BREXIT - leave or remain?

[Mehrunes]

If Scotland left the UK tomorrow, then the rest of the UK could veto their accession into the EU. If Scotland left the UK after the UK left the EU... they might still get vetoed - but this time by Spain, which would seek to establish a precedent for its own secessionist movements. Madrid does NOT want the Catalonians in particular thinking they can sail into the EU if they secede from Spain, so in its own interests it could very well block Scottish membership.

Scotland's independence alone would create a precedent for the Catalonians. Same with Kosovo. Kosovo didn't work out well for Catalonian's so far. But then again Spain didn't recognize them. They did recognize Montenegro though, and despite it gaining independence through referendum like Scotland would, it didn't change anything for them either. Vetoing or not vetoing Scotland's accession to EU is inconsequential here. If Spain doesn't veto them there's nothing that will force them to accept Catalonia.

Don't mention such arguments in earshot of someone from the PRC. Taiwan is still "officially" part of China, and Beijing gets grumpy when people go around recognising Taiwan as an independent state and all that.

Also, see my point re Spain above.

Different things. Both Taiwan and PRC make claim to the entirety of China. That is unlikely to be the case for Scotland or Catalonia.

Fixed that for you.

Yeah, no, the current government of Poland are authoritarian dipshits. Being thought as traitors by them (especially since that remark was made in relation to Polish opposition requesting EU to intervene when the government was breaking the constitution) is in no way a mark of naivety.

Of course! If, by the standards of the new party-in-charge, I am considered as a bad Pole, then... 'sall good, because I'm quite probably just a good human being.

You say you're a good human being, but something tells me you don't believe in the Putin-Tusk conspiracy to kill the president of the millennium with a metal birch.

[Slant]

There are 5 countries that have veto power in the UN, and how is that a democracy? No sure the UK can more easily strike trade deals with alot less leverage, that sounds admirable.

Well, technically, if the treaties themselves (the fundament of the EU construct) are in question, it has to happen unanimously. Thus, you could say it's a veto for everyone. But, considering the repercussions and scope of such a change, that is understandable. It's one of the few cases where you need everyone in the same boat. It could affect the way legislation is passed, how MEPs are elected and so on, so a unanimous decision makes sense there to provide stability to the whole system. It will have to be changed eventually, because it's ineffective. But for the moment, it's a stable construct.

[Mayhem]

Well, technically, if the treaties themselves (the fundament of the EU construct) are in question, it has to happen unanimously. Thus, you could say it's a veto for everyone. But, considering the repercussions and scope of such a change, that is understandable. It's one of the few cases where you need everyone in the same boat. It could affect the way legislation is passed, how MEPs are elected and so on, so a unanimous decision makes sense there to provide stability to the whole system. It will have to be changed eventually, because it's ineffective. But for the moment, it's a stable construct.

The treaties are somewhat comparable to a constitution in this case, am i right?

[Slant]

The Germans on this forum mostly don't seem to want the UK to stay in, they advise the UK to stay in.
Some of them would gladly see the back of the UK they are just honest enough to state their opinion that the UK would be better of staying, because that is what you do with allies: Tell give them honest advice.

I'm torn myself. I want the UK to stay in, because professionally that makes sense for me as I work in a company dealing with the UK on a daily basis. But personally? Some of the people on this forum convinced me that it would probably be best to let them go sooner rather than later. If only so this godawful bickering can finally stop. I'm sick and tired of all the shittalking about the EU by people that don't even understand the EU nor have any motivation to actually research the stuff they're bullshitting about.

[Mehrunes]

Makes you wonder how Iceland, Norway et al survive. I heard Switzerland's basically a third-world hellhole, right?

Oh wait.

Norway and Switzerland survive by having such deals with EU where EU says jump and they ask how high. Those few aspects of EU that do not apply to them are totally worth not having a voice inside of it.

You do realise all these places want to trade with us, right? We're something like the 4th-5th biggest economy in the world, with trading links all over the world, etc etc.

I guess that's why so many countries expressed interest in post-Brexit UK. Wait...

I'm not arguing that...? I'm clarifying what DRIBBLES was saying.

Except what Dribbles was saying was pure bullshit. They painted UK not getting its way in situations put to vote as UK not having a voice.

