|
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 |
On July 05 2016 07:55 Uldridge wrote:
How would arranging your own trade deals become more beneficial? Doesn't the EU have a massive department for getting good deals for individual nations/corporations residing in EU nations towards other nations/with eachother?
Exactly this.
The bigger the union the better the deals you can make. If we imagine the british economy to be hurt by the brexit (which it already is but lets assume it might get worse) then the chances of getting good deals gets worse as well.
If the british economy recovers to where it was before the whole brexit vote and it stays like that even after the brexit I still dont see how they could make better deals than the EU as one big union. Especially with a trade powerhouse like germany, with the second strongest export in the world.
But lets assume they manage to keep their economy strong AND they manage to get a few good deals with other countries. Is this still enough to balance out all the good trade deals they will lose? The UK and the EU will become competition. They will have to beat each other out. And the EU as a whole is the far better economy.
|
On July 05 2016 07:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Actually, many people in France, starting with late Michel Rocard were in favour of Brexit. Britain has never been a committed member to the EU. It has always considered the whole thing from the perspective of egoistic interest, trying to obtain good deals. The EU is supposed to be a union, where countries stand together and display solidarity and unity.
I don't know if that's right. One cannot deny that Britain's attitude has always been questionable at best, and it might well be that Europe can take a new start after the Brexit. I actually think the UK leaving is best for the EU as a whole. The EU's strongest countries need to be united and seek common interest in order to strenghten the EU. The UK was doing the exact opposite since it entered the common market, seeking only its own interest. With the UK gone, we can hope that the remaining strong countries (Germany, France, and potentially Italy) will act harmoniously.
Throughout history, Britain has always done exactly that: persue its own interest at the cost of the rest of the continent. It's very telling that brexiteers (and other eurosceptics in general) consider they EU undemocratic mainly because it does not allow them to unilaterally push regulations that would benefit their country and their country alone.
|
I was reading some advice on physics graduates, and somehow from there stumbled through a series of links to an interview by the economist of an out campaigner by the name of Dominic Cummings. To many people he is considered a genius (you can read his ~250 page long essay online free HERE, specifying his Odyssian view of education reform). Anyway he gave some very persuasive arguments for why the EU as it exists in its current form is just not viable and pushes more harmful regulations than helpful ones; and that Britain can act more persuasively as a vanguard for a new union, a model for a working government, from outside the EU. And also how many of the things people say are the great benefits of being part of the EU could easily be negotiated in future trade deals (i.e. free movement of academics, artists, labourers, etc. across borders).
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/out-campaign
Its refreshing at least, to see someone interview who has legitimate views and is not instantly smeared as a racist of some kind.
By the way for those discussing trade deals above he specifically addresses that in the interview.
|
On July 05 2016 06:33 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 05 2016 06:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 05 2016 05:43 Shield wrote:On July 05 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 05 2016 05:26 andrewlt wrote:
So none of the major Brexit campaigners want to govern the mess they made. What mess? For example, weaker sterling and business uncertainty? Negotiations with the EU to get such a good deal that you won't be criticised at home? Is the UK actually going to be worse off without the EU? It seems like they're one of the main contributors and that the EU is hurt much more by them leaving. The UK was the greatest nation on the planet at a time when the EU didn't even exist. I think they'll be fine. You really should read what the overwhelming majority of economists are saying. The UK is starting massively downhill negociations and they need to nail it if they don't want to suffer enormously from the Brexit. Of course bad result in those negociations will be much, much, much more damaging for the UK than for the EU. The City will lose its place in the finance world, nobody will want to invest in Britain and British companies will suffer enormously if they leave the single market. As for your second point, what kind of a broken logic is that? I don't even know what to answer. All thanks to a bunch of idiots who thought leaving EU will get rid of Indians, Pakistani, muslims, etc. Or, they thought it was some kind of protest vote against the government. I live in the UK, but I can't be happy with the decision of 52% of voters.  Well, I could have been happier if some of Brexit voters knew what the vote was really about.
That actually reminds me, every piece of data I've seen (which isn't a ton, mind you) states that non-EU migrants, like Pakistanis, have much higher rates of unemployment and are generally much less likely to be contributors to the UK economy, and that's to say nothing of the rape gangs being uncovered every few months or the attempts to turn primary schools into Salafi madrasas. If migration is such a concern, why not simply restrict non-EU migration much more heavily? It gets rid of the least desirable migrant groups and relieves some of the burden on UK public services.
