EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 113
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4432 Posts
On June 24 2016 13:48 Plansix wrote: They could take their 15% and leave? They don't want to leave the EU and they were not super 100% pumped about being part of the UK. The UK just make breaking up that much easier. We will see how far that pound drops. Maybe it just keeps going. The more the pound drops the worse it is for Europe as their exports to the UK get more expensive. The UK imports FAR more from Europe than it exports. I wouldn't be surprised to see a concerted effort among global central banks to support the pound. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome. However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability. If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this. Yeah that would be like throwing gasoline and dynamite on a bonfire if he refused to obey the referendum. | ||
|
Larkin
United Kingdom7161 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 24 2016 13:55 Wegandi wrote: Trade is important, however, what is more important is the degree to which the country is market-oriented. Given your scenario how do you explain economic power-houses like Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Luxembourg, etc.? England will be fine, especially if Scotland and NI left. Granted, the NHS is a huge drag, but, for the most part I feel like the English have a good liberal history to fall back on if there were a trade war among them and the EU. You're also forgetting that in your scenario you fail to take into account how large an economy the UK and the common-wealth is. The UK will be fine in regards to the US, Canada, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. Interesting thought. You're missing though that there's no trade deals for the UK in those countries either. Which would bring us back to the original point: the UK can't bargain. Not with the EU, and not with the US. And that's not even taking into account the (at least slight) possibility that Trump gets voted president. That'll be fun. For various reasons. Oh and i took into account how much the UK im-/ and exports. Which seems to be rather over-estimated by you. And sidenote, if scotland were to leave, that would be a much bigger hit to the UKs economy than the EU could ever force on them. Just saying. By the way, slapping on penalties on another party because they chose not to politically associate themselves with you, is pretty damn spiteful. Of course, there are the people who say the EU has to to look strong and dis-incentivize other EU member countries from following the same path. I don't think many people have issues with the EU as an economic-pact (I certainly am in favor of free-trade, ease of movement, etc.). The issue is the politicization and power-grab of the EU. People don't want Brussels dictating laws to them, just like people in Tallahassee or Reno or Anchorage or Dallas don't want to be dictated by fiat from unelected bureaucrats in DC. No one opposes free-trade among the 50 states :p (except I suppose when it comes to insurance, but that's a separate topic). Eh? Dude. If i work for Arriva (edit: welsh public transport/trains), i get a free train pass as benefit. If someone comes over and tries to argue with me that he needs that benefit of a free train pass too, even though he works for Walmart, what do you think is going to happen? It's not penalties. It's a new trade deal that has to be made. You know how people make deals? You offer, and you demand stuff in return. You can demand more the stronger your bargaining position is. It's literally that easy and has nothing to do with spitefulness. And i agree with the notion btw, that people don't like the powers that Brussels have. Me neither. But the single market for now comes with exactly that. And as long as that's the case, Britain has to bow for that, and not throw a tantrum as to why they get "penalized" for leaving the "work-union", by losing their train pass. As for the US....well, we had one of the most market-oriented countries in the world for a long time which is how we became wealthy, but of course, there was also South American and Pacific exploitation by the MIC (I mean Dole is one of the worst offenders here...but I digress), but that's while deplorable not really the major contributor of why we are as wealthy as we are (though we have been pissing that away for a while now). .. right. Exploitation plays little part in the USs wealth. I mean, obviously, apart from your country actually being built of the foundation of exploitation. Come on now. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6343 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome. However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability. If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this. Are you for real? England would lose their shit if Cameron pulled something like this. And the UK will still be in the EU for quite some time as the formalities are sorted out. Cameron should resign immediately. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Martin McGuinness is a convicted terrorist who calls for unification with Ireland whenever the wind changes direction. Nobody is surprised by this. It was Declan Kearney though. No idea who that is, in all honesty. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:06 zeo wrote: Are you for real? England would lose their shit if Cameron pulled something like this. And the UK will still be in the EU for quite some time as the formalities are sorted out. Cameron should resign immediately. Well a little over half will. Just a little. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Diabolique
Czech Republic5118 Posts
But the future for the UK looks great .... leaving this dictatorship of a few stupid Brussels politicians and the German mad lady. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4432 Posts
