'No Turning Back' on Brexit as Article 50 Triggered (bbc.com) 667
An anonymous reader shares a BBC report: Britain's departure from the European Union is "an historic moment from which there can be no turning back," Theresa May has told MPs. The prime minister said it was a "unique opportunity" to "shape a brighter future" for the UK. She was speaking after Britain's EU ambassador formally triggered the two year countdown to the UK's exit by handing over a letter in Brussels. It follows June's referendum which resulted in a vote to leave the EU. In a statement in the Commons, the prime minister said: "Today the government acts on the democratic will of the British people and it acts too on the clear and convincing position of this House." She added: "The Article 50 process is now under way and in accordance with the wishes of the British people the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union."
Tradeoffs (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll be poorer, less powerful and less influential. However, they might actually be happier. Or, at least a fraction of the population will be.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at some of the people who are happy with this outcome:
- UKIP, of course.
- Donald Trump
- Marine Le Pen
- Vladimir Putin
Simple minded populists, right-wing nationalists and the enemies of the West.
Is this what the UK stands for these days?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?!? Russia is small!?!? It's the largest country in the world by far!
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:4, Insightful)
populists
So the people, as a general rule, are happy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
So the people, as a general rule, are happy about it.
That's a stupid way to govern a country: just going on the day to day whims of people, and it's why we have a representative democracy. Would you like me to expound on why?
Re: (Score:3)
I am not really sure what your point is. Trump, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin are not members of an old defunct American political party called "the Populist Party"; And no one has ever suggested that they were.
They are people* who hold, or are concerned with, the views of ordinary people. - (All dictionaries)
* - I'm really not sure that Putin is a populous (more on this below). And do not follow French politics well enough to say either way for Pen.
Trump is a populous as that is 100% his political strateg
Re: (Score:3)
Shill much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit? Considering the massive amount of propaganda for "remain" having over 50% for exit is an insanely high number.
It's almost like you are actually ignoring facts to back an ideology. Why does that seem so familiar? Oh, I got it! The elitists in the US did and do the same thing. People have caught on to the game, repeating the lies won't make the true. All it does at this point is expose the amount of people involved in attempting to maintain the charade.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you omit more than 50% of the populace who voted for Brexit?
(Barely) More than 50% of the people who voted, voted for leaving the EU. Less than 40% of the electorate, and less than 30% of the populace voted for Leave.
Considering the massive amount of propaganda for "remain" having over 50% for exit is an insanely high number.
There wasn't a "massive" amount of propaganda for Remain, which in hindsight is most likely why that side lost. Also obvious in hindsight is that using a simple majority to decide a monumental and irrevocable change to a nation's future is just bloody stupid.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it was the right move but I understand it. Over the years as I've traveled to London I've had less and less interactions with Brits and more and more with Eastern Europeans. Last trip there wasn't a single hospitality employee I interacted with that wasn't a legal Eastern European immigrant. Though London has a fairly low unemployment rate. Still, there is a perception that the UK Manufacturing is a shadow of it's former self and EU companies use cheap labor in the East to ripsaw more expensive labor in the West.
Re: (Score:2)
It was mostly the very old who voted for Brexit, see this graph:
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news... [bbci.co.uk]
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-p... [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean people who know more and are more experienced? Perhaps people who saw what past attempts at a centralized unelected government can turn into?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brits took their election as seriously as we Americans took ours. You don't get do-overs; the pain of the entire country losing is supposed to be a lesson, so you take the next election seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to the tanking of our currency we are *ALREADY* poorer. In fact by my private analysis I have already lost so much money that it would take historically unprecedented wage growth in the UK for me to recover the lost money in the 20+ years I have left till retirement as a result of the referendum result. I would be surprised if that the vast majority of the population are not in the same boat too.
