Brexit

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

I've been researching this, and I still don't propley understad it.

It seems to me that cons outnumber the pros.

I'm curious. Could someone explain to me what were the reasons why people voted in favor of the separation?

Here are some reasons mentioned:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11992106/brexit-arguments

Edit: Not only economial points were the reason.

The refugee politics of the EU also affected this.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Ayama Wirdo

[Etrurian emperor]

Well that's a surprise. When I went to sleep last night everyone assumed a Brexit was averted.

Congratulations to the Leave camp and its supporters then. I rather like Britain so I do hope the worse case scenarios won't come to pass for them. I do kinda expect it though considering they are doing a massive jump in the dark while also giving their partners a direct incentive not to make it easy for them.

I can't help but see this as the direct confirmation and acceleration of the very visible decline of Europe. As of now Europe is faced by no less then five mayor crisis's all at once. We got an economic crisis, a Migrant crisis, a political crisis, a geopolitical crisis with about every country that borders us being either on fire or setting other countries on fire and lastly we got a security crisis through a barbaric deathcult out to destroy civilization who can be said to make Europe its primary western punching bag.

Not a single nation in the EU can individually handle even a single one of these crisis's let alone all at the same time. European cooperation is needed to get past this but at the same time those very solutions won't be accepted by the populations so there's really nothing else Europe can do then just accept that they are the sick man of the world.

And while Europe is busy being a lame duck the rest of the world isn't sitting still. Once huge countries like China, Brazil and India have completed their rise to prominence there isn't much the dwarf nations of Europe with their non existent armies can do to stand up for themselves.

[blah the Prussian]

Well that's a surprise. When I went to sleep last night everyone assumed a Brexit was averted.

Congratulations to the Leave camp and its supporters then. I rather like Britain so I do hope the worse case scenarios won't come to pass for them. I do kinda expect it though considering they are doing a massive jump in the dark while also giving their partners a direct incentive not to make it easy for them.

I can't help but see this as the direct confirmation and acceleration of the very visible decline of Europe. As of now Europe is faced by no less then five mayor crisis's all at once. We got an economic crisis, a Migrant crisis, a political crisis, a geopolitical crisis with about every country that borders us being either on fire or setting other countries on fire and lastly we got a security crisis through a barbaric deathcult out to destroy civilization who can be said to make Europe its primary western punching bag.

Not a single nation in the EU can individually handle even a single one of these crisis's let alone all at the same time. European cooperation is needed to get past this but at the same time those very solutions won't be accepted by the populations so there's really nothing else Europe can do then just accept that they are the sick man of the world.

And while Europe is busy being a lame duck the rest of the world isn't sitting still. Once huge countries like China, Brazil and India have completed their rise to prominence there isn't much the dwarf nations of Europe with their non existent armies can do to stand up for themselves.

I wouldn't say that armies play a huge role in terms of geopolitics anymore. Yeah, the army of China dwarfs that of France, but since they both have nukes they won't go to war. In the world of today if you have nukes or are guaranteed by someone with nukes, you're golden. The problem for Britain is that the US will be able to exert even more economic dominance over them. In Europe, they were one of the key economic players. Outside of Europe... well... the "Special Relationship" appears to be going strong.

[SB.]

Watched the votes being counted up with Shin and a few other people on Skype chat, everyone was flipping out over every leave and stay, couple of jokes about how Scotland really wanted to stay and how they were carrying the "stay" votes. It pretty much ended with us going, "… Yeah, there's no way 'stay' can win now."

Looks to me like the majority of people technically voted to leave, but a lot of people didn't actually want it or expect it. Or something. Why did Britain vote to leave if they didn't have a proper exit plan?

This always happens. The guys that didn't want it are probably more vocal and also you can get different areas wanting different things giving you a skewed perception of the results.

[Dotty]

This is awful

[Wist]

I think this result is consequence of a common frustration with politics, a frustration exacerbated by a comparative reduction in the economic security of the working class and the less educated.

