation as the law understands it is a different matter.

Tax havens as a result (though most of those seem a bit out of date at this point). Nice perk for some, possibly a combination factor for some of the people driving the campaign but don't see it as a driving force -- there is a reason small islands and such are the only places to truly operate like this.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 16, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> They really should just have another vote and make it clear what "leave" is. Even if you question the idea of leaving at all, I would guess that most people wasn't expecting or wanting a no-deal, if they did leave.



we had a vote, leave won, it's those that don't want to leave are preventing us leaving. in a referendum you can only have a binary choice, leave or remain, leave won, the supreme court decided that the  people had the right to decide to leave or not but then they decided Parliament would have the right to decide how we left.

there will be an election soon, the Liberals might increase their numbers but they have no chance of getting a majority, I think the last time they did was 100 years ago. Labour are  behind the Tories in I think every poll. 

I think the Tories will win, maybe with  a hung Parliament or with a small majority and then get Brexit done, I can't see Labour winning, not with Corbyn,  in the past even Labour MPs wanted to get rid of him.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 16, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> it's those that don't want to leave are preventing us leaving. in a referendum you can only have a binary choice



Is referendum defined as binary choice? There are plenty of ways to have such a thing with multiple choices or categories.

Also is it people that don't want to leave preventing leaving (is this not why we are seeing all sorts of long shots with court cases and whatever else?)? Plenty of people/MPs were seemingly prepared to leave, just not under the terms May managed to secure (which I can't say I blame them for) but also not under no deal at all.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 16, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is referendum defined as binary choice? There are plenty of ways to have such a thing with multiple choices or categories.
> 
> Also is it people that don't want to leave preventing leaving (is this not why we are seeing all sorts of long shots with court cases and whatever else?)? Plenty of people/MPs were seemingly prepared to leave, just not under the terms May managed to secure (which I can't say I blame them for) but also not under no deal at all.



I doubt the Electoral Commission would allow anything more than a binary choice. Like I said the Supreme court has decided Parliament decides   how we leave, not the people. 

some people are showing their true colours now, Liberals and Labour said they would honour the result, now the Liberals have said they will revoke article 50 and sat on the fence Crobyn wants his own deal even thou members of the Labour party want to remain. 

Corbyn is not going to vote for any deal. Roll on the election and good bye to many of those MPs who decided to ignore the result of a referendum and the majority of their constituents. 

I've voted Labour all my life, never again.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 16, 2019)

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/16/labour-mp-quits-party-cant-risk-jeremy-corbyn-becoming-pm-10932506/

oh dear, that's not going to help Corbyn become PM in a few weeks


----------



## notimp (Oct 17, 2019)

We have a Brexit deal.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> We have a Brexit deal.



as Farage would say, it's not a deal, its an EU Treaty


----------



## notimp (Oct 17, 2019)

Economy wont fall out beneath us. So thats good. 
(UK has the same economic power as 18 of the not so well of states within the EU combined.)


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> We have a Brexit deal.


My mind quickly jumped to this all being done, but it seems it isn't over yet.


----------



## notimp (Oct 17, 2019)

It basically should be.

If EU and Britain are in agreement, Irland should be able to be sorted out. (This is probably a financial deal, if anything.) Politically they shouldnt be  interested in pulling a fast one.

There is still the possibility for the UK using them as a premise to provoke the deal falling through - but its small. The bigger things are settled.


----------



## notimp (Oct 19, 2019)

Watching Corbin following up BoJo in speaches right now. Very entertaining.  Will post results, once the vote went through.

edit: Corbin: "This deal will automatically lead to a Trump Trade deal"

edit2: BoJo is up again.

edit3: BoJo made a European Bonkers Union joke that was world class. He then called back on it twice. 

edit4: Scottish nationalist party is publicly against the deal. Oh dear.


----------



## notimp (Oct 19, 2019)

The decision will be postponed. Labour says to make sure that the implementation will be as promised.

We'll see. Now they can move politically.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 19, 2019)

notimp said:


> The decision will be postponed. Labour says to make sure that the implementation will be as promised.
> 
> We'll see. Now they can move politically.


Postponed? Why's that needed? DUP isn't going to accept a deal the EU proposed  three years ago. So the only real difference I can see is that they're not really pinning the blame on the EU but on their own government allies. Not exactly the most helpful approach...IF you want your plan to succeed.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 19, 2019)

To change the discussion a little bit, how would a brexit or even a cancelled brexit affect the world?


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 19, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> To change the discussion a little bit, how would a brexit or even a cancelled brexit affect the world?


A canceled brexit is easy : everything would go back to before. Granted, there 'd be some disgruntled naval - and airports, because they had to make preparations that would turn out unneeded (extra customs locations, and such).

Brexit is about the way the country trades with others, so that would change. It'll obviously be somewhat chaotic, but it'll be more or less fine after a while (say... A couple of years). I'm honestly convinced that this is a situation without winners. The trade deals were there to facilitate trade, so getting rid of those makes it harder for EU members and the UK, administrative and legislative.

The main problem is, however, if I turn out to be right. Brexiteers have always argued that the EU held them back. How will the UK population react when their dreams don't come true after leaving? If so, it's not that unlikely there'll be a EU friendly government coming to power in a few years, reapplying membership with the EU. Another real possibility is that Scotland leaves the UK to join the EU themselves (which would surely bring other kinds of tensions).

Okay, there is also a problem when the brexiteers are right (though not for them, obviously). Many other countries will no doubt see a spike in popularity in political parties appealing to populism. It could happen that the entire EU cases to exists /falls apart because of this. It's extreme, but not an impossible scenario. But really... What's the point of having a union of we're INDEED better off on our own?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2019)

Give us a second vote on how we are leaving and then execute the majority from that vote. If parliament is going to do fuck all when a deal is presented to them, then what can you do.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 19, 2019)

notimp said:


> The decision will be postponed.


Ahaha. Ok now they're just trolling.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 19, 2019)

Jack54782 said:


> Give us a second vote on how we are leaving and then execute the majority from that vote. If parliament is going to do fuck all when a deal is presented to them, then what can you do.



as long as it's Boris's Deal or leave without a deal. 

We need a General election to rid Parliament of those who think they are not accountable for their actions. It's time the Law was changed if you change the Political party you represent you need to call a local election, it's laughable that some MP's have changed alliance upto 2 times and ask for a peoples vote


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 19, 2019)

I haven't seen it yet.. Are they going returning to EU instead of Brexit ? I hope so.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 19, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> as long as it's Boris's Deal or leave without a deal.


Sure. And add in a'remain' option in as well. You can't go around discriminating half the population because they couldn't get a majority three years ago.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 19, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sure. And add in a'remain' option in as well. You can't go around discriminating half the population because they couldn't get a majority three years ago.



no, to honour the result of the  first referendum where  the majority voted leave, just because YOU don't like the result and 'kick the can' down the road for 3 years doesn't change the fact the majority voted leave.

the 'Peoples Vote' claim 1M were protesting in the streets of London, if anyone tires to revoke article 50, just see how many go and protest, I'll be travelling 200 miles to be there and it will be more than 1M.  But I don't think ti will happen, The Tories will win the next election with a majority and that's coming from a ex lifelong labour voter, never again will I vote for them.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 19, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> as long as it's Boris's Deal or leave without a deal.


Why do you want to leave so much, even at the risk of a no deal? What are the benefits? 

Also, if you are so certain that people haven't changed their mind after 3 years, why be against another vote?


----------



## ut2k4master (Oct 19, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> no, to honour the result of the  first referendum where  the majority voted leave, just because YOU don't like the result and 'kick the can' down the road for 3 years doesn't change the fact the majority voted leave.


the vote was based on a lie though. they should do a vote now that more people know about the consequences, take the deal or stay in the eu


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 19, 2019)

I prefer for them not to get the deal because I want them to stay in the EU!


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 19, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Why do you want to leave so much, even at the risk of a no deal? What are the benefits?
> 
> Also, if you are so certain that people haven't changed their mind after 3 years, why be against another vote?



I would rather leave with no deal, the only way you will get a good deal is when everything is on the table at the same time, as soon as we leave with no deal then the UK gov and the EU will I'm sure come to a deal very quickly. May screwed up by giving the EU what they wanted first. 

Where I live 57% voted leave, if you came to visit where I live you would be able to see why we voted leave. Ever expanding EU https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/18/france-denmark-and-netherlands-block-albania-s-eu-membership-bid  might be one of the problems.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ut2k4master said:


> the vote was based on a lie though. they should do a vote now that more people know about the consequences, take the deal or stay in the eu



the question was 'Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?'. how was it based on a lie ? 

why should they do a vote now after 3 1/2yrs of remainers kicking the can down the road causing Chaos ?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2019)

I'm mostly concerned about the dangers of another referendum as it gives the EU ungodly amounts of power to wield over members and there membership, as there will always be a case to reference in the form of Britain being trapped in the EU.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 19, 2019)

Jack54782 said:


> I'm mostly concerned about the dangers of another referendum as it gives the EU ungodly amounts of power to wield over members and there membership, as there will always be a case to reference in the form of Britain being trapped in the EU.



regarding a second referendum
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty


----------



## ChibiMofo (Oct 19, 2019)

emigre said:


> I'd be interested in what people's thoughts on the potential benefits would be.


Just keep in mind that as with Traitor Trump, Brexit is exactly what Putin wanted and he got it. He wanted a destabilized West and it can't be more destabilized than having a Russian agent in the White House and a disunited EU with Boris in #9 Downing Street. If you believe what's best for Putin is what's best for you, than you should be a MAGA hat-wearing Brexit supporter.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 19, 2019)

1MiinMofo said:


> Just keep in mind that as with Traitor Trump, Brexit is exactly what Putin wanted and he got it. He wanted a destabilized West and it can't be more destabilized than having a Russian agent in the White House and a disunited EU with Boris in #9 Downing Street. If you believe what's best for Putin is what's best for you, than you should be a MAGA hat-wearing Brexit supporter.



The Chinese are a greater threat to peace  than Putin with their 9-Dash line.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 20, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> no, to honour the result of the  first referendum where  the majority voted leave, just because YOU don't like the result and 'kick the can' down the road for 3 years doesn't change the fact the majority voted leave.
> 
> the 'Peoples Vote' claim 1M were protesting in the streets of London, if anyone tires to revoke article 50, just see how many go and protest, I'll be travelling 200 miles to be there and it will be more than 1M.  But I don't think ti will happen, The Tories will win the next election with a majority and that's coming from a ex lifelong labour voter, never again will I vote for them.


Shirt. I don't mean to offend, but I'm actually glad that brexiteers would be protesting. I can name quite a few past protests of bremainers claiming  the streets for what they want. As far as brexiteers go, all I can see are either the politicians (and of these, it's at least half Farage) or a few disgruntled people in the street acting as if it was as easy as promised ('just get it done already'). I'm not saying brexit voters just wanted to say 'fuck you' to Carleton, but it's about time you guys proved that. 

Or look at this thread. It's called 'benefits of brexit' but I don't see many concrete benefits being brought up by the - no dispute there - actual majority of the UK. And it's not like you are forbidden to answer @KingVamp either : he reinstates once again the question on what would change with a brexit. Since you clearly like the idea of brexit, why don't you tell us about the why of this rather than answering the ones against you? I mean...it's hard to deny I don't like the result,but that's not the reason I want a second referendum. That would be because the brexit politicians had no plan, no idea and no concrete goal to begin with. Okay, and because they tried to hide those facts by accusations.

Again : I'm against brexit, but it's not like I have a grudge against Switzerland because they're not part of the EU. If you read back to the start of the thread, it's not like I was trying to sell a bremain on anyone. It was just because the vote result didn't yield so much concrete negotiations as much as a political circus that I started coming in with 'look... Perhaps this whole thing wasn't such a good idea as you thought it was'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> May screwed up by giving the EU what they wanted first.


Out of curiosity : does that mean that Johnson screwed up even more for basically accepting an even older EU proposal (of which May said that no prime Minister would ever agree with)?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 20, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Or look at this thread. It's called 'benefits of brexit' but I don't see many concrete benefits being brought up by the - no dispute there - actual majority of the UK. And it's not like you are forbidden to answer @KingVamp either : he reinstates once again the question on what would change with a brexit. Since you clearly like the idea of brexit, why don't you tell us about the why of this rather than answering the ones against you?
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity : does that mean that Johnson screwed up even more for basically accepting an even older EU proposal (of which May said that no prime Minister would ever agree with)?



one benefit, maybe ask your  neighbours  

no he didn't have time to start from scratch, but I'm sure if he did have time he would have got a better deal

we were told the EU wouldn't change the deal, he got them to change it.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 20, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> I would rather leave with no deal, the only way you will get a good deal is when everything is on the table at the same time, as soon as we leave with no deal then the UK gov and the EU will I'm sure come to a deal very quickly. May screwed up by giving the EU what they wanted first.


Sounds like a gamble. That aside, do you think the deal would be better than staying? Would you be happy to leave, even if you never get a good or any deal?



JoeBloggs777 said:


> Ever expanding EU https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/18/france-denmark-and-netherlands-block-albania-s-eu-membership-bid might be one of the problems.


Interesting. Wasn't even aware that more countries were trying to get in.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 20, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Sounds like a gamble. That aside, do you think the deal would be better than staying? Would you be happy to leave, even if you never get a good or any deal?
> 
> 
> Interesting. Wasn't even aware that more countries were trying to get in.



yes I think it would be,  a clean break, the EU wants us firstly to remain and if not leave with a deal to keep us tied within the EU , the reason they don't want a no deal is https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-to-become-economic-competitor-after-brexit-merkel-warns/

EU is always trying to expand, Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now waiting in line to join the EU, that's what another 90 million people  also The Ukraine want to join the EU (population 45m)


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 20, 2019)

Labour will back an amendment calling for a referendum on Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...est-second-referendum-vote-deal-a9163446.html

well that's screwed up Labours policy for the next general election of getting their own  deal or remain. 

it will take 22wks to organise a referendum, this cant go on for another 2weeks never mind 22 weeks.


----------



## notimp (Oct 20, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> To change the discussion a little bit, how would a brexit or even a cancelled brexit affect the world?


I find the Labour narrative around this most helping/convincing/interesting.

I'll take a few stabs at it once I've layed it out - but all of the following is not my interpretation, but their 'narrative'.

First - lets start with the EU liberal elites stance on the matter.

- Brexit is a late backlash on Thatchers course of liberalizing the work force (Sounds odd, but in concept is right (not taking into account blame game aspects)).

Former industrial regions in the UK where shafted by pretty much all the UKs political planning. EU then 'sponsored' those through fonds to keep the regions afloat (something the EU does, more so than the tories would). But the anger (no perspective) kept accumulating, and then evaporated in a notion of 'we want back our flag'. Meaning social security structures, opportunities - Britannia for the poorer brits.

The iffy thing is, that by voting their flag back - those poorer working communities in britain shot themselves in the foot. Because they eliminated actual social support structures, and will not get any back mid term (Britain has to make sure it gets competitive at the international stage, which means fucking over workers rights, and cutting social security nets. But it will also bring new 'opportunities'.).

- Here is the labour argument. 'The current EU deal means, a Trump trade deal to follow'. I listened to a labour speech yesterday that layed out, that the economies of the EU and the US are structured very differently (US: work two jobs, be poor still, no security nets), and that they fear - that the UK will be shifting to a US style economy in the mid term future (you are orienting yourself towards the new shiny). The argument here goes, if you wanted to superseed EU standards in workers or consumer rights, you could already do that. You couldnt undercut them to make deals with countries that didn't meet those standards (costing you business), and that (cutting social expenses, cutting workers rights, lowering standards) is now whats behind much of the 'opportunity' the Tory party is selling.
--

Now there also are regions in the UK (think border countries with the EU) that just plainly net profit from EU trade, so those (Scottland and Ireland) are your internal strugglers, because regardless of what deal the UK strikes, those countries will be off worse because of regionality and not being allowed to freely trade with their neighbor countries anymore (if you put in tariffs there is a process, there is overhead, wares don't move so freely anymore - this hurts profit).
--

Also on the level of the Tories there is this narrative of the EU is set out to produce deeper and deeper integration between member state (banking union, military union, monetary union - and the big fear for them 'social security union' (Meaning - 'We have to pay for the poorer countries within the EU). Now - it has to be noted, that this was a future fear, and not a practice, all things considered currently, because the UK 'net profited' from EU trade relations. (And if you do so, you also have to pay for the streets in Italy kind of thing.) They were whats called a 'net payer' (all rich countries within the EU are (means: payed more into EU funds, than taking out of them, but those are just the political funds, not private business)), but in whole their business profited from free trade within the EU. Just that poorer working communites (or large parts of middle classes  ) didnt share in the profits. But thats a UK policy problem. Within the EU economic system the big profits went to the rich countries. 
--


Those are the three main battle lines.  Its important to understand, that individual businesses profit more or less from the EU market, so there are battle lines within that as well. For example. If you are a sub standard industrial producer, pumping out the greats copper cook ware, made in rural town over the hill - the prospects of making cuts on worker payments, and then doing great trade deal with Bangalore India (sorry for the cultural racism) sound much better, than if you were a car manufacturer for instance (Aston Martin (Ford) wont be expanding in India or Eastasia, when producing in 'Stratford upon Aven').
----

So mid term benefits for leaving are mainly in lowering production cost, and social spending - trying to facilitate a new boom, that within the EU standards regime wouldnt have been possible. But that means, lowering working costs, and social standards.

Long term benefits as in 'political independance' are arguable though. Its jut that the people that provoked brexit would actually not benefit at all.

Geo-security wise, it wouldnt change much. Partnerships with the EU (inside or outside NATO) are till expected, with the EU now having to spend more for 'security' than they did in the past.

From a trade perspective it makes both the UK and the EU a less dominant trading partner losing both of them 'importance' in the process. But then 'economic growth' nowadays is mostly in Bangalore, and Bangladesh, and if you have identified those as your future markets you don't care about your standards, to meet theirs. (Provocatively said.  ) Also, if you think that Daddy US will now foot your bills, that kind of might level that out for the UK. For a while. Or not.

For the EU - hard Brexit would be equivalent to -3-4% GDP (so recession basically), for the UK it would be -5-6%.

If you only see it from the perspective of economic wellbeing in the timeframe Millennials are in their productive age, Brexit was as spanner thrown into the european economy, by the US. So everyone but those countries will benefit relatively speaking.

If you can see it more long term, or are part of the particular interests profiting from individual trade deals with those countries (


notimp said:


> Here, I drew you something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



), it may be different.

edit: Hard Brexit basically just means an economic shock, and countries being miffed at each other politicly for a while (more sustained economic shock).

There were statements made in the parliamental debate I watched, that Theresa May was perceived as 'would have not risked that', while BoJo is perceived as gung ho. Whatevs. Lets do it.

But that also is diplomacy 1x1 (poker player attitude gains you more debating success, at a slightly higher risk) - and something that anyone involved (anyone but the average public shmuck  ) knows as well. So deals still are likely.

But to be very honest, I don't know what Labour is doing at the moment.  (Why? What?) To me the notion of a second referendum is still a little delusional - so... UK needs even more time?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 20, 2019)

notimp said:


> Hard Brexit basically just means an economic shock, and countries being miffed at each other politicly for a while (more sustained economic shock).


Keep in mind that the economy is basically a house of cards. If the economy drops only a little and very suddenly, you get a crisis.


----------



## notimp (Oct 20, 2019)

Tell that to the climate kids. *wink*


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2019)

Reject the delay extension brought forward by the surrender act, parliament votes on the deal, leave with or without a deal. Simple, if you love the EU, you should pray parliament eventually votes for this deal, because as usual the UK has a prime minister that is more focused on selling us down the river to save your precious union than doing the right thing for our country. We still don't have control of our fisheries, we still have to pay a yet undecided amount (atleast £39bn) we still don't have independent control of our army, ECJ still has jurisdiction over us for years to come. All this is BoJo's surrender deal, so looks like your corrupt disgusting union is going to win after all.


----------



## CORE (Oct 21, 2019)

Even if Brexit goes through EU still owns our Military effectively November 1st.

Another Hong Kong situation especially for Northern Ireland where I Live.

An imaginary border because Europe wants an Authoritarian Single Market.

Nationalists sold out to EU.
Loyalists are the real Nationalists.
Republic of Ireland laughable what Republic you did not want British Rule but yet sold out to Europe.

Bottom line EU owns our Military and Assests including Intelligence thanks to the traitor May but hell they all traitors.

Yes Jeremy we do want a Trump Trade Deal.


----------



## Henx (Oct 21, 2019)

If/when brexit happens, I am afraid many of the EU good laws will be revised.
Areas such as environment, food regulation, human rights, free movement, healthcare, consumer protection, labouring rights, etc.
The competition law, which brought many outrageous companies to face the law and pay huge fines. Monopoly and abuse of dominance is a common problem. Public services must abide by this law as well. 

Not saying it is only great laws. Although, I am particular worried because I believe there has been a lot more good than bad.

To be clear, I do not trust the UK government to make better laws than the EU. They have proven to succumb to greedy corporations. Similar to USA.
Boris Johnson is our Trump. I don't think he, or his party are the right people to be in charge of this country. With that said, better be under EU.

This is a recent example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49884827

Also both will be competing with each other not only economically, but in everything else, instead of working in harmony. Segregation usually brings the worst in people, not the opposite.

PS: Many years ago I came to live here, from a country that is part of the EU. Don’t think it did us bad, on the contrary.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2019)

Henx said:


> If/when brexit happens, I am afraid many of the EU good laws will be revised.
> Areas such as environment, food regulation, human rights, free movement, healthcare, consumer protection, labouring rights, etc.
> The competition law, which brought many outrageous companies to face the law and pay huge fines. Monopoly and abuse of dominance is a common problem. Public services must abide by this law as well.
> 
> ...



We dont need a faceless corrupt organisation to make 'good' laws for us. What are your thoughts on the fact just today, the EU chose NOT to debate the jailing of the Catalan separatists?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 21, 2019)

Henx said:


> To be clear, I do not trust the UK government to make better laws than the EU. They have proven to succumb to greedy corporations. Similar to USA.
> .



Are you talking about just this Tory government or all UK governments? , Starmer was waffling on about some wording in the deal yesterday and how it meant that British laws would be inferior  to European law, he mentioned the number of days Holidays which you are entitled under EU law and then a MP got up and told him under UK law were already entitled to more days holiday than under EU law 

https://twitter.com/BrexitCentral/status/1185522820870217728/video/1


The Labour party keep on going on about workers right and this deal, surely if and when ( and probably not for another generation) when they get in power they can set their own workers rights laws, you don't need EU law.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 22, 2019)

Hmmm... Gotta give props to Johnson for his handling of an impossible situation. 

Yes, he technically asked for a delay in a letter. But it's just a standard template even without a signature. It is followed by a paper saying 'look... I was basically pushed in this situation, okay?', and then with another letter saying why he thinks a delay is a bad idea.

Sure, it's yet another delay by parliament. But I gotta give credit where due : he abides by the law without going down (in my opinion, of course).


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 22, 2019)

but other


Taleweaver said:


> Hmmm... Gotta give props to Johnson for his handling of an impossible situation.
> 
> Yes, he technically asked for a delay in a letter. But it's just a standard template even without a signature. It is followed by a paper saying 'look... I was basically pushed in this situation, okay?', and then with another letter saying why he thinks a delay is a bad idea.
> 
> Sure, it's yet another delay by parliament. But I gotta give credit where due : he abides by the law without going down (in my opinion, of course).



I think there is a court case and  the judge is going to give their verdict concerning the unsigned letter later this week


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 22, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> The Labour party keep on going on about workers right and this deal, surely if and when ( and probably not for another generation) when they get in power they can set their own workers rights laws, you don't need EU law.


Yes, truly pathetic. Corbyn needs big daddy Brussels to decide the laws in his country.
Anyway, I enjoy the this satire. May it never end (no pun intended).


----------



## Henx (Oct 22, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> Are you talking about just this Tory government or all UK governments? , Starmer was waffling on about some wording in the deal yesterday and how it meant that British laws would be inferior  to European law, he mentioned the number of days Holidays which you are entitled under EU law and then a MP got up and told him under UK law were already entitled to more days holiday than under EU law
> 
> https://twitter.com/BrexitCentral/status/1185522820870217728/video/1
> 
> ...



You should not forget of the past. The present means little in politics.

Quote:
"Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
...
In terms of the total volume of laws passed, the proportion of times the UK government has been on the “losing side” is small at about 2% since 1999. In recent years the UK has been losing a lot more votes, and now loses a higher proportion of votes than other members."
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

The government doesn't oppose much to EU laws. Your thoughts on the MPs making laws by themselves doesn't add up.
What I think about this is that, the more people participate in making laws the better. Having EU members from different background putting their perspective it is a good thing. Certainly better than having only a few from 1 or 2 parties majority.

Wait until there is no food regulation. Do you like to eat food with no labels or genetic modified? I don't! Who knows what they will change as they are no longer forced to brainstorm laws with other EU country members.

People seem to forget history. What happened to entire empires in the past because they were not satisfied enough, and went to conquer the world only to collapse eventually. Cooperation wins all the time.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 22, 2019)

Henx said:


> Wait until there is no food regulation. Do you like to eat food with no labels or genetic modified? I don't!


A) What is wrong with genetically modified food, not to mention it is already present.
B) Is that a likely scenario upon leaving?


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

CORE said:


> Even if Brexit goes through EU still owns our Military effectively November 1st.


How?

Dont just proclaim, explain positions. (No I'm not watching those videos.  )

This sounds very, very odd to me. (EU never owned even their own military much less that of britain. EU still doesnt have a unified foreign policy for gods sake.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> A) What is wrong with genetically modified food, not to mention it is already present.


What is wrong with lower social and living standards is the question you want to ask.  For about the next  10 years. 


Whats wrong with GMOs, basically is that you drive populations into 'mobile game ecosystems'. 

You patent not only the modification but the entire organism (plant), then you design in, that the plant cant naturally reproduce. Then you sell the seed. (With 'It produces higher yields' marketing.). One harvest gone wrong and your farmers are bancrupt, asking the state for help - which then buys new seeds, from you. 

You own the plant. You design away natural reproduction of crops. (You have to, or risk of mutations which are problematic as well.) Then you tell people, that this is the future. Thats the biggest issue with GMOs to date. (Not just with my activist hat on, but also generally speaking. It really is.)


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

@notimp
If you cant be bothered to watch the Videos I cant be bothered to explain
It is not a Proclamation it is a spoiler for the EDF-EDU-EDA-PESCO.
Lisbon Treaty.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

The issue is, that your videos seem to be propaganda, by mentaly deranged people. At first glance. So...

I ask for an explaination.

The EU doesnt even decide on military actions within their own countries. Remember the US caused second Iraq war ('axis of evil')?

France said partly yes, germany said no entirely? Those decisions were always national.

There is no EU ministry for military decisions, no EU body for military decisions... Those bodies always remained outside the EU.


You currently have NATO as a deciding body, and you have whats called 'security cooperation' talks. Those are and always have been national (intergovernmental).


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

@notimp 
Propaganda is a fabricated lie these are Facts.

Mentally Ill People... Dont even bother speaking anymore on the Subject you are clearly ignorant.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

This is propaganda.

Dear friend.

There have been talks about further integration of military decision making - which is seen as 'maybe necessary', because the US has said to want to leave the middle east mid term. So we have to replace that with 'something'.

But all those discussions are currently starting. Voluntary. And circling around producing the same standards first, and further down the road - maybe - a politically unified 'action force'. But for that we would have to have a EU 'foreign policy' first - which we dont have. (Ms. Federica Mogherini (EU foreign policy delegate) is all but a joke at this moment). But all that is much further down the road and doesnt currently exist, and if the UK would be part of it - it would be entirely voluntarily - I have to imagine.

So what do you know that I don't.


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

TRUTH!
Seek it!
GodBless


----------



## leon315 (Oct 22, 2019)

Henx said:


> To be clear, I do not trust the UK government to make better laws than the EU. They have proven to succumb to greedy corporations. Similar to USA.


YOU MUST KNOW that western stile of prosperity is based on greedy pillage from imperialism and colonialism.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

2min30 into your first video:

"Unfortunately the government seems to have seen the british military as a throw away chip in bargening, *and effectively the government has commited us *to numerous defense initiatives and indicated, that *it* will commit us into even deeper entanglement into EU defense mechanisms."

The leading question the reporter was asking was 'Has *the british government* done enough to use *its* military power to get concessions ('goodies') from the EU during Brexit negotiations.'


You my dear sir are a dangerous loon. So is that 'journalists position' ('Have you threatened the EU enough with withdrawing military cooperation for economic gains?').

Because your position is, that Britain should move agains Europe militarily, and you are willing to lie to see that idea fulfilled?


Now, lets look at your sources. In the first youtube clip, they use image material from Ruptly (they probably do it for legal reasons, because they are affiliated) - which is a subsidiary of RT - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruptly You are eating up russian propaganda, dear truth seeking sir.

Getting old generals, past their expiry date to comment on RT cameras... is - propaganda. For those people, because they might have a chip on their shoulder from when they left active duty - this is 'tha truth', but for RT it is something to 'produce reality' with.

Why you eating that up, sir?

Facebook victim?


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

notimp said:


> You my dear sir are a dangerous loon.



Thanks 



Spoiler



Let Me In!


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

Here are the initiatives named by the other 'left active duty' professor the Ruptly following journalist names.

European defense fund


> The *European Defence Fund* (*EDF*) is a component of the European Union's (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) which aims to coordinate and increase national investment in defence research and improve interoperability between national armed forces.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Fund
So thats a fund currently, not a deciding body. There is a world of difference. Also its part of the EUs CSDP - because even as of now, all the big military powers within the EU, are within the EU. So this is part of those agreements that now have to get looked at to either get cut, or are not at deposition.
Now - a european defense fund that aims at coordinating national investment to improve interoperability between national armed forces - is probably something that Britain has interest in staying in as well. Be cause if they are not - in Europe, a new larger army develops to which they have no insight in - and which could be antagonistic (opposed to) their military interests.

Why should you have to leave that for greater sovereignty? Because that old professor interviewed by an outlet with russian ties (seemingly) has said so?

European procurement plans


> German officials draw a distinction between the idea of a “European army” and the goal of establishing an “army of Europeans”, which was formally endorsed in the coalition treaty agreed by the three governing parties in Berlin earlier this year. It is normally held to mean closer co-operation between the various European armed forces as well as the joint procurement and development of weapons and other defence equipment.  “The path we have taken leads step by step to an ‘army of Europeans’. [That means] military forces that remain national responsibilities, but that are closely linked, uniformly equipped, and trained and ready for joint operations,” Ursula von der Leyen, the German defence minister, wrote in an opinion piece for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung at the weekend.


src: https://www.ft.com/content/272daf9a-ec49-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0

The goal here is 'intercompatibility' if joint operations are ever deemed necessary.

Why should the UK have to break away from that for greater sovereignty? Because that old professor interviewed by an outlet with russian ties (seemingly) has said so?

There are not many armies in Europe. So who would you like the UK to cooperate in the future with, then?

Russia?

Would you very much want to fight another war against the germans?

Whats the goal here?


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

Wikipedia is only good for my Gamelists it is nothing but Propaganda.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

Anybody in this thread, please dont take whatever CORE posts without a bucketload of salt.

Not everyone posting youtube videos in here has any sense of the importance of source integrity, or simply not going with what RT tells you to think.

I mean, nothing against the russians, they werent dumb enough to believe the 'Voice of America' either, when it was broadcasting from west germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America). 

But CORE is, when it comes from the other direction.


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

People can decide for themselves you dont speak for anyone but yourself. (notimp)

If what im saying is to be taken with a Grain of Salt why are you worrying about it , is your heart fluttering.

Such a delicate Flower.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

The major 'contributer' to drive forward the narrative of this 'documentary' (which later resorts to having people read off policy legislature names off an iPhone, and putting that in as - certainly not PR) is Robert Oulds who is director of the Bruges Group, which is basically a far right think tank.



> Through events, meetings, and papers, the Bruges Group played a key part in the 2016 Brexit Referendum in which 52 percent of the UK voted to leave the European Union.[24]Following the Leave campaign's win in the referendum, historian Andrew Robertscredited in part director Robert Oulds and the Bruges Group with keeping the popular insurgency alive over more than four decades.[25] In 2019, Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North East Somerset and the chairman of the European Research Group, delivered a speech to the Group stating that a 'no deal' Brexit should not be 'taken off the table'.[26]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruges_Group_(United_Kingdom)#cite_note-26

The first google results for his name offer up political pundit spots on turkish (state sponsored  ) television, and from a social media outlet called ''Scientists for EU" which - entertainingly enough is an anti EU PR joint, that holds donation drives at: https://scientists4eu.nationbuilder.com/donate

I mean - come on.. 

That truth, tha truth - those are the people bringing you that truth.



> Founded in February 1989, the Bruges Group's original aim was to promote the idea of a less centralised European structure than what they felt was emerging in Brussels. It was established by Lord Harris of High Cross and Oxford Universitystudent Patrick Robertson in response to Margaret Thatcher's *Bruges speech* to the College of Europe in September 1988



On message since 1988. 

Thank you Baron Harris of High Cross. (I'm not making this up.  )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Harris,_Baron_Harris_of_High_Cross




> In 1979, during Margaret Thatcher's first few months in power, he was made a life peer as Baron Harris of High Cross, of Tottenham in Greater London.[5] Yet, despite his strong affiliation with Tory free-marketeers, Harris sat on the crossbenches in the House of Lords to show his independence from any political party.[3]
> 
> He served on the council of the University of Buckingham from 1980 until 1995. It was founded in 1976 following a call from Harris and Seldon in 1968 for an independent university. Harris was Secretary of the Mont Pelerin Society from 1967, and its president from 1982 to 1984. He was "a moving spirit in the Wincott Foundation and the founding of the Social Affairs Unit".[6] He did not like to be described as a "Thatcherite", but was a founder of the No Turning Back group in 1985. Harris became a Eurosceptic, and was chairman of the Bruges Group from 1989 to 1991. He was a director of Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspapers company from 1988 to 2001, although he read and wrote for _The Daily Telegraph_. Nonetheless, Harris described Murdoch as the "Saviour of what we used to call Fleet Street".[3]



Baron of High Cross
Member of the Mont Pelerin Society
Founder of the Social affairs unit
Founder of the 'No Turning Back Group' and the 'Wincott Foundation'
Director of Robert Murdochs Times Newspaper company

Now, thats a life..


----------



## CORE (Oct 22, 2019)

Google and Wikipedia lol.
Why not just ring up Uncle George while your at it.
Far Right Far Left I dont give a Shit about either Truth is what is important.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

Your documentary is literally driven by a think tank of the far right, that lobbied to get out of the EU since 1988, and was instrumental for producing the ideas behind the leave referendum.

Its founder, a Baron, (now deceased) ran newspapers for Robert Murdoch, was the secretary of the Mont Pelerin society and founded the Social Affairs unit, a think tank, which was an offshoot of the Institute of economic affairs in the UK.


> The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) describes itself as a "free-market think-tank" dedicated to "analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems".



Google or not, I can assure, you that I didn't write those peoples bio's in the last three minutes on Wikipedia.

So no random conspiracy against the people of those fine institute. I just followed up on who was driving the message here.

That they are now pushing 'please share, real scandal story in here' youtube videos with video material from russian media channels on youtube - you have to agree, holds a special note. 

I mean I even first thought they were pushing Russian Propaganda.

No - those are the very guys who engineered brexit in the first place.

On message since 1988.

Thats dedication. 

But thats not an impartial news source.

And yes - part of why you still uphold miliary commitments is because of strategic and national interests.

Paying money to one of those funds is not something that will significantly alter britains ability to stay or act independently. All in all, if you have enough, you could simply withdraw the commitments should you want to. Politicly it may be a problem, but sovereignty on decision making is still yours.

Moreso - if you come from my perspective, most of of that seems to indicate, that all Britain wanted out of Brexit anyhow was the ability to do free and independent trade negotiations, and din't care much about the rest.

But currently those 'commitments' arent something that bind you in any significant way in regards to your future strategic decisions. You are not 'handing over your army to the EU' to 'own it'.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

One point that was made was, that those new deals should not undermine five eyes and NATO relationships.

NATO nowadays is basically defunct - but fear not there are many european countries still within it, so it is in our interest as well to keep it at least as actionable as it is now. Which is basically a talking circle (could be revived).

The five eyes (this is basically the intelligence sharing network that keeps the UK at the same level as the US, information wise) relationships over the past years have proven very strong and integral to Britains recent politcal history, so there is a point to be had there. But then I'd argue, that they are so important to Britains national interest, and were so in the past, that britain would not risk any move that harmed those interests even minorly. All things considered, they might even try to get back to their former role as the US sattelite state in europe, brokering deals on that special relationhip alone. You dont just sell that into the wind.

Now - there are built in conflicts, when it comes to EU foreign relations down the road (when such a position gets established), because the EU interests (of the most important states) are certainly not aligned behind the ideas of lets say Poland in regards to foreign policy.

But I certainly don't think that Britain will hamper themselves to a point, where it would loose them browny points with the US. Because of regionality alone, our foreign interests somewhat align - so partnerships seem at least somewhat, like an obvious thing.

We have not become your military enemy in the last three years, last time I checked.

So whatever interests are peddled here, might be partial. Just saying.

Oh, and the youtuber is not a journalist. Nor does he seemingly want to be one. There is no critical distance, there is no effort to retain an impartial viewpoint, there is no independent research, there was no effort made to reach the other side for comment, you are linking propaganda. (The same way as reading the workers parties newspapers was propaganda before the age of mass media.)

But its interesting from another viewpoint, because those were the guys that actually were instrumental in causing Brexit.


----------



## notimp (Oct 22, 2019)

A funny point thats brought up later is, that in an IF statement one of the pundits says, that they feat that if they are tied into European defense structures without any political say, that this would be the worst outcome for all.

Too bad you arent in the EU then, ey? But again, this is a hypothetical, that probably wont play out as the UK linking themselves to security partnerships where they have no say in.

We saw something similarly recently, when the US tried to 'trigger' the NATO defense emergency case for 'terrorism' without wanting to declare what any side was doing a war and Germany and France basically told them off. So whats written, and how its interpreted by sovereign states usually leaves some room to maneuver yourself out of commitments without blowing up the entire structure.

Hey think positive - to create those special relationhips means job security for all the people that produced that video.

The thing is - if you really are concerned about those things, within the political game, it is always more beneficial to stay in it and try to get your points through politically - but now they are producing youtube tell all videos instead, so - maybe political majority interests arent favoring them personally at the moment.

You could take that without screaming 'high treason' at the top of your lungs. Out of fear of Britain reentering the EU through a back door.

To calm those worries. No, for that you would need another referendum. Even at when the current deal gets signed stages.

edit: Then what follows are empty prep speeches, then its over.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 23, 2019)

*looks at interaction between @notimp and @CORE *

Wow...Erm...isn't this the point where you both agree to disagree? 

@CORE : the last half dozen posts of you in this thread aren't even about your original opinion. If you can't be bothered to explain it, why post it in the first place?
@notimp: you're pretty much the opposite. yes, you're intelligent. yes, you do research. But is it really necessary to write these walls of text? I'd be surprised if @CORE skimmed through even half of it, let alone gave it some serious thinking. Summarize things, provide some links if you have to and explain further when asked would be a better approach.

EDIT: got interrupted IRL. I was going to post about the actual brexit...

Parliament has agreed on something brexit-related!!!! 
More specific: they agreed to further treatment of the brexit law. Yyyyeaaaahhh...not exactly ground breaking when not taking British politics into account, but we're dealing with British politics here. 

Unfortunately, the vote to quickly check the brexit agreement (so the actual vote can be held in three days) had more "nays" to them. So the official request for delays (might or might not be in Boris' name ) stays. Tusk is requesting(1) the other members to be in favor of this delay, but that remains to be seen.

My local newspaper calls it "both no-deal brexit and a deal with a brexit have become a bit less likely", but what that means is yet to be seen. Thus far no new elections announced. And despite of a huge-ass demonstration demanding a second referendum (sorry @JoeBloggs777 ...they seemed to be hellbent to bent the knee to the EU ), that's not really being talked about either.



(1): brexiteers will probably snicker that 'requesting' should be 'ordering', but that's a matter of perspective.


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2019)

The 2nd Video confirms what the 1st video is on about they even discuss it in Parliament. 

The information is for those that are awake on this Forum not a Globalist Sheep so I guess Brexiteers. 

@Taleweaver is correct @notimp prove me wrong not write a book on how Far Right Propaganda is bad but I guess Far Left is good. 

Bullshit are u even from UK? 
Same for u @Taleweaver I dont give a shit what ur paper says Leftwing Propaganda most likely all off it. 

This concerns British Citizens not Europe perhaps you like sitting on Uncle George Lap but true British Loyalists wont be having none of it. 

Brexit is overall a bloody mess perhaps u see it like this Scotland appears to want Independence and u already have South Ireland A Republic Sellout to Europe but yet call themselves Republic. 

So I guess that leaves England Wales and Northern Ireland not much point being Seperate from Europe I guess however it is not about that it is about Britain what is left of it making its own Laws regulations and its own Military Security Forces a Sovereign Nation not being sold out and regulated by European DeepState Unnellected Burrecrats. 

The Fear of loosing Control and Power this is what it is about if UK leaves others may follow and the Empire crumbles. 

Globalist Control is being undermined tell you what look up Loyalist Northern Ireland and Troubles your Left Wing Wikipedia is actually not that biased on it. 

Brexit is deeper for Loyalists all the Fighting and Killing for this Betrayal is Unacceptable so dont jump in here and Talk shit about things you dont understand even more so if not from UK I dont care for Politics or LeftWing Trash Actions Speak Louder than words even more so now. 

Like @notimp mentioned Facebook I dont use it never cared to tell people my Business but all ur Leftwing censoring Conservative opinions or even HongKong now how long do you think before Actions Speak louder than words.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 23, 2019)

CORE said:


> Bullshit are u even from UK?
> Same for u @Taleweaver I dont give a shit what ur paper says Leftwing Propaganda most likely all off it.
> 
> This concerns British Citizens not Europe perhaps you like sitting on Uncle George Lap but true British Loyalists wont be having none of it.


You: WHAAAA!!! BOO HOO!!! *cry cry cry* I'm a pouting brexiteer and I'll try to insult everyone who disagrees with me until they shut up or ignore me!!!!! 


Me: wish granted! 

@notimp: see? That's how you do it, mate. Don't let trolls get to you into writing long winded epistels. It's not worth it.


----------



## CORE (Oct 23, 2019)

@Taleweaver Boo Hoo Nothing CuckBoy Big Man over the Internet.

Just sit in your Office with your Punch Bag in the safety behind your Monitor and Cup of Coffee.

Perhaps the Problem is we can make Europe Great Again like Trump in US no wonder they are doing PREACHMENT Procedures he doing good job.

Europe looks swell doing a great job integrating others in to ur Country perhaps that is ur problem girlfriend or wife prefers them to you.

So Mentally Ill people and Boo Hoo to people who have fought and died well Fuck You Son Shine and ur ignorence exactly what I am talking about.

So people being shot infront off you and bombs going off in the street is a boo hoo joke The Jokes on u.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 23, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> *l
> My local newspaper calls it "both no-deal brexit and a deal with a brexit have become a bit less likely", but what that means is yet to be seen. Thus far no new elections announced. And despite of a huge-ass demonstration demanding a second referendum (sorry @JoeBloggs777 ...they seemed to be hellbent to bent the knee to the EU ), that's not really being talked about either.



Those protesters are mostly southerners or EU citizens who can't vote anyway.  I don't see big protests in cities up north.