Now if we drop out the customs union it will be a total cluster fuck. The problem is our current customs I
Re: (Score:2)
Hum, lets just remind everyone that 40% of our food is imported. Hey it gets even worse much of our food that is not imported is packaged in materials that are imported. Nothing worse than an angry *hungry* mob, at which point the leaders of the leave campaign will probably need to claim political asylum abroad or be lynched if still in the UK assuming Scotland and Northern Ireland have not decided that such a prospect is not worth it and there is no UK left.
Invest in local agriculture, quick!
Re: (Score:2)
The British Isles haven't been able to produce enough food to feed the population since the 18th century.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and how many wars between European countries were there in that 1000 years? How many since the EU?
Re: (Score:3)
Britain has also not abrogated its responsibilities to the Continent in over 500 years. From Elizabeth I's reign onward, Britain has been one of the guarantors of the smaller European states against the Continental powers. It has now essentially turned its back on one of the constants of British foreign policy since Tudor times.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Funny)
I savor the irony in saying Congrats, Britain, on gaining your independence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't just military guarantees. The economic ties between Britain and the Low Countries date back to the Middle Ages, and defending the Low Countries has accounted for much of Britain foreign policy for centuries. Britain is a trader nation, and since the Empire faded away after the mid-20th century, the importance of the Continent has only grown, but its importance has always been there, which is why Britain has fought every attempt at a Continental System.
Re: (Score:3)
And they aren't severing those economic ties. Nations can be sovereign and yet trade. Globalism benefits only the most rich, while trade between sovereign nations can benefit everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
It has now essentially turned its back on one of the constants of British foreign policy since Tudor times.
That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that British foreign policy since Tudor times has been to ensure that no single entity ever came to power in Europe, and destabilising the EU is a continuance of that policy.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain has survived far worse. What makes you think leaving the EU will be the death knell?
Who said anything about a death knell. The original post simply said they will be poorer, less powerful, and less influential. When you have 5th largest economy in the world, you can get poorer without becoming poor. The danger is members of the UK having a lower standard of living after Brexit, not that they will completely implode.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are 5th because mostly of the City and its banks. But has a bunch of big banks said they will move to Paris to stay in the European market, this hit could be really huge...
(posting anonymously to keep moderations)
Re: (Score:3)
I also don't think that the banks will flee London in a rush, since that would already be more visible. I think they will rather expand their activities inside the EU over time, and not develop London much further.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:4, Interesting)
This glosses over the reality of having your economy fall that far.
It's not just the economy falling though - if Scotland and Northern Ireland leave that too will shrink things, making the UK a smaller market and less interesting to the world.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Funny)
It's not like the continentals are going to erect a wall and stop trading.
What about a moat?
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't "globalist", it is exiting a regional trade pact. I have misgivings about free trade, but almost none of those apply to countries with similar standards of living, similar product safety requirements, similar financial rules, easy migration, and similar worker protections.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't "globalist", it is exiting a regional trade pact. I have misgivings about free trade, but almost none of those apply to countries with similar standards of living, similar product safety requirements, similar financial rules, easy migration, and similar worker protections.
We don't have similar standards of living, worker protections, educational attainment, or health outcomes across the 50 United States. What makes you think the EU can claim such outcomes between members? The anti-EU crowd was bitching about internal EU migration years before they started bitching about the Islamic "invasion." Imagine a New Yorker getting pissed because someone from Mississippi moved next door and took his job....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I were informed enough to call them stupid. Fact is, I can sort of understand the distaste for the undemocratic nature of EU bureaucracy, and I've seen a lot of questionable rules and regulations over the years. I don't think pulling out is in the UK's economic interests, however, and I think any issues with the bureaucracy could have eventually been worked out through normal channels.
Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain has survived far worse. What makes you think leaving the EU will be the death knell?
