Full results and EU referendum portal at BBC.
Results are pouring in, and it looks like the United Kingdom will leave the European Union:
Unlike at a general election the results in individual areas do not count - it is the overall number of votes cast for one side or the other across the country that will determine whether the UK leaves the European Union. Polling expert Prof John Curtice said there was still a while to go but at this stage Leave were "undoubtedly the favourites" to win the referendum. He estimates that the finishing post for one side to win is 16,813,000 votes.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who at the start of the night predicted that Remain might "edge" a win, told supporters: "Dare to dream that the dawn is breaking on an independent United Kingdom." At a Brexit party, he told supporters: "If the predictions are right, this will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, and a victory for decent people." "Let June 23 go down in our history as our independence day." He also suggested the prime minister should resign "immediately" if the UK votes to leave the EU.
BBC now calling it for "Leave":
The UK has voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union after 43 years in an historic referendum, a BBC forecast suggests. London and Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU but the remain vote has been undermined by poor results in the north of England. Voters in Wales and the English shires have backed Brexit in large numbers.
[...] Labour's Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the Bank of England may have to intervene to shore up the pound, which lost 3% within moments of the first result showing a strong result for Leave in Sunderland and fell as much as 6.5% against the euro.
Alternate coverage at The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent.
Update: Prime Minister David Cameron will address the nation at 8:15 AM local time (3:15 AM EDT).
Update: David Cameron will step down as PM before the Conservative Party Conference in October. (08:00 UTC)
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by takyon on Friday June 24 2016, @04:01AM
Even a dead anti-Brexit MP couldn't stop it. [theguardian.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday June 24 2016, @04:54AM
Her high-minded ideals of free movement of people ignored the growing discontent of the middle and lower classes about the increasing numbers making cities unrecognizable and increasing competition for housing and jobs.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:12AM
"cities unrecognizable"? really?
this from the people that gave us the sex pistols.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:32AM
This will only affect the white (mostly Christian) Eastern Europeans who used to go to work there, legally. All the immigrants from Asia and Africa will still continue to flux to UK just like before, because their entry is not affected by EU regulations as they do not come from EU.
This will only make UK even less European.
In other words, the result will be the exact opposite of what they wanted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:56AM
Ah, but white foreigners are more dangerous for British culture, they are harder to put in their place and discriminate against, because they are less visible and therefore creep in more easily.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sce7mjm on Friday June 24 2016, @03:12PM
I think the attitude that anyone who questions immigration is a rascist is the problem. There are problems in the poorest parts of the country that the political classes seem to ignore because they are awkward to handle especially with the media being so quick to jump on anything these days and brand it in one way or another. People calling 'vote leave' supporters racists regardless of the non-race or imigration related reasons (such as protecting the NHS from TTIPP, helping our steel industry which the EU currently bans, the single market not actually being a free market (finance and energy are excluded for highly political reasons)), only strengthened peoples willingness to vote out, to stick two fingers up at those who are telling them the reasons they are voting in a particular way. This little thing called democracy despite the threats from Europe and the UK Government.
The EU has tried to be a one size fits all organisation, though only the establishment and rich are seen to have benefited (the benefits to the poorest are distribute and not necessarily visible). Since the 2008/9 financial crisis occurred the poorest have paid for the losses. Greece is the case in point. German and other northern-European money was lent to the south so that the south could buy from the north. They dare not write the debt down because that would show a write down of an asset on the euro-zone and European banks, so they try to keep Greece where it is.
One thing is for certain. British people are now more responsible for their future today than they were yesterday, whether twitter likes it or not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:39AM
the vote being democratic does not automatically absolve it from all or any criticism.
we could could put on vote what is the value of "1+1" in mathematics. If the majority votes that "1+1=1" then that is idiotic. And I can tell so, you cannot stop me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:46AM
Yes, protecting the NHS from TTIP is great. Unfortunately we've still handed it to people who want to dismantle it, privatise it and make it an insurance based system like the USA (and we all know how fabulous that is for the poorest...).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:54PM
Or like Germany. You know, the cut-throat, dog-eat-dog world of germanic oppression?
Oh, wait ...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by moondrake on Friday June 24 2016, @07:59AM
That might be true. However, the people revolted on the wrong issue here. This will be a political and economic disaster for the UK. In addition, EU courts and guidelines were the only thing that stood between the current government's love for spying and reducing liberties. Scotland will almost surely separate now in a few years, and they might even try to stop that. For the rest of the EU, it might be a good thing, they are getting rid of one big obstacle in the decision making process.
What I find interesting is whether the UK politicians now will go true with a plan that will plunge their country in a recession (not because they are so concerned about the people, but because it will cost them personally as well). It will take very big changes to make the UK viable in the short term, and I see now great people who have the skills to do that.
Interesting times, but a big loss for the common people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by boxfetish on Friday June 24 2016, @08:19AM
I am surprised by this result. I expected a lot of undecideds to vote at the last minute for the status quo (remain), mostly due to fear of the unknown. I think there may be recession and some political unrest in the short term (a year or two), I do think the ultimately this was probably the best decision for the UK, long term (5-10+ years on).
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday June 24 2016, @12:20PM
mostly due to fear of the unknown
Unfortunately everyone is VERY well aware of what the EU has done to the people of Greece and even the worst UK predictions aren't as bad as today actually is in Greece.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:45PM
really? if Greece wasn't in the EU, they would be like the Ukraine. And yes, I do mean invaded by the Russians.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday June 24 2016, @04:01PM
Greece would fight them with rear action, they would fight them from behind.... they would NEVER surrender!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @01:22PM
oh, yeah it was unelected bureaucrats from brussels that held it all together for the little man. you're a freakin' moron.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:03AM
"Her high-minded ideals of free movement of people ignored the growing discontent of the middle and lower classes about the increasing numbers making cities unrecognizable and increasing competition for housing and jobs."
She's a woman and wanted to fuck the invaders.
While the local men are banned from even looking at a nice young girl (got to keep the value of old women who are still catting around (isn't that a man's job...) up!)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 24 2016, @04:54PM
What do you care, Kvaratskhelia? The only way you're ever gonna get laid involves either prison or chloroform or both.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driverless on Friday June 24 2016, @08:03AM
And who are they going to blame all this on once they've left the EU, it's still keeps happening, and the convenient scapegoat has been removed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:36PM
Muslims, of course. Anyone except themselves.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday June 24 2016, @04:01PM
And the unemployed, the disabled, the mentally ill, the reds
.. Run like hell.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday June 24 2016, @04:11PM
The Scots, who are leaving them soon.
David Cameron initiated the end of the UK, after hundreds of years. Good job, history will remember you!
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 24 2016, @10:04PM
Of course your assumption might be defective. You are assuming that even if the British stop being stupid that it won't improve their situation. If you one worlders actually believed that you wouldn't all be pooping yer pants today. The establishment isn't afraid things will remain the same or get worse after the Brits exit, they are terrified that things will improve.
Diversity + Proximity = War.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Bot on Friday June 24 2016, @11:30AM
You know the turmoil in France caused by new laws affecting work flexibility?
You know how the exact same laws were passed by a leftist government in Italy with less problems than those caused by a B league soccer match?
You know how it was done?
A government worker, Marco Biagi, who was (maybe) looking at the technical aspect of the law, got killed by left wing terrorists. Promptly elevated to sainthood, a law gets his name and passed. He probably still spins in his grave.
So, cui bono? Do you let terror decide whom to vote? then you already are slave... even more slave, that is.
I was sure brexit would not happen because a 50-50 split is sign of a rigged election. Probably the votes pro brexit turned out to be so many that they could not reliably cheat, or maybe the system is sacrificing the european UK to gain something from the switch.
I am sure that entering the EU has been a disaster for many countries, the exit might be another one, depending on how it is managed.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:14PM
> a 50-50 split is sign of a rigged election.
Facts not in evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:00PM
no, a vote which is contradicted by exit polls is highly suspect.... which is EXACTLY why The They are trying to eliminate and/or discredit exit polling...
paper ballots
hand counted
locally reported
... IF you are interested in fair elections; computer-based voting, if you are interested in rigging elections...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:09AM
Yeah sometimes the 50/50 is genuine, it happens when a propaganda campaign peaks, see abortion laws in some places. In fact I do not care if you believe in the world where politics is the way to give people voice, but I warn you that it is a most impractical way of making sense of things. Your choice.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @03:19PM
a 50-50 split is sign of a rigged election
No, a 90%+ vote is a sign of a rigged election.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:03AM
Trump should like totally annex the UK.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:13AM
Trump will be accepting congratulations on Twitter. Bank it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @04:39AM
Trump will accept congratulations for anything. And if no-one congratulates him, he'll do it himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:47AM
I have a lot in common with Trump it seems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:49AM
Yes I'm awesome I am! So awesome!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:10AM
Don't we have the best ACs?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 24 2016, @04:22PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:09AM
Congratulations!
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:23AM
John Miller says that Brexit is going to be a tremendous money maker for the Trump Organization, just tremendous. Really, really big.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:06AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH21LEmfbQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:33AM
You're telling everybody I'm the one
To blame for all the wrong you have done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeExuM0CuZM [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:45AM
I can't decide
Whether you should live or die
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0EBOFL_VwE [youtube.com]
[because youtube is the only place to get free music links the only place the only place the only place the only place the only place keep repeating the lie and you might start to believe it]
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/scissorsisters/icantdecide.html [azlyrics.com]
[nobody ever links the lyrics you lazy sacks of laziness]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:47AM
Should have linked the torrent you cunt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:03AM
https://www.nomorelyrics.net/anal_cunt-lyrics/325964-i_went_back_in_time_a_voted_for_hitler-lyrics.html [nomorelyrics.net]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC9RP2CSfpo [youtube.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday June 24 2016, @07:11AM
Meaning of life [youtube.com]
On a more serious note: How committed is the parliament to follow the outcome of the referendum? I read an article [www.welt.de] (unfortunately only on German) stating that the UK parliament is not bound by the outcome of the referendum, and in the past indeed overruled it a couple of times. With a close result and maybe low participation they might even consider it justified. E.g. with 51% pro brexit and 50% participation only ~25% would have voted for the Brexit.
Note: Personally I'm not claiming they should or shouldn't do that. I think the Brexit debate was, just like many political debates, held mainly based on emotions. An appeal to the resentment of the lower class to show those "ruling bastards" their discontent, but without providing any well-reasoned alternative. Similar to what Trump is doing. Show some sympathy for lower class anger and prejudice, make them feel understood, and no real plan or knowledge for a better future is required to get the votes.
Another interesting consequence is that there might be another referendum in Scotland to leave the UK. Within Scotland apparently a clear majority is against the Brexit, and the last referendum for leaving UK was a bit of a close call.
Anyhow, best wishes and good luck to Britain and EU...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday June 24 2016, @09:40AM
The British Constitution (which is written, but not codified) has Parliamentary Sovereignty as a core ideal. There is absolutely nothing binding about the referendum. That said, for an elected politician to act against what appears to be the will of their constituents is likely to be political suicide.
it will be interesting to see if the Remain camp contests it, as thunderstorms in the south east made polling stations close early and prevented people from voting in a number of the strongest Remain areas.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Interesting) by turgid on Friday June 24 2016, @02:55PM
The campaign has been terrible. The Internet has been full of incessant, repetitive sloganeering pro-Brexit trolls. They have hand-waved away any facts unsuitable to their cause. Labour leader Corbyn damned the Remain campaign with his faint praise. Cameron has done the right thing by resigning. He will not be the one to go down in history as initiating the UK's exit from the EU. He is handing that poisoned chalice to someone else. As a Scottish educated"middle class elite" let me tell you that England at the moment stinks of fascism. Male, female, English, Scottish, gay, straight, old and young everyone in my family and circle of friends can smell it. Scotland will leave the union soon. Ireland may reunify. Little England will stand alone. They backed the hard - right and chose to blame their problems on Johnny Foreigner.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:00AM
You didn't mention Wales, which voted in favor of BRExit.
If current stories are correct several thousand jobs will be lost within the next few weeks, but most of the will be financial sector office workers. Then the "trickle down" starts. By October Parliament may be looking for any excuse to repudiate this referendum. Or perhaps not. The London Stock Exchange only lost about 10% of it's average value today...and was reputed to be rising at the close of trading.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday June 27 2016, @08:04AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:21AM
As a Scottish educated"middle class elite" let me tell you that England at the moment stinks of fascism.
And as a Scot who worked down south for far too many years, I'll tell you to go down there and actually talk to some of these people rather than make a holier than thou judgement on their motivation. If areas of England regarded as Labour 'heartlands', areas where there were traditionally strong anti-fascist movements, areas which have decided 'Basta!' and decided to vote to leave the EU, what does that tell you? Fascism?, no, much as I hate quoting wikipedia
'..Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. '
Substituting 'EU council and Commission' for 'party', this is more a description of the aims of the EU, the EU parliament being the panem et circenses part of the whole show.
Male, female, English, Scottish, gay, straight, old and young everyone in my family and circle of friends can smell it.
Hate to break it to you here, unless you have a particularly 'blessed' circle of friends, statistically something like 2 out of every 7 people you know in Scotland voted with these 'fascists'..
Scotland will leave the union soon.
Yes!, and I voted for that outcome when I had the chance, alas, so many other sheep voted otherwise..despite being warned that the English were about to vote the Tories back in again, despite being told that the EU exit was going to happen..
However... I do not want an English hegemony to be replaced with a German one, what is the fscking point of 'Independence' then? ('meet the new boss...')
In my considered opinion, the current SNP are fuckwits of the highest order.
Ireland may reunify.
Ha, that *is* precious...to quote GBS 'Put an Irishman on the spit and you can always get another Irishman to turn him.'
(not that we Scots are in any way different..)
Little England will stand alone. They backed the hard - right and chose to blame their problems on Johnny Foreigner.
Hard Right?, have you seen the number of people on the Left Wing who wanted out of the EU? or are you just content to believe the narrative you're being fed ?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:59AM
Once again, Joe Soap posts anonymously to put the flimsy case for bigotry.
They voted right wing on this particular issue. Do you see?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:51AM
..Once again, Joe Soap posts anonymously to put the flimsy case for bigotry.
Eh?
could you concisely and exactly explain whatever passes for the logic you used to come to that particular conclusion from the contents of my post [soylentnews.org]?
I'm interested, as at no point did I say 'insert-favoured-whipping-boy-race-de-jour-here out' or anything similar..bear in mind, as a Scot, I'm conversant with bigotry in all its forms [wikipedia.org] and I see and hear it in our country on a daily basis, and, incidentally, suffered quite a bit of anti-Scottish bigoty whilst working down south with our English 'friends'.
If the Bigotry remarks are about my comments on the Irish and Scots, well, as I'm Scottish and my mother's family are half Irish..and the remark about the Irish was made by George Bernard Shaw, so I'll happily put them down as self critique.
They voted right wing on this particular issue. Do you see?
No, I don't, the world (and politics) isn't that black and white, if you genuinely think that then you're obviously not quite up to speed on the branches of 'left wing' politics which regard the EU as a tool of the multinationals and part of their globalisation plans..so, you're saying that they should vote against their principles just because that puts them, in your eyes, in the same camp as that arsewipe Farrage?, again, please don't confuse other people's motives or their actions by what you're being fed by the media filtered through your own blinkered prejudices, of the two, Farrage and the EU, the EU is the greater evil in their eyes.