The advantages to "reclaiming our sovereignty" are hollow, especially compared to what will soon be lost. Most arguments for leaving were outright deceitful. We had a privileged position in the world's largest trading bloc (full membership with numerous valuable opt-outs), and we benefited greatly from it (even from the EU migrants). But we just voluntarily gave up our greatest trade advantage... to start our trade policy from scratch.

And yet, the impression I get is many Leave voters don't feel they'll lost anything except movement rights they'll never use. Rather, they've gained a moral victory by asserting a kind of power of the people. They had an opportunity to do something, and they took it.

I think this all comes down to systematic problems in the UK. Rejecting a scapegoated EU maybe let people feel like they were accomplishing something, but it was absolutely the wrong establishment to target. I cannot imagine a future that will validate this decision. This will be bad not just for the state, but all its people.

I will be surprised if the UK somehow manages to address its societal and political failures better outside the EU than within it. Maybe now it'll be forced to, which I admit would be one good result. But at the moment I'm a bit overwhelmed with frustration that Cameron's short-sighted political maneuverings (coupled with a plethora of absurdly misleading Leave propaganda) have taken us out of the EU and may lead to the break up of the UK.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Wist

[henrymidfields]

I wouldn't say that armies play a huge role in terms of geopolitics anymore. Yeah, the army of China dwarfs that of France, but since they both have nukes they won't go to war. In the world of today if you have nukes or are guaranteed by someone with nukes, you're golden. The problem for Britain is that the US will be able to exert even more economic dominance over them. In Europe, they were one of the key economic players. Outside of Europe... well... the "Special Relationship" appears to be going strong.

Hooray for mutually assured destruction!

Yeah, all of my colleagues and I were on Google earlier today, seeing the votes tallying up. I think a lot of remain-aligned people here pretty much summed up what we were saying in office. One of my colleagues is from Ireland, and she thinks that this is going to problems with managing the border with Northern Ireland (who I think has the Schengen agreement). To be honest, I couldn't really care too much - in fact, I found the results to be even somewhat amusing to be honest. Though it quite disconcerting to hear that there's no exit plan from...anyone.

A different question is: who next, after Britain? France? Netherlands? Any of the PIIGS?

[blah the Prussian]

As to who's next, I'd say Poland is a good bet, having an explicitly far right ruling party in power.

[Water Mage]

Here are some reasons mentioned:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11992106/brexit-arguments

Edit: Not only economial points were the reason.

The refugee politics of the EU also affected this.

I see...

While I can understand the reasons, they still feel "hollow".

I could be wrong but I feel like separating from EU wasn't the only way to solve this.

[Etrurian emperor]

Hooray for mutually assured destruction!

Yeah, all of my colleagues and I were on Google earlier today, seeing the votes tallying up. I think a lot of remain-aligned people here pretty much summed up what we were saying in office. One of my colleagues is from Ireland, and she thinks that this is going to problems with managing the border with Northern Ireland (who I think has the Schengen agreement). To be honest, I couldn't really care too much - in fact, I found the results to be even somewhat amusing to be honest. Though it quite disconcerting to hear that there's no exit plan from...anyone.

A different question is: who next, after Britain? France? Netherlands? Any of the PIIGS?

I think France is a good bet and a wrong outcome there could spell the end for Europe. I'm not to worried about a Dutch ''Nexit''. The only party irresponsible enough to promise such a thing is currently in self imposed political isolation. Doesn't matter if they promise a referendum if no one wants to form a government with them.

[Tryhard]

Fittingly, one of the major arguments against the independent Scottish referendum in 2014 was the uncertainty about being able to join the EU after separation. Scotland votes to stay in the EU but is being forced out regardless.

I honestly welcome a fractured UK. It's not so surprising considering the predominantly right-wing leaning in England compared to Scotland's left-leaning and the conflict therefore, but if the SNP can secure a deal to ensure an independent Scotland will remain in the EU then it is far more likely to succeed this time.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[XeKr]

I think it’s important to call out opinions like this is “interesting” or “amusing” (outside pure academic context or morbid humor, even then there should be some pause) because this is not reality TV, for entertainment purposes. This affects the economy and people’s livelihood in potentially significant ways. While it’s true no one knows exactly what’s going the happen, the markets will be volatile in the short term and in such times the poor/disadvantaged are often hurt the most. Systemically they can less afford uncertain and fearful markets than the wealthy, at best. At worst…

Sure, telling people that they’re voting against their interests (or more bluntly, voting “stupidly”) is absolutely ineffective. Especially if it’s the well-educated experts/elites saying so.