That's an easy one to answer: Scottish independence. Without Scotland we are no longer Great Britain and certainly not a United Kingdom. What happened today was that we shot ourselves. What remains to be seen is whether we shot ourselves in the head, the foot or the gut. My guess is the latter because unless we either reverse the decision or the EU itself collapses the UK is likely to suffer a long and lingering death both from Scottish and possibly Northern Irish independence as well as internal political conflicts in England and Wales. The latter is because leaving the EU is unlikely to fix any of the issues most of those who voted for it would like to see fixed and the 48% who voted against it are being utterly ignored in pursuit of a "hard" Brexit. This is a self-inflicted existential crisis and I see a good chance of it getting very ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Violent attacks are one thing and war is something completely different. It is more likely to die from a car accident, flight accident or even by cutting ones finger (and getting blood poisoning). Far more people die of leaking butane in mobile homes than by terrorist attacks. Smoking still kill more people too.
War? War is hell, terror is a nuisance*.
(* not intended to downplay the suffering caused by terrorist attacks)
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:4, Insightful)
Far more Americans died in automobile accidents during the Vietnam War than died in the war. That did not make it not a war. The intention of Islam is to conquer the world, and you're a fool to ignore that fact.
There are more forms of war than tanks and uniformed armies, and Islamists know they would be wiped out in a conventional unlimited military conflict. That is why they have chosen to invade with one un-uniformed combatant at a time, draining the economies of victim countries and occasionally engaging in violent outbreaks to generate an atmosphere of fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Europe prior to WWI had 2 groups of countries each bound to protect its members militarily, which meant that any war would trigger fighting across the continent.
Post WWII was different. Western Europe faced a common enemy of communist countries, trade and travel throughout western Europe was easy, and all the western European countries felt pretty friendly toward each other.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:4, Informative)
We had the exact same situation then, just with a different name. A group of powerful unelected globalists
LYING MORON ALERT!!
Seriously how many times does this "unelected" meme have to be debunked, before people will finally STFU about it and stop spreading misinformation.
The European Parliament consists of MEPs which are democratically elected.
The European Council consists of the democratically lected heads of the member states governments.
The Council of Ministers conists of democratically elected ministers from each of the EU member states. Which minister depends on the topic under discussion.
The presidency of the EU is held by a member state and is elected for by your representatives in the EU council.
And then there's the EU commission. They write legislation---writing consistent legislation across 27.5 languages is a job best left ot the professionals---but have no power to pass legislation.
In fact that's like most governments. The representatives don't write legislation, they get the civil service to do it.
Anyone with any power to pass legislation in the EU is there as the result of an election.
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tradeoffs (Score:4, Insightful)
One might say that the web of treaties that made up a united Europe of the early 1900s, The European Union 1.0, was exactly what instigated and fueled WW I & II. We had the exact same situation then, just with a different name. A group of powerful unelected globalists controlled Europe together, and lead us into the two most deadly wars in human history while they divided the world between each other like you would a cake. The history of a Europe tied together by laws and treaties and centrally controlled is one of bloodshed and chaos.
This is flat out incorrect. Europe of the 1910s had nothing in common with the EU. The web of alliances in those days were based on economic protectionism and military rivalry, not peace and cooperation. The EU, and to a large extent the WTO, are attempts to prevent a repeat of the same economic conditions that led to two world wars. The right wing anti-immigration sentiment that's infesting the continent now is what could put us right back there again. The EU is a firewall against it.
Incidentally, Winston Churchill called for the creation of a "United States of Europe" after WWII. He had seen enough of conflict and was smart enough to see that the best way to prevent it was through economic cooperation and development, not militaristic posturing and trying to shut out international trade.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the almost 1000 years of existence without the EU shows just how terribly off they will be.
Well, if the average standard of living during those thousand years is any indication -- yes they will be. (see I can do sweeping generalisations too)
Re: (Score:3)
Humanity has existed for millions of years without electricity and antibiotics. I still think we are better with it than without it.
The world different from 1000 years ago. No country, especially not the UK, is self-sufficient. Trade agreements are a necessity. And guess what, the EU is, as its core, a trade agreement.
By leaving the EU, the UK will have to renegotiate every necessary agreement included in the EU package. It will be a tedious and costly process for maybe just getting back to the current situ
Re: (Score:3)
I know that immigration is supposedly the trigger for Brexit. However I don't see it as a convincing argument.