There will be an election and my money is on Boris winning with a majority and being able to push his deal or no deal thru Parliament

I think the Labour under estimates how many Labour voters they've  manage to  with their betrayal and now will vote for the Tories or the Brexit party at the next election and that's coming from someone who voted labour for more than 30 years.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 23, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> You: WHAAAA!!! BOO HOO!!! *cry cry cry* I'm a pouting brexiteer and I'll try to insult everyone who disagrees with me until they shut up or ignore me!!!!!
> 
> 
> Me: wish granted!
> ...


Sounds like a perfect way to avoid wasting time.


----------



## AmandaRose (Oct 23, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> Those protesters are mostly southerners or EU citizens who can't vote anyway.  I don't see big protests in cities up north.
> 
> There will be an election and my money is on Boris winning with a majority and being able to push his deal or no deal thru Parliament
> 
> I think the Labour under estimates how many Labour voters they've  manage to  with their betrayal and now will vote for the Tories or the Brexit party at the next election and that's coming from someone who voted labour for more than 30 years.


I can assure you 99% of Scotland won't be voting for the bloody Tories. Had BoJo not been in charge that figure may have dropped a bit but nobody here wants the Tories in charge especially with that blundering bafoon in charge. Oh and the brexit party have even less of a chance at getting votes here.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 23, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> I can assure you 99% of Scotland won't be voting for the bloody Tories. Had BoJo not been in charge that figure may have dropped a bit but nobody here wants the Tories in charge especially with that blundering bafoon in charge. Oh and the brexit party have even less of a chance at getting votes here.



well I think it will be more than 1% voting for the Tories in Scotland, at the last election the Tories got 28.6% of the vote and as you know the SNP lost 21 seats and were down from 50% of the vote to 36.9% 

will the SNP help Boris call a general election soon, maybe and my money is on the Tories winning a majority and pushing thru his Brexit deal


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2019)

I havent said far left is 'good', I'd much rather have it if you could consider some centrist opinions once in a while instead.

I havent watched the second video. I'll do it today and give feedback.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> will the SNP help Boris call a general election soon, maybe and my money is on the Tories winning a majority and pushing thru his Brexit deal


If so labour might just have helped reuniting the tories. It was gossiped, that the main motive for them 'becoming more radical' (BoJo dispelling members of his party) was to get back the Ukip voters.


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2019)

The second video isnt proof - the second video is most likely an old fellow in one of your executive bodies, having a mental breakdown, because he was targeted by propaganda.

This is just a speculative assessment made by me -- but it will be easy to follow up on. Some statements that were made in there -

- The british army will be forced to swear a new oath to someone in brussels.
- Command and control of all your armed forces have been transfered over to the EU, including your secret services.

If that was the case - five eyes would seize to exist (free intelligence information transfer on a pretty much fully encompasing level) - so you would hear about that at some point, sooner than later.

If you hear nothing - it isnt happening.

In Austria, for example the US revoked intelligence cooperation with our former government (because of suspected potential leaks to russia), and the news was everywhere with a day.

If the shakey cam video of the deranged guy was true - america would break intelligence ties almost instantly, because this means, that the aformentionend Austria (f.e.) which is still a EU country...

You see where this is going.

So on the second video especially, that is deranged stuff.

Also . it is a member of parliament (?) asking those questions, not confirming it. And since most of them are basically members for life (in certain constituancies) human error, and even mental breakdowns are expected to happen.

You also can gage the other members reactions which was basically disbelief, if you want to.

So to sum up, a shaky cam video of a deranged person, and a hypothetical encapsulated in a question to parliament - doesnt make proof.

Also - you are following deranged people. As news sources. Which isnt good.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> If so labour might just have helped reuniting the tories. It was gossiped, that the main motive for them 'becoming more radical' (dispelling members of his party) was to get back the Ukip voters.



The Tories should do a deal with Farage, I'm in a Labour strong hold, the only way to defeat Labour would be for the Tories not to contest the seat and let Labour go against the Brexit party , because the Tories have no chance of winning the seat where I am, but if most Tory voters voted for the Brexit party and many disillusioned Labour voters (like me) would vote for the Brexit party but not vote for a Tory candidate then it possible to defeat Labour.

Also with Labour sat on the fence maybe some Labour remainer voters might vote for the Libs, so making it even more possible to defeat Labour in a safe seat.

this might help Boris get a General election soon 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...ris-johnson-christmas-snp-alex-salmond-latest


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 23, 2019)

From my perspective it would be nice to see BJ make a no deal pact with Farage, we all know they'd win by a landslide. The traitor MP's know this, that's why they're blocking an election. The absolutely irrelevant SNP along with the whole of Scotland know this (please leave already). Even the EU know this, I find it hilarious how the EU says ' we don't want an extension... and yet here they are, just about to grant an extension, gotta hold onto that cash cow as long as possible!

Unfortunately BJ is Theresa May without the thong, his 'deal' is just as bad and so a no deal general election won't happen.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 23, 2019)

shamzie said:


> cash cow


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 23, 2019)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> Those protesters are mostly southerners or EU citizens who can't vote anyway.  I don't see big protests in cities up north.
> 
> There will be an election and my money is on Boris winning with a majority and being able to push his deal or no deal thru Parliament
> 
> I think the Labour under estimates how many Labour voters they've  manage to  with their betrayal and now will vote for the Tories or the Brexit party at the next election and that's coming from someone who voted labour for more than 30 years.


I agree on the first two, and have honestly no idea on the third.

London mostly voted remain, so it's not THAT impressive that they have a huge ass demonstration. The brexiteers are geographically more divided.

And speaking of divided : all brexiteers will vote for Johnson, whereas the bremainders will be divided. It's only recent that Corbyn went full remain, so he's not that credible (note : I personally doubt Johnsons credentials on many fronts, but this far I haven't seen him screw up, given his situation). 

As to the latter : you could very well be right. Polls often talk about people being fed up with it (and not without reason... It's three fucking years!), but I never saw a poll indicating a massive drop or gain one way or another. In that aspect I understand the resistance against a second referendum... There's not going to be a landslide victory either way.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 23, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


>



Care to point out why this is funny along with the EU budget for the last 5 years and the EU budget for the next 5 without the UK?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 23, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Care to point out why this is funny along with the EU budget for the last 5 years and the EU budget for the next 5 without the UK?


I can't help it. I have fun looking the terms people come up with to self aggrandize.
I enjoy it. Life is good.

The EU will be hurt with this, the UK will too. It is a tragedy, it was all along.
But I still find funny things coming from it.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 23, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> I can't help it. I have fun looking the terms people come up with to self aggrandize.
> I enjoy it. Life is good.
> 
> The EU will be hurt with this, the UK will too. It is a tragedy, it was all along.
> But I still find funny things coming from it.



Not one part of your reply backed up what you said previously, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Allow me, if the EU grants a 3 month extension, that's £1 BILLION a month ... so again, why is cashcow so funny. Feel free to respond without being a self important condescending plonker. Thanks


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> Not one part of your reply backed up what you said previously, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Allow me, if the EU grants a 3 month extension, that's £1 BILLION a month ... so again, why is cashcow so funny. Feel free to respond without being a self important condescending plonker. Thanks


I think you might have confused what my post said.
I didn't say anything previously that needed further backing up. I just find the term funny.
The response is there itself in the post you quoted. It is a self aggrandizing term. I find funny the extents people go to find terms that sound bombastic.

Regarding the situation itself, my opinion is also there in the post you quoted: it is a tragedy, both sides lose.

PS: I wonder what needed backing up according to you... my sense of humor?
In case we are misunderstanding each other, the "thing I said before", that "Not one part of my reply backed up" is a post that just says "", right?
That in reply to "cash cow"... is that right?
So, the smiley that laughs at the term "needs further backing up", more "backing up" than explaining why the term itself is funny to me....... is that what you mean?


----------



## Henx (Oct 24, 2019)

Another point... Brexit is costing UK a lot of money, since the referendum. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...how-much-uk-economy-money-spent-a8854726.html

£66bn is quite a lot. Far, far away from the £1.8bn Boris promised for NHS!
https://www.theguardian.com/society...omises-one-point-eight-billion-pounds-for-nhs
I can’t help but feel frustrated by how incompetent government is atm, with this clown in power.

Just to say how misinformed everyone was at the time of the vote, including our government without plan.
In my opinion it’s honestly a big waste of money, with more to come.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 24, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> I think you might have confused what my post said.
> I didn't say anything previously that needed further backing up. I just find the term funny.
> The response is there itself in the post you quoted. It is a self aggrandizing term. I find funny the extents people go to find terms that sound bombastic.
> 
> ...



It really isn't hard, you were laughing at me saying the EU is desperate to hold onto the UK because were the cashcow. Since then I've asked you to show previous and future budgets for the EU which I'm sure will be available, all while pointing out the fact the UK currently pays £1bn a month, aka ... cashcow. Just asking you to back up why you think the notion of the uk clearly being your cashcow is so funny. I assume Belgium (not a real country) will be picking up the bill from now on.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> It really isn't hard, you were laughing at me saying the EU is desperate to hold onto the UK because were the cashcow. Since then I've asked you to show previous and future budgets for the EU which I'm sure will be available, all while pointing out the fact the UK currently pays £1bn a month, aka ... cashcow. Just asking you to back up why you think the notion of the uk clearly being your cashcow is so funny. I assume Belgium (not a real country) will be picking up the bill from now on.


You are sure too insecure. I am sorry to have hurt you, but it is your misunderstanding, I target the statement not the person.
The message is not directed to you as a person, I am not laughing at you (I don't even know you), but yes I consider the statement as I said many times "self aggrandizing": i.e. trying to put something into a pedestal in comparison with everything else when it is not really something to but in a pedestal for starters, it is not above everything else.

I said many times why I find the action of posing the uk as a cashcow so funny, but actually it is not funny, it is sad, it again makes me look down at the normal behavior of masses and the reasons for the rise of demagogy. It is what I wrote for nth time above: it is a self aggrandizing term that plays right into sensationalism.

No more backing up from my side, I will leave this discussion (I mean the discussion with you). It is a waste of time for both of us.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

> It really isn't hard, you were laughing at me saying the EU is desperate to hold onto the UK because were the cashcow. Since then I've asked you to show previous and future budgets for the EU which I'm sure will be available, all while pointing out the fact the UK currently pays £1bn a month, aka ... cashcow.



If you follow this thread we already went through that, this is what the UK pays for 'political funds'.

When the UK left, we just hiked up rates for everyone else. Its not like we are paying politicians less - or that it would be so hard to pay them.. 

The scheme goes as follows. Rich countries get most of the profits (from 'developing' poorer ones), but poorer ones get developed (and if they have political corruption political elites also get money there). Now - because all the money ends up in the rich countries (even in times of crisis, because they dont default on loans and have the better economies) - you have to give some of it back (basically, to keep the chances of revolts down - (pay for farmers, roads in rural environments, stuff like that - the EU in many cases doesnt straight out pay for those, but has it structured, that local initiatives have to come up with everything thats needed, and part of he financing on their own, and then get the money. (Farmers get payed either way - but..  )))).

Thats the one billion yearly. That cost you 22bn yearly so far (going with the Business insider number from today). But those 22bn are private earnings - so you would have to tax them first. (At lets say 40%.  )


The 'worry' now was, that further unification, would basically eliminate certain british power structures eventually. France you can 'conceptualice' as 'anti britain' (does basically everything you fear  ), and germany was seen as becoming weaker, and maybe getting in line with france on social spending and creating a deeper union (making the states in the south less vulnerable - but also more stable, economically - and yes, this would have meant, to pay more on the side of the UK - but then, profits for businesses should have risen, and you could have taxed them more - if the outcome would have been as expected and not 'failed' as with the eastern expansion of the EU (which the UK pushed for strongly)).

Currently, France is anything but 'strong' because of internal struggles - and everything relating 'further integration' is postponed. But Macron (President of france) is seen by many fractions as the political weave of the future. (Doesnt have to become that way - things happen, and almost never like you intended - in politics.  )

If thats too complex for you do say so, I think I can still break it down a little.

But beware, you might just be learning a thing. Past slogans. 


The problem with the UK for us is rather - that the market gets smaller. And our importance, and rate of potential development (progress) slows down. Hence, recession. And its the same issue for you as well (even a little more so). But you remain more independent.

The problem for the UK rather was their trade deficit (no innovation in the country for some time), not the billion a year in EU fund payments.

Meaning, you basically wanted to take a page out of Italy's former economic playbook, and devalue the pound a bunch, lower your production costs, so you could become more competitive again. And keep all your decision structures against the efforts that france wanted to move forward on. You were becoming weak. So you threw a hissy fit. 

With you gone the EU becomes 'more unified' politicly, but significantly softer economically. (If hard brexit mostly. Or long term mostly. Both.)


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 25, 2019)

shamzie said:


> It really isn't hard, you were laughing at me saying the EU is desperate to hold onto the UK because were the cashcow. Since then I've asked you to show previous and future budgets for the EU which I'm sure will be available, all while pointing out the fact the UK currently pays £1bn a month, aka ... cashcow. Just asking you to back up why you think the notion of the uk clearly being your cashcow is so funny. I assume Belgium (not a real country) will be picking up the bill from now on.


They are available, yes. The way i understand this outline, the budget won't change. So when the UK stops contributing, the remaining members increase their contribution to match (no, not just Belgium...if that's a stab against @sarkwalvein you need to learn your flags...he's from Germany  ).

Keep in mind that while I understand your reasoning, I do not agree with it (the money comes from countries but goes to countries as well). And more importantly: neither does...erm...anyone involved in the process, really. Because when things come down to it, the UK (currently) still benefits from programs like Erasmus students, horizon 2020 subsidizing and regional policies (a slight bit of more info). These are things that the UK currently pays for and benefits from. These are part of the negotiations. I assume these are the things newspapers overlook when they describe the contributions as "the UK is a cash cow for the EU". It's not really a lie but it's a perspective. If you don't want any of those things (note: I don't know more details either), then by all means: stop paying for them.

What I'm worried about (and I assume many people with me) is that the government knows damn well what they're paying for. The current crucification of the EU for being lazy or evil bureaucrats can very well turn quickly into a "the EU is taking away our privileges!!" tantrum when the UK government strips away the EU projects it no longer contributes to.


----------



## notimp (Oct 25, 2019)

But strictly speaking, the UK could finance Erasmus with national funds for less than they are paying overall.

Erasmus btw was seen as a program to create a new transnational leader class and a new cultural understanding, that would then trickle down to other societal groups.

This failed spectacularly (no social cohesion), not trickle down of 'europeism' just a small international elite, that can take jobs anywhere its most pleasent for them - and that doesnt care about anyone of the rest.

This already is discussed in liberal forums, mostly with 'we maybe have to tripple the funds for it' as current outcomes.. 

So the main point really is, that you pay for 'structural projects' because it pays more dividends for your business structures anyhow. Same way as 'infrastructure projects in the past have produced economic booms' (not a solution anymore - at least for europe). Over that everyone was in agreement.

But then the discussion ventured towards, risk in those countries has caused deep economic crisis in the past - which we moved onto taxpayers in the richer countries, maybe we should make those countries more sound socially - by transfering more funds (this time from industry). And the bretish were like, peace - we out. 

So the british were fine with being a 'netto payer' for as long as it was for infrastructure projects to benefit industry. But when it came to social security systems - they bucked and left. (No costs spared.)

And not even to projects - but only to 'talks about potential projects'. Because 'aaaahhh, Brussels, and sovereignty'.


----------



## notimp (Oct 25, 2019)

edit: Rected to an old posting mistakingly. Can be deleted.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 28, 2019)

EU graciously accepts another £3,000,000,000 from the cashcow. All while keeping the UK tied to a union it no longer wishes to be apart of.

The EU was always going to agree to this extension - because they know we don't want one. They are not our 'friends and partners' they are a hostile political entity determined to subjugate us as an example to others who try to leave their illegitimate union.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 28, 2019)

shamzie said:


> EU graciously accepts another £3,000,000,000 from the cashcow. All while keeping the UK tied to a union it no longer wishes to be apart of.
> 
> The EU was always going to agree to this extension - because they know we don't want one. They are not our 'friends and partners' they are a hostile political entity determined to subjugate us as an example to others who try to leave their illegitimate union.


The "we" you're talking about is far from a majority in the UK.

You started with 52%

Then you lost some percentages once it became clear that the politicians had no plan and send a bremainder for these "easy negotiations".

You probably lost some more when the promises made by the brexiteers turned out to be pipe dreams.

The debacle in parliament probably left a status quo, though leaving everyone with a bitter taste in their mouth.

Then you got someone in charge who doesn't give a shit about democracy...who managed to score a deal that your bremainder leader considered "not good enough" years ago.

It's come to the point that the ONLY time anything brexit related gets a majority in parliament is a mere "okay...we'll continue to talk about it".

Oh, and of course: youth is largely in favor of remain whereas older people are generally more pro-brexit. This also shifts the percentage, as it's been three years since that vote.

Bremainders hold million man demonstrations for a second referendum. And brexiteers...sorry...when were you hitting the streets for your rights again? A few weeks ago, I heard someone say you'll easily match that kind of demonstration. But thus far, I haven't read anything about minor (let alone major) demonstrations supporting Johnson in his effort.


*sigh*

Sorry, but I really had to put that off my chest. I explained my reasoning why this cashcow perspective isn't true (it's three posts above yours, FFS), and you just ignored it. You do realise that that sort of sulking isn't going to win anyone on either side over, right?


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 28, 2019)

Oh...and I only just read that the EU did indeed grant an extension to January 31st 2020, provided it is "expected to be formalised through a written procedure" (source: Donald Tusk's twitter). I'm not sure if that "expected" is a stab at Johnson's government, but it might as well be. It's all but a secret that he doesn't want an extension; he's pretty much forced by parliament.

So I'm not sure if there will be an extension to begin with (if "has to be signed by the prime minister" is part of that formalisation, there might be no delay after all).


Somewhat of good news to the brexiteers: if the deal is ratified earlier, the UK can leave at the end of November or December if they want to. So if for no other reason, can we PLEASE stop this cashcow shenanigans? If you (the proverbial entirety of the UK that's apparently hellbent on leaving the EU) really wanted to leave so much, you could have done this WITH THIS SAME FREAKING DEAL two years ago!


----------



## _DrBecks_ (Oct 28, 2019)

UK will sooner or later regret this decision. Nowadays you can only grow with thinking globally not nationally.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 28, 2019)

well it looks like there will be an election on the 9th or the 12th of December

one thing I'm sure of Labour will lose some MP's and Boris will probably get a majority.


Labour 16 ponits behind the Tories

The 'Peoples vote' has trouble at the top 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50206253

it looks like they've pulled Boris out of his ditch


----------



## leon315 (Oct 28, 2019)

Not very important here but it's still interesting to let politic-enthusiastic tempers know: guess everyone is awared that Hongkong's recent situation, that many violent black shirt protesters/separatists considered themselves ''British'' and hope UK government give them UK passport  meanwhile pretending as liberals hongkongers who fight Chinese government which freed HK as british's colony


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2019)

General election on the 12th of December 2019 it seems (the amendment to go for the 9th didn't pass, though it was tight).

Campaigning will start some time next week so no idea what platforms people are going to run on here, and what kind of spoiler effect negations will be in place (the brexit party people have previously said under certain conditions they will not run candidates to avoid it, no idea what UKIP will be doing here and if they even represent much of anything any more/right now) and what kind of split positions some will take (this current agreement is far from a hard exit which probably annoys some that wanted that sort of thing, and Labour are also somewhat split as their traditional working base also count a great number of people that wish to leave the EU for whatever reason).

What I am more curious about is some of the other amendments put forward.

Those included dropping the voting age to 16, allowing EU residents a vote and of course a second referendum. A second referendum at this stage is boring to consider in this and was not selected but the other two have something more.

The voting age to 16 is somewhat radical as these things go. A token search has very few places with a voting age of 16, much less for national elections.
It should however be noted Scotland did allow 16 year olds to vote in their independence referendum, and does in some other things within Scotland, as does Wales as of earlier this year, though it will be 2021 before we see it in action. Some of the other UK territories also have such things for their local stuff (Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey) but given most such places have trouble with their young folk wandering off one does wonder if it is more about giving them a stake in things. In terms of Europe then Germany has a little bit of this and Austria quite famously became the first to go 16 for just about everything a while back. Estonia also has some stuff.
For reference it was 1970 that the UK lowered voting age from 21 to 18 (though with earlier bills), which was somewhat ahead of many other places though not by much.

Normally at this point I would do some kind of calculation here as I am curious. There was something of a young-old split in voting here (care less about that than the reasons myself  -- the whole thing where some of the older set considered joining the EU as snubbing Australia being a fascinating one for me) so if we consider dying off rate and extrapolate backwards* from the then 18 year olds and assume similar turnouts (though that might be fun as 12th of December has some university students, often something of a notable demographic, back home that day or the next as it were from term time where they should technically be registered, thus mandating a postal vote or a trip) that could make for some interesting numbers on an already marginal issue (1269501 votes difference here). However I am lazy and given it seems Labour introduced it and it has the backing of the Scottish National Party and Liberal democrats (both fairly opposed to this leaving the EU lark, though as previously mentioned Scotland has 16 for a great many (don't know about all of the local stuff and whatever else) of the things it can reasonably have them for so that is not entirely unfounded) I am betting they already ran the numbers and it came out in their favour, or at the very least just some good posturing.
*the Austrian example quite notably had more 16 and 17 year olds voting than their peers a few years older, though I suppose if you have nothing better to do.


The EU nationals thing though...
On the one hand there are however many millions living here ( https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/august2019 reckons 2.37 million working here and broadly stable since 2016, though rates from the EU have fallen since then and EU8 countries have had totals fall it seems. Recall earlier that the difference in votes was 1.3 million if you round up) and it is nice to have a say in how the place you are living is run.
On the other hand national sovereignty... generally viewed as a good thing. I am not sure anywhere grants some kind of reciprocal rights for national elections to people with such a status (or a philosophically equivalent one), give or take the complicated setup with the republic or Ireland (short version is republic of Ireland citizens if they are resident in the UK can vote, not sure what goes for those that lived here and then moved somewhere else within the last 15 years and UK citizens can do most elections over there -- can't do president but that is mostly ceremonial). A scarce handful of places do it for local and county elections, possibly also MEP, but I can't see anything for nationals outside of a very old piece of Australian law (as in needed to be enrolled before early 1984), and a quirk of New Zealand law but I don't want to go there right now (New Zealand permanent residency if you did want to go looking).

Neither were selected but as it is a time sensitive matter that would require something of a considerable overhaul to the system (that is some extra 3 million in a matter of weeks) and the conservatives threatened to cancel the whole deal if such things passed. Few sources seem to want to report which MP proposed the amendment so I don't know which party that was as of typing this.

So yeah election time. As mentioned officially it does not begin for a few days but practically speaking they have been gearing up for months here, and an interesting one I saw was Labour refused to rule out a 2021 Scottish independence referendum, despite doing so for 2020. Labour are also somewhat down in the polls which made some question whether they would go for such things but we have weeks to go yet.
I have not seen what the Conservative losses and resignations are like at this point. However for most practical purposes nobody cares about their local MP or probably even knows their name (even if they have a notable named role it is still good odds that people in their area care that much) so I don't imagine either any independents or loss of brand recognition being an issue. That said another fun one is it was noted the prime minister does not have the best hold on his seat so may take a tactical shuffle somewhere else as not having a seat means you can't lead and we would then have another leadership campaign if the party got in but he didn't.
Way too early to talk of coalitions here.
There is going to be some good maths and analysis here, even more so if people do the whole tactical voting thing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2019)

While campaigning is nominally supposed to start in a few days I did one of my long wanderings with the dog today and in a town (something of a border region of a few places that people from all would go to) there was the Brexit party handing out local area personalised leaflets* and speaking to people, with the snippet of conversation I overheard making it seem like they were reasonably well informed. Didn't think to ask if that was the candidate for the place or just a lackey, though doing a search it seems people were told to keep quiet for a few days as the various tactics get figured out so probably just an interest type thing.

*the sort of thing that usually has a lead time of a few days. Though as mentioned this election has been a long time coming and if they are going to be a single issue party they don't exactly need a nuanced manifesto (not that they have such a thing -- their constitution was apparently only revealed thanks to a freedom of information request, and having read their site it is rather washy on such matters).


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 31, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Those included dropping the voting age to 16, allowing EU residents a vote and of course a second referendum. A second referendum at this stage is boring to consider in this and was not selected but the other two have something more.


I'm wondering... I can name a second referendum many things ("polarizing", "tense", "a shouting match", ...) but boring certainly wouldn't be among them. Might I ask why you think this will be considered as such? 


I get why (not) letting EU citizens in the UK vote is a controversial topic (it's not that hard to guess what most if not all of those will vote for  ), but what's with the 16 age limit? forgive my bluntness, but all I hear in the news regarding political parties involves the brexit for the better part of the latter three years. Do your youth properly know whom they're voting for aside for their stance in this debate?
(no matter how influencial this'll be, it is also but one aspect).


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 31, 2019)

it shows how desperate the Labour party is, to try and allow 16 year olds to vote and EU citizens in the UK.

No other EU country allows EU citizens to vote in government elections and how crazy would it be at 16 you can vote, but under UK law your still a minor until your 18, you need to be 18 to buy  alcohol in the UK are they going to lower that to 16 to?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I'm wondering... I can name a second referendum many things ("polarizing", "tense", "a shouting match", ...) but boring certainly wouldn't be among them. Might I ask why you think this will be considered as such?
> 
> 
> I get why (not) letting EU citizens in the UK vote is a controversial topic (it's not that hard to guess what most if not all of those will vote for  ), but what's with the 16 age limit? forgive my bluntness, but all I hear in the news regarding political parties involves the brexit for the better part of the latter three years. Do your youth properly know whom they're voting for aside for their stance in this debate?
> (no matter how influencial this'll be, it is also but one aspect).


It was boring to consider as far as amendments to the bill -- various parties have been calling for one for years now. If it had been selected and happened then I would discuss more. One actually happening would not be boring but as far as constitutionality and whatnot it is of minimal interest really (give or take the moaning from the "we won" set).

The youth vote thing. That is probably more people trying to make a fairly radical change on the back of a time sensitive bill without any real debate on the matter. As far as 16 year olds voting in general I don't have any particular philosophical, logical or ethical objections -- they are just as likely to be as clueless as everybody else.
The trend is probably for it to go there (Scotland, Wales, some of the islands that also make up the UK all having such things, as do some generally doing OK European countries and they are not on fire any more than usual) but such things probably ought to follow a longer discussion. That said it would be odd to be able to vote but not smoke (age got bumped to 18 a few years back), not drink save for limited circumstances (18 is the "as much as you have money for" age but younger than that you can have a beer or wine with a meal in a restaurant, to say nothing of doing whatever on private land), possibly not be able to operate a car (17 is the age for cars if you can afford a couple of grand for insurance, scooters and low CC bikes is 16 but it is quite hard to do these days as bike licenses are not easy things to get and suffer considerable restrictions beyond that), only get married with parental consent, can join the military but only with parental consent, and possibly still be expected to still be in school (while not super hard enforced like up to 16 then as of a few years back there is a serious serious push for 16-18 to be either essentially in prep for university or a career training course/apprenticeship).


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 31, 2019)

Well, even here there is a growing push for 16s to vote.


----------



## Henx (Oct 31, 2019)

In my opinion, the problem is not so much allowing the young to vote, but allowing the elderly. Pardon me, I hope to get there someday, but why are they allowed to decide the future of the young? Isn’t it ironic that many won’t be alive to see the results of what their votes did? The ones who live with the consequences of their votes are the younger generations.

The cut point should be after they retire, then they lose the power to vote. When they stop working, their contributions are done. Let the young decide their future. And since the impact will be on them, generally they are much more informed on their opinions, which I think leads to more thoughtful decisions.

Obviously there is a conflict of interest for many old politicians, shareholders, etc, but that’s the fairest I can think of. The right thing to do. If the time comes, I would gadly give up my voting rights. It is not that they were vetted from voting from the beginning, which means they decided the future of the country on their time, while working and growing. Only now, the impact as I said won’t be on them.

Steve jobs said something in an interview years ago, that stuck with me:
"No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true
...Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life”
It is very applicable in politics too.


----------



## Phenj (Oct 31, 2019)

"future"


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Oct 31, 2019)

Henx said:


> In my opinion, the problem is not so much allowing the young to vote, but allowing the elderly. Pardon me, I hope to get there someday, but why are they allowed to decide the future of the young? Isn’t it ironic that many won’t be alive to see the results of what their votes did? The ones who live with the consequences of their votes are the younger generations.



what age range do you mean by elderly ? that can be from what 65 to 100+, I'm the opposite to you, the elderly have a lifetime of experience, many are parents  or even grandparents. They've worked for nearly 50years . 

when many were youths they fought in WW2 to give you the freedoms you have now.

 In the case of the EU they will recall when we joined the EC in 1973 it was for trading not the EU beast we have now.

I'll leave you with a quote 'Youth is wasted on the young'


----------



## Henx (Oct 31, 2019)

I totally understand where you are coming from. My problem is not so much with the age per say, but as you know, when you get older you tend to not care as much, you stop learning, your habits are stuck and most of the time your opinions and beliefs don’t change, even if you are wrong.
It is incredible superfluous to think the old generation thinks in the problems ahead as much as the young do.

Forget voting for brexit… that's irrelevant in this instance.
What happens is the older you are, the farther apart you are from the young peers. This means that you are not exactly voting in their interests but in yours, right? What do elderly have to loose? Their lives are set already.

If we go with the argument that they fought in the war… well then, the generation after them invented computers, etc. Why are the old using them then? You see how quickly the old gets replaced by the new. It is a harsh reality.
From what you are saying, the elderly are allowed to vote as a reward? Besides the young don't exactly have it easy either. Every generation have their own battles. They need to make a living after all. As years go by, it is getting more difficult to own a home for example.

To be fair, I do not believe much in democracy. It suffers from the capistalism that our society lives in, thus imbalance is unfortunately for many always inevitable. I would be happy if they instead discussed how the voting system could be changed to make it fair to the whole. The age is a minority, but it is better than nothing.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 31, 2019)

Not care as much? Says who? Both my grandparents care *deeply* about the future of this country, I'll tell you who doesn't. The "Young" people who's "future was stolen" because they couldn't be arsed to get the fuck out of bed. I'm so tired of this rhetoric and quite frankly i find it disgusting to try and advocate removing the vote from the older generation. I already know you voted remain, which sums it all up. (And if you're curious, I'm 29. I also voted leave, my future wasn't stolen, In-fact I'd wager alot of money I'm probably younger than you.)

As for 16yr olds and foreigners getting a vote in national elections, as far as im aware no other country in the world let alone the EU (not a country) lets foreigners vote in national elections. The scummy depths labour sink to never ceases to amaze me. They know they'll get slaughtered at the ballot box, can't win votes? IMPORT THEM. Even if voting rights were reciprocated in other countries - I still wouldn't want this. Call me old fashioned but I think people who are legal adults who are British in Britain should decide the future of their country.

16yr olds voting makes sense to Labour as generally speaking, most 16yr olds are stupid. Most stupid people vote for labour so this isn't rocket science, It's just Labour being Labour - scummy as per.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The "Young" people who's "future was stolen" because they couldn't be arsed to get the fuck out of bed.



Probably true - but also this:





More people over 40 than under 40 and still beyond voting age in your population.

But in other european countries its even worse.
Here is germany, f.e.:





Its called population pyramid, btw. because way back when it used to be a pyramid (in european countries as well.) 

Looking at those distributions also makes you understand why germany took many of the migrants during the last push, for instance.

edit: Oddly enough your birth rate figures became 'healthier' during the financial crisis. Huh.




edit: Also at some point you see a migration bump in there I believe.  Maybe thats the cause. 
(When all of a sudden your population of 30 year olds increases out of nothing.  )


----------



## kumikochan (Nov 2, 2019)

So there's a big chance Scotland will try to split from the UK and join the EU. A while ago Australia also mentioned there is a chance of them breaking up from the UK since the Brexit is not in their best interest. Wondering what the UK will do if that would come to fruition 2 major countries breaking up from them. Australia will probably not happen tho since they mostly said something like that would happen if a no deal brexit came to be wich didn't happen plus they already have complete independence from the UK starting 1986. Wondering if Scotland will become fully independent instead of leaving the UK fully like Australia did


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 2, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> So there's a big chance Scotland will try to split from the UK and join the EU. A while ago Australia also mentioned there is a chance of them breaking up from the UK since the Brexit is not in their best interest. Wondering what the UK will do if that would come to fruition 2 major countries breaking up from them. Australia will probably not happen tho since they mostly said something like that would happen if a no deal brexit came to be wich didn't happen plus they already have complete independence from the UK starting 1986. Wondering if Scotland will become fully independent instead of leaving the UK fully like Australia did


Might not be in the will of the Scottish people by percentage but interest of is a different matter.

Labour were quizzed on the matter a couple of days back and while they said no to next year the year after they pointedly said nothing.

As far as good chance then possible (last one was fairly tight) but there are always those that agitate for such things, sometimes they reckon funds, sometimes they reckon their culture is being subsumed into general English/UK culture (ignoring that the place was not exactly homogeneous to begin with/around the time things joined) and others other things. That said I am not sure what would go there -- part of the concern during the last referendum was that they would be blocked lest people in Belgium, Spain, France and whatever else start getting ideas and there be a nice bout of splitting, and while a land border might not be quite as contentious as one in Northern Ireland it is still not an easy sell. That said another part of the concern was also a lack of a coherent plan (nuclear subs, military, offshore oil and gas and more besides) so maybe they will put something proper together if they reckon another kick at the cat in is in order.

Australia wise then I am not sure what you are going for anyway they have limited interaction anyway -- technically the queen is head of state and there are some favourable visa laws (though in practice not much better than any other developed country), and while the 1980s probably had some technical breaks then for practical purposes you would likely be looking at the 1930s here. Future trade would be a different matter.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 3, 2019)

Channel 4 had an interesting interview with a couple of long term conservative MPs (as in one, though recently booted out for failing to get in line, had been in since the 1970s and has done most of the big roles and another shorter, but did have a stint as leader of the party, albeit in opposition which he later got no confidenced out of and resigned a couple of years back, interestingly though citing proposed cuts to disability benefits as the reason why, and more recently was the chair of the current prime minister's leadership bid ). While many places are quite justifiably wondering what sort of opposition the Labour party might plausibly be able to mount (the comment about the difficulties of getting the "Scottish nationalists", the lib dems and labour to all agree on what day of the week it is amused somewhat) it would also be poor form to skip over the divisions within the Conservatives and historical positions of such things.


It is classic long form talking head interview so maybe not the "8 minutes is long" triteness that a lot of news seems to plump for these days but does give some insight on the thoughts of things.


----------



## notimp (Nov 3, 2019)

The Portillo documentary had the same angle. Tories always were similar enough to unify behind one conservative common goal (compromise) - but they couldnt find a way to deal with the (nationalist) brexit front within the party, that lead to the forming of ukip, now tories want ukip voters back.

Basically.

It split them this much, because - cuttung ties isnt conservative, hurting businesses isnt conservative, but they had the 'EU is taking mah sovereignty away' streak in the party since the later Thatcher years.

Will watch. Thanks for sharing.

edit: Yawn. Three not very bright blokes in a room. Anything interesting happening after the first 12 minutes?


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 10, 2019)

About a month to go before the national elections that are set to resolve some things so still a lot that could happen but now people have cards on the table

There is also a new speaker as the last one stepped down (I don't think there was any notable pressure to leave but we may never know there). New one is a labour MP (though tradition dictates one leaves the party behind when they assume such a position -- the previous one originally coming from the conservatives). Traditionally their seat is not contested by the main two parties, don't know if anybody from the smaller ones will run against him.

The main two UK parties are and at this point have long been
The Conservatives.
Labour party.

There are more parties than that but at this point they have two parties that are a bit more extreme from an idealogical standpoint (though plenty of other analysis could be done which show differences in other fields)

Brexit party. Ostensibly a new party but led by basically the face of UKIP (UK Independence party, them siphoning off support from the conservatives is arguably what led to this vote on EU membership lark) for many years, and backed by several other key players from the old UKIP setup, so while not technically a rebranding... it is a rebranding. Despite still functioning for the recent EU elections then UKIP themselves seem to have committed suicide (bit of a pity as I read their manifesto during the last European elections and they seem to have elevated themselves above single issue party and actually had some interesting ideas), or at least their council is taking on the political leadership side in such a way that basically everybody loses (don't know if that is a tactical play by someone), so probably a non player for this cycle, don't know if they will recover later but that is later. The Brexit party have made various overtures towards the Conservatives as far as a pact, the latest one being talked about this morning ( https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...atest-brexit-party-nigel-farage-boris-johnson ) as the fears are they could win more support from Conservative voters than they gain from disaffected labour voters.

Liberal democrats. Despite being in a coalition government with the Conservatives a while back they are generally considered a very left wing party (especially at this point in time).

On top of this you also have the regional parties. Most important of those is probably the SNP (Scottish National(ist) party) which are ostensibly a left wing party and serve as something of a foil for the Scottish branch of the conservative party since Labour started to crater in Scotland and have been running the joint for a while now. While they are not fielding people outside Scotland they have made rumblings of forming a coalition with Labour if necessary but as nobody wants to appear weak then this has not been fleshed out much, though more later there. 

The UK leaving the EU is the main focus for a lot of this, though Labour seem to realise they are pretty weak on this so have been trying to go for more domestic issues (which to be fair have been somewhat neglected of late) where they have traditionally performed a bit stronger.

General policies on the EU seem to be
Conservative party. Aim to push through Boris' deal* that was got to recently.
Brexit party. Leave with no deal at all.
Labour. The full official stuff is yet to come but from speeches given seems to be go back to Europe to negotiate another deal (though one that keeps the UK closer to Europe than the current one) over the next 6 months following and then hand that over to the UK public for a referendum of "this deal or we stay". Timeline is considered pretty tight for such a trick and also bothers Europe on a few fronts but if Boris can get some movement in less time and Europe gets more from it then it is not an unworkable one. Not sure what the effects of this will but it is controversial within the party, though tactically speaking at lot of their support base also voted for leaving the EU so not an unjustified to take either.
Liberal Democrats. Cancel the whole affair. It is very unlikely they will get into power but if they did then as no government can really tie the hands of the next then it would be legal, if incredibly controversial.
The SNP. Push as hard as they can to remain in the EU, though I am seeing little in the way of official policy or straight bullet point demand ( https://www.snp.org/nicola-sturgeon-launches-snp-election-campaign/ ). They claim they also want an(other) independence referendum on independence from the UK too which also means they get to ponder their potential future there (worries about being able to join the EU being part of the major concerns during the last one in 2014), which they have stated will be a condition of their support. Within Scotland they are polling very favourably right now (Labour are basically gone and the Conservatives are also somewhat down, which as their Scotland numbers make up a decent chunk within Westminster changes the maths somewhat).
The DUP. This is a (there are a few, the UUP being another) Northern Irish want to stay in the UK party (Sinn Fein, one of the we want out of the UK parties, quite famously don't partake in UK national politics, ostensibly by virtue of having to take an oath to the queen but one doubts if that was removed that they would turn up). Notably they are in a coalition with the Conservatives right now (which did lead to some spending the SNP have decried in the link above) but broke ranks a lot when it came to the Boris Johnson bill and don't like it as they reckon it will weaken the UK union (not an untenable position as it quite literally creates a border between parts of the UK and different laws beyond what are voted for by each area's own devolved powers). It should also be noted the Northern Ireland assembly (located in Stormont hence the name sometimes used) has not been sitting for a couple of years at this point, and it might well be 2022 (an interesting point in the leaving the EU timeline as well) before that gets resolved, but even that is somewhat doubtful.

There is a welsh party called Plaid Cymru but they are a small player even within Wales. They oppose it (even going so far as to no run a candidate in one seat to maximise chances for the anti brexit candidates there a few years back) and have made a pact with the liberal democrats and green party for this one -- https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-and-plaid-cymru-reveal-remain-election-pact .

*basically the Teresa May "surrender" bill but with the worst aspects trimmed off. They might well have been able to do better with more time but eh.

So yeah those are the grounds as it presently stands. Still a while to go but nobody is particularly expected to sweep the polls, give or take the SNP within Scotland. Most polls ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49798197 for a reasonable overview) have the Conservatives ahead but not by enough to be assured of breaking deadlocks. It is extremely unlikely a coalition between the liberal democrats and conservatives will happen again, and "while war makes strange bedfellows" is a thing then a labour-liberal democrats coalition would also be a strange beast. What would happen in the event of another deadlocked setup or slim majority setup is a different matter.


----------



## notimp (Dec 2, 2019)

notimp said:


> On the proceeding currently going on in Hong Kong (introduction of the clip):





H1B1Esquire said:


> Don't lump everyone in there--if no one cared, you wouldn't have brought it up because no one would have made the info available to you.
> 
> ChinaXHK is not Brexit and I damn well did not read everything you posted....but...can I get you to write articles for me in the future? Maybe a cup of coffee with some spit takes....I'm really working on it.





notimp said:


> 800.000 HK residents care. Of course.
> 
> The rest of the world looks away, because of stated obvious reasons. Look how much the concept of democracy is worth these days. Not enough to start economic turmoil.
> 
> ...


China Spares Trade in First Retaliation to U.S.’s Hong Kong Law
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...tion-ngos-halt-u-s-navy-visits-over-hong-kong

China suspends U.S. military visits to Hong Kong, sanctions U.S.-based NGOs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ng-kong-sanctions-us-based-ngos-idUSKBN1Y60IQ

This is why the west wasnt that inclined to say anything about the proceeding in Hong Kong. This (red line) was communicated beforehand through diplomatic channels. So basically everyone knew - to better not challenge them on this one.

China can do pretty much anything in Honk Kong despite escalating the conflict militarily (there are other forms of protest control... just takes longer (attrition)), and the west won't intervene.

(edit: NGOs remember is how you change 'political sentiment' in a country ('Lobby congress'). Or you build universities, and do the same..  (US in egypt f.e. (arab spring))

edit2: See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethe-Institut )


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 30, 2020)

I can't believe Brexit is finally happening tomorrow after so many damned delays! 

I've heard so many people discuss and diss Britain how "Britain is leaving Europe" and "Britain isn't European anymore". Just oxymoron. Europe is a continent whereas the EU is an organization, Britain is a European country and the British are Europeans.

Saying "Everyone in Europe is European" is factually wrong because millions from Asia and Africa have immigrated to European (Western) countries.


----------



## eyeliner (Jan 30, 2020)

I guess tourism shall take a hit, and some trade will suffer for a bit, just like a first foray into anal sex. But then the things will start to cool down, you'll turn your backs to the mainland and will look to the ugly truth:

You need Europe way more than Europe needs you.

And then the infatuation will ed and everyone wll realise it was good as it was.

But in the end, everyone wil be fine, we will come to agreements, governments will make deals, politicians will still aim to go for the current best. And we will stroll around like if nothing has happened.

Money can't be stopped.


----------



## Essasetic (Jan 30, 2020)

Welp, it'll finally all be over tomorrow. After 4 years involving failed negotiations, two resignations, multiple delays and just general incompetence we're finally leaving tomorrow.

I honestly don't want the UK to leave the EU but at this point I just want it to be over.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 31, 2020)

People saying it is over there is still years of negotiations on any number of fronts, fees to be paid, rules to be obeyed, possibly rules to the be stripped from national UK law (or maybe just England and Wales depending upon the nature of them and what Scotland, Northern Ireland and all the rest care to do), rules to be added to keep things in line with whatever EU regs are there to either imports can be had or exports done, negotiations for trade deals with other countries (bearing in mind Canada is doing its whole getting closer to the EU thing if "we will trade with the commonwealth" is to be a thing).
It is going to continue dominating politics for years to come, possibly well over a decade. If another party gets back in with other ideas then that gets even more fun.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Jan 31, 2020)

Without any Participation to the Discussion or reading to the whole Thread,I can only 

CONGRATULATE the United Kingdom

for leaving the EU.