But without rational arguments, what’s left? The electorate simply votes on emotion (or ignorance. And that is not a slight on the electorate, but rather the politicians who spouted lies and propaganda knowingly). And I suppose that’s intended to be as condescending as it may sound. (still fairly salty, and Nov looms)

Basically democracy was a mistake, it’s nothing but trash, don’t ever laugh at us about Trump again, etc.

I do hope for the best, friends. (plz just copy the swiss in everything)

Edited June 24, 2016 by XeKr

[Elieson]

I wonder why radical reformation of immigration policies and welfare couldnt happen? Is therr evidence of peaceful appeal attempts?

[Time the Crestfallen]

I think it’s important to call out opinions like this is “interesting” or “amusing” (outside pure academic context, even then there should be some pause) because this is not reality TV, for entertainment purposes. This affects the economy and people’s livelihood in potentially significant ways. While it’s true no one knows exactly what’s going the happen, the markets will be volatile in the short term and in such times the poor/disadvantaged are often hurt the most. Systemically they can less afford uncertain and fearful markets than the wealthy, at best. At worst…

Sure, telling people that they’re voting against their interests (or more bluntly, voting “stupidly”) is absolutely ineffective. Especially if it’s the well-educated experts/elites saying so.

But without rational arguments, what’s left? The electorate simply votes on emotion (or ignorance. And that is not a slight on the electorate, but rather the politicians who spouted lies and propaganda knowingly). And I suppose that’s intended to be as condescending as it may sound. (still fairly salty, and Nov looms)

Basically democracy was a mistake, it’s nothing but trash, don’t ever laugh at us about Trump again, etc.

I do hope for the best, friends. (plz just copy the swiss in everything)

That's my major gripe. While I won't go so far as to say that there's no reason to vote leave (although as far as I can tell, the cons outweigh the pros), but the fact that so many people have voted leave based on emotions and short-term thinking on a decision that required heavy consideration of the long-term ramifications is more than a little frustrating, especially considering that Scotland and N. Ireland are being dragged along even though they voted in.

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like the kind of decision that should've required a supermajority. If it was clear and obvious that most members of the UK wanted out, that's fine but making such a decision based purely on the majority vote seems a little inappropriate, especially considering how close the two percentages were. I personally think it should've been 40:60 in favour of leaving required, but eh.

[Parrhesia]

The voting really needed to be mandatory.

[CyborgZeta]

Seccesion is absolutely inexcusable.

Why do you think that? If the people of Scotland decide that they want to stay in the EU, and vote to go their own way so they can do that, what's your issue?

[blah the Prussian]

Why do you think that? If the people of Scotland decide that they want to stay in the EU, and vote to go their own way so they can do that, what's your issue?

Because if you establish a precedent where people can secede when they want, at that point the whole country could fall apart and it would all be perfectly legal. You say the people of Scotland want it, but the law cannot be compromised by the will of the people, and "you can't just leave because the goings tough" is one of the most important laws out there. Westminster has no obligation to grant a referendum.

[CyborgZeta]

That is fair; and I can't say whether Westminster can/would/should grant a new Scottish independence referendum.

However, considering the circumstances here, I think another referendum would be justified. Scotland very clearly voted in the majority to stay in the EU, and now they could be dragged out of it against their wishes.

That shows a clear divide in what is supposed to be a "United" Kingdom. If the Scots decide they want to go their own way, then I say that's their right to decide. Self-determination is the right of all free people.

[Moblin Major General]

Isn't the law the will of the people, though? Sure, there are undesirable people rallying for laws all the time. But law is formed by the people to protect the people. There's a difference between tough going and compromising the security and safety of your country by having lax immigration and trade laws. Personally, I think many Britons will like having a closer relationship with the US because they both see the issues of the European Union. Call me unreasonably optimistic, but unlike states in the US, secession for the EU isn't binding, nor should it be. The EU is full of countries with millennia of culture, language, and diversity. Trying to create a multicultural superpower in an attempt to rival the US is not something that should've ever been attempted. Sure, many EU member states are part of NATO, but the idea of the EU revolves around the fact that Europe is meant to be an economic rival to North America, in which the latter would win every single time. Only one country rivals America's capability, and they acknowledge that their cultural pull isn't what it used to be compared to America's.

