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

  • News
  • Thread starter sunrah
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Voting
In summary: Granted there might well be an economic difference between countries that never joined and one that leaves the EU even though Britain has its own currency. But I object to the... general panic about what might happen.
  • #176
mheslep said:
It seems to me the statement of EU fees were exaggerated to some 350 millions from actual 250 millions a week (IIRC), and the rest about uncontrolled immigration, self-government, less regulation was not in dispute. It's hardly a "fantasy" that Britain will soon keep many millions.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Basically, many on the Leave side picked combinations of "facts" based on mutually exclusive options to support their position. This is admittedly partly because the Leave side had many different positions themselves, but that doesn't really make it much better. After the referendum, various members of the Leave campaign blamed each other for misleading statements, but I don't recall ever having seen any attempt to produce a consistent description of what Leave would actually mean.

Firstly, as far as fees go, the 250 millions that's just the amount paid in, not the balance. It ignores the significant amounts that come back in general subsidies and more specific project aid from the EU, and any other costs of leaving, such as replacing EU-level services with UK ones.

Secondly, various people on the Leave side reassured businesses who were worried about the loss of free trade that the UK could follow the "Norway" model and remain in the European Economic Area, but Norway pays fees to be a member of that area at a rate nearly equivalent to the UK's current EU membership fees, so that would eliminate most of the savings on fees. Also, a lot of the EU regulations that people complain about are related to conditions which also apply for membership of the free market, not specifically the EU.

Thirdly, certain Leave supporters made a big fuss about "foreigners taking our British jobs", which they wanted to control. This is misleading to start with, as many of those jobs are ones for which insufficient British candidates could be found (including e.g. working in the NHS). However, they also reassured people that they would ensure that British people could still work and live in Europe (which is inconsistent, as free movement works both ways) and in any case, free movement is also part of the conditions for membership of the European Economic Area.

The UK already has a special exception from EU rules when it comes to border controls and immigration from outside the EU, although in the current refugee situation I feel that the UK should be working together with the EU to solve the EU-wide problem, not trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

I can't say I'm happy with inflexible and prescriptive "One size fits all" EU rules and regulations interfering with many aspects of our lives. I would be interested to know more about any practical realistic alternatives, and might even want to vote for one. However, no such option was available in the recent referendum.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #177
Another point is that the London City financial centrer which is the biggest income earner for the UK govt will no longer be able to do trade in Euros.
UK is not in the 'Eurozone', but at present the financial centre is authorized to trade in that currency without conversions and associated costs.
That will no longer be the case after the exit is completed, and much of that business will sensibly transfer to either Frankfurt or Paris exchanges.
To some extent Dublin also since no language complications there.
 
  • #178
I already agreed with those who have said that the referendum is not an appropriate procedure for this question. That there was no serious occasion for it, and that it was done for essentially trivial internal party political reasons, which have now had these disproportionate consequences. In many countries it would not have been constitutionally possible or under more rigorous conditions. There is as far as I know no serious constitutional jurisprudence or political philosophy behind this innovation of referendums. However in a populist way it is considered “democratic"

(This is not the only change towards a populist notion of “democracy" there has been in recent years in Britain. This same Cameron, wanting to get out of responsibilities re Syria* , has given Parliament a veto over practically any military action by Britain. And in the present isolationist mood of the British public that means there probably won't be any more British military actions. Another populist development is having given the mass Party in the country (both Conservative and Labour) a vote in the selection of party leader and thus in the choice of the person to be Prime Minister, previously a purely Parliamentary matter, getting a bit closer to the American system.)

Now we are where we are, there is no way back. The new Prime Minister has accepted the verdict of the referendum. It is not politically realistic to do otherwise. Sure, what this verdict really is going to mean, that is what relations with Europe will be worked out is still up in the air. It does not depend only what the government wants but of course also on the European counterparts. The easiest thing, and as I mentioned before the natural tendency of political and administrative inertia, is for as minimal change as possible.

