SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
UK set for Brexit, as PM promises 'new dawn'
The UK [officially left] the European Union at 23:00 GMT, ending 47 years of membership.
[...] Pro and anti-Brexit demonstrations and marches are being held across the country, as the UK flag is taken down from EU institutions in Brussels.
Little will change immediately, as the UK begins a "transition period".
Most EU laws will continue to be in force - including the free movement of people - until the end of December, by which time the UK aims to have reached a permanent free trade agreement with the EU.
[...] The prime minister held a cabinet meeting at the National Glass Centre, a museum and arts centre in Sunderland, the city that was the first to back Brexit when results were announced after the referendum.
The meeting was held amid tight security.
[...] Mr Johnson told the Cabinet it was time to start a "new chapter in the United Kingdom's story" and end the division of the past three and a half years, according to a Downing Street spokesman.
The Cabinet discussed future trade deals, including seeking a a Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU, and Mr Johnson thanked Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay for the work of his department, which is being wound up.
The PM told ministers the government aimed to have 80% of the UK's trade with other nations covered by free trade agreements within three years.
[...] "This is the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act. It is a moment of real national renewal and change."
[...] A new commemorative 50p coin will also come into circulation to mark the UK's withdrawal.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:53AM (36 children)
Some people make it sound like democratic self-determination is a terrible thing.
Why did Britain fight a war against Germany 60 odd years ago? Surely it would have more economically efficient to have just joined the Krauts...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:55AM
Sorry -- almost 80 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:57AM
Sorry-- about 80 years ago.
x
x
x
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 01 2020, @04:28AM (32 children)
No one said self-determination is a terrible thing.
But having the power of self-determination doesn't mean people can't criticize you for making utterly stupid decisions when you exercise that power.
Basically, the UK deciding to leave the EU is a lot like New York (state--the whole state) deciding it wants to leave the US. Sure, it's a major part of the US, and has a lot of population (20M?), and at one time it was the top dog, but those days are past. NYC is horribly overpriced and has major infrastructure problems, and the rest of the state has a dwindling population (Buffalo for instance has a much smaller than in the past; it started falling in the 1960s and is now less than half its peak in 1950) and moribund economy. NY would be stupid to try to exist as an independent nation at this point. The fact that you can't get between New England and the rest of the country is also a huge complication (which is somewhat analogous to the Irish situation with the UK).
And speaking of Ireland, what exactly are they going to do there? It looks like they're talking about having a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK now, just to avoid having Troubles 2.0! Because putting a customs border between NI and Ireland would be a disaster, after all the violence they went through. They'd probably be better off just forcing Northern Ireland out of the UK and getting them to reunify with Ireland.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday February 01 2020, @04:32AM (5 children)
I forgot to mention: on top of all this, now Scotland is pissed (because they voted to Remain), after this coming right after their close vote against independence, so now they're probably going to want to re-vote on that, and this time they may very well become independent from England/Wales, leaving the UK in an even worse economic state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:07AM
Meh, the city (of london) has enough money to buy the energy from the windfarms in scotland.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @09:06AM (3 children)
Ah but now you perhaps can see why UK left? Scotland did indeed vote to remain, but their vote means nothing - because they were overruled by the bigger players to whom they surrendered their sovereignty to.
But I think you're rather mistaken on the economy of Scotland (and the UK for that matter). The UK spends more money on public services than the entirety of money it gets back in tax from Scotland. They of course gain many things in return though. Scotland is currently dirt poor and that may change in the future, meaning they could eventually become 'profitable.' And there are also obvious strategic motivations in assimilating all land on your 'island.' But should Scotland declare their independence, and actually manage to make it happen (which as Brexit showed are two rather different things), it would likely be a boost to Britain's economy.
As for the UK's economy, they're currently doing literally better than ever.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @12:05PM (2 children)
By what metric? Because it's not true GDP-wise [countryeconomy.com]. The UK's per-capita GDP is currently at the same level as it was in 2005, and the years leading up to 2008 (banking crisis) and leading up to 2015 (brexit vote) saw a higher GDP than now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @12:48PM (1 child)
Fair point. I was considering the stock market which is at record highs. Somewhat peculiar that the GDP at market are out of sync. Curious what's up there since they tend to, at least broadly, follow one another.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lester on Saturday February 01 2020, @02:47PM
Once I read a metaphor about the relation between economy and stock market.
