Brexit

[Tryhard]

considering the attack that just happen in France, maybe they were right to leave the EU.

but thats for another thread.

Despite the fact that my half-sister who happens to be Muslim is living in Nice and right now I don't know if she's dead or not, so I'm refraining from using some colorful language, Brexit doesn't change anything about migrants without a UK government specifically aiming to restrict its borders, which is irrelevant in regards to Brexit. Make the topic if you wish.

How do you figure? Even if they're right about mass immigration from the EU, won't they need to accept freedom of movement if they want access to the single market?

Yes, the UK has been told explicitly that single market access = freedom of movement. Most economists agree that choosing to deprive themselves access to the single market would be (much more) economically suicidal, so it's more than likely going to equal no change for immigration laws/tighter control of borders. Edited July 15, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

why do people act like these terrorists are only attacking wealthy nations and therefore are justified in their bigotry?

terrorists attack everywhere, the united states, india, bangladesh, germany, france. being anti-immigrant and stopping those people from pursuing better lives (ie not becoming terrorists or the victims of attacks that happen much more often in their native nations) is exclusively xenophobia.

also, the attacker might have been born in france.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Moblin Major General]

why do people act like these terrorists are only attacking wealthy nations and therefore are justified in their bigotry?

terrorists attack everywhere, the united states, india, bangladesh, germany, france. being anti-immigrant and stopping those people from pursuing better lives (ie not becoming terrorists or the victims of attacks that happen much more often in their native nations) is exclusively xenophobia.

The problem lies when said immigrants want the nation to which they emigrated to bend the knee. When my ancestors came to America, they didn't expect to have everything given to them, nor did they want to force their ideology on everyone else there. The Syrian immigrants seem to want Europe to be their butler, which is one reason the US doesn't want anything to do with them. If the Syrians decided to pick themselves up, work, and learn a European language of any kind, they would be more widely accepted. Not saying they don't have justification for wanting what they left, but no self-respecting parliament would vote to erase it's country's culture.

[Phoenix Wright]

proof?

[tuvarkz]

A few links here and there about the 'refugees' being ungrateful about what they are being given:

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6753/germany-migrants-demands

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160129/1033920309/germany-migrant-violence.html

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/13/watch-migrants-dislike-food-demand-tvs-threaten-go-back-syria/

http://www.thelocal.it/20140827/refugees-protest-against-monotonous-italian-food

And the issue is twofold, about first world terroristic events gaining more relevance:

1) First world countries, as they are, have generally a higher standard of quality of life, safety included as a general thing, particularly in Europe. Outside of a few high-class communities, in thirld world countries violence is often if not almost constant. Third world countries need to improve, yes, but letting the quality of living standard in first world countries drop is far worse.

2) People relate more to those that share blood/culture with them than those that are unknowns. It's natural that I, as a peruvian citizen, will care far more if a terrorist attack happens in the capital of my country than if one was to happen in turkey or some other country. It's only natural for individuals to care for some groups of people more than others, and it is not a bad thing.

[Duff Ostrich]

don't give me this idealized bullshit about the principles that our country was founded upon, either. the one principle upon which the USA was definitively founded was not paying taxes to great britain.

Sorry, but ideas matter. Language, laws, and culture matters. The American constitution is critically far removed from the constitution of the European pseudo state, and all of this makes for every difference in the world (or at least every difference that matters).

The European Union also sucks, unlike America. I think that matters too, but thankfully the peoples within the EU already have sovereign states supported by thousands of years of distinct histories. Once the EU fails, they'll get that sovereignty back, and I'd much rather the United Kingdom lead the way to Europe's collective destiny (as anything but a collective!) than France and Germany, all things considered.

how are the republicans any less complacent/corrupt than the democrats

i mean they had a pedophile as speaker of the house

or is this some more of that shit you say that really isn't making a point so much as "shitting on everyone who disagrees" and "make america great again"

One of the critically unappealing aspects of Trump's messaging is that America is somehow no longer "great". I realize in saying so I'm borrowing a line from Hillary Clinton and for that sin I'll likely be subjected to a personal hell wherein I'm serenaded by a chorus of screeching harpies for all eternity, but she is nevertheless correct on this single point.

Taken as an aggregate, the Republicans are not less corrupt than the Democrats, and in fact Republican leadership may have been even more complacent as evidenced by their tepid response to the threat Trump represented. They've already paid for their arrogance however, and there is no figure in this country more symbolic of endemic corruption and criminal incompetence than Hillary Clinton. I will never debase myself by voting Trump, but I understand why millions have and will. The Democrats may yet be forced to learn the lesson they so deserve.

[Tryhard]

The European Union also sucks, unlike America. I think that matters too, but thankfully the peoples within the EU already have sovereign states supported by thousands of years of distinct histories. Once the EU fails, they'll get that sovereignty back, and I'd much rather the United Kingdom lead the way to Europe's collective destiny (as anything but a collective!) than France and Germany, all things considered.