Here's something for you to digest, as you might as well learn something about motivations and as you think I'm some sort of Right wing Bigot.
I initially wasn't going to vote, but in this case I decided that I had to vote leave tactically as based on the levels and tone of the propaganda that the Beeb and others were throwing at them I wasn't too sure the English leave vote would remain strong enough to pull it off, that, coupled with the extended voter registration attempt at vote stuffing, forced my hand.
I had confidence enough that in Scotland, the Labour sheep would vote whatever way they were being told, and the SNP sheep would vote tactically to stay, causing the expected current UK wide schism (the Welsh *did* surprise me, I'll admit, unless they're playing the same game), thereby triggering a second (hopefully successful) Independence vote.
Now, happily, in this case I also got to vote with my conscience as I do not like the EU, a 'common market' is one thing, but the EU 'project' stinks too much of Fascism, an unholy resurrection of the Roman Empire with large chunks of die Neuordnung Europas thrown in for good measure for my liking.
If you like, you could also take it also as a posthumous vote on behalf of my late father, a communist and anti-fascist (did work for Searchlight in the 70's/80's keeping tabs on the BNP , contributed to Yad Vashem), who voted for the common market in '75, but in the '80s regarded it as a danger and who wished he'd never voted for it, so I also got to correct his mistake for him. So many birds, such a small stone.
Let me state it clearly here, I only care about the Scottish Independence battle at this point, I voted tactically to ensure a leave vote, thereby triggering a second Scottish Independence vote, and this time I hope the sheep don't fuck it up.
The Scotland in the EU battle will be next, I think the SNP will find that whereas the results may give them a moral case for holding the second ballot on Independence, considering that continued Scottish EU membership was used as a lever in the FUD that the 'Better Together' campaign spread, however the wording of the ballot will legally preclude them from using it as a mandate to automatically apply for EU membership without asking us again..that, and there's also a certain 'resistance' to the idea of us joining anyway from some other countries in that great big EU happy family.
Hth.
(and as much as I'm a Scottish Nationalist, I still maintain that the SNP are still a bunch of fuckwits of the highest order.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:09PM
Sorry, mate. You must not be familiar with turgid.
People who write things he doesn't like get downvoted (usually as trolls) and slandered as ignorant, racist, doctrinaire or whatever.
His heart's in the right place, I think, but his head has been turned by a bunch of self-righteous echo chamber nonsense.
Still, good try.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:52PM
No, he just forms his own opinions by researching issues on his own and reaching a conclusion, whether that clashes with the Internet Meme du Jour or not.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:50PM
This was completely the wrong time to make a protest vote.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:06PM
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to notify the internet of the turgid democratic advisory service.
I'll do better another time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @03:03PM
thunderstorms in the south east made polling stations close early
The Ministry of Weather Control is at it again. [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:48AM
There was quite a high turnout. In the end I think it was 37% voted for exit of the eligible population. There's a lot of hate for non-voters on my facebook feed this morning.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Friday June 24 2016, @01:35PM
stating that the UK parliament is not bound by the outcome of the referendum, and in the past indeed overruled it a couple of times
Eh? We've only ever had 2 other UK-wide referendums - on leaving the EU (then EEC) in 1974 and on changing the voting system a couple of years ago - which both chose the status quo, as did the Scottish Independence referendum, so ignoring them wasn't an issue. (ISTR there have been some regional referendums, but I'm pretty sure they were accepted).
There was, however, a promise to hold a referendum on the last EU treaty that was sneakily avoided by crossing out the word "treaty".
It won't be easy to overrule this one - apart from the public backlash, it would split the Tory party completely. One of the reasons for this result is that the Tory remain faction were so busy yelling "Yah boo sucks!" at the Tory leave faction that they quite forgot to come up with any coherent arguments.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday June 24 2016, @04:10AM
I predict, that as there is likely to have every fall apart, there might be a negoitation with Europe.
I think (just my $0.02) is that Europe is terrified the UK will leave, as that only leaves Germany and France propping it up....
And let's not forget , there is 3rd bailout coming in a few weeks...
But , it's not legally binding - still plenty of ways this can be bounced....
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @05:03AM
They might be more concerned about a domino effect leading Greece, Spain, etc to threaten to leave, which means they're unlikely to want the exit negotiations to be seen going well for the UK.
However this is the beginning of a big set of negotiations, which will take a couple of years at least; we don't just close the ports this morning; we have to negotiate the fallout
The conversation has a lengthier article:
https://theconversation.com/britain-votes-to-leave-the-eu-heres-what-happens-next-61420 [theconversation.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @06:51AM
Up next, Nexit, Dexit, and Franxit.
Its not just Britian that wants to leave while they still have two pence to rub together, ans some semblance of a national identity.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 24 2016, @04:52PM
Any country who leaves will be a footnote while the US and China write history.
The nice side effect of the Brits leaving may be that the EU could finally be officially the super-country they need to be.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @06:28PM
Not under their current EU Charter.
There are too many fundamental flaws and micromanaging embeded in that steaming pile.
And too many members demanding to get out, Netherlands Denmark and even France.
They've seen what happens when one country calls the shots (Germany) to the peril of all other states (immigration) and launches a de-facto economic attack on another member (Greece).
Look: No country gets it right the first time around when writing its own charter. US Articles of Confederation, Canadian Constitution acts of 1867, then again in 1982, god only knows how many Russian governments, French Governments, etc.
The EU probably has at least one huge gutting an tumultuous rewrite needed before it can be a functioning "country".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday June 24 2016, @07:02PM
The EU of today is the result of at least a dozen treaties, tweaking stuff as people come in and find faults. It's an iterative process.
Last time they tried to have a constitution-like document, it got blocked, but they ended up with very similar tweaks via more treaties.
So there will be one more treaty to deal with losing a major member and adding Scotland, and everybody will try to tweak what they perceive as wrong with the current one. But they won't throw out the whole thing just because they're losing England and Wales.
There are always people calling for leaving. There are also lots of angry people who will shit on anything, regardless of importance or future, to point out they are pissed at their current government. But that doesn't mean that those members "demand to get out". The Brits had the same angry people, but also the fact that they've never been a full member of the EU, always pointing out they're different and asking for exceptions and exemptions. Even if Le Pen or Wilders won, it's not a given that their countrymen would blow up the EU out of anger.
Feels like the early 30s. Which is good, because people who went to school remember to stop being idiots before it turns into the late 30s.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:18AM
The Constitution solved some of the problems with the Articles of Confederation by introducing it's own. I will grant you that the current government pretty much ignores the constitution that is supposed to be it's only measure of validity, but the Constitution itself is too authoritarian and centralist. Patrick Henry's opinion of it was "I smell a rat. It squints towards monarchy." That was a bit of an overreaction, but he was never known for his moderate tone. But it *did* bend in that direction, and we, today, are the inheritors of two centuries of the bend. Probably it should have been easier for the voters to recall their representatives, and to repeal laws passed by congress.
One of the real problems, though, is that each representative is supposed to represent too many people. And there need to be extremely strong laws against elected representatives receiving any financial recompense of whatever nature either while in office or after retirement. (Which means a good pension system. But not one corruptly voted for, where people line their own pockets.) I think perhaps they should receive twice the median income for a retirement salary after one term, and add another median income for each additional term they are elected to.
That said, if they are supposed to represent their constituents, then the number of people they represent needs to be limited to no more than around 250. And to allow reasoned debate, that means there needs to be an intermediate level that elects representatives to the national level.
Possibly the best choice would be for people to sign up for someone to act as their representative, to be allowed to change their representative at will, and for the representative to have a vote proportional to the number of people who agree to allow them to be their representative. This would allow representatives to be selected on an issue-based slate rather than on a geography-based slate. But you still probably need that intermediate level, because rational discussion can't happen in a large group. But if it's televised, and people can instantaneously change who their representative is, the results could be worthwhile. But you'd need some sort of strong protection against hackers...which the current voting system have even for the simple case.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:15AM
but the Constitution itself is too authoritarian and centralist.
You jest!
The constitution is not authoritarian, it has virtually no teeth. As Obama has shown, the president, the courts, and the congress can ignore it with impunity. There is no punishment specified. No recourse. The Constitution was also not very centralist until the Supreme court started finding all sorts of obscure clauses to which they attribute great meaning, while ignoring clear admonitions and prohibitions.
Executing a couple Supreme court judges after a brief trial in the Senate would have solved that. But then, because everybody thought it was such a good idea to have direct election of Senators, (when they were supposed to protect the states) that there is no risk of that ever happening. Supreme Court Judges are free to do anything they want (up to and including dissolving the country) and noone in the federal government would do a thing.
If you thing representative form of government can only represent 250 voters you are delusional. It has never been under 33,000 [wikipedia.org] per representative.
Anything less is unworkable in a representative democracy bigger than the Adak Island. That isn't the way the country was designed. The crackpots were designed to be filtered at the representative level, by sheer weight of numbers. How could there be any "debate" if even 10% of the representatives wanted to speak, when there is one representative for every 250 people? It would take years.
Don't summon your vast experience at designing governments until you have at least a basic understanding of the one you live with.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:48PM
No, I don't jest. The Constitution was unworkable for governing as communications and transportation speeded up, and it was too difficult to modify, so the Feds have been progressively ignoring it at least since Lincoln.
OTOH, the original idea was that the states should be "independent nations" with a over-layer of government "to provided for the common defense...". It was also supposed to harmonize trade (as a part of "promote the general welfare") and ensure that each state had "a Republican form of government" (as a part of "secure the blessings of liberty..."). But it was too strong AND too inflexible. Even the power of the Supreme Court to decide on constitutionality required an imaginative interpretation of the Constitution. John Marshall got away with that ONCE. And then never tested it again, so it became traditional, but it's not in the Constitution.
The "too authoritarian and centralist" derives from the central position of the president, and his powers. Which aren't closely specified.
I will agree that the interpretations of the Constitution that we have been saddled with as a result of this historical process are not faithful to the actual document, but words cannot protect you against those to lie about what they mean. And the tradition of lying about what they mean is because the Constitution is too inflexible. It's a tradition that has been present from the first (see the "Alien and Sedition acts"), but it has grown with the decades as each infringement has become accepted.
The proper approach would probably have been to have the state governors be given a final vote on each law...and for definite requirements as to the length of each law, tests for it's intelligibility, and for the total number of laws allowed. Also all laws should have a sunset clause. Probably 15 years. But there's a need for a feasible method for amending things because you can never get it debugged without running tests. Also, if a law is re-adopted without changes, it could reasonably be given a longer sunset clause, say 5 years longer each time (so, 15, 20,25, ...). And after two renewals without change could reasonably stop counting in the total number of laws.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday June 27 2016, @04:42PM
I like the way you're thinking, especially the ideas surrounding sunset clauses (recently heard Elon Musk say something similar but not quite as good as you in a disguised context of hypothetical "Mars governance").
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:02AM
The UK needs to go. As a commonwealth/fiveeyes country, they just don't belong. Ireland probably ought to be rolled into the UK as well, for geographic and language reasons. It just makes sense.
Norway and Switzerland need to join. Greece needs to go away. Iceland probably ought to join. Possible joiners with major border dispute issues: Georgia, Armenia, western Ukraine, Kalingrad oblast :-)
Then it's time for a unified military command, single citizenship, federal taxes, a head of state, loss of UN recognition for the now-former countries, EU embassies replacing the old embassies, splitting the larger ex-countries into reasonable-sized states, etc.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday June 27 2016, @06:09PM
Wow, consider me trolled and trolled good —congratulations XD
I share your abhorrence of Five Eyes/Nine Eyes/Sixteen Eyes and all that which it entails but you don't seem to realize that you're asking for unlimited war (war of survival) on at least thirteen fronts if not twenty or thirty (and all of them would be likely to welcome Russia as allies). It's pretty much what the Russians would do/trigger if they were half as evil and/or dumb as the biggest idiots pretend they are (which luckily they're not and never were, not even under Soviet rule: the proof is in the almost entirely civilized end of their reign —a historical rarity).
Lets describe your scenario as between ten to forty Syrias in Europe.
That's excluding Kalingrad which would obviously (and rightfully) be tempting an automatic WWIII. Who the fuck are you dreaming should suicide themselves in order to remove it and everyone living there? Don't be offended but are you a stoned Polish or Lithuanian nazi or something? Not having enough trouble with the "Ukrainians" dreaming of your demise/genocide as soon as they get rid of the "wrong" Ukrainians? Get better/cleaner drugs or stop with the narcotics :)
I didn't expect anyone to be worse than Hillary Clinton but I guess you're it :P
So I'd rather not go to this "utopia" of yours or anywhere near it, it's precisely the kind of future I want to avoid. I wish the EU would just fuck off and die already (bless the Brits, they beat the rest of us to the goalposts, France seems like they'll be in 2nd place but the Dutch are close behind and the Slovaks a dark horse) so that Europe can do something sensible and voluntary on an opt-in basis for each and every detail instead without adding layer upon layer of new corruption, megalomania, and abuse on top of the layers that were already there without them. The Visegrád group and Austria seem sensible enough to work something like that out as unlike the idiots in charge here in the west they seem fully aware of the current circumstances.
As for the poor Ukrainians they were sold and leapt at the shittiest deal in history with some imaginary EU carrot being dangled in front of them, probably by the very powers you and I detest. They must be realizing it by now. I'd get some free land in the Russian far east if I was them and weather it out there, bulding a good life, until the century old madness finally chokes itself to death (might take a decade, might not be any point in planning to return). Or if beset by rage they could join the free Ukrainians and take their country back and away from Kiev.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday June 24 2016, @01:41PM
I think I'm repeating what some folks have said - there was actual campaigning on this issue.
Besides, they made Ireland and Denmark rerun their referendums, it could happen here.
And if you ever read "Yes Minister" (was a TV programme too) , you'll see the default behaviour is to delay.
Seriously though, the greek bailout in a few weeks, might make the EU change its tune...
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @02:56PM
On this - comedy link of the day...
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember-that-time-nigel-farage-said-52-48-votes-should-lead-to-second-referendum-5963900/ [metro.co.uk]
Somehow I suspect he will suddenly see an important difference between winning 52-48 and losing 52-48. One which, by an astonishing coincidence, just so happens to be to his side's benefit...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @03:09PM
Greece shouldn't have been allowed in from the first. They never met the requirements.
Of course, these days even France isn't meeting the requirements, so I guess who cares.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:57PM
Curious American here. What requirements did Greece not meet. France not meeting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:14PM
Short answer: budget discipline.
Euro zone joining requires a certain slate of financial attributes, relating mostly to the way the budget, debts and so on are handled. All the members, pretty much, have played fast and loose with the definition. It's one of the running jokes of the Euro.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Friday June 24 2016, @05:31AM
That last is what is worrying. All this bother for a non-binding plebiscite that the ruling elite will almost certainly end up just ignoring. Oh they will make lots of noise about 'hearing the voice of the people' and such but in the end it will be 'it just can't be done, hope you little people understand.' And then there will probably be blood. The elites just don't understand how much the people they rule distrust and dislike them. Here in the U.S. Trump is the manifestation of this. There it is opposition to the EU, populist parties springing up everywhere and doing better every election.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:56AM
The interesting bit is that the rabid anti-Trump types lack the self-awareness that Trump is a reactionary of their own creation. Couldn't even entertain the possibility people might not agree with their edicts from on high, and now look at the pushback.