First of all, the UK is not part of Schengen so it already takes care of its borders. In fact France is helping the UK keeping refugees at bay by not letting them cross the channel.
Second, a significant part of all that's related to human rights and refugees are actually from the UN, not the EU. And the UK has no intention of leaving the UN.
Everything military is more about NATO than the EU.
Once we
Re: (Score:3)
We survived 1000 years without computers.
How well do you think banning them would go in 2017?
Re: (Score:3)
The question is: in the last 10 years, did joining the EU make them richer? If so, then they'll be poorer than they are today. The last 1,000 years don't count.
If you start exercising when 40, become more-attractive, sleep better, become healthier, etc., and then quit exercising when you're 42, you'll get sicker, less-attractive, yadda yadda. Yes, you survived 40 years without exercising; and you were sicker, less attractive, and so on then than the 2 years you spent going to the gym.
Re:Europe is the one that should be scared. (Score:5, Interesting)
Workers, too (Score:2)
UK is losing free access to a market 6x their domestic, and won't be the financial market for Europe. Hard to see how that won't result in a slowed economy and they'll certainly have less political influence as they can no longer affect EU policies.
UK is also losing access to a workforce 6x their domestic, willing to move and work for much less than UK natives.
Wake up! "The economy" has to account for the general welfare of the people, it's more than just the total revenues of the businesses,
Also, if the UK ever needed an emergency tactic to prevent economic collapse, they can let their currency float.
Greece, a member of the EU, was not allowed to do that (even though it would have helped them).
Re: (Score:3)
Also, if the UK ever needed an emergency tactic to prevent economic collapse, they can let their currency float.
Greece, a member of the EU, was not allowed to do that (even though it would have helped them).
But the UK was never a member of the Eurozone. Are suggesting that EU membership has somehow restricted their control over their own independent currency?
Re:Europe is the one that should be scared. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, Canada just concluded CETA [europa.eu] a free trade agreement with the EU and so Brexited UK will have no more than normal WTO trade status with Canada (which is what they'll start with after Brexit for all of those other nations you called out until they can negotiate some other agreements).
But had the UK stayed in EU, they would have had a premium trade arrangement with Canada they won't get now.
Even though Canada's head of state resides in UK. How is that for ironic?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
See, this epitomises why Brexit is a stupid idea, because Brexiteers don't have a fucking clue:
They've been flooded with millions of uneducated, unskilled, and often violent third-worlders from some of the worst places on Earth.
We're not in the schengen zone. Just because Germany let a bunch of refugees in, doesn't mean we have to. In fact, we haven't generally given free access to refugees accepted by ermany and neither are we entitled to.
In other words Brexit will not affect how many refugees we are able,
Re:Europe is the one that should be scared. (Score:4)
In other words Brexit will not affect how many refugees we are able, required and choose to take.
It might. The French might decide they don't want a foreign border on their soil and stop preventing people trying to cross the channel.
They are already reneging on the immigration promises anyway. They also promised to make it easier for people form outside the EU to come to the UK, especially spouses and other family members, but of course that was just a lie.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes sure, we can rely on the best parliament in the world to outshine the combined competence of 27 countries, and Theresa May is exactly the person to lead the way.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the biggest nail in the coffin of the EU will come from America. Their is no way America will continue to be willing to bankroll Nato and fill the role as the EUs military. European nations will have to start spending tens of billions more for their own military, and China and Russia already has orders of magnitude less deterrent for any expansionary policies they might enact. The EU is simply incapable of protecting itself from any aggressive military or trade/financial move by either of these coun
Re:Europe is the one that should be scared. (Score:4, Interesting)
France has a better nuclear deterrent than the UK. It also has a better navy, since the UK is going to be without an aircraft carrier for many years.
The EU can look after itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as Scotland is part of the deal. Oh, and they gotta keep the Irish.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, we're leaving. "Cast off and set sail for Norway"
Re: (Score:2)
B. Irish is a race?
Re: (Score:2)
B. Irish is a race?
Ever since a court in the Netherlands ruled Moroccans to be a race [ft.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Europe gets Canada and Northern America gets the UK.
