Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[Crown]

So the GBP has rebounded to "only" having lost 10% of its pre-referendum value. It's currently around 1.35 in USD, as opposed to hovering up near $1.45-$1.50 last week and month. Similar percent losses vs. the Euro, Chinese Yuan, and Japanese Yen.

It was 1.38 in USD in March ... was the sky falling then as well?

[Terralthra]

I don't believe I've said the sky is falling now, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[K. A. Pital]

America banned alcohol by people's will and general referendum? No. It was a decision by an elected bureaucrat. Elected, but nonetheless not the people themselves. Therefore, as any such decision, it could and should be revised if found harmful.

Or to take another, very relevant example, how would you feel about Scotland revisiting the independence referendum now that Britain has voted to leave the Union in which they wish to remain?

They are within their rights to hold another one as Britain staying in the EU was the promise of the "devolution" supporters, no? If Britain at some point in the future decides to rejoin the EU in another form, it may very well do so (after running a referendum on the issue; it won't be enough that elected bureaucrats decide).

I'm afraid I'm not totally impartial here as I'm sort of willing to see Britain destroyed as karmic payback for centuries of colonial misery, plunder and murder it inflicted on the entire world.

[Grumman]

I'm afraid I'm not totally impartial here as I'm sort of willing to see Britain destroyed as karmic payback for centuries of colonial misery, plunder and murder it inflicted on the entire world.

You are a bigot and an idiot, Kapital. Your desire to punish modern-day Brits for actions committed by other people centuries before they were born is neither moral nor sensible.

[Crown]

I don't believe I've said the sky is falling now, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Then I apologise for assigning undue narrative to you saying "only".

[Darth Nostril]

So I've got to suffer for something that was done hundreds of years before I was born?
Die a slow painful death from bowel cancer you malignant cumstain.

[K. A. Pital]

You are a bigot and an idiot, Kapital. Your desire to punish modern-day Brits for actions committed by other people centuries before they were born is neither moral nor sensible.

It's not much of a punishment if their nation ceases to be a great power, collapses into several smaller states, and is unable to make war in the Middle East or attack anyone ever again. They will retain their first world life level, and lose only their pride.

No harm done. Just as the separation of Ireland did not mean their life level suffered much, neither would the separation of Scotland mean such a thing.

Learn to understand reality before accusing me of "punishing" someone.

Yes, they have to be taught a lesson that actions have consequences, I said as much. It doesn't mean anything out of the ordinary. Simply no access to the free trade area on the same terms as EU members (treat Britain as any other non-EU state, with preferential options like those of Switzerland possible, but only with corresponding treaties signed and tied to freedom of movement). That's all.

If that's "punishment", I am afraid you are mistaken - it is not me who wants to see them punished but they themselves.

I'm sorry but the descendants of colonial masters still enjoy a high life level because their ancestors murdered and plundered the world. Just as the descendants of the conquered and enslaved enjoy a ridiculously low life level due to the same fact. So consequences stretch into the future, and I see no reason for only positive consequences to stretch into eternity. The rich must not enjoy the fruits of plunder forever.

So I've got to suffer for something that was done hundreds of years before I was born?
Die a slow painful death from bowel cancer you malignant cumstain.

Well, almost everyone born outside the First World has to actually suffer (not as a metaphor for lost pride or anything, but suffer physically) for something that was done decades or centuries before their birth. I don't see a reason to make any exception for you, especially as you don't seem terribly concerned that you happened to get lucky and be born in the First World while like 95% of other people in the world were not as lucky.

[madd0ct0r]

Brexit came up in conversation while I was out with my husband's friends last night. An interesting point was raised by a person from Quebec who had lived through several referendums for the province to separate from Canada. We didn't threaten Quebec to make them stay, rather, we showed them the benefits of remaining part of the country. And though there cultural differences and some grumblings over the special privileges which the province enjoys, we want them to be part of the nation.

We don't really see that from the EU, at least not from this side of the ocean. The message seems to be "if you leave, we'll sanction you to death, like we did to Greece, you'll lose everything if you don't stay". If the EU is unable to sell its member nations on the benefits of membership and needs to resort to threats of sanctions & economic destruction, well, one has to question the value & morals of such a political entity Especially after what they've already done to Greece.

From where i was sitting, the benefits were being shouted from the roof tops. The eu subsidised farmers and paid for infrastructure in deprived areas long ignored by westminster.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01311.html

John Pollard, the leader of Cornwall council said: “Now that we know the UK will be leaving the EU we will be taking urgent steps to ensure that the UK Government protects Cornwall’s position in any negotiations.

“We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60m per year over the last ten years.”

European money has helped develop infrastructure, universities and broadband internet in the county. From 2007 to 2013, €654m was given to pay for these projects, the Financial Times reported.

[jwl]

I've heard to argument that subsidising agriculture is a very bad thing, because it means developing countries (whose main product is agriculture) can't compete.

[Dartzap]

Wernt some of the subsidies about maintaining land, but not using it for farming per se? There is the example of a highland shooting estate receiving half a million quid in recent years. The chap who owns it earns a million year from his other activities.

