The Brexit aftermath thread

[Slant]

I may have to put this more into context. Naturally if you have a government they are the ones dealing with the day to day decisions. It makes absolute sense to want to put people in charge of that so everyone else can go about their day. What I am talking about is the extent to which that governing body gets to decide how you live your life, what is done with your labor and property, what beliefs and rights to expression you are allowed to have etc. Having the power to funnel your wealth into certain programs, your person into certain wars or military acts, and your rights as an individual of certain beliefs or race is what enabled the nazi government to do what it did. Why does giving the government that much power to decide those things not frighten you the same way populism frightens you?

I don't think human rights conflict with each other to be clear, I think that certain attempts to better protect human rights can and do often infringe on other human rights in the process of overextending to try to ensure another can't be infringed. Having a right to live doesn't conflict with someone else's right to live. It just so happens that many violations are justified trying to ensure another right even though they aren't explicitly at odds like limiting what kinds of guns you can own because they might allow you to potentially infringe on someone else's human rights. For example, most of Europe violates article 19 of the UN declaration of human rights detailing the human right of freedom of opinion and expression across all media. They do this in the name of protecting other rights that are not actually infringed by the applied instances of that human right. There is a difference between saying you can't infringe these rights/punishing you for doing so, and trying to limit your other rights that enable you the freedom to POTENTIALLY violate or fail to uphold someone else's right.

Setting that aside, what about decisions that don't violate human rights that you just disagree with? If they start implementing policies all of germany dislikes but they aren't violating human rights, what then? Do you just accept it and live with it because that's what the EU wants?

And that is commendable to accept and bear criticism for the EU. I'm surprised you feel that there is not a single legitimate argument against remaining in the EU though. That is a strong position to hold to the extent that just one is enough for you to agree with it. What would qualify as legitimate? Does it have to be a human rights violation or just something in which the british don't like that the EU tries to make them do?

I agree that at this point it seems the UK just has to rip the bandaid off and leave. Most of the UK seems to agree with that. It's the politicians who are the most afraid and reluctant to agree to a no deal brexit. But that isn't really important to my interest in the whole situation. What is of interest to me is the EU perspective on this. It seems to me that the UK almost unanimously either wants to remain in the EU or have a brexit that concretely exits them from he EU while maintaining as much free trade and cooperation as possible with the EU. On the other side the EU seems more bitter and wants the UK to suffer and be worse off to the extent that they aren't negotiating in good faith or making concessions that benefit both sides because that would be conceding a more favorable outcome to the UK than the EU wants to allow them. Do you feel that the EU could be acting more fairly or trying to work more with the UK as they leave and if so why do you think they aren't doing that? If you don't think that is the case, what things do you think that would benefit the UK, if any, are not included in the May deal that should be and whose fault do you think that is?

Not sure what you mean about Governments intruding in people's lives. It doesn't in the EU, nor does it in Germany. What they do is implement common standards, because that makes sense. I wouldn't know why you would wish a power plug that's exactly 5x5cm, in pink and has a prime number of contacts, but good luck finding a hole in the wall for that. See, it is a stupid example, but it illustrates why standardisation makes sense. It's absolutely reasonable to have someone set a common standard so your architect knows what plumbing you need, so your builders know which plumbing to install and you to know which appliances to buy, because they're all compatible with the installed plumbing.

Again, just an example. Germany and the EU affect our daily lives a lot. There is no contention in that. Brexit is the best example of just how deep Government penetrates us as we go about our daily lives. But so far all I see is outlier episodes where that was objectively negative. I don't want to go into everything you mention, because that would blow this post out of proportion. But while I do have a healthy amount of scepticism, I keep coming back to the same decision that what the Government does, both Berlin and Brussels, is - generally speaking - a net positive for everyone. By a wide margin, too. Do I want to pay extra tax in Germany simply because I live in the West? No, I don't. But I acknowledge that we have made a promise to the East Germans to take care of them when we reunited. And that's an obligation that I'm willing to pay for. We have to make up for 40 years of communist mismanagement. Paying a few extra Euros a month for 20 years, it's a lot of change, but it's also not going to kill me.