You haven't shown any credible sources in order to back up your constant repetition that the EU is tyrannical. In fact, you didn't even try to defend yourself when I and others said you were wrong about sovereignty. I suppose you can repeat a lie and expect people to believe it. Edited July 17, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

Sorry, but ideas matter. Language, laws, and culture matters. The American constitution is critically far removed from the constitution of the European pseudo state, and all of this makes for every difference in the world (or at least every difference that matters).

The European Union also sucks, unlike America. I think that matters too, but thankfully the peoples within the EU already have sovereign states supported by thousands of years of distinct histories. Once the EU fails, they'll get that sovereignty back, and I'd much rather the United Kingdom lead the way to Europe's collective destiny (as anything but a collective!) than France and Germany, all things considered.

[citation needed]

One of the critically unappealing aspects of Trump's messaging is that America is somehow no longer "great". I realize in saying so I'm borrowing a line from Hillary Clinton and for that sin I'll likely be subjected to a personal hell wherein I'm serenaded by a chorus of screeching harpies for all eternity, but she is nevertheless correct on this single point.

I was making fun of your ass because you keep saying shit about American values, but I guess the beauty of this country is that I have every right to denote your view of American values as both bullshitty and harmful, and you can do the same. And both of us can do it without actually making a point or citing anything; we can just say it and the other will be forced to listen. It's like a perpetual soapbox for assholes.

Taken as an aggregate, the Republicans are not less corrupt than the Democrats, and in fact Republican leadership may have been even more complacent as evidenced by their tepid response to the threat Trump represented. They've already paid for their arrogance however, and there is no figure in this country more symbolic of endemic corruption and criminal incompetence than Hillary Clinton. I will never debase myself by voting Trump, but I understand why millions have and will. The Democrats may yet be forced to learn the lesson they so deserve.

[citation needed]

Why do you keep posting? You just keep saying things and insulting people without backing it up.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Duff Ostrich]

You haven't shown any credible sources in order to back up your constant repetition that the EU is tyrannical. In fact, you didn't even try to defend yourself when I and others said you were wrong about sovereignty. I suppose you can repeat a lie and expect people to believe it.

You simply insisting I am wrong is not a compelling argument worth defending against. That the EU is a relentless bureaucracy is common knowledge. That European taxpayers have had to bail out states that are crushed under the weight of their own socialism is common knowledge. That the currency is failing is common knowledge. And it should certainly not be a surprise that there are a growing number of people all across the continent that see the writing on the wall and want out.

[citation needed]

I was making fun of your ass because you keep saying shit about American values, but I guess the beauty of this country is that I have every right to denote your view of American values as both bullshitty and harmful, and you can do the same. And both of us can do it without actually making a point or citing anything; we can just say it and the other will be forced to listen. It's like a perpetual soapbox for assholes.

[citation needed]

Why do you keep posting? You just keep saying things and insulting people without backing it up.

If your intention is to instruct me on the finer points of arguing on the internet then I'm afraid this isn't going to cut it. [citation needed] over the expression of an opinion isn't remotely an argument, and I fail to see where I insulted anyone. Unless of course you're concerned that Mrs. Clinton will read this and have her feelings hurt, but I object to that suggestion on the grounds that she's an alien android and therefore does not experience human emotion.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Lord Raven]

You simply insisting I am wrong is not a compelling argument worth defending against. That the EU is a relentless bureaucracy is common knowledge. That European taxpayers have had to bail out states that are crushed under the weight of their own socialism is common knowledge. That the currency is failing is common knowledge. And it should certainly not be a surprise that there are a growing number of people all across the continent that see the writing on the wall and want out.

[citation needed]

If your intention is to instruct me on the finer points of arguing on the internet then I'm afraid this isn't going to cut it. [citation needed] over the expression of an opinion isn't remotely an argument, and I fail to see where I insulted anyone.

I think right about now you're being a condescending ass

But a discussion - which I am ASSUMING is your intention in this thread - is a meeting of opinions which are backed up by fact. You are merely stating your opinion as if it were its own fact. You are not adding any factual basis to it. You are arguing in generalities as well, which makes your point look significantly weaker than it is. You are really shit at internet arguments. The point is that you should at least make it obvious you aren't talking out of your ass.

Unless of course you're concerned that Mrs. Clinton will read this and have her feelings hurt, but I object to that suggestion on the grounds that she's an alien android and therefore does not experience human emotion.

I'm more concerned of the state of our world when a self-proclaimed lover of politics like yourself talks as if he only reads Donald Trump propaganda. Furthermore, passive-aggressive insults make you look like more of an ass to the populace.

[Moblin Major General]

You simply insisting I am wrong is not a compelling argument worth defending against. That the EU is a relentless bureaucracy is common knowledge. That European taxpayers have had to bail out states that are crushed under the weight of their own socialism is common knowledge. That the currency is failing is common knowledge. And it should certainly not be a surprise that there are a growing number of people all across the continent that see the writing on the wall and want out.

