Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
During the brexit campaign Andrea Leadsom explained her reasons for having a change of mind about the EU. So I'm not sure why it's all coming out now that she's supposedly a hypocrite.
Corbyn was very much against the EU until he became a Labour party leader, then he changed his mind. People are entitled to change their minds about Europe, as many have done down the years. The EU is constantly evolving, and it grows out of favor with many people, but with massive corporate backing, government leaders have to have strong conviction to stand against it.
At around 3 minutes into the video Andrea gives her reasons for coming to the understanding that brexit was the best option, from previously wanting to be in the EU.
I think the EU superstate is inevitable and I think the Leavers are very short-sighted. Let's forget about the people who voted out because of immigrants for a minute, and focus on those who voted because we're a net contributer to the EU, or in the belief that we need to regain control of our sovereignty or whatever.
I want to make two points: firstly, Britain no longer makes anything. There's no real coal or steel industry any more, Britain doesn't build ships any more, the textile industry is gone (obviously these industries still exist, but not on the global scale that they used to). There's oil and gas, but it's not like we're holding a large percentage of the world's reserves. As was pointed out already, we're a service economy. If it weren't for the City of London being a global financial centre, I really struggle to see any sort of reason for money to flow through the UK economy to the same extent that it does now.
When you look at the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil, etc, they have natural resources that we don't. They're only going to get stronger and wield more influence. Will we be the 5th largest economy a generation from now? I would lean heavily towards 'no'. Especially now that we're not in the EU, where there's safety in numbers.
My second point is that the history of human civilization has been about coming together in greater and greater numbers, and in larger and larger structures. It's something which I believe is hardwired into our brains. If you go back to the prehistoric era, for example, we'll have started out as small family units. So, a father, a mother, and children. There would have been threats to the survival of the family unit from many different directions. Let's say there's a sabre tooth tiger roaming the area, eating people. If the family unit acts alone, the father goes out hunting for food, leaving the mother and children behind. Both are in danger from being killed by the tiger. But if they join forces with the other ten families around them, they can leave 4 hunters to guard the women and children, and the rest can go off looking for this tiger, which is a threat to them all. Similarly, in times of shortage, there's more chance of finding or catching food if there's 40 of you instead of 4. Societies form on the basis of this very basic need to join forces to combat outside threats. Economically, Russia, the US, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, China, India, etc, are the outside threats, and the UK has turned round to its next door neighbours, the EU, and said "We're gonna go it alone."
1984 is often viewed as this nightmarish vision of the future, where three giant government entities control the planet. I think it's inevitable that there will be a one world government at some point. Not in the New World Order illuminati sense. But just in the sense that the endgame of capitalism is monopoly. All the smaller businesses get gobbled up by larger ones, until there's just one left. There will be competing economies that will fight for power, influence and territory, with the weaker ones being taken over by the stronger ones, until there's just one left. We will end up in the EU superstate by hook or by crook. It just would have been better to have chosen to be in it rather than be dragged kicking and screaming into it.
I want to make two points: firstly, Britain no longer makes anything. There's no real coal or steel industry any more, Britain doesn't build ships any more, the textile industry is gone (obviously these industries still exist, but not on the global scale that they used to). There's oil and gas, but it's not like we're holding a large percentage of the world's reserves. As was pointed out already, we're a service economy. If it weren't for the City of London being a global financial centre, I really struggle to see any sort of reason for money to flow through the UK economy to the same extent that it does now.
When you look at the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil, etc, they have natural resources that we don't. They're only going to get stronger and wield more influence. Will we be the 5th largest economy a generation from now? I would lean heavily towards 'no'. Especially now that we're not in the EU, where there's safety in numbers.
