http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39431428
The UK Government has officially notified the EU that they are invoking Article 50. This begins the 2-year timer for the UK to leave the EU.
In a statement in the Commons, [Prime Minister Teresa] May 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.
"This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Brexit Officially Begun, Article 50 Just Invoked
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 84 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mojo chan on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:26AM (62 children)
Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
The UK is finished. Scotland will leave. Northern Ireland will probably leave. Our economy will fall behind, with companies already leaving. Xenophobia and bigotry have become mainstream again.
I want my country back. Article 50 can still be cancelled. It's a real mountain to climb though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:50AM (15 children)
It's mainstream because you keep calling them that, there's nothing wrong with being xenophobic or bigoted anymore since it applies to huge swathes of the population.
Calling everyone who disagrees with your totalitarian dream as wrongthink isn't going to change opinions. They'll just go elsewhere to discuss their wrongthink, out of your earshot.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:05AM (5 children)
there's nothing wrong with being xenophobic or bigoted anymore since it applies to huge swathes of the population.
Yes, there still is, you bloody Pom! You are the result of too many Picts and Britons have too many carnal relations with sheep, you idiot fucking racist! As I have said before, this is why we cannot have white supremecy! These bloody Brits are too fucking stoopid! I hate them all. Do you know that when Nietzsche advocated genocide, it was not the jews he had in mind, it was the UK! As Marx said, a nation of shopkeepers! So fucking lowly and stupid that they cannot even manage a national cuisine! Fucking kidney pie? At least the Scots have Haggis! And what is it with the warm beer? No one really wanted the UK to be part of the EU, but they thought they had to let them in, if they were going to let in Turkey. But, seriously, there is nothing more pathetic than British xenophobia and bigotry. After all, Angles and Saxons are actually Germans, right? And half of the great-great-grandfather of the UK are Danes! Am I right? And William? The Conqueror? French, you know. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second tyme!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:14AM (1 child)
#triggered
Alright, let's see your taunts then.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:17AM
This is what happens with Paki bashing, when it is the Paki doing the bashing. Pathetic remains of a nation of thieves. Return the Elgin Marbles, you fucks!!!
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:08AM (1 child)
When doing it with sheep, it seems to me, you're exactly the opposite of an racist... :-D
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:31PM
That depends on whether you are also doing it with black sheep. ;-)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:14PM
I think you missed the point of the GP's post. When you call anyone and everyone who disagrees with you, a racist nazi, including those people who actually are not racist nazis, your argument loses currency.
I don't live in Britain so I can't speak from personal experience about Brexit, but I would bet money that many of those who voted for Brexit did so as a backlash, much like how Trump won here in the US because the status quo is failing so many people. It may be an ineffective backlash, one with multiple unintended consequences, even a backlash made out of pure spite without the expectation that things will get better, but for many people the backlash is rooted in the economic unfairness of past 40 years or so. That isn't racism - that's being pissed off and exercising the only type of vengeance possible short of building guillotines.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:32PM
True - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs&t=1s [youtube.com]
Sway people with argument! Why should the leave the monetary and trade policy of their country to an external party primarily controlled by another set of nations and in which they have little say? Please answer without using the US an an example (as the situation is very different... and some states DID leave), or without a nebulous examples of "something something something, trade policy, the currency goes up when we subsidize Greek pensioners, so that must be good!"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:54PM (7 children)
This whole racist and xenophobe thing is on the rise simply because of human nature and culture. People like status quo. They dont like change. Europe, and even the USA have enjoyed a somewhat stable cultural environment for quite some time. That environment was mostly white christian. Sure, there are different christians which has caused violence in the past . But for the most part, they believe in the same things, follow the same bible, and celebrate the same holidays. They can more easily co-exist.
Once you have a bunch of foreigners coming in droves, forming neighborhoods and rapidly changing the cultural environment, it can seem like an invasion. And invasions are perceived as aggressive causing an equally aggressive reaction. This is the case with the millions of muslims and eastern europeans who have migrated to countries with good economies such as the UK, France, and Germany. The vast majority mean no harm and just want to work and have a better life. But a few bad apples spoil the bunch and of course the media focuses on those. Muslim criminals, radicles, no-go zones etc. "Natives" hear these stories, some blown out of proportion or outright lies (muslim no-go zones) and flip shit. And thanks to most people being incredibly stupid and incapable of rational independent thought, form a mob mentality that they are in fact being invaded. So they want to fight back. The current generation of politicians arent stupid and take full advantage of the political climate and run on a populist platform.