This person is a well known europhile, and has advocated for the EU for many years. That man is Paul Dacre , editor of the Daily Mail

[mr friendly guy]

I've heard to argument that subsidising agriculture is a very bad thing, because it means developing countries (whose main product is agriculture) can't compete.

That's one thing I actually agree with. More broadly, it is a form of protectionism and runs counter to the concept of free trade which everyone bar North Korea touts as good. The thing though, is even as Britain wants less EU regulations to not hamper free trade, they seem to want protectionism against Chinese goods. And the EU agrees with them, since the EU is somewhat protectionist, right?

[Crazedwraith]

Turkey's decades away from joining the EU (if that), so their population is neither here nor there. And since Turkey's population is the lion's share of the number of people claimed by Brexit to be set to join the EU, then like a zombie that's been eaten from the waist down, they have no leg to stand on.

Ummm... yes? And?

I never claimed the Brexiter's campaign made sense. It blatantly didn't and I made fun of the 79 million figure at the time. But that was what they were arguing and the fear of immigration was one of their draws for people.

B

There's a reason immigration was the hot topic the Exit campaign hit as much as they could. (Along with sovereignty) Ironically it was the biggest issue in communities with the fewest actual immigrants. Go figure.

If I had to guess why this is so, I would say that most immigrants actually have jobs. So communities where there are immigrants might be economically better off. After all people with jobs spend more money, which helps local businesses etc. In those communities without immigrants, I will hazard a guess that they are poor and easy to fall prey to immigrants are taking our jobs etc. Which is funny as I remember some right wing elites admitting that immigrants do jobs Brits don't want to do and their solution to this after ending immigration is to get native Brits off welfare and doing these jobs which they didn't want to do in the first place. Which seems contradictory to the values of the Brits who feel immigrants are taking their jobs.

Interesting. I think this and simple fear of the unknown. If you live with actually immigrants you get used to them and realise they're just people like anyone else.

[Zaune]

I'm afraid I'm not totally impartial here as I'm sort of willing to see Britain destroyed as karmic payback for centuries of colonial misery, plunder and murder it inflicted on the entire world.

And how much collateral damage are you willing to see inflicted on ordinary British people who were not even born when most of that was happening and couldn't have done a hell of a lot about the bits that happened during their lifetimes? Bearing in mind that this shitshow is very unlikely to make what's left of Britain a more pleasant country to share a continent with when the dust settles.

[K. A. Pital]

Not much, relatively speaking. See above - I think Britain as "not Britain" but a confederacy of weaker First World states would be preferrable as it would be less belligerent.

Certainly not more damage than what Britain inflicted on others when it could. Certainly nothing like invading Egypt or something.

After all, your leaders applied the same logic when they pushed for the destruction of the USSR. They never cared about the misery of over 150 million people who got impoverished overnight, neither about child malnourishment or the bloodshed in civil wars.

I was there to see it. The inhabitants of the First World laughed and they cheered. They drank wine and were merry.

But it can't always be like this, always the rich winning, always the rich laughing and having fun.

[ArmorPierce]

Not much, relatively speaking. See above - I think Britain as "not Britain" but a confederacy of weaker First World states would be preferrable as it would be less belligerent.

Certainly not more damage than what Britain inflicted on others when it could. Certainly nothing like invading Egypt or something.

After all, your leaders applied the same logic when they pushed for the destruction of the USSR. They never cared about the misery of over 150 million people who got impoverished overnight, neither about child malnourishment or the bloodshed in civil wars.

I was there to see it. The inhabitants of the First World laughed and they cheered. They drank wine and were merry.

But it can't always be like this, always the rich winning, always the rich laughing and having fun.

It is preposterous that these folks are so accustomed to their position and luxuries gained through the oppression of others in the world that they treat any belief that they should be 'punished' by taking these luxuries away as bigotry.

[Esquire]

That's completely backwards, Kapital. The goal isn't to drag everybody down to the lowest possible level, it's to raise everybody up to the highest. Mine is, anyway; I can't speak for you.

[His Divine Shadow]

I've heard to argument that subsidising agriculture is a very bad thing, because it means developing countries (whose main product is agriculture) can't compete.

That's one thing I actually agree with. More broadly, it is a form of protectionism and runs counter to the concept of free trade which everyone bar North Korea touts as good. The thing though, is even as Britain wants less EU regulations to not hamper free trade, they seem to want protectionism against Chinese goods. And the EU agrees with them, since the EU is somewhat protectionist, right?

No, not everyone bar north korea buys into free trade as the solution to all problems.

[Zixinus]

I do not see why it is necessary to drag historic sins into this when in practice the true guilty culprit are the voting population: this was a direct vote. This is not karma. This is the populace tasting responsibility for collective decision making, for buying into populist demagogue and lies. The average UK voter is not the victim of the ruling elite's ideas in this but the other way around this time. They are going to suffer because they did not realize that running a country requires more than gut-feelings and trusting people that tell you what you want.