In much a similar way, the EU does what's best for the EU; not so much into the compromises for the individual members.
So now Britain is taking its ball and going home. And as much prostrations of voting for Hilary are a bit too self-satisfied; it has to be unreal to be looking at the possibility of a Trump presidency staring back at you.
Of course that is just the ignorance of voters shining through *he said smugly*
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 24 2016, @05:31PM
Couldn't even entertain the possibility people might not agree with their edicts from on high
Yeah, stupid edicts on high like the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bastards!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:51PM
So again you have to entertain the idea that EVERYONE supporting Trump is against equal protection, or maybe your preening moral superiority is a bit far-fetched and antagonistic.
And just maybe Trump is an effect and not a cause.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 24 2016, @06:39PM
So again you have to entertain the idea that EVERYONE supporting Trump is against equal protection,
If you support laws that differ based on a person's religion (such as immigration bans) then yes, you are clearly opposed to equal protection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:23PM
The US already places quotas on immigration, specifying limited amounts of people from certain areas.
Obvious racism.
From Trumps's website
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.
Nice of you to omit the second part.
Further, ALL of Trump's supporters also must share that viewpoint, and any person YOU vote for perfectly aligns with your views.
Not to mention you are already ascribing rights to people who aren't even citizens.
Idiot.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 24 2016, @08:12PM
The US already places quotas on immigration, specifying limited amounts of people from certain areas. Obvious racism.
Where you live is neither a race, nor a religion.
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. Nice of you to omit the second part.
Oh I see. It's a violation of the equal protection clause but it's only temporary so that's OK. I'm not seeing the language in the constitution that says we only need to follow it part of the time.
Further, ALL of Trump's supporters also must share that viewpoint, and any person YOU vote for perfectly aligns with your views.
Note the "IF" in my previous statement. That's called a conditional. IF you don't meet the conditions THEN you may not oppose the 14th amendment.
Not to mention you are already ascribing rights to people who aren't even citizens.
AKA "Human Rights."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:28AM
The interesting bit is that the rabid anti-Trump types lack the self-awareness that Trump is a reactionary of their own creation. Couldn't even entertain the possibility people might not agree with their edicts from on high, and now look at the pushback.
Game. Set. Match.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:29PM
Balderdash.
The USA already has differential rules on immigrants, and they've stood up to scrutiny over time.
I don't like Trump, and I don't want him for my personal lord and fuehrer, but at least understand what you're talking about; differential treatment based on national origin (a protected class, remember!) is already reality. Adding some additional checking on people from Syria (who are predominantly islamic, yes) would not be contrary to the law as it stands.
(Score: 2) by Marco2G on Friday June 24 2016, @07:27AM
Trump is also a good example of why the system does not work. That man is a billionaire who crashed several companies on the backs of the workers. That the very same worker rally behind him as there messiah could be described as laughable if it hadn't such far reaching consequences.
Hell, US voters still think that they have a two-party system, when the only reason it is de-facto that is that people keep it that way.
So they happily waste their votes on people like Trump and Clinton just so their opinion is "heard". Instead of voting for someone who is much more likely to actually listen.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @07:39AM
All this bother for a non-binding plebiscite that the ruling elite will almost certainly end up just ignoring.
Your non-binding plebiscite just brought down the British Government.
Cameron announced he will call for new elections.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @01:23PM
Yes but Britain is a democracy. GP is obviously an USian.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 24 2016, @02:09PM
Actually, he did no such thing. He did say that he would step down as leader of the Conservative Party, and thus from the post of PM, in October and that whoever takes up the reins next will have to lead the UK through the negotiation process ahead. While he could call for a new election, he hasn't done so yet and, in any event, it is unlikely to happen until a new Conservative leader is chosen.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @09:20PM
In fact, the previous (coalition) government, which he led, passed a law that set a fixed term for elections, removing the ability of the Prime Minister to call an election as and when he chooses. The only way to get one early is for a vote of no confidence in the government, or for two thirds of the Commons to vote for an election. Given the slim majority Cameron's Conservatives currently have, the former could be a possibility.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @03:22PM
Can you explain this British weirdness where they can decide to have elections whenever they want? In the U.S. we do it on a timetable.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @04:29PM
It's down to a complex system of "making shit up as we went along for the past five hundred years or so" :D
Until recently (and for the past century) it's been that each parliament had a maximum of five years to operate in, and then that parliament expired and had to be re-elected. (it's been higher and lower than 5 years if you go back further).
However this five year limit was a maximum: basically the Prime Minister could (and generally did) call the election early, by asking the Queen to officially dissolve parliament. This meant in theory an election could be called pretty much any time in that five year window, and the dominant party could try and make sure it was at the best possible time, or it could be called if the government was unable to operate effectively (the shortest gap was Feb 1973 to October 1973 - yes 8 months).
Recently (2011) this went over to a fixed interval of five years between the elections themselves, and the circumstances in which an early election could be called got quite a bit more restricted: basically the house of commons has to vote for it to happen, however it's still possible for a seriously dysfunctional government to get voted out early.
If you really want to know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @05:01PM
I do enjoy the idea of forcing a new election when they can't get anything done. I recall during the government shutdown a couple years back somebody did a poll that found that 60% of people were in favor of just "firing" the entire government :)
IIRC Australia even has a rule like that specifically for when the budget can't get passed.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @06:34PM
Agreed, But unfortunatly, I'm out of mod points.
Problem is, Joe Random Citizen gets no say in declaring a new election.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by wirelessduck on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:46AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution [wikipedia.org]
FYI, the current election in Australia is a double dissolution election, being held over an issue that almost everyone has now forgotten about :/
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:23AM
Nah, just a PM. The powers that be are more than willing to throw a PM under the bus, especially one who agreed to hold the election in the first place as an ill considered political deal. The System will trundle along just fine with whatever new PM gets the nod. Just so long as things do not get so far out of whack that an actual exit becomes a political requirement to survive.
Note the PM announced his exit but also declared the formal process of exit would not happen under his watch. So basically the selection of his replacement becomes the first 'do over' attempt. Remember the basic rule of Progress is that they only need win once at any point in the process of whatever policy is under discussion, the 'forces of reaction' have to win every possible time they can be forced to fight, again and again.
Look here in the US for ample examples of this theory in action. Any policy a progressive favors need only succeed at one point in the mass of government while the opposite is true for the Enemies of Progress. Gay marriage, legalization of pot, immigration, you name it. A city/state can legalize pot and apparently nothing the rest of the government decides, laws passed, etc mean anything. A city can declare itself a 'sanctuary city' and apparently no power on earth can overrule them. Sometimes there is actually an attempt, but it fails. For example the city in NC that went for unisex restrooms, the State government overruled them but set off a poopstorm that, we all understand, ends with the SCOTUS making the policy nationwide. Meanwhile the other team has to control the whole debate, each city, the state legislature, governor, attorney general, state courts, the US Congress, SCOTUS, POTUS. Because any one of them is sufficient to veto a conservative policy.
Anger at this sort of misrule by an elite who consider themselves superior beings is the root cause of the current political discontent. If the ballot box proves unable to correct the problem it is likely to end in blood. Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box: use them in that order.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:13AM
I almost posted that tripe myself, if nothing else just to forestall your predictable rant.
The Idea that the party will survive, after such a stinging rebuke seems like more whistling past the grave yard. It would never happen here, but I suppose it might happen in the UK. Until the Scots decide to leave.
The Stay voter is pissed at the PM for not winning. The Leave Voter is pissed off because he betrayed the UK in their view.
Why would anyone turn the reins over to more of the same from that party?
How can the same party handle two diametrically opposed positions, especially on an issue so fundamental?
Is there no fundamental ideas the party hold dear other than maintaining power?
Are you assuming the UK electorate are as easily duped as an American SJW watching his elected representatives singing "we shall over come" on the floor of the house?
The PM is just the first to go in my view.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:48AM
Why would anyone turn the reins over to more of the same from that party?
Because the alternative would be UKIP and if you think Trump horrifies every establishment politician of both parties, look at how they feel about UKIP. So there will be a 'bipartisan' consensus created to keep the Conservatives in power.
And just watch. The British Parliament and People will now be given at least a dozen opportunities to 'see reason' starting with the new PM's selection and extending over the next couple of years. Just ONE vote to turn away from the path of exit will end the process while the leave faction will need to win each and every attack that will be launched at them from every direction.
Is there no fundamental ideas the party hold dear other than maintaining power?
No. Not there, not anywhere. There are exactly two kinds of parties. One holds fast to principle and never gains power. The other holds fast to power and compromises every principle in the service of that goal. Parties gain and lose power as their attitude on this point changes. There are brief shining moments possible when a party with principles suddenly, and usually unexpectedly, gains power. They never last; keep the principles and lose power or lose the principles to hold power seem to be the choice to be made. Power corrupts.
Are you assuming the UK electorate are as easily duped as an American SJW watching his elected representatives singing "we shall over come" on the floor of the house?
They were from the end of WWII to now. For that matter, being blind and stupid how they got into WWII. Whether this is a momentary blip or the beginning of something wonderful is yet to be seen. Pretty safe bet which way the smart money is putting down markers.
The PM is just the first to go in my view.
Possibly. I certainly hope so. But they can afford to sacrifice a lot so long as they win the war against their 'uppity' voters in the end. It is the final victor that matters. Without the British in the EU everyone will quickly realize it is just Greater Germany and the whole thing will fall apart. That is the stakes here, and no price will be deemed too great. I just hope they understand both sides likely see the fight in such apocalyptic terms.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:17AM
And then there will probably be blood
That fine, upstanding erudite statesman, Nigel Farage, has already hinted at violence [independent.co.uk] if he doesn't get his way.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday June 27 2016, @07:55PM
We disagree on things so I'll have a go at trying to show how it's seen from the other point of view. I'm pretty sure what I'm writing is broadly representative but some are more bloodthirsty and some are less so than the following, it often depends a great deal on how badly they've suffered or witnessed other people suffer.
Ironic is too weak a word to describe it in this case of you shooting the messenger, the threat of violence isn't coming from Farage but from those he is mollifying and who as a consequence might end up supporting him. Most of those who aren't don't vote and in most elections there are a lot of people who don't vote, how many of the non-voters this applies to is impossible to know, maybe half, maybe a quarter, maybe nearly all, but for sure it's not none. It seems to me that it is a substantial amount.
The context of Farage's statement is the exact opposite of your interpretation; he's telling a rather large amount of people both in Britain and elsewhere across Europe that their freedom and actual representation can still be won peacefully through democratic means without war or revolution.
I want Farage and everyone like him across Europe to be right about that and I think you would too if you saw it that way. I'm not saying you have to see it that way only that /if/ you did then I would like to think you would agree. The last one who /didn't/, one who was /not/ calmed down or given patience, was a mild-mannered gardener with a home-made pistol.
Like many I do not trust elections any longer and I'm amazed that the powers-that-be allowed Leave to win (plenty of people including on this very page are wondering how it happened, if it was intentional or by mistake, or if a little rain really was enough help) but it's the best thing that has happened since the fall of the Berlin wall as far as I am concerned: suddenly war seems a little bit less likely. One or two more countries to go (or a big one like France) and it might even start to seem outright unlikely and that's what I want :)
In other news the EU is now (again) calling for creating a powerful military union on top of the economic and political one (it's not really new but they've kept it silent for several years since the last attempt floundered). It's all very far away from the initial idea of an economic community [wikipedia.org].
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday June 27 2016, @10:09PM
Ah, doublethink. Doubleplus correct, citizen.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 24 2016, @04:10AM
"Leave" has been ahead roughly 900-950k votes for a while now, but with 44 results left, it is 14,861,576 to 13,861,537. Just over a million vote lead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:12AM
I'm not sure though. I read the article, and they don't say anything about counting votes from outside the UK yet, and those are enough people to swing the vote (it looks like about a million votes difference, and there are more than a million voters outside the UK).
in any case, if they do get out, it's bad. it's worse for them, but bad for everyone. although I guess the rest of us europeans will have a less strong push towards surveillance states.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 24 2016, @04:17AM
"Leave" currently leading by about 1,114,000 votes. It would take a strong pro-Remain bent to overcome that lead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Friday June 24 2016, @07:17AM
I guess the rest of us europeans will have a less strong push towards surveillance states.
That's the only reason I'm somehow not too sad to see Britain leave. Now I just hope Scotland will leave UK and stay in the EU.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday June 24 2016, @04:14AM
I seem to remember that the Scots were overall much more pro-EU than the Brits, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them hold another independence referendum and this time vote to secede, and then turn around and join the EU as a separate nation.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Friday June 24 2016, @04:20AM
In an interview I heard on NPR today, it was said that this was actually a strategy of some Scottish nationalists, seeing the loss of EU membership is a way to get some of the electorate who voted to stay in union with the UK to change their minds when the next referendum comes up.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @05:10AM
Yes, but that tactic (voting leave EU to eventually leave the UK) only works for the Scottish nationalists outside Scotland, as Scotland needed to show strong support for remaining in the EU in this referendum first.
More mindbogglingly, I know a Welsh Nationalist and Pro-European, living in England, who was considering voting leave, banking on the Scottish remain vote to prompt Scotland leaving the UK, in turn leading to the dissolution of the UK and an independent Wales! I don't know if they followed through on it or not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:20AM
Yes, but that tactic (voting leave EU to eventually leave the UK) only works for the Scottish nationalists outside Scotland, as Scotland needed to show strong support for remaining in the EU in this referendum first.
More mindbogglingly, I know a Welsh Nationalist and Pro-European, living in England, who was considering voting leave, banking on the Scottish remain vote to prompt Scotland leaving the UK, in turn leading to the dissolution of the UK and an independent Wales! I don't know if they followed through on it or not.
It's the celtic mindset, I'm afraid..we're all quite mad.
I'm a Scottish Nationalist, but, importantly, not a SNP supporter. I voted leave, and I mean it...I cannot for the life of me see the logic of the SNP's position, freeing us from English hedgemony just to put us under German hedgemony...I mean, wtf?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:23AM
Anybody looking to join the EU will get a sweetheart deal. It will not be a German hegemony.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:27AM
Anybody looking to join the EU will get a sweetheart deal. It will not be a German hegemony.
'He who controls the purse strings...'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @03:08PM
I call shenanigans. A real Celt would know how to spell "hegemony".
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @09:24PM
Well in Welsh, I'd spell it "hegemoni". I can't vouch for the other five Celtic languages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:50AM
I call shenanigans. A real Celt would know how to spell "hegemony".
I plead 'tired and emotional'!
I'd been up all night, engaged in another favoured Celtic ritualistic practice involving whisky...my spllenig always suffers a bit, but, yes, you're right hegehedge is quite bad, call it a bit of a Druidian slip, I'll just nip out back and shoot myself right now...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @07:05AM
Scottish nationalists seeing the loss of EU membership is a way....
Are you sure they really want to be EU members, or just a fair shake from Britain?
After all, a nationalist fighting for EU Membership is an oxymoron, a flag waving charge into oblivion, the closest thing to a Jim Jones cup of Koolaid an nation is likely to drink.