Of course, that's assuming Turkey is kept out, especially with Erdogan floating the idea of granting a few million Syrians Turkish citizenship so he can get more votes and more support for his Islamist agenda.
|
On July 05 2016 10:44 radscorpion9 wrote:I was reading some advice on physics graduates, and somehow from there stumbled through a series of links to an interview by the economist of an out campaigner by the name of Dominic Cummings. To many people he is considered a genius (you can read his ~250 page long essay online free HERE, specifying his Odyssian view of education reform). Anyway he gave some very persuasive arguments for why the EU as it exists in its current form is just not viable and pushes more harmful regulations than helpful ones; and that Britain can act more persuasively as a vanguard for a new union, a model for a working government, from outside the EU. And also how many of the things people say are the great benefits of being part of the EU could easily be negotiated in future trade deals (i.e. free movement of academics, artists, labourers, etc. across borders). http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/out-campaignIts refreshing at least, to see someone interview who has legitimate views and is not instantly smeared as a racist of some kind. By the way for those discussing trade deals above he specifically addresses that in the interview.
I couldn't listen to it but i read the summary:
•establishment forces are threatening business leaders contemplating endorsing the Out campaign
•Vote Leave could borrow ideas and methods from the advertising industry and Soviet propaganda
•his spell in the education department proved to him the scope of the EU's influence over British government
•the Out campaign needs to put Mr Cameron on the spot about the inevitable next wave of EU integration
•it must thus de-risk the prospect of Brexit by portraying a vote to stay in the EU as the dicier option
•there is a "strong democratic case" for a second referendum on the final terms of Brexit, if the first vote is for Out
•contenders to succeed Mr Cameron as Tory leader and prime minister following an Out vote may offer such a second referendum
•Britain should not immediately invoke Article 50 (the formal procedure for leaving the EU) on an Out vote
•Foreign Office professions of British influence mean little as this influence goes unused while Britain is in the EU
•he would like to see money saved by leaving the EU spent on founding a British version of America's DARPA
•the Whitehall and Brussels systems are incompatible as British officials are less willing to bend truths and rules
•it is likely the EU will break up in the coming decades and Britain has a responsibility to pioneer an alternative
•Brexit is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for Britain to adopt a new international role as the world's foremost centre of education and science
Most of it seems to be about how to handle the campaign (which has basically nothing to do with anything else) and the other stuff seems very "optimistic" or really, uhm, he can read in a Crystal ball.
I love this one, its just so full of unreflected british patriotism: "•Brexit is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for Britain to adopt a new international role as the world's foremost centre of education and science"
Wow, what an asshole "We have something very valuable in Britain: civil servants try and stick to the law. They don’t want to cheat things, they don’t want to lie and they don’t want to do things the way they do things in lots of other European countries".
|
|
|
On July 05 2016 14:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 10:44 radscorpion9 wrote:I was reading some advice on physics graduates, and somehow from there stumbled through a series of links to an interview by the economist of an out campaigner by the name of Dominic Cummings. To many people he is considered a genius (you can read his ~250 page long essay online free HERE, specifying his Odyssian view of education reform). Anyway he gave some very persuasive arguments for why the EU as it exists in its current form is just not viable and pushes more harmful regulations than helpful ones; and that Britain can act more persuasively as a vanguard for a new union, a model for a working government, from outside the EU. And also how many of the things people say are the great benefits of being part of the EU could easily be negotiated in future trade deals (i.e. free movement of academics, artists, labourers, etc. across borders). http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/out-campaignIts refreshing at least, to see someone interview who has legitimate views and is not instantly smeared as a racist of some kind. By the way for those discussing trade deals above he specifically addresses that in the interview. I couldn't listen to it but i read the summary: Show nested quote +
•establishment forces are threatening business leaders contemplating endorsing the Out campaign
•Vote Leave could borrow ideas and methods from the advertising industry and Soviet propaganda
•his spell in the education department proved to him the scope of the EU's influence over British government
•the Out campaign needs to put Mr Cameron on the spot about the inevitable next wave of EU integration
•it must thus de-risk the prospect of Brexit by portraying a vote to stay in the EU as the dicier option
•there is a "strong democratic case" for a second referendum on the final terms of Brexit, if the first vote is for Out
•contenders to succeed Mr Cameron as Tory leader and prime minister following an Out vote may offer such a second referendum
•Britain should not immediately invoke Article 50 (the formal procedure for leaving the EU) on an Out vote
•Foreign Office professions of British influence mean little as this influence goes unused while Britain is in the EU
•he would like to see money saved by leaving the EU spent on founding a British version of America's DARPA
•the Whitehall and Brussels systems are incompatible as British officials are less willing to bend truths and rules
•it is likely the EU will break up in the coming decades and Britain has a responsibility to pioneer an alternative
•Brexit is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for Britain to adopt a new international role as the world's foremost centre of education and science
Most of it seems to be about how to handle the campaign (which has basically nothing to do with anything else) and the other stuff seems very "optimistic" or really, uhm, he can read in a Crystal ball. I love this one, its just so full of unreflected british patriotism: "•Brexit is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for Britain to adopt a new international role as the world's foremost centre of education and science" Wow, what an asshole "We have something very valuable in Britain: civil servants try and stick to the law. They don’t want to cheat things, they don’t want to lie and they don’t want to do things the way they do things in lots of other European countries".
