Today is the Brexit vote. We have lots of bets going, what do you think?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

He says "the people don't have clue what the deal is either way" and you criticise him because you think that he's espousing the view that whoever doesn't agree with him must be "uninformed, uneducated stupid or worse".

That's not what he meant by saying nobody knows what the deal is.

His point is, nobody knows what the deal is. Nobody.

So we've voted out - what does that mean? We don't know.

Exactly right.

Rush, if you've done your research and you think people know what they were voting for, tell me what happens now?

Not even long term consequences, just functionally and procedurally, what happens now? When do we leave the EU? How do we leave the EU? Will we keep paying any money? Will we keep receiving any money? Will we stay in the common market? Will we join EFTA? What treaties will we remain bound to? What sort of free movement will we retain? When will that change?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

ryoder

***
Does it mean we will no longer have access to the single market? Maybe - if we refuse to accept freedom of movement (like those who are worried about legal migration within the EU want) then we wont get access to the single market. That means trade barriers and tariffs. That's going to massively impact the economy.

I heard this mentioned on BBC last night, but what I don't understand is:
Why is the free movement of goods, linked the the free movement of people?

Short answer, because it ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_market

Longer answer, because it's about creating a single economic area. If you give up the ability to independently tax imports from a competing nation you give up the ability to safeguard local producers from cheaper imports, so in return your populace is free to go and work in that competing nation.

It's a give and take - companies in stronger nations get to freely sell to poorer areas of the EU without restriction, people in poorer areas of the EU get to move to where the jobs are.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,380]

jakee

******
Does it mean we will no longer have access to the single market? Maybe - if we refuse to accept freedom of movement (like those who are worried about legal migration within the EU want) then we wont get access to the single market. That means trade barriers and tariffs. That's going to massively impact the economy.

I heard this mentioned on BBC last night, but what I don't understand is:
Why is the free movement of goods, linked the the free movement of people?

Short answer, because it ishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_market

Longer answer, because it's about creating a single economic area. If you give up the ability to independently tax imports from a competing nation you give up the ability to safeguard local producers from cheaper imports, so in return your populace is free to go and work in that competing nation.

It's a give and take - companies in stronger nations get to freely sell to poorer areas of the EU without restriction, people in poorer areas of the EU get to move to where the jobs are.

OK, that makes sense.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,619]

Shades of " Sentence first — verdict afterwards." (Queen of Hearts) ?

www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rstanley0312 0]

Not at you Ryoder.

Just a general question. So I see this from an economic perspective. I am not saying it is the only way you look at it just how I naturally view something. With that in mind, do you think if there are other countries that exit, there will be less of a long term economic effect? If only GB exits what do you think that looks like?

I was processing this and I think it is very bad economically for the world right now. But in thinking about the longterm outlook I think that if other countries exit as well that the impact will be short lived and could even create stronger economies. If GB is the only one that ends up exiting I think they are going to have a long road ahead of them. That being said, all of the opinions that the "out vote" has crushed a generation could be premature. I do not think anyone knows what this will bring. Could be good or bad.

Rob

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[London86 0]

I now live in Texas, but voted out - in the unlikely event i ever went back.

Won't be long before other countries start doing the same in my opinion, there's been a lot of opposition to the EU from other countries inside it too.

Also made me laugh how the remain camp have opened a petition to have a 2nd referendum because they didn't get the result they wanted

[jakee 1,254]

rushmc

The people have decided.
The people are not that stupid.

But if only someone had told them there was 'no backsies!'

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 383]

ryoder

***
To top it off we now potentially have Prime Minister Boris Johnson who is the equivalent of our Trump... He has no understanding of reality but is very good at pandering to what people want to hear.

I just googled Boris, and saw a photo.
Now I understand this sign I saw earlier!

Can we please trade? Please!?

[ryoder 1,380]

Uh, oh!
Spain is looking at Gibralter while saying: "Hmmm..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/spain-proposes-shared-sovereignty-over-gibraltar-after-brexit-vo/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,380]

kallend

Shades of " Sentence first — verdict afterwards." (Queen of Hearts) ?

www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/06/24/480949383/britains-google-searches-for-what-is-the-eu-spike-after-brexit-vote

Buyer's remorse: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/i-really-regret-my-vote-now-the-brexit-voters-who-wish-theyd-voted-to-remain-a3280361.html

Next up: "Londonexit" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/londoners-call-capital-break-away-8276156

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,379]

>Rush, if you've done your research and you think people know what they were voting
>for, tell me what happens now?

One thing that happens is - more migrants in the UK! Yay!