In the end, the so-called bigotry, racism and xenophobia are basic parts of human nature which are carefully taken advantage of and manipulated.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:38PM (3 children)
Not precisely. It's because when people get frightened they cling to the familiar, even if it's already on fire or sinking. And this means they try to avoid, remove, etc. the unfamiliar. As the Singularity approaches a larger percentage of the population becomes frightened. For some this is job loss, for some it's "what kind of life will my children have?", for some it's "you can't trust anyone anymore" (that's mainly people who grew up in small towns that have become large), etc.
These are all quite predictable reactions that those who consider the Singularity wondrously attractive somehow ignore/ed. It's going to get more intense, and paranoid reactions aren't helping matters, even though they are predictable. There's a sort of negative image of the tragedy of the commons involved. Personally I give us (the species) about a 50% chance of coming through it. But this is better than we'd have if we continued to live in independent nations with intransigent leaders that control nuclear/biological/etc. weapons.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:45PM (2 children)
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)
Do Brits even practice ritual infant genital mutilation? I thought it was only something Americans and Moslems do.
I feel your pain. Stay strong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:32PM
Never mind me, I'm a complete retard. Of course you were talking about Moslems. Moslems should go to the USA instead, where the AAP wants American hospitals to open their infant genital mutilation practices to infant females as well as infant males.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:54PM (1 child)
"Once you have a bunch of foreigners coming in droves, forming neighborhoods and rapidly changing the cultural environment, it can seem like an invasion."
You have large numbers of uneducated and generally unemployable people arriving, who do not speak your language or share your cultural values. That *is* an invasion.
"The vast majority mean no harm and just want to work and have a better life."
Yes. There's a refugee here who just arrive from Afghanistan. Seems like a nice enough guy, although he doesn't yet speak a word of any local language. But here's the thing:
- Every individual is a fine person.
- Entire migrations are not fine.
I have total sympathy for an individual person who was in a shitty situation. I understand that they just want a better life. But there are are literally hundreds of millions of people in Africa and the Middle East who desperately want to go to Europe. We cannot take them all - not "don't want to" but cannot.
If Europe wants to accept some number of immigrants, this is something we can disucss. But the process must be under control. You cannot let people just randomly wander in. Put a process in place for immigrations, and enforce it. Anyone arriving outside of this process must be turned away, with no exceptions whatsoever.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:59PM
A lot of those cultural values also has to do with viewing women as prey. In general every person that is physically weaker at any time as free to prey on. Add to that the drive for theocratic ruling of the society. The key is however that they can't and won't be employed in any meaningful way at large in industrialized nations, which puts them on welfare that impacts the economy. And the loyalty to existing citizens are way too low to make it work as a integrated society which impacts security.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:15PM
It's due to decades of shitty newspapers blaming the EU and immigrants for almost everything. Pretty much the only stuff they don't get blamed for is the stuff that is blamed on the workshy unemployed and single mothers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:04AM (12 children)
Northern Ireland can't leave. They would never survive on their own.
I really wonder what's going to happen to Gibraltar . They are in a pickle now.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:10AM
Northern Ireland can't leave. They would never survive on their own.
Of course they could, they would just become part of Ireland. But as the whole situation was explained to me, by a Scot, is that the Scotch-Irish, who were sent to Northern Ireland to control the place, since they would have to rely on the English throne to defend them against the rest of the island, these Scotch-Irish for some reason belonging to the wrong religion, are too dumb to realized that they are being used by the Brits, and to just leave. They could go to Nova Scotia. Or New Orleans. But Scots, sometimes it is impossible to distinguish stupidity from stubbornness.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:50AM (9 children)
Of course they can.They'll join the EU, under the governance of Dublin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:17AM (3 children)
Of course they can.They'll join the EU, under the governance of Dublin.
Who says they would want to be governed by Ireland, and who says Dublin wants to pay all the unemployment for people in the north? Various political and terrorist groups have been fighting for ages to get a unified Ireland. But when we look at it objectively, Northern Ireland isn't really all that great. I'm not sure that your average Irish person really wants it back now.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:13AM (2 children)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-can-rejoin-eu-reunification-david-davis-stormont-a7653346.html [independent.co.uk]
Hatred for the English is one thing.
Economic suicide is a different thing entirely.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:35AM (1 child)
What has hatred of the English got to do with this? Reunification has been a dream for years, and a rallying cry for politicians who want to raise funds and keep themselves in a position of power and influence. But what really, in this modern age, would be the point in erasing a line on a map? Ireland doesn't need to to increase its boarders. They definitely do not need to add the economic bottomless pit that is the 6 counties of the North.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:07AM
Neither the former Western Germany needed the "bottomless pit" that was the Eastern one back in 1990.
