The inevitable Brexit thread


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 863 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Democracy is the "power of the people" (literally), the reason the remain option lost is the elites ruling the EU and GB made it clear they have no notion of the worsening living condition of most of the citizens inhabiting those States.

What happens now remains to be seen, but at least the british people has the chance of deciding for itself. Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

I agree with everything you say here... except the idea that this will in any way 'free' the British people from the 'elites' behind rising income inequality. Rather the opposite in fact. Britain has basically just declared its intention to surrender all power to check those elites in the international arena... and will now likely also hand them direct rule of the nation itself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Democracy is the "power of the people" (literally), the reason the remain option lost is the elites ruling the EU and GB made it clear they have no notion of the worsening living condition of most of the citizens inhabiting those States.

What happens now remains to be seen, but at least the british people has the chance of deciding for itself. Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).
I agree with everything you say here... except the idea that this will in any way 'free' the British people from the 'elites' behind rising income inequality. Rather the opposite in fact. Britain has basically just declared its intention to surrender all power to check those elites in the international arena... and will now likely also hand them direct rule of the nation itself.

Quite. And on top of that, with Cameron announcing his intention to step down as PM "by October", we're going to be led for the best part of 4 years by a Prime Minister who won't be selected democratically by the country, but rather by the few elites of the Conservative Party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortis Incognito wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


UK and EU have two years (according to the treaties, no more and no less) to nail down a settlement for brexit. A bit short to count on a massive culling of the brexit crowd, isn'it ?

The two years doesn't start until the official notification of intent to leave is given to the EU, so it's likely to be more than that. Not saying it'll be decades, but I wouldn't be expecting us to be leaving on 24th June 2018.

On top of that, if all EU member states agree, the 2 years could be extended.

Personally (and somewhat jokingly), I'm wondering whether Canada would accept the UK as a new province.

You have already your answer, as Hollande, Merkel, Renzi and Tusk all asked the UK to settle the brexit "as soon as possible". Maybe UK will get Spain's support, if Gibraltar is thrown in trade...

Seriously, it's not in the interest of anyone to extend this period of uncertainty any longer than strictly necessary. Maybe PM Johnson will try to diddle away and stretch negociations, but I doubt he will find any help doing so across the Channel. If so, there is always the option of cancelling all EU agreements with UK and going from a blank slate in two years time.

We will trade UK for Québec, any day ! Waffles for everyone !

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Fingers crossed for "Texit" next.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Democracy is the "power of the people" (literally), the reason the remain option lost is the elites ruling the EU and GB made it clear they have no notion of the worsening living condition of most of the citizens inhabiting those States.

What happens now remains to be seen, but at least the british people has the chance of deciding for itself. Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).
I agree with everything you say here... except the idea that this will in any way 'free' the British people from the 'elites' behind rising income inequality. Rather the opposite in fact. Britain has basically just declared its intention to surrender all power to check those elites in the international arena... and will now likely also hand them direct rule of the nation itself.

Yet those same elites wanted GB to stay in the EU and they lost. For me that's worth a lot of respect, especially considering how those same elites did everything they could to dramatize and scare the people in voting their way. As usual their argument is twofold and contraddictory: "There Is No Alternative" (Tatcher) and "Change is a good thing" (but only when it profits them, otherwise it's the apocalypse). Now we know an alternative exists and change may (or may not) bring good or bad things. The self appointed "masters of the universe" ought to take notice this time.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Probably gets frustrating to have a major portion of the world rely on your projection of strength, then mock you for how much you spend on your military.

I wonder what that's like?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:


Yet those same elites wanted GB to stay in the EU and they lost.

Not really. As in, "they haven't lost yet," and it would not surprise me if they didn't lose at all.

Remember that Cameron said a few weeks ago that there was no point in dragging this out, that if Leave won, he'd invoke Article 50 almost immediately and then step down. This morning he promises to step down by the party congress in October (that's, what, four months?) and has no timetable at all for a formal invocation, all in the name of "stability."

I suspect that Cameron saw this vote as theater; when the masses did the sensible thing and voted to stay, it would shut up UKIP and the fringe elements of his own party. But now that his miscalculation is/was obvious, he can slow-walk the actual leaving process for the next dozen years as a variety of blue ribbon commissions "investigate" the best approach to leaving.