[Slant]

The treaties are somewhat comparable to a constitution in this case, am i right?

The EU is a supranational entity, thus not a country, thus not a constitution. They went to a lot of pains to avoid the word constitution. But yes, they come as close to a constitution as you'll get without actually becoming a country. One part of the reason why it's not a constitution is in fact the difficulties in creating the treaties or changing them. A democratic constituion needs to incorporate the possibility for change. Something the current treaties are making really difficult. Constitutional changes are meant to be difficult to provide stability, but unanimousity? That's unheard of as far as I know. Heck, even the US constitution (that is the amendments) can be changed more easily than this.

[Macaquerie]

Is the UK economy really big enough that the rest of the EU would balk at fucking them over just to set an example?

[Mayhem]

The EU is a supranational entity, thus not a country, thus not a constitution. They went to a lot of pains to avoid the word constitution. But yes, they come as close to a constitution as you'll get without actually becoming a country. One part of the reason why it's not a constitution is in fact the difficulties in creating the treaties or changing them. A democratic constituion needs to incorporate the possibility for change. Something the current treaties are making really difficult. Constitutional changes are meant to be difficult to provide stability, but unanimousity? That's unheard of as far as I know. Heck, even the US constitution (that is the amendments) can be changed more easily than this.

Yeah, that´s what i meant.

[Deleted]

The Remainiacs are ill informed and ought to watch an unbiased and factual account of why we should leave.

You can find it here. https://www.brexitthemovie.com/

*cough* Unbiased? Even the description says it was made to inspire people to leave, which from the offset means it's coming from a place of bias. It was funded by people that want out. Fundamentally, you have been hoodwinked. Brush up on the definition of 'Factual' and 'Unbiased'. If you're going to call people ill-informed, you'd better not be projecting; because it'll bite you on the arse. Dribble, indeed.

The EU isn't perfect, but it can and will change, as all things do.

1. Martin Durkin: the man who made this film on behalf of the undemocratic Corporatists who will profit from a Brexit, made other works, that similarly shun objectivity in favour of propaganda. Climate Change denial effort, 'Against Nature' was broadcast on Channel 4, and was so misleading, C4 had to publicly apologize for it after TV watchdogs investigated claims of misleading interviewees, and editing them in such a way that supported the narrative thrust of the show, rather than being truthful. Feel free to check his Wikipedia page, especially the references at the bottom of the page that link to reports of these events. Not a good track record, and a huge factor in why this isn't being broadcast on TV (as a few have wondered). He's a shill.

2. The Joys of Deregulation: Corporatists are all for that. More money for them, less for us. It caused the 2008 financial crash which in turn rocked the euro zone, forcing the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) to borrow heavily. Lets scapegoat the EU, in the hope they can be fully free of those pesky checks and balances! Remember the bank bail outs recently? It cost every person in the UK £400 to sort that out, causing austerity, and cuts to vital public services. That was also thanks to banking deregulation. Mr Northern Rock, interviewed here, then has the audacity to say deregulation is awesome. Must think we were born yesterday!

3. Evoking the glory of post war recovery to serve the agenda: forgetting that a) we fought a war against an old enemy that scapegoated immigrants for economic problems, like half the country seems to be doing now, and b) Churchill was very much for a "united states of Europe". So much double-think involved in the leave campaign.

4. The lack of addressing the immigration issue: This is an odd omission (that leavers feel proud of), but there's a good reason for that. There is a spectrum on the leave side, starting from those with economic / democratic concerns who aren't at all racist, through to those who have worries about it but again, quite accepting of foreign people generally right through to the EDL and Britain first. Those passionate gentlemen in the leave corner have already made their minds up to leave, so it's moot. This film would be harmed if it turned into some EDL porn, turning off more accepting people. The Leave campaign is handling that side of things. This film is working in tandem with 'Leave' to swing undecided voters and serve as confirmation bias. That is, people generally seek out news sources that already align with their views, so their views remain unchallenged. I'm the opposite. I seek out contrary sources in order to challenge my views, and to expose the weakness in the counter argument.

5. Kickstarter:A nice touch to make it feel like a grass roots movement. It's not. I suspect, and I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, that the kick-starter money wasn't necessary for the funding of the film, given the wealth of the vested interests. Billionaires are funding this. Have no illusions.