About human rights, they do conflict with each other all the time. I don't see a reason to beat about the bush on that one. Everyone who understands how society works is aware of it. And we're okay with it, too. These conflicts are usually mundane and minor and can be overcome with common courtesy. In fact, I argue that 99% of human right infringements are of such nature. As for the rest, the criminal code and if nothing else, the constitutional court takes care of that.

The EU and its member states don't follow the UN human right charta. And From what you say, I would have to politely suggest that you read up on what free expression (aka, free speech) is about. I can help you with that, but you're on the wrong track here.

Violations that don't violate my human rights have to be dealt with politically. Basically, what you're saying is if I don't agree with a certain law. Simple disagreement. They like trash bins to be green, I want them to be red. The remedy for that is either for me to point out that green trash bins are a safety hazard because they blend in with our wonderfully green city, or I have to get political and get someone to suggest such a law change on my behalf, influence enough people to get it changed... support the people with my vote if they change the bin to be red or basiclaly just go into politics myself and try to convince enough people that red bins are worth putting me on the council for. If that doesn't happen, if I can achieve none of that, then I guess trash bins will continue to be green and beyond my hurt feelings, nothing will affect me overly much.

I don't care if it's Brussels or Berlin making the changes, btw. As far as I'm concerned, I am a European citizen. Brussels is as much my "Capital" aka, place where law comes from, as is Berlin. No, again this has nothing to do with guilt or me despising my own nation. Quite the opposite, we're part of the strongest economic bloc on the planet, people listen to us instead of ignoring us, because we're evil Germany. For once in the past 100 years, we're the good guys. Yeah, let's keep that going, feels bloody awesome.

Well, there are legit arguments for leaving the EU. One of which would be "cos I wanna", which IMO is absolutely a valid argument and pretty undefeatable. I wouldn't take it into account for any decision, but it's valid. However, I have asked for 800 odd pages for people to give me an actual argument, intelligent, sensible, reasonable, with sources to support their case... to not simply remain in the EU. I'm still waiting. If you feel adventurous, you could be the first. Fair warning, though, I will tear it apart mercilessly, because if there's something I hate, it's bullshit arguments ripped from blogshitpages. You wouldn't believe how many times people copy arguments from websites verbatim and those arguments are based on outdated circumstances. Just look at the copyright directive thread. They're arguing against a state of the directive that was one year ago. After which they have made massive changes to the directive, directly addressing the same exact concerns they bring up again now to hate on a directive they clearly haven't read.

About the EU's perspective... The premisse here is that the EU is viewing this as a legal process. There is no actual negotiation to be done, because the context is well defined. UK is in, UK will be out. Anything between that is really just the dissolution of existing relationships and making sure people don't literally die in the process. As lawyers usually tend to do, the EU is super pragmatic about all of this. They say, this is our procedure, this is the schedule that we suggest, this is the timeline and these are the things we cannot possibly change. One of those things, incidentally, is the four freedoms in the single market. Why? Because if they gave up on that, the EU might as well dissolve. The single market depends on those four freedoms, without them all in tact, in one group together and depending on each other, there is no single market. The four freedoms are what make the single market the single market.

Now, if you don't agree that's fine. What's important is that the EU believes this to be a legal fact. And they act upon it. Along comes the UK and says "Yeah, we'd like this one freedom, not the other ones they don't tickle our fancy." and the EU goes "Eh, nope." The UK goes "Pretty please?" and the EU goes "Uh, still no." and this goes on for a dozen times or so. Tell me, how do you tell "bitterness" from someone that's simply not moving from their core belief?

