The Brexit Thread

[FanboyOf91]

LOL. Yesterday, a UK citizen had rights to live, work, and study in 28 countries.

 

After this is implemented, they have the freedom to live, work and study in one.

 

And in a few years, a smaller one at that.

[Destino]

If the EU "makes an example" of the U.K. they'll anger many of their own members and justify the distrust.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Interesting stuff. If I were British, I don't think I'd like the EU dictating what my country does.

.....

 

 

It really doesn't. That's been another disgraceful, overt lie from the 'leave' campaign. 'The EU is responsible for making 60% of our laws' ..... Except in actual fact, 13.2 % I believe it is of the UK's laws have come down from Brussel's. And the majority of them are there to protect workers who otherwise wouldn't be.

 

And anything else the EU moves on, we get a say at the table and a vote. 

 

Or at least we did 24 hours or so ago. 

 

Hail. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Gibbs Hog Heaven

[Est.1974]

You seem to think that the UK can leave a dominant economic bloc while simultaneously retaining all or most of its prime benefits like free trade and free movement across borders.

 

The reality is that the EU is going to make an example out of you to prevent right wing nationalists from gaining this much influence in their own countries. There is no purpose to the EU if countries can leave, close their borders, not pay any fees but still have access to open borders in other countries and free trade without personal commitment.

I don't think anything of the kind. I think the EU would love to make an example out of us, I'm not sure that would be a great idea for them in the longer term. I see a short term pissing contest before the dust settles and practical solutions have to be found.

What I do think is that nobody has an idea how this will unfold. It's great that we all have opinions, but the reality is that you know the same as me with regards to the outcome of this, and that's **** all to be honest. The last 4 months has been filled with political bull**** from both sides, financial discrepancies from both sides, and unsubstantiated threats from those both within the EU and outside.

And for what it's worth, I voted to remain in the EU but this notion that the world will all but come to an end is simply absurd.

[sportjunkie07]

You seem to think that the UK can leave a dominant economic bloc while simultaneously retaining all or most of its prime benefits like free trade and free movement across borders.

The reality is that the EU is going to make an example out of you to prevent right wing nationalists from gaining this much influence in their own countries. There is no purpose to the EU if countries can leave, close their borders, not pay any fees but still have access to open borders in other countries and free trade without personal commitment.

Exactly. They will assault the UK in the short term on all economic fronts. It pretty much has to happen if you want a strong EU.

I expect this will open up favorable trade conditions to those willing to trade with Britain due to EU stonewalling. The US should be in on it.

[No Excuses]

If the EU "makes an example" of the U.K. they'll anger many of their own members and justify the distrust.

 

The EU doesn't have to do anything per se. They just have to treat the UK just like they treat non-members who still want access to the single market. 

 

Norway is a non-member and in their own referendum in 94, they chose not to join the EU. But to buy into the single market, they have to pay heavy fees and open their borders. And yet, because they aren't part of the EU, they have little to no say in how things are run.

 

That is the best case scenario for the UK unless the EU fundamentally and drastically changes how it functions, at which point, it likely will be something completely different than what it is today. And the odds are they are going to preserve the current system instead of throwing it all out the window because the current system works better than the alternatives.

[RonJeremy]

As soon as article 50 is triggered, isn't a two-year clock running? Aside from what that means for decades of legislation and regulations that will need to be changed and the costs of doing that, what happens to European citizens currently working in the UK, and to UK citizens throughout Europe who would similarly lose their rights of work, residency etc. Rights to own businesses and property will change significantly. Changing jobs will be more difficult if countries enforce rules that EU citizens are hired over non--EU, etc.

 

It will be a two year process, with political and economic uncertainty around the exit negotiations likely to persist for months, if not years.  The ultimate impacts of BREXIT will hinge on the politicians in the UK and EU working together.....good luck with that.  

[sportjunkie07]

If the EU "makes an example" of the U.K. they'll anger many of their own members and justify the distrust.

The UK just landed a haymaker on the EU. If the UK prospers, it shows others that the EU is unecessary. If they allow similar trade to what the was allowed while the UK was part of the EU, it also shows the the EU is unecessary.

They essentially have to work against the UK at this point.

[FanboyOf91]

I don't know whether to laugh at Wales and Cornwall or feel bad for them. That's some full-auto .50 cal machine gun at your foot type of stupid.

[visionary]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/miriamelder/the-big-winner-of-brexit-is-vladimir-putin?utm_term=.wdkJngBe7

The Big Winner Of Brexit Is Vladimir Putin

 

As the globe begins to adjust to a post-Brexit world order, let it be clear that, aside from the British politicians who staked their careers on a Leave vote, there is one winner to emerge from the chaos about to engulf Europe: Vladimir Putin.

 

That’s not a new idea — David Cameron and the Remain campaign trotted it out to encourage people to casts their votes to stay within the European Union. That failed.