And the ideas that have been argued above by a few posters that the referendum should be invalidated because of the various vices, disinformation, and so on, is not only not on politically but I do think it is actually wrong. On this basis instead of a referendum you would have a neverendum. On this basis every General Election result could be called into question. You get into who is to be the Judge and who should judge the Judges? The judges are the voters, the responsibility is theirs. All you can ask is that both sides have the opportunity to present their case and to criticize and question their opponents’. A Party cannot ask for an election result to be overturned on the grounds that their own campaign was inept!

For many of the questions there are no real "objective facts" independent of judgement (which people did call for also during the referendum, a kind of abdication of response their own responsibility for decision). And in the detail I don't believe that what Jonathan and others complain about really stands up. For example the claim that Britain was paying x billion pounds a year to the EU and this could be recovered and devoted to the National Health System if we no longer EU members. (For non-Brits I should explain that the NHS is now the national State Religion, and you cannot present yourself in an election campaign unless you promise to ringfence and devote extra billions to it, so this claim was bound to arise.) Then on the other side it was pointed out that the figure quoted as paid by Britain to the EU was just a one-way transfer, whereas the true net transfer was a figure of around half that. Then this was admitted, but it was riposted that one part of what was given back (the ‘Thatcher’ rebate) was precarious and constantly called into question , and that the rest of it was for projects decided by the EU, that is it was money that came back to us but we had no choice about how to spend it. And so on, there was free debate. You cannot have judges then investigating about whether everybody heard everything that everybody said. Oh and then there is the fact that the difference between x billion and half of x billion is quite meaningless to the average voter, and so whether it is one or the other doesn't matter anyway

And disinformation from the Remain side was just as common. Have you forgotten Project Fear? Was the figure that every family would lose £4,400 put around by Chancellor Osborne and objective fact or not? Or one allegation I found particularly objectionable that was put around by the Remain side – even an organ as respected as The Economist said it at least twice, was (playing into the abovementioned reverence for the NHS) the alarming allegation that we would no longer be able to recruit Doctors and nurses from Europe after Brexit. This is of course not true, and was deliberately ignoring what had been explicitly explained any number of times by the Brexit campaign.

A second referendum is not on, and not justified anyway. Later after negotiations and agreement, if the form of Brexit and the agreement with the EU turns out to be sufficiently different from what people thought they were voting for there could be a moral justification for one, and certainly there would be a clamour. In fact when an agreement happens I am sure there will be someone who calls it a betrayal. But then as the choice will be between that and nothing, I can't see even two years down the line a second referendum being practical politics.
  • This then helped Obama paint over his Red Line.
 
Last edited:
  • #179
I for one definitely don't want a rerun of the previous referendum, but the possible interpretations of "Leave" are so broad that the electorate needs to have a further say, for example on whether we stay in the European Economic Area (which implies continuing fees and requirements for freedom of movement), and whether we even have a right to continue with Brexit at all given the positions of Scotland and Northern Ireland and the effect which it would have on the union. That further say might for example be a general election.
 
  • #180
Boris Johnson has now been appointed as foreign secretary! We don't know whether to laugh or cry. I think most of the world is going for the "laugh" option.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #181
rootone said:
Another point is that the London City financial centrer which is the biggest income earner for the UK govt will no longer be able to do trade in Euros.
UK is not in the 'Eurozone', but at present the financial centre is authorized to trade in that currency without conversions and associated costs.
That will no longer be the case after the exit is completed, and much of that business will sensibly transfer to either Frankfurt or Paris exchanges.
To some extent Dublin also since no language complications there.
Or Singapore, Hongkong, New York, Amsterdam maybe. Or perhaps stay in London.
Nothing is stopping the EU in keeping that agreement with the UK financial centre.
Predicting financial market centre movement is a mugs game.
Certainly the political posturing rhetoric from France of "trade the Euro in the Euro Zone ie Paris " ( my quotes ) is for France's benefit. Frankfurt for Germany's.
Let's see how far the EU will go.
 
  • #182
Jonathan Scott said:
Boris Johnson has now been appointed as foreign secretary! We don't know whether to laugh or cry. I think most of the world is going for the "laugh" option.
Laugh now, cry later.
 
  • #183
Jonathan Scott said:
Boris Johnson has now been appointed as foreign secretary! We don't know whether to laugh or cry. I think most of the world is going for the "laugh" option.

Studied classics at Oxford
Mayor of London 6 years inc London olympics
Accomplished linguist, born in NYC

Ha,ha,ha? No.

