Brexit thread - what happens next

jas72 · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:16

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36703037

Complete joke of a story.

Making out that Brits abroad can easily enjoy dual nationality and only focussing on countries where this is possible. :mad:

For the large majority this is not the case and there is increasing concern about futures both for EU citizens in the UK and vice versa.

The UK's delay on moving on with the brexit (why have a vote just before the summer recess? ) is causing stress and instability for many including myself.

Johnson "hey guys lets leave the EU cut immigration and give 350m to NHS"
Joe Public "ok sign me up"
Johnson "yay independence day"
Cameron "you've screwed it up I'm off"
Joe Public "we don't need you we've got Boris and Farage"
Johnson "Errr.... I'm off"
Farage "Errr...me too"
Joe Public "well we didn't want immigration cut anyway and the NHS is fine"
May "Well those proposing leave have all left but let's continue down this road anyway"
Joe Public "what's the plan"
May "the plan.... the plan.... the plan is to keep everything but give up our vote and do trade deals with St kitts and nevis & the Falklands"
May "that'll net us more than those 440M europeans we currently trade with...."

cheesyboy · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:18

A long, but very interesting read on how we needed up voting Leave, from the perspective of what went wrong with the Remain campaign:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign

Note: Occasional fruity language from sources quoted in the article.

jas72 · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:25

Roar87 said:
. Free movement and open borders isn't a thing in the rest of the world, it would be laughed off if you suggested it in most places.

it is in the 50 states of the US.

MichaelAwkward · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:30

jas72 said:
it is in the 50 states of the US.

They aren't individual countries? :confused:

estebanrey · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:31

cheesyboy said:
A long, but very interesting read on how we needed up voting Leave, from the perspective of what went wrong with the Remain campaign:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/how-remain-failed-inside-story-doomed-campaign

Note: Occasional fruity language from sources quoted in the article.

It the tl;dr "Apparently repeatedly calling people with worries about immigration racists doesn't work"?

Rilot · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:33

MichaelAwkward said:
They aren't individual countries?

Indeed. And they all speak the same language. Although I'm not sure about Alabama.

wildman · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:35

Rilot said:
Indeed. And they all speak the same language. Although I'm not sure about Alabama.

I think Hillbilly-Hick is just a dialect rather than another language though

[TW]Fox · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:35

MichaelAwkward said:
They aren't individual countries?

Technically no, but they were originally - they all agreed to join a federal Union. They still retain a large amount of autonomy and have separate laws, taxation, etc.

The US is effectively 50 countries bound together into one large federal sovereign nation. Some States are very different from others.

englishpremier · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:38

[TW]Fox;29740472 said:
Technically no, but they were originally - they all agreed to join a federal Union. They still retain a large amount of autonomy and have separate laws, taxation, etc.

The US is effectively 50 countries bound together into one large federal sovereign nation. Some States are very different from others.

Just like some states in Germany, or Australia, Austria, Italy etc... They are still a long way off individual countries.

Freakbro · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:40

[TW]Fox;29740472 said:
Technically no, but they were originally - they all agreed to join a federal Union. They still retain a large amount of autonomy and have separate laws, taxation, etc.

The US is effectively 50 countries bound together into one large federal sovereign nation. Some States are very different from others.

Yea, I mean when you can have national sovereignty why would any western democratic society would want to join up into a political and economic Federal Union just to get greater collective powers.....

[TW]Fox · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:42

englishpremier said:
Just like some states in Germany, or Australia, Austria, Italy etc... They are still a long way off individual countries.

The point is they used to be individual countries.

In many ways for example, California has more autonomy than Scotland does..

Infact in almost all ways that is true. A US state operates more like a country than Scotland, Wales or England do.

{T5K}TT · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:45

Roar87 said:
Far right in Europe is center right everywhere else. Free movement and open borders isn't a thing in the rest of the world, it would be laughed off if you suggested it in most places. We're a free market Socialist Democracy. Center Left by American standards

I agree with you. It's certainly odd how a perfectly reasonable desire to preserve national identity and restore parliamentary democracy is viewed by some media commentators as 'extreme'.

delta0 · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:47

[TW]Fox;29740472 said:
Technically no, but they were originally - they all agreed to join a federal Union. They still retain a large amount of autonomy and have separate laws, taxation, etc.