 

Thank you.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Jan 31, 2020)

alexander1970 said:


> Without any Participation to the Discussion or reading to the whole Thread,I can only
> 
> CONGRATULATE the United Kingdom
> 
> ...


Thank you.

I can't wait for our 5 seconds of sovereignty until the US has us bending over backwards


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jan 31, 2020)

RaptorDMG said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I can't wait for our 5 seconds of sovereignty until the US has us bending over backwards



now why would that happen, the USA is already our biggest trading partner country. We will still be trading with EU countries.


----------



## notimp (Jan 31, 2020)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> now why would that happen, the USA is already our biggest trading partner country. We will still be trading with EU countries.



Because it would be beneficial for the US? 

Thats a function of your economic influence just having become smaller. So tighter integration with another power block is something that might be in the cards.  Not sure what it would entail though. Wait and see.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 31, 2020)

alexander1970 said:


> Without any Participation to the Discussion or reading to the whole Thread,I can only
> 
> CONGRATULATE the United Kingdom
> 
> ...


The EU makes all those countries that are part of the organization to be borderless and allow anyone and everyone they want. It's a good thing U.K. has left the EU. Just imagine someone invading your own home, it's pretty much what borderless countries are allowing.

Plus, Europe-EU countries have EU Roads so if some criminal decides to commit an atrocity and then escape to another country, then that's an easy way out.

This happened two years ago in Spain, but it still keeps on happening even though it's not on the news.



I just can't support nor be in favor of something that makes countries to be in a dangerous situation.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 31, 2020)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> RaptorDMG said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you.
> ...


Have we not seen it with Canada and any other number of places the US has trade deals, especially when they the go in for the bilateral deal (not many places can compete evenly with the US) rather than trilateral (for all its flaws the EU does compete on a fairly even footing). Even without that they try to take their stuff on tour a lot -- did we not all see the nice puppets they made of Sweden a few years back when up against the pirate bay. The leaked proposed deals with the sell the NHS lark (not that the conservatives have not otherwise overseen considerable privatisation of any number of aspects of it, or will likely go down as good stewards of it) were early stuff and for whatever reason the US seems to favour everything open until people say it is not, as opposed to this is what we want so let's negotiate, so they are not the best thing to look at but if we do look at what Canada ended up giving them.

Now I doubt it will end up as some kind of reverse colonialism and we all become serfs again but I am expecting them to export their approach on intellectual property, which likely will mean an attempt on software patents, probably medicine patents going up in term length, with those likely the awful biological patents like the DNA stuff, I am hoping that does not also mean people can't harvest their crop seeds any more (much less be stung when one breeds from a neighbouring field), probably Hollywood to have a little satellite here to play IP monster and we have otherwise all watched the DMCA unfold over the years. The industry stuff will be a fun one as UK industry and US industry are rather different affairs (the UK tending to be far more tech and skills based compared to what I saw stateside whenever I wandered around there, even in technology focused states) and how they might mesh I am not sure right now, though probably with serious teething problems and not just because imperial measurements. Harmonising food regs will probably be a fun one, even more so if Northern Ireland is to stay in line with EU regs because it makes life easier that way, but could be done -- outside of washed eggs and chlorinated chicken that everybody seems to toss around it is not so bad (both are high tech hygiene focused places) but some of its industrial farming practices, genetically modified stuff could be an interesting one if the EU remains against it for most places. Financials are also going to be weird but I don't know quite enough there to know what will happen, and they are also pretty different (most London banking being private investment/private banks, often of US peeps but not always for money laundering/secrecy, as opposed to stock markets and things that fall from that like New York). I am curious to see what will becoming of house building as a result as the US has some very very different ideas on how to build houses that don't mesh with approaches in the UK, though both of those will probably be blown away when someone cracks the flat pack housing (they already have skyscrapers they can do in days, and the Scandinavian houses thing that the UK did a fair bit of a few years back is probably a nice preview there, not to mention I don't think I have seen a roof truss built traditionally in some years at this point and instead premade frames get stuck up by a small crane). High level education results are already pretty harmonised for everything that matters (engineering, medics, scientists and whatnot for decades now, medics can have some more fun as doctors are trained somewhat differently in either location but it all ends up in more or less the same place), everything else can get just as lost in the US credits system, and most institutions are already pretty open and heading towards expense seen in US universities if investors do care to play there. I don't know what we will see in terms of religion driven laws as "as long as it happens in Canada or Mexico we don't care, oh and we can't be seen to fund it" seems to be the order of the day there. Vehicles will be one to watch but road sizes, fuel prices and safety regs, as well as the direction the market seems to be heading, will probably not mean too much there even if the regs technically change and at best we will probably see whatever the next urban music trend is artist in an Escalade just so they look even more moronic. Military stuff will be another to watch, especially as I don't know what will happen with NATO (this president seems to dislike it, granted the UK is one of the few that give or take the aircraft carrier thing right now can spin up and deploy worldwide and meets spending suggestions if that is to be a thing people look at) but the UK is probably looking at a new rifle before long (the 85 in L85 refers to the year after all, though there have been massive upgrades both from the initial farce and to modernise it in general) with 2025 probably being when that will start to tick over with trials before then and other things are already in progress. That said it is usually a desire to have something home built that causes problems there.
I know I mentioned the NHS in the opening paragraph but I still expect the US to stick their beak in on things there.

My main reservation though is the US exporting their take on intellectual property, which they try to do everywhere even when not doing trade deals, but that is mainly as that is something that I am concerned with in life in general and I am sure if I cared more about finance I might have concerns there.


----------



## Viri (Jan 31, 2020)

Holy shit! They actually left the EU, I honestly didn't think it'd ever happen.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 31, 2020)

Viri said:


> Holy shit! They actually left the EU, I honestly didn't think it'd ever happen.


Me neither 'cause it looked like it was impossible, but in the end it happened!

I felt quite relieved that the great U.K. has left the EU, but the Remainers are true scaremongers and keep on saying people are going to be full-on racists and so on. And oh, one of the pro-EU guys said basically: "Those who voted for Brexit were mainly old people with low qualifications and skills, while young people wanted to stay in the EU."

Wow, just wow. He may disagree, but there was no need to be disrespectful.


----------



## Viri (Feb 1, 2020)

I wonder which country will leave next. I don't think the UK will be the last country to leave.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 1, 2020)

Some avoided joining or fomenting closer ties I suppose, though other factors were also in that one.

That said what sort of timeframe do you imagine this happening in? If it is going to be 15 years from now that is another thing entirely. In the near term Hungary would probably be where most looked but polling (I know) there does not show the greatest support for that one, and I don't know about the economics of that one either (they tend to be where you go if you want to say your cars/electronics/technical goods are made in Europe but not pay European prices or millions to build robots for it).
If one of the various internal country independence movements actually gets something done then you might have a technicality there. Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg (all places with less than a million population) maybe in a surprise upset type move (though I imagine becoming another Switzerland or Monaco rather than whole new world stage player) but I don't think anybody is particularly predicting that one.
Option possibly for one of the nordics to go more like Norway/Iceland, and they already have the Nordic council thing.

Beyond that I don't particularly see any of Eastern Europe jumping just yet, outside chance Bulgaria could pull something off maybe but they have far bigger problems to handle first.

Some in Greece might like it in theory but the practicalities of that one... does Russia want a port or to mess with China that badly?

Mid term Ireland could see something, though the results of the upcoming election (one week from now) there will probably see what goes with that one and nobody with much chance of doing anything is running on a slow down ties, much less break them, with Europe platform (it is not an absent concept and looking at much of the stuff going on there these last few years I could see some kind of backlash happen similar to other places). Beyond that English speaking technically advanced country tax haven entry to Europe is one of their major draws, though I suppose financial capital English speaking and Europe was a draw of the UK (though that mostly meant London).


----------



## Alexander1970 (Feb 1, 2020)

Viri said:


> I wonder which country will leave next. I don't think the UK will be the last country to leave.


My Dream...... we Next.

I "promise" you,Austria will do it........after 21 Countries did it before us...typical Austrian Attitude and Philosophy.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 1, 2020)

Viri said:


> I wonder which country will leave next. I don't think the UK will be the last country to leave.


I would hope Poland, Hungary and Portugal. The first two are likely because they cherish their country very much whereas Portugal they believe the EU is the best thing that has ever happened. Not to mention that there's so much financial and political corruption that it would take decades to actually try and fix it.

On the bright side, Portugal has great weather, great food, excellent variety of meat and life in general can be cheap.


----------



## seany1990 (Feb 1, 2020)

After last night I feel empowered. No longer under the heel of the fascist Germans. I can FINALLY be racist again


----------



## leon315 (Feb 1, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> After last night I feel empowered. No longer under the heel of the fascist Germans. I can FINALLY be racist again


sir, contradictory go to school will make an individual smart and never the opposite,one must know that 3 major Axis powers were *NAZI Germany, FASCIST Italy and Imperial Japan *who are still fascist nowdays....

As a British calling FASCIST germany is one of most moronic and ignorant thing ever, since UK was literally bombed into ashes by German's air force during WW2.


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> The EU makes all those countries that are part of the organization to be borderless and allow anyone and everyone they want.


This is both more false and more true, than you'd think - when coupled with the migration scare.  As you just did.

So - the UK done fucked up, during the integration period of Schengen, when open borders (like in the US ('merica fuck yeah), between states) became a thing.

They were the only major country in the union (aside Luxenberg and other 'heavy weights')) that didn't implement an optional, and legally and politically viable transition period, but rather said OPEN BORDERS! from day one.

That backfired, and they got more influx from willing (EU citizen) working migrants, than they expected. A few years down the road, racial tensions spiked because of that. ("Our social system moneys only for UK born citizen!" - meh, isn't allowd under EU regulations for good reasons. (Free market on wares also has to lead to a free market on labor, otherwise, all the moneys ends up in the big countries, even more so than it already does.)

Then came the "migration crisis" of 2015+ (people outside of the EU fleeing into the EU).

No internal borders in that case - first wasnt true. The Visegrád countries at certain points closed their borders for migrants entirely (violating Schengen). Outside borders were strengthened and more tightly controlled (mediterranean sea) also.

Furthermore - when 'simply wave them through' events took place, it was on behest of gouvernments taking the influx, so voluntarily, while there still where 'impromptu' border controls being set up again.
(Countries did 'take the load off of others' because of political considerations, and because of the industry in germany liking the idea of more cheap workers - basically.)

The most important thing to understand though is - that 'getting' into another country as a non EU migrant -- isnt the end of the road. Because based on your cause of entry, you get registered, helped on humanitarian grounds for maybe 1-2 years, and then sent back, based on your cause of entry and nationality. You dont necessarily get a permanent living or work permit. And if you travel between countries, you dont get your social payments from that country either, so you better travel back, without you being allowed to work. So, borders or not... Don't matter that much.

Furthermore, during the migration crisis of 2015+ the UK controlled the channel (border between France (EU mainland) and the UK) tightly - regardless of Schengen. So the UK had not had an influx of migrants during that period.

If you are a dumbfuck, and are reacting based on emotions - and were living in germany at the time, you became more populist/racist, when seeing, that germany was overwhelmed for a time with getting through the administerial stuff of registering new migrants. In certain cities. For about three months. Because of a lack of preparation. And a message that spread on social media ('everyone is welcome') that wasnt intended to produce what it produced at the time. That problem is solved already. Also following that - tighter controls on EU outside borders where implemented, and could curb the migration flow to managable levels, to this day.


So if you ever see a dumbfuck posting RT propaganda of people with darker skincolor jumping off a boat, understand that - NONE (+/- a few) ever ended up in the UK, none of them stayed permanently - if not on grounds of asylum - and sending them back WORKS, unlike in the US (southern border), because crossing the sea border is expensive and more dangerous, than crossing a land border (people from the source countries are selling their homes to get here).

'Working borders' as the UK had in place during the migration crisis (violating Schengen, but no one other than NGOs complained, certainly not the EU) would only serve one purpose, and that is to create a humanitarian crisis (people getting gunned down, starving), in countries that could least cope with that at the point in time. That regime (have the countries on the outside of the EU deal with it) works in 'normal/peace' times, but not - if you've got a migration crisis at hand. Or it gets ugly - quick. (Countries all over the EU told germany - open your border, or we let them through regardless. (Instead of gunning them down.))

Its much more sensible - to let the flow move on, when its there already, try to cut off incentives, causes, and increase difficulty for latecommers, and then deal with the people who came - according to your laws, afterwards. And over time.

People without a residence and without a work permit, without papers, have a MUCH harder time getting by in the EU than in the US basically. In short, its pretty near to impossible to do so an live an even close to normal life. You need papers for everything within the EU. So eventually those people register (looking at the numbers). And if granted long term asylum - thats also non permanent. The first generation most often is fucked. (Second generation less so.)


So if you are here to post effing "people with dark skin jumping from boats" propaganda as the cause for the UK leaving the EU - NONE of that was ever true, and this was the UKIP camp brainwashing idiots with no education. Based on emotional motives. (Fear.)

The truth is - all of our societies have ways to handle extreme events with reducing "humanity" in the process, and ignoring active law (Schengen), when push comes to shove - with no one ever going to court with each other over that (laws are written in a certain way).

Regardless - yes, EU means free inner european migration for EU citizens. You cant complain about that either though - unless you are a nutter - because thats the basis of an economic union that isnt a 'colony' ('lets bleed out the economically less viable countries').

We have gone over that three times in this thread already. Keep your opinion, your feelings, and your russian videos of people with dark skin jumping from boats to yourself. Dont spread propaganda.

If you believed in that being a reason for the UK leaving the EU, you've been had.

(Germany or France structurally have no different position on 'external' migration than the UK. Its just that the UK are an island, and will always behave like one when it best serves them. If you then look at if that resulted in pushback from any of the EU countries - hardly ever. Still people got sold on this being a deviding issue. On the day before they googled "whats the EU". (The day after the referendum.))


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 1, 2020)

Brexit is now leaving Europe for sure thanks to STUPID Trump's friend in UK does that. I said Uk make a big mistake. Disappointment!


----------



## eyeliner (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> I would hope Poland, Hungary and Portugal. The first two are likely because they cherish their country very much whereas Portugal they believe the EU is the best thing that has ever happened. Not to mention that there's so much financial and political corruption that it would take decades to actually try and fix it.
> 
> On the bright side, Portugal has great weather, great food, excellent variety of meat and life in general can be cheap.


I would hope for you to go make love with yourself. Portugal is indeed a corrupt country, but we are taking some decisive steps towards fighting fraudulent behaviour.We are a great provider of work force for a whole lot of countries and hope most of them leave your shores. I'll then, promptly laugh when you see how immigrants go there and become the doctors, nurses, dentists youneed but can't provide.I'll love the collapse. I truly will.

Portugal won't leave the EU, because we know our place, and believe it or not, our country has improved, we don't stand in the tip of our toes being bigger that what we are supposed to be.

We have problems, but for one, we welcome immigrants. We acknowledge that. Heck, we need people here, so open borders suit us just fine.

And there is decent food in any country, so love yourself even more, you ungrateful human. We don't want you specifically here. Go to Scotland or Ireland instead. Don't leave your cherished island. Lock them borders shut, so you don't let those nasty workers that do the jobs you don't want to do or just can't, enter.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 1, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> I would hope for you to go make love with yourself. Portugal is indeed a corrupt country, but we are taking some decisive steps towards fighting fraudulent behaviour.We are a great provider of work force for a whole lot of countries and hope most of them leave your shores. I'll then, promptly laugh when you see how immigrants go there and become the doctors, nurses, dentists youneed but can't provide.I'll love the collapse. I truly will.
> 
> Portugal won't leave the EU, because we know our place, and believe it or not, our country has improved, we don't stand in the tip of our toes being bigger that what we are supposed to be.
> 
> ...



Boesy is right about one thing:



Boesy said:


> On the bright side, Portugal has great weather, great food, excellent variety of meat and life in general can be cheap.



But ignored him about anything else. America is the worst one. 

Anyway, I am proud to be Portuguese and I love my country. I am going back! Hello, Portugal!


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 1, 2020)

So Erm... I know it's only been a day, but... Any actual benefits to be found in the UK right now?

This whole 'this this country will leave next' vs 'this is the stupidest thing ever' is, we 've got to be honest, yesterday's news. With the speculation done, if like to know if there are any benefits to be had...


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Yes. Lower regulations, to make businesses on the verge of profitability profitable, when dealing with your next best business buddies in the developing world, where growth expectation is still high. (And loose being europes financial hub in the process, but eh, not much structural growth to be had there anyhow...)

"Outcompete italy on shoes" (but for financial services (f.e.))

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Boesy said:


> This happened two years ago in Spain, but it still keeps on happening even though it's not on the news.



I have great solution. Build wall on beach. Let the ocean pay for it. (Resettle the tourists.)

Also of course media stopped reporting.

Once numbers get down to a managable level (hence "instagram worthy"), its not national news anymore. What do you want - people living in fear of seeing a boat every day?

You go by number of people getting into your system (registering) and that declined rapidly, since the hay days. If they are outside of your system - what do you care - they cant get your jobs, they cant get social spending, they cant get cars, they cant get flats, they cant get education - they can do illegal stuff, get scalped by mafia likes that sell them accomodation at moon prices, be busted to then also be sent back. (If they dont apply for asylum.)

So they run off of the boat, and into the city, and then..? Hot tip. Their plan is still to get registered. Probably in germany. Not to life the freeing life of a traveling homeless person with no perspective and little language skills.

Again, that might fly in the US, in Europe (more regulation on everything including housing) - not so much. Want to receive a postal package? Documents please. Want to open a back account? Documents please. Want to rent a car? Documents please, ... edit: Want a cellphone? Documents please.

And why don't they want to get registered in Spain? Dublin accord. (The country that registers you as an asylum seeker is responsible for you until you leave the EU.)


----------



## leon315 (Feb 1, 2020)

azoreseuropa said:


> Brexit is now leaving Europe for sure thanks to STUPID Trump's friend in UK does that. I said Uk make a big mistake. Disappointment!


Dude, British holded a referendum to decide whether stay or leave EU. It was UK citizens' decision.
Now it's time for Scotland to shine!  Scotland divorces from UK! #FREESCOTLAND


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> On the bright side, Portugal has great weather, great food, excellent variety of meat and life in general can be cheap.





leon315 said:


> Dude, British holded a referendum to decide whether stay or leave EU. It was UK citizens' decision.
> Now it's time for Scotland to shine!  Scotland's divorce from UK! #FREESCOTLAND



Yes, I know but Trump's friend is part of it. I just knew it.


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Here is a business opportunity for the entrepreneurial amongst you.

Boat tracker:

Pay a local kid in Spain, Itally, Greece, .. to flick through local socal media and newspaper articles all day, aggregating boat landings, then send out customized alerts to people who subscribe. Make it a subscription model.

Call the tiers silver, gold and platinum security. Platinum is insta alerts.

Upgrade to a higher tier if you also want to know the estimated number of people on every incident. Maybe make this best value, so around gold level.

Make fan communities, where people can share their custom made spreadsheets, and ignore official numbers, that already are open data.

You'd get 10% of gbatemps audience no problem. Instantly.

Have a shot of the day - where you show a random person with dark skin color, and make up a story, what he (always he) would do, when they get into the center of 'insert town'. Thats your hot topic item.

Do you understand, why (damn leftleaning) journalists were so reluctant, to make the migration crisis an actual story (invention of the "tha media doesnt report" meme), or should I continue.

Freaking a boat arrived in spain, and it isn't in the UK news guy...


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 1, 2020)

azoreseuropa said:


> But ignored him about anything else.


You can ignore the facts all you want, but the matter of the fact is that people who had money in banks have been robbed by the very same people they trusted their money with.

The politicians aren't any better either.

I'm Portuguese too, but I just don't see Portugal as a country with a future for me. Those in control of it have failed my beloved country and I'd rather be in U.K. or anywhere else at this point.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



azoreseuropa said:


> Brexit is now leaving Europe for sure thanks to STUPID Trump's friend in UK does that. I said Uk make a big mistake. Disappointment!


Uh, what? Leaving Europe? No.

Brexit was made that so U.K. would leave the EU. Learn the difference, my dude.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> You can ignore the facts all you want, but the matter of the fact is that people who had money in banks have been robbed by the very same people they trusted their money with.
> 
> The politicians aren't any better either.
> 
> ...



That's your opinion about Portugal but I am Portuguese from San Miguel, Azores. I would glad visit Portugal easy from my island.  

Okay, I got what you mean. I cannot care about Brexit. I just want UK to stay in the EU.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 1, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> so open borders suit us just fine.


Right, just like allowing anyone in from China without being checked if he/she has the virus.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



azoreseuropa said:


> I would glad visit Portugal easy from my island.


You seem to despise U.S. so why don't you return back to Açores?



azoreseuropa said:


> . I just want UK to stay in the EU.


Thank God they've left.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> You seem to despise U.S. so why don't you return back to Açores?
> .



No, I don't hate it. I just don't feel I belong to it. I thank my parents for the experienced I had been living in America for a long time. I thank America for that. Enough is enough for me.

Yes, that's what I am going to do. I came to America with my parents and been here for overt 40 years. Not happy here. America is insane expensive due to higher cost of living, health care sucks, and crime here, oh my gosh, shooting almost everyday on news. Miss my country. Been there every years.


----------



## eyeliner (Feb 1, 2020)

Boesy said:


> Right, just like allowing anyone in from China without being checked if he/she has the virus.


You are sorrowly mistaken, amigo. Open *EUROPEAN BORDERS*.

If my schooling did me any favours, China isn't part of Europe. But hey, I'm from Portugal, am I right? I know jack squat. But you do, so the pesky chinese will cross your borders happily without showing Visas, Passports and having a thermometer pointed to their forehead.

And so you know, they only leave China *AFTER CLEARANCE*. But again,you know better that the European Chinese, am I right? I mean, you know they are part of Europe so they can enter freely, yes?

Legitimate question, but are you a xenophobe or just sound like one?

Edit:I just read you are portuguese as well. Good riddance. Have a good life away from your "beloved" country.


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Sorry, forgot the most obvious reply.

So free trade is still in.

Which means, that boats, and trucks and transporters can still illegally carry migrants - without being searcht, right? The same who already went through 4-6 countries illegally before they reach the UK, right?

So what was the Brexit good for again?

But thanks for posting black people jump onto the shore in Spain videos from RT. No really, thanks a bunch.


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Wait, wait. Let me get this straight

This is how stupid the people on the right are.

- You tell them, why their "migrants be invading the UK" story makes no sense, three times. (Why it never made sense, and why the high onset at the implementation of Schengen (2004) was their own fault. (UK politicians own decision.))
- You show them the Dominic Cummings video (campaign architect of Leave), where he basically tells people, yeah, we used the racist bigots, had nothing for them really made them vote against their interests, couldnt have done it without them.
- You then get 'soft brexit' with free trade and movement of workers still being in place ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/29/brexit-britain-hard-line-immigration-openness )

And then the same jolly group of users still posts their "THA MEDIA ISNT TELLING YOU THAT A BOAT ARRIVED IN SPAIN - AND BLACK PEOPLE JUMPED OUT" bullshit - uses that as a premise for "so glad that we left the EU - so we can now attend to our own borders again", which you won't do.

And have the same three people like each others racist postings, just for the fun of it.

Thats how stupid the far right is.

They dont even  realize whats happening, after it happened, and you shouted it into their ears three times already.

They are so fact resistant - they cant even deal with whats happening anymore, at the same time, they are still convinced, that they have "won" though. What exactly they dont know themselves, but they have this feeling... And this russian video with black people jumbing from boats in spain, they want to share.

Huh.

But now they can refuse work permits to EU citizens, selectively.

But they still post videos of BLACK PEOPLE JUMPING FROM BOATS, which arent EU citizens. Because -- why? And like each other postings. thinking they'd get fewer international migrants, while in reality they are set up to get more (even more illegal ones), but - they insist - less legal ones from the EU.

Thats worldcup class stupidity. 

So the people in here basically dont like polish dudes, but post russian made videos to instill fear of illegal black immigrants, which they just voted to get more of - because they will be liberalizing their economy in the lower wage sectors and EU migrants will not be interested anymore to fill those jobs at the same level. They ignore that their campaign leads basically openly tell them - yeah, we just manipulated you emotionally, you voted against your own interests - and still are hooked on propaganda, to shout against "tha mainstream media" - after they have won the election (thanks to low voter turnout) and social media campaigns.

Wow. Thats an achievement. I mean a real one. Thats max reality distortion.

You practically don't live on this planet anymore.

How is mars?

Still listening to the strict hirarchy of people that tell you what to do? You know, the ones you idolized, but that dont do stuff in your interest?  Oh, they have such great suits. And the gift of the gab.  You love it. Are they still telling you to post FUD?

Do you have any rational justification for your believes, that now that you can issue work permits out to EU citizens, stuff will get better again in any way? I even take feelings at this point. Just something the would throw any light on your logic structure.

Besides posting the same old, same old 2015 selection of racist memes.

I mean lets savor this for a moment. A fucking russian video of a boat landing on the spanish shore is your logic gate for "this is why we have to leave EU" - but still allow free trade (so migrants can get in illegally on ships, vans and trollies - while we'll even build more jobs for their career level.).

What a beauty.

When do you come to the realization, that all that you are peddling is FUD with - with very simple - but entirely wrong proposed 'solution' proposals, that were only designed so people like you would fall for them? Next christmas?

Would you like a graze period until then? Maybe next christmas you start using your intellect and we can talk?


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Found it. This is what right wingers believe -

now with Britain out of the EU, Britain can finally stop dangerous  criminals (terrorists), gettin in to Britain, with easily fakeable EU ID cards. (Nevermind that you cant work in Britain with just an ID card, or get a flat, (you could get a bank account), so terrorists it is - that you are now safeguarding against.

https://www.ft.com/content/1464c62c-1449-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385
accessible via google news referral from:
https://www.google.com/search?q=conservatives+pledge+tighter+border&source=lnms&tbm=nws

Horray! You went out of the EU to be safer from terrorists. Thats what it was!

According to that article UK border force will get a budget rise by £20 mio. Thats off of a base budget of £2.17 billion. Wow. That will show those illigal migrants and terrorists. That will stop them dead! (Next general election conservatives plan to play the 'security card'.  )


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> Found it. This is what right wingers believe -
> 
> now with Britain out of the EU, Britain can finally stop dangerous  criminals (terrorists), gettin in to Britain, with easily fakeable EU ID cards. (Nevermind that you cant work in Britain with just an ID card, or get a flat, (you could get a bank account), so terrorists it is - that you are now safeguarding against.
> 
> ...



I think there are lots of reasons why people voted to leave.. some might be because of 


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726436/Child-benefit-UK-taxpayers-eastern-Europe


or


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Kings College Fellow in the FT
https://www.ft.com/content/af7ac1d8-441a-11ea-9a2a-98980971c1ff



> Opinion Brexit
> 
> We still don’t know what Brexit means
> 
> ...



Great. So hard Brexit after the transition phase is still not off the table.
But people in here celebrated the public event right.

What they were celebrating, they apparently didn't know... Because even at this moment, no one knows.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JoeBloggs777 said:


> I think there are lots of reasons why people voted to leave.. some might be because of
> 
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726436/Child-benefit-UK-taxpayers-eastern-Europe
> ...



That is still talked about as a far right talking point within the EU as well.

You cant fix child benefits for EU migrants to the levels of their birth states. European courts of law have ruled several times, that this is illegal.

Even if they have -- omg FIVE children.

The thing is, we - and you as well I'm certain, are importing those workers for medical or retirement care jobs, pulling them away from their children, and then would not even pay them our own levels of child support which - yes, is worth more in their economies.

Those are new levels of low I wont even sink down to, to argue for - why they would be needed.

Those kind of incentives (wages, and benefits higher in richer countries), always were factored in as an incentive for free movement. But when people actually want to cash them in - all of a sudden, they can only work here - but not have the same rights (social payment levels)? Seems odd. No - seems illegal, according to high court legislation.

But yes indeed, this is something that britain for sure will not continue past the end of this year.

So more black and asian care personal then? (Thats the thing. You still have to fill those jobs, and your economy will get more liberal (so lower low level jobs), but you want less people from within the EU. So more migration from countries outisde the EU to fill them, right? With you knew trade deal relationships, this seems like a given. But the racist folks wont like. Because they think they voted for less migration.

First article I linked to worded it this way:

"Maybe they will be happy with more 'selective' migration, but also more of it.

Meaning:

"Lower class of workers more or less confirmed for Britain." But as long as they get lowest social status and less benefits than EU citizens, racist will be fine with that, or what?  Thats the logic, right? )


----------



## eyeliner (Feb 1, 2020)

@notimp Who are you replaying in your first post on this page?
Apologies, but couldn't understand from your text. Regards.


----------



## mightymuffy (Feb 1, 2020)

notimp, I do wonder, how many people on here do you think read more than about 5% of, well, whatever that is you like to post, when you yourself can't even properly read a reply with only a couple of sentences in?? I'll bold up the part you 'missed' in his post for you...



JoeBloggs777 said:


> I think *there are lots of reasons why people voted to leave.. some might be because of*
> 
> 
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/726436/Child-benefit-UK-taxpayers-eastern-Europe
> ...




Especially note the section 'some', and 'might be'


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

Dont care. As long a people cant post black people jumping off of boats in spain memes, and get away with that unconfronted, I'm doing my job here.

@eyeliner: To the typical racist poster on gbatemp. A fictive figure I'm projecting attributes onto.

Racists in this thread will only ever post memes, and then scram - never offering more attack surface than necessary - so I have to lay out their logic models for them first, to then be able to confront them on just how insane they are.

Otherwise, stuff like "tha media isn't telling us, that black people jump off of boat in spain, so we had to get through with brexit" can stand here to garner ideological pull from the less informed and children.

Thats why people are posting that stuff in here in the first place.

its not by chance - that before every election wer get the paid facebok advertising messaging in here with the same people liking each others threads no matter how insane the logic behind what they are posting is.
-

What really gets me though is - that even after you lay out why an argument ("We did Brexit to get less (illegal or legal) migration, because the Eu would force us to do too little for our folks") is utterly false - three times in the same thread -

- another right wing sock puppet can still walz in, post a russian agit prop video, say "this be why" - and then scram.

Again - you have children reading this stuff as well. if you want to feed them propaganda unfiltered and without any context - please at least use the same accounts over time.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> Even if they have -- omg FIVE children.



Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so, any EU nationals working in the UK have the same rights ( in fact I'll go as far as in some cases they have more rights than British citizens in the UK regarding immigration) as British citizens, even thou they may have worked for a short time compared to a British citizen who has  worked for years paying taxes.

I think the benefits in Britain are more generous than most other EU countries and some people from other EU countries know the rules and how to take advantage of them. (yes I realise some Brits do to) 

The free movement in the EU doesn't work, look at the Baltic states  something like 1/3 of the population have left looking for jobs in other EU states and not forgetting the 1M Poles who came to the UK. why don't they do something to bring work to these states and tax incentives for companies to build factories in these countries  to stop the mass exodus of people and increasing over crowding in the big cities.


----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so, any EU nationals working in the UK have the same rights ( in fact I'll go as far as in some cases they have more rights than British citizens in the UK regarding immigration) as British citizens, even thou they may have worked for a short time compared to a British citizen who has worked for years paying taxes.


No.

Simple as that.

Job markets arent fair. So they might get a better job than you and me.

But in terms of social benefits, they are only entitled to the same ones your country provides to all your citizens.

"They get more and an iPhone on top of it" is dark PR.

They don't. They maybe get a language course on top of it, and some attention by a NGO, or the church, and maybe a bigger subsidized flat - but thats then only because of the number of their children.

In the five children example above, a EU citizen from a country with lower wages would take up work in lets say the EU and then also apply for child benefits, for their children that werent living with them in the EU (but usually with their grandparents in the countries of origin). Those child benefits would then be worth more, than the living expenses / care expenses would be for those children in their countries, meaning, that there is extra money for those families in the origin country to live on - compaired to their national benefit regimes. But thats also, why those mothers can be motivated to take on these care jobs in our countries in the first place. Its not because they pay so well (from our perspective).

Aging countries in Europe have a problem with financing people at old age. So this 'solution' is a win/win for richer countries (those workers are likely to go back into their countries of origin, once the demographic bump went away - so they are literally workers that you'll only use for part of their lives, and then dont have to care for later on - when they retire in their home countries). So yes, you are overpaying - but then also not paying for retirement at rich countries costs, and you are getting something you wouldnt get otherwise. Women willing to work in the care sector out of their countries, while leaving their children.


----------



## carizard (Feb 1, 2020)

The only reasons people voted for brexit is as follows, they are retarded, they are racists, they have something to gain look at Nigel and Boris


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> No.
> 
> Simple as that.



err no to what part ? please explain


----------



## carizard (Feb 1, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Feb 1, 2020)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> err no to what part ? please explain


I implied social security rights. As in "they get more benefits".

No, in terms of social spending they should get UK rates, not more.

If there are more work security related rights (as in you cant boot them out of their jobs as quickly) that surely wasn't the cause for Brexit and UK citizens being very unhappy, was it?

Those laws might be in place, because resettling with your family adds on additional financial cost, that an entrepreneur you cant just disregard. While society looks away.

But I'm swimming here - maybe you can name the "additional benefits only EU citizens got within the UK"?

The ones that arent just fluff to agitate people that go through the roof, when they hear stuff like that.

Also UK citizens also were EU citizens in their own rights, so they could have moved to Germany and France just as well, enjoying the same rights.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> Also UK citizens also were EU citizens in their own rights, so they could have moved to Germany and France just as well, enjoying the same rights.




you mention that EU nationals shouldn't get more than British citizens in benefits and we've heard EU officials saying they want a equal playing field in the negotiations for a deal. pity this doesn't apply in all cases.

I think you know that you cannot exercise your treaty rights in the country you were born in. so being a British citizen if I married someone from outside the EU I would have to apply for a spouse visa, and earn at least the minimum income threshold, provide evidence the relationship is genuine, pay £1,500 fee, wait weeks and even months for the result

yet a EU citizen can exercise their treaty rights in the UK and if they marry someone from outside the EU they can apply for a EU Settlement scheme family permit. which is FREE, the British Embassy has to treat this application as a priority over other (British ) applications and unlike the British citizen they don't  have to meet the minimum income threshold or prove their relationship is genuine and they virtually have a legal right to this visa.

so why don't we have the same rights as EU citizens in this case ? oh sure if I go to another EU country but should  people have to?

and yes a British citizen could try and use the Surinder Singh route to bring their partner to the UK. but really again should they have to !


----------



## notimp (Feb 2, 2020)

Do you know why this is the case? (Legislative history, or fasttracking the process?)

Seems to me (and I'm making this up right now, didnt research) like if you try to set up a political union, where people are supposed to see each other as equals, it would be counter productive to expose them to "extensive background checks - to find out if their relationship status was genuine" if they wanted to bring their spouse or family over.

To get rid of the notion, that you - the serve, ask the british state to grant your familiy right of residency - and make it a less formal process. So yes, in a sense political unification seems like the driver behind this, I'd think.

That others would then still be stuck in the conventional system, and have to pay fees might be seen as somethig like a wilful oversight.

I dont think the intention of the law was to demean or financially harm the people that get ranked back (or on the flipside, financially better europeans). I think that that would be an outcome that people glanced over (newer regulation not completely replacing older one - and causing problems in implementation).

I don't think any european would feel 'better' than a UK citizen, because they got fasttracked in the process, and didn't have to pay that one time fee. But thats me.

The point I tried to make is, that - stuff like that should not be applicable to services like social security (money equivalent benefits),which would be a huge cause for upset in any country - and is often used colloquially by the populist right to stir the pot. ("Those migrants get more than you do.") If stuff like that would verifyably be true (apart from lets say charity (donated clothing, ..) ), you could close down society tomorrow - as enough people would be angry enough to cause an uproar. So those in general are popular myths - as I've come to understand them.

Your example doesnt seem to be that. Its probably bad law making. (The downranking part at least (in the least?) seems ill conceived to me..) I dont see malice. Yet I guess, yes, structural discrimination could be argued.


----------



## Reiten (Feb 2, 2020)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> you mention that EU nationals shouldn't get more than British citizens in benefits and we've heard EU officials saying they want a equal playing field in the negotiations for a deal. pity this doesn't apply in all cases.
> 
> I think you know that you cannot exercise your treaty rights in the country you were born in. so being a British citizen if I married someone from outside the EU I would have to apply for a spouse visa, and earn at least the minimum income threshold, provide evidence the relationship is genuine, pay £1,500 fee, wait weeks and even months for the result
> 
> ...


The question is, when was this piece of legislation created? Is it something that was created before the EU or after, though if you think about it, it really doesn't matter when it was created. Looking at it from the side it looks like this: 

if it is legislation from the time before the EU, then it's the UK that has failed to adjust legislation, so that it doesn't screw the UK citizens. Don't see a fault with the EU here; 

if it is legislation that was created while being a EU member, then the UK purposely set up legislation that screws over UK citizens. Again I don't see why the EU should be at fault;
And even if you have to follow the EU legislation it's not like you can't make laws on top of that.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 3, 2020)

Bravo les Anglais !

You give us a glimpse of light in this dark time...
We french spent a WHOLE YEAR fighting against EU law enforcers that relenlessly attack our industry and loot our social security system.

You showed us a way out, thanks


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

Tired of those right wing sickos catering to idiots.

Correcting it anyhow. Idiot far right sicko posts propganda - 2 minutes out of that persons day - me correcting it, 15 minutes out of mine.











src: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budgetataglance/default_en.html#france

Half of what France was spending on top of what they receive from the EU budget was paying for Britains rebate (so the UK had to pay less).

3 billion netto expenses for a functioning EU is pocket change.

Famous UK "print a lie on a bus ad" at least claimed 21 billion (yearly) for the NHS by leaving the EU. Get your sense of dimensions of whats needed for your argument right. You handed over 1.3 billion in rebate money over to your good friend the UK just for better foreign relations. Now France doesnt have 1.7 billion to ensure good political and business relations with 26 other countries? Remind me the next time you have a different position on syria, or some former african colony.

Speaking of african colonies, here is the yearly total revenue of one of frances oil companies - 210 billion USD a year:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268764/revenue-of-total-sa/

So if that company alone spent 1.4% of total revenue for european relations, you'd have the entirety of frances netto expenses for the EU covered. And thats with paying for poor Britains rebate.

Guy above me is delusional, but just the right amount of moron to replicate extreme right myths on a gaming forum.

Causes more work, than anything.

If people dont care - they help propagating lies. A forum isn't facebook, where you just ignore all the uninformed rightwing recruitment postings.

(And thats me, so someone that very much has sympathies for the gilet jaunes. Any guy in business or politics sees that number and laughs you off the stage. But on the internet every opinion is equal. The brightest most enlightening thought (usually also not coming from me) stands right next to the measliest of ideological burps.)

edit: Also, almost forgot... France staffs most of the EU bureaucracy. So double lol.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> You handed over 1.3 billion in rebate money over to your good friend the UK just for better foreign relations.



and I thought the UK rebate was because in the early 80s the UK   became a large net contributor to the EU budget despite getting little back and the rebate was to fix this imbalance, nothing to do with foreign relations.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

There is a logical incongruence in your statement.  But you are not wrong on the first part. 

(Stuff like this always has to do with transnational/foreign relations, imho. Otherwise you wouldnt be spending that kind of money.

Also how much you are profiting from what was mostly an economic union is up to your businesses. (Which then in return you can tax. It is entirely possible, that you spend more than you would have without EU spending, but that you gain more in taxes overall, than you would have without the trading union. 'EU costs me moneys "wäääh" is not a zero sum game - thats part of the lie that was on that bus. It never has been a zero sum game (what do I pay for EU funds, what do I get out of them). (UK, as one of the bigger economies, outside of the eurozone, has less relative benefits. Than lets say a smaller country that gets a more favourable trade deal, because its part of the EU.)) So the logic behind 'we 'bribe' you to become a large net contributor' is flawed at first glance. Its mostly that britains economy was rather large and therefore they had an advantage in negotiations. Hence rebate (in terms of what you should have payed in relations to your economic status/gains. (Theoretical gains, that is, 'economic potential of your industries within a trading union.' would be the better phrase.))

You are correct though that expenses dont necessarily go down, because the UK left the EU. They were a net contributor.

edit: Also, in terms of how the EU budget works there are structural funds, that dont get tapped into because of national political reasons. (Funds usually are structured as co-payments for new developments.) So in a rather plain example - if britain would have done more on energy policy - it would have gotten more payouts from the EU. Actually I wanted to make that example with france, but that would have made me loose the argument in principal.  (Because france had riots based on how they wanted to reform their energy policy.)

EU fund money is 'political' so to speak. But its soft power (take it or leave it). And for the larger countries, thats mostly irrelevant. (Amounts small compared to their GDP.) It keeps the smaller ones in line though. (Hence foreign relations stuff.)

So for the smaller countries it is 'how much do I get out of the funds' (very easy to swallow politically if you get more moneys).
For the larger ones its 'how much do I get out of it based on economic gains' (very easy to swallow for industries, because they get more moneys).

Lets say Brexit was mostly about growth perspectives in british low income economies/sectors (highest growth potential in second and third world economies - new britain wants them as partners), and fear of further (european) political integration. And you have a better idea of what happened.

Now if you take france on the other hand - them isolated (sovereign), really doesnt benefit them at all. Regardless of what their right wing politicians tell their voters. Then they are isolated and what? Sell more cars, wine and cheese?

At least britain has former common wealth and five eyes relations.

But you see that the idiot bait, for british far right voters and french ones is exactly the same. So what does the far right gain out of it? Political power. So more growth for their ventures nationally. (So while they get bigger (yay), the nation economically does not.)

And then you have idiots, that complain that they spend 1.7 billion a year for the EU (but get a multiple of that in larger tax revenues, through industries). Heck france will go through a managed economic shock, just because britain left the EU. But according to the one guy - thank you, you showed us the way? Next stop isolated france competing and losing against germany, without any political restrictions, again? I mean, how stupid can you get?

This is 'make it simple and emotional' ('merica!!!1!!!!) being on the outlook for people with no education whatsoever again. There is no logic that goes 'because I loves me fellow country just as much as the britsman - we haves so much in common - and he will help me economically'. Britsman wont care about france one iota - regardless if they are in the EU or not.  (As long as germany doesnt get too big, what do they care. They be island. Control the channel, have a nice day frenchie.)

edit: Also - they havent 'shown anyone the way' because Brexit negotiations are still unfinished. We still dont know what it means (hard brexit, yes - no, f.e.). The party the UK just celebrated was bullshit. Somone ordered balloons for emotional fluff. All decisions still missing.

Not that the average gbatemp political forum contributer would have noticed. Because - look, they had party on streets, so it must be over.

(If you only ever look at what face said to other face publically - you will have no idea of what politics is, ever in your life. "Nigel said, we done good, guys, we be voted for the winner! He pays us balloons and champagne, and cheap event with speeches for the masses!"  )


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Feb 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Also - they havent 'shown anyone the way' because Brexit negotiations are still unfinished. We still dont know what it means (hard brexit, yes - no, f.e.). The party the UK just celebrated was bullshit. Somone ordered balloons for emotional fluff. All decisions still missing.


I guess the only formality to be said for certain is that nobody can walk out of any Brexit procedure anymore/any plans of a second referendum on the matter are off the table.