What you see here, on this forum, is individual citizens expressing their frustration. I'm one of those and have said a lot of things that shouldn't be taken too seriously. However, that isn't the official stance of the EU. It can't be. If it was, I'd tell Brussels to grow the fuck up and act like adults. It's enough that I'm pissed, I don't pay politicians to be pissed for me. And we need a good relationship with the UK for two reasons: 1. I'm fairly certain they'll come back eventually... that won't happen if we turn them into mortal enemies forever. 2. Whether we like it or not, the UK is at our coast. Will always be. And my personal reason 3. The UK is family. They may hate that idea, but they are. They'll always be. And as is normal in families, there's sometimes arguments that shouldn't be had, harsh words and perhaps even a year of silence or so. But in the end, family is family. They will be back. Our ties are way, way too strong and deep. Think of the ties they constantly implore to the US. Well, they're there. But if the UK and the US are cousins, then we're brothers. You may like the cousin more, but your brother is the one that whacked you on the head when you were little. There are things that a baby nation like the US can't have. Two thousand years of shared history is one of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw, finally... the House of Lords. I was curious about procedural differences.



- - - Updated - - -

Complete lack of faith in ((the motives of) the sources of) any of the information regarding Brexit? Like I voted remain but I don't *know* if that was the best thing to do it was just my gut feeling; for all I *know* the EU might be about to collapse or fragment and staying in would have cost us more than leaving without any deal in place, not just financially but in terms of... I don't know what description would translate best but 'morale', 'spirit', 'happiness'. I don't *think* so, I hope that's come across from my posts; but I can't honestly say I *know*.

Oh, if that means I fall into the stupid stupid I guess I set myself up for it. But the discussion might have been more easily held in good faith years back if people had been more willing to admit that they probably "don't know" a lot about the topic.

See, I think that's one of the big fallacies of the British side. The possibility of the EU crumbling is based on the silly notion that the EU is a community of convenience. That doesn't quite hit the mark for me. You'll have to look up Zweckgemeinschaft. I get the feeling that the British think the EU is a club of elderly gentlemen coming together to basically rip everyone else on this planet off and make vast amounts of money in the process.

That couldn't be further from the truth. But if you assume that to be the case, then naturally, such a club would dissolve the second the profits don't outweigh the investments. That's the British point of view. Yes, it's just as despicable as it sounds, greedy, egoist. But that's the only reasonable explanation for people like Dribs to even exist.

Why is it wrong? Because in the EU, profit is not the main goal. Peace is the main goal. Profit and trade is really the carrot, not the donkey itself. As long as the British don't realise that the EU can't break apart, because it's an ideological partnership that would actually rather lose money than risk peace, even a little bit (as seen in Greece), they will not understand the EU and should not be in the EU. A clash like this had to happen at some point, hindsight tells me. This was inevitable. This process is ugly, dirty and pisses everyone off, but in the long run, it's the healthy process of removing an obstructionist force to this idea.

And yes, I am appallled and surprised at the British viewpoint. Just 5 years ago I'd have thought them to be one of the first to defend Europe. It's shocking what we're learning about what the British really think about the outside world. Absolutely shocking. The contempt some of them have for other nations... disgraceful. Not at all how British want to be seen.

[AeneasBK]

<paragprahs>

I'm sorry if you got the impression from my post that I thought it (EU collapse) was even a likely possibility. I was only trying to point out my ignorance; and that the same ignorance is going to be shared by lots (most?) people; a summer or so ago there was strong political tension being reported about Spain fragmenting iirc; and the Greece debt issue was stil pretty contentious, as well as the countries further East and their handling of the migrant crisis. Key words: being reported. So who's to know *for sure* how strong the Union really is? Who's to say that the important figures of this year won't be irrelevant or even in jail this time next year for circumstances that are completely unknown at this point in time. Sorry if that all sounds very wishy washy "Anything could happen, man" but the results of the last few years have been surprising to not just the ignorant ones.

I'm absolutely ideologically pro-Europe, but ideologies based on "intuition" are at best irrelevant and worst dangerous, as an example voting Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; a decision made entirely out of some ignorant ideological "We need a new flavour of politician because I don't trust anyone who's name I recognise form the last decade and by many accounts this guy seems to be very genuine" feeling - and how that's turned out in practice. The reason I posted what I did is because LeGin seemed pissed off that anyone at this stage could answer a poll with "I don't know" and I was pointing out that if people were really honest with themselves, probably a much greater proportion should be ticking that box.