Have you seen the corruption index? If you truly believe everyone in EU adheres equally to the rules you are beyond naive.
I by and large disagree with him, but his statements aren't completely conjured from thin air.
|
On July 05 2016 14:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 10:44 radscorpion9 wrote:I was reading some advice on physics graduates, and somehow from there stumbled through a series of links to an interview by the economist of an out campaigner by the name of Dominic Cummings. To many people he is considered a genius (you can read his ~250 page long essay online free HERE, specifying his Odyssian view of education reform). Anyway he gave some very persuasive arguments for why the EU as it exists in its current form is just not viable and pushes more harmful regulations than helpful ones; and that Britain can act more persuasively as a vanguard for a new union, a model for a working government, from outside the EU. And also how many of the things people say are the great benefits of being part of the EU could easily be negotiated in future trade deals (i.e. free movement of academics, artists, labourers, etc. across borders). http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/out-campaignIts refreshing at least, to see someone interview who has legitimate views and is not instantly smeared as a racist of some kind. By the way for those discussing trade deals above he specifically addresses that in the interview. I couldn't listen to it but i read the summary: Show nested quote +
•establishment forces are threatening business leaders contemplating endorsing the Out campaign
•Vote Leave could borrow ideas and methods from the advertising industry and Soviet propaganda
•his spell in the education department proved to him the scope of the EU's influence over British government
•the Out campaign needs to put Mr Cameron on the spot about the inevitable next wave of EU integration
•it must thus de-risk the prospect of Brexit by portraying a vote to stay in the EU as the dicier option
•there is a "strong democratic case" for a second referendum on the final terms of Brexit, if the first vote is for Out
•contenders to succeed Mr Cameron as Tory leader and prime minister following an Out vote may offer such a second referendum
•Britain should not immediately invoke Article 50 (the formal procedure for leaving the EU) on an Out vote
•Foreign Office professions of British influence mean little as this influence goes unused while Britain is in the EU
•he would like to see money saved by leaving the EU spent on founding a British version of America's DARPA
•the Whitehall and Brussels systems are incompatible as British officials are less willing to bend truths and rules
•it is likely the EU will break up in the coming decades and Britain has a responsibility to pioneer an alternative
•Brexit is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for Britain to adopt a new international role as the world's foremost centre of education and science
Most of it seems to be about how to handle the campaign (which has basically nothing to do with anything else) and the other stuff seems very "optimistic" or really, uhm, he can read in a Crystal ball. I love this one, its just so full of unreflected british patriotism: "•Brexit is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for Britain to adopt a new international role as the world's foremost centre of education and science"
Wow, what an asshole "We have something very valuable in Britain: civil servants try and stick to the law. They don’t want to cheat things, they don’t want to lie and they don’t want to do things the way they do things in lots of other European countries".
Nothing assholish about that. Infact, this is exactly how my country works sadly and same is true for the rest of eastern europe.
|
Yeah, but what has this to do with the EU? Except that the uk now would have to deal with these 1 by 1 or against the whole EU?
Talking about the integrity of uk-politicians seems also a bit strange after all the stuff that happened since the brexit.
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Farrage --》 lol
So much integrity and "working for the people". That whole thing was a giant political powerplay and atm it looks like everyone lost for 0 gains.