 

By Friday morning, Putin was pontificating loudly on just how untrue it was. No one “had the right” to speculate about Russia’s position, he said. “In my view, we behaved very correctly, carefully followed what was happening, but in no way influenced this process, and didn’t even try to.”

And yet, directly causing Brexit is different than profiting from it.

 

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union looks set to plunge it into an unprecedented bureaucratic sinkhole that will occupy the bloc for months to come, with all the attendant fiscal and financial uncertainty that brings. The ripple effects of Brexit will reach the farthest corners of the union. Add to that an ongoing refugee crisis that is already straining time and resources, and feeding populist anti-immigration sentiment and parties. It’s hard to see the EU settling back into business as usual for some time to come, if ever again.

Putin has never been a fan of dealing with Brussels in the first place, favoring personal connections with individual leaders to foster bilateral relationships that would cut out the bloc altogether. He would follow those up with one-on-one trade deals, usually involving Russia’s vast energy reserves. Some of the earliest models were former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. In recent years, Russia has been seeking to boost its influence throughout eastern Europe. It has also built relationships with insurgent parties and candidates across the UK, who have responded in kind. It is no accident that Nigel Farage has long been a regular on the Kremlin-owned propaganda network Russia Today.

 

“Brexit’s greatest winner is Putin,” Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, wrote in an email. “For years now, he has sought ways to divide Europe, including both the EU and NATO, hoping for a collapse of unity in Europe just as the USSR and the Warsaw Pact did a quarter century ago.”

 

“The UK’s exit from the EU,” he added, “will be celebrated widely inside Kremlin circles.”

 

Kremlin officials, Putin included, have insisted they want to continue to see a strong Europe, because as Putin put it last week, “having dialogue with a weak partner is not worth it.“ There may be some truth to that. The EU is Russia’s biggest single trading partner — and, at least short term, the chaos might be disruptive.

 

But, a strong EU is also needed to maintain sanctions against the Kremlin and its allies, implemented to punish Russia for its adventure in Ukraine.

 

 

https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/746423616674246656

Dow falls 650 points; S&P 500 down 77 points; NASDAQ also down 205 points; worst day since 2011
3:23 PM

Edited June 24, 2016 by visionary

[Est.1974]

I expect this will open up favorable trade conditions to those willing to trade with Britain due to EU stonewalling. The US should be in on it.

Obama has already started back tracking today. He loves our special relationship, his words not mine............

[abdcskins]

Can someone explain to me in four or less sentences what is happening?

 

I'm at work and don't have the time to read long articles.  Thank you.

[FanboyOf91]

Can someone explain to me in four or less sentences what is happening?

 

I'm at work and don't have the time to read long articles.  Thank you.

 

UK voted to leave the European Union because of immigrants. This hurts global financial markets.

[DCSaints_fan]

For those in the US who think those who voted for Brexit are foolis: how would you like a "North American Union", headquartered in say, Ontario, run by unelected bureaucrats that can effectively make US law?  

[The Evil Genius]

For those in the US who think those who voted for Brexit are foolis: how would you like a "North American Union", headquartered in say, Ontario, run by unelected bureaucrats that can effectively make US law?  

 

Personally, I'd say its more like the original 13 colonies giving up state powers to a federal government who gets to set some rules that trump the state rules. Without such centralization of powers, those states are left to compete against each other (and really only act in their own self interest) all the while the rest of the world easily passes them by.

Edited June 24, 2016 by The Evil Genius

[DogofWar1]

Can someone explain to me in four or less sentences what is happening?

 

I'm at work and don't have the time to read long articles.  Thank you.

 

1. UK voted to leave European Union (leavers say for safety and sovereignty, remainders say it was for xenophobia and was short-sighted).

2. UK hasn't officially left EU until they trigger Article 50 which sets a 2 year time table for leaving the EU; Article 50 will be triggered in the fall most likely.

3. David Cameron will step down in several months as he supported "remain," which lost, and wants a leader in place who believes in the path the voters chose, which likely means someone like Boris Johnson will become the new PM.

4. Immediate consequence is economic downturn due to uncertainty, farther out economic consequences are less known, though reasonable probability of some negative pressure on UK economy.

[Going Commando]

For those in the US who think those who voted for Brexit are foolis: how would you like a "North American Union", headquartered in say, Ontario, run by unelected bureaucrats that can effectively make US law?

We have a union of states that grants its members far less independence than the EU does its constituent states. The last time some of our member states tried to leave the union it led to the bloodiest war in American history.

[RonJeremy]

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/746423616674246656

 

Dow down 611.21 (3.39%)

S&P down 76.02 (3.60%)

 

Thanks UK!!

 

[visionary]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/a-pyrrhic-victory-boris-johnson-wakes-up-to-the-costs-of-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw

A pyrrhic victory? Boris Johnson wakes up to the costs of Brexit

 

“If we are victorious in one more battle … we shall be utterly ruined.”