.... and if he slow-walks it long enough, the vote effectively never happened and the elites remain in control.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Democracy is the "power of the people" (literally), the reason the remain option lost is the elites ruling the EU and GB made it clear they have no notion of the worsening living condition of most of the citizens inhabiting those States.

What happens now remains to be seen, but at least the british people has the chance of deciding for itself. Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

A lot of the Leave campaign were the elite too. Boris Johnson is an Old Etonian millionaire, and Nigel Farrage is also a millionaire, having made his money in the City as a money broker. And I don't think for a moment this will address any of the problems that are currently affecting the European working man. Quite the opposite actually, since if it mean lower GDP growth there will be less welfare to go around. And the Leave campaign was totally incoherent on the economic, at one point saying we can engage in free trade and all enjoy lower prices and at the other point saying that the EU stopped us bailing out failing industries with taxpayers money (in case no one noticed, letting failing industries go is actually free trade in action). The British people won't even get to decide what sort of Brexit we will actually get, since that wasn't a question on the ballot paper - that will be a stitch-up in Parliament.

The whole campaign was stupid, didn't address the real issues, and was a victory for bigotry and stupidity. Much like the referendum in Greece, which at least the government there had the good grace to ignore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Probably gets frustrating to have a major portion of the world rely on your projection of strength, then mock you for how much you spend on your military.

I wonder what that's like?

Not sure you are on topic, here...

But brexit could be a good thing from your point of view, as UK was placing NATO first and european defence initiatives very far behind.

Currently (World Bank statistics for 2014), USA invest 3.5 % of its GNP in military pursuits. European countries are way behind, with 2.2 % for France (and 2.3 % for Greece, surprisingly), 2 % for UK, 1.9 % for Poland, 1.5 % for Italy ... and only 1.2 % for Germany, Spain, Denmark, etc.).

UK and France would very much like to have more european help to police the african countries where the US army doesn't want to go (no oil, I guess). See, I can do some needling too !

I could also remind you that in 2013, Al Hassad crossed the so-called "red line" and used chemical weapons on its own population... and nothing happened, because at the last moment POTUS chose to ignore all that messy trouble and looked the other way. The pro-democracy opposition got steamrolled, things became desparate for the syrian population... hence ISIS, hence bad things. So, stay assured that we are VERY interested in building our own defense, as the sheriff doesn't always answer the phone, sadly.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Smarnil le couard wrote:


I could also remind you that in 2013, Al Hassad crossed the so-called "red line" and used chemical weapons on its own population... and nothing happened, because at the last moment POTUS chose to ignore all that messy trouble and looked the other way. The pro-democracy opposition got steamrolled, things became desparate for the syrian population... hence ISIS, hence bad things. So, stay assured that we are VERY interested in building our own defense, as the sheriff doesn't always answer the phone, sadly.

No need to remind. We remember.

The Exchange

Mortis Incognito wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


UK and EU have two years (according to the treaties, no more and no less) to nail down a settlement for brexit. A bit short to count on a massive culling of the brexit crowd, isn'it ?

The two years doesn't start until the official notification of intent to leave is given to the EU, so it's likely to be more than that. Not saying it'll be decades, but I wouldn't be expecting us to be leaving on 24th June 2018.

On top of that, if all EU member states agree, the 2 years could be extended.

Personally (and somewhat jokingly), I'm wondering whether Canada would accept the UK as a new province.

The date of this is currently a hot topic of discussion. The EU are saying "Get on with it" while Leavers are saying "Let's leave it a while, have some informal chit-chat, work out a deal". We'll see. I thought Cameron's leaving speech indicated he was going to declare Article 50 at the upcoming summit next week, but commentators seem to think otherwise.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Fingers crossed for "Texit" next.

I didn't know Tunisia was in the EU.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think he meant Texas seceding from the U.S.

Scarab Sages

Smarnil le couard wrote:

You have already your answer, as Hollande, Merkel, Renzi and Tusk all asked the UK to settle the brexit "as soon as possible". Maybe UK will get Spain's support, if Gibraltar is thrown in trade...

Seriously, it's not in the interest of anyone to extend this period of uncertainty any longer than strictly necessary. Maybe PM Johnson will try to diddle away and stretch negociations, but I doubt he will find any help doing so across the Channel. If so, there is always the option of cancelling all EU agreements with UK and going from a blank slate in two years time.

We will trade UK for Québec, any day ! Waffles for everyone !