But I might just be projecting my own ignorance on the general public and maybe they are all, in fact, super clued up. I doubt it though.

[LeGin Tufnel]

But the discussion might have been more easily held in good faith years back if people had been more willing to admit that they probably "don't know" a lot about the topic.

Yep, I accept this completely. That's where I'm coming from: I was a slightly unconvinced, sceptical remainer three years ago. Then I read a lot, admitted I was wrong on multiple issues, and now I'm practically a federalist (not quite, but…)

You saw that my comment was directed at the img Nymrohd linked ("If Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th, what do you think should happen?"), not the one I linked?

There’s a distinction between: what do you think should happen in the event of x and what do you think will happen in the event of y.

My point is: how long do people need to make up their minds as to what they think should happen if a deal is not agreed by 12 April.

Sorry if I've misinterpreted.

[AeneasBK]

You saw that my comment was directed at the img Nymrohd linked ("If Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th, what do you think should happen?"), not the one I linked?

I did not, I thought it refered to the poll regarding "NO deal" being a good outcome. That said I'd still make the same argument.

[Slant]

I'm sorry if you got the impression from my post that I thought it (EU collapse) was even a likely possibility. I was only trying to point out my ignorance; and that the same ignorance is going to be shared by lots (most?) people; a summer or so ago there was strong political tension being reported about Spain fragmenting iirc; and the Greece debt issue was stil pretty contentious, as well as the countries further East and their handling of the migrant crisis. Key words: being reported. So who's to know *for sure* how strong the Union really is? Who's to say that the important figures of this year won't be irrelevant or even in jail this time next year for circumstances that are completely unknown at this point in time. Sorry if that all sounds very wishy washy "Anything could happen, man" but the results of the last few years have been surprising to not just the ignorant ones.

I'm absolutely ideologically pro-Europe, but ideologies based on "intuition" are at best irrelevant and worst dangerous, as an example voting Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; a decision made entirely out of some ignorant ideological "We need a new flavour of politician because I don't trust anyone who's name I recognise form the last decade and by many accounts this guy seems to be very genuine" feeling - and how that's turned out in practice. The reason I posted what I did is because LeGin seemed pissed off that anyone at this stage could answer a poll with "I don't know" and I was pointing out that if people were really honest with themselves, probably a much greater proportion should be ticking that box.

But I might just be projecting my own ignorance on the general public and maybe they are all, in fact, super clued up. I doubt it though.

You may not think it's possible, but Dribs is living testiment that there are people who do think it's possible. And that you don't think it's possible because you believe (gut feeling) it to be unlikely is only small consolation, to be honest. It would be a much better assurance if you understood why it's unlikely, too. No offense, I expect everyone to know exactly what they're talking about but most people aren't as interested as I am in these matters. And that's my shortcoming, I suppose.

Times change, but the way things go, the EU is heading towards being stronger rather than weaker once we get out of it. Perhaps that is part of the eagerness to end this. The EU has a plan for the time after. As far as the EU is concerned, Brexit is a done deal. With or without a deal, the EU isn't invested into either options terribly much. Want to remain? Sure, why not, if you don't get in our way. But other than that? The EU is very much looking forward already.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the UK.

Edit: Btw, I have to point out that the House of Lords debate is much more enjoyable. Polite discussion instead of yelling over each other. Other observation: I think it's funny they refer to each other as "the other place". Seen that in both houses now haha.

[LeGin Tufnel]

I did not, I thought it refered to the poll regarding "NO deal" being a good outcome. That said I'd still make the same argument.

Well, I disagree. Much of this is easily quantifiable and has already occurred. It's no longer a case of speculation, we can look at data that exists.

E.g., https://www.ft.com/content/dfafc806-...4-408cfba4327c

I agree with you in so much as, yep, I'm not an economist and I'm reliant on how a journalist chooses to place this data in front of me. But who would I choose to believe? The FT or the Sun - I'll go with the FT, thanks.

Then, in relation to what might happen.

If people, for example, want to sacrifice Welsh lamb industry (92% of exports go to EU countries) overnight to tariffs of 55% (or whatever it is) in the name of 'muh soverignty' so be it. But they can't claim they weren't warned.