Which for people that care about Leave probably seems like a positive.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

Regarding non-EU spousal immigration specifically: This is more than a one time fee. It is a five year process that requires two visa applications, an application for leave-to-remain, and optional application for British citizenship. On top of the fees for each application there is also an NHS surcharge of equivalent amount, three total payments in excess of £3,000.00 and then more for citizenship, and of course expenses on top of that to satisfy the evidence requirements of appropriate accommodation etcetera. This is the bare minimum requirement for any non-EU spouse, the costs are raised significantly if children are involved or become involved at any step during the process.

All of which EU spouses have been exempt from. For those of us who do have non-EU spouses it has been quite a sore point.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

Rotten. But I dont think that thats a structural issue. (At least not one thats - because of the darn EU -- but htat would be the easy out.)

The thing is, that you can always point at one minor thing that goes worng (think of our UK imported spouses! (sorry..  I'm agitating for no reason), and with that mask the other thing thats going wrong (mass inter EU migration having been an issue caused by UK politics, not EU politics (even germany currently is 'fine' in terms of numbers - inter EU migration has trickled down to next to nothing -- which doesnt mean, that you will get your jobs back - if they are now done cheaper by an EU migrant).

The last part of the logic goes as follows.

Migrants (if migration as a process is well managed) add and dont substract to national economic wealth.

First generation might be structurally unemployed for half or even more of their lives (if they get asylum granted and are allowed to stay) -- you still let them into your country for a net gain - because of the percentage that will work their asses off (for no real reason), and because of their children. (Who could get higher education, ...)

Those actors alone will hike up economic growth, and better social systems in the long run. (Essentially - more 'competition' amongst people who have to worry for job security. So exactly what britain voted for..  )

So the out for someone that didn't make it, because of cheaper work competition - is always "to get a better education". Otherwise society - economically doesnt care. (Social care and charity aside, but those wont give you dignity back.)

But. And this is a big but. If you now say - no structural growth whatsoever ("western societies have matured"), outside of certain sectors - you end up with companies mostly growing based on the growth outside of your country. That makes companies then far harder to tax in your country ('there is no worker solidarity anymore').
As a result you now have much more bullshit jobs, and less job security structurally. So in a sense, there is no obvious big next thing.

So - I'm sorry - but the job that some migrant took for less pay - wont be yours anymore - just because you voted right wing. Its either 'get a better one through that political movement growing' or still be fucked.

And if you look at structural (not political - but in terms of economic growth f.e.) 'growth potential on the far right' - there is none. And if you look at 'growth potential' with the climate kids - there is none (that isn't in africa).

So both movements are competing on 'sectoral growth' (can I fuck over my fellow citizens faster, than they can fuck over me - because we both realize, that there are very limited 'good jobs' to be had, from us mattering a little more.).

How you solve that is unclear.  Davos is more frightened from right wing uprisings than from left wing ones. 

All I can tell you is, that international elites are trying to fuck you over on the PR front big time - currently. (Davos 'stakeholder capitalism' and 'corporate social responsibility').

So - the same as with climate stuff, far right 'solution' only is interesting as long as it grows. But growth potential under "we want nationalism" is very limited (under we want energy solutions that cost more than conventional ones (only in terms of profitability, not cost), to then consume less energy overall - just the same..  ).


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

It's an issue with our own government, absolutely. I understand the necessity of something like the NHS surcharge, but the actual processing fees for each application are inflated above actual cost by something like 800% last time I checked. It's quite scandalous. You can imagine how something like that could fuel anti-EU sentiment particularly with EU migrants not having to pay into the health system.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 5, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Regarding non-EU spousal immigration specifically: This is more than a one time fee. It is a five year process that requires two visa applications, an application for leave-to-remain, and optional application for British citizenship. On top of the fees for each application there is also an NHS surcharge of equivalent amount, three total payments in excess of £3,000.00 and then more for citizenship, and of course expenses on top of that to satisfy the evidence requirements of appropriate accommodation etcetera. This is the bare minimum requirement for any non-EU spouse, the costs are raised significantly if children are involved or become involved at any step during the process.
> 
> All of which EU spouses have been exempt from. For those of us who do have non-EU spouses it has been quite a sore point.



So true, I use to be a mod on a Immigration forum many years ago, it's crazy that a EU citizen has a virtual legal right to bring their non EU spouse and family to the UK for free while it's so costly for a British citizen  and you also face the possibility of the visa being refused. 

cost of a settlement visa £1,523. then FLR (M) £1,033 and for ILR £2,389 and finally Naturalisation £1,330 
total cost £6,275  and it's all Free for a EU citizen, yet we all know nothing is ever free, the Brits with non EU spouses are paying for them


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> It's an issue with our own government, absolutely. I understand the necessity of something like the NHS surcharge, but the actual processing fees for each application are inflated above actual cost by something like 800% last time I checked. It's quite scandalous. You can imagine how something like that could fuel anti-EU sentiment particularly with EU migrants not having to pay into the health system.


Processing fees dont matter.
They are processing fees. 

They arent even taxes. 

Amount of money you are talking about it is so small, you could as well complain about 'videogames costing more'. You having an issue with fees (what you pay for government operational expenses), doesnt even count in the big picture at all.

If somone told you it would, because you were attached emotionally, they were lying.  You arent fighting to pay government workers much less in direct payments, so they'd have to increase taxes, are you?

Also - thats not the EUs fault. Implementation of those laws was UK juristiction. Preamble was - probably fuck over EU migrants less, we want them in our industries (the qualiied ones), without them not coming - because their wives are "stuck in customs". What the UK then created in terms of fee structures was not the EU fucking you over.

Get it? Good.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

Perhaps if you were looking at the fees from the perspective of a national economy. Look at them from the perspective of an individual, particularly a low to middle income worker and these are large sums of money that make a difference in life. It's a given that such things will breed discontent.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

Yes - and the individual doesnt count.  (Only ever aggregated they do. (At least in politics.) As individuals, if they take over a movements paradigm, and become a leader or something.  )

What does it cost you to mobilize them emotionaly (the subset that things it is a big issue) for political gains? Nothing. Ok. max 3000 pounds for something they will do once in their lives. For less than 1% of the population. In case you follow up with "now everyone gets theirs free". Which is very unlikely.

It doesnt add up to be a real political issue. (Except on fringe cases).

If you go into politics, because the fees for an administral act are too high - in a western economy. Something is wrong. That only should become a political issue (as in you win elections by), if you are dealing with mass corruptions and failed states.

You arent.

So its much more likely, that some right wing populist told you what you wanted to hear, and you were so very greatful, because of that one time, you complained about high fees.

And now you are doing political recruitment work based on 'the fees are too high".

(Please daddy state, be more daddy state, to be less daddy state, so you dont make me pay as much.) There is no structural logic, behind you getting an emotional payoff from someone that tells you, yes - your idea that the fees are too high is very important to our political movement...


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

I see...

I don't really understand the necessity of that rant. But if you want more recruitment for "right wing populism" you can continue telling individuals that they don't matter and you'll get plenty of it.


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm not mad. I'm just little confused. 

So lets say that law was implemented, to have companies get their EU qualified worker imports faster. Without them being all bummed, that their wives are 'stuck in customs' (fast tracking).

One of those workers costs them 3-10+ million in lifetime expenses. Opportunity cost is probably 2-3 years pay. (If that position cant be staffed, because a qualified job applicant decided not to come.) (For the state thats at least an entire work year equivalent in taxes in every such case.) Then those companies turn around and ask  the state - hey would you mind waving 3000 pounds (edit: or even 6000 (just read it)) and fast tracking them? And the state shrugs with their shoulders and tells them - sure, there have some.

Mystery solved.  And yes its still unjust. But politics were probably banking on 'no one is changing their political believe, because of a onetime 6000 GBP fee for something they need from their government. 

(Straw man argument (not important in relation) comes to mind pretty fast.  But then for the individual it might matter very much.

And giving them the idea, that you are behind them politically all the way on such a comparatively small issue (simply because not everyone is personally affected) - usually is populism. (Promises alone don't cost much. Issues that dont affect many (rich ) people will be tackled last.))


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

You're not the only one, believe me. This is what I'd call a tangent. The economics are largely irrelevant when you're dealing with people with non-economic concerns. The majority of what you've said in this thread is completely meaningless because people don't care about economics unless it affects them on an individual level and they can see real, tangible effects. What people do care about is fairness, justice, and social cohesion. Plus it's so much simpler to understand.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Feb 5, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> What people do care about is fairness, justice, and social cohesion.


I mean, notimp does cover that argument, and the conclusion there is that the EU didn't screw up, it was the UK themselves who sloppily implemented EU laws.

To draw a parralel, imagine someone telling you not to shoot yourself in the foot, then you shoot yourself in your hand and then you go and complain to them that they didn't tell you to not shoot in your hand.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

That would be a matter of perspective wouldn't it? Is the implementation sloppy or is the law unjust? In either case the imposition of the law comes from the same source. It's fairly obvious where the ire of those affected will turn.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Feb 5, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> That would be a matter of perspective wouldn't it? Is the implementation sloppy or is the law unjust? In either case the imposition of the law comes from the same source. It's fairly obvious where the ire of those affected will turn.


I mean, in a sane situation, the ire should turn to the lawmakers who half-assed the implementation and caused the weird situations.

Which in this case would be the Thatcher government if I'm not mistaken...?


----------



## notimp (Feb 5, 2020)

Why we are talking about economy in this thread I guess is, because the EU largely is an economic union. And britain especially didn't want any part in it becoming more of a political union at any cost.

(Also because of an economic argument.)

So in the end more often than you'd think its about the economy. ('stupid' - as the famous saying goes).

Especially if you get to an age where you deciding if you should get children, or get your wife over - which might cost you 6000 GBP in fees.

(I have a pretty good Idea, why that is in place and not footed by the society at large as well btw.  but nothing to prove it..  (Its actually there to minimize opportunistic second stage work imigration - so, if you have "too many migrants", which are at a risk of not finding a job over longer periods of time being within your country - their families usually would be at risk also - so you raise fees, so getting your families over becomes more costly (to the point where people on social services might not be able to afford it. In case a company within the UK wanted them for a position, all of that usually goes away entirely.

Thats what you'd call 'managing expectations' - and thats something thats also very en vogue currently. (Because of 'mistakes' in planning.) Politics usually calls it nudging.)))


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I mean, in a sane situation, the ire should turn to the lawmakers who half-assed the implementation and caused the weird situations.
> 
> Which in this case would be the Thatcher government if I'm not mistaken...?


Even if that were true, it doesn't address the core of the problem. Since we've had successive governments over the years who hypothetically continue to "half-ass" legislation, the problem has not resolved itself by electing these new governments. Meanwhile the EU continues to mandate new legislation that is ultimately unpopular. You can follow my logic from here. If pruning the tree doesn't work you have to take it out at the root.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Feb 5, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Even if that were true, it doesn't address the core of the problem. Since we've had successive governments over the years who hypothetically continue to "half-ass" legislation, the problem has not resolved itself by electing these new governments. Meanwhile the EU continues to mandate new legislation that is ultimately unpopular. You can follow my logic from here. If pruning the tree doesn't work you have to take it out at the root.


I mean, if you look at what the EU is proposing and how many countries are doing the implementations and are working to have the laws legislated, most of it is really beneign and admittedly very good, and by far the majority of those involved don't seem to complain the same way the British did.

It's the UK that always half-assed the implementation. Oh and I know why that occurs. It has to do with a mentality that you see pop up all the time on British TV: They still think they're an empire who stands on their own and doesn't need to collaborate. The EU is seen as this outside group of "meddlers" who tell them what to do, rather than what it actually is: A -primarily- economic (but also social) union between the countries of Europe, so that in the grand play of things they don't get overlooked or overtaken by one of the other major powers of the world (Russia, China, even the US is one such power).

The truth is... the UK only kept it's major place in the world _because_ it joined the EU. The British empire doesn't exist anymore. Their colonies became independent, the only way they still had relevance and were a relevant world power was because they were a part of the EU.

Consider for a moment where they have to go now that they're out of the EU. Best case scenario, they strike a deal with the EU. The most likely result of that is that they still have to pay money to the EU and adopt most of it's laws, but have lost the ability to discuss and vote on what those laws would entail. That would pretty much mean that they have achieved exactly nothing aside from losing their voting position.

Worst case scenario, they have to make deals with the other world powers, the most likely being the US. And uh... the US is sorta like, infamous for making _really shitty deals_ with it's trading partners (copyright I think was covered earlier, but another example is that the US has really low safety barriers, and most trade deals made with the US have clauses in them that prevent countries from blocking imports from the US because they don't follow the local safety checks). And at the same time, the UK doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on in the debating position. Ultimately, the UK is just an island with bad weather and not much in the way of essential natural resources or particularly strong economic businesses (most of those left due to Brexit).


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 5, 2020)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I mean, if you look at what the EU is proposing and how many countries are doing the implementations and are working to have the laws legislated, most of it is really beneign and admittedly very good, and by far the majority of those involved don't seem to complain the same way the British did.
> 
> It's the UK that always half-assed the implementation. Oh and I know why that occurs. It has to do with a mentality that you see pop up all the time on British TV: They still think they're an empire who stands on their own and doesn't need to collaborate. The EU is seen as this outside group of "meddlers" who tell them what to do, rather than what it actually is: A -primarily- economic (but also social) union between the countries of Europe, so that in the grand play of things they don't get overlooked or overtaken by one of the other major powers of the world (Russia, China, even the US is one such power).
> 
> ...


We've already seen examples of that like with Iran and other conflicts Europe decides on a different answer while Trump making threats to the UK that they better make the same decision as the US and they did follow what the US decided regarding those matters. It's only going to get worse for them during the upcoming years that instead of listening to Europe wich wasn't entirely true. They now have to listen even more to what the US does. In theory becoming an even bigger lapdog to another master


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 5, 2020)

You are right. From the British perspective the EU does meddle. Excessively so. This is not to say that the EU is evil for the way it functions, it is just a product of the way European countries tend to function democratically. I would hope that in kind that Britain not be vilified for its choice to pursue a smaller government.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Tired of those right wing sickos catering to idiots.



*Idiots, far rights, delusionnal, moron...*

Yeah, very clever and constructive, I must admit.
I may waste time responding to someone insulting everyone, but I know you are more clever than that.




You certainly know that, along with UK and Germany, France is one of the few NET CONTRIBUTORS to the EU budget. It means that *we give 21 000 millions per year and we recover 13 000 millions*. The difference goes essentially to eastern europa.
EU costs us, A LOT.

Easy to understand.


Consequences ? We daily close schools, hospitals, post offices, police stations...To fund the Germany's Hinterland. As a side note, we also had to stop all our 4th generation power plants researches because we couldn't afford its budget of...*75 millions* per year !
Yeah, EU is great.



- Euro has destroyed our competitivity by blocking devaluations which unavoidable when salaries are inflating.
- The 3% deficit law, backed by absolutely no serious arguments, has destroyed our strategies and forced us to sell public goods.
- The ban of investments controls made us lose the vast majority of our industry in favor of foreign countries (starting with the Arcelor Mittal scandal).


The list goes on but I stop there.

_*
There are two kind of people, those who defend EU and those who know how it works. *_


Have a nice day 



Side notes:
Regarding the EU french bureaucrats, the vast majority of commission deciders are German, when taking into account the first hand counseillors, Germany owns 100% of the decision positions.
Just sayin'.

Regarding Total, it is owned by a majority of non french investors and pays almost no taxes in our country. So no, basically it is as french as I am buddist.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 6, 2020)

Torina said:


> *Idiots, far rights, delusionnal, moron...*
> 
> Yeah, very clever and constructive, I must admit.
> I may waste time responding to someone insulting everyone, but I know you are more clever than that.
> ...


You sound very familiar to a certain type of German pre war who also blamed France and others for the progress of Germany while riding on an extremely high horse. It's not even similar but 100 percent identical to that.


----------



## notimp (Feb 7, 2020)

Torina said:


> *Idiots, far rights, delusionnal, moron...*
> 
> Yeah, very clever and constructive, I must admit.
> I may waste time responding to someone insulting everyone, but I know you are more clever than that.


I'm signaling. Nothing against you personally - but, the 'resort to the facts' idea, doesnt work in the face of pure, unaltered emotion. You didn't take the high road, when you pulled symbolic messaging only the far right would use ('UK showed us the way, thank you so much - we (france) spend so much money on the EU as well'). None of that was even remotely factual.You never took you time for even 15 minutes to check if your opinion was backed up by facts. You didn't post sources - but to post purely ideologic opinions on a gamer forum -- yes that was not beneath you.

So first I have to confront you emotionally - and then factually, otherwise your statement still has pull. I did adress your statement factually, thats just the part you chose to act like it wasnt there to act emotionally upset in your response.

Your argument is based in familiarity - on concepts that are not similar. Trying to put up messaging extreme right parties all over europe try to establish. And I am exactly doing what I am doing, so you cant claim to take the high road.

Have you ever seen a convention where Wilders, Le Pen and Gauland try to conjure up the idea of a unified right, that might or might not (they wont say) try to destroy the EU? The catering and signaling to racist ideology is everywhere. If you try to disseminate that massage amongst gamers - dont cry, because someone else didn't take the argumentative highroad in confronting you.

Dont even try.

It takes guts to try to spread the 'EU so expensive' argument to try to destroy it as a member of the country thats maybe most interested in binding other big players in a union. Simply because the union 'would be 'so expensive'. (Which from frances perspective - it most certainly is not.) After we have already layed out how manipulative the UKIPs 'bus tour' messaging was in that respect (/on that aspect).

While we are talking risk of recession for our economies, just because the UK is leaving tighter integration.

You are so ideologically driven, that you don't acknowledge any of that - but you still try to recruit naive individuals for your cause - which currently is purely spreading ideology thats coming from people that are shunned by society at large, because they wont reject racist tropes and resentments when trying to garner political majorities.

Show me your friends and I tell you who you are. Also, your friends, for some reason or another have you recruiting others on an ideological basis on the internet. ('First britain, then france then the EU is no more. Horray!') Which is odd.

In other news, 'Trump attacks 'bad', 'sick', 'dirty' and 'corrupt' acusators' (h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kussikUTdSw ) (that was in the last 24 hours) - thats the guy, that was lifted into power by the same polit PR people, hat you then shared with the UK to produce brexit, and then also visited france to share tactics ( https://www.france24.com/en/20190519-bannon-presence-raises-hackles-france-ahead-europe-polls ), shortly before the european elections. So I'm really just learning from a US president.

I'm still trying to be a little bit more civil though.

You told others that the UK would have shown you the way, before any specifics on the separation deal were even agreed on. So you were talking about how people managed to do this on the PR front, and thats how they did it right? So more of that, just not, when its pointed against you?

Thats the way you thanked the UK for showing to your country. We havent seen much else yet.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 13, 2020)

I've just skimmed through the last 4 pages of this thread I've missed. Ahh how I've missed you gbatemp. "Far right, racist xenophobic retarded moron idiots" 

Looks like the UK has left the EU but nothing has changed, same old lefty sound bites because they're incapable of winning elections with IDEAS. I genuinely love opening this thread and seeing nothing but insults flying around. I can't wait until December 31st 2020. If all you loser remainers are this delusional and whinging this much like a bitch already December 31st is going to be incredible. lol I actualy can't wait.

Anyway, I've just got back from Spain, nothing has changed  though i think i shouldn't be paying tax on the stuff I've bought over there now? I've also got Portugal booked for June, we go every 4 years. I'm sure all the real racists who hate me because I didn't vote the way they'd like would prefer I didn't continue to visit Europe, unlucky.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 14, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I've just skimmed through the last 4 pages of this thread I've missed. Ahh how I've missed you gbatemp. "Far right, racist xenophobic retarded moron idiots"
> 
> Looks like the UK has left the EU but nothing has changed, same old lefty sound bites because they're incapable of winning elections with IDEAS. I genuinely love opening this thread and seeing nothing but insults flying around. I can't wait until December 31st 2020.


Sorry, but it's a bit of an unfortunate timing for that remark. I know it's not the UK, but Sinn Féin won decisively in Ireland. So your only real neighbor massively shifts towards a united Ireland. 


shamzie said:


> I'm sure all the real racists who hate me because I didn't vote the way they'd like would prefer I didn't continue to visit Europe, unlucky.


Can't speak of others, but to me you're as welcome as you ever were. This discussion is about government and leadership styles, not on its citizens.

Oh, and the demeaning term you're looking for would be "xenophobes". Unless y'all want different skin colors to match your leaving stance, the majority of the country still belongs to the same race as the ones in Europe.

You're welcome.


----------



## notimp (Feb 14, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I've just skimmed through the last 4 pages of this thread I've missed. Ahh how I've missed you gbatemp. "Far right, racist xenophobic retarded moron idiots"
> 
> Looks like the UK has left the EU but nothing has changed, same old lefty sound bites because they're incapable of winning elections with IDEAS. I genuinely love opening this thread and seeing nothing but insults flying around.


Ah yeah, the old "I win, because my opponent lost his temper approach to public debating". At least carry the context. The remark was made, because some, i., x., r., tried for the third time to pin 'why we brexited' on "tha media didn't report on this viral clip of migrants jumping from a boat is spain", after we explained for the third time, what absolute BS that is in concept and in terms of realpolitcs (german loan word).

If you leave that part out, and fashion it being an attack on 'everything leave', be my guest, but in that case you are trying to win the argument through manipulation.

If you thought leaving the EU was necessary, because of the (now dealt with (ongoing process)) migration crisis, yes - you are an idiot. No way to pussyfoot around that, regardless from what perspective you look at it, that never is or was true. (Bojo on borders in ireland, anyone - I mean you dont have to be a genius here, you just dont have to not selectively ignore stuff, like the UK never having been part of Schengen.)

You've been manipulated using the oldest trick in the book, and now are effectively in denial - if you believe anything along those lines ('people jumping off the boat on spain, made us vote leave - for our country').

I've said in here multiple times, that I dont refute that there are valid political reasons for brexit, for the british. I even linked and liked Michael Portillos (former conservative MP) position on why 'he voted for brexit' (roughly - deeper integration not wanted).

I personally could do without you in this forum, as you never once produced anything of interest or meaning in any discussion I saw you parttake - you always went with known bullet point of you preferred political fraction and tried to ram them through without reflection. And then gloated, to signal victory where possible. Most of them victories in you not having understood the argument the other side was making.

I gain absolutely nothing out of you, core or another guy whos username just slipped participating in here.

Where I draw the line is not calling out racism for politeness sake. So I always will. In which case, be my guest and play the victim narrative all you want - if people dont see through that, I cant convince them rationally anyhow. Thats literally the first thing you learn. (Not falling or populist bait.)

Politics is a strange field, where anyone can claim to participate bringing in his own viewpoints and life experiences, Its even wanted, because the benefit is the outcome on an informed discussion. But if you only spread lies, fear and unfounded uncertainty, and doubt - you are not participating in the democratic process for reasons that are self evident. Main one - you never learned to differentiate between stuff thats out there to rile up people, and stuff thats real (an actual cause for something).

In an age where we can now hold a discussion, if democracy isn't needed anymore, because china learns to substitute the 'societal input' with big data, and is showing it to be successful, your model of elitism works without informed public debate, but with something like a reality show for the masses to substitute. Hint: The extreme right, never saw democracy as something necessary either.

Concept to think about - if all your talking points are fear mongering emotional fluff, trying to warn people, that the world is going to end, because your political fraction (racists) is still 'only around 10%' in polls (or someone is trying to move Trump out of office, different debate, same emotional reaction), chances are that you've been had, or that you are f*cking with peoples emotions.

And even if brexit was a racist victory, and a slip in rational thought (which it doesnt have to be, when you are writing your history books), the people that get off on that having worked - arent even your elites on the far right. Its not like they don't know how their stuff works.
-

One more thing. That 'tha left' (you meaning centrist political positions) had nothing better to 'advertise' at the past elections is entirely true. Concepts (Adam Curtis - The power of nightmares, or Colin Crouch - postdemocracy) why this is happening are well known as well.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 14, 2020)

Discussions would probably function much smoother if we didn't ascribe motivations and positions to people we know little to nothing about. Bonus benefit; it helps a thread stay on topic instead of devolving into finger-pointing.


----------



## notimp (Feb 14, 2020)

But then I said, i. x. r. to make the point that its not ok to promote 'media is still not informing us correctly, because look at this viral video o people jumping off a boat in spain, I've found - and I havent seen it in me daily news -- we had to leave the EU based on that' is not ok, entirely idiotic, beside the point, ignores reality (please look at figures, not at an incidence that gives you the feels, to which you respond with "tha media is lying" - because you heard someone that made an impression on you telling simple, always slightly beside thee truth, truths), ignores standing law, ignores standing political practice, ignores proportionality (of what can cause what), ignores filtering processes in media ('a bicycle fell over in china - please report internationally'), ignores rationality and ignores good taste.

If thats the other side of the discussion, mixed in with - 'that guy called "something" idiotic and xenophobic, therefore we win' - giving the people on the other side more of an easily available platform is the least I'm concerned about.

I will not buckle and say that racism is not a taboo, and can be discussed in here as a valid position.

And yes I will call people racist, xenophobic idiots, to insure - that this line isn't crossed, and that this taboo stands. Nothing good comes from being a racist.

I don't want to allow the people holding those opinions, to spread something that has emotional pull. There is a line.

Thats called a societal taboo, everyone knows, that we dont have to deal with this sh*t. I've looked at the logic, there is none - only plain emotionality. (Ingroup good, outgroup bad.)

Same thing can be said about what caused the brexit vote - and in mass, not unjustly so. But as we are such polite people - we let that slip under the polite blanket of what later will be called history by someone.

But dont tell me, I have to accept the views of some racist folks, and sit idly by - while they spread their utter misinformation.

No - I will not take the 'everyone be more considerate with your words' statement to heart, not in this case. I used those words for very specific reasons.

If you naively post all that racist propaganda in here - and I've hurt your feelings by calling you a xenophobic idiot, too bad I guess. If that makes you follow racists more vigorously, please - use me as your excuse. You couldnt live on having been called an idiot, so you joined the alt right.

Sure. Story of a life,

Getting a slightly better education also would have helped.

We are using plain language in here so you dont have the excuse, that you dont know what all those ivory tower people talked about. But if you are still not taking to it. And still think that structural racism would be a great idea for society going forward - in my opinion you are lost.

At times you have ten people in here recruiting for the alt right. Please take their cards. See whats in store or you there. As someone thats guided mainly by an emotionality thats still one of the few thats shunned within society. I wouldnt want to trade places with you if all you can do every day is to think about how fearful and angry it makes you when you see people jumping off a boat. Illegally.

No consoling words from me to reel you back in, at that moment in your life. Just information, context and commentary, if you want it.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 14, 2020)

This is the problem. They posted a boat, therefore racism. Talk about emotional arguments. If it were that easy, anyone concerned about the effects of migration would be undeniably racist. Utter nonsense. It doesn't prove it either way, and jumping to that conclusion creates more undue animosity than it does to provide anything constructive. Do you think actual racists give a shit about being called racist? It accomplishes nothing in any conceivable case. Nobody's asking anyone to accept racism, but at the same time levelling the accusation, whether duly or unduly, is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## notimp (Feb 14, 2020)

Again - it wasnt just the idiot racist comment - it always was mixed in with context, actual arguments, sources. Its just people like shamzie, that try to isolate the 'emotional aspect' and surf on it trying to win the argument.

Purposefully, willingly, openly and intentionally letting the argument for why it is utterly unafir to just post emotionally stirring viral videos, as a fear uncertainty and doubt strategy in a web forum targeting kids, all by the wayside -

- and find that the only thing thats wrong in here - is tone.


At the same time, when dealing with mass mobilization, all that counts is emotionality and tone. So if you leave their emotionality unconfronted all the time - congratulations on your intellectual victory, but no one will care.

There has to be a balance. And if they get into talking 'we so poor mistreated for being called xenophobic idiots', hey at least thats not time they can use to spread racist ideology.

Thats how this works at an attention economy level. ('If you only quickly read over things.').

Its not my preffered thing to do, but hey better than letting racism fly. Hrm.

There is no basis for discussion, with people that promote a group ideology that you are born into, and never can attain otherwise. Thats not a society. Thats a problem.

And thats your primer on racism.

Concerning the 'fake media trope'.

Mass media is not 'taking over' mass media currently is on the verge of dying - because idiots dont pay, and advertising budgets end up with facebook, google, amazon, and microsoft - who promise advertisers to track you more better.

Be sceptical, read around, read crosssection. All good things.

Don't use social media to select your media products, you will be grouped in as 'xenophobic racist idiot' by an algo, and fed only the stuff you like, so you stay on the platform longer.

Dont believe anyone that tells you their alternative news platform will bring you "the truth" - far easier, than actually getting informed in any field, which always includes looking at it from multiple angles, and not following an influencer/commentator of some sorts.

If you still have a problem with people jumping out of boats, after seeing the numbers now vs. the migration crisis in 2015, ask yourself at what point can the media pull that from the front pages, without yourself calling them names.

Simple as that.

If you want to fall down onto whatsapp levels of what flies as a proper political opinion these days - boy you've picked the wrong thread.

And if the only thing you are concerned about is to make you, your side, your country, or your president look good, always and everytime, just because it gives you a good feel, that should always be reason for concern and not cheerfulness.

Because you just handed over your capacity to think critically about something to an ideology.

Left vs. right, never actually matters. In politcs, as in everything else in life its a competition for ideas. But not for good ones, but mostly for popular ones. (People then call them narratives.)

And the one with the bad people coming by boat, at one point has to receive its proper funeral and be buried once and for all.

That was my intention, and I did nothing more than that. What the heck would I care who is the moral winner on 'UK broke up with EU'. Every second word out of my mouth is 'don't treat this like a reality show'. My 'win' scenario is not EU has to be seen as the moral winner. Never was, never will be.

I'm not an - ups, shouldnt say that word.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 14, 2020)

To address the relevant part of your post: Nobody cares anyway. You're still wasting time by levelling the accusation, and now you're the shouting man and have ceded your credibility. You're not going to convince a person entrenched in dogma to the point of irrationality, or anyone else for that matter, that their position is wrong simply by giving them a label.

As for the rest of it, wouldn't you be better off putting that in the thread dealing with it?


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> I gain absolutely nothing out of you, core or another guy whos username just slipped participating in here.



if you mean me,  until Brexit I had voted Labour at every election for the last 30 years,  my parents were not originally from the UK and my wife is Asian


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> Again - it wasnt just the idiot racist comment - it always was mixed in with context, actual arguments, sources. Its just people like shamzie, that try to isolate the 'emotional aspect' and surf on it trying to win the argument.



As usual, I had to delete a vast amount of your reply because it was complete and utter trash. Seriously is anybody even reading these walls of texts? I'll reply to the only part of your post I actually bothered to read.

I don't need to try and isolate emotions to win an argument, I won the argument 4 years ago. I've moved on, you're still crying and riding a wave of " everybodys waycistttt  " to try and justify why clearly the majority disagree with your warped world view.


----------



## notimp (Feb 14, 2020)

What part? Otherwise you are saying most people are racist.

Or its proper to know nothing about what Schengen is, or how the Lisbon treaty was implemented by the UK.

You are such a majority pandering(/seeking), racist propaganda appologist...

Three things. One - if you think its true, that "media lying to us as boat lands on the spanish coast, and eight people jump out of it" was the reason you and your ilk had to vote for brexit, you are xenophobic, racist idiot.

Second - I dont play the rightwing games - of oh no - I'm not a racist biggot, I'm a cultural nativist, and think, that all people should best stay in the country they are born - or only enter legally, which Schengen does its darnest trying to prevent, and the EU actively pays nord african countries up to turkey to prevent as well.

I'll still call you a racist.

Third - the UK never had a problem with illegal migration, during the migration crisis 2015 that it didn't fully control legally. I could even take it if you would criticize germany for the messaging in the migration crisis, but to only blaim the EU without any logic or reason - is a bit rich.

But then you only want to catch people emotionally, right?

(If you have a problem with me stating EU finances authoritarian regimes to put migrants in interment camps in nord africa - those are not my words, but the ones of UN reporteurs on migration.)

edit: Algorithms on social media actually work without moving you into a racist subcategory. First they would find another more marketable listing name, then they go by 'people with similar interest also liked'... Because again, they are not targeting your getting unbiased stuff to further your education with, but simply to increase time spent on their platform. People like familiar stuff, thats what they tend to optimize for. In case that wasn't clear.

and finally -

To make an argument for why the EU was responsible for the UKs position during the migration crisis of 2015, you have to become highly creative, and would end up with a statement like 'well, european Id cards, which we have to accept as well, are notoriously easy to forge in comparison with passports - so while we did all the controls that we wanted - we still got more illegal migration, through EU channels than we wanted. Because we had to let EU citizens in without a passport.
(Argument not made by me, but some of the new UK administrations public communication geniuses, while trying to fashion them a law and order image in post brexit britain.)

And then have to explain, why you think many people would go through the hassle to forge a european ID card, instead of paying some goods transport to carry them as well. Because that part doesnt get stopped (free flow of wares), even after brexit, without a major hit to both economies (If you produce in economies that can source and produce by market demands, you save on booking storage and half of the work expenses).

So the argument, why those people hopping off of a boat in spain, are a reason for the UK leaving the EU is so confused to begin with - that you really should drop it upon closer inspection.

After explaining that three times, and still having geniuses in here that try to sell others breitbart and youtube influencers as the solution to the 'fake journalism problem' they 'feel' I started to call on of them - after the fact, and not in addressing them personally, as xenophobic idiots.

To which a social justice warrior replied, maybe we should consider other motivations for posting racist propaganda, and not react with implying intentions. Hey - maybe they werent racist. Maybe they were just confused, und unable to read this thread, in which we went over that stuff three times already. Lets talk it over with potential racists in here. Let everyone live a little.

To which I replied - lets not.

To which - the person trying to play the underdog replied: nobody likes you, and nobody reads what you write.

Still my point remains - lets not promote racism, or racist memes in here - ok? Find a way to talk about hot topics (or not so how, two years after) without posting the racist meme your uncle sent you in here. Thanks.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 14, 2020)

You can call me whatever you like, I couldn't care less. You're the exact reason why nobody votes the same way you would like, you ARE the problem. You never learn, you'll never adapt. You'll just continue to swallow yourself and everybody else, you're doomed for failure, but hey, at least you managed to call somebody racist for the 1459837393028th time in this thread.

It's crazy how supporting:

-free speech
-civil discourse
-anti censorship
-individual liberty
-treating people TRULY equally
-tolerance of difference opinions

is now considered a 'far-right wing' position

Anyway, I believe you was making the argument about somebody being racist for the 1459837392029th time. keep up the good work buddy, your arguments and logic are truly breath taking, you're a shaper of minds, a once in a generation Adonis amongst men when it comes to debating.


----------



## notimp (Feb 14, 2020)

If you ever need proof that people are racial stereotyping here - read this:

https://cy.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/2015-08-27

Look at Non-EU immigration numbers for 2015 of people "looking for work".

Look at EU 15 numbers of people "looking for work".

Look at long term trends.

In fact read the entire thing.

If you then still want to protect people pushing illegal boaty in spain landed and the press didnt tell us was why the UK needed to leave the EU - no one can help you.

If you want fancy bargraphs on how much the EU 2015 migration crisis affected the UK:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Flüchtlingskrise_in_Europa_2015.png

Words like - not at all come in mind, if you look at those numbers.

What you are seeing are people requesting asylum in the respective countries, during what was coined the migration crisis.
Data sources are eurostat and frontex.

edit: Here is the same graph in english:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis

And if you scroll down a little you see EU wide asylum applicant numbers up to 2018.

Read it.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2020)

Great news. One of the first things the UK bootsrapped after leaving the EU was new migration law.

The rundown is, that EU workers in the UK get shafted, and that you now have a greater equalization that benefits people from all over the world - which get entry into the UK, when their skills are deemed in demand.

Lets recap this for a moment. As your average borderline racist 4chan member vacationing on gbatemp for a short while - you shouted for months, we need brexit, to get out of the EU - so you could make it easier for a more diverse cast of 'foreigners' to enter the UK, as one of the first law proposals out of the gate.

But no - no, you tell me, the new law now is mainly for qualified people, people which we need in the UK - for our economy. Well - according to the migration report linked above - EU migrants in the vast majority of cases (and the only subgroup growing), also already had job offers in the UK before migrating.

So before they came from Poland. And after - they'll maybe more likely come from Bangladesh.

So this is the racists paradox.

You tell them its to get rid of the foreigners. They vote your way. You buy them champagne, a balloon, and a participation T-shirt/or cap, then you turn around and fuck them over as hard as you can - as a first order of business because none of them will ever realize, because - they are racists. Its not like they'd read or something.

Tadaaa!

And as a conservative government, you celebrate that you now are back in control only letting qualified people in - while mentioning not at all, that influx of non qualified ones, never was the issue. (Not when looking at the numbers.)

There is this part in representative democracy - that really only needs people for legitimization. Its not that they have to understand  correllations, they just have to vote. So how about giving you a circus clown as a party lead?

Hey - worked in italy...

src: f.e.: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmcbWU8Du7A


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Feb 20, 2020)

notimp said:


> Great news. One of the first things the UK bootsrapped after leaving the EU was new migration law.
> 
> The rundown is, that EU workers in the UK get shafted,



The only workers shafted are the ones who came to work in the UK from outside the EU, at least 5 years of paying Tax before you could get ILR and were able to apply for benefits that some from the EU  could apply for virtually straight away.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2020)

Clarification - 'relatively shafted' - so without acclimation periods, a new general ruleset is applied regardless if you came through inter EU migration, or not. Pretty swiftly - which as a EU migrant, having to change from one system to the other one without anyone really caring - is kind of getting shafted.

The new migration policy is actually pretty egalitarian. (Merkesl 'Everybody (ok - qualified  ) is welcome' just in formal language..  )

But the idea here is - that its burrying the lead.

If you look at migration numbers above 'reducing the number of unqualified migrants' - never was the issue for the UK. So racists voters are not getting what they have voted for.

They are getting a 'mirage' of how things will significantly change - now that we got control back. The by far largest number of migration population the UK had a 'problem with' were skilled workers wiling to work for lower wages - those numbers arent getting touched, in fact under the new migration system, it arguably will be easier for people all over the world to migrate to the UK.

This is how you play, and f*ck over people  with racist stereotyping, in the political sphere. They get something that kind of sounds like, what they wanted, but not quite. Because no one is actually stupid enough to do what racists would want anyhow. basically.

(Because it would hurt the economy.)


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 20, 2020)

You are asserting that "everyone" who voted for Brexit wanted to "get rid of the foreigners". Again you only assert that this is reality and provide the insults to go with it, dragging people who voted for whatever reasons they had into your box in order to defend themselves. It's becoming extremely tiresome.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2020)

Yes I'm asserting, that racism was a major part of the Brexit victory - as is Dominic Cummings (lead strategist of the leave campaign), video linked in here.

Just look at the youtube clip linked as f.e. source above. There you get 'the public voice' in relation to that government announcement. (Reporters picking up voice snippets in an old folks home.) That tells you everything you need to know really. 

So what you are dealing with in large numbers is 'latent racism' - and if you give people 'something, that sounds like they'd have wanted' - they actually feel relieved in large numbers. Thats how you play the racism game. Conservatively. 

But thats also manipulation. Now - is it good, or bad. You decide. 


We can also do the argument without racism. Lets say qualified inter EU migration was the issue britain voted to leave the EU for. That would be arguable economically (too much, too fast), if you look at the numbers.

But then thats still not whats getting changed.

Whats happening is a few hardliners telling people, we will clamp down on poor migrants - so our poor have more social spending left. But that objectively never was the issue, was it?

Regardless - this is how you lie, but gallantly. 

Now here is the harder question for you. Should the media report that openly? (Nigel Farage (in the same video above) hints at this going on, but even he doest say it openly. Why.  )


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 20, 2020)

Good grief. I am slowly losing my tether.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2020)

Quick answer - before you do.

If you are Nigel Farage, you don't escalate it right now - because what do you gain?  You dont want to rile up the public, when there is nothing to gain, do you?  (You can play the ideologist later..  )

If you are mass media, you dont tell people, you are dumb, looking at the wrong thing - because, let them decide for themselves, you are only reporting. And social stability. (You really dont want people rioting over ideology in the streets, if that would mean an even harsher economic impact - and you loosing your gig of 'we report what the state does' don't you.  )

Now is the time for national reconciliation and myth building.

If something is mainstream compatible, no one (of significance) complains about mass media, really. Ever.
That has a self strengthening effect on what journalism does. And yes, media very much has noticed that 'public interaction'.

But the truth..... Eh.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 20, 2020)

Thank you, Mr Jones. Please tell me more about the interdimensional demons and their plans for the souls of all mankind.


----------



## notimp (Feb 20, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> Thank you, Mr Jones. Please tell me more about the interdimensional demons and their plans for the souls of all mankind.


I never did.

I told you to look at the political processes that are happening right after the big champagne stadion events like "We done brexit" featuring Farage, happened, that meant absolutely nothing. Migration poilicy does.

And showed you, that you find exactly the same thing the far right lamented media doing. (Namely "lying about stuff".)

During implementation of the new stuff. Just that now no one, not even Farage, is saying anything about it, knowing that its happening - because finally the other side has the power it wanted. And its time to bring the electorate together again, by showing them they were not horrible racist old people, no - they were just concerned citizens, that now - the new government will listen to and act with them in mind - except, that it doesnt.

Media ecosystem or motivations didn't change at all - but now all of a sudden the right wingers are happy. With how an establishment lies to people.

PR still is manipulation, you know?

Now - wether it is needed or not (give people some kind of motive that makes them feel, that their latent racism has been efficiently appeased/adressed (we had to crack down on poor migrant minorities, who never were a problem, so british people get more social spending, IS a lie)) - you decide.
-


As for motivation - I'm saying - why does media not speak "truth to power", because its easier for them, and everyone involved, and most of the public doesnt even want to hear anything close to it. I don't think thats much of a conspiracy theory. Thats simply - life. 

Now that media is on every rightwingers good side again, because it reports a - created as we speak - hardliners myth, of a crackdown on migration, that really is medially created moreso, than it actually represents the outcomes of - now independent - UK policy making, everyone is strangely complacent, and on ok terms with it.

Which I predicted would happen, by the way - so I have a horse in the race, when trying to show, that it will. (Nothing much will change in terms of the amounts of people who will migrate to the UK (economic driver), if anything their number will increase even midterm. (UK becoming more economically liberal under the new administration.))

Also I don't want to be a fictionalized character that dies in his thirties, as you implied. (Basically stick your "Mr. Jones" up ya hat.  ) Thats you trying to win the argument ad hominem.
-


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Great news. One of the first things the UK bootsrapped after leaving the EU was new migration law.
> 
> The rundown is, that EU workers in the UK get shafted, and that you now have a greater equalization that benefits people from all over the world - which get entry into the UK, when their skills are deemed in demand.
> 
> ...



A country has the right to set its own borders and it's own laws on anything it wants, not limited to immigration. If the UK said only aliens can come who speak English, well tough shit. Learn English if you want to move and live here. If you dont like those rules, don't try and come. It's crazy how simple I made it for you. No thanks necessary,


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Also I don't want to be a fictionalized character that dies in his thirties, as you implied. (Basically stick your "Mr. Jones" up ya hat.  ) Thats you trying to win the argument ad hominem.
> -


There is no argument to be had. You are not entering the discussion in good faith by making accusations without evidence, you are only looking for a fight. Crackpot theories about the racist boogeymen are just as useless as Alex Jones and his demons.

TL;DR You are not bringing anything of value to thread with these bigoted diatribes.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

Britain threatens Hard Brexit.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ith-eu-with-trade-talks-mandate-idUSKCN20L1BK

Yay!


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> Britain threatens Hard Brexit.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ith-eu-with-trade-talks-mandate-idUSKCN20L1BK
> 
> Yay!