If your intention is to instruct me on the finer points of arguing on the internet then I'm afraid this isn't going to cut it. [citation needed] over the expression of an opinion isn't remotely an argument, and I fail to see where I insulted anyone. Unless of course you're concerned that Mrs. Clinton will read this and have her feelings hurt, but I object to that suggestion on the grounds that she's an alien android and therefore does not experience human emotion.

What common knowledge? Have you been watching too much Rush Limbaugh? Every "opinion" you've stated has been worded and toted as fact when it isn't. You're throwing shade, which makes you look like an asshole. In fact, you are an asshole. Get on 4chan if you don't want to be judged for spouting hateful vitriol.

[Duff Ostrich]

[citation needed]

I think right about now you're being a condescending ass

But a discussion - which I am ASSUMING is your intention in this thread - is a meeting of opinions which are backed up by fact. You are merely stating your opinion as if it were its own fact. You are not adding any factual basis to it. You are arguing in generalities as well, which makes your point look significantly weaker than it is. You are really shit at internet arguments. The point is that you should at least make it obvious you aren't talking out of your ass.

I'm more concerned of the state of our world when a self-proclaimed lover of politics like yourself talks as if he only reads Donald Trump propaganda. Furthermore, passive-aggressive insults make you look like more of an ass to the populace.

What do you want, a dissertation? You haven't held anyone else in this thread up to that lofty standard, and indeed precious little of what's been said here has been sourced in any way. The European Union and the Eurozone are in a deep crisis. European taxpayers have had to bail out whole nations. These are facts. Type "European Debt Crisis" into Wikipedia and see what it gives you. The differences in philosophy and function that separate America from the European Union can be gone into with much greater detail, if indeed you're that interested in the subject.

What common knowledge? Have you been watching too much Rush Limbaugh? Every "opinion" you've stated has been worded and toted as fact when it isn't. You're throwing shade, which makes you look like an asshole. In fact, you are an asshole. Get on 4chan if you don't want to be judged for spouting hateful vitriol.

What hateful vitriol? Would that be anything like unwarranted name calling? Feel free to knock down whatever strawmen you wish, but I have better things to do than pretend like this response is worth any more of my time than I've just given it. You'll have to tell your friends at 4chan that I must graciously reject their invitation.

[eclipse]

EVERYONE, COOL IT.

Now, then. . .

Duff Ostrich - Sources will help your arguments, and possibly your stance. By simply brushing people off, you're stifling discussion (which goes against the name of this subforum). In other words, if someone asks for your sources, YOU LINK THAT SOURCE.

Think long and hard before you post again in this topic, because you're on the verge of a warn heavy enough to warrant a suspension.

[Tryhard]

You simply insisting I am wrong is not a compelling argument worth defending against.

I have done more than that. I have included sources to articles and videos in a lot of my previous posts, some admittedly from anti-Brexit viewpoints, others very neutral. Frankly, neither you or me are experts on the EU, so when a Professor of European Law directly counters what you've said, I think that at least has to stand for a reliable source that you may have to disagree with, especially when you throw out claims of EU tyranny without showing us where or how. I don't expect you to agree with the sources I have put forth, but if you're not going to bother with the discussion of things that I feel are worth responding to, then there's no real discussion worth having.

That the EU is a relentless bureaucracy is common knowledge.

Yes, the EU is bureaucratic. Can you explain in full detail why you think this is a bad thing? I will withhold a response for now.

That European taxpayers have had to bail out states that are crushed under the weight of their own socialism is common knowledge.

This is something I'm intrigued about, because I'm not so sure it's common knowledge. I specifically want to know if the EU forces member states to take part in bailouts, specifically ones like Greece. Because I have seen stories about how British leaders resisted contributing to it last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33532485

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085

It's something that I want to look into further, but there's been a lot of conflicting sources so I'm unsure where to look to find more information. The sources that say that the EU was horribly forcing the UK in particular like the telegraph, daily mail, and the express, which are all fairly right-wing and very pro-Brexit, so I'm unsure of their validity. Regardless, there were plans in place to prevent any future possible money going towards bailouts specifically for the UK planned:

"The UK will not pay for future eurozone bailouts. This has already been agreed by EU leaders. In addition, the UK-EU deal from February, which will be implemented if the UK votes to stay in the EU, reinforces this and states that the UK would be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the cost of the eurozone crisis."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36456277

https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/ (a fact-checking website)

That the currency is failing is common knowledge.

This is irrelevant for the UK, as they don't use the Euro. And guess what? The pound has started to fail simply from announcing that the UK has the possibility of exiting the EU to the lowest figures seen in a 30 year period. So much that the Bank of England had to inject £150 billion to guarantee any stability as I posted earlier. It seems a little silly to comment on the strength of the Euro (which is doing better in recent times) considering that.

