REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Trips]

Wait until they realise their fags and booze allowance to bring back is massively reduced. The outrage will be amazing to witness

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

i wonder that once the eu is removed as a 'pretend' barrier to people's aspirations, who's gonna be the next group to blame for the masses? these c.unts might not like what they've created.

Muslims will be the next target. You can already see that UKIP are shifting their agenda that way.

 

[Tony Towner]

Suzanne Evans the former UKIP Deputy Leader is complaining because Vodafone are refusing to rule out increased roaming charges post Brexit. They really are shameless

 

[Tredman]

It all goes back to a fundamental complete lack of understanding of business from all of the career politicians. As if a company increasing prices because their costs increase should be surprising.

I'm trying more and more to disengage with all of this, everyone disgusts me - long term emigration could be the only solution.

 

[jdrodrigues]

What? There are consequences for Brexit? Preposterous! BLASPHEMY!

 

[Kenny]

Suzanne Evans the former UKIP Deputy Leader is complaining because Vodafone are refusing to rule out increased roaming charges post Brexit. They really are shameless

Intereting twist in this. When the proposal of axing data roaming charges across the EU was put forward, UKIP opposed it.

 

[Penk Wolf]

What? There are consequences for Brexit? Preposterous! BLASPHEMY!

Just playing devil's advocate and I know as we currently stand it's pie in the sky stuff, but if a country didn't have to give £8.9b to countries such as Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, etc. and we had a free trade deal similar to CETA, where they also have control of their borders (Yes, I know the argument that we already do) and laws and legislation wasn't suggested to us by other nations then surely most Countries would want that rather than being part of the EU?

 

[jdrodrigues]

Just playing devil's advocate and I know as we currently stand it's pie in the sky stuff, but if a country didn't have to give £8.9b to countries such as Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, etc. and we had a free trade deal similar to CETA, where they also have control of their borders (Yes, I know the argument that we already do) and laws and legislation wasn't suggested to us by other nations then surely most Countries would want that rather than being part of the EU?

This takes a more comprehensive answer. I'll try to find the time to do it later tonight

 

[pr0sl0]

Just playing devil's advocate and I know as we currently stand it's pie in the sky stuff, but if a country didn't have to give £8.9b to countries such as Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, etc. and we had a free trade deal similar to CETA, where they also have control of their borders (Yes, I know the argument that we already do) and laws and legislation wasn't suggested to us by other nations then surely most Countries would want that rather than being part of the EU?

So I'd say this is always an interesting argument, because I think at its root it's one that comes not from a place of "value" as normally constructed - in the sense of how economics is often framed, where the thing that costs us less money is better than the thing that costs us more money - but instead it's about less tangible, more abstract measurements of value: culture, identity, diplomacy, fairness, perceptions of those who are different to ourselves, history, and the stories that nations tell themselves about each other.

For many, many Europeans - clear majorities in most of the EU, in fact - this kind of argument just doesn't make sense, because "suggested to us by other nations" isn't a description of how the EU works. It's like being in a band or a football team, or on the board of a company, and having a mutual interest in seeing a venture succeeding. Sometimes you might not be in the majority when a decision is made, but in a well-functioning decision-making group everyone should feel that they get what they want from a decision more often than they don't. And much of what has happened to the EU post-Maastricht - even the actual idea of the EU, rather than the EEC - is, in part, that it's about injecting democratic checks and balances into the global economic-diplomatic trading system, which is usually only changed through one-to-one (or many-to-many, or one-to-many) negotiations between heads of government. Just look at NAFTA, for example, or the recent issues around the ratification of the TPP, where there aren't multinational representatives elected by normal people who can represent their interests in negotiations or implementations.

Of course, introducing democracy into an economic system like this in such piecemeal ways over the last 30ish years has just made it clear how undemocratic the system still remains (although, arguably, post-Lisbon it's not significantly less democratic than the current UK constitution) - and it's clear that further reforms are needed to address the democratic deficit. But fundamentally, the EU provides a number of fora for countries to discuss how to mutually aid each other across a continent of half a billion people, and for the people of those countries to also commune with each other. It removes borders, it integrates economies and cultures, and it has successfully turned a part of the world that was responsible for the two most destructive wars in human history into a gentleman's club where tensions lead to parliamentary disputes, not bloodshed, and we've all been hugely the richer for it. And, it also goes without saying that the power of the EU as a bloc is immensely larger than any single member, including the big three of France/Germany/UK. International economic trading is bloc-based, and has been for decades now, and it's suicide to think you can go it alone as Denmark or Portugal or Austria or, yes, even the UK.

