EPTWell, brexit happened...
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1196
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
Well, brexit happened... | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Which doesn't mean that "people voted against the government and not on the theme of the referendum" | ||
|
Aceace
Turkey1305 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On October 23 2018 17:47 TheDwf wrote: Which doesn't mean that "people voted against the government and not on the theme of the referendum" I misread the post you were responding to. Im not sure the vote was only about the EU but it was definitely the main reason people voted I think. Brits have always had a very strenuous relation with the EU, with many brits not considering themselves European. The loss of autonomy in the EU and the apparent bureaucracy served as easy fuel to rile up the anti-EU sentiment in the wake of the refugee crisis. Even now there are many who (estimates around 30% I believe?) who still fully support brexit with no deal, which is the equivalent of driving yourself off a cliff because you don't the passenger in your car. It's hard to believe such a disastrous decision was made just because of things related to the current government. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 23 2018 21:41 solidbebe wrote: I misread the post you were responding to. Im not sure the vote was only about the EU but it was definitely the main reason people voted I think. Brits have always had a very strenuous relation with the EU, with many brits not considering themselves European. The loss of autonomy in the EU and the apparent bureaucracy served as easy fuel to rile up the anti-EU sentiment in the wake of the refugee crisis. Even now there are many who (estimates around 30% I believe?) who still fully support brexit with no deal, which is the equivalent of driving yourself off a cliff because you don't the passenger in your car. It's hard to believe such a disastrous decision was made just because of things related to the current government. Funnily enough, the topic is so debated that there is even a whole Wikipedia page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexit | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22688 Posts
On October 24 2018 03:43 Ghostcom wrote: Never because Italy is not Britain and really doesn't want to stop sucking on the EU's tit, despite the loud shouting by certain politicians.So that was a "no" to Italy. When are we getting Italeave? Pretty at this point the EU would be perfectly happy with losing Italy. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
On October 24 2018 04:08 Gorsameth wrote: Never because Italy is not Britain and really doesn't want to stop sucking on the EU's tit, despite the loud shouting by certain politicians. Pretty at this point the EU would be perfectly happy with losing Italy. Why would anyone be happy with losing a net contributor and soon to be third biggest economy in the EU? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 24 2018 04:19 Sent. wrote: Why would anyone be happy with losing a net contributor and soon to be third biggest economy in the EU? Because it is easier to lose them now than when their populist government implodes due to mounting debt and they have to bail them out? Also, didn’t the EU change a bunch of rules to allow Italy to join up in the first place? At some point the EU is going to have to hit one of its members for being bad. Net contributor or otherwise. The whole linked economic future only works if everyone gives a shit about it. Once a nation gets on the sovereignty vs the EU kick, they don’t care about the whole linked economic future plan and its time talk about breaking up. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22688 Posts
On October 24 2018 04:19 Sent. wrote: Italy might be a big economy but its not a stable healthy government and debt. The financial crisis showed that. And now a populist government wants to bloat the deficit again.Why would anyone be happy with losing a net contributor and soon to be third biggest economy in the EU? | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 24 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote: How is the current government not responsible for the previous government’s debt? What I meant is, the previous governments made that debt. Of course the current one has to manage it somehow, but they inherited the present situation, they didn't cause it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 24 2018 05:12 TheDwf wrote: What I meant is, the previous governments made that debt. Of course the current one has to manage it somehow, but they inherited the present situation, they didn't cause it. And that debt is owed to other EU nations or lenders within EU nations, correct? So if Italy is mismanaged badly enough, the EU will have to bail them out just like Greece? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9336 Posts
On October 24 2018 05:09 Gorsameth wrote: Italy might be a big economy but its not a stable healthy government and debt. The financial crisis showed that. And now a populist government wants to bloat the deficit again. Did not imply it's healthy, but kicking that economy out of the union would do more harm to the healthy economies of the North than making them fund the potential bailout(s). The financial crisis also showed that governments get much more agreeable (or replaceable) once they stop being able to pay their own bills. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 24 2018 05:36 Plansix wrote: And that debt is owed to other EU nations or lenders within EU nations, correct? So if Italy is mismanaged badly enough, the EU will have to bail them out just like Greece? From memory it's mostly domestic, like 2/3 domestic - 1/3 foreign Using a single currency and thus mutualizing problems without a corresponding sovereign political entity was the most stupid idea ever | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 24 2018 05:44 TheDwf wrote: From memory it's mostly domestic, like 2/3 domestic - 1/3 foreign Using a single currency and thus mutualizing problems without a corresponding sovereign political entity was the most stupid idea ever I don’t know, it seemed to work out for you folks for a while. But ya’ll really didn’t build in any way to punish bad actors without kicking them out, which seems to be causing some problems right now. | ||
|
Xamo
Spain886 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On October 22 2018 18:03 Big J wrote: I am becoming more and more of the opinion that conservativism is a mental illness that you get from being lazy. At some point when you are lazy you just start accepting surficial thoughts as truths and stop questioning your actions. You start thinking that the conclusions you have already reached in your life are indiscussable and true for everyone else, so they have to get in line and you don't need to change anything, how convenient! That's the point where someone leaves the path of compromising, the ideals of freedom and mutual tolerance as principles of human interaction. Stability, security and power become the only ratio at this point and discussion ends. It is a mainstream old people's disease and it is probably going to get worse given the population development. It is also really common with progressive political movements. Once they had a few political successes they start to put securing the reforms first, for which they need to stay in power, turning them into another conservative faction. The bolshevist intelligentsia turned out to be another conservative party with elite claims to economic and social control in the style of "liberal" 19th century movements that wanted power, but only among themselves (only the rich were allowed to vote and represent). And with the extreme developments in economic distribution it seems like we are heading back exactly where we came from in 1914, when all of this collapsed first under the leadership of conservative kiddies with no other needs left but the demand for European hegemony. Bunch of nonsense. Conservatism often comes with age and experience,it is natural when you think about it. Its young people who are progressive mostly,you wont find many conservatives amongst young people. But trust me,when all those young people are old the majority of them will be conservative. That is how older people mostly are,conservative and objecting to change. Its not even because they believe in that ideal so much,when you get older you become more resistant to change in general. With less time to go there is less room for errors,they are happy keeping their situation stable. Specially older people who are happy with their own situation,why would they risk change anything? When you are young you have all these ideas that you think that can change the world. But after a few years/decades in politics and life you will discover that the world doesn't work that way,it is impossible to change things fast and get a good outcome at the same time,its impossible to change things fast at all. And then you become conservative,to try keep the good things that are there,rather then often fruitlessly trying to change everything with an uncertain outcome possibly leading to even more bad things. Conservatism isn't even a political movement,like you can have conservative communist politicians (like Brezhnev in rusia) and you can have progressive communists like gorbatjov. Conservative and progressive are measured against the system already in place. It is not a policial movement with specific ideas itself. The general idea is to conserve,or to change in the case of progressive. This answer can be found in your own post to some extend already btw, as you realize that it works this way with progressive movements when they come into power. Its human nature. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqA_PhYWoAAqJnd.jpg)
