• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Can someone explain to me why people supported Brexit in the first place?

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,449
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Was it just anti-immigrant anti-refugee stuff or was there more to it? I heard some British guy a few years going on about how the EU was a "fourth Reich" or something and I just rolled my eyes. Now it seems to have just devolved into a colossal mess for the U.K... (oops, sorry, I meant England... evidently according to Trump, they changed the name because of political correctness). My understanding is that evidently the Tories mostly voted against a "no-deal" Brexit, but Boris Johnson might do one anyway, since he wants to fight the E.U.'s insistence on a hard border with Northern Ireland (who knew imperialism had such complicated after-effects?) if they pursue a "no deal." Anyway, the deadline they have to figure all this out is Halloween, which has all likelihood of being a very spooky day for the U.K.

It seems to me like the U.K. must have benefited a great deal from being in the E.U (or the Tories wouldn't have voted against a "no deal" Brexit), so why the hell did they want to leave? It does seem like the Conservative party in the U.K is in big trouble because of this impossible situation (and I actually kind of liked David Cameron).
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
1) There is more to it than immigration. It is more supernationalism v intergovernmentalism. The UK was always had a awkward relationship with other EU ever since France vetoed it first couple of applications to join. The UK had to give up its trade links with commonwealth countries in favour of countries it had next to nothing in common with. Most of Britain allies in EU are the country who have little power like Sweden, Netherlands, so it is ever heading further strained relationship. The UK has pretty much given up on EU reform. The UK can't sign its own trade deals while in EU so it has no free trade agreement with its allies such as the US.

2) The default position is as of now is the UK leaves EU on 31st of October. The UK parliament has already voted to leave and has asked EU to leave. Unless new legislation is passed or EU offers a further extension the UK will leave by default. So to suggest parliament voted against no deal is not really true since no deal is default position currently and they voted for that to be the case

3) You have it a bit wonky regarding border. The UK had no intention of having NI border wall: the EU will make Ireland make a wall in a no deal inorder to UK stop flooding the common market with cheap goods. Unionist in NI want to be more like rest of UK and less like Republic of Ireland so they will be pretty pleased. It is toxic politically for Republic of Ireland to make wall. The wall would only apply to goods as Ireland and UK will have freedom of movement with each other irrespective of what happens between EU and UK. Some people think the backstop is nothing more than the EU keeping UK in by the back door. The DUP and Tories have no big deal with hard border in island of Ireland, rather the UK concern is purely if there will be renewed conflict in Northern Ireland and how best avioding that while also leaving EU. Hence, UK is not really bothered about border either way. It is more a case EU making it condition of having a deal.

4)The British people were asked if they wanted to leave not how they wanted to leave.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,449
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
1) There is more to it than immigration. It is more supernationalism v intergovernmentalism. The UK was always had a awkward relationship with other EU ever since France vetoed it first couple of applications to join. The UK had to give up its trade links with commonwealth countries in favour of countries it had next to nothing in common with. Most of Britain allies in EU are the country who have little power like Sweden, Netherlands, so it is ever heading further strained relationship. The UK has pretty much given up on EU reform. The UK can't sign its own trade deals while in EU so it has no free trade agreement with its allies such as the US.

Thanks. I've seen a lot of British people on the internet complain about Muslims, so I figured it must have had something to do with that.

2) The default position is as of now is the UK leaves EU on 31st of October. The UK parliament has already voted to leave and has asked EU to leave. Unless new legislation is passed or EU offers a further extension the UK will leave by default. So to suggest parliament voted against no deal is not really true since no deal is default position currently and they voted for that to be the case

I understand that No Deal is the default. But... yes, there are many Tory members who do not support No Deal.

Q&A: Can Boris Johnson really force through a no-deal Brexit? | UK news | The Guardian
The Guardian said:
In theory yes. Johnson said outside No 10 last Wednesday that the country must prepare for no deal. But he would run into huge opposition from MPs of all parties

Is that incorrect? Is there no Tory opposition to No Deal? How many MPs support No Deal, and how many do not or support remain?