Sorry, the Americas, UK, S.Africa and Australia form a new trade bloc, while Russia joins EU to become EU-rasia, leaving China off by itself in East Asia,
Re:So long (Score:4, Informative)
Just consider the position that the UK is in now.
The EU has total control over the Article 50 process. I gets to dictate timescales and what negotiations happen when. May pleaded with them no less than four times in the triggering letter to start trade negotiations in parallel with talks over the bill and EU citizen's right, but the EU has refused.
Yes, there is a bill. The UK agreed to contribute to various things and cannot now abandon those commitments without severe consequences. The bill is likely to be â40-60bn.
The EU thinks it will take about 6 months to work out the bill and what happens with EU citizens. They want to offer people in the UK "associate membership" on an individual level, so it needs time to work out. After that, trade negotiations can begin. There are about 12 months available for that, because another 6 will be required for the EU parliament to agree and ratify the deal.
In addition, if we try to negotiate any trade deals with other countries during that time, the EU walks away from the table and we crash out on WTO rules.
That isn't enough time to negotiate much, and the EU has already set out the basic deal on offer. The UK can get some access to the EU market, the amount dependent on how much of the EU rules we are willing to accept. So say we want financial services access, we will need to accept all EU financial services rules, no exceptions or negotiation, and if in future there are new ones they fax them to us and we comply, with the European Court of Justice overseeing. Also, we would have to pay in as if we were a member state, proportional to that access.
The only alternative is to crash out on WTO rules, which is economic suicide. The UK has no cards to play.
After the 2 years are up there will be a transition phase, during which we will still be operating under EU rules and the ECJ while everything is untangled. That will likely be another 2-3 years.
And after that, maybe five years from now, we will still be obeying EU rules if we want to sell stuff to them or have affordable medicines etc. And likely Scotland will have left, and maybe Northern Ireland, and perhaps Gibraltar.
Scotland just announced a post-Brexit independence (Score:5, Informative)
Scotland just voted to have a post-Brexit independence referendum.
Without Scotland, there is no UK.
Just the greater Welsh Hegemony.
Let's not forget Northern Ireland (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Heh. There was some article from The Onion that I can't find now, that talked about how the Balkans were continuing to subdivide into independent nations to the point that nearly every man, woman, and child was their own country. The represented the "nations" by halftoning a map of Yugoslavia.
Never thought I'd see the same thing happen to the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
Scotland just voted to have a post-Brexit independence referendum. Without Scotland, there is no UK. Just the greater Welsh Hegemony.
Well it would get interesting as the EU doesn't let new entrants in on legacy deals. It's the euro, Schengen, full package if Scotland wants to rejoin. Which would mean they'd have to leave the pound and put real border control on the UK border.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest issue for an independent Scotland entering the EU is that Spain and Belgium, both with fairly strong regional independence movements (Spain with the Catalan independence movement and Belgium with Wallonian independence) would likely veto Scottish entry, simply because to allow Scotland entry would send the message that breakaway regions could remain part of the larger European Union.
As it is, it's clear Theresa May is no mood to permit another independence referendum before the final deal with t
Re: (Score:3)
Both Spainish and Belgian governments have said that they wouldn't block Scotland joining the EU. Chances are it would be done as part of the Brexit deal anyway, which they stand to gain from. Spain especially, because they can insist on joint control of Gibraltar or at least use it as a very powerful bargaining chip.
May is in an impossible situation with Scotland. The Scottish government will likely make legal challenges against many aspects of the Brexit deal, and maybe on the referendum point itself. Som
Scottish independence (Score:3)
In related news, Scotland's parliament has just "approved plans to request a referendum on independence that could take place just before Britain completes its withdrawal from the European Union" [nytimes.com]. Ireland may not be far behind in making its own bid for independence. Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?
