Slashdot Mirror


BBC: UK Votes To Leave The European Union (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The UK has voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union after 43 years in a historic referendum, a BBC forecast suggests. London and Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU but the remain vote has been undermined by poor results in the north of England. Voters in Wales and the English shires have backed Brexit in large numbers. The referendum turnout was 71.8% -- with more than 30 million people voting -- the highest turnout since 1992. London has voted to stay in the EU by around 60% to 40%. However, no other region of England has voted in favor of remaining. Britain would be the first country to leave the EU since its formation -- but a leave vote will not immediately mean Britain ceases to be a member of the 28-nation bloc. That process could take a minimum of two years, with Leave campaigners suggesting during the referendum campaign that it should not be completed until 2020 -- the date of the next scheduled general election. The prime minister will have to decide when to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would give the UK two years to negotiate its withdrawal. Once Article 50 has been triggered a country can not rejoin without the consent of all member states. British Prime Minister David Cameron is under pressure to resign as a result of the decision. UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage called on him to quit "immediately." One labor source said, "If we vote to leave, Cameron should seriously consider his position." Several pro-Leave Conservatives including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have signed a letter to Mr. Cameron urging him to stay no matter the decision. Mr. Cameron did say he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a leave vote.

Update 6/24 09:33 GMT: David Cameron has resigned.

1,592 comments

  1. Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The sheer showing the finger value to 'experts' is amazing in this one!

    1. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because, who wants people with actual knowledge to be in power.

      UK crippled and The Donald in power; I for one welcome our Russian Overlords

    2. Re: Rationale aside... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then it's time for the central EU to re-evaluate their positions and their strategies. Today they are usually seen as a kindergarten for retired politicians.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a couple of ideas:

        - strengthen parliament.
        - toss out the likes of Juncker et al, which always have misused EU to the advantage of their country
        - vote the corrupt mass which is the EVP out of parliament. They've been in "power" for too long and are too well lubricated by lobbies
        - start working on an "EU for the people". We'd had enough of an "EU for the money".

    4. Re: Rationale aside... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. What Europe needs and has always lacked is a proper constitution. That absolutely has to come first, and the fact that we have no constitution has always been a (very, very dangerous) problem in the EU. Its lack is the root cause for our weak parliament, weak democratic oversight, martinets like Juncker and van Rompuy popping up in positions of power, the worrying shift of democracy to bureaucracy (not meaning lots of red tape, but being ruled by an uncontrolled system that has become a goal unto itself), and Brussels ever seeking to expand its sphere of political influence. And in case anyone feels a need to mention that the EU does in fact have a "constitution", I'd say: read the damn thing first. That's right: you can't, really. It's a pile of treaties rewritten in legalese, not a constitution.

      An EU constitution must set out how the (central) state operates, what its relation is to the people and member states, and last but not least it outlines (and limits) the state's mandate. And in case of the EU, a statement about the overall objectives of the Union might have been nice as well. We have none of this. And we have gotten to the stage where meaningful reform (such as your suggestions) is never going to happen anymore. Not without some very strong incentive... perhaps in the form of more influential member states threatening to leave after the UK has. The popular vote is already approaching a majority for "leave" in many member states.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re: Rationale aside... by jalet · · Score: 3

      Where are mod points when you need them ?

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    6. Re: Rationale aside... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - strengthen parliament.

      This is the big one. The main reform needed is to kill the commission. You can keep the Council of Ministers as an executive branch if you don't want to have a parliamentary executive, but the elected MEPs must have the most power in the system. This has to be coupled with making EU Parliament voting records public though. It's an embarrassment that, in a nominal democracy, the electorate can't see if their representatives are actually representing them.

      - start working on an "EU for the people". We'd had enough of an "EU for the money".

      And this is the other one. Part of this involves moving money around. The Germans pushed for the Euro because they benefitted hugely from artificially devaluing their currency and stimulating exports, but they also vetoed the mechanism to rebalance this over the long run. This, as many economists predicted, resulted in wealth concentrating in a few countries and the others needing to be bailed out when their economies collapsed. Only, unfortunately, we didn't bail them out, we bailed out the banks that had made loans to them. The Greek bailout should have been accompanies by a default. The banks should have lost their poor investments and the money should have gone into stimulating the growth of the Greek economy. Instead, we got austerity policies that, like every other time they've been tried, caused the economy to shrink and paid a load of money to banks. If you make a risky investment.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU *has* a constitution, its preamble starts with Europe is the "bringer of civilization" to all those subhumans who had the misfortune of not being members of the European Master Race.

    8. Re: Rationale aside... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Germans pushed for the Euro because they benefitted hugely from artificially devaluing their currency and stimulating exports

      I don't get this argument. Devaluing your currency isn't difficult. The Germans, of all people, are aware of that.

      As to Greece, they had two problems.
      One: they were able to borrow cheaply, and instead of investing it in things like infrastructure and training they pissed half of it up the wall and used the rest to speculate on property.
      Two: none of them paid any tax.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re: Rationale aside... by Carewolf · · Score: 0

      No. What Europe needs and has always lacked is a proper constitution.

      Europe?? You want to invade all European countries and force them??

      If you mean EU, then you are just wrong. The EU does have a constitution. And yes, they are written in legal language, laws usually are, and yes they are treaties because that is what laws between countries are.

    10. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true constitution in my opinion also absolutely needs to contain some core values which we expect both citizens and state to abide by. Simple things, like freedom of expression, that murder is wrong, that kind of thing, nothing controversial, but it has to be right there in the document itself.

    11. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The experts (why the quotes?) have almost immediately been proven mostly right. The value of pound fell to its lowest value since 1985 and British stock markets are falling as well. UKIP already started revising its claims about how much more wealth will UK have without EU and how they'll use that wealth to finance NHS (National Health Service).

      Yet despite being warned about this, the leave supporters keep blaming everyone else for this (some sort of mysterious cabal of EU politicians, bankers, economists, Obama and possibly aliens that work in perfect harmony despite being unable to agree on anything else) and everything bad is somehow mysteriously still caused by the EU.

      Yeah, its like a 5-year old show the finger to the 'experts' saying the food is still too hot.

    12. Re: Rationale aside... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not a proper constitution, it doesn't say you can have guns!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re: Rationale aside... by Teun · · Score: 1

      There were two powers vetoing against more power to the parliament (at the expense of the commission), now after the Brexit only the French are left.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    14. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IOW, EU is a nation in all but name. Good riddance i say.

    15. Re: Rationale aside... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      For a country: yes, absolutely. In case of the EU, it also needs to clearly define its mandate and span of control (like the US constitution does), and may defer the definition of some of those core rights to its member states. For instance, some say that the EU should really only be about trade, and a constitution would need to reflect that, guaranteeing free movement of goods and people between states, and mandating the EU to impose common trade regulations, set standards, and negotiate trade agreements with other nations. But in that case the constitution would say nothing about human rights, abortion, taxation, justice and so on.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    16. Re: Rationale aside... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Europe??

      In the EU, the EU or its collections of institutions is often referred to as "Europe".

      And yes, they are written in legal language, laws usually are, and yes they are treaties because that is what laws between countries are.

      Treaties are written in legalese, and they have to, as they deal with details. Constitutions on the other hand deal with base principles, ideals, and ground rules, and they can and usually are written in short and extremely accessible language. In case of Europe (I'll just keep calling it that), the treaties would need to follow from the constitution.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    17. Re: Rationale aside... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's because the last few British governments have enjoyed using their influence in the Commission to take any unpopular measures and pass them there instead of at home. The EU has been very useful for them, but unfortunately this has somewhat backfired as a couple of decades blaming everything on the EU has prevented people from realising who is responsible.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - strengthen parliament.

      This is the big one. The main reform needed is to kill the commission. You can keep the Council of Ministers as an executive branch if you don't want to have a parliamentary executive, but the elected MEPs must have the most power in the system. This has to be coupled with making EU Parliament voting records public though. It's an embarrassment that, in a nominal democracy, the electorate can't see if their representatives are actually representing them.

      The voting records are public though. You can view them at votewatch.eu

    19. Re: Rationale aside... by sce7mjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the euro has also fallen. The ftse 100 has dropped 5% yet the cac40 Dax and euro stocks have fallen more. Europe needed the uk in the club. Yet they would never accept British terms of trade such as including financial transactions within the free trade agreement. It's up to Europe to put its house in order. It's a shame that one one of the big three had to leave before the eu would do what is needed.

    20. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The experts (why the quotes?) have almost immediately been proven mostly right. The value of pound fell to its lowest value since 1985 and British stock markets are falling as well. UKIP already started revising its claims about how much more wealth will UK have without EU and how they'll use that wealth to finance NHS (National Health Service).

      Yet despite being warned about this, the leave supporters keep blaming everyone else for this (some sort of mysterious cabal of EU politicians, bankers, economists, Obama and possibly aliens that work in perfect harmony despite being unable to agree on anything else) and everything bad is somehow mysteriously still caused by the EU.

      Yeah, its like a 5-year old show the finger to the 'experts' saying the food is still too hot.

      The GBP and the FTSE will recover by next week and probably be higher than their pre-referendum value. The same thing happened in Canada when the province of Quebec narrowly voted to remain in Canada.

    21. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      UK crippled and The Donald in power; I for one welcome our Russian defenders against globalism and against Islam.

      There, I fixed that for you.

    22. Re: Rationale aside... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Ah, that's new. Thanks for the link! Last time I spoke to my MEP was a few years ago and the lack of public voting records was something she was campaigning to get fixed.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a constitution going to do? The constitution has failed in the US, with almost the entire bill of rights effectively nullified.

    24. Re: Rationale aside... by GerryHattrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was an attempt to write a 'Constitution', which the UK vetoed as an attack on natonal Sovereignty generally. But most of the words in the big draft were then imported into the Lisbon Treaty with its 'ever-closer union' ambition on page 1. (I know because in the job I had then I had to compare the two texts word-for-word, then get on Eurostar). This time, Cameron got the promise of a derogation on the 'Union' bit, but it wasn't enough to persuade us Brits who only had ever voted for a 'Single Market' (and didn't get even that, at least in my sector). Today we're celebrating with (French) champagne.

    25. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invasion is not necessary. Control will be acheived through "partnerships".

    26. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever closing union was not part of the constitutional treaty. In fact, it was removed in it.

      The Lisbon treaty kept the original treaty text of ever closing Union, and reused four major things from the constitutional treaty: a permanent eu council president, new voting rules in the council, a mutual defence clause, and more power to the parliament.

    27. Re: Rationale aside... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The last thing Germany would do is to devalue its currency. The fear of another hyperinflation like in 1919-1923 is still an ever-present nightmare for Germans.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    28. Re: Rationale aside... by hublan · · Score: 1

      It's a two-edged sword though. In the US, making the voting record public is what brought on the power of lobbyists, since they could now make sure that their bought and paid for representative stayed bought.

      --
      My spoon is too big.
    29. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But then they're a bunch of jewish masonic lizards...

      Voted to leave, did you?

    30. Re: Rationale aside... by Bongo · · Score: 1

      The Germans pushed for the Euro because they benefitted hugely from artificially devaluing their currency and stimulating exports

      I don't get this argument. Devaluing your currency isn't difficult. The Germans, of all people, are aware of that.

      As to Greece, they had two problems.
      One: they were able to borrow cheaply, and instead of investing it in things like infrastructure and training they pissed half of it up the wall and used the rest to speculate on property.
      Two: none of them paid any tax.

      They were "in" the EU when all this happened, yet the EU couldn't in any meaningful sense stop them screwing up?

    31. Re: Rationale aside... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      And this is the other one. Part of this involves moving money around. The Germans pushed for the Euro because they benefitted hugely from artificially devaluing their currency and stimulating exports

      The Germans did not push for the Euro, they had to be pushed into it (their eventual support for the Euro was a quid pro quo for the French support for German reunification). I'll agree that the Germans have benefited from the Euro FAR more than anyone else has, but your statement above is false.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    32. Re: Rationale aside... by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Europe??

      In the EU, the EU or its collections of institutions is often referred to as "Europe".

      This is a bit like people in the US saying 'America' when they mean 'the US'.

    33. Re: Rationale aside... by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      The EU has the Lisbon treaty because they could not enact a Constitution! Lets face it the golf between the technocrats and the Uber rich and the general population is to great! The have been trying to "do this" to Europe since the 1920's. Sadly they have nearly browbeaten the population into it.

      I heard a story on NPR yesterday about a couple living in a âlittle Britainâ(TM) someplace along the Spanish coast and I wondered what the local Spaniards thought of all that. A culture that does not seek to preserve itself has something broken about it. Which is not say that cultures should not change as they encounter others, but that they should appropriate and integrate ideas on their own terms, not have a massive outside group move in remake a place in their own image through sheer force of numbers. The melting pot has worked wonders itâ(TM)s made a more vibrate dynamic America than could have been possible without immigration. Multiculturalism on the other hand is a failure, it does not lead to integration and we experiencing the results of what happens when you have âoesecond generation immigrants;â Orlando. Nations need to be able to control flow of immigration and they need to be able to set terms for integration, like learn the local language and prove you have the resources to support yourself. They owe that to their current citizens!

      Should there be an integrated Europe? Speaking as an outsider, I think so for very valid economic reasons, defense reasons, and for the sake of peace that answer is probably also yes. The current model though with EU government being as powerful as it is and at the same time as uncountable to local voters as its violates the idea of government by consent. No people should allow that. We should be thinking hard about whoever we vote for in November will treat the 9th and 10th Amendments.

      I think the British people did what they had to do to save themselves here! Here is the problem though. Its a nonbinding resolution. I can all but grantee the 'remain forces' within the UK government and their EU allies will try once more to renegotiate the deal. The UK will probably be given a token concession or two, the 'remain forces' will then not vote in parliament to leave. They will claim the public opinion has shifted (it only has to move a few points), in the wake of the short term economic events and that they wont hold another referendum to test that because it would be 'to costly'. In short I don't think the UK is out of their chains just yet.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    34. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you probably meant that as a joke but it's an excellent point.

    35. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English salute is a 2 fingered one. It dates back to when they beat the French witth longbows.

      I am not English, but I was born in one of the British colonies, and my ancestors were English and Scots.

    36. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 0

      The power in the EU is in the Commission, this unelected body (Quango) chooses the laws and regulations and writes them. It badly needs to change and become democratic.

      I've had huge amounts of BS thrown at me by 'remainers' trying to claim the the Commission is democratic, the word democracy has never been abused so badly.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    37. Re: Rationale aside... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Can you offer some evidence for that, like someone who has done some recent writing or some recent polling?

      I find it hard to accept there is a lot of fear about something 99% of the population is to young to remember. Even if someone was alive in 1923, they would unlikely to have been old enough to understand anything about what was going on.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    38. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting registration records are public but a persons voting history is not public. Don't see how lobbyist can use the data to make sure their candidates stay bought. To do that all they need to do is keep an eye on their candidates once they take office.

    39. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the EU, aside from not having a constitution, is that the leaders just keep pushing in the same direction, regardless of what the citizens of member states want.
      Instead of giving up on the constitution they should have changed it so that people accepted it.
      And if britain was the only one who didn't want it, they could have exempted britain.
      The fact that the EU ignores every single referendum is a problem too.
      It shows that the citizens have no say whatsoever, and that the EU will do whatever it wants.
      This only increases anti EU sentiment.
      You can't keep this up for decades and then complain when people want to leave, since that is their only option for getting the changes they want.

    40. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Unelected bureaucrats running and EU army was one of the reasons why I voted out. These same Bureaucrats have been shit-stirring with Russia, upping the tensions.

      It does indeed 'violate the idea of govt by consent' and in a roundabout way that is why we left, uncontrolled massive immigration has caused house prices to rocket whilst wages dropped down to minimum wage. We were told over and over again we could do nothing about this because it is mandated by the EU. And then they let us vote on the EU!!! Ha ha, stupid fucks.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    41. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > they pissed half of it up the wall

      Read: buying German submarines, thus boosting German economy in the process (really, look it up, a scary amount of money). Because Turkey. Because NATO wouldn't jump in if Turkey just snapped up some islands (because Turkey is NATO too).

      Of course, they could have gone "you can have those rocks if you want them so much", but that's a difficult sell these days.

      No, I *am* an European, I *want* to feel like one, but I am not proud of Europe these days. Not at all.

    42. Re: Rationale aside... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Too young to remember? It is extensively taught in history lessons in schools.
      http://www.express.co.uk/comme...

      This is why Germany insists on austerity measures - the scare of hyperinflation is still very much present here.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    43. Re: Rationale aside... by Alioth · · Score: 2

      The UK didn't veto it, more than one country vetoed it - the French and the Dutch both threw it out as well.

    44. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. What Europe needs and has always lacked is a proper constitution. That absolutely has to come first, and the fact that we have no constitution has always been a (very, very dangerous) problem in the EU. Its lack is the root cause for our weak parliament, weak democratic oversight, martinets like Juncker and van Rompuy popping up in positions of power, the worrying shift of democracy to bureaucracy (not meaning lots of red tape, but being ruled by an uncontrolled system that has become a goal unto itself), and Brussels ever seeking to expand its sphere of political influence. And in case anyone feels a need to mention that the EU does in fact have a "constitution", I'd say: read the damn thing first. That's right: you can't, really. It's a pile of treaties rewritten in legalese, not a constitution.

      An EU constitution must set out how the (central) state operates, what its relation is to the people and member states, and last but not least it outlines (and limits) the state's mandate. And in case of the EU, a statement about the overall objectives of the Union might have been nice as well. We have none of this. And we have gotten to the stage where meaningful reform (such as your suggestions) is never going to happen anymore. Not without some very strong incentive... perhaps in the form of more influential member states threatening to leave after the UK has. The popular vote is already approaching a majority for "leave" in many member states.

      Great idea. It'll be the final blow that ends the European Union entirely.

      A Constitution requires all members to agree; if it forces a country into a situation they don't like, they'll leave, and for certain a Constitution will have things in it that no country will like. The EU tried to fix a major issue that has existed in Europe for over a thousand years: nationalism. It tried to fix it with integration and Federalism. It failed. And now Federalism is seen as the problem and Nationalism is seen as the solution.

      This has been the inherent problem with the EU since the beginning: Europeans are French and English and Italian and German FIRST and Europeans SECOND. When the two come into conflict, the populace and their governments will go with their national interests over the European interests. It was a good attempt at unification, and it was unique in history that it was attempted without a major war, but unfortunately there has never been a successful multi-national integration into a single society without a major war behind it.

      America had this problem from the beginning; people were loyal to their states first and America second although it as much closer than in Europe. It still took a massive war, and in America's case the integration happened successfully because the massive inflow of immigrants diluted nationalism significantly, and following the war the Federal government was smart enough to flow resources from the victor (the North) to the loser (the South) to build it back up and integrate it, destroying any reasons for the Southern populace to rise up again.

      In no case has the EU followed the American model. Germany fought to send resources to Southern Europe to build them up and force integration. Europe all across the board is skeptical of immigration and refuses to integrate new members, choosing to strengthen nationalism rather than dilute it. And the EU government never had any real teeth; it had no way to force it's members to follow it's policies. The EU worked great when the economy was booming as the integrated market was a great carrot to bring people in. But there were no sticks for when times were bad, and there was no real attempt to dilute nationalist identities. Thus, there was no way this would ever work. Britain is just the first, but they will not be the last.

    45. Re: Rationale aside... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Most countries don't have a fixed exchange rate - so devaluing is entirely the market's choice, not the central bank's.

      Go read about the Weimar republic and learn why what you wrote is completely stupid.

      Of course a big exporting country benefits from sharing a currency with weaker countries.

      No it doesn't. It benefits from having a weak currency, shared or not.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    46. Re: Rationale aside... by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      It was a simple vote between democracy and technocracy.
      and democracy won.

      Why do you think democracy will ruin the UK?

    47. Re: Rationale aside... by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

      Conceded! Would they like a Referendum too? But seriously, our best collaborations were via CEN/Cenelec, which was actually fun, and the EU helped a little bit with the expenses, but it was an EEA effort - and long may it continue thus (unless ISO with US Secretariats gets there first!)

    48. Re: Rationale aside... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Europe??

      In the EU, the EU or its collections of institutions is often referred to as "Europe".

      Only by idiots and people who doesn't know what they are talking about.

      But I will you: What you mean is the right-wing UK definition of Europe. Which is, continental Europe and the exact same thing as the EU, because they are morons and doesn't know any better.

    49. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not a proper constitution, it doesn't say you SHOULD have guns!"

      There...FTFY

    50. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why the EU couldn't have its constitution and then just have britain be exempt from it just like it isn't a member of the eurozone and whatever else.

    51. Re: Rationale aside... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Having a proper constitution has not prevented the United States suffering a power-grab by the central (i.e., federal) government.

      Our Constitution's 10th Amendment, which was part of the Constitution from the beginning, was supposed to limit the federal government to a small set of specifically enumerated powers. Unfortunately, what we've seen over time is that our Federal and Supreme Courts have generally permitted the Federal government to encroach into State's rights almost without limit.

      One avenue for this is that the courts apparently see no practical limitations on the Federal government's ability to tax citizens, behaviors, goods. Two examples:

      Example 1: The Federal government's mechanism for taking over control of primary/secondary education curricula and teaching methods: (a) give grants to those schools only if they teach in the manner desired by the Federal government, plus (b) set the federal-level taxation rate so high that few citizens / states can afford to educate their children well without getting back the money via the grants mentioned in (a).

      Example 2: The Federal government control over health-insurance markets from individual states involved (in addition to some other tactics) (a) taxing individual citizens who did not have health insurance, and (b) giving health-insurance stipends to individual citizens based on income.

      There's some disagreement amongst Americans as to whether or not our civil war (1861-1865) was about the southern states pushing back on the encroachment on their rights as enumerated by our Constitution. To the extent that it was, one lesson Europeans might draw is that a compact which starts as voluntary and is supposedly limited by a formal constitution, does not necessarily prevent it eventually becoming a union held together by force. It reminds me of the difference between a voluntary partner in marriage, vs. being a sex slave.

      This is why I'm happy for the Britons that they escaped before it was too late.

    52. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constitutions on the other hand deal with base principles, ideals, and ground rules, and they can and usually are written in short and extremely accessible language.

      What may be good practice for a constitution and what a constitution is are two different things. There is no such document for the UK and the UK still has a constitution.

    53. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe??

      In the EU, the EU or its collections of institutions is often referred to as "Europe".

      This is a bit like people in the US saying 'America' when they mean 'the US'.

      Nah, not really. People say 'America' because it's short for United States of America (and in fact is the only nation with 'America' in its name), just like people say 'Mexico' because it's short for United Mexican States.

    54. Re: Rationale aside... by judoguy · · Score: 1

      It's not a proper constitution, it doesn't say you can have guns!

      It avoids just about all personal liberty and responsibility in every case, not just guns. Look at the statement on property under Freedoms, for example:

      "Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest." (Emphasis mine).

      Or the "Freedom" is a feel good phrase meaning nothing:"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person."

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    55. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's more fun than showing the finger by causing massive damage to everyone, yourself included?

    56. Re: Rationale aside... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      People say 'America' because it's short for United States of America (and in fact is the only nation with 'America' in its name)

      That depends on how you define "nation". The people of American Samoa might want to argue that they are a nation, even though they're also a territory of Columbia.

    57. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The UK has always pushed for the EU to be more pro-business and less pro-individual so it's not clear how Brexit will do anything other than make things for UK citizens even more shit.

      In fact, less than 12 hours later we already have examples of this with the BPI claiming it's now going to try and use this opportunity to make the UK's already draconian copyright laws worse meaning we'll have the worst copyright laws in the world:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...

      Given how the EU has consistently protected us against draconian internet filtering, and even more draconian copyright laws than those already present I can only see this going badly for the sorts of issues Slashdot users have historically cared about.

      This is what more sovereignty looks like, long story short, it means more freedom and less accountability for politicians to serve big and corrupt business.

    58. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three: they have one of the least productive economies (as judged by GDP per capita), meaning there wasn't that much to tax in the first place even before 90% wasn't declared.

    59. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which also wasn't a surprise. And the FTSE 250 dropped 12% putting it in line with the euro stocks or worse. All dropped initially then went back up. The pound dropped more than the euro. The UK stock markets rebounded slightly better. It's going to take days/weeks for them to settle out to actually judge who won and who lost out.

    60. Re:Rationale aside... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Impressively, we here in Britain have managed to out-Idiocractise the US, although you get your chance to regain your title if you elect Trump.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    61. Re: Rationale aside... by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Where's the Single European "demos"? There isn't one. It's not like the USA.

    62. Re: Rationale aside... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      This is a bit like people in the US saying 'America' when they mean 'the US'.

      No..the terms have always been synonymous:

      US = USA = United States of America = United States = America

      None of this should be new to anyone.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    63. Re: Rationale aside... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Europeans are French and English and Italian and German FIRST and Europeans SECOND.

      It seems they are rapidly becoming in large parts..."muslim" first, due to the huge influx of them into countries like France, and setting up their own areas and failing to integrate into the larger, traditional French culture.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    64. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's what needs to happen. But what will happen is that the eurocrats will get even more brazen in their disregard of democracy, as their last major opponent has just quit. Expect people like Merkel, Schultz, Junckers, van Rompoy and the rest of them to stop even pretending to play by any rules.

    65. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a vote between pragmatism and idiocy. Idiocy won.

    66. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK didn't veto it, more than one country vetoed it - the French and the Dutch both threw it out as well.

      The French threw it out only for its political class to reintroduce it in the form of the Lisbon treaty.
      In Italy we have referendums, but not when it comes to international treaties. So we cannot even contemplate doing a referendum on an Italian Exit. As for the French keep in mind the saying "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" and think what is going to happen in 2017.
      Europe is alive and well, the UE not so much. I can bet whatever you want that next week we will see Merkel, Hollande and Renzi among others trying to kill any kind of democratic movement for exits and propose laws that will make it impossible to get out of the UE. And then the real tragedy starts.

    67. Re: Rationale aside... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Here for example. The search term I used was "german inflation fear"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    68. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the leadership of the EU is NOT democratically elected. Its an "old boys network" that picks their pals for the top positions (and insane compensations). This is the biggest problem the people of the EU have with the EU; the fat leeches at the top of this corrupted system. People do not mind free trade, they just don't see self elected dictatorial rulers as a good thing.

    69. Re: Rationale aside... by garethjrowlands · · Score: 1

      It was a choice between love and hate.

    70. Re:Rationale aside... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      The best part of Brexit so far today is watching statist fuckfaces like yourself make shitty, spiteful comments and shake your tiny fists in rage. The people won, the elites lost. That doesn't happen very often and deserves celebrating.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    71. Re: Rationale aside... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Rather than taking those 27-odd nations and trying to forge a new nation, how about a simple free trade/economic cooperation treaty, along the lines of APEC, FTAA, and NAFTA? Why do you need an "EU Constitution" unless you're trying to build a new uber-nation?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    72. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that one one of the big three had to leave before the eu would do what is needed.

      Kicking out the UK is what EU should have done from the start.
      The UK never really was "in the club", they are not in Shengen, not in the Eurozone and when want to do something with the EU it is to weaken rather than to strengthen the union.

    73. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get this argument. Devaluing your currency isn't difficult.

      Technically, you're right. You just need to print out more money. BUT... Germany is a country of manic savers. They hate when their savings (in the bailed out banks) evaporates, and their politicians know this.

    74. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you studied the TEU and TFEU? The European Union is the most pro-free-trade supranational institution on the planet, attempting at every turn to eliminate the power of government to favour particular private businesses in trade. It was built both as a post-war method to rebuild Western European industry and as an ideological opponent to the USSR, whose principle (by contrast) was to grant all business to one body: the state.

      This is a victory for protectionist British aristocrats. Boris understood the irony when he called it "indepedence day" for Britain.

      (Although I've read most of your posts and you seem to take the position of someone in favour of trade while actually having no fucking clue about politics or law. You seem old - you probably have savings - so go get a law degree or something. I'm an old geek and I did that and it helped me not spout shit on the Internet all the time.)

    75. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the people voted FOR a stronger British state, rallying under a different bunch of politicians (elites)

      Also note that one of the driving motivations to leave was to ensure all that welfare and social safety nets that the state provides won't crumble from the pressure of immigrants. The people aren't rejecting the state. People are afraid of losing a state that works "for them" (which of course is a fantasy)

      The people won, the elites lost. That doesn't happen very often and deserves celebrating.

      The elites didn't lose. Their wealth is safely hedged and hidden. The shock to the markets hurt middle class and pension funds more. Wouldn't be surprised if some elites, as they can afford it, made bets that this would happen and made a profit. Failing that, the elites can afford to pull out and find other ways to screw you. Wouldn't be surprised if Cameron gets a new position related to the EU (maybe even in one of those unelected positions!)

      It was the young (and naive) who lost. It was the middle class who worked an honest living under the system who lost. The "leave" half of the people thought they were screwing the elites when they really just screwed the other half of the people. This is classic divide and conquer, something that happens all too often.

    76. Re: Rationale aside... by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      The trouble always was that some partners were more equal than others. Anyone who thought the euro was not the artificially weakened Deutsche Mark fell for the propaganda. The U.K. Has been an unwilling member BECAUSE the population were taken in under false pretences and successive pm's have signed up for more political union without a referendum, and therefore no choice, since no major party put leaving in Their manifesto. Gordon brown even snuck in the back door before signing a treaty (Lisbon) in a failed attempt to hide from the media. The first chance the public get a vote, and they vote out. Does that not tell you something?

      What it tells me is that Europe was never about democracy....

    77. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O give it a rest. This is 'short term profit taking' (or loss) based on speculators only. There's no way to take what's happening in the market today and project what the outcomes will be two or 5 years down the road when the exit will actually be complete.

    78. Re: Rationale aside... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Theoretically yes, but without standing over their shoulder what can you do? They almost crashed a few years before they actually did, but as soon as the immediate crisis passed they went back to their old ways - public servants retiring after 10 years service or at age 23, whichever comes first.

      Their tax collection agency, by some reckonings, ran at a loss. There are ten times as many high-end Mercs & BMWs as people who declare enough income to be realistically able to afford one.

      The sensible thing to do would be to do what you do with a bankrupt person - redirect his income & manage his affairs for him. But if they'd tried that it the whining about "Wahwahwah sovereignty, wahwahwah Nazis" would have been enough to affect the weather patters.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    79. Re:Rationale aside... by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about Trump, but if he gets elected it shows that democracy is still alive. He certainly isn't the pick of either parties or any of the lifetime politicos or their corporate masters. We can despise the man but respect the process.

    80. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a little primer for you Yanks,

      Europe = geographical entity
      EU = administrative entity that includes a number of european countries
      Eurozone = a subset of the EU, ie countries in the EU that have adopted the Euro as currency
      Schengen space = a subset of the EU, doesn't not necessarily coincide with the Eurozone.
      Then you have a number of european countries that are not in the EU yet have a special relationship with it. Switzerland and Norway come to mind.

    81. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Germans devalued their currency the least, compared to other eu countries. They were also pressured into the eu.
      Read some history

    82. Re: Rationale aside... by peppepz · · Score: 1

      The UK never was in the club really. The joined half-heartedly late in the process, and ever since they never stopped whining about how badly they wanted to leave (as if anybody had forced them to apply for admittance in the first place). Clarity about their true feelings towards the EU was long overdue and finally it has been made. No form of government can exist without the trust of its own people.

    83. Re: Rationale aside... by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      The EU has the Lisbon treaty because they could not enact a Constitution! Lets face it the golf between the technocrats and the Uber rich and the general population is to great!

      LOL, I know you meant gulf, but the word you used only makes me think about the way "business gets done", at least here in the states. The rich go golfing with the powerful and shady deals are done. I can't imagine things are all that much different in the EU.

    84. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right. Though the referendum in the 70's was sold as a trading block. Not a political union as the EU has become and successive Uk governments have signed up to with no referendum, or party offering an exit.

    85. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America = North America + Central America + Caribbean + South America

    86. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other countries also have long form names, but we still use shortened names for them. For example: United Mexican States, Federative Republic of Brazil, and so on.

    87. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the EU bureaucrats and banking cartels will safe us all, not the Queen.

    88. Re: Rationale aside... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      It was a choice between love and hate.

      Oh please. That is nonsensical fear mongering. Wanting to have independence is not hate.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    89. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> United States of America
      The only country without a name of its own.

    90. Re:Rationale aside... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The people won, the elites lost.

      Russia in 1917. Germany/Italy in the 30s and the rise of fascism. Venezuela. Post-Apartheid South Africa. "The people" never win.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    91. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was based on a pack of lies told by the Leave campaign?

    92. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about stop giving the queen $100,000,000.00 a year?

    93. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Schengen zone includes Switzerland, even though Switzerland is not in the EU.

    94. Re: Rationale aside... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with you, but "eminent domain" exists in the USA too, and has been upheld many times by the Supreme Court.

    95. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you lose your job and your house In the next two years... Fuckwit. People like you just flushed the UK economy down the drain. Bastard.

    96. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a tax paying Greek I find your comment ignorant, and offensive.

    97. Re: Rationale aside... by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      a simple free trade/economic cooperation treaty

      It would end up either very loose and inefficient, or very short-lived.

      Because as long as there are no political boundaries set, every state member is free to participate in the "race to the bottom" of deregulation, as a mean to attract more business and hopefully tax income.

      Or other way around: how many free trade/economic unions, not dominated and controlled by a single larger country, can you name? I know of precisely zero such unions in existence. And I have read how such unions in the past have deteriorated quickly because everybody tried to exploit and capitalize on each other's weaknesses.

      That's why if you want a long term union, you have to level the playing field for every participating country. A political framework is needed for that.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    98. Re: Rationale aside... by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      I assume you refer to this Commission.

      It is actually elected by the European Parliament, which is democratically elected.

      Any other bullshit to dispel? Or you can google the rest of it yourself?

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    99. Re:Rationale aside... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Big Business is worse than Big (but democratic) Government. At least I get to vote for/against the government.

    100. Re:Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, god forbid we let experts manage things. That's why when my computer is flaky, I call up a carpenter to hit it with a hammer.

      "Hammers don't fix computers," people always tell me. "Get a computer guy." Yeah, like I need some fucking computer "expert" coming in to tell me to stop hitting shit with a hammer. When has that ever helped?

    101. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Democracy is system where you vote DIRECTLY for the people making the laws. Note the word directly, if it's not direct then it's not democracy.

      The EU is like voting for the guy down the road who then picks his mate to runs the show and then his mate picks a bunch of other people to run it with him.

      That is not democracy, have you got any other stupid rubbish you want to hit me with?

      The Commission is a Quango, look it up.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    102. Re: Rationale aside... by lordholm · · Score: 1

      The commission isn't perfect, but it isn't undemocratic, at least relatively speaking.

      Let's do some comparisons:

      British PM: appointed by the queen (in practice taking the parliament results into account), cannot be subject to motions of no confidence as being the PM is a royal prerogative. In practice the PM candidates are known during the general election campaign.

      Commission president: proposed by the European Council (where all members are directly or indirectly elected, except for the British PM), elected by the directly elected EP. The european parties pick candidates for a commission president and the European Council must pick the one with the most amount of parliamentary support.

      British PM: Selects ministers, ministers not subject to parliament vote.

      Commission president: Selects commissioners for their portfolios, commissioners are proposed by the member state governments and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The whole commission must pass vote in EP to be approved, the EP have defacto powers to get rid of individual commissioners.

      The point with this is that the commission is elected directly and indirectly in the same way that the British government is. That is the candidate for the PM/president post is de-facto picked from the one the parties propose.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    103. Re:Rationale aside... by lordholm · · Score: 1

      Except, no one expects that this will happen. The pound is expected to stay at this level or lower until at least the end of the year.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    104. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Constitution's 10th Amendment [wikipedia.org], which was part of the Constitution from the beginning, was supposed to limit the federal government to a small set of specifically enumerated powers. Unfortunately, what we've seen over time is that our Federal and Supreme Courts have generally permitted the Federal government to encroach into State's rights almost without limit.

      Actually, what we've seen is that thorough history, states have abused the authority they have, and courts have far too often let that happen, and the people have suffered.

      The 10th Amendment doesn't work, it never has.

      One avenue for this is that the courts apparently see no practical limitations on the Federal government's ability to tax citizens, behaviors, goods.

      The courts have been deciding otherwise recently, to the detriment of citizens. That's not a good an argument as you think.

      Example 1: The Federal government's mechanism for taking over control of primary/secondary education curricula and teaching methods: (a) give grants to those schools only if they teach in the manner desired by the Federal government, plus (b) set the federal-level taxation rate so high that few citizens / states can afford to educate their children well without getting back the money via the grants mentioned in (a).

      This would be a better argument if the Department of Education actually took control over schools. It hasn't, and it doesn't. 90% of the responsibility is in local hands, or in the hands of the states, who despite propaganda to the contrary, were the ones who invented Common Core, not Obama.

      They just prefer to blame the Feds, because of reasons. And this was true even before NCLB.

      And just check the funding. The Feds only provide about 10-15 percent of the total.

      Example 2: The Federal government control over health-insurance markets from individual states involved (in addition to some other tactics) (a) taxing individual citizens who did not have health insurance, and (b) giving health-insurance stipends to individual citizens based on income.

      States have themselves to blame for this, they're the ones who took control over health-insurance themselves, and yet did a shitty job, leaving the public griping and offended. Of course, the ACA was the wrong way to do it, but that's because it followed conservative principles to help companies, not people.

      We should have had the elimination of the insurance industry, and the reconstruction of healthcare to serve the people, not to push papers, but we got shit instead.

      There's some disagreement amongst Americans as to whether or not our civil war (1861-1865) was about the southern states pushing back on the encroachment on their rights as enumerated by our Constitution.

      You mean that was the assertion by a bunch of liars who couldn't very well admit they just wanted to have slaves, despite the clear vileness of the practice, so came up with another excuse for their conduct?

      To the extent that it was, one lesson Europeans might draw is that a compact which starts as voluntary and is supposedly limited by a formal constitution, does not necessarily prevent it eventually becoming a union held together by force. It reminds me of the difference between a voluntary partner in marriage, vs. being a sex slave.

      This is why I'm happy for the Britons that they escaped before it was too late.

      Reminds me of a person in a workable partnership, who decides to run off because some two-bit hussy gets involved.

      Say, for example, the Governor of Alabama.