I did have some laughs on this part of the world when Corbyn was elected, after he explained how the US, not Moscow, was responsible for the civil war in Ukraine and after he encouraged Iraqi insurgents to attack US soldiers.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-972b-Nato-belligerence-endangers-us-all#.V4eVi-gpDxD
 
Last edited:
  • #184
mheslep said:
Studied classics at Oxford
Mayor of London 6 years inc London olympics
Accomplished linguist, born in NYC

Ha,ha,ha? No.
He certainly has plenty of positive achievements, but I'm not sure whether being winner of "The Spectator’s President Erdogan Offensive Poetry Competition" is going to help in this new role.
 
  • #185
mheslep said:
Accomplished linguist,

another Noam Chomsky ?
 
  • #186
Jonathan Scott said:
He certainly has plenty of positive achievements, but I'm not sure whether being winner of "The Spectator’s President Erdogan Offensive Poetry Competition" is going to help in this new role.
The winning poem.
There was a young fellow from Ankara

Who was a terrific wankerer

Till he sowed his wild oats

With the help of a goat

But he didn’t even stop to thankera.
 
  • #187
mheslep said:
Studied classics at Oxford
Mayor of London 6 years inc London olympics
Accomplished linguist, born in NYC

Ha,ha,ha? No.

I did have some laughs on this part of the world when Corbyn was elected, after he explained how the US, not Moscow, was responsible for the civil war in Ukraine and after he encouraged Iraqi insurgents to attack US soldiers.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-972b-Nato-belligerence-endangers-us-all#.V4eVi-gpDxD
Accomplished linguist specialist subject lying if you listen to the French foreign minister.He wen't down like a brick on his first day when he spoke at the French foreign office sure he will make a splendid foreign minister probably come back from Germany with some Panzas.
 
  • #188
Buckleymanor said:
... probably come back from Germany with some Panzas.
Last time it was three second-hand water cannons.
 
  • #189
Jonathan Scott said:
I for one definitely don't want a rerun of the previous referendum, but the possible interpretations of "Leave" are so broad that the electorate needs to have a further say, for example on whether we stay in the European Economic Area (which implies continuing fees and requirements for freedom of movement), and whether we even have a right to continue with Brexit at all given the positions of Scotland and Northern Ireland and the effect which it would have on the union. That further say might for example be a general election.

If ever there was a case of "we'll see about that when we get to it" it is surely this?

For now Ms. May "has ruled out a snap election—rightly, since there is only so much political drama the country can take (in any case Labour, engulfed in civil war, is in no shape to fight one). " (Comment of The Economist.)

Surely it is not very useful or scientific to spend too much time on possible end points of a process with so many branch points?
 
Last edited:
  • #190
epenguin said:
If ever there was a case of "we'll see about that when we get to it" it is surely this?
For the moment, I'm expecting to wait for a while to find out what Leave actually means. I don't think there are actually many levels of option; the primary question is whether to ask to stay in the EEA (which is not guaranteed to be available, as many countries could veto it), which would probably also require keeping open freedom of movement.

Borders are funny anyway. When I was working in Sweden many years ago (before it was in the EU), we had a trip to Denmark (which was in the EU) and there didn't seem to be any sort of border control people at all, as there is generally free passage within Scandinavia. I had difficulty finding someone to stamp my passport to keep track of my trip in and out of the EU and my residence in Sweden.
 
  • #193
Astronuc said:
Do the majority of Scots wish to stay in the EU?
Yes, 62% to 38%, from the page previously quoted.
 
  • #194
Astronuc said:
Do the majority of Scots wish to stay in the EU?
405px-United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results-en.svg.png

Source: File:United Kingdom EU referendum 2016 area results-en.svg on Wikimedia Commons
Authors: Nilfanion, Mirrorme22, TUBS, Sting.
Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
 
  • #195
  • #196
Brexit deals heavy hit to UK economy but eurozone holds up
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/vote-uk-economy-shrinking-fastest-pace-since-09-085130325--finance.html

LONDON (AP) -- Britain's economy appears to be shrinking at its fastest pace since the global financial crisis as a result of the vote to leave the European Union, but the rest of the region is holding up, surveys showed Friday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #198
It is my understanding that the US uses Britain as an access port to the EU too. So what Japan is saying I would suppose the US is thinking.
 