And it should certainly not be a surprise that there are a growing number of people all across the continent that see the writing on the wall and want out.

It's not really a surprise that there's people against the EU, but that because of the Brexit vote and people seeing how poorly the immediate effect of it is going, they have actually lost support from what I've seen.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-resurgence-in-pro-eu-leanings-across-continent?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Edited July 18, 2016 by Tryhard

[Duff Ostrich]

EVERYONE, COOL IT.

Now, then. . .

Duff Ostrich - Sources will help your arguments, and possibly your stance. By simply brushing people off, you're stifling discussion (which goes against the name of this subforum). In other words, if someone asks for your sources, YOU LINK THAT SOURCE.

Think long and hard before you post again in this topic, because you're on the verge of a warn heavy enough to warrant a suspension.

To what should I offer sources for? That the European Union is in a debt crisis? Should I also offer sources that Barack Obama is the 44th president? Otherwise what I've discussed here: the difference in character between the American government and the European pseudo state, is the expression of an opinion. That EU directives are unduly restrictive over the sovereignty of member states is likewise an opinion as well. Nearly everyone else has offered their opinion within this thread without providing a Works Cited page. Sorry, but I sincerely do not understand what I'm doing wrong.

With respect to the warn and possible suspension: be my guest. I promise you I'll get over it. But I fail to see how calling someone an "asshole" or throwing out an army of [citation needed] all over the place (and otherwise being uncivil and attacking the character of another poster, neither of which I have done) is somehow less damaging to the discussion than anything I have posted.

Assuming this post does not get me suspended I will make a reply to Tryhard with a well sourced response that hopefully better articulates my point of view and is better for the health of the thread. If for whatever reason it was inappropriate to respond to the warning in this manner, feel free to remove the post.

[eclipse]

To what should I offer sources for? That the European Union is in a debt crisis? Should I also offer sources that Barack Obama is the 44th president? Otherwise what I've discussed here: the difference in character between the American government and the European pseudo state, is the expression of an opinion. That EU directives are unduly restrictive over the sovereignty of member states is likewise an opinion as well. Nearly everyone else has offered their opinion within this thread without providing a Works Cited page. Sorry, but I sincerely do not understand what I'm doing wrong.

With respect to the warn and possible suspension: be my guest. I promise you I'll get over it. But I fail to see how calling someone an "asshole" or throwing out an army of [citation needed] all over the place (and otherwise being uncivil and attacking the character of another poster, neither of which I have done) is somehow less damaging to the discussion than anything I have posted.

Assuming this post does not get me suspended I will make a reply to Tryhard with a well sourced response that hopefully better articulates my point of view and is better for the health of the thread. If for whatever reason it was inappropriate to respond to the warning in this manner, feel free to remove the post.

1. Learn how to see things from the other point of view. Your attitude is a problem, and rather than trying to affirm that it's not, ask yourself how you can improve. You don't get that many people down your throat in that short of time from being respectful. Lastly, don't whine about your warns in public.

2. Your next post will either be a well-sourced post in response to Tryhard/possibly whoever else asks, or a suspension.

[Duff Ostrich]

I have done more than that. I have included sources to articles and videos in a lot of my previous posts, some admittedly from anti-Brexit viewpoints, others very neutral. Frankly, neither you or me are experts on the EU, so when a Professor of European Law directly counters what you've said, I think that at least has to stand for a reliable source that you may have to disagree with, especially when you throw out claims of EU tyranny without showing us where or how. I don't expect you to agree with the sources I have put forth, but if you're not going to bother with the discussion of things that I feel are worth responding to, then there's no real discussion worth having.

Alright then. Let's get to showing it. Exhibit A:

Andrew Symeou is a British citizen who extradited to Greece and tried for a crime that he was ultimately acquitted for. He spent ten months languishing in an appalling Greek prison during which it is believed that law enforcement coerced false testimony from witnesses in their pursuit of drumming up a case.

https://www.fairtrials.org/andrew-symeou/

The problem here is the European Arrest Warrant, which prevents the local governments of the accused from protecting their own countrymen. Clearly there are situations where extradition might be justified, but as this case demonstrates the EAW provides for a situation where British man can have his rights unjustly infringed upon by Greek authorities. Greece is not Britain. It different laws, customs, and more specifically Greek prisoners are treated to much poorer conditions in overcrowded prisons. Put simply, a man from the United Kingdom is significantly less free (and otherwise worse off) in Greece than in his home nation.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/greece

The problem with the EAW is that it assumes that the judicial institutions in all of its members are equally fair, open and independent. This is self evidently untrue and proven in the above link. The final decision for extradition should absolutely and unquestionably never rest with a central European authority, and should only ever go to with the nation of the accused.