      Besides, you're WAY too late to be giving Europeans lessons, try the Norman Conquest, the Irish Question, the various Nordic unions, the Holy Roman Empire, the partition of Poland and more.

    105. Re: Rationale aside... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Then Greece wound up with insufficient money to power its economy. If it were on the drachma, it could devalue and keep its economy going, but Greek GDP went down dramatically under the imposed austerity measures.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    106. Re: Rationale aside... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Germany has a good savings rate. But they aren't idiots, they don't leave it in a bank.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    107. Re: Rationale aside... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Oh so the poor immigrants from Europe are why house prices are so sodding expensive. And there was me thinking it was the billions of pounds of Chinese private investment from people actually buying houses which was pushing the price up!

      Eh but why let facts influence such an important decision, eh?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    108. Re:Rationale aside... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      the elites lost.

      We voted to remain? Oh, or are you under the charmingly naive illusion that Farage, Bojo, IDS, Gove etc are not part of the elite?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    109. Re: Rationale aside... by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      So you don't think remain would have meant the end of relevance of the houses of parliament and push into an EU federal state run by technocrats?

      Given that is the stated aim of the EU. What exactly are these "lies" you think a desire to leave is based on?

    110. Re: Rationale aside... by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      Example 3: Gay Marriage (or any type of marriage really). Lower courts/state supreme courts/SCOTUS all weighing in. the federal government should not be involved in marriage at all. instead of getting tax breaks for being married or being married with kids, dogs, cats, farms, etc, the states should handle that. that was clearly a states issues. Why do 7 people get to make a decision like that for everyone?

      They FOUND a right in the constitution that was never there just like courts throughout the last 80 years have slowly tried to change the original meaning of what the Constitution meant and stood for. Example for Gay Marriage. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment was intended to help guarantee civil rights to the freed slaves. It was never meant for gay marriage(or anything else) despite yet our 'well studied' supreme court used this amendment, at least in part to make their ruling - but lets not let actual historical facts get in the way right?

    111. Re: Rationale aside... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      As the tax paying Greek I find your comment ignorant, and offensive.

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    112. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a choice between Systemd and Hitler.

    113. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have a ~ 84000 sq. kilometer territory that's part of the EU and Eurozone, but is actually in South America.
      Then a few tiny countries that use the euro but are not EU members (one was invaded by Switzerland by mistake, one is a sovereign city block with an absolute monarchy)

      Also a whole bunch of African countries is effectively using the euro under another name, though it's like we never hear of it. Not much shit is given I guess.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc

    114. Re: Rationale aside... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      NAFTA pre-dates the EU/Euro. APEC's been around longer, with a MUCH more varied makeup (Asia, Australia, South America, North America). Trade treaties have a very good track record...

      As far as a "race to the bottom", is that what we see with APEC, or NAFTA? No - we see all countries getting better overall. Enivronmental issues tend to get addressed when the populace gets wealthier (they start to worry about clean food and water after they get past the worry for any food or water).

      Trade union not dominated by a single larger country: APEC.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    115. Re: Rationale aside... by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      As far as a "race to the bottom", is that what we see with APEC, or NAFTA? No [...]

      ... because nobody can compete with the elephant in the "room" - the USA.

      And that's why the unions work: they are narrowly defined (not really full-fledged free-trade/etc unions), and they are dominated and controlled by the USA. (And please do not pretend that it is not so. Or probably from USA's perspective, being dominated by USA is the norm of life. But it is not.)

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    116. Re: Rationale aside... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      China competes - rather well, considering it's about as big as the US in terms of the economy. Perhaps you can explain a trade union that is dominated by the USA, how it dominates, and what the downside is? From what I see - our tariffs are almost always lower than anyone else's tariffs, and we have to deal with quotas when we do not apply them ourselves.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    117. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the US constitution is a legal joke doesn't automatically imply that is true in other countries. The UK is even more of a joke due to its complexity, but there are plenty of other written examples that are so complex the layperson cannot understand them - Australia being a good example.

    118. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      The commission is unelected that makes it undemocratic.

      You come up with all kinds of funny excuses but if we don't elect the commission then it is not democratic.

      The Commission is a quango, quangos are we can all agree not democratic bodies. You can't say X, Y or Z picked the Commission therefore it is democratic if X, y or Z are not the EU citizens.

      Jean-Claude Juncker is the EU president, he picks the Commissioners, we did not vote for him.

      You should read some of the things he has said, he shows complete disdain for democracy:
      Jean-Claude Juncker - Wikiquote

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    119. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      A billion pounds doesn't buy much property in the UK.

      5 million people entering the country increasing the population by nearly 10% into an already crowded country whilst the govt doesn't build any houses has had a very huge impact on housing supply and demand, well demand at least.

      So, sure some rich Chinese have bought property in the UK, rich people from all over the world have bought property in the UK and I don't like the way they treat are homes as their investment toys but that is nothing in comparison to having millions of extra people suddenly enter one of the worlds most densely populated countries.

      Do the math, how much does it cost to house 5 million people when the average house price is GBP273,000.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    120. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard this from other Greeks- they cheat on their taxes. Taxes are the price of civilization. People won't pay that price unless they have some clear idea that it's bringing them value. If the taxes are pissed away, then they'll start cheating.

      Heard an interview on NPR's Planet Money with a girl from Denmark or Norway or one of the socialist Scandos... the interviewer asked her if she would like to see her taxes HIGHER (they're like deep double digits, maybe 50% maybe 70% can't remember now) and her reponse was "it depends what I get for my money". This is a totally rational response and the only one to give.

      What she gets for her money now is: free k-12, free university, free daycare, guaranteed retirement, 100% healthcare-dental , a very long time off when you have a baby, and guaranteed unemployment insurance. So she is getting a real bang for her buck with this whole "high taxes" thing. With that level of social services, you could feel safe enough to take more career risks.

      In the US if you lose, if you take a risk and fail, then you're homeless and once you're down, there is no getting back up for most people. Then there are the people who worked their wole lives, saved up money only to have it all leave them at age 55 as a result of some catastrophic health event which befell them or someone in their family. Then the truth comes out- all your life, you've really just been working and saving for the healthcare CEOs and executives.

      You werre their slave, you just dsidn't know it. From the slave owner's perspective, that's the best kind of slavery, no?

    121. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big 3?

      UK, Germany, France?

    122. Re: Rationale aside... by lordholm · · Score: 1

      The commission is elected!!!

      The commission is directly elected (for the president). Juncker was elected by the voters. Any vote on the EPP was a vote for Juncker.
      The rest of the members are indirectly elected by 1. parliamentary votes in the member states that results in a government that propose a commissioner and 2. european parliament elections, as the EP approves the commission as a whole (and also kicks out individual members).

      Juncker does not pick the commissioners, he gives the ones proposed by the member state governments and elected by the european parliament a portfolio of tasks.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    123. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      I live in Europe and I can tell you without a doubt that the Commission is most certainly not directly democratically elected And the president was not elected by (EU citizen) voters either.

      EU citizens did not vote for the Commission or the president or the seven vice presidents. Anything else is not democracy.

      The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU. Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals. This monopoly is designed to ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49] This monopoly has been challenged by some who claim the Parliament should also have the right, with most national parliaments holding the right in some respects.[50] However, the Council and Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so[51] as it did in 2008 over transnational collective conventions.[52] Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizens are also able to request the Commission to legislate in an area via a petition carrying one million signatures, but this is not binding.[53]

      So the public can make a suggestion and the Commission can ignore them and the Council of Europe can make a suggestion and the Commission are free to ignore them. And if you read quotes of Jean-Claude Juncker you can see he has complete disdain for democracy, when he said that if France votes to reject the EU Constitution then they will just carry on regardless and that is exactly what they did. So the EU is not even legitimate, it does not have the backing of the people of Europe.

      A system is only democratic is you vote directly for the lawmakers, this doesn't happen with the EU.

      The US president does not pick the men and women of the Congress or the Senate and he was voted for by American citizens.

      This would be like the biggest party in Congress picking a leader for NAFTA, and then that guy dishes out work to a bunch of people who were not elected to their positions, and then those people run all the countries in NAFTA, overruling the White house from Toronto.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    124. Re: Rationale aside... by lordholm · · Score: 1

      I live in Europe and I can tell you without a doubt that the Commission is most certainly not directly democratically elected And the president was not elected by (EU citizen) voters either.

      As you can guess from my sig, I do as well. And I can tell you without doubt that there where three major candidates (and some additional ones for other parties) for the commission presidency known before the last EP elections. Juncker (EPP), Schulz (S&D) and Verhofstadt (ALDE). The EPP got most votes in the EP election and hence, Juncker is EC president.

      EU citizens did not vote for the Commission or the president or the seven vice presidents. Anything else is not democracy.

      They voted for a party who had fielded a candidate for the EC president. Please note that the EC is an executive body, it does not have lawmaking power, that right is reserved for the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

      If you truly live in Europe you would have noticed our tradition of parliamentary democracy, very few, if any, EU member states elect the executive.

      The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the EU.
      Only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation: they cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields the Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals. This monopoly is designed to ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of EU law.[48][49] This monopoly has been challenged by some who claim the Parliament should also have the right, with most national parliaments holding the right in some respects.[50] However, the Council and Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so[51] as it did in 2008 over transnational collective conventions.[52] Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizens are also able to request the Commission to legislate in an area via a petition carrying one million signatures, but this is not binding.[53]

      You are touching on something important here, the EP and the Council of Ministers does have the power to demand that the EC make a legislative proposal, in case the EC ignores this without a valid justification (e.g. not in the EUs competencies), they can be dragged before the Court of Justice of the European Union. While it would be good if the EP had the power to write and approve motions directly, the current set up is not that bad. In fact, for the constitutional treaty it was proposed that the EP would get this right, but the demands where dropped as the same right would have been conferred on the Council of Ministers as well, the question is whether we would really have wanted that to happen, perhaps it would have been for the better. This said, the EU has been moving in the direction of giving the EP the right of initiative, so it will happen at some point. Small steps...

      Regarding the petitions, indeed, if a petition would be in an area which is a national competency, why should the Commission act on it. There is a thing called subsidiarity. First, the petition should be checked for legality, and secondly whether there is any way it will pass. For example, if the EC are told by member states (the Council) that they will not pass any legislation of the petition, there is no reason to continue.

      So the public can make a suggestion and the Commission can ignore them and the Council of Europe can make a suggestion and the Commission are free to ignore them. And if you read quotes of Jean-Claude Juncker you can see he has complete disdain for democracy, when he said that if France votes to reject the EU Constitution then they will just carry on regardless and that is exact

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    125. Re: Rationale aside... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      "the Commission does not have lawmaking powers."

      Where do you think the laws are made? AKA wrong, they make the laws and regulations (a quango making regs for another quango!!). The Commission does not even have to accept the Parliament's amendments or the Council's suggestions. Pretty much the only real power the Parliament has is to reject a law outright, but they can not rescind a law. Unfortunately when they do that the Commission has a tendancy to come straight back with the law just with a new name, or they take the rejected bits and try to stick them in a new law (ACTA, TTIP etc). The reason the Commission repeatedly ignores parliament is because it is not accountable.

      "the Council of Minister is indirectly elected" Oxy-moron, you can not indirectly elect someone, you either elect them or you don't. This is the whole problem with the EU is democratic falsehood.

      Democracy is only democracy when lawmakers are directly elected. Switzerland is very democratic, UK is just about democratic. EU is not democratic, it is way way too far down the line to be called democratic.

      The word Quango is a derogatory term for a reason and the Commission is very much a Quango. Up until the arguments about the EU I've never heard anyone try and suggest that Quangos are democratic.

      Key thing is Not accountable* = not democratic, not elected* = not democratic. EU therefore is not democratic.
      *to/by the EU citizens directly.

      "you had the following options:"...
      You forgot the option where the EU constitution / Lisbon treaty are binned and either we carry on with the Maastricht treaty or we write a completely new one.
      Or the option where France or the Netherlands leave the EC.

      I think that the EU is showing that is is very difficult to get democracy to work on the EU scale, right now it is not working.

      What I know from personal experience is that democracy here in the UK does work, the gov't comes up with some hair-brained idea, we all shout at our MPs and the gov't drops the idea.

      Look at TTIP and ISDS, they are blatantly lying through their teeth about it, writing it in secret, writing it hand in hand with corporations whilst ignoring everyone else, and ignoring the fact that the citizens of the EU have spent several years now
      telling them very firmly that they don't want it. The Commission has been blatantly ignoring them and carrying on with it's bad practices.

      ISDS is insane, but that's another story.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    126. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "constitution"
      You know we have one of those here in the US and it isn't doing much good right now. A government with any power and shit all over a piece of paper any time it likes. Sad but true.

    127. Re: Rationale aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems they are rapidly becoming in large parts..."muslim" first, due to the huge influx of them into countries like France, and setting up their own areas and failing to integrate into the larger, traditional French culture.

      Just think, they could go back to being Gauls, and Goths, and Etruscans!

  2. End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scotland (which recently voted to stay in Great Britain because they were told they would drop out of the EU if they left the UK) and Northern Ireland voted to stay in. England and Wales voted to get out.

    So Small Britain, or the United Kingdom of England and Wales, will leave the EU.

    Probably, we will see Northern Ireland join the Irish Republic and Scotland to become independent during the next 2 years.

    1. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless we go nuclear war, it's unlikely to mean the end of Great Britain, as that's the name of the island that makes up England, Scotland and Wales, not a political entity.
      It probably will result in both Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK.

    2. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Northern Ireland has the potential to be an absolute cluster fuck. There are still hardcore elements here who are literally violently in favour of a United Ireland or a United Kingdom, any suggestion of leaving the UK with inflame those old tensions. The pro-UK vote could get split between a non-EU England/Wales and an EU-Scotland.

      NI has done disproportionately well from the EU but we're small fish in the UK, I seriously doubt we'll get the same support now.

    3. Re:End of Great Britain? by liamo · · Score: 2

      I think it's a little premature to be predicting that Northern Ireland will join the Irish Republic. The question of leaving or staying within the EU is entirely different to that of a United Ireland. The people of the Republic of Ireland have a say too. Not everyone would welcome Northern Ireland, its bigotry, unemployment, terrorists and financial headache with open arms.

    4. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Scotland certainly has a good case for a new vote, as it is clear they remained in the UK only to avoid being thrown out of the EU.

      There is no chance that Northern Ireland would choose to join the Republic of Ireland. There are deep seated sectarian divisions that make this impossible.

      Let this vote act as a warning to the US electorate on the impact xenophobia and anti migrant feeling can have on disenchanted voters. Donald Trump is poised to take advantage of the same irrational emotions. A Trump presidency could have an even greater global impact than the UK exit from the EU.

    5. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Fuck NI.

      The people need to collectively start kicking the asses of their hardcore, upskill, and then work out what transport links and (real nonsubsidized) industries it can attract to a backwater shithole hanging off the arse of the UK where people still paint the fucking kerbstones in sectarian colors. And stop using "we" as if you represent some familiar shared identity across people from NI since you don't.

    6. Re:End of Great Britain? by paintswithcolour · · Score: 2

      Northern Ireland voted 44.2 - 58.8 for remain.

    7. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's quite likely that Hillary gets elected. And even if Trump did win, our Constitution gives enough power to Congress and the judicial system to prevent Trump from doing anything too stupid. There are leaders similar to Trump over in Europe, so he's not entirely unprecedented. I don't think the world should worry too much because our Constitution greatly limits the amount of damage a President can do.

    8. Re:End of Great Britain? by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Northern Ireland voted Remain.with 55.8% vs. 44.2% Leave. So it actually makes sense.

      Liverpool, Manchester, Oxford, Newcastle, Norwich -- most of the large towns voted Remain. Birmingham voted 50.4 vs. 49.6 for the Leave. You could say that Remain was the vote of the elite and of everyone else except the English and the Welsh. Gibraltar for instance voted 96% Remain. Leave was the vote of small town and rural Wales and England. And this shows the depth of the problem. The UK is deeply split. There is the Welsh and English "regular people" vote at one side, and then there is the elite vote, and the vote of everyone else. And this split seems to fit to the categories of people whose wages and living conditions barely improved in the last 40 years, and those, who are better off now.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Small Britain, or the United Kingdom of England and Wales, will leave the EU.

      Bollocks.

      It will be the Kingdom of England and Wales.

    10. Re: End of Great Britain? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      In no way does the GP's use of "we" imply a shared identity; it is merely employed to indicate membership in the country's population. Calm down, dear.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    11. Re:End of Great Britain? by mridoni · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're basically right in your analysys, but I wouldn't say that (roughly) 50% of the populations counts as "elite".

    12. Re:End of Great Britain? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Scotland (which recently voted to stay in Great Britain because they were told they would drop out of the EU if they left the UK) and Northern Ireland voted to stay in. England and Wales voted to get out.

      So Small Britain, or the United Kingdom of England and Wales, will leave the EU.

      Probably, we will see Northern Ireland join the Irish Republic and Scotland to become independent during the next 2 years.

      You really don't know what you're talking about, I suspect you know very little about the regions and their preferences, there's far more at play than whether or not they want to be in the EU. The one thing you might be right about is Scotland having another independence vote, and winning - but this won't leave them inside the EU, it doesn't work like that. They'd have to join as a new country.

    13. Re:End of Great Britain? by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can think of worse scenarios than the picture you paint. Leaving the EU opens up a host of new possibilities - regrettably most are less favourable.

      This decision to leave has been a bit like when a teenager decides to move away from home because he can't stand being told to clean up his room and wash his clothes; after a while he will realise that he actually still has to do these things, but now he also has to pay bills and he isn't part of the daily meals cooked by his mom. No doubt we will manage, but this was a stupid and unnecessary thing to do. Those who voted leave did so because they didn't want so many foreigners coming to Britain, basically - but common sense says that there is no realistic way to stop that happening without incurring massive costs, and no matter who is in charge of the government, they will still have to address reality as it is.

      Just to mention one, very important aspect: UK has built up a close relationship with China in recent years, and we have a massive trade deal with them. One of the main reasons why China chose UK instead of Germany was that we have the best climate for foreign investors, the most liberal labour market - and we were firmly embedded in the EU - or so they thought. So, UK was an attractive entry point to the European market - yesterday. Today we have turned out to be a less reliable partner. It may be that our relationship with China will become significantly less warm, unless we tread carefully. Some people may think this is a good thing, but realistically, this is not likely to be good for our economy.

      Other things we don't really want to lose, if we think responsibly about things: London is on of the biggest financial centres in the world, if not the biggest. Being in EU is an important factor in this, for the same reasons. We may not like bankers, but we would feel it keenly if they started moving to Frankfurt or Paris - which they may well do, if we are not careful. And so on. All in all, unless we are willing to take some big hits, we will have to keep following the same old rules as before, only now we are no longer part of the daily life in the family. How clever was that?

    14. Re:End of Great Britain? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      UK is a big nation. Even though the trend seems to go, publicly, "no half-measure" it's in the interest of everyone (UE and UK mainly) to keep tight and friendly relations. The "divorce" will be settled within 2 long years. In the meantime, emotions will cool down, UK dealers will change, EU will reorganize, and new heads will find new ways to establish new arrangements. Future is not so dark on either side.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    15. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which case you dont mean we, you mean I. Dont snotty because the poster didnt understand you. He/She didnt understand you because what you wrote was horse shit.

    16. Re:End of Great Britain? by mvdwege · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this split seems to fit to the categories of people whose wages and living conditions barely improved in the last 40 years, and those, who are better off now.

      Yeah, but that's not the EU's fault, now is it? That's the fault of 40 years of Tory and Neo-Tory government.

      Scotland seems to understand that, after drowning the Neo-Tories in their own excrement they massively voted pro-EU.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    17. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good news for Charles though. Not so much for Elizabeth II.

    18. Re:End of Great Britain? by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting
      There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.

      Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    19. Re:End of Great Britain? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, please - let them keep the UK's entry, and its £10bn/year net contribution.

      After all, the EU just lost one of its major funding sources, they're going to be panicking right now in Brussels.

    20. Re:End of Great Britain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Leave was the vote of the Elite. Their greatest con trick was to convince people that it was a vote in their interests. They talk about cutting "red tape", failing to mention that the red tape is employment rights and rules against injecting your farm animals with steroids, all the stuff that we want and need but which costs the wealthy money.

      They talk about taking back power, but they only mean power for themselves. It seems that ordinary people in some parts saw through it, but in other areas bigotry and xenophobia probably swung it. The politics of hate and jealousy are extremely powerful, and they work everywhere. Like Hermann Goering said, people are easy to manipulate if you tell them they are being attacked.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:End of Great Britain? by Teun · · Score: 2

      I believe with your 'elite' you mean those that don't believe the tabloids.

      The problems for the ordinary Brits were very much home grown and not caused in Brussels.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    22. Re:End of Great Britain? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Areas of the UK that have spent the last few decades being screwed over by Westminster just voted to give Westminster more power.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:End of Great Britain? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Other things we don't really want to lose, if we think responsibly about things: London is on of the biggest financial centres in the world, if not the biggest. Being in EU is an important factor in this, for the same reasons

      That's actually the one potentially positive outcome of this. You can't indefinitely support an economy on arbitrage and if the City of London starts to look like a weak bet then it will force the government to stop giving it special treatment at the expense of industries that actually build things.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the teenagers mom regularly invite homeless drug addicts to stay over in the teenagers room ?

      Was the teenager forced to work two jobs to pay for the homeless addicts drugs ?

    25. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't.

      The SNP case is incoherent - they wanted to have the Euro as a currency until that was shown to be a catastrophe. Then is was suddenly, oh, we want to keep the pound.

    26. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The employment rights mandated by UK law are more than those mandated by EU law. (maternity leave being as example).

      The notion that Leaving is about gutting employment law is demonstrable nonsense.

      You read this on one of your SJW hate preaching websites and came storming into a UK discussion to spout off on a subject you know nothing about. Good job.

    27. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because they have already implemented nearly 100% of the Acquis Communautaire, it will be relatively easy for them to join.

    28. Re:End of Great Britain? by Teun · · Score: 1

      I can largely support your view.

      What is easily (conveniently?) forgotten is those bankers and other fat cats have chosen the UK because of the slack laws against their very selfish behaviour.
      Now this morning that asshat Farage said in his first statement that he wanted to fight the abuse by those same bankers, why the hell didn't he do so via the EU that would have been much more fruitful!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    29. Re:End of Great Britain? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Gibraltar for instance voted 96% Remain.

      Which doesn't seem to feature in much news today. I guess nobody outside Gibraltar really cared and allowing their 20,000 votes was a token gesture that could not have had any meaningful impact on the result.

    30. Re:End of Great Britain? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are they going to send her back to Germany?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will still drop out of the EU if they leave the UK, obviously. And "small Britain" is the world's 5th largest economy. OK probably 6th by now with the fall in the £ but whatever. We're big enough to be independent. Most other countries on Earth are independent too.

    32. Re:End of Great Britain? by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

      I've worked in Gib quite a lot in the last few years and while they are very proud to be British they will certainly need to reconsider their own referendum on independence. Last time they voted 99% to be British. I don't think they will leave but that outstanding majority will take a big hit.

    33. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd have to join as a new country.

      Formally yes, but as you said. It's not that simple.
      There is no way Scotland will be evaluated in the same way as new country joining. There are already companies and people established there as if they were in the EU. There are already companies and people in the EU that have done business with the assumption that Scotland would be part of the EU.
      On the other hand Scotland would appear as a newly formed country and the economic and political stability of the region will not only be unknown, it will also depend greatly on if they can join EU or not.

      It's a total mess, but it won't have as much of an impact on the rest of EU as some people claim. It sucks for the UK and makes things a bit complicated for those who are doing a lot of business with them, but since the UK is leaving the economic crash we will see there will be mostly contained.

    34. Re:End of Great Britain? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I agree. Part of Britain's appeal, business wise, was that it's kind of an interface with one foot in the EU and the other in its former Empire.

      It'll probably mean cheaper bananas.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There'll be a border poll (there are already calls for one, and only the more hardcore unionist party the DUP were campaigning to leave the EU).

      I can see the North and South of Ireland growing closer, and the border itself between the North and the South *might* officially come down over the next decade, but it's unlikely that there'll be Irish rule just yet for NI due to concerns about sectarian violence re-erupting. Heck, the very threat of being ruled by Dublin might be enough to get Belfast's Devolved Government (the Stomont Assembly) motivated to finally get its act together.

      NI's economy is growing, but it simply isn't strong enough to support itself yet - and it might never be. It needs to leech off somebody else - either the UK or the Republic of Ireland. The EU (without the UK in it) isn't going to throw Billions at us just to stop us from starting to throw bricks at each other again.

    36. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Cutting the red tape of bureaucracy meant removing laws preventing farmers from using brain and spinal cord tissue from dead animals as cattle feed. Even after the USA had just discovered the existence of prions, the UK government removed this legislation. Leading to the mad cow disease outbreak.

    37. Re:End of Great Britain? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The net contribution of the UK is not even 5 billions.
      That is peanuts.

      (And easy to google, no idea where you pulled that 10bn from)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:End of Great Britain? by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      The thing about vassal states is they don't get a say. The UK is the UK. Nothing has changed until they (be it Scotland, Ireland, Wales or even Cornwall) fight a civil war and get their independence. They might not LIKE it, but we and they are used to that.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    39. Re:End of Great Britain? by residents_parking · · Score: 1

      Great Britain is a place, not a political entity.

    40. Re:End of Great Britain? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      A bit like Trump supporters? I wonder if they can be traced back to a common ancestor.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    41. Re:End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is a local country, for local people!

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    42. Re:End of Great Britain? by Cederic · · Score: 1
    43. Re: End of Great Britain? by Junta · · Score: 1

      On most fronts this is true, though the whole commander in chief facet can be a huge problem. The president may unilaterally do things with the military with grave implications.

      This is one reason why I generally am worried less about the president's stance on non-military affairs, because ultimately he doesn't actually have that much authority to do very resh things unilaterally than I am about matters of foreign affairs.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    44. Re:End of Great Britain? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      And Scotland would be accepted no problem. What's to reject?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    45. Re:End of Great Britain? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      After all, the EU just lost one of its major funding sources, they're going to be panicking right now in Brussels.

      On the other hand, we also got rid of a former empire's delusions of grandeur and the constant push for special snowflake status they resulted in. EU has been focusing too much on growing in size rather than deepening the integration anyway. Maybe, if the current migrant crisis prunes less committed members, we can finally get on with building it into a proper federation needed to guard our continent from Russia and have a sufficiently large economy to compete or cooperate with China on a somewhat equal level.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:End of Great Britain? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just seen Strawhead Boris and that horrid pipsqueak Gove on the telly and if you'd just come out of a coma you'd assume by the way they're talking that a) one of them had just become PM and b) Camer-hun had just died.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    47. Re:End of Great Britain? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those who voted leave did so because they didn't want so many foreigners coming to Britain, basically -
      Nope.
      Those who voted, did that because the "western democracies" are no democracies. No one can vote about anything that matters. We vote for a parliament that then fucks us up:
      * GMOs,
      * nuclear plants
      * renewable energy
      * medical issues
      * assisted suicide
      * abortion
      * religious issues
      * school system/home schooling
      * immigration - yes it is an issue
      * TTIP - or how ever the next corporate imposed treaty is called
      * globalization
      * General Basic Income
      * involvement in the war in Syria
      * fight against ISIS
      * or something simple as radio and television fees

      The government, the parliament or "the rulers", the ruling party, are making a fundamental, important decission every week.

      And no one can influence that! Except the people in France who are willing to strike the country into starvation if they are pissed off ... perhaps.

      Votes like above happen: because the voters want to teach a lesson to the rulers. That is all. Regardless what I said above: voters are often (in this case especially) to dumb to see the big picture. UK won't gain anything from the BREXIT. Except more tourists as their currency will drop like a stone.

      Anyway, as soon as some movement has a mouth big enough to shout, they find some issue, like immigration, put some propaganda around it, find an election or referendum to "win" just to be heard.

      Bottom line nothing changes.

      The "next war" ... or less luridness: the "next topic" that heats the masses will again be decided behind curtains, probably discussed in media, "polls" completely ignored by the deciders, completely out of reach out of power out of influence of "voters" or "citizens". We don't want that anymore!

      So ... just wait until there is another referendum: the voting is always against the "establishment".

      Some guy above was arguing that the EU has no constitution ... well, we had a EU wide referendum a few years ago about it. Some EU states (their voters) rejected it. That is why we don't have it. Not because no one cared. And it is not the case that we don't have it because of flaws in the constitution: we don't have it because the countries rejecting it had voters that wanted to "teach their rulers a lesson".

      As long as we can not vote directly for important topics once a month, our "democracies" will continue to fall apart.

      Angelos Dictionary:
      Parliament: a group of mainly retired lawyers and school teachers voted by the citizens into an assembly, called "parliament". Usually they only go there to get the pension, get bribed by lobbies and have a retirement job in a multinational, where they never have to show up for work, ofc. Their vote on topics of importance is either lead by ignorance, randomness, party pressure, greed and bribery or any other non rational behaviour that would constitute high treason if not for political immunity as being a part of said assembly/parliament.

      We need a fundamental democracy, similar to Switzerland, where citizens can vote every few weeks about _actual_ matters that indeed do _matter_. As long as we don't have that there won't be any social progress unless some countries get a super President who is loved and trusted by the population like Helmut Schmitt or Francois Mitterrand.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come again? The elite wanted this result, and engineered it by repeatedly telling everyone what a terrible idea it would be? Umm....?

    49. Re:End of Great Britain? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      By all means, if that's the desire and intent of the peoples of Europe then crack on and make it work. We'd love to trade with you, visit, have parties and generally be friends.

      I'm sceptical however that this actually is the will of the people. The EU may not survive these changes.

    50. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, we welcome back London and Scotland to the fellowship of EU.

    51. Re:End of Great Britain? by kosmosik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny is that now the Leavers from the group you've described (rural, small towns, not educated) will have it much tougher during and after the crisis. The poor will starve first.

    52. Re:End of Great Britain? by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      Years of Northern Ireland's terrorism was not enough to convince UK to let it go, why should they let it go now?

    53. Re:End of Great Britain? by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

    54. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England and Wales could leave the UK, and Scotland and NI retain the UK membership.

    55. Re:End of Great Britain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They'd have to join as a new country.

      That remains to be seen, but even if they had to re-join and accept the Euro I think they most likely would. It would resolve one of the biggest issues of the last referendum, namely what currency they would use. With the Pound in the toilet and doing badly compared to the Euro, it will be an easy sell.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    56. Re:End of Great Britain? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      Well - you might have noticed that the EU isn't in great shape at the moment, and getting 27 countries to accept another member, even if that's an existing member split up, is still going to be controversial and take a long time. We don't even know what the independent Scotland would look like, or how it would get there, before you can start talking about joining the EU.

    57. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remainers like to mention the degree disparity (I don't know if you are a remainer or brexiter), and frequently imply those who want to leave are under-educated, or stupid (at least on facebook uniformally among what it shows me.) 20 years ago far fewer people went to university so the degree vs no degree aspect they like to play up is less significant than it is implied to be. And lets be honest, A-levels from the 70s and 80s at least in Maths are quite a lot harder than those nowadays, and I think the same holds true across biology and chemistry as well. Certainly when I did A-level chemistry we didn't cover everything that was in one of the older A-level chemistry textbooks that was lying around at the back of the lab. I think it would be just as fair to say people whose education had some rigour are more likely to vote to leave? Or something slightly vaguer but along those lines.

    58. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh tell this to the french betrayed by britain. Now its only Hollande who is opposing the german reich of eu roflmao....

    59. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Even that lunatic Farage only said it was 350 million - money he (and the campaign) promised would be spent on the NHS if they left.
      The votes weren't even finished counting before he walked back his promise saying "I really cannot guarantee the money will go to the NHS"....

      Yeah... this is the lunatic 52% of Britain listened to.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    60. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, let this vote act as a warning to the US elites on the impact of uncontrolled immigration and bureaucratic incompetence can have on disenchanted voters.
      And yes, a Trump presidency could have an even greater global impact than the UK exit from the EU. That is what we are hoping for since globalism and Islam are destroying Western Civilization.

    61. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There's just no way the EU will stand in the way of getting rid of export charges on Whisky. Seriously. That stuff is liquid gold and only Scotland does it right.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re: End of Great Britain? by johanw · · Score: 1

      In that case I would worry much more if a known hardliner and warhawk like Hillary becomes president.

    63. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >This is a local country, for local people!

      You guys conquered more than half the world - you don't get to (EVER) complain about immigration. You're the single largest source of immigrants in the history of the world.

      Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    64. Re: End of Great Britain? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Frankly both of the possible results give me significant concern.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    65. Re: End of Great Britain? by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

      besides which, most (and i mean 90%+) of the Protestant people that voted remain would vote to stay part of the UK.
      NI/UK ties are much stronger than NI/EU ones.
      Honestly I'm expecting border controls to be on the NI/GB travel routes, not the NI/ROI ones. It's much easier to police those air/sea routes that the land border which they could never seal properly at the height of the troubles anyway.

    66. Re:End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      1) I was paraphrasing "League of Gentlemen"
      2) I'm not British.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    67. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the age demographics as well. According to Sky TV, for ages 18-24 it was 75/25 remain, with remain becoming weaker with age and ending up in the category 65+ at 40/60. You'd think that a referendum for the future of a country should be decided by the people who'd be part of that future ;)

    68. Re:End of Great Britain? by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

      Scotland certainly has a good case for a new vote, as it is clear they remained in the UK only to avoid being thrown out of the EU.

      Not really. They new the EU referendum was coming when they had theirs, so if they had wanted to guarantee EU membership over UK then that's how they would have voted.
      What the ScotsNats will do is harp on about it and not let it rest for about 5 years, maybe 10 and use it as an issue to try to boost their support before they actually try to force the issue.
      If they try to force through another independence referendum so soon after the last one they run the risk of allowing themselves to be painted with a "sore loser" brush and alienating the undecided or mildly "out" camp.

    69. Re:End of Great Britain? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is a local country, for local people!

      And (not being british), there's nothing for you here.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    70. Re:End of Great Britain? by jcdr · · Score: 1

      Switzerland political system provides many tools that enforce the power of the citizens, but the Swiss Federal Council ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) with proportional representation of the leading parties is also a very important tool that all countries need to avoid concentrating too much power into the hand of a single president or prime minister that get too easily disconnected from the citizens frustrations.

    71. Re:End of Great Britain? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This decision to leave has been a bit like when a teenager decides to move away from home because he can't stand being told to clean up his room and wash his clothes; after a while he will realise that he actually still has to do these things, but now he also has to pay bills and he isn't part of the daily meals cooked by his mom. No doubt we will manage, but this was a stupid and unnecessary thing to do.

      He also can't get laid while living with his mom, which is more important than having a free laundry service.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    72. Re:End of Great Britain? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.
      1) I was paraphrasing "League of Gentlemen"

      You only get to say whoosh after paraphrasing quotes from movies people have seen and/or care about, not piles of boring CG that would have been better as a video game

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    73. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Great Britain is the name of the island on which Scotland, Wales, and England are located, it will be quite difficult for Scotland to leave it.

      How England, Great Britain, and UK differ.

    74. Re: End of Great Britain? by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Hillary at least knows her Libya from Lithuania. Slovenia from Slovakia. Belgium from Brussels (hint: one is a city, the other a state). And she understands the concepts of working with others (say: NATO) and the value of compromises.

      Trump would be drunk on power. Couple that with his believes that he is a good business man and knows how to do shit, when politics are in fact a lot different than business, and the world could be in deep trouble.

    75. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      So the people who voted Leave are wiser, see the effects of globalization more readily, and aren't corrupted by the travesty of the university system?
      Good thing they voted and saved the youth of the UK from bondage to the Brussels Bureaucracy.

    76. Re:End of Great Britain? by stdarg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain

      Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage. You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors. Normal people who haven't been brainwashed into being guilty for simply being alive will reject that nonsense.

    77. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sins of the fathers much? It's unreasonable to expect that someone bears responsibility for actions they aren't willingly complicit with, let alone events before their lifetime.

    78. Re:End of Great Britain? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      From what I recall, part of the warning from the EU to Scotland was that they don't want to encourage independence movements since several member countries are facing their own movements.

      Not sure how those countries would feel about immediately welcoming with open arms a newly independent country.

    79. Re: End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Double whoosh for confusing pop cinema with a BAFTA-award winning BBC TV series.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    80. Re:End of Great Britain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The EU was growing faster than the UK in the last quarter. This quarter it's likely to sail way ahead now, as the UK economy goes into a slow motion car crash. Just today's losses are more than enough to ruin our whole year.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    81. Re:End of Great Britain? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well - you might have noticed that the EU isn't in great shape at the moment, and getting 27 countries to accept another member, even if that's an existing member split up, is still going to be controversial and take a long time. We don't even know what the independent Scotland would look like, or how it would get there, before you can start talking about joining the EU.

      I don't think it'll be all that controversial, but in a few months the UK exercises their exit clause from the EU long before any independence which means the current membership is done. Even if you could rush a process of independence and membership application so that they in practice could continue as back-to-back EU members, the deal would almost certainly be to fully join all EU institutions like the Euro, Schengen etc. with a transition period, they'll never get back the current UK membership. Only historical members have ever been given permanent exceptions and I'm sure the EU won't change the rules here. And that might swing the pendulum back, after all it's not like a massive majority wanted to leave. If joining back in also comes with a cost, well...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    82. Re:End of Great Britain? by Jahta · · Score: 1

      There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.

      Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.

      I think you're only partly correct. There is definitely an age divide issue, but it is being seen more as the Baby Boomers final "fsck you" to the Millenials. The Baby Boomers are mostly retired, or close to retirement, had good "jobs for life" with good pension plans during the economic boom years, own their own homes (bought when property was cheap) and often investment properties too. So they are pretty well insulated from any negative fallout from Brexit

      I'd say David Cameron is now regretting blocking a move to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum.

    83. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to familiarise yourself with the League of Gentlemen.

      "This is a local shop for local people. There's nothing for you here".

    84. Re:End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You forgot to tell them to keep off your lawn.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    85. Re:End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pro-tip: The instant you say "SJW", people stop reading what you're writing.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    86. Re:End of Great Britain? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let this vote act as a warning to the US electorate on the impact xenophobia and anti migrant feeling can have on disenchanted voters. Donald Trump is poised to take advantage of the same irrational emotions.