3) You have it a bit wonky regarding border. The UK had no intention of having NI border wall: the EU will make Ireland make a wall in a no deal inorder to UK stop flooding the common market with cheap goods. Unionist in NI want to be more like rest of UK and less like Republic of Ireland so they will be pretty pleased. It is toxic politically for Republic of Ireland to make wall. The wall would only apply to goods as Ireland and UK will have freedom of movement with each other irrespective of what happens between EU and UK. Some people think the backstop is nothing more than the EU keeping UK in by the back door. The DUP and Tories have no big deal with hard border in island of Ireland, rather the UK concern is purely if there will be renewed conflict in Northern Ireland and how best avioding that while also leaving EU. Hence, UK is not really bothered about border either way. It is more a case EU making it condition of having a deal.

Yes, but the Tories certainly don't want a hard border in Ireland, do they (which is what I assume you mean by wall)?
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
You can't pinpoint since it is the mix of: anti-immigration, nationalism, misinformation, various influences, grass is greener elsewhere .....


However I will also dare to say "which people" regarding the title. For many years MPs in EU parliament say stuff like "Just leave already", many countries/people in Europe want this because mess in UK works for them (especially since they are hopping that their people/experts will go back) or they simply want more unified EU, globally many like Brexit since it creates much clearer border between EU and English speaking world. What leaves a mark on the whole process. The narrative that only Brits are pro Brexit is wrong way to look at this issue.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Btw someone should perhaps open a thread about the debates and 2020. This is probably why politics is reopened in the first place and it is kinda stupid if none American does it.

At this point I am here mostly just to observe and for the most part I already said what I have to say.
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
Thanks. I've seen a lot of British people on the internet complain about Muslims, so I figured it must have had something to do with that.



I understand that No Deal is the default. But... yes, there are many Tory members who do not support No Deal.

Q&A: Can Boris Johnson really force through a no-deal Brexit? | UK news | The Guardian


Is that incorrect? Is there no Tory opposition to No Deal? How many MPs support No Deal, and how many do not or support remain?



Yes, but the Tories certainly don't want a hard border in Ireland, do they (which is what I assume you mean by wall)?

What has Muslims got to do with EU?

It is not that there is no opposition to no deal but rather few Tory MP are remotely pro-remain and those who would be considered Eurosceptic anywhere else in Europe. At the end of the day any Tory MP will have to either vote with the government or protentally lose their seat as the average Tory voter is pro-Brexit. The government has a majority of 2 at the moment and could protentally be 1 today if they lose by-election (which is highly likely). The average Tory supporter is furious the UK has not already left the EU, which is the whole reason Theresa May lost her job. If it comes down to no deal or not leaving then any Conservative government would have to leave with no deal otherwise they are done as a party.

There are only three ways no deal can be prevented on October 31. Either parliament approves a Brexit deal; or the UK and EU agree an extension; or the government losing both no confidence vote and election and a party winning by promising to revokes Article 50 altogether. The second option is most likely and third least likely.

It is doubtful the average Tory member really care about NI, and polling seems to support that.

Majority of Tory members would give up Northern Ireland for Brexit, poll shows

What makes one think anyone in rest of UK really cares about any border situation in Ireland?
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
1) The ability to control their own country more freely without big brother EU pressuring them into doing things they do not want.

This is honestly the most important factor. EU has been forcing them to take refugees they can't afford etc. They can't resist the EU, because its not democratic as not all of them are elected. The BS they pull with referendums too.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
1) The ability to control their own country more freely without big brother EU pressuring them into doing things they do not want.

This is honestly the most important factor. EU has been forcing them to take refugees they can't afford etc. They can't resist the EU, because its not democratic as none of them are elected. The BS they pull with referendums too.

I have no idea from where did you pull this out ?


1. Plenty of EU countries that are much weaker than UK didn't take any refugees. Actually they didn't even lose benefits over this.


2. Who isn't elected ? EU parliament is elected directly by the people. While European council is made out of head of states that make the block and which are all elected in their own countries, so they together design European commission that makes the political summaries and strategies for the block. It isn't perfect system but people evidently vote in it.


However UK wanted to be bigger than it is and now it is in a mess since all hell come out of the closet. Since UK itself is glued block.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I have no idea from where did you pull this out ?