Sounds good to me, the whole point of Brexit was to get away from regulatory alignment with the EU, to make our own rules. Imagine starting a negotiation with " Keep paying into our coffers, we'll keep accessing your waters and you're not allowed to be competitive" You really need to get a grip, this is happening. The UK is open to a Canada style FTA (one that the EU said was possible) but that was when they thought they could stop the UK leaving.

More good news today is the UK withdrawing from the European Arrest Warrant. They're issued by those whose justice systems are supposedly unimpeachable - so says the EU anyway. But under it we have seen decent honest people lifted from the streets of Britain and not offered anything like a fair trial.


----------



## satel (Feb 27, 2020)

Flame said:


> none.
> 
> its just sucking one mans dick. Nigel Farage.
> 
> expect the US every other country would do anything to be part of the E.U.



you are 100% right & he was paid for his role in taking UK out of the EU. you think by you voting you decide anything!! it's already decided before you even voted.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Sounds good to me, the whole point of Brexit was to get away from regulatory alignment with the EU, to make our own rules.


Shamzie, you are still stuck in in the fairytale version of the narration. And are now using jump logic.

"Because we now want to show that we can make our own decisions" "lets provoke loose - loose outcomes, as far as game theory goes".

The non fairy tale version goes something like this.

US promised to prep up your economy - if you provoke a hard exit. Now you at least use that as part of "the art of making a deal". (You use it as leverage.) Still. Again. After you all celebrated, that 'its finally over' - for no reason whatsoever.

But every ignorant person thinks their opinion also matters in politics a whole lot, I imagine?

Would you want to share your logic for why you think, that this action in particular is 'good'? Because it represents the voters will to - what?


Or are you just saying it - because you read, that I still worried about this being the potential outcome? To win your personal private parts measuring contest, over who wins Brexit? Both parties loose. And with hard brexit - their economies loose more.

Hard brexit doesnt mean larger independence for your country.
It means your country putting the fingers in their ears mid separation talks going 'la la la la' and walking out of the building.

Brexit is the separation. Hard brexit is the uncontrolled version of that.

If you havent even understood that so far, your contribution to this thread is hardly valid.


----------



## Doran754 (Feb 28, 2020)

notimp said:


> US promised to prep up your economy - if you provoke a hard exit. Now you at least use that as part of "the art of making a deal". (You use it as leverage.) Still. Again. After you all celebrated, that 'its finally over' - for no reason whatsoever.
> 
> But every ignorant person thinks their opinion also matters in politics a whole lot, I imagine?



I love how you speak for the whole of the US and not their president, care to provide specific proof of where the US "promised to prop up the UK economy" if we leave on a true brexit, also feel free to provide their nuke codes as you obviously have inner circle access to the United States. Thanks.


----------



## notimp (Mar 12, 2020)

Naive sales girl, manages to stay naive, even after having worked for Cambridge Analytica.



Interesting/important personal accounts of how Cambridge Analytica interacted with both Brexit campaigns, as well as the Trump campaign early on.

Naive in a sense, that whenever I see another person 'petitioning' delegates for 'own your data rights', I always burst out laughing.

Its about changing defaults, which no one in industry or politics wants, and any system on top of that can't be deployed on an individual opt in basis, because of managerial overhead/legal costs. In even a two tiered customer structure.

The point of "data as currency" is, that you give users exactly no actionable right (outside blanket regulations), so that they can not start suing you, which you as a company would not be able to withstand, because profits per user (depending on the service!) are so low, that you cant even give them a support phone call (who is stuffing all those call centers?), or your business model would break down. And more to the point, if even a small subset of users starts suing you - legal costs would drive you out of business, because userbases are so large.

The entire thing is designed for the user to have no agency over data, or the business model is hard to imagine to keep working.

And on top of that you are trying to fundamentally destroy the business of google and facebook. As a former sales person, who now set up a foundation. Being on the same information level (concept wise) as myself ten years ago.

Hence, naive sales girl.

(Talk me out of my mindset if you disagree.)
--

What the leave Brexit and Trump campaigns did is still outrageous btw. Don't want to detract from that. No naivity there from her. Its just that the role as this lighthouse figure that is now working to better her wrongdoings, to me seems to be not working structurally.

(Which means everyone is still effed, btw.)


----------



## notimp (Mar 12, 2020)

Oh great. This is her bright new future idea.

Everyone participate in the shared data economy. License out your data to every possible source, if you are poor. Get dividends from that. That gets you universal basic income - once automation is rolled out, and you are out of your job.

But the world still values you for your data!

Yeah - thanks.

I agree with her on almost everything else she says, except on the idea, that facebook or google could be just phased out by a switch to different intermediaries, let alone different services, that actually allow the user individual control over their data. (While google and facebook sit idle...)

This is - "far less profitable" against "biggest databrokers in the world doing the same" market competition, on an audience (you) that doesnt at all understand what this is all about. With network effects stacked against you. I don't believe in this working. And again, if you have to force any individual interaction with a user thats anything more than a default - it comparatively (to anyone that isnt doing that) raises cost and legal risk by so much...

And the main issue still is, that you have other person in the talk asking question, so someone would tell her how her phone works... So much for awareness..


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2020)

Great benefit of brexit: Lets trash international laws:

Brexit: UK to unveil draft bill that 'breaks international law'
https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-uk-withdrawal-agreement/a-54861743

Ah, why do we need them, we have guns.


----------



## notimp (Sep 12, 2020)

> The EU is prepared if post-Brexit talks collapse, while Britain's economy would face "very significant consequences," Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has warned.


https://www.dw.com/en/germany-britain-will-suffer-most-if-post-brexit-talks-fail/a-54906261

Rhetoric tightens.


----------



## notimp (Sep 13, 2020)

UK food after brexit will now come mostly from Ghana, Africa:

West Africa is keen to feed the UK post-Brexit
https://www.dw.com/en/west-africa-is-keen-to-feed-the-uk-post-brexit/a-54901042

Mostly is an exaggeration, because as of now its unclear to what extent.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 13, 2020)

notimp said:


> Great benefit of brexit: Lets trash international laws:
> 
> Brexit: UK to unveil draft bill that 'breaks international law'
> https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-uk-withdrawal-agreement/a-54861743
> ...



_The bill would give the UK government the right to unilaterally change some of the arrangements made for the UK's only land border with the EU._

LOL. I like how the article is framing this bit as 'yeah, okay, it's not really within what was agreed there'.
It should really be diplomacy for dummies that you no longer have an agreement if you change the major principles you agreed on. It's basically Boris saying 'we want to go back to square one with our negotiations '.

Edit : okay, I was wrong here. The 'framing' is really a quote by a minister (as outlined in the post below by @notimp)


----------



## notimp (Sep 13, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> 'yeah, okay, it's not really within what was agreed there'.


In an international, contractual agreement, for the benefit of Northern Ireland.

Then a UK minister stands up in the irish parlament (afair), and admits it - vers betum.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/08/uk/uk-brexit-legislation-international-law-intl/index.html

This is not framed by media. This was tried to be framed by one of your ministers. Its just that the 'yes, but only in a very limited and exact way' phrase (framing, and also not at all 'we break off everything and want to go back to square one') was not followed entirely in reporting. (And thats a positive..  As in journalists doing their job.)

Stop lying.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> Great benefit of brexit: Lets trash international laws:
> 
> Brexit: UK to unveil draft bill that 'breaks international law'
> https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-uk-withdrawal-agreement/a-54861743
> ...



The EU breaks international law all the time.


The UK as a state retains its sovereign right to withdrawal from the EU, which is an international organisation
When the UK exercised its right to leave, it participated in the WA process on the basis of an essential condition: agreement on a future permanent arrangement with the EU that enshrines UK sovereignty and secures an FTA
The Protocol and other aspects of the WA are incompatible with the agreement intended for the end of 2020
The EU has been acting in breach of a material term of the WA, meaning that the treaty was entered into on a false premise
The Protocol is in breach of the ECHR principle of the right to vote
The UK must exercise its right to suspend and terminate the WA obligations
The UK must subsequently pass an Act of Parliament superseding the WA, in line with Parliamentary Sovereignty under Section 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020

You're also forgetting that Parliament is Sovereign, as Gina Miller inadvertently reminded us when she tried to stop brexit. Now that very court case has enabled the Government to override the bill.

Stop boring me.


----------



## notimp (Sep 15, 2020)

Thats using the word sovereignty a bunch, followed by must terminate, argued, because - the people. Hence a populistic argument, that has close to no bearing on how international diplomacy works. 

And then this:


shamzie said:


> The Protocol and other aspects of the WA are incompatible with the agreement intended for the end of 2020


which is kind of true. 

In essence: We want sovereignty, but also want to keep Northern Ireland, so therefore we think we have to break international law to come up with a solution.  (Because having the trade relevant borders at sea, means less control over wares entry, which means less sovereignty, but we also promised ireland not to become separated again, and 85% of northern irish people are in favor of unrestricted trade with the EU and even a monetary union with the EU. (Because they benefit more from it, than trading with the heart of britannia.  ))

edit:


> *What is being proposed?*
> Last year, the British government agreed that Northern Ireland would need to follow EU rules on goods.
> 
> The EU argued that installing any border infrastructure at the frontier between Northern Ireland and Ireland would breach the Good Friday Agreement that ended decades of conflict in the region.
> ...


src: https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-uk-withdrawal-agreement/a-54861743


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

> UK lawmakers approve controversial post-Brexit bill despite EU ultimatum The House of Commons passed the Internal Market Bill by 340 votes to 256, threatening to violate its treaty with the EU. Brussels has threatened to sue Britain over the measures.


src: https://www.dw.com/en/uk-lawmakers-...t-brexit-bill-despite-eu-ultimatum/a-55098694


----------



## notimp (Oct 1, 2020)

> EU launches legal action against UK over Brexit bill Just last week, European Council President Charles Michel took a swipe at the UK over its threats to renege on parts of the EU withdrawal treaty it signed in January. Now, repercussions are becoming reality.


https://www.dw.com/en/eu-launches-legal-action-against-uk-over-brexit-bill/a-55115589


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 2, 2020)

Such a mess.


----------



## notimp (Oct 3, 2020)

More posturing:



> Brexit: EU-UK set for video talks amid trade deadlock
> 
> The leaders of the European Commission and Britain will hold a video conference after final post-Brexit trade talks broke down. However, Britain's chief negotiator David Frost said "outlines of an agreement" are visible.


https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-eu-uk-set-for-video-talks-amid-trade-deadlock/a-55130206


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> More posturing:
> 
> 
> https://www.dw.com/en/brexit-eu-uk-set-for-video-talks-amid-trade-deadlock/a-55130206


Do I smell sarcasm here? 

Your quote ignores even the most important part of the sentence. I mean...this is what he actually said:


_Britain's chief Brexit negotiator David Frost said "outlines of an agreement" are visible, but the two sides remain far apart on many issues.
"I am concerned that there is very little time now to resolve these issues ahead of the European Council (EU summit) on October 15," Frost said.
_
Yeah..."outlines of an agreement". I've gotta remember that one. 

Just over a month from now:
Fox news anchor: the dispute over the voting is still in massive swing, but the spokesmen of the advocates of the chamber of the senate house of representatives' supreme court has declared there are "outlines of an agreement" between the two parties.

Early 2021:
Johnson/Frost: while nobody in the world wants to give us anything but the minimal trade options, we have outlines of an agreement on Azerbaïdjan possibly changing their minds.


----------



## Chains (Oct 5, 2020)

Did brexit ever even happen? I recall they brexited, then un brexited, and maybe did the 2 AGAIN? What did they eventually land on?


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 6, 2020)

Chains said:


> Did brexit ever even happen? I recall they brexited, then un brexited, and maybe did the 2 AGAIN? What did they eventually land on?



It happened but an ungodly amount of messing around and dithering has managed to stall the process by over 4 years. We will have officially left the EU on 31st of December 2020.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 6, 2020)

Chains said:


> Did brexit ever even happen? I recall they brexited, then un brexited, and maybe did the 2 AGAIN? What did they eventually land on?


Erm... They never 'un brexited'. As @shamzie says, there's some messing around, but that's on the rules and terms for the actual leaving. The actually leaving is no longer contested (assuming it ever was... Looking back, it's almost as if 'remaining in the eu' was a comedy last option in debates).

Also... I might be wrong, but I thought the UK technically already left in March. This is just a transitioning period... Despite that this period is still used to come to terms with trading with the EU, rather than, y'know: already having those terms and allowing businesses time to adjust to the new rules.


----------



## emigre (Oct 7, 2020)

I'm personally looking forward to the estimated increases in my groceries. I think that's so far the biggest benefit I've noticed that Brexit is bringing.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 7, 2020)

emigre said:


> I'm personally looking forward to the estimated increases in my groceries. I think that's so far the biggest benefit I've noticed that Brexit is bringing.



Cool story bro, prices have always fluctuated. You're welcome to move to a country within the European Union to avoid those devastating grocery price increases. No? Just bullshit rhetoric from you with no intention of rectifying what you're crying about? Well, I'm shocked.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 9, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Cool story bro, prices have always fluctuated. You're welcome to move to a country within the European Union to avoid those devastating grocery price increases. No? Just bullshit rhetoric from you with no intention of rectifying what you're crying about? Well, I'm shocked.


Okay, I'll bite: what IS the biggest benefit for leaving? 
If you ask me, it's pretty normal for people to get cynic when there 's beating around the bush for four years with this little to show for it. I'm not sure why you're being so condescending, but if you' red in a bad mood, I can help with that...
(note : only read if you'be got to unload more personal frustration)


Spoiler



Brexit is a disaster!
Boris is trying to grab absolute power rather than achieving the best for the citizens!
Scotland is going to leave the UK because of your incompetence
Your attempt for an orderly exit will go down in history as the most chaotic suicide a nation has ever performed!
You'll be BEGGING to rejoin the EU within months. Perhaps weeks, but within months!



There you go. Go nuts in going personal at me rather than face the fact that brexit might miss its intention. It'll do you good.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 9, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, I'll bite: what IS the biggest benefit for leaving?
> If you ask me, it's pretty normal for people to get cynic when there 's beating around the bush for four years with this little to show for it. I'm not sure why you're being so condescending, but if you' red in a bad mood, I can help with that...
> (note : only read if you'be got to unload more personal frustration)
> 
> ...



I've no idea what the biggest benefit will be, I'm not a fortune teller. We shall have to wait and see, I didn't click the spoiler but its shows when i clicked reply lol you realise Wales and England both voted to leave the EU, so who exactly are you referring to when you say "your incompetence" awaiting the racist "little englanders" comment.

The irony of talking about a powergrab when you're cheerleading for a corrupt undemocratic union that has people in power with no way of removing them. They're the literal definition of undemocratic powergrabs, I suspect you know this but "muhhhhhh unionnnnn" (Also Boris was voted into power with a massive majority. He can also be removed, you're talking utter shite as usual)

Couldn't care less if Scotland leaves, we've propped them up for decades, they're hypocrites, they want to leave one union and gain independence just to throw it all away and join another. Personally I think the rest of the UK should have a vote on whether we want Scotland to remain.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. You've no idea, just a lot of blustering and wishful thinking on your part, which is kind of pathetic. Why would you want a country to fail just because they don't want to be a part of your little club, shows the spiteful disgusting thinking of many pro eu people and just adds fuel to the fire, It's another reason we voted to leave.

Again, maybe we will, maybe we won't. Lets look at history, you've relied on us by far more than we have ever relied on you but sure, the tide is now turning and we'll be absolutely begging like Oliver to rejoin your corrupt democracy denying group.

You've made plenty of comments stating them as fact when you don't have a clue, none of us know how it will go but the at the end of the day it has absolutely nothing to do with you, this is a decision by and for the people of the united kingdom. So quite frankly i couldn't give a flying fuck whether you think we'll fail or not, we've overcome bigger hurdles before and I'm sure we will again, you worry about paying off Greece, Spain, Ireland, Romania' etc etc debt and I'll worry about us. Thanks


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 10, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, I'll bite: what IS the biggest benefit for leaving?


In principle, the advantage is sovereignty to do things without caring whether some German company loses out or the Netherlands pipes some of it to Panama, while keeping trade about 97% the same by following WTO rules. As well as the unsavory things the EU claims to care about as long as no one look east or southward. 
Of course, most brexiters couldn't understand less the former and cheer the later (see above - same mentality as the feudal four, really), and neither party has any intention of fixing anything, or caring how it happens, but there is still no disaster (from leaving, not from Boris). At least the BoE has more clue than the ECB, despite the later figuring out that the rules that it is bounded by don't work.
And neither has the SNP, independence while keeping the pound would be bad, adopting the Euro would be a hilarious disaster.

All in all, everyone will be screwed by austerity in the end, and Asia will keep zooming forward as we keep toying with fake market-based financial solutions that don't produce anything or even add jobs. Sad way to go.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 16, 2020)

Okay... I guess this is the the end of negotiations? 
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/boris-johnson-tells-uk-prepare-for-a-no-deal-brexit

Better prepare for no deal brexit, because the EU won't budge on issues they've never said to budge. Yyyyeah... Apparently those 'outlines of an agreement' were just pipe dreams.

Also interesting :

A lot of progress has been made on such issues as social security and aviation, nuclear cooperation, and so on,” he [BoJo] said, but “for whatever reason, it’s clear from the [EU] summit that after 45 years of [UK] membership they are not willing, unless there’s some fundamental change of approach, to offer this country the same terms as Canada”.

My first reaction : 'wait... If you just wanted the same deal as Canada... Why the fuck does it take to this point before you tell anyone? It's literally the first time there is an actual stance (I respect the ' no deal brexiteers' more in that : I disagree with them, but at least I know where they stand).
My second reaction : wait... Since when does Canada border the EU?

Well... At least it's clear that there'll be a no deal brexit... On Australian terms? 

Meanwhile, the EU is busy being awesome as well...

Von Der Leyen: the EU “continues to work for a deal, but not at any price. As planned, our negotiation team will go to London next week to intensify these negotiations.”

Yeah, baby : intensify those negotiations! INTENSIFYYYYY!


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 16, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay... I guess this is the the end of negotiations?
> https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/16/boris-johnson-tells-uk-prepare-for-a-no-deal-brexit
> 
> Better prepare for no deal brexit, because the EU won't budge on issues they've never said to budge. Yyyyeah... Apparently those 'outlines of an agreement' were just pipe dreams.
> ...



Do you remember voting for Von Der Leyen? Me neither. WTO asap.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Do you remember voting for Von Der Leyen? Me neither. WTO asap.


The leaders of the member states selected and voted for her in 2019. I voted for someone smarter than me to make that decision. You voted for someone not to participate.

Also... Do you own a car company by any chance? You personally might be happy with tariffs from /into the EU, but e.g. 
Nissan's position in the EU directly hinges on a trade deal . So... I just want to know how relevant your individual position really is.

... I guess I should thank Hardline brexiteers for their position. After the influx of rich UK 'Ian's leaving immigrating here, we can welcome some former English industries. It's a strange win - win, but ey... If that's what you want, by all means : WTO rules it is.


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 18, 2020)

Only if you're allowed to have them, and not just tourist destinations who will suffer from it - good ol' multi-speed europe.
As to the likes of Nissan, that's rich after already closing a factory in the continent within the last few years, when moving a factory and catching up in productivity takes a long time. It's posturing for corporate welfare, and the UK  could always offer those highly skilled resources to someone else.


----------



## notimp (Oct 18, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Do you remember voting for Von Der Leyen? Me neither. WTO asap.


Not trolling this time, but are you still stuck on the public face of an institution thing? God, I wish I had memorized where her first public speech after she was pronounced candidate was held (some corporate/universitiy gathering...).. You literally had her formulate the words that were expected from her in that position and situation, coming to grips with what her new role now was..

Read this stuff:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/05/18/why-is-the-imf-chief-always-a-european/

Get a notion on what instituations are. Get a notion how they are staffed. Get a notion why this needs more than one legislatural period (by design). Understand, why you actually cant vote in heads of institutions. Understand, why a president in most countries is a representatory figure. Read up on representative democracy again...

You cant just be stuck at 'well I did not have the chance to vote for her' forever.. 

If you still think, direct democracy rules the day...

edit: Found it - I remembered her speech before the Konrad Adenauer Foundation - here watch this:

edit: Damn it, its in german.


----------



## notimp (Oct 18, 2020)

Shamzie is basically propagating a lie for the better part of four years now. Learned nothing. Went with the PR message. Brings the same PR message today - although nobody, not even in his own country is promoting it anymore.

The idea, that the UK left because of 'more freedoms for the individual' and for more direct democracy is an absolute lie.

EU is losing importance as an economic factor. US retreated from many of its NATO commitments, holding the basis of the union stable gets more costly. UK saw the EU as a sinking anker, and gladly took the 'would you act as a trouble maker in the region?' offer the US made to hurt the EU economically (US had a trade deficit).

US will demand subordination of the UK in all important global aspects. UK can say - yes please, may I please have another. And thats it.

In exchange - the US is still running the worlds financial ecosystem, so the UK is still dreaming of their importance of offering banking services to the world, and basking in old colional stories - for largely no reason whatsoever.

Other countries dont have the 'special realationship' the UK has with the US, and therefore havent followed the 'Brexit model'.
--

But I havent voted on X person is absolutely irrelevant. You havent voted on trade deals either, neither have you voted on opening your markets for US goods without an option to regulate them (even safety wise) before they enter your markets. Its just that for that you havent gotten a figurehead whose name you managed to remember and curse out for four years.

Thats the most easy, condensed down breakdown.

If you manage to deregulate you industry, so it can compete in malaysia and india - you win, the longer the US runs the world financial system the longer your economic services may stay relevant. Apart from that, nothing. You have no industry. You have some education hubs. You have no immediate markets. But at least now you dont have to pay to help economically stabilize the EU.


To make that a great victory for direct democracy and freedom, you need you head twisted so much, any owl would be envious.. 


Pound sterling / EUR exchange rate went from 1.6 to 1.1 since 1999.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 19, 2020)

notimp said:


> US will demand subordination of the UK in all important global aspects. UK can say - yes please, may I please have another. And thats it.
> 
> Pound sterling / EUR exchange rate went from 1.6 to 1.1 since 1999.



You mean like the EU demands subordination now?

Do you also forget the £/Euro exchange rate was also 1.13-1.2 over a decade ago. Feel free to look up the history of the exchange rate. Currencies fluctuate. Couldn't care less.


----------



## notimp (Oct 19, 2020)

shamzie said:


> You mean like the EU demands subordination now?


I mean the challenges are obvious, and the UK got the hell out there the first chance it saw, it could play complete lackey to interests across the pond.  EU membership is based on voluntarily giving up power to allow for coordinated action. More so in coming years (with the US retracting from the international stage, EU is forced to speak much more unilaterally on foreign policy for example). EU structurally is designed to make it hard for members to leave on a whim, this is what integration means. People are looking after you being able to realize benefits, but for that you also have to agree to take on some detriments - as all of this had been very voluntary in the past, EU moved very slowly on matters of process. In some areas (foreign policy, aquisition protection from foreign interests, investment policies outside of short term lobby interests, ...) it cant any longer - because of structural imbalances, and the US retreating in its role.

At the first notion of hey - maybe we'd have to swallow a consensus decision thats against our interests, but with us being compensated in other ways, the UK buckled and cried foul. So on something caused by international pressures the UK chose to go with the interest of the nation causing many of the issues, namely the US. With the idea being, that the UK would always be compensated for shooting itself in the groin, as the little brother of the US - moreso, than as the 'military arm' of the EU having rendered itself pretty much useless otherwise, not being able to prevent frances demands on further fiscal integration anymore - because causing a stalemate in the current configuration wasnt flexible enough for the times to come.

As soon as the UKs role was seen to be anything different, they bailed.

Feeding their population mostly lies on how the EU forced them to let in so many foreigners, when this was a policy decision the UK actively went with an ultra liberal implementation, as always - and frankly payed for it in the end. But the demands of "we want to be able to play neoliberal masterrace, and at the same time be ultra protectionist, when it comes to our market interests" is schizophrenic if you are anything less than a colonizing nation. Now its the same sh*t in separation negotiations as well. We want access to your free market, but be allowed to impose sanctions unilaterally, where we see fit.

F*ck you then. (Not you personally - but your political stance.  )

Lets see how fast the US loses interests, when its not invested in actions in that part of the world any longer. (Sphere of attention shifts towards asia.)

Oh and thank you ever so much for importing the US financial crisis, to help share the burden of the US. What a fine job you did there. And werent played at all in the end...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/03/lehman-collapse-us-uk-blame

On exchange rate you are not wrong. Currently you want to pound to be tanking, as you are rallying up new export markets.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 19, 2020)

shamzie said:


> You mean like the EU demands subordination now?



Okay, sure, I'll borrow your world view for the answer. The least you can say is 'yes'. But really... You probably want to start by  send Johnson over in gimp suit just to show that he's not going to pull antics as with the EU, because of you think WE are treating you badly, just wait until you negotiate with someone who has even less incentive to make a deal.

* pretending to your people that the deal will be easy while behind closed doors barely have any outline of a proposal won't make the negotiations ready.
EDIT: debunked (probably?). See posts below.
* reaching three proposals that get shot down by parliament won't show respect to equal partners
* voting internal laws that undermine any preliminary agreements is not something you do to parties you want to agree with
* never take any blame in failed negotiations but always pretend it's the other's fault won't fly with potential partners (1)
* ignoring what individual states need, resulting in unrest in Northern Ireland

 I can go on. From what I saw in the brexit circus, the hardliners have always treated EU as their bitch (with persons like May at least trying to find common ground). So don't pretend like the UK is an innocent poor victim of a huge bureaucracy here, wise guy. You're not convincing anyone.

But ey... You'll find that out soon enough. Enjoy your ignorance while it lasts.


(1) though I'm morbidly curious how that'll turn out if you're dealing with Trump. I foresee online shouting matches that will leave guys like you unsure on which false idol to follow


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 19, 2020)

notimp said:


> I mean the challenges are obvious, and the UK got the hell out there the first chance it saw, it could play complete lackey to interests across the pond.  EU membership is based on voluntarily giving up power to allow for coordinated action. More so in coming years (with the US retracting from the international stage, EU is forced to speak much more unilaterally on foreign policy for example). EU structurally is designed to make it hard for members to leave on a whim, this is what integration means. People are looking after you being able to realize benefits, but for that you also have to agree to take on some detriments - as all of this had been very voluntary in the past, EU moved very slowly on matters of process. In some areas (foreign policy, aquisition protection from foreign interests, investment policies outside of short term lobby interests, ...) it cant any longer - because of structural imbalances, and the US retreating in its role.
> 
> At the first notion of hey - maybe we'd have to swallow a consensus decision thats against our interests, but with us being compensated in other ways, the UK buckled and cried foul. So on something caused by international pressures the UK chose to go with the interest of the nation causing many of the issues, namely the US. With the idea being, that the UK would always be compensated for shooting itself in the groin, as the little brother of the US - moreso, than as the 'military arm' of the EU having rendered itself pretty much useless otherwise, not being able to prevent frances demands on further fiscal integration anymore - because causing a stalemate in the current configuration wasnt flexible enough for the times to come.
> 
> ...



Generally curious on your view on this, do you see nation's who serve a self interest, a "me first approach" to the world as a bad thing. You always quote the US like it's a bad thing, like they're the bad guy. They're the worlds superpower, they're currently employing a me first ideal on the world. Why would it be against the UK's interest to do the same?




Taleweaver said:


> Okay, sure, I'll borrow your world view for the answer. The least you can say is 'yes'. But really... You probably want to start by  send ingJohnson over in gimp suit just to show that he's not going to pull antics as with the EU.
> 
> * pretending to your people that the deal will be easy while behind closed doors barely have any outline of a proposal won't make the negotiations ready.
> * reaching three proposals that get shot down by parliament won't show respect to equal partners
> ...



You seem to have some sort of fetish about punishing the UK and seeing us fail, each to their own. Anyway in regards to your point.

1 - Never wanted a deal, not what i voted for. 
2 - Which proposals, are you talking about May's surrender deal before BoJo won a massive majority because the country didn't want to get fucked by Treason May?
3 - The internal market bill is a backup plan incase the EU decides to try and blockade ireland and essentially starve one of our countries. It won't be needed if the EU doesn't act scummy, I fail to see the issue with this. It's simple, dont act like cunts and it won't be used.
4 - What are you talking about lol negotiations work both ways, never take any blame? You sound like you're 5. Do you expect our negotiator to be like "yeah it's all our fault" The EU knows the UK red lines, you always talk about having cake and eating it too but that's exactly what the EU wants, you want access to our fisheries. It's not happening, were a sovereign nation, we shall decide who has access not a foreign entity.
5 - It's about the UK as a whole, you're trying to cause division within the union by undermining it. Won't work.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 19, 2020)

shamzie said:


> You seem to have some sort of fetish about punishing the UK and seeing us fail, each to their own. Anyway in regards to your point.
> 
> 1 - Never wanted a deal, not what i voted for.
> 2 - Which proposals, are you talking about May's surrender deal before BoJo won a massive majority because the country didn't want to get fucked by Treason May?
> ...


And you strike me as someone who wants to shoot the messenger. I didn't create this mess, y'know.

1. I know; you've made that pretty clear. But you certainly don't speak on behalf of a majority. And it's no refutal to my reply.
2. call 'em what you want. I didn't put a bremainder in charge of exit talks. And it's no refutal to my reply.
3. yeah, exactly. Thanks for proving my point.
4. I expect your negotiators to do their homework and negotiate in good faith. Not this four year shenanigans only to find out "the EU doesn't want to change their position on things". 
I've got to be honest and say that the only guy I've ever heard use that phrase is Boris Johnson, and I've got no idea to what it's supposed to mean. I honestly don't give a damn about your fishing quotas (meaning: go ahead and fish). But when I read that over half of UK's quotas were already sold to foreigners, then "theft" comes to mind ("hey...wanna buy some of our fishing rights? Yes? Cool...oh, right...but we're changing the laws so you're out of luck").
5. sorry, wrong answer. I gotta admit that at first I thought this'd be a trivial matter as well. But I'm just a dumb foreigner with no stakes in brexit/bremaining and limited knowledge of history. What's your excuse?
Here's the situation: the only way to _*stop*_ historical tensions between Ireland and Northern Ireland was to ensure the border was as invisible as possible. This put things at ease since 1998 (good friday agreement, if I'm not mistaken). Not trying to brag, but this was only possible because both Ireland and the UK were part of the EU. With the UK leaving(1), this whole agreement is annulated. Not to say that it won't be able to be resolved otherwise, but as long as you deny there's a problem, that's a problem in itself.
Also: bad timing on your reply, dude. The UK's most senior Archbishops just today published an open letter criticizing exactly this(2).

_The U.K.’s most senior Anglican bishops warned Monday that the legislation set a “disastrous precedent” and could undermine peace in Northern Ireland._

Are you going to extend your opinion to say the Anglican church wants to divide the UK as well? 

If not...no, I'm not trying to cause division. Again: I'm just the messenger. The division was already there. You just relied on the EU to find you a solution(3).

(1): okay "having left". but that's not saying much if in practice, you just keep everything the same during the 'transitional period'
(2): if it makes you feel more comfortable: I didn't knew it when I made my previous post either
(3): no, I don't normally give the EU credit like that (I'm rather neutral on their position). But I'm pretty fed up with brexiteers just throwing everything bad on account of the EU.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 19, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> And you strike me as someone who wants to shoot the messenger. I didn't create this mess, y'know.
> 
> 1. I know; you've made that pretty clear. But you certainly don't speak on behalf of a majority. And it's no refutal to my reply.
> 2. call 'em what you want. I didn't put a bremainder in charge of exit talks. And it's no refutal to my reply.
> ...



Considering before the vote, talk of a deal was never mentioned. I feel like I do speak for the majority, we voted to leave, not leave in 4 years, not leave with a deal, WE VOTED TO LEAVE. It's that simple, you can throw up all the blockades you want. So yeah I firmly believe I do speak for the majority.

I'm not going over the rest of it, it'd old trodden ground. Like I care what the arch bishop thinks LOL he needs to get a proper job instead of stealing a living. You act like his opinion is more important because he holds some sort of bullshit religious position. (pro tip, it's not more important)

The division was there, that's why we held a vote. Now there's no division, the country has a clear path forward. That's how democracy works, we hold votes and move forward. The corrupt EU ever had it's books audited? Wake up.


----------



## notimp (Oct 19, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Generally curious on your view on this, do you see nation's who serve a self interest, a "me first approach" to the world as a bad thing.


I'm much more interested to point out, that thats not whats happening.  Again - trade deals with india are established, future trading partners of the UK look like this:






Five eyes mixed with a hodgepodge of a dream of neocolonialism. 
https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-ben...he-united-kingdom.505315/page-15#post-8547805

Also, this is not 'everybody fending for their own', this is old boys networks and a PR dream of them good old days, being fostered by the following interest groups:



> On the morning of 24 June (2016), the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985.[15] The drop over the day was 8% – the biggest one-day fall in the pound since the introduction of floating exchange rates following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971.[16] The pound remained low, and on 8 July became the worst performing major currency of the year,[17] although the pound's trade-weighted index is only back at levels seen in the period 2008–2013.[18][19][20] It was expected that the weaker pound would also benefit aerospace and defence firms, pharmaceutical companies, and professional services companies; the share prices of these companies were boosted after the EU referendum.[21]





> After the referendum the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report funded by the Economic and Social Research Councilwhich warned that Britain would lose up to £70 billion in reduced economic growth if it didn't retain Single Market membership with new trade deals unable to make up the difference.[22] One of these areas is financial services, which are helped by EU-wide "passporting" for financial products, which the Financial Times estimates indirectly accounts for up to 71,000 jobs and 10 billion pounds of tax annually[23] and there are concerns that banks may relocate outside the UK.[24]





> On 5 January 2017, Andy Haldane, the Chief Economist and the Executive Director of Monetary Analysis and Statistics at the Bank of England, admitted that forecasts predicting an economic downturn due to the referendum were inaccurate and noted strong market performance after the referendum,[25][26][27] although some have pointed to prices rising faster than wages.[28]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After..._Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

And only then after all that, and after me insisting, that you just call out names of EU politicians to denounce them as mainly nefarious instead of bringing one single reasons o far, how the UK has been better off because of brexit. Oh, and ignoring where in the world you are situated geographically (forget the EU mythos - just the economics of freightshipping in your food from south africa..  ).

Only after that can we get into plainly obvious deliberations of the 'not everyone can sell out to their big brother US easily', corporations are getting bigger and have to be transnational at this point to matter - and none of that being possible for lets say a macedonia or albania to tackle on their own - we get back to, that britain just has been sold this dream, of just 'naturally dominating' again over - Idk, but not many nations left independant and outside of unions..  (Economy wise - dont care about national politics myths here.)



> In May 2017, it was reported by the _Irish Times_ that £425,622 had potentially been donated by sources in Saudi Arabia to the "vote leave" supporting Democratic Unionist Party for spending during the referendum.[286]


Oh I can taste the independance, I can taste it... 


Further more - usually useful idiots in the public, especially of the progressive kind, arent of any need anymore, once new conservative power structures are established. So people that actually cared about Brexit changing their lives for the positive, should be starting to get disillusioned right about now..


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 20, 2020)

notimp said:


> Further more - usually useful idiots in the public, especially of the progressive kind, arent of any need anymore, once new conservative power structures are established.



It's almost as if they don't care whether the master is british, german, dutch or american, but they prefer one they can replace, after the ever-diminishing forecast of doom.
Nah. Just keep pretending we're at the end of history and that monetarist based predictions have any value, as their assumptions get abandoned by central banks, and that individual trade deals make a significant difference to trade, despite not being true for a couple of decades.
Anyway, does the Euro recovery program exist yet, and when do we start cutting wages for it?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 20, 2020)

Shit flinging is boring. While I remain unconvinced that WTO was always the aim or item to be voted on the lack of a public plan/goals afterwards does make things tricky to point at and say "that". Still it is not an unreasonable presumption to think the UK and EU might want to not have to be completely stand offish (similar cultures, shared languages in some ways, similar standards for things both in general and at present, while worldwide shipping is pretty cheap it is still cheaper to do shorter distances (to say nothing of being more viable for other classes of goods) and so forth, there is also the nice demonstrable "it works") and not pull the proverbial rip cord/fire the ejector seat.

Anyway I am getting off topic and was only on the second sentence.

How about instead we ponder what might be salvaged here as it stands today. How can places come together and both get something resembling what they want?


----------



## notimp (Oct 20, 2020)

House of Lords no likey UK breaking international law.
https://www.cityam.com/house-of-lords-votes-down-johnsons-controversial-brexit-bill/

(Has not impact on legislation.)



FAST6191 said:


> How about instead we ponder what might be salvaged here as it stands today. How can places come together and both get something resembling what they want?


How can the UK be part of the EU market, being allowed to impose tariffs unilateraly, paying nothing for it in return? Yeah - eh, they cant. 

How can economies come closer together after - Brexit - well, what a funny question.. 

But indeed some form of compromise still is likely. Just looking at all the damage the UK caused for no apparent reason, and that it then still reacts with bullying ('we'll break international law then') and pressure game, while being in a worse position to argue all along - seems 10 fold idiotic and only a result of pressure groups paying off politicians to do just that - to the point where it actually hinders compromise.

So from a moral stance - f*ck off.  But thats not whats driving economic talks...


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> How can the UK be part of the EU market, being allowed to impose tariffs unilateraly, paying nothing for it in return? Yeah - eh, they cant.
> 
> How can economies come closer together after - Brexit - well, what a funny question..
> 
> ...



Does the UK have to part of the EU market in such a manner?

What damage to entities other than the UK was caused?

Can you really not think of any reasons? Does not have to be a particularly rational and long term view reason (we have both presumably been following politics and the like for long enough to have seen "next election is the only thing that matters" mindsets). There could also be more to life than money.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 21, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Considering before the vote, talk of a deal was never mentioned. I feel like I do speak for the majority, we voted to leave, not leave in 4 years, not leave with a deal, WE VOTED TO LEAVE. It's that simple, you can throw up all the blockades you want. So yeah I firmly believe I do speak for the majority.


This is actually a very interesting point you make. Granted, I initially went "no way!"...but the more I googled, the more I'm inclined to believe you. Oh, there were certainly broken promises and wild exagerations, but "we'll be in a better bargaining position after we've left the EU" is about as close as I could find to backup my claim. So indeed: negotiations on exit deals were never told to brexiteers, let alone ones that took this long.

Okay...let's not pretend that it wasn't inevitable (to bring back the industry: the promise to them that there'd be a quick and easy leave deal with the EU was made), but I really have to concede my earlier point that brexiteers wanted a deal in the first place.

I disagree on your other points, though. And Theresa May isn't a EU blockade. Not our fault you decide to put somone in charge who wanted a deal, got blocked some times because parliament wanted a better deal, then changed the prime minister who ALSO pursued a deal in the first place. Your government has a really strange way to get something _not_ done, y'know.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 22, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> How about instead we ponder what might be salvaged here as it stands today. How can places come together and both get something resembling what they want?


I've given this some thought as well. Unfortunately, it's not really looking bright. Let's see...

* since there's no way around it, WTO trade rules is what it'll be. For the moment, I feel that every slightest ounce of a deal will someday lead to a future UK government laying blame on the EU.
* I'm all for a sovereign UK. Never was against it and am not going to start with it now. It's just that when you want to trade something outside the border, you adhere to the standard laws of that foreign country (as a classic example: you can create and/or import all the chlorinated chicken you want...just don't attempt to trade it with the EU).
* since we can't agree on standards, we'll have to assume they'll become different. As such, custom checks become the norm (both in and out).
* I'm aware that neither Ireland nor Northern Ireland wants custom checks. The previous leads to a simple "too bad". Good friday agreement? Not the EU's business. If the nation's as united as @shamzie claims it is, everyone just goes along with it.
* I'm not sure how tariffs and taxes work, but there again: no deal is just follow whatever the WTO describes. Sucks if you're an industry that wants to trade with the other country, but, again: "too bad".
* that bill breaking the withdrawal treaty should be shoved up Johnson's ass. I would prefer officially, as a sign that the UK has any credibility left when it comes to making deals. Should they stick to it, I think it's only fair that the EU puts "annexation of Northern Ireland" on the agenda in case of unrest, perhaps Gibraltar as well (depending on how the border situation there goes) as well as openly inviting Scotland to join the EU. I'm no fan of lowering the EU to UK's level of "negotiations", but since Britons are already disgruntled(1) with the EU, they might as well have a valid reason for it. 
* okay...more positive things. Let's see...We'll fully allow the UK sovereignty when it comes to their safety to kippers.
* fishing quota's? I'm all for the UK government buying back the quota's they sold to foreign fishing companies.
* while we're at it: I'm all for funding the NHS with what you paid to the EU instead. By all means: DO SO, ya sovereign sovereigners! 


(1): for the record: if you read back in this thread, my initial replies were more a defense of the 48% bremainders. With all the promises falling and politicians blundering, this whole "we HAVE to do it!!!" thing was kind of moot. But then Johnson got elected as prime minister. So...I guess it sucks if you wanted to remain in the EU, but you had two chances to let yourself heard but you didn't. Hence: despite all what's happened, the majority still wants out. With everything that comes with it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 24, 2020)

More interesting news. And one genuine brexit advantage, no less! Not to sound cynical, but I feel like this is a first in this thread called 'benefits of brexit'. 

The news : a trade agreement with Japan! :-D

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-54654814

Critics will be critics, but still : 15 billion pounds is more than I usually make. So...it's a start. :-) 

However, in worse news, it seems like the food industry didn't get that 'we're one nation' note Shamzie was touting : with current conditions (or rather : the lack of technical details about them) they 're going to refuse supplying northern Ireland... 

https://www.businessinsider.com/bre...ders-warn-boris-johnson-2020-10?amp&r=US&IR=T


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 24, 2020)

Well, considering there wasn't another vote, we don't know what the majority thinks after all this mess.


Taleweaver said:


> More interesting news. And one genuine brexit advantage, no less! Not to sound cynical, but I feel like this is a first in this thread called 'benefits of brexit'.
> 
> The news : a trade agreement with Japan! :-D
> 
> ...


Interesting. Would this deal still be possible, without exiting the EU?

If there wasn't an anime and manga trade deal out of this, well, that would have been a missed opportunity. /jk


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 25, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Interesting. Would this deal still be possible, without exiting the EU?


Only as a EU-Japan deal.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 25, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Well, considering there wasn't another vote, we don't know what the majority thinks after all this mess.
> 
> Interesting. Would this deal still be possible, without exiting the EU?
> 
> If there wasn't an anime and manga trade deal out of this, well, that would have been a missed opportunity. /jk


In a way, there was (a vote, that is) : Johnson got voted in as prime Minister. At the very least, it counts as a sign that brexit should continue. Sure, the opposition wasn't up to snuff (what was it? Corbyn arguing he could get a better leave deal than May? ) but it's not our job to push a popular bremain minister.

As to Japan : it is based on the existing EU deal, so the more relevant question would be whether the deal would be needed without brexit.
My original (Dutch) newspaper also had an interesting extra remark : that Japan sees the UK foremost as 'a gateway into the eu'.
(https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20201023_94072218) that would suggest Japan is more concerned about their supply chain than anything else. Still.... It's a good thing for both countries.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 25, 2020)




----------



## KingVamp (Nov 3, 2020)

I wonder how many people will change their minds either way, when Brexit finally happens.


----------



## emigre (Nov 3, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> In a way, there was (a vote, that is) : Johnson got voted in as prime Minister. At the very least, it counts as a sign that brexit should continue. Sure, the opposition wasn't up to snuff (what was it? Corbyn arguing he could get a better leave deal than May? ) but it's not our job to push a popular bremain minister.