And yet today, an East german person is prime minister; believe it or not, it wasn't propped by Russians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:10PM (4 children)
Northern Ireland is just going to say, "Meh, this kind of sucks. Let's join Ireland after all."? They practically fought a 30+-year war over this very issue. You've heard of The Troubles, [wikipedia.org] right?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:49PM (3 children)
A 30+ year war, with a much longer history, in which the British government was playing both sides for their own ends.
The chances of NI joining IE is not that high just yet, but if the UK gov continues like it is for now, treating Northern Ireland in the same way they treat Scotland... A charity case of a country that should really be grateful for all the protection and support England gives them, they'd be nothing on their own, or elsewhere... There's a higher likelihood of seeing more common ground with other neighbors than the long standing parental relationship England bestows upon them.
The new tagline for the UK is Global Britain... which doesn't include Northern Ireland... (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
I still am bemused by the politics around the Scottish independence vote that happened a couple years ago... If Scotland would leave the UK, that would be it... Shut out from trade, shut out from defense... They want to leave, they're on their own... No favors, no history, you burn your bridge and you're fucking done..... Quite willing to damage the rest of the UK to spite Scotland and make sure they suffered from wanting sovereignty, the history of cooperation be damned... Back to that, Scotland is just a charity case the rest of the UK tolerates because of a benevolent nature.
The EU even just implies half of that, and it's a travesty and so disrespectful to the will of the people and the interests of both parties to not be willing to make a deal that the exiting nation wants....
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:09PM (2 children)
The EU even just implies half of that, and it's a travesty and so disrespectful to the will of the people and the interests of both parties to not be willing to make a deal that the exiting nation wants....
You're saying the EU is being disrespectful? Not sure I'm parsing this correctly.
I still am bemused by the politics around the Scottish independence vote that happened a couple years ago... If Scotland would leave the UK, that would be it... Shut out from trade, shut out from defense... They want to leave, they're on their own... No favors, no history, you burn your bridge and you're fucking done..... Quite willing to damage the rest of the UK to spite Scotland and make sure they suffered from wanting sovereignty, the history of cooperation be damned... Back to that, Scotland is just a charity case the rest of the UK tolerates because of a benevolent nature.
Who does Scotland need defending from? A Russian invasion?
Sounds like you've got your mind pretty firmly made up. Brexit and Scottish independence (not to mention Northern Ireland? oh geez) are complicated enough that I don't feel comfortable picking a side. They both have arguments for and against.
England may be where all the money's at, but it sounds like the other kingdoms (well, Scotland, anyway) are somewhat tired of being told what to do and taken for granted by London. And keeping them in against their will by telling them they'll fail on their own is rather...condescending? Interesting dynamic if true. I'm not sure I'd count them out so easily.
But when it's only half the population that wants to split off the whole thing gets way messier :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
Sorry if that was a bit of a rant and all over the place... This will be too...
I really don't have my mind made up about any of this... Democracy should be the decider, but when the votes are seldom preceded by a honest and factual debate, it's pretty hard to have much faith in the outcome.
My point about Scotland is what the UK government was threatening Scotland with if they voted for independence... The history and cooperation between the UK and Scotland would end if they burned the bridge... But the UK cannot fathom why the EU does not want to bend over to accommodate the whims of the UK on it's exit from the EU... The same thing the UK would do if Scotland wanted to leave that union, not make life easy.
Personally, I am in favor of leaving the EU -- i did not vote on it due to a conflict between short and longterm interests, and the fear of how badly it would be managed -- the way it's being done I think is even more damaging than remaining at this point (as i feared). It's purely a political football, and the UK gov has an open goal to aim for, to do it on good terms, but they're deciding to do a trick shot, to placate the nationalist sentiment of the electorate and ensure the party survives and support is not switched to UKIP or its successor. The UK gov and the UK population, in my opinion has an inflated sense of it's own importance in the EU and the world, because we used to be important... The UK had so many special deals already and opt-outs of various parts of the EU project... Through the 'will of the people' they are giving all that up, but at the same time trying to pretend that we still have all the leverage.
This is a serious situation and could go very badly for the general public if it's not treated with the respect and importance that it deserves. From my own perspective, it's done huge damage to my business that was depending on foreign investment... On the larger scale it's fine, and that's where I have issue with the 'rejection of globalism' argument some people have for leaving the EU.... The public may have voted for that, but the conservative government are all in on the global economy, for the bigger players in the market, corporations and governments... not so much for the individuals.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:09PM
Ah, that makes things a lot clearer. Thanks.
