Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 31 2020, @11:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the Brexit-Means-Brexit dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:41AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:41AM (#952266)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Saturday February 01 2020, @11:20AM (8 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Saturday February 01 2020, @11:20AM (#952292)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @01:41PM (#952319)

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @04:23PM (#952381)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:10PM (#952395)

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:59PM (#952494)

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @10:55PM (#952908)

              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

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday February 01 2020, @09:48PM (#952511) Journal

        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)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:49PM (#952932)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @04:30AM (#953016)

          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

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:46PM (#952449)

    Oh, and by the way - the London Stock Exchange is skyrocketing [lse.co.uk] now that Britain has regained its independence

    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

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:45PM (#952928)

    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.