|
Post by Hudd on Jun 30, 2016 9:53:28 GMT
I voted Remain.
The vast majority of my friends voted Remain.
Of the people I know who voted out:
1 - hates David Cameron and will vote against whatever he thinks best 1 - wants to be like Norway/Switzerland, in EU, but without Brussels dictating our laws 5 - Fed up with immigration - muslims though, rather than people from the EU. Concern over Turkey joining EU mentioned many times.
It might be a small sample, but I think we see what the problem is...
However, I fully expect a bodge, an excuse for a second referendum, or possibly a new labour leader who will run the next election with a manifesto pledge of ignoring the referendum result.
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jun 30, 2016 11:47:17 GMT
first up understand I don't know shit bout it all so just want to clear some things up for myself
1. didn't the EU and it member all call doom and gloom when England didn't go with the euro and they stayed with the Pound sterling? and if so was there doom and gloom?
2 is it true that any country in the EU can not make amendments or pass new legislation? or vote to remove any that is in place?
3 i heard some time back, think was Turkey wanted in but some voted for no and though the vote for no won (or something cant remember and too lazy to look it up) the EU passed it any way?
if any know the answers to this i would love to hear and know, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jun 30, 2016 14:24:42 GMT
2 is it true that any country in the EU can not make amendments or pass new legislation? or vote to remove any that is in place? No, it is not. You can have a look at the main organs of the EU : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Unionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamenten.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_CommissionTo make it simple, these organs are not make from total strangers. The council is the reunion of ministers of the different state governments. The council then nominates special representatives for each states for the Commission. The Parliament is constituted of direct elected representatives from every state members. In UK, they are called MEP (member of European Parliament). In french, Député Européens. The legislative process supposedly goes like this : upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Ordinary_legislative_procedure_majorityrules.svg/332px-Ordinary_legislative_procedure_majorityrules.svg.pngWhat is true is that it is a complicated process, biased by power struggles between states and the influence of private lobbies. And that the general public actually don't give a fuck and don't bother much voting for the European Parliament. Meaning that for these elections, anti-EU parties usually had a clear shot at the parliament, increasing dramatically its inefficiency. Don't get me wrong : I agree that there is a crisis of the European democratic process, and that the Lisbon treaty process was an abomination. But I can't just stand the lies of the populists telling the people have no power in the Europe. They have, but they have as much as the other states people. And they have to care about it. What we really need to do about it, in my opinion, is to get decent representatives in place there, both as our governments and as our MEP, and clear the lobbying mess that is going on. Maybe Brexit will catalyst this, maybe not...
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jun 30, 2016 17:14:00 GMT
2 is it true that any country in the EU can not make amendments or pass new legislation? or vote to remove any that is in place? No, it is not. You can have a look at the main organs of the EU : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Unionen.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliamenten.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_CommissionTo make it simple, these organs are not make from total strangers. The council is the reunion of ministers of the different state governments. The council then nominates special representatives for each states for the Commission. The Parliament is constituted of direct elected representatives from every state members. In UK, they are called MEP (member of European Parliament). In french, Député Européens. The legislative process supposedly goes like this : upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Ordinary_legislative_procedure_majorityrules.svg/332px-Ordinary_legislative_procedure_majorityrules.svg.pngWhat is true is that it is a complicated process, biased by power struggles between states and the influence of private lobbies. And that the general public actually don't give a fuck and don't bother much voting for the European Parliament. Meaning that for these elections, anti-EU parties usually had a clear shot at the parliament, increasing dramatically its inefficiency. Don't get me wrong : I agree that there is a crisis of the European democratic process, and that the Lisbon treaty process was an abomination. But I can't just stand the lies of the populists telling the people have no power in the Europe. They have, but they have as much as the other states people. And they have to care about it. What we really need to do about it, in my opinion, is to get decent representatives in place there, both as our governments and as our MEP, and clear the lobbying mess that is going on. Maybe Brexit will catalyst this, maybe not... hmmm you say in answer to my 2nd question, No, but then i read in your links this "Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation" so it seems to me a 1 Europe government to me "they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals." sounds like he you guys can ask me (aka the commission) But, well, I wont do anything unless I initiate the basis of these proposals lol and in 14 years only a few things (criminal laws)have been done and 1 amendment to the 2002 counter-terrorism framework decision and this "it is not possible for a Commission Member or its President to be removed by a direct election" WTF lol ok I know i will need to read a lot more on this now, but wow it is eye opening stuff. thanks for the info though it is only Wikipedia so I wont as yet have an opinion to it one way or the other for now, but on seeing clips as well seems to me France would like to follow England's lead oh and any know if my question 1 and 3 have any truth to it? also when was it (as in year) that England made the call to stay with the pound sterling and not go to the Euro?
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jun 30, 2016 18:33:28 GMT
Unlikely that France will follow. Only extreme right is calling for a referendum. They are still a minority and won't get it. Hollande may be a national shame, but he still has some brains. I said no to your question because I still consider that the Commission are undirect representatives of their nation people. A debatable matter of course, but they still respond to their national government. It has also been said that the Parliament takes some kind of "unformal" initiatives, through reports and communication, that the Commission has to consider. But I still said it is a big mess A real clusterfuck indeed. But it is there.