Economy is a man walking a dog without a lease, and the stock market is the dog. The dog may stop, run 100m up or down, left and right. In the long term the dog moves with the man, but watching the dog for a minute doesn't help to know where the man is going to.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:10AM (1 child)
What major infrastructure problems does NYC have? They just replaced the Tappanzee bridge with a brand-spanking new one, and also the Kosciusko Bridge connecting Brooklyn and Queens. They opened the first section of the Second Avenue subway. They're about to finish the New York City Water Tunnel No. 3 [wikipedia.org], its biggest capital project ever. Now that they have those nifty rapid asphalt resurfacing machines the Long Island Expressway is actually driveable. Bloomberg also put in a bunch of protected bike lanes.
The NYC infrastructure is actually going gangbusters right now.
As to New York State becoming an independent country, you're right that would never happen, but not because it couldn't do it. Third-tier cities upstate have more energy and dynamism than Canada's capital region in Ottawa. New York State has more going on than the entire country of Canada. Don't get me wrong, I love Canada and Canadians but man is that plenty wasted on them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:42PM
Tappanzee isn't actually in NYC, but I guess you can count it as it's in the metro area.
Anyway, within the city, the subway is decrepit and hasn't had any major new construction in decades. Bridges aren't much use for a city where so many people don't have cars. And construction costs in NYC are 4 times as much as other major cities, mainly because the unions have way too much power and they have far too many people employed for any given project (most of them doing little to nothing). It's far cheaper to build tunnels and subways in western Europe or Japan than in NYC.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Username on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:56AM (2 children)
New York was never an independent country, it was always apart of the United States, and the United States is a sovereign country unlike the EU. Brexit is more like the US leaving NATO.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:00AM (1 child)
All thirteen colonies were "states" -- in normal parlance this means "country".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:21PM
Not really. They were entities created by Royal Charter to be run by people appointed by the Crown. They were in no way "independent states" before independence. What their status AFTER the 13 American colonies won their independence from Britain would be was not established yet. They saw themselves in general as separate entities because they each had their own government which previously had reported to the Crown. It is true that after independence the states wanted to retain a high degree of autonomy while joining a confederation. Recall that BEFORE independence they were all part of the British empire. They were never separate countries.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:41AM (11 children)
The UK was happy to remain a part of the EU when the EU was little more than a collection of equals engaging in mutually beneficial trade, friendship, and cooperation while also overcoming the bureaucratic hurdles that are inevitable in any relationship kept at arm's reach. But the modern EU has become something very different. You now have unaccountable politicians in the European Commission engaging in behavior that is increasingly out of touch with many of the views and values of various member states that is increasingly treating not as peers, or even as constituents - but as vassals. They not not only have formed the EU Commission but also the EU Courts and are now on about aiming to create the EU Military.
This is not like New York leaving. This is much more like the American Revolution, fortunately sans a single life lost. The reason America left was because we felt that Britain had become arrogant and out of touch with our interests. Remember? No Taxation Without Representation. Britain of course knew this, yet it didn't bother them and they continued to take America for granted and treat it as little more than a vassal. So we left. I expect over the coming years the EU as a whole is going to collapse. They offer relatively little and ask a tremendous amount of "their" nations. And when nations disagree? Too bad. Cooperation need not entail servitude to a collective. The entire notion is absurd. We are stronger when we work together, but we are weaker when we create systems where we begin to impose our will upon one another. The EU begin as the former, and has become the latter.
Oh, and by the way - the London Stock Exchange is skyrocketing [lse.co.uk] now that Britain has regained its independence, as anybody who can see lies for what they are should have expected. Organizations such as the EU do not strengthen their member states. They exploit the member states to strengthen the EU, which then uses that newfound strength to further impose its will upon its vassals.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Saturday February 01 2020, @11:20AM (8 children)
I see your point of view, and understand the basis of your arguments.
There are arguments to be had of the level of accountability within the EU bureaucracy, but the plain fact is that the EU budget is roughly 148 x 109 Euro, whereas the total budgets of the member states is 7.52 x 1012 Euro - so the EU budget is about 1.97% of the total. People are fighting about accounting rounding errors.
In return for that, as you point out, the members get vastly more efficient trade relationships, both within the EU, and with non-member states where they can negotiate better deals as a bloc. The gain in trade efficiency could well be greater than the EU budget contributions from each member. The UK has decided to give up that advantage, which is fine, and a very interesting experiment for economists to watch to see if their theories on trade bear up. Note that Norway pays a great deal to be part of the EU free trade area, but has very little influence in EU policy: the Norwegians are allowed to participate as observers in various working groups, but have no voting rights - even so, its a good deal. The UK may decide to take a similar route - at which point the UK has fought for the right to voluntarily follow rules over which they have (almost) no influence. It reminds me of the dialogue from The Inalienable Rights in the Life of Brian scene, with Stan (Idle), Reg (Cleese) and Judith (Jones-Davies) [wikipedia.org]. The UK wants the right to independently follow the EU rules and regulations...