When Britain promises the Scots and the Irish and the Welsh something approaching equality (like Statehood or a Province in a federal republic structure perhaps) to get them to stay, do the nationalists really want to become faceless Euros instead?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday June 24 2016, @03:19PM
When I think of an independent Scotland I think of South Carolina on the eve of the U.S. Civil War and the sentiments of one of its U.S. Senators: "South Carolina is too small for a country and too large for an insane asylum". Yet, with continued EU membership, Scotland could regain its independence, yet have the benefits of being a greater part of a (mostly) united Europe, not unlike the benefits gained by federalism by states in the United States. The question also arises whether Scotland would be better off being part of the European Union instead of being a part of the United Kingdom, another union.
The more I think about what happened in Britain last night the more I think of my own views on California secession from the United States. California's economy is incredibly diverse and enormous and it could easily survive on its own. I become more convinced of the value of this idea the more dysfunctional the federal government becomes. More money leaves California in tax revenue than returns to it in the form of federal government services, and I'm convinced that we could do better on our own. Yet, despite the benefits of becoming independent, I think any state leaving the United States as what happened in 1861 and what I sometimes think should happen today is ultimately the wrong decision. Yes, the American national government is not functioning very well, but I think each state is stronger as part of the union than separated from it.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:07AM
You don't understand Scottish Nationalism.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @08:31AM
Spotted this map up on Ars:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/uk-vote-remain-leave-brexit-map-1.jpg [arstechnica.net]
Blue is Stay, Red is Leave.
That's a pretty stark divide between Scotland, N.I. and "rest of UK".
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday June 24 2016, @09:47AM
It's an artefact of poor data visualisation. Take a look at The Guardian's map [theguardian.com]. They shade based on the percentage of the vote in each direction. Very few places voted more than 60% either way.
Unfortunately, this is the the second referendum that we've had in recent years with no good option. Last time it was 'do you want to keep our stupid voting system or move to a different stupid voting system' and a lot of people voted 'keep' thinking that we'd then get a choice of a sensible one (such as the one that the government's own Electoral Reform Commission had proposed). This time it was 'do you want to keep the status quo and everything that's wrong with the EU, or do you want to storm out in a huff without any kind of plan?' If there had been a sensible reform plan (give more power to Parliament, remove the Commission, kill TTIP, start bailing out countries instead of banks) then I suspect that Remain would have won by a significant margin.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:22AM
in fact the scottish voted against independence most likely because it would have taken them out of the EU, so they will certainly be leaving the UK soon (people have said another referendum would be organized within a couple of years in case of a Brexit), to get back into the EU.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @07:19AM
the scottish voted against independence most likely because it would have taken them out of the EU,
That's nonsense, the Scotts would have been offered instant EU membership. Even though the British got a bunch of EU bureaucrats to hint at a difficult time [independent.co.uk] for Scotland to join the EU, in fact the Germans had almost promised instant acceptance.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:42AM
The campaigns to keep Scotland in the UK were threatening that if Scotland were to leave the UK, they would be kicked out of the EU. That the reality was likely different doesn't really matter, when the information the voters had said they would be kicked out.
Now that they are on the way out anyway, those votes for staying in the UK were given on false pretenses, and they should have every right to have a new referendum, allowing them to vote according to reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:42PM
The campaigns to keep Scotland in the UK were threatening that if Scotland were to leave the UK, they would be kicked out of the EU. That the reality was likely different doesn't really matter, when the information the voters had said they would be kicked out.
I spent way too much time during that campaign telling Labour people every time they brought up the EU 'canard' that as the English were going to vote in the Tories and then vote to leave the EU, it was a moot point at best, a lie at worst.
It didn't matter, no sheep uncritically votes the party line like the good old Scottish Labour sheep...
..those votes for staying in the UK were given on false pretenses
Be careful there, some were, alas, there's still too many bloody Unionists in the country as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday June 24 2016, @09:55AM
the Scotts would have been offered instant EU membership
Entry into the EU can be vetoed by any existing EU country. Spain would veto Scotland's entry to the EU because it would set a precedent that Catalonia could leave Spain and remain in the EU, an option that would be very popular in Catalonia and problematic for the rest of Spain.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tibman on Friday June 24 2016, @01:51PM
mmm, wouldn't Spain just veto Catalonia joining the EU then?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:23PM
But that would still mean that Catalina achieved independence.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday June 24 2016, @05:48PM
That's not what The Raven said was the issue. It was Catalina becoming independent and remaining part of the EU. If Spain can veto a nation joining the EU then they would just do that to Catalina. Scottland should have nothing to do with it.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @06:18PM
From what I've found there is a great deal of uncertainty about portions of members becoming members in their own right.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union#Withdrawal_and_suspension [wikipedia.org]
Especially when all portions of the fragmenting member wish to be remain EU members, which is slightly different than the current issue.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday June 27 2016, @07:58AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday June 24 2016, @03:59PM
No, in this case it was England's stupidity, so Spain might look upon us more sympathetically. The map is quite clear: Scotland voted to stay in the EU. It also voted to stay in the UK before the apparent rise of English xenophobia and isolationism.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:27AM
Wouldn't that be funny.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @04:48AM
Doubt it--Unionists will likely stay Union--it wasn't so very long ago that they were condemning the EU as a tool of the Catholic Church--come to think of it, I seem to recall an interviewee on BBC Ulster in the last few months making that claim in all apparent seriousness...
...and if NI did leave the Union, it would be more likely as an independent state. Too much face would be lost otherwise.
(Score: 3, Funny) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @05:02AM
London should secede and become the capital of an independent Northern Ireland.
Now that would be funny.
-
Take that, Boris!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:57AM
So Northern Ireland and London would become just like West Germany and West Berlin? Would they build a London Wall? Fun times indeed.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @09:31PM
See the film Passport to Pimlico [imdb.com] for further guidance
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:15PM
See the film Passport to Pimlico for further guidance
Funny you should mention that, just as the BBC called the result as leave, the heavens opened up and we had a torrential downpour..
I raised a glass to the weather gods, their sense of timing, and tastes in films..both impeccable!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday June 24 2016, @09:52AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @11:12PM
According to one of the BBC programmes I was listening to, the parts of Wales that get the highest subsidies from the EU also had the highest percentage of Leave votes. Seems like shooting themselves in the collective foot, but what do I know...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:31AM
It makes a lot more sense if you look at it the other way around:
The eurocrats have spent an insane amount of time and money buttering up people who don't like them, in the fond hope that this will result in support, rather than dislike plus high expenses.
The welsh, as a group, have never been particularly pro-EU (although some of the EEC benefits were somewhat more popular, depending on who you ask) and just possibly the subsidies weren't enough to buy their willing compliance.
Subsidies or not, they vote to leave anyway - what a surprise! Maybe it's not all about the money.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:41AM
Interestingly the FT had a graph which showed that leave votes were stronger in areas more dependent on the EU.
https://twitter.com/FT/status/746275255354818561 [twitter.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Friday June 24 2016, @04:17AM
He's probably be saying right now "So long and thanks for all the fish!"
Actually, I think Britain has made a disastrous decision, and the folly of that decision will be come clear in coming months and years. At one time, Charles de Gaulle in his role as leader of France vetoed the UK's entry into the European Common Market, what became the EU. That decision was seen as somewhat crass given that he was not a friend of the UK. But now, if the UK ever changes its mind in the future and wants to rejoin the EU, as I have no doubt will happen in about ten years, once the ramifications of this stupid decision become clear, it would make sense for the French or the Germans to tell the Brits to go to hell.
A bad, bad, BAD decision. Watch the tariff walls start to rise as the other members of the EU get their revenge. The Brits need the EU far more than the EU needs the Brits trade-wise. But this is only the beginning. The "special relationship" the United States has the UK may go down the tubes. The US has used the special relationship as one of the ways to keep one foot in Europe and European affairs. Now, all the UK is now is just another member of NATO. Watch the US start to cozy up to the French and Germans much more, as if the US isn't already pretty cozy with the Germans.
This decision will have a positive effect, at least temporarily. It'll make a lot of things priced in pounds much cheaper when compared to the Euro because the value of the pound against the dollar and the Euro is going to CRASH tomorrow. One number I heard floated on NPR today was a drop of 20%.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:55AM
The UK is more than just a member of NATO - they are the member of NATO with the second largest military spending and capability.
Honestly it's all a bit overblown.
(Score: 2) by caffeine on Friday June 24 2016, @05:07AM
The Scandinavian countries are not part of the EU but have prefered trading party status. I suspect that once the dust has settled on this, the UK will end up with a similar deal.
(Score: 1) by Conver on Friday June 24 2016, @07:13AM
In the interest of dispelling disinformation: Sweden, Denmark and Finland are European Union (EU) members.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:30AM
Of which Finland is not part of scandinavia.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:48AM
Denmark is a member, but with exceptions.
Unfortunately, our politicians keep twisting the exceptions such that all the bad stuff we get double, while avoiding the good stuff.
And then they wonder why we keep voting "no".
For example, the last EU referendum was about Europol, where they wanted to include us in the surveillance parts of Europol, but exclude us from the human rights parts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Friday June 24 2016, @07:31AM
Of course, most of the elected politicians are pro-remain and it remains to be be seen whether they'll respect the spirit of the leave campaign's "Out is Out!" or the letter of the referendum - the wording of the question was "Membership of the EU"; there's no mention of the economic block...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Aiwendil on Friday June 24 2016, @07:33AM
* Norway - Not EU but EES member
* Sweden - member of EU but not euro
* Denmark - member of EU but not euro
* Finland - EU member and member of euro.
* Iceland - not member of EU, member of EES, has voted to join EU
* Greenland (denmark) - OCT but not in EU (OCT is very messy, quasimember overseas territory)
* Faroe islands (denmark) - non-EU, non-OCT
* Åland - OCT, not even going to try to find out the EU status
That is the EU status of the nordic countries and dan/fin territories, now let's try to untangle the mess of "scandinavia"
* Political meaning (always) - nor/swe/den
* Political (sometimes) - all of the nordic countries, varying on Faroe, almost never greenland, extremly seldom norwegian overseas territories.
* Cultural - nor/swe/den, sometimes finland and estonia are arguing for its inclusion
* Geological (scandivian peninsula) - nor/swe/fin
* Geological (scandinavian mountain range) - swe/nor, minor parts in fin (also part of the same range that covers scotland, northern ireland [sometimes mentioned] (and the appalachian [almost never mentioned))
So - if scandinavia is in EU or not is a matter of definition used, but in the common ones 60-75% is in eu and 0-25% is in the eurozone (nor/swe/den, variation fin)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:50AM
Åland, or by it's real name, Ahvenanmaa, is part of EU, because it is part of Finland.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday June 24 2016, @08:09AM
Åland is an OCT formally, but yeah it is more in EU than greenland whilst still having a couple of oddball exceptions from the EU treaties.
Regarding its names - it has both names, but in english the name "Åland" is the one to use (just like how english uses Finland instead of Suomi). Also, in the case of Åland it makes sense to use its swedish name since it has a swedish-speaking majority.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Open4D on Friday June 24 2016, @10:42AM
This diagram covers some of the same info (European countries and groupings), though it doesn't go into detail (no mention of Greenland/Faroe/etc.).
https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/745858554733658116 [twitter.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:47AM
I think you are mixing things a bit. There's only 3 countries in Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway and sweden. You probably mean Nordic countries. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_countries [wikipedia.org] )
Denmark, Norway and Iceland are Nato members. http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/maps-of-world-nato-member-countries.gif [mapsofworld.com]
Finland and sweden are Nato partners.
Norway and Iceland are not a EU members. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/europe_map.htm [nationsonline.org]
Finland is part of Euro, sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway are not. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/map.en.html [europa.eu]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday June 24 2016, @08:58AM
That status effectively means: Implement most of the EU rules, but have no say in what they are. Are you sure that's what the UK wants?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Touché) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @09:34PM
Well, we just asked everyone about it yesterday...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Friday June 24 2016, @05:27AM
Actually, I think Britain has made a disastrous decision
You think they made a bad decision yet you fail to even state why. How about the EU bureaucracy (which is not accountable to any popular vote) every year gathering more and more power to itself. That was never part of the deal that was put before the people when the European Economic Community was discussed in the 1970's. Moving power to somewhere where the voters can't get at it is not democracy it is despotism. The UK never agreed to become Herr Juncker's vassal state. Not to mention the fact that one of the oldest, founding members of this European idea has had its voting ability completely diluted. Countries like Malta and Luxembourg get 10 votes for the UK's single vote. How did THAT happen? Yet the UK gets to fund the EU to the tune of 5.5 billion Euro per year, whereas Malta, with its inflated voting power, gets to be PAID 100 million Euro per year for the privilege of being a member whereas Luxembourg gets a cool 1 billion euros in their pocket.
Yeah Europe is going to be hurting if (after all a referendum is just a political statement it is not binding) the UK ever leaves. The UK not so much...
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Friday June 24 2016, @06:47AM
Actually, if you read what I wrote you'll see that I did state why.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday June 24 2016, @08:49AM
Voting for what exactly are you talking about?
Neither the council nor the parliament have 10 votes for Malta and just one for the UK. It usually rather sensible weighted depending on populations (and German actually gets equal weights even although it has a much bigger population than the other big ones...UK, France& Italy).
So...citation needed I guess...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @02:56PM
I think s/he means that a group of 10 dinky little countries like Malta and Luxembourg get 10 votes, one per country, and the UK, being "one" country, only gets one vote as well.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday June 24 2016, @03:45PM
I guess they don't do google [wikipedia.org] in your part of town.
It usually rather sensible weighted depending on populations
And not say, depending on actual CONTRIBUTION to the EU. So the guys that spend the cash get to outvote the guys who actually put up the cash. Hey it's a hell of a sweet deal if you can get it. Yeah I'd like you to supply some venture capital for my startup but you have no say in how I spend the money and I am not liable in any way for how I spend that money. We'll assign shares you get 60 shares I get 40 shares but I'm allowed to emit more shares to all my in-laws. So I'll give 10 shares to my dad and 10 shares to my brother in law and 10 shares to my cousin and..... oh look, we just vetoed you. Try getting financing under those terms in the real world. Good luck.
Plus do the math and you'll figure out that the "population" weight is kind of silly too. For some reason 67,333 people from Malta get a seat in the EU, but it takes 827,698 Britons to qualify for the same seat. Because for some reason apparently the Maltese are 12 times wiser than the English I guess, or something. Keep adding up these weights and you find that a very small population indeed manages to out-vote very large countries. Fair? Democratic?
Anyway it's all moot now. The UK has spoken. Buh bye EU overlords.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Monday June 27 2016, @10:00AM
I did use google. And in fact had a look at the amount of votes in parliament, council and commission.
I think I was talking about the council. But fine, lets use your parliament. Actually the UK has 72 MEP. Just like France and Italy. What you seem to be angry about is that Malta with a population of 400k, has 5 MEPs. So they can Veto you.
Instead, you would like Malta to have 0.5 MEPs. Or perhaps, alternatively, lets use ~800 MEPs for the UK (and France and Italy, etc). Anybody with a brain is going to see quite quickly that this is not going to work.
So small countries have more MEPs per voter than large countries in Parliament. This is not to cheat you out of influence (The UK had quite a lot of influence in the EU, and it was not Malta and Luxembourg who limited their influence occasionally. Look to the other big ones for that).
