28 ms·

>This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all

>This should be a lesson for all voters across the world - think for a minute before voting. At least try to understand what you're voting on. We can blame all we want on the media, politicians etc etc, but in the end, we can't deny Brexit is the result of a properly, democratically conducted election It's a shitshow for sure, but at least it's a democratic shitshow. Democracy isn't always a bed of roses, sometimes it's chaos, but it is what it is. The EU council could have offered some reasonable concessions in order to remain, both before and after the referendum, but nada. What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU council. You can't ignore the elephant in the room.

justaguyhere 8y ago
What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU. 1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? 2. If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? Why is only the UK making so much noise? I am not European, so my knowledge on this matter is pretty small. Honestly curious, not being snarky etc.
- rayiner 8y ago
  In 2016, a Pew poll showed that more French had a negative impression of the EU (61%) than British (48%). A large fraction of French polled (33%) want to leave.
- smileypete 8y ago
  >1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? They want to centralise power more and more, and seem completely oblivious to their own mistakes. Just an odd example - make fuel from a food crop grown in tropical jungle areas, to save CO2? No surprises how that turned out...
- burfog 8y ago
  The situation is certainly different for any country that uses the Euro. The UK could leave with far less trouble than Poland or Ireland could.
  - crottypeter 8y ago
    But Poland have the złoty, not the Euro.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  The OP is mistaken and like many people think the EU is some kind of antagonistic entity that was forced upon their country, whereas in reality the EU has been funded by its member states as a voluntary union of members states - by unanimous votes, in all important matters. Every feature of the EU is the result of careful, decade long discussion between the governments of members states from all kinds of political sides. The reason why the EU is perceived so bad in some countries (like the UK) are partly historic and partly because it the EU is the perfect scapegoat for local politicians who have messed things up. In the UK, scapegoating the EU for your own mistakes was particularly common. Add to this the facts that the Leave campaign lied about practically everything - or at least intentionally distorted the facts - and that many voters don't know much about the structure of the EU, and the Brexit became reality. It is unlikely that a similar decision will be made in any of the remaining 27 countries, for lack of popular support and because people there are more aware of the benefits of the EU. Never say no, though, fuelled with money from outside the EU, currently right-wing populists are pretty good at exploiting the fact that the divide between the rich and the poor is ever increasing very cleverly, and since poverty will increase in all EU countries, irrational and populist recipes for "the simple man on the street" can continue to gain in popularity. Radical left wing parties have largely the same agenda, so these are interchangeable. So it's possible that one or two countries might attempt to exit the EU after some populist party has won an election. It's unlikely, though, because the EU offers overall way more benefits than disadvantages. It's budget is ridiculously cheap in terms of percentage of GDP and you get a lot of bang for the bucks out of the trade union alone. Moreover, future generations are fairly pro-EU in most member countries (though there are some outliers).
- robertony 8y ago
  > If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? I think you're wilfully ignoring what has been happening in Ireland, Greece, France and Italy in recent years.
Aeolun 8y ago
What did you expect them to do? The UK wants to leave, so lets give them some concessions to soften their stupidity? From the start the only one with any kind of power in the negotiations was the EU.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  More a case of UK politicians not doing their job. What do I expect them to do? Act solely in the interests of their pay packet and party. What should they do? Act in the interests of the nation. That was once supposed to be the point. They could have sought concessions or adjustments from the EU as precursor to a second referendum. The few times another EU nation has rejected a treaty or some aspect of the Union there's been something of a renegotiation and a second referendum. Since the ridiculous Fixed Parliaments Act there needs to be a super-majority to call a UK election early. Why not with a referendum for a change of such consequence? Were the EU not such a divisive issue, for the whole 40 years of our EU membership, within the Tory party, they might have approached the issue with a little more honesty. It could all have SO easily been avoided.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > They could have sought concessions or adjustments from the EU as precursor to a second referendum. Do people really forget David Cameron's renegotiation prior to the referendum that quickly?
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Not forget, more deem not worth mentioning. Promise the earth and moon, deliver nothing of note. He came out of that looking the fool and if anything actually helped the leave campaign.
      - jcranmer 8y ago
        And what makes you think anyone else would do better? I mean, Cameron isn't exactly at Trump-level of negotiation.
gpvos 8y ago
The UK already had so many opt-outs and rebates compared to all other members, there really wasn't that much room for more concessions, certainly not of the type that the UK "leavers" wanted.
- robertony 8y ago
  Some "leavers" just want to trade with the rest of the world with flexibility and not be bound to the EU. It's a hard argument to make that the EU is better when "leavers" compare the economic growth of the EU, which employs protectionism to prevent easy trading with outside of the EU when comparing the potential trade deals with the rest of world outside of the EU, without the need for VAT etc.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    "Flexibility" such as small negotiating position of weakness and having to negotiate trade and tariffs with every important trade partner directly from such position. Small is not beautiful in global trade.
  - hkt 8y ago
    "Flexibility" - the EU has more free trade deals than the UK will ever negotiate on its own. Not to mention the immense value of the single market itself. Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.
    - robertony 8y ago
      > the EU has more free trade deals than the UK will ever negotiate on its own. It doesn't really matter how many trade deals or what the trade deals are when VAT, import fees are applied in such a way to equalize the costs of external trade, to the point there isn't much benefit of trading with outside the EU unless they're some how able to significantly reduce costs or pioneer an industry that doesn't exist in the EU. Even with just the UK utiliziling only the WTO (which the UK has no control over in the EU), the UK could stand to get better trading with the rest of the world than it can within the EU. But, this is not just because it can set the WTO rates. The UK is not obligated to apply VAT and other fees after it leaves the EU on any imports and it doesn't have to be concerned about applying protectionism in industries that don't even exist in the UK. > Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe. I'm not really sure about which standards you're talking about, but I'll take a couple of the earliest and longest implemented standards that the EU requires, something that Greenland left over in the beginning. The standards of the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policies that the UK farming and fishing industires have been lobbying to fix for multiple decades has only lead to the destruction of environments, forcing farmers on quotas who then can't sell their products being forced to then depend on EU subsidies and grants to operate, it has lead to the destruction of much of the industry in the UK which in turn has made in particular, numerous farming and fishing towns become welfare dependent... It's been over 20 years of consistent failing to address these issues. The worst part of this all is that these issues were completely avoidable, the EU and UK could have actually solved these problems and not let the situation deteriorate to the point that people have become that unhappy that they just want out. I am interested though to hear an opposing view how this improved lives in Europe.
jcranmer 8y ago
> The EU council could have offered some reasonable concessions in order to remain, both before and after the referendum, but nada. The essential problem with the Brexit movement is that it's based not on what the EU is but on the distorted view on what the EU is. When you start tackling the specific complaints that people had, it often turns out that it was the British government who had the power to alter the policies, not the EU. (For example, Britain deciding to let in Polish migrant workers after Poland joined the EU in 2004, unlike every other major country in the EU). The EU even conceded that Britain had a perpetual right to opt out of "ever-closer union." So what could the EU have conceded that would have convinced the die-hard Brexiteers to opt for Remain?
- smileypete 8y ago
  >So what could the EU have conceded that would have convinced the die-hard Brexiteers to opt for Remain? All it would have taken is to swing the referendum result by a few percentage points. Some moves towards reforming the EU to make it more democratic could have been welcome.
  - synotna 8y ago
    The EU is already far more democratic than the UK - see the house of lords, althought right now it is the sanest branch...
    - smileypete 8y ago
      A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a ‘legislative text’ presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation.... The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and-procedures/legislative-powers http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and...
snapdangle 8y ago
The UK was always a special-case member of the EU, always demanding it's own uniqueness and pushing neoliberal garbage at every corner. The EU council should never have bent over so far backwards for the UK in the first place and it would have been absurd for them to bend even further. UK exceptionalism can go enjoy it's lonely island time.