Not exactly, we have FPTP which mean the Tories got majority on a plurality of the votes. If we had PR, it'd be pretty cloudy.



KingVamp said:


> I wonder how many people will change their minds either way, when Brexit finally happens.



Polls from YouGov (a well-renowned polling company here) put out some results a few days ago with 50% saying Brexit was a mistake compared to 38% who didn't. It'll be interesting next year, the pandemic management has been poor so the economy is going to take another big hit. This along with Brexit is probably going to see tighter wallets especially if the expected increases in food is passed onto the customer.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 1, 2021)

So after 4 years of procrastinating and general time wasting the UK has officially left the EU. No planes have fell from the sky yet, I've got a keen eye on the sky.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Jan 1, 2021)

shamzie said:


> So after 4 years of procrastinating and general time wasting the UK has officially left the EU. No planes have fell from the sky yet, I've got a keen eye on the sky.



who knows , maybe it will turn out ok 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...king-India-despite-coronavirus-recession.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...set-storm-ahead-France-Brexit-transition.html


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 1, 2021)

Were there any planes in the sky right now to have fallen down?

Anyway what a parade of time wasting and incompetence that was, and while I can't say I expected otherwise it was still rather surprising in its magnitude.

Whether and in what ways it might be beneficial or detrimental I still don't know, and doubt we will for some time yet (to say nothing of having to pick things apart and control for other variables). I imagine the results will be far from any kind of ideal case.

If we had something vaguely resembling competent politicos then I might expect something more, however none I have seen in years inspire confidence or show themselves to have a spine/conviction in the long term (though if one did appear then crabs in a bucket + whitehall gremlins would limit any good, even if not in a way I personally care for, done there).


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 1, 2021)

shamzie said:


> So after 4 years of procrastinating and general time wasting the UK has officially left the EU. No planes have fell from the sky yet, I've got a keen eye on the sky.


Erm... Are there any planes flying in the first place? With that covid stain you've got, most of Europe has banned flying from the UK in the first place.

But ey... Seems everything's great so far. It's not like the traffic jams in and out of the country exceeded expectations (though that is probably best evaluated in a couple days and not exactly one day after the loooooong negotiated deal), nobody 's bailing out or,...

What? Oh, so Boris Johnson' s father is nationalizing into a Frenchman? Oh...well...it's not like he was very brexit-minded to begin with.


Sorry...got distracted a bit. But to get back to your message: yeah. No planes falling from the sky. I...guess that's awesome if you're insecure of those sorts of things?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jan 1, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> What? Oh, so Boris Johnson' s father is nationalizing into a Frenchman? Oh...well...it's not like he was very brexit-minded to begin with.


It's frankly slightly hilarious that Boris Johnson appears to be the only one in the Johnson family to actually have wanted a Brexit. Then again, I saw a documentary on the guy once. Seems he has his entire anti-EU sentiment purely _from his own father_ because his father supported the EU pretty heavily, and he just wanted to mark himself as different. Interesting situaiton.


----------



## Ericzander (Jan 1, 2021)

So is the UK part of America now or how does that work?

I say we tax 'em without representin' 'em!


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 1, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Are there any planes flying in the first place? With that covid stain you've got, most of Europe has banned flying from the UK in the first place.
> 
> But ey... Seems everything's great so far. It's not like the traffic jams in and out of the country exceeded expectations (though that is probably best evaluated in a couple days and not exactly one day after the loooooong negotiated deal), nobody 's bailing out or,...
> 
> ...



https://www.flightradar24.com/50.18,2.89/6

Seems like theres some planes in the air according to this, sorry to burst your bubble, the sky hasn't fallen in quite yet.

One man gets a passport, BREAKING NEWS. You realise his mother was French right, so he's entitled to a french passport. Or do the rules change now because you're butthurt about brexit. "Soz Stanley, we know your mother was french but brexit or something so nahhhh."


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 1, 2021)

Ericzander said:


> So is the UK part of America now or how does that work?
> 
> I say we tax 'em without representin' 'em!


Well...they're independent, so at least on the liberty front that's a straight up 'no' to anyone but to themselves.

But as to where relationships with other countries are concerned...errrrrmmm....lemme just put down a few factoids I've picked up listening to the news:

* standards for importing goods to Northern Ireland have to adhere to EU standards as to not breach the good friday agreement
* goods that are exported to the EU have to meet EU's standards as well
* Gibraltar is now part of the Schengen zone
* EU members living in the UK have more travel rights in the EU than UK citizens (meaning: they have a huge advantage over UK citizens for jobs that require travel abroad)
* fishing quotas is a win for the UK. Whoop di doo: you'll gain up to 4% extra quotas in the next five years. For a sector that's about 0.1% total of the UK's GDP. And because custom checks take longer, the only real benefit is when caught fish is sold within the UK to begin with

About the only somewhat physical disadvantage for the EU in this deal is the cancelation of Erasmus (an exchange program for students), but to me that's hardly relevant. And that might be negated with whatever the UK government comes up with later.

So...I've honestly no idea why Johnson sells this as a win for the UK. The more I read about it, the more I'm like "ey...that's actually a benefit for the EU". But really: it's not like this deal should be a zero sum game. Perhaps it truly is a benefit for the UK, which would be awesome. But it's not like I'm complaining about anything.

*checks Shamzie's latest post*

*sigh* Well...almost.  For some reason, people like Shamzie want to pretend they've "won" and (therefore) we've "lost". And therefore anything guys like me say must be because of spite or something.



shamzie said:


> https://www.flightradar24.com/50.18,2.89/6
> 
> Seems like theres some planes in the air according to this, sorry to burst your bubble, the sky hasn't fallen in quite yet.
> 
> One man gets a passport, BREAKING NEWS. You realise his mother was French right, so he's entitled to a french passport. Or do the rules change now because you're butthurt about brexit. "Soz Stanley, we know your mother was french but brexit or something so nahhhh."


Jeez, dude. Calm the fuck down. I said most countries banned UK flights, that's all. It's not an apocalypse, and it's not even brexit related. Let it go already.

I also anticipated your reaction to Stanley Johnson's move, but I'll be honest: I'll let others decide whether or not they consider it a sign or not. I do. You don't. That's fine with me.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 2, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Well...they're independent, so at least on the liberty front that's a straight up 'no' to anyone but to themselves.
> 
> But as to where relationships with other countries are concerned...errrrrmmm....lemme just put down a few factoids I've picked up listening to the news:
> 
> ...


to add to what you said about Erasmus, the Republic of Ireland has agreed to pay for Northern Ireland citizens to continue the program. So even in that regard Erasmus has not stopped in the UK (as a whole).


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 2, 2021)

If only Northern Ireland would be merged with Ireland now although that won't happen even if it's the right thing to do.

Ireland uses the Euro currency, hm. A country where English is spoken and the EU currency is used, that's something somewhat interesting.

"Oi, mate, that's 50 Euros." 

Btw, GameStop has branches in Ireland, but it used to be available in U.K. too. For some reason they closed down their U.K. stores (there's only two game retailers they'd rival: CeX and GAME, GAME is probably going out of business in the near future due to their ridiculous prices and £5 shipping when it should be like £1.26 or £1.50).


----------



## Iamapirate (Jan 2, 2021)

To put it simply: I think the UK (and every over sovereign state) ought to govern themselves, and make laws pertaining to their people and their territories. This is why I fundamentally support Brexit.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 2, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> To put it simply: I think the UK (and every over sovereign state) ought to govern themselves, and make laws pertaining to their people and their territories. This is why I fundamentally support Brexit.


I said it long before Brexit and I'll say it again now: ultimately all that changes is the price of things went up a bit in the UK, and they get to keep more immigrants out of the country.  Returning to isolationism in the 21st century is not really an option; everything, including much of the world's economy, is online.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 2, 2021)

Boesy said:


> If only Northern Ireland would be merged with Ireland now although that won't happen even if it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Ireland uses the Euro currency, hm. A country where English is spoken and the EU currency is used, that's something somewhat interesting.
> 
> ...


If we are being honest with ourselves the reason that northern ireland is not part of the republic proper has nothing to do with the wishes of England (Scotland and Wales are minor players), but everything to do with the wishes of northern ireland itself.

There is already a provision in the good friday agreement that a referendum can be called on joining the republic whenever it looks as though a referendum would likely result in a vote to join the republic.

The fact of the matter is that as long as surveys have existed, NI opinion is primarily union with Britain.

That is slowly changing yes, but still there is a unionist majority.

From the side of the rest of the UK, and primarily England - NI is a money pit. Their economy has never been good, and they are supported by generous public jobs paid for by mostly English taxes.

In fact there is some question as to how much the rest of Ireland even wants NI. Does Ireland really want to commit itself to paying the pensions of NI's bloated public sector?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 5, 2021)

I'd thought to myself that Brexit would "save" Britain, but now with the constant lockdowns, curfews, tiers and etc, I just feel like U.K. isn't where I want to live anymore and I have that option so that's what I'll be going for. I just can't stand being treated like a criminal and forced to be in my house until they decide I'm allowed to leave.

People who are natives of Britain and may only have a house or apartment in U.K. have no other alternative, although some Brits have houses abroad so they may decide to ditch the U.K. whenever they get a chance.

That said, the new immigration laws of Brexit are great, though due to the lockdowns which affects people's lives then it sort of cancels everything. Small business owners might as well forget about opening their business there.

Sigh.


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 6, 2021)

Well, the UK can now do whatever it wants (well, more things) to support business and workers as it saves people. Some of their former colonies have some ideas on that. That neither party cares is up to you.
Covid will still ravage your country, but that was always a choice. You might get your wish by not living anymore.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 6, 2021)

Nightwish said:


> Well, the UK can now do whatever it wants (well, more things) to support business and workers as it saves people. Some of their former colonies have some ideas on that. That neither party cares is up to you.
> Covid will still ravage your country, but that was always a choice. You might get your wish by not living anymore.




With Brexit promising to further impede Britons travelling overseas next year, Portugal is working on all kinds of ways it can ‘bring back the numbers’ to ‘save’ the nation’s tourism.

In a recent interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, Portuguese ambassador to the UK Manuel Lobo Antunes said the country is preparing to “do whatever we can to continue to make Portugal attractive to British citizens, for tourism or permanent residence”.

Reasserting the ‘UK passport holder lines’ at airports and the health passports (devised to make up for the loss of the European Health Insurance Cards) (click here), Mr Antunes added the idea of ‘visa-free stays’.

Try and hold back those tears fella, we'll still come and prop up your country's economy like we do every year.

https://movingtoportugal.org.uk/news/portugal-pins-hopes-on-post-brexit-tourism-strategy/


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 10, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Try and hold back those tears fella, we'll still come and prop up your country's economy like we do every year.


My tears of... wanting to be made clear neither the Euro, nor the single market is necessary for a successful open economy, as well as the stupidity of believing in the collapse prone tourism industry as a path to comply with treaties? Even with Boris at the helm. Just take care of your health first and foremost.
No, what I have tears for is the consequence of believing that the EU is about anything but the free movement of capital, but that's a whole other thing.


----------



## smf (Jan 10, 2021)

Boesy said:


> I'd thought to myself that Brexit would "save" Britain



Brexit was all about taking the power away from democratically elected and put into the hands of rich people. It was never about saving Britain.

We've gone from having the best deal possible with our closest trading partner, to a terrible one. A lot of businesses are struggling with the new requirements, including fishermen.

We could have made more effort trading with other countries when we were in the EU, but we don't have the industry to do it.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

Boesy said:


> That said, the new immigration laws of Brexit are great, though due to the lockdowns which affects people's lives then it sort of cancels everything. Small business owners might as well forget about opening their business there.


Slightly stricter immigration controls aren't sufficient to make any real impact on Britain as it is today. The lockdown sucks but it will end because there is no realistic alternative. There are more measures which need to be taken in addition to curbs on immigration if the process is to mean anything at all. My hot take is that there is far too much focus on financial matters and not enough on social issues. More than anything Britain needs social cohesion. To this end; cultural integration of existing immigrant populations that are isolating themselves needs to become a priority, along with measures to end the ghetto-isation of inner cities. In short one should get their own house in order before worrying about approaching the neighbours. Political polarization is also something I'm increasingly worried about as Britain continues to adopt the American brand of dishonest grievance culture. I'm struggling to think of a solution to the latter problem as it's woven into the institutions of media and government and would require them to be honest with the people and themselves, which is quite possibly the biggest ask for politicians, pundits, and activists alike.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> Slightly stricter immigration controls aren't sufficient to make any real impact on Britain as it is today. The lockdown sucks but it will end because there is no realistic alternative. There are more measures which need to be taken in addition to curbs on immigration if the process is to mean anything at all. My hot take is that there is far too much focus on financial matters and not enough on social issues. More than anything Britain needs social cohesion. To this end; cultural integration of existing immigrant populations that are isolating themselves needs to become a priority, along with measures to end the ghetto-isation of inner cities. In short one should get their own house in order before worrying about approaching the neighbours. Political polarization is also something I'm increasingly worried about as Britain continues to adopt the American brand of dishonest grievance culture. I'm struggling to think of a solution to the latter problem as it's woven into the institutions of media and government and would require them to be honest with the people and themselves, which is quite possibly the biggest ask for politicians, pundits, and activists alike.



Is there no alternative to lock down?
What is the cost, what is the effect (good and bad)? Some say such measures should only be used if there needs to a be a little bit of time bought to reconfigure hospitals that were caught on the wrong foot.
Few seem to want to run numbers here and what I am seeing says they are making it up as they go along.

The rest of that is something to ponder though.

I don't know that I would necessarily go after the ghettos first, though certainly not ignore them, as much as reign in London and the devolved parliaments (though they are different approaches needed there -- London mostly alienates everybody while the devolved parliaments... basically hotbeds of separatism*) if the goal is some flavour of national unity and cohesion. Don't know that the current offering of big train line on the west coast and some free ports oop north will do much of anything though.

*if the UK can't stay the UK then it matters little whether Birmingham is a hole. Equally if you can't make the SNP and plaid cymru look like fools then I would question whether they are fit for the job, and possibly how you managed to dress yourself that morning. Northern Ireland represents a marginally different problem (while I don't necessarily think much of the DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLD and UUP they have variously more going on, have not paid much attention to APNI but that might have been a shortcoming on my part) but same general goal. On the other hand kicking out Scotland is not the worst choice on the economics front even if it would be sad for the Scottish people as a whole (I actually like them as a general rule, watching the SNP implode things has popcorn appeal but if doing something vaguely humanitarian for once in my life... no thanks).


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

Perhaps I was unclear but my intention was to state that there is no realistic alternative but to end the lockdowns. Keeping this up in perpetuity won't work, people already disobey the rules and the longer it goes on more will start ignoring rules until they lose all meaning. Whether they were necessary at all or not is another matter, but I lean towards no.

I wouldn't necessarily advocate Scottish independence but if its people voted for it, I would not stand against their wish. That said, the devolved parliaments were definitely a mistake. One of the biggest mistakes Britain ever made was making even more layers of government that serve no constructive purpose. Just like the EU itself, they are resource black holes that do little but sew discontent as if we didn't already have enough of it. I would whole heartedly support any movement that would see both the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament dissolved permanently.

I must admit that Northern Ireland is largely an enigma to me. Despite being a part of the UK we hear almost nothing about it, almost as if the rest of the country are afraid to talk about it.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> Perhaps I was unclear but my intention was to state that there is no realistic alternative but to end the lockdowns. Keeping this up in perpetuity won't work, people already disobey the rules and the longer it goes on more will start ignoring rules until they lose all meaning. Whether they were necessary at all or not is another matter, but I lean towards no.



Yeah, people are idiots. What will probably happen is stronger lockdown.

Like how you don't give up trying to stop a puppy shitting on the carpet, just because the puppy wants to shit on the carpet.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> Yeah, people are idiots. What will probably happen is stronger lockdown.
> 
> Like how you don't give up trying to stop a puppy shitting on the carpet, just because the puppy wants to shit on the carpet.


Your analogy completely ignores the agency of the people involved and the reality of the situation. They are not pets or livestock, they will not respond to authority and captivity in the same way a puppy will. Likewise you cannot stop the spread of this virus. It is too late for that. Eventually everyone is going to have to get used to the idea that it is endemic and never going away, and we will have to learn to live with it the same we live with cold and flu.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Is there no alternative to lock down?



At this point I'd say no, the messaging from the government has been absolutely terrible. For the last year we've had people whinging about freedom and common sense.

We waited until it was too late to go into the first lockdown and then paid people to go out and be super spreaders. This is all the fault of the people desperate to end lockdown.



FGFlann said:


> Your analogy completely ignores the agency of the people involved and the reality of the situation.



You are ignoring the reality of the situation. Agency of the people? The people have no clue what they are doing, it's arrogance to suggest otherwise.



FGFlann said:


> Eventually everyone is going to have to get used to the idea that it is endemic and never going away, and we will have to learn to live with it the same we live with cold and flu.



It's not about learning, it's about getting everyone vaccinated. But then there are the liars going round saying that vaccines will turn you into a 5G antennae and Bill Gates is injecting you with a GPS tracker, that are trying to fuck that up too. Because people are idiots.

They look like they are going to throw us to the wolves after the vulnerable have been vaccinated, which still leaves a lot of people transmitting the virus and increasing the chance of a more potent mutation. So lockdown is only going to be for another few months anyway. Time will tell whether lifting lockdown that early will be another mistake caused by arrogant people being idiots.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> You are ignoring the reality of the situation. Agency of the people? The people have no clue what they are doing, it's arrogance to suggest otherwise.


What unbelievable projection. You are tacitly deciding that *all* people cannot make decisions for themselves then claiming that it is others who are arrogant? Shall I fetch you a fedora to tip? Maybe a blade to study? Get a grip on your ego.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

From where I sit

Loss of schooling
Loss of social life
Loss of business large, small and incidental.
Loss of funds from government pools of money that do good stuff otherwise.
General side effects of sitting in the house -- whether it is becoming fat bastards, bouncing each other off the wall because no personal space or generally just bastards.
Lack of diagnosis options for other serious illness.
Right to run around, taking the risks you will or won't, is generally recognised is one enjoyed by those in free countries. Not something that should be surrendered lightly as a general matter of principle.

Handful of old people and sick people that might well have been able to hide out anyway kicking the bucket a few years ahead of best case. When it was an unknown then numbers might have been higher, today we have had enough cases vs deaths/serious negative long term outcomes to make as good a model as we have for almost any disease in the modern world.
Those that don't die might end up costing resources.
Long term some unknowns as to what goes.
More cases, more risk of a mutation worth noting (more deadly, more spreadable by whatever means).

Efficacy of lockdown both in theory, numbers shown (we have nice data for a regression analysis right now if you want) and reality -- compliance rates is a factor in all medication type scenarios (if you can't not drink then no liver transplant, if you can't take care of yourself then again transplants and treatments get altered, if you can't draw blood and titrate new levels hourly then probably going to be in hospital or specialist facilities...).

Right now we seem to have a nice

"They are working the numbers are dropping"

"They are not working people are going outside"

Seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't type deal there.


Run me a proper risk, reward cost-benefit type analysis such that we might be able to quibble our corner for our respective risk tolerances. Lives saved is certainly nice but not at any price, indeed there already appears to be some assignment of the value of lives. Quite happy to have benefits if vaccination efficacy and schedule can be determined be a factor in this as well and the delta there makes sense. As it stands though if they suddenly determined "oh wow look two doses of saline a week apart acts as basically 100% inoculation" then what would that timeframe be -- 60 million people in the country, however many minutes per setup but can be administered by any medic (how many of those exist?), 120 million needles needed (big but probably doable, call it 150 to account for droppages and make distribution easier), might be able to skimp and use disposable ends though. Running that and it is not a short process even in that kind of best case pondered there, how many doses can be produced, what the practical efficacy is (I am seeing rather low numbers for some of them, even if net positive) distributed and given (even before we have those that think it might give them lizard change abilities/the mark of the beast/infertility*, actual medical reasons not to -- 1.8-2.0% allergic to eggs for one, or just care to wait for v3 for fear corners were cut) will likely only make that harder. Numbers administered already are not that high (600k is a lot, but in terms of population if rates do need to be 90% or more still means next winter. Potential to ramp up distribution given that there were months to put it in place already as trials looked certain could make more but how much is realistic here? Is then waiting for some measure of vaccination level worth the tradeoff?

*never mind that a two injection long term infertility causing treatment would be worth a bloody fortune rather than having to do tubal ligation or vasectomy.

As nobody appears to be doing that then I am left to question the merits of things until such time as someone does, and ponder whatever scraps of information I might get and put it into models I am not necessarily the best equipped to ponder.
Being told shut up it is good for you by people that I would normally not trust to organise a piss up in a brewery, read a map or hold my pint while I tie my shoe, never mind the demonstrable evidence of their incompetence at any number of things does not inspire confidence in words.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> You are tacitly deciding that *all* people cannot make decisions for themselves then claiming that it is others who are arrogant?



Well yes, because it's not arrogant to follow the advice to go into lockdown. It's arrogant to think that lockdown should be ended because you're special & can somehow avoid covid19. It's magical thinking to the extreme against all evidence.



FAST6191 said:


> Loss of schooling



The quality of schooling in the UK, especially in deprived areas, they aren't missing much.
They knew what was coming over a year ago, they should have planned for online learning.



FAST6191 said:


> Loss of social life



You can do this on the phone and online. It sucks, but then dying sucks too.



FAST6191 said:


> Loss of business large, small and incidental.
> Loss of funds from government pools of money that do good stuff otherwise.



Financially this has been a huge hit of course, but then there are financial costs to large amounts of people dying too. I'm not sure any politician wants to have blood on their hands.



FAST6191 said:


> General side effects of sitting in the house -- whether it is becoming fat bastards, bouncing each other off the wall because no personal space or generally just bastards.



You only have yourself to blame, you don't have to sit in the house.



FAST6191 said:


> Lack of diagnosis options for other serious illness.



This isn't a fault of the lockdown, but the hospitals being overrun by covid19. Cancer treatment is still ongoing in some areas, but some are being shut down now due to being overrun by covid19. Ending lockdown now would accelerate this.



FAST6191 said:


> Right to run around, taking the risks you will or won't, is generally recognised is one enjoyed by those in free countries.



You may as well try using that argument for drink driving. It should be up to you whether you take the risk getting behind the wheel drunk or not, right? No police man should arrest you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> The quality of schooling in the UK, especially in deprived areas, they aren't missing much.
> They knew what was coming over a year ago, they should have planned for online learning.
> 
> 
> ...



Most of those seem rather trite dismissals.

Schools have many failings, can have a nice long talk on those. Still does not mean I am inclined to diss them entirely.

Online socialising most trick cyclist types would say is rather lacking compared to face to face, hard to achieve for some as well.

Politicians would have blood on their hands either way. Avoiding having someone young bounced off the wall and having a less than pleasant life/few years vs some 80 year old not making it to 82. Debate as to which is more preferable from where I sit.

Similarly there are costs to death, would have liked the option to weigh them up myself or see the rationales used to determine what cost to bear.

Yet if I am only supposed to go out to the supermarket and for my "daily act of exercise" (a bizarre notion from where I sit but OK) then the effects are predictable. Depending upon the age range then long term consequences that might have been dodged are also a thing in this.

So build more treatment locations -- I am sure the billions spunked away already could have done more, and all those nice overflow places appear to be virtual ghost towns. Could also change the barriers for treatment and say bugger off home/to hospice/to simple isolation as you are fucked anyway.

That final one seems like a harsh option. Risk-reward cost-benefit could swing something another way while still making a dent.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> So build more treatment locations -- I am sure the billions spunked away already could have done more, and all those nice overflow places appear to be virtual ghost towns.



They are using some of the nightingale hospitals, they don't have staff for the rest. It takes years to train staff & the uk isn't particularly good at producing nurses.

We struggled even when we had free movement of workers from the EU, but even that option has unfortunately been thrown away now.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> Well yes, because it's not arrogant to follow the advice to go into lockdown. It's arrogant to think that lockdown should be ended because you're special & can somehow avoid covid19. It's magical thinking to the extreme against all evidence.


There's no point in getting mad about people who aren't even a part of the conversation. You can go out there in a hazmat suit with a megaphone and look for lockdown violators to yell at if it'll make you feel better, but it's not going to change the fact that people will eventually revolt against any long term lockdown as they keep realizing the risk to their long term health is negligible. It's going to end one way or another.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> There's no point in getting mad about people who aren't even a part of the conversation. You can go out there in a hazmat suit with a megaphone and look for lockdown violators to yell at if it'll make you feel better, but it's not going to change the fact that people will eventually revolt against any long term lockdown as they keep realizing the risk to their long term health is negligible. It's going to end one way or another.



Well you and they share the same mentality, so I don't think it's wasted.

It would have been over a whole lot quicker if everyone had stuck with it, but Boris fucked that up.

What we can't do now is open everything up, so the quicker you and everyone gets back on board the sooner it will be over.

It's like a drug addict going through withdrawal, all the time you keep going for hits it's just going to take you long. Cold turkey is the only way.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> Well you and they share the same mentality, so I don't think it's wasted.


Bullshit. You have no idea what measures I've been taking or the positions I've been advocating for regarding covid restrictions because you haven't even bothered to ask. The only thing I've proposed is that the lockdown is going to end because people will rebel in the long term, which is a prediction not a call to action. You are tilting at windmills.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> Bullshit. You have no idea what measures I've been taking or the positions I've been advocating for regarding covid restrictions because you haven't even bothered to ask. The only thing I've proposed is that the lockdown is going to end because people will rebel in the long term, which is a prediction not a call to action. You are tilting at windmills.



The lockdown will end because of the vaccine, not because some self important people want it to end. The early may bank holiday is the current prediction, but obviously they could miss that if people keep being idiots.

Categorically if there is some kind of civil unrest because they can't go to the pub in the meantime, then measures will be taken.



FAST6191 said:


> Most of those seem rather trite dismissals.



Your arguments are trite and disingenuous, so who wins?



FAST6191 said:


> Quite happy to have benefits if vaccination efficacy and schedule can be determined be a factor in this as well and the delta there makes sense. As it stands though if they suddenly determined "oh wow look two doses of saline a week apart acts as basically 100% inoculation" then what would that timeframe be -- 60 million people in the country, however many minutes per setup but can be administered by any medic (how many of those exist?), 120 million needles needed (big but probably doable, call it 150 to account for droppages and make distribution easier), might be able to skimp and use disposable ends though. Running that and it is not a short process even in that kind of best case pondered there, how many doses can be produced, what the practical efficacy is (I am seeing rather low numbers for some of them, even if net positive) distributed and given (even before we have those that think it might give them lizard change abilities/the mark of the beast/infertility*, actual medical reasons not to -- 1.8-2.0% allergic to eggs for one, or just care to wait for v3 for fear corners were cut) will likely only make that harder. Numbers administered already are not that high (600k is a lot, but in terms of population if rates do need to be 90% or more still means next winter. Potential to ramp up distribution given that there were months to put it in place already as trials looked certain could make more but how much is realistic here? Is then waiting for some measure of vaccination level worth the tradeoff?
> 
> *never mind that a two injection long term infertility causing treatment would be worth a bloody fortune rather than having to do tubal ligation or vasectomy.



What?


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> The lockdown will end because of the vaccine, not because some self important people want it to end.
> 
> Categorically if there is some kind of civil unrest because they can't go to the pub in the meantime, then measures will be taken.


The lockdown can end because of any number of factors, that's not the point and never was the point. You've taken a hypothetical about public reaction to a hypothetical extended lockdown and decided to tell us all how very mad you are at people who are breaking lockdown restrictions. The thread is clearly not about the lockdown, and we obviously both agree that the lockdown will end one way or another, so why are we going on this pointless tangent?


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FGFlann said:


> The lockdown can end because of any number of factors, that's not the point and never was the point. You've taken a hypothetical about public reaction to a hypothetical extended lockdown and decided to tell us all how very mad you are at people who are breaking lockdown restrictions. The thread is clearly not about the lockdown, and we obviously both agree that the lockdown will end one way or another, so why are we going on this pointless tangent?



The question was asked if there was an alternative and I gave the reasons for why there wasn't.

The rest was aimed at the bullshit free society comments


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> The lockdown will end because of the vaccine, not because some self important people want it to end. The early may bank holiday is the current prediction, but obviously they could miss that if people keep being idiots.
> 
> Categorically if there is some kind of civil unrest because they can't go to the pub in the meantime, then measures will be taken.
> 
> ...



How am I being disingenuous? There are perks, there are drawbacks. I want to be sold on the measures taken as they are going to impact me. Not just "oh it might help someone somewhere, shut up and get it done, your concerns are trifling vs a few old people kicking the bucket". Tell me numbers that make sense and I will ponder them and see where there might be shortcomings, where too much risk is taken or too much caution is used. That is usually how this sort of thing works.

The other part. You said it is needed so vaccines can happen (shifting goalposts from the initial, and generally accepted reason, "flatten the curve" but a reasonable thing -- if you can kick it in the head in short order and it sitting in the house vs going out into the world will have some notable effect on the matter. I went and looked up the numbers achieved thus far and multiplied to get to population (which medics reckon wants to be high percentage, and efficacy would back that up), and even went crazy optimistic scenario as well (that being unlimited doses, easy to administer).
That is not a couple of weeks or anything as much as basically the rest of this year if that rate (which had plenty of prep for the rollout, had everybody sitting around with nothing better to do, and is not so very likely to end up several times higher as I sit here, even before we get to the stragglers and "can't be arsed" types). Even without that I still am looking for numbers to make a calculated risk decision.


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> That is usually how this sort of thing works.



Not during a pandemic, when by the time we've sat around for years arguing about it then everyone is dead. That is what I mean by disingeneous.



FAST6191 said:


> That is not a couple of weeks or anything as much as basically the rest of this year if that rate



Yes, I made that point earlier. They are planning to end lockdown when the most at risk have been vaccinated, but the rest of us will be thrown to the wolves as they reckon they'll only have offered every adult a vaccine by the autumn. We won't know whether if that was a bad idea or not, until it's too late.

It is impossible to give you the numbers you want in a time frame that will make them useful. You'd need some kind of referendum, but people are dumb and easily swayed which is why we aren't in the EU anymore. The Boaty McBoatface effect has put an end to destroying trust in british people.


----------



## FGFlann (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> The question was asked if there was an alternative and I gave the reasons for why there wasn't.


You did not do that. You said lockdown violators need to be trained like puppies. Looking back now I see you've made a ton of edits to your posts which is really unhelpful when having a real time discussion, but whatever. People having agency also does not relate to the concept of "free society" it is the ability of people to decide on their own course of action. There is nothing you can do to take this ability away from a person, short of killing them. You can't ignore this factor when you are taking a course of action that involves an entire nation, it has to be allowed for because people will respond in unexpected ways, especially if the course of action you take does not make sense to the people you are imposing it upon. (Much like Brexit itself.) Like it or not, not everyone views the virus in the same way, many look at the evidence provided and they do not see sufficient risk that justifies these lockdowns. Now why they believe this is neither here nor there, but it is a thing that happens and if you continue imposing upon them they *will* eventually rebel.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> Not during a pandemic, when by the time we've sat around for years arguing about it then everyone is dead. That is what I mean by disingeneous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But not everybody is dead. Infection rates high in terms of likely cases having been had (test numbers vs practical reality where only way to get a test was to be rich/connected or lie and said you know someone that had it means underdiagnosis was likely the order of the day), outcomes usually pretty reasonable for most.

The numbers and efficacy are fairly easily judged and easy to know anyway -- the science types can have fun figuring out specifics and categorising things (quite content to unarse a bunch of money to speed that along as well) but persons infected, deaths/serious outcomes happened, change over year on year. All fairly basic maths well documented and understood for decades (possibly centuries in some cases).
Other countries, different measures taken and general scenarios will give some numbers on what effects things might have.

This level will likely cost this much (work slowdowns, economic turmoil and stoppages are an insurance and national financial planning staple, bad winters another known factor for sitting on your arse/cooped up indoors) and likely stop this many cases, or ensure capacities at hospitals remain under this percent.
This level will cost this much more and likely stop this many cases.
Maybe make a nice slider type setup.
Can help make a nice informed decision that one. I don't need a referendum, just don't like to be told to listen to my betters (especially not by politicians that the vast majority of which would not be able to tell me the scientific method, never mind how to actually read a study, if their life depended upon it -- it is the true believer/salesman problem all over again) and not have them explain things to me.

This level of measure would not be put in place to save one person, thus we have some limit at some level and some tolerated level of death/serious outcomes. At the same time there was scope to leave the house and not have two in the body and one in the head (if nobody is seeing anybody then rates drop through the floor and would be done in [insert infectious period]) so surely that counts as blood on hands -- they made a call that some would die lest everything go with it to do that one. As it stands the efficacy is rather less than some other vaccinations, never mind some kind of realistic ideal, so yet another risk - reward was taken.
Not to mention throughout it all there have been fags and booze sold (in addition to the fat bastard ratio being pumped) which in the long term... is it worth saving a few old people today for a cost of the productive population later? Do I trust politicos to make long term decisions as well? They have been fairly "what will win me the next election" for quite some time now, and basic game theory says they kind of have to be.

Given they can't decide what most at risk means going by that free meals stuff last year and ummed and arred there I don't hold out much hope of a sensible answer from that one. Also want to know what that number is to factor into whether I should support the decision, call them risk happy fools or call them cowards.

I am certainly looking forward to playing coulda, woulda, shoulda, "if I was omniscient and knew what I know now", who did it better, who did it worse, what were the surprising factors, what were the big and small comorbidities in the years to come when we get some nice data to look at and compare to similar countries/regions/demographics. Does not however mean I can't have things explained to me in real time, even if premade paths are taken, never mind less time than it would have taken to do a masters in something. Only reason not to really is for the panicky fools approach if you need to lie to people to somehow make outcomes better and that is a dangerous path to walk, especially if I am supposed to make predictions for myself based upon that (in my case my business is what it is, 5 months- 15 not going to make an awful lot of odds but others have a serious decision for 3 vs 5 and lies to say 3 and will be over just to sound positive is unpleasant).


----------



## smf (Jan 11, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> But not everybody is dead.



For obvious reasons I never claimed they were. The problem is the NHS, as soon as anyone mentions it then peoples brains turn into mush and forget all reason. It's why we left the EU, even though what was said was a lie. It just had to mention NHS.

The strain that covid19 has put on the NHS is why we'll continue lockdown. Nobody wants to go back to the way we handled the plague, where people are left to die behind front doors with crosses to warn people of what is inside.



FAST6191 said:


> I am certainly looking forward to playing coulda, woulda, shoulda,



It's like talking about all the stocks you'd have bought ten years ago if you knew their price today, it's pointless. We know that Boris sat on his hands back in January 2020, it seems the Tories were still sick of experts & that you could beat anything with bravdo. And paying people to visit restaurants during eat out to help out was an obvious disaster (which I refused to partake in), they'd have been better off just giving the restaurants money.

But the medical stuff is going to take forever to figure out and saying I told you so because you made a random prediction based on no evidence, you might as well roll a dice.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 11, 2021)

smf said:


> For obvious reasons I never claimed they were. The problem is the NHS, as soon as anyone mentions it then peoples brains turn into mush and forget all reason. It's why we left the EU, even though what was said was a lie. It just had to mention NHS.
> 
> The strain that covid19 has put on the NHS is why we'll continue lockdown. Nobody wants to go back to the way we handled the plague, where people are left to die behind front doors with crosses to warn people of what is inside.


Doesn't have to be that far, such things might not even come to pass. Could be less harsh than what is happening now though. Or might need to be more. Is the strain too much that outcomes change enough or is it just strained (one might say something being strained is closer to optimal usage).

That I have not been given models being used, maybe some nice alternative models, thresholds sought or thought justifiable, and data to play with, and sometimes even seem actively discouraged from playing means I struggle to make an informed decision about things.
That is my main misgiving. They work for me, they need to justify their decisions (especially when they affect me), else I am going to have to continue with heavy scepticism and questioning as the default approach (I probably would anyway -- very little I have seen in some time now, as in decades, has given me any sense of competence, compassion or ability but there is a difference between baseline cynicism and active distrust).


----------



## Iamapirate (Jan 11, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I said it long before Brexit and I'll say it again now: ultimately all that changes is the price of things went up a bit in the UK, and they get to keep more immigrants out of the country.  Returning to isolationism in the 21st century is not really an option; everything, including much of the world's economy, is online.


What's wrong with keeping immigrants out of your country? You aren't obligated to bring people in. Any immigration should be on your terms and people who'd be of benefit to the country (not just economic, but people who will culturally assimilate)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 11, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> What's wrong with keeping immigrants out of your country?


Assuming your country isn't so ultra-imperialist that it once invaded and occupied at least half of the world, nothing.  Otherwise, it's more than a bit hypocritical, what with that imperialism being the cause of so much immigration to begin with.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2021)

Got a question: What does the new U.K. Driver's License Card look like?

Don't suppose they just replaced the EU flag with the Union Jack flag, eh?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Assuming your country isn't so ultra-imperialist that it once invaded and occupied at least half of the world, nothing.  Otherwise, it's more than a bit hypocritical, what with that imperialism being the cause of so much immigration to begin with.



Because history that the end of which is barely in living memory (the decline and end of the empire varies on dates but at the very latest of any real power was 1956 (the Suez crisis, so if you were 15 at the time you would be statistically brushing up against life expectancy) and more likely was done after world war 2 (so 1945) with it being in something of a serious decline for a lot longer, indeed the move to post industrial, computer age and radically different setup then something must happen today even if the would be populace does not care for it (arguably the more important metric)?
Hard sell that one, even more so trying to bill it as hypocritical.

There are plenty of reasons to want and encourage people to wander over but some non existent guilt for historical actions... not going to get far with that one.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jan 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Assuming your country isn't so ultra-imperialist that it once invaded and occupied at least half of the world, nothing.  Otherwise, it's more than a bit hypocritical, what with that imperialism being the cause of so much immigration to begin with.


I fail to see how that's relevant to the present day. The UK should care for the citizens of the UK, and worry about foreigners second.


----------



## Slim45 (Jan 12, 2021)

emigre said:


> I guess it's safe
> 
> 
> It was 52 to 48. Currently, the biggest benefit is taking back control but based on how the negotiations are going, I'm not sure I want the GOvernment to be taking control of anything.


the uk already had control on a lot of issues and the best deal out of any member country right down to its own currency and being the financial center for the eu.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 12, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> I fail to see how that's relevant to the present day. The UK should care for the citizens of the UK, and worry about foreigners second.


Yeah, given their poor handling of the coronavirus, I suppose there aren't exactly hoards of people banging at the gates to get in right now anyway.  Only time will tell how much of a negative impact Brexit has on tourism and workers relocating for their careers.  The rest of us can only laugh at the UK for having cut off their nose to spite the face, though I do feel slightly bad for the role that Trumpism might've played in influencing their decision.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 12, 2021)

There are *1.2 million illegal immigrants* in the UK - a quarter of the entire total in Europe. Lets hope they leave the doors alone so this tiny island can cope with it's massive overpopulation problem.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> There are *1.2 million illegal immigrants* in the UK - a quarter of the entire total in Europe. Lets hope they leave the doors alone so this tiny island can cope with it's massive overpopulation problem.


Sounds like corporate over-reliance on cheap/free labor, the exact same problem the US has.  Stricter immigration policy won't fix the problem, only implementing a path to citizenship and cracking down hard on businesses/corporations for hiring illegals will.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> There are *1.2 million illegal immigrants* in the UK - a quarter of the entire total in Europe. Lets hope they leave the doors alone so this tiny island can cope with it's massive overpopulation problem.


That figure is an estimate by the Pew Research Centre, which estimated that there were between 800,000 and 1.2 million “unauthorised immigrants” in the UK in 2017. This research came out in 2019.


This figure included people living without a “residency permit in their country of residence who are not citizens of any European Union or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country”, as well as children born to those people. (The research looked at the unauthorised immigrant numbers in countries across Europe.)


Broadly, Pew calculated this by comparing the number of non-EU citizens in the UK with the number who had valid visas. However, there isn’t currently an accurate figure for how many non-EU residents have permanent residence, rather than those on temporary visas that are still valid. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University says that this is one of several factors which “raises significant questions about the accuracy of the estimates”.


Pew also included asylum seekers who were waiting for a decision from the government on whether they could be recognised as refugees.


The Migration Observatory have also looked at a number of different estimates done of the illegal migrant population since 2001. These put the current figure at 120,000 illegal immigrants currently in the UK. 

Quite a big difference from the estimated 1.2 million by Pew Research to the figures by The Mitigation Observatory.

We have no real way of knowing what the official figure is.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 12, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Sounds like corporate over-reliance on cheap/free labor, the exact same problem the US has.  Stricter immigration policy won't fix the problem, only implementing a path to citizenship and cracking down hard on businesses/corporations for hiring illegals will.



You may well be right, I'm not an expert. Id tend to agree cheap labour was a huge problem, especially when we were in the EU because you'd get a lot of poles/romanians coming over for work. Cheap labour in the uk was still 10x what they'd earn back home, hopefully that will end now.


AmandaRose said:


> That figure is an estimate by the Pew Research Centre, which estimated that there were between 800,000 and 1.2 million “unauthorised immigrants” in the UK in 2017. This research came out in 2019.
> 
> 
> This figure included people living without a “residency permit in their country of residence who are not citizens of any European Union or European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country”, as well as children born to those people. (The research looked at the unauthorised immigrant numbers in countries across Europe.)
> ...



1.2million or 1, It's too many, they're illegal and they make a mockery of genuine asylum seekers who go through the proper channels.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> You may well be right, I'm not an expert. Id tend to agree cheap labour was a huge problem, especially when we were in the EU because you'd get a lot of poles/romanians coming over for work. Cheap labour in the uk was still 10x what they'd earn back home, hopefully that will end now.


Corporations will only do the right thing when they have no other option, when they've been boxed into a corner by regulations.  Short of that, they'll just keep moving from one source of cheap labor to the next, and eventually decide that outsourcing is the best way to maximize profits.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> You may well be right, I'm not an expert. Id tend to agree cheap labour was a huge problem, especially when we were in the EU because you'd get a lot of poles/romanians coming over for work. Cheap labour in the uk was still 10x what they'd earn back home, hopefully that will end now.
> 
> 
> 1.2million or 1, It's too many, they're illegal and they make a mockery of genuine asylum seekers who go through the proper channels.


By existing?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2021)

Iamapirate said:


> I fail to see how that's relevant to the present day. The UK should care for the citizens of the UK, and worry about foreigners second.


Care? They've decided to put everyone in lockdown again (not that it ever ended, just postponed).

Lockdowns can and will affect people mentally and physically, and not leaving their houses (or apartments) makes them not be able to breathe fresh air (capital cities tend to be polluted but still), see the wonderful blue sky and its sun and just enjoy life in itself.

Moreover, I have seen so many "What should I ____ during the lockdown?" on the web that it shows what's doing to them. They're making people anti-social and afraid of everything and everyone.

Finally, this will be hard for them to go back to normal (if there ever is again) due to what they've been put through. Basically, it's psychological warfare.



shamzie said:


> There are *1.2 million illegal immigrants* in the UK - a quarter of the entire total in Europe. Lets hope they leave the doors alone so this tiny island can cope with it's massive overpopulation problem.



The illegal immigrants are usually from Europe, Africa and Asia, although those who were in U.K. for five or more years could have applied for the permanent resident application (if eligible). My dysfunctional cousin is somewhere in U.K. and God knows what he's doing. Last time he was with us he nearly commenced a fight by pretending he was the victim and not paying what he owes.

Family can be a real pain sometimes.