1. Plenty of EU countries that are much weaker than UK didn't take any refugees. Actually they didn't even lose benefits over this.


2. Who isn't elected ? EU parliament is elected directly by the people. While European council is made out of head of states that make the block and which are all elected in their own countries, so they together design European commission that makes the political summaries and strategies for the block. It isn't perfect system but people evidently vote in it.


However UK wanted to be bigger than it is and now it is in a mess since all hell come out of the closet. Since UK itself is glued block.

There are people elected from within the government (which is what I am talking about), not the people. Who pass laws that affect all member states. Member states have no real power in controlling the EUs desicions once in office. Which opens up room for an extreme amount of corruption.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
There are people elected from within the government (which is what I am talking about), not the people. Who pass laws that affect all member states. Member states have no real power in controlling the EUs desicions once in office. Which opens up room for an extreme amount of corruption.


Ok, but in which country people get to vote who will be a head of diplomacy, defense minister, education secretary .... since that is what European Commission is. I mean you said they are all unelected but in that case I don't know for who I voted for a few month ago. Citizens elect parliament and European council that define pretty much everything else. Also parliament has to confirm decisions and the head of European commission (the guy at the top) , plus generally control things.


Also if you are correct then it would not be possible that the whole Eastern EU doesn't take refugees per quotas, what is evidently the case. There was a shitstorm over this but those countries managed to hold their ground even if they are evidently weaker than UK.


You really think that in undemocratic environment people like Farage would be able to say pretty much whatever they want in the parliament ? Or that there would be whole political parties/blocks in the parliament that are against the whole EU idea ?


EU isn't China.
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
It is not exactly unfair to say the a EU has democratic defect. The EU is not accessible, accountable, or representative in a way people expect in the western world. What does EU citizens do when the EU annoys them? Saying the EU is no China is like saying Maduro is a nice guy as he was elected and not quite a twat as Kim Jung-Un.

The European Commission is not elected by the people and is the sole proposer of new laws of which 80% without meaningful debate. A British pro-EU MP said not so long ago he is much more powerful as MEP than as every motion he tables is turned into legislation: in other words it does not bother scrutinizing legislation. European Commission does what it wants and expects everyone to follow it. The president of European Commission gets selected in backdoor deals: for example Ursula von Der Leyen was selected on the basis Macron preferred her to Manfred Weber. How is that democratic?

The EU ratification of treaties (such as Lisbon and Nice) where forced on countries and when they voted not to the EU commission liking they forced a rerun until they got the right results.

So yeah the EU is not exactly a beacon of democracy.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
It is not exactly unfair to say the a EU has democratic defect. The EU is not accessible, accountable, or representative in a way people expect in the western world. What does EU citizens do when the EU annoys them? Saying the EU is no China is like saying Maduro is a nice guy as he was elected and not quite a twat as Kim Jung-Un.

The European Commission is not elected by the people and is the sole proposer of new laws of which 80% without meaningful debate. A British pro-EU MP said not so long ago he is much more powerful as MEP than as every motion he tables is turned into legislation: in other words it does not bother scrutinizing legislation. European Commission does what it wants and expects everyone to follow it. The president of European Commission gets selected in backdoor deals: for example Ursula von Der Leyen was selected on the basis Macron preferred her to Manfred Weber. How is that democratic?

The EU ratification of treaties (such as Lisbon and Nice) where forced on countries and when they voted not to the EU commission liking they forced a rerun until they got the right results.

So yeah the EU is not exactly a beacon of democracy.


Well I did say that it isn't perfect and there are areas to repair for sure, but to say that all of these people are unelected is just completely missing too many things. Plus what is really western world ? Is Boris elected ? Was May elected at first ? Was Gordon Brown elected ? From what I understand UK House of Lords is unelected by law. Does US by law elects president indirectly through electoral college and perhaps even regardless of popular vote ? What can their citizens really do if they are annoyed with crucial policies or president, since there are no snap elections ? EU isn't really lagging that much behind if at all in this game. The system is actually quite decent if we consider what the union assimilated over the last 15 years.