Joking aside, the usual way to change an organisation, barring revolution, is from within, by sensible argument, persuasion and other democratic means. Stalking off and saying 'Well, I'll go and play on my own then' is not really the best strategy. Of course, I could easily be wrong, and this is a wonderful decision. For various personal reasons, it would be likely be beneficial to me if I am wrong. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and I hope that no-one is significantly negatively affected by this, especially the most vulnerable in society.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @01:41PM (7 children)
From my perspective it's not primarily about the money, but about the sovereignty. The EU has become an incredibly political and partisan entity with a very distinct bias. That is what I think makes this issue so decisive. Those that tend to agree with their newfound bias either turn a blind eye to the imposition of their will, or do not even really consider what such imposition would be like if you did not share the EU's biases.
However, I would also be opposed to the EU even if they were imposing *my* biases upon people who do not necessarily agree with them. The reason is pretty simple. In my opinion a multi-polar world is going to provide the best outcomes. The reason for this is easy to consider. Imagine a globalist world achieved it's ultimate end game - a single world government with extensive top-down power. What happens when this government becomes corrupted? Quite a disconcerting thought, even more so when you consider that history has shown that such corruption is not a question of *if*, but *when*.
A global world can achieve unimaginable success when we are doing the right things. Yet when we start doing the wrong things we experience a comparably unimaginable failure. A multipolar world nominally works as just something in between the two extremes, but I think it's even better. What happens when one system is showing success? Free people, those capable of making their own decisions, tend to *voluntarily* adopt it. However that voluntary aspect also means that should such adopted systems start to falter, or perhaps other new systems seem intriguing, nations are free to try these new ideas -- you help reduce the power of inertia.
For instance even in the United States today. If you explain the pros/cons of a proportional vs an at-large first-past-the-post voting system, I suspect something getting real close to 100% of people would support the proportional system. Yet it's very difficult to adopt that change, which would likely have a significantly positive impact on our political system, because of a mixture of inertia and the fact that our nation, though ostensibly democratic, is in reality controlled by a relatively small number of people who have the resources and competence that it takes to game electoral systems. It's certainly not like Hillary and Trump were anywhere near the short list of the most desirable presidents in this nation, if our electoral systems were at all driven by merit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @04:23PM (3 children)
This is the usual waffle about "sovereignty" and "vassal states".
What specifically are you talking about? The emperor's new clothes are going to be painfully visible to everyone now.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:10PM (2 children)
It's simple. People should rule themselves. This would imply no government, but that of course does not work. In reality there are plenty who seek power over others and will happily hurt others to get ahead. The strongest of these sorts would eventually claim power and would become the defacto government. So there is the reluctant necessity of a government, but this government should be as close to the people it rules as possible. That is both figurative and literal, as the two tend to be directly related in this case. The EU in times past did not matter. It was little more than a more formal agreement of cooperation. In modern times the EU is not only becoming an extremely active political body but overtly aiming to become its own super-country with nations as its states. I believe Britain should be ruled by Britons, not subject to whatever happens to the be politically en vogue among a collective of other nations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:59PM (1 child)
Specifically what were your problems with the EU rules that will be fixed now that you will be ruled by Eton/Oxford heirs and landowners?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @10:55PM
The EU copyright directive
A stop on the literally ceaseless migration of "refugees"
EU leadership that is completely unaccountable to the British people
Return of UK fishing rights to the UK
Taxes to pay for the needless EU army
Candle wicks are no longer EU mandated to have a minimum length
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday February 01 2020, @09:48PM
Trump won the Republican nomination and election despite the uniform opposition of the Establishment. He has since survived multiple attempts by that same Establishment to remove him from office. He is an attempt by a portion of the electorate to depose the corrupt system. The jury is still out on whether that is what he will actually do, but the verdict is certainly in now on whether the keepers of the status quo want him in office.
Britons underscored their determination for Brexit in the last elections. Labor got shellacked. There can be no doubt now that the British people meant what they said the first time.
We'll see if the American electorate re-affirm their earlier choices also.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:49PM (1 child)
For instance even in the United States today. If you explain the pros/cons of a proportional vs an at-large first-past-the-post voting system, I suspect something getting real close to 100% of people would support the proportional system.
