Britain Sets Date for EU Referendum -- Brexit

[Derek 2.0]

Farage is already being elbowed out by his own side:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/furious-nigel-farage-to-take-control-of-britains-exit-from-the-e/

... and there is video of their 350million-pound NHS lie.... (not sure if he is the good guy or otherwise since he has been "ostracized" ???) but the hangover continues seriously.

UKIP is done........they won, they have no reason for being any longer.

[August1991]

I haven't read through all of this long thread but I flipped and saw this:

Quite an interesting role reversal going on. Normally it seems like the pro-business trade-loving right are the ones supporting trade pacts, while progressives oppose globalization. But on the Brexit, it seems like the right have abandoned their enthusiasm for trade, while the progressives are decrying it as a great tragedy. I assume that this unusual shift has come about because the right want less immigration while the progressives are heartbroken at the prospect of fewer brown-people entering Britain.

Personally, my cynicism is telling me that anything that the big banks and big financial institutions and big businesses and establishment politicians all support is probably not in the best interests of Average Joe.

-k

Reversal?

The Left/Progressives are in power in the West. Reagan may have defeated the Soviet Union; Thatcher may have defeated the socialists, but make no mistake: we still have to defeat the Left/Progressives in the culture war.

As was said several decades ago, the only Marxists left in the world teach in American universities.

=====

On Brexit - my three thoughts:

1. The UK was never part of the euro so leaving Europe is not a currency thing.

2. Norway is not a member of the EU. (Think: The UK has simply chosen to do what rich, progressive Norway has always done.)

3. The British have always opposed any hegemony/tyranny in Europe: the English sided with Prussia against France/Austria in the mid 18th century, they sided with everyone against Napoleon in the early 1800s and they sided with the French against Germany in the 20th century.

The EU was another modern form of European tyranny. Is it any wonder the English are opposed?

Edited June 25, 2016 by August1991

[betsy]

...

By the way, what is all this about the EU "dictating" immigration policy anyway?

I just read the EU website concerning immigration policy and it says this: ( http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/who-does-what/more-information/explaining-the-rules-why-are-there-eu-rules-and-national-rules_en#EUImmRules )

Exceptions to EU-wide rules

EU-wide immigration rules generally apply in 24 out of the EU’s 27 countries. The following exceptions apply:

Denmark does not apply EU-wide rules which relate to immigration, visa and asylum policies.

Ireland and the United Kingdom choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies.

...

...

...

National Immigration Rules

Each EU country alone decides:

• The total number of migrants that can be admitted to the country to look for work;
• All final decisions on migrant applications;
• Rules on long-term visas – stays for periods longer than three months; and
• Conditions to obtain residence and work permits when no EU-wide rules have been adopted.

Yes, indeed.

EU Immigration Rules

Since 1999, the EU has been developing a

common immigration policy for Europe.

EU countries have agreed that the EU should have common, or EU-wide, immigration and visa rules that will be valid all across the EU, in the 27 EU countries.

There are two types of EU-wide rules:

Regulations and decisions: These are legislative acts of the EU which are immediately applicable as law in all EU countries. There is no need for a change in national law.

Directives: Each EU country must incorporate directives into its national law by a certain deadline. While directives are binding as to the results to be achieved, individual countries can choose the form and methods.

Most EU-wide immigration rules come from directives.

http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/who-does-what/more-information/explaining-the-rules-why-are-there-eu-rules-and-national-rules_en#EUImmRules

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

UKIP is done........they won, they have no reason for being any longer.

The referendum means nothing, Parliament must negotiate the exit from the European Union. Who is going to do that? As I said earlier, the government will fall and UKIP will need to run on a platform of leaving the union because no other party will.

Its not over until the fat lady sings.

[TimG]

I think if you took the racist votes out, it would have been 'remain'.

And if you took the votes by young people who were brainwashed into believing voting for leave was 'racist' you would have a larger leave majority. Your premise is silly.

[Argus]

Hmmm, interesting given that the people with the most amount of years left to work wanted to Remain while the retired age plus overwhelmingly wanted to Exit.

But sure, immigrant job thieves sounds like a great boogeyman. Those retirees should be shivering in their cardigans.