Now you also bring the whole financial side into this discussion, bur its a different discussion. Point of any economic system for governing is to balance to book. Rich areas will pay for poor areas. That happens in your country as well. Its a big part of the whole point of the EU. Setting up a system like this is *meant* to make you pay for it, but at the same time also (if done well) allows for more economic growth for all countries. The latter is where the profits are. Obviously no rich country would want to be part of the EU if it is just a tax drain. A system where the rich get more votes than the poor is already in existence, on the other side of the big pond. You can ask them how it goes there.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @09:09AM
The EU commission is made up of representitives from each of the member states - chosen by the democratically elected governments. The commission president is elected by the european parliament, which is made up of MEPs that are voted in by the public, and that parliament can remove the commission if it wants to.
You could argue there should be direct elections for the commission president, I might even agree, but the current system is at least as democratic as the current UK system, where Boris Johnston will become Prime Minister in October on the back of a couple of thousand tory voters.
Countries like Malta and Luxembourg get 10 votes for the UK's single vote. How did THAT happen?
That's to ensure that small countries aren't left out. Same in the US, where Wyoming gets 1 electoral vote per 200k, and Texas 1 per 700k, or where California and Rhode Island both have the same number of senators.
To ensure that large countries aren't overrun by small countries, the EU council has to approve each law on a weighting system that's tied to their population, so Germany/France/etc have larger voices than Malta or Ireland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:26PM
The Great British Public apparently can't be bothered to vote in European Parliament elections [ukpolitical.info] and then throw a tantrum.
"I don't vote" say the young.
I think they are about to learn a very painful lesson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:23AM
one of the oldest, founding members of this European idea
I don't know which country you're talking about here, but it certainly is not the UK.
The UK was not one of the six founding states and always went with the one-foot-in-one-foot-out strategy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:27AM
Not to mention the fact that one of the oldest, founding members of this European idea has had its voting ability completely diluted.
In 1957, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany signed the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Economic Community (EEC)
Brittain would only join in 1973, two decades later.
That idea is also to include all these nations and give all of them a say in what happens with the EU. That means some smaller countries might have more voting power than based solely on their size or population.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ThePhilips on Friday June 24 2016, @02:25PM
How about the EU bureaucracy (which is not accountable to any popular vote) every year gathering more and more power to itself.
You do realize that no matter how often you repeat that nonsense, it wouldn't become true?
You vote directly for the MEPs [wikipedia.org] which form the Parlament [wikipedia.org].
You also vote (by local laws/constution) for your gov't which assigns the ministers. The ministers of the EU countries form the other branch of the EU gov't - the Council [wikipedia.org].
Then finally, in addition to the two law-making branches, there is the executing branch - Commission [wikipedia.org] - which is, well, an executive branch: they do what the two law-making branches tell it to do.
Probably, finally, on your way out, you would finally learn how this shite works. It's only a few wikipedia pages [wikipedia.org]. A 10yo child can learn it in an hour.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:01PM
Europeans vote directly for the MEPs, but the Parliament can't propose its own legislation, unlike (national) real parliaments in Europe. All it can do is rubber-stamp what the European Commission (the executive) proposes to it. In American terms, it's like the House of Representatives but without the ability to propose its own legislation, just to vote on whatever Obama decides that it can consider.
The Council of the European Union is like the original design of the US Senate, in that it consists of people (ministers) appointed by the individual states. Nothing ensures that these people are democratically elected to their positions (see: Italy's last few governments). The Council, like the Parliament, can't propose its own legislation. Also, it is important to remember that the Council of the European Union is not the European Council (heads of individual states) nor the Council of Europe (which includes Russia and Turkey).
The Commission is the executive, but you omitted an important point: it does what the legislature tells it to do, but only it can propose to the Parliament/Council what that might be, because only the Commission has legislative initiative. The Commission is appointed by the national governments, which themselves might or might not be democratically elected (see again Italy).
The Commission is the bureaucracy and probably the part of the EU to which the GP was referring. It has expanded beyond its original scope, and it is not accountable to the people of Europe in a democratic fashion: it cannot be directly elected or recalled.
(Score: 2) by ThePhilips on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:54PM
It has expanded beyond its original scope, and it is not accountable to the people of Europe in a democratic fashion: it cannot be directly elected or recalled.
Are David Cameron or Barak Obama accountable to you? Not really. But you can still find what they do. It is the same with the commission: information is all out there. And if you find something illegal, you can file a complain in European Court of Justice.
What more do you want? That everybody every morning rushes to your home every day before breakfast, and reports to you personally what they are going to do today??
[...] but only it can propose to the Parliament/Council what that might be [...]
Commission is responsible for *drafting* the laws. Anybody - even you - can propose a law. But turning of your incoherent mumblings into a legal paper which can be voted upon, which fits the rest of the UE laws - the drafting process - still has to be done by somebody.
[...] it cannot be directly elected or recalled.
Most countries do not vote/elect directly. It is called "representative democracy". Even the USA doesn't vote for the presidents directly, and they still call them "democratically elected".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:20PM
Ministry of Truth Memorandum (Internal)
To All Patriotic Party Members,
Airstrip One is now secure. Goldstein's forces have been defeated. Psychological operations are to cease with immediate effect.
Chocolate rations are once again doubled for our valiant strivers.
Please report immediately to the mess hall where Victory Gin will now be dispensed.
Big Brother is watching you.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:59AM
..At one time, Charles de Gaulle in his role as leader of France vetoed the UK's entry into the European Common Market, what became the EU. That decision was seen as somewhat crass given that he was not a friend of the UK.
Not a friend of the UK?, non, he didn't like the English ...the Scots [electricscotland.com], on the other hand..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @03:19PM
Name a better way of keeping the migrant muslim flood of people out
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday June 24 2016, @04:55PM
One of the Twitter accounts I follow has described it as amputation of both legs to cure a bunion, an analogy that works particularly well when you look at all the warnings from various economists[1], plus taking into account the people we'll be negotiating with are the same people we've just mooned.
The right-wing press has become increasingly xenophobic in the past 10-15 years and this, a colossal statement piece involving cutting off our own nose to spite the European face, is exactly what the likes of Rupert 'Satan's Scrotum' Murdoch wanted all along; a compliant bunch of plonkers in Westminster who will do his bidding. He's on record as saying that he hated the EU because they ignored him, while British politicians would kiss his arse all day and all night. I was rather hoping Jerry Hall would fuck him to death before the actual vote took place, but it was sadly not to be.
The lunatics are running the asylum. If we get out of this mess with a less than five year recession then we'll have done extremely well.
[1] Yes, I'm the first to suggest economists are people who have elevated 'suck it and see' to a science, but if they *all* agree something is a stupid move, maybe people ought to listen a bit more closely.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @04:20AM
I suspect the market will stay down for about a month, and then cooler heads will prevail. I may actually double down on some of my British stocks that I hold in my 401K after they sink for a while.
The industries of the stocks I hold are fundamentally sound, and its not like the EU has closer alternatives.
Basically I think the investor crowd are shooting themselves in the foot. Its the rest of EU that should be worried as several other EU countries [express.co.uk] are getting nervous.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:41AM
what industries are these? I live in the EU, and made the mistake of ordering a laptop from the US, and after this experience I will never order anything from outside the EU unless there's no other option.
so why do you think EU countries, some of them with serious unemployment problems (like Spain for instance), would choose to import things from the UK rather than rebuild their own industry?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday June 24 2016, @04:46PM
Confusing statement. Are you telling us you made a mistake and did not realize the country of origin was the US. Or did you order it from the US and it resulted is some form of hassle, perhaps import/tariff related?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday June 24 2016, @05:13AM
I suspect the market will stay down for about a month
Current Dow Jones futures down over 700 points. I have never, ever seen it that low. Sure, markets go down, markets go up - but if any of the big banks got caught with their pants down in a greedy contrarian bet you are going to see big firms in serious shit tomorrow. Anyway it will be one hell of an interesting opening :)
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday June 24 2016, @11:14AM
Agreed. It's the uncertainty causing the volatility. And due to herd instinct, combined with the fact that for the last week the markets had all been betting on REMAIN, the reaction is out of proportion to even the worst of the plausible outcomes.
Only a small proportion of the UK economy is export driven, only about half of that is with the EU, and even if the EU imposes tariffs on that trade, it's far from the end of the world. And the UK has a trade deficit with the EU, which makes those tariffs both less likely & less serious.
The UK has always been a bad fit for the EU. Not in the single currency, not in Schengen, various other opt outs. It has a higher population density than the other major economies (Germany, France) that are attracting huge levels of immigration. I hope this divorce will be good for both the UK and the EU in the long and medium (and even fairly short) term.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jelizondo on Friday June 24 2016, @04:28AM
With Scotland and Northern Ireland voting to remain while the rest voted to leave, the UK might find it broke more than one cup... and the centripetal forces might tear apart the UK.
One can only hope their leaving the EU will not be as bloody as the war of secession in the U.S. of A., the secession of Pakistan or the recent events in Ukraine… but it will certainly bring a period of instability and economic trouble to a world largely still in recession and the possible exit of other countries, such as Spain and Greece, who have lately not fared well with the austerity imposed by the EU, perhaps bringing an end to the EU.
Such a grand idea, so poorly implemented!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Friday June 24 2016, @04:29AM
Chaos is fun. Savor it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday June 24 2016, @04:46AM
Sure, but I'd rather watch it from nearby, than be here in the middle of it.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:06AM
Chaos is fun. Savor it.
Hail Eris!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:36AM
not be as bloody as the war of secession in the U.S. of A., the secession of Pakistan or the recent events in Ukraine…
The UK is an ancient civilization, not some third world agrarian shithole like the USA/CSA were during their bloody Civil War.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Friday June 24 2016, @04:41AM
The CSA (the South) was an agrarian shithole. The USA (the North) was an industrial powerhouse that only became stronger. The South remained an agrarian shithole until the invention of and widespread use of air conditioning that made the summers there tolerable. And I maintain that most of the former CSA is still a shithole, politically anyway.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday June 24 2016, @04:51AM
The North was putting tariffs on Southern trade that caused a disproportionate impact on the South, not unlike the banksters of today. Jefferson Davis' greatest mistake was fighting an honorable defensive war rather than immediately marching on Washington DC and up into Maryland. By the time the North marshaled its resources and manpower, it was a matter of time.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @05:13AM
Northern tariffs on southern Trade was a myth. Just like every other myth used to distract attention from slavery.
Tariffs was a key southern point when the constitution was written. That's why such tariffs are expressly forbidden by the constitution. It didn't happen.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @05:51AM
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @03:08PM
Notice what word isn't in that quote? Tariffs.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:42AM
I love how brain dead declaration seems to take place of argument and presentation of evidence anymore.
You're a dickhead! Prove me wrong.
You can't.
See how that works?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @12:20PM
What about protective tariffs on trade goods manufactured in the North that the South could have imported from Europe for a lower cost if the tariffs were not in place?
Of course the answer would have been to start manufacturing in the South too but they would have rather bitched about the protectionism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday June 24 2016, @12:04PM
That is a load of Lost Cause horsepucky.
1. The Confederacy was fighting for slavery. They said so very clearly in official documents [civilwar.org] and speeches by top officials [louisiana.edu] until roughly 3 months after they had lost.
2. It was in no way about the tariffs [imperialglobalexeter.com].
3. The Confederacy shot first, at a ship bringing supplies to Fort Sumter.
4. The Confederates didn't have the resources to attack Washington D.C., which was fairly well-defended, and were outnumbered by First Manassas. They had to fight defensively. When they attempted to attack the north, they lost (Antietam, Gettysburg), and they couldn't afford to lose.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:45AM
It's a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be.
Did they want to keep slavery? Yes, they did. Funnily enough, some of the Union slave owners kept slavery longer than the conquered confederate states were allowed to ...
The tariffs were a sore point, and they didn't help. I haven't heard anyone, even in the deepest and angriest south, suggest they were the whole story. But they certainly created a climate (and even your linked article doesn't dispute this) of tension between north and south. The south and north weren't giving each other teary hugs on the way out, with lingering looks and blown kisses. The hard feelings on both sides were deep and abiding, and the tariffs sure as hell were a factor. The fact that some of the senators who might, maybe, have been able to block it, were out owing to secession, is hindsight at its most recognisable.
The fact that the confederacy shot first is well documented, and many southerners lament that fact to this day - but mostly because it was strategically unsound.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday June 26 2016, @11:29PM
My assertion that the Confederates were fighting for slavery was not predicated on the idea that the Union was fighting against slavery. Lincoln, as best as anyone can tell, wanted to end slavery but prioritized re-unifying the country over ending slavery.
The only reason the tariff passed is that the southern senators that could have blocked it had already left Washington because their states had seceded. The most you could possibly argue is that it made it less likely that the Confederate states would have been less likely to reconsider their decision.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @03:36PM
The point abou the endurance of slavery is that the Union's treatment of slaves, and the slavery question, was quite hypocritical, as a matter of political tactics. Lincoln wasn't a doctrinaire abolitionist, but he needed the abolitionists on his side to actually get his war. Otherwise lots of northerners who cordially disliked the Confederacy would have been happy to simply let them leave. He had his own political problem to solve.
As for the tariffs, another perfectly cogent response would be that they were deliberate economic pressure brought by unionists against the Confederacy, knowing full well that they were essentially hostile steps to take that would never have passed if the southern senators were still sitting. By some measures the tariffs were exploitative economic steps tantamount to an ultimatum against an opposed nation.
By that analysis, slavery (really, shorthand for a different economic policy that incorporated slavery) was a reason for secession, but the tariffs and related shenanigans were the casus belli.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:43AM
You mean the UK that has existed since 1801?
Send them a few more migrants and check back.
The UK is about to downsize.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday June 24 2016, @03:52PM
The UK is not an ancient civilisation. It's a union of four nations, and it's not really that long, in the grand scheme of things, since Irish (Eire) independence. It's 100 years since the uprising. I doubt the UK has long left. Scotland will leave if the withdrawal from the EU is put in motion. I'd definitely support Scottish independence now, if I were given a vote (but I live in England so I probably wouldn't get one). Northern Ireland might just reunify with the south. Wales is very different so who knows what they'll do.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @04:56AM
On Gibraltar the vote was nearly 96% "remain."
http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/brexit-vote-95pc-of-voters-in-gibraltar-back-remaining-in-eu-34828904.html [independent.ie]
The Spanish foreign minister had made noises about moving the "very next day after Brexit" to annex Gibraltar. I assume he meant after the exit would actually be effected (which may be about two years), not after the vote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480292/Spain-demand-control-Gibraltar-day-Brexit-warns-foreign-minister-sparks-fresh-row-Rock.html#ixzz4CKpqDEif [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @03:05PM
An Anglo-Dutch force captured Gibraltar from Spain in 1704 during the War of the Spanish Succession on behalf of the Habsburg pretender to the Spanish throne. The territory was subsequently ceded to Britain "in perpetuity" under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. [...]
The sovereignty of Gibraltar is a major point of contention in Anglo-Spanish relations as Spain asserts a claim to the territory.[11] Gibraltarians overwhelmingly rejected proposals for Spanish sovereignty in a 1967 referendum and again in 2002. Under the Gibraltar constitution of 2006, Gibraltar governs its own affairs, though some powers, such as defence and foreign relations, remain the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom.
I'd be interested to hear how the hell they think they have a legal leg to stand on to annex it.