Anyway, Sham, Brexit is good, but too little too late. At best, it'll take decades to fix the mess they created by joining the EU (luckily they didn't change to that shit currency of the Euro). Now with COVID and its lockdowns? Don't expect things to go back to normal any time soon.


----------



## Iamapirate (Jan 12, 2021)

I'm not referring to the current situation but in a more generalised sense. I don't like lockdowns either.


----------



## smf (Jan 12, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Doesn't have to be that far, such things might not even come to pass. Could be less harsh than what is happening now though. Or might need to be more. Is the strain too much that outcomes change enough or is it just strained (one might say something being strained is closer to optimal usage).



I'm not sure what you're saying, but southend hospital is now rationing oxygen.

Clearly relaxing lockdown in the next couple of months is not on the cards, if anything restrictions are going to be (necessarily) increased. 



FAST6191 said:


> Because history that the end of which is barely in living memory (the decline and end of the empire varies on dates but at the very latest of any real power was 1956 (the Suez crisis, so if you were 15 at the time you would be statistically brushing up against life expectancy) and more likely was done after world war 2 (so 1945) with it being in something of a serious decline for a lot longer, indeed the move to post industrial, computer age and radically different setup then something must happen today even if the would be populace does not care for it (arguably the more important metric)?
> Hard sell that one, even more so trying to bill it as hypocritical.



There are plenty of people who were alive during WW2 and thought they were reliving the fight against nazi germany when they voted to leave. There is a large number of people who weren't alive during WW2 that wanted to fight against nazi germany and voted to leave for the same reason.

MAGA/UKIP are the same kind of delusional idiots.



Slim45 said:


> the uk already had control on a lot of issues and the best deal out of any member country right down to its own currency and being the financial center for the eu.



Yes, the UK threw away the best deal ever for one that will hurt fishermen & other exporters and importers because of some lies and racism.



shamzie said:


> There are *1.2 million illegal immigrants* in the UK - a quarter of the entire total in Europe. Lets hope they leave the doors alone so this tiny island can cope with it's massive overpopulation problem.



The UK doesn't have a massive overpopulation problem. We could do with ditching some of the lazy UK born people though.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Boesy said:


> Anyway, Sham, Brexit is good, but too little too late.



Brexit was bought by the rich for their own gains, not ours & certainly not for all the reasons that were promised.

Tax evaders and racists are the only ones likely to benefit in some way, but racists will lose out in many others.
Billionaires can buy what they lost, it's a long term goal for them & if it turns out they were worse off then they have so much money they won't care.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 12, 2021)

smf said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying, but southend hospital is now rationing oxygen.
> 
> Clearly relaxing lockdown in the next couple of months is not on the cards, if anything restrictions are going to be (necessarily) increased.
> 
> ...



The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a population of *63.18 million people (*turns out its* 67,886,011, It's gone up 4million in 4 years, crazy)* in an area of *93,628* *sq miles*. The United States of America has a population of *331.35 million* in an area of *3,805,927* *sq miles*.

Now It doesn't take a mathematical genius to workout the *UK has 25% the population of the United States but only 2.5% of their land mass. THATS A PROBLEM*. That's not even comparing the UK to a country like Australia which has like a third of our population and 3x the landmass. Just because YOU dont see it as a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've sat and watched grasslands and farmlands near me be destroyed to make way for more houses because THERES TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE. I'd like my children to be able to play football on the same grass I did growing up. Maybe you should leave and take your massive hard work to the EU, you clearly bring in so much they'd be happy to have you.

Anyway I digress , you were crying about racism and maga or some shit as usual. Do go on.


----------



## smf (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Now It doesn't take a mathematical genius to workout the *UK has 25% the population of the United States but only 2.5% of their land mass. THATS A PROBLEM*.



Why is that a problem?

Racists have lied about the UK being overcrowded for years, it's not changed.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 12, 2021)

smf said:


> Why is that a problem?
> 
> Racists have lied about the UK being overcrowded for years, it's not changed.



What's race got to do with overpopulation. I never mentioned race yet you naturally gravitate towards it. I've already demonstrated why It's a problem, because England is losing It's natural beauty, I don't want to see our greenbelt destroyed for more homes when we already have limited landmass compared to other countries. At this point I'm just going to assume you're being dumb on purpose and leave you to cry in your racist blackhole. I mean whitehole. I mean hole.


----------



## smf (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> What's race got to do with overpopulation. I never mentioned race yet you naturally gravitate towards it.



Because you talk about closing the borders to control population.



shamzie said:


> I've already demonstrated why It's a problem, because England is losing It's natural beauty, I don't want to see our greenbelt destroyed for more homes when we already have limited landmass compared to other countries.



Don't have children & convince the other people who think britain is too full to do the same thing, if you're that worried.



shamzie said:


> At this point I'm just going to assume you're being dumb on purpose and leave you to cry in your racist blackhole. I mean whitehole. I mean hole.



I'm not being dumb on purpose, you're being dumb by accident.

Come up with better excuses if you want to hide your prejudice.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 12, 2021)

smf said:


> Because you talk about closing the borders to control population.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Population=/race. No. If I said "Hey lets close the borders to Africa and Asia but leave it open to all the White Europeans you might have a point. However I didn't say that so population=/race isn't the same thing and you're wrong. You also know you're wrong but you're too stubborn to admit the fact that population growth on our tiny island is out of control and you can't talk about the subject like an adult instead you resort to what your hippie teacher taught you, everybody who disagrees *with me must be racist.*

I shouldn't have children and let them enjoy all the wonderful things my *birthright *of being born in this country and being a legal citizen has afforded me because you want open borders. You're insane.


----------



## smf (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> I shouldn't have children and let them enjoy all the wonderful things my *birthright *of being born in this country and being a legal citizen has afforded me because you want open borders. You're insane.



And there you go by spoiling it, birthright is racism.

You think your children have more of a claim to live here, because you were born here. Which is just accidental, you didn't choose to do it. Your parents just happened to be here.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 12, 2021)

smf said:


> And there you go by spoiling it, birthright is racism.
> 
> You think your children have more of a claim to live here, because you were born here. Which is just accidental, you didn't choose to do it. Your parents just happened to be here.



'Being born is racist'

You're right in the fact It's accidental. It's a lottery and my children won the birthright lottery. Nothing racist about it, that's life. Try and make a point without race baiting and we can continue the topic.


----------



## smf (Jan 12, 2021)

shamzie said:


> You're right in the fact It's accidental. It's a lottery and my children won the birthright lottery. Nothing racist about it, that's life. Try and make a point without race baiting and we can continue the topic.



It's not racist to be born, it's racist when you say that the country is full and the only solution is to stop foreigners coming here to protect it for your children.

But I'm sure your argument makes sense to you.

In reality we needed immigration, but facts are not as important as the feeling of stopping foreigners coming here.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> It's not racist to be born, it's racist when you say that the country is full and the only solution is to stop foreigners coming here to protect it for your children.



I can't get to that one.

Had it been "UK for native british only (whatever that is, though I suppose without notable invasions for some centuries then you could probably standardise), kick the others out" then maybe.

A "everybody established here is good, let's go from here without adding more" is a different matter entirely.

As the original quoted parts fail to make a distinction there you are going to have a hard time justifying a classification of such.

Whether such things would lead to any good for the UK or for the countries they might be coming from* (whatever you might classify that as) is a different matter again. Can't say isolationism seems like a great plan, especially if we are not going to purge the nimby/banana set that don't want to hear the sound of a hammer (never mind smell something malodorous of the industrial flavour) but again different aspect of the discussion.

*if your best and brightest bugger off in their prime years and never return or only return to retire it does rather impact your country/area (nobody left to do the hard jobs, play entrepreneur, do nice social projects...), even more so if their kids/grandkids do not come with them (intelligence having a nice genetic component and all that).


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> A "everybody established here is good, let's go from here without adding more" is a different matter entirely.



Not really, it tends to hide a desire to "send em back to where they came from". Which we saw a lot of after the brexit vote.

And whether they are honest enough to say it or not, Britain prospered with immigration & leaving the EU is going to be worse for everyone except racists.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> Not really, it tends to hide a desire to "send em back to where they came from". Which we saw a lot of after the brexit vote.
> 
> And whether they are honest enough to say it or not, Britain prospered with immigration & leaving the EU is going to be worse for everyone except racists.



Would such a group likely be overrepresented in that? Sure.
Can it be assumed for the purposes of discussion in this instance? Not from where I sit.

Upsides and downsides. Can see both (there are costs*, there are perks**, there are uncertainties, what values you assign to each is variable and that is just monetarily, go a "monetary cost worth paying for a greater good" debate*** and that gets even more nebulous which is fine as it is then the basis of a discussion) and I thought that is what we were here to discuss. Shit flinging just makes a mess of everything.


*more people, more demand on housing/food/power/civil supply and services, higher costs, though higher costs is good for some (if you happen to be selling/renting/building houses or supplying food./.../). Also means greater tax base if said tax base is being tapped in a ponzi scheme that is supposed to be funding pensions and healthcare.

**good people are hard to find, if you can drag some in then so much the better (at least for you, the countries they came from might have liked to keep them and others they skipped over because yours was within pain threshold for moving might also have liked them). Whether every person that wanders over is a net boon on the other hand one can debate (the points system ostensibly being an effort to ensure those that wander over are a boon). On the other hand good people might be good but still acts as a depressive force as supply is being met -- if you are compelled to hire from within then might have to stump up more or make it more attractive in other ways (pay and conditions and all that) which is more costly for those offering the role but still a boon for those taking it that might have done something else with more favourable conditions. On the other hand there is still a "eh I won't bother", "meh let's not do it here" or "eh let's get a robot" factor and whether it is likely to reach that before reaching perks then gets to be a matter of debate.

***"by the people and for the people" and all that tends to be how most places are run. If the perks are more intangible than simple monetary or boring basic statistic (though such things that are not basic money might well be highly desirable) and apply to said people then that seems within the remit. Being a charity for the world could also be one of said intangibles, be it in general or if you think the place owes the world a debt for past actions (can't get there myself, indeed find it quite bizarre that any might think that, but it is a mindset that is out there) though.


Now I have serious reservations over this whole leaving the EU lark (being a big block with at least similar red tape certainly has its advantages over being a smaller, potentially more agile, free agent all alone in the world) and that would even be with a competent government (not that I have seen such a thing in many years). Can't dismiss there being considerable potential upsides though.


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

FAST6191 said:


> Now I have serious reservations over this whole leaving the EU lark (being a big block with at least similar red tape certainly has its advantages over being a smaller, potentially more agile, free agent all alone in the world) and that would even be with a competent government (not that I have seen such a thing in many years). Can't dismiss there being considerable potential upsides though.



I've been waiting for someone to come up with real upsides since the referendum, it's all just been half truths at best. Very much like Trump supporters telling us that it's all antifa's fault.


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> I've been waiting for someone to come up with real upsides since the referendum, it's all just been half truths at best.


Upsides will show when preferred trading partners are developing at a faster pace than the EU, which will benefit people involved in said trade. Also, those could be slightly different industries like before. But this should take more than 10 years to surface.

In the meantime, people on lower income, might have less foreign competition to deal with (but their wages wont rise in the near and likely also not mid term). The commitments not to exploit labor markets in that sector (lets say, by an unlimited flow of people looking for work) are real.

The issue is - that all in all, automation still exists, and that for a certain time, the UK has become a less attractive place to invest in overall, at least for certain interests. (English speaking and part of the EU was a pull factor, f.e.) And all sorts of smaller new problems will arise until they are dealt with.(Elder care, .. )


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

notimp said:


> Upsides will show when preferred trading partners are developing at a faster pace than the EU, which will benefit people involved in said trade. But this should take more than 10 years to surface.



And all the big markets are likely to go to the EU first, with better deals as they've already been negotiating.



notimp said:


> In the meantime, people on lower income, might have less foreign competition to deal with



Competition hasn't driven down wages, because immigration fueled growth. Getting rid of immigration won't have a positive effect, the economy is just going to contract.



notimp said:


> The issue is - that all in all, automation still exists, and that for a certain time, the UK has become a less attractive place to invest in overall.



Yeah, "Brexiteer billionaire Jim Ratcliffe moves Grenadier production to EU".


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> And all the big markets are likely to go to the EU first, with better deals as they've already been negotiating.


Sure, but you dont pay the EUs 'egality taxes' anymore, so in theory you are 'more nimble' more adaptive, can exploit labor more easily, ..  If you have something, that you are especially good at, and that might be in demand in a growing economy somewhere else - you can drive that full force, and without taking other partner countries interests into considerastion, to a larger extent.

Issue - I dont know what that is yet. But in certain parts of the EU its 'market leadership' in a certain (can be) small business niche, and in the past for the City of London especially it has been financial services.

If you go back to the Dominic Cummings 'institutional rectification checkup' Dominic Cummings had to go through before becoming elected into government (video is linked in a Brexit thread here), he was tested on the proposed benefits and costs of Brexit by the fiscal (?) guardians of the state - so on a higher level than just the PR level, but still with a PR slant to it (his capability to do the job was tested there), you should find some (partly ideological, but still 'true') lessons.

edit: Here - this one:




smf said:


> Competition hasn't driven down wages, because immigration fueled growth. Getting rid of immigration won't have a positive effect, the economy is just going to contract.


Correct, I only talked about job competition for people in the lower income sectors. (If you were qualified over the rest, even at lower income, its still bad news. And overall depending on how much growth fulled your sector in the past, it might still be bad news.)


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

notimp said:


> Sure, but you dont pay the EUs 'egality taxes' anymore,



No, but we don't benefit from the things that they funded either. The leave campaign don't tend to own up to all the extra costs of leaving, now that we have taken back control of all the regulatory bodies then we need to fund those for example.

It's like deciding to give up your six figure salary and going on benefits, because you don't like paying tax.


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> No, but we don't benefit from the things that they funded either.
> 
> It's like deciding to give up your six figure salary and going on benefits, because you don't like paying tax.


You've got the free market, sans and agreement for services - without paying too much into common projects (dont ask me the figure..  ) thats - something. (At the same time, relations with Scotland are deteriorating..  )

But if you listen to the hour long questioning session (which uppon rewatching is a whole lot of nothing), having more flexibility in regulating your services sectors is touted as one of the main benefits.

Also no one on the governments panel side believed that this would be a huge gain for the country probably following the complexities of economic developments quite thoroughly. So you go and prove them wrong..  You make your own future!


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

notimp said:


> You've got the free market



Not exactly, it seems the deal isn't quite what was promised. Scotland is currently unable to export fish to the EU (which includes Northern Ireland).

Other companies are being hit by tariffs because we don't make enough of it here, which is quite normal as we don't make all of practically anything.

Seed potatoes are excluded too, which were a big export.


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> Other companies are being hit by tariffs because we don't make enough of it here, which is quite normal as we don't make all of practically anything.


Thats on imports of components? Yep. Supplyroutes could be restructured though. Although that will impact what you can produce.

Scotland is not only unhappy, because of its fishery sector, I can tell you that..  (Afair its net trade balance with the rest of the UK is negative. And they have natural resources, so they are likely paying a higher price just to keep the UK stable.)

First time I've heard about seed potatoes.

But thats the idea of it - its not only about fixed trade barriers or imbalances, its about potential restructuring and growth potential. Near term, and in the future. (If you see the EU tanking, and the UK thriving f.e. - that also counts.)

Short term (next ten years), there are very few outcomes you could mention as a positive  - but even that might be industry dependent.


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

notimp said:


> Thats on imports of components?



No, food. UK supermarkets who distribute food to their shops in the EU. Marks and Spencers for example.



notimp said:


> Scotland is not only unhappy, because of its fishery sector, I can tell you that..



A lot of fishermen have been talking about packing it in now that we've left the EU. It's a terrible deal for them.
The UK will probably lose Scotland at this rate.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/lif...ottish-potato-seed-misses-out-in-brexit-deal/


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> No, food. UK supermarkets who distribute food to their shops in the EU. Marks and Spencers for example.





> Perhaps most vitally, the deal avoids punishing tariffs that could have pushed average food prices up 5%, according to Tesco chairman John Allan. Given the majority of the UK’s food imports come from the EU, BRC CEO Helen Dickinson says the deal should allow British households to breathe “a collective sigh of relief”.


src: https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/brexit/...exit-deal-on-uk-food-and-drink/651862.article

see also:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55460948


----------



## smf (Jan 13, 2021)

notimp said:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55460948



The bbc article was written before they understood the issues.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-trade-agreement-supermarket-food-b1786682.html

*Brexit trade agreement ‘unworkable’ for UK supermarkets, MPs told*
*Retailers and suppliers battling through ‘impenetrable’ red tape that has resulted in empty shelves in Northern Ireland*
*...*
*“We did not get the final confirmation for how product could move until 31 December for a 1 January start.*
*....*
*Retailers warned that problems could deepen on 1 April when a temporary easing of border checks will end.*
*....*
*He cited one multinational company that found customs checks and certifications on a mixed consignment of goods to the EU would previously have taken three hours to complete now takes five days.*


----------



## notimp (Jan 13, 2021)

smf said:


> The bbc article was written before they understood the issues.
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/brexit-trade-agreement-supermarket-food-b1786682.html
> 
> ...


Short term. Afaik.

They had 2 weeks or so to prepare.

edit: Ok, retailers say its structural. Ouch...

edit2: But UK government rejected the issue:


> On Sunday night the UK Government rejected the criticisms.
> 
> "The flow of goods between GB and NI has been smooth overall and arrivals of freight have continued to increase substantially over this week," a NIO spokeswoman said. "There are no significant queues at NI ports, and supermarkets are reporting healthy supplies into their Northern Ireland stores."


----------



## smf (Jan 14, 2021)

notimp said:


> edit2: But UK government rejected the issue:



They aren't complaining about queues.

He's just fobbing them off, he probably would just find a way to illegally get the products across the border and hopes they'd do the same.

I know someone in Northern Ireland and he said some of the shelves were starting to have spaces, so we'll see about the long term.

They haven't introduced all the measures yet though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55646360

_But he warned problems would re-emerge if further new certification requirements are introduced in April.
_
It looks like organic produce is also being hit.

It's kinda poetic justice that fishermen and farmers were generally interested in leaving the EU.


----------



## notimp (Jan 14, 2021)

smf said:


> They aren't complaining about queues.
> 
> He's just fobbing them off, he probably would just find a way to illegally get the products across the border and hopes they'd do the same.


That or that followed by increased automation.


----------



## smf (Jan 14, 2021)

notimp said:


> That or that followed by increased automation.



I don't think we're at the point where it would be cost effective, even if it would be funny to have brexit destroy jobs and increase costs.


----------



## notimp (Jan 14, 2021)

smf said:


> I don't think we're at the point where it would be cost effective, even if it would be funny to have brexit destroy jobs and increase costs.


Then more of the first. 

Cant imagine the EU would stop that if its related to food security. I mean its *haha* funny for a week, but c'mon.

US Raisin Bombers to help the UK out? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisin_Bombers


----------



## smf (Jan 14, 2021)

notimp said:


> Cant imagine the EU would stop that if its related to food security. I mean its *haha* funny for a week, but c'mon.



Fish exported to the EU need to be inspected by a vet now, even though fish caught from the same waters by an EU fisherman do not and the fish haven't been told that they are no longer in the EU.

Kinda crazy, but then as you say food security. I guess it's down to what could have been done to the fish since they've been caught and the EU fishermen are under the EU courts while the British fishermen are not.


----------



## emigre (Jan 15, 2021)

There have been two notable articles of businesspeople complaining about he struggles the new arrangement is bringing. Considering how the fishing industry was one fo the mere emotive arguments for the leave campaign.

You also have Kate Hoey (ex-MP) complaining about what impact Brexit is having on Northern Ireland despite actively campaigning for it. 

It really staggers belief.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 15, 2021)

While "careful what you wish for" is quite amusing to ponder I would be careful to figure out what is a case of that is the logical outcome and failure of implementation (because hands up everybody that thought the whole process was well planned, well managed and ultimately well executed? What about hands up those who thought "could have been done better but hindsight and all that, however happy with what was obtained/done"?).

Now I would say incompetence is kind of expected from all this -- hard, soft, looser ties, cancel the lot all failing to get anything like a majority or a mandate and have any govs this last... lifetime of any PMs concerned particularly inspired in their ability to play hardball?


----------



## notimp (Jan 15, 2021)

emigre said:


> There have been two notable articles of businesspeople complaining about he struggles the new arrangement is bringing. Considering how the fishing industry was one fo the mere emotive arguments for the leave campaign.
> 
> You also have Kate Hoey (ex-MP) complaining about what impact Brexit is having on Northern Ireland despite actively campaigning for it.
> 
> It really staggers belief.


You also have people that call it an unknown unknown, simply comment on that investment rates are falling and call it a day.


----------



## smf (Jan 15, 2021)

emigre said:


> You also have Kate Hoey (ex-MP) complaining about what impact Brexit is having on Northern Ireland despite actively campaigning for it.
> 
> It really staggers belief.



brexiteers are all deranged, they were always going to blame everyone for the obvious problems caused by their actions.


----------



## notimp (Jan 16, 2021)

smf said:


> Fish exported to the EU need to be inspected by a vet now, even though fish caught from the same waters by an EU fisherman do not and the fish haven't been told that they are no longer in the EU.
> 
> Kinda crazy, but then as you say food security. I guess it's down to what could have been done to the fish since they've been caught and the EU fishermen are under the EU courts while the British fishermen are not.


This sounds like some of this can be solved by increasing storage capacity:
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-food-shortages-fears-grow-eu-truckers-avoid-uk-ports-830040

And streamlining the process.


Also:

And the worker rights "restructuring" is rolling in.. 
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/g...-roll-back-workers-rights-after-brexit-832536


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 18, 2021)

notimp said:


> This sounds like some of this can be solved by increasing storage capacity:
> https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-food-shortages-fears-grow-eu-truckers-avoid-uk-ports-830040
> 
> And streamlining the process.
> ...



It says they deny changing anything regarding workers rights, everything else in the article is irrelevant until they say they're changing workers rights.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2021)

shamzie said:


> It says they deny changing anything regarding workers rights, everything else in the article is irrelevant until they say they're changing workers rights.


^
This is what brainwashing will do to you:


> Officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) are reported to be drawing up a consultation to overhaul labour laws as Boris Johnson seeks ways to make businesses more competitive post-Brexit.
> 
> Labour has branded the proposals a “disgrace” and has written to the Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, demanding that he deny reports that the 48-hour working week directive, holiday-pay provisions and rest breaks are under threat, first reported by the _Financial Times._





> *Stimulate business growth*
> Downing Street refused to deny that it was looking at the area, with Mr Johnson’s official spokesman adding: “We will continue to look at policies to help stimulate business growth, innovation and job creation but those policies would never be at the expense of workers’ rights.”
> 
> The shadow Business Secretary, Ed Miliband, said: “These proposals are not about cutting red tape for businesses but ripping up vital rights for workers. They should not even be up for discussion.”





> But any significant move away from labour standards will be closely scrutinised by Brussels, as it could break the non-regressions clauses contained in the Brexit trade deal signed only last month.
> 
> The EU could retaliate with tariffs if it can show any change constitutes a significant material impact on trade or investment.



Followed by an overspecific non denial denial:


> The Government said that labour-market policy was kept under “regular review” to ensure that businesses had the “appropriate freedoms and flexibility to innovate and grow” while safeguarding protections for workers.



I think you are an example for someone who can read, but lacks the ability to understand what they have read.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 18, 2021)

notimp said:


> ^
> This is what brainwashing will do to you:
> 
> 
> ...



Person A says 1. Person B (you) WELL OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE LYING AND THEY DONT MEAN IT. You're boring as fuck.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Person A says 1. Person B (you) WELL OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE LYING AND THEY DONT MEAN IT. You're boring as fuck.


- Reporting that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is drawing up a draft on reforming labor laws. From a reputable source, reported in a reputable business journal.
- Head of the opposition demanding a denial on specfics
- Department refuses to deny the points layed out, but instead denies something that wasnt even proposed ("well do annual reviews!")
- Followed by a legal reason why they have to lie that this had taken place.

You: They denied it, and the rest is not important.
And then: Wanna pick a fight?

If I ever see you in a bar, I laugh in your face, and leave with your girlfriend.


----------



## Doran754 (Jan 18, 2021)

notimp said:


> - Reporting that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is drawing up a draft on reforming labor laws. From a reputable source, reported in a reputable business journal.
> - Head of the opposition demanding a denial on specfics
> - Department refuses to deny the point, but instead denies something that wasnt even proposed ("well do annual reviews!")
> - Followed by a legal reason why they have to lie that this had taken place.
> ...



Laws are reformed all the time, try and not jump too the worst conclusion possible after they've said they've got no plans too change it. Just a thought. Crazy I know.


----------



## notimp (Jan 18, 2021)

shamzie said:


> Laws are reformed all the time, try and not jump too the worst conclusion possible after they've said they've got no plans too change it. Just a thought. Crazy I know.


You are correct on this one: Its not in action yet. But government said - "draw me up a vision on how this would look like".


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 7, 2021)

Hate to bump this thread again, but there are two things that I'm kind of wondering about now...

1) the recent habit of UK government to buy ads in local newspapers that are disguised as news articles, and that highlight a handful of companies that are doing great despite of brexit.
On the surface, it reeks of cheap propaganda. It's as if I would pay someone to say the following :



			
				someguy said:
			
		

> Taleweaver is always right on whatever he says!!!
> 
> 
> (this post is sponsored by Taleweaver)



But that's the thing : because of the disclaimer, the whole ad undermines itself and achieves an opposite goal. If brexit's do great why don't the newspapers do their own stories on it? They were largely in favor of it to begin with, so why not bring their own stories rather than act like a capitalist version of communism (1)? 

And then there's the 'despite of brexit' part. Granted, I've heard about it through channels that are critical of it to begin with, but the tone isn't 'brexit is great because...' but a 'we've managed despite the hurdles'.

The cynical me likes to believe that brexit is such a total train wreck that not only have the newspapers abandoned all hope to say something positive but even the government is reaching for straws to prevent being boo-ed out of work so they're covertly saying 'okay there's no advantage at all... But it's doable'.
...but I'm not sure on this. As my parody quote indicates : this is just drawing attention to the problem. How is this a better strategy than quietly hoping it'll get better? At the very least there's the 'why's my tax player's money being used for this?' criticism (not mine, but my sources are obviously from the UK), so there's that... But what possible advantage could it have? Quiet the dumber UK residents? 

Unfortunately, the second thing is of a larger scale. And is even more absurd... 
2) the northern Ireland situation (or protocol, so you will). 
This whole thing has always sounded like a'trying to get your cake and eat it to ' situation (which I can almost hear Johnson say, really). More specifically ' we want to leave the single market but don't want to have a real border with countries that use it '.
On one hand, there's the UK internal laws regarding northern Ireland. That good Friday agreement thingy. Nobody wants to mess with it, although the DUP (local political party) is opposed, if I understand things correctly. That whole' leave the single market 'was necessary because it was pushed for (critics claim that it was never what people had in mind when voting to leave, but on the other hand :' brexit is brexit '). So it took the whole transitional period to come up with a way out of this dilemma. 

The solution? Have the border on the Irish sea instead. So customs checks between northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Workable, not in breach of agreements and even that villainous EU was kind enough to give a grace period on top of the earlier transition period because... Well... There wasn't transitioning much in that period and the UK was too stubborn to accept extensions (I have no idea how this is different aside the name, but that's a discussion I won't follow). 
Of course that DUP wasn't happy, which I can really understand. I mean... A border within the UK? They might just as well rejoin Ireland then. 
But ey... You can't please everyone, right? 

But again that 'have your cake and eat it' situation : earlier on Britain had proposed legislation against their own deal on this. Perhaps to cater more to the DUP than carrying about international treaties? Either way... That got shot down before it got anywhere, so... 

Wait... No. Sorry. Back up : remember that I said the EU kindly gave a grace period? That means not all goods are currently taxed or checked as was intended by the deal. Just a minimum, to minimize disruption. Of course there IS disruption, don't get me wrong. That's just what you get when you want different trade laws from your neighbors. But they're not as much. I'd call it a transitional period but the UK government doesn't like that term. 

But now the UK has decided to extend that grace period because there are disruptions. And potentially drop all the checks. 
Erm... Gee. It's kind of hard not to get pedantic about this, but someone needs to look up the definition of 'a deal'. The EU allowed for the grace period, not the UK. The UK can decide to NEGOTIATE an extension with the EU but not change the terms on their own. Doing that would be - and frankly : is - a breach of international law.
I'll admit that that 'and potentially drop all the checks' is really just the DUP spokesman talking. Since they rather tore up the good Friday agreement, I can see their opinion... But from my point of view they got overruled by the UK government. Yes, they've got the right to disagree, no they shouldn't make public statements like this. 

Ahem... Back on - topic: that illegal extension isn't just damaging for any future deals with other countries your going to make ('so... Why should we sign a trade deal with you if you' re just going to alter parts of it in a couple months without consultation? '). In the most absurd way possible, the timing couldn't be worse.

See... That trade deal with the EU? While finalized, it hasn't been put into law yet (ratified' s the fancy word for it). Back when it was signed, translations still had to be done, copies sent out to all the EU leaders and potential questions needed to be asked. I'd say 'similar to in the uk', but I've heard Johnson didn't want any of that process. 
That has now been done, and voting to agree with the UK on the deal is set to take place in... 
Johnson : haai guys! Don't mind me... We're just extending your grace period, mmkay? 

So... What the hell is this? The end of last year was like a tense car race
(sports commenter voice) 'is it going to be a deal? Is it a no - deal? Still a deal? No deal? A deal is getting more likely! No deal is gaining traction...a deal is getting second base. Will he make it? No deal is flanking on the right! But oooh! A deal is made right on the Christmas finish line!!! ' 
What was the point of even attempting to strike a deal if you can't even commit to the basics?
I get that Boris doesn't want to take responsibility for a no deal brexit, but perhaps he should try fucking steer AWAY from it instead of chasing it head first. 


(1): no, it's never thought I'd say something like that ever, but that's what it am mounts to : 'we' ll run all the government stories provided we're payed for them. We're just not going to pretend it's an article, that's all '.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Mar 7, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Unfortunately, the second thing is of a larger scale. And is even more absurd...
> 2) the northern Ireland situation (or protocol, so you will).
> This whole thing has always sounded like a'trying to get your cake and eat it to ' situation (which I can almost hear Johnson say, really). More specifically ' we want to leave the single market but don't want to have a real border with countries that use it '.
> On one hand, there's the UK internal laws regarding northern Ireland. That good Friday agreement thingy. Nobody wants to mess with it, although the DUP (local political party) is opposed, if I understand things correctly. That whole' leave the single market 'was necessary because it was pushed for (critics claim that it was never what people had in mind when voting to leave, but on the other hand :' brexit is brexit '). So it took the whole transitional period to come up with a way out of this dilemma.
> ...



The problem is if we have a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland the IRA will likely start fighting again and the unionists are against  the border on the Irish sea solution and may start fighting again in future so I think the government is screwed either way and I think another civil war in Northern Ireland is almost inevitable.

Here's an article that talks about it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56276653


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 7, 2021)

RaptorDMG said:


> The problem is if we have a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland the IRA will likely start fighting again and the unionists are against  the border on the Irish sea solution and may start fighting again in future so I think the government is screwed either way and I think another civil war in Northern Ireland is almost inevitable.
> 
> Here's an article that talks about it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56276653


Not to sound pedantic, but I know all that.

The IRA and the DUP are diametrically opposed to each other's goals. The former want a united Ireland, the latter wants Northern Ireland to be part of the UK. The uneasy truce was always a "okay, so there's a border, but it doesn't mean anything". Not to brag, but that's a solid example of a benefit of the UK being in the single market (as well as Ireland). What I don't understand is why the UK left that in the first place. Albeit partially, as N.I. is currently still in it. It was never part of the 2016 brexit campaign...rather the opposite.

The article already highlighted what I somewhat presumed: the unionists don't want to feel left out. They rather trade more easily with the UK mainland than with Ireland and the rest of the EU, basically. And unless I'm mistaken, that leaves three options, each with one winner and a loser.

1) the UK cancels a part of their brexit plan and rejoins the single market. The whole Irish sea border evaporates and things go back to before. Winner: DUP. Loser: UK government (though again: who really is against this, and why? Is it really that fun to fill in paperwork and pay tariffs?)

2) the status quo: that single market border remains as it is. Winner: UK government (they literally have to do nothing). Loser: DUP (see also: article).

3) the annexation of Northern ireland by Ireland. Winner: IRA. Loser: both DUP and UK government.


Now before you dismiss the last option, hear me out, mkay? Johnson clearly needs support from the DUP to keep in power. At the same time, he cannot give in without either declaring war with the EU or a civil war on their border (or even both...I have no idea how this doomsday scenario will play out). But meanwhile the EU grows pretty tired of these shenanigans. They don't want to get involved in internal politics, but they certainly care about the deal being altered by the UK before it's even put into fucking law. So when the tension on that internal border continues to rise because both parties are trying to secure the goal the other doesn't want, the third option is a pressure effort that should really be on the table for discussion.

Does the EU want Northern Ireland? Of course not. Heck, even Ireland perhaps doesn't want it(1) (the IRA nothwithstanding, obviously). But it solves the problem far more permanent than all this posturing. And not just that: I sort of feel like the UK government is playing some kind of game on the assumption that the worst that can happen to them is a status quo (the "oh, well at least we tried" option). Losing part of their territory would hit some sense in the government: there is actually something at stake in this game. And there is a "you lose" option. I'm sure it'll help them REALLY taking their actions in consideration(2).

And speaking as the devil's advocate: the UK tried this "loaded gun on the table" technique agains the EU. The problem was that they had a proverbially unloaded gun. The EU has the capacity and influence for this. All it takes them is some motivation, which I'm sure the IRA would be glad to provide if the DUP and BoJo keep bickering over this situation as they currently do...



(1): I'm not familiar with how the Northern Ireland situation started in the first place.
(2): last I hear there were still hundreds if not thousands of border patrol jobs left unfilled. If it was a rush job, I'd sympathise with the government's screwup. This isn't a rush job.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 8, 2021)

RaptorDMG said:


> The problem is if we have a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland the IRA will likely start fighting again and the unionists are against  the border on the Irish sea solution and may start fighting again in future so I think the government is screwed either way and I think another civil war in Northern Ireland is almost inevitable.
> 
> Here's an article that talks about it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56276653



Yeah, if I were in Ireland, I'd be all for unification. UK has zero business in "North" Ireland. Like Gibraltar. They export a bunch of their own population, bs catches on, look up most evil empire on youtube - the concensus is clear. UK is asshoe.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 9, 2021)

...and just now I read an article that polling shows that there's a large spike in Wales citizens wants independance. Still a minority, but it rose from like 10ish percent to 40 in a couple years.


And before you pull out polls that showcase the majority of Welshmen voted leave: I'm not talking about brexit. I'm talking about Wales wanting to separate from the UK.



I just don't understand it anymore. I mean...I followed Scotland and Ireland a bit in this part, and occasionally picked up a few tidbits on Gibraltar (who apparently played their hand so that they're now CLOSER to the EU than before the brexit ), but Wales? Fuck...I can barely point them out on the map. Aren't they independent enough right now?


Seriously: keep your shit together, guys. If this keeps up, you've got to rename the country to "regular K".


----------



## Slim45 (Mar 10, 2021)

some Brexiters are racist twats who would rather cut off their leg than see a doctor


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 11, 2021)

Slim45 said:


> some Brexiters are racist twats who would rather cut off their leg than see a doctor


some are just  patriotic men and women who have a sense of pride and want their own borders back. Being mostly Irish w/ grandparents who literally came to the US as endentured servants ("slave-lite" according to historians but family stories are pretty ugly - but the Brits of today had nothing to do w/ it, however it's never too late to right a wrong or at least admit they were wrong in how they treated my people) its amazing how they get a total free pass - the Spanish too - starters of the trasatlantic slave trade.  I don't feel owed anything because of what happened in the past, but I do think the issue of Gibralter and Ireland especially is a no brainer. I would never use violence, and I hope discussions stay civil tho it may be too late.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 11, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> ...and just now I read an article that polling shows that there's a large spike in Wales citizens wants independance. Still a minority, but it rose from like 10ish percent to 40 in a couple years.
> 
> 
> And before you pull out polls that showcase the majority of Welshmen voted leave: I'm not talking about brexit. I'm talking about Wales wanting to separate from the UK.



did you see the latest polls ?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19152152.scottish-independence-no-takes-lead-latest-polls/


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 11, 2021)

JoeBloggs777 said:


> did you see the latest polls ?
> 
> https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19152152.scottish-independence-no-takes-lead-latest-polls/


No, sorry. Thanks for sharing. 

But... Without sounding cynical : has that number gone up or down specifically in, say, a year ago? 
I'm not sure what it is, but it's as if every poll with two extreme differences seem to split roughly down the middle lately ('hey guys... New poll : should we cut off our left hand and say it goodbye or not? 52% say we remain, 46% say sever and 2% is undecided).


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 13, 2021)

Nationalism has been turned into a dirty word ever since Hitler.  But he was a Nationalist Socialist - they differ greatly from basic Nationalism. Yes, some extremist elements find their way into them but that doesn't mean we should dismiss it either (not saying anyone was..) 
People are feeling like their cultures are under attack, namely any white person who isn't a Zionist.  These Zionists meet together and push agendas about multiculturalism, which itself isn't bad, and diversity, again not bad - but never in Israel. It's very confusing to me that they are allowed to keep all their traditions in place and allow only (not trying to make this about Judiasm as the two are very different) Jewish (usually Zionists) entry to their country. 
People love their traditions, and I think the data reflects this. Change is happening too fast, and it's being forced down many throats before they can react or 'digest' the ideas.

Before anyone attacks me, spiritually I believe we are all brothers and sisters - but traditions, namely those that don't hurt anyone else, are unjustly being attacked. 

Curious - do the scots want to remain w/ the EU? or are they, like the British, wanting their own country back rather than part of a globalist bloc?


----------



## notimp (Mar 17, 2021)

Depends on when you ask them. 

The rest of your analysis is a tad erratic, but hey as long as it doesnt hurt anyone, right? 

Here, read this, imho:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism_in_the_Middle_Ages

In some sense, the term was invented, when organizational structures got to the point, where an absolutist ruler could exercise more direct power over local chieftains, who usually scalped tarifs on trading routes.  For that a new unifying concept was needed - that became national identity. That then could lead to stateless ethnicities  - which suddenly found, that they had a problem.  Stating israel as your example of 'look how good they have it' is problematic as well, as they are engaged in a perpetual military conflict over nationality, ethnicity and state borders. That would be a very expensive model to use at world scale. 

Also most people that get into the ideology of zionism are either zionists, or right wing extremists using it as an example of "why are they allowed but not we". The answer to that (with all its faults) is basically "because of what happened during WW2, and how the war turned out".

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/balfour-declaration#:~:text=The area's instability led Britain,of the nation of Israel.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

Cultural identities 'shifting too fast' is kind of a mute point - first, they do all the time, including for the most trivial causes, its still groups or fractions of the public that decide on taking on those changes - and they never get taken on to the extremes they might be proposed to by a political fraction of the time. 'Fear' in that sense is kind of silly. As much as a cultural identity is an abstract - it usually doesnt change peoples believes, or lives on the ground over night. And when it eventually does, per definition, most people have come to grips with it. They be changing me culture too fast, is a great complaint to make, but the rebuttal then becomes, well, then dont change your culture that fast. And by that I mean, you challenge the aspects of change you dont like politically - but at the same time, you dont get to declare 'what speed is the right speed for change' because thats also no how it should work. The entire thing develops as a common agreement over time.

On the right wing front in the US currently its often associated with the fear of loosing 'racial majority' in a political sense - so if you discuss that in an abstract, you might cover up a few sentiments as well...  Also if you reflect back on the role of religion or race for the establishment of the nationalist concept... Then you've learned something as well.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 18, 2021)

eastwald said:


> Curious - do the scots want to remain w/ the EU? or are they, like the British, wanting their own country back rather than part of a globalist bloc?


Most scots voted remain (62%) back in 2016. While it's not likely to have changed much, it's not as if they can 'just' choose to remain, and certainly not at this point.
First thing that they need to push through is separate from the UK. That won't be easy because the UK obviously doesn't want it, and it's not like everyone in Scotland prefers separating rather than remaining in the UK.

And while hard or impossible, it's still just the first hurdle. Say, hypothetically, that they can pull it off somehow. Then they aren't suddenly a EU member. They can apply and follow the agreements, sure... But then the whole border situation that's currently playing out in Ireland becomes an issue between Scotland and England. The EU probably won't allow countries that refuse to be in the single market, and since the (remainder of the) UK isn't, an actual border with checks and customs need to be applied over the whole border.

So... It sucks to be a EU minded Scottish, but I don't think it's likely they'll gain a membership while England is doing its current course.

Oh, and... I have no idea what the rest of your post is about. I'd ask to clarify, but it seems pretty of topic and I don't really want to know


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 21, 2021)

I never said 'look how good Israel has it' - nothing even close. Just that Zionist groups push multiculturalism and diversity everywhere but their own home nation. I just find it strange - never been a fan of double standards.

Not sure where I lost you, or why my analysis was 'erratic'. I'm an old armchair historian, that's why I don't usually get into these kind of topics on video game websites. But I'd rather be erratic and weird than today's version of normal.

I do not fear these people in the slightest. I will never bend my principles or break my moral character to fit in w/ the 'woke' crowd.

I certainly do get to decide what speed my family changes to a large extent, and have been very lucky.  We live in a place we mostly don't have to deal w/ these issues, but it's my grand-kids I worry about more than anything.  I grew up in a very liberal state + 8 years college there, perhaps I'll just leave it at that.

Appreciate your responses. Taleweaver, you can ignore the previous part of this message, but great info and perspective in regards to the situation in the UK w/ the Scots, Whales, North Ire., etc. Take care.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-21-2021/vOAsjR.gif


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 22, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Oh, and... I have no idea what the rest of your post is about. I'd ask to clarify, but it seems pretty of topic and I don't really want to know



Just turned 40 too. You find out very fast, as im sure you have in past years, who your actual friends are. My bday without risking doxing myself as people hate traditionalists who won't date women w/ kool aid hair i.e. w/ a passion - but we're a few days apart. 

Congrats on the kid. I hope you and your girlfriend can turn into a family, and that good stuff ('nuclear family' the american left hates so much).


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 10, 2021)

Ugh...seems like the whole North Ireland situation is getting worse by the week. Now I hear that the riots aren't really reported in English newspapers, but...I really hope this is just an exaggeration, or that papers missed the deadline or something. But it would seem very unwise to pretend everything's okay, when...well...this shit happens:






(source)

So...things aren't going swimmingly. Thus far, I was admittedly more amused than serious in the whole situation (59 pages but I'm still waiting on the first concrete benefit of brexit). But it turns worse once violence starts erupting.


For those not paying attention: how did this all happen? Chronologically, the first part is giving the border between Ireland (EU) and Northern Ireland (UK) hardly any mention. There were unrests before, but the peace process came through well over a decade ago with that "Good Friday agreement" I've mentioned some times (and that my youtube sources keep banging on about). The way I get it, an important part of it is that there'd be no real border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. A local Northern Ireland political party (DUP) always...erm...at best condoned it, but 'abstained' or 'dismissed' is probably better (or "downright hated", if you don't pretend to keep a neutral stance).

I'll admit I had no idea it was due to the EU that the situation Ireland/Northern Ireland was actually peaceful, but it's kind of proving itself now. Why? Because both Ireland and the UK were in the single market...basically a set of standards that both countries agreed upon, which sort of makes custom checks/a hard border unneeded.
The most absurd part on this: *IT WAS NEVER A REQUIREMENT TO LEAVE THE SINGLE MARKET TO LEAVE THE EU!* Rather the contrary: the shining examples that were promised the voting brexit-population included countries like Norway and Switzerland, which aren't full EU members but part of this single market. But ey...somewhere between 2016 and 2020, the UK decided that they didn't want to follow EU membership rules anymore, and don't want to follow the common trade rules of countries not in the EU either. So what perhaps started as a non-issue(1) actually became a full fledged issue under Johnson.

