SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brexit vote: What just happened and what comes next?
With only approximately two more months before a default no-deal "hard Brexit," the British Parliament has decisively rejected Prime Minister May's proposed plan for leaving the European Union.
There is a no confidence vote in works which, if successful, will dissolve the government and force another general election.
See also: Live: Latest as MPs debate no confidence vote
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British Parliament Rejects (Only) Brexit Plan
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without
the supervision of a licensed engineer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:49PM (13 children)
They could have chosen more competent representation, primarily at Westminster. For example, did you know that when the most Eastern-European nations joined in 2004, most EU member states imposed strict limits on the number of foreign workers they would allow [migrationpolicy.org]:
Or another take [theglobalist.com] on it:
They could also have voted in European Parliamentary elections. Voter turnout [europa.eu] for the European Parliament has never been over 40% for the UK. So it's not like the UK population was deeply engaged with the political process in the first place.
Finally, they could have stopped funding xenophobic pamflets such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, or The Telegraph. Take a look at this page [europa.eu], sample how many "myths" orginated in English rags, then tell me how "fake news" is anything new. Also realize that Boris Johnson [theguardian.com] used to write such drivel before becoming a politician.
(Score: 4, Touché) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:35PM (7 children)
Hearing a lot of "could have" and not any "can" here. Artful dodge of the question, Mr. +5 Informative.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday January 17 2019, @01:43AM (5 children)
Huh?
The tense is past because -- short of some political miracle very soon -- Brexit will happen (in an orderly or disorderly fashion).
British voters COULD HAVE done these things, but they can't now if they are no longer part of the EU.
If by some miracle they remain in the EU, they still CAN do such things. No dodging of the question here, Mr. Nobody Modded Me Up For Complaining About Modding, Because I Haven't Bothered To Think About Why The Grammatical Choice Makes Sense Here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:06AM (4 children)
It's not the past tense which is the problem but the hypothetical, tentative nature of "could". I don't think the problems of the EU will be addressed until there are more departing parties.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:12PM (3 children)
the majority of people in europe, and indeed in the UK, consider freedom of movement to be a great thing.
Many brits living in europe voted to leave because their arrogance didn't make the connection that they benefited from freedom of movement. I relish them getting kicked out of their homes.
Spaniard in Britain? Immigrant. Brit in Spain? Ex-Pat.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:36PM (2 children)
Then why can't Syria and North Africa just move freely into Europe? Answer: just dumping tens of millions of poor immigrants is highly disruptive - thus, there isn't freedom of movement from those regions. Let us recall that a large number of immigrants just showed up throughout the EU due to a single country, Greece, deciding not to enforce that restriction on movement. Higher levels of immigration are apparently a concern to pro-Brexit voters and here, we have an example where a single country decided immigration policy for the EU and let a bunch of people in.
Sorry, Brits living in the rest of the EU aren't going to suck down society resources like poor immigrants from North Africa who haven't paid a dime to the EU before their move. It's dishonest to equate the two.
(Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @04:48PM (1 child)
Freedom of movement in the EU has nothing to do with "poor immigrants from North Africa". When Poland and several other eastern european countries joined the EU there were limits put on freedom of movement. Before that happend, Poles were already in the UK, working illegally, cash in hand, not paying any taxes. Since Poland joined, they have paid taxes -- EU immigrants make a net contibution.
Sadly I've recently found that one of our friends voted leave, and would again. Her son has just moved to Croatia to work there, she doesn't seem to grasp the idea that when we leave the EU, he won't be able to do that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 18 2019, @04:21AM
But it does matter to the point that freedom of movement is relative.
Because?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:09PM
Let's say average London voter wants to limit the "freedom of movement" in the UK to stop people from Manchester working in London and paying taxes. What recourse do they have?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:17AM (4 children)
The EU is micromanaging a lot of the business of its member countries. I doubt any of your coulds are feasible except for a handful of issues just due to the complexity of lobbying and campaigning at that level. Even then, it just takes an opposing group with contrary interests and larger size somewhere else in the EU to nix a "could".
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:36AM (3 children)
I don't think EU is micromanaging anymore than what it was intended to. EU is a mouthpiece of its economic workhorses - Germany and France. This leaves little middle ground - either you are able to bargain by becoming an economic workhorse yourself, or you benefit from them like Italy and Spain.
I think the issue is simply bad management. For example, Germany wants young men for labor but actively discourages educated immigrants for reasons I won't comment on. It has worked before actually when it invited Turkish immigrants just after WW2 so maybe they want to repeat that experiment? But a large number of uneducated immigrants will cause disruption to existing system. May be it worked last time because Germany was in shambles after WW2 unlike now.
The same is true for France, for example, which accepted African immigrants from its colonies, and Afgan immigrants in the Netherlands, and Pakistanis in UK.
AFAIK UK wants to restore itself to its former glory, and EU is a scapegoat.
Also, I mentioned elsewhere, Britain was never part of Schengen so it never had the actual problems of immigration.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:16PM (2 children)
It still is micromanaging even if there is intent there.
After those other reasons you just gave? Like the "little middle ground" of either being a powerhouse or a moocher.
Schengen isn't a necessary condition for having problems with immigration. For example, despite not being part of Schengen (the "border-free" part of the EU), the number of foreign born residents of the UK has doubled recently over a twenty year period (from 1991 to 2011 [wikipedia.org] - roughly 6.5% to over 13% in 2011).
As recently as 1993, there was zero net migration [migrationwatchuk.org]. That has since changed to a net immigration of roughly 300k people per year over the last few years (around 0.4% increase in population from immigration each year). Substantial changes in demographics will see substantial changes in public attitudes both from the new immigrants and from the reactions of the old ones.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)
Roughly the same increase occurred in the USA [migrationpolicy.org]...which as you may be aware, is not part of the EU. 8% in 1990 to 14% in 2010. This change could also be due to cheaper travel, globalization, corporate fucks and their constant demands for more exploitable labor...lots of possible causes.
If you wanna claim this is due to the EU, you're going to need some actual evidence of that...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 18 2019, @01:39PM
The "same increase occurred over a time period of 25-30 years, ending in 2017, not 18 years, ending in 2011, and ignores that the UK had a bunch of huge years of immigration after 2011 (which were the highest levels of immigration since at least 1975).
Like large scale net immigration after the EU was formed in 1993, but not before? The graph I cited above shows almost no net immigration prior to 1993 and a substantial climb in immigration after. Further, let us note that I wasn't claiming that immigration was due to the EU, even though that's probably substantially true in light of this substantial correlation over time, but rather addressing the claim "Britain was never part of Schengen so it never had the actual problems of immigration".