  • #199
Astronuc said:
Business Insider reports: You should read Japan's Brexit note to Britain — it's brutal
http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-brexit-note-to-britain-2016-9

http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf

What is surprising to me about Japan's Brexit note to Britain is its directness (as the Japanese have had a tendency to avoid direct confrontation with countries with which it has friendly relations). This goes to show how alarmed the Japanese government and many Japanese businesses are to the developments related to Brexit.

I agree with gleem that the US government (and many American companies that have extensive business relations with both the UK and the rest of the EU) will likely think the same way, even if they do not explicitly state such opinion publically.
 
  • #200
  • Like
Likes EnumaElish and Evanish
  • #201
gleem said:
It is my understanding that the US uses Britain as an access port to the EU too. So what Japan is saying I would suppose the US is thinking.

Well Pres. Obama, who I suppose this some kind of authority, did give an indication of what he was thinking during the referendum campaign. There is no way he could have done less, considering the historic commitments, stakes, and what the US has put into Europe in every way.

But of course it was mostly greeted by snarls about 'interference' etc., I'm afraid.

Most of the anti-Europeans I come across online have just taken time off this year to be anti-European, otherwise they spend most of their time being anti-American, and the rest being anti-anything you can name. I have no indications that they are all that untypical, sad to say.

Just this evening, Cameron announced he is standing down as Member of Parliament. Having maybe destroyed the UK and the EU, I don't know what new fields to conquer that man can find.
 
  • #202
mheslep said:
In that note they say

"In fact, the inflow of skilled labour from outside of the EU needs to be liberalised"

Which is bizarre coming from the country which must have most illiberal immigration policy and culture of the G20.

mheslep, from the Japanese perspective, it is all about ensuring that Japanese expats working for Japanese companies like Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, etc. (or non-Japanese citizens working for such Japanese companies) are able to enter the country relatively easily without undue difficulty or burden (since the majority of these companies have branch offices throughout both the UK and the rest of the EU). As well as ensuring that employees for a Japanese company based in, say, the German office, can easily transfer to work in the British office.
 
  • Like
Likes EnumaElish
  • #203
StatGuy2000 said:
mheslep, from the Japanese perspective, it is all about ensuring that Japanese expats working for Japanese companies like Toyota, Honda, Toshiba, etc. (or non-Japanese citizens working for such Japanese companies) are able to enter the country relatively easily without undue difficulty or burden (since the majority of these companies have branch offices throughout both the UK and the rest of the EU). As well as ensuring that employees for a Japanese company based in, say, the German office, can easily transfer to work in the British office.
Maybe you missed my post about Japanese behaviour at home. I'm inclined to look behind curtain when the Oz makes "liberalized" immigration demands abroad.
 
  • #204
epenguin said:
Well Pres. Obama, who I suppose this some kind of authority, did give an indication of what he was thinking during the referendum campaign.
An indication? No, Obama threatened the UK with trade tariffs, an outrageous (and stupid) move for a *foreign* head of state while a guest there. Obama probably helped Brexit.

There is no way he could have done less, considering the historic commitments, stakes, and what the US has put into Europe in every way
The EU is not Europe, is not NATO, is not the EFTA now 56 years old, and these are unchanged. The EU is 24 years old. What historic commitments?

Having maybe destroyed the UK and the EU, I don't know what new fields to conquer that man can find.
No doubt many at Court said the same of the destroyer King John in 1215 when he consented with those anti anti Barons.
 
  • Like
Likes Evanish
  • #205
mheslep said:
Maybe you missed my post about Japanese behaviour at home. I'm inclined to look behind curtain when the Oz makes "liberalized" immigration demands abroad.

I did not miss your post about Japanese behaviour at home. What you are pointing out is the perceived hypocrisy about how Japan (with its restrictive immigration policies) can "lecture" the UK about their immigration demands.

What I was pointing out is that Japan is acting in its own self-interest, and the interests of the nation's companies and businesses, in pushing for more open immigration and in imploring the UK to either stay in the EU or to make some sort of agreement with the EU, similar to what Norway enjoys.