-just an American reading articles
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by letssee on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:03AM
Meybe Northern Ireland could join up with Scotland if they think Ireland is too catholic?
Historically scotland was colonized from ireland ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata [wikipedia.org] ) so they have been united before (though long ago).
(Score: 3, Funny) by caffeine on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:21AM (5 children)
It seems plenty of countries survive outside of the EU. I'm Australian and we seem to do ok and unfortunately we even get an entry in Eurovision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:26AM (1 child)
Have you tried using a Digeridoo? Or perhaps Iocaine powder.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kell on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:43AM
I've tried both. Building an immunity to iocaine powder was easier than building an immunity to the digeridoo...
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:53AM (2 children)
Dillusions, dillusions. You are in a prison, if you have not noticed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:20PM (1 child)
What a pickle!
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:16PM
Nah, it's illusory.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)
Article 50 can still be cancelled.
Indeed it can; in the coming two years, ... by Britain. This would be my hope to happen also.
That being said, I understand/appreciate (not being British nor living there) some of the points behind brexit. The EU is based on the concept of ignoring economic differences between countries by not sharing a common policy, and going for completely free trade and a common currency (for many) anyway. This of course comes with its problems. Economic differences have to be compensated and that can happen through money transfers (making the grass greener here) or worker migration (going to where the grass is greener). The latter was the mechanism that partially allowed the EU to function up this point and the UK just happens to be one of the most attractive places to go to. I give the UK that the current level of immigration is unsustainable. The correct reaction IMO, would be to regulate worker migration, which the UK tried to do but the EU blocked. If migration is regulated, transfers have to increase as a compensation, which the UK blocked. If the UK wants to regain free access to the EU market without allowing free migration they would have it both ways and this is not going to happen. I expect that brexit negotiations will become extremely tedious as both sides only have losses to cut. Hopefully, at some point it will be realized that a win-win is still possible and the invocation will be revoked.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by kaszz on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:05PM
EU has more to gain from trade with UK than vice versa. Besides UK has a commercial power house and innovation asfaik. And do know how to trade worldwide. If EU want to do the crybaby thing, they can but I doubt it would work.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by rleigh on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:47AM (2 children)
I'm not too worried about the economy, if anything I think we'll do better from this in the long run. There will doubtless be short-term issues, and lots of noise in the news, but when we look back in a decade hence, we may well at that point be able to say for sure we made the right choice. Personally, I think staying in would have been even worse in the short-medium term; the EU is a structural mess with many long standing and unresolved problems, and I think we're well out of that. Several other EU members are at breaking point over the inequality inherent to the Euro zone; it can't go on the way it is without significant change--what's happening in Greece, Italy, Spain and other places is a travesty and I see this first hand from all the young people from these countries who ended up having to work in the UK due to the terrible state of youth employment in all these places. That's not right, and the EU is the cause of it. Nations should not have to sacrifice the prospects of their youth as the price for continued participation in such a bankrupt system.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:57AM
Not to mention, if the EU manages to reform itself and become some sort of coherent democratic structure that doesn't just ruin countries other than Germany, I am sure the UK can re-apply down the line.
It isn't like this decision is "for now and ever". Unions, politicians, political winds, etc... all change with the time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:08PM
Several other EU members are at breaking point over the inequality inherent to the Euro zone; it can't go on the way it is without significant change--what's happening in Greece, Italy, Spain and other places is a travesty
What you say sounds plausible, but is making key assumptions which are not correct.
The UK has its own currency and is not using the Euro. As such, they can use monetary policy (e.g. inflate and deflate currency, affect interest rates, etc.) on their own without issue. One of the major problems for the PIGS countries is that they are on the Euro, cannot control their currency, and thus are tied to various other economies in completely different circumstances (e.g. Germany).
The EU may or may not have problems, and may or may not be a "structural mess." It may or may not be good for the UK to leave the EU. However, pointing to Greece, Italy, and Spain as reasons why the UK should leave the EU makes as much sense as saying, "the farm next door just got a tractor, so I should buy a new car, too."
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:55AM (2 children)
We still have London, at least.
Article 50 can still be cancelled. It's a real mountain to climb though.
Won't happen.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:07AM (1 child)
Maybe, but not Lloyds of London, it seems: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39441035
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:06PM
make that lloyds, formerly of london
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:59AM (12 children)
Do you think there would be such a sharp spike in nationalist views if the people immigrating simply merged with society, adopted their cultural standards, and the economy remained more or less healthy from the bottom up? I don't. The reason people are upset about open door immigration and globalist economics is not about race or color, but because of outcomes.