justaguyhere 8y ago

What really helped the leave vote was not so much shadowy influences but the attitude of the EU. 1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? 2. If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? Why is only the UK making so much noise? I am not European, so my knowledge on this matter is pretty small. Honestly curious, not being snarky etc.

rayiner 8y ago
In 2016, a Pew poll showed that more French had a negative impression of the EU (61%) than British (48%). A large fraction of French polled (33%) want to leave.
smileypete 8y ago
>1. Can you explain the "attitude of the EU" part? They want to centralise power more and more, and seem completely oblivious to their own mistakes. Just an odd example - make fuel from a food crop grown in tropical jungle areas, to save CO2? No surprises how that turned out...
burfog 8y ago
The situation is certainly different for any country that uses the Euro. The UK could leave with far less trouble than Poland or Ireland could.
- crottypeter 8y ago
  But Poland have the złoty, not the Euro.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
The OP is mistaken and like many people think the EU is some kind of antagonistic entity that was forced upon their country, whereas in reality the EU has been funded by its member states as a voluntary union of members states - by unanimous votes, in all important matters. Every feature of the EU is the result of careful, decade long discussion between the governments of members states from all kinds of political sides. The reason why the EU is perceived so bad in some countries (like the UK) are partly historic and partly because it the EU is the perfect scapegoat for local politicians who have messed things up. In the UK, scapegoating the EU for your own mistakes was particularly common. Add to this the facts that the Leave campaign lied about practically everything - or at least intentionally distorted the facts - and that many voters don't know much about the structure of the EU, and the Brexit became reality. It is unlikely that a similar decision will be made in any of the remaining 27 countries, for lack of popular support and because people there are more aware of the benefits of the EU. Never say no, though, fuelled with money from outside the EU, currently right-wing populists are pretty good at exploiting the fact that the divide between the rich and the poor is ever increasing very cleverly, and since poverty will increase in all EU countries, irrational and populist recipes for "the simple man on the street" can continue to gain in popularity. Radical left wing parties have largely the same agenda, so these are interchangeable. So it's possible that one or two countries might attempt to exit the EU after some populist party has won an election. It's unlikely, though, because the EU offers overall way more benefits than disadvantages. It's budget is ridiculously cheap in terms of percentage of GDP and you get a lot of bang for the bucks out of the trade union alone. Moreover, future generations are fairly pro-EU in most member countries (though there are some outliers).
robertony 8y ago
> If the EU is that bad, why aren't other countries holding referendums and leaving the EU? I think you're wilfully ignoring what has been happening in Ireland, Greece, France and Italy in recent years.