My second point is that the history of human civilization has been about coming together in greater and greater numbers, and in larger and larger structures. It's something which I believe is hardwired into our brains. If you go back to the prehistoric era, for example, we'll have started out as small family units. So, a father, a mother, and children. There would have been threats to the survival of the family unit from many different directions. Let's say there's a sabre tooth tiger roaming the area, eating people. If the family unit acts alone, the father goes out hunting for food, leaving the mother and children behind. Both are in danger from being killed by the tiger. But if they join forces with the other ten families around them, they can leave 4 hunters to guard the women and children, and the rest can go off looking for this tiger, which is a threat to them all. Similarly, in times of shortage, there's more chance of finding or catching food if there's 40 of you instead of 4. Societies form on the basis of this very basic need to join forces to combat outside threats. Economically, Russia, the US, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, China, India, etc, are the outside threats, and the UK has turned round to its next door neighbours, the EU, and said "We're gonna go it alone."
1984 is often viewed as this nightmarish vision of the future, where three giant government entities control the planet. I think it's inevitable that there will be a one world government at some point. Not in the New World Order illuminati sense. But just in the sense that the endgame of capitalism is monopoly. All the smaller businesses get gobbled up by larger ones, until there's just one left. There will be competing economies that will fight for power, influence and territory, with the weaker ones being taken over by the stronger ones, until there's just one left. We will end up in the EU superstate by hook or by crook. It just would have been better to have chosen to be in it rather than be dragged kicking and screaming into it.
Gove and his wife kind of proved that point when they talked about how Johnson needed Murdoch's backing. I doubt when the next European Commissioner is choosen, Merkel or Hollande will care what he thinks.
Your point about humans banding in larger groups is very good actually. Also, when you say that capitalism is bound to end in a monopoly, I think it's worth remembering that banks operate on an international level as do everything from terrorist groups to media companies so I think it's inevitable (and good) that governments go the same way. Anything less will stop governments from being able to influence events or combat things like tax evasion.
I'd agree with that. I actually like the idea of a European federation and I'm not sure why "superstate" is seen as some sort of swear word. Britain has always been influenced by Europe (and vice versa). The EU was just the first Europe-wide entity that gave them a vote.
Tbh I wanted the Scots to be independent but that could have been my own Irish bias at play.
I just stopped watching that 20 seconds in when he made the very boring "Hitler Youth" comparison.
Regarding his point about democracy, I find it hard to see how this is a win for democracy when the next PM will be chosen by a few hundred Tories (with the wishes of a handful of newspaper owners in mind), sworn in by an unelected Head of State and will then proceed to negotiate a deal that no one has actually voted for.
The biggest for the banks is being able to base themselves in a desirable, English-speaking base and passport services into the EU. Not sure top NY bankers would be as keen on living in Luxembourg as they are London.
Their ultimate wet-dream is a FED and Department of Finance and Control for entire Europe to be run like it's American counterparts. This will be easier to lobby and can be largely populated by people with background from the investment banks (like Government Sachs in the US). The legislators and controllers in the US largely has a background from the investment banks.
And with a common financial parliament taking control in 2025 and the things I wrote in my post earlier here and which is shown in the official EU report I pasted a link to, they are about to get their will. Now in 2016 they started the process of transfering power from National banks to the European Central Bank, which will ultimate lead to a centrally governed fiscal policy for the entire EU and it's member states. When the transference of power is completed in 2025 European parliament will decide over member states fiscal policies and national budgets, with the parliaments in each country reduced to an "advisory role" as they so eloquently put it.
So what you're saying is everyone is a colossal twat?
I think his only point you can take seriously is about the "remainers" having a flawed, pretentious view of the leavers and their stereotypical drivers. You can take it seriously because he acknowledges he's doing exactly the same thing. To me, that's the saddest part of all of this. That innate reaction of "they did something I don't agree with so they must be stupid". That's a horrible characteristic that's all too pervasive in our society. The majority of voters make uninformed votes on things they don't fully understand. Using that as a criticism of "the other side" is incredibly myopic.
Anyone interested in the legalities of who invokes Article 50 this is pretty in depth https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...-50-does-not-require-parliament-to-legislate/
I posted this video to point out that it's not just the exit voters who are stupid, ill-informed, lied to and it's easy to insult the remain camp too. I didn't present it as the way we should look at people we don't agree with. Nontheless, this false sense of superiority in the remain camp was dealt with well in this video.
