Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[Patroklos]

Here in the states I would politically be referred to has a "Unionist"...

You would most certainly not be referred as such as no such thing exits.

I am an American from the south. I am opposed to any and all attempts to dissolve the union and support a strong central government. Before the civil war we were referred to as federalists. However the term "unionist" gained popularity during and after the war. The term was, and still is, used primarily to describe southerners who, like myself, oppose secession. Nationally I reckon I would be a democrat.

It was even the name of a southern pro-union political party during the war.
Thank you very much good sir.

The term, as proven by your link, is anachronistic. It has no modern relevance. Even in the deepest deep of the south of which I am from too the number of people who seriously want to leave the union is vanishingly small.

[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.

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?

I got this from Giles Fraser, and although he implies support for steel subsidies, I'm not aware of him explicitly spelling out his full position on this.

But steel subsidies are somewhat different from agricultural subsidies as far as this line of argument goes. China is better described as a Newly Industrialised Country, not an LEDC. Also, British steelworkers generally don't tend to be (relativity) rich landowners.

And China itself subsidies its steel industry, so it is less giving an unfair advantage and more levelling the playing field. Also, British steelworkers are at a disadvantage because of green taxes, so it might be sensible to put a tariff on imported steel equivilient to the green taxes foreign steel companies would have paid had they been based in the UK.

[Purple]

The whole "unfair advantage" thing is a very wrong way of looking at things because you are treating things as if being "fair" to the companies making huge amounts of money is more important than being fair to the workers that make up the people of your country. It is fundamentally unfair NOT to impose tariffs that make your own products more competitive because that failure destroys jobs.

[Starglider]

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

I personally voted for remain because (as I have often stated) I favour a 'sabotagemax' position, while waiting for the eurozone to be blown apart by the next sovereign debt crisis wave. This is irrelevant. I was talking about your rhetoric which refuses to even attempt to understand the genuine reasons why so many people voted to leave. Here, this is on a left wing publication so you should be able to bring yourself to read it. Look at this;

I’m a Green party member. I think Labour have a strong chance in the next general election, and hopefully they can introduce proportional representation to produce the progressive, coalition government this country could have. Sally, 34, primary school teacher, London

As many progressive checkboxes ticked as you get get in two sentences. Is she automatically xenophopic/racist/whatever due to voting to leave? That's the thinking that just shattered the Labour coalition between the London champagne socialists and the northern England base.

[jwl]

The whole "unfair advantage" thing is a very wrong way of looking at things because you are treating things as if being "fair" to the companies making huge amounts of money is more important than being fair to the workers that make up the people of your country. It is fundamentally unfair NOT to impose tariffs that make your own products more competitive because that failure destroys jobs.

What companies making huge amounts of money did I mention? I was talking about the Chinese (the Chinese steelworkers, if you will). And that was in a sentence saying it is not unfair to introduce subsidies under this line of reasoning, since China already has steel subsidies so this can be used to level the playing field.

[Purple]

The whole "unfair advantage" thing is a very wrong way of looking at things because you are treating things as if being "fair" to the companies making huge amounts of money is more important than being fair to the workers that make up the people of your country. It is fundamentally unfair NOT to impose tariffs that make your own products more competitive because that failure destroys jobs.

What companies making huge amounts of money did I mention? I was talking about the Chinese (the Chinese steelworkers, if you will). And that was in a sentence saying it is not unfair to introduce subsidies under this line of reasoning, since China already has steel subsidies so this can be used to level the playing field.

Your steelworkers > foreign steelworkers. That's all I am saying.

[jwl]

The whole "unfair advantage" thing is a very wrong way of looking at things because you are treating things as if being "fair" to the companies making huge amounts of money is more important than being fair to the workers that make up the people of your country. It is fundamentally unfair NOT to impose tariffs that make your own products more competitive because that failure destroys jobs.