In terms of immigration I have no idea why globalist powers that be did things the way they did. Allowing immigration from comparably developed and somewhat culturally compatible regions at first would have been infinitely more desirable and effective. For instance begin to allow free travel, business, employment, and so on between Europe and the United States and Australia. Then begin to open the door to more developed Asian nations. And then slowly begin increasing integration between more undeveloped nations. It's something that would have required major international cooperation but could have started to smoothly transition to a new era in humanity.
Instead the big introduction to immigration was, for many people, a one way dumping of millions of individuals, many holding beliefs and values that vary radically from the beliefs and values of the countries they were being "integrated" into. And by one way, it was more of an affair of charity than mutual gain. Plenty of Americans would want to work and travel in Europe and similarly for plenty of Europeans in America. There's mutual travel and benefits. In this version of immigration, it's only charity. And the massive cultural conflicts mean that charity is going to be met, on occasion, with grand displays of violence and hostility. If I really wanted to create anti-immigrant and more nationalistic sentiment, this is exactly how I would go about it.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:11AM (8 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:40AM (7 children)
What you're asking for is basically what the EU provides. A group of countries that are at relatively similar economic and social levels and complete freedom of movement between them. If you want to move to the UK from France or Germany, it's no more difficult than moving from another part of the same country
That's what the EU used to provide. But then someone came up with the brilliant idea to invite large parts of eastern Europe, countries who are not anywhere near the same standards of living.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:22AM (4 children)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:57AM (3 children)
Also, the point of them joining us to come to to western European levels and provide us with a bigger market. Just like Ireland and Spain.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:05PM
And, BTW, the United Kingdom when they joined. After all, back then the British economy wasn't doing particularly good. It was only after they joined the European Community that they recovered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:24AM (1 child)
So, you're not allowed to trade with them if they're not in the same club?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday March 31 2017, @09:25AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:30AM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:09PM
I'm not so sure that it is unlikely. Note that to get that situation, the economy of those countries doesn't need to exceed the current UK economy …
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:27PM
I have no idea why globalist powers that be did things the way they did.
Did you consider that they had set out to fail?
People who cannot travel and migrate freely are much easier to control.
There is a much, much larger game going on here than Illuminati conspiracy theorists believe in.
The 1% literally wants to become new kings and queens, in a very medieval sense of the word. An open-minded, educated, worldly, well-traveled populace with access to the fruits of their collective labors is anathema to that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:24PM
The main problem with your thesis is that people in countries at similar levels of development expect living wages, decent benefits, rational hours, and a relatively non-abusive relationship with their employer. Desperate people from the 3rd World expect none of those things. Thus, mass immigration from destitute countries is NOT charity, it is how the 0.1% fuck you and enrich themselves by driving down the value of labor (increase competition for jobs).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:19PM
In terms of immigration I have no idea why globalist powers that be did things the way they did.
.
* Cheap underclass to enslave.
* Leftist voter cattle, until they can overthrow the current government and install theocracy.
* Harass the native population into submission which makes them easier for the ruling class, to rule.
* Excuse to expand the surveillance and control apparatus because now there are actually bad people around.
* Inflate property prices.
* Important people can now justify their existence to solve the problems they created.
* Undermine education and stable life which will lessen the number of economic competitors for future resources.
* Make a profit providing services for the people immigrating in the form of housing, food, services etc paid by loans on future taxation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:42PM
Scots do not want to leave. I don't think the results of a future referendum will be too different than the last.
Yet other companies have now begun investing more directly in the UK.
Not really. The majority of people want controlled immigration, don't be so disingenuous as to slander them.
You're close to having it back - your country has long been a sovereign state governed under representational parliamentary democracy. When has the UK ('your country') ever been a corporate autocracy?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:32PM
I want my country back.
Not to put too fine a point on it, "your" country is still right there, in Berlin or Brussels. Perhaps you did not intend it, but it does sound like your loyalty has transferred to the EU so perhaps you should relocate to remain in it. Same process happened in the U.S. in the 19th Century, as primary loyalty slowly transferred from one's State to the USG, you seem to have already transferred your loyalty to the EU and now feel like a Virginian in 1861, in the days leading up to the formal secession. Most of the UK appear to have decided they would rather return to being Subjects of Her Majesty than remain "Citizens" in the EU's fake freedom of rule by unelected, unselected, government drones quietly directed from Berlin.