In the interest of full disclosure I should note that I only recently learned of the Mr. Symeou as I was constructing this argument. I had no idea the EAW was a thing, and it's one of the best reasons I can think for the European Union to end. With that said I want to stress that I'm not simply looking for examples to support my preconceived opinion, because however tempting that might be it's an intellectually dishonest way to approach an issue. Honesty really is my only agenda here. The rest of this post includes evidence for things I've already known about and have asserted at various points throughout this thread.

Exhibit B:

Let's look at an issue more central to why the Brits voted Leave: Immigration. While the focus of the Leave campaign may have been over goofy EU trade deals and the impact that has had on post industrial and fishing communities, that's not my focus because I think there is something much bigger at work: the maintenance of the unsustainable European socialist utopias, and the flooding of the continent with migrants that have no regard for western institutions and ways of life.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a fit of calculated insanity, advertised that Germany would have an open door asylum policy. The immediate result of which can be easily summed up with this handy chart:

Why would she do this? The answer is as simple as it is depressing. As with every other social democratic utopia found on continental Europe and the Japanese isles, native Germans are not having babies.

http://qz.com/394456/the-numbers-behind-germanys-demographic-nightmare/

Germanic population prospects are, in a word, apocalyptic. How do you get the pampered German youth to stop partying long enough to propagate the human race? I'd argue the answer would be to end all of the socialism, but let's set that aside for now because it's clear that whatever the answer may be they either don't like it or aren't aware of it. It appears that Mrs. Merkel and other European leaders have found a back door solution to their problem. If Europeans can't be bothered having kids, then they'll import people that will.

As that chart indicates, 72% of the supposed "refugees" are adult (and presumably mostly able bodied) men. Many if not most of these folks are not displaced refugees, but instead economic migrants. They want a better life and have accepted Merkel's invitation to enter Europe.

As of 2010 (long before this "refugee crisis") as much as 47 million people, or over 9% of the EU population, were born somewhere other than the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union These are the people that are meant to prop up the birth rate, except it hasn't offset the decline. No, they need more. The question as to how this will change European demographics in fifty years or so is up for debate, but many rightly worry that these policies are leading to the Islamification of these countries, or at least of the major cities.

In spite of the terror attacks in Brussels, Paris, Nice and elsewhere, and the spate of unconscionable mob rapes in Cologne this January, Merkel is calling to the reinstatement of Schengen. Even as social harmony decays and these immigrants collect into inner city ghettos where all their hopes go to die, she calls for the Eurozone to continue with this plan because it's the only option they have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/world/europe/germany-migrants-merkel.html?_r=0

It is my sincere opinion that Merkel and other European leaders know that the social programs they use in order to win elections and maintain power are unsustainable in their current form. The only solution is to keep importing third world people and, in the long term, to coalesce as a super state. The project is the goal. The wishes and the welfare of the people within are secondary.

Yes, the EU is bureaucratic. Can you explain in full detail why you think this is a bad thing? I will withhold a response for now.

Bureaucracies seek to maintain themselves. The more labyrinthine and convoluted the bureaucratic structure is, the more difficult it is for the average person to feel as though he has a say in the political process. Given a bit of instruction, a middle schooler could be expected to draw a line from precinct delegate and school council representative all the way up to Senator and President. The balance of power is easier to understand, even when you consider the intricacies of the electoral and primary processes. Can we say the same for the EU?

This is something I'm intrigued about, because I'm not so sure it's common knowledge. I specifically want to know if the EU forces member states to take part in bailouts, specifically ones like Greece. Because I have seen stories about how British leaders resisted contributing to it last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33532485

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085

It's something that I want to look into further, but there's been a lot of conflicting sources so I'm unsure where to look to find more information. The sources that say that the EU was horribly forcing the UK in particular like the telegraph, daily mail, and the express, which are all fairly right-wing and very pro-Brexit, so I'm unsure of their validity. Regardless, there were plans in place to prevent any future possible money going towards bailouts specifically for the UK planned:

"The UK will not pay for future eurozone bailouts. This has already been agreed by EU leaders. In addition, the UK-EU deal from February, which will be implemented if the UK votes to stay in the EU, reinforces this and states that the UK would be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the cost of the eurozone crisis."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36456277

https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-pay-future-eurozone-bailouts/ (a fact-checking website)

This is irrelevant for the UK, as they don't use the Euro. And guess what? The pound has started to fail simply from announcing that the UK has the possibility of exiting the EU to the lowest figures seen in a 30 year period. So much that the Bank of England had to inject £150 billion to guarantee any stability as I posted earlier. It seems a little silly to comment on the strength of the Euro (which is doing better in recent times) considering that.

As much as I support Brexit, I've brought up the Euro and the debt crisis in places like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy because I think the European Union is bad for everyone involved and should be allowed to die. It was also important to mention because it seemed odd to me that an organization as economically troubled as the EU should necessarily also be seen as Europe's future. To what end is this centralization a necessity?

