This Election Isn't Democrats vs Republicans, It's Globalists vs Nationalists

[PolishHeadlock]

I can't speak for what the general consensus of the voters were for brexit but I do think there could be a valid argument for leaving the eu and it was much more than a pro-trade or anti-trade stance and I think a lot of the pundits decided to gloss over that.

Wasn't the exit vote all about forced immigration from the EU? Basically people were worried about crime and immigrants putting too much strange on he British safety nets.

The argument against Brexit was about economics. The biggest English industry is banking and finance. Many US Banks have their EU headquarteres in the UK but with them exiting the EU the US banks will relocate their headquarters to another EU country.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I think a big reason was the EU trying to pass other policies not related to trade. Like the EU constitution or forcing countries to accept refugees. Why can't these deals be only about trade? They need to put in other stuff that generates anger.

I think the EU definitely overplayed their hand with immigration. The UK is worse off without being a part of he EU and he EU is worse off without the UK but I think this will hurt the UK more.

They benefited from being in the EU and had it better than other members. They didn't even have to adopt the Euro.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can't speak for what the general consensus of the voters were for brexit but I do think there could be a valid argument for leaving the eu and it was much more than a pro-trade or anti-trade stance and I think a lot of the pundits decided to gloss over that.

The funny thing is that slogan trump is running is exactly what Obama ran but it's suddenly appealing now to those people. The whole "I'm for free trade but also want fair trade." It's ultimately a dumb line for campaigns to use that works with people when it makes little to no sense. I think the goal is to push for a freer market in the long term and in the short term ensure that the countries adhere to similar regulations. I guess that is kinda what they are trying to say but for politics, it's just too hard to be honest about trade policy because of the complication that comes with it.

What is the valid argument for leaving the EU other than to express some kind of anger?

What's odd is that most people are for free trade. It's just that the people who are against it are more passionate and vocal. And it looks like the major parties in America are flipping on it (which is good, as trade has long been one of the issues I most disagreed with fellow liberals about).

 

[PrinceOfPain]

All I want is for everyone to have the opportunity work hard, pay their taxes, don't engage in criminal activity, and treat fellow citizens with a modicum of respect.

What does that make me?

Naive.

 

[Lead]

I think a big reason was the EU trying to pass other policies not related to trade. Like the EU constitution or forcing countries to accept refugees. Why can't these deals be only about trade? They need to put in other stuff that generates anger.

That's what I was saying. It was more than a trade issue and a lot of pundits tried to pretend it wasn't and just call the opposers racist. Didn't help the conversation at all and was very ignorant on their part

 

[Lead]

What is the valid argument for leaving the EU other than to express some kind of anger?

What's odd is that most people are for free trade. It's just that the people who are against it are more passionate and vocal. And it looks like the major parties in America are flipping on it (which is good, as trade has long been one of the issues I most disagreed with fellow liberals about).

There were issues with immigration and representation that could've been seen as separate from a flat trade policy. The problem has been the eu had seemingly tried to come closer to a system of states with federal powers in order to stabilize the weaker countries. A country like Germany has a lot to gain from doing this because of the euro. I don't think Britain had as much benefit and realized they can try to switch to a trade central relation with Europe rather than where it was benign steered to

 

[PolishHeadlock]

That's what I was saying. It was more than a trade issue and a lot of pundits tried to pretend it wasn't and just call the opposers racist. Didn't help the conversation at all and was very ignorant on their part

The EU sees the immigration issue as intertwined with trade. They want the free movement of labor and capital.

Because of this the EU countries allow all citizens of EU members to travel freely like we can travel to OH or NJ.

That seemed to be all fine and dandy until the refugees showed up and countries didn't want to take on the refugees.

That's why it's funny when the CTers go on about the Globalists using the refugees to destabilize countries. If anything it is destabilizing the EU and strengthening isolationism.

 

[Fawlty]

That's why it's funny when the CTers go on about the Globalists using the refugees to destabilize countries. If anything it is destabilizing the EU and strengthening isolationism.

Very well put.

 

[IDL]

That's why it's funny when the CTers go on about the Globalists using the refugees to destabilize countries. If anything it is destabilizing the EU and strengthening isolationism.

That is like saying, since there is a reaction to something, it must not exist.

It's not some far fetched thing really, that migrations are used strategically.

"Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War"
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu..._engineered_migration_as_a_weapon_of_war.html

Weapons of Mass Migration
Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100627270

EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief
"The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
http://origin.forums.sherdog.com/th...ants-to-flood-europe-with-immigrants.3206229/



And then of course you have George Soros feverishly promoting the mass migrations, and so on and on

They are relatively up front about their desires.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

That is like saying, since there is a reaction to something, it must not exist.