If EU was really as pushy as you say plenty of my local politicians wouldn't be able to get away with all kinds of things, renegotiate or change deadlines. However my politics can do this since they aren't so cognitively obsessed with rules. But since it is a block of countries there needs to be some basic rules, not everyone can be happy 100% of the time.



But ok, I actually support Brexit. That should make things easier on the long run for everyone.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well I did say that it isn't perfect and there are areas to repair for sure, but to say that all of these people are unelected is just completely missing too many things. Plus what is really western world ? Is Boris elected ? Was May elected at first ? Was Gordon Brown elected ? From what I understand UK House of Lords is unelected by law. Does US by law elects president indirectly through electoral college and perhaps even regardless of popular vote ? What can their citizens really do if they are annoyed with crucial policies or president, since there are no snap elections ? EU isn't really lagging that much behind if at all in this game. The system is actually quite decent if we consider what the union assimilated over the last 15 years.


If EU was really as pushy as you say plenty of my local politicians wouldn't be able to get away with all kinds of things, renegotiate or change deadlines. However my politics can do this since they aren't so cognitively obsessed with rules. But since it is a block of countries there needs to be some basic rules, not everyone can be happy 100% of the time.



But ok, I actually support Brexit. That should make things easier on the long run for everyone.

Whoops, that was actually my bad. I didn't mean that none of them were elected. My apologies.
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
Well I did say that it isn't perfect and there are areas to repair for sure, but to say that all of these people are unelected is just completely missing too many things. Plus what is really western world ? Is Boris elected ? Was May elected at first ? Was Gordon Brown elected ? From what I understand UK House of Lords is unelected by law. Does US by law elects president indirectly through electoral college and perhaps even regardless of popular vote ? What can their citizens really do if they are annoyed with crucial policies or president, since there are no snap elections ? EU isn't really lagging that much behind if at all in this game. The system is actually quite decent if we consider what the union assimilated over the last 15 years.


If EU was really as pushy as you say plenty of my local politicians wouldn't be able to get away with all kinds of things, renegotiate or change deadlines. However my politics can do this since they aren't so cognitively obsessed with rules. But since it is a block of countries there needs to be some basic rules, not everyone can be happy 100% of the time.



But ok, I actually support Brexit. That should make things easier on the long run for everyone.

In both the UK and US are way more accountable than EU. If the EU had its way it would just make the UK hold another referendum like it always does when it gets the wrong results. Both Trump and May/Johnson are held to account than Jean Claude Junker. The house of lords do not make laws nor can it stop laws but rather just temporary delay them. The prime minister is who has the largest support from fellow MPs so the are voted for just indirectly. The European Commission does not even do that. If the PM loses the confidence of parliament they lose their job as with May, but that does not happen in EU. One is stuck with European Commission president until their term ends. Where as the PM power is based on marjority to pass legislation, if they can't do that they are either forced into election by losing no confidence vote or vote for snap election. The whole reason why there is deadlock is there was no winner in the last general election. In the meanwhile by-elections happen and the government have to hang to seats unlike what happen today when the government marjority was cut to 1 MP. If government has a confident and supply coalition and a majority of one seat it is just a matter of time before an election is forced. The US has similar checks in place with midterm elections, media scrutiny, supreme court ect.

The EU is over 60 years old so should have really got its shit together by now.

Why did the EU not enter meaningful renogatiation with David Cameron when he wanted to before referendum? Do you think the UK would have voted to leave if EU had actually just accepted even a few things he tried to renogatiate? Did the EU make a spectacular miscalculation on apathy within UK and if so was this because it just presumed the UK would just hold another referendum just ignore the result of it went the wrong way?
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
In both the UK and US are way more accountable than EU. If the EU had its way it would just make the UK hold another referendum like it always does when it gets the wrong results. Both Trump and May/Johnson are held to account than Jean Claude Junker. The house of lords do not make laws nor can it stop laws but rather just temporary delay them. The prime minister is who has the largest support from fellow MPs so the are voted for just indirectly. The European Commission does not even do that. If the PM loses the confidence of parliament they lose their job as with May, but that does not happen in EU. One is stuck with European Commission president until their term ends. Where as the PM power is based on marjority to pass legislation, if they can't do that they are either forced into election by losing no confidence vote or vote for snap election. The whole reason why there is deadlock is there was no winner in the last general election. In the meanwhile by-elections happen and the government have to hang to seats unlike what happen today when the government marjority was cut to 1 MP. If government has a confident and supply coalition and a majority of one seat it is just a matter of time before an election is forced. The US has similar checks in place with midterm elections, media scrutiny, supreme court ect.