But then, that's why we're in this situation. This kind of framing of the EU as a fundamentally cooperative entity - albeit one with issues (bureaucracy, accountability, corruption, etc.) - has never been a part of British politics except in the most europhilic fringes. (Although notable that those fringes weren't, pre-referendum, particularly smaller or less influential than the eurosceptic fringes have and continue to be. In all the contradictory polling about what would happen in a second referendum, whether we should go for no deal or May's deal, should we revoke article 50, etc., is that that one consistent finding has been that most people don't care, and never really cared, about all of these issues enough to sway the way they voted, with the exception of the referendum, the one time since the last referendum that it was the only issue under consideration.) In the UK, the EU has been long framed by politicians of all ideologies as an external force apart from the UK, and the UK is a kind of "rule-taker". This is completely ahistorical - despite its late entry into the EEC, the last half a century has seen the UK (along with France and Germany) shape the EU effectively in many areas to reflect its values and geopolitical interests, as many of its smaller members will point out. It is an augmentation of national power, not a parasite. And the opt-outs that the UK has secured, as well as its vetoes, mean that the worst fears of those who dislike further integration - such as a centralised army - are simply fantasy. (Or, well, they were, until the UK decided to leave meaning the rest of the club can get on with the things the UK was getting in the way of for so long.) From the perspective of the rest of the EU, the UK already had a deal (outside Schengen, outside the Euro) that meant it got the upsides of cooperation without the downside of compromise, and to throw its toys out of the pram so consistently is gauche and offensive.

Yet you have to consider the national myths, the national stories, the gut feelings, the historical contexts. WW2 isn't a tragedy here, it's a triumph. Our island mentality inculcates a kind of petty xenophobia about other European nationals that is uniquely derogatory among our neighbours. Free movement, for example, is bundled in with ex-EU immigration here, whereas the two are typically distinguished in domestic debates about migration in other EU countries. The huge and powerful influence the UK has as a rule-shaper at the EU level is absent from British politics and media, with politicians happy for years to outsource the blame for necessary but unpopular legislation onto "the Brussel bureaucrats". And, of course, we have a domestic tradition, concentrated on the right of the Conservative party, which is ideologically rabid about idealised conceptions of free trade, swashbuckling "open Britain", low taxes, "Singapore of the Atlantic", deregulation, privatisation, "Empire 2.0", etc. The UK's political constitution allowed this group to spend years wielding absolute parliamentary power on the back of minority shares of the popular vote (thanks, FPTP!), and there simply isn't a tradition of political cooperation across party lines as there is in other European countries with proportional representation. A significant factor for why domestic British politics is in such a volatile state is that David Cameron was so terrified of his coalition with the Lib Dems falling apart that he changed the constitution to make it almost impossible for a ruling government to be thrown out of office by Parliament due to a vote of no confidence. We'd have had a new general election months ago otherwise.

When you mix all of these things together, you get the situation we're in now:

- Widespread and deep lack of comprehension across the country, from both the populace at large and elites, about how the EU works;
- Mythologized imaginings of the past, informing a future that will never come;
- Zombie economics;
- A political establishment, especially (though not totally) on the right, which is nepotistic and has long been populated with low-knowledge, incompetent people who are there because of systemic privilege and not talent or ability;
- An approach to negotiating with the EU which is based on a history of assuming it is a rival rather than understanding it was a tool for our own success;
- Internal party politics overriding the necessity for the construction of broader coalitions which more justly represent the "will of the people"
- And, most fundamentally, a clash between two ways of constructing value, with one side valuing the symbolic/emotional nature of leaving the EU over another side's economic argument to remain (and yes, you do get economic arguments to leave and symbolic/emotional arguments to remain, but those are both very very much in the minority in the UK conversation)

So to go back to the CETA example that this is a response to, here's why that can't work:

- The UK has obligations to its allies and friends and, yes, rivals, and that includes treaties like the Good Friday Agreement. You can't pick and choose when it comes to these kinds of obligations, because once you decide to just ignore something you promised to do, you're completely fucked in future trade deals (why should anyone trust you?). This is why the backstop on the Irish border will never be removed. The British government's behaviour has done nothing but reinforce the Irish perception of its necessity, and the EU, despite the framing in the UK, exists to protect its members.
- A CETA-type deal (or, as some eurosceptics in my life put it, "back to how it was before Maastricht") still brings with it economic disruption, while also permanently putting the UK outside of the systems for making rules. You may not like how a company determines its strategies, but you will have far more success influencing that as a member of the board rather than as one person picketing outside head office.
- The money we "give" to the EU isn't charitable aid, in the same way that the wealth generated in London isn't "aid" when it's used to fix potholes or upgrade train lines (hah!) in Yorkshire. Increasing the wealth of the others in the bloc increases the wealth for everyone, and the "cost" of being a member of the EU is returned many times over in terms of the economic growth it engenders. Arguing that keeping this money is a "saving" in a CETA-type scenario is like arguing that you you'd rather save your existing savings than spend it on the car or public transport to get to a new job.
- This is also the same argument as to why freedom of movement makes sense. We don't need a passport to go across county borders because for one thing it would cause a huge economic drag, but also there is the cultural, cooperative angle as I detailed above, and, for what it's worth, I think the loss of freedom of movement is one of the biggest tragedies in all this. I'm 31, and, for people my age, having a friend or colleagues from Romania or Holland or Spain is about as glamorous as having a friend from Scotland or Cornwall. That's incredible.