The US, btw, would likely do (or at least think) the same way as well. And you, as an American, would expect no less. Ultimately, you care more about the US than any place else.
 
  • #206
mheslep said:
, an outrageous (and stupid) move for a *foreign* head of state while a guest there. Obama probably helped Brexit.

I don't think President Obama thought of himself as a foreign head of state there. I think he thought of himself as between "Leader of the Free World" and the "Voice of Reason".

One thing that a certain segment of the political class on both continents fails to recognize is the argument "you are stupid, vile and deplorable people who don't deserve a say in how things are run" tends not to get many votes.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep and russ_watters
  • #207
Obama's stance was calculated. And rather American-like. Brexit is in US's long-term geopolitical interest. At best US does not care for, at worst unfancies a politically united Europe, however imperfect.
 
  • #208
Sure it was done because of US long term strategic interests.But quite frankly if the US is so worried about a divided Europe then Brexit is the lesser evil here.
The immigrant crisis and Europe being divided in general is a much larger alarm bell than single Brexit.

On the other hand I can perfectly understand the British , NATO serves a specific purpose which although got relaxed in the 90's and early 2000's but is now back on top and the highest priority meanwhile Europe doesn't serve a specific purpose , it now pretends to serve multiple ones but some of them doubtful and some just against Britain's national interests.The purpose of the original Europe is now so twisted and divided it literally cannot be seen anymore. Originally it was for Europe to have peace and stability and business ties for cooperation , now the EU is trying to save the world while being used and exploited from outside proxies and their agendas.
If Obama calculated his visit and speech then I think he clearly missed the sentiment going on in the current Europe and Britain , maybe he is blindfolded by this idea of liberal values who knows.
Given the outcome of Brexit in percentage I'd say he missed a big portion of the British people by the millions.

Or maybe he knew his speech won't change much but tried anyway simply because there's nothing better he could have done.

In the end the biggest reason for Brexit and possibly more cracks for Europe is not unbalanced crop payments or some countries investing more than others , that has been going on for decades , the biggest reason seems to be the influx of a vast amount of people with radically different beliefs and the underlying threat such a mix of soup and desert poses to a country and much more a union.

Well Obama or any US president today is not so much a "leader of the free world" as he was perceived back in the days of Cold war.Times have changed and now there is much more diversity in the "free world"P.S. Possibly another aspect only few have thought about , modern manufacturing doesn't rely on masses of people anymore , robots are outnumbering humans in manufacturing day by day , soon there will be hardly any people needed at plants anymore , maybe only some supervisors and janitors.Just as Karl Marx wrote about the future of labor back in his day.

So given that business doesn't need so much workers any more and there is a line of eastern Europeans always ready to do the job , I doubt one would want to hire a less skillful and less educated Muslim immigrant for the job.In the end all these immigrants as some of themselves say are only here for support money , and just because it's better here.Such parasitic lifestyle is not only a burden for the economy and completely useless and slows any advancement it also produces problems for the stability of a society as not everyone thinks someone deserves to get a free lunch without contributing anything to the society and just reproducing.
We may talk about economic problems because of Brexit etc but I think in the long run that was the right choice.Europe will end and split sooner or later.If not for any particular reason then for the one that all man made empires go down at some point , given how fast things change these days I think we won't have to wait long enough to witness it.
 
Last edited:
  • #209
I do not agree that immigration is a parasitic life form. Definitely not in the US. That accusation is similar to the discredited "welfare queen" narrative in the US. Let us look at incomes in the established capitalist countries since the 1980's before pointing a finger at the usual suspects. Such as immigrants, most of who are productive individuals, and some are definitely innovative enterpreneurs. And the poor robots are always an easy target.

1. Cross sectionally, the income growth of the mid-income segment of the population has stagnated relative to the high-income, and in some cases relative to the low-income segments of the population. In the UK the lowest-income segments have experienced the highest rate of income growth. Income growth for the high-income segment was lower but still ahead of the mid-income segment.