[Wist]

The EU does not revolve around being an economic rival to the US. It grew out of Western European trade facilitation agreements and a shared desire to maintain peace in Europe. It continues to serve these objectives very successfully and they remain its primary goals.

I also don't think Brexit means the UK will have a closer relationship with the US. Rather, I think the relationship will be much less relevant. A major reason the UK was a valuable political and economic ally was because of its influence and ties to the EU market.

I don't disagree with your statements on law in principle. I'm sorry I won't delve into this as I'm typing on a phone and this site is atrocious on mobile.

[MisterIceTeaPeach]

It's going to have to snowball, if one country leaves, the EU will be weaker, if the EU is weaker, another country will want to leave, etc, etc, until europe's going to be a pretty small player on the world stage.

Yeah, there's the danger of a snowball effect.

The result of the Brexit brought some other countries into the arena.

France's and Netherlands' opposition (in form of Geert Wilders) want to have a referendum in their country as soon as possible.

The anti-EU policy rised noticable.

Austria almost elected an EU opponent as Federal President. Roma has a new mayoress now who also tends to do rather have anti European policy.

It's kinda weird that the clamour against the policy of the EU mainly started after the refugee crisis, a non economic topic.

Even after the Greek crisis the reservations weren't publicised as much as now.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Ayama Wirdo

[blah the Prussian]

That is fair; and I can't say whether Westminster can/would/should grant a new Scottish independence referendum.

However, considering the circumstances here, I think another referendum would be justified. Scotland very clearly voted in the majority to stay in the EU, and now they could be dragged out of it against their wishes.

That shows a clear divide in what is supposed to be a "United" Kingdom. If the Scots decide they want to go their own way, then I say that's their right to decide. Self-determination is the right of all free people.

But Independance for independance's sake (self determination, yes) isn't enough. The SNP have yet to provide a good reason for secession. Ukraine, for example, deserves Independance from Russia because Russia committed genocide against them. Scotland and England were bound together by personal union and then by a resolution passed by a for the time democratically elected Parliament. Answer me this: should the Confederates have been indepenndant? Based on the right of self determination they should have been.

[Magical CC]

I voted in, but not for the establishment that I frankly have no love for either, nor because I agreed with either sides campaigns, it's just that I hate the idea that many of the people want to leave the EU's biggest concern is immigration, ironic considering Britain as a nation is the one who historically had invaded everywhere. Mostly they have no idea where they're going with it.

The pound dropped over 8% in value as a result over the course of the day, so that's fun.

We're going to probably be hearing about a second Scottish referendum soon, and it wouldn't surprise me if Northern Ireland were far behind.

Scotland leaves UK to be with EU. North Ireland reunites with Ireland. It's like a dream.

[Moblin Major General]

@blah:In European law, yes. However, the Constitution is uncharacteristically binding compared to other democratic unions before and after it. Also, unlike the Confederate States, it wasn't automatic, and it doesn't seem that the UK is seeking to sever ties with the individual countries in Europe, compared to the swift, automatic, and hostile severing of ties with the US each Southern State had. If the EU treaty were as binding as the Constitution, Britain probably would've perished the thought of even attempting something like this.

[blah the Prussian]

@blah:In European law, yes. However, the Constitution is uncharacteristically binding compared to other democratic unions before and after it. Also, unlike the Confederate States, it wasn't automatic, and it doesn't seem that the UK is seeking to sever ties with the individual countries in Europe, compared to the swift, automatic, and hostile severing of ties with the US each Southern State had. If the EU treaty were as binding as the Constitution, Britain probably would've perished the thought of even attempting something like this.

I'm talking about Scottish Independance with relation to Brexit. As much as I disagree with the choice, the U.K. is legally allowed to leave the EU.