Aeolun 8y ago

What did you expect them to do? The UK wants to leave, so lets give them some concessions to soften their stupidity? From the start the only one with any kind of power in the negotiations was the EU.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
More a case of UK politicians not doing their job. What do I expect them to do? Act solely in the interests of their pay packet and party. What should they do? Act in the interests of the nation. That was once supposed to be the point. They could have sought concessions or adjustments from the EU as precursor to a second referendum. The few times another EU nation has rejected a treaty or some aspect of the Union there's been something of a renegotiation and a second referendum. Since the ridiculous Fixed Parliaments Act there needs to be a super-majority to call a UK election early. Why not with a referendum for a change of such consequence? Were the EU not such a divisive issue, for the whole 40 years of our EU membership, within the Tory party, they might have approached the issue with a little more honesty. It could all have SO easily been avoided.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > They could have sought concessions or adjustments from the EU as precursor to a second referendum. Do people really forget David Cameron's renegotiation prior to the referendum that quickly?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Not forget, more deem not worth mentioning. Promise the earth and moon, deliver nothing of note. He came out of that looking the fool and if anything actually helped the leave campaign.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      And what makes you think anyone else would do better? I mean, Cameron isn't exactly at Trump-level of negotiation.

gpvos 8y ago

The UK already had so many opt-outs and rebates compared to all other members, there really wasn't that much room for more concessions, certainly not of the type that the UK "leavers" wanted.

robertony 8y ago
Some "leavers" just want to trade with the rest of the world with flexibility and not be bound to the EU. It's a hard argument to make that the EU is better when "leavers" compare the economic growth of the EU, which employs protectionism to prevent easy trading with outside of the EU when comparing the potential trade deals with the rest of world outside of the EU, without the need for VAT etc.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  "Flexibility" such as small negotiating position of weakness and having to negotiate trade and tariffs with every important trade partner directly from such position. Small is not beautiful in global trade.
- hkt 8y ago
  "Flexibility" - the EU has more free trade deals than the UK will ever negotiate on its own. Not to mention the immense value of the single market itself. Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.
  - robertony 8y ago
    > the EU has more free trade deals than the UK will ever negotiate on its own. It doesn't really matter how many trade deals or what the trade deals are when VAT, import fees are applied in such a way to equalize the costs of external trade, to the point there isn't much benefit of trading with outside the EU unless they're some how able to significantly reduce costs or pioneer an industry that doesn't exist in the EU. Even with just the UK utiliziling only the WTO (which the UK has no control over in the EU), the UK could stand to get better trading with the rest of the world than it can within the EU. But, this is not just because it can set the WTO rates. The UK is not obligated to apply VAT and other fees after it leaves the EU on any imports and it doesn't have to be concerned about applying protectionism in industries that don't even exist in the UK. > Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe. I'm not really sure about which standards you're talking about, but I'll take a couple of the earliest and longest implemented standards that the EU requires, something that Greenland left over in the beginning. The standards of the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policies that the UK farming and fishing industires have been lobbying to fix for multiple decades has only lead to the destruction of environments, forcing farmers on quotas who then can't sell their products being forced to then depend on EU subsidies and grants to operate, it has lead to the destruction of much of the industry in the UK which in turn has made in particular, numerous farming and fishing towns become welfare dependent... It's been over 20 years of consistent failing to address these issues. The worst part of this all is that these issues were completely avoidable, the EU and UK could have actually solved these problems and not let the situation deteriorate to the point that people have become that unhappy that they just want out. I am interested though to hear an opposing view how this improved lives in Europe.

jcranmer 8y ago

> The EU council could have offered some reasonable concessions in order to remain, both before and after the referendum, but nada. The essential problem with the Brexit movement is that it's based not on what the EU is but on the distorted view on what the EU is. When you start tackling the specific complaints that people had, it often turns out that it was the British government who had the power to alter the policies, not the EU. (For example, Britain deciding to let in Polish migrant workers after Poland joined the EU in 2004, unlike every other major country in the EU). The EU even conceded that Britain had a perpetual right to opt out of "ever-closer union." So what could the EU have conceded that would have convinced the die-hard Brexiteers to opt for Remain?

smileypete 8y ago
>So what could the EU have conceded that would have convinced the die-hard Brexiteers to opt for Remain? All it would have taken is to swing the referendum result by a few percentage points. Some moves towards reforming the EU to make it more democratic could have been welcome.
- synotna 8y ago
  The EU is already far more democratic than the UK - see the house of lords, althought right now it is the sanest branch...
  - smileypete 8y ago
    A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a ‘legislative text’ presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation.... The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and-procedures/legislative-powers http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and...

snapdangle 8y ago

The UK was always a special-case member of the EU, always demanding it's own uniqueness and pushing neoliberal garbage at every corner. The EU council should never have bent over so far backwards for the UK in the first place and it would have been absurd for them to bend even further. UK exceptionalism can go enjoy it's lonely island time.