What companies making huge amounts of money did I mention? I was talking about the Chinese (the Chinese steelworkers, if you will). And that was in a sentence saying it is not unfair to introduce subsidies under this line of reasoning, since China already has steel subsidies so this can be used to level the playing field.

Your steelworkers > foreign steelworkers. That's all I am saying.

In the case of China, I can see your point. But this discussion started with talking about agricultural subsidies, and there it is not so simple. In that case you are talking about the homegrown farmers being relatively rich landowners and the foreign farmers being people who would not be able to do any other job that is enough to live off and may die of malnutrition if their farming livelihood is disrupted.

[Purple]

What companies making huge amounts of money did I mention? I was talking about the Chinese (the Chinese steelworkers, if you will). And that was in a sentence saying it is not unfair to introduce subsidies under this line of reasoning, since China already has steel subsidies so this can be used to level the playing field.

Your steelworkers > foreign steelworkers. That's all I am saying.

In the case of China, I can see your point. But this discussion started with talking about agricultural subsidies, and there it is not so simple. In that case you are talking about the homegrown farmers being relatively rich landowners and the foreign farmers being people who would not be able to do any other job and may die of malnutrition if their farming livelihood is disrupted.

You do not get it. Simply put it is the one and only purpose of a government to administer the nation it is governing with the sole goal of achieving maximum gain for the population that has placed them in said governing position.

[jwl]

Your steelworkers > foreign steelworkers. That's all I am saying.

In the case of China, I can see your point. But this discussion started with talking about agricultural subsidies, and there it is not so simple. In that case you are talking about the homegrown farmers being relatively rich landowners and the foreign farmers being people who would not be able to do any other job and may die of malnutrition if their farming livelihood is disrupted.

You do not get it. Simply put it is the one and only purpose of a government to administer the nation it is governing with the sole goal of achieving maximum gain for the population that has placed them in said governing position.

Surely it is the administrator the will of the people? What if people in the country (like Giles Fraser or myself) would prefer it if African farmers didn't die of malnutrition quite as often? What if we were to consider it part of our wellbeing, since our conscience is an important part of our wellbeing? In that case being fairer to african farmers would be part of increasing the wellbeing of the voting population, no?

[Purple]

In the case of China, I can see your point. But this discussion started with talking about agricultural subsidies, and there it is not so simple. In that case you are talking about the homegrown farmers being relatively rich landowners and the foreign farmers being people who would not be able to do any other job and may die of malnutrition if their farming livelihood is disrupted.

You do not get it. Simply put it is the one and only purpose of a government to administer the nation it is governing with the sole goal of achieving maximum gain for the population that has placed them in said governing position.

Surely it is the administrator the will of the people? What if people in the country (like Giles Fraser or myself) would prefer it if African farmers didn't die of malnutrition quite as often? What if we were to consider it part of our wellbeing, since our conscience is an important part of our wellbeing? In that case being fairer to african farmers would be part of increasing the wellbeing of the voting population, no?

As a general rule I'd say that what matters is the general state of the general population. Each decision a government makes is going to always be a tradeoff between positive and harmful effects for that nation. And what matters is that there are no significant negatives and that the negatives that are there are outweighed by the positives.

So whilst what you say certainly should come into consideration there should newer be a point where the government is unwilling to overrule it if the numbers work out that way. After all it is just one factor among many. And not some sacred cow that matters more than other factors.

[K. A. Pital]

I personally voted for remain because (as I have often stated) I favour a 'sabotagemax' position, while waiting for the eurozone to be blown apart by the next sovereign debt crisis wave.

But why, if Britain's exit destabilized things economically and might surely bring up another crisis wave, did you not vote for Brexit?

That makes little sense, eh. Unless you just went with the Dun yuppies who probably all voted remain anyway.

[gigabytelord]

The term, as proven by your link, is anachronistic. It has no modern relevance. Even in the deepest deep of the south of which I am from too the number of people who seriously want to leave the union is vanishingly small.

