SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:37PM
from the Third-Verse-Same-As-The-First dept.
from the Third-Verse-Same-As-The-First dept.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46509288
"Prime Minister Theresa May has called off Tuesday's crucial vote on her Brexit deal so she can go back to Brussels and ask for changes to it.
"As it stands the deal 'would be rejected by a significant margin' if MPs voted on it, she admitted."
The biggest stumbling block appears to be the issue between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In particular, what the borders will look like in terms of what people and goods will need to do or not do in order to cross it.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Brexit Status Once Again in Limbo
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
poverty, n.:
An unfortunate state that persists as long
as anyone lacks anything he would like to have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:43PM (4 children)
First of all, the UK is leaving. Why should the EU change itself in order to please and placate an *EX* member? (retorical question, hang on, i'll respond better)
The logical answer is, "in order that other countries don't want to leave, too".
Now it's a fact, that the UK had a better deal as EU member than *any other EU member*.
- They had a special "Maggie Thatcher" rebate (money back each year from their contribution, which is defined as a percentage of GDP)
- They had a special exemption "no €uro" (just like Denmark)
- They had a special exemption "no Schengen (easy travel of people) [wikipedia.org]"
And, because of literally decades of mind-poisoning right-wing tabloid newspapers, they decided that those weren't enough.
David Cameron sent an ultimatum to Brussels: "give us even more, or we'll have a referendum to exit the EU!"
The EU basically told Cameron to go spin on it. Byeeee!!
So far, it seems like no other country has given any indication of wanting to leave the EU. Instead, many Europeans scratch their head as to why the UK does such a bloody counterproductive thing.
This is a cartoon that I think very nicely depicts this attitude to Brexit:
brexit arm saw cartoon [wp.com] (unsure about the website, wtf does vintage value investing mean?)
OK so that's the emotional aspect. But there is also a rational aspect:
- It has been calculated that the UK is better off *in an economical sense* if it stays within the EU.
- The UK is leaving.
Therefore, in order for this to make sense, there must be *non-economical* factors in play, that have a *heavier* weight than the economical factors.
That's fine: the EU itself is not principally about money, but instead about an end to intra-EU war and famine.
However: the people arguing for Brexit, such as prime minister Theresa May and her Tory government, are responsible for communicating these non-economical factors to anyone willing to listen (especially the EU of course).
And in my honest opinion, nobody has ever done this.
Nobody has ever given any non-economical reason *why* it's better for the UK to leave.
There is one reason, namely that most of the tax evasion in the world goes on in British colonies, and the EU is going to clamp down on tax evasion coming January. However no Brit has ever officially said that this was the reason.
In any case, that would only be of benefit to stupendously rich Brits, not at all to all Brits.
A reason mentioned a lot in newspapers is: "because sovereignty". But then this is never fully articulated what they actually mean by that. Is the UK planning to leave NATO, the UN and the Eurovision Songfestival as well, because sovereignty?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:06PM
> because sovereignty
Let me help:
1. The EU has massive legislative power. They can't raise taxes or an army (yet) but otherwise they have as much or more power than the member state governments.
2. The EU is run by a group of unelected politicians. They are nominated by a political elite. I realise most of the nominators represent a political party that has been elected, but that does not really cut the mustard. People who wield such legislative power should be directly elected.
3. The directly elected house has little power, which is reflected in a general disinterest from the electorate in the EU elections.
4. There is no one running the EU. The rotating EU presidency thing is a pile of crap. (Have you ever tried working in an organisation with no meaningful leadership? Imagine if there was no one in charge of your workplace, do you think anything would ever happen?)
Compare that with, say, the UK system, where I vote for members of the house of commons, who set out a legislative program in their manifesto and broadly speaking carry it out. I know that when I vote for *x* party, I am going to get this person or that person running the show and this or that legislative program.
As a case in point: the GDPR has had an absolutely massive impact on every aspect of everyone's life, bigger than pretty much any piece of legislation going through British parliament. Where did it come from? Was it set out in anyone's manifesto? I didn't see it anywhere. Where was the discussion? I knew about it from e.g. this site, but I bet others had not a clue.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by schad on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:40PM (2 children)
So in the US, the argument is basically that the mean and the median are not the same thing. To expand on that slightly, while free trade might benefit the economy as a whole, those benefits flow disproportionately (or even exclusively) to only a small fraction of the population. The majority is either no better off, or significantly worse off. Really, it's about wealth inequality, but in the US "wealth inequality" is a catchphrase of the left, so nobody in the right can talk about it directly. As if that's not enough, because the left has to be opposed to everything that Trump does (even if it's something that the left used to support in the recent past), they suddenly have become proponents of free trade even as they continue to rail against the effects that free trade has had on the country. This all leads to a muddled and confusing discourse.
As an ignorant American, this seems to be similar to what's happening in the UK with Brexit. Brexiteers may recognize that the EU has had major economic benefits, but they think those benefits have gone to one or two places: the elites, or Eastern European immigrants. In either case, "regular" Brits have been left behind, marginalized, etc.
I could be completely wrong. Like I said, I'm an ignorant American. But I see an awful lots of parallels.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:32PM
while free trade might benefit the economy as a whole, those benefits flow disproportionately (or even exclusively) to only a small fraction of the population.
The fraction of the UK population that want food on their table is small? Who knew!
The chief advantage of leaving will be the serious disruption to our supply of food and drugs (I think its fair to say the supplies of milk, pork, whiskey and cannabis will probably be safe. Not much else - potatoes might be OK for part of the year, dependent on what happens in Ireland, and Israeli avocados are probably safe too when in season).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @09:42AM
While that may be true, the leaving behind of "regular Brits" has been UK policy, not EU. The UK governments of Thatcher and Blair both worked very hard to gut the "regular" British economy (targeting lower class and middle class respectively), while centralizing most wealth in London. The EU does not have policies prescribing how to distribute wealth within its member countries, only across borders. For politicians, the EU is an easy target to deflect domestic criticism to, but that doesn't make the EU magically responsible for the situation "regular" Brits find themselves in.
It's ironic that "regular" Brits continue to whine about the "unelected" EU institutions, while they won't even hold their own "elected" institutions to account.