I don't mind relatively uninformed voters actually. I think it's quite sensible to vote based on a general idea, like 'I want things to be more equal, so I vote for a left winger' or 'I work in the City, I vote for a candidate that often dines with banksters'. I think it's the false sense of beeing informed enough that is dangerous. Those voters (or non voters who want another referendum) start beeing stupid when they tried to explain their choice as if they were much more informed than they really are.
I consider myself quite well informed in general, because I just like getting informed. Not because I'm preparing to vote, but because I just like reading news and analysis and articles on social and economical issue's. But that doesn't mean I fully understand the matters, it just means I' m in the process of understanding more and more and I get closer to full understanding which I will probably never reach. If you only understand 90%, you might reach the opposite conclusion from understanding 100%, while with only understanding 10% and stay away from all the complicated stuff, you might actually reach the same conclusion as if you'd have full understanding.
This was written the day after the referendum result but I thought it was interesting, given how invoking Article 50 seems to have been put back to the new yer.
http://jackofkent.com/2016/06/why-the-article-50-notification-is-important/
http://jackofkent.com/2016/06/why-the-article-50-notification-is-important/
Clegg calling for a referendum before article 50 is invoked.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/03/britain-general-election-before-article-50
In hindsight I can't believe this wasn't organised before the vote. Whoever was going to guide us through leaving the EU should have been chosen long before the referendum took place. The British public would have been much clearer and better informed who would lead the country through Brexit and on what terms they planned to do so. Boris would have been the obvious name, but whether it would have been him or someone else, it should have been locked in. This has become even more shambolic than I expected and isn't doing anyone any favours.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/03/britain-general-election-before-article-50
In hindsight I can't believe this wasn't organised before the vote. Whoever was going to guide us through leaving the EU should have been chosen long before the referendum took place. The British public would have been much clearer and better informed who would lead the country through Brexit and on what terms they planned to do so. Boris would have been the obvious name, but whether it would have been him or someone else, it should have been locked in. This has become even more shambolic than I expected and isn't doing anyone any favours.
What's the fuss about?
Things haven't changed since last week. In a national democratic vote, the nation decided to leave the EU. Cameron has stood down leaving the exit negotiations to someone else currently in the process of being selected. Nothing shambolic at all, unless you look at the irrelevant Labour party.
Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty is interesting...
I'm sure they'll follow through with this
I'm sure they'll follow through with this
In February Cameron said he would invoke Article 50 straight away. He stood down and said it would be September. His possible replacement's then said it would be next year, and then just today when we're good and ready...
The further away from the referendum result day it gets the less likely it is to happen. It's been a week and already a lot has happened, economic consequences, political backstabbing, campaign lies, even polls which suggest the vote would be different just a week later. There is now plenty of time for things to muddy the waters further and the will of the people to change in 5-6 months as consequences become clearer.
I'd also expect the financial and legal sectors of London to put pressure on the result to make it difficult. Such as
Theresa May said that Article 50 wouldn't be submitted until the end of the year, if she was voted in as leader. Brexit will definitely happen, because there was a national referendum voting in favor of it.
At this moment in time there is no brexit negotiation team in place, and it will take some time to set the team up, and more time to set up a clear mandate of what we are expecting to take back from the EU.
Side by side with brexit negotiations, there will need to be a trade negotiation team with the rest of the world. Why set the clock ticking now when we're not ready to start negotiating?
I'm not sure "definitely" is a word I'd use about anything in this situation.
I strongly dislike the idea of a second referendum as I think the result of this one should be respected (even if I think the result itself is bloody stupid).
However, that's not to say that nothing could happen to make a second referendum valid. For example, being forced to leave the EU would strike me as enough of a game changer for a second Scottish independence referendum to be valid, as circumstances have clearly changed in a rather profound way.