Re: (Score:2)
Your Britain may not be great, but I still like it.</pokemongo>
Re: (Score:2)
Without England, Scotland has nothing to offer the EU except liability. It'll be interesting to see how this goes.
Re: (Score:2)
It could become the new entry point into the EU for English speaking international companies. They might have to battle it out with Ireland though which already has quite a few for tax reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Without England, Scotland has nothing to offer the EU except liability.
Scotland is small ,but it has a higher per capita GDP than England, or the entire UK for that matter -- if you count North Sea energy. Scotland as an independent country would be the twelfth largest economy in Europe and almost exactly in the middle of the pack for size in the EU.
Now logically speaking Scottish independence from an independent UK does not necessarily equate to EU membership. Scots could choose independence from the UK on the basis that union with a UK that is not in the EU is not as attra
Re: (Score:3)
Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?
That would require some massive civil engineering.
Let me break it down for you:
1. Great Britain is an island. There are three countrylets (nobody has a better word for them) on the island: England, Wales, and Scotland.
2. It's part of a group of islands known as the "British Isles" that also includes Ireland, the Isle of Man, Great Britain, and some other smaller islands.
3. The island of Ireland has two countries on it: Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
4. The United Kingdom consists of the three cou
UK vs Great Britain geography (Score:4, Interesting)
The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained [youtube.com]
The (Secret) City of London, Part 1: History [youtube.com]
The (Secret) City of London, Part 2: Government [youtube.com]
And here's one about the whole Brexit thing itself, though it's from just after the vote so is now somewhat out of date, though the speculation about what the results might be "if" it goes through are presumably still relevant.
Brexit, Briefly [youtube.com]
.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it was a joke but "Great Britain" is the island - the largest island in the British Isles - not the country. So yes, it will still be great since it's the largest.
United Kingdom is the country and includes Northern Ireland - for now - which is part of a different island: Ireland. Not to be confused with Ireland (the country), which is only part of Ireland(the island).
Re: (Score:3)
In related news, Scotland's parliament has just "approved plans to request a referendum on independence that could take place just before Britain completes its withdrawal from the European Union" [nytimes.com]. Ireland may not be far behind in making its own bid for independence. Would it still be "Great" Britain if it was just England and Wales?
The country called Ireland is independent. You are referring to Northern Ireland, which is a contituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Makes perfect sense (Score:5, Funny)
Airstrip One was always part of Oceania, not Eurasia.
And might barely, barely won that one (Score:5, Insightful)
If a simple 50% majority was sufficient to join, then a 50% majority is sufficient to leave.
Neither should be the case as turning over so much power should be a supermajority decision of people in a nation (because if you can't convince most people that such a big change is a good idea, you have no business doing it.) But somehow people are trained to believe a simple majority is a godlike authority instead of an abstraction of might makes right, which it should be treated as.
Re:And might barely, barely won that one (Score:5, Informative)
Joining got a supermajority. Leaving got a barebones majority.
Re:And might barely, barely won that one (Score:4, Insightful)
Good bye England (Score:2)
Welcome, Northern-Ireland, Scotland and Wales. (and a dozen islands)
The results of any election or referendum.... (Score:4, Interesting)
While it is doubtless true that most voters that voted on the Brexit referendum did indeed vote to leave the EU, I am pretty sure that it is not what most people in Britain actually wanted. Calling it the "will of the people" is just balderdash. It is simply the outcome of the democratic process in this instance, nothing more and nothing less.
Re:The results of any election or referendum.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not voting also expresses an opinion, even if it's a lack of opinion or lack of attention or care or anything else.
Those that did not go to a polling station simply voted to follow whatever everyone else decided.
I was in the UK in December (Score:3)
My observations as an American:
1) When we had random conversations with people we met, they all asked me what I thought of Brexit. Regardless of what I told them (which was neither supportive nor critical), to a person they were all Brexit supporters.
2) The presence of immigrants was very apparent after arriving. The tube car from Heathrow was half Indian subcontinent or Arab, and the hotel (in Westminster, 3 blocks from Parliament) was staffed almost exclusively by Eastern Europeans.