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36599300 EU referendum: Juncker in 'out is out' warning to UK 22 June 2016 The UK will not be able to return to the negotiating table if it votes to leave the European Union, one of the EU's top officials has said. Speaking on the eve of the referendum, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the outcome would be final and "out is out". And the UK would not get a better deal than the one already negotiated by Prime Minister David Cameron. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
To be fair, i wouldn't want to stand in front of those "few" to tell them that. A million people give or take can still stirr the pot. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Thankfully, substantially over half of the population will act to respect democratic decisions, even ones they don't really agree with, on principle. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9322 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I dont think a 52% victory or smaller is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result. That's why referendums in reality are dumb af. Not just this one, but generally. On the other hand, i guess it's hard for campaigners to find a 2/3 majority. | ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome. However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability. If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this. Scotland won't get another referendum. Westminster will block it under the Edinburgh agreement | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On June 24 2016 13:55 Wegandi wrote: Trade is important, however, what is more important is the degree to which the country is market-oriented. Given your scenario how do you explain economic power-houses like Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Luxembourg, etc.? England will be fine, especially if Scotland and NI left. Granted, the NHS is a huge drag, but, for the most part I feel like the English have a good liberal history to fall back on if there were a trade war among them and the EU. You're also forgetting that in your scenario you fail to take into account how large an economy the UK and the common-wealth is. The UK will be fine in regards to the US, Canada, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. By the way, slapping on penalties on another party because they chose not to politically associate themselves with you, is pretty damn spiteful. Of course, there are the people who say the EU has to to look strong and dis-incentivize other EU member countries from following the same path. I don't think many people have issues with the EU as an economic-pact (I certainly am in favor of free-trade, ease of movement, etc.). The issue is the politicization and power-grab of the EU. People don't want Brussels dictating laws to them, just like people in Tallahassee or Reno or Anchorage or Dallas don't want to be dictated by fiat from unelected bureaucrats in DC. No one opposes free-trade among the 50 states :p (except I suppose when it comes to insurance, but that's a separate topic). As for the US....well, we had one of the most market-oriented countries in the world for a long time which is how we became wealthy, but of course, there was also South American and Pacific exploitation by the MIC (I mean Dole is one of the worst offenders here...but I digress), but that's while deplorable not really the major contributor of why we are as wealthy as we are (though we have been pissing that away for a while now). Of course slapping penalties on Great Britain would be spiteful, but in the defense of those who would wish it so the UK cannot expect to opt out of the EU but still be allowed to enjoy all the benefits of an EU country. If the people of the UK choose to not be part of the single market anymore this will have repercussions. That is a bit what I'm afraid of: I doubt many people realised that voting "Leave" also included leaving the single market. Most of them probably were convinced that they were voting to get rid of all the disadvantages of being an EU country while completely ignoring all the good stuff. It makes me wonder who the politicians will try to shift the blame to next time the British people are angry about the state their country is in. Most of the problems are self-inflicted. It is almost ironic that they claim that the EU is some kind of neoliberal undemocratic superstate while the UK is actually far more liberal and deregulated than just about any other EU country, and the first-past-the-post voting system is incredibly undemocratic compared to the voting systems used in mainland Europe (as far as I know the current Tory government did not have a majority vote). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I dont think a 52% or smaller victory is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result. Yeah, it's barely a mandate. and the UK will be a small fish in a pond with one big fish. It's a far from perfect win. Just makes shit hard. | ||
|
zimz
United States510 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I don't think a 52% or smaller victory is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result. Well then its not a Democracy but a Dictatorship. You can't have a vote on something that u never intended to keep either way, that's outrageous. People won't stand for that. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6302 Posts
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I dont think a 52% or smaller victory is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result. Should have thought of that before the referendum. I.E. you need a 60% majority to let it pass like with constitutional changes where you often need 66% or even 75%. You cannot do that afterwards. | ||
| ||