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jun 30, 2016 21:15:13 GMT
1. didn't the EU and it member all call doom and gloom when England didn't go with the euro and they stayed with the Pound sterling? and if so was there doom and gloom? I was thinking a bit about your question here. I have to admit first I never understood why the Pound will have to fall just for not being euro. A market with 2 currencies is still viable. And the UK actually fought hard in the Europe to keep the fiscal advantages of the City and the Pound remained a viable currency for investors. It is my understanding of how it was, but finance is not my best and I may be totally wrong. But Brexit may have triggered the prophecy of Doom : www.cnbc.com/2016/06/26/pound-sterling-set-to-fall-further-as-brexit-uncertainty-continues.htmlThe future of the City will be hardly discussed and there are already calls for other places like Paris or Brussels to be ready to take the lead of the European finance. But the main issue remains the uncertainty. As long as the negotiations goes, investors will flee to safer currencies like the dollar, while the euro should stay quite stable (drop a little but not as much as the pound). Right now, every foreign investments will be re-evaluated at higher price because of this huge drop of the pound like the french-english project of the nuclear power plant of Hinkley Point (if you read french : www.rfi.fr/economie/20160630-france-projet-hinkley-point-plus-difficile-apres-brexit-nucleaire-michel-sapin). We can play the "if" game and imagine a Brexit with an euro-using UK. A scenario similar to the one they were imagining about Greece. Even with the cost of reprinting a national money, repercussions would have been way less harsh than losing the currency AND the investors, as it is going now. Euro will have dropped but not as much as the combined drop of pound and euro now. EDIT : that was very gloomy. I forgot to look at the bright side of life. It is quite possible that financial interests will push the negotiations so the market is not disrupt too much (and so for the wallets of the European politicians) and we may see the creation some kind of special economical zone for the City.
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jul 1, 2016 2:15:14 GMT
just quickly before i run off to a job, the reason i asked about the pound and the doom was because i don't remember a time of gloom, it was a scare tactic (unless there was some) by the EU. It was like you better change to the euro of shit will hit the fan, they didn't, and it didn't, but as England were then part of the EU, nothing but talk happened. But now the EU said if you leave the shit will hit the fan if you leave, and England did, but now like a big bully the EU are like, well your not with us now so it wont be just threat and words, maybe they help manipulate the market to help this reaction, to scare them back. I personally dont know if one way is better than the other, some parts of a 1 world order makes sense and can if run right be great. I will later play devils advocate to this, well i am now lol (just making note to myself to talk about Greece later and money grab) but got to rush now thanks again for the info and that awesome monty love that tune, will be stuck in my head all day
|
|
|
Post by DocOz3000 on Jul 1, 2016 5:34:01 GMT
Interesting that this topic was posted and so many concise and clear thoughts are connected to it, I am truly impressed with the intellects that play such a brutish game like BB...lol... Maybe it's simply our collective catharsis after having to deal with "real world." That being said, I applaud the British people for making such a profound and extraordinary decision, choosing self determination over Global think. I'm not British, having had the good fortune to be born in the U.S., (and please don't infer from that comment that I think any less of other countries around the world I simply love my country and would and have put my life on the line to uphold what I consider to be one of the best social experiments this planet has yet to conceive), but I would have voted to exit the EU if I was a citizen of the UK. I've always wondered why a global power like the UK would have decided to even join something as unstable and unmanageable as the EU in the first place. I understand that the power brokers, namely the large banking institutions and the ultra rich would want something like EU, but for the people that make up the majority of the citizenry of a country so strong in character like the UK I never saw the upside of such a union. I've taken a few trips to Europe and marveled at the diversity of culture, but I never thought of Europe as one people, instead I saw Europe as an amalgamation of strong individual national pride. In the US, it's true that we have many different cultures spread over thousands of square miles, but the innate American idealism and the underlying national pride of being American is the glue that binds us together, or at least it used to be. I can't say the US is without strife and bigotry, but what I can say is we have each others backs; regardless of race, creed, area of origin, sexual preference, even economic status these differences fall away in times of adversity. In a hundred years or maybe after just a few generations that grow up in an EU environment my argument may become hollow, but I haven't really seen the push for less individual national pride and a more "Melting Pot" like attitude in Europe. French people still feel French, Brits still identify as Brits, Germans still think like Germans, rinse and repeat these attitudes across the European continent. Changing the money everyone uses in to a standardized form doesn't really do anything to dispel nationalism, and in the UK even that small step was not adopted. It's going to take something miraculous or terrible to bring the European people to a different way of thinking, I hope for the former far more than the later scenario. To conclude my little addition to this wonderfully thought provoking discussion, I'd like to quote a few forward thinking gentlemen who's brilliant flames may have dimmed in the fog of history but who's contributions lit the way for unknown generations that will forever owe them more than they can repay;
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jul 1, 2016 12:59:44 GMT
next up for debate will be about Trump
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jul 1, 2016 15:47:09 GMT
next up for debate will be about Trump Who ?