No backsies! :)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @04:26PM
I don't know the answer, but the text you copy-pasted says "Spain asserts a claim to the territory.[11]" What does the footnote in your source say?
By the way, Spain made a request today for talks on co-sovereignty over Gibraltar but has been rebuffed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/spain-proposes-shared-sovereignty-over-gibraltar-after-brexit-vo/ [telegraph.co.uk]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/24/britain-gibraltar-rejects-spains-talk-joint-sovereignty [theguardian.com]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gibraltar-spain-brexit-eu-referendum-sovereignty-a7100351.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @04:57PM
I quoted from the Wikipedia page lede of course ;)
The source seems to be some sort of brief, in Spanish, but I don't particularly want to read the whole thing as it's lengthy.
"Dude...we signed this treaty that says that it's ours forever. Go away."
"But we want it!"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday June 24 2016, @03:34PM
The current British Prime Minister may not have the big brass balls that Thatcher did, but the Spanish foreign minister would still do well to look at how Britain responded to the Argentinians deciding that the Falklands looked like a nice place to take over.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:09PM
And bring on the Second Battle of the Spanish Armada? I'd like to see that one. I'm not an Anglophile or Hispanophobe, but I'm pretty sure even the rump state of England + Wales & N. Ireland would win that one in a walk. It would be particularly amusing in the aftermath to see Britain support independence for Catalonia and the Basques as a special FU to Madrid.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:41PM
..I'm not an Anglophile or Hispanophobe, but I'm pretty sure even the rump state of England + Wales & N. Ireland would win that one in a walk.
Have you seen the current state of the Royal Navy?, its glory days are well past..just don't ask about the aircraft carriers or the fact that the Spanish can deploy Harriers from a helicopter carrier...ISTR we've no Harriers left as we've got these spiffing new f-35s to replace them ...oh, wait....
Still, on the bright side, we do have Nuclear powered penis-extension-thrower subs...so long as the Spanish boats are sailing away from them when we use the torpedoes we'll be ok...hell, we've even still got a barely operational Vulcan we could possibly throw back into the air..
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 27 2016, @08:51PM
Aren't the major bases for the British navy located in Scotland, though?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 24 2016, @06:44AM
Now it will go to about 200 committees, all with reports requiring 1,000 experts, and two-year reporting terms.
THEN ther will be a number of reports, all citing different costs and cost-benefits, and then they migt even have a referendum.
Expect nothing concrete to happen until 2019 at the earliest.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @07:28AM
It will almost certainly have to happen sooner - Once the UK triggers article 50 there's a hard 2 year limit at which point the UK is gone & gets put on the WTO rules by default (i.e. all sorts of additional pain for the UK) .
To postpone that the agreement has to be unanimous in the EU parliament, which is very very very unlikely.
So as soon as Article 50 gets delivered then the UK is under the gun in terms of reaching agreements. About all the UK.gov can do is delay delivery of the exit request in the short term (e.g. until the next election, let the other guys sort it out) but that could get politically difficult.
(Disclaimer: All of this is AIUI.)
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 24 2016, @10:09AM
Is there time for a new election, or for Scotland to have another go at breaking away from the UK and staying in the EU?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @05:11PM
Well, the next general election is due in 2020, but the leadership of the conservative party (i.e. the Prime Minister) is now up for grabs so that should be sorted out in the next few months.
However the scheduling gets interesting: the Exiters seem to keen to delay the article 50 statement for quite some time, and if they can push it back by a year they'll avoid the actual exit happening before the next election, which given the impact on the economy is probably their best bet. Today was bad, but by the time of the actual exit things could be a lot lot worse.
However the EU itself doesn't want a lengthy period of financial and political instability tanking their side of things. Doing it to to protect the interests of the politicians that literally just told the EU to go fuck themselves is even less appealing, so they seem to be looking for a way to force the exit ASAP.
In terms of Scotland - Christ alone knows. Last time it was a year from the Scottish parliament passing the referendum bill to the vote itself, and most of the details of how the vote is presented and the referendum is run won't have changed so it's theoretically do-able from Scotland's perspective as far as the mechanics go. But the stumbling block will be getting the UK parliament to agree to another independence referendum in Scotland, which is a lot more problematic.
And even if that all works then what are the terms on which Scotland gets back into the EU? How much worse/different will they be than the current terms they have as part of the UK, and will they be at all acceptable to the Scots? Too many unknowns there to guess at right now for me.
"Interesting Times"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:37AM
From what I've been reading the impact on the economy will start happening within the month. It may not be governmental action, but lots of companies have been activating plans to relocate. Apparently they don't like the uncertainty. EU groups have already started reconsidering loans, and today's just the first day.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:05AM
Yeah - I've been seeing the planning about relocation; it's not like these companies are over here for the weather, and the remaining EU countries will been keen to offer deals to them for moving back into an EU marketplace, so we'll probably see a series of drops as the big names announce the move out.
However that two year cutoff is when the really nasty impacts are likely to start to hit. Until then we're still "in" for trading purposes, but afterwards? Either we take a punitive deal or tariffs shut us out, and the EU won't have any motivation to offer us anything else.
(I hope I'm wrong, but it's 24 hours later, and everything still looks fucked beyond repair).
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday June 24 2016, @04:43AM
And now will we see a new British empire of the UK, Canada, and Australia in a political union or sorts beyond the nominal monarch?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @07:09AM
No
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:20PM
No thanks, eh.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:19PM
Why would that interest the Australians or Canadians? The Australians pretty much had their fill of merry old England at Gallipoli, which seems to still be on the Aussies' minds. Canada seems to be doing pretty great on its own--nobody would dare mess with it militarily, and economically it's doing mighty fine: lots of oil, 3rd largest producer of diamonds, timber out the yin-yang, and agriculture that keeps getting better the more the world heats up. It's set up for the Pacific century with the huge pre-reversion immigration from Hong Kong to British Columbia, and its population could soon jump with Americans fleeing the results of the next presidential election. Hell, even Hollywood has moved most of its production from the US to Vancouver because it's cheaper. Seems to me Canada needs Britain like a superfluous third nipple.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:00AM
You forgot Vancouver's main product: rain.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @04:52AM
..."rubbers," I mean.
-
...can't think of a good "pulling out" joke, at the moment...
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday June 27 2016, @08:43PM
Heh yeah maybe it really was people using pens rather than pencils that made all the difference, it would be a charming way to foil a plot :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:12AM
https://i.imgur.com/EFocbEW.jpg [imgur.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday June 24 2016, @03:38PM
I just threw up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @05:13AM
Leave
Votes
16,835,512
Remain
Votes
15,692,093
with 8 results left to report. Dayum.
-
...and, on Twitter, J.K. Rowling is predicting the breakup of "...two unions. Neither needed to happen...I don't think I've ever wanted magic more."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:17AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwJlrj8CNzk [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @05:20AM
Yeah, she's an expert. So be sure to retweet that. It's important the world know what a story writer believes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:29AM
Brexiters are racist immigrantphobes. JK Rowling didn't write enough books to cure Anglo racism. She is to blame for Brexit.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:21PM
Well it is her fault for making Dumbledore gay.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @05:42AM
The BBC reported it--and I thought it more suited the gravity of the moment than the tweet about Boris "taking a kip."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:40AM
Rowling should have read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality [hpmor.com] An alternate reality wherein Harry's Aunt is a teacher and Uncle is a Professor, and Harry is a Scientist from a happy home. The fan fiction teaches Rationality via examining situations using evidence, known facts, probabilities, and the Scientific Method.
If the breakups didn't happen there would soon be no UK anyway due to the "open borders" migrant flood and intense anti-european sentiment [youtube.com] of suicidal globalist politicians. [youtube.com] Without Brexit it would be like letting a bad deal with the rich Malfoy's slowly progress into rule by evil despots that seek to control every facet of wizard life. Without cutting off ties eventually the Death Eaters would cause mayhem as good witches and wizards fought an inevitable struggle for freedom against tyranny.
Rowling is saying we could have tried to reason with the Malfoy's, perhaps renegotiated terms of the deal? No need to get out from under the Death Eaters control, you see? However, You and I both know damn well that wouldn't work because the Malfoy's don't care about the money, they care about the power they hold over us, and furthering the covert domineering plans of the Death Eater's One World Wizardry. Just like the EU. [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:05AM
That was a very interesting fanfic. I only read through Lateral Thinking. If anybody else starts reading it, Harry starts out as an impossible little shit in something I can't figure out whether or not is a self-insert fanfic or some kind of Alice in Wonderland, but once the author figures out how to tell a story it gets somewhat decent.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:09AM
> I don't think I've ever wanted magic more.
Errr.. why? So she could usurp people's free will and force them to vote how she wants?
Creepy.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:24PM
Yeah, and how does she know there isn't magic and the whole result is down to the judicious use of the Imperius curse?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:13AM
Voting, that is. The UK has voted to leave EU. Will see how it unfolds now.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 24 2016, @06:07AM
This has been driven by two EU policies. It is a message that the progressive politicians have thus far been incapable of hearing, but maybe - maybe - this will get through to them.
The first is the freedom of movement combined with the rapid expansion of the EU to poorer countries. This has destroyed the job market for lower middle class workers in Western Europe. Live in England, and want something built? Your workers will be Polish. Mind you, the Poles do good work - you'll be happy with the results. The problem is that the English tradesmen are standing in the soup line.
The second, of course, is immigration policy. Half of Africa dreams of coming to the EU or the US, with the EU being much easier to reach. There must be some sort of serious policy: how many economic refugees can the EU really take? How do they control the inflow, to keep it at or below this number? How are the immigrants then distributed, and started in their new lives? But no, there is none of that. Instead, the politicians open the borders out of sympathy, then sporadically try to close them when the flood of refugees gets too high. Meanwhile, the open-border policy inspires ever more economic refugees to head towards Europe.
Ok, perhaps there is a third problematic policy: finances. The Maastricht Treaty should have been enforced, limited governmental debt spending. Instead, Germany was one of the first countries to violate it, and after that everyone followed suit. Keynesian economics is just sad, like a casino that allows a gambler to lose not only all of his money, but all of his future paychecks as well.
Will the Brexit send a message in time for the EU to change course? Or is Britain just the first of many rats to abandon the sinking ship? Time will tell...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @06:19AM
The UK isn't part of the Schengen Area.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:24AM
..Will the Brexit send a message in time for the EU to change course?
Sorry, it's a case of 'Mein Weg, oder die Autobahn..' so to sprechen..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @06:45AM
Agreed, the German high-handedness and double dealing put a kink in the system very early on.
There's a fourth area that has been a problem from the start, and that is the Euro, the common currency.
This was always a mistake, attempting to force a common currency on poor farming countries and large industrial countries at the same time. It broke Greece's back, while it enriched the Germans, but the problem started well before that.
Its odd, but the very first rejected submission of mine [soylentnews.org] (rejected by by our British editors, as I recall) dealt squarely with this precise issue.
The local currencies of EU member states were fixed to Euros, and largely taken out of circulation. Both the fixing and the removal were separate mistakes which, together, conspired against local economies.
I also sense a rather deep distrust of the monstrous bureaucracy that is the EU. That's probably a fifth issue. I'm not in a good position to judge.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:50PM
Actually the Germans didn't want the Euro (at least not yet); it (or rather, the loss of the Deutsche Mark that was implied by it) was the price to pay for the German Reunion (although that was never officially admitted). You have to know that patriotism was a contentious subject in Germany thanks to the Nazi history; many people therefore replaced it with "DM patriotism", as the DM was successful, and at the same time unencumbered by the history, so it was clearly something you could be proud of without raising suspicion.
However Germany wasn't willing to let go what made the DM strong, so they ensured that the rules for the Euro matched those for the DM as much as possible (the way the Euro was marketed to the Germans was that it was essentially introducing the DM in all of Europe). Which of course was good for Germany, but not so good for the economically weaker countries that no longer could compensate their economic weakness by devaluing their currency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @04:56PM
This "enormous bureaucracy" which is mentioned by you and plenty of people with pitchforks and a basic inability to use a simple search engine, consists of 42,500 [europa.eu] officials. That's the number of civil servants used to 'rule' a body politic of 508 million people.
In comparison, the UK employs 439,323 [ons.gov.uk] civil servants for a total pop of 64.1 million people.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:35PM
It strikes me how much closer Germany has come toward achieving its greater reich without firing a shot, than it did before. At the same time some things parallel the past, with Russia glowering on the eastern border, Britain standing alone on the west, and the French surrendering without a whimper.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:47AM
There must be some sort of serious policy: how many economic refugees can the EU really take? How do they control the inflow, to keep it at or below this number? How are the immigrants then distributed, and started in their new lives? But no, there is none of that.
No. Fuck all of that! I'm with Trump. Build a fucking wall. Then, we'll FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM so the migrants don't have to flee from their own damn countries in the first fucking place. You're being only slightly better than the leftists, but you still don't have your head on straight when it comes to economic migrants. We shouldn't hate these poor countries so much that we turn a blind eye to the cause of the problems and simply welcome a shit load of migrants instead -- The flow will NEVER STOP that way!
Man, I swear all these sites for "nerds" are full of politically inept fools. It must be a problem with the brainwashing they get in their shitty education systems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:22PM
Fix, as in carpet bomb?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @07:55AM
The first is the freedom of movement combined with the rapid expansion of the EU to poorer countries. This has destroyed the job market for lower middle class workers in Western Europe. Live in England, and want something built? Your workers will be Polish. Mind you, the Poles do good work - you'll be happy with the results. The problem is that the English tradesmen are standing in the soup line.
People who do the best work get the jobs. It's competition, the same thing the rest of us in industries that are global (manufacturering, software, entertainment) have dealt with for the last 20 years.
Protectionism and nationalism means a return to shoddy expensive work. At least for those who don't emmigrate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:52PM
FTFY
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:44PM
Haha yeah, these Chinese-made goods are A-#1 quality! They're only cheap until they've destroyed the local competition. Watch it happen.
The Indian coders do awesome work, too. Sure they do half of a half of a half-assed job, but they do it for pennies! Sure, the software constantly malfunctions, misses spec, and is delivered 6 months too late, but did you miss the part where I said they do it for pennies!
Me, I'd rather see how the mantra of free markets fares when applying that outsourcing to the PHBs. Let's have tele-surgeries performed by doctors in Lahore. Let's send legal work to lawyers in Delhi who Skype in to the proceedings in Mobile, Alabama. That is the acid test for free markets.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 24 2016, @06:45PM
People who do the best work get the jobs. It's competition,
People who do just barely good enough work for the lowest wages get the jobs. Its a race to the bottom.
Fixed It For You.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @06:58PM
No, the job off the government is to look out for the good of her own citizens. It is not the job of the UK to look out for Poles or Swedes or Nigerians or Americans; it is the job of the UK government to look out for her own citizens. This kind of crap thinking where we, as westerners, are supposed to compete for jobs with the third world is why middle class wages have fallen for the past 40 years. It is thinking designed to profit the producers and not the people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondrake on Friday June 24 2016, @08:13AM
>This has destroyed the job market for lower middle class workers in Western Europe.
Is not true for many countries far closer to Poland (e.g. Germany). Could it be your local government just has a messed up policy?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @01:36PM
I would add a complete lack of political leadership in EU. The EU is a bunch of random dudes sort of milling around. There is no real leadership or direction. President is nominated on 1 year rolling term. Technocrats have primacy over directly elected MEPs. EU needs to organise its own political leadership. (This almost had be vote Leave, I am now speaking as an outsider).