The EU is over 60 years old so should have really got its shit together by now.

Why did the EU not enter meaningful renogatiation with David Cameron when he wanted to before referendum? Do you think the UK would have voted to leave if EU had actually just accepted even a few things he tried to renogatiate? Did the EU make a spectacular miscalculation on apathy within UK and if so was this because it just presumed the UK would just hold another referendum just ignore the result of it went the wrong way?


Yes, but Ursula also had to go trough parliament that was elected by people. I can provide more links if necessary.


Ursula von der Leyen’s risky numbers game


Plus this

Ursula von der Leyen’s narrowly won homecoming

Indeed, her margin of victory was so narrow that she immediately faced questions about the legitimacy and durability of her mandate. One British journalist pointed out that von der Leyen could be said to owe her election to British MEPs who supported her but may soon leave the EU should Brexit ever be accomplished — with the clear implication that they would take von der Leyen's majority with them.


What directly implies she isn't this all powerful person that doesn't answer to anybody. From what I understand in EU parliament you can also lose confidence, however local political culture is trying to keep it linear. Especially since main two blocks until 2019 had enough to have a majority, while now they need liberals as well. Plus since there are so many groups you can always search for allies elsewhere. Since there are at least 100 political parties in there, divided into 8 blocks.



The truth is that UK in general isn't culturally too compatible with EU and you can't renegotiate everything/basics. UK even had some smaller benefits compared to other member states from what I understand. Mainland Europe in collective consciousness still has severe traumas from it's history and therefore people are more willing to cooperate or agree to what is going on. While UK doesn't have that and mindsets are in that way half incompatible. So "divorce" is best solution on the long run.
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
Yes, but Ursula also had to go trough parliament that was elected by people. I can provide more links if necessary.


Ursula von der Leyen’s risky numbers game


Plus this

Ursula von der Leyen’s narrowly won homecoming


That is not democracy. The very people who voted in the last EU election never expected her to even be a candidate since she was not a Spitzenkandidat. The whole point of that system was so pan-European alliances of national parties would each nominate a Spitzenkandidat, or lead candidate, ahead of the election. That person would also be their candidate to be European Commission president so people who be indirectly be voting for the president but it was conveniently dropped as Macron had a hissy fit. Correct?

What directly implies she isn't this all powerful person that doesn't answer to anybody. From what I understand in EU parliament you can also lose confidence, however local political culture is trying to keep it linear. Especially since main two blocks until 2019 had enough to have a majority, while now they need liberals as well. Plus since there are so many groups you can always search for allies elsewhere. Since there are at least 100 political parties in there, divided into 8 blocks.

People have no idea who they are going to get when the voted on EU elections for European Commission president. People have no idea what the EU does or doing as it is a remote organisation and national media do not report on it for the most part. It is not like there is election manifestos like on UK elections or US Presidential elections. The EU's executive branch are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.


The truth is that UK in general isn't culturally too compatible with EU and you can't renegotiate everything/basics. UK even had some smaller benefits compared to other member states from what I understand. Mainland Europe in collective consciousness still has severe traumas from it's history and therefore people are more willing to cooperate or agree to what is going on. While UK doesn't have that and mindsets are in that way half incompatible. So "divorce" is best solution on the long run.

David Cameron made a simple request to change 4 things and he arguably failed on all

Sovereignty - Allowing Britain to opt out from the EU's founding ambition to forge an "ever closer union" of the peoples of Europe so it will not be drawn into further political integration in a "formal, legally binding and irreversible way". Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation.



Migrants and welfare benefits - "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years." and "end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all", adding that "if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave".