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jul 1, 2016 17:08:05 GMT
just quickly before i run off to a job, the reason i asked about the pound and the doom was because i don't remember a time of gloom, it was a scare tactic (unless there was some) by the EU. It was like you better change to the euro of shit will hit the fan, they didn't, and it didn't, but as England were then part of the EU, nothing but talk happened. But now the EU said if you leave the shit will hit the fan if you leave, and England did, but now like a big bully the EU are like, well your not with us now so it wont be just threat and words, maybe they help manipulate the market to help this reaction, to scare them back. I personally dont know if one way is better than the other, some parts of a 1 world order makes sense and can if run right be great. I will later play devils advocate to this, well i am now lol (just making note to myself to talk about Greece later and money grab) but got to rush now thanks again for the info and that awesome monty love that tune, will be stuck in my head all day Don't forget to consider that the Londonians, the Scottish and Northern Ireland have vastly voted for remaining. It is not only a matter of UK vs EU, but also a matter of division inside the United Kingdom. Scotland result was 62% for Remain. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/When you think of it, the claim that it is a success for National Sovereignty doesn't make so much sense, because the decision doesn't seem taken by one huge majority united under one precise ideal and it actually denotes a huge geographical and political division in the country. A lot of people in UK now feel cheated and that they will suffer for a decision made out of bad reasons. It will surely stir a lot of unrest and conflict interests struggles. For example, I'm pretty sure that you can consider that all the financial people in Londons would have gladly continued to work in their previous arrangement with EU, and that they will reach a lot in order to keep as much as their advantages of possible. In my opinion, taking such a huge decision on a 48/52 result seems a lot sketchy, especially when the campaign went so badly, with lot a false pledges and statements. And it is a known fact that communication about how Europe works and what it does actually is not the best factual thing in the media. Lot of people in Wales are starting to realize now that a lot of their cities infrastructures were actually funded by European development funds... gov.wales/funding/eu-funds/?lang=enNot sure that the British national budget will be able to cover the same things with the "saving" of the contribution. Also, the Scotland prime minister already made claims that they will like to stay in the EU whatever happens. This may result in a new referendum for their own independence in one year or two. Last one in 2014 was tight already : www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/resultsNow Brexit could be enough to tip it, and the Kingdom will be divided.
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jul 1, 2016 17:50:50 GMT
If Scotland comes back in EU at some point, it should be called the Scomeback. And I want royalties for any use of this
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jul 1, 2016 19:27:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by romfantaz on Jul 1, 2016 21:52:54 GMT
Ah, Jester ! You just provided a perfect example of the biased media reporting on Europe. Because, very sorry to confirm it, water is not the cure of dehydration and does not prevent it by itself. If you got acute diarrhea from, let's say, Cholera, you can try to drink as much water as you can. But if you don't have the necessary electrolytes like sodium (which ARE the main cure and prevention for dehydration), you will certainly die. Same goes for preventing the dehydration. You can have your stomach full of water, but if you miss on electrolytes in your body, you will just piss it all away and fix none. I have seen lot of trekkers doing this mistake : still getting the headaches because drinking tons of water while forgetting to get a correct nutrition with salts and sugar. One other sad fact is that if you drink a large amount of de-mineralized water (as used for batteries or car radiators), you will actually die from de-hydratation. It will flush the electrolytes out of your body and start a quite gruesome process... So the EU experts were fully technically correct, but certainly too much for the benefit of a good communication. This article from the Guardian gave a good factual analysis on this "ban" from Europe : www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1?newsfeed=true
|
|
|
Post by Kaiser on Jul 2, 2016 14:26:12 GMT
Ah, Jester ! You just provided a perfect example of the biased media reporting on Europe. Because, very sorry to confirm it, water is not the cure of dehydration and does not prevent it by itself. If you got acute diarrhea from, let's say, Cholera, you can try to drink as much water as you can. But if you don't have the necessary electrolytes like sodium (which ARE the main cure and prevention for dehydration), you will certainly die. Same goes for preventing the dehydration. You can have your stomach full of water, but if you miss on electrolytes in your body, you will just piss it all away and fix none. I have seen lot of trekkers doing this mistake : still getting the headaches because drinking tons of water while forgetting to get a correct nutrition with salts and sugar. One other sad fact is that if you drink a large amount of de-mineralized water (as used for batteries or car radiators), you will actually die from de-hydratation. It will flush the electrolytes out of your body and start a quite gruesome process... So the EU experts were fully technically correct, but certainly too much for the benefit of a good communication. This article from the Guardian gave a good factual analysis on this "ban" from Europe : www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/nov/18/1?newsfeed=truethanks for the enlightenment, and never be sorry for opening my eyes. I must admit I was not thinking about Cholera, so yeah your totally right, though if forced i would drink from a radiator, (if no coolant was in it) not sure i would think to drink from a battery though. (maybe now i will, and all its acidie goodness)or just not get stuck out in our outback I did hear you can die from drinking too much water.
|
|