=========
New migrant crisis could hit UK after French politicians call for Calais border to be scrapped

The Mirror
18:29, 24 Jun 2016
By Paul Byrne , Keyan Milanian

French politician Xavier Bertrand tweeted after the Brexit result: “The English wanted to take back their freedom, they will have to take back their border.”

The Mayor of Calais will demand the deal that allows Britain to control the Calais border to be renegotiated following the Brexit result. After the Leave campaign won the referendum, right-wing Natacha Bouchart called for France to look again at the Treaty of Le Touquet.

The 2003 bilateral treaty allows British border officers to carry out passport checks in Calais. It effectively places part of Britain’s border with France in the French port. And it allows migrants and refugees seeking to reach Britain to be held back at Calais.

She wants the border taken back to the UK, which would have the effect of moving the migrants to Kent Yesterday (Friday) she said: “For several years we have been asking for a renegotiation (of the Touquet agreement). . . . .If they don't accept them, it is for them to take on the consequences of them being sent back.”
======

[jakee 1,254]

Tragicomic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 3]

Iago

The process will literally take YEARS, if it happens at all.

Which is not exactly something I would call a fiscally conservative statement.

What you want as a fiscal conservative is relative certainty about how the future will happen. "YEARS" (your word, not mine) of uncertainty is not a good thing.

The people who get off on this sort of thing are speculators. You can win big or lose big, but it's NOT conservative.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

jakee

Tragicomic.

The whole thing is.

And, interestingly, the parallels between this campaign and vote and Trump's campaign for President are both numerous and scary (vague promises, scary things - both real and imagined, ignorance, ect).

One of the more interesting things I came across was THIS.

A Washington Post article on the fact that the top questions being asked of Google are all along the lines of "What happens if Britain leaves the EU?" and, of course "What is the EU?"

And, no, it's not The Onion.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,380]

TriGirl

******
Trump said it was a good thing, so there's that nugget to consider.

Yes, when he said that, we knew for sure it was a bad idea.
Evidence that he doesn't know his audience: he said it to Scots, who voted 68% to remain (and as many have already noted, will possibly vote whether to leave the UK to remain in the EU independently).

Kudos to Lily!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,379]

>One of the more interesting things I came across was THIS.

It would not surprise me at all to see Trump win the primary, and afterwards see a massive number of searches by Republicans for "Trump positions" "Trump vs Rubio" and "Trump vs Cruz."

[ryoder 1,380]

Here is a twist: The vote is non-binding, so UK govt could ignore it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/there-is-an-incredible-theory-that-a-brexit-wont-actually-happen-even-if-the-public-votes-for-it-a7093381.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,380]

A new article published today on the same point: https://theintercept.com/2016/06/24/british-exit-eu-still-not-inevitable-despite-referendum/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 620]

Electoral College.

[jakee 1,254]

TriGirl

Evidence that he doesn't know his audience: he said it to Scots, who voted 68% to remain (and as many have already noted, will possibly vote whether to leave the UK to remain in the EU independently).

Scotland can't remain in the EU if they leave us, as a new nation they'd have to go through the entire process of applying, joining the waiting list and being approved from scratch. It would take years if not decades.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stewie 0]

Late to the discussion, but can a UK poster tell me how Britain benefits from being a member of the EU? And what they'll be giving up by leaving it?

The posts on Facebook and Twitter are generally garbage, devolving into "literally Hitler"-esque rants.

What's stopping the UK from simply doing trade deals on its own with other countries? The impression I have of the EU parliament is that it is a bloated, unelected, inefficient body that is more concerned with social engineering than seeing to the best interests of Europeans (hmmm, sounds familiar over here). And, of course, the best interests of Europeans would vary from country to country, no? How is it decided who benefits and who takes it on the chin? I mean, if I were German I'd be pissed that my taxes are propping up other countries that can't handle their affairs.

Also, can someone from the UK tell me how Muslim immigration factors into this? I've heard about Rotherham, Sheffield, Swedish rape statistics, sharia law in some cities, police no-go zones, etc. but I'm sure that this has been embellished. Is it true that member states of the EU have no say how they wish to deal with immigration to their countries? That seems like absolute madness.

It seems like the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, but like I said, I don't have the whole picture.

Thanks.

"Fuck that. I'll take a good ass-pounding over a bj any day." -- pyrotech

[mr2mk1g 10]

To put it into American terms it's a "states' rights" argument. There is an element within the EU which wishes to move towards a federal EU and essentially end up with a 'country' set up in similar vein to the US. There's lots of push back to that idea and a lot of people across the EU don't want it to happen.

What the UK gets from EU membership is multifaceted. We get a lot of inward investment, albeit at a hefty membership fee. We could simply spend that money ourselves internally. In the EU however we belong to the largest economy in the world which represents an awful lot of negotiating power. It's also the worlds largest single market which represents a lot of people to sell to.