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @05:30PM
Maybe the elites in Europe should get an fucking clue and shut down operations like Unaoil that willfully corrupt and ruin countries in Africa [theage.com.au] so that they can not become functional democracies and not cause masses of their populations to flee to Europe out of desperation.
What a thought, eh? Stop fucking up every other country deliberately, you international finance assholes, and maybe their people will stop showing up on your door, starving!
Bah, who am I kidding? You can't stop the lizard people from being lizard people. It's in their nature.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darnkitten on Friday June 24 2016, @06:20AM
Leave: 51.9% with 17,410,742 votes - Remain: 48.1% with 16,141,241 votes.
And so to bed, with a new world to wake up to in the morning.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @06:48AM
Joining EFTA might be an option.
https://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/rp13-42.pdf [parliament.uk]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @07:07AM
That's the sensible thing. We'll have to pay of course, so the £350m a week lie (that Farage has already said was a lie) won't appear. We'll have to sign up for free movement too and we won't have a veto on turkey or other states joining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:00PM
"... gives citizens of the 30 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.
The legislation on the free movement of persons aims at eliminating all obstacles to the freedom of movement, and to give the same rights to nationals of an EEA State and their family members within the EEA by eliminating any discrimination on the basis of nationality."
http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons [efta.int]
That's what caused the problem to people in the UK so joining EFTA does not seem like it's an option. That said, the new idiots in charge are going to hit brick walls at every turn so this may be sold as the answer.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday June 24 2016, @07:09AM
I'm glad that the UK is leaving. The EU is in my mind well past its prime and core idea. It's now festering in gluttony and corruption. It has turned into a retreat post for former politicians that need a break and a giant paycheck. I'm hoping that this leads to a chain-reaction where more countries leave cause the union as it stands is an impossible construct where wealthy countries in the west and north prop up poor countries, that never change, in the east and south. Clearly such inequality isn't working, no matter the amounts of wishful thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:38AM
And he is usually very sensible and formerly British.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @09:16AM
Of course he was. People with university degrees generally were remain. People who left school at 16 were leave. People aged under 30 were remain, people over 60 were leave.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday June 24 2016, @10:00AM
people over 60 were leave
Except the ones that actually remember the Second World War, who wanted to stay.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by moondrake on Friday June 24 2016, @11:33AM
This.
People forget that the EU was created as an instrument to foster European diplomatic collaboration instead of continuing the never-ending cycle of wars where people fought for dominance. The union certainly has problems, and I would like to see many things change, but in the end, I hear far more worrying things from the British government than from the EU government.
If the UK really leaves, there are few things left that could stop that country from eroding its peoples liberties even further (and the nasty trade agreements they will have to opt in to will make sure of this even if they would not do it already do it to themselves). Some people above where afraid of Germans controlling them. As if a German is somehow worse than a Brit... I (as a citizen from a smaller EU country) would personally be far happier to be controlled by the current Germans (though I dislike Merkel's government) than by the current UK government at this point in time.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday June 24 2016, @12:27PM
the EU was created as an instrument to foster European diplomatic collaboration instead of
Look at how the EU treats Greek citizens which can be summarized to "as long as we're 1% better than the Axis occupation forces, I guess the EU has moral authority". But in an absolute sense its nothing to brag about.
A lot of dictatorship bureaucracies end up operating in ways counter to their original founding goals. The EU is not unusual in that regard. A long time ago the euros were better off with the EU than without. But its not the old days anymore and in the current year the euros will be better off without the EU, which brings nothing but poverty and destruction now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday June 24 2016, @01:00PM
"People forget that the EU was created as an instrument to foster European diplomatic collaboration"
I disagree with this. There have been several different European initiatives, designed to bring European countries closer together. For example, the European Economic Community, which was subsumed by the EU. What the EU added to the mix was a political union. This goes much farther than just diplomatic collaboration - it brings common laws and regulations, an overarching court system, and much more.
Still, the EU might have worked, if the politicians hadn't been intent on such rapid expansion. A union amongst equals is very different from a union amongst countries in vastly different political and economic situations. The recent problems with Greece make this obvious, as does - now - the Brexit.
If we wish to be generous, we can say that the politicians "meant well", but were just too impatient. If we wish to be less generous, we can say that the politicians were being power hungry. They should have expanded to the poorer countries gradually, over decades, instead of in just a few years. Either way, they should have known better. We're now seeing the consequences; it is entirely likely that other countries will follow the UK's lead [express.co.uk].
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday June 24 2016, @02:33PM
I can somewhat agree with the too fast expanding. But I think it is not a fatal mistake.
> it is entirely likely that other countries will follow the UK's lead.
It is not that likely. In Denmark perhaps, not in the other countries. That article basically sums up that right-wing extremists in several countries want to leave the EU or (as in Italy) just the Euro). That was already the case before the referendum. It would actually be bad for these parties to achieve their goal, as they would lose voters once they achieve their goal (as then only the real nazis remain).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Friday June 24 2016, @05:28PM
And who were so dead-bent on rapid expansion?
The UK.
In order to weaken the EU, I believe.
Seems to have worked..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @05:28PM
A European war, a war among countries within Europe involving the major players (UK, France, Germany) is unthinkable, with or without the EU. Prosperous Western democracies don't fight each other, especially not within a military alliance like NATO when nuclear weapons are in play.
The era of warring European states is over, and the EU didn't have much to do with it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 24 2016, @03:21PM
The only brexiters I know are people old enough to remember the war. (And all died in the wool conservatives.) (And senile.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @05:06PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-the-results-compare-to-the-uks-educated-old-an/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Of those that were young brexiters, they've now sobered up and realisied this is more serious than x-factor
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-man_uk_576cf8e4e4b08d2c5638ee29?edition=uk [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday June 24 2016, @08:33PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:24PM
I usually like Oliver and his take on many issues, he usually nails them. However, this one came off as childish. It told me *nothing* about the issue (as I knew very little about it). He didnt even pretend to tell what the other side represented. It was clear he wanted to push his view on it.
It came of as very 'dur der de dur your racist and stupid and uneducated if you want this'. Then went on to have a 3 min segment song and dance of straight up bigotry. Da fuck dude!
Now that I have researched it a bit more. What has happened appears to be massively risky (dont take me wrong on what I am about to say). However, the 'elites' are truly missing the point. People are massively dissatisfied with status quo where the 1% of the 1% rake in all the money and everyone else is allowed to enjoy a bit of time on TV with John and his ilk. Then patting people on the head going 'dear child I know better, dont worry that you cant compete against those cheap labor guys we are allowing in if you say anything we will just label you as racist'. They are wooshing the point so fucking hard it is painful to watch.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by shanen on Friday June 24 2016, @08:51AM
Actually I don't blame Soylent News. It's irrelevant and meaningless and doesn't have enough readers to matter at all, at all, but I'll share the comment from slashdot. Maybe you can imagine Soylent News rising to slashdot's level of low significance, though I can't. Then you can replace the slashdot references with local ones.
There are a number of obvious contributing factors to Brexit. Nationalism and selfishness are two of the most obvious.
So let's consider the enlightened discussion here on slashdot, this bastion of intellectual turmoil and whatever.
There have been several hundred comments so far. No mention of "nationalism" yet appears. One marginally related but tangential mention of "selfish" and no mentions of "selfishness". Maybe there are some hidden references, but then their invisibility reflects the failure of the moderation system. However, I think Brexit reflects a larger failure of journalism in general and a more specific failure of slashdot in particular.
People who were capable of thinking about the future would not vote in favor of fracturing Europe. They would have been able to put the broader long-term interests of their own grandchildren ahead of their various minor terrors of foreigners stealing their jobs, especially considering that if 52% hated the EU I'd bet that a much higher percentage hate their own jobs and ought to be glad if some immigrants would steal them.
Same rise of ignorant short-sighted stupidity has made it possible for the Donald of Trump to become a serious contender for the presidency, squatting on his bizarre high chair that he imagines as a throne. Don't look too closely at the legs: One leg for the government haters, one for the Hillary haters, a leg of bigots, and a last leg of overt racists. Yeah, a few Trumpists are smart enough to try to talk nice, but scratch a Trump supporter and you find a hater.
My problem with all of this is that I'm a believer in enlightened self-interest (per Heinlein, even). If people see sufficiently large pictures, then they will see how their private and national selfishness has to be limited for the long-term survival of the human species.
Why don't they see the large pictures? I think it's mostly because the existing economic models, including slashdot's pitiful economic models, drive them to short-term BS journalism and reality TV. Brexit and Trumpism are just natural outcomes. Gawd save us all, but he won't. (Even if he existed, it would be a breach of his divinely insane plan.)
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Friday June 24 2016, @09:29AM
I'd say that's not enlightened self interest, it's altruism [wikipedia.org].
Enlightened self interest would imply they would only limit their own short term interests for the benefit of others when it implies improved longer term personal gains.
(Score: 1) by shanen on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:25AM
Please clarify. You seem to think there is an important distinction there, but I can't understand what you think it is. Perhaps something about altruism as irrational versus enlightened self-interest as rationally justified altruism? If so, then that was not the problem I was addressing and I currently see no solution for a problem that has an irrational cause. (I'm afraid you've reminded me of my wife, but I accept her anyway, so there.)
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:18AM
Sure. It comes down to this:
If I act in the interest of others at my own expense, with no expectation of benefit: That's altruism
If I act in the interest of others at my own expense, with the expectation of benefit in the longer term: That's enlightened self-interest.
So when you talk about people making sacrifices for "long-term survival of the human species" I believe you've veered of into talking about altruism, because there's no benefit implied.
And it's entirely reasonable for enlightened self interest to motivate people to vote for Brexit, because they believe it'll be to the longer term benefit of their group, even if the consequences are spectacularly bad for people outside of it.
(Score: 1) by shanen on Sunday June 26 2016, @04:50AM
Okay, I see the problem now. Why do you think the time frame has any relevance to the distinction between altruism and enlightened self-interest? It is quite possible to act in the interest of others at my own expense with the expectation of immediate benefit, even if I am the only person who perceives the benefits in question. (However, in the case of Brexit I think it is really hard to describe the Stay vote as being "in the interest of others at my own expense", because the interests and the expenses are too unclear. It does seem clear that few British voters were concerned with the interests of the EU, and they were not even sure about their own benefits or harms.
My focus is on the width of focus, not when the results will occur, but after a few discussions elsewhere, I can perhaps reword my theme in a way that is more clear:
We are seeing rapid increases in international problems such as climate change (including unprecedented flooding in Japan and elsewhere), refugee migrations, and poverty-driven terrorism that call for closer international cooperation. The Brexit vote is clearly a selfish and short-sighted decision that will weaken international cooperation and make it more difficult to coordinate any responses. Maybe it's too late and England might as well run for the lifeboat, but I want to hope there's still hope. (I've already abandoned hope that Soylent News can help, at least in its current form and I'm steadily losing hope that it can be improved.)
By the way, as it extends my comment on Trump, I would say that many of his supporters in the hate-government camp are actually hoping that he will destroy the federal government so the United States can be disunited. Great for international corporations racing to the bottom for the cheapest workers, but disastrous in terms of organizing international responses to the messes that are left behind.
He who dies with the most toys is still dead.
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @03:34PM
Actually I don't blame Soylent News. It's irrelevant and meaningless and doesn't have enough readers to matter at all, at all, but I'll share the comment from slashdot. Maybe you can imagine Soylent News rising to slashdot's level of low significance, though I can't. Then you can replace the slashdot references with local ones.
Funny, when I visit the green site these days the comment sections are pretty much hellholes of flaming and trolling. Around here we at least occasionally manage to have a good conversation.
Ever since the Bexit (Beta Exit) the quality has been noticeably reduced.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 24 2016, @06:18PM
It's always a winning strategy to preface with your remarks with iterated insults to your audience. Are you pre-adolescent, or do you suffer from a disorder that disrupted your acquisition of basic social skills? But, hey, thank you for dropping by this irrelevant site populated by idiots to bless us all with your deep thoughts, especially since they have firm foundation in that philosopher of philosophers, Robert Heinlein. So we're clear, are you talkin' Stranger in a Strange Land Heinlein, Starship Troopers Heinlein, or Number of the Beast Heinlein? Because if it's the last you can show yourself straight out, you degenerate hippie.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by shanen on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:20AM
No, I arrived at this Soylent News website with no preconceptions, just a feeble hope that y'all had a better idea for Journalism. Pretty sure it was actually recommended to me by a friend on slashdot or Ello.
Obviously, what I have seen here has not impressed me. To start with and dismiss my minor concerns, slashdot suffers from severe scalability problems, and I haven't spotted any fixes here. Basically slashdot on anti-steroids. Part of meaningful influence in a mass media organization is scalability to the mass level, but that's largely a technical concern.
My main concern is with the financial model, as in nothing much I could detect. After a period of observation, I went ahead and made a constructive suggestion. It was not met with thoughtful consideration or even with confused questions. Near as I can tell, it was just shouted down, insofar as low credibility nameless wannabe somethings, possibly journalists, are able to shout through a keyboard.
Yeah, I have a low opinion of Soylent News, but I think you've collectively earned it. My social skills are flawed, but that's nothing compared to the flaws of this website. I'd love to see you succeed, but even more than that I wish you were a public corporation so I could make a fortune shorting your stock.
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 27 2016, @01:53PM
My main concern is with the financial model
Why does the purpose of everything have to be to make money? Just pulling in enough to continue existing can occasionally be enough.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by shanen on Monday June 27 2016, @08:32PM
No, that is NOT what I wrote, but the system will respond to the financial model. Just barely continuing to exist equals death. Things change. Things happen. If your financial model is just to "continue existing", then one of those things will be bad and cause you (or your system such as Soylent News) to stop existing.
You grow or you die.
I am arguing for democratically controlled growth on a cost-recovery basis. I think the people who are using features should be able to help pay for those features, both for the costs of developing features and for their ongoing costs.
You didn't say anything about your objectives. In a recent comment along these lines, the poster said he wanted a certain kind of news aggregator. Great. He should be able to support those features. I'm more interested in finding information to solve problems, and I would like to be able to support such features. Maybe you want more video news, and if so, then you should be able to support that kind of project, too. In lots of cases the features will be related and people with different motivations may pitch in to support the features and costs. All to the well and good.
At least that's the fantasy. In theory, there are some technical people involved in Soylent News who could implement such a system and who (in my way of thinking) would even deserve to be paid for the time and work involved--but only if enough people agreed to cover the costs.
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by shanen on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:57AM
So here's a mission for a real journalist. Trump advocated Brexit, and by following his recommendation, Britain has triggered a financial panic. Even if it's a short one, many excellent companies are seeing their share prices dragged down by the hysteria. Assuming that Trump actually has some money available, he could now make a killing by buying stocks at bargain prices, even without knowing if the prices will rebound next week or next month. If he has the cash to play with, he could easily make enough money to fund his presidential campaign.
I've been wondering what is motivating the Donald's campaign. Maybe Trump's real plan is to create such panics and profit from them. Ultimate form of insider trading, eh? Can you spell "conflict of interest"? I bet Trump can't.