I've been to Gibraltar; it's just a tiny little spire of a place, with special monkeys and tourist facilities and some nice caves (that nonetheless don't hold a candle to Carlsbad Caverns); what am I missing that would make Spain consider it worth shearing the EU for? Besides the locals are evidently quite keen on remaining British in spite of everything....

Kryzbyn wrote:
I think he meant Texas seceding from the U.S.

Nope, nope, sorry. They don't get to do that. Texas wants to leave, it gets given back to Mexico.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:


Yet those same elites wanted GB to stay in the EU and they lost. For me that's worth a lot of respect, especially considering how those same elites did everything they could to dramatize and scare the people in voting their way. As usual their argument is twofold and contraddictory: "There Is No Alternative" (Tatcher) and "Change is a good thing" (but only when it profits them, otherwise it's the apocalypse). Now we know an alternative exists and change may (or may not) bring good or bad things. The self appointed "masters of the universe" ought to take notice this time.

That goes both ways, you know. There were just as many elites on the Leave side as the Remain, and their scaremongering tactics were terrible. The poster Farage revealed near the end was a masterpiece of lies and scaremongering.

The "masters of the universe" are still in charge, it's just a different face on the Old Etonian hivemind, and one we don't get to choose whether to accept or not for 4 years.


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:


I've been to Gibraltar; it's just a tiny little spire of a place, with special monkeys and tourist facilities and some nice caves (that nonetheless don't hold a candle to Carlsbad Caverns); what am I missing that would make Spain consider it worth shearing the EU for?

It's a superb strategic location.

Turn the question around. Why hasn't the UK given Gibraltar back to Spain? Because the UK aren't idiots.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, I suspect for much the same reason we hang on to the Falklands: the people want to remain British and it would look really bad politically if we cast them off. The position is a bit of an irrelevance now, we hardly have any Navy left to take advantage of it.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Actually, I suspect for much the same reason we hang on to the Falklands: the people want to remain British and it would look really bad politically if we cast them off. The position is a bit of an irrelevance now, we hardly have any Navy left to take advantage of it.

Not much Navy, but a sky full of planes,....


Kryzbyn wrote:
I think he meant Texas seceding from the U.S.

Could be Tennessee ?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:


Nope, nope, sorry. They don't get to do that. Texas wants to leave, it gets given back to Mexico.

You mean, officially?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

You have already your answer, as Hollande, Merkel, Renzi and Tusk all asked the UK to settle the brexit "as soon as possible". Maybe UK will get Spain's support, if Gibraltar is thrown in trade...

I've been to Gibraltar; it's just a tiny little spire of a place, with special monkeys and tourist facilities and some nice caves (that nonetheless don't hold a candle to Carlsbad Caverns); what am I missing that would make Spain consider it worth shearing the EU for? Besides the locals are evidently quite keen on remaining British in spite of everything....

It was mostly meant as a joke. That said, Gibraltar voted at 90+ % for remaining in the EU, and Spain already extended an offer to do so as a joint anglo-spanish dominion...

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Actually, I suspect for much the same reason we hang on to the Falklands: the people want to remain British and it would look really bad politically if we cast them off. The position is a bit of an irrelevance now, we hardly have any Navy left to take advantage of it.
Not much Navy, but a sky full of planes,....

Really? I assume you aren't referring to the RAF, then? The UK has a reasonable sized military by European standards but it's actually pretty small nevertheless, given how pitiful most European forces are, and much smaller than it was a couple of decades ago. It's pretty clear, for example, there is no way we could recapture the Falklands now.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Smarnil le couard wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I think he meant Texas seceding from the U.S.
Could be Tennessee ?

Nah, I mean Texas. Although I do live in what used to be the State of Franklin, so Tennexit is not without precedent.

Liberty's Edge

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Democracy is the "power of the people" (literally), the reason the remain option lost is the elites ruling the EU and GB made it clear they have no notion of the worsening living condition of most of the citizens inhabiting those States.

What happens now remains to be seen, but at least the british people has the chance of deciding for itself. Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

I think you underestimate the ability of the elite to influence any election, including this referendum.

To believe it a pure unadulterated expression of the will of the people (strangely opposed to the elite BTW, are they not people too ?) is unrealistic IMO


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The date of this is currently a hot topic of discussion. The EU are saying "Get on with it" while Leavers are saying "Let's leave it a while, have some informal chit-chat, work out a deal". We'll see. I thought Cameron's leaving speech indicated he was going to declare Article 50 at the upcoming summit next week, but commentators seem to think otherwise.