Economic governance or safeguarding interests of countries outside the eurozone - An explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not materially disadvantaged. He also wanted safeguards that steps to further financial union cannot be imposed on non-eurozone members and the UK will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts.



Competitiveness - A target for the reduction of the "burden" of excessive regulation and extending the single market.



 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769


That is not democracy. The very people who voted in the last EU election never expected her to even be a candidate since she was not a Spitzenkandidat. The whole point of that system was so pan-European alliances of national parties would each nominate a Spitzenkandidat, or lead candidate, ahead of the election. That person would also be their candidate to be European Commission president so people who be indirectly be voting for the president but it was conveniently dropped as Macron had a hissy fit. Correct?



Yes, they mess it up a little this time but this still had to go though some checks like parliament and real power like the council that is being elected on national level. Plus governments still brake plenty of EU rules, from migration to public debt, so it isn't that her word is final on everything. In the case that people of EU really rebel in mass over this I am pretty sure the process would go differently than it did. But for them this is ok.


People have no idea who they are going to get when the voted on EU elections for European Commission president. People have no idea what the EU does or doing as it is a remote organisation and national media do not report on it for the most part. It is not like there is election manifestos like on UK elections or US Presidential elections. The EU's executive branch are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.


As you have shown you can't get to the top without being in good relations with elected head of states and that process is similar to MP - PM dynamic. Also the truth is that democracy isn't 100% concrete term. Current PM of Italy also isn't elected, wasn't on a bailout and he came out of political mix", but will you say that Italy fundamentally isn't a democratic country ? There are a number of ways how to do a democracy, which is always some kind of approximation. UK is also full of PMs that jumped on the ship through politically written and unwritten rules and without general election. UK elected May and got Boris in the end.


Regarding media: You have to ask your own media why this is the case, in some countries you have quite a few EU news and references.


David Cameron made a simple request to change 4 things and he arguably failed on all
Sovereignty - Allowing Britain to opt out from the EU's founding ambition to forge an "ever closer union" of the peoples of Europe so it will not be drawn into further political integration in a "formal, legally binding and irreversible way". Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation.



Migrants and welfare benefits - "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years." and "end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all", adding that "if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave".



Economic governance or safeguarding interests of countries outside the eurozone - An explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not materially disadvantaged. He also wanted safeguards that steps to further financial union cannot be imposed on non-eurozone members and the UK will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts.



Competitiveness - A target for the reduction of the "burden" of excessive regulation and extending the single market.


You call this "simple" ? This openly asks the question of what are you even doing in this block ?

As I said: "Divorce" is the best option for both sides on the long run.
 

Falcarius

The Unwieldy Clawed One
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,563
MBTI Type
COOL
Current PM of Italy also isn't elected, wasn't on a bailout and he came out of political mix", but will you say that Italy fundamentally isn't a democratic country ? There are a number of ways how to do a democracy, which is always some kind of approximation. UK is also full of PMs that jumped on the ship through politically written and unwritten rules and without general election. UK elected May and got Boris in the end.

As you have shown you can't get to the top without being in good relations with elected head of states and that process is similar to MP - PM dynamic. Also the truth is that democracy isn't 100% concrete term. Current PM of Italy also isn't elected, wasn't on a bailout and he came out of political mix", but will you say that Italy fundamentally isn't a democratic country ? There are a number of ways how to do a democracy, which is always some kind of approximation. UK is also full of PMs that jumped on the ship through politically written and unwritten rules and without general election. UK elected May and got Boris in the end.


To be honest what happened in Italy isn't really ideal.

In the UK the last election was hung parliament and incumbent PM gets the first chance to form government during hung parliament which was Theresa May. The party she was leader won the most seats and the most votes and had the only possible arithmetic since it was only a couple off a majority anyway. When she resigned as leader of her party, it did not change the fact her party had the only workable majority. Hence, when Boris Johnson was elected new leader of his party he also became PM. If Italy was the UK, then Luigi Di Maio would be PM, what happened in Italy is the equivalent of somebody random like Ian Paisley Jr becoming PM becoming PM at last election.



You call this "simple" ? This openly asks the question of what are you even doing in this block ?