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @08:49PM
Your signature is confusing and rude
also your mother smelt of elderberries
(Score: 1) by shanen on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:03AM
And you are a spineless and anonymous coward? Probably a Trump supporter, too, in which case the only interesting question is:
Who do you hate most?
#1 Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice{5} ≠ (Beer^4 | Speech) and your negative mods prove you are a narrow prick.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:46AM
This is a great success for democracy. it actually works!
However i disagree with the polemic of a "independent" country.
It now seems like an american sponsored(?) wall is going up in the west of remaining europe
whilst more stink bombs are thrown over the Atlantic to "smoke out" more eastern migrants
forcing them to europe.
it seems that somebody really really doesn't want europe to look to the east with a smile...?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 24 2016, @12:51PM
which lost 3% within moments of the first result showing a strong result for Leave in Sunderland
Sunderland wasn't the first result. It was expected to be, but Newcastle-Upon-Tyne beat them to it. Gibraltar was actually the first to declare, and was (unsurprisingly) massively in favour of remaining.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @02:47PM
This is some strong evidence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday June 24 2016, @04:19PM
Yes, 3.5 years of prime minister Boris Johnson, just what we voted for in 2015. or at least the 38% of us that voted Tory (not the 62% that voted not-tory)
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday June 24 2016, @06:17PM
*sigh* [frontrowgrunt.co.za]
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @07:08PM
Less flippantly:
3.5 years of not-David Cameron, and a big helping of "This EU plan isn't what we signed up for when the EEC sounded like a good idea."
Seriously, all this whining about hatred, and racisim, and racehatred, and hateracing, and you don't need any of that to explain anything beyond the tragic murder of a hapless MP by a lunatic.
All you need is a lot of britons saying: "I don't like the EU in the form it has taken, we were sold a bill of goods, and the EU doesn't want to accomodate us, so we're leaving."
It's that simple. An OUT vote does not differentiate between frothing rage and mild preference.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday June 24 2016, @08:25PM
The Kippers just won't shut up, will they? They're gloating away about "getting what they wanted" but they have absolutely no idea what can of worms they have opened up. The Internet discussion forums are still full of them raving away about "taking back control" and all that other rot.
UKIP and the Leave campaign are not one and the same, but UKIP/Farage are the reason for all this nonsense.
Seriously, all this whining about hatred, and racisim, and racehatred, and hateracing, and you don't need any of that to explain anything beyond the tragic murder of a hapless MP by a lunatic.
The xenophobia and outright racism was clearly evident months and even years before Jo Cox was murdered. UKIP is a fundamentally racist hard-right party. You may find google useful to remind yourselves of all the slimy, bigoted dross they have spouted. And not just about race and nationality.
The Leave campaign was dirty and deceitful. There were outright lies printed on their official literature. One of their flyers, for instance, blatantly lied about Nissan's stance regarding its future in the UK in the event of a withdrawal from the EU: "Major employers have all said they’ll stay in the UK whatever the result of the referendum” and displays Nissan’s logo along with the likes of Vauxhall and Unilever beside it. Nissan [autocar.co.uk] is to sue [independent.co.uk] Vote Leave [theguardian.com] over this lie.
Nissan is not the only company whose words were twisted. Let us see who else sues. Watch this space.
Vote Leave/UKIP have lied about EU democracy. The EU is at least as democratic as the UK. The problem is, apathetic British voters generally don't bother to vote in EU Parliamentary elections. That means that the more extreme parties (e.g. UKIP) get voted in. Nigel Farage, Member of the European Parliament , who purposefully did not engage in constructive debate, deliberately did not turn up to meetings and who heckled an EU president [theguardian.com] simply because he felt like asserting his Britishness.
"Taking back control" was absolute drivel. We already have control. We even had special vetoes and exemptions negotiated. Special for special snowflake UK. Facts are irrelevant, though. It feels better to give Johnny Foreigner (especially Fritz) a beating.
Saving the NHS with an extra £350M a week(!) was absolute fantasy. It was outright lies. The Leave campaigners are all hard-right privatisers. Some had even written books on how to privatise the NHS. IDS had presided over the most vindictive cuts to benefits for the sick and disabled ever. Gove ruined the English public education system for his ideology branding teachers as Marxists and enemies of promise.
And who voted for these people? The poor, who were led a merry dance and told it was all the fault of Johnny Foreigner/Muslims/terrorists/benefits scroungers from Romania...
We had a club of 28 sovereign countries with the free movement of goods, labour and capital, common standards of human rights, safety, democracy and environmental protection. People came and went. Large and small companies did business. I work in a very large company that will be reconsidering its position now. Many of my colleagues are from the EU and we rely on European and British funding and customers for our products. Our British operations are probably going to get much more expensive when the additional red tape from being outside the EU comes in, inevitably.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Greater London all see and feel the benefit of being in the EU. Scotland has a far more progressive political consensus than England, ie more in line with progressive continental politics. Scotland recently voted to remain in the UK on the premise that it would be impossible for it to join the EU as an independent country. Now it faces the prospect of being a province of an isolationist, xenophobic Little England unless it breaks away.
Perhaps Ireland will reunify? Eire is an enthusiastic EU member.
So, the bogeymen of "immigrants taking our jobs" (false, right-wing austerity is more to blame for the lack of jobs), "Muslim terrorists/rapists/taking over our country" (false, way out of proportion), "Germans being in control and telling us what laws we can and can't have" (false again, see above) have led to this absurd situation.
Still, the trolls creep out of the woodwork with their slogans ("Vote Leave take Control", "Take our country back"...) and their doublethink.
I really hope that they understand what it is they have done and that it is what they really want.
You would be amazed at how many people are talking about leaving England now. But that's what they wanted, right? Their country back?
Yes, well, many English people are talking about leaving too. They really do not like the xenophobia and simmering undercurrent of fascism one little bit.
This is not Great Britain or the United Kingdom, These are not British Values. This is not British pragmatism, warmth, hope, tolerance or inclusivity.
This is more like the dangerous past that we thought we'd consigned to history.
Finally, the Referendum result is not legally binding. The government is free to say, "How interesting." And then to ignore it. Only what it voted on by MPs in Parliament is law.
Cameron, a largely decent (but naive) man in charge of a party crawling with pin-striped vermin, has done the right thing by resigning but staying on until October and NOT setting the withdrawal from the EU in motion. He is leaving that to his successor. The Conservative Party will have to elect a new leader (Heaven help us if you see the likely contenders) and that leader will have to throw the switch.
However, there could be a General Election. And then the winner of that would have to (or not) begin the EU withdrawal process. If the major parties were to campaign on an in/out basis, then the public would have another chance to think about it. Hopefully with better information this time.
If England wants to leave, if England wants to be alone, then so be it. I will gracefully withdraw to Scotland and let them have their Green and Pleasant Land all to themselves. My wife is English and my son is half-English (obviously).
Sorry for the rant, but I woke up in the wrong country today.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:21AM
Noting that your entry is a rant, I think it still deserves a sober response.
I'm not a UKIP member. I'm not even a UKIP supporter. Most of the people who voted Leave aren't - if they were, the last election would have been a triumphant march by the UKIP. Instead, there are the tories, who are internally split on the EU and don't really have an orthodoxy on the point. So like it or not, the fantasy that this is all the fault of the dastardly UKIP puppetmasters is just that: a fantasy. You don't have to like Farage (I don't much myself) but at least admit that on this one point, millions of britons, including many who probably voted for Labour in the last election (Hullo, Yorkshire!) agreed with him.
And why did they? Oh, all right, some of them might have been motivated by a slavering lust for an opportunity to stick up two nicotine-stained fingers at Johnny Foreigner, but quite aside from the frankly febrile electioneering materials (and let's not forget that there was plenty of rot from the Remain side as well, including fables about free-handed renegotiations of the UK's position in the EU) there are some arguments for Leave that just were not based in racism, as opposed to simple public policy.
You say that the UKIP followers have no idea what can of worms they might have opened - but that by itself is no real argument. Reasonable people might say: "What we have is rotten, let's take our courage in our hands and leave a safe harbour to look for something better." Maybe, just maybe the Leave side has one or two people who thought of it in those terms? Or are they all irredeemable racists, hatred-stained to their core? Every single one of them? I don't think so.
As for the EU being democratic, that's dubious (since the MEPs don't really get to write the legislation they're commanded to vote on), and even if it were heartbreakingly democratic, that doesn't mean that every part of it might like the democratically decided democratic choices of the great democracy. They might decide that it is rather bad, and decide to leave. Again, no racism required.
The very fact of the special position of the UK is crystal clear evidence of long-standing tensions, tensions that resulted in resentment on both sides of the channel, despite and because of those UK exceptions. Is it any surprise whatsoever that those tensions might not have healed, and might in fact have resulted in a decision, ultimately, to split? I'm not surprised - and still no racism is required to explain a bloody thing.
Sure there are racists - and loud racists at that. But racism is very far from the only force at work here. You talk about the poor, hapless, ignorant, misled poor, as if they're little fuzzy ducklings following mama in a row to the pond. It may surprise you to hear that they would dismiss you as an ignorant toff for your condescension. They may or may not understand all the ramifications of their choices - but it's a fair bet that they understand things in different terms from you. Or at least many of them do. Your attitude smacks of the sneering inhabitant of Manhattan or San Francisco who criticises the dirty denizens of the flyover states for voting against their economic interests by not supporting the democrats because of the lies and calumny of their republican masters, when in actual fact the benighted natives of flyoveria don't agree with democrat policies and aggressive progressivism regardless of the economic arguments. There's more to life than money, you know.
As for "pragmatism, warmth, hope, tolerance or inclusivity" I can only think that you live a charmed existence. There is such a thing as reciprocity, you know? How about the french aggression to the british beef market? I have it on good authority (an actual agricultural scientist) that France's protracted and stubborn resistance to british beef carried on years longer than necessary, and as an economist I know what a toll it levied on the british beef industry. This is only one example of many. It's all very well to talk about the dominance of the UK's finance industry, but there was no shortage of attacks on it as well. British pragmatism could lead eventually to hope that if they leave the club where they're being abused, they might have to face less abuse.
If the tories decided to ignore the referendum, they'd face a backbench revolt, for starters, and forever be branded as the party that ignored the nation. I can't see them doing that, especially since Cameron is resigning. Obviously you're no fan of the tories - frankly I think that every party is crawling with vermin regardless of their stripes. Labour have evidently decided that they don't need to win any elections, since the proletarian revolution will inevitably install them as the winners (Right, Comrade Corbyn?) and the erstwhile coalition mates of the tories are even more of a footnote at this stage.
As for Northern Ireland, so many people in there dislike catholic Ireland so strongly that I think it's more likely that they'd try to cuddle up to an independent Scotland.
Honestly, if I were to redraw borders, I'd suggest that Scotland leave, take Northern Ireland along, and leave England, Wales and Cornwall to it. Let Scotland and Northern Ireland collaborate with the scandinavians, with whom they share warm sympathies, in some sort of nordic compact, and let the rump of the UK do as they see fit.
They will anyway.
On the other side, the whole NHS thing: a few hundred million would largely postpone the inevitable. The NHS was structured to be a basic fallback for the impoverished and the indigent, and a backstop for preventive care and the fundamentals of public health. It was never intended to be the all-things-to-all-people beast that it has become, and its cost structure is quite simply ludicrous in the face of healthcare inflation. This is one of the ways in which Blair was frankly exploiting the old colonies in the most hideous of ways: getting their desperately needed health care professionals to come to the UK, work for salaries well under the odds, and abandon their home country populations to their underserved fate. There's Labour's compassionate internationalism at work for you; so much for your warmth, tolerance and inclusivity. Trimming the NHS's wings might not be the worst plan in the world for a number of reasons - budget being only one.
Now that I think about it, the savings behind Scotland leaving the UK would take a lot of the sting out of the UK leaving the EU. England should probably suggest that they leave. Discreetly, of course.
As for the dirty, lying, evil campaign, it's hardly as if there were much honesty on either side. All the promises about special renegotiations? Just words, and everybody knew it. And the doom-mongering predictions of the hideous, terrible fate that would befall Little England in the wasteland of the world were just as creepy as the race-baiting ads of the Leave side. There are no angels, just demons you dislike less.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:43AM
Anonymous idiotic troll.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:56AM
Your content-free and anonymously cowardly reply just reinforces my point.
By the way, referring to my own post as a rant was self-deprecating irony. Kippers have trouble with that sort of thing.
This is the bit that takes the biscuit:
There are probably quite a few of them, a substantial minority, the truly ignorant and slow of wit who have been convinced by Farage and Gove's vague promises of a Land of Milk and Honey for the British.
There will be a bumpy road first, all right. It's already started. It was predicted, but largely ignored by the Kippers since it was "establishment propaganda." Irony of ironies...
This land may be for the British, maybe even only for the English (and Welsh who have been a principality of England, annexed back in the 16th Century).
Kippers are not inconvenienced by facts, history or objective reality. They just hand-wave it away. "It'll be all right because we're British, not foreign. We are the best in the world. Everyone admires us. Take back control."
Just in case there is any doubt as to what people voted for: “people who feel the have lost control completely” might feel that “violence is the next step” [independent.co.uk]
Whose propaganda put the idea into their heads that they had lost control? Farage.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:13PM
Slow your roll, son. Just because AC said stuff you didn't like didn't make it content-free. I mean, statistically (s)he has to be right about labor supporters voting for the Leave side. I didn't read the whole thing, but it didn't look that crazy.
Hell, even the bit you quoted wasn't content-free. (S)he makes the case that not everyone was motivated by racism, and that's kind of important, and relevant.
We get that you're mad, but you're sounding like a Bernie bro who's mad that Hillary got more delegates. She did anyway, no matter how mad you are; now man up and take it.
(Score: 2) by ThePhilips on Friday June 24 2016, @07:12PM
A pure economic union as some desire so much, is all but a pipe dream.
Take the very UK vs EU. UK opted out out of the work safety net regulations. And now they serve as a universal loophole through which EU companies, thanks to the free trade zone, can hire people, without providing them any basic protections. Even job contracts become literally unregulated, since apparently in UK, similarly to USA, some contract clauses can override the laws and constitution granted rights.
Pure economic unions end up being a race to the bottom: states competing against each other, who can deregulate more, attract more business and thus more tax income. Like for example what UK does in the financial sector, and why most of the EU hedge funds are incorporated in UK. The rest of EU simply doesn't allow them to play precarious games with other peoples money - but they are very welcome in UK.
Otherwise, the Brexit was in making for a long time. The blatant lies about EU, the slanderous drivel presented as news dominated the UK for over a decade now. Long enough time for them to start believing their own lies. The end result: UK population has allowed its own political vitriol to overtake them, and let them kick the UK out of the EU. Because there is really no rational reason for them to do it - except to satisfy the narrative they have obediently submitted themselves to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:21AM
what if... the UK, or presumably a pared down UK (to allow for independent nations separately returning to the EU), were to become new states in the United States?
Seems like a potential face-saving move to me, and might align some political ideologies as well. Would the US accept new British states? As an American, my assumption would be yes. Would Britons want to be Americans? I'm guessing not for a few decades, but possibly.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:11AM
That political scenario has already been studied.
There's even a film made about it: Shoot the Dog [youtube.com] (watch around 4:44)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:02PM
Hey, thanks for responding. Didn't really expect anyone to. Unfortunately, youtube says the video isn't available in my country. I'll look around for it, though.