It's not some far fetched thing really, that migrations are used strategically.

"Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War"
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu..._engineered_migration_as_a_weapon_of_war.html

Weapons of Mass Migration
Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100627270

EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief
"The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
http://origin.forums.sherdog.com/th...ants-to-flood-europe-with-immigrants.3206229/



And then of course you have George Soros feverishly promoting the mass migrations, and so on and on

They are relatively up front about their desires.

Oh

 

[Jack V Savage]

There were issues with immigration and representation that could've been seen as separate from a flat trade policy.

Well, anger over immigration drove the Brexit impulse, but immigration isn't actually affected by the vote. So, again, there's the message-based defense there (like I said, expressing anger), but not a policy-based one.

 

[Lead]

Well, anger over immigration drove the Brexit impulse, but immigration isn't actually affected by the vote. So, again, there's the message-based defense there (like I said, expressing anger), but not a policy-based one.

Leaving the EU wouldn't affect who comes in to Britain?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Leaving the EU wouldn't affect who comes in to Britain?

It theoretically affects EU immigration, but that was pretty insignificant anyway, it wouldn't affect EU residents already there, and it would depend on what deals were worked out with the EU after the Brexit, with a continuation of the status quo with regard to EU immigration being the most likely outcome.

 

[Lead]

It theoretically affects EU immigration, but that was pretty insignificant anyway, it wouldn't affect EU residents already there, and it would depend on what deals were worked out with the EU after the Brexit, with a continuation of the status quo with regard to EU immigration being the most likely outcome.

So if people vote for a move that enables them to change a stance on immigration, the people are foolish if their representatives don't move forward with the decision? I wouldn't say that's on the people and that is the exact thing sparking anger. The eu was moving toward a structure with a bureaucracy at the top with little to no representation. If nothing is done, I think that would only validate the anger and this wouldn't be a good argument for why they shouldn't have voted that way. They enabled a decision when presented with it or not

 

[punky brewster]

Naive.

Wanting and expecting are two different things

 

[Fanu]

 

[Jack V Savage]

So if people vote for a move that enables them to change a stance on immigration, the people are foolish if their representatives don't move forward with the decision?

I didn't say anything like that or make any general point. The vote doesn't affect non-EU immigration, and most likely won't affect EU immigration. Doesn't affect the status of current immigrants. Etc. If the goal was to change immigration policy, it wasn't a well-directed move. But the goal was more to just express anger at diversity.

 

[Lead]

I didn't say anything like that or make any general point. The vote doesn't affect non-EU immigration, and most likely won't affect EU immigration. Doesn't affect the status of current immigrants. Etc. If the goal was to change immigration policy, it wasn't a well-directed move. But the goal was more to just express anger at diversity.

The vote makes them have to relook at an relations they have with other countries in the eu. What I'm saying is sure, they could keep the policies the same. I've seen talks about almost a decade long transition period from where they are now to being out of the eu. The point I was trying to make was if people wanted the relations with the eu changed or reviewed, they would've voted to leave. Voting to stay would have zero chance at reviewing their eu immigration stances while voting no would at least make them have to intentionally ignore changing things despite the vote. Of course if their politicians don't act, nothing will happen. That's kinda true with any referendum

Tell me a more directed move the public had?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The vote makes them have to relook at an relations they have with other countries in the eu. What I'm saying is sure, they could keep the policies the same. I've seen talks about almost a decade long transition period from where they are now to being out of the eu. The point I was trying to make was if people wanted the relations with the eu changed or reviewed, they would've voted to leave. Voting to stay would have zero chance at reviewing their eu immigration stances while voting no would at least make them have to intentionally ignore changing things despite the vote. Of course if their politicians don't act, nothing will happen. That's kinda true with any referendum

Tell me a more directed move the public had?

A more-directed move would be a campaign specifically to change immigration policy (and non-EU immigration is the bigger issue). Further, I think you're missing that many of the people who were part of the Brexit campaign (thinking most especially of Johnson here) were saying the same thing I'm saying.

 

[Lead]

A more-directed move would be a campaign specifically to change immigration policy (and non-EU immigration is the bigger issue). Further, I think you're missing that many of the people who were part of the Brexit campaign (thinking most especially of Johnson here) were saying the same thing I'm saying.

I've seen the people who front ended it definitely begin to back off. But you have to look somewhat at the results. They got the prime minister who didn't support the move to step down and someone they would agree with more to take over all cause of this vote. I think that's far more immediate than campaigning on a specific issue and hoping to get enough in office or another referendum.