BREXIT Discussion, v3.0: World Leaders' Reaction After The U.K Voted To Leave The European Union.

[in the]

You think Remain had the most vical support? What are you basing that on. Many people seem to think Remain's fatal flaw was sitting on their hands while Leave was getting their message out.

Circumstance, though I can't claim to have any real knowledge on the ground. Any time the debate was brought up, I saw a lot of Leave people marginalized as uneducated racist xenophobes. It was that bullying tactic that ultimately backfired (IMO), not that Remain somehow appealed to the intellect.

Put it this way - I would estimate the opinions I saw in the media were 3:1 in favor of Remain. Remain made this an economic issue but failed to gain ground on that argument alone. It wasn't for lack of trying, it's just that they thought they were intellectually superior to anyone who'd have the audacity to disagree with them and didn't treat the people they marginalized and silenced as serious threats, but it wasn't for lack of voice. If you want to say my opinion is anecdotal, that's fine, but it's how I saw things as I became more interested in the issue. I wrongly predicted that Remain would win, so I'm not trumping my own horn.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Expert? This is the basics. If you've read anything at all on the subject over the last decade you should realise that.
And my point was that, yes, it's inevitable that economic liberalisation, which inherently involves the removal of trade barriers and hence growing economic integration, will lead to globalisation and increased pressure for the movement of labour. Nothing remotely controversial about that statement.

A lot of people just talk and act like they have it all figured out. More people on this forum would be more humble and better to just admit that they are nobodies, and have no power, real wealth or "inside" knowledge. If you don't have a PHD in finance or Economics and know all the inner workings of trade then I think a person should shut their mouth and stop acting like they are an expert on what will happen following Brexit. At most they have educated guesses and only parrot what the experts on TV and in media say.

By all means have an opinion but don't be so self righteous. I see a lot of that from the "remain" campaign. And have seen a lot of that on social media.

FYI I supported Remaining (and am not a UK citizen) I thought the UK had a good deal. I do however, dislike the whining and the attacks on the democratic process by those who are butthurt that their side lost.

 

[Ruprecht]

The leaders of revolutions are rarely great managers. Hopefully someone more suited to the task steps up. But this is largely unprecedented territory. I can't think of a situation that is a good parallel. I would imagine most of the steps at this point are fairly obvious. Negotiate agreements with trade partners, and begin entangling UK-Brussels relations.

That's the point. The politics seemed to be purely exploiting populist disatissfaction. Aside from personal political gain, the "plan" seems to be rolling the dice on negotiating better deals from an inherently weaker position while following the exact same economic ideology.

Thats the problem with protectionism. Its not that they don't have a moral, rational, and functional place in establishing fair trade its that they are inherently political. Some protectionism is fair, others isn't and in the realpolitik world the difference is irrelevant. Either way, I think you are putting the horse ahead of the cart. How are these people supposed to start negotiating before they have even established the parameters of their disentanglement from Europe? For all we know they could maintain much of the economic connection. There is (rather unbelievably) a segment of the government who want to maintain freedom of movement with the EU. How can they begin to establish individual relations before they even know how much things will change? They have 2 years to figure things out with the EU while the rules remain much as they are.

The point was more that they aren't offering a different approach. They want to do exactly the same thing they started 30 years ago, and somehow expect that to produce different results? The reason I brought up Korea is because protectionism is regaining a populist backing, and there are examples of it working, but despite the Leave leaders hinting at it, they don't actually seem to advocate it. Trump is a similar phenomenon.

Not an aside because it has no relevance, its an aside because your making the issue about one man that few actually like. He may have been the man to kick out the cornerstone, but hes unlikely to have a great deal of effect on the shape of things to come.

I largely agree, there is a definite disconnect between the working population and the investment class that has been developing highly aristocratic airs, with many of the same absurd self justifications for their immorality.

I personally find it very hard to predict the future, increasing populations combined with the drive to demographically destroy the west will probably result in a radically changed west. But I just can't see the kind of cultural conflicts that exist between some societies disappearing. I think the world will also become increasingly misogynistic as the west falls. But at the same time technology will make decentralization not only more feasible but effective. Solar power, 3d printing, friction-less bearings, etc... these products will revolutionize the world and change it in ways that will be hard to predict.

Well Farage seemed to be the figure people looked to for their Eurosceptic ideology. Certainly he was one of the most vocal on the topic. Mostly a list of greivances. Still lacking any substance.
Nothing better from Johnson or any of the other vocal proponents that I've seen.

Globalisation could theoretically be a decentralising process, the means of production in the hands of every man. I'm not counting on it though. Historically, as the scope of communication and transportation has increased, so has the scope of central authority. I'm open to alternatives.