      I hate to say it, but there is nothing irrational about Brits who look around the UK and decide that they want to put an end to open refugee resettlement in the wake of growing areas that are effectively under Sharia law, cover-ups of the sex trafficking of children by "helpless migrants," and an increasingly radical form of Islam invading the country. This is just an acknowledgement that some people in the EU are starting to wake-up to the dangers of deluded thinking based on idealistic liberal fantasies.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    87. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      A bit like Trump supporters? I wonder if they can be traced back to a common ancestor.

      That's ridiculous. They don't even speak the same language!

    88. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For real though, their immigrants caused problems by fixing shit and making everything else work better. Of course things were bad here and there and definitely an abuse of power but nowhere did they leave was it worse off than how it was before they were there. Modern nations wouldn't exist to the extent they do today.

    89. Re:End of Great Britain? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Those who voted leave did so because they didn't want so many foreigners coming to Britain, basically - but common sense says that there is no realistic way to stop that happening without incurring massive costs, and no matter who is in charge of the government, they will still have to address reality as it is.

      The UK is an island. (okay, more than one, but you get my point). Barring hordes of boat people setting out from Calais, keeping out immigrants is a trivial task as the vast majority of them would arrive by air in tightly controlled conditions (I've been through British customs lately, and it's almost a bad as the US). The rest would come through the Chunnel, which is similarly a very easy entry point to control.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    90. Re:End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 0

      Aren't you the small minded racist pig. You are not responsible for what other people did 100 years ago or 500 years ago. Adolf Hitler's grandchildren (if they exist) are not responsible for their grandfather's actions. You are responsible for what you do.

      North Africans invaded and enslaved Europeans 1000 years ago. There were slave ports in what's now St. Tropez and about 50 miles south of Rome. Who do we blame (and how do we enact retribution for that?).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    91. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.

      Speaking as someone who was born in Canada and now lives in the US, why would we want citizenship in Britain? There is no benefit and only downsides to being a part of a near totalitarian police state, of course the US is headed there also. Hope we can turn that around before it all goes to shit.

    92. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! This analysis flies in the face of fact. The average age of the population in the UK is a tad above 40, 40.4 to be exact. Using your statistics, the majority of the UK rural and over 45.

    93. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, yeah, that's only going to work if those countries remain in the British Empire, but they pretty much all decided they didn't want that, so now we have the Commonwealth. I'm guessing from your comment you live in neither Britain nor a Commonwealth country. The top-of-your-head idea about citizenship being fair is not the only "sane" solution. In fact your solution is basically batshit crazy. The solution that was actually worked out historically has little serious opposition today AFAIK.

      Anyway who would want to come live in Britain now?

    94. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, where does that end? What about the germanic tribes and normans who invaded brittain? Shouldn't we ultimately hold them responsible? Shall we cast blame back to the humans that killed/bred out the neanderthals?

    95. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you look at the map on spiegel.de, it shows which areas had the strongest for and against leaving the UK. The university cities across the UK all voted to remain. Cambridge, London, Guildford, Oxford, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling, Aberdeen, Cardiff all voted Remain. Those are all Russell Group unversities with international staff. But the areas that were for Brexit, were all along the East coast where the ferry terminals to Europe are located. Even the areas to the East of London.

      http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/brexit-ergebnisse-in-der-analyse-hier-haben-die-befuerworter-gepunktet-a-1099514.html

    96. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lunatic Farage was talking about 350 million per day gross. You're answering that to a claim of 8.3 billion per year net.
      The reality is more like 190 million per day gross (not counting extra income coming the other way from being a member).

    97. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Extraordinary League of Gentlemen is the crap you are thinking of. League of Gentlemen (which the quote was from) was a piss-yourself-funny UK TV series, right up there with Fawlty Towers. You only get to censor Whooshes if you understand the joke :-)

    98. Re:End of Great Britain? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

      Because while retired, they still have a better work ethic than millennials http://psp.sagepub.com/content...

      Which shows that millennials in large numbers are extremely materialistic, but don't want to work.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    99. Re:End of Great Britain? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Well, in the United States, Republicans define elite as "everyone that is not a Republican". Of course they also define "does no work, pays no taxes, lives on welfare" as that same 50% of the population, so maybe they are not the people to listen to.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    100. Re:End of Great Britain? by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's that? I only read the first half of your post for some reason.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    101. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "NI has done disproportionately well from the EU"
      So has my home country of Wales, yet they voted out too, the bloody idiots.

    102. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.

      That (or nearly such) was actually the law as the UK was abandoning many of their colonies. Any resident of the colony was automatically approved for a UK passport. This is a big part of the detrimental immigration the UK has had in recent decades, that it's all completely and blatantly legal regardless of how much damage it is causing to the cities and villages where they're settling.

    103. Re:End of Great Britain? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain

      Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage.

      Nah that's more like punishment!

      Imagine me like the one lady Chicken in "Chicken Run" saying: "But I don't want to be a British citizen!"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    104. Re:End of Great Britain? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      A 3000 year old 'teenager' leaving his 23 or so year old parents?

    105. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain

      Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage. You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors. Normal people who haven't been brainwashed into being guilty for simply being alive will reject that nonsense.

      But they will have at just the same. It will just be a longer, less efficient and ultimately more painful process.

    106. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      Comparing things that only ended in the last few decades and which shaped the way the world still looks with things that happened centuries ago is a false equivalence fallacy.

      Usually popular with people of an age that means they actually personally benefitted from and participated in the things they now want to pretend was centuries ago. The majority of leave voters are several decades older than the end of colonialism for example.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    107. Re:End of Great Britain? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But it isn't that straightforward. This new independence vote would literally be asking the Scots to create a controlled border between Scotland and England, where Scots would need passports or visas to cross and to work. As much as Scotland may be overall pro-EU (though a significant minority voted to Leave), Scotland is also deeply integrated into the UK economy, and independence would mean Scotland would have to at least partially extract itself from a three century old economic as well as political union. I don't think an independence referendum has a foregone conclusion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    108. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage.

      Goebbels, is that you?

    109. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This decision to leave has been a bit like when a teenager decides to move away from home because he can't stand being told to clean up his room and wash his clothes; after a while he will realise that he actually still has to do these things, but now he also has to pay bills and he isn't part of the daily meals cooked by his mom

      Not really. Britain was separate from the EU for thousands of years before joining. This is more like an adult that had been talked into joining a commune for the promises of free love and sense of community, only to discover that all the women are wives of the top 2-3 "leaders" and the "community" consists of the others camping at his house and trashing the place. He's lived out in the world before, he can do it again. Meanwhile the commune members are acting out Shyamalan's "The Village", but that fearmongering only worked on the youngsters who had never been out of the commune and knew the truth.

    110. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You are seriously so deluded that you are comparing hundreds of years ago to a process which ended so recently most of the leave voters had actually personally participated in it !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    111. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Hint: colonialism ended when Bill Clinton was the US president. I was a teenager. The shape of the world right now is still directly caused by it.
      If you conquered another country - you owe its people citizenship of yours. Its the only just outcome. By the way every other colonial power does this. All of them despite having done it far less, and stopped a lot sooner. Britain alone does not do this.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    112. Re:End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Good question! Precisely the opposite seems most likely. If Scotland gets another referendum, I foresee a lot of people moving from the south to the north. You'll end up with 1) a conservative "United Kingdom of England and Wales", and 2) a more liberal Scotland. A miniature replica of the US/Canada situation.

      Northern Ireland might end up sticking it out with England/Wales, but it's hard to say. The more the rest of the UK devolves, the more I'd expect the formerly-secure "remain" position to weaken. Also, the more the UK economy weakens in response to the consequences of "leave", and potentially further consequences if Scotland leaves, the weaker I'd expect a "remain" position in Northern Ireland to become.

      Poor Londoners... they're going to get dragged along for quite a ride. There's no divorcing London from England!

      Gibraltar is an interesting case. It looks more and more like Spain may pursue an approach where they give the UK/Gibraltar two choices: 1) close the border (since it's now a border between an EU and non-EU state) - something that residents of Gibraltar are highly opposed to; or 2) accept dual Spanish/British sovereignty over Gibraltar, so that it can remain open. An interesting power play that's been hinted at for a while but now seems to be coming into open discussion.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    113. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played, sir or madam. No need to worry about the accuracy of your comment, just so long as you make one.
      (just to be clear, I'm not being sincere)

    114. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 30, living in Chicago, and will be voting Trump. Stop with the smug prejudging.

    115. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.

      Do you perhaps have ancestors?
      You should make reparations for all perceived and actual harm done by them, according to your ideology, this is fair.

      I fail to see how that could ever be modded insightful.

    116. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless it's actually better for brittain

    117. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I'm responding to the point made that people in England do not have the moral right to restrict immigration as a result of having colonies. Yes England had colonies. Now they have to admit anyone who lived in those countries? No. That doesn't make any sense.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    118. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Hint - colonialism takes many forms. For all practical purposes it was over after WWII. The following years was how to disengage. Regardless - England is not morally responsible to take in people from former colonies. And it is bigoted to say that it is.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    119. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, subtract everyone under 18 and all those without a vote (this may include large tranches of young immigrants). Average drifting up?

    120. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in rural areas are not uneducated.

    121. Re:End of Great Britain? by Juju · · Score: 1

      Good one, but I doubt people on slashdot will get the joke!

      --
      Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
    122. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit like Trump supporters? I wonder if they can be traced back to a common ancestor.

      I suspect that comments like this, and the attitudes behind them, helped to drive the UK referendum result. If you laugh enough at the stupid poor people, eventually they get pissed and start voting against you. The same could happen in the next US election.

    123. Re:End of Great Britain? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Frankly, by any sane system anybody who was born in any country you have ever ruled should qualify for automatic citizenship of Britain - it's the only fair compensation for having been ruled by Britain.

      That would be like saying "Any country with a US base in it should be able to have one of their bases in the US". Thing is though, if you have a british ancestor and live in a commonwealth country then you can get a British passport. The thing is this referendum just took away the last incentive to do so.

      I can't see this turning out very well for the people of the UK.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    124. Re:End of Great Britain? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      He who conquers makes the rules.

      If you want to immigrate against their wishes, conquer them.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    125. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would encourage you to consider Gary Johnson. The Johnson/Weld ticket actually has some experience governing that includes balancing budgets. FWIW, Johnson's a way more successful businessman than Trump.

    126. Re:End of Great Britain? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am not a Brit and even I will call BS on that one. Just about every country ever ruled by GB benefited handsomely. Just look around the world. Most former GB colonies have good economies, stable cultures and systems of government, all things they got by being civilized by GB.

      Compare that with former colonies of other powers, which by and large are not nearly such a pretty picture. GB's former hegemony over much of the world did far far more good than bad, especially in terms of rights and equality. Just like they American hegemony of the past 70 years or so has.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    127. Re:End of Great Britain? by Kiwikwi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors.

      Sure you can. Not guilty in a criminal law kind of way, but definitely in a civil law kind of way. Many people who are alive today have inherited massive profits from the crimes of their ancestors, and it is at least theoretically possible to put a number on that profit, and award that to the people who inherited the corresponding losses from their disadvantaged ancestors.

    128. Re:End of Great Britain? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      TIL it's xenophobic and irrational to want to do something about massive waves of illegal immigration. Controlling borders is something every country has a right to. Amnesty was supposed to have addressed these issues multiple times. If wages were going up instead of down you might have a better point. Among other issues there is a huge problem with people who have no right being in the country and dozens of cities who will not deport people who commit crimes. Full stop. Why is it "racist" (as if so called immigrants have a single race) to want to address it? Is the assumption that the US doesn't let in enough people? More are let in than the entire world combined and it's still not enough. There are more people that shouldn't be here than the entire population of Sweden if you're using the official numbers, double if you've any sense which would exceed Australia's population.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    129. Re:End of Great Britain? by bankman · · Score: 1

      They were suffering before the UK joined the EU, suffered through complete neglect by the central government during the past decades and will now keep suffering the hardship. And they will in all likelihood continue to think this is all the EU's fault, because that's what populist politicians tell them. They will believe it because they lack a proper education. It's not funny, it's thoroughly depressing and a trend I see spreading throughout the western world. :-(

      --
      I feel so sig.
    130. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubtful. City dwellers always seem to think because they have money they'll be alright and since the rural don't have money they'll suffer. Thing is the rural grow all the food and if I'm growing food I'm going to ensure I'm fed and my friends and family are fed before the city folk are.

    131. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No. It is bigotted to deny it is. Especially because when the refugees came from Britain we took them. When shiploads of British children showed up at our harbours begging sanctuary we forgot the genocide Britain had attempted on my people so shortly before and tge survivors of that genocide took those children in and gave them homes and shelter far from the Luftwaffe's bombs. Whats more we recognized the threat of nazism and sent our sons to fight with Britain against Germany - for centuries our greatest ally in Europe and the only country to defend us during the genocide.

      Britain needs to reap what it sowed and more importantly treat the needy of the world with the compassion the world so recently showed Britain in its time of need. If even the nations with the most cause to hate Britain could save it's children and fight to protect it then what the hells Britain's excuse ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    132. Re:End of Great Britain? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Whenever I read anything written by supporters of the "Leave" campaign, I can't help but imagine it being spoken by the shop owners - with the EU referred to in the same tone as "The Road" ;)

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
    133. Re:End of Great Britain? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The real split was by age. The old farts voted leave, the young'uns voted stay. Now the young'uns will have to pay the penalty for the baby boomer's stupidity.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    134. Re:End of Great Britain? by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      > We need a fundamental democracy, similar to Switzerland, where citizens can vote every few weeks about _actual_ matters that indeed do _matter_.
      I think this is an extremely important point.
      I don't know if that implementation is best or not, but right now there is this huge feeling (whether deserved or not) that our votes don't matter at all, and this is where a large part of the tension and resentment of the "elite" comes from.
      Politicians dismiss these concerns for some reason. They say "you voted for me didn't you?"
      We need some change that allows people to be more involved and more in control of the decisions that are made about their countries.

      Let's look at the recent referendum in the netherlands about the deal with ukraine.
      I seriously doubt that more than 50% of people care about a deal with ukraine, bet even so.
      We voted against it, and the referendum was ignored. The point is that this shows, or at least gives the impression that, we have no control at all over any decision made by the EU.

    135. Re:End of Great Britain? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the people who were most likely to vote leave are those that are least affected by the EU. The older the voter, the more likely to vote leave. What they did was take advantage of all the benefits the UK had from being part of the EU, and then say "fuck it, we don't need that stability anymore".

      A good friend of mine got a message from his father along the lines of "sure, it'll be chaotic, but it'll work out in the end". The response was along of the lines of "well done, you've just injected a huge amount of uncertainty and instability for your children and grandchildren, and for what?"

      The difference in reactions is also notable. I (and others) were looking forward to getting this whole debacle behind us. We weren't going to be happy if Remain one, we were going to be relieved. On the other hand, I've heard "Independence Day, gentlemen", and "it'll be fine, everything will recover, and it good because we'll get back control".

      I know I'm biased, but I've seen a disturbing correlation between the people who are stupid enough to install ransomware, and people who think the outcome is great. It's basically the people who have no concept of consequences.

    136. Re:End of Great Britain? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Isn't this strange? Scotland: We're tired of having no political effect because we are a small part of large whole that effectively ignores us, so dammit, let's leave and become a member of a larger less responsive group that will even more thoroughly ignore what we want!

      --
      ...
    137. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all fine and good, but I think you're kind of missing the main way that immigrants manage to escape immigration controls: by coming over legally (student visa, work visa, even as a tourist) and simply never leaving. Are you willing to give up any foreign workers and students, and cripple your tourist economy? Because unless you do, you're not going to be able to control immigration.

    138. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even with so many degrees much of them fail on how to read a bank extract or analyze correctly a contract. It's called 'functional analphabetism' and will replace the 'anaphabetism' index by 2030 on OECD.

      Enjoy the new world where most people are ignore regardless of degree :)

    139. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. There are very few Trump supporters in the East and North of England and Central Wales.

    140. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, democracy is a horrible idea. Tyranny of the majority!

    141. Re:End of Great Britain? by bentcd · · Score: 1

      You had me at pro-tip and lost me at SJW.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    142. Re:End of Great Britain? by MTEK · · Score: 1

      So Small Britain, or the United Kingdom of England and Wales, will leave the EU.

      Throw "Engales" and "Wangland" into the mix and put it up for an Internet vote.

    143. Re:End of Great Britain? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      I never feel like a higher level of government having more power to restrain the lower level of government is a good solution, though. It lends itself to all kinds of abuses. I would prefer the lower levels of government restrain the higher levels and that at the very bottom the government be very scared of its people.

    144. Re:End of Great Britain? by Immerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but you can hold them responsible for holding on to the ill-gotten gains. If your grandfather stole my grandfathers land in order to build an economic empire for his family while casting my family into destitution, then YOU are personally benefiting from that crime.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    145. Re:End of Great Britain? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      And what the fuck has that got to do with the E.U.? That's right fuck all.

    146. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be fair the Normans conquered England before all that, so everyone should be French.

    147. Re:End of Great Britain? by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      It takes a very bad farmer to starve to death. Tim S.

      Funny is that now the Leavers from the group you've described (rural, small towns, not educated) will have it much tougher during and after the crisis. The poor will starve first.

    148. Re:End of Great Britain? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      There is no chance that Northern Ireland would choose to join the Republic of Ireland. There are deep seated sectarian divisions that make this impossible.

      Perhaps, but there's a very good chance there will be a vote on the subject. If you thought the Brexit campaigning was ugly, racist, and violent before, just wait until you see that campaign in Northern Ireland. They only stopped murdering each other over this same issue a decade or so ago. What happens when that scab is ripped off?

    149. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples and oranges. The British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish (I could go on) empires brought things like technological advances, non-subsistence level lifestyles (for those who were interested), functioning economies, and didn't settle there in large numbers. The modern day Indian, African and Middle Eastern 'empires' bring things like curry, Sharia, bomb belts, rape gangs and AIDS, most of which we want less of, not more! On the other hand, maybe they feel the same way about us. They seem to readily give up toilets, for example, once left to their own devices, so maybe we shouldn't have imposed such concepts on them.

    150. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if that rule was applied globally, would you expect to see Portugal provide universal healthcare for Brazil? I'm sure they'd have no problems there...

      See also: Spain and every Spanish speak country in Central and South America...

    151. Re:End of Great Britain? by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      The EU allows for free movement between countries, and is also forcing countries to take in some of these migrants. Imagine your local city council forcing you to take in random people off the street, give them one of your bedrooms, feed them, and pay for their medical care. A complete violation of your personal sovereignty.

      That is just one of the things this referendum was about.

      If you cannot understand why that is dangerous and why it makes people unhappy, then I cannot help you.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    152. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. SJW's might, but they're all fucking idiots anyway.

    153. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is insightful? Did someone believe the article way back when about sharia law areas of the UK?

      There were reasons to vote out. Immigration and invasions weren't valid ones and won't amount to any action, but it was used so heavily as ammunition to, as people are correctly realising, buy into the deep-seated racist/bigoted fears Trump has done.

      The sex trafficking scandals dont amount to a call to leave the eu - we have plenty of other scandals, e.g. Saville. Plenty of liberal minded people voted out to shake up the system - the system that continues to mainly look out for businesses, profit, trade, and ignores the reality of problems such as social mobility, realistic political representation and progression (e.g. reviewing dumb things like our current drug laws).

      I'm not racist. I voted out. We still have human rights and plenty of other things that can protect people. This just might help us refocus.

    154. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this. You could look at the remain/leave result map which seems to show a divide between the east and west halves and just say withdraw the boarder, but this ignores that in reality the pro-UK and pro-Eire elements are divided pretty much on a street by street basis. There's no way to move it one way or the other without angering half the population. If you look at the past 300 years of history there the past 15 years have been remarkably stable, but all the old problems are still there just under the surface.

    155. Re: End of Great Britain? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      And she understands the concepts of working with others (say: NATO) and the value of compromises.

      First let me be clear - I would never vote for Trump, even though I loathe Hillary. However, if you don't think that Trump doesn't understand the value of compromises, then you are misreading him.

      Trump takes outrageous positions precisely because he wants to compromise. He starts out with an extreme, knowing that by being the first to make a land grab that he's in the best position to compromise and still get what he really wants.

      He does this all of the time.

    156. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So. The British people have no choice but to accept people into their country who have nothing but contempt for their culture and laws? And if they don't you will call deride them as racist? No.

      That makes no sense. No country has an obligation to bring in people - especially immigrants who have nothing but contempt for their host country. You are advocating cultural invasion as a means of curing some ill. All this will lead to is violence. And YOU are the one pushing for violence.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    157. Re:End of Great Britain? by virtig01 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the youngsters could have come out to vote. Even for such an important issue, voter turnout for the young was low.

    158. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off you ignorant twat, movies and fiction novels aren't reality. Trade relies on consistency of contracts, on infrastructure and advertising regulations, etc. You fucked everyone for the sake of some fucked up fantasy.

    159. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No it caused untold, absolute and unmitigated hardship to anybody not from Britain. Just like the American hegemony has. Try making that claim to an Aborigine or a Maori. Read about the trail of tears and the boer genocide. In India the Maharajas had known for centuries that the monsoon climate every few years were punctuated by major crop-failing long term droughts. They built a defense against this by mandating farmers produce a certain percentage of storable grain which was stored to feed people in drought times. Britain dismantled this system, mandated the growing of cash crops like cotton and abholished all food storage (there is no profit in crops you do not sell). The results were several major famines with a combined death toll of well over 10-million people. Most of them children.
      The last one happened during Churchils time. He refused aid to starving colony saying "Indians should learn to take care of themselves like we did" ignoring that Indians had actually done just that and Britai had destroyed the systems they had built to do so.
      Your romanticized view of colonialism and empirialism is unmitigated bullshit.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    160. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Such ignorance and stupidity... and we took them in when they had nothing but contempt for us and had in fact tried very hard to eradicate us entirely (and damn near succeeded) very shortly before.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    161. Re:End of Great Britain? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you laugh enough at the stupid poor people, eventually they get pissed and start voting against you.

      Nah. If you're even remotely subtle about it they don't even notice.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    162. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-tip: The instant you say "SJW", SJWs stop reading what you're writing.

      FTFY

    163. Re:End of Great Britain? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Who do you think got them into the EEC and EU when *they* were the next generation?

      I think it was a bad decision to leave, but I do think that certain segments of the population probably got shafted by the EU and had to live through it. Which also explains why the Leavers came out in well organized force. If you've spent 20-40 years hoping for this day, for better or worse, you're going to show up.

      There are real advantages to Federalism, but there are some steep pitfalls that I don't think the EU ever really addressed. The arguments that the EU was mostly an imperial bureaucracy over a federal democracy are not without merit.

      Young people need to learn something, which they probably never will. There is no inevitability of their ideas just because they hold them, or even because they seem like a really good idea or because they are "progressive". "Progress" is always in the eye of the beholder. If they act as if these ideas are inevitable, they will make mistakes like this and not a) come up with a coherent and reasonable strategy to manage the drawbacks and b) they will not organize and come out to vote.

    164. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic benefits of EU membership are the issue. For Scotland they are dominant, and the exit decision was made against the clear majority of voters.

    165. Re:End of Great Britain? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Probably, we will see Northern Ireland join the Irish Republic

      If only someone had thought of this solution before! It's so obvious when you think about it. Such a simple solution to a bitterly divisive four hundred year old political problem. Yet more evidence that so-called experts could learn a thing or two from browsing on the internet a bit more.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    166. Re:End of Great Britain? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

      I don't think there are 17 million pensioners in Britain yet. Lots of other people voted to Leave too.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    167. Re:End of Great Britain? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Just about every country ever ruled by GB benefited handsomely. Just look around the world. Most former GB colonies have good economies, stable cultures and systems of government, all things they got by being civilized by GB.

      Ok, I'll bite, So you are saying that Sudan, Simbabwe and Iraq profited handsomely from being "civilized" by the UK? In many countries which once were british colonies, and which now are quite well-off, the indigene population was just killed, and mainly replaced by british and other european invaders, like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. If your idea of civilizing is just killing most of the people and lock the remaining few into some reservations, I never want to be civilized by you. Look at the list of GDP per capita and look where the first british ex-colony appears which a) is not a single town or an island state of strategic importance (like Singapore, Cyprus or Malta) and which b) did not see a major population exchange which left the indigenes in the minority during the colonisation. It's Malaysia, slightly below the average line for all countries.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    168. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scotland won't leave the Union.

      Even now, Sturgeon is hedging her bets to wait for the 'appropriate time' to hold such a referendum. The current financial conditions simply do not make for a secure future for Scotland - she knows it, we all know it.

      By the time conditions work to her advantage the Labour Party and Lib Dems will (may) have recovered their senses and adjusted their policies in order to regain their lost membership across Scotland, where the SNP hoovered up such support in the face of 'no viable alternative' being available to voters at that time.

      Same end result - if a referendum is held the SNP will no longer have the support base they currently rely on.

      Northern Ireland simply could not 'go it alone'. The EU wouldn't even accept them. The best they could manage would be a unification with the Republic with the consequences of internal violence raising its head YET AGAIN. It just is not going to happen. Northern Ireland will try to make waves over this potential reunification/violence and screw the UK Government more money to appease the population instead. Win- win eh?

    169. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Who cares that you took people in. (By the way which people and when).

      The history of species has been that of violence and war. Horrible, but true.

      But the way forward is a live-and-let-live attitude and respect for others. As a neighbor I respect you and your ways if you respect me and my ways (obviously within some agreed upon norms). It does not mean that I have an obligation to allow immigrants into my country who have nothing but contempt for my norms and who have no desire to conform to them.

      You claim to be outraged by colonialism - isn't that what you're advocating?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    170. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      A bit like Trump supporters? I wonder if they can be traced back to a common ancestor.

      Mitochondrial Eve

    171. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young people need to learn something, which they probably never will. There is no inevitability of their ideas just because they hold them

      Except you just said that these old leavers were once young. So ultimately, the young's ideas are inevitable - if all else fails they just wait until they become the old ;)

    172. Re:End of Great Britain? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      There's no chance of Northern Ireland joining the Republic any time soon and the Scots don't want IndyRef #2.

    173. Re: End of Great Britain? by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      It is not. Almost nowhere is there a support for more federalism. That is only a small elite that wants that. A more federal EU would mean several other states leaving

    174. Re:End of Great Britain? by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that the Brexit people, while they might be upset about some people who overstay their student visas, were more upset about the "once you're in the EU, go wherever you like" part.

      I agree that once people are in, it would be prohibitively difficult/expensive to find them all and kick them out (you'll fail if you try), but the biggest complaints appears to be "people we let in in the first place."

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    175. Re:End of Great Britain? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I think that when you're 20-40 years down the road, you don't hold quite the same ideas you did when you're younger. Some people do, but many do not. There are probably Leavers today who were OK with "Europe" the first time around. A few decades can make a big difference.

      I do think that some situations may well be inevitable, and there could be a re-federalism later down the road, but people aren't always right about *which ideas* are the ones that are actually inevitable.

    176. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly does the UK participate in 'open refugee resettlement'? They are accepting 20k by 2020, that's hardly opening your arms wide.

    177. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Wishful liberal (or conservative) thinking does not change the facts. Liberal fantastical thinking has caused wars. "Peace in our time" worked out REAL well.

      I'm in the camp that will reward GB with my money given the chance. Good on them for having the temerity to stand up to bureaucrats trying to strip them of their rights. Good on them for standing up to the despicable cowards who tried to scaremonger them into staying in.

      For those predicting the end - no it won't be doom. They will get through it. They survived nightly raids by bombers and way tougher times. They will survive this too, and some of us will support them. Some of us are happy that they decided for themselves.

      If Scotland decides to bail, then that's their decision. I wish them well. If they decide to stay that's fine too. But it should be THEIR decision, not something dictated by a bunch of un-elected bureaucrats far away.

    178. Re:End of Great Britain? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      I like how the immediate, and totally predictable, market plunge will hit their pension fund values. You don't normally get such a deserved rapid response to a vote.

    179. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hell you say, maybe YOU stop reading, SJW are a recognizable living breathing demographic aptly named.

    180. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU won't take Scotland as it will be a signal to all the separatists in their own countries to push for independence.

    181. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we're seeing right now is an "Who is John Galt?" kind of Ayn Rand-ish moment, Euro-style.

      Except from other comments, the ones who want to leave aren't the John Galt types (that is, the capable, the educated, the skilled, the captains of industry). It's mostly older, less educated folks who have not been very successful.

      What we're seeing is more like angry farmers with pitchforks.

    182. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No colonialism wasnt just wanting to live somewhere. It was taking control, denying any rights at all to the native population and basically being despots to exploit them for profit. It had nothing in common with refugees fleeing for their lives.
      Just letting people live where they want is the only thing that can possibly a just future. No borders. Not anywhere. Nativism has never led to anything except atrocity because the mere idea is already an atrocity. It suggests that some people deserve their existence more than others.

      World war 2. Germany is bombing the hell out of Britain. Britain is afraid that all the children will be killed. They load their children onto boats and send them around the world begging countries far from the war to take them in and raise them and keep them safe. The world obliged. Even my people: just a few decades after Britain had killed 70% of our women and 90% of our children we took their children in, to save their lives and save Britain's future.
      Our response to watching Britain slaughter our women and children was to save theirs. Thats the path of civilized nations. Britain has always claimed that title but has never yet actually earned it. Those who call themselves civilized have historically been the most likely to act in barbarian ways. Actual civilized nations dont claim it as a title - they see it as an aspiration. Its interesting that the worst atrocity my people ever committed happened when we smugly declared ourselvea more civilized than others. When we stopped being humble farmers and thought we were civilized we acted like barbarians. Britain has been making that mistake without pause for a thousand years. At least we came to our senses in less than 50.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    183. Re:End of Great Britain? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      The Spanish wouldn't allow Scotland to join, because of the precedent it would set.

    184. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, this was likely a joke, but the answer is "Probably". (I mean, obviously yes they can since every human can be traced to a single common ancestor, but I digress). The Borderers were originally living on the border of Scotland and England in the 1600, when that border was terrible and everything was awful. They were nearly universally regarded as ignorant, uneducated, savage and proud of it. They left the border for Ireland, but were kicked out of there too. From there, many of them went to America, where they settled in Appalachia (more or less). They shaped American history to an enormous degree, and continue to do so today. They are the source of most of what we consider the Southern Accent, strongly impacted the American view of Liberty and Patriotism (no coincidence that these traits are common in the South today, where many people are descended from Borderers). Borderer descendants have been represented in high political office and great military leaders since the country's founding, including Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses Grant, George Patton and, recently, John McCain.

      Today, Borderer descendants are most likely to support Trump (as an interesting election point, Borderer areas are where Obama performed the worst relative to expectations). I don't have proof of this, but I suspect that the Borderers who remained in Britain after being kicked out of Ireland settled in Northern England and Wales, which makes sense to me geographically. If they had a similar lasting impact on their descendants (being fiercely patriotic, conservative, xenophobic and aggressive, for all the good and bad that implies) it would make sense that their descendants would be dominantly Leavers, much as their American counterparts are disproportionately Trump supporters.

      Final fun Borderer fact: they frequently wore red cloths around their necks, which was likely (although not certainly) the origin of the term "Redneck"

    185. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that they are forcing migrates to live in your home with you. Unless I have been greatly misinformed about the situation.

      There is a big difference helping out a neighboring country rather than having to give up a room in your house.

      Most people don't realize that if they actually supported Syrian refugees rather than making them march through hell only to leave them starving and dying of thirst that they would actually support you too as they learn the "infidels" actually aren't bad people. But instead we make more people hate the democratic world and then wonder why we have problems with terrorism.

    186. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make stupid decisions because they are stupid. Laughing at them does not change that.

    187. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way every other colonial power does this. All of them despite having done it far less, and stopped a lot sooner.

      Does Spain offer most of latin and south America citizenship? Does Japan offer Korean's citizenship? Does Portugal offer Brazilian's citizenship? If they don't your statement is a crock of shit. The USA annexed part of Mexico so shouldn't it accept all Mexicans? What about the Philippines?

      Hint: colonialism ended when Bill Clinton was the US president.

      You have a rather arbitrary definition of end of colonialism. If you want it still isn't over, however it was very wound down after the second world war. No more land was colonised post WW2 that I am aware of.

      I think colonialism was a black mark, with a number of atrocities committed but that doesn't make your statements true.

    188. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No borders? Fine. Then no social safety net. (Actually I'm not fine with the trade.)

      There is something to be said about cultures.

      Re WWII and children. What a load of sh!t. The amount of people leaving England during the war years was miniscule if any. And the majority would have gone to the US and Canada.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    189. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In which country did Britain kill 70% of women and 90% of children a few decades post WW2? That sounds like a post colonial powers propaganda, but if true I'd be interested to know.

    190. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors.

      Sure you can, we do it all of the time.

    191. Re:End of Great Britain? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Northern Ireland voted 44.2 - 58.8 for remain.

      So, all 103% of them voted? Interesting....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    192. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      3.5 million children and to many countries. Look up "operation pied piper". You have displayed so much ignorance and flagrant lying in this thread you should apply to a Trump speechwriter.
      Colonialism also didnt end anything like you suggest. It was ended by the colonies fighting wars for their independence and being branded terrorists for their trouble. Africa is filled with countries that fought long and brutal wars for freedom. The only detail you got right is "after world war 2" but you dont even understand why. It happened then because of the cold war. Russia was happy to weaken Britain by arming colonial freedom fighters. For the first time they had access to comparable weapons and were actually capable of fighting back and so they did. It still took most of them decades of war to end the occupations. There is a reason the weapon of African anti volonial fighters was universally the AK47. Hell Portugal put it on their flag after independence. Because its the weapon Russia provided and which finally, for the first time, made it a fair fight.
      The end of colonialism happened against the wishes of britain and it came only through a river of blood. Australia, Canada, New Zeeland and the USA are not representative examples of how it ended. In fact to be frank: they are the places where it never did end. The places where the occupiers so fully genocided the native people that none were left to take the land back. That the colonists ended up becoming self governing and consider themselves locals now doesnt make the natives happier. In all of them the few remaining natives live in abject poverty and have been subject to near constant atrocities as recently as 2 decades ago and in some cases ongoing.

      Hell a few years ago the queen appologized to the Maori people for the way Britain had treated them. Monarchs do not habitually appologize and do not do so lightly.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    193. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors

      Correct,and you can't hold a person responsible for the fact that their ancestors gave birth and raised them in a clusterfuck. You need to be consistent. ...unless a grandfather robs a bank and runs the money over to his grandkids before getting caught. The money is still stolen despite the passage of time and the grandchild not knowing the source of the money. i.e. the Louve should probably be emptied or accounts settled.

    194. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Correction of an editing mistake: mozambique put the AK47 on their flag after independence from portugal.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    195. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh tell this to the french betrayed by britain. Now its only Hollande who is opposing the german reich of eu roflmao....

      Jesus man, Hollande can't even oppose his own arse. Let alone Germany and Merkel.
      He is a backstabber and a failed politician. And that's the reason why in 2017 no one sane of mind in France will vote for his second term as president.

    196. Re:End of Great Britain? by WallyL · · Score: 1

      That's how it has always been, everywhere. The old people are the ones who make big decisions like this.

    197. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, it's the same people along with a bunch that is now dead, who decided they should get in. The EU of today is not by any measure the thing they voted to join. It's no longer as much about free trade and movement, as a single power centre were megacorps get a one stop shop to push through their desired legislation by suitably corrupted and unaccountable politicians.

      Leaving will no doubt cause a lot of grief and distraction in the beginning, but that's only to expect. Long term it's probably for the best, for the EU of today has to die. It's a bloated dinosaur which never had any democratic roots, and never was meant to serve any purpose similar to what it does today. At it's heart it's still an overreaching, closed bureaucracy run by an unholy alliance of "civil servants" and corrupted, megalomaniacal politicians who long ago forgot about the "servant" part, and exactly who they are supposed to serve.

    198. Re:End of Great Britain? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      growing areas that are effectively under Sharia law

      Sorry, but where are these areas??

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    199. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn..

      Well it says a lot about England's demographics. When the old ones trump the young something must be unbalanced on a conundrum. If the population is dwindling, the country badly needs making love, which older people are not very into. The solution would be letting immigrants in, which takes us back to square one [the very reason for UK's leaving in the first place].

    200. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing things that only ended in the last few decades and which shaped the way the world still looks with things that happened centuries ago is a false equivalence fallacy.

      Let them sue "the germanic tribes and normans who invaded brittain" for reparations, if that is what they want to do.

      That is a separate issue to their own ill-gotten gains and un-earned privileges.

    201. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me up when the Duchy of Cornwall gains independence.

    202. Re:End of Great Britain? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Those who voted leave did so because they didn't want so many foreigners coming to Britain

      No, I didn't vote that way for that reason, you dirty lying scum bag. I'm fedup of these xenophobic fantasies you people come up with whenever someone has a genuine issue with the EU (often not even related to immigration).

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    203. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of colonialism. And I'm a #NeverTrump.

      But that doesn't mean I'm for open borders. I suppose small island countries (say Grenada or Trinidad) would have zero problems if tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Germans and Frenchmen moved there; built 30 story buildings by the beach; changed the laws that made beaches available to everyone; never learned English, had no respect for the existing culture, etc.. .

      I think that all conquest is evil (including colonialism). I said "mostly" over by WWII. After WWII there was little desire (except by the French) to fight to keep colonies. Britain disengaged from the middle east (yes there was minor bloodshed - the Irgun) and India. There were no troops being sent to keep their empire in the Caribbean. Were there places where there was bloodshed such as Kenya yes.

      Re Operation Pied Piper how many left England? I don't know. Hundreds of thousands moved to the countryside but I would be surprised if more than 20-30,000 went over seas. And of those only a small percentage who didn't go to the US, Canada, or Australia. I could be wrong -if I am send me some links.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    204. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They feel they never got anything back... except pensions and health which are financed by the younger groups, and if the income in those groups ceases to increase, the benefits will suffer. But I doubt they are understanding, let alone realizing the enormity of their mistake.

    205. Re:End of Great Britain? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      That's the way it's always been. They feel justified doing it to us, because when they were younger their elders did it to them.