6. Farage was a commodities broker: He knows how to play the system, but the EU makes that very difficult for him and his friends in high places.

7. We don't vote in council members? By proxy we do, as MPs that represent us here vote on this on our behalf. Pressure them if you don't like what's happening.

8. We'll give up our power within the EU with lobbying by big business (with no political accountability) from without. Anti-democratic.

9. Pointing to Norway. Per Capita, Norway pays as much to the EU as we do, but they don't have a seat there. Yet Leavers are claiming this is a plus. The tax in Scandinavia is very high, and has plenty of socialist aspects. More Doublethink.

10. Laws still have to go through parliament here before being passed: It's not as cut and dry as it's made out to be.

11. Vetoing new member states: It has to be unanimous. Turkey (no offense meant to Turks, sincerely) aren't even close to meeting the criteria for membership.

Too many more flaws to mention really. Feel free to refute with objective facts.

TL;DR - The "documentary" should be called 'Brexit: The Mindheist'.

EDIT: formatting.

[Deleted]

Everyone should remember that the EU was created partly to stop the absolute horror of world war II ever happening again. Only naïve fools think war cannot happen again in Europe. Part of the reason it cannot currently happen is that we are beautifully bound together in economic self interest, by, you guessed it, the EU.

When the leave side have Europe's single most significant enemy on their team, Vladimir Putin, you should look very very closely at what they are advocating and what it means for European security.

Voting leave would be a collective act of stupidity on a scale not seen before in recent world history.

Agreed to a point, except historically the UK has never seen itself in any kind of (politically) united Europe. Even Churchill was absolute about that, despite being keen on such a European project for others anyway. They absolutely viewed themselves as outside of the most serious squabbles in Europe, even with some historical evidence to the contrary.

It brings me to mind an episode of the series, "Yes Minister":



What they don't realize is while their views, or at least the views of their non-Millennial generations, may have stayed the same, the world has dramatically changed around them. They need the EU far more than the EU needs them.

[dribbles]

Meanwhile back in the real world, as 4/5 of the last polls indicate a Brexit is more likely than not, the FTSE 100 roars upwards again to within 10% of its 12 month high. Signs of optimism, confidence and a British boom from investors in our top industries no doubt for when Brexit comes to pass.

What were those remainiac economists thinking tsk tsk

[Teleros]

The same Iceland, Norway, Switzerland etc which have to obey pretty much every EU law to get access to the EU markets. But have pretty much no say in the situation and have to pay in.

/headdesk

Every country has to obey EU regulations to have access to EU markets, just like every country has to obey US regulations to have access to the US market.

That's just normal, everyday trade.

They want to trade with us yes. But they want to trade with us on THEIR terms.

As do we. So what?

The UK has a lot it can offer foreign countries if they're willing to negotiate a fairly reasonable deal with us, and there's zero evidence to suggest they'd twirl their villainous moustaches and screw us over.

Countries like USA, China, Japan will set the terms. EU will set the terms, if African Union started to do more merging they will set the terms. India will set the terms. Soon South America will be adding their own version of a union and they will be setting the terms.

You're forgetting the WTO, and IRL examples like the Faroe Isles, Singapore, et al.

Not to mention all those Europeans who will want to trade with us (ohai German car manufacturers) and who are smart enough to realise that slapping a 50% tariff on UK goods whilst demanding we have a 0% tariff on theirs is (a) insane, (b) unworkable, and (c) will just result in them losing the UK market to Japanese or US car manufacturers who've bribed the right Congressmen to ensure a decent trade deal for the UK :P .

This whole UK is 5th richest country in the world is a non issue. While not bullshit it is unimportant. For one the UK is going to slip down the list and not because we in the UK start fucking up but because the rest of the world is modernizing. Countries with higher population and better resources will easily jump over us.

Is the rest of the world modernising though? I mean, the Middle East and Africa aren't, unless by "modernising" you mean "dictators have smart phones now". Central & South America probably won't, if history's any guide. That leaves Asia.

Also, resources are generally a non-issue when set against an educated, innovative population. Oil-dependent countries are at the mercy of the markets, as OPEC is finding out the hard way, but Hong Kong and Singapore have gone from backwaters to super-rich thanks to their people. Central & South America are really resource rich, yet it is the USA that has always dominated the New World, despite a smaller population, a shorter history, and far (FAR) fewer slaves (for those who buy into the "US wealth built on slavery" myth).