It's not job thieves, it's being overrun by foreigners with FAR different cultural values than the current inhabitants, and who are likely not going to change those values any time soon.

Britain has already experienced a number of race riots from its 'Muslim newcomers' as well as things like child sex exploitation rings on a massive scale.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Argus

[TimG]

Don't shoot the messenger. It was Farage who said 52% is unfinished business.

He is right. 52% is too low for a final word on a such a topic. We will see how the EU reacts. If they decide that creating a new 'associate membership' category that allows for free trade but no shared law making bodies then another referendum would be appropriate.

[Argus]

Quite an interesting role reversal going on. Normally it seems like the pro-business trade-loving right are the ones supporting trade pacts, while progressives oppose globalization. But on the Brexit, it seems like the right have abandoned their enthusiasm for trade, while the progressives are decrying it as a great tragedy. I assume that this unusual shift has come about because the right want less immigration while the progressives are heartbroken at the prospect of fewer brown-people entering Britain.

Personally, my cynicism is telling me that anything that the big banks and big financial institutions and big businesses and establishment politicians all support is probably not in the best interests of Average Joe.

-k

I came to that conclusion some years back. I used to be a 'business supporting conservative' but all that outsourcing and offshoresourcing and cutting back on wages and benefits changed my mind some years ago. What is good for General Motors is NO LONGER necessarily good for America (or Canada). I don't trust corporate Canada in any way, shape or form. I do generally support freeer trade, but there are limits. And frankly, if we wanted to improve the economy by tens of billions with freeer trade we would be opening up trade between the provinces before worrying about trade with other countries.

The Left can't stand the notion of differentiating between foreigners and your own people, and on the topic of immigration they're knee-jerk reactionaries in support of open immigration - which they would not be were the immigrants not 'brown people'. They see their support as a kind of noblesse oblige, a tight faced, smiling benediction on the world's downtrodden (even if it hurts Canada's own downtrodden by lowering their wages).

[August1991]

Generally, progressives oppose globalization and free-trade deals. I feel that they've taken the opposite approach in this instance because they were sold the idea that a vote against Brexit is a vote against racism and xenophobia. My feeling is that progressives are angry about this not because Britain left a massive free trade bloc, but because they believe that racism and xenophobia won, and multiculturalism lost.

Conversely, those who generally champion big banks and big business yet supported Brexit are unconcerned with the economic fallout from this for pretty much the same reason. They believe this is the first victory in a battle to keep Europe European.

-k

From Naomi Klein to Jeremy Corbyn, 21st century "progresssives/leftists" don't know what they think. They oppose globalization and free trade but they also oppose racism and xenophobia. They want LGBTQ rights but also respect of Muslim women to wear a veil.

On the "conservative/right" however (denigrated as extremist), we simply want slow change and respect for individual choice. We suspect that letting one person (concentration of power, however enlightened or wise) make decisions for many people is not a good, sustainable system.

Edited June 25, 2016 by August1991

[Argus]

We've already heard how 63% of the eligible voters didn't vote for leave. These people who make these statements forget to mention that even a larger number of voters didn't vote for remain either. People who lose a referendum tend to include the non-voters on their side and then claim to have a majority.

If you didn't bother to vote then you are a nonentity and don't matter.

[Icebound]

=====

On Brexit - my three thoughts:

2. Norway is not a member of the EU. (Think: The UK has simply chosen to do what rich, progressive Norway has always done.)

Maybe.

Norway is not part of the EU, but the wiki page on the subject is interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

They are not part of the EU only because .... like in Britain.... it is too much of a hot political potato to ever be brought up in a referendum.

Only they realize it and didn't bother. Instead, they get around it by implementing a good bit of the EU legislation, anyway... and by participating in the EAA and EFTA to get market access ... and all that costs them a few million Euro,

Now I don't know exactly what EU legislation they accept and what they can safely get away WITHOUT..... but it is not a totally free ride without the EU to have become a "rich progressive Norway".

Especially:

quote:

This arrangement facilitates free movement of goods, capital, services and people between the EU and EFTA members including Norway.^[5] Free movement of goods means freedom from customs fees, where however food and beverage is excluded (because those are subsidised by the EU). Free movement of people means freedom of movement for workers between Norway and EU, and that Norway is a part of the Schengen Area.^[5]

^:unquote

^{... All that, but they have no vote.}

[-TSS-]

The reaction to the outcome of this referendum has been very unexceptional to say the least. Of course defeat and disappointment hurts but all manners seem to have been flushed down the toilet.