      You are most likely doing the same thing too. If you're not clamoring for your government to cut services and use the money saved pay down its debt, you're saying "Screw this, the people before me racked up this debt. I didn't get anything for it, so I'm not going to pay for it. I'll just maintain it, maybe add a little to it since everyone before me got more than they deserved by spending more than they paid in taxes (thus adding to the debt). Let my kids and grandkids deal with it instead." Meanwhile the 1% get richer without having to do any work - because they're being paid interest on all that debt.

    206. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-tip: the instant you say "SJW", Rei will hit you with a good dose of righteousness reminding you how to think properly.

    207. Re:End of Great Britain? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Given that Farage didn't represent the official leave campaign and is not able to dictate or even vote in the Commons in how the budget is allocated I'm not sure why you think his views are relevant.

      Conflating 350m per week gross with 8.3m per year net merely shows how little you understand about the whole domain. No wonder you're confused and scared by the result. Come over here, have a hug.

    208. Re:End of Great Britain? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      How has hope and change worked out for you?

    209. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Obama didn't even start the free phone program. He just kept it going.

      But facts don't mean shit to people like you. You just see things the way you want to see them. Facts be damned.

    210. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I gave you the number that left England. It was 3.5 million. Put that in perspective. In 1945 to the size of the UK population at the time and, for that matter the global population. The whole human race was only 2.3 billion. So today thats the equivalent of about 9 million.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    211. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So since the majority wond what you are basically saying is that the poor and uneducated farmers are the majority.

    212. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All over Britain at this point:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    213. Re:End of Great Britain? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Why all this shouting?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    214. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

      And Expat pensioners who voted to remain are F*k'd.

    215. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parts of Paris, Amsterdam, Malmo, Bradford... places where honor killings go unpunished

    216. Re:End of Great Britain? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 0

      Only people who are scared of facts that might be contrary to their narrative. When I see the phrase "white privilege" I know that I'm dealing with a SJW. Usually I keep reading though as I might learn something. Your loss if you just want to tune it out.

    217. Re:End of Great Britain? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      I would encourage you to consider Gary Johnson. The Johnson/Weld ticket actually has some experience governing that includes balancing budgets. FWIW, Johnson's a way more successful businessman than Trump.

      So you want them to throw their vote away and ensure a Clinton presidency? Do you even understand how the election works?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    218. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they? That would actually make sense. I hate the EU with a passion, but I have no illusions about the vast, vast majority of the people voting "leave".

      They are the kind of people who insists on eating the cake, and have it too. You can bet your last penny they were the ones screaming for all kinds of "retaliation" against the Scots would they have voted to "leave" when they had their referendum. They want to stop the clock, and preferably turn it back to get their Empire back in the process. Facilitating the Scots and anyone else who wants to leave the UK and stay in the EU?

      Not going to happen.

    219. Re: End of Great Britain? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      "I would never vote for Trump, even though I loathe Hillary."

      I know, rose-tinted glasses and all that, but this election year seems to be the worst in decades for "voting for the lesser evil". Your statement seems a succinct expression of now many Americans feel.

    220. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A bit like Trump supporters? I wonder if they can be traced back to a common ancestor.

      Trump supporters are more savvy than Rubio/Cruz/Clinton/other supporters. Just check Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube. Only Sanders supporters are as good with dank memes.

    221. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll tell that one to your kids someday.

    222. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great irony about people that hate on immigration is they them selves are often from families that immigrated somewhere with-in the last couple hundred years.

      As a New Zealander, I'm in this boat. The only bone I have about people immigrating to New Zealand is the lack of respect for our social norms.

      Now I'm on the other side of the fence, I immigrated to the US 4 years ago, I make a point of respecting whats normal to Americans, and avoid criticizing anything thats different that I might like to think we do better in NZ - which in reality isn't much at all if anything.

    223. Re:End of Great Britain? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If there are any, they're probably better at reading than you are.

      In fact, that's true even if there's none.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    224. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the next generation grows up and gets some perspective, they'll make decisions too. That's how it works. Maybe ask the pensioners to explain something about tyranny in the meantime.

    225. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck Trump already spun this as "a huge overwhelming majority for independence [like for him...]"...

      4% difference a huge majority? Guy obviously practices voodoo financing.

    226. Re:End of Great Britain? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      why is everything I read from you the utmost retardation?

      jesus christ fuck off to tumbler you yellow coward delusional justice warrior

    227. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The debt cannot be repaid. In our debt-based economy, it is the source of all the money in circulation.

    228. Re:End of Great Britain? by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Informative

      The EU allows for free movement between countries,

      Which is also a requirement for joining the European free trade union.

      and is also forcing countries to take in some of these migrants.

      Oh really? Read and weep. It has nothing to do with the EU. UK would still take refugees after leaving EU.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    229. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example says you are one of those im stil a kid at 26 living with mommy and daddy.
      Im sorry but move our at 16 or 18 (i did at 16) start working and earning and become your own man....instead you are one of those who sound like ... i cant make it in the world alone...when the WORLD is easier now than it have ever been.....and you still cant stand on your own.

      When i look back over the 4 decades ive been standing on my own....i can say...i will survive and thrive....but you sniveling little welps...well....you will always be your mommies special little snow flake...and will melt away at the slightest thing. Good riddance. The world does not need more sniveling little children like you.

    230. Re:End of Great Britain? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      So, not UK, not UK, not UK and a city where there have been a large number of convictions over the years?

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    231. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you dont realize that is how it always works. You seem to think that the new young are somehow more special than the previous generations.
      The new young cant hold a candle to the generations before them. They will amount to nothing in the coming decades...and will and should suffer greatly. They have endured nothing compared to the generations before them. They have been handed everything on a silver platter and it is still not enough for them.

      One day they will face a great challenge, a true face of evil....they will run and hide and call for the authorities.

      The older generations where much more willing to sacrifice and to endure and to over come. That was their strength. The new generation cant even wipe its own Arse.

    232. Re:End of Great Britain? by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Those are Sharia councils - they have no rule and there is noone enforcing them by law. Where are the Sharia patrols operating freely?

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    233. Re:End of Great Britain? by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what's been going on for the groups described. These are the populations that have born the brunt of the losses from globalization. They heard for decades politicians and elites promise that integration and globalization would benefit them while at the same time seeing their heavy industry shut down and outsourced, watched "foreigners" enter into the country increasing competition for unskilled work and depressing wages. They're bitter and cynical and no longer believe what the elites in London are telling them - yes, maybe their lot can get worse, but since status quo means continuing to stagnate or lose ground, from their perspective what do they have to lose in rolling the dice?

    234. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU is undemocratic. It is run by unelected bureaucrats. Living there means being subject to laws without having any ability to affect them. That spells tyranny, so I can't understand why anyone voted to remain.

    235. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your mom

    236. Re:End of Great Britain? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The poor will starve first

      Urban starve. Rural has land / farms. Urban, while the most economically prosperous are also the most fragile. When SHTF, such as nuclear war or a natural disaster, the last place you want to be in is a major city.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    237. Re:End of Great Britain? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      The EU has a bit of a better track record than the UK wrt the rights of small countries. So I can see the allure.

    238. Re:End of Great Britain? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      My guess is that Sturgeon is holding out until she gets some confirmation that Scotland would be fast-tracked into the EU if they decide to leave the UK. Then it could go fast.

    239. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      A couple of not-very-original insults without even a bit of wit to make them funny - absolutely no counter-argument, evidence or logical response.

      A textbook example of an ad hominem attack. I take it you're a rightwing conservative based on the phrases you chose and thought were insulting. Which is quite ironic because frankly conservatives tend to be ignorant and idiotic. The only really interesting thing you said about me was to question my intelligence which, interestingly, is exactly what I feel about conservatives. The difference is - I respond with facts, statistics, science and empirical evidence in a framework of logical argument. Your response ends at the insult.

      Colour me neither amused nor impressed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    240. Re:End of Great Britain? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Just to mention one, very important aspect: UK has built up a close relationship with China in recent years, and we have a massive trade deal with them. One of the main reasons why China chose UK instead of Germany was that we have the best climate for foreign investors, the most liberal labour market - and we were firmly embedded in the EU - or so they thought. So, UK was an attractive entry point to the European market - yesterday. Today we have turned out to be a less reliable partner. It may be that our relationship with China will become significantly less warm, unless we tread carefully. Some people may think this is a good thing, but realistically, this is not likely to be good for our economy.

      Why would this be a negative for China? Now they have an opportunity to increase exports to Europe with less of the ISO-based standards protectionism.

    241. Re:End of Great Britain? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Find a god damn green buddy. Hold your nose, make a deal, then both vote your conscious.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    242. Re:End of Great Britain? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      If you're under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart.

      If you're over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    243. Re: End of Great Britain? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      If you conquered another country - you owe its people citizenship of yours.

      But not after the conquered country gains independence.

      Russia does not owe me citizenship, even though my country was in the USSR.
      UK does not owe citizenship to any Americans.

    244. Re:End of Great Britain? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like a split along urban/rural lines with the "elite" being more urban.

    245. Re:End of Great Britain? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's the point. You're clearly too retarded and brainwashed to reason with.

      Everything you say is stupid. Stop talking. Die.

    246. Re: End of Great Britain? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Yes to borders.

      The reason is very simple - freeloaders. If we work hard to build a nation with good economy and living conditions (and welfare for those of use who are down on their luck), why should we accept others, who did not work hard to build their nation and do not even want to work hard when living in mine, but come here looking for free money?

      Why should I pay (by way of taxes) money to someone who does not want to work and even hates me and my culture?

      This is taking the worst parts of Communism. The working people get to "share" their money with freeloaders, but the elite and the Big Businesses do not need to "share" their money with the working people.

      Either we all share or we don't. If you really want me to give welfare to the immigrants, how about getting some banker to give money to me? I'd be willing to split it with the immigrant.

      By the way, I do not live in the UK, I live in a country that's a good source of immigrants for the UK. While UK being in the EU benefits me and many of my nationals, if I was British, I would have voted to leave, because I do not want to 1) become alien in my own country 2) get lower salary because Ivan from Belarus offers to do my job for less and 3) pay more taxes so Ivan can drink vodka all day and not work.

    247. Re:End of Great Britain? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Last I looked, the 751 members of the European Parliament are elected. Under the treaty of Lisbon, parliament votes on the EU budget, and individual EU members have the right to secede. How is that undemocratic?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    248. Re:End of Great Britain? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Clearly you've forgotten the years of labour governments imposed on England by the Scottish vote. University fees ring a bell?

      The Scots have had the deciding vote on many England only laws, have had a disproportionate influence on uk law, now they're getting upset because they might have to actually function as part of a democracy?

      I fear I lack sympathy.

    249. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you were shown proof. Change your mind yet or were you simply trolling?

    250. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when the city folk roll that National Guard (or whatever they call their militia) out to your farm and seize it. If you want to counterclaim that won't or doesn't happen, I'll point you to wikipedia to find out why you're wrong.

    251. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that when you're 20-40 years down the road, you don't hold quite the same ideas you did when you're younger.

      I don't think so. Not all ideas are equal.

      "Santa Claus is real" is pretty easy to change
      "Freedom is good" isn't.

      Wedge issues that politicians use also rarely change. Without some serious external stimulus, people don't jump from say pro-life to pro-choice. Ideas closely tied to your cultural background are also hard to change.

      Consider politicians, people who have to deal with important ideas all the time. One type of politician switches sides all the time and says anything to get elected. Most people don't trust this kind.. The other type, the more rare type, are actually consistent throughout their lives, and it's those politicians that people praise as being genuine, more like a real person than a lizard.

      The "if you are below 30 and not a liberal etc" saying from the other poster doesn't really tell us whether people change. Ok, you might have no heart and/or brain... so? Then you're a person without a heart and/or brain for half your life.

      One last thing, though I don't think it needs to be said: don't confuse people changing political parties with them changing the underlying ideas they believe in. As one Republican who was a Democrat said: I didn't leave the party. The party left me.

    252. Re:End of Great Britain? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the poor are starving *now*.

      Back in October 2000, we had some serious floods (I know all about them, living right next to a major river). The European Parliament offered Britain money to help in damage control. The Prime Minister, without consultation, turned the offer down. Some places are still recovering from that and the floods since. Meanwhile flood insurance policies are skyrocketing and the brokers are laughing all the way to the bank.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    253. Re:End of Great Britain? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      This. I don't think there's a lot more I can add, except to say that wages will only go up now we're pretty much taking back control of our own borders. Economic migration has forced wages down for years because those migrants who take work in England do so on minimum wage (because economising real living expenses by cramming forty adults in a house meant for a family of six is "normal" in underdeveloped regions) and accept not being members of a union who are there to ensure that workers are paid what they're worth, not what employers think they can get away with. National minimum wage has for far too long been seen as a low bar goal for employers, now perhaps it will be raised to a living wage where one can work to improve, not *have* to work to merely *survive*.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    254. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the majority that gives a shit, yes. You clearly didn't read tink's post.

    255. Re:End of Great Britain? by shanen · · Score: 1

      So far the funniest comment I've been able to find, but the broken moderation isn't helping much. I remember wittier days of slashdot. Increasingly vaguely, but at least I still think I remember.

      By the way, the nub of your joke was the kernel of my earlier comment. If slashdot was actually open to improvements, one of the improvements I would be most eager to help fund would have been dynamic search. As it would have applied in this case, I hope it might have motivated you to link your joke to my comment, or perhaps even make a pointier joke, even if it were at my expense.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    256. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >But not after the conquered country gains independence.

      At most you can say - not for those born more than a given number of generations AFTER that happens. The gaining of independence does not undo the conquest, it merely ends it.

      It's not a matter of whose to blame. You keep arguing that you shouldn't be charged with arson because it was your great grandfather who set the fire. But nobody is suggesting you be charged. We just asked you to help put the fire out because it's still fucking burning down the house around us all.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    257. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Nah that's like the "reparations" garbage. You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors. Normal people who haven't been brainwashed into being guilty for simply being alive will reject that nonsense.

      Nobody is holding anybody "responsible". We know YOU didn't start the fire. We aren't suggesting YOU be charged with arson. Hell we don't want anybody charged. We just asked you to help us put the fire out because it's still burning.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    258. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Imagine me like the one lady Chicken in "Chicken Run" saying: "But I don't want to be a British citizen!"

      So don't be. Nobody is saying you have to ACCEPT citizenship. Only that they shouldn't be allowed to deny it if you ask.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    259. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Sins of the fathers much? It's unreasonable to expect that someone bears responsibility for actions they aren't willingly complicit with, let alone events before their lifetime.

      Again - it's not about responsibility. You keep arguing that you didn't start the fire - but nobody is accusing you. We just asked that you helped put it out. If there is ever a time to worry about whether any of the arsonists are still alive and can be charged, that time won't come until AFTER we stop the fire. The fire is still burning. People are still dying. Nobody is blaming you for starting it, but since you inherited a lot of profit from the arson, and all the stolen fire extinguishers, - is it so much to ask that you help put it out ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    260. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, that event ended within living memory. The last British colony didn't become independent until 1994 you ignorant fuck.

      It also is not about blaming anybody. It's not a matter of whose responsible. It's about fixing the problem. It's about a moral duty to help fix the problem when you inherited the profits from causing it. Not about blaming you for the cause. To reuse my own analogy: it's not accusing you of arson, it's asking you to help put the fire out because your grandfather stole all the extinguishers and you inherited them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    261. Re:End of Great Britain? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Why would this be a negative for China? Now they have an opportunity to increase exports to Europe with less of the ISO-based standards protectionism.

      You make a couple of assumptions that I think are unrealistic. Firstly, I don't hink UK will get as good an arrangement with EU as we had before - leaving has already had and will continue to have a negative impact for EU; not surprisingly, they don't like that and are angry with UK. And they will hardly want to encourage other member states to leave by giving UK too good a deal - both of these factors make it unlikely that we will be able to trade with EU exactly like we did in EU.

      As for "ISO-based protectionsim" - what are you talking about? I don't think ISO is even a part of EU, but calling it protectionsim is nonsense; having to follow the same standards means, among other things, that companies have to make their products somewhat compatible, which increases competition in the market and means that consumers have more choice. How is that a bad thing?

    262. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Does Spain offer most of latin and south America citizenship? Does Japan offer Korean's citizenship? Does Portugal offer Brazilian's citizenship?

      Yes to all. And they aren't overwhelmed. It turns out most people don't want to leave their homes - especially for a place on the other side of the world. They get maybe 5 or 6 requests a year. Japan actually gets a bit more because they also offer automatic citizenship to anybody with Japanese ancestry no matter how many generations ago that was. Clearly they feel you can be REWARDED for who your ancestors were. Kind of goes against your beliefs I guess.

      >You have a rather arbitrary definition of end of colonialism.
      Nothing arbitrary about it. You can't say colonialism ended prior to the last colony that wanted independence getting it. The period between world war 2 and 1994 basically consisted of the former colonies fighting decades-long wars of independence and gradually one by one getting it. Not a single one of them had their countries handed back to them voluntarily. They all had to fight bloody and brutal wars against the occupations to end it. The last one to succeed was in 1994.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    263. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The history of species has been that of violence and war. Horrible, but true.

      Indeed it was. What I dispute is the assumption that this history must inevitably be it's future as well. I think we can do better than we did before. History only repeats itself in two cases - when people are ignorant of it and when people believe it's inevitable. The point of knowing history is not to INSIST it repeats, it's to PREVENT it from repeating.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    264. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >There is something to be said about cultures.

      Oh there is plenty to be said about them. Like that they are just an excuse for atrocity and that the single best thing we can do to improve humanity's future is to utterly eradicate the concept of culture from our existence.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    265. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >In which country did Britain kill 70% of women and 90% of children a few decades post WW2?

      You can't read. It happened a few decades PRIOR to world war 2. The country was South Africa and the genocide happened in the Boer war concentration camps (Hitler stole that idea from Kitchener). In all it is estimated that some 27000 women and children were killed - out of a total population of about 50000, which consisted of 70% of the women and about 90% of the children (who obviously had a higher fatality rate in those atrocious conditions). Many estimates suggest that, had the camps never happened, there would be around 200-million Afrikaners today. There are 5 million.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    266. Re: End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is that it's a myth disputed by empirical fact. Fact: immigrants are overwhelmingly a boon for an economy and create far more jobs than they take. Freeloaders are, in fact, largely a myth anyway - people tend to want to do something with their lives. They don't immigrate to get welfare, they immigrate to get the opportunity to do more with their lives (oftentimes - by getting to have lives when where they are coming from is a place you can be bombed easily).

      The freeloader myth is simply not based in fact. There may be some - but they are so extraordinarily rare in any population that they simply don't affect the numbers. Look at the current cases in the USA where states made welfare dependent on drug tests - all fueled by the fear of free-loaders. Interestingly their stupidity has given us empirical numbers to test their theory against now.
      Kansas instituted the policy quite recently. So far they have tested 300 people. Zero positive results. Not one person tested was using drugs.
      But that's a smallish number. Florida has been doing it a lot longer, let's see what their findings look like. Just over 2800 people tested so far. Number of positive tests ? 11.

      11 out of 3000 is just not statistically significant.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    267. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Speaking as someone who was born in Canada and now lives in the US, why would we want citizenship in Britain?

      Nobody said you had to TAKE it. Only that you should be able to get it if you want it. That's actually the counterargument to those who panic. The countries that do this do not get a major influx. They can count the number of requests a year on their fingers. And the better the former colony is doing, the fewer they get from it. It's right and just for the option to exist, but few people would use it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    268. Re:End of Great Britain? by khallow · · Score: 1

      As for "ISO-based protectionsim" - what are you talking about?

      You have to have certification in particular ISO standards (particularly, ISO 9001), in order to do business in large parts of the EU economy. This has had the important effect of reducing competition at least for the last couple of decades to European businesses which can afford a bunch of relatively cheap but educated paperpushers to meet the standards.

      having to follow the same standards means, among other things, that companies have to make their products somewhat compatible, which increases competition in the market and means that consumers have more choice.

      You're increasing the barrier to entry by developing world businesses. So no, that would not increase competition.

    269. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You should make reparations for all perceived and actual harm done by them, according to your ideology, this is fair.

      I am, in fact, doing just that - and petitioning my government to extract more, including from those of my peers who think that inheriting from the atrocities our ancestors committed should not mean they ought to return at least some of the stolen goods and money to those it was stolen from.

      Most people don't blame today's Germany for the holocaust. Because Germany made a serious effort to right the wrong. They punished the surviving guilty - as recently as 2007 they handed a suspected NAZI collaborator over to Israel for trial. There can't be very many still alive now though, but each one that was found was tried and punished. They paid reparations... in fact they are STILL paying reparations. They apologised. They fundamentally structured their society to make it impossible for it to ever happen again - completely changing many things to achieve this.

      They are the one place - that handled this the RIGHT way. That's why they are basically forgiven. Every other beneficiary of atrocity tried to shirk responsibility. Failed to pay reparations, failed to restructure their society - denies responsibility. Thats why nobody else gets forgiven.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    270. Re:End of Great Britain? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If you're going to say that - well Britain ruled Normandy for centuries as well. That was a tit-for-tat back and forth conquest between relatively equally military-powered and wealthy nations. It was idiotic but it wasn't unfair in the same way colonialism was. Evidenced by the fact that the hundred years war took 103 years to finish without producing a clear winner - during which time Normandy passed between British and French rule dozens of times.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    271. Re:End of Great Britain? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that if you live in a multi-ethnic area like a large city, you are incorrectly deemed elite. The out voters seem live in predominantly white areas that have no immigrants but have a fear of an imaginary issue.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    272. Re:End of Great Britain? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      thats the problem, it seems to be a protest non-EU related vote. if people wanted to place a "protest against the government" vote, they should apply it a local level because then you can, if you want, reverse it 5 years later. This was a one chance vote with no chance to change your mind at a later date. This is the problem when people do not vote with their heads.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    273. Re: End of Great Britain? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      we didn't there were many people in the UK that would make a daft voting choice, but that was proved wrong. There are more people out there that do not have a clue what they are voting for/against and vote on lies because they do not do any research.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    274. Re: End of Great Britain? by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I still do not think that the conqueror has to provide citizenship to the people living in the conquered country after said country becomes independent. While the conquered country remains part of the bigger country, the people should be able to move freely, but gaining independence means that the people of the newly independent country want nothing more to do with their oppressor, why should they still be allowed to go there?

      Paying compensation for damages done on the other hand could be asked in some sort of an international court.

      My country was part of the USSR (not voluntarily) until the collapse. Still, if Russia offered citizenship to anyone who wanted, it would actually be worse for us because some people might choose to go there instead of working (and paying taxes, helping the country) here.

      On the other hand, they should pay compensation for all the people killed and exiled.

    275. Re:End of Great Britain? by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      It is not xenophobia to desire to control one's borders. The U.S. has extensive legal immigration, where known people make a legal commitment to integrate into our society and obey our laws. What many seek to control is illegal immigration, where unknown people seek to live apart from our laws, are free to commit crimes, simply change location and identity when arrested and released on bail, or commit crimes and slip back across the border only to return when the heat dissipates. Also, it is not xenophobia to welcome people who commit to integrate as member of our society while not welcoming those who wish to enter out country and remain apart while work against our customs, traditions and mores. So, as you would likely not welcome foreigners making uninformed judgments about your country, I will refrain from making uninformed judgments about yours.

    276. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this is meaningless without stating first: How many Excrement Colored Anthropoids, how many Diarrhea Colored Anthropoids, how many Chinese fish participated in all this and since when? Form is not essence in biology real terms. If you think they all will have common goals, you are very wrong and out of reality. I would even expect some kind of war to be brewing, there is NO OTHER WAY Africa can stop Occidental techonological achievements and it frees Indians and China to continue their substitution of imports til they manage to snatch out of our Human hands all these annoying technologies that do not let them fall back into their history long primitivities they are so comfortable with. Have you even had an Indian shut the wifi on your face, snatch the table off your seat and tell you you have to leave because he feels you have had your twenty minutes in the place and your second purchase is suspicious to him and you may EVEN want to visit the place next day? Precisely when you feel most comfortable...

    277. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and REMEMBER only ISLAM has vocation to rule an unified Earth and THE DIVINE RIGHT to do so. Unification? You do not have the right unless it is under ISLAM. Funny, eh, Imperialists?

    278. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors.

      Sure you can. Not guilty in a criminal law kind of way, but definitely in a civil law kind of way. Many people who are alive today have inherited massive profits from the crimes of their ancestors, and it is at least theoretically possible to put a number on that profit, and award that to the people who inherited the corresponding losses from their disadvantaged ancestors

      That is incredibly stupid. Should we have the Turks give Turkey back to the Greeks? What about to the Hittites? Bound to be some people today descended from the Hittites. Of course, what if somebody is part Greek and part Hittite? Where do we draw the line? Didn't the Assyrians have some of that land? What share do we give them? What about Babylon - can't leave them out now, can we?

      How about taking Japan from the Japanese, and giving it back to the Ainu?

      Should we force all people in India with Aryan descent back into the lands around the Black Sea? Who cares if that's most of the population, their ancestors conquered the land! They were sinners!

      Why don't we give the Native Americans North America, giving each of the tribes the land it didn't conquer from any other tribes? Of course, we might have a small problem determining who conquered what, given thousands of years of warfare between various native groups.

      What about compensating everybody whose ancestor was a slave? But most human societies have had slavery throughout history, and most human beings probably have some ancestor that was a slave, so how do we resolve this?

      No rational legal system could be constructed on the basis of holding people responsible for the sins of their ancestors - it would be impossible to determine in any kind of fair and rational way who actually got what: you would simply end up applying force to steal goods from one party and give them to another - a crime in itself.

      If anything, we should be limiting legal civil liability to a few decades - after that time lost treasures and stolen goods should belong to anybody that finds them, other than the original thief. Such a policy would prevent nonsense such as that involving the treasure ship Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, which modern day Spain claimed after centuries of being lost, effectively stealing the ship from its discoverers.

    279. Re:End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah this is the kind of thinking that keeps the Middle East a cesspool of violence, revenge; they keep kindling the flames of ancient hatreds and clinging to ancient wrong-doings. We're Americans because *we forget*. We forget with blinding speed. We forgot that Britian was out enemy as recently as 1812. We forgot that Japan and Germany were our enemies. Americans could give a shit and if you suggest that Germans are bad people or Japanese people are evil they'll just think you're off about something that's ancient history. This is our brilliance. We cold just give a shit about who did what to who, even when the doing was upon us and we lose our young men in war. Just like that, within one generation, everything is not just forgiven, it's baiscally forgotten- relegated to history. For Americans , all history is ancient.

      Holding onto to ancient resentments is a great way to tear a saociety apart. This is somenthing the left with it's "grievance industy" either doesn't understand or doesn't care about.

    280. Re:End of Great Britain? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, quite a bit. And a bit like GOP electorate in general.

      Most of Western politics these days is urban vs rural. All other "wedge issues" either stem directly from that divide, or are artificially grafted on top of it.

    281. Re:End of Great Britain? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Where do we start that accounting? Can someone with a Breton lineage in UK demand reparation from Germanic nations? Should the Basques claim reparations from Indo-European settlers who took over? Do people with Neanderthal ancestry get anything from the descendants of Cro-Magnons for destruction wrought upon their race?

    282. Re:End of Great Britain? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.

      Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.

      ironically, the remainers, being younger, will ride out the market collapse caused by the leavers, as it corrects itself over time; whereas the leavers, having less time left and being more on fixed incomes, have torpedoed themselves in both feet nicely.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    283. Re:End of Great Britain? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      A bit like Trump supporters? I wonder if they can be traced back to a common ancestor.

      yes, prince herman the islamophobe of bavaria, 1674.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    284. Re:End of Great Britain? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      This is a local country, for local people!

      Hello Dave?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    285. Re:End of Great Britain? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The employment rights we have were put in place by the last Labour government. The current Tory lot have publicly stated that they want to repeal them, along with our human rights. That's what they were talking about when they said they wanted to cut "red tape" and make us more "competitive". How can we compete with China under a free trade deal if our workers cost 10x as much and get to take year long holidays just because they popped out a kid?

      Your claims are demonstrably false. The people in charge right now and the ones most likely to become the next leader and cabinet have directly contradicted you in public speeches. It's their clearly stated policy. Don't you even listen?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    286. Re:End of Great Britain? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

      Because while retired, they still have a better work ethic than millennials http://psp.sagepub.com/content...

      Which shows that millennials in large numbers are extremely materialistic, but don't want to work.

      Bizzare that a link to a real study is marked as a troll? For the abstract:

      We examined whether culture-level indices of threat, instability, and materialistic modeling were linked to the materialistic values of American 12th graders between 1976 and 2007 (N = 355,296). Youth materialism (such as the importance of money and of owning expensive material items) increased over the generations, peaking in the late 1980s to early 1990s with Generation X and then staying at historically high levels for Millennials (GenMe). Societal instability and disconnection (e.g., unemployment, divorce) and social modeling (e.g., advertising spending) had both contemporaneous and lagged associations with higher levels of materialism, with advertising most influential during adolescence and instability during childhood. Societal-level living standards during childhood predicted materialism 10 years later. When materialistic values increased, work centrality steadily declined, suggesting a growing discrepancy between the desire for material rewards and the willingness to do the work usually required to earn them.

      Troll or not - deal with it. Perhaps a new mod point is needed - I don't like the truth -5

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    287. Re:End of Great Britain? by dcarmi · · Score: 1

      I think in the short term there will be a desperate scramble by the cities to protect their interests, as best they can.

      Many of the places voting to remain have service and technology industries, some of which will be lost. I can't see Airbus staying in the UK being owned by the French and German governments, for example. That accounts for over 10,000 jobs in the West of England and Wales. Can London keep its financial interest when banks will be obliged to move their HQ because of EU rules. I think we will see two things.

      • Increased polarisation, whereby resources are shared less evenly by London and other big cities.
      • The new "leave" government, desperately doing its best to "leave" whilst changing as little as possible.

      We already are hearing that the prospective leadership are looking at how they can maintain their position within the economic framework and that does inevitably mean some free movement of people. Trouble is that central have admitted government really does not have any sort of plan, other than to keep bailing.

      One other issue that will likely become critical very quickly is the Le Touquet Agreement between UK and France. This sets the UK border at Calais, which is where refugees wanting into Britain are stacked by the French, in the Sangette camp. There are calls in France for that treaty to be reviewed, so I wonder where those refugees will end up? - not to mention the other camps being built at Dunkirk and Le Harve.

    288. Re: End of Great Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are distorting the story by quoting 3.5 million. From Wikipedia:

      "The Children's Overseas Reception Board approved 24,000 children for evacuation overseas. Between June and September 1940, 1,532 children were evacuated to Canada, mainly through the Pier 21 immigration terminal; 577 to Australia; 353 to South Africa and 202 to New Zealand. The scheme was cancelled after City of Benares was torpedoed on 17 September, 1940, killing 77 of the 90 CORB children aboard. However, in 1940 and 1941 about 14,000 children were evacuated privately to overseas relatives or foster families, including 6,000 to Canada and 5,000 to the United States.[11]"

      I'm guessing you're from South Africa, so thanks for looking after those 353 children. However this is several orders of magnitude shorter than your headline figure.

      - Remain voter.

    289. Re:End of Great Britain? by shilly · · Score: 1

      I beg your fucking pardon? It's called the *European* Working Time Directive for a reason, ya know. The UK stayed out of the social chapter *precisely* because it wanted more labour market flexibility. And Patrick Minford, Dan Hannan, Dominic Cummings and the rest of the swivel-eyed free-trade faction of the Leave campaign have always been absolutely explicit about saying that they want out from EU labour market laws (among other things).

      You people are really really fucking clueless. And the fact that you think you aren't is even scarier.

    290. Re:End of Great Britain? by shilly · · Score: 1

      I agree it's not a given that NI will join RoI.

      I think it is, however, clear that the Brexit camp have not a fucking clue what they have just unleashed:
      - Either we get a legal route by which EU people can reach mainland UK without passing through a border control
      - Or, we get a hard border right across the single most sensitive security spot in the British Isles and quite likely restart Irish terrorism

      Fuckweasel Brexit fucknuggets.

    291. Re: End of Great Britain? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      A cursory google search shows that Operation Pied Piper evacuated 3.5 million but the overwhelming amount stayed in England proper. Please show evidence for your claim.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  3. Well, what did you expect by muecksteiner · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Juncker (and many others, like Mr. Schulz) worked long and hard to achieve just this outcome. Should not surprise anyone.

    1. Re:Well, what did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

    2. Re: Well, what did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, solid arguments here. You must be a member of the Eurojugend. Have you signed up to bring war to the UK and lay your life down for the glory of Europe (heil!)?

    3. Re: Well, what did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, I like _your_ arguments.

    4. Re:Well, what did you expect by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Juncker (and many others, like Mr. Schulz) worked long and hard to achieve just this outcome.

      Not sure about that. Merkel and Juncker are undoubtedly pro-EU. That "divorce" could trigger a high rise of anti-EU advocates within Europe, that may have an impact on next elections (eg France in early 2017).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:Well, what did you expect by Teun · · Score: 1

      Right along the wishes of general De Gaulle who rests a lot better now :)
      Funny but rather unrealistic.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Well, what did you expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Juncker (and many others, like Mr. Schulz) worked long and hard to achieve just this outcome. Should not surprise anyone.

      You just mentioned three people who were opposed to a Brexit. You should blame people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, as well as all the idiots who believed their lies.

    7. Re:Well, what did you expect by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      With France voting for a dumbfuck like Hollande, I hardly think anything can make them do worse in their next elections.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Well, what did you expect by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      France voted *against* Sarkozy, there is a difference.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:Well, what did you expect by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The same reason Trump will get elected no doubt.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Well, what did you expect by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      He was probably trolling, but in some sense he is right.
      For the last couple of years, maybe even last decade, there have been increasing signs that the people are unhappy with the direction their government and the EU in general is taking.
      Instead of addressing these concerns they have pushed ahead, assuming that everyone would understand that the leaders know best. And this has increased the dissatisfaction of large portions of the population.
      Maybe they really do believe its only a small fringe group, maybe they are too insulation from opposing opinion.
      Or maybe they got complacent and assumed no one would fight back.
      They (the pro-EU people) seem to have their pet projects and everyone who opposes them is ignored as racist or lunatic fringe.
      Even if you believe that over half your population is racist, you still have to face the reality that you can't simply ignore them.

  4. G-Day Mate by johnsnails · · Score: 0

    I for one re-welcome our British overlords. Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi.

  5. FIRST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FIRST!!! we stay in! I win!

  6. Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the EU is supposed to serve several purposes: common market, free labor movement and mutual support for countries. But it turned out that free labor movement doesn't provide a lot of benefits to Britain and everybody remembers well how Germany raped Greece instead of helping it.

    The question of free trade still remains, Britain will have to secure trade deals with lots of countries.

    1. Re:Good for them by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany "raped" Greece? How so? The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country - or rather, they ran it into the ground. What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

    2. Re:Good for them by julian67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the EU when people say "free movement" what they actually mean is "cheap labour". That's great for multinationals and very large national businesses, but horrible for anyone trying to pay the mortgage/rent, maintain the family and so on.

    3. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany Raped Greece? WTF? Greece raped themselves and then complained the authorities didn't help and compensate them enough for the crime they committed on themselves.

    4. Re:Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By insisting on Greece paying debts at a rate that is insurmountable and not providing any form of relief. Had Greece been out of the EU, they could have devalued their currency and/or defaulted on their debts. After a couple of years of turmoil they could have achieved sustainable growth. I suggest reading: https://yanisvaroufakis.eu/ if you care about it.

      So back to my statement - it was clear that Greece had made a lot of mistakes. Should it have been raped for them? What's they purpose of the union, then?

    5. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't offer any relief? Between all the rounds of negotiation, around 75% of their debt was written off!

    6. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      common market, free labor movement and mutual support for countries.

      The mutual support is not so much in EU agenda. Sure, agricultural support is a big thing, as well as removing them gradually. So is development support to a particular projects. Since the EU doesn't have a common tax policy, or a common view on social security and other issues besides the issues that cross the borders, the mutual support is not yet really materialized. It would take a whole new level of EU integration to make it actually possible.

      The question of free trade still remains, Britain will have to secure trade deals with lots of countries.

      The brexit supporting politicians have already talked optimistically about the future free-trade agreement with the EU, while also holding the position that one of the key reasons for leaving the EU was to protect the UK (steel) industry with tariffs. That position could be characterized as being little naive.

    7. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations are in order. The UK secured its freedom tonight. Maybe they'll be able to help fight against the inevitable European caliphate.

    8. Re:Good for them by bkmoore · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country....What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

      The reasonable alternative would have been to allow Greece to declare bankrupcy and allow those banks who invested in Greece to fail.

    9. Re: Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it wasn't. It was restructured for a longer payoff and is still unsustainable. During the last year's standoff, the Troika dangled a carrot of 20% write-off - it failed to materialize, even though Greece imposed austerity on the level that has not been seen in a peacetime in Europe.

    10. Re:Good for them by Ubi_NL · · Score: 1

      You are mistaking the Euro for the European Union

      --

      If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    11. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And were forced into austerity measures that would leave their people as slaves for the next century. Doesn't sound like relief to me. The thing that some of our banksters tend to forget is that to be a successful parasite you should avoid killing the host.

    12. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most EU countries will be more than happy to secure mutual trade deals with the UK. Unlike the old drunk of Juncker, I think they will do what's most beneficial to everyone.

    13. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Greece has been propped up at unprecedented rates. I'd be delighted to be showered with so much money. I'd even let you call it rape. It should come as no surprise that the rest of the Eurozone is not keen on just wiping out Greece's debt, because there is not a shred of doubt that Greece's communist (literally, not pejoratively) government would immediately use the opportunity and "max out the credit card" again. Every leniency short of that has however been granted.

      IMHO that leniency was a massive mistake. The devastating effects of a Grexit on the Greek economy and on its people would have shown people all over Europe that the promises of Pied Piper Farrage and his ilk are sweet lies, and it would have tanked a smaller country. Now the UK is in the unenviable situation to serve as the showcase by which even poor people will learn how much they actually benefit from a huge common market in Europe and how damaging the decision to leave is.