Fundamentally, I do not think it is difficult to have formulated an opinion on this by now.

Edit...

And I reckon this is the crux of the whole issue: the UK is now having the sort of informed debate we should have had prior to the referendum.

[Twdft]

Peace is the main goal.

qft. France and Germany had a major war every 30 years for hundreds of years, I don't think anyone can imagine both countries doing so tomorrow. That's the real benefit of the EU.

And anyone wondering about that just look at the Irish and what many think inevitable if there is a border again. Makes me sad.

[Huehuecoyotl]

How most of Britain now wants a NO DEAL Brexit

And in todays edition of "dribbles doesn't understand....." we present "dribbles doesn't understand what 'most' means".

Or to put it another way; if 100% is all of something, what percentage would you have to get to for it to be "most"? Your clue is: It's not 44%.

[Slant]

And I reckon this is the crux of the whole issue: the UK is now having the sort of informed debate we should have had prior to the referendum.

And it's hard to have an informed debate on a monumental subject as this within two weeks. Your Parliament is boiling at maximum pressure, but I have little hopes they can avert the worst outcome.

[dribbles]

And in todays edition of "dribbles doesn't understand....." we present "dribbles doesn't understand what 'most' means".

Or to put it another way; if 100% is all of something, what percentage would you have to get to for it to be "most"? Your clue is: It's not 44%.

Aha and in the interests of your further education the City of London represents 0.00001% of the geography of England. So it would be quite fair to say 99.9%, or nearly all, of England would prefer no deal to remain when I presented that map (them things that clearly represent geography). I was incorrect when saying most, should have said almost all.

[Flarelaine]

Oh I know how much you will miss us, but don't bank on us sticking around, as I have been saying for ages what the politicians want is not the same as what the population want and a new survey reported today says...How most of Britain now wants a NO DEAL Brexit


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...AL-Brexit.html

Ah, the Mail. That bastion of journalistic integrity and balanced research.

- - - Updated - - -

qft. France and Germany had a major war every 30 years for hundreds of years, I don't think anyone can imagine both countries doing so tomorrow. That's the real benefit of the EU.

I've read it somewhere that Western European history is really just Charlemagne's empire trying to put itself back together. The EU is the best shot so far. If you look at it, it was founded by the countries whose land actually made that empire up.

[Slant]

I've read it somewhere that Western European history is really just Charlemagne's empire trying to put itself back together. The EU is the best shot so far. If you look at it, it was founded by the countries whose land actually made that empire up.

That's just fake news. We really want to make the comeback possible for the Hungaro-Austrian Empire.

[Flarelaine]

That's just fake news. We really want to make the comeback possible for the Hungaro-Austrian Empire.

You have no idea how desirable it looks after 9 years of Orbán.

[Mayhem]

Aha and in the interests of your further education the City of London represents 0.00001% of the geography of England. So it would be quite fair to say 99.9%, or nearly all, of England would prefer no deal to remain when I presented that map (them things that clearly represent geography). I was incorrect when saying most, should have said almost all.

So is the UK going to send square meters of land to vote in the coming elections or how do uninhabited landmasses matter then?

- - - Updated - - -

You have no idea how desirable it looks after 9 years of Orbán.

Uhm, yeah, we have a bit of a nazi-problem right now, soooo hang in there before looking to your western brothers and sisters for betterment.

[Slant]

You have no idea how desirable it looks after 9 years of Orbán.

I actually don't have an idea. All I see from him is when he tries to piss off the EU some more. Which is bad in itself in my book, but I have no clue what's going on in Hungary domestically. As far as I'm concerned, Hungary is one of the places to visit next.

[Acidbaron]

I actually don't have an idea. All I see from him is when he tries to piss off the EU some more. Which is bad in itself in my book, but I have no clue what's going on in Hungary domestically. As far as I'm concerned, Hungary is one of the places to visit next.

Closing down schools and unies that don't match his political views and rethoric, in essence Orban got rid of communist rule only to install his own brand of fascism and authoritarian rule.