But most of all, this is the result of failure of UK's leadership in allowing this ongoing train-wreck to happen, for not speaking out and taking this seriously, for not calling the movement out on their bullshit. They are the people, especially those elected, who were supposed to guide the public about what is in the best interest of the government.

That this happened shows that something went wrong and maybe it is time to examine that, maybe it is time to examine the relationship the country's leaders have with the public and try to fix that. Maybe there was something already broken in UK's democratic systems, something that has been going on some time but ignored until now.

The rich are also not really punished here: they'll get less richer, maybe, possibly or just exploit the situation. But the rich have the resources to simply adapt. The banks are already talking about moving from London.

[K. A. Pital]

The banks are already talking about moving from London.

It will be inconvenient for them to move, though, and a lot of London yuppies will lose their jobs in the process.

And in the continental EU countries, oversight of the banking industry is more strict than in Britain, so I heard.

The rich are also not really punished here: they'll get less richer, maybe, possibly or just exploit the situation

Looks like with the UK out of the EU, the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade blah blah) is going to die a slow death - the UK was its biggest backer and now it is gone, while in France and Germany the opposition to TTIP is very strong (in France, even the meek Hollande is against it not speaking of "Euroskeptic" radicals like Le Pen). And the EU standards of healthcare, labour protection and environmental protection will remain as they are. So there might already be some positive consequences from this "Brexit".

At this point, I think pretty much everything that stops American-led globalization is a net positive and constrains the power of the ultra-rich somewhat. But we will see.

[Channel72]

K.A. Pital's bitterness aside, at the end of the day this is just another victory for small-mindedness, xenophobia, selfishness and cultural isolationism. It is a victory for the past over the future. It's the same stupid mentality that propels people like Trump to the spotlight. It's always the god damn cancerous half of humanity holding the rest of us back from doing great shit.

Just because Brexit has smashed capital markets and thus makes the rich suffer is no reason to celebrate... it also makes everyone suffer and sets the world back in so many ways.

Whatever... I am sad for the UK and Europe right now. I can only hope a "rejoin" movement gains enough steam to eventually hold another referendum to rejoin the EU.

[Starglider]

K.A. Pital's bitterness aside, at the end of the day this is just another victory for small-mindedness, xenophobia, selfishness and cultural isolationism.

In other words, you write a blank cheque for EU beurecracy to be as waseful, corrupt, undemocratic and outright oppressive as it likes, because any hint of opposition must be some nasty kind of 'ism'.

[Crazedwraith]

Because being in the Eu with a say in the proceedings and a veto over legislation affecting us was writing them 'A Blank Check'.

There's no need for either extreme of position.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

K.A. Pital's bitterness aside, at the end of the day this is just another victory for small-mindedness, xenophobia, selfishness and cultural isolationism. It is a victory for the past over the future. It's the same stupid mentality that propels people like Trump to the spotlight. It's always the god damn cancerous half of humanity holding the rest of us back from doing great shit.

Just because Brexit has smashed capital markets and thus makes the rich suffer is no reason to celebrate... it also makes everyone suffer and sets the world back in so many ways.

Whatever... I am sad for the UK and Europe right now. I can only hope a "rejoin" movement gains enough steam to eventually hold another referendum to rejoin the EU.

The leave campaign tried to move the goalposts by saying: "Imagine we were being asked whether to join the EU".

The EU is something people will only miss when it's gone- any such movement is only going to really gain ground when the effects of leaving really begin to bite. That, and when the money supposedly saved by withdrawing fails to materialise.

[NecronLord]

Today I made a local MP double-facepalm by telling her about people I'd met who I've met who've said 'We didn't really want a Brexit we just thought it was a protest vote!' Sure enough she'd been warning people about that before the vote, from her facebook:

I can well understand people's anger and frustration with David Cameron..believe you me, I share it. There's not a day goes by when I don't. But don't let this referendum be a misplaced protest vote. It's way too important for that. Here in the North West the EU is really important for jobs in the car industry, in manufacturing, in tourism, and in the universities which feed directly into our local economy.

Depressing stuff.

[The Romulan Republic]

America banned alcohol by people's will and general referendum? No. It was a decision by an elected bureaucrat. Elected, but nonetheless not the people themselves. Therefore, as any such decision, it could and should be revised if found harmful.

So what about a referendum makes it so different that it cannot be revisited if the people decide they made a shitty choice?

If their was sufficient public demand for another referendum, indicative of a substantial shift in public opinion on the issue, would that warrant another vote? Because it seems to me that if your argument is "will of the people", you can't have it both ways.

They are within their rights to hold another one as Britain staying in the EU was the promise of the "devolution" supporters, no? If Britain at some point in the future decides to rejoin the EU in another form, it may very well do so (after running a referendum on the issue; it won't be enough that elected bureaucrats decide).

That seems reasonable, but the fact that that condition was attached to the Scottish referendum in and of itself acknowledges the importance of being able to reverse a decision in light of changing circumstances.

I'm afraid I'm not totally impartial here as I'm sort of willing to see Britain destroyed as karmic payback for centuries of colonial misery, plunder and murder it inflicted on the entire world.

And fuck the innocent people who will suffer as a result?