    14. Re:Good for them by nikkipolya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, it was Greece that mismanaged its finances. But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures just when the country needed a boost from fiscal spending. Austerity does no good in the short term. Remember, when Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns et al went down, if US govt prescribed austerity where do you think US economy and unemployment would have been? Instead, the Fed bailed out all and sundry. And that resulted in a quick recovery and a return to stability of the markets. In the long run, the country needs structural reforms and a return to fiscal discipline. But in the short run its fiscal spending that delivers a shot in the arm. So Germany didn't give Greece a shot in the arm when it was ailing. Also, Greece unfortunately is also in the currency block. And the ECB is... well no body understand how its supposed to function including the people running ECB. If Greece had its own currency, a currency devaluation, and may be a QE would have helped Greece. But the Euro is not in its control. And Germany does not want a devaluated Euro because they are doing good. I think its best in the long run that the the Euro is disbanded.

    15. Re:Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. It was pretty clear that exit from Euro was considered a high treason.

      And again, it's immaterial. EU has shown that if your government makes a mistake (or even if it doesn't - see "Spain") and you fall on hard times, then instead of getting help you will be beaten into a pulp and left to be picked up by vultures.

    16. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would have lead to a domino effect. Do you think Greece was the only euro country with money issues? They were just the worst of.

    17. Re: Good for them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it means that I can work un any EU country without a hassle if I am un the mood for that. It also means that i can retire to any EU country and still enjoy the same benefits and medical services as the citizens. And I will probably retire to Slovakia - low cost of living, beautiful nature and I like slavic languages, except polish that is.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    18. Re:Good for them by encad · · Score: 1

      The greece people can thank the UK for that as well (most of the neocon/neolib shit we have to deal nowadays had its root in Fletchernomics including financial deregulation), and the UK leaving will probably shift the current balance.
      The UK blocked tons and tons of regulation that would have lead to a more social EU, all southern EU states and France tried to push legislation there for about 2 decades. So very interesting to see what might happen in the next 5 years.

      Greeces financial situation was and is completly mishandled. Island didnt rescue its banks and that should have happend in Greece as well.
      Bending over the large populace of Greece was the complete wrong way to handle this and a lot of german politicians feel similar about this, but were / are not in power when these decisions were made.

    19. Re:Good for them by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now the UK is in the unenviable situation to serve as the showcase by which even poor people will learn how much they actually benefit from a huge common market in Europe and how damaging the decision to leave is.

      Yeah, because Norway and Switzerland weren't example enough of how bad it is to not be in the European Union.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    20. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it hasn't. Greece's credits have - banks from large countries.

    21. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes- a vibrant, diverse population, enough so to have a Latino night at a gay-oriented nightclub.

      Asshole

    22. Re:Good for them by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It was Goldman Sachs telling Greece to invest in the USA and the 2008 stock crash that fucked them over big time. Everything else has just been kicking them while they are down.

      I find it very funny that Americans like to make fun of the financial shortcomings of Greece. All they did wrong was to trust in the US economy.

    23. Re:Good for them by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well they got cheap loans and noone said no since it was in euro and the consensus was that the whole EU stood behind the euro so loans to goverment was safe.

      Had Greece had their own currency, they would never have gotten so many loans and thus the mistake would not had happend.

      The sadest part is that Greece only was accepted into the euro by "creative" bookkeeping. They should never have been let in. But the leaders of EU wanted so many as possible members nations to join the Euro that even greece managed to squeze in. If the rules to join had been more clear the greece tragegy would never had happen.

      It could have been avoided if EU had insisted on sound economy to join the Euro.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    24. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Not only Germany, but the ultra-liberal faction (among others, Juncker, who had set up a tax haven in the middle of the EU). But Germany was decisive, with a tactic which had worked wonders whithin Germany: Agenda 2010.

      Just rig the public opinion towards "those are lazy people living on your tax money" -- with a variable binding for "those": the jobless, the Greek, the immigrants.

      Seems your brain was successfully washed too. Congrats.

      Seems they've been playing with fire for too long: by now there's a robust bushfire all around with those repugnant neocon populist parties. Thanks, Juncker!, Thanks, EVP! Thanks, Conservatives! May you all die painfully in the fire you set yourselves!

    25. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is fair in principle, but a sick Greece, a sick Spain, and a moderately sick Italy drive down the price of the Euro considerably. This makes a country with a reasonably lush social benefits package competitive in the export market. Enjoy your VW and your Keurig.

    26. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free movement for fat autistic neckbeards is certainly worth giving up national sovereignty to unelected foreign representatives.

    27. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll have to excuse CyberAx, he's Putin's resident Slashdot propagandist. He tried to pass off a burnt barbie doll as a real human victim of "Western support for the Ukraine" once... yeah, really. Don't expect any common sense from him, or in fact, any sense at all.

    28. Re:Good for them by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Actually it means choice. It means that I am able to get a job 15km south of where I live in a place where they speak the same language without some arbitrary line drawn in the sand. This may seem strange to the almighty USA where you have a huge amount of land, and a huge amount of options in a country of 300+ million people, but your view would be quite different if you were to artificially be limited to a radius of places you can drive within an hour.

      Stop pretending barriers are good just because done people don't fit your world view. But free movement does not mean cheap labour.

    29. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Orlando shooter was an American.

    30. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sadest part is that Greece only was accepted into the euro by "creative" bookkeeping. They should never have been let in.

      All, except for IIRC Luxembourg and The Netherlands, got in the Euro by creative bookkeeping.

    31. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unlike most European countries, Norway is rich in natural resources (oil and gas). Switzerland is the "secret" stash of European criminals (all collar colours). In a way the UK was justified to compare itself to these countries as long as it was in the EU, but the influence and value of "the City" depends on the EU membership, so the UK will not only find itself without equal access to the common market, and the many concessions it negotiated with the EU wiped out, but also one of the big reasons for its influence on Europe fleeing the country. I understand that people in favor of Brexit are ecstatic now, but they too will learn to understand what damage they've done first and foremost to their own interests.

    32. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations are in order. The UK secured its freedom tonight. Maybe they'll be able to help fight against the inevitable European caliphate.

      You must be joking right? Didn't you recently vote for muslim mayor of London? London is full of muslims just take a walk in the Easter part of it and look around.

    33. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. It also means you can buy a cheap vacation or seasonal property in another country and even work there without any egregious paperwork or red tape to deal with. I think a lot of Brits who holiday abroad are going to have some pretty interesting snafus in the next year.

    34. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation. As desirable as a more lenient approach from Germany and others would be, it won't change Greek history of the 2000s.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    35. Re: Good for them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3

      Yes, because elected and unelected local representatives make more stupid decisions since they don't have to compromise with elected and unelected foreign representatives. Many EU directives are more sensible than the local laws have previously been.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    36. Re:Good for them by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Norway is a great example of what is about to happen to us. A decade long recession, followed by re-joining the common market and accepting all the rules out of desperation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrm if only there was a way to avoid setting up the dominoes...

      I dunno, that would probably require leaving the EU tho

    38. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greece is the symptom, not the problem. You can't have monetary unity without also having political and banking unity. Otherwise you wind up with all kinds of problems. Milton Friedman predicted it ( https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-euro--monetary-unity-to-political-disunity ) but that bastion of Austrian economics, the L.A. Times, concurs ( http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-garton-ash-greece-germany-austerity-standoff-20150310-story.html ).

      Even though I'm an American and the Euro collapsing is good for me, it isn't something I want to happen. But I think it is going to happen. Political and banking unity is just too far off. The question is only how long it takes and how much suffering it causes before it finally happens.

    39. Re:Good for them by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Informative

      Had Greece been out of the EU, they could have devalued their currency and/or defaulted on their debts. After a couple of years of turmoil they could have achieved sustainable growth.

      While I agree with the first part, I can't see how you can get the second from it. Have you ever worked/lived in Greece, or tried to run a company there? I'd rather try running a company in Nigeria, it has the same level of dysfunctionality and corruption but at least it's out in the open, and you can buy your way past any obstacles. In Greece, everything is unfuriatingly broken but you also typically can't buy your way past the obstacles (exceptions being for medical treatment and similar). I honestly don't know how you can fix that country short of some sort of reformat-and-reinstall.

      I'm not saying this to bash Greece, just that having experienced it as a business environment I can't imagine how you'd fix it, there's just no easy solution I can think of.

    40. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with equality for the law. I've used that freedom to work in multiple other EU countries, and I wouldn't classify as cheap labour in any of those. And at my current company, one of our 5 employees is from Spain, so it's not just large business either. But that same right extends to everyone, including the Poles, so they definitely did have the same right to work in the UK as I did.

      Note that free movement of people is actually a benefit for the Western European countries; with free movement of companies but not people you would have seen the opposite effect: companies moving towards the cheap labour instead of the other way around. That would have shifted the taxes as well.

    41. Re:Good for them by ttucker · · Score: 0

      Germany raped Greece instead of helping it.

      . Should it have been raped for them? What's they purpose of the union, then?

      I appreciate that you are attempting to use the word rape in this context as hyperbole.. but since you never actually say what Germany did to Greece, it sounds a lot like you are trying to say that the country of Germany literally just forcibly had sex with the country Greece.

    42. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Well, as long as having to polish your Slovakian doesn't discourage you... ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    43. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you primary source of income is tax evasion or oil you don't have to be in any unions

    44. Re:Good for them by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures just when the country needed a boost from fiscal spending.

      Problem is it needed responsible fiscal spending, not just spending. Greece is great at spending, but the vast majority of it is completely irresponsible. Providing more money would just have lead to more of the same. The only options were to bring in regulators to tell the Greeks how to spend (which wouldn't have gone down at all well) or to cut off the credit (which didn't go so well either). It's not something that can be fixed by any external agency, you'd need to reform the Greek way of doing business.

    45. Re:Good for them by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Norway is a member of EFTA, and enjoys many of the benefits of being in the EU, without being in the EU.

    46. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem in the rest of the world is that money and goods can cross borders freely but people cannot. That system allows businesses to buy cheaper labor in foreign markets but prevents local laborers from going to the place where those jobs would pay the rent. At least with freedom of movement people can theoretically move to do the job they want to do (though obviously that is not always practical). There are lots of problems with international trade agreements but many of them are made better by ensuring that people have the same freedoms that capital enjoys, even if capital still gets the better deal.

      And of course there are all the social benefits to not being forbidden from working or living in the place where you want to live; that may or may not be valuable to you individually but it has obvious value for society as a whole.

    47. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Keep up that thinking, and you will have no Union left. The strong protect the week, the rich protect the poor, that is what a Union is all about. Great Britain is just the start my friend.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    48. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Trust me, the US will gladly accept Great Britain as a common trading partner.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    49. Re: Good for them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And were forced into austerity measures that would leave their people as slaves for the next century.

      That was done as an example to Italy, Spain and Portugal (and maybe France too). If Greece had been let off easy, others would have wanted the same deal, and the dominoes would have fallen. By making the bailout prohibitively painful, the Germans created a firewall that stopped the rot from spreading.

    50. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      So basically you are saying good riddance the Britain?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    51. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 2

      And Britain wants no part of.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    52. Re:Good for them by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      So corruption isn't really an issue in Greece?

      Well, you learn something new every day.

    53. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and why wouldn't they. So will the EU. But the negotiation position of the UK has changed dramatically. If you believe that won't have real, tangible effects, you are in for a nasty surprise.

    54. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumping the Euro and resurrecting their old currency is not a serious option. Devaluation and hence inflation would be massive and anyone who could would move their money elsewhere. It is suggested that leaving the Euro (search "Eurogeddon" for more info) would cost a nation about 40% of its GDP.

    55. Re: Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Apparently the people of Great Britain see things differently. Probably best that you all are parting ways then.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    56. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears that current days of Tsipras and Varoufakis (who proved to be an outstanding malaka: good riddance), the condition of Greece is not getting better either: they are implementing cuts where they should not and leaving this army of hopeless, useless, byzantine, civil servants (together with the perks and the benefits included with the job description) where they are (I can actually spend hours elaborating this topic): and that’s only one side of the problem. Please do not forget that Greece is in this state because of mismanagement and corruption (the latter being construed as a result of an agreement between a corruptor and a corrupted), this drove the country straight in the end of – literally – the worst kind of loan sharks.

      With that said, I do not really believe EU (or the Germans) is to be held or considered a “rapist”, and it is definitely a large order to think otherwise.

      As for UK... well, I am very sorry to see all this fine people suffer the consequences (and I am inclined to believe that it will be a disaster for them) of this referendum, blatantly misleaded by populism, lies and hidden interests.

    57. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Norway has oil, oil and ... oil. Switzerland has banks, banks and ... banks. You simply can't compare Norway with any other country. Norway is the Saudi Arabia of the north and just gives away free money to its citizens in the form of a national fund. Switzerland is also a country you can't compare. It was the only stable country during the 19th and 20th centuries. All other countries have either been invaded or have been in civil wars. Switzerland was neutral, had a booming banking sector for centuries and has been able to profit from all corrupt regimes and wars since the early 19th century. Their neutrality and of course touristic country is what made them rich. Of course they would not vote to throw all this away to join the EU.

      Other European countries all profited from the single market, but also suffered from the single currency and the weird laws. The UK has fallen to populism. I really never thought the Brexit campaign would be successful. Yes, there are many things wrong with the EU. Too much super state, too little connection with its population. But populist nationalism? This is never the answer to make things better. But the fault is with the current elites who just do everything the population doesn't want. But in the US it is the same. Democrats who do a childish 24 hour sit down in the parliament (or whatever it is called)? I would never vote for such a bunch of kids, but the alternative today is ... Trump. Well how many Americans will be convinced to not vote when they are democrat by this childish act? And how many swingers will now vote for Trump? If Trump becomes president it is not the fault of the 'racist dumb voters' but of the 'rich educated but ignorant and 'look down upon the average guy' establishment', just like in the UK today.

      Geert Wilders, Marie Le Pen, and other extreme right wing or left wing totalitarian politicians are now applauding the Brexit, hoping to destroy the EU and return to the early 20th century, competing on a Darwinian capitalistic way with all means possible including devaluation, tax on imports, .... I hope the stupid establishment will finally listen to the public and immediately stop this multicultural experiment of mass immigration of the third world. We can't even take care of our elderly people. How will we be able to take care for people who can't read or speak the language and still believe in medieval logic. It's this trying to do good and not evil that has given rise to totalitarian left wing and extreme right... (but it is humane, nobody is illegal, everyone deserves a chance, ....)

    58. Re:Good for them by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Not just multinationals, it's great for the small software industry, and I am now very worried about my career future. London has a very large number of smallish software houses that are populated with EU labour, UK doesn't produce enough software developers on its own. They are too small to do visa things to find someone from abroad and bring them over, so are likely to be very badly affected by losing these foreign developers.

    59. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      A Union is like a family. The strong help the weak, the rich help the poor.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    60. Re: Good for them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Haha, good one. I speak Czech (not so good, though) and Russian (pretty fluently) and a bit of Croatian, so Slovakian won't be that difficult.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    61. Re: Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Again, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

      Austerity does NOT help Greece, it's purely a punitive measure. And you might argue that Greece might have "deserved" it, but Spain had fiscal surpluses and its crisis was purely driven by private investors. Yet it still has to suffer.

    62. Re:Good for them by encad · · Score: 1

      They do, but they have zero policy control ...

      So the EU can alter the deal and Norway can only hope that they don't alter it further.
      Switzerland is in a different position, since they manage a large amount of grey and black money and could inflict serious damage if they want to.

    63. Re:Good for them by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Germany "raped" Greece? How so? The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country - or rather, they ran it into the ground. What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

      They raped them with the "bailouts" that are really loans to pay off loans that can't be paid back.

    64. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The strongest party in a negotiation is the one that can afford to walk away. Who does anyone who disagrees with the parent thinks is in the stronger position, the UK or the EU.

      So, well done Brexiters, despite all the whining about "undemocraticness", you've basically guaranteed the same deal we had before except now we get absolutely zero say in it at all. How's that for democratic?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    65. Re:Good for them by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seriously, you are mistaken. It was more about lack of borders, inability to control immigration of refugees, loss of jobs, and bureaucrats in Brussels setting regulations which everyone has to comply to (essentially equivalent to Federal Law in the United States).

      The Brexit people produced some really bad (slanted/lying) data on the regulations by the way. For details,see John Oliver's show on Brexit.

      The Eurozone and the EU are related but different things.

      I have no opinion on Brexit either way. It will probably be a mixture of good and bad.

      The EU is going to try to make it hard because several other members are skating along the edge of leaving and it could become a thing.

      And if it does, it might mean regional wars again in a generation.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    66. Re: Good for them by Kartu · · Score: 1

      "Restructured for a longer payoff" is exactly where they pay less interest rates.
      Which contradicts your previous statements.

    67. Re:Good for them by stealth_finger · · Score: 0

      By insisting on Greece paying debts at a rate that is insurmountable and not providing any form of relief.

      Hey, sucks you have no money, now where's all the money you owe us.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    68. Re:Good for them by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You see to be confused, cheap labour is what the Leave campaign wants. Free trade deals with companies like China, so that manufacturing and services can be moved there. We are trying to become more like the US, where your job gets offshored to somewhere cheaper because there are no rules to protect you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    69. Re:Good for them by Kartu · · Score: 2

      It's not even about that Norway is filled with oil and gas and what not (e.g. hydroreources that allow them to generate 140% of their need from renewables at the moment) and Switzerland has insane banking sector.

      It's about the role UK had in EU.

      From now on there will be no serious player within EU who would try to stop further federalization.
      Influence of UK over EU and the whole world will fade.
      Even more so, if Northern Ireland/Scotland will leave.

    70. Re:Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Of course regular people (i.e. not macroeconomics nerds) don't say: "We're leaving because EU doesn't have mechanism to provide Keynesian stimulus in case of problems". They just see that the EU is useless for many countries - life in Greece, Spain and Italy has not become any better after years in EU. So why keep on doing it?

      But of course, migrant crisis hasn't helped at all.

    71. Re: Good for them by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      No, it means that I can work un any EU country without a hassle

      Which causes the labor costs to decrease for employers in Western Europe.

      I.E. cheap labor, as julian67 correctly remarked.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    72. Re:Good for them by Bongo · · Score: 1

      But populist nationalism?

      A few years ago UKIP had (regrettably) as much as 4 million votes. But with Brexit we had 17 million voting to leave. I can't imagine they were all "populist nationalists". One thing I haven't heard much is whether the EU is too big, too complex, and too opaque. I'm personally a European at heart, and am a mix of nationalities, but that doesn't mean I know that the EU, as a political system, works.

    73. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't EFTA membership require accepting "free movement of labour" that was one of the main arguments for the brexit?

    74. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Sadly yes, it does.

      In the UK wages are not matching the price of housing. This is because there is more competition for jobs and for homes due to mass immigration.

      That competition for jobs driving lower wages is great for businesses, helps successive governments meet short term growth goals, but has been establishing long term damage to the economy as a result.

    75. Re:Good for them by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      Greece put themselves in massive debt, no one tied them down and said "here, spend this money on hookers and blow and then from next week your arse is mine". What they did was run up the credit card on the equivalent of hookers and blow and then act surprised that harsh conditions were placed on new money. Greece didn't make a lot of mistakes, the problem is they are STILL making a lot of mistakes, hence the draconian conditions.

    76. Re:Good for them by Cyberax · · Score: 0

      Greece didn't make a lot of mistakes, the problem is they are STILL making a lot of mistakes, hence the draconian conditions.

      No. The demands of the Troika do NOTHING to improve the situation in Greece, they are simply punitive measures. Spain also has the same problem, except that in their case it was not even caused by the government missteps.

    77. Re:Good for them by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Right, you have to agree to everything the US and its assorted "international community" do or say, else you're a Putin stooge!

      Nevermind who launched all the wars on countries bordering the Black Sea and Mediterranean.

    78. Re:Good for them by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country....What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

      The reasonable alternative would have been to allow Greece to declare bankrupcy and allow those banks who invested in Greece to fail.

      That is only reasonable if the desired result was the effect of at least 2 or 3 other countries to follow suit on bankruptcy and the entire EU to collapse along with jobs and businesses.

    79. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also pays for membership like every other EU member.

    80. Re:Good for them by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Haha... hahahaha... If you think that the UK has a better negotiating position alone than in the EU about free trade, you are seriously deranged.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    81. Re:Good for them by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      You don't help a drug addict by giving them more money for the next hit.

    82. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck London, go build your multinational utopia somewhere that I don't end up paying for it - e.g. see
      http://www.theguardian.com/new...

      UK doesn't produce enough software developers on its own

      That's because it's a stupid career option, you spend a lot of time and effort finding out that your career growth stops at 30 and you're competing with Indians and Bulgarians for jobs all the time - onshore and offshore.

      If you want a strong UK software development industry then perhaps try training some British graduates instead of hiring fucking EU labour in London.

    83. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greece is corrupt from the ground up, try doing business there and then come back and say this was all GS's fault. I am sure they contributed but Greece is fundamentally broken politically and economically and has been since the late 1990's

    84. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The problem with free movement is that people migrate from poor economies to strong ones.

      I don't have an issue with this, and I work for a large business with a very multinational workforce in its US, UK and European offices.

      I do have an issue with the UK being full. There's no more room.
      I do have an issue with the UK making social security payments to children in Poland.
      I do have an issue with the migration causing wages and resultant standards of living being lowered towards those of the poorer countries, instead of the free trade helping those countries come up instead.

      So while your points are valid there are many other factors, and the British people have said very clearly that those other factors just haven't been dealt with by the ruling elite.

    85. Re: Good for them by javilon · · Score: 1

      The best path for Greece would have been to leave the eurozone, default and move to its own currency. They would start from scratch and eventually be better off. They were told that this would not be allowed. They are hostages.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    86. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since the peasants last marched on London, but it's happened before and (yet another) failure by the political classes to listen to the voting public this time may lead it to happen again.

    87. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make sense, if people are willing to migrate to offer cheap labour, they're doing so because it means they're getting paid more than they were elsewhere, so from the worker's perspective they're not cheap labour, but in fact well paid labour compared to salaries back home, and so it's inherently good for them when it comes to paying the mortgage etc.

      The only people it sucks for are for people who think they're worth more than they actually are, who expect to be subsidised well beyond what they're capable of actually offering to the economy.

      Even highly paid workers like myself benefit, because I can go to which ever country is willing to pay the most for my skillset hence increasing my salary.

      So unless you're the jobs for life, the world owes me a free ride type of person then free movement is a massive benefit.

    88. Re: Good for them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      How so? I am from Germany.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    89. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      You must be responding to someone else, since I never mentioned anything about the Greeks deserving anything, nor did I applaud austerity measures.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    90. Re:Good for them by iris-n · · Score: 1

      By lending Greece money with unrealistic pay back terms they are simply guaranteed not to get paid back. This is not a prediction, this is just history. Greece already had three bailouts, and might need a fourth.

      --
      entropy happens
    91. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Hint: Just speak Czech, Slovaks will love you!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    92. Re: Good for them by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Yep, and good riddance.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    93. Re:Good for them by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      That is only reasonable if the desired result was the effect of at least 2 or 3 other countries to follow suit on bankruptcy and the entire EU to collapse along with jobs and businesses.

      If that is the case, and it may very well be, then the Euro is not a sustainable currency.

    94. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU hasn't been "giving" money to Greece to help to poor people restructure their debt. The EU has been socializing bad bank loans. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

    95. Re:Good for them by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      The strongest party in a negotiation is the one that can afford to walk away. Who does anyone who disagrees with the parent thinks is in the stronger position, the UK or the EU.

      The UK... The UK is the world's oldest democracy and has stood for nearly a thousand years...

      It has been in the EU for 43 years, it'll do just fine outside it...

      It also has the world's 6th largest economy and a very powerful friend in the United States... a LOT of Americans would take the UK's side over the EU's, and if Trump becomes President, so will he...

    96. Re:Good for them by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Huh what? GDP from 1960s until today, please do tell when we had a "decade long recession".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    97. Re:Good for them by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Or, it may mean that somebody comes from another country and offers to do your job for half the salary (because to him, half your salary is a huge pile of money, he can do your job for a while, save up, then go back home and be rich), so your boss asks you whether you want to be let go or stay, but only earn half as much (why should he pay you more).

      Or how about this: somebody comes from a different country, does not want to work and asks the government of your country to give welfare to him.

      I am from a country where wages a low, so people have been going to Norway and the UK for work (and welfare), so, to the people of my country, Brexit is bad, but I can understand the people of the UK - I would not want some Russian or whoever to offer to do my job for half the salary (of course, people from outside the EU are not easily allowed in and our wages (and welfare payments) are lower than most of the EU so nobody wants to come, horray, I guess?).

    98. Re:Good for them by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      Fuck London, go build your multinational utopia somewhere that I don't end up paying for it - e.g. see
      http://www.theguardian.com/new...

      I don't disagree actually - but putting the blame on the EU is the wrong place. It's the government's job to even out the economic benefits, something the last Labour government did barely, and the current one has actively made worse.

      If you want a strong UK software development industry then perhaps try training some British graduates instead of hiring fucking EU labour in London.

      Would love to, but there aren't enough here to hire.

    99. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You implied it clear as day. You even put it italics dude. I don't know about Cyberax but I know how you argue these things. You're one of those "I'll just leave this here"/"I'm not ssaying anything I'm just asking questions". Give up.

    100. Re:Good for them by Teun · · Score: 2
      I'm afraid you believe in fairies.

      Before the euro the southern European countries had such free floating and thus constantly devaluing currencies and it never came to stabilise and develop their economies.
      They just kept living of others, that has in the case of the Greek joining the euro backfired on them, the Italians and Spaniards seem to have seen the light.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    101. Re:Good for them by Teun · · Score: 2
      I see absolutely nothing wrong with further European federalisation.
      This is not about losing sovereignty but instead bringing it to a higher level.
      Once the EU becomes better integrated its (and our) sovereignty will be much more valuable than the present sovereignty of a bunch of individual small countries.

      Small includes the UK, Germany and France, because they are small set off against the US, Russia and China.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    102. Re:Good for them by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We won't get the same deal because we can't walk away. 45% of our exports go to Europe, where as 14% of theirs come here. We have much, much more to lose. In fact for them tariffs on 14% of their exports are a relatively small price to pay compared to further break up of the EU.

      Anyway, the UKIPers and Europhobic part of the Tory party will demand we don't agree to freedom of movement, which is an absolute non-negotiable requirement of being in the Single Market and getting the deal we currently have. Again, the EU stands to lose far, far more by giving us an exemption so there is 0% chance they will.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    103. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has been in the EU for 43 years, it'll do just fine outside it...

      If you mean that we'll survive: of course we will. However, what's likely is we'll have yet another long recession followed up by signing up to a bunch of rules we have literally no say in and no way of changing.

      It won't be good for us. And it's a great win for xenophobia and stupidity.

      It also has the world's 6th largest economy and a very powerful friend in the United States... a LOT of Americans would take the UK's side over the EU's, and if Trump becomes President, so will he...

      A friend, like the one who always hovers round offering favours yet never gets as much in return. And ironically, Trump winning may well actually be better for us now than the alternative. I can't find myself supporting him though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    104. Re:Good for them by Teun · · Score: 1

      Interesting.
      Yes the UK has been a stumbling block for further improvements for the common people of the EU.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    105. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corruption is a huge issue, but if you have a strong economy then you can afford corruption.
      When the economy tanked there wasn't enough money to sustain both corruption and a functioning society, one of them had to go.

    106. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was pretty obvious that the correct thing was to let Greece go bankcrupt. The losers would have been German and French banks who has loaned money to Greece.

      In stead, they forced Greece to loan money from EU goverments to pay the German an French banks. I'm from Finland so I know. Basically that bitch Merkel wanted to a) punish Greece and b) make others pay her banks the money (if Greece would have bankcrupted, Germany would have to had refinance the banks).

    107. Re:Good for them by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that what started out as an "Economic Community" is rapidly turning into a central government and bureaucracy that answers to no one. Nor to mention the fact that those who finance the EU keep having their actual voting power diluted with every new drowning rat of a nation that is rescued by the good ship EU, so your vote is worth less, you get to pay more, and the newcomers who only contribute to the expenses side of the balance sheet get to outvote you when it comes to spending your money.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    108. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side!

      What might happen is that we get exactly the same deal as we have now except we won't get any say in what the deal is.

      The bright side of that is that the current UK government has been doing a lot of stupid stuff in Europe, and are largely responsible for blocking tarriffs on governmnet-backed steel dumping from China which will destroy the European (UK included) steel industry.

      So we might end up with protections of Europe but without the ability to weaken them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    109. Re:Good for them by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that the people who would lose money from that are the very people who Greece would ask for more money post-bankruptcy, Greece literally has no one else to turn to - the IMF loans had worse terms than the ECB loans.

      So its very hard to expect to be allowed to fuck over today the people you are going to beg money from tomorrow.

    110. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Greeks didn't ‘make a mistake’ – they defrauded us. And if the EU hadn't initially kept Greece afloat, it would have hit rock bottom much sooner and much harder. The trouble with propping up the Greeks was that they didn't see it as a temporary measure to haul a country through hard times, but as something permanent that didn't require any sort of reform on the Greeks' part. They saw it as tribute which they were rightfully owed by their barbarian vassal states. Hopefully they're learning their lesson.

    111. Re:Good for them by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Except mama just won't stop having babies there's a new one every year, and none of the kids feel the need to work, it's just all too easy to ask daddy for money all the time. Well daddy just said "you know what? Fuck you. You're all grown up. It's time you got your own job, son".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    112. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From now on there will be no serious player within EU who would try to stop further federalization.

      That's probably a good thing! I'm not kidding.

      I strongly believe Europe is at the wrong level of federalization, one doomed to fail by which I mean the level of federalization by necessity will change, not that Europe will fail. The reason is the central currency without central taxation.

      The problem was exemplified by Greece to some extent, though there were other things involved there. For example, Germany has strong exports meaning there is essentially a net flow of money in. Without being to float their currency, the flow of money out of somewhere like Greece does not work well and is not sustainable. This is ALWAYS the case on any national level. There are richer, more vibrant areas (e.g. London in the UK) and poorer, less vibrant ones (say, Wales) and the central taxation means that the money can be redistributed so that the trade hubs don't end up acting as giant black holes.

      Now the EU has a central currency, I believe that an EU Federal taxation scheme will eventually happen because there is no way of operating something country sized without shifting money around. It's also the way the US works with the blue states subsidizing the red ones for the greater good (i.e. keeping the country whole).

      What may well happen is we leave and stop fucking up Europe. Europe will get stronger and we'll have a recession. Eventually we'll re-join the single market and accept all of the rules. That way we'll have a nice strong Europe to trade with which will be god for us but no influence with which to fuck it up.

      Yes that's cynical and no the world isn't that simple but I don't have a whole hell of a lot of faith in my fellow countrymen just now, so cut me some slack, OK?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    113. Re:Good for them by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it was Greece that mismanaged its finances. But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures just when the country needed a boost from fiscal spending. Austerity does no good in the short term. Remember, when Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns et al went down, if US govt prescribed austerity where do you think US economy and unemployment would have been?

      There's a huge difference between the US saving the US economy and the EU saving the Greek economy. This is more like Rhode Island spending money like a drunken sailor, then expect federal funds to bail them out when they go bankrupt. Germany would be the equivalent of California saying hell no, you caused it you get to suffer for it. That Greece started acting like Germany was the problem and not Greece didn't exactly help matters. If they'd approached it with some humility, maybe Germany would want to help instead it sounded like a demand and a threat.

      So yeah, Germany essentially said fuck you. We're going to do just enough that the creditors don't shut you down and no more. And if you don't take the deal we'll kick you to the curb and you can go live under a bridge or something. They could have made a quick fix, but then the Greek attitude wouldn't have changed and they'd soon be back for more. Are they overdoing it? Maybe. I think the point has been driven home now, if you fuck up your economy it's going to be fucked for a long time and nobody's going to fix it for you so don't do it. It's time to get a real recovery started, at least.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    114. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And austerity in core public services is the absolute worst thing a country can do to recover their economy. Let's fire everybody! That will get things going again!

      Greece's problems were laregly of their own making to begin with, but then the bankers simply decided to kick them when they were down. The local theory that they were trying to force bankcruptcy simply to scoop up all of Greece's assets at rock bottom prices really wasn't too far from the truth.

      There is much written by actual economists (not the businessmen who pretend to be them on tv, I'm talking about real ones) about how bat shit insane the whole idea of austerity as a means to economic salvation is.

      It's once again just a game of misdirection for the rich to sell trickle down economics under a different name. Lower our taxes and trust us! Everything will be great!

    115. Re:Good for them by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like in the US where cheap Southern labor undermines the rest of the country?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    116. Re:Good for them by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If that happens I'll still be screwed because my fiancee is a non-EU national. The demand to get immigration down to "tens of thousands" and the fact that she will do badly in a points based system means there is now zero chance we will be able to live together in the UK.

      For me the best thing now would be for Scotland to leave the UK, re-join the EU and for me to emigrate there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    117. Re:Good for them by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      I do have an issue with the UK being full. There's no more room.

      Wrong. Very. We are 51st in the world at 262 people per square KM. By comparison, The Netherlands is 407, Belgium 371, Bermuda 1,254

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    118. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures

      The German's, in cahoots with the ECB and EU, attempted to topple the elected Greek Government by precipitating a general run on the Greek banking system. The EU and Financial markets talked for so long about the loss of national and economic sovereignty for smaller countries that they tried to force the matter in the most direct way possible. It would not have been entirely wrong for the Greek's to have treated the behavour of the Europeans in the early half of 2015 as an act of war.

      The EU as a partnership of democratic states is dead. All that remains now is a budding neoliberal superstate well on the path to hegemony and oligarchy. Countries need to get out as soon as possible before the inevitable implosion.

    119. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it was Greece that mismanaged its finances

      True or not, the general feeling for most of the EU countries was that Greece intentionally tried to swindle everyone...not "mismanaged"...

    120. Re:Good for them by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Ooh, Varoufakis. Such an unbiased source. /s

    121. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb ass statments like this just fucked us over.

      Noway have to adopt EU legislation and allow the free movement of people with -no-fucking-say

      From the 23,000 EU laws currently in force,[2] the EEA has incorporated around 5,000 (in force)[3] meaning that Norway is subject to roughly 21% of EU laws. According to Norway's Foreign Affairs (NOU 2012:2 p. 790, 795), from the legislative acts implemented from 1994 to 2010, 70% of EU directives and 17% of EU regulations in force in the EU in 2008 were in force in Norway in 2010.[4] Overall, this means that about 28% of EU legislation in force of these two types in 2008 were in force in Norway in 2010. While the Norwegian parliament has to approve all new legislation which has "significant new obligations", this has been widely supported and usually uncontested; between 1992 and 2011, 92% of EU laws were approved unanimously, and most of the rest by a broad majority.[5]

      This arrangement facilitates free movement of goods, capital, services and people between the EU and EFTA members including Norway.[5] Free movement of goods means freedom from customs fees, where however food and beverage is excluded (because those are subsidised by the EU). Free movement of people means freedom of movement for workers between Norway and EU, and that Norway is a part of the Schengen Area.[5]

    122. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      "Someone else has even less space, so we're not full" ?

      No.

    123. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to forget that main reason for Brexit vote was influx of refugees. Not Norway neither Switzerland have managed to isolate themselves from refugee crisis. So from now on UK will not have benefits of sharing this burden with other EU states. So they probably end up with even more of them. And this is still top of iceberg, with all sorts of concequences down the road. But indeed, people have spoken.

    124. Re:Good for them by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But they have to change the name to Airstrip One.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    125. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Goldman Sachs telling Greece to invest in the USA and the 2008 stock crash that fucked them over big time. Everything else has just been kicking them while they are down.

      I find it very funny that Americans like to make fun of the financial shortcomings of Greece. All they did wrong was to trust in the US economy.

      Heh. Right. It had nothing to do with Greece understating its deficit figures for many years prior to the crash and actually having double digit percentages for budget deficits since 2001. Or wide spread corruption and a common practice of tax avoidance. Or poor GDP growth.

      Greece has a history of trade and budget deficits and having to devalue their currency. Once they joined the EU they couldn't devalue anymore, so the only way to offset their deficits was to borrow from foreign financials. The 2008 crash stopped the easy flow of foreign money and Greece quickly went belly up.

      Also, they did stupid things like trade away the rights to future airport fees and lottery proceeds. Why? So they could get money to cover their deficits without it appearing like a loan. Why do that? Because they were very aware that investors/banks would shy away from them if they had too much outstanding debt. Why does that matter? Because Greece was hiding its deficits and bridging the difference with those loans. In short, Greece was a giant ponzi scheme.

    126. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it means cheap labour. Why do you think basically every construction site these days are flooded with Lithuanian and Polish workers, being paid peanuts?

    127. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If that happens I'll still be screwed because my fiancee is a non-EU national. The demand to get immigration down to "tens of thousands" and the fact that she will do badly in a points based system means there is now zero chance we will be able to live together in the UK.

      You have my sympathy. It's been insane for a few years trying to get non EU people hired. I tried doing it as an academic, where for each sub-sub-sub discipline, there are very few people worldwide who can (a) do the job (b) do it now and (c) do it here, for various specific values of a, b and c.

      I did eventually manage to hire a very highly qualified American, but bloody hell it was hard work. And we're talking highly qualified people here because it was for a postdoc position in engineering, which ought to be a no-brainer.

      But hey foreigners are evil! Now we can close our borders and everyone and their trade can fuck right off. Isolationism for the win!

      For me the best thing now would be for Scotland to leave the UK, re-join the EU and for me to emigrate there.

      Contemplating the future is making me depressed. I wanted to start drinking at about 11am this morning.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    128. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway and Switzerland must obey nearly every rule of the EU and must pay a lot of money to the EU without any say in any decision. They are even part of the Schengen Agreement. And that is exactly the situation the UK will end up, they will pay more to the EU, they will have to follow every rule of the EU, but they won't be able to influence any decision made by the EU.

    129. Re:Good for them by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was one of the Brexit arguments. Smelt like BS then, and it still stinks. I think the UK is in for a really tough time of it. Time to leave me thinks...

    130. Re: Good for them by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You must be responding to someone else, since I never mentioned anything about the Greeks deserving anything, nor did I applaud austerity measures.

      You said:

      Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation.