I don't think you can rule out an event (or events) occurring that has a similar game changing effect in relation to brexit either and the odds of that happening increase the longer it takes to actually invoke article 50.
I agree with this, it would be extremely reckless to trigger article 50 straight away for the sake of it, it was one of the things that made Corbyn's reaction on the morning of the result so bizarre. Cameron spoke about triggering it straight away to cut off any strategic voting for Leave in order to force the EU to give us a better offer, which was something put forward by Portillo amongst others.
I agree. It would be stupid to invoke article 50 now because as soon as that happens the clock starts ticking. We need a new prime minister and negotiating team in place first.
Theresa May didn't even want Brexit, she was in the remain camp and so are most of the MPs supporting her. If she is elected over someone like Gove who was in the Leave camp, or Leadsom who has said she was invoke Article 50 immediately, what would that say about the will of her party? She has said people want a Prime Minister who isn't just about Brexit. She wouldn't be under pressure to invoke it anytime soon if she gets in.
She claimed today she wouldn't invoke Article 50 until there had been negotiations on freedom of movement, yet the EU have said they won't budge on that. Sounds like a stalement. We can blame them, they can blame us. Procrastination on something most of her party or MPs don't even want. The EU can't force our hand and the people can't force anything with a General Election years away. It can be one of those things that just rumbles on and on.
Edit: Parliament can make referendums legally binding but they chose not to make this one so. Nothing has to happen.
Last edited:
The media has a delusional stronghold on the minds of those who desire to stay in the EU.
It won't just rumble on. Once the team is in place and ready, it'll be all systems go. My personal feeling is that the EU is collapsing, and it is a possibility it could crumble to the ground before the UK leaves. This could lead to massive reform, and this may affect whether we leave. It is obvious that the EU cannot continue as it currently is, waiting for nation after nation to drop out. Right now they are in crisis.
It won't just rumble on. Once the team is in place and ready, it'll be all systems go. My personal feeling is that the EU is collapsing, and it is a possibility it could crumble to the ground before the UK leaves. This could lead to massive reform, and this may affect whether we leave. It is obvious that the EU cannot continue as it currently is, waiting for nation after nation to drop out. Right now they are in crisis.
We'll just have to wait and see. You're taking politicians at their word which is a dangerous thing to do. I don't think there is quite this rush or desire to see this thing through that you seem to think (especially now Boris is out of the picture) and the EU can't force us to invoke Article 50 nor can the British people.
Last edited:
There was no clear plan. There were a group of populist politicians who saw the EU vote as among the most important things to happen in the UK in decades but also trivial enough to leave it to a man (Cameron) who thought it was an idiotic move. It was a rebellion against the status quo with no clear plan for what to put in it's place. No matter what is decided after all this has settled, at least some of the Leave voters will be disappointed.
What media? The UK media has been pumping out negative stories about the EU for decades. If you're talking about the BBC then they're obligated to stay neutral so pobably look to experts to stay impartial. Unfortunately most experts thought leaving would be bad for the UK. Aside from them (and the Guardian), I don't know who you're talking about.
Now talks of looking at the EU nationals living in the UK.
Last edited:
I think there is a long way to go before Article 50 is ever invoked.
Last edited:
The nation didn't decide to leave the EU, they voiced their opinion that we should do so. Two very different things.
What are the chances of this referendum result merely being utilised as a tool for renegotiating some aspects of Freedom of Movement and Article 50 never being invoked?
I doubt that would be politically possible for the EU.
You get the feeling that at least half the Brexiters think they've already left the EU, what's the betting the UK doesn't leave (voluntarily)
Could we not just convince them we've already left and got our country back? Doubt most of the would notice.
Wonder if he's angling for a Tory role or a Lordship of some kind. I did read the Leadsom did not rule out involving Farage in the Brexit team if she was PM
It is. The people who pushed for Brexit now don't want to be a part of whatever comes of it.
Can someone explain this to me? The UK haven't left the EU and they actually need someone to do it and do it properly but he decides to leave, what is wrong with that guy.?