Ahh, yes then I agree. It is a little chaotic, but thats not actually a bad thing. Chaos may be uncomfortable but realistically in this case it has a better chance of producing a good long term effect then a bad one. At the very least the shock-waves sent through globalist camps should cause a more carefully considered and considerate position on many issues.

Aside from the markets it doesn't look too chaotic to me. It just looks like sacrificing tangible economic benefit for a protest vote and a bit of marketing mythology about "freedom".

 

[Yellowking]

In real terms nothing has happened yet though. We are in uncharted territory yes, which has obviously spooked the markets. So yeah, there will be some value lost short-term, everyone knew that would happen. Its slightly worse than I hoped it would be, but honestly the blame should really go to the bizarre fear-mongering about the economy. As far as the actual effects of leaving the EU, we aren't anywhere close to knowing if its the right decision yet.

So that makes it seem like the choice was between stability and "we don't know". At least at first glance, there is a tangible negative effect because the markets are diminished. What if Britain cannot regain what it has lost in terms of market power...is there anything to say it will? If it leads a recession, was it worth it? Because that translates to a very real loss of jobs which equals real suffering.

 

[deise69]

Europeans are singled out because their empires were the last to go and have the most consequence on the modern world. The Ottoman empire was dismantled in 1918 while the last British territory(Hong Kong) was ceded in 1997 and the British Empire was still mostly intact by the end of WW2 and was only largely dsmantled by the mid 60s meaning its well within living memory.

I'm sure you'll find more than a few people in Ireland who will disagree..

 

[Tycho]

That's bullshit.

We were consistently ignored by the EU, we were a loan voice since its inception. If they didn't listen to us on open borders, they were never going to listen to us on anything. Ironically us leaving may have a bigger effect on how the EU is run than any of our 'influence' in the 30+ years we were apart of it.

 

[Awesomesauce]

It's not absurd at all. It's a recognition that influence at the higher level is just as important - if not more important - than influence at the lower level. We may have more sovereignty but our influence ceases over important institutions that makes global decisions. That is a bad thing.

When the EU creates a standard / rule that applies to its internal market the UK will have to abide by it if it wants to access that market. Except before we had a say in how that standard could be formalised i.e. to meet UK interests. Now we have no influence. Yet we have to accept that decision.

No its not. This isn't even debatable. A representative in a foreign country is never going to provide the rational, functional control that a more localized government would. The entire notion is beyond idiotic.

Simple parallel: Do you think that being involved with a home owners association gives you more or less control over your home?

Arguing that it would be beneficial on some levels is not the same thing as suggesting it gives you greater sovereignty. Those are two separate issues, there are levels at which combining is functional, practical, and rational. The EU utterly failed to provide a better quality of life for people in the UK. Period. It took away their ability to change things they wanted to change, so they left. Its not complicated.

 

[Coffin]

We were consistently ignored by the EU, we were a loan voice since its inception. If they didn't listen to us on open borders, they were never going to listen to us on anything. Ironically us leaving may have a bigger effect on how the EU is run than any of our 'influence' in the 30+ years we were apart of it.

You always got a as we Germans put it "Extrawurst", some special status in most agreements and you had veto rights to most bid decisions. Now you have nothing and will propably just have to accept all the trade regulations the EU has in place anyway, just like non EU countries like Norway and Switzerland do.

 

[Codger]

Sure.
But it defeats the popular narrative that the Brexit campaigners were using that the EU only serves the rich globalists, big banks and corporations. Like Nigel Farage said "This is a victory for the ordinary people.. against big merchant banks and big businesses".


In light of the facts, I would find that narrative hard to swallow, if I were part of the working class in the U.K.

First time I heard Farage mention the big banks thing was in reference to Greece and their Euro bailolut where he claimed they were effectively a non-democracy in the hands of creditors - big banks. I think he actually has a point there

But let's face it, these sound bites from both sides are trying to sway not infom.
Also this assumes that these rules are beneficial overall to the working classes. That's not clear. The French have had much "better"rules for the emplyoment. So "good" in fact that many companies won't do business there and it's impossible to sack people who are shit. That doesn't benefit the working man in the long run.

The way the EU leadership like Junckers runs things reminds me of FIFA to be honest. It's sneaky, corrupt and undemocratic. The same kind of greasy, grey old men of Europe doing deals in dark rooms. If you want to blame anyone for brexit, and whatever other exits happen now, blame them for their arrogant intransigence and unwillingness to be flexible to the needs of member states. They are idealists who will push their vision through even when the people don't want it. If you ignore the people for too long there is a heavy price to be paid.

