SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
When in panic, fear and doubt,
Drink in barrels, eat, and shout.
(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.