Maybe they aren't corrupt but all else, where are the good traits?
|
Also, the people should look into what makes up the corruption perception index cited above. The data is important and a great read, but even the group that created the index says that it is incomplete and shouldn’t be taken as hard fact about any specific nation.
|
On July 05 2016 22:28 Plansix wrote:
Also, the people should look into what makes up the corruption perception index cited above. The data is important and a great read, but even the group that created the index says that it is incomplete and shouldn’t be taken as hard fact about any specific nation.
Well I will speak for my own country and i can confirm that that quote is true. Btw, we are in the EU.
|
I think every country has its fair share of corrupted shit. It's almost like a synonym for power at this point, or at the very least one of the core attributes that comes with it. If you continuously reside in cricles of people that are: 1- wealthy and 2- have alot of power, it's easy to lose your once ideological vision of the world when it's constant lobbying etc, from when you were campaigning to get to where you are now.
I think it's easier to get to the top on pure motives than try to exert those pure motives at the top, just because of the reasons mentioned above.
|
On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Farrage --》 lol
On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
True
On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
He didn't get sacked from anything, but he's not going to become leader like he hoped
On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Corbyn has been anti-EU for a good 40 years, most of the party wants him gone but he's more in line with the voters than anyone else in the party
On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Farrage --》 lol
Farage achieved his life goal, I don't get why anyone is angry at him for retiring, he's not going to be given a role in the negotiations so what else does he have left to do?
All that said we do have a bit of a lack of decent politicians, Jacob Rees-Mogg should be PM imo
|
On July 05 2016 22:56 jello_biafra wrote:
Corbyn has been anti-EU for a good 40 years, most of the party wants him gone but he's more in line with the voters than anyone else in the party
That sounds like a strange turn of events. Does that mean that the other elected leaders of the Labor party support policies that are not so well in line with the voters? Given that at least some of them are elected, how did that happen?
|
At least the Brexit delivered. The whining is strong in europe, and I love it.
So much integrity and "working for the people". That whole thing was a giant political powerplay and atm it looks like everyone lost for 0 gains.
You take voters for idiots really ... Anybody with some education on the current europe would have predicted what happened. You're from switzerland you should know what the UK is trying to achieve : they aim to be a freerider, like your country, because the country that actually follow the rules in germania are getting crushed. The british government is already reducing taxation on capital as we speak.
This is the game that the EU created, and the UK decided to play it.
|
On July 05 2016 22:56 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Farrage --》 lol Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
True Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
He didn't get sacked from anything, but he's not going to become leader like he hoped Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Corbyn has been anti-EU for a good 40 years, most of the party wants him gone but he's more in line with the voters than anyone else in the party Farage achieved his life goal, I don't get why anyone is angry at him for retiring, he's not going to be given a role in the negotiations so what else does he have left to do? All that said we do have a bit of a lack of decent politicians, Jacob Rees-Mogg should be PM imo
What
You're telling me Farage's life goal was to get out of the EU, not to make the UK a great empire again, make the UK a Muslim-free country again, or whatever else? I mean, wanting your country out of the EU as a life goal seems like a lack of ambition.
|
On July 06 2016 00:24 WhiteDog wrote:
You take voters for idiots really ... Anybody with some education on the current europe would have predicted what happened. You're from switzerland you should know what the UK is trying to achieve : they aim to be a freerider, like your country, because the country that actually follow the rules in germania are getting crushed. The british government is already reducing taxation on capital as we speak.
This is the game that the EU created, and the UK decided to play it.
Anybody with some education. What % of people that voted on the referendum would that be, you think? And I actually think most people vote based on what the campaign and news, perhaps with a little extra info here and there, portrayed.
Common class wants to live their life, maybe afford some luxury here and there, but in the end it's just a grind, a struggle to get by. These people don't have the extra time, nor mental fortitude to invest in what every political nuance and organisation entails.
|
On July 06 2016 00:33 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 22:56 jello_biafra wrote:On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Farrage --》 lol On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Cameron started it to win an election, it backfired --》gone
True On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Johnson used it for his own gain, got sacked --》 gone
He didn't get sacked from anything, but he's not going to become leader like he hoped On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Corbyn couldn't muster an opposition and rally his party --》 as good as gone.
Corbyn has been anti-EU for a good 40 years, most of the party wants him gone but he's more in line with the voters than anyone else in the party On July 05 2016 22:14 Velr wrote:
Farrage --》 lol Farage achieved his life goal, I don't get why anyone is angry at him for retiring, he's not going to be given a role in the negotiations so what else does he have left to do? All that said we do have a bit of a lack of decent politicians, Jacob Rees-Mogg should be PM imo What You're telling me Farage's life goal was to get out of the EU, not to make the UK a great empire again, make the UK a Muslim-free country again, or whatever else? I mean, wanting your country out of the EU as a life goal seems like a lack of ambition.