      It's rather hard to interpret this as anything else than "but they deserved it." Which is probably at least partly true, but doesn't make making things worse through punitive measures any less stupid, especially with all the other problems going on and Russia trying to establish a sphere of vassals right next to us. And that matters because EU is sufficiently democratic that there's power to gain by following popular opinion, so us Joe Averages have a responsibility to actually think our opinions through, and will suffer the consequences of resulting stupid decisions if we won't.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    131. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Looking back at my text, the only word I put in italics was "after". The word "after" usually refers in English to the fact that two things happened at different times, also known as ordering in mathematics. In physics, it's usually acknowledged that if B happened "after" A, A cannot causally follow from B. Anything else would be a Nobel-worthy discovery, so it's probably not the case for the Greeks. That is the contents of the word in italics. I still don't see how you hallucinated any kind of deontic modality into it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    132. Re:Good for them by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      I feel for you guys, good luck working it out.

      In the media there was a lot of xenophobia about the "immigration crisis" and so most people have voted accordingly. The debate, of course, was fixated on the "unwashed masses" of refugees coming to Britain, and this really got everyone's attention.

      In practice, however, many skilled and able people have come to the UK from abroad, or have relationships (such as your own) that cross borders and cultures. I think this is actually what we want in our society, to create tolerance and acceptance.

      As a result of leaving the EU, all the smart and educated and able people who are now on sketchy ground (either themselves, or loved ones) with whatever the new immigration policy becomes, will simply leave for greener pastures. How is that going to lead to a strong and productive UK?

    133. Re:Good for them by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your sympathy, I'm feeling pretty unloved by my fellow citizens at the moment.

      Just to complete my shitty day, I'm allergic to alcohol so I can't even take refuge in that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    134. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Correction: The old geezers of Great Britain see things differently.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    135. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Some people mean "cheap labor" when they say that. Probably more mean "better jobs for us", including those "cheap labor" people.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    136. Re:Good for them by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you do.

      If the alternative is for the drug addict to prostitute themselves, and expose themselves to violence and life-destroying STDs, then yes, I'd gladly give an addict some money. If the alternative is for them to commit violent crimes, enter into debt with violent criminals, or go to goal, then yes, I'll gladly give them some money.

      It's not always black and white my friend.

    137. Re: Good for them by Ramze · · Score: 1

      It's not so much about mismanagement as it is just that Greece (and most of southern Europe) has very radically different monetary and fiscal policy than Germany.

      Also, we hit the global recession which plunged Greece into a hellhole since its economy is largely shipping and service industries -- like tourism. Both tanked while they were stuck w/ a currency they couldn't control. Imagine if the USA couldn't control federal interest rates or use other measures to manipulate the money supply during a recession -- they'd last so much longer and hurt so much more.

      Greece joined the EU, took advantage of the perks, then suffered the worst part of the global recession and never really recovered b/c they couldn't manipulate their currency -- and Germany was giving them the finger while laughing all the way to the bank b/c their interests were vastly different than Greece's needs when it came to the currency.

    138. Re:Good for them by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, paying the debts you owe is such a buzzkill. Can't we just borrow some more money and keep the party going?

      What's they purpose of the union, then?

      When one group wants to borrow money and not pay it back, and the other group wants to insist on being paid back even if it's a hardship, a union seems like a bad idea.

    139. Re:Good for them by Ramze · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, with the pound dropping like a rock, exports priced in pounds have become incredibly cheap in terms of the euro -- so, huge boost to the UK economy in the exports area at least in the short term.

      Leaving the EU was ballsy -- the UK just paved the way for others to exit if they wish, too.

      I think ultimately the UK will cave to a lot of the EU's policies for the sake of trade, but at least the UK can have more direct control over its domestic economy and politics -- including immigration, business regulations, and law. For trade, the UK will have to work w/ various blocks like other nations that deal with the EU... but, it'll be fine in the long run.

    140. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then put that order for the yacht on hold, and offer them higher wages.

    141. Re:Good for them by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      America supports those who do its bidding. The more you need us, the more we'll ask for. Hey, if you really want America's help, send 100,000 ground troops to Syria for us. Thanks.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    142. Re:Good for them by Ramze · · Score: 1

      It never was. The Euro was created without strong oversight or control -- and it granted the power to manipulate the currency to a select few nations which had drastically different economies with radically different fiscal and monetary policies than Southern European nations like Greece.

    143. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we dont have to negotiate with the lead weight of the french farmers anymore so that'll help.

    144. Re:Good for them by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You don't help a drug addict by giving them more money for the next hit.

      A drug addict is physically unable to take hits at arbitrarily short intervals. After they have enough "next hits" on store they'll start spending on their next meal, clothes, housing, medicine, etc. So it helps them to have greater income, just like it helps everyone else. The real issue is whether you think they're worthy of help, and if not, whether you're willing to admit that outright. Most people answer "no" to both questions, thus we have sayings like yours.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    145. Re:Good for them by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      They were not SIMPLY punitive, though their probably was a little of that too, they were mostly about transforming what was essentially a corrupt and broken economy. Greece wanted to try and spend there way out, in a normal scenario where the government was NOT broken and corrupt and the economy had simply faltered this could actually be viable, but that was never the case with Greece, It is like a drug addict that has lost his job and home and has nothing and saying the solution is to give him more money without fixing the fact he is just gonna shoot it straight up his arm. Their really were not a lot of options that were in reality viable for Greece.

    146. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      They just see that the EU is useless for many countries - life in Greece, Spain and Italy has not become any better after years in EU

      And you know this how precisely? Greece was a democracy independent of the EU (then the EC) for a scant 5 years. Prior to that it was a military junta, which is considerably worse than what they have now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    147. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The greek are not only trying to fuck over the EU, they are a country of tricksters and cheaters and are fucking each others over.

      A year ago I made a long post about the typical cheating and fraud they do to foreigners.

      Result was a Greek answered and tried to level all my examples (and failed in my eyes).

      He finished "figuratively speaking" with a sentence like:

      "You know! I just inherited property, a small old farm house with some land around it. Worth probably $10,000. The yearly property tax is $3.000 on it. There is no way the tax gets adjusted without bribery. It is cheaper for me to just let them auction it away than caring about my heritage" ... something like that.

      While countries like Macedonia, Albania etc. just work very badly, Greece: does not work at all.

      There is no way the EU can help them except sending experts with a club into every bureaucracy into every decision into every department into every town into every junta.

      The greek want it like that ... or how do you explain an Island with 4000 inhabitants and 3000 of them blind and getting extra health care every month worth more than $500? (Hint: there was no single blind person on that island)

      They still consider the lifestyle of Odysseys ... sly and cunning ... above mere "normal behavior".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    148. Re:Good for them by donaldm · · Score: 1

      It also has the world's 6th largest economy and a very powerful friend in the United States... a LOT of Americans would take the UK's side over the EU's, and if Trump becomes President, so will he.

      Trump has already congratulated the UK for leaving the EU.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    149. Re: Good for them by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Why should someone believe Greece will actually carry out the austerity measures? Saying you'll change isn't the same as actually changing.

    150. Re:Good for them by jcdr · · Score: 1

      Switzerland have a better political system that lower the citizens frustration and help stabilize his economy.
      I believe that the same political tools would be a benefice in every countries.

    151. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Your arguments are pretty weird, considering that north Italy has the highest standard of living in the EU and regions like San Marino have the highest standard of living in the world.

      Spain has a high unemployment rate, yes. But unlike the US they are not sitting on the streets and are home less and have no money.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    152. Re:Good for them by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Greece put themselves in massive debt, no one tied them down and said "here, spend this money on hookers and blow and then from next week your arse is mine". What they did was run up the credit card on the equivalent of hookers and blow and then act surprised that harsh conditions were placed on new money.

      Greece was forced into Austerity. Austerity doesn't work. Greece was forced into a "solution" that doesn't work. What more is there to argue about?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    153. Re:Good for them by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just to complete my shitty day, I'm allergic to alcohol so I can't even take refuge in that.

      And since you're no longer part of the EU, you can't just waltz into Amsterdam any more, either

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    154. Re: Good for them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's rather hard to interpret this as anything else than "but they deserved it."

      Then you must live in some really vengeful society. Read what I write rather than what you want it to read.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    155. Re:Good for them by lastman71 · · Score: 1

      Except Switzerland is in the Schengen area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area). And of course they want to be in.

    156. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...benefits AND also has to pay 60 % of a full membership and don't get any of that money back. EU members get money back in subsidies and thus effectively pay less than Norway (or Switzerland, which pays the same). Additionally they have to accept free movement of people and laws dictated by the EU without having any seat at the table when they're written. Not all directives apply to Norway and they of course have more independence in terms of foreign policy with other countries but they don't get to eat their cake and keep it as far as access to the free market is concerned.

      Here's a Swiss view from the UK and much of it applies to Norway as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsNXmfqQqOU

    157. Re:Good for them by greatpatton · · Score: 1

      And must accept under the EEA the European law/rule without being able to vote or influence them... When you talk about lack of democracy I think that it cannot be worst.

    158. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to add to your comment: Norway was quite keen on joining Schengen. Partially because it's a Nordic country and the Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark) have had free movement among themselves for ages before any of them joined the EU. It would've been awkward to introduce controls where there previously were none, if Norway had chosen not to join Schengen.

    159. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      paved the way for others to exit

      Hardly. The UK is one of the few strong economies in the EU which arguably could go it alone. Whether that works out in their favor will remain to be seen, but with Scotland poised to leave the UK and rejoin the EU, and the political weight of London's financial industry neutered by the Brexit, Britain's future is quite uncertain. If that's how it looks for the UK, which other countries in the EU do you expect to be in a position to leave the EU and be better off for it, even just in the minds of a malleable voting public?

    160. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Norway and Switzerland are extremely bad examples.

      Norway is a close to communism/socialism nation that lives from its oil, export of brainpower and is: very very small in population.

      Switzerland is living from its banks and financial services and basically from the tax fraud the rich of the EU are committing.

      Of course they are "good off" (as in better off) not being in the EU.

      I suggest you once visit Greece ... and see the bribery and abuse there.
      And then you visit Switzerland, you will realize: there is absolutely no difference .... except: Switzerland works, Greece does not.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    161. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great issue of our day in all of the west

    162. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, like we did the banks?

    163. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany "raped" Greece? How so? The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country - or rather, they ran it into the ground. What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

      No, you do it the American way by racking up trillions in national debt, with zero hope of ever paying that off, while punishing those who rack up educational debt with shitty career prospects. Oh, and Too Big to Fail. Yes, you should definitely throw that on the table too.

    164. Re: Good for them by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Umm http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...

      Now maybe you're talking about publicly owned debt, but there was definitely a lot (too much) of debt relief.

      even though Greece imposed austerity on the level that has not been seen in a peacetime in Europe

      That's hilarious. I guess it depends on your definition of austerity. Hint: things like "you have to eliminate that 13th and 14th month paycheck thing" are not austerity.

    165. Re:Good for them by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      We're 51st in the ranking. Quite a lot of people have less space. It's a myth. I'm guessing you live in the south where density is muvch higher. Other parts of the country and sparse. Until fairly recently (1990s I think) you could have fitted the entire population on the Isle of Wight.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    166. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Fuck London, go build your multinational utopia somewhere that I don't end up paying for it - e.g. see http://www.theguardian.com/new...

      OK, so how about we (London) leave and join the EU. Do you think that would work out well for you?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    167. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Germany is not the EU.

      But thanks for your vitriol.

      Greece ... the country where an Espresso costed like 15 cents before they joined the Euro zone, and costed 3,50 Euro a day after they joined it.

      Hint: even in my town, where people take the prices and restaurant prices are insane, a coffee costs to day around 2,70 Euro or 3,50 Euro at max.

      So: Greece exploded its prices by a factor of 10 over night, without adjusting payment etc. What has that actually to do with EU, the Euro, or Germany in particular?

      NOTHING!

      My point is very simple: some smart greek merchants realized you have to pay 5Euros for a coffee in Paris (which is actually not true, people would riot if a coffee would be that expensive, it is around 1,70) and 4,00 Euros in Hannover, Germany and probably 3,50 Euros in Karlsruhe, Germany: so? Why not charge 4 Euros for a coffee in a tourist town like Athens? Profit! After all the stupid tourists (that is a national disease, greek people consider every non greek inferiour, ill, stupid or simply brain damaged) won't notice if they pay the same price as at home or a little bit more!

      Unfortunately the tourists did notice. Adjusting the price niveau to "european levels" makes no sense.

      Spain, Portugal, south Italy are all still "cheap vacation and travel" countries. You get more for the money than you would get at home. And the tourist business there gets more money than they would get from local tourists.

      It works wonderfully for both parties.

      Not so in Greece ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    168. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot.
      It is just the opposite around.

      Mortgages in Europe are right now at 0% interest. Since a year or longer.

      "Cheap Labor" does not exist in the EU.

      Basically every country has a minimum wage. And if you are an EU citizen you can:
      a) move freely
      b) demand minimum wage

      There is no one, except illegal immigrants, that can work cheaper than you. Perhaps: get an education?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    169. Re:Good for them by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Of course, we'll ignore the fact that - as a percentage of GDP - Greece had LESS debt than either Germany or France. We'll even ignore that the remedies that Germany forced on Greece (and which Greece really fought against) were the worst possible thing to do.
      Austerity doesn't work -it's a mathematical fact. If you have a country with two much debt, austerity policies makes the debt WORSE. It REDUCES the odds of ever paying it off.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    170. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What may well happen is we leave and stop fucking up Europe. Europe will get stronger and we'll have a recession. Eventually we'll re-join the single market and accept all of the rules. That way we'll have a nice strong Europe to trade with which will be god for us but no influence with which to fuck it up.

      This is what I (as a non-Brit) foresee as well. Especially after seeing this Swiss guy's view on it. The Swiss ended up accepting pretty much everything the EU dictated since they had a long recession and it was all too obvious how access to the common market would enable them to recover. Initially, I foresee what economists acknowledge as a political barrier to trade: Avoidance to enter trade agreements even though it would clearly benefit you because for political reasons you don't want the other party to benefit as well. So you rather harm yourself in order to harm them as well. Nations are not mature. A British re-entry in the future will probably depend on how much of a federation the EU has become at that point and how small the UK has become compared with it - Scotland might leave the UK to join the EU, you know. As far as Scotland it concerned, I foresee that they'll either have a new referendum very soon to make the transition very smooth since then there would effectively not be any break in existing agreements with the EU or they'll wait and see what happens to the UK first even if it means a slower entry to the EU later on. And one thing which was very clear in the Scottish referendum was that the younger generations are very much in favour of independence and EU membership. Thus simply time will lead to it but it might now also have been expedited. Unless all the promises of a rosy future outside the EU by the Brexit side come true in the UK...

    171. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.
      The whole point of capitalism as that companies that fail leave the market.
      If you keep propping up failed banks you incentivize bad investment.

    172. Re: Good for them by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation.

      Doesn't matter. For starters - that was two governments ago - and most of the people who suffer the most weren't even eligible to vote when the government who did this was in power. But more importantly - it doesn't matter because this is not a solution. It won't help them get out of the situation. It won't even get the creditors some of their money back.
      All it will achieve is make sure even less of that debt will ever be paid than otherwise would have.

      It's the same reasoning as why we got rid of debtors prison - because it's a stupid solution. Throwing a bad debtor in prison just makes it impossible for him to ever pay the debt. It's to the creditor's advantage to come up with a payment plan that actually gets the debt or part of it paid - and keeps the debtor productive to pay it.
      Austerity in Greece has had the same effect as debtors prison and just destroyed what was left of the economy, as it always does - the only thing it ever can do - a simple mathematical fact proven every time it's tried anywhere.

      If Greece's debts were truly as bad as was being said -then the solution was the same solution that you or I would take if we ended up with a debt problem on the same relative scale. Bankruptcy. Pay what you can with the assets you have left, and then write of the rest and let you get on with your life and try to rebuild your finances.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    173. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately your arguments make no sense.
      There is no mass immigration into the UK :D And most certainly not from/via the EU.

      However there is a mass immigration into Turkey e.g. There are likely 20 or 30 countries in the world (third world countries and developing btw) that accept more immigrants than the UK per year.

      The main factors of immigration into the UK are old colonies and over sea territorials.

      It is a shame that someone who seems to live in the UK does not know that.

      And hint: those immigrants all have a special status and can stay in the UK with literally no paper work: for ever!

      As in Pakistani, Singalese, Indians, Canadians, New Zealanders etc.

      Probably even Afghans can simply enter with a simple passport and stay for ever as they once belonged to the british empire.

      (*Facepalm*) how stupid brits are when they vote about "immigration".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    174. Re:Good for them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      (because to him, half your salary is a huge pile of money, he can do your job for a while, save up, then go back home and be rich)
      No he can't.
      As he has to pay the same cost of living as anyone else: taxes, social insurance, healthcare, housing food, clothing, energy.
      How stupid people are is beyond me.

      People who do that live at the lowest level of society in the country they life, just to sent money home so that the family there can live in luxury ... not really a good exchange.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    175. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they actually mean "free movement". By your logic we could prevent movement between counties and that would suddenly make wages shoot up. Prevent it between towns and we'll all be rich! Er, no, that's not really how it works.

      Insofar as your argument applies to the what the UK gets out of free movement, it presupposes a rather charming narrative that the UK is the richest and most desirable EU country to live and work in. This is a long way from the truth, though.

    176. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really hard to balance the national budget when you have to pay for the keep of hundreds of thousands migrants at 20K euros each/year, and at the same time, financial speculators used the national banks to make high-risk loans that fell through and pulled their money out before the banks tried to lock down savings. Then the repayments for those loans fall onto the regular citizens.

    177. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany "raped" Greece? How so? The Greeks very predictably couldn't run their own country - or rather, they ran it into the ground. What was the rest of the EU supposed to do? Just give them money endlessly with no consequences or responsibility to change their ways?

      Oh my god you must be German. Only the Germans think that the Greeks are solely at fault in the whole Greek mess, everyone watching from the outside knows that both sides are dirty.

      Sure the Greeks overspent, but the Germans are just as bad if not worse. Through the integration of currencies under the Euro, they flooded Southern Europe with credit so there was enough money for Southern Europe to buy tons of German exports. In this process, Southern European companies struggled to compete with the Germans as they simply didn't have the technical resources to compete, damaging multiple industries across Southern Europe. More and more people got laid off, and those laid off people voted in governments who protected their livelihoods with expensive social welfare programs that were funded on German credit, until they were buried in debt.

      Greece may have been irresponsible with it's spending, but Germany knew what was going on because they gave them the money to fund that irresponsibility. The Germans are just as complicit in the whole thing because that overspending of the Greek government fueled the German economy.

    178. Re:Good for them by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Brexiters thought it would happen either. For Boris Johnson, this was about moving in to Number 10. Now suddenly he's the most likely leader of a sinking ship.

      And Germany has made it clear. There will be no new negotiations, so this underlying notion that Britain could enter new negotiations with a mandate to leave if they didn't produce better results has been thrown out the door. The EU simply cannot afford to legitimize the Euroskeptics elsewhere on the Continent, so Britain will be punished in due course.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    179. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Norway's basic rate of income tax is around 70%. Try selling that to the Brits who are used to a rate of around 25%.

    180. Re:Good for them by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      By insisting on Greece paying debts at a rate that is insurmountable and not providing any form of relief. Had Greece been out of the EU, they could have devalued their currency and/or defaulted on their debts. After a couple of years of turmoil they could have achieved sustainable growth. I suggest reading: https://yanisvaroufakis.eu/ [yanisvaroufakis.eu] if you care about it.

      Taking advice from Varoufakis about finance and/or Greece is like taking advice from Hitler about Jews and/or peace.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    181. Re:Good for them by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      EU has shown that if your government makes a mistake (or even if it doesn't - see "Spain") and you fall on hard times, then instead of getting help you will be beaten into a pulp and left to be picked up by vultures.

      So you claim that receiving HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of Euros is somehow being "beaten to a pulp and left to be picked up by vultures"?????

      Let me guess: you were no the brightest between your Bolshevik friends...

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    182. Re: Good for them by cbraescu1 · · Score: 1

      During the last year's standoff, the Troika dangled a carrot of 20% write-off - it failed to materialize

      You are lying by omission here. The write-off was discussed BEFORE your favorite cretinous clowns Tsipras and Varoufakis tried their criminal bluff. After the EU called their bluff, there was no reason to treat them with any respect.

      Greece imposed austerity on the level that has not been seen in a peacetime in Europe.

      Now you are straight out lying, as the obvious examples of Romania in the 80s, former USSR in the 90s are much, much worse examples of imposed austerity in Europe.

      --
      Catalin Braescu
      Ofaly.com
    183. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a current resident of the state of Illinois, I seriously doubt the US federal government is going to step in and bail out this similarly mismanaged state. And we have a much stronger union of states than the EU. Illinois is going to be in a really painful spot as those of us with the means to do so will flee the state if the current residents are asked to pay for the debts run up by the politicians 20-30 years ago.

      The whole process of how Illinois got here is a great lesson in economics: the politicians agreeing to outlandish pension demands did not have to pay the cost for agreeing to those pensions, allowing them to go underfunded for decades. Through the magic of compound interest, the pensions are now hopelessly broke. What would have required a small tax increase 20 years ago will now bankrupt the state.

      There is now this unholy alliance of politicians and unions lying to themselves about the state of the obligations and the ability of the state to deliver on them. Interesting to watch if you can do it in a detached manner.

      I don't think there is another state in the union willing to allow the federal government to bail out the state from this mess.

    184. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the rest of the EU supposed to do?

      Engineer a run on the Greek banks so as to topple the elected Greek government and install a technocratic oligarchy in its place.
      It's the only progressive solution to the Greek situation.

    185. Re: Good for them by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      Then you will loose Sweden also. We simply won't accept a more federal EU

    186. Re:Good for them by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Congratulations are in order. The UK secured its freedom tonight. Maybe they'll be able to help fight against the inevitable European caliphate.

      The UK economy is about to tank so badly they'll make Greece look good. And then they'll go to the EU for a bail out and be told "You just said fuck off, so now YOU fuck off!". Then the UK will go to the USA for a bailout and the USA will say "OK but you become another state of the union." Hilarity ensues.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    187. Re:Good for them by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      ...horrible for anyone trying to pay the mortgage/rent, maintain the family and so on.

      It's great for people immigrating from third world countries trying to pay rent. So it's not really horrible for everyone.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    188. Re: Good for them by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They forced themselves into that position. It was GREEK corruption that brought them to where they are today. They've been bailed out 3 times, each time promising change. Austerity would have been inevitable, either in our out of the EU.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    189. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was one of the lamest polish jokes I've seen and I've already written it down on evernote.

    190. Re:Good for them by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Greece would have been in the shitter either way. Corruption costs money, and big-time corruption costs big-time money. They only got into the EU by lying in the first place. They should have been kicked to the curb after the first bail-out.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    191. Re:Good for them by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The US has already said that the UK goes to the back of the queue when it comes to trade negotiations.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    192. Re:Good for them by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      That attitude changes after November.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    193. Re: Good for them by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Well, all these things happened after Greeks mismanaged their country to get into this situation. As desirable as a more lenient approach from Germany and others would be, it won't change Greek history of the 2000s.

      The Greeks managed their country in the 2000s the same way they always have. If Germany and the rest of the EU didn't like that, and weren't willing to accept the risk that represented, they shouldn't have let them join the club during their boom years.

    194. Re:Good for them by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      So Norway has managed to have the best of the EU, without having Brussels micromanage their internal governing. Sounds like a good bargain for the UK to look into.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    195. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And were forced into austerity measures that would leave their people as slaves for the next century.

      That was done as an example to Italy, Spain and Portugal (and maybe France too).

      Except that Spain was running surpluses before the economic problems:

      http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/spain

      France was under the 3% deficit-to-GDP ratio, and Portugal was moving towards it already:

      http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/france
      http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/portugal

      Spain was also below the 60% debt-to-GDP ratio, and France was moving downwards toward it already:

      http://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/spain
      http://countryeconomy.com/national-debt/france

      Germany meanwhile can get money at negative rates but refuses to "borrow" even though they can do so at a profit. While being prudent with debt is wise, there is such a thing as being misery, and I think the Germans have a unhealthy psychological aversion with it.

      Meanwhile no one seems to remember when Spain was running 3-4% inflation at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, while Germany had 1-2%: this allowed Germany to become more competitive as "internal" price pressures equalized between the two and helped Germany become prosperous when it had to pay after unification.

      Now, when Spain needs help the Germans insist on keeping inflation low, and so Spain ends up with deflation which is causing all sorts of pain. If the EU wanted to act as a cohesive whole, the ECB would like things get to 3% and let the South get by with sub-1% to help them recover.

      Austerity help no one: it kills demand, and it's demand that drives the economy. The time to tackle debt is during the good times when the private economy is doing its thing. When businesses and consumers stopped spending then is the time for the government to step in (and then get out of the way when things recover).

    196. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously not seeing the dollar signs in Trump's eyes when he speaks about the Brexit? The UK, or what will be left of it by the time it exits the EU, will get totally fleeced. Of course he's happy that the prey-to-be has been separated from the herd.

    197. Re:Good for them by 0a100b · · Score: 1

      Are you really claiming that Greece would have been better off without the billions of dollars of subsidies they receive from the EU since 1981? You must be kidding.

    198. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he has. The Brexit makes his politics look positively sane in comparison.

    199. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Greeks WERE raped.

      Germany/EU could have simply cut them loose to fend for themselves when the Greeks financial troubles started but instead they DELIBERATELY fed their greed so they had the later opportunity to RAPE their economy when the inevitable happened.

      Grexit would have mitigated Brexit. The EU/Germany brought it upon themselves by THEIR greed.

    200. Re:Good for them by FalMunir · · Score: 1

      What on Earth are you talking about? A decade long recession? I certainly haven't noticed any. Re-joining the common market? Norway has been a member of EFTA since 1960. There has been no re-joining of anything here. Get your facts straight. And what ignorants modded the parent up? And "Insightful"? Seriously now.

    201. Re:Good for them by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Except that's wrong. To enter the single market of the EEA Norway and Switzerland both agreed to every regulation involving free movement (immigrants) and pay fees to Brussels that are effectively tribute because they forgo any representation and influence on their use.

    202. Re:Good for them by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Had Greece been out of the EU, they could have devalued their currency and/or defaulted on their debts.

      Greece could default on their debt any time they wanted, EU or not. And devaluation isn't really a policy alternative: it amounts to roughly the same thing as defaulting on part of your debt.

      By insisting on Greece paying debts at a rate that is insurmountable and not providing any form of relief.

      Why should British or German tax payers pay hundreds of Euros extra per year just so that Greek civil servants can enjoy a pension that they never paid for?

    203. Re:Good for them by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The reasonable alternative would have been to allow Greece to declare bankrupcy and allow those banks who invested in Greece to fail.

      Many of those banks were either partly government owned or otherwise deeply intertwined with government interests. That's why governments went out of their way to try to "rescue" Greece. Furthermore, if Greece had declared bankruptcy, it would have been far worse off, since it wouldn't have received any loans for a while.

      The Greeks have no cause to complain about the EU: the EU went out of its way throwing good money after bad, for the interests of its own political and banking class. The people who have cause to complain about Greece are the tax payers in places like Germany and the UK. And that kind of things is probably why the UK voted to get out.

    204. Re:Good for them by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it was Greece that mismanaged its finances. But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures just when the country needed a boost from fiscal spending.

      Germany (and other countries) said: "if you want more money from us, you need to make these changes". That is, Germany didn't reach into Greece's political process and imposed "austerity", Germany made an offer for conditions under which Germany would lend more money.

      Remember, when Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns et al went down, if US govt prescribed austerity where do you think US economy and unemployment would have been? Instead, the Fed bailed out all and sundry. And that resulted in a quick recovery and a return to stability of the markets. In the long run,

      That's bullshit. This recovery has been one of the slowest and worst in US history, and ended up even worse than Obama's own predictions for "doing nothing". If we take Obama and his expert economists at their word, then we have to conclude that the bailouts and stimulus programs of his administration were extremely harmful.

      If Greece had its own currency, a currency devaluation, and may be a QE would have helped Greece.

      No, it wouldn't. Currency devaluation would have meant that any hard currency loans would have been astronomically expensive. And even if you believe the QE hocus pocus, even according to its own proponents, it wouldn't make any difference in a country with a Greek-style economy.

      I think its best in the long run that the the Euro is disbanded.

      In the long run, it's best that national fiat currencies be disbanded; monetary policy has been a complete failure whenever countries have been engaging in it.

    205. Re:Good for them by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Or, it may mean that somebody comes from another country and offers to do your job for half the salary (because to him, half your salary is a huge pile of money, he can do your job for a while, save up, then go back home and be rich), so your boss asks you whether you want to be let go or stay, but only earn half as much (why should he pay you more).

      There are wonderful things called unions, minimum wages, and costs of living that fix all that. The problem you're describing can be fixed locally without tearing yourself away from the economic system of the EU.

      I am from a country where wages a low, so people have been going to Norway

      A tactic that will likely make them break even or be even worse off. Yay I get double the pay in Norway. What do you mean my accommodation is 3 times as expensive, how am I supposed to live? Your system only works if high wages are completely baseless, or if you can reap the rewards of one system while maintaining the expenses of another, and that really REALLY limits your employment opportunities in most of the EU, typically to only illegal work.

    206. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I like having space. Filling it up when Spain has better weather and prebuilt cities sat empty feels a terrible waste of our green and pleasant land.

      Sure we could all pack 6 deep inside the m25. Why would you think that people want to?

    207. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Go for it. Not many British people left in London anyway.

    208. Re:Good for them by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I live in Lithuania. I personally know of a few people who do that. That is, they go to the UK, get a job (large salary for them, not as large for the locals), then try to save as much as possible. After a few months or a year they quit the job and come home with enough money to live comfortably for a longer time than they spent in the UK. After the money dries up, back to the UK they go.

      The minimal salary in Lithuania is 350EUR/month (those who chose to go to the UK would most likely get this assuming they were able to find a job) and the average is not that higher at 750EUR (both numbers are before taxes, you get much less in your bank account), so it is useful to be able to go to the UK (UK specifically because of English language) and earn a pile of money.

      Some people choose to stay there and they most likely earn enough to comfortably live there. The ones who go to pick strawberries, clean the toilets and so on, usually do not earn a lot, but much more than they would get cleaning toilets here.

    209. Re:Good for them by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      Well I am renovating a house in an expensive EU country. I don't mind the Polish and Romanian workers at all who help me at one half of the rate I would have to pay a fellow countryman. They are happy, I am happy. Capitalism...!

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
    210. Re:Good for them by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it makes them better off. Otherwise there would not be such massive emigration from Lithuania.

      Yay I get double the pay in Norway. What do you mean my accommodation is 3 times as expensive, how am I supposed to live?

      More like "Yay, I get triple pay and my rent/energy only costs 1.5 time more, with some food even being cheaper than at home".

      I know of two main types of emigrants. One type decides to go and stay there, they usually get comparable wages to the locals.
      Another type (less educated usually) either cannot find a job at home or can only find one that gives the minimal wage (350EUR/month before taxes, what is the minimal wage in the UK?) go to the UK (mostly because of English language), get a job cleaning toilets or picking strawberries or something similar, live extremely frugally, for example renting a room/apartment with a few of their coworkers to save on costs. After a while, they return home and live in relative luxury for a while then go back to the UK and the cycle begins again. Students also do this a lot during summer.

      I actually know a few people like this. They earn quite a lot compared to those who remain and try to find a job at home. And they bring quite a lot of money home.

      Oh and there is a way to get a tax refund from the UK, I do not know the exact details how, since I never needed it.

    211. Re:Good for them by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that exactly is EU for you!! They are all different countries trying to *masquerade* as one at the same time. Some of these countries are economically sound while others are shaky. The ones that are sound today can go shaky tomorrow, there is no guarantee. EU will not work unless it has one single elected government. One single central bank. One single... country I suppose.

    212. Re:Good for them by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      That's bullshit. This recovery has been one of the slowest and worst in US history, and ended up even worse than Obama's own predictions for "doing nothing". If we take Obama and his expert economists at their word, then we have to conclude that the bailouts and stimulus programs of his administration were extremely harmful.

      And where do you think US would have been if the fed did not interfere and let the financial markets freeze?

      No, it wouldn't. Currency devaluation would have meant that any hard currency loans would have been astronomically expensive.

      Actually no one would have given them any loans in the first place. So they would have been in the rightful place that they deserved to have been.

      And even if you believe the QE hocus pocus, even according to its own proponents, it wouldn't make any difference in a country with a Greek-style economy.

      My point is, the idea of a Euro Zone does not make much sense. It's like taking Ethiopia, Mexico, US, Canada, Sudan, China and putting them under one common currency system, with free labor markets et al. But each still remains a different country politically and "economically" at the same time. It just will not work.

    213. Re:Good for them by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      Frankly Greece should have been in the league of third world nations. But the Euro put them in the league of developed nations. How long is this going to work? Same goes for Spain, Portugal. How long can this last?

    214. Re:Good for them by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      Currency devaluation would have meant that any hard currency loans would have been astronomically expensive

      Well, then I would bargain for restructuring the loans, may be default on some or all. And use what ever I have got to help my economy recover. Default/debt-restructuring is not very uncommon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    215. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bother reasoning with the Europhiles. They're in full "Heil das Europaeisches Reich" mode and they can't wait for the camps to open so they can deport Britons. Once a Nazi, always a Nazi. It's so sad to see so much of the european youth so similar in mind to the schutzstaffeln.

    216. Re:Good for them by mattventura · · Score: 1

      London voted heavily towards remain.

    217. Re:Good for them by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Wonder how Canada would react to that?

    218. Re:Good for them by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      "I think this is actually what we want in our society, to create tolerance and acceptance."

      I think you misunderstand the xenophobic half of society. I'm American (so not UK), but at least here they are specifically, explicitly, and in all other ways against "tolerance and acceptance". Its so bad that "tolerance" is a pejorative. At best, someone who is "tolerant" supports crime, terrorism and giving up rights to the federal government.

    219. Re:Good for them by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      America supports those who do its bidding. The more you need us, the more we'll ask for. Hey, if you really want America's help, send 100,000 ground troops to Syria for us. Thanks.

      That is the old way of thinking, the elite who have been in power for a very long time...

      Trump is not one of those people...

    220. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK... The UK is the world's oldest democracy and has stood for nearly a thousand years...

      Haha, that is only with a very specific definition of "democracy". The US claims the same with their own "special" definition of the word. Really, if you play enough with the definition many, many countries can make the claim.
      And I am assuming you mean the oldest, continuous and still in effect, otherwise you'd have to look at the ancient world, long before the English discovered the wheel and started building their first (right hand drive) chariots...

    221. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland (not too sure about Norway as I've never been there) is far more integrated into the EU than the UK has ever been. We have freedom of movement in exchange for market access (i.e. free markets includes the labour market), and are part of Schengen (open borders). This is a country that has one of the highest ratios (along with Australia) of people who originate from outside the country. If anything, Switzerland is the worst example any Brexiter should use (outside of Liechtenstein).

    222. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Greeks did have this option, but it meant leaving the EU. That was a price they didn't want to pay.

    223. Re:Good for them by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      But Germany did screw up Greece by imposing more and more austerity measures just when the country needed a boost from fiscal spending.

      Transfusing blood into a patient with an aortic dissection just gets more blood on the floor. Sometimes you just have to call it.

    224. Re:Good for them by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Trump has already congratulated the UK for leaving the EU.

      This is why England should now wish to see Trump become President, because he'll be a much stronger friend to the UK than Clinton would...

    225. Re:Good for them by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Well, then I would bargain for restructuring the loans, may be default on some or all.

      That's what they did. And the bargain they got was "here is some additional money with conditions attached, take it or leave it". Germany didn't "impose austerity", they simply offered money under specific conditions, and it was up to the Greeks to decide to take it or leave it. They could have borrowed money somewhere else, or simply defaulted if they wanted to.

      Default/debt-restructuring is not very uncommon

      Well, and a lot of that "restructuring" is due to various forms of governmental corruption and cronyism. In any case, debt restructuring is something lenders do to minimize their losses; if you default on a loan, nobody is under any obligation to offer you debt restructuring.

    226. Re:Good for them by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      And where do you think US would have been if the fed did not interfere and let the financial markets freeze?

      That's the wrong question to ask. First, the US exposure was due to bad financial regulations in the first place. Furthermore, regardless of what short-term fiddling the fed may or may not have had to engage in, the US government failed to follow its own rules and used tax payer money to protect large and powerful interests from the losses that resulted from their poor investments, long after the crisis was over.

      As for the various stimulus programs, according to Obama himself, we would have been better off doing nothing than we actually ended up being with Obama's programs in place.

      My point is, the idea of a Euro Zone does not make much sense. It's like taking Ethiopia, Mexico, US, Canada, Sudan, China and putting them under one common currency system, with free labor markets et al. But each still remains a different country politically and "economically" at the same time. It just will not work.

      There is no problem with either a common currency, free trade, or freedom of movement. Problems and conflicts arise from the combination of fiat currencies, public debt, and manipulations of the labor market. In the case of Greece, the political and social problems in Greece are not problems of the free market or the economy, they are problems of the Greek government taking on financial obligations it could never satisfy.

    227. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Go for it. Not many British people left in London anyway.

      This exemplifies the idiotic attitude of the Brexiters. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. There is a substantial net flow of money out of London into the poorer regions of the country. If London left the rest of the county would be substantially less well off.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    228. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greece wants two things: get more loans and not pay back the old or the new loans.

      For Greece, going bankrupt would mean the same as for any individual or organization: absolutely abysmal credit rating and nearly no chance to get cheap loans in the future.
      So, what Greece wanted was to let EU write off the old loans, and pretend it never happened and give MORE loans and act totally surprised in the future when Greece declares that they won't pay back the new loans either.

    229. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it possible that austerity destroyed the economy, if Greece's GDP was predicted to grow by ~3% during 2015-2016, before Varoufakis threw the economy to the rocks?

    230. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it right, bub. All those people South of the Border undermine U.S. wages. It's time someone did something about it.

    231. Re:Good for them by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      No it won't. Brexit pretty much guarantees a Trump defeat.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    232. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck me, you still haven't understood. Things are so shit outside London that the country would rather risk everything for change. Didn't you see the vote results yesterday? Very clearly saying fuck the economy, give us autonomy.

      The London media and Westminster political village have ignored the rest of us for too long, don't be getting all surprised that some people might not miss the place if it collapsed under the weight of its own bullshit.

