BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[wrobel]

From outside it approximately looks like that EU=USSR-Gulag :)

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I have no time for light bulb fiats from Brussels, however:

Harsh (cold blue 4500k) light LEDs are so five years ago.
2700 Kelvin WarmWhite - 2 Pack
https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2700k-60-watt-equal-led-light-bulbs/
Lasts 10-20 times longer than, and uses 1/5 the energy of incandecents.

Please don't tempt me to derail this EU topic by exploding about light bulbs! I'll just say that even with "warm white" I find colours look odd under LED light, and they don't do a good 100W yet. I watch out for developments and try things out but so far the results are far inferior to what I already had. In a hot climate, I'm sure that it's good to push energy-efficient lighting, but here it seems completely spurious. Anyway, if leaving the EU let's us have some pearl-style incandescent bulbs back, that would at least be a small comfort.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The newspapers are pointing out that Boris Johnson is in a bit of a trap now, in that he can't answer obvious questions such as for example whether he thinks we should remain part of the EEA (European Economic Area), because either way he will alienate a large share of the Vote Leave supporters!

 

[Jonathan Scott]

I see that Boris Johnson has backed out of standing for the vacant position of UK PM.

 

[mister mishka]

Yeah, oddly enough that is not so shocking news. I am more curious to see how the UK will pull themselves out of this one, though this fracture will seem to lead to further fractures within the UK itself. I hope the people who lead / voted for Brexit take the responisibility, talk is cheap.

 

[rootone]

That Teresa May seems to be about the only potential brexit PM with at least some integrity and consistency, although I don't like her as such.
I can see here an argument for a new general election to endorse a government with a clear mandate, (or not) to exit the EU.
Trouble is the tories are divided on the issue, and the opposition is in meltdown.
It could come down to new parties having to be formed, one focused on UKIP voters and the more right wing Tories urging for out, versus a center/left/green alliance with a 'stay in' pledge.

One thing that's become clear to me is that many of the out voters in the referendum actually believed that 'Brexit' meant expulsion of 'foreigners' from the UK, most of whom are legitimate residents and are not there for any reason connected to the EU.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I see that Boris Johnson has backed out of standing for the vacant position of UK PM.

Not a surprise Gove stabbing him in the back or did he ask for it .What fun when thieves fall out.Gove is now insisting that he won't be pushed or intimidated into signing Article 50 if he is elected would seem he has the same problem as Boris it's probably just taking a little more time to sink in.Teresa May as the likely candidate now George has also backed out.Heseltine is really annoyed at Boris abandoning the field after creating the mess in the first place who can blame him.
Shame on him double shame on Gove.

 

[Buckleymanor]

am i hearing a theme in the halls of power ?

Governing would sure be a lot easier if we pesky commoners would just stay out of it and leave things to our betters, eh ?

The sentiment is nothing new.EDIT: Quotes above are not what the PF members said themselves, but from quotes cited by them. .
I used the 'quote' button so it'd be easy to get back to the relavent posts.
No intent to mis-represent what anybody actually said. I hope nobody took offense.

Just I'm amazed at the political scrambling for position and media frenzy . .

It is not so much a question of leaving things to our betters but a question of preventing self harm.Irrespective of who won or lost if you saw someone about to injure themselves you would try and prevent it no matter what democracy dictated.
I am an atheist but if I had the vote to nail JC to the cross I would not .
Just because it's democracy it does not mean it is automatically right.
Pesky commoners get it wrong as much as our betters.

 

[jim hardy]

ust because it's democracy it does not mean it is automatically right.

That's the genius of the US constitution
the balance they built in between "we the people" and "our betters" whom we democratically elect to run the republic

Our "betters " run the republic
but we pick them, even if to some offices indirectly ,
and the machinery of government is made cumbersome enough that should we botch the choice they can do only limited damage over an election cycle.

So a mistake by either the commoners or by the betters isn't irrecoverable .

Monday when the results were fresh
the reaction in "better" circles was disbelief and denial .
indicating they'd become disconnected from the man on the street
and misjudged the public mood
That was the point of my post .

Average folks want government that's fair but firm.
Even Machiavelli knew that...

A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and confident; for, with a very few examples, he will be more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence spring murders and rapine; for these as a rule injure the whole community,

Not bad for 1513, eh ?

What little news i see of recent events in Europe suggests their perhaps excessively tender-hearted asylum policy is re-teaching Machiavelli.
Riots ? No-Go Zones? Roving gangs ?

Danish Minister for Cultural Affairs Brian Mikkelsen ...
...stated that, "In Denmark we have seen the appearance of a parallel society in which minorities practice their own medieval values and undemocratic views,

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de&k=87376

"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," [Merkel] said prior to her election. "Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots."

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de&k=87376

All things in moderation, tolerance included. There have to be boundaries . Good fences make good neighbors.
Brexit is the commoners' calling for good fences .

A decision is like a golf swing - its rightness or wrongness is determined by the follow through.
Let's see how they do with it.

old jim

 

[mister mishka]

I think "turning ones back" to the issue at hand, doesn't actually solve the problem. Reality is hard to face sometimes, especially when the root of the issue is more of a global one than nationalistic.