Hell we might not even be 5th right now. That might actually be France who we swap with on a regular basis. That means not one but two EU countries are richer than us. But in many ways that economies are looked at we're not in the top 10 or the top 20.

The key thing is that we're a very rich country, and thus other countries have a lot to gain from selling us stuff. Therefore its in their interests to trade with us.

[psyquest]

some people dont realise that the process of leaving the EU has never been tested.

All treaties that were negociated as part of the EU will have to be renogociated, if the UK is not part of the EU it will have no say whatsoever.
Workers for instance have some rights that cannot be removed by members states. The UK leaving means that you are at the merci of whatever number 10 comes up with.

All goods will cost more. Travel will cost more.

I just hope brexit wins so that we can really see the impact and who was right.

[Mayhem]

Meanwhile back in the real world, as 4/5 of the last polls indicate a Brexit is more likely than not, the FTSE 100 roars upwards again to within 10% of its 12 month high. Signs of optimism, confidence and a British boom from investors in our top industries no doubt for when Brexit comes to pass.

What were those remainiac economists thinking tsk tsk

So it roars upwards to being still less worth than 12 months ago, woohooo party!

[Slant]

/headdesk

Every country has to obey EU regulations to have access to EU markets, just like every country has to obey US regulations to have access to the US market.

[snipped some blabla that I'm too lazy to refute]

The key thing is that we're a very rich country, and thus other countries have a lot to gain from selling us stuff. Therefore its in their interests to trade with us.

The scale of adaption of Norway and Iceland to EU regulation far surpasses that of the EU to US or vice versa. You're painting a mighty rosy picture and delude yourself there. Britain will either fully comply with EU regulations, no exceptions, or they won't sell here. Simple as that. And trust me, the EU won't give two fucks about Britain's regulations. It'll be your import industry doing all the stuff. See, it doesn't make sense to adapt anything to Britain's standards because your market is so fucking small that it'd drive the price up to insane amounts on top of customs adding to it. You get the wheel on the right side, don't expect much more adaption than that.

You're not very rich compared to the US or the EU, that is the entire point of having the EU. We have nothing to gain that we don't already have. The higher customs? UK citizens will pay for those. And we'll simply not import British stuff, because honestly... why would we? What do you produce that we don't produce better already?

[GrinnersGrin]

Once more an eloquent masterpiece in presenting a well-rounded and thought out argument pro Brexit. Please, listen to this man and save the average intelligence of EU citizens by removing him from our pool.

LOL Implying I'm Eurabian.

Enjoy your Orwellian hellhole then

[dribbles]

Enjoy your Orwellian hellhole then

A perfect description of the current European Union.

[Teleros]

The scale of adaption of Norway and Iceland to EU regulation far surpasses that of the EU to US or vice versa.

Because the EU regulates everything.

You're painting a mighty rosy picture and delude yourself there. Britain will either fully comply with EU regulations, no exceptions, or they won't sell here. Simple as that.

That's fine. They play by our rules when they come over here, and vice versa*.

See, it doesn't make sense to adapt anything to Britain's standards

What standards are those, exactly? The ones we share with umpteen other countries?

"Mwahaha, we're going to sell you Brits... wait for it... A4 sized paper!"

Scary stuff.

You're not very rich compared to the US or the EU, that is the entire point of having the EU.

Bwuh? The EU is not nearly the same as the USA. The latter is a single sovereign nation, the former isn't (yet).

And we'll simply not import British stuff, because honestly... why would we? What do you produce that we don't produce better already?

3/10 for trolling.

For actual argumentation, go look up some facts on the UK economy, and in particular UK manufacturing .

+ + +

*Except they don't in your mad world, because you insist on thinking of economics as a zero-sum game, because apparently economic growth doesn't exist ...

[Mehrunes]

A perfect description of the current European Union.

That means a lot coming from someone who repeatedly exposed their ignorance on anything related to the EU.

[dribbles]

That means a lot coming from someone who repeatedly exposed their ignorance on anything related to the EU.

The only thing I exposed were facts, rather than the hyperbole coming from some insane, remaniac, German sympathizers who thankfully don't even get to vote.