It is a testament to Britain that they never accepted the currency. With respect to the struggling pound, that was to be expected. This was always going to create hardship, and no one can definitively say yet how it will all play out, but there really are more important considerations here. Temporary economic backlash, if indeed that's all Brexit amounts to, is worth it when the alternative is the continued loss of sovereignty and a failure to address the real problems plaguing Europe, including but not limited to what I outlined above.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Duff Ostrich

[Irysa]

It is my sincere opinion that Merkel and other European leaders know that the social programs they use in order to win elections and maintain power are unsustainable in their current form. The only solution is to keep importing third world people and, in the long term, to coalesce as a super state. The project is the goal. The wishes and the welfare of the people within are secondary.

I'm slightly perplexed as to why you think this neccessarily has anything to do with the EU, even if it is true (ignoring the fact that a lot of it is conjecture and undermines the stated concern of humanitarian issues?). The EU's freedom of movement only applies to EU citizens, and migrants from outside of the EU do not fall into this category. Britain has had and continues to have a significantly higher rate of immigration from outside the EU, despite the fact that EU rules do not apply in this area and they can be restricted (in fact, it is also worth noting that EU migrants specifically actively contribute towards the British treasury compared to British nationals who take more out than they put in). In fact, by your projections, this will likely continue anyway. Are you trying to say that the concern is what happens when these refugees and economic migrants obtain citizenship?

Furthermore, you are aware of the fact that various countries (like Poland and Austria) that are part of the EU have completely rejected to take in any migrants or refugees right? They're not obliged to in any way by the EU's rules.

Bureaucracies seek to maintain themselves. The more labyrinthine and convoluted the bureaucratic structure is, the more difficult it is for the average person to feel as though he has a say in the political process. Given a bit of instruction, a middle schooler could be expected to draw a line from precinct delegate and school council representative all the way up to Senator and President. The balance of power is easier to understand, even when you consider the intricacies of the electoral and primary processes. Can we say the same for the EU?

If people are unwilling to educate themselves on how the system functions, then that's a failing of the people, not the system. The EU's system is really not that hard to understand, even at a glance.

Furthermore, as has been stated repeated - The EU has no ability of its own to go after people who break EU laws. All countries who have joined willingly comply with the rules that have been laid out by the member states. The very system you described earlier (the EAW) relies on mutual cooperation between everyone. Democratically elected representatives entered these agreements because they believe them to be in the interest of their own citizens (and by extension, the citizens of Europe). Obviously, the main benefit of being part of the EU specifically is access to the single market, but the EU does not refuse to trade with countries that are not members; instead, trade deals are organised and agreed upon within it. As a result, the direct responsibility for these laws falls squarely on our own representatives. If member states do not comply with EU law, the most that can happen is that the EU Court of Justice will have a trial or hearing over the issue, and if they rule against the state, send them a a fine (that they can also just refuse to pay). Furthermore, there is no legal mechanism for an EU member state to be ejected from the EU against their will. Article 7 allows for their voting rights and representation to be suspended however, but AFAIK, their access to the single market remains.

Essentially, as I've said before, the EU can't stop countries doing what they want because it is really just a trading block that has used the enticement of single market access to further particular goals. However, even if laws are VETO'd or cannot be passed in agreement within the EU, nothing stops Parliaments of Europe from creating their own seperate treaties outside of EU law. In fact this is exactly what happened when David Cameron VETO'd a treaty that was put forward to attempt to curb the Eurocrisis.

The entire point of creating a single market was, as Schuman himself said "to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". By interconnecting the economies of the major countries of Europe, we would become dependant on each other to the point where any nation attacking another would be quite literally shooting themselves in the foot. Wars had plagued our continent for centuries and the utter devastation of the First and Second World Wars made people realise that such a situation was unsustainable. The Euro was a logical extension of this policy (although I agree with you that currency union without true political union over finances was beyond idealistic, but that's pretty much what the other member states bar the UK have signed up to now anyway, at least in theory)

Many of your previous posts seem to imply that you think that the EU is some kind of tyrannical federal goverment hell bent on undermining the sovreignity and will of the citizens of its member states, but this is simply not the case. Any leverage the EU utilises is pretty much purely to do with economic benefits, not of force, and as stated before, the EU can and does negociate trade deals with those outside the EU. Do you have a problem with countries making trade agreements that carry additional stipulations? Because that's really all the EU is.

PS: If we're going to start calling certain institutions undemocratic, America has plenty of it's own problems, but that isn't particularly relevant to this discussion so I'll decline to elaborate.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Irysa

[Moblin Major General]

Do you have a problem with countries making trade agreements that carry additional stipulations?

This is actually one of the biggest problems I have with trade agreements, particularly NAFTA. Trade agreement should be what it says on the front, not "Trade/Immigration/Extradition" agreement. While I could argue the EU isn't tyrannical or undemocratic, the fact that it's based almost purely off of bureaucracy means that it aims to be misunderstood. The guidelines to sell cabbages are around 27,000 words long, compared to the US Constitution (all 27 amendments included) at around 8000, less than a third. Cabbages. I would hate to be that one guy that has to read all the EU regs just to start a business- especially if I were the Last Airbender cabbage vendor.