The EU knows that financial markets hate uncertainty and are liable to be volatile until the exit is a done deal.

It's all about markets.


Treppa wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The date of this is currently a hot topic of discussion. The EU are saying "Get on with it" while Leavers are saying "Let's leave it a while, have some informal chit-chat, work out a deal". We'll see. I thought Cameron's leaving speech indicated he was going to declare Article 50 at the upcoming summit next week, but commentators seem to think otherwise.

The EU knows that financial markets hate uncertainty and are liable to be volatile until the exit is a done deal.

It's all about markets.

So you're suggesting that Cameron is trying to hold the EU hostage by prolonging the uncertainty?

That makes sense, in a sick and twisted way, but I suspect it will end up hurting the City as much or even more. Which will make one of his core constituencies VERY unhappy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Cameron quite rightly doesn't what the nightmare of negotiation hung around his neck, so he will let that be the next guys problem.


The Sword wrote:
Cameron quite rightly doesn't what the nightmare of negotiation hung around his neck, so he will let that be the next guys problem.

Yeah, but that's easy enough to address. "Oops, we lost. As the leader of the Conservative Party, I am happy to fall on my own sword. Chaps, you need a new leader by Monday. Pip-pip cherry-oh."

He doesn't need to make sure it stays his nightmare until October....


A wonderful divorce to a rather terrible marriage. It was nice at first. The blushing bride and groom so happy together only to discover each other's terrible habits. Soon, it became obvious that like a Socialist Utopia in South America, you start running out of money.. I mean food, wait no, ideas to still look at them in the morning when you wake up.

Now they are settling who gets the kids and dear old Scruffy the dog, who I'm sure in the end will go to the parent whom gives them more for Christmas, but sadly find out there isn't much love in them. Scruffy the dog will look for whomever let's him a nice shady tree to die under.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Treppa wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The date of this is currently a hot topic of discussion. The EU are saying "Get on with it" while Leavers are saying "Let's leave it a while, have some informal chit-chat, work out a deal". We'll see. I thought Cameron's leaving speech indicated he was going to declare Article 50 at the upcoming summit next week, but commentators seem to think otherwise.

The EU knows that financial markets hate uncertainty and are liable to be volatile until the exit is a done deal.

It's all about markets.

So you're suggesting that Cameron is trying to hold the EU hostage by prolonging the uncertainty?

I said/suggested no such thing. I can't fathom nor speak for Cameron, it just seems obvious that the EU wants it settled quickly to stabilize the markets.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The UK has been a good part of it.

In fact, it has never been a "good" part of it. From the very start, England /Britain was only in it for very selfish reasons especially to sabotage any effort to politically unite a continent nearly destroyed by all its independent nations.

So in fact, the EU would be much better off without Britain if not for the fact that politicians in every country have made a sport out of blaming the EU for all the crap they were responsible for by themselves, and now are wondering why the voters have gotten the impression that the EU is a very dumb idea.

Quote:
But it gives rise to some 50-80% of national laws, making it very questionable in democratic terms.

Ironically, what makes it questionable in democratic terms is that the nations weren't willing to let go off their power. Yeah we can vote for a european parliament, but national governments all over Europe made sure that this parliament has nearly no power whatsoever. So the one thing, we as european citizens have any say in has mainly held irrelevant, while our national leaders made one dumb decision after another only to blame the EU for it.

I recommend everyone to read Christopher Clarks excellent "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" because all people actually thinking that Brexit was a good idea should be aware that the Sleepwalkers are still ruling.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:

Democracy is the "power of the people" (literally), the reason the remain option lost is the elites ruling the EU and GB made it clear they have no notion of the worsening living condition of most of the citizens inhabiting those States.

What happens now remains to be seen, but at least the british people has the chance of deciding for itself. Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

I think you underestimate the ability of the elite to influence any election, including this referendum.

To believe it a pure unadulterated expression of the will of the people (strangely opposed to the elite BTW, are they not people too ?) is unrealistic IMO

It's also worth pointing out that we didn't get the referendum because the people willed, or even wanted it especially. It was to solve an internal party problem for David Cameron with some of his Conservative backbenchers. Nor were the people ever offered decent information during the campaign, with both sides trying to pull the wool over their eyes. And now we have Brexit, suddenly we are in no hurry to invoke Article 50 after all, which lies entirely within the gift of the government.