 

[rootone]

The backstabbing has already begun as regards who will be a new PM willing to actually implement article 50, and sound convincing about it.
There is that Gove guy, but personally I would rather vote for my local second-hand car dealer, (tho a new general election is apparently not on the table).
If the answer is Gove then it must have been a comedic trick question (imo).

As UK born now living in another EU country I am in fact an economic migrant, Probably I can get some kind of dual citizenship though.

 

[Vanadium 50]

.Irrespective of who won or lost if you saw someone about to injure themselves you would try and prevent it no matter what democracy dictated.

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

If this was a general election, or one side won by a considerable margin, then I would completely agree with the sentiment. But it wasn't, it was a non-binding advisory referendum in which the margin was very close. If people didn't understand it was non-binding before then they have no one to blame but themselves rather than wailing about this being a breach of democracy.

It's rather moot though anyway, in all likelihood once the hot potato finally lands in someone's lap A50 will be called. If it's not, well then the government gets even more unstable.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Technically sure, the referendum was nonbinding. But if you hold a referendum, and then ignore the outcome, it sends the message to the populace that their opinion matters, but only if it's the right opinion.

Buckleymanor was right to call this anti-democratic. This is the same anti-democratic thread that runs through Progressivism (both instances). It replaces governmental legitimacy via the consent of the governed with government by the smartest - to protect the masses from the consequences of their own bad ideas. This is the benevolent technocracy I mentioned before. And for those who think that government by the smartest sounds like a pretty good idea, history shows it is quickly replaced by government by the strongest.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The only thing that's clear from the outcome is that a majority of the UK population are unhappy about the EU, and that includes many like myself who voted Remain.
As the specific meaning of the "Leave" option was never clarified, Boris Johnson was able to "have his cake and eat it" by interpreting it in different ways for different purposes, despite the fact that such interpretations are mutually exclusive.
The problem is that to put "Leave" into practice, a specific interpretation is needed, but I'm certain that no interpretation can be found for which there would be majority support in the UK, especially as Scotland and Northern Ireland are against any form of Leave.
So basically many people have democratically voted for imaginary fictitious options, and the real options are far less attractive.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Technically sure, the referendum was nonbinding. But if you hold a referendum, and then ignore the outcome, it sends the message to the populace that their opinion matters, but only if it's the right opinion.

I don't agree, though I acknowledge many feel that way. I would agree if the vote wasn't so close and if it wasn't advisory. As it stands it's up to the elected representatives to make a decision on a very important, close referendum that has turned into a political Charlie Foxtrot in the following week.

 

[mheslep]

I don't agree, though I acknowledge many feel that way. I would agree if the vote wasn't so close and if it wasn't advisory. As it stands it's up to the elected representatives to make a decision on a very important, close referendum that has turned into a political Charlie Foxtrot in the following week.

The logic of that argument is that close outcomes in a referendum have no consequences, that they are no different from an extensive poll.

A referendum serves the purpose of addressing a single issue in a representative democracy, where representatives are chosen based on traditional positions across a range of issues. To ignore the referendum, forces the electorate to increasingly choose representation that they agree with on the single issue (as has been ongoing in the UK) but disagree with on the whole, leading to a country led by those with whom the majority is in large disagreement across major parties.

 

[mheslep]

... I'm certain that no interpretation can be found for which there would be majority support in the UK, especially as Scotland and Northern Ireland are against any form of Leave...

Youre certain, post referendum, that there is no majority support in the UK for leaving the EU via Article 50?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Youre certain, post referendum, that there is no majority support in the UK for leaving the EU via Article 50?

No, I'm saying that there's no specific realistic target position (for example whether still single market or not) which would satisfy such a majority.

It appears that what most people wanted when they voted was not what was on the ballot paper but rather what was promised by Vote Leave, e.g. to stop paying the EU fees and have more money for the NHS, to prevent "unwanted" immigration and so on. They did not vote for example to bring back border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but that might well be a consequence of their vote (although a united Ireland might be an interesting alternative).

 

[Buckleymanor]

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

I would agree with you but it's not that clear cut you can't say it's a clear mandate a couple of percentage points is no reason to bristle caution is required.

 

[mheslep]

Next up:

...Although the Netherlands is a founder EU member and currently holds the EU presidency, a June poll showed 54 per cent of people want a referendum on EU membership, while 48 per cent would vote to leave and 45 per cent to remain.

...A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38 per cent of France had a favourable view of the EU, marking an astonishing negative shift in attitudes towards Brussels since the 2009 financial crisis

...a survey found that 48 per cent of Italians would opt to leave the bloc if given the opportunity of a British-style referendum.

...A recent poll found that 40 per cent of Austrians want an “Auxit” referendum. A majority of 53 per cent said if there was a referendum, they would vote to remain.

Unsurprisingly, and revealingly:

...A recent poll for Stern magazine found that just 17 per cent of Germans would vote to leave in a referendum, while 79 per cent would vote to remain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...vote-raises-fears-of-a-tsunami-of-eu-members/

CNBC, from IPSOS poll.