But the larger point is you lost the vote and can't deal with it. Democracy for a person like you only means the People are free to agree with you, should they ever disagree your actual devotion to popular rule is instantly revealed as a sham. We are watching the exact same process play out on my side of the pond with the 'Democratic' Party revealing their actual beliefs about Democracy. And should LePen pull of an upset win, does anyone doubt we would be treated to the exact same 'big reveal' about the French establishment's actual views of "The People?"
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:22PM (2 children)
I'm not sure desiring an end to terrorism, suicide bombings, and rape gangs is bigotry. Some cultures are simply poisonous. The people, intrinsically are not so but they are inseparable from their hopelessly poisoned culture.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:13PM (1 child)
So presumably you wanted to kick all the Irish people out too, during the troubles. They did a lot more terrorism than Islamists have.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:11PM
The past is the past. Right now 99% of rape gangs/bombings/terrorist activity in the UK has a rather predictable source and it isn't Irish people. If redheads wearing Mickey Mouse hats were known all over the world for rape gangs/bombings/being terrorists I'd say it's a solid idea to not let them in your country too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:24PM
You say that as if xenophobia and bigotry are never good, but how else does one preserve a culture?
Is it just UK culture that is worthless in your mind, or are there other cultures that you also consider worthless? Perhaps just the western cultures?
Note that you face a contradiction. If you oppose xenophobia and bigotry, then you welcome the immigrants, but the immigrants bring strong xenophobia and bigotry. One might hope that they would be humble and grateful, but no, they see you as a mere infidel. Your opposition to xenophobia and bigotry brings more xenophobia and bigotry, not less.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:53AM (4 children)
Brexit is somewhat controversial and polarising in the UK.
If you want to see an approachable overview of just how some people who voted remain feel about it, I can recommend this web-site:
http://www.citizen-nowhere.com/ [citizen-nowhere.com]
And, specifically, the article posted on Tuesday 28 March 2017 - be warned it is long - http://www.citizen-nowhere.com/brexit-are-you-angry-yet/ [citizen-nowhere.com]
If anyone can recommend a web-site that cogently argues the opposite viewpoint, please reply with a link.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:21AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW0LEtW_6sI [youtube.com]
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vpo9qzsfL4 [youtube.com]
It was national and democratic sovereignty over an unelected and non removable group of bureaucrats vs people like you who throw 'racist, sexist, *phobe' out like they are arguments instead of insults.
Insults that are losing power from overuse.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:48AM (2 children)
I think for many the entire point is you don't need lengthy articles or even articles. The answer is a question, and quite a simple one: Do you feel that the pros and cons of membership within the modern EU have been a net gain or a net loss for you, your community, and your country?
When the majority of people feel it is a net loss, they no longer support membership. This isn't something that one needs to argue. Convincing you that things are actually worse than you think they are is about as sensical as you trying to convince somebody else that things are better than they think they are. It's a subjective and very personal take on the state of affairs. If you want people to support integration then there's a simple way - have integration perceptibly improve the lives of the majority. Or, at the minimum, in no meaningful way worsen them.
I think this is why much of the rhetoric against Brexit completely failed. It was trying to scare people into opposing Brexit - that leaving the EU would be the end of times. When people perceive their lives as being worsened by something, trying to claim that taking that thing away would worsen their lives even more is not exactly a compelling argument. I think it would have been vastly more effective to try to show how the modern EU has substantively improved the lives of the majority. Unfortunately, I think that the evidence there would be relatively sparse.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pTamok on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:09PM (1 child)
Do you feel that the pros and cons of membership within the modern EU have been a net gain or a net loss for you, your community, and your country?
That is an interesting question. Part of the answer might lie with the popular media and whether there has been a preponderance of pro- or anti- EU stories promulgated. When you dig into a lot of the stories, it turns out that they are not entirely in accordance with the facts:
http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/media/euromyths.html [europarl.org.uk]
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/silly-season-top-ten-and-more-of-misleading-eu-media-stories/ [europa.eu]
It has been politically convenient for the UK parliament and civil servants to blame the EU for 'bad' things and take the credit for 'good' things, which, in the long terms, generates a misleading impression of the benefits versus the disadvantages of EU membership.
And straight cucumbers is not an EU originated standard: http://www.unece.org/info/media/blog/previous-blogs/cucumbers-blame-the-un.html [unece.org]
Ananlysis of the print media also shows a very strong level of negative immigration stories: http://www.sub-scribe2015.co.uk/whitetops-immigration.html [sub-scribe2015.co.uk]
So overall, why people may well have voted according to their feelings, the pertinent question is were those feelings in accordance with the facts, or had they, perhaps, been manipulated?