That said, I think a referendum is a lousy way to run politics. We have the elites so we can get on with our lives, and vote them out if we don't like them. And a lot of those decrying the elite are populists with some really terrible ideas, and often anti-democratic to boot. In fact, the notion of "the elite" is simply a political tool in itself to manipulate the electorate and undermine their faith in politicians - maybe a good tactic in the short term, but probably the route to disaster in the long term if it leads to populism. The referendum campaign was various bits of the elite calling the other side "the elite". Unedifying and dishonest all round.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Treppa wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The date of this is currently a hot topic of discussion. The EU are saying "Get on with it" while Leavers are saying "Let's leave it a while, have some informal chit-chat, work out a deal". We'll see. I thought Cameron's leaving speech indicated he was going to declare Article 50 at the upcoming summit next week, but commentators seem to think otherwise.

The EU knows that financial markets hate uncertainty and are liable to be volatile until the exit is a done deal.

It's all about markets.

So you're suggesting that Cameron is trying to hold the EU hostage by prolonging the uncertainty?

That makes sense, in a sick and twisted way, but I suspect it will end up hurting the City as much or even more. Which will make one of his core constituencies VERY unhappy.

No, the victorious side don't want to invoke Article 50 because they know that the negotiations will be a lot harder than they pretended. So they want more time to get a deal. Cameron's views aren't known right now. However, it is possible that the EU will refuse to discuss the matter until they do declare under Article 50. And yes, any delay will be destabilising.


I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.

Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The UK has been a good part of it.
In fact, it has never been a "good" part of it. From the very start, England /Britain was only in it for very selfish reasons especially to sabotage any effort to politically unite a continent nearly destroyed by all its independent nations.

No, we joined because in the 1970s the UK economy was on the ropes and joining a common market seemed a good idea. We tried to join in the 60s but DeGaulle refused to allow us in. And the UK wasn't a wrecker any more than any other country defending its national interests, like the French and their agricultural subsidies and so on.

Quote:
So in fact, the EU would be much better off without Britain if not for the fact that politicians in every country have made a sport out of blaming the EU for all the crap they were responsible for by themselves, and now are wondering why the voters have gotten the impression that the EU is a very dumb idea.

Not necessarily. It unbalances power away from the bloc which might be more business-friendly.

Quote:
Quote:
But it gives rise to some 50-80% of national laws, making it very questionable in democratic terms.
Ironically, what makes it questionable in democratic terms is that the nations weren't willing to let go off their power. Yeah we can vote for a european parliament, but national governments all over Europe made sure that this parliament has nearly no power whatsoever. So the one thing, we as european citizens have any say in has mainly held irrelevant, while our national leaders made one dumb decision after another only to blame the EU for it.

I'm not sure where the 50-80% number comes from - I suspect that is not correct. And the fact that nations retain their sovereignty to negotiate within the EU club, as voted for by their local electorates, doesn't seem problematic to me.

Quote:
I recommend everyone to read Christopher Clarks excellent "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" because all people actually thinking that Brexit was a good idea should be aware that the Sleepwalkers are still ruling.

This I do agree with. Damaging the EU when it has secured peace in Europe for decades, especially when we have a newly assertive Russia on the doorstep and economic dislocation at home, seems daft.

The Exchange

Treppa wrote:

I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.

Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.

Well, they don't want to make it easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treppa wrote:
I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.

This was part of the roach-motel ("countries check in, but they don't check out") engineering of the EU vision. It's a poison pill. By making leaving under good terms as difficult as possible, they make/made it much more likely that any country leaving gets the clothes on their back, the change in their pocket, and nothing else -- which in turn provides incentive to stay.

For example: once Article 50 is invoked, there are no unilateral takebacks, so you can't use "I'm leaving you and getting an apartment of my own" as a negotiating ploy.

For example (2): if no negotiation is reached within two years, then the country that is leaving is out in the cold with literally nothing. The alternative to negotiation is.... nothing, literally.

For example (3): Any country can simply veto a proposed leaving arrangement. For once in its life, the UK needs to pay attention to what the Maltese want, because otherwise Malta can unilaterally block a proposed EU/UK trade pact.

Basically, the EU treaty was a prenup specifically designed to prevent anyone from seeking a divorce because the agreed-upon terms were so onerous.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

Well, apart from the parentheses stuff being a blatant lie, we don't need to do the same to GB. They made themselves irrelevant by voting for the Brexit and no one needs to care about their opinions from now on.