Oh bullshit. You could explain proportional representation to average Americans until you're blue in the face and they just wouldn't understand it. They simply cannot comprehend something like that because they've never seen it before and seriously cannot imagine a political and electoral system different from we already have. The fact that a bunch of other countries already have this system is irrelevant: to average Americans, anything outside their borders might as well not exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @04:30AM
There's been an interesting, but rather unsurprising, 'discovery' in America. The more extreme somebody's political orientation, the less capable they are of measuring reality and especially the aggregate views of others. It's a remarkably huge effect as well. There's a V-shaped perception gap. Those who are on either end of the political horseshoe have a perception gap upwards of 30 points! What that means is that you may expect e.g. 70% of people hold view 'y', yet it's probably more like 40%. This was initially 'discovered' in a social sciences paper which has in turn spurred on the Perception Gap Project [perceptiongap.us]. If you'd prefer an echo chamber source, even the WaPo has covered this [washingtonpost.com]
The more time somebody spends consuming media, the radically less accurate their perception of others becomes. On the left this includes sites such as Slate, Buzzfeed, WaPo, and the New York Times. I'm not sure you realize it or not but you're indeed pretty far down on our political horse-shoe. I'd really encourage you to actually try to engage with more people you think you might ideologically disagree with. You might be quite surprised to learn that people aren't quite the same as the click-baiting yellow media tends to suggest.
People, in general, are pretty rational especially once you split them off from their tribe. It's the same reason I'm happy to chat with you even though I doubt we could be much more different in terms of ideology.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:46PM
If you're talking about the FTSE, most of the rises are because Brexit trashed the value of the Pound. Simple inflation means a share price goes up when its true value stays the same. The weaker Pound does help exports be cheaper but then imports are more expensive. The market gains are also down to the near zero interest rates. Any actual benefits or harms of Brexit won't start to kick in until the end of the transition period and may take years to fully take root.
Also, if you count Friday as the day it gained its independence, the FTSE 100 actually fell on that day!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:45PM
The reason America left was because we felt that Britain had become arrogant and out of touch with our interests. Remember? No Taxation Without Representation.
Taxation without representation is a core value of America, so it's entirely hypocritical for America to complain about it. Just ask anyone who lives in Washington DC.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday February 01 2020, @11:32AM (4 children)
Umm, there's a majority in Northern Ireland that wish to remain in the Union with Great Britain. And while in principle the Republic of Ireland want a united Ireland (it is part of the Irish Constitution), in practice, it would be a significant drain on the Irish economy to continue with the level of support that Northern Ireland gets from other British taxpayers. On a point of principle, the Irish might be happy pour money into Northern Ireland, much like the Germans did, and continue to do, into what was East Germany, but it wouldn't necessarily be popular.
One of the benefits of EU membership was pretty much removing visible signs of a border between the two states in Ireland, helping to reduce tensions. Putting a 'virtual border' in the Irish Sea is going to cause a lot of difficulties.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:26PM (2 children)
Putting a customs border in the Irish Sea is, indeed, going to cause a lot of problems. But they aren't the *same* problems that a land border would cause, and they are arguably much less.
I think the whole thing is a really stupid decision, it was justified based on a pack of lies, and it has continued to be justified by lies. But we'll see if I'm wrong. Unless there was massive voting fraud (electing the Tories) people really *did* vote for the backers of this idiocy, though the alternative parties weren't much better. My suspicion is that they push behind this action is largely to continue the current money laundering, but if the EU enforces it's rules internally, this may not work. Though this may be why there is such interest in a set of treaties with the US. Perhaps the goal is to turn Britain into Cayman Islands Mark II.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @04:28PM
No, the goal was to "win". Probably some hypothetical Oxford Union debate between the land-owning aristrocrats heirs. Turns out Britain wanted to leave, toodley-pip - you win Randolph, there's your $1.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM
Would you, assuming you are American, prefer to be ruled by American politicians or by a vote of a bloc of other countries? Try, if you can, to set ideology aside when answering this. What I mean there is that it's easy to ignore the EU's behaviors in recent times if you happen to agree with their biases. So imagine if you happen to support more open migration in nations that the EU was proposing sharp restrictions on such. This isn't even that difficult to imagine. For instance Sweden was once probably the most far left democracy in terms of social values. Increasing diversity however has had an interesting reaction. The Sweden Democrats [wikipedia.org] are now likely the largest party in the country. I say 'likely' only because we're relying on polls - the next general election isn't until 2022. Wiki gonna wiki but it's description of them as The "right-wing populist[2][16] or far-right,[10][17] national-conservative,[2][14] and anti-immigration.[2][6][18]" is not entirely inaccurate. Newton's Third applies as much in politics as it does in physics.