As I said: "Divorce" is the best option for both sides.

What you are saying is not logical, on one hand you say many countries brake the rules but on the other you say the UK has apparently is unrealistic to try to get changes it wants by having the decency to ask. Am I missing something?

When the UK joined in 1973 it was a trade block called the 'European Economic Community' which had the aim of economic integration, including a common market and customs union. In the last couple of decades it morphed into completely different post-Maastricht treaty called the 'European Union' as the new title suggests a supernational union. There was no Euro when UK joined; there was no Common Foreign and Security, Policy; there was no three pillars of the European Union; there was no President of the European Council. Nobody asked the people in UK if it wanted these things, the EU just moved the goalposts, and when the people of the UK were asked of the opinion of the EU during the referendum it said no. Which isn't a surprise considering David Cameron told the country to vote based on the outcome of his botched renegotiation which he tried to sell as a success. The truth is the EU could have got the UK to if it really wanted to but it didn't So you are probably right when you say "Divorce" is the best option for both sides".:shrug:
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
To be honest what happened in Italy isn't really ideal.

In the UK the last election was hung parliament and incumbent PM gets the first chance to form government during hung parliament which was Theresa May. The party she was leader won the most seats and the most votes and had the only possible arithmetic since it was only a couple off a majority anyway. When she resigned as leader of her party, it did not change the fact her party had the only workable majority. Hence, when Boris Johnson was elected new leader of his party he also became PM. If Italy was the UK, then Luigi Di Maio would be PM, what happened in Italy is the equivalent of somebody random like Ian Paisley Jr becoming PM becoming PM at last election.


What you are saying is not logical, on one hand you say many countries brake the rules but on the other you say the UK has apparently is unrealistic to try to get changes it wants by having the decency to ask. Am I missing something?

When the UK joined in 1973 it was a trade block called the 'European Economic Community' which had the aim of economic integration, including a common market and customs union. In the last couple of decades it morphed into completely different post-Maastricht treaty called the 'European Union' as the new title suggests a supernational union. There was no Euro when UK joined; there was no Common Foreign and Security, Policy; there was no three pillars of the European Union; there was no President of the European Council. Nobody asked the people in UK if it wanted these things, the EU just moved the goalposts, and when the people of the UK were asked of the opinion of the EU during the referendum it said no. Which isn't a surprise considering David Cameron told the country to vote based on the outcome of his botched renegotiation which he tried to sell as a success. The truth is the EU could have got the UK to if it really wanted to but it didn't So you are probably right when you say "Divorce" is the best option for both sides".:shrug:



I will tell you a little story


What happened in Italy evidently wasn't ideal from democratic point of view but the only way those two parties managed to make a coalition government was that neither has the top. However since both are anti-establishment they did this compromise, especially since their voters liked the idea. Since with this they got the government that generally fights globalism, lack of welfare and in general doctrines of neo liberal global capitalism. I said what I said exactly because democratic rules aren't 100% strict when you take a look at the big picture. Yes, in UK this would go differently but there is no need that everything goes as it would in UK. So as long as the voters aren't rising the mass "counter-revolution" due to very low approval you are in the realm of democracy.


When you take a look across the block the trends are clearly to move away from free trade and more towards welfare and perhaps nationalism. Mainstream politics collapsed in Italy as well as France. Spain booted right wing out of the office and placed socio-democrats in there, Poland's nationalists with pride are showing their welfare programs, Merkel is clearly weakened, Hungary is expanding their government and they nationalized the retirement system, Greece got one very developed far left from modern dynamics ..... etc. Therefore it is to expect that Cameron will be unsuccessful in what he wanted out of EU. However all of this has the concrete source behind it, which I will explain mostly through my country.