The best they can get is to come in the same position like Suisse or Norway, meaning they have to pay for the right to partake in the european market without having any influence on european dicisions to come.

Which is a shame, really because Europe could have profited immensely from britsh pragmatism if the brits hadn't replaced it by populism instead.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:


Which is a shame, really because Europe could have profited immensely from britsh pragmatism.

The only problem with that is that the EU has had decades during which they "could have profited immensely from British pragmatism" but have not done a very good job of availing themselves of that opportunity.

I agree, it's rather sad when a restaurant shuts down. But when the restaurant's been there for twenty years and you've never bothered to go once, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for your lost opportunity once it finally does.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortis Incognito wrote:
Personally (and somewhat jokingly), I'm wondering whether Canada would accept the UK as a new province.

But didn't you know? Canada is a part of Britain :P.

Okay, okay, okay, not the same Canada you're thinking of. You know how in Ireland there's this lovely little old village called Hollywood? Well it turns out that over here in Hampshire, down on the south coast, we have this tiny little village that's been around for centuries that just happens to be called Canada.....

Click the link and scroll down just a little if you'd like to read for yourself.

The Exchange

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
And the fact that nations retain their sovereignty to negotiate within the EU club, as voted for by their local electorates, doesn't seem problematic to me.

It's problematic in so far as european governments used the europan platform more than once to enforce decisions not very popular with their voters (TTIP for example) instead of trying to explain to their voters why free trade might not be a bad idea. The problem is, that elected governments, mostly being the executive power while the legislative power stays with the parliaments, used the EU to create legislation without the consent of their national parliaments.

So in short: elected leaders of european nations use the european idea to make decisions they have never been elected for. And, as said before, then blame european institutions for their own "mistakes".

Which unluckily empowers all those demagogues like Farage, Le Pen or Hoecke.

Liberty's Edge

Treppa wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The date of this is currently a hot topic of discussion. The EU are saying "Get on with it" while Leavers are saying "Let's leave it a while, have some informal chit-chat, work out a deal". We'll see. I thought Cameron's leaving speech indicated he was going to declare Article 50 at the upcoming summit next week, but commentators seem to think otherwise.

The EU knows that financial markets hate uncertainty and are liable to be volatile until the exit is a done deal.

It's all about markets.

Not only the financial markets

All companies that did business in or with the UK as well as those contemplating to do so are now reassessing any investment they envisioned there. And in an uncertain environment, it means not investing the money anywhere. And lack of investment is the worse thing that can happen to the European economies this day

The first priority of the European governments now is to try and protect their countries from a renewed economical crisis

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:


I've been to Gibraltar; it's just a tiny little spire of a place, with special monkeys and tourist facilities and some nice caves (that nonetheless don't hold a candle to Carlsbad Caverns); what am I missing that would make Spain consider it worth shearing the EU for?

It's a superb strategic location.

Turn the question around. Why hasn't the UK given Gibraltar back to Spain? Because the UK aren't idiots.

Ironically the last few times the Spanish asked us to give them back Gibraltar we were quite willing to but then the Gibraltan population desperately begged us to let them be British. Well, okay, not necessarily begged. They certainly put up such stiff opposition that we simply had to let them remain a foreign colony. I am not proud of our foreign colonies. I'm glad we've given most of them back.


TheMountain wrote:
What really bugs me is that the northern counties voted overwhelmingly leave, when a great deal of their funding comes from the EU.

The strings attached to said fundings could be part of the reasons.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Balgin wrote:
I am not proud of our foreign colonies. I'm glad we've given most of them back.

Heh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).

Well, apart from the parentheses stuff being a blatant lie, we don't need to do the same to GB. They made themselves irrelevant by voting for the Brexit and no one needs to care about their opinions from now on.

The best they can get is to come in the same position like Suisse or Norway, meaning they have to pay for the right to partake in the european market without having any influence on european dicisions to come.

THAT would be fun, as the countries which are part of the European Economic Area (including Norway) had to accept rules more binding that the ones that UK managed to get (no opt-out, no rebate, nada, zip). That includes Schengen among other brexit-mongerers nightmares.

Swiss is more or less in the same position but through bilateral treaties.

101 to 150 of 863 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The inevitable Brexit thread All Messageboards