The US is effectively 50 countries bound together into one large federal sovereign nation. Some States are very different from others.

By agree I assume you mean whilst having a gun pointed at you? I'm not sure a war is going to help Europe unite. The US is completely different from Europe.

Six6siX · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:53

{T5K}TT said:
a perfectly reasonable desire to preserve national identity

Can you explain what you mean by this exactly?

MichaelAwkward · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:56

[TW]Fox;29740472 said:
Technically no, but they were originally - they all agreed to join a federal Union.

Were they though? I don't think you can compare any of the states before they formally became part of the United States to the constituent countries of the EU or any other sovereign nation. The California Republic, for example, existed for just a few weeks after revolting against Mexico (which revolted against Spain before that) before being occupied by the US military in the war against Mexico. Texas too was independent, but for barely 10 years. Vermont did better at 14 years, but even Hawaii, which was technically a sovereign nation for a century, was dependent on both the American and British militaries throughout.

The rest of the states were created by Acts of Congress to divide up 'unorganized territories', which then developed as individual entities before applying for statehood in an official capacity. They were never sovereign.

cheesyboy · 5 Jul 2016 at 12:58

Six6siX said:
Can you explain what you mean by this exactly?

Pint measures, bendy bananas, and powerful vacuum cleaners.

a1ex2001 · 5 Jul 2016 at 13:00

{T5K}TT said:
I agree with you. It's certainly odd how a perfectly reasonable desire to preserve national identity and restore parliamentary democracy is viewed by some media commentators as 'extreme'.

At what point in time shall we freeze it so it can no longer change, perhaps we should roll the clocks back to the 40's set that as out 'National Identity' and never allow it to be changed? or maybe the 1800's when we ruled the world?

National Identity isn't a tangible set thing it is something that is continually evolving and changing as our society evolves and changes. Much as some people would like change to stop it won't.

cheesyboy said:
Pint measures, bendy bananas, and powerful vacuum cleaners.

The pint measure has never been banned I certainly haven't started ordering a splash over half a litre at the bar yet! Bendy Banans is a myth and the vacuum cleaners thing below the headline makes environmental sense and oddly actually protects a British company that many hold up as a shinning light for our economy as Dyson didn't make any products that were over the limit!

dowie · 5 Jul 2016 at 13:23

Moses said:
Wasn't migration basically the number one issue? It's reasonable to suggest there's a good chance a majority of leave voters would not be happy with us joining the EEA.

Why is it reasonable to suggest that? Unless you've got some data it isn't at all reasonable? People have voted for all manner of reasons, being one of the major reasons or even number 1 reason doesn't mean it is the key reason for >50% of leave voters or that they'd be unhappy with only some minor concessions in that area but wins in other areas.

We gain access to EFTA ones, but lose access to EU ones. Great.

We don't necessarily 'loose access' to them either - depends on the country, for some we could, as a default, agree to carry on trading under the same rules regardless.

More importantly though we're not tied to the EU and can make agreements unilaterally.

dowie · 5 Jul 2016 at 13:30

Freakbro said:
That horse has already well and truly bolted ie: not leaving in the first place

But yea, we can hope that we choose the best of the rest of the alternatives.

nah leaving the EU as it is at the moment is a pretty good move, slow growth some major, major risks (on big German bank, several Italian banks, soverign debt of some Southern European nations + their high youth unemployment figures), a flawed system in general and no ability to unilaterally deal with the rest of the world... putting all our eggs in the big EU basket is very silly, keeping some links as a close outsider through EFTA/EEA is much much better.

Darujhistan · 5 Jul 2016 at 13:33

[TW]Fox;29740472 said:
Technically no, but they were originally - they all agreed to join a federal Union. They still retain a large amount of autonomy and have separate laws, taxation, etc.

The US is effectively 50 countries bound together into one large federal sovereign nation. Some States are very different from others.

No it isn't.

They were never countries.