A few days ago I was in an ex war zone in my own country that covers about 40% of it. However situation there isn't good, there are houses in ruins, houses that look as Swiss cheese due to dozens of bullet holes, economy is weak and still partially in ruins, population is something like half of what it was 30 years ago ... the damage is so great that it isn't realistic that this will be fixed through simple market dynamic. In a way this is why western military interventions tend to fail, since unregulated capitalism has no real answer for war zones. Especially if local population never lived in western capitalism, what is the case in my country. To be fully honest to me unregulated Capitalism makes no sense as an idea because if we are all going to fight each other in economic sense then we may as well do it like "real men". Why spend years or even decades of hard work in trying to bankrupt all your competition when you can just take it all by force over a weekend ? I grew up in such environment/climate and to me the endless market struggles are pointless and I can't go back to some more innocent picture of the world. Therefore if you have the energy it is better that you invest it in something cooperative or constrictive than a pure pursuit of the money.



The same is with my parents whose life was nuked first with decades of Communism and then once again with the biggest war in Europe during the second half of 20th century, plus the aftermath that still isn't over. What is the point of forcing people like that to compete with someone in Asia that works for 100$ or some English speaking person that has 20 times more money that them ? That is dumb as it is unemphatic, while feeding them with toxic imported chicken surely wouldn't make it right. After everything they should get at lest some decency before they die, since otherwise they will end just as my grandparents. Which went through all of that plus WW2 in their backyard and dictatorship before it. Plus what is even the point of placing everything on market when my region can still once again go up in flames since the underlying problems weren't solved. Until the 90s we were unified country/market and that still went up in flames, just as federation before it. So I refuse the idea that trade will fix everything. I am a young person but I went through 2 currency collapses and therefore for me it is hard to see money as something with absolute and permanent value, while my grandfather went though 6 currencies while living on the same piece of land his whole life. In other words with constant currency restarts the economic conservatism makes no sense at all. What was one of the idea behind the Euro as a currency, if you share the currency that will reduce chance of war. Which we had so many on this continent that just naming all them is science for itself and that is exactly so many white people live overseas.



Also to be honest when I take a look at UK politicians they all strike me as a career politicians that never had their ass kicked for real. While here political spectrum is mostly made of people that were locked up, tortured and beaten for years and decades because of their political ideas. Or at least they saw this happen around them or to their friends or mentors. However people that went through something like this surely wouldn't put too much emphasis on money since they would have other concerns. Actually not only that we still didn't find all the victim remains of the dictatorships and wars, we didn't even find all ministers that were "removed" due to their way of thinking. It took as many decades just to make some politicians that are young enough that they aren't too emotionally involved in this. However they have serious popularity problems, if anything because "this isn't what the founding fathers wanted". Also it is important to mention that for half a century we had Marxism as a school subject, what means that everyone above 40 got a decent education in it and that includes 90% of politicians. It doesn't even matter what you really think about the subject but such education will leave a mark on decision making.



As a matter of fact when we joined EU not so long ago one of the biggest hopes was exactly that EU politics will transform our national one, which is so stuck in the past and corruption problems. To some degree this is even working but EU too quickly took too many post Communist countries and now it is being overwhelmed. The union is doing this from the start but it seems that it took too large chunk and without detailed plans how to stabilize the whole thing. Since the expansion was mostly done for economic reasons and now you have plenty of nations that feel colonized, to the point that they may even blow up the union. From what I understand Ursula came into picture exactly because the East didn't trust the original spitzenkandidat and that opened the back room talks to the degree it was done, especially since some other spitzenkandidats were even less acceptable. Therefore there had to be a compromise, so that we don't blow up the union. Some democracy was traded for stability but I find that reasonable.




However I am telling you all of this due to concrete reasoning: Some don't want to admit this but EU at this point is basically "counseling group for those from violent and dysfunctional families". Since from the start it is spreading into countries that are ex dictatorships in order to to try to fix the situation there. Until 70s almost all of the continent was covered with dictatorships, or at least ex WW2 dictatorships and ruins. In other words almost all EU members had long term dictatorship in 20th century and the primary goal of EU is just to keep the peace and repair the damage. This is exactly why we see huge backlash against everyone that is for more capitalistic neo-liberal politics, since trade isn't what EU should be all about, because trade and money divide but definition. However if you don't share our totalitarian history and problems that came out of it you don't understand what is really going on here. You can criticize the whole group as much as you like but that wouldn't achieve anything of substance. Therefore if you are going to threat abuse support group as a business meeting you are evidently in the wrong place.
 
Top