Take free movement - it was never designed for the the reality of current Europe with so many countries in it and so much difference in wealth and jobs. Nobody signed up to have millions of people arrive at their door in a few years. A little bit of flexibility would have not gone amiss here - the ability to impose a temporary limit for nations being targetted the most etc. But no, they would not move on these "core principles". And yet they wonder why the far right is in ascendence in many places. The far right and far left are reactions to each other.

 

[Tycho]

So that makes it seem like the choice was between stability and "we don't know". At least at first glance, there is a tangible negative effect because the markets are diminished. What if Britain cannot regain what it has lost in terms of market power...is there anything to say it will? If it leads a recession, was it worth it? Because that translates to a very real loss of jobs which equals real suffering.

You need to remember that I voted (along with other people) on the basis of the future of my country not just in 2 years time but 20. As such, obviously its impossible to know the future, so yes, to an extent its a gamble. I voted on my principles in that its easier for a country to navigate problems if they aren't tied to an enormous superstate which doesn't have our interests centre fold. Also my understanding of business lends me to believe that on an individual level in regards to the nations of Europe, we will for the most part continue trading regardless of what the EU says, money talks. It also provides more of a safeguard against future tyranny, the recent EU focus on attacking free speech, its ever closer union with multinational corporations/big banks makes the future of remaining within the EU equally uncertain.

 

[MusterX]

There needs to be some sort of balance. Immigration is good - as long as its controlled and the immigrants conform to what has actually worked in their new homeland. It's not that they can't bring elements from their previous cultures to their new one, as I enjoy the food and music that immigrants bring (for the most part - it helps society grow and change). But they have to leave behind the shitty aspects that contributed to their old culture/nation sucking so bad that they wanted to upgrade.

What I've seen too much of recently is a massive naivete coming from the "Refugees welcome" crowd. They want complete open borders and don't have a clue how they'll be able to finance them. Plus, these same people who claimed to be progressive about their own country's poor are now exacerbating the problem by bringing in even more people who will need to live on the dole before becoming productive members of their new society. What happens then? A massive increase in public debt and/or the cutting of benefits for the poor already citizens. They want it both ways and they don't realize how stupid that is.

I'm not against immigration at all. Immigrants are part of what made America great. The ole smelting pot. I am, however, against illegal immigration but now I'm called a racist for that. It just show that even in America we are being plagued by this "One World" ideology.

 

[MusterX]

Well we have a parliamentary system rather than a presidential system. So the party continues in power regardless of who the party leader is. He's just campaigned on a huge constitutional issue and lost. How could he possibly preside over exit negotiations when he doesn't believe it's the right decision?

Ummm, because its the will of the people......

Is that idea completely lost on Brits?

 

[Tycho]

You always got a as we Germans put it "Extrawurst", some special status in most agreements and you had veto rights to most bid decisions. Now you have nothing and will propably just have to accept all the trade regulations the EU has in place anyway, just like non EU countries like Norway and Switzerland do.

The only reason we got that was due to our economic power base being used as a hammer. You guys need us, just like we need you. And guess what, nothing has changed. We will still trade with Europe, and we will abide by EU regulations unless we don't want to. Which is what many parts of Europe do on the black market anyway (its massive btw), we are in a sense being honest about it.

Oh yeah, and now we can block future German/Isis terrorists from settling in our towns. So at least there's that.

 

[Sauron]

We were consistently ignored by the EU, we were a loan voice since its inception. If they didn't listen to us on open borders, they were never going to listen to us on anything. Ironically us leaving may have a bigger effect on how the EU is run than any of our 'influence' in the 30+ years we were apart of it.

As I said: the idea that we had no influence is bullshit.

If it boils down to for you is the free movement of people then you don't really appreciate the huge scope of what the EU does on a day to day basis. Which is basically the problem. People say that the EU is writing all our laws, and then on the other hand say we have no influence. All those laws had our imprints on them - whether we won the argument or not. We had a say and could kick up a fuss and rally against provisions that would hurt the UK economy.

You're right though. Our exit may lead to significant reform for the EU. So they get the benefits, and we get shafted. Wonderful.

 

[in the]

I said 1997 is when they ceded their last territory which is correct. I also said it was largely dismantled by the mid 60s which is also correct.

It's pretty strange to say that the Brits controlling territory in China which they captured through war isn't colonialism.

And the Mongol Empire was much larger than the Ottoman Empire and yet its much less relevant to current affairs because it ended long ago. The European empires were much larger and ended more recently than the Ottoman Empire and thus are more relevant on a global scale. Where the Ottoman Empire is relevant, in the Middle East, almost no one talks about about it and in fact I've mentioned it numerous times.