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:41PM
...just to add, this Demos report is a good read, to.
https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Demos-final-brexit-report-v2.pdf [demos.co.uk]
[The] report is the result of a collaboration of 90 experts and practitioners from a variety of fields, who shared their insights and debated their views in order to better understand the implications of Brexit for the economy and society. The group had very different areas of expertise and experience, and included those who supported both Leave and Remain.
Brexit, if handled correctly, was a once in a generation opportunity to re-think the economic and social landscape of the UK. The overarching message must be that whilst divisions from the referendum linger, with both sides wishing to defend their arguments and refute the other side, finding a successful route through Brexit can’t be based on a stubborn advocacy of the (as yet unrealised) benefits of leaving, nor in an inflexible warning about its (also unrealised) dangers.
Instead a full awareness of the opportunities and risks needs to inform both the process of negotiation and its aftermath.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:00AM (12 children)
As a remainer, I am not really shocked that Britain voted "out", it has been coming for years. What has shocked me is that the EU has done *nothing* to stop other countries voting out. I think the three main issues in the leave campaign were:
* Freedom of movement/immigrants: There has been some hand wringing but no real movement from EU. How about backing off on complete freedom of movement?
* Bureaucracy-led crappile: No one has even thought about how to address this. How about a democratically elected leader to the EU? Rather than the stupid 1 year rotating presidency, designed to ensure EU does nothing and has no effective political establishment. How about primacy given to the MEPs?
* Transfer of money to Eastern Europe: How about reducing payments to Eastern Europe?
I understand each of these bullets has political implications, but the EU has to change or die. I don't see how it can continue in its present incarnation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zocalo on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:41AM (4 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:23PM (3 children)
That's absurdly wrong, it's not even close.
Latest UK Governmental data:
* EU Exports for January 2017 were £12.8 billion. This was an increase of £0.7 billion (5.5 per cent) compared with last month, and an increase of £2.3 billion (22 per cent) compared with January 2016.
* EU Imports for January 2017 were £19.5 billion. This was a decrease of £0.4 billion (1.8 per cent) compared with last month, but an increase of £2.8 billion (17 per cent) compared with January 2016.
* In EU trade the UK was a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by £6.8 billion.
-- https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/EU_and_Non-EU_Data.aspx
Mininformation like yours was what got the UK into the Brexit mess in the first place.
You may award yourself the Farage-Johnson badge of bold-faced alternate-fact propagation.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)
The bulk of the UK's exports currently go to the EU.
The UK imports more goods by value from the EU than it exports to it.
The conclusion is still correct though; a default to WTO trade arrangements for UK-EU trade is going to hurt the UK a lot more than it is the EU, especially since the EU nations will still have an option to resell goods that might previously have been bound for the UK elsewhere in the EU without the WTO tariffs, additional border controls, etc.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:40PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:05PM
Today's news had a piece on Welsh sheep farmers - many of whom voted "Leave", despite the EU being currently where more than 50% of their lambs get sold to - that pretty much summed that up to a T. Only one seemed to be actively thinking about new markets and business models; the rest were all doom and gloom if the subsidies were to stop, which is currently due to occur in 2020. Maybe that was a representative sample, maybe it wasn't, but it does indicate that at least some people are starting to question the implications of their decision now that a hard exit seems more likely - albeit probably too late to do much about it unless reality bites hard enough for enough people to make an Article 50 U-turn a non-suicidal option for the Conservatives, and given the number of Eurosceptics in the party, that's going to have to be an *awfully* hard bite.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:49AM (3 children)
Freedom of movement/immigrants: There has been some hand wringing but no real movement from EU. How about backing off on complete freedom of movement?
Freedom of movement for EU citizens isn't really the problem. You can retain that and still fix most of the perceived problems with two fixes:
Bureaucracy-led crappile: No one has even thought about how to address this. How about a democratically elected leader to the EU? Rather than the stupid 1 year rotating presidency, designed to ensure EU does nothing and has no effective political establishment. How about primacy given to the MEPs?
The EU bureaucracy is actually pretty small. They employ fewer civil servants than most British counties. That said, there is a real problem with the balance of power between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Ironically, Brexit is likely to fix this. There have been several attempts to shift more power to the Parliament but they've been vetoed by the British and French. It's been very convenient for successive British governments to be able to pass unpopular laws via the Council and then say 'well, we didn't want to do it, but those evil EU people [who are definitely not us wearing a different hat] forced us to!'. The Parliament wasn't much better - it's only in the last few years that voting records of MEPs have been public, so that their constituents can hold them to account.
Transfer of money to Eastern Europe: How about reducing payments to Eastern Europe?