[Phoenix Wright]

false

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35962999

using the constitution as a point of comparison was especially funny, given how incomplete and vague it was at the time (and still very much so is today).

onto the larger point, the euro union being a bureaucracy doesn't mean it aims to be misunderstood. trade is an extremely complicated process, and how exactly the organization should implement policies whilst retaining individual sovereignty to nations is complex. misunderstandings always arise when people like us think it should be simple. it's like when designers and bosses demand engineering that cannot be done. shit's simply not that simple bruh

Edited July 21, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Balcerzak]

Today, there are still EU regulations governing farm produce. The rules on marketing are actually rather snappy - Richardson calculates these are summed up in 263 words to be exact. But there are much broader regulations about growing farm produce and these are long - about 32,000 words, half the length of a short book.

Okay, so the sale of cabbages isn't 30k words, but how you grow produce etc. is? I'm not sure the distinction is all that significant... Edited July 21, 2016 by Balcerzak

[Phoenix Wright]

is produce not fundamental to the human diet? is it also not incredibly difficult to do in a sustainable manner for hundreds of millions of people? is it not a complex topic that spans several biomes, with regulations and general guidelines that begin with the farmer and end with the consumer? are we pretending cabbage is grown the same way as an apple or corn?

what's an acceptable (ballpark estimate) word count for something as important as the production of our fruits and veggies? 100? 1000? 10000?

if we're seriously choosing something like this to get upset over, it is absolutely and abundantly clear that many folks here don't understand the processes the eu operates under. not because the eu is purposefully obtuse or anything, but because people have their minds made up before the discussion even begins. if we're gonna get angry over word counts, it may be wise to start at home, where it's normal for congress to run through over 1000 bill proposals that are sometimes thousands of pages in length which often go unread.

disclaimer: i understand that legalese is sometimes purposefully long, repetitive, etc. etc., but when it comes to regulation and guidelines, i find clarity to the point of redundancy is warranted. no loopholes should exist making it easier for companies to scam consumers.

[Moblin Major General]

is produce not fundamental to the human diet? is it also not incredibly difficult to do in a sustainable manner for hundreds of millions of people? is it not a complex topic that spans several biomes, with regulations and general guidelines that begin with the farmer and end with the consumer? are we pretending cabbage is grown the same way as an apple or corn?

what's an acceptable (ballpark estimate) word count for something as important as the production of our fruits and veggies? 100? 1000? 10000?

if we're seriously choosing something like this to get upset over, it is absolutely and abundantly clear that many folks here don't understand the processes the eu operates under. not because the eu is purposefully obtuse or anything, but because people have their minds made up before the discussion even begins. if we're gonna get angry over word counts, it may be wise to start at home, where it's normal for congress to run through over 1000 bill proposals that are sometimes thousands of pages in length which often go unread.

disclaimer: i understand that legalese is sometimes purposefully long, repetitive, etc. etc., but when it comes to regulation and guidelines, i find clarity to the point of redundancy is warranted. no loopholes should exist making it easier for companies to scam consumers.

Regular people barely have time to read relevant literature, contracts, end user license agreements, or other things pertinent to them in their daily lives. Why would they bother reading something longer than some novels with language that even lawyers might not be able to understand? Literacy is important, smart voters and all, but I would venture to say the USDA guidelines on the matter aren't nearly this detailed, cover an area double the size of Europe, and are just as effective. Not to mention that it's not just domestically sold wheat we grow in the US. And there is a difference between over-regulation and covering the bases.

[Phoenix Wright]

whilst the point may be a good one, it is just conjecture (how long is the usda's doc? how do we compare the effectiveness of regulation?). both entities have a website that's meant solely for the purpose of simplifying the legal language of the documents (both gov websites, obviously).

also, in the context of trade and production of goods for members, the eu is undoubtedly more complex than the us. the landmass that the law has to cover is irrelevant btw.

when it comes to my food, it would take quite a bit before i cry "over-regulation." i would like my food healthy, etc. etc.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Tryhard]

While Irysa in his post above pretty much described a lot of my response in a better way than I would, I'll add where I can.

The problem with the EAW is that it assumes that the judicial institutions in all of its members are equally fair, open and independent. This is self evidently untrue and proven in the above link. The final decision for extradition should absolutely and unquestionably never rest with a central European authority, and should only ever go to with the nation of the accused.

Andrew Symeou's case is an unfortunate one that shows how the EAW can be exploited when it relies on cooperation between member states. This is why the system can be criticized and why there's room for improvement, I agree, but I wouldn't say it outweighs the economic benefits of staying in the EU by a long shot.