 

Like the good intellectual that he’s vigorously pretended not to be of late, Boris Johnson will probably know that line. It’s from the Greek historian Plutarch’s account of the battle that gave us the phrase “pyrrhic victory”, the kind of victory won at such cost that you almost wish you’d lost.

 

In theory, Johnson woke up on Friday morning having won the war. After David Cameron’s announcement that he would step down come October, Johnson is now the heir presumptive – albeit at this stage very presumptive – to the Tory leadership, perhaps only four months away from running the country.

 

He has everything he ever wanted. It’s just that somehow, as he fought his way through booing crowds on his Islington doorstep before holding an uncharacteristically subdued press conference on Friday morning, it didn’t really look that way.

 

One group of Tory remainers watching the speech on TV jeered out loud when a rather pale Johnson said leaving Europe needn’t mean pulling up the drawbridge; that this epic victory for Nigel Farage could somehow “take the wind out of the sails” of anyone playing politics with immigration. Too late for all that now, one said.

 

The scariest possibility, however, is that he actually meant it. That like most of Westminster, Johnson always imagined we’d grudgingly vote to stay in the end. That he too missed the anger bubbling beneath the surface, and is now as shocked as anyone else by what has happened.

 

“People talk about reluctant remainers, but I think there have been a lot of reluctant Brexiters around, people who voted leave thinking it wouldn’t happen but they’d be able to vent and to tell all their friends at dinner parties they’d done it,” said one Tory minister.

 

“He thought what all those reluctant Brexiters thought: it would be a vote for remain, he would be seen as having stood up for a principle.” After which leave’s newest martyr could simply have bided his time for a year or so before being triumphantly installed in Downing Street.

 

https://twitter.com/DavidHeadViews/status/746426933567619073

Some Polish workers interviewed on Brexit by @BBCLookNorth did not want their faces to be shown for fear of reprisals. New-look UK.
3:37 PM

[Elessar78]

For those in the US who think those who voted for Brexit are foolis: how would you like a "North American Union", headquartered in say, Ontario, run by unelected bureaucrats that can effectively make US law?  

Imagine if we had a group of United States where the HQ was somewhere in the mid-atlantic making the rules for all these states. 

[DogofWar1]

Personally, I'd say its more like the original 13 colonies giving up state powers to a federal government who gets to set some rules that trump the state rules. Without such centralization of powers, those states are left to compete against each other (and really only act in their own self interest) all the while the rest of the world easily passes them by.

 

Or they get conquered/re-conquered.

 

Replay the War of 1812 with the Articles of Confederation still in place.  It didn't go all that well for us in the first instance, but it could have ended in a much worse fashion.

 

Indeed, a fractured EU is perfect for Russia, no regional power to tell them to stop poking around in Eastern Europe's sovereignty.

 

Why do you think the TPP is such a big deal, it's designed to counter Chinese economic (and military) expansion by centralizing Pacific power somewhere besides Beijing.

[Voice_of_Reason]

We'd end up re-electing about 80% of our officials, and the 20% we kicked out would change parties with new votes of no confidence about every 6 months.

 

"Mass shooting!?  No confidence in President Obama!"

 

"Market bubble?  No confidence in President Romney!"

 

"A report about how China is totally beating us in X Sector!  No confidence in President Kaine!"

 

"That report was false!?  No confidence in President Ryan!"

 

Meanwhile, no progress happens because everyone still loves their Congressperson and partisanship prevents anything from happening.

1. You entirely missed the point of shipping every elected official to Siberia.  It's just so that we couldn't re-elect the dingdongs.  

2.  You're probably right about there being a no-confidence every 3-4 months.  Hmmm. Ok, how about this: If you are an elected member, and you're sent to Siberia, you can't be re-elected ever.  So, eventually, we'd just run out of people to elect, because we'd have moved everybody to Siberia?

 

I think that might work.  

[DCSaints_fan]

Imagine if we had a group of United States where the HQ was somewhere in the mid-atlantic making the rules for all these states. 

 

Who get representation in the legislature, which actually serves a role beyond simply 'advisory' (well, except D.C.).  And who can vote for the President 

[drtdrums]

Can someone explain to me in four or less sentences what is happening?

I'm at work and don't have the time to read long articles. Thank you.

1) C1, C2, and DE demographic groups (read: middle class and poor) voted to re-establish UK sovereignty and are being called racist xenophobes by elites and international political left for their trouble.

2) Scotland, NI, and London voted heavily to remain. The rest of the UK didn't.

3) Upside: The UK is going to be more in charge of their own laws and economy/trade.

4) Downside: Markets don't like change and interactions with EU nations (including aforementioned moving, studying, etc) may end up being more complicated than they currently are (depending on what is decided over the next two years, since nothing dramatic will happen suddenly).

[Corcaigh]

For those in the US who think those who voted for Brexit are foolis: how would you like a "North American Union", headquartered in say, Ontario, run by unelected bureaucrats that can effectively make US law?  

 

What's the role of the directly elected European Parliament in your scenario? One that's responsible for budget, oversight and legislative matters?