The social media is full of whinging how old people who will die soon anyway voted for leave and ignorant country-people who have never ventured outside their little cosy villages did likewise.

I honestly haven't observed any gloating from the winning side in the style of "Hahaa suckers you lost". That would hardly have been imaginable had the leave lost. Such was the derision towards the leave-side in the run-up of the vote and certainty of a victory.

[TimG]

The social media is full of whinging how old people who will die soon anyway voted for leave and ignorant country-people who have never ventured outside their little cosy villages did likewise.

The irony is many of these people will turn conservative as they get older and realize that most of the world does not share their values and "good fences" are the best way to entire cordial relations with neighbors.

[Icebound]

I honestly haven't observed any gloating from the winning side in the style of "Hahaa suckers you lost". That would hardly have been imaginable had the leave lost. Such was the derision towards the leave-side in the run-up of the vote and certainty of a victory.

Oh, that is very well explained here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

quote:

Now they have won and what Kipling said of the demagogues of his age applies to Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.

I could not dig; I dared not rob:

Therefore I lied to please the mob.

Now all my lies are proved untrue

And I must face the men I slew.

What tale shall serve me here among

Mine angry and defrauded young?

:unquote

In order to gloat, they had to win something. They just realized that they won a bag of ashes.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/boris-johnson-looked-sick-because-he-has-no-idea-how-fix-national-disaster-hes-bequeathed-us-1567413

Boris Johnson looked sick - because he has no idea how to fix the national disaster he's bequeathed us

...

[TimG]

The reaction to the outcome of this referendum has been very unexceptional to say the least. Of course defeat and disappointment hurts but all manners seem to have been flushed down the toilet

This comment to the whiny G&M editorial should be mandatory reading for anyone who thinks leave voters were motivated by 'xenophobia': http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/06/context-2.html

That's the history. Now imagine if, on the basis of this result, subsequent Canadian governments, without putting it their party platforms, slowly but surely ceded more and more political and not economic, sovereignty to the United States. All the while denying they were doing so. As the process went on, it accelerated, and soon Canadians found their Supreme Court overruled by the US Supreme Court and that certain laws passed by the US Congress, lacking support in Canada, nonetheless became applicable to Canada. Pretty soon you'd start to question what the end destiny of this process was, only to be told by your elected representatives not to worry, political union with the United States was not on the cards.

Edited June 25, 2016 by TimG

[August1991]

I came to that conclusion some years back. I used to be a 'business supporting conservative' but all that outsourcing and offshoresourcing and cutting back on wages and benefits changed my mind some years ago. What is good for General Motors is NO LONGER necessarily good for America (or Canada). I don't trust corporate Canada in any way, shape or form. I do generally support freeer trade, but there are limits. And frankly, if we wanted to improve the economy by tens of billions with freeer trade we would be opening up trade between the provinces before worrying about trade with other countries.

Argus, I fundamentally - very fundamentally - disagree. And I think my disagreement is related to this thread.

Free trade is one thing; free movement of capital another; and finally, open borders still another.

=====

To me, "free trade" simply means letting the sun into my kitchen on a winter morning. I no longer need Hydro-Quebec; I can turn off the lights.

If I can buy clothes produced elsewhere, that's like letting Hydro-Quebec direct its electricity at noon elsewhere - to something more useful. (To me, buying Canadian-made clothes rather than foreign made clothes is like closing the windows and turning on the lights at noon to use local Hydro-Quebec energy rather than the free energy of the sun.)

Edited June 25, 2016 by August1991

[TimG]

If I can buy clothes produced elsewhere, that's like letting Hydro-Quebec direct its electricity elsewhere - to something more useful.

The point you are missing is you need to have a way to generate income to pay for that clothing. The only way to do that is to provide goods or services that others want to buy from you. If 'free trade' means that no one buys stuff from you then you can't afford the clothing. Edited June 25, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

The point you are missing is you need to have a way to generate income to pay for that clothing. The only way to do that is to provide goods or services that others want to buy from you. If 'free trade' means that no one buys stuff from you then you can't afford the clothing.