That's a very oversimplified summary of it. Honestly the Christian democrat fraction protected him far too long. And only became unwanted when he no longer complied with their wishes.

The problem is on EU level is that Hungary and Poland protect each other, and spread misinformation fueled by local rascim to make it all about immigration as a smoke screen.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Aha and in the interests of your further education the City of London represents 0.00001% of the geography of England. So it would be quite fair to say 99.9%, or nearly all, of England would prefer no deal to remain when I presented that map (them things that clearly represent geography). I was incorrect when saying most, should have said almost all.

So I'm guessing that "dribbles doesn't understand....democracy" needs to be my next edition. I reckon I can get an entire series out of this. I do love how your view on what consitutes an acceptable means of determining who wins changes in line with what your side needs. Are you one of those types that come up with new rules when you play games to try and avoid losing? You must love the way Trump plays golf.

[AeneasBK]

Well, I disagree. Much of this is easily quantifiable and has already occurred. It's no longer a case of speculation, we can look at data that exists.

E.g., https://www.ft.com/content/dfafc806-...4-408cfba4327c

I agree with you in so much as, yep, I'm not an economist and I'm reliant on how a journalist chooses to place this data in front of me.

But it's not as though it's been The Sun vs FT for this it's basically been "Everyone" vs "Everyone" which makes even pointing out more objective sources a gamble. Daily Mail vs Telegraph vs Times vs Guardian vs Independent vs Express vs Other etc. . I mean, maybe it's fair to say the FT will be completely objective but it's also going to talk about a lot of things that don't affect, or at least won't appear to affect, a lot of people. Your example of Welsh lamb exports being an example. Why do they care if Welsh farmers can't sell their stuff; its the EU directive on bendy bananas that has ruined their life (apparently ;p). Moreover why *should* they care? Because it makes the nation richer or poorer? Thats not what this debate was ever about.

And yes it's easy as pie to formulate 'an opinion' on this. But for most people I'm sure if you persue the "Why do you have this opinion" you're going to run up against the same biased sources on both sides of the argument, so the honest answer really is "I don't know", and I think it's a little pointless blaming people, or getting frustrated with them for being this ignorant (unless they're Dribbles, obviously); afterall we're meant to elect people to do this level of thinking for us.

[Slant]

But it's not as though it's been The Sun vs FT for this it's basically been "Everyone" vs "Everyone" which makes even pointing out more objective sources a gamble. Daily Mail vs Telegraph vs Times vs Guardian vs Independent vs Express vs Other etc. . I mean, maybe it's fair to say the FT will be completely objective but it's also going to talk about a lot of things that don't affect, or at least won't appear to affect, a lot of people. Your example of Welsh lamb exports being an example. Why do they care if Welsh farmers can't sell their stuff; its the EU directive on bendy bananas that has ruined their life (apparently ;p). Moreover why *should* they care? Because it makes the nation richer or poorer? Thats not what this debate was ever about.

And yes it's easy as pie to formulate 'an opinion' on this. But for most people I'm sure if you persue the "Why do you have this opinion" you're going to run up against the same biased sources on both sides of the argument, so the honest answer really is "I don't know", and I think it's a little pointless blaming people, or getting frustrated with them for being this ignorant (unless they're Dribbles, obviously); afterall we're meant to elect people to do this level of thinking for us.

What boggles my mind about the bananas is... even assuming they're right. They still taste the same. What's the fuss about? Does a bendy banana taste different than a straight banana? Riddle me this, Dribs. :P

[AeneasBK]

What boggles my mind about the bananas is... even assuming they're right. They still taste the same. What's the fuss about? Does a bendy banana taste different than a straight banana? Riddle me this, Dribs. :P

Jesus you'll summon Shalcker and we'll be on page 900 before we get back to the topic

What bothers me about the sovereignty argument was that it was only 6 years previously or w/e we had the alternative vote system referrendum, literally the chance of a lifetime to actually get a bit more control over Westminster, and two thirds of the country were like "naa we're fairly represented"... to then base part of the leave campaign on "We'll get more control" who'da thunk that would work