This is an absolute requirement for the Eurozone to work (and one of the problems in the UK is that we don't do it enough on a national basis). If you have two different regions with the same currency but different levels of economic productivity, then you are effectively in a situation where one area has an artificially strong currency and the other has an artificially weak one. This makes exports from the economically stronger area (with its artificially weakened currency) easier, but penalises the other area. You need a flow of money to balance this. The USA does it within states and the EU does it within countries. The extent to which the EU does it is actually less than is necessary, which is one of the main reasons why several of the Eurozone countries are having problems. There are several secondary effects that benefit even the UK (we actually gain more in terms of increased markets for our exports than we lose by the money that we pay to these countries).
The real problem here is one of perception. Any number that deals with countries is going to be big. £350M/week sounds like a huge amount of money, but between 60M people it's actually not that much. Even between the 31M in full-time employment, it's not that much: a little over £10/week. My last tax return had a breakdown of the amount of my tax that goes to the EU. Even though I'm living in a relatively wealthy (and overwhelmingly remain-voting) area, and am earning well over the median wage, my contribution to the EU budget was significantly less than my contribution to the turnover of local pubs - and I'm not a particularly heavy drinker. Looking at the council tax breakdown, I think I pay around 2-3 times as much for the local police force as I pay to the EU in total.
I understand each of these bullets has political implications, but the EU has to change or die. I don't see how it can continue in its present incarnation.
I agree. The problem with the referendum was that the vast majority of people are unhappy with the status quo. On the leave side, people had strong beliefs that change was needed and the EU was a convenient scapegoat (conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the problems that leave voters suffered from were caused by policies from Westminster and voting to give more power to Westminster politicians was unlikely to change that). On the remain side, there were few people who were staunch backers of the EU, for most it was a lesser of two evils: being in the EU isn't great, it's just better than being outside. The EU needs to become an institution that people want to be a member of, not one that they consider to be a necessary evil.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:30AM (2 children)
> The EU needs to become an institution that people want to be a member of, not one that they consider to be a necessary evil.
This is the point. I don't really care for the other stuff, but strengthening the democratic mandate of the EU is really what I would focus on if I had any influence. If I were an MEP, I would *just do it* (rather than waiting for Britain, or France, or anyone else to approve). Major political change doesn't have to go by the book, and is often stronger for circumventing existing political infrastructure (e.g. 1688 and all that...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:59PM
Well, the MEPs cannot just do it. They only can vote on laws given to them by the European Commission.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday March 31 2017, @09:31AM
If I were an MEP, I would *just do it* (rather than waiting for Britain, or France, or anyone else to approve)
If MEPs were in a position to 'just do it' then they wouldn't need to 'just do it' because they'd already have the power that you want them to have. The only powers that MEPs have over nation states are those granted by the various EU treaties. If you want to move power from the Council / Commission to the Parliament then you need to either re-draft those treaties and get all member states to sign them, or you need the organisation that was granted those powers by the treaties to cede them. The French and British representatives on the Council of Ministers vetoed the proposals to do this.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Magneto on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:42PM
The EU doesn't need to do anything to stop other countries voting out, the farce that is brexit is doing that for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:47PM (1 child)
"The EU" cannot do anything of that kind. The foundations of the EU are still contracts between the member countries, and therefore it is those member states who would have to make a new contract for any fundamental change. Which should address most of your bullet points.
About this one:
Freedom of movement is one of the cornerstones of the EU market, and AFAIK the UK is the only country that objects (note that refugees are a completely different topic; formally those don't have freedom of movement in the EU anyway).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:32PM
So is free movement of capital and yet the EU were quick enough to introduce capital controls on the Greeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:36PM
We must stop the British Nazis at all cost!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:52PM (1 child)
isn't "british" like TEH anti-dot to radical rightwing-ism?
i fear that without the "british" enzyme present in the european union that it might cyst-tify again when left to stew and then slightly poked?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:32PM
Many of the major countries in the EU have already been through their fascist/communist/Nazi phase, suffered greatly, learned lessons and have become very modern.
The UK is just entering its fascist phase now, not having had a Hitler, Stalin, Franco etc. before.
UK democracy is very unrepresentative of nuance in political policy, and the Conservative Party is the natural party of government. They've been lurching rightwards for decades (Margaret Thatcher looks like a socialist compared with the current lot) and are now pandering to the "British Nationalist" vote (yes, it's an oxymoron) in order to steal UKIP's thunder..
This is where we are today. It's very likely that Northern Ireland and Scotland will leave the UK to free themselves from this hegemony.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].