Perhaps it's an artifact of me being from Texas then. I just assumed it was more commonly used in the rest of the south as well. Hell I picked the term up from my family, grandmother specifically, who would refer to themselves as unionist when ever the war came up or the idea seceding. And it still is relevant today as every time something like Brexit happens over seas these assholes start yammering about secession again, and when I say every time I mean every time. East Timor, South Sudan, South Ossetia, the war in Donbass, Ukraine. If someone is seceding from something you'll start seeing Texas Independence flags waving. And then the hateful comments from California will start flowing in, i.e. "please do, you'll be doing us all a favor" although generally not worded so kindly. It's rather irritating constantly having to go into damage control every time the nationalist minority open their fucking mouths. Apologies if I may have seemed hostile.

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... a-mistake/

Hang on a minute. Farage who isn't officially part of the Leave campaign (by his own admission) promised 350 million pounds a week to the NHS and people believed that? Jesus fucking Christ.

Oh well, you know what they say about democracies - you rarely get the government you need, just the one you deserve. In which case I wonder how the Brits got a pig fucker.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

The term, as proven by your link, is anachronistic. It has no modern relevance. Even in the deepest deep of the south of which I am from too the number of people who seriously want to leave the union is vanishingly small.

Perhaps it's an artifact of me being from Texas then. I just assumed it was more commonly used in the rest of the south as well. Hell I picked the term up from my family, grandmother specifically, who would refer to themselves as unionist when ever the war came up or the idea seceding. And it still is relevant today as every time something like Brexit happens over seas these assholes start yammering about secession again, and when I say every time I mean every time. East Timor, South Sudan, South Ossetia, the war in Donbass, Ukraine. If someone is seceding from something you'll start seeing Texas Independence flags waving. And then the hateful comments from California will start flowing in, i.e. "please do, you'll be doing us all a favor" although generally not worded so kindly. It's rather irritating constantly having to go into damage control every time the nationalist minority open their fucking mouths. Apologies if I may have seemed hostile.

None are necessary. We have our separatist minority in Oklahoma as well. Almost as vocal. Equally idiotic.

(we also have Elohim City, aka Neo-Nazi Central.)

Even California has its separatists, though it's Northern Californians wanting to form their own separate state from the southern part.

[Tribble]

I actually agree with K. A. Pital here and believe that the referendum should be followed. Whether Brexit is good or bad, the rules were clear, the vote was fair, there was a high turnout, and the Remain side lost. IMO ignoring the referendum results will be even worse in the long term than leaving the EU. Because if the government feels free to ignore a major referendum which they called and stated would be binding, why should they stop there? Why not have multiple elections until voters make the "right" choice? Why should they even bother with the pretence of caring what people think, if they know that things like a binding referendum on a major issue can be safely ignored? The number of broken promises and campaign pledges are already bad enough, ignoring the referendum result would be setting a very dangerous precedent IMO. Not just for the UK btw, but for the EU as well since I'm sure that rationale would be used by the EU in the event of other referendums that go against the "correct" choice.

[Napoleon the Clown]

(we also have Elohim City, aka Neo-Nazi Central.)

Off-topic comment here, but that's a mighty Jewish name for a city that hosts a bunch of fucking neo-Nazis.


Back on-topic: I agree that there's significant danger in the government electing to ignore this result, even if they're legally entitled to do so. Unless they are extremely careful in lining out exactly why they won't be honoring it, I can see it being used as an excuse by future governments to ignore the will of the people. Also, it basically sends the message that you can make a mockery of the vote without consequences. Which, sadly, would do a lot more harm in the long-run than this shit going through.

Any getting out of this shit would need to be done with supreme caution lest it encourage future efforts at ignoring results you don't like.

[Captain Seafort]

Back on-topic: I agree that there's significant danger in the government electing to ignore this result, even if they're legally entitled to do so. Unless they are extremely careful in lining out exactly why they won't be honoring it, I can see it being used as an excuse by future governments to ignore the will of the people. Also, it basically sends the message that you can make a mockery of the vote without consequences. Which, sadly, would do a lot more harm in the long-run than this shit going through.