 

[rootone]

Gets more intriguing all the time.
Let's suppose France and Netherlands had referendums with a similar result to UK, (indecisive but narrowly opposed to EU membership.).
So then what, EU v2.0, with UK, France and NL, as core group of the new one?, which of neccesity would be joined eventually by Ireland.
Italy is a different story, but it's not surprising just because of where they are geographically, Greece and Portugal, Spain too. (EU, v3.0?)

 

[mheslep]

A smaller group of couple countries with closer and longer historical ties probably was the place to start in the first place, and then only for trade.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

The Government has rejected a call for a second referendum on European Union membership in a petition that was signed by more than 4.1 million people following the Brexit vote.

It was the most-signed Government petition since the process was introduced in 2011.

However in an official reply, the Foreign Office said 33 million people had had their say and “the decision must be respected”.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

Which decision must be respected thirty tears ago we had the referendum to join the EU and they have not respected the say of the voters from that.
It is a joke!

 

[mheslep]

After 30 more years then have another go.

 

[russ_watters]

Which decision must be respected thirty tears ago we had the referendum to join the EU and they have not respected the say of the voters from that.
It is a joke!

Seriously? 30 years is enough time for the situation to change. It certainly is no a do-over vote like what people want now.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Why 30 why not 49 or 1 year the contractual obligations towards the voters are not worth the paper they are wrote on.
Lots of people will have built there business around the EU only to have them removed because of infighting within the Conservatives.
So what is the point in doing the same under the new Brexit rules only to have them removed again after yet another referendum.
You don't or won't get the point there is no point in having a referendum in the first place if you don't stick to the first result.
Not the second or third each result after the first destabilises the country and it's economy if you can not trust a referendum what can you.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Seriously? 30 years is enough time for the situation to change. It certainly is no a do-over vote like what people want now.

That is the point the situation has changed and most business within GB are more involved within the EU and never wanted a referendum in the first place.
The only reason there was one was because the Conservatives were frightened of defects to UKIP which would cause a split within the party so to appease the rebels one was offered.
The sad fact now is there is a bigger and far worse split which is likely to cause more harm, the electorate.

 

[russ_watters]

That is the point the situation has changed...

What, specifically, has changed?

...and most business within GB are more involved within the EU and never wanted a referendum in the first place.

That's do-over talk, not "the situation has changed". The vote said what it said. It represents the will of the people, to the level of which it is capable, whether the outcome pleases the people who lost or not.

 

[rootone]

One of the big arguments at the moment is that after the result the 'exit' campaigners pretty much openly admitted that much of the basis of the case was fraudulent.
There is no extra money available for the health service, There are no expulsions of 'foreigners' taking place, the rest of the world is not falling over themselves to get preferential trade deals with the UK, and guess what else, the old empire countries are not begging for the return of British dominion over them.
Still the result is what it is. and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[mheslep]

Why 30 why not 49 or 1 year the contractual obligations towards the voters are not worth the paper they are wrote on.

You use the word contractual to mean the people of the UK were bound to the EU forever, and bound by the choices of people 30 years ago, as if the Article 50 exit procedure did not exist. You know, I know, and everyone else here knows this not the case so why not give it a rest?

Lots of people will have built there business around the EU only to have them removed because of infighting within the Conservatives.

The 'because' is 17 million votes to leave. The EU did enable new business, and lots of people in the UK had their businesses or jobs destroyed by EU rules.

...You don't or won't get the point there is no point in having a referendum in the first place if you don't stick to the first result

Right, then it's back to the devine right of kings. Off to the Tower with the dissent.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the big arguments at the moment is that after the result the 'exit' campaigners pretty much openly admitted that much of the basis of the case was fraudulent...

...and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Yes, that's pretty much par for the course in politics, unfortunately.

 

[Astronuc]

One potential consequence of Britain leaving the EU, if Scotland breaks from the UK.

Britain Needs a New Place to Park Its Nukes
The U.K.’s entire nuclear arsenal lives on four submarines in Scotland. And it’s got nowhere to put them if Scotland bolts.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/10/britain-needs-a-new-place-to-park-its-nukes/Finger on the nuclear button
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7758000/7758347.stm

Nuclear deterrence - "If Britain is substantially destroyed by a nuclear strike and the prime minister is killed, the captain of the submarine on patrol (one is always out there, armed and ready to strike) will open his safe, take out the prime minister's instructions, and act on them."

 

[mheslep]

There is no extra money available for the health service,

No extra money at all, or that some in Exit exaggerated the amount (as you do in in reverse here) It's widely understood some 250 million euros a week goes from the UK to EU control. That will end. Surely some can go to NHS instead.

There are no expulsions of 'foreigners' taking place, the rest of the world is not falling over themselves to get preferential trade deals with the UK, and guess what else, the old empire countries are not begging for the return of British dominion over them.
Still the result is what it is. and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I've not seen those claims from Exit leadership. New kinds of expulsions were promised? Is that all hyperbole, or do you have an example reference?