Leaving the EU as a political goal is imo certainly possible. Everyone gets into politics for a reason and that being 'I think the EU is terrible and we need to get out' is certainly a very possible reason.
The problem is that everyone, including the leavers knew that the time immediately after the vote would be a bit of turmoil, it turned out to be pretty damn bad by now with no one taking up leadership and to wash your hands of it and get out when you strove so hard to create the situations is.. low? Scummy? Utterly irresponsible? Disgusting? Take your pick
|
On July 06 2016 00:34 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 00:24 WhiteDog wrote:
You take voters for idiots really ... Anybody with some education on the current europe would have predicted what happened. You're from switzerland you should know what the UK is trying to achieve : they aim to be a freerider, like your country, because the country that actually follow the rules in germania are getting crushed. The british government is already reducing taxation on capital as we speak.
This is the game that the EU created, and the UK decided to play it. Anybody with some education. What % of people that voted on the referendum would that be, you think? And I actually think most people vote based on what the campaign and news, perhaps with a little extra info here and there, portrayed. Common class wants to live their life, maybe afford some luxury here and there, but in the end it's just a grind, a struggle to get by. These people don't have the extra time, nor mental fortitude to invest in what every political nuance and organisation entails.
I never wrote "degree", I wrote education. Living with min wage and watching the world is also a form of education. You don't need a degree in economy to know europe is only about economic competition and free riding.
The biggest problem in the UK is that the left is completly unable to propose a good anti EU discourse, far from this racist bullcrap and blind anti immigration.
Why Britain walked out
Serge Halimi | Translated by Charles Goulden
Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, must regret having compared a UK Leave vote to ‘the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also western political civilisation in its entirety’.1 Nevertheless, the thunderclap of the Brexit victory resounds across Europe.
This time it will be difficult to ignore universal suffrage and ask a political class disowned by the result of the 23 June referendum to patch up an arrangement the people have rejected. No one imagines that the UK will be subjected to a democratic denial as flagrant as those perpetrated in France and the Netherlands after their no votes on the European constitution in May and June 2005. It is also unlikely that the British will be treated with as much contempt as the Greeks who, in response to their pleas for the EU to change course, were financially asphyxiated and socially purged, with disastrous economic consequences.
De Gaulle opposed the UK joining the European Economic Community in 1967 because he did not want ‘the creation of a free trade area in western Europe, in preparation for one covering the Atlantic area, which would rob our continent of its unique character.’ To blame the British government alone for this loss of identity would be unfair, however, when it had so many willing accomplices in Berlin, Paris, Rome and Madrid; so many that it’s hard to see what ‘unique character’ or specificity the EU still defends. It is also telling that, in an effort to stop the UK from leaving, the EU had readily agreed to measures that would have suspended welfare benefit payments for workers from other EU countries and strengthened legal protection for the UK’s financial sector.
The EU, brainchild of an intellectual elite, born in a world divided by war, missed one of history’s great choices, or opportunities, to take another route 25 years ago. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a chance for Europe to rebuild a project that could have satisfied its peoples’ aspirations for social justice and peace. If it had had the courage to demolish and rebuild the EU bureaucratic structures surreptitiously erected alongside its states, and remove free trade as the engine of the machine, it could have opposed the triumphal progress of global competition with a model based on regional cooperation, social protection and top-down integration of the peoples of the former eastern bloc.
But instead of a community, it built a market. Bristling with commissioners, rules for member states, penalties for its peoples, yet wide open to competition among workers, soulless and with only one aim – to serve the wealthiest and best connected in financial centres and major metropolises. The European dream has been reduced to a world of penances and austerity, invariably justified as the lesser evil.
The protests expressed in the British vote cannot be dismissed solely as populism or xenophobia. And it is not by further reducing national sovereignty, in favour of a federal Europe almost nobody wants, that our politically discredited elites will assuage the popular anger unleashed in the UK – and rising elsewhere. ◼
Serge Halimi is editorial director of Le Monde diplomatique
https://reader.exacteditions.com/issues/52262/page/2
|
GBP/USD 1.3025
The British Pound made another small step towards its goal, parity with USD. Expecting to break 1.30 before the end today, 1.0 before the end of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