People were originally told "Don't worry. It's only the crappy, low paying, repetitive factory jobs that will be outsourced to Asia." Then it was "Don't worry, it's only call center jobs, and who cares about those anyway?" Then came "Well, yes, its cheaper to make car parts in Mexico, and we need to be 'competitive', you know." and then "Well, you see, Indians can do software for a fraction of what we pay you, so it only makes sense." Then came "Well, we can't afford to pay you a decent pension or benefits." Then. "It just makes more sense for us to not be locked into hiring full-time workers". Then, even more galling, "Uhm, we couldn't find local miners/helicopter pilots/software engineers/fast food workers" in Canada so we have to bring them in from the Philippines/China/India."

There comes a point when the only people making decent money with decent benefits are the few with elite skills -- and of course, public servants. Everyone else is doing without, and we're all supposed to admire the 'job creators' and the political and media elites who tell us this is for our own good.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Argus

[August1991]

The point you are missing is you need to have a way to generate income to pay for that clothing. The only way to do that is to provide goods or services that others want to buy from you. If 'free trade' means that no one buys stuff from you then you can't afford the clothing.

Missing Point? Howabout "trade" with the Sun?

Sunlight is free. It shines on my face - and I have nothing to pay or give in return. Is that bad?

====

TimG, you would make people work/generate income to produce light rather than receive free light/heat from the Sun.

According to you TimG, the Sun (China, Japan, Mexico) is bad because it sends us light/energy at no/low cost and we have fewer jobs. Is Sunlight bad because it eliminates jobs?

Edited June 25, 2016 by August1991

[TimG]

TimG, you would make people work to produce light rather receive free light/heat from the sun.

Your argument makes no sense. You were talking about clothing and electricity. Sunlight is irrelevant.

[BC_chick]

Ok, to frame this in less controversial terms:

Generally, progressives oppose globalization and free-trade deals. I feel that they've taken the opposite approach in this instance because they were sold the idea that a vote against Brexit is a vote against racism and xenophobia. My feeling is that progressives are angry about this not because Britain left a massive free trade bloc, but because they believe that racism and xenophobia won, and multiculturalism lost.

-k

Still caca, but at least worded in a way that is palatable enough for a response.

No, this has nothing to do with love of immigrants. While immigration played a big role on the Exit side, you'll find that the biggest concern for the Remain side was financial reasons.

$2 trillion dollars were wiped off the world markets yesterday. There is uncertainty everywhere. Separatist sentiments will certainly be incited around the world.

You're dead wrong about why 'progressives' are angry.

[kactus]

Still caca, but at least worded in a way that is palatable enough for a response.

No, this has nothing to do with love of immigrants. While immigration played a big role on the Exit side, you'll find that the biggest concern for the Remain side was financial reasons.

$2 trillion dollars were wiped off the world markets yesterday. There is uncertainty everywhere. Separatist sentiments will certainly be incited around the world.

You're dead wrong about why 'progressives' are angry.

Absolutely spot on! 100% agree with that sentiment...For those who think the next tory leader will have an easy job to clean up this mess you better think twice! Edited June 25, 2016 by kactus

[jacee]

The reaction to the outcome of this referendum has been very unexceptional to say the least. Of course defeat and disappointment hurts but all manners seem to have been flushed down the toilet.

The social media is full of whinging how old people who will die soon anyway voted for leave and ignorant country-people who have never ventured outside their little cosy villages did likewise.

I honestly haven't observed any gloating from the winning side in the style of "Hahaa suckers you lost". That would hardly have been imaginable had the leave lost. Such was the derision towards the leave-side in the run-up of the vote and certainty of a victory.

I think there are two reasons why they're not gloating or celebrating their win:

1 They didn't really want to win, just protest.

2 They are horrified by the immediate and disastrous effects of their 'win'.

.

[jacee]

And if you took the votes by young people who were brainwashed into believing voting for leave was 'racist' you would have a larger leave majority. Your premise is silly.

Spectacular contortions, TimG ... and nonsense.

Young people voted for the present world they know - EU.

Old people voted for the past world they remember - pre-EU.

.

Edited June 25, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

Nonsense.

You don't show that silly premise was not silly by introducing a completely unrelated premise.