...and then we got to a situation that I can't but describe as anything but "a complete and total lie" by Johnson. See, in order to solve the situation, the UK government sought and got an agreement with the EU that Northern Ireland remained in the EU, and that the hard border was to be set in the Irish sea. But at the same time, he told the public that there would never be a border in the Irish sea.
Granted: youtube commenters can easily pull up soundbites that predate the actual situation (meaning: perhaps Boris didn't lie. He can also be a moron, or dangerously ill-informed. I'll leave it to others to decide what's worse).
Then comes the DUP. Though a supporting part of the UK government - and thus should have voiced concerns BEFORE co-signing this deal - the DUP now realises that they've pretty much helped paving the way to a reunited Ireland (making themselves obsolete in the process). So...they're obviously pissed(2). And they're making strong statements on the new sea border, indirectly or even directly attacking the good friday agreement.


In case the way I'm telling you isn't clear: I'm blaming the DUP for this mess. They should keep these sorts of fights indoors with Boris, and do them beforehand. Backtracking hurts the UK reputation(3), divides an area and implicitly gives an agreement for these sorts of guerrilla tactics.
I'm also not sure what the UK is about to do now. Oh, sure: rejoining the single market would be an obvious step. In theory it shouldn't piss off brexit voters. It would open up trade relations, lower tensions and probably reduce the amount of paperwork (though I can't really say by how much).
Of course, the "in theory" probably isn't going to work in practice, because they've already sold their audience the single market as being on the EU's leash or something similar. So...I'd say that's off the table, if the only thing still left on the table wasn't worse for them: the reunification of Ireland.


I admit I'm kind of morbidly curious how things would've played out if Trump got a second term. In theory Trump should support brexit, so it'd be the US and the UK versus the EU. So...in that case(4), it'd be more clear that the UK would get what it wanted...assuming they could bloody make up WHAT they want in the first place (no, not the hollow "brexit" idea that's molded differently depending on whom you ask. What regulations, rules, trade agreements or things like that). But...that didn't happen. Biden's president and he made it very clear he's with Ireland (and thus the EU) all the way. So the UK's government is more in a corner than they ever were...


(1): this is debatable, of course. Northern Ireland itself voted to remain in the EU, and of course there's always some that want to reunite Ireland and use everything as an excuse for that agenda.
(2): assuming you consider it obvious that you sign a deal you regret immediately afterward.
(3): or whatever's still left of that
(4): well...that's presuming US congress somehow lost the entire Irishing lobbying department in the process, but if we're being hypothetical, we might as well go all the way


----------



## smf (Apr 10, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Ugh...seems like the whole North Ireland situation is getting worse by the week. Now I hear that the riots aren't really reported in English newspapers, but...I really hope this is just an exaggeration, or that papers missed the deadline or something. But it would seem very unwise to pretend everything's okay, when...well...this shit happens:



The UK government are pushing a bill through that would allow them to make any protest for any reason an illegal act.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839

This is fine.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 11, 2021)

Does UK have to follow EU privacy laws? If not, seems like a benefit.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 29, 2021)

smf said:


> Does UK have to follow EU privacy laws? If not, seems like a benefit.



89, member: 159384"]The UK government are pushing a bill through that would allow them to make any protest for any reason an illegal act.
I 
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839

This is fine.[/QUOTE]

Sounds great. Those who trust the government do not know history.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 2, 2021)

Okay... I've got to ask : is British media really running the UK instead of the government?

In the last month, my YouTube sources(1) report almost on a daily basis on how traditional media is skewing, misinterpreting or not covering aspects of brexit that might paint it in a negative light.
Figures showing the drop in exports as seriously dropping, the legal action against the UK, the Norwegian fishing agreement failing,... The traditional media seems like a punching bag...or local school paper articles that shouldn't be taken seriously. 

In itself, I wouldn't say it's new (I remember James O'Brian reading some article headings of the past about the EU... The EU was depicted as a real of pure evil and bureaucracy (2)). But it has to be asked because now Johnsons the target of an investigation...

...on the finances for his office's wallpaper. 

*sigh *
Don't get me wrong : if he used more public money than allowed, I'm not saying he should be left off the hook. But at the same time... Fucking seriously? 

When Johnson waved 'his' deal in the end of December as a victory, it wasn't allowed to be scrutinized. Brexit's the biggest economical shift since the second world War, and it's not allowed to be criticized? May's the deals get rejected, but this is a go because Boris was smart enough to squander enough time to basically say 'it's this or nothing'? 

I've already talked about how the DUP felt duped () because they basically agreed to what they wouldn't agree to. No call for investigation on whether or not the Irish sea border is legit to begin with? (3) no check on whether leaving the single market was needed to begin with? 

Next up : riots in Northern Ireland. I personally blame the dup: threatening to scrap the document that holds the peace in the region tends to do that. But it seems media didn't even bother covering it properly. So... What does it really take to take a good, close look at what Boris really bargained? 

... But nooooo. He used 200'000 pounds instead of an annual 30'000 to renovate his fucking office. And THAT is a scandal that has people talking of removing him from office? 

Fucking dolts...


(1): that'll be 'afifferent bias' and a guy going by 'Robespierre', mostly
(2): I kind of wonder... How many of those really came from journalist Boris Johnson or EU's UK representative Nigel Farage?
(3): my sources calmly explain that the good Friday agreement isn't jeopardized all by this sea border. But I don't get any coherent argument from the DUP corner


----------



## Deleted User (May 5, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay... I've got to ask : is British media really running the UK instead of the government?
> 
> In the last month, my YouTube sources(1) report almost on a daily basis on how traditional media is skewing, misinterpreting or not covering aspects of brexit that might paint it in a negative light.
> Figures showing the drop in exports as seriously dropping, the legal action against the UK, the Norwegian fishing agreement failing,... The traditional media seems like a punching bag...or local school paper articles that shouldn't be taken seriously.
> ...



I have similar questions about the US.  Seems to be one big rotten tree, its rancid roots spread far.


----------



## AmandaRose (May 5, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> ...on the finances for his office's wallpaper.
> 
> *sigh *
> Don't get me wrong : if he used more public money than allowed, I'm not saying he should be left off the hook. But at the same time... Fucking seriously?


The issue is not that he used public money the issue is he illegally used £200000 of Tory party donation money. He broke the government code of conduct and could also potentially be charged by the police for committing fraud. The rich people who donated to the Tory party did so in the understanding their money would be used to decorate parts of Downing Street that are accessible by the public (all perfectly legal)  Instead BoJo used the money to decorate his private quarters which he is not allowed to do. 

Let's also not forget he illegally tried to use Tory party donations to fund child care for his 1 year old child.

BoJo forcing his MPs to vote against free school meals and making huge stealth cuts to school funding at the same time as trying to use donations illegally to pay for his own childcare is yet more evidence that it's one rule for him and his mates, and another for everyone else. Fucking seriously?


----------



## Taleweaver (May 5, 2021)

eastwald said:


> I have similar questions about the US.  Seems to be one big rotten tree, its rancid roots spread far.


LOL...questions? 

Fox is just rightwing propaganda catered to push the republicans further right than they're comfortable with. The fact that they're calling themselves "news" in the process is ridiculous.

The democrats aren't much better, either. The so-called "progressive left" is only left when compared to the alternative, but if you take that political side out of the picture I'm fairly sure most'll fail any sort of objectivity test as well. Which isn't a wonder, since most news outlets are really large firms lead by millionaires or billionaires. So you'll probably see much sooner reports on hell freezing over than about the benefits of wealth redistributions.

...but ey...that's a different topic. This is still about brexit. The US gets enough attention in...almost literally all other topics.


----------



## Alexander1970 (May 5, 2021)

Some Thing,that annoys me really after "Brexit"....

Sending something from my Country 
to a Friend in Great Britain is near impossible and/or very expensive and complicated.....


----------



## Taleweaver (May 9, 2021)

Well... How's this for a benefit : Scotland is going to hold a (new) referendum for independence.

The last one really wasn't that long ago. In 2014, 55.3% voted against independence. An important argument to remain in the UK was, kind of ironic, because Scotland itself wouldn't be a EU member.

So obviously, being out of the EU regardless now, that argument falls away. So a new referendum is kind of obvious. Well... More specifically : it's far more likely the majority will vote to leave the UK.

I admit I can't really follow which political parties want what, exactly. But the Scottish national party (SNP... what would be in the name?) gained a major electoral victory, in itself almost a full majority. So that referendum will most certainly happen, and unless some major benefits of brexit start to emerge, the outcome will be easy to predict as well.

... But it's that 'rejoining the EU' afterward that worries me. As long as the (remaining) UK remains stubborn enough to stay out of the single market, there's going to be a hard border between the UK and Scotland to sort out before any joining 's to take place (assuming most Scottish want the EU in the first place, which isn't automatically the case either).


----------



## FAST6191 (May 9, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Well... How's this for a benefit : Scotland is going to hold a (new) referendum for independence.
> 
> The last one really wasn't that long ago. In 2014, 55.3% voted against independence. An important argument to remain in the UK was, kind of ironic, because Scotland itself wouldn't be a EU member.
> 
> ...


While I am sure the SNP would have one every other week until they got the answer they wanted the UK government as a whole has to allow it (their gains in this last go around being in the devolved Scottish parliament which is just some aspects of Scotland, best they can do there is pass a bill saying we would like one which is basically meaningless), and as the Conservatives can more or less do what they like (with the nice "it was a once in a generation event"... excuse too) and Labour are unlikely to mount a comeback too terribly soon (not to mention they are unlikely to allow it either even if they did as Scotland going bye bye would definitely end their chances of retaining any political power* for a while) the SNP are likely to be to told to sit and spin, and then the SNP have to hope they won't go all infighting (as it stands there is the more recent split following the little bit of infighting, and a more right wing independence party as SNP are basically Labour or possibly even more left wing but they think Scotland going independent would be a good thing, though if they do have such gains as they do then that might calm things for a moment, assuming they don't continue down the path of idiocy with the likes of that speech law the other month) before the Conservatives get weak enough to want to throw them a bone.

*see also the last general election and why they did not openly go for a coalition with the SNP, and that would be do or die demand for such a setup.

As far as Scotland joining the EU then yeah some kind of hard border would likely have to happen which could get fun. The bigger trouble is Scotland would likely have a hard time meeting the economic requirements (they tend not to run a budget surplus -- that would then see tuition fees probably coming in, and the slightly jazzed up NHS there probably falling back in line with the baseline rest of the UK or maybe something worse. https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14982 , and that is before figuring out what goes for the North Sea oil and gas and who that would go with in the event of independence which would be super fun as part of that one) and after Greece and probably Italy at some point then they would probably have to do proper checks. Scotland going WTO... better hope global warming kicks in or we get a nice fleet of civilian nuclear icebreakers to go over Russia.
Might be able to do a lesser version with the EEA or European Free Trade Association but I am less familiar with requirements there.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 22, 2021)

I'm really thinking of starting to cop out of following UK brexit news (just like the whole Trump train went over the cliff after january 6th). And this stuff happens roughly in my backyard.

Like...I don't get the recent controversy over sausages. As in: I don't get how brexiteers didn't see this coming from miles (read: months) away.


I mean...not happy with "just" leaving the largest trading block in the world, the UK doesn't want to be in the single market (roughly speaking: a set of standards, mostly for food) either. That's all well and good, provided you do it within your own country. If your standards differ from my standards, a border with custom checks between us should and must make sure that our goods remain separated (meaning: I don't give a crap that your food is borderline poisonous, provided you keep it in your country).

But wait...the Irish and North Irish are hellbent on absolutely NOT having a border between their regions. So last Christmas a deal was signed putting that border in the Irish sea. Basically saying to Northern Ireland: "you follow single market standards while we do our own thing". At that time, Boris Johnson acted as if he came up with that deal himself.

But it was, is and even more so will be an actual border. With customs taking place in ships sailing toward Northern Ireland. It's a direct consequence of the choice to abandon a standard, but the fact that only the UK complains about it says something of the quality of current UK standards. I mean...if your food standards were higher than ours, we'd be the ones complaining that we can't sell our low quality garbage into the UK because it's stopped at the Irish Sea.

The UK had plenty of time to prepare implementing this deal as well. But instead it's been twiddling thumbs for months, give a local political group (the DUP) room to complain and do nothing.

...until the grace period runs out. Now all of the sudden UK government officials have the bloody nerve to say they'd rather break international law than abide by the treaty they sought themselves.

"I don't see the problem with sausages", they say. Which I call bullshit, because YOU GODDAMN SIGNED A DEAL OVER IT!!!


I don't fucking care how you spin it. That the "united Ireland" idea is gaining traction by the week (I'd even say "day", but that could just be me imaginging things) is something I predicted months ago. Just like I predict that Scotland will be leaving the UK if this trend keeps up.

Why? Because this sausage deal is just a prelude to the end of the upcoming grace periods. Politicians can shout and blame others all the fucking time, but now that the impact is starting to get visible in supermarkets, it's only bloody logical that steps are being taken to the logical outcome. Meaning: rather than importing "UK standard" sausages, they'll import Irish ones instead. Or make them themselves (I don't know much about production, but NI just has to uphold the standard from before, so it's not exactly a gargantuan task).
Of course those wishing a united Ireland see this as a win. Of course local groups like the DUP are screaming their lungs out. But in the end they'll lose. Brexit has been bad for all sorts of UK trade. Sausages is just the latest. And the UK (or England? I sometimes think they treat every other part of the UK as close colonies) won't blink and keep pursuing their personal food standards, remaining blind to any sorts of fucking tensions in the Northern Ireland region. They don't care. They probably wouldn't care for losing Northern Ireland either if it wasn't such a visible blow against the brexit idea.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 4, 2021)

Notice: another BoJo rant coming up. Feel free to skip.

So...Boris Johnson is seriously start to piss me off.  Now at a German conference, he basically repeated his argument he made earlier at G7 at Macron:

"Now imagine how you'd feel if <part A of France/Germany> couldn't move cheese/bratwurst to <part B of France/Germany>. You'd want that scrapped as well, right?"


I mean, really...what kind of nonsense is this?

Joker (to Batman): now imagine YOU want to release nerve gas in Gotham City's water supply. You wouldn't want to be thwarted either, now would you? 


What are Merkel and Macron supposed to answer to this that isn't a straight up insult? They're pro EU, dumbass. Their first reaction would obviously be "well...we don't want to leave the EU in the first place, so it's really a non-issue for us."
Oh, wait...British propaganda media would have a field day with that, spinning the response as if they're downplaying the opinion of an overwhelming 52% of Britons(1).

Their second reaction isn't much better. "We wouldn't be signing a deal that restricts transports of goods within our country in the first place."
Oh, wait...British propaganda would probably whine that they're doubting Johnson's superior intellect when he created this oven-ready deal.

Of course the answer "well...we don't have a fucking dispute with our neighbors that in practice prohibits us from placing an actual border ON the border to resolve such a situation" would also work...but that CERTAINLY means the media will spin it as if the EU is against the Good Friday agreement.


But while I regret a proper response from these EU top diplomats (I mean: British media is going to hate the EU no matter what, so you might as well NOT let him get away with this kind of nonsense), the lack of Boris Johnson's response is much worse.

Okay, Boris...you stated a problem. I get it. And if we forego the fact that you were bloody stupid enough to come up with it, sign it AND bypassed any local scrutiny that would bring these very criticisms to light(2), I might even sit down and talk with you about possible solutions.
...but you don't seem to WANT solutions. What are your proposals, really? Discuss ease of checks? Talk assurance that goods traveling into Northern Ireland STAY in NI (which was always the EU's concern to begin with)? Rejoin the single market? I hear none of that. You're discontempt with the current situation, but don't offer a way out of it.

So...what happened to the brexit ideology here? "Take back control"? That's a fucking far stride from the "I want the EU to solve our domestic problems " you're bitching about now. Fucking grow a pair and start leading. You've got a signed agreement that you were proud to not only have signed ("take that, May! I succeeded where you failed!!!") but maintained the peace in Northern Ireland as well. You were happy. The EU was happy. Even the USA was happy. You solved a seemingly impossible political situation on an almost Gordian knot kind of fashion, and with hardly any extra paperwork(3). Of course the DUP isn't happy, but they were never going to be.
So why the fuck are you complaining? Okay, you're incompetent. We get that. We forgive you for that. But let's be realistic: you wouldn't let anyone weasel out of a deal because they were too stupid to read the contents either. Don't expect the EU to treat you as special either.


(1): that's assuming the majority of the UK residents still want this mess to go through, of course
(2): not a bloody chance in hell. At the very least I'd make you admit you were so wrong that no UK resident's ever going to vote for you. But ey...I'm no diplomat
(3): that's compared to a direct export into the EU, of course. Being outside the EU comes with a price.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 20, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> I'm really thinking of starting to cop out of following UK brexit news (just like the whole Trump train went over the cliff after january 6th). And this stuff happens roughly in my backyard.
> 
> Like...I don't get the recent controversy over sausages. As in: I don't get how brexiteers didn't see this coming from miles (read: months) away.
> 
> ...



About to go to bed brother over the pond, but just wanted to comment on the Jan 6 incident.  It was stupidity for sure.  But it's being overblown more than any incident in my 40 years of life. "Worst incident since  the civil war" i.e. If they meant to capture the building, I'd think they would have been fully armed. The leader of some of the groups who rallied people to come there are turning out to be FBI agents.  Police let them in, in some cases, even told them they could stay. They say an officer died, but said nothing of the hundreds of officers injured in fiery riots that destroyed parts of big cities, while chanting "all cops are bastards". Now they suddenly care about cops? I believe the officer who died, did so later of a stroke - which I am pretty sure was brought on by the days events.  I just can name dozens of more destructive, anti-government actions taken where many people were injured, and those who commited the crimes were bailed out by hollywood money and even Kamala Harris raised money for them. Not aware of more than a handful of people who were charged.  Now they're putting people on no fly lists for even being in the area.  Anyways - victors always write history and this generally reprehensible incident is being compared to the Civil War, which armchain historians like me just think is WAY  over the top.. my 2c of course.

I'm Irish, and my early ancestors actually came here in Indentured Servitude - I admit, while I do think Ireland would be a united country by now had the UK not controlled and converted/imported the North w/ Church of England'ers (i.e. Gibraltar) , I don't read about it like you do - like I said above, our media has their our own obsessions and we don't even hear of this stuff in world news sections. 

I found this to be amazing when I read it years back - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-food-security/ - how far they've come. I think some Brexiters were reacting to the idea it seems like nobody cares about having their own country, own rules, and I can certainly see that aspect winning my vote. But like you said, devils in the details. Not saying North Ireland should be forced out, and I do know many Irish dream of unification  - some of my relatives i.e.  I just pray a non-violent compromise can be found.  You said 

"But wait...the Irish and North Irish are hellbent on absolutely NOT having a border between their regions. So last Christmas a deal was signed putting that border in the Irish sea. Basically saying to Northern Ireland: "you follow single market standards while we do our own thing". At that time, Boris Johnson acted as if he came up with that deal himself." and then stated the border will always be there and even be more so of a border. Like I said, I certainly have not been following this closely, I don't know if they want no border out of hostility - though that doesn't make much sense to one reading just that statement, I'm sure theres more to it - but perhaps even though North Ireland has been part of the UK, Irelands interests are not best served w/ their intervention and this should be an issue w/ they negotiate directly, w/o Britians involvement. Even if that means leaving the UK. 

Crazy times all around. I appreciate you being civil in your explainations and though I will always have love for Ireland, I hope I'm not coming across as a 'spinster'. I know the past is the past, but perhaps in the present 1 on 1 makes more sense? Would love to hear your reply, take care and be well!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 21, 2021)

@eastwald : let's see...

First I've got to mention I don't care about your two cents about 6th of January. That's a done deal for me.

About Northern Ireland... I honestly think BoJo is trying to do whatever he wants, regardless of what others want. 
When the UK was in the single market, an Australasian deal couldn't go through. Hence : abandon the single market, then sign the deal.
But wait, says the EU; if you have a different set of standards than us (and food preparation always comes up here, as it costs more to maintain certain hygiene standards), what kind of guarantee do you give us your companies won't undercut the idea of the single market? Why won't they dump cheap but unhealthy food into our territories? 
UK's answer (in words) : we'll come up with a solution.  
UK's answer (in actions) : we'll not only ignore it but actively work against any possible outcome

Unless I'm mistaken, BoJo and his government isn't incompetent... They're just pretending to be that because it's their best tactical choice. 

While I watched a few documentaries, I've never gotten to understand how northern Ireland came to be. How it was... Well... Allowed. Suppose I round up some rich people in Belgium and have us all settle in a corner of England... Do you think I can somehow turn the place in Belgium territory? It's plain nuts. But apparently that's how NI came to be in a nutshell. I've even read that some politicians predicted NI wouldn't last a decade... But it's just over a hundred years now, right? 
Perhaps the most tangible change might occur in the next local election. Currently the DUP is in power, and they're very much part of the UK (more so than actual England ers, but that might be a source being very subjective). But the pro Ireland party (sinn fein? 'm not sure on the spelling) is gaining traction. If they achieve a majority, they'll either hold or push for a referendum. 
And the difference will set the tone and tension. Of course Johnson is dead against it, so any attempt to legally hold one will die due to some wacky old law or custom. 
But if they just hold one regardless, things might get hairy fast. It'll be the UK against... Well, northern Ireland at the least, but where will allies stand? Will Ireland remain neutral? Or the EU? Or even Scotland?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 25, 2021)

I say "thanks for civility"  and you start with you don't give a shit about the facts behind it.  No wonder you have no rights. 

Didn't bother reading your post.

Everything you hear on TV is true, the government speaks nothing but the truth!  -Todays Youth


----------



## jimbo13 (Jul 25, 2021)

eastwald said:


> I say "thanks for civility"  and you start with you don't give a shit about the facts behind it.  No wonder you have no rights.
> 
> Didn't bother reading your post.
> 
> Everything you hear on TV is true, the government speaks nothing but the truth!  -Todays Youth



Anytime someone is touting the civility of freedoms of the U.K. I just assume it's fear of their monarch and think of this.


----------



## notimp (Sep 2, 2021)

Not sure if benefit, but funny.



> *Fancy a beer in Britain? In some pubs, supplies are running low.*
> The shortage comes after McDonald’s ran out of milkshakes and Nando’s ran out of chicken


https://archive.is/4aESk#selection-321.0-325.88


----------



## x65943 (Sep 2, 2021)

notimp said:


> Not sure if benefit, but funny.
> 
> 
> https://archive.is/4aESk#selection-321.0-325.88


Hey maybe if they have nationwide McDonald's and alcohol shortages - people will be more healthy and it will offset the massive NHS cuts


----------



## notimp (Sep 2, 2021)

x65943 said:


> Hey maybe if they have nationwide McDonald's and alcohol shortages - people will be more healthy and it will offset the massive NHS cuts


Thing is, the cause is truckdrivers quitting their jobs ( https://theloadstar.com/truck-drivers-are-leaving-the-industry-as-better-pay-beckons-closer-to-home/ ), and they cant get new ones without beer...

Its a catch 22.

edit: Oh and the logistic branch is demanding "uncomplicated visas" for people from eastern europe and india. Maybe they'll drink less beer, than the typical UK lorry driver...


----------



## subcon959 (Sep 2, 2021)

jimbo13 said:


> Anytime someone is touting the civility of freedoms of the U.K. I just assume it's fear of their monarch and think of this.


The funny thing is the monarchy in UK is entirely benign unlike the overlords in 'murica.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 4, 2021)

notimp said:


> Thing is, the cause is truckdrivers quitting their jobs ( https://theloadstar.com/truck-drivers-are-leaving-the-industry-as-better-pay-beckons-closer-to-home/ ), and they cant get new ones without beer...
> 
> Its a catch 22.
> 
> edit: Oh and the logistic branch is demanding "uncomplicated visas" for people from eastern europe and india. Maybe they'll drink less beer, than the typical UK lorry driver...


Erm... Did you even read your own source? Beer (or other beverages) has nothing to do with it, not even hyperbolically.

I considered mentioning the phenomenon, but it's not an intentional result of brecxit, so it'd be unfair.

It's just that the UK government is being incredibly incompetent. It's as simple as that. If our government notices a shortage of truck drivers and ignores that for months, we'd have the same situation on our hands.
So... Is up to you to decide if this is because of brexit. The situation is that any foreign workers have a much harder time getting the administration done to get into the UK. As a result, foreign drivers mostly avoid the UK. I forgot the names, but this has been brought under Johnsons attention, urging him to make drivers an essential job. He refused (and /or his government). I've heard this easily two months ago. My sources (leftwing biased YouTube channels) mentioned this then, and stressed that the lack of immediate visibility is because most companies stocked up on goods prior to the Ik actually leaving the EU (meaning : at least 1-0 for brexit sceptics). Now these stocks are starting to run out because... Well, I've mentioned it : incompetence.

Edit: heh... I've read my own posts from before again. I kind of tried to assert the uk's actions as if they had a plan to succeed. Use the fact that the others want a deal to your advantage. Act stupid in order to get handicapped privileges... That sort of thing.

This situation certainly proves me wrong. Kind of funny I wrote it in terms like 'I don't think they're being stupid because...<reason that was really a guess at how it could make sense >'. And now this comes along. A situation that the EU has no hand in whatsoever and no potential advantage to be had by anyone, but that'll send a STRONG sense of negativity to the current government(1) if this doesn't get unfucked asap (those same sources I mentioned earlier point out that by the time christmas comes around, empty shelves will be tile rather than exception... Unless government abandons its xenophobic fear of external truck drivers (2). 

Also... My own perspective is beginning to shift on this. Dig to my earlier posts and I'm trying to find common ground, try to settle disputes, eye-escalate and sometimes even relate to troubles brexiteers have with the EU (though I admit that mostly if not always failed). I didn't want the EU breaking up. 

But now I'm starting to side with the brexiteers. They wanted out? They got it. It was something they never done and there was a power shift at the top so some growing pains were to be expected. 
But this constantly whining about how the EU is doing all sorts of things to them after they left is childish (how long until we're literally called the boogeyman? ) . Their handling of the northern Ireland situation is horrible. And now they can't even properly keep a supply line to feed their own population intact? Jesus... Hate to say it, but the EU is better of without your circus of a country. 


(1): you think our government will remain in power when our grocery stores aren't having their goods because of government incompetence? 
(2): first reaction? 'hire local drivers'. Yeah... Except you can't just give a trick to anyone with just a normal driver's license and think it won't cause problems. 
Second reaction? 'make them work longer hours'. Yeah... Except that's not safe either. Nor is there demand for it.


----------



## notimp (Sep 4, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Did you even read your own source? Beer (or other beverages) has nothing to do with it, not even hyperbolically.


.......
..............
.....................
you dont say.

"They cant get new truck drivers, because they have no more beer." - might have been a joke, dont you think?


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2021)

50-90% of petrol stations in the UK are currently out of gas:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk...cities-retailers-association-says-2021-09-27/

But just think how much money you saved from direct EU payments.

Dutch truckdriver unions reacted that the 5000 temporary ad hoc work visas for truck drivers, that would fizzle out at the end of the year would not incentivize them to send more drivers. Germany f.e. also has a truck drivers shortage. Much better to send drivers there...



> London taxi driver Paul Kirby said he had visited nine filling stations before finding one that had fuel.
> 
> "I'm okay for the next day or so but then it's going to be completely out of my hands. If I can't get anything, then the cab is going to be parked up," he told Reuters.



Ah Reuters, always giving you the opinion of the man on the street..


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 28, 2021)

Depending upon your perspective then some might argue it is just the market realising worth after being suppressed for so long.

I know several lorry/truck drivers (day guys* and weeks out types) and the pay and conditions** for the entry requirements (getting and maintaining what is here a hgv licence, hgv = heavy goods vehicle, in the US it would be a CDL/commercial drivers licence, is a serious effort, justifiably as you are piloting many tonnes of vehicle that will hurt things if it goes awry) and what is asked... not my idea of a good time. I look at something like the US (while transcontinental is a somewhat different game there is still the same rough day/in state vs long haul thing) and truck driver is actually a fairly well compensated effort.

Also between all those furloughed during the "stay in your home, citizen" sketches then several went on to better offerings, or retired (I know very few under 50, and most of those are late 30s at best, late 40s more common there. The 20 somethings tend to have it as an ancillary thing (they want to drive horses around, they want to drive a concrete lorry, driving skips around...) .

*I say day but still out at 3-5 in the morning depending upon destination and back 5-6 at night, if it is any earlier it is because either it is however many weeks after Chinese new year (no ships out during that period so X weeks on there is nothing to offload really) or it is windy on the docks.

**any kind of overnight rest stop these days is... maybe a given town has a gravel section you can park on, by and large you will be in the layby thought waiting for your next batch of hours to kick in. Toilets are a luxury and showers... hahahaha join a chain of gyms.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 29, 2021)

article said:
			
		

> The government on Sunday announced a plan to issue temporary visas for 5,000 foreign truck drivers.



...I can't believe I actually read that.

Temporary visas? *TEMPORARY*?! 

The freaking transport sector is strained in the UK for MONTHS, and this is how they hope to get them back? God dammit! 

The rest of the article rightfully tears apart this pathetic attempt of the government to resolve the issue.

But honestly: I'm with Olaf Scholz (potential new German chanchellor) on this. Including the way how he puts it: 

"The free movement of labour is part of the European Union, and we tried very hard to convince the British not to leave the Union. They decided differently. I hope they will manage the problems coming from that."

Well...I'd read the last part as "*snort* Heh... I sure hope they will manage the problems coming from that "decision". ", but it's the same gist.

And for good reason: many truck drivers searched for other jobs during the pandemic because it doesn't pay the value it provides society. The UK's not the only country who faces that problems. But they'll feel it the hardest because they rather cather to the racists in the UK than tackle the problem.

fucking temporary...morons!


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 30, 2021)

Welp...so how's the UK doing as of lately?

Due to illnes, I've watched more youtube than normally, but even so it seems like the pace of deteriation is increasing.

I mean, look...last month it was the truck driver shortage. Has it been solved? No. Rather the contrary: now there's fuel shortages on top of those. Not throughout the UK, of course, but hardly insignificant (unless youtube commenters like to troll being victims while they aren't).

Direct consequence: in Northern Ireland, the protocol is more popular than ever. One even joked a recent held poll showed its popularity at a landslide percentage: 52%! So by brexit logic, all attempts to thwart and overturn this aspect of the oven ready deal should be terminated immediately because "the people have spoken" and...erm...something, something Democracy.

A few days ago, news got out of an actual brexit benefit. Not some half assed one either: it was about a law that couldn't be passed while under EU laws because that bureaucratic bunch has laws preventing passing of such laws.
I'm talking about water pollution, of course. No longer part of the EU? Here's a law proposal that allows UK firms to dump more waste into nearby rivers.
Oh, right: the benefit's only really applies to UK factory owners. Guess I should've mentioned that earlier. 

And meanwhile on the actual news there's the report of the upcoming fishing wars with France. What I make of it, that same "oven ready" deal included a clausule that would allow French fishers into UK waters, provided they got a permit.
The thing is: the UK isn't keen on handing out those permits, limiting their supply.
French fishers ain't happy with that at all, and now Macron's forced to act in kind. That is: until the dispute's settled, UK fishermen in French waters will get the same treaty. So it sounds like a political paper scheme rather than a war, but I wonder if both sides' media will report on the situation fairly or will miss out information in order to play the victim (I'm looking at you, UK).


...but even that's really small news. Y'all know me: I don't generally link every youtube channel I see. Guess this counts as an exception, because...well...James O'Brian just nails it so hard it hurts:


Why? Because the (I quote) _"Office for Budget Responsibility has said the impact of Brexit on the economy will be worse than that caused by the ronavirus pandemic". _As in: brexit's going to cost roughly twice what covid's costing the country.

Twice. The. Cost. Of. The. Covid-19. Pandemic.

Let that sink in and pretend that brexit is anything but a collossal failure.

Now I'd be pissed as well if I were a UK resident right now. All the remain voters have been ridiculed, marginalized and made out for crybabies and pessimists. All while being one hundred procent correct in the assesments. Brexiteers still think things like "sovereignty", "take back control" and "independence" is somehow more than a hollow phrase. That will lead to clashes.

In fact, that youtube video is downright firework. That caller just expects to be treated with respect, as if "I have a different opinion" somehow merits that. It doesn't. The news the UK will be MUCH worse off outside the EU gets James angry. And I've got to be honest: I wouldn't want to be on his bad side on this.  He just chews up the caller and spits him out. Just not literally.

And frankly, I don't know why other brexiteers deserve any better treatment in the press.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2021)

it's actually funny to watch in a karmic sort of way. like america has all sorts of problems right now but jesus christ UK, this was a stupid move.


----------



## x65943 (Oct 30, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Welp...so how's the UK doing as of lately?
> 
> Due to illnes, I've watched more youtube than normally, but even so it seems like the pace of deteriation is increasing.
> 
> ...



Damn I hardly believe these numbers

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-queens-university-poll-reveals-40991883.html

If Brexit has any positive effect it may very well be a united Ireland sometime this decade


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 31, 2021)

x65943 said:


> Damn I hardly believe these numbers
> 
> https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-queens-university-poll-reveals-40991883.html
> 
> If Brexit has any positive effect it may very well be a united Ireland sometime this decade


Erm...I'm not sure to what degree you're following the non-US news, but what I've blurbed out yesterday was just the more prominent consequences.

Back in June, specialists (and my local youtube sources) warned that without the usual influx of inland workers (foreigners), there'd be direct consequences when Christmas season comes around. It was barely reacted to. More so: while my television news reported on the fuel shortages and made mention of supermarket shelves thinning out, these sources were ahead of the curve and showed documentaries of UK farmers ripping apart both the brexit mentality (if you want, I can look up a very emotional piece of a turkey farmer who HAS turkeys, but due to insufficient workers is going to be unable to prepare them for Christmas) and the so-called trade deals (apparently, New Zealand farmers "rejoice" with the deal, whereas UK farmers disgruntedly have to admit lower food standards competing with their products).

Right now, it seems to be a given that UK Christmas is "at least partially canceled". But the big asterix in this is that when I'm mentioning "UK" in this, that's not entirely true: Northern Ireland is still part of the single market. The Irish sea customs have made transport over sea more bothersome, so they just shift to importing goods from Ireland.

The DUP (basically the UK politician overlords in the Northern Ireland region) were always furious with the checks, and for their part I can't blame them either: the current situation ABSOLUTELY plays into reuniting Ireland. By accident, I'm sure, but it does nonetheless. So yeah: Northern Ireland might very well end to exist with the current course of action.


Can't say I'm sad about it either. I've given the UK far too much leeway to solve things, and all they did was screw up royally. If brexit was a consequence of "the will of the people", then a united Ireland will quickly ALSO turn out to be a "the will of the people" that'll have to be respected.


----------



## marshyrob (Nov 2, 2021)

gotta love the UK


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 9, 2021)

Erm...is it a benefit of brexit if the scandals become more hilarious? 


I mean, sure, there were a lot of cringy moments in Trump's presidency, but at least the guy surrounded himself with skilled personnel (that usually got fired, but that's not the focus here). But what the hell is going on in Toryville?

Okay, so they held a Christmas party at the prime minister's location last year (while everyone else was forced in lockdown). I can get why people are pissed about it. I would be too.

But I honestly can't believe the news bits I'm seeing here. Just look up "Allegra Stratton" and "Christmas party"...it's a commercial for British humor! I simply refuse to believe that that woman is Johnson's spokesperson. So she left early, but she knows that regulation was followed. Except that it was a business meeting...with cheese and wine?

No, that in itself wouldn't qualify for a Taleweaver's recommendation of best scandal of the semi-decade.


It's the fact that at least three other government members (Kit Malthouse, Maggie Throup and Dominic Raab(1)) on air repeated the same line that wouldn't fool a twelve year old:

"There was no party...but if there was, it would've followed the proper regulation".


I get why one person accidentally gets caught up, but how is it possible that it happens to so many? Just how dumb can your government really be? 



(1): source: this video...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXcLGaepz_w They're having footage of Sajid Rajib as well, but at least he doesn't directly contradicts himself


----------



## subcon959 (Dec 9, 2021)

I didn't have dinner last night, but if I did, it was delicious.


----------



## Marc_LFD (Jan 19, 2022)

The U.K. looks to have a strong future ahead. They're no longer part of the EU and now masks are no longer mandatory (not that many even wore them, anyway).



Turns out, Britain has a good prime minister. But, sigh, when it comes to Biden it's hopeless.

Biden constantly forgets what he's going to say, looks lost, and doesn't even know what "Let's Go, Brandon!" means. No one can actually with a serious face say he was elected genuinely.



I watched this live and I couldn't believe what I had heard:

"President Harris and I."
- Biden


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 21, 2022)

Marc_78065 said:


> The U.K. looks to have a strong future ahead. They're no longer part of the EU and now masks are no longer mandatory (not that many even wore them, anyway).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, erm...are you serious or just taking the piss? 

Johnson's getting so grilled on his part in the past Christmas parties that this whole "remove all regulations" thing isn't even trying to be anything but a diversion. It's not the first time he binned the regulations and it won't e the first time it gets dialled back as well. Question is more whether it'll take days or mere hours until he's forced to resign.

And aren't you in the wrong thread to be talking about Biden? I get some segways into other parts (like when talking US trade deals), but just ranting about Biden for the sake of it...does it has a point here, or are you just happy to share your opinion on something?


----------



## Taleweaver (May 12, 2022)

Small bump here. Not so much for political news (tories losing a lot of seats the most recent election...but it's due to partygate rather than brexit), but because of a story I heard yesterday. About as close as first hand information goes...

Our firm owns many different restaurants. One of the more recent concepts was some sort of Japanese style food, but for some reason has all training and ingredients in England. This lead to some minor issues upon opening, but it was very unclear whether that was brexit or covid restriction rules. But that training got done, the managers ready(1) and the issues resolved.

The story I heard yesterday was about an operator having talks with the manager. She (the manager) insisted a couple weeks earlier to make food orders straight away, which had the operator confused as her stock was fine. But yesterday it started dawning on the operator that she wasn't careless or inattentive, but just experienced. The shipping process (from England) takes so long that you really should order long in advance or your stock will just be depleted before the shipment arrives. And for obvious reasons: restaurants without food don't really make much of a profit.

The main issue the operator had with this was that the concept was all about "fresh, healthy food", and these shipment delays downright torpedoed that idea(2). It's not that the food becomes unhealthy in any kind, but it has to be frozen to preserve it.
The side benefit of all this is that the restaurant is on a remote, secluded spot. If it had the clientele the board of directors had initially anticipated, there simply wouldn't be enough freezers to make sure the stock was maintained.

...but I digress. As the juiciest (and saddest) part of the story, the operator brought up an order of chicken that hadn't been delivered yet. It was ordered last October. 


(1): except the main manager: he quit about two months after opening
(2): I'm personally baffled that he/our board of directors thought this could work with even moderate custom checks. All previous attempts - with local foods, no less - have all failed miserably.


----------



## KingVamp (May 13, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Small bump here. Not so much for political news (tories losing a lot of seats the most recent election...but it's due to partygate rather than brexit),


So, who is the biggest party after Tories?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> So, who is the biggest party after Tories?


Depends where you are looking.

Conservatives (slang term Tories) are the nominally right leaning party (reality is anything but really, though there are a few what would be known as high tories in the mix) and right now in power.
They usually trade places with Labour (nominally left leaning, still something of a mix of old school trade union*, champagne socialist/communist, actual communist, what the US would probably term business democrat and general left wing politicos that do not get along that well but statistics means they have to try) at the national level. They lost massively in the last national election, including a lot of historical seats, which meant a change in leadership.
*trade unions even getting a say in who is the leader of the party.

Most politics in the UK will be framed as a clash between them.

The liberal democrats tend to provide the main third avenue at national level. Their polices are all over the place depending upon who is running them. Historically they were probably libertarian left but today they are left with a twist. Were previously in a coalition with the conservatives when they needed to make up numbers and some others in the devolved governments.

After that then the devolved parliaments introduced under Labour now some time back have meant there are a bunch of regional interest parties. How much anybody cares there depends what another party needs if they need to make a coalition to do anything. By number of seats then Scottish National Party, the SNP, is pretty much labour (indeed at this point they have taken over Labour's main seats in Scotland, something that does not help labour in national elections) but think Scottish independence is a good thing and have that as a major campaigning point and reason they are unlikely to be in a coalition too soon. Much like labour their internal cohesion is massively questionable, albeit generally not quite as public, and for broadly similar reasons. They have had power in Scotland (which does have some measure of autonomy like all the other countries that are not England and make up the UK) for quite a while and that does mean they are increasingly not well liked. Within Scotland and their internal elections the main rivals are the Scottish conservatives, though there are some others appearing.
The Wales equivalent of the SNP is Plaid Cymru, though less on the independence thing.

Northern Ireland would probably take 20 minutes and a flow chart to fully map out ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/northern-ireland/results if you were curious and care to search the names) and has basically none of the same players as elsewhere in the UK. The main split is unionist (want to stay part of the UK) and separatist (want to not be part of the UK, most then wanting to join with the Republic of Ireland) but there are multiple flavours of each and a nominal centrist party with some reasonable power. The Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, were in coalition with the UK conservatives a couple of elections back (which is not that many years as these things go) so enjoyed more limelight than they would have otherwise. They have however lost power in the Northern Ireland assembly (something the good friday agreement ensured would happen) recently to a separatist party (though quirk of rules, which usually means nothing gets done, means that is amounting to stalled right now).

There are a various other parties that have some standing or have had in recent times. UKIP (UK independence party) is probably the more notable, though they have since imploded/sacrificed themselves. However they were once the right wing protest vote really and appeasing them saw the whole EU referendum thing take place. Some of its movers and shakers now run the Brexit party/Reform UK. They are also about as close as anything you get to libertarian in the UK as well but the ideas of such are reasonably prominent in all parties at some level (free speech and minimal government gets bandied about a lot with some notable things but mostly is a political football).
Various Conservatives did form the independent group a while back that for the time it was around held some seats (you keep your seat if you leave a party) that then got voted out of existence/not elected back in.
The greens (environmentalists) are a party that do some things at local and European level (when that was a thing) but mostly tactically join up with the liberal democrats and others in that mould.
Beyond that we are pretty much into joke parties, of which there are many.

The recent election in your quoted post is local council for most of the UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60695244
Sometimes it is seen as a bellwether for the state of things but is for the most part a joke (whole of London Mayoral might mean something) and nobody really cares/votes/pays attention**, though can be a place for smaller parties to get a foothold as you can vote how you like where national elections tend to merit tactical voting (see first past the post).

**it is generally considered a rarity for someone to tell you who their local MP that goes to the national parliament is (you vote for them but in reality it is a vote for the leader of the party/the party in general as far as most are concerned), it would incredibly shocking for them to know the local councillors.


----------



## Creamu (May 13, 2022)

The future of the UK? Your avatar is the perfect reaction pic to it:


----------



## Marc_LFD (Aug 14, 2022)

This is like the thread about all things of the U.K., right?

In October prices of energy are going to sky rocket and I have no idea how the general population will be able to live with that.



I read the U.K. government will give £400 ($485) in six "installments" (months, I guess) and then what?

Also seen a video where they may release a virtual/digital coin similar to how China's doing.



If or when people get in debt because of it they could get very desperate and the possibilities of riots aren't out of this world.

Such a great country being run by imbeciles.


----------