    233. Re:Good for them by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      I like the law in my country - you can hire a foreigner (non-EU), but you have to pay him a lot, above the average salary in fact.

      So, you can hire the expert you cannot find locally, but you cannot hire someone to do some job for the minimum wage where a local would want more.

    234. Re:Good for them by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Wonder how Canada would react to that?

      Trumps going to annex Canada.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    235. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greece had a fundamentally broken system, the only way to force them to change was austerity, I think it actually did work. many of the reforms of tax, corruption, military and public service would have never happened under anything but austerity. yes it was horribly painful, but if they had gone the other way all that would have happened is the broken system would have limped on to the next disaster a few years down the road and require even more money and likely drag a lot of banks and other countries under with them.

    236. Re:Good for them by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So corruption isn't really an issue in Greece?

      I mentioned Goldman Sachs didn't I? Do you really think they were not a very major part of that corruption? They certainly are in other places.

    237. Re:Good for them by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You forgot Sweden, which hasn't been in a war since 1806.

      It should also be noted that Norway and Switzerland pay to access the EU single market, and part of that price is acceptance of freedom of movement for labour. The UK has been wanting to have its cake and to eat, too, in this regard... finally throwing a shit-fit and quitting when it found that British exceptionalism doesn't play very well outside rural England and Wales.

      20 years from now, the Kingdom of England and Wales will be a backwater. And Europe will be doing just fine without it.

      Britain needs Europe. Whether Europe needs Britain is not nearly so certain.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    238. Re:Good for them by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Nobody likes a quitter.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    239. Re:Good for them by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And when your sibling's drinking has turned into alcoholism and he can no longer hold a job, you cut him off until he gets into rehab.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    240. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      And thus endeth the disease of alcoholism. Cured by Zontar The Mindless! No wonder we see no one suffering from it anymore.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    241. Re:Good for them by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is why it is better to for the children to see their parents constantly fight and squabble over irreconcilable differences rather than have them quit the marriage.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    242. Re:Good for them by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Fuck me, you still haven't understood. Things are so shit outside London that the country would rather risk everything for change. Didn't you see the vote results yesterday? Very clearly saying fuck the economy, give us autonomy.

      You're one of those people I consider to be "up themselves" for the simple reason that you equate "disagreeing" with "not understanding". I do understand, I just think those people are fools. Do you think industry would magically sprout up and wealth happen?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    243. Re:Good for them by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "But it turned out that free labor movement doesn't provide a lot of benefits to Britain " - you are wrong there, they pick all our vegetables and fruits as the there are not enough brits willing to go so (starting work at 5am is too much), almost all our coffee shops/restaurants are staffed by immigrants, they expanded out economy, stopped the decline in our birth rate, the investment banks are full of germans, french, spanish etc. its was just xenophobia and racists and peoples fear of people who speak different languages. if the immigrants where all white americans, irish, aussies, kiwis etc there'd be no issue.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    244. Re:Good for them by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      yes, but they have to have free movement of people and pay into the EU coffers for the privilege. And they do not get to the table to define the rules, they can only lobby.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    245. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU have no central currency. The problems in Greece is actually a good indication why a central currency isn't a good idea - unlike e.g. the US the economies in Europe have huge differences and it is essentially impossible to make a single market with a single currency. There are a "core" group of countries where the economies are similar enough that a single currency can be a good idea, but trying to force a round peg into a square hole leads to situations like in Greece.

      The increased mobility of both jobs and goods is generally a good idea so the single market makes sense even when different countries have different kinds of economy.

    246. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy are you going to wake up one day and realize how wrong you were... Nah, just kidding. You will end up at a retirement home with no resources and lousy care eating cheap porridge telling all that can't flee fast enough how the foreigners are to blame for everything, you maybe even decide to stop being politically correct and explicitly name negroes and muzzlims as the problem.

      All the while competent people flee to the EU.

    247. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with free movement is that people migrate from poor economies to strong ones.

      I don't have an issue with this, and I work for a large business with a very multinational workforce in its US, UK and European offices.

      I do have an issue with the UK being full. There's no more room.

      The UK is full in the same way the US is. One have to have mental problems to think that's in any way true.

      I do have an issue with the UK making social security payments to children in Poland.

      The UK doesn't. Another indication of mental problems...

      I do have an issue with the migration causing wages and resultant standards of living being lowered towards those of the poorer countries, instead of the free trade helping those countries come up instead.

      BINGO! Ignorant bullshit bingo is easy with you around.

      So while your points are valid there are many other factors, and the British people have said very clearly that those other factors just haven't been dealt with by the ruling elite.

      Ruling elite? Yeah...

    248. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now the EU has a central currency, I believe that an EU Federal taxation scheme will eventually happen because there is no way of operating something country sized without shifting money around. It's also the way the US works with the blue states subsidizing the red ones for the greater good (i.e. keeping the country whole).

      Your point is in general well taken, but the blue-versus-red is actually a myth. Given the amount of propaganda being produced on this issue it's not surprising outsiders don't understand that. It's a clever piece of propaganda, although the kind of thing only a sociopath would think of.

      The people producing the blue-versus-red propaganda chose to qualify states as blue or red in such a way as to put as many as possible of the states receiving federal funding into the 'red' category. Actual voting records don't match these mappings: many of the supposedly 'red' states have 'blue' governors and put a majority of 'blue' senators into Congress.

      Further, in many cases funding for the supposedly 'red' states directly benefits the 'blue' states. For example, a lot of federal funding goes to support agriculture and the interstate transportation system. People need to eat whether they are 'blue' or 'red', and both of these are needed to produce food and move it, but not all states are equally suited to growing large amounts of food: logically enough, the funding tends to go to places that can, which means it effectively lowers the prices the folks in the 'blue' states have to pay (but that isn't counted by the folks who come up with the propaganda). Other products such as wood and mining products have to be produced where the resources are found, and the interstate transportation system is needed to move them to the 'blue' states. Similarly, not all states are equally suited to supporting large military bases: they tend to be in the Western US, where large amounts of low cost land is available, as opposed to long-settled Eastern states, and thus military funding is not evenly distributed.

      Further, the propaganda folks who came up with this myth are also miscounting the money in a whole host of ways. For example, many of the supposedly 'blue' states are actually receiving a lot of money in the form of federal defense contracts, but this doesn't get counted against the 'blue' states because of where corporate headquarters are located.

    249. Re:Good for them by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I suggest you actually attempt to find out a little about the topic before deciding to deliver a lecture to us about it. Your "proof" that is wasn't Goldman Sachs having an impact in 2001 ignores that the problem and Goldman Sachs's involvement dates back to before then. Greece invested very heavily in US tech stocks in the tech bubble, on the direct advice of Goldman Sachs, and 99% of the problem since then is scrambling to find money to cover that but getting deeper and deeper into trouble.
      See also things like the city of Detroit building a casino in an attempt to solve all their money problems. When governments have huge debts they do all kinds of stupid shit based on a tiny chance that it may just work this time even if it didn't for anyone else.




      The true irony is that this site is one (of many) that was singing the praises of the companies that Greece invested in right up until the bubble burst.
      I wonder how many of those people saying "stupid Greeks" would be more honest if they said "stupid Greeks, they believed people that were saying the same stuff I was saying".

    250. Re: Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greece didn't actually have any boom years and definitely were NOT booming when they joined, they joined through dodgy bookkeeping, though I do agree part of the responsibility has to reside with the EU for letting such a broken economy join in the first place, the corruption, broken tax system and government excesses always meant this disaster was inenvitable.

    251. Re:Good for them by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      I don't see why. The same idiocity works for both.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    252. Re:Good for them by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Brexit is an object lesson in what happens when you vote for stupid.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    253. Re:Good for them by shilly · · Score: 1

      Where do people like you get your economic insights from? The Daily fucking Mail?

      The reason wages don't match house prices in the UK is that UK governments keep house prices high because the people who elected them feel richer when their primary asset inflates (and house purchasers vote much more than renters).

      The evidence shows that immigration as a whole drives long term improvements to economic performance for a country. There is some contested evidence that unskilled migration may have a depressive effect on incomes for the lowest skilled people in society, and it's patently clear that heartland towns like Bury and Sunderland need structural investment to secure their future, but that really isn't the same thing *at all* as a claim that migration is bad for national economies, long-run.

    254. Re:Good for them by shilly · · Score: 1

      Christ, you really are a muppet, aren't you.

      The UK isn't full. It isn't even close to full. The notion it doesn't have any more room is risible.
      If you don't want to make social security payments to kids in Poland, we're going to have to repatriate 1.5 million retirees from France and Spain and that will fuck over our health and social services systems.
      Migration does not cause any of what you think it causes.

      Alexander de Pfeffel Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are *just as much the elite* as Cameron.

    255. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Clearly you and I have different interpretations of 'full'.

      There is a housing shortage. Public services are under strain. There are concerns over the electricity supply and water supply. Roads are congested.

      You may not call that 'full' but I do.

      Maybe you live in Scotland, where population density is delightfully low. I live in England where it's higher than I'd like, where solitude is hard to find, where you're seldom out of sight of urban settings.

      Migration absolutely does fucking exacerbate this.

    256. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Government is also propping up house prices, against the interests of most citizens.

      However, consider a quote from a politician that supported 'Remain':

      "More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration. And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period."

      -- https://fullfact.org/economy/a...

      Oops, that's the Home Secretary, not the Daily Mail. Oh well.

    257. Re:Good for them by shilly · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the Full Fact article to which you linked? It found that the evidence to support Theresa May's assertion was, to put it mildly, not robust.

    258. Re:Good for them by shilly · · Score: 1

      I live in London. London has lots of immigrants. They drive the success of the city, and they support the delivery of public services.

      Public services, utilities etc are under strain because we've had years and years of cuts and failure to invest. The NHS was in the best state it's ever been in at the time the Coalition government came to power, and Lansley and Hunt fucked it up royally in six short years. Migrants made fuck-all difference to any of this. Taking % of GDP spend from approaching 10 to 6 had a catastrophic impact. The fact that the best leaders the NHS ever had eventually gave up in despair and left made a huge difference.

      But you go ahead and blame foreigners. It'll make you feel better, despite being an idiotic, xenophobic misdiagnosis of the problem.

    259. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yes, although it also drew attention to the immigration impact on wages which you were challenging elsewhere.

      My point was that even someone that supported Remain, that has access to the full set of information captured by the Home Office, that was trying to promote the benefits of immigration, nonetheless highlighted that immigration has an impact on housing.

      Or just revert to basic common sense. Three million immigrants aren't living under motorway flyovers; they must have a home somewhere.

    260. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Government is also propping up house prices, against the interests of most citizens.

      It is really against the interest of most citizens? More people own homes than not in the UK.

      Are we worried about young people not able to own a home? Except more young voted to stay. As did people in the cities where housing is most expensive. Apparently kids these days don't care to own a home and settle down, more than being able to move freely across the EU to live and work.

    261. Re:Good for them by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I live outside of London. We have a different way of life here. It's being damaged by the urbanisation of our landscape, the changes to our culture, the loss of career opportunities.

      If I want a job I can get one tomorrow in London. I have to wait weeks in other parts of the UK. The terrible London-centricity of the economy is a massive factor in the Leave vote, a massive factor in the Scottish demands for independence, and hides the impact of immigration on the people and communities outside of the city.

      Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

      As for the coalition Government and its support for the NHS, you're talking utter fucking bullshit. The NHS budget has been rising year-on-year, and in real terms is higher than in 2010.
      http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/pr... if you want a reference.

      So more and more money, yet you feel services have been devastated? Maybe money isn't the issue after all. Maybe it's the fucking demand.

      But you go ahead and blame foreigners. It'll make you feel better, despite being an idiotic, xenophobic misdiagnosis of the problem.

      Lets put this in plain simple small words: Fuck off and die.

      I wasn't born in Great Britain, I've lived in mainland Europe, I've lived elsewhere and I work in a multinational company collaborating and socialising with people from every part of the globe. I may or may not be xenophobic but you have no way to judge that and I'm fed up with cunts like you pulling out the racism or xenophobia line instead of addressing the core underlying issues.

      So fuck you, and don't expect further replies. You're not worth my time.

    262. Re:Good for them by shilly · · Score: 1

      Wow. I knew you were dim, but hadn't realised it was as bad as all that.

      Shall we spell it out? Why not, it'll be fun. You can have a rising real terms budget for the NHS, and yet have a falling budget in percentage of GDP terms. Which is in fact what's happened -- who'd have thought?! You can even look on the very same King's Fund website you so cleverly reference and find out the details. I've spent 20 years working in healthcare, so I reckon I'm a mite more informed on this subject than you. Also, I didn't vote Leave, so unlike you, I'm not a muppet and I haven't publicly demonstrated my inability to cope with maths. And I'm also sufficiently well informed to realise that the major driver of cost in healthcare is increasing life expectancy. I'm old enough to remember the halcyon days prior to the Tories fucking the NHS up when we had a whizzy slogan on just this point: World-class Commissioning, adding life to years, and years to life. Bracing stuff, eh?

      "I may or may not be xenophobic but you have no way to judge that"
      That's a corker! That is genuinely a line up there with the very best of such masterly Brexit witticisms as "the people have had enough of experts".
      I'll judge you by the content and tone of your posts, and the fact that you've voted to Leave. You're a xenophobe, although you may be one who's not got the guts to admit it.

      So add all that together, and I'm really quite pleased I managed to piss you off. You and your fucknugget friends have damaged our economy and given cover to violent bigots, so it was really the least I could do to return the favour. If you have an apoplexy at this grave set of insults to your character that I've launched, do be sure to insist on only true English-born clinicians for your treatment. Wouldn't want to count yourself a hypocrite, as well as a bigot, after all.

    263. Re:Good for them by skam240 · · Score: 1

      It must be bliss being you

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  7. Let Murdoch and his minions pay the bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Especially idiot Cameron: he played with fire for so long, surfing the xenophobic and ultra-liberal wave until it exploded right under his nose. May the burns itch forever.

    Good riddance.

  8. more instabiity incoming by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    If I was was a UK resident I would vote for a Brexit too, But I am Australian and selfish as well so I wish they had stayed, going to make markets very unstable for a long time to come.

    1. Re:more instabiity incoming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, it's good for Australians.

      We are the closest of all Commonwealth nations to the British (with the possible exception of Canada), the Queen is on our money, we speak English, we just had a holiday for the Queens birthday, yet we have to jump through as many hoops as some fucking Nigerian to live/work in the UK !

      Fuck that. Some greasy dago has an easier time than us.

      Now we can get a better relationship with the UK as there's no wops or dagos getting in the way.

      Yay for Brexit.

       

    2. Re:more instabiity incoming by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "Now we can get a better relationship with the UK"

      Very funny.

      Of course there is no guarantee that any new arrangement will be better than the current one. Since every indication is that the UK plans to clamp down hard on immigration, how exactly will this work out better for Australians wanting to live and/or work in the UK?

  9. Democracy restored by divec · · Score: 4, Informative

    For the uninformed, the EU is undemocratic: no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats (the European Commission) which voters cannot feasibly remove from power (because the system for appointing them is highly indirect and opaque). Much opposition to the EU stems from this. UK democracy isn't perfect (e.g. voting isn't proportional, and the unelected House of Lords can delay legislation) but voters can and do change the government and change policy direction through the ballot box.

    --

    perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

    1. Re:Democracy restored by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 4, Informative
      You have a point that the EU is not democratic, basically because the European Parliament has little power.

      no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats (the European Commission)

      This is not correct: the European Council stands above the European Commission and can over-rule them in everything.

      --
      /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
    2. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the uninformed, the UK is undemocratic. We have a broken "first past the post" electoral system rather than some kind of proportional representation, which means that the government of the day is only voted for by a small minority but gets all the power. We also have a legion of unelected "peers" in the House of Lords, many of whom inherited their title or are there because they are religious leaders. It's a job for life and we don't get any say on who is appointed.

      The EU on the other hand has a directly elected parliament, and governments appoint the members of the Commission for a few years at a time. It's much more democratic than the UK and we are diminished without it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Democracy restored by Luctius · · Score: 4, Informative

      The members of the european commission are chosen by the national governments and the european commission as a whole is then either accepted or rejected by the european parliament. Every proposal they do, must then be accepted by the european parliament. The members of european parliament are selected by voting on a certain party on a national level. Those national parties can, and probably will, have alliances with similar parties from other countries. While it is not ideal, it certainly is democratic.

    4. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For the uninformed, the EU is undemocratic: no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats (the European Commission) which voters cannot feasibly remove from power (because the system for appointing them is highly indirect and opaque). Much opposition to the EU stems from this.

      UK democracy isn't perfect (e.g. voting isn't proportional, and the unelected House of Lords can delay legislation) but voters can and do change the government and change policy direction through the ballot box.

      To the half truth teller above me:

      Most decisions have to be ratified by the EU Parliamant and the national Parliaments, more than enough ways to derail regulations that are not wanted and to make your ballot count.
      Especially the UK could have pushed for a lot more direct democracy within the EU, but now that they are on their way out, they lost all influence on that process.
      The Commission will probably crucify them as an example to other Goverments overly catering their nationalists.

    5. Re:Democracy restored by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      By the same "logic", the UK is undemocratic because of the Queen and the House of Lords. Even if you argue that the monarch has very little actual power, the House of Lords, which has only appointed and hereditary members still has a fair amount of clout. So if the English were actually interested in democracy, the next obvious step would be to formally end the monarchy and write a constitution.

      Some how I doubt that is going to happen. Because leaving the EU is primarily about racism, not bureaucracy.

      Personally I expect to experience a great amount of schadenfreude watching the consequences of this circular firing squad. Now the UK's economic and political situation is in complete chaos, and that will inevitably lead to an economic downturn. Markets are allergenic to uncertainty. It's not going to work itself out quickly, so the economic mess will linger.

      In terms of mass stupidity, I also suggest that they drop the metric units system and join the US in using imperial units. As long as they want to deny the relevancy of the rest of the world, it's another way to be out of step with (almost) everyone else.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    6. Re:Democracy restored by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Its worth saying that we democratically voted to keep the current voting system in a yes/no referendum in 2010. Which makes the use and outcome of that system perfectly acceptable and democratic in nature.

    7. Re:Democracy restored by DarkTempes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought that wasn't true, post-Treaty of Lisbon? I'm an American so I could be uninformed on the issue. This is my impression:

      Voters directly elect their Members of European Parliament. And I assume they directly elect their heads of state, which make up the European Council members.

      The Council, those elected heads of state, nominate the Commission President, who then has to be approved by the directly elected MEPs.
      The Council nominates Commissioners, with the agreement of the President. Then the Parliament, through directly elected MEPs, has to approve them. Basically to me Commissioners are like U.S. Executive branch Cabinet members.

      Commissioners propose legislation to the Parliament but the Parliament has full power to pass, modify, and/or deny legislation.
      The only thing I've seen that looked shady was that Commissioner-proposed legislation can maybe pass on Parliament inaction.
      And maybe some cases where the elected heads of state can bypass Parliament and approve Commission proposals but I think the European Court of Justice has cracked down on both of those?

      Mostly it seems very much in keeping with democratic republic ideals. At least as much as the U.K. parliament.
      I don't get why people focus on the Commissioners when it really seems like the power struggle has been between the Council and Parliament, with the Lisbon Treat increasing Parliament's power and thus decreasing the Council's.

    8. Re:Democracy restored by hughbar · · Score: 5, Informative

      However the Council of Permanent Representatives (COREPER): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... prepares and 'adjusts' the agenda for the European Council, they are unelected.

      The parliament pretty much rubber stamps. The one nuclear power they have is to sack the Commission, last time they chickened out though. Junckers himself is Luxembourger, Luxembourg is a major tax haven (yes, that's ad hominem, but it's an 'indicator').

      I worked for both for nearly ten years and came out a marginal 'leaver'. That said, there's going to be some long term chaos now, that I'd prefer to avoid.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    9. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EC president is elected by the member states. He then selects the 27 other members based on recommendations from each member state, so basically each member state elects their commission member. I don't see how that equates to 'unelected bureaucrats'. Yes, we do not vote for those individuals directly, but neither do we vote for each member of the cabinet in the UK. In both cases we rely on parties that we vote in to elect officials on our behalf.

    10. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Funny, we have the same system here in Canada and it works just fine in the vast majority of cases. The EU on the otherhand is controlled by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels, very democratic. Perhaps you meant to say there was a system in place mirroring communist systems and the UK decided to get the hell out and take their national sovereignty with them instead of giving it up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Democracy restored by dbIII · · Score: 1

      For the uninformed, I'd say look things up yourself instead of listening to other uninformed people like the above.
      If the European Commission had so much power as suggested then the UK would have been forced to have the Euro as a currency.
      Each country can tell the European Commission to piss off and go fuck themselves if there is a condition they do not like. What about Greece you say? Greece did exactly that with several offers until they got one they accepted.

    12. Re:Democracy restored by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      As if. Much of the voting was based on fear of Muslims invading and taking jobs. People on the whole couldn't give a shit about small details of democracy. ... unless that democracy allows people with the wrong color skin in.

    13. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is legally mandated to use metric for packaging food and drugs, but beyond that, thee is no legal mandate to use imperial and people are free to use whatever they want. It doesn't affect most people, and those who it does (scientists, engineers, drs) work almost exclusively in metric.

      As an aside, it's rare fo me to find a British show on youtube that doesn't express distances in miles.

    14. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, depends. I'm in NZ, which inherited a lot of things from Great Britain. However, we're (a) constitutional monarchy (The Queen/Governor General has the same power levels - symbolic, but with just enough theoretical power to remind the politicians they're there as servants of the public.) (b) we've scrapped the upper house (unicameral). Although there is a benefit in an upper house, as it can provide a certain inertia.) (c) we have proportional representation (number of seats in Parliament is proportional to the fraction of the votes received across all of NZ under MMP). (d) we don't have a written constitution..

      You don't need to 'write a constitution' or 'get rid of the monarchy' to no longer have the House of Lords.

      (NZ's constitution is a mixture of various NZ laws, traditions, a handful of UK laws we inherited, handbooks (seriously!) and a treaty. Oddly enough when the UK was recently facing a possible hung parliament, they discovered the NZ Parliamentary Handbook and were looking at that as a source of ideas.)

    15. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. Lots of other people democratically voted to reduce/remove my political representation. That doesn't mean the result is democratic.

    16. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a lot like our prime minister?

    17. Re:Democracy restored by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      By the same "logic", the UK is undemocratic because of the Queen and the House of Lords.

      I understand this was a very emotional issue for a lot of people, but I didn't expect that someone would compare the House of Lords (basically powerless) to the European Commission (basically all-powerful).

      BTW, I have no dog in the race - I am a Finn living in Finland.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    18. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the majority of laws in the UK, like most other countries, are made by unelected bureaucrats in non public meetings. Politicians just sign the laws most likely without reading or understanding them

    19. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, we have the same system here in Canada and it works just fine in the vast majority of cases. The EU on the otherhand is controlled by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels, very democratic. Perhaps you meant to say there was a system in place mirroring communist systems and the UK decided to get the hell out and take their national sovereignty with them instead of giving it up.

      How very funny yes. The first-past-the-post tends to marginalize small parties and buff up the big ones. The problem is that it means that the big parties become more and more fractured inside as they're they become the primary ways to get into politics. The US is probably the most stark example. I think it has a pretty decent chance of radicalizing along political ideologies as opposed to allowing transition over proper democratic ways.

      But I doubt this has had any significance to vote to leave EU.

      Here's to hoping the French and Germans stop cooperating with GCHQ also.

      Also once I become President of the EU, we'll build a wall around England and make them pay for it.

    20. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand how the EU works. It's more democratic than the UK, by a long way.

      Just look at what is about to happen in the UK. The Prime Minister just announced his resignation, and someone else will take over without being elected. The only hope is that other politicians force an election, but the last time this happened about 7 years ago there was none. Change of leader with no democratic process at all, because we don't elect the Prime Minister and can't do anything to reject the one chosen for us.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Democracy restored by Lennie · · Score: 1

      The UK is a democracy... or maybe it just acts like one ?

      I'll just leave this video here about how well elections work in the UK:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      But hey, Slashdot from the US. In the US things are a lot worse than in the UK, so I guess that means the UK is doing fine right ?

      It would make me laugh if it wasn't such a fucked up mess..

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    22. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this. The primary objection was that "the loser could win", demonstrating beyond any doubt that most people can't understand simple mathematics.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Democracy restored by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      For the uninformed, the UK is undemocratic. We have a broken "first past the post" electoral system rather than some kind of proportional representation, which means that the government of the day is only voted for by a small minority but gets all the power. We also have a legion of unelected "peers"

      Every democracy is different, there is no one way of doing it or one thing that defines a democracy. Are there things that could be better or fixed? Yes. Does this make it fundamentally undemocratic? No.

    24. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So more bureaucracy and unelected bureaucracy making rules that are imposed on all member states is more democratic. And said same rules that remove national sovereignty forever and can impose said rules and laws on entire populations and member states with no ability from the government which has diminished powers under the EU is more democratic.

      Just look at what is about to happen in the UK. The Prime Minister just announced his resignation, and someone else will take over without being elected. ....

      And that's normally what happens in most western countries especially countries based on a Westminster parliament, unless it's written into their constitution that an election must be held. So I'm sure you're out there contacting MP's and starting a movement to turn around and change that right? After all you seem to have real problems with it. Why do I have a feeling you're just whining about it and aren't actually involved in the politics to get it changed.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      The parliament pretty much rubber stamps. The one nuclear power they have is to sack the Commission, last time they chickened out though. Junckers himself is Luxembourger, Luxembourg is a major tax haven (yes, that's ad hominem, but it's an 'indicator').

      This seems to be the Brexit definition of undemocratic: they didn't do what I wanted.

      And as for democracy: the only trade deal we will get with the EU is the same one as everyone else, no exceptions. But when we finally manage that we'll have not say at all! How's that for democracy?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      u mad bro?

      How does being given a choice between two bad systems and choosing to keep the existing bad one make it any less bad? It's still not acceptable and is still deeply undemocratic.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Commissioners are selected by the member state's elected bodies. The UK's is a chap called Jonathan Hill, who was selected by Cameron, who in turn was selected by MPs, who were *democratically* selected by the UK populace by the broken FPTP system.
      The MEPs are selected by a *democratic* Proportional Representation system.
      The Council Members are the Heads of State or Government, who are selected by the *democratically* elected MPs.

    28. Re:Democracy restored by Cederic · · Score: 1

      For the informed, the EU model is that Germany and France work out what makes sense for them, add sweeteners and bribes to the smaller countries that have a net income from the EU and use them to overrule objections from the UK.

      It may be democratic at the 'full Europe' level but it sure as shit doesn't represent the British people.

    29. Re:Democracy restored by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Queen is the longest serving UK monarch in history, and has yet to interfere in Government decisions. I'm not sure that's really a barrier to democracy.

      The House of Lords is indeed appointed and not elected. I really hate the idea of hereditary peers, and detest the political cronyism reflected in its appointees. However: Because it's not elected, the House is able to voice the non-populist views, draw the minority perspectives into legislation and prevent a tyranny of the majority.

      This strengthens and is a crucial element of UK democracy and I would be distraught if we lost this purely because some people want an elected House. I do support reform, but nobody's offered a superior option.

      Because leaving the EU is primarily about racism, not bureaucracy.

      Get your fucking head out of the fucking sand and fucking listen to the people of the UK and why the voted to ditch the fucking EU.

      None of the campaigning was done on racist grounds. None of the campaigners said "I hate the "
      Most people voting Leave go on holiday in the EU, they want trade with the EU, they don't give a shit what colour someone is.

      This has fuck all to do with racism. This has everything to do with sovereignty, self-determination, control over the laws and policies of the UK and a love of Great Britain.

      That's not racist. That's pride. Backing all of that ahead of travel convenience, economic certainty, stability; that's integrity. You might want to give that a go.

    30. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Junckers himself is Luxembourger, Luxembourg is a major tax haven (yes, that's ad hominem, but it's an 'indicator').

      No, that's bigotry.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Democracy restored by Cederic · · Score: 3, Informative

      That'll be why David Cameron went to Europe earlier this year and asked for just the barest minimum level of control over certain UK policies, and got told to fuck off even over that.

      The inability for a British Prime Minister to decline to hand money over to people living in another country and the fact he had to ask - let alone the way he was treated when he did ask - is a massive factor in yesterday's vote.

    32. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike in the EU where Junker was democratically.... Oh wait he was appointed.

      But at least we can goto our MEPs and tell them we want a new law enacted so we can democratically elect the EU president. Oh no wait they can't propose new legislation. They can't repeal legislation either.

      how is it more democratic if the people cannot propose or repeal law? If the majority of powerfull positions are appointed, often to people who have never held public office or been elected before?

      We didn't elect the prime minister, therefor the EU is more democratic, because we don't elect the president of the EU either.

      Makes perfect sense to you I guess?

    33. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be nice having an intimate chat with 50% of hte population so you can so comprehensivly work out their motivations on this extremely complex politcal issue.

      Did you know most of hte vote to stay was a rejection of the idea of democracy? People on the whole couldn't give a shit about the economy, they just want the bankers in charge.

      Whew, this is way easier than actually learning about things. Who new how quicker it would be to just build a strawman to represent millions of people!

    34. Re:Democracy restored by hughbar · · Score: 2

      Nope. It's a statement of fact. Oftentimes they do, but read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... concerning democratic legitimacy, Seidentopp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and finally, Bernard Connolly's Rotten Heart of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for a closer look at all this, in detail.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    35. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's sad that an American outside the EU is far more informed than 95% of British voters. Ignorance has ruined us.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Democracy restored by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this

      And what decisions, praytell, are people to be trusted with?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    37. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you believe that "people are too stupid", then you explicitly are opposing democracy.

      So which system would you prefer:
      1. Monarchy / Dictatorship
      2. Technocracy
      3. Theocracy
      4. Oligopoly

      Hmm. And under which system, would anyone give a damn about what you think?
      Unless you believe yourself to be part of the ruling elite, nobody will care, since you as a normal commoner, are "too stupid", right?
      Which means ... that you will do what you are told, or be punished. And not for your benefit, your families or your community.
      Only the interests of the powerful matter.

      And when you get annoyed, and enough people get annoyed ... after the revolution ... we come back to democracy.

      Now if you were asking, "how do we make a better democracy ..." then we can all start being positive again.

    38. Re:Democracy restored by chris-chittleborough · · Score: 1

      A minor quibble: the people the voters elect in each nation are heads of government, like Prime Ministers. Heads of state can be hereditary (UK, Holland, Norway) or elected.

    39. Re:Democracy restored by bohmt · · Score: 1

      Unlike in the EU where Junker was democratically.... Oh wait he was appointed.

      Appointed by whom ? By people chosen by the voters. Like the US elects the president.

    40. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's an outright lie.

      It wasn't a yes/no referendum on whether to keep the current voting system, but yes/no on whether to move to AV. (And it took place in 2011, not 2010.)

      Since nearly everyone who didn't want FPTP wanted PR, the vote was meaningless. I, for one, spoilt my ballot paper.

    41. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To give you an idea, my vote has never counted in a UK election, despite always participating. My chosen candidate never wins locally, so I have zero influence over who governs the country. That's how our unfair system works, if your local candidate doesn't win your vote is discarded and ignored.

      It's not just a different kind of democracy, it's fundamentally unfair. Whenever anyone sets up a new democracy they base it on proportional representation, not the first-past-the-post system.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong: Art. 225 TFEU is a process for the Parliament to submit legislative proposals. It can of course be refused by the executive, which has the ultimate responsibility for drafting legislation. Similarly, the British executive (government) is the body that proposes and submits bills to Westminster Parliament, and although there is a little time set aside for opposition parties to submit bills, this is barely token and in practice rarely usable for making significant legal changes.

      The European Parliament has the same nuclear option as the British Parliament if its executive ignores it: vote to throw out the Commission/Government respectively.

    43. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU on the other hand has a directly elected parliament

      So you're happy that the UK has 70 seats in that democratic parliament, while other major contenders like Malta and Luxembourg have 10 seats each?

    44. Re:Democracy restored by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and that referendum was about kicking the establishment that was unpopular (Lib Dems) as well...

    45. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I really hate the idea of hereditary peers, and detest the political cronyism reflected in its appointees. However: Because it's not elected, the House is able to voice the non-populist views, draw the minority perspectives into legislation and prevent a tyranny of the majority.

      Well...

      Because of the structure of the Lords, I actually less and less dislike the idea of hereditary peers, given they can only block and rewrite then send back legislation. At least the hereditary peers have no incentive to give in to populism and I think there are more among them that actually try to do the best thing for the country rather than merely try to ensure they stay in power.

      The Lords can act as a very effective brake on things slowing down things so the government doesn't follow every wave of popular sentiment.

      I don't mind the cross bench peers either.

      But the cronyism involved in appointing party political peers is disgusting because it completely destroys the main benefit of the Lords. It was really Blair who decided that the massive stuffing of it with appointees was the best idea. I think that's even worse than more hereditary ones because it means there's an actualy political party there you can't unelect. At least the hereditary and cross bench ones are not all aligned.

      That's not racist.

      There's plenty of racist and xenophobic undertones, having spoken with a number of leavers.

      The whole "soverignty" thing is complete and utter bullshit, too. The fact that we could choose to leave means we always had it. You can't reclaim something you already have.

      And as for the "oh we get soverignty back and we can negotiate trade deals" crowd. The level of stupidity is so intense it has actually overcome degeneracy pressure and formed a neutron star.

      No one is going to do a deal if you always insist on doing eaxctly what you like, because that's not a deal. By the time you've finished you've agreed to abide by some other rules that you don't have complete control over and agree to arbitration of those rules that you don't get to control. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the same as actually being in the EU.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    46. Re:Democracy restored by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Reaching agreement on trade terms is a very different proposition to having a European superstate imposed on you.

      Yes, agreements invariably include a level of compromise. That's very different to handing over full control of the country.

      I've been voting for two decades on the sovereignty issue, long before Blair opened the immigration floodgates. Sovereignty is a very real, very valid and clearly very important concern to many Brits.

    47. Re:Democracy restored by Xest · · Score: 2

      Yes it does, due to the nature of the party system coupled with FPTP the UK system is not democratic.

      For example, the current government has 100% of power, but was only elected by 37% of the populace, that means that 63% of the country have no power representation in the UK at all. Due to FPTP their vote is directly equivalent to 63% of the populace simply being denied a vote at all. 37% is quite high, we've seen it go as low as about 32% - that is, a party having 100% of power against the will of 68% of the population.

      That's not democracy. Democracy requires that everyone have a meaningful (no matter how small in impact) vote, but that doesn't happen in the UK, a majority of the population have no effective vote. The UK's system is best described as elected dictatorship because a minority dictate to a majority, but are elected through an undemocratic system.

    48. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Reaching agreement on trade terms is a very different proposition to having a European superstate imposed on you.

      Nothing was imposed on us, it was always our choice to accept and apparently today we chose not to accept literally proving you wrong that there was any imposition.

      A trade deal is agreeing to abide by rules you don't get to set unilaterally. You are trying to claim this is a good thing while siumultaneously claim it's a bad thing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    49. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Member contributions are proportional and based on GDP. A system that GB agreed on when it joined. Whining about it afterwards doesn't change that fact.

      The fact that GB is a net contributor is because it has a relative large GDP compared to other members. Something most other nations would be rather happy about.

      It's gonna be interesting to see what happens to GB without the common market.

      Anyway, enjoy your acrobats without hard-hats and your curvy bananas!

    50. Re:Democracy restored by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      That's not democracy. Democracy requires that everyone have a meaningful (no matter how small in impact) vote, but that doesn't happen in the UK, a majority of the population have no effective vote. The UK's system is best described as elected dictatorship because a minority dictate to a majority, but are elected through an undemocratic system.

      The issues you raise are problems with the voting system, but to my mind this doesn't mean the system as a whole is not democratic. Your power of representation is through your PM and councillors. So you have the potential to influence decisions by lobbying your representative. You can do that whether you voted for them or not. You're also free to run yourself as a local representative. It's things like this that create a democracy. I consider those avenues more powerful than voting from the perspective of a single individual. Consider it another way: even if the voting system was set up exactly as you would wish, if the candidates aren't meaningfully different then your vote also doesn't count for anything. It's also somewhat ironic that you're saying the UK is not democratic given today's startling demonstration that it is. :)

    51. Re:Democracy restored by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      To give you an idea, my vote has never counted in a UK election, despite always participating. My chosen candidate never wins locally, so I have zero influence over who governs the country. That's how our unfair system works, if your local candidate doesn't win your vote is discarded and ignored.

      It's not just a different kind of democracy, it's fundamentally unfair. Whenever anyone sets up a new democracy they base it on proportional representation, not the first-past-the-post system.

      But you are represented and can lobby your representative. You are also free to run yourself. That's why it's a democracy.

    52. Re:Democracy restored by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Blackadder: Well of course you didn't -- you're not eligible to vote.

      Miggins: Well, why not?

      Blackadder: Because virtually no one is: women, peasants, (looks at Baldrick) chimpanzees (Baldrick looks behind himself, trying to see the animal), lunatics, Lords...

      Baldrick: That's not true -- Lord Nelson's got a vote!

      Blackadder: He's got a *boat*, Baldrick. Marvellous thing, democracy. Look at Manchester; population 60,000, electoral role, 3.

      Miggins: Well, I may have the brain the size of a sultana...

      Blackadder: Correct...

      Miggins: ...but it hardly seems fair to me.

      Blackadder: Of course it's not fair -- and a damn good thing too. Give the like of Baldrick the vote and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    53. Re:Democracy restored by Xest · · Score: 2

      "The issues you raise are problems with the voting system, but to my mind this doesn't mean the system as a whole is not democratic."

      How can you realistically separate the two? The is is the method of implementation and if the method of implementation doesn't implement democracy then it's not a real democracy.

      "Your power of representation is through your PM and councillors. So you have the potential to influence decisions by lobbying your representative. You can do that whether you voted for them or not."

      A representative by definition, has to represent you, but if you've voted against them then you've done so because they do not represent your beliefs. It doesn't matter that you can speak to them if they're not going to listen - people in North Korea can speak to Kim Jong Un but that doesn't change the fact he's a dictator.