And I even said that colonial history should not inspire individual white guilt or public policy but I find it laughable when people cry foul when grievances stemming from European colonialism are mentioned and fingers are pointed at much less relevant empires. The Ottomans are the only other empire that come close to having any modern relevance and in terms of scope and how recent it was dismantled its still behind the European empires.

And like I said earlier I find it laughable that Brits are complaining about globalization and economic integration when they pioneered it at the end of a gun.

You're right, it isn't applied across the board and it is a little hypocritical that German nationalists have to constantly be reminded of the ills of Nazism while almost half of the British are still proud of their empire. But I guess when you kill white people it tends to get remembered more vividly.

The land was signed to Great Britain via treaty. It's not like they subjugated the people of Hong Kong - if anything, Hong Kong was exponentially better under British rule than they would have been under communism.

The Ottoman Empire ended in 1924. There are a decent amount of people who are alive today who lived during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Let's not try to pretend it's some antiquated thing, plus the colonial powers don't have the 20th century genocide like the colonial powers of Europe (Germany was never really a colonial power). Again, this principle of suffrage for the guilty isn't being applied across the board. There's no consistency, and it undermines the hypocrisy that the countries asked to suffer the most have also done the most to try to correct their wrongs. In the past 100 years, this is the list of genocides. Notice how the Brits aren't there? And we haven't even gotten to the discussion how many of the countries colonized by the Brits actually did have some long-term benefits. The same can't be said about the Ottomans.

You're proving my point - the people who want superpowers and once-superpowers to suffer are only targeting the ones who were white. It's a racist point of view. No one's arguing the suffrage of the Japanese for their heinous war crimes before and during WWII, some of the most inhumane acts ever done to one group by another in human history. This despite the fact that the Japanese are still way more xenophobic than the Europeans.

It's a racist mindset.

 

[Tycho]

Ummm, because its the will of the people......

Is that idea completely lost on Brits?

Do you know what a parliamentary system is? He is still a MEMBER of parliament, he just isn't the prime minister. That role is chosen by the political party. He is still representing the people who officially voted for him.

Explaining this to Americans is tough...

 

[in the]

Most of the leaders of the world don't want strong independent nations. Sovereignty has becomes as bad as a 4 letter word. I'm telling you, Cameron quitting is one of the most wtf moments I've seen on the world stage. He literally quit like a bitch when the people voted for something he didn't want.

You're right, it was a huge surprise, but it also shows that there isn't some consortium of shadowy figures behind the scenes controlling everything that happens. If that was the truth, Brexit would have never been allowed to happen.

 

[ncordless]

Circumstance, though I can't claim to have any real knowledge on the ground. Any time the debate was brought up, I saw a lot of Leave people marginalized as uneducated racist xenophobes. It was that bullying tactic that ultimately backfired (IMO), not that Remain somehow appealed to the intellect.

Put it this way - I would estimate the opinions I saw in the media were 3:1 in favor of Remain. Remain made this an economic issue but failed to gain ground on that argument alone. It wasn't for lack of trying, it's just that they thought they were intellectually superior to anyone who'd have the audacity to disagree with them and didn't treat the people they marginalized and silenced as serious threats, but it wasn't for lack of voice. If you want to say my opinion is anecdotal, that's fine, but it's how I saw things as I became more interested in the issue. I wrongly predicted that Remain would win, so I'm not trumping my own horn.

That feels to me like it is biased through your lense. From most accounts over there, Leave ran the more vocal campaign with a clear consistent message. Remain never did a good job getting its message out there. Definitely, part of the jumbled message of Remain was Leave's appeal to xenophobes, but I don't think British have the same virulent repulsion to the topic that a white southerner such as yourself has.

 

[Tycho]

As I said: the idea that we had no influence is bullshit.

If it boils down to for you is the free movement of people then you don't really appreciate the huge scope of what the EU does on a day to day basis. Which is basically the problem. People say that the EU is writing all our laws, and then on the other hand say we have no influence. All those laws had our imprints on them - whether we won the argument or not. We had a say and could kick up a fuss and rally against provisions that would hurt the UK economy.

You're right though. Our exit may lead to significant reform for the EU. So they get the benefits, and we get shafted. Wonderful.

Britain opposed 55 EU directives since '96, we lost every one. This influence you refer to is rather mysterious and ethereal, care to offer up any actual evidence?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It's not a left vs right issue.

Yes it is, and it has been for quite some time. The battle lines are drawn and war is on the horizon.