Actually, the UK briefly opted out of the EAW back in 2013 from what I understand, perhaps due to that case and when cross-party support from MPs voted to opt back in, they sought to reform it for the exclusion of minor crimes. So if the UK desired it so much, they could leave the EAW if they wanted, without having to leave the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23224306

They clearly see that it can be beneficial, though, as some of these examples show. The Jeremy Forrest one in particular was a high-profile case at the time.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/european-arrest-warrant-row-criminals-4610731

Let's look at an issue more central to why the Brits voted Leave: Immigration. While the focus of the Leave campaign may have been over goofy EU trade deals and the impact that has had on post industrial and fishing communities, that's not my focus because I think there is something much bigger at work: the maintenance of the unsustainable European socialist utopias, and the flooding of the continent with migrants that have no regard for western institutions and ways of life.

It is my sincere opinion that Merkel and other European leaders know that the social programs they use in order to win elections and maintain power are unsustainable in their current form. The only solution is to keep importing third world people and, in the long term, to coalesce as a super state. The project is the goal. The wishes and the welfare of the people within are secondary.

As Irysa said above, this isn't going to change. This point has been wrongly attributed to the EU, where EU citizens only can migrate to the UK because of freedom of movement, and freedom of movement is once again going to continue if the UK decide to stay in the single market. If there's anything you should be pointing fingers at when criticizing the current rate of immigration, it should be the UK government. Which might indeed have cause for people to say that "the wishes and welfare of the people within are secondary" when critizing the UK government.

And if Britain was concerned about the possibility of a EU super state, they would have stayed in the EU and directly vetoed it. Now that they are considering leaving it, they have no say if the other countries decide to do just that unanimously.

Bureaucracies seek to maintain themselves. The more labyrinthine and convoluted the bureaucratic structure is, the more difficult it is for the average person to feel as though he has a say in the political process. Given a bit of instruction, a middle schooler could be expected to draw a line from precinct delegate and school council representative all the way up to Senator and President. The balance of power is easier to understand, even when you consider the intricacies of the electoral and primary processes. Can we say the same for the EU?

I don't think the structure itself is complex. People just refuse to have any say or representative when they can.

For example, the most recent MEP election in the United Kingdom had a ~35% turnout, the slim majority of them being UKIP voters that want to sabotage the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)

It is a testament to Britain that they never accepted the currency. With respect to the struggling pound, that was to be expected. This was always going to create hardship, and no one can definitively say yet how it will all play out, but there really are more important considerations here. Temporary economic backlash, if indeed that's all Brexit amounts to, is worth it when the alternative is the continued loss of sovereignty and a failure to address the real problems plaguing Europe, including but not limited to what I outlined above.

Britain has always had a pretty privileged position in the EU, but once again you haven't really proven that there is any loss of sovereignty, and how leaving the EU would help this. Immigration isn't going to change, and if the UK desires to stay in the single market, then they must follow EU trade regulations and such so they can properly manufacture and export production lines to all current EU countries - even if they don't stay in the single market, they will want to do the same so they can trade with EU countries while not being in the EU. So that won't change either, and in the case of leaving the single market most economists have said this would definitely swing the UK into a recession, and perhaps even without leaving the single market. The average person may have found that what they voted for is to have lower living conditions for themselves, and probably little else. The EU provides a lot of funding for scientists and research in the UK and many of them and students have stated that they would like to leave the country and migrate to EU countries, which have began to lure them to work and start/move businesses there. If professors, aspiring students, skilled workers and businesses move, it is going to be major turbulence for our economy and growth, not just over at least the next 2-10 years as most economists say.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/eu-uk-funding/uk-membership-of-eu.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brain-drain-brexit-universities-science-academics-referendum-eu-a7100266.html

Also, I wanted to see if you read this source that I posted last time, this one here from the EU in regards to bailouts:

The first question to answer is how much the UK has paid towards the eurozone bailouts so far.

The UK has provided a total of 6.5bn (£5bn) via the EU for two bailouts: 3bn for Ireland in November 2010 and 3.5bn for Portugal in May 2011.

With both Ireland and Portugal now out of their bailout programmes, the UK has not lost any money supporting them at the peak of the crisis.

The UK has not made a contribution via the EU for the other eurozone bailouts: the three Greek ones, in 2010, 2012 and 2015 and for the Spain and Cyprus bailouts in 2012.

The UK has made further contributions, not because it was forced to do so by the EU, but because the IMF too provided loans for some of the bailouts. The UK's share of whatever the IMF provides is around 4.5% of the total. It amounts to around 4.5bn for all seven bailout mentioned.

In addition, in 2010, the UK provided 3.9bn in bilateral bailout loans to its neighbour and important trading partner - Ireland.

So yes, they were never forced to provide bailouts and only did so for Ireland (of course being very close to the UK) and Portugal because it benefited them. If you want to blame anyone it should be the governments for funding them because it was their decisions. Edited July 22, 2016 by Tryhard