My sense is that the immigrant population combined with economic stagnation of middle and lower classes has crossed some psychological tipping point for a lot of people. I think if the middle class was booming there would be a lot less support for Brexit.
Re:A completely unaccountable governing body (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the only method member states have of telling the EU it's doing it wrong: leaving.
How is this comment modded up? Do you think the only way of telling your own government is to leave? The EU government, like the UK government, is full of elected officials.
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of this is caused by a 'divide and conquer' strategy. question is : by whom and for what purpose ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
They do?
Re:A completely unaccountable governing body (Score:5, Interesting)
After Brexit, Scotland will reconsider if they still enough common interests to remain in the UK. If the West Midlands or Greater Manchester wish to do the same, that's their prerogative, too.
This whole concept of Nationalism and Nation-States is only a 19th century experiment and it doesn't seem to working out well in a lot of cases. It might turn out that the most stable expression of democracy is something that resembles the loosely allied city-states of ancient Greece.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly the opposite. Nation states work well, and the effort to do away with them has caused terrible stresses that will almost certainly lead to war and privation.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not even going to entertain theories about internationalist globalists conspiracies from someone who ca
Re: (Score:2)
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
This seems like a distortion of the OP's proposition. I read it more like saying that the only control the two sheep have over what the three wolves have for dinner is to get out of the common pasture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the only method member states have of telling the EU it's doing it wrong: leaving.
This isn't England taking their ball and going home. This is England slashing the ball up with a knife and breaking their own legs. The EU will find a new ball (probably one with a Scottish accent) and keep playing while England is stuck in bed with a broken leg for 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A completely unaccountable governing body (Score:5, Informative)
It's so sad that even after Brexit people like the above commenter continue to display their ignorance and have apparently no idea how the EU works or what it actually is. Here is an executive summary:
- The president of the European Council is elected by the heads of state of all member states.
- The president of the European Commission is elected by the European Council.
- The members of the European Parliament are elected directly from the citizens of the member states.
- The president of the European Parliament is elected by the European Parliament.
- The European Commission is not democratically elected, they are civil servants, but the European Parliament can dismiss it by a vote of censure or no confidence. Legislation of the European Commission must be approved by the European Parliament and/or by the European Council (depending on the kind of legislation).
- The European Council consists of the heads of state of all EU member states, the European Commission President and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy. Obviously, the heads of states are all elected democratically by the citizens of their respective country, since the EU does not allow member states that do not satisfy high democratic standards.
Not only that, the whole structure of the EU is the result of unanimous votes of all member states, which is one of the reasons why it took so long to built this union, and the European Council usually has to decide unanimously (= not a single vote against) and only under rarer exceptions by majority. This means that (by population) smaller countries have a much larger voice in the EU than larger countries, but since voting usually has to be unanimous, this has never caused any problems. Moreover, just like the EU has been built by their member states it can also be changed by their member states. But it doesn't stop there. The EU is also ridiculously cheap, the EU budget is only about 1% of the total GDP of its member states, and the 28 current EU countries spend about 50 times more on national expenses than on the EU budget!
And here is the most ironic and sad thing about the Brexit: Since 1985, the UK got a rebate [wikipedia.org] of 66% on their EU spending! No joke, they got a 66% refund, just so they don't bitch around too much. Talking about ungratefulness...
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Next, we'll be reading stories that Kim Kardashian has given birth to twins on this site.
She DID?!? Why didn't we hear about this sooner?! You're all letting us down here! You need to submit an article!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, they are leaving. They might become their own countries and try to rejoin in the future, but their irrevocable exit from the EU has been declared now, as part of the UK.
Re:You spelled Lesser Britain wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-nor... [bbc.com]
Scotland is definitely leaving the EU along with UK. If they vote for independence, they could reapply to the EU. But this is far from automatic, since there are other EU members that are struggling to discourage their own secessionists.
http://www.politico.eu/article... [politico.eu]