Outside we either face trade barriers or, if we want into the single market, then we have to accept EU rules without having any say over them when currently we have a very powerful voice in the EU including a power to veto.

The idea behind richer countries sending economic aid to poorer countries is that if we rebuild their economies (either post WWII or post Communism and the fall of the USSR) we create market places to sell to. If they become richer, we become richer. What do people in NY think when federal taxes are sent to New Orleans to help rebuild after Katrina?

Muslim immigration doesn't (or at least shouldn't in right minded people) be a factor. I say that because the muslim immigrants we have in the UK are generally not from the EU. They're from the rest of the world - conflict zones from which we have accepted refugees and commonwealth countries from which we have accepted migrants. Pakistan for example is muslim but also ex-empire so we have taken a lot of immigration from there. Short answer - nothing will change about the number of muslim people in the UK (who have largely been here for decades in any event) and if anything if we cut off EU migration our non-EU migration is likely to go up. Currently it's about 50/50 between the EU and non-EU so the fact that immigration is at the level it is tells you a lot about what it's going to be in the future given that if we wanted to we could have slashed it in half and haven't. I'm sure some people voted based on their views on 'muslamic extremists' but it would have been based on flawed logic at best.

Is it true whether we have no say about migration? It is within the EU so, say a French person can come and live in the UK and vice versa. Again, think of the EU like the USA; someone from Colorado can go live in Florida and vice versa and companies in those states can trade with each other without barriers. Outside the EU though and just like outside the USA, it's up to individual countries who they let in and how any applications for visas or rights to remain are assessed.

[kallend 1,619]

Stewie

Late to the discussion, but can a UK poster tell me how Britain benefits from being a member of the EU? And what they'll be giving up by leaving it?

The longest period in the past 1000 years that Britain has not had to go into continental Europe to sort out some dictator or another trying to conquer the continent (Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm...) is 99 years. Mostly it's been much less than that. Neither France nor Germany has invaded its neighbors in 71 years now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

kallend

***Late to the discussion, but can a UK poster tell me how Britain benefits from being a member of the EU? And what they'll be giving up by leaving it?

The longest period in the past 1000 years that Britain has not had to go into continental Europe to sort out some dictator or another trying to conquer the continent (Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm...) is 99 years. Mostly it's been much less than that. Neither France nor Germany has invaded its neighbors in 71 years now.

And I f I'm not mistaken, that was Churchhill's entire idea and intension to begin with; yes?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Stewie 0]

mr2mk1g

To put it into American terms it's a "states' rights" argument. There is an element within the EU which wishes to move towards a federal EU and essentially end up with a 'country' set up in similar vein to the US. There's lots of push back to that idea and a lot of people across the EU don't want it to happen.

What the UK gets from EU membership is multifaceted. We get a lot of inward investment, albeit at a hefty membership fee. We could simply spend that money ourselves internally. In the EU however we belong to the largest economy in the world which represents an awful lot of negotiating power. It's also the worlds largest single market which represents a lot of people to sell to.

Outside we either face trade barriers or, if we want into the single market, then we have to accept EU rules without having any say over them when currently we have a very powerful voice in the EU including a power to veto.

The idea behind richer countries sending economic aid to poorer countries is that if we rebuild their economies (either post WWII or post Communism and the fall of the USSR) we create market places to sell to. If they become richer, we become richer. What do people in NY think when federal taxes are sent to New Orleans to help rebuild after Katrina?

Muslim immigration doesn't (or at least shouldn't in right minded people) be a factor. I say that because the muslim immigrants we have in the UK are generally not from the EU. They're from the rest of the world - conflict zones from which we have accepted refugees and commonwealth countries from which we have accepted migrants. Pakistan for example is muslim but also ex-empire so we have taken a lot of immigration from there. Short answer - nothing will change about the number of muslim people in the UK (who have largely been here for decades in any event) and if anything if we cut off EU migration our non-EU migration is likely to go up. Currently it's about 50/50 between the EU and non-EU so the fact that immigration is at the level it is tells you a lot about what it's going to be in the future given that if we wanted to we could have slashed it in half and haven't. I'm sure some people voted based on their views on 'muslamic extremists' but it would have been based on flawed logic at best.

Is it true whether we have no say about migration? It is within the EU so, say a French person can come and live in the UK and vice versa. Again, think of the EU like the USA; someone from Colorado can go live in Florida and vice versa and companies in those states can trade with each other without barriers. Outside the EU though and just like outside the USA, it's up to individual countries who they let in and how any applications for visas or rights to remain are assessed.

Thanks for the explanation.

"Fuck that. I'll take a good ass-pounding over a bj any day." -- pyrotech