It would also be a very European approach to the problem, and a shining example of the sort of thing that pisses off all but the but the most ardent Europhiles.

[K. A. Pital]

Uh... but what other referendum results were not followed? Were there any?

[Purple]

It's not so much what others in the past but what this would mean for the future. It would set an example that the EU is all too happy to permit its member states to trample over democracy any way they please if it suits the union.

[K. A. Pital]

No, I meant this regarding the "European approach" thing. What's that "European approach"? What other results of popular vote in Europe were clearly disregarded because they were "incorrect"?

[Captain Seafort]

Uh... but what other referendum results were not followed? Were there any?

The Irish rejected the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon in referenda. On both occasions were told that they'd got the answer wrong and given a resit. The Greeks also rejected the bailout last year in a referendum, were also roundly ignored, and didn't even get a resit.

[Elfdart]

Perhaps it's an artifact of me being from Texas then. I just assumed it was more commonly used in the rest of the south as well. Hell I picked the term up from my family, grandmother specifically, who would refer to themselves as unionist when ever the war came up or the idea seceding. And it still is relevant today as every time something like Brexit happens over seas these assholes start yammering about secession again, and when I say every time I mean every time. East Timor, South Sudan, South Ossetia, the war in Donbass, Ukraine. If someone is seceding from something you'll start seeing Texas Independence flags waving. And then the hateful comments from California will start flowing in, i.e. "please do, you'll be doing us all a favor" although generally not worded so kindly. It's rather irritating constantly having to go into damage control every time the nationalist minority open their fucking mouths. Apologies if I may have seemed hostile.

None are necessary. We have our separatist minority in Oklahoma as well. Almost as vocal. Equally idiotic.

(we also have Elohim City, aka Neo-Nazi Central.)

Even California has its separatists, though it's Northern Californians wanting to form their own separate state from the southern part.

The big difference is that while there's no shortage of carnival barkers in Texas who like to talk about secession, even colossal wankers like Abbott, Patrick, et al would NEVER be stupid enough to put it on a ballot, even with the deceptive, bullshit wording US politicians use for ballot initiatives to make sure as few citizens as possible have any idea what they're voting for. Abbot & Co. can throw tantrum after tantrum over the fact there's a black man in the Oval Office and he's not there to sweep the floors, but come drought, fire, flood or tornado, he's first in line with his hand out for US taxpayers' money.

Honest to goodness I thought even the dumbest voters in the UK had better sense than this shit fit they've thrown. I can appreciate extending a middle finger to The Powers That Be for a declining standard of living, but this Brexit vote is like voting for Trump as an answer for the American standard of living being on a downward slide for over 4 decades. It reminds me of a buddy of mine who, after being laid off from his job of 20 years, decided to blow his last paycheck at the strip club.

[K. A. Pital]

The Irish rejected the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon in referenda. On both occasions were told that they'd got the answer wrong and given a resit. The Greeks also rejected the bailout last year in a referendum, were also roundly ignored, and didn't even get a resit.

Thanks for the sum-up. The Greek one wasn't an exit as such, but yes, should have been (though I heard the "reject" vote was cast also by those who supported remaining in the EU to "get a stronger hand in negotiations", which is quite unlike the British one that's a straightfoward yes or no to staying in the EU). I didn't know that Ireland rejected both treaties, that's quite remarkable they had to vote twice on both.

[Dartzap]

It's an example of the so-called 'Democratic Deficit' the EU sometimes finds itself having. I would say the demand we feck off pronto is a similar issue. How on earth can anything that complex be resolved quickly? It can't and it shan't.

Can I just point out I voted in, have not signed any referendum petitions? I'm aware my words are probably suggesting otherwise!

[Crazedwraith]

Someone's made a facebook album of really worrying things that have happened since the vote: Mostly people being racist, isolationist dicks.