For what it's worth, I myself always considered myself to be something of a left eurosceptic, not far off Corbyn's Bennite position on it - hell, I'm in a significant minority in the EU, let alone the UK, in that I value freedom of movement more than I value the other pillars of the single market. (I am radically anti-borders in general and would love to be inside Schengen.) But I voted remain, because the basis for the referendum, and the people who would be in charge of enacting it, were so clearly... the worst. They suck so much. And the biggest part of that, for me, is that they are just so unwilling to compromise, to see outside of their narrow view of reality, and accept that sometimes you have to cooperate. It shouldn't be a surprise that these people can't do it at home when they couldn't do it away.

A cannier government might have made Brexit a "success" of sorts, but I don't think that the British system as it stands is capable of producing a government of that calibre. I'm not sure whether that's ever going to happen again in the foreseeable future, either, seeing as how much this process has gummed up the wheels of democracy.

Actually, could Brexit ever be successful, on the terms we're talking here - returning things to a purely economic relationship, without the political checks and balances? I think that there might have been something that could have been done early on, before invoking Article 50, if the UK had understood that cooperation and trust was such a powerful tool. It could have involved speaking with Switzerland, with Turkey, Norway, Iceland, and other countries on the periphery of the EU; offer them the chance to form a new bloc, and offer the EU the chance to get the political integration some of its members so desire, but using the leverage of a united ex-EU, in-customs union bloc, working together, as leverage against being the "rule-taker" that the British political class hates so much. But it would still require working with other countries, and not being this fantasy, independent, swashbuckling "open Britain" that lives and thrives and dies alone. It would also be the "two-speed" Europe that the real europhiles say can't happen, but then Brexit wasn't supposed to happen, so who knows?

Ah, I'm depressed again now. Can't wait to see how this shitshow continues when we start the whole WA rejection process all over again next week. Bleh.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That is magnificent Proslo.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Top post.

ION, I still despise Kate Hoey. Horrible old boot.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1093902106069745664

 

[Penk Wolf]

Over 40,000 shares.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Yes, of course that is EXACTLY what it is about. Fucking cretin.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Yes, of course that is EXACTLY what it is about. Fucking cretin.

It surprises me more how many people shared it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Way more than that shared that drivel about the Lisbon Treaty a few weeks ago. Basically every point on there was either a complete lie or a flagrant and wilful misinterpretation.

 

[Kenny]

I see Farage is poised with a new Party. If leaving the EU is delayed the Brexit Party will stand at the MEP elections later this year

 

[jdrodrigues]

Just playing devil's advocate and I know as we currently stand it's pie in the sky stuff, but if a country didn't have to give £8.9b to countries such as Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, etc. and we had a free trade deal similar to CETA, where they also have control of their borders (Yes, I know the argument that we already do) and laws and legislation wasn't suggested to us by other nations then surely most Countries would want that rather than being part of the EU?

I am not going into as much as detail as Proslo, his assessment is much more comprehensive and better than mine.

Replying to your question, you are right, if we do not take into account all the political, economic, financial, cultural and other benefits of belonging to a super-national structure which congregate most of the European countries.

Such benefits may be:
Political: While every member-state saw a decrease in its own sovereignty, the Union brought a much needed stability to a region which was the stage for two gigantic and brutal wars, the cold war and the reintegration of the eastern countries following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This Union gives voice to 28 different countries, poor and rich, allowing for a mutual growth, development and, above all, peace in our time.

Financial: Lower taxes for international workers and businesses, with the prohibition of multi-taxation (although I'm not really sure if this is due to the EU or bi/multi-lateral treaties), free transportation of goods all across the Union, without any customs fees (and not just reduced like CETA). The lack of conversion rates between multiple currencies, the UK doesn't benefit of this one, so I kept it separate.