2. As far as factor incomes, wages have stagnated relative to capital income. This may have something to do with the anti-inflationary policies of the '80's. However, if the fall of communism had not happened, wages would have recovered from the effect of the anti-inflationary policies by now. The fall of communism at the end of the '80's and during the early '90's flooded the capitalist system with relatively qualified labor which had hitherto been isolated from the global marketplace. The effect was a drastic reduction in labor costs and a surge of production relative to what would have happened without it. For example, much of the Clinton years' economic uplift was an after effect of the fall of communism and the global boost in incomes that followed. EU also benefited from it. But, for the same reason, wages stagnated.

The economic aspect of the white angst that is now washing over the West has to do with the unequal growth of income segments and the integration of the formerly communist labor force to the global capitalist system more than anything else, IMO.
 
  • #210
ok, I haven't made myself entirely clear I suppose.First not the fall of communism , the fall of hardcore socialism would be a closer phrase.
I agree with much of what you say but here's the problem with immigration.
Not all immigrants are the same and they differ vastly if we compare the immigrants coming in right now especially in Europe and those who came here 20 years ago.
For example , in WW2 there were also many immigrants but they were first of all mostly white , second they were rather well educated and skillful and willing to work and find a better life , they went ot the US and later in many western European countries and surely the economy only benefited from such folks.

Then there's the Muslims and other folks who immigrated to both US and EU decades ago and they did it by low numbers and in a spread out fashion.They too were mostly folks who searched a better life but were willing to work and build that better life for themselves.

I don't know why hasn't anyone noticed this but the latest wave and this time it's really a wave almost like someone is paying and making this to happen (and I'm sure there are agendas that only benefit from a divided Europe) this current wave of influx is way different than the ones before on which the liberals like to sit upon and clap their hands and cheer how good it has been for economy and culture etc.
These people are here because either their home was blown up and their literally running from bombs incoming or as most of them they simply are here because they know they will be paid support money and will have the chance to simply live better.
Most of these latest folks have no real skills that could be useful in literally any job the modern western Europe has to offer , I'm not saying all of them I'm saying many.

The most contradictory and weird fact is that Germany has taken most of them , and now much like a hot potato in ones mouth they don't know what exactly to do with them. It feels almost surreal that the country which tried to eliminate all people of color not that long ago is sucking them in now.But anyway @EnumaElish I think you would also benefit by looking at the bad side of the statistics for example the "French immigrant riots" a phrase that when typed into google is already given as a tag.
And so many more things that are happening.
And in the end of the day we have to look at the culture of different societies and understand why mixing all these individuals is not the best idea.Sure most of them would either surrender to the dominant culture and many don't commit violent acts because their common sense wins the religious fanaticism but there are also many who sooner or later fall for their "inner heritage"
San Bernardino for example , one of the attackers was born in US the other immigrated from middle east.And yet with all the good life they had in the US they still decided that some of the strongest verses of Quran should be acted upon.

All in all we should focus on stability in the middle east and making life better for people to live in their motherland instead of having to swim over the sea to seek asylum. Toppling dictators is not always the best scenario and it most definitely backfires.Ok I am starting to get off topic.
I just want to say I'm not sure whether the middle east can be fixed at all , I personally tend to think that their very culture and religion is their biggest problem.
Given the forever ongoing fight between Palestine and Israel I think that's a good example of that.But anyway back to Britain , last time I checked it's not like they are in much need of jobs no matter what kind , most of them are already filled by eastern Europeans , some by Muslims and others , so I don't see the very need ofr immigrants because of no one who wants to work.

As for socialism skilled workers , sure , not only skilled some were among the worlds best scientists , engineers , architects and other folks talented with years of experience. Anyone would have benefited from them.
 

Similar threads

ChatGPT Examples, Good and Bad
4
Replies
126
Views
12K
News POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start
7
Replies
237
Views
18K
Photo Contest - Bad Photo (7/7-7/13)
Replies
15
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Bad Photo (6/6-6/12)
Replies
22
Views
3K
News Muslim family in Canada killed in 'premeditated' truck attack
Replies
3
Views
922
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
2K
News Vote Now in EU Elections - How & Why
Replies
18
Views
7K
Collecting News Fails: How Not to Report on Airplanes
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Oroville Dam Evacuation: 180,000+ Forced to Leave
Replies
11
Views
2K
That's Not a Drone!
2
Replies
44
Views
857

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top