It's easy to glamorize things like the EU at a distance, especially if you happen to agree with their policies. It's another to experience being ruled by mostly unaccountable politicians who are not even on the same landmass as you. That experience was a major part of the reason that Americans today are Americans, and not British.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:54PM
Umm, there's a majority in Northern Ireland that wish to remain in the Union with Great Britain.
They're irrelevant. If the rest of the UK didn't want them to stay, then the fact that they want to stay doesn't count for much. It only counts if the rest of the UK wants to keep them, but I was positing a scenario where they don't.
It's like your weird uncle John who's staying at your house in the spare bedroom in the basement. If you (the homeowner) decide you want him to move out, the fact that he doesn't want to go doesn't matter.
Putting a 'virtual border' in the Irish Sea is going to cause a lot of difficulties.
You think a land border between NI and Ireland would be better? That'll just bring back the Troubles, since it's exactly one of the main things that was agreed on with the Good Friday Agreement and putting a customs border there would be reneging on that agreement that finally ended the Troubles.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by rleigh on Saturday February 01 2020, @12:00PM (2 children)
The major difference is that the citizens of New York state have elected representatives at federal level, directly accountable to them at the ballot box. The European Commission and Courts of Justice have zero direct democratic accountability. We can't remove them. We can't influence them. They have the ultimate power and are unaccountable to the citizens of the countries which appointed them.
The individual states making up the USA have given up some sovereign rights in forming the Union, in exchange for certain things being done at a federal level. Like defence and foreign policy. But the USA has checks and balances in place to have democratic accountability at the state and federal level, and in courts of law. The EU does not have, and has never had, anything similar. It's modelled upon the Soviet politbureau, not exactly a bastion of democracy. It's been clear for years that the Common Law UK was fundamentally incompatible with Civil Law European states. Brexit was the only sane outcome to correct matters. The alternative was to have our freedoms trampled upon.
I voted to leave the EU. It's the only democratic vote I've cast in my life which has had real meaning. It's one of those decisions which will change the course of history for our nations and the world. For better or worse? We'll see. Ultimately, this comes down to sovereignty and accountability. Today, for the first time in 47 years, our elected politicians are directly accountable to us for their actions. Their successes and failures are our successes and failures. The EU isn't there as a safety blanket or a scapegoat. The buck stops with them. Now that they again have full control over the running of our affairs, we can hope that the political lightweights are replaced by more serious and mature politicians who will run things effectively.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @12:43PM (1 child)
That's a bad argument. Following your "directly accountable" argument, the POTUS doesn't match the model you're arguing for either -- or we wouldn't have those discussions about the electoral vote every four years. And neither does the US directly elect federal judges or the Supreme Court, so in the US too, citizens do not have direct control over the institutions that have the ultimate power. You also conveniently left out the European Parliament, which is directly elected, just like the US senate.
That's astonishing. Your model of "accountability at the state and federal level" in the US is mirrored in the EU by national governments and parliaments. Are you really under the impression that the member states of the EU are dictatorships?
Ah, you wear rose-colored glasses. Are you sure you haven't deluded yourself in a no-true-scotsman fashion into believing that only the UK and US represent functional democracies, and everything else is crap?
No surprise there. If you cannot see the difference between different democratic structures and authoritarian rule, that explains both your attitude towards the EU and the state of the UK in ten years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:04PM
While it's true that Americans don't directly elect the president, the president is still accountable to the citizens. This is not the case for the EU president and the EU commissioner. Member states are mandated to follow the laws passed by the EU and they have no recourse getting legislation modified or repealed. In America, there are ways for citizens to get US federal laws to be changed and even amend the US constitution. The checks and balances available in the US aren't quite mirrored in the EU.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:40AM
Your stupid example would be more like London leaving the UK, than UK leaving the EU. Once the USA-UK trade deals go through, the EU will be begging for scraps. Suck on it, communist scum.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:41PM
"Why did Britain fight a war against Germany 60 odd years ago?"
Why did england instigate a war with their racial brothers/cousins? Because the International Jew told them to, because the Germans were getting independent from the International Jew banksters!
Watch "Adolf Hitler: the Greatest Story Never Told" and "Adolf Hitler: A Last Appeal to Reason". .