Economic: European investment schemes and funds going into projects and state departments that would not, otherwise, receive any fund. These funds may be tapped for all sectors, from agricultural to education, construction transportation and justice and entrepreneurship. I've lost count of how many infrastructures have been built in Portugal alone funded by EU money.

Social / educational: The lack of "real" borders was one of the the cornerstone for the huge development of transportation of people across the entire European. We have cheap transportation, buses, trains or planes, for a multitude of countries. This not only contributes to the development of multi-cultural society but also to the erosion of racism, xenophobia and others across the whole spectrum of society. Studying, through the ERASMUS program, and working abroad is not dependent on your wealth or birth but open to everyone.

Other indirect benefits: The UK, as one of the most enticing and rich countries of the EU, benefits greatly from skilled labour force on which it doesn't spend a dime to "develop". Highly skilled nurses, doctors, engineers, architects, etc; migrate from poorer countries, who spent a lot of money to educate these people, to richer countries in search of a better life. While this may still happen with our without the EU, my bet is that it would be a lot lot less than it is due to the increase of requirements to enter and work.

While its true that not all of this can be translated to € or £, most of it can. The EU provides a better opportunity to the common citizen, in everything.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I see Farage is poised with a new Party. If leaving the EU is delayed the Brexit Party will stand at the MEP elections later this year

The "we want to leave your club" party, wants to get voted into the club. The irony.

 

[Kenny]

The "we want to leave your club" party, wants to get voted into the club. The irony.

Beat them from the inside like UKIP did


(Beat them means get paid for doing fuck all and get a nice pension as well)

 

[Penk Wolf]

I am not going into as much as detail as Proslo, his assessment is much more comprehensive and better than mine.

Replying to your question, you are right, if we do not take into account all the political, economic, financial, cultural and other benefits of belonging to a super-national structure which congregate most of the European countries.

Such benefits may be:
Political: While every member-state saw a decrease in its own sovereignty, the Union brought a much needed stability to a region which was the stage for two gigantic and brutal wars, the cold war and the reintegration of the eastern countries following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This Union gives voice to 28 different countries, poor and rich, allowing for a mutual growth, development and, above all, peace in our time.

Financial: Lower taxes for international workers and businesses, with the prohibition of multi-taxation (although I'm not really sure if this is due to the EU or bi/multi-lateral treaties), free transportation of goods all across the Union, without any customs fees (and not just reduced like CETA). The lack of conversion rates between multiple currencies, the UK doesn't benefit of this one, so I kept it separate.

Economic: European investment schemes and funds going into projects and state departments that would not, otherwise, receive any fund. These funds may be tapped for all sectors, from agricultural to education, construction transportation and justice and entrepreneurship. I've lost count of how many infrastructures have been built in Portugal alone funded by EU money.

Social / educational: The lack of "real" borders was one of the the cornerstone for the huge development of transportation of people across the entire European. We have cheap transportation, buses, trains or planes, for a multitude of countries. This not only contributes to the development of multi-cultural society but also to the erosion of racism, xenophobia and others across the whole spectrum of society. Studying, through the ERASMUS program, and working abroad is not dependent on your wealth or birth but open to everyone.

Other indirect benefits: The UK, as one of the most enticing and rich countries of the EU, benefits greatly from skilled labour force on which it doesn't spend a dime to "develop". Highly skilled nurses, doctors, engineers, architects, etc; migrate from poorer countries, who spent a lot of money to educate these people, to richer countries in search of a better life. While this may still happen with our without the EU, my bet is that it would be a lot lot less than it is due to the increase of requirements to enter and work.

While its true that not all of this can be translated to € or £, most of it can. The EU provides a better opportunity to the common citizen, in everything.

I can see how that benefits the less wealthy countries in the EU, but I really don’t see how it benefits the UK, especially as we have a different currency and are not landlocked.

On each individual one:

Political: I’m not sure the Countries that were part of the EU prior to opening up in 2004 would ever be getting close to war. Remember only nearly half of the Countries only joined 15 years ago, which in my opinion is when most of the problems (Or disdain) started.

Financial: I think this is just something that would have happen regardless of the EU. There are plenty of free trade deals and I’m sure European countries would have agreed these deals regardless of the bloc. In fact I’d say the deals would have had better compromises at individual country level than they would in a bloc. It may be protectionism, but I’m not sure that is always a bad thing.

Economic: Again, for me this is only good for Countries that are net benefactors from EU money. I’m also not sure huge subsidies for certain sectors is a good thing as you may as well just put it into the public sector.

Social/Education: I don’t disagree.

Other indirect benefits: I’m not sure this is necessarily due to the EU been formed as it happens with people from Non EU countries and also happened in the EU before 1992.