      If you want a system with representatives that's truly democratic you need something (ironically) closer to the system we have to MEPs where by they're elected proportionally but still represent an area in such a manner that the share of party representatives mimics the popular vote closely enough to allow a majority of people to be represented by someone that actually represents them, rather than someone that doesn't as under FPTP.

      "It's things like this that create a democracy. I consider those avenues more powerful than voting from the perspective of a single individual."

      I think you're using a very odd definition of democracy, typically a democracy requires majority rule, and we do not have that in the UK.

      The fact we've had one instance of democracy on one single issue out of the literally tens of thousands doesn't make us a democracy. We're still ultimately an elected dictatorship with minority rule - the only time this wasn't true was in the 2010 election term whereby we ended up with two parties working in compromise who offered compromise representation for 59% of the population but how common are compromise coalitions? Once in a hundred years it seems.

      Effectively therefore between that and the referendum you can reasonably say that the UK system is capable of producing a democratic outcome on rare occasions, but the vast majority of the time is simply not democratic.

      That's before you even factor in the whole unelected Lords thing where they can outright strike down legislation regardless of whether the public wants it.

      Any claim that the UK is a genuine and consistently democratic country is merely a whitewash to pretend we're somehow superior than countries we oppose like Russia.

      There are really two paths to achieving actual lasting democracy in the UK and the electorate rejected the one that keeps local representatives but elects the one that is at least partially representative of over half their electorate (AV) so the only other option is proportional representation which we've consistently been denied the option of - precisely because we're not a true democracy amusingly enough.

    54. Re:Democracy restored by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Brits already were treated like very special snowflakes, Cameron demanded more and more concessions, and, in fact, he got them. This is why I am happy you finally GTFO.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    55. Re:Democracy restored by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > Even if you argue that the monarch has very little actual power

      Which, by the way, is significantly (one may even say hugely) more than people realize. The best trick the English monarchy found to keep their power in the last 50 years is to pretend they have none. The queen and the prince of whales both have the power to veto any law. The common conception is that they hardly ever use it. This is just not true. A few years ago The Guardian demanded a list from parliament of what laws the prince has vetoed - the list ran into the hundreds.
      Nearly every law he vetoed was the kind of thing that the press usually treats as administrative meh with nothing juicy enough to bother reporting on - but they veto plenty. Most of them are things like minor ammendments to property rights or local regulations - and nearly always for regions where the prince or his mother own lots of property.
      You can't make a law in the UK that could impact the Royal family's primary source of income - their land-ownership, they simply will not let that happen. A few of them were arguably good things - the prince for example once vetoed a law that would have effectively legalized whale hunting again, his known environmental beliefs certainly did not accord with that and he clearly used the power in line with them that time.

      But mostly - they use it to protect their own pockets, they use it a lot, and they are very happy that most people think they haven't ever actually used it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    56. Re:Democracy restored by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "UK democracy isn't perfect (e.g. voting isn't proportional, and the unelected House of Lords can delay legislation)"

      And, very importantly, voting isn't secret.

    57. Re:Democracy restored by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      I posted it above, but it should be repeated here.

      Voting in the UK is not secret.

      I grew up in Australia and believe that a secret ballot is an integral part of any democracy.

    58. Re:Democracy restored by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >but I didn't expect that someone would compare the House of Lords (basically powerless) to the European Commission (basically all-powerful).

      Their power is virtually identical. The House of Lords has the power to veto any act of parliament. They can block any law they want to. In theory their purpose is to be a check on the power of parliament and being unelected and job-for-lifed is a key requirement in your "check" organisations (same reason in the US the supreme court judges can't be fired and are not elected).
      In practice the HoL pretty much fell apart after the right to appoint lords was extended to the P.M. it was sold as increasing democracy by having somebody who was elected able to ensure there were some voices in the house that represented the will of the people. In practice it meant PMs have been handing out lordships as gifts to their friends in return for things like campaign funds and the like - and in return, those friends rubber-stamp whatever lunacy parliament sends their way.

      The problem with the House of Lords is not a lack of power - it's that it has become so completely watered down that it is utterly unwilling to use that power for the purpose it was given it when it actually mattered.
      The house of lords had the power to keep Britain out of the Iraq war - they chose not to because Blair had stuffed the house with his buddies. The interesting thing is that the hereditary lords overwhelmingly voted against that - they were just too outnumbered to matter.

      I'm not a fan of aristocracy but Britain actually found a use for the aristocrats they had lying around which, for quite some time, worked very well and to the benefit of the British people. When they allowed the PM to make new aristocrats - the whole thing went completely to shit.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    59. Re:Democracy restored by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      I am supporting your statement, FPTP is broken.

      For a really good explanation I highly recommend this video by "CGP Grey".

    60. Re:Democracy restored by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "House of Lords (basically powerless)"

      You're fucking kidding, right?

      For the uninformed, here is a starting point for bills the House of Lords has blocked in the UK.

    61. Re:Democracy restored by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > and has yet to interfere in Government decisions. I'm not sure that's really a barrier to democracy.

      No. She lets her boy do it for her. Seriously - look up how many (and what) laws the Prince of Whales have vetoed. The list will shock and surprise you. Not least for how incredibly long it is - you wouldn't expect it to be since everybody has this perception that the Royals basically never use their veto. It is long. It's very long.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re:Democracy restored by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "This strengthens and is a crucial element of UK democracy and I would be distraught if we lost this purely because some people want an elected House. I do support reform, but nobody's offered a superior option."

      Yes they have.

      Just do what Australia and Canada do: elect your upper house using a different political system and a different set of values. It even works well in practice, where most Australians being prepared to even vote for different parties for the Senate from the House of Reps, since most people understand the different roles the different houses play.

      Of course this only works if you have a strong civics course at High School, and Australia goes one step further and subsidizes nearly every school child in the country to take a budget trip to Canberra and learn about the Parliament first hand.

    63. Re:Democracy restored by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Whenever anyone sets up a new democracy they base it on proportional representation, not the first-past-the-post system.

      Proportional representation isn't really a democracy, either. Giving each person one vote, which we have the technology to do today, is the only true democracy. Everything else is just a means to a corrupt end.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:Democracy restored by martas · · Score: 1

      OK. It's official now. That word has literally lost all its meaning.

    65. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also no dog in this hunt (New Zealand).

      What I find most interesting is the attitude towards this thing called "democracy". Apparently, it is to be loved and aspired to unquestioningly yet simultaneously rejected whenever one is on the losing side.

    66. Re:Democracy restored by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >That's not racist. That's pride.

      This is not a comment. It's an opinion on a website.

      Sorry pal - the word 'pride' only has meaning when discussing your personal achievements or a group of lions. In all other contexts it's a word used to disguise bigotry or racism.
      Pride as you want us to think you are using it literally cannot EXIST for anything you haven't personally done yourself. You cannot be proud of your ancestors - you can only be a cultural bigot. You did not do whatever they did that you are proud off - you don't GET to be proud of it. Patriotism and other forms of external pride as a crutch for sad people who haven't done anything themselves to take pride in.

      No wonder though, if that's the reasoning, that overwhelmingly the "leave" voters are the least educated. Lack of education and lack of a sense of personal achievement are rather frequently correlated.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    67. Re:Democracy restored by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Junckers himself is Luxembourger, Luxembourg is a major tax haven (yes, that's ad hominem, but it's an 'indicator').

      No, that's bigotry.

      Which part? Is Luxembourg a tax haven, or not? If it is, how is it bigotry to assume that he might be trying to protect someone who might have helped him?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:Democracy restored by NotAPK · · Score: 2

      I think NZ is awesome.

      It's also one of the few colonies that has not eradicated the culture of the indigenous people. Yes, the Maori have suffered and have a lot of social problems, but compared to the US, Australia, and Canada, I've always been so impressed by the strong representation and respect for, and from, the Maori.

      Now that the UK is fucked, Australia is a political joke (and the mining downturn is going to continue to get worse) I think I might move to NZ.

      Plus they scrapped their offensive air force capability, which I thought was a really grown up thing to do.

    69. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this shows that you know more about the EU than OP and probably more than most of those in the UK that voted for leave...

      But complaining that Brussels is undemocratic and makes stupid decisions over the head of the poor people is repeated and repeated over again.

    70. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense.

      What the plebs didn't like was the suppression/reduction of wages caused by the large number of unskilled workers, regardless of skin colour.

    71. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the uninformed, the EU is undemocratic: no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats (the European Commission) which voters cannot feasibly remove from power (because the system for appointing them is highly indirect and opaque). Much opposition to the EU stems from this.

      UK democracy isn't perfect (e.g. voting isn't proportional, and the unelected House of Lords can delay legislation) but voters can and do change the government and change policy direction through the ballot box.

      You're a liar. 100% of EU legislation is passed by the European Council and/or the European Parliament. Both of them are directly elected by the people.

    72. Re:Democracy restored by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this.

      People, as opposed to what - the magic 8-ball?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    73. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      Elected representatives. I'm not an expert in all the jobs a government does, so I prefer to elect people who I think will be good at those tasks. Elections are basically collective job interviews.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this. The primary objection was that "the loser could win", demonstrating beyond any doubt that most people can't understand simple mathematics.

      In other words you're an authoritarian that doesn't actually believe in democracy unless it gets you what you want.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    75. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Try some simple substitution to see if it becomes clearer:

      "Are black people not more likely to end up in jail? If it is, how is it bigotry to assume he might be a criminal?"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    76. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't understand it either. UK voters vote for an MP, who is a member of a party, that has a leader chosen by the party.

      UK voters don't vote for a Prime Minister. How the fuck don't you know this?

    77. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, I have no dog in the race - I am a Finn living in Finland.

      So am I and yes we do have many dogs in this race. You must've been living under a rock not to have come across the myriad of analyses by various "experts" regarding how a Brexit will affect us since we trade so much with the UK. And in case you forgot, we're an EU and Eurozone member :)

    78. Re:Democracy restored by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That's pride. Backing all of that ahead of travel convenience, economic certainty, stability; that's integrity. You might want to give that a go.

      Pride is not integrity but a mortal sin. I guess it's UK's turn to learn that first hand. It's off to a great start too, seeing how leaving the EU puts the UK into the strategic position straight out of its nightmares: unified mainland Europe and the UK outside of it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    79. Re:Democracy restored by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The key phrase from your link "The European Commission remains the sole initiator of legislation," The European Parliament cannot pass any legislation which is not first presented to it by the European Commission. The European Council can "provide impetus to guide legislative policy", which I interpret to mean that the European Council can cause enough of a PR problem for the European Commission that they give the European Parliament legislation to address an issue (although, from my reading, and my experience, that legislation will not actually reflect the will of the people). Ultimately, the problem with the EU was that it was DESIGNED to not be responsive to the will of the people. Its founders and architects (even those who came in later and "redesigned" it) all believed that the wars of Europe were the result of unfettered Democracy (when, in fact, those wars were the result of governments run EXACTLY the way they designed the EU to work).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    80. Re:Democracy restored by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it's more like vaccination. I'd rather have elected officials listening to experts and making the decision, than having a popular vote where fear and stupidity are the dominant factors. One of the reasons we have elected representatives is to provide this buffer.

      No-where has direct democracy for everything. It would just be the tyranny of the majority, unrestrained by laws and constitutions and emboldened by the democratic mandate. If I were as disingenuous as you I'd call you a tyrant.

      Look at it another way, it was only the over 50 vote that took us out. All other age groups voted in, by some margin. In about 5 years time enough people will have died of old age to swing it the other way, but of course we can't expect to have another vote or re-join, can we? How is that democratic or fair?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    81. Re:Democracy restored by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Have a hearty virtual recommend.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    82. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0, Troll

      In other words you're an authoritarian that doesn't actually believe in democracy unless it gets you what you want.

      In orher words you're a moron. Simple really. Now for a game to prove my point. Guess who said the following:

      The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

      Now see if you can guess if the person who said it was for or against democracy.

      Oh whoops! Looks like your simplistic "logic" has failed you yet again.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    83. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The inability for a British Prime Minister to decline to hand money over to people living in another country and the fact he had to ask

      For fuck's sake, why the ever living fuck are people so incredibly stupid? This is and always was a complete and utter lie.

      Today literally proved that we could unilaterally decline to "hand over" the money. Today literally proved that we always did have soverignty. If we didn't then the vote would never have happened.

      The only thing we were never able to do is get other people to do exactly what we wanted. Big surprise, eh? Apparently however a bunch of raging idiots decided to fuck up the country in order to learn a very simple point. And they're going to learn it doubly so when we try and fail to negotiate a trade deal which is better than what we had already.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    84. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not this horse-shit again.

      The EC drafts laws. You realize that all democracies draft laws, right? It's not done in parliament via a debating process, that would take forever. They're just drafted. Then the democratic process discusses the drafts. Tables amendments. Approves or declines. This is how it works in the EU, and it's how it works in the UK. This is basically how all democracies work. (For the uninformed.)

    85. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Says the person who earlier came out trying to backpedal hard that the EU itself isn't a pro-authoritarian group of unelected bureaucrats. If you're unwilling to allow the electorate to make a choice then you're an authoritarian. If you think that people are doing something because it doesn't fit with your agenda and you label those people doing so because it's "fear and stupidity" you're still an authoritarian. You're simply trying to rationalize that.

      Why can't you have another vote to rejoin? What's stopping you besides your whining over it? In 5 years time those people who you believe would still be on the "right side of history" and vote the way you want would have more life experience and likely shift in exactly the same direction. Funny how that age breakdown seems to show exactly that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    86. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Whoops it looks like you're an idiot. One that believes that quotes instead of a rational reply show some form of intelligence. Such is the hard life for people such as yourself, maybe a couple of years will teach you something. Here, some friends you can sulk with.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    87. Re:Democracy restored by Adelea · · Score: 1

      In the UK we dont elect the Prime Minister. We elect local MPs who represent a party of some kind. The group of MPs with the largest party or coalition of parties become the government with one of their number being Prime Minister. If the nominal head of a political party that won the general election didnt win his seat, then a new leader would need to be found. This I suppose is why the parties put their leaders in what are considered safe seats. And the new Prime Minister most certainly was elected - he will have to be chosen from the current crop of elected MPs.

    88. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this.

      There you have it folks. Straight from the horse's mouth of Slashdot's leading SJW-technofascist thoughtleader.
      "The people" are too "stupid", "bigoted", "uneducated", "populist", "ugly", etc, to be allowed to exercise a democratic veto over the future their more intelligent, ipod equipped, elites have chosen for them.

      Views like this a rampant within the political class in general, the media in particular, and increasingly in the (ever more powerful and political) tech industry. It's only a matter of time before open hostility to democracy become chic in political class and technology circles and western society will not survive intact for much long after.

    89. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have a legion of unelected "peers" in the House of Lords, many of whom inherited their title or are there because they are religious leaders. It's a job for life and we don't get any say on who is appointed.

      I'm not against democracy per se, but there is such a thing as too much of it IMHO. Like in the US: elected judges, sheriffs, prosecutors, dog catchers, etc.

      Having a dampening factor on the mob isn't a bad thing.

    90. Re:Democracy restored by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Elected representatives. I'm not an expert in all the jobs a government does, so I prefer to elect people who I think will be good at those tasks. Elections are basically collective job interviews.

      The job interview is fine, but after they're hired they don't answer to their "boss" for 4-5 years and then the only issue you get to decide is whether you'd like to rehire them for another term. I realize you need people to work out proposals to be voted on, but many of the issues comes down to opinion as you can tell because the parties are divided too. We can get the brief run-down of pros and cons and usually quite quickly say for ourselves if we're for, against or undecided.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    91. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The opposite to "First Past The Post" means individual people you don't vote for get put in parliament by parties. I'm strongly against giving more power to parties. The power should be to the voter not to the political parties.

      The House of Lords however is so undemocratic it would be funny if it were in a work of fiction. My suggestion. Scrap the House of Lords and replace it with a second house that is selected by Sortition. (that's random selection based upon eligible people).

      A body selected by sorti is actually much better representation of the people than even a pure democracy. All political persuasions get a say (even the loony-ones). Representatives aren't impacted by trying to stay in power or lobbyists. You don't need to be wealthy to run. You don't need to be able to take time off work to campaign to get elected. A second house selected by sorti allows the smaller parties to get their representational say- and a first past the post commons means that, should an unusually unstable group get selected to the second house the damage they can do is limited.

      An elected house and a house by sorti balances the advantages and disadvantages of the First Past The Post democracy WITHOUT taking away the right of the common people to vote for individuals. The electoral power stays with the people and the electoral parties don't get to select at will who represents you.

    92. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but voters can and do change the government and change policy direction through the ballot box.

      Like that actually makes any kind of difference... This is merely the illusion of democracy rather than actual democracy. Witness the last Labour government that was in power who were actually more Tory than the Conservatives!

    93. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have a legion of unelected "peers" in the House of Lords, many of whom inherited their title or are there because they are religious leaders. It's a job for life and we don't get any say on who is appointed.

      Yet, ironically, it's often the House of Lords that prevents some of the most egregious laws being passed that the Commons would really like to see become law. For example, the recent legislation regarding the so-called "snooper's charter" and it's previous incarnations. The Lords have kicked this back on a few occasions.

    94. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the european council has a history of ignoring their voters will

      e.g.
      a couple of years back when the where discussing making software patents legal
      several countries ministers got told by their parliament "reject this", they voted yes anyway cause the parliament direction was non-binding
      on the second go around those parliaments made their direction binding, so they changed a couple of inconsequential parts of the text and then voted 'yes' with the justification that "they didn't vote yes on the text they where legally bound to reject"

      then there's the european commision and the european central bank, both institutions with enormous power and in practice no democratic checks on that power whatsoever

      In short, while the EU may be democratic in theory, in practice it's an oligargy
      Not that's that unique, there was that princeton analysis showing the same for the US based on how congress actually votes, compared to the public will, the EU is just a bit worse still

    95. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Whoops it looks like you're an idiot.

      Wow, your ability to think is severely hampered. Let me do a replay:

      Amimojo: voters are too stupid to vote
      You: you're anti democracy
      Me: quotes someone who (a) said rude things about democracy and (b) led the largest fight ever seen in favour of it.
      You: quotes don't prove anything.

      Yes, yes they do. Quotes prove that people said stuff. That quotes that very much pro democracy people still think that voters are too bloody stupid to vote half the time. The fact that you'd prefer rhetorical sound bites as opposed to any actual thought is more then common for you: it is the only way you are able to operate.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    96. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone can vote on all issues, does that mean everyone can also submit bills to be voted on? If so, get ready for referenda on every bullshit thing the internet decides would be funny to vote for. If not, you still have the same issue of needing representatives, which means the system still isn't a true democracy.

    97. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what. From time to time constituencies do change hands. So it is possible that it will happen in the future. What happens when you have Lab 45% Con 45% and Someone else 10%? The 10% get to implement shit that 90% could be against? (As part of a deal.) In the UK we have seen stupidity like this with Nick Cleggs wanting a referendum on AV, then even going back on his word to bring in legislation to equalise constituency sizes (which incidentally would make it a bit fairer, there are some Conservative consituencies with populations 2 or three times that of some of the smaller inner city (Labour) ones). To summarise I have yet to hear of a method of democracy that doesn't have some huge flaw. And the UK system is just not that bad. I mean I think we now have provisions that allow for the recall of a sitting MP? How could that work under proportional representation? Also do you not value the link between your locale and your MP? I am pretty sure that if you have an issue your MP will try to help you out if they can, without checking on your political views. I think this is valuable. Also, in PR, there would still be people whose vote doesn't count - obvious if repellant example, BNP supporters. The BNP would never be in a coalition but their voter's have as much right to representation as you. I don't think you really have a valid argument (and I disagree with you anyway :) .

    98. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The millions of dollars it takes for someone to win a campaign says otherwise. While there are exceptions, generally the candidate who has the most money will win, not the one most qualified. See the US House of Representatives as an example. It's full of buffoons who are only there because they were able to outspend better qualified candidates, thanks to the largess of their corporate and lobbyist masters.

    99. Re:Democracy restored by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      wow, amimojo's position... is pretzel logic at its finest isn't it?

    100. Re:Democracy restored by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      Although that was a slightly rigged result, in as much as it was a choice of AV or FPTP. Nobody really wanted AV, include the Liberal Democrats who were the ones pushing for a vote on introducing PR.

      You can have democracy without having good democracy.

      --

      jh

    101. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, there is definitely at least one person in Britain who is far more informed about our politics than 95% of American votes. Being "far more informed than 95% of ____ voters" is not a high bar to clear.

    102. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct -- with exception that Parliament also has to confirm the Commissioners, a procedure involving a public grilling about the subject area they'll be responsible for.

      However, to prevent high blood pressure and the like, please refrain from posting those kinds of thoughts -- at least not in the hope you'll convince a Briton that things actually work that way.

    103. Re:Democracy restored by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      They proposed a ridiculous electoral reform in 2010. Basically the Conservatives agreed to put one to referendum that nobody would want in order to keep the support of their coalition partners the Liberal-Democrats. The Lib-Dems should have seen it was a turkey but gave the Conservatives the required support in exchange for an unwinnable referendum. Cretins.

      I voted for it anyway because it was so bad they'd have had to fix it had the referendum been won (or subsequent elections could have been a hilarious experience, which might have been better than how they actually turned out). I know people that wanted electoral reform but actually voted against the proposal so that they could support a better reform later. My argument that it was being set up to fail to ensure there would be no further reform for decades wasn't believed. People are easily conned. Cretins.

    104. Re:Democracy restored by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      If you think the people are too stupid to make decisions, then why do you put any premium on whether the UK is democratic or not?

    105. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol they are the 2nd biggest economy in Europe, you have grossly missed who will have hat in hand here, there are two sides of a trade deal the consumer and provider, remove or diminish either one and they both decline. Money finds it's own way, politics can try to erect barriers but are largely unsuccessful. The EU blowhards who've vowed to punish them through trade deals for leaving will find themselves faced with more exits as their emotion overrules common sense.

    106. Re:Democracy restored by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      The Lords can veto any act of Parliament, but them Parliament can just use the Parliament Act to force the legislation through anyway. both houses know this, and so the HoL really is just an advisory body.

      In practice, their main purpose is really sending legislation back to the Commons for another reading, and causing PR trouble for the government in doing so (e.g. the Tax Credits issue, where is got through the Commons due to the Labour party's neutral position, but the Lords sent it back and causes such a press scandal that the Govt. dropped it).

    107. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the old people learned something after 50 years.

      Do you really feel at 20 the same as you do at 30 ? 40 ? Should we let 20 year olds dictate law ?

      Didn't think so.

    108. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which mathematics? The one where the UK has been running record trade deficits with the EU?

      Nice to see you've given up pretending to be in favor or western democracy. At least you can slither in the open now.

    109. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how it's always asserted, without proof, that one's view is the 'smart' one and the other side is full of uneducated rubes.

      One could also spin this as showing that young people are gullible and will passionately follow their pet causes, reason be damned.

    110. Re:Democracy restored by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Because leaving the EU is primarily about racism

      You're a dirty scummy liar. My vote was not based on that.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    111. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW. Just wow. You call the parent 'incredibly stupid' yet you go & demonstrate your OWN stupidity.

      Your claim that the UK had the power to 'decline to hand over money' via the power demonstrated in the Brexit vote. What you don't seem to get is that you had NO power to decline giving the money while IN the EU so the only way to exercise power was to leave.

      This isn't about telling other people what THEY should do, its about having control over what YOU want to do, e.g. other people telling you what you MUST do.

      Wow, you're right 'people are so incredibly stupid', and that is generally on display when they call other people stupid.

    112. Re:Democracy restored by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      GP is so sure of himself and simultaneously so wrong about a place he couldn't find on a map.

      Can we guess where he's from, children?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    113. Re:Democracy restored by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      ...and so many people I know would respond, "thanks for proving my point." Meaning, they interpret what you said as making them not a bigot for saying exactly that.

    114. Re:Democracy restored by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      so... the powerless house of lords rejected a a bad bill that had been passed by parliament -- and were not overruled by parliament? So how exactly were they powerless? If they were actually powerless then removing them would have no effect, but you give an example where removing them would have resulted in a different outcome.

      Now, I'm an American and not all that familiar with the workings of the British government so I'm just going from your statements here. But as it stands it just doesn't add up to support your claim.

    115. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NZ switched from FPP to MMP a while ago, what difference did that make?

      1) Parties now have to work out deals with each other to get the numbers to rule, thats been hit and miss. Basically just leads to everyone yelling at each other more in parliament.

      2) The Govt still does what the govt does, and that is screw over the average person and service its own interests and the PMs business buddies.

    116. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its founders and architects (even those who came in later and "redesigned" it) all believed that the wars of Europe were the result of unfettered Democracy [...]

      There is a (oversized) grain of wisdom here: without support of millions and millions of people, there would be no soldiers to fight the wars.

      (when, in fact, those wars were the result of governments run EXACTLY the way they designed the EU to work).

      B.S. The EU is not a singular monolithic entity. The ways of running countries do not apply.

      Or with whom do you think EU is going to fight a war?

    117. Re:Democracy restored by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      Odd, if you listen to the 25 year old panic ridden bobbleheads on twitter this is all, and only, about "old white British people" who hate immigrants, lol.

    118. Re:Democracy restored by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      The EU on the otherhand is controlled by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels, very democratic.

      Bullshit.

      Or you are comparing that to how you elect the Queen? Then, yes, EU is very undemocratic. /s

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    119. Re:Democracy restored by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      From whom you got your information?

      UK has 73 seats. You are almost 5% off the mark.

      Malta and Luxembourg have 6 seats each. That's 40% off the mark.

      So from the 7:1 influence ratio you tried to cry here about, it is more like 12:1.

      IOW, the voice of the UK in EP is 12 times more powerful. Or in other words: it would take 9 countries at the bottom to match the voting power of UK. and at least 10 to outvote.

      Still not enough??

      P.S. Seats in the EP.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    120. Re:Democracy restored by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      There's no king that assigns bureaucrats to the European commission. They're selected by elected representatives of the nations and vetted by the European parliament. According to your point, my country of the Netherlands is non-democratic as there is no requirement that the members of the government have a seat in parliament (it is actually forbidden that they have). There's not even a requirement that they belong to a party. They are selected by parliament on their capability to make appropriate laws (but more likely because they have political clout). So they're 'unelected bureaucrats'. The fact that they govern by virtue of acceptance by parliament doesn't make a difference I guess. The European Commission is the same thing. They can create laws, not pass them.

      And yes, many people in my country complain that the process in which we form a government is fundamentally undemocratic as it doesn't concern itself with a direct vote. However, once government is formed it is pretty clearly democratic as it can only survive by virtue of having majority backing by parliament.

      There are very good reasons to not elect the ones directly making the laws, as drafting good laws is a different skill than representing the people. It is equally important that the elected representatives have a final say in what becomes law. And that's the job of the European Parliament. If a law doesn't get passed by Parliament, it's not a law. This is all pretty standard stuff.

      Short of it, the EU is not any more or less democratic than the nation states that form it, with the one exception that the nation states have a lot more power in the process than the typical province or region has in a nation due to the European council. The checks and balances are a bit different, but so is the process in each nation. Calling the EU undemocratic because it doesn't mirror your preferred nation-states process is, let's say, a bit myopic.

    121. Re:Democracy restored by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      And in the Netherlands, it is not even a requirement that the PM was elected in parliament. He always is, but it's not mandatory. I guess we're ruled by unelected bureaucrats.

    122. Re:Democracy restored by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not fair. UK should have fewer seats. It was Lionel Penrose who proved that for a majority voting system to work fairly, every block should get a representation proportional to the square root of the number of inhabitants. Not proportional, square root. This to avoid the larger countries to completely dictate policy by teaming up against the small ones thereby completely annihilating the democratic rights of the inhabitants of the smaller countries. With larger than proportional blocks, smaller countries can form coalitions that give them power against larger countries. The optimal distribution happens to be the square root.

      As the US was formed before this proof, they tried to solve this by giving every state two seats in the senate, regardless of size, and proportional representation in congress. Of course, in the EU the math was not followed and they gave the larger nations more power than they should. They do include a 'regressive proportionality' system, but not according to Penrose's method. So indeed, the EU has a problem in that the UK has 70 seats, while Malta and Luxembourg only have 5 and 6 respectively.

    123. Re:Democracy restored by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      So your beef with the EU is that the representatives of the nation states that form it are not powerful enough to control their nation's government? Maybe it's a problem with the nation states?

    124. Re:Democracy restored by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are the 2nd biggest economy in Europe. They have a GDP of €2.6 trillion. The largest economy in Europe, the EU, has a GDP of €11.7 trillion. So I guess the UK has the upper hand.

    125. Re:Democracy restored by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck no. I preferred the proposed option to PR. It meant you could vote for people, not political parties, and you could vote against a cunt you don't want elected rather than a party just dropping in at the top of the list.

      PR is terrible.

    126. Re:Democracy restored by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I was referring to child benefit payments, made to families in Poland when a parent works in the uk. Something that Cameron had to beg to avoid and got told no.

      There was never a rational basis for those payments and no reasonable objection that other EU leaders could make to halting them. Yet Merkel and the Polish PM and others demanded that they continue.

      Well, fuck them, they just cost their countries far far more than the couple of million quid a year those payment come to.

    127. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #no legislation can be passed without the say-so of unelected bureaucrats

      Bah, the UN Secretary General is also an 'unelected bureaucrat'. You're aware your own government is full of unelected bureaucrats as well--the horror! You the voter can exercise control by---wait for it---ELECTING leaders who then vote for these 'unelected bureaucrats'

    128. Re:Democracy restored by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      the House of Lords was, until 1999, occupied by hereditary Peers appointed by the Queen. Following Blair's reforms, the PM now appoints members without consultation to the Queen, to whom the Lords were expected to consult on all Commons Bills but now they're just Yes-Men to the Commons. The Queen no longer has a consultative voice in Parliament and no veto. Blairs reforms are therefore unconstitutional and the Queen has failed in her Coronation Oath.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    129. Re:Democracy restored by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      not quite, hereditary peers were abolished in 1999. ALL members of the Upper House are now appointed through the Cabinet Office.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    130. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Proof, if it were needed, that people are too stupid to be trusted with decisions like this."

      If not people to what should the decisions be entrusted, dogs, cats, trees...?

      "The primary objection was that "the loser could win", demonstrating beyond any doubt that most people can't understand simple mathematics."

      I certainly can't understand what that gibberish means.

    131. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wow, your ability to think is severely hampered. Let me do a replay:

      You mean your ability to comprehend is severely hampered. Allow me to fix your stuff:

      Amimojo: voters are too stupid to vote and need their betters to tell them how/what to do.
      Me: you're pro-authoritarian
      You: used some quotes to try and appeal via authority, and didn't actually prove their point.
      Me: come up with something coherent to the original thread idiot.

      Quotes surely do prove that people said stuff, but in the context of the original are useless. There's a fundamental difference between democracy, and some classist individual believes that voters are dumb and need to be told how to vote. Keep in mind, that was the entire premise on the remain campaign. "We know better then you, and if you don't vote the way we tell you: You're racist and xenophobic." Not "Look at how great things are in the EU! If we leave we're gonna lose all this great stuff."

      It in the end says a lot more about you then me, that you don't even realize that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    132. Re:Democracy restored by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly surprised that your brain works sufficiently well to allow you to bash keys because it seems to serve little other purpose.

      Thinking voters are stupid is not the same as being authoratarian. Have a lovely example of someone famous who expressed the same sentiment but through actions was demonstrably in favour of democracy to fight for it.

      And yes: a counter example is a proof that your general claim is wrong.

      As for classist, haha! Yes, I claim the Brexit campaign was all about misinformation and no the brexit voters did not know what they were doing. So does that make me against the upper classes (Bojo and other rich old people many of whom voted to leave) or against the lower ones (many of whom voted to remain)?

      Oh yeah it's not classist. It's you yet again unable to actually process facts and logic throwing around insults you literally don't even know the meaning of as a substitute for having a brain that operates like a somewhat rational human.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    133. Re:Democracy restored by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Correct !!

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    134. Re:Democracy restored by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      There is an elected representative from each EU country that has a voice in all the laws being proposed, modified and ratified. laws are made to equalise and level the playing field within the EU. Can you name any club that you can go in and play by your own rules with no regard for the club rules? An example of one benefit of being inside the EU, a UK government can now invest in areas of the UK that are beneficial to their party whereas within the EU investment was non partisan, this is because all the parties put themselves before the country so they can attempt to stay in power.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    135. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However the Council of Permanent Representatives (COREPER): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... prepares and 'adjusts' the agenda for the European Council, they are unelected.

      That is hardly relevant and I am all the more surprised that you say you worked there. Is like saying that the decision taken by the US Ambassador to country X is not legitimate in some way because he was not elected.

      COREPER is composed by the Ambassadors (or Deputies) of the Member States. They are national diplomats which receive instructions from their political (elected) masters. The fact that COREPER prepares the agenda, if anything, shows how th Council, and not the Commission, still controls all the strings.

    136. Re: Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ffs. all *except 100* hereditary peers were removed and they *still remain*

    137. Re: Democracy restored by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      92 and half of them have since gone to be replaced by peers APPOINTED BY THE COMMONS.

      The QUEEN no longer has the authority to bestow titles.

      HEREDITARY PEERS were her check against harmful Government. REMOVING that check was TREASON as it also removed her AUTHORITY.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    138. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's certainly making the assumption that none of the aging voters will switch from their remain positions to leave positions as they age, as demographics indicates they do.

    139. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but I didn't expect that someone would compare the House of Lords (basically powerless) to the European Commission (basically all-powerful).

      Their power is virtually identical. The House of Lords has the power to veto any act of parliament. They can block any law they want to.

      No they can't; the House of Lords can only delay bills for a limited period of time.

      Since the Parliaments Act 1911, the Lords can only delay a bill for up to two years, this was reduced to one year in the Parliaments Act 1949.

      They can veto delegated legislation but that's only meant to be used for uncontroversial matters. The Lords have historically been very reluctant to exercise their veto there and if they do it's a generally a sign that the government (and they all try it) has been abusing it to push things through the Commons without it being subject to the scrutiny that a primary bill would receive, especially if there's not a clear majority.

    140. Re:Democracy restored by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yep, and there's the typical BS of someone who knows they're losing an argument. A personal attack, good job there kiddo. You'd best go back and re-read what he wrote, when you get to the part where he said that to paraphrase "their betters should be telling people how to vote" I'll be waiting. Then I'll be waiting for that realization that you've proven over 3 posts that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    141. Re:Democracy restored by shilly · · Score: 1

      I think a huge amount of people genuinely do not get international relations. They don't understand that the UK has signed fourteen thousand treaties, every single one of which involves conceding some element of joint sovereignty, because *surprise* -- when two or more countries agree to abide by a set of rules, they are voluntarily giving up the power to break those rules in pursuit of common interests.

      It is unbelievably depressing how many drooling morons there are in my country, banging on about sovereignty and taking back our country (bleurch).

    142. Re:Democracy restored by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Quotes out of context certainly don't prove anything.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    143. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmiMoJo is so triggered right now...

    144. Re:Democracy restored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so triggered... quickly! to the Safe Space!

  10. The Naked Truth by franzrogar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's the naked truth from an Spaniard:

    1) UK got privileges no other country got:
    - They kept their old monetary unit (GBP)
    - They kept the *right to refuse entry* (not signed SENGEN)
    - They kept the old measuring unit system (instead of International System)
    - They kept colonies in other countries of the EU (Gibraltar) even though it's clearly illegal and have a specific article forbidding it.
    Etc.

    2) The Universal Declaration of Human Right, which all countries are obliged to comply with as is *written* in the European Treaties and Constitution, says clearly:
    Art. 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

    3) As the UK did not comply with the "rights" part of the UDHR, forced by the EU Constitution and International Treaties, and shitted in the treaties that form the core and meaning of the EU (SENGEN, no colonies, etc.) I can say anything but...

    GO F**K YOURSELVES

    PS: It's a pity that Ireland got kicked too due to their stupidity.

    1. Re: The Naked Truth by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yep, as a German I can only say, don't let the door hit you on your way out. Brits were the reason for the lack of bank control laws, the reason why marmalade can only be made of citrus fruits, even though the word "marmelo" means "quince", they are partially responsible for the mess in Iraq and so on. My only hope is that they take Poland with them.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed, how do you say "good riddance" in Spanish?
        In French it's "bon débarras", but I've never found an equivalent expression in Spanish, despite the fact that I've been living between France and Spain for 3 decades.
      Anyway, Brits have chosen to leave. Let it be. Maybe Scotland and Northern Ireland will leave UK and join Europe later, reducing UK to England+Wales. In any case, I'm not sure but that's their problem, not mine.

    3. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thing is, the UK joined a free trade area - none of the above.

      Trying to change the terms after joining was never going to be a workable approach, either for the UK, or indeed for the EU (which is structurally broken). It's the inability of the EU to realise they screwed up that's caused this, and from your attitude, they still haven't realised.

      The biggest question is what the PIGS are going to do when finally forced out of the collapsing EU? You ought to be planning now.

    4. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU trades at a profit, it will be MORE profitable once UK leaves.
      UK trades at a loss, sells its assets, prints its own government debt. How will sir be paying back its debt? Not with trade profits, you're a net importer. Not with asset sell offs (you've pretty flogged everything already). You can't compete with no business, no access to the major market, no-one buying sterling to prop up that POS currency as BOE prints money for Cameron.

      Good bye, we won't miss you. (This from a Brit whose seen both sides).

    5. Re: The Naked Truth by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep, as a German I can only say, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

      Even we uncouth Americans recognize the UK for what it is—a country that liked to be in the EU whenever it suited them, to the extent that they wanted to be, but also pretended that none of the rules applied to them. They've basically been an EU nation in name only for as long as I can remember. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the EU didn't throw them out years ago.

      And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up. If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. The impact on the rest of the EU would be small compared with the impact on the UK. Then in five years, they could offer to reluctantly let the UK back in with an exchange rate of two pounds to the Euro, but only if they actually started acting like real members of the EU. Some of the EU member nations might well decide to do that just out of spite.

      Frankly, I'm surprised the pound is still worth as much as it is, given how tenuous their economic outlook is without the backing of the EU. I suspect that things will get a lot worse for the UK before they stabilize. The good news is that the U.K. can expect plenty of us yanks coming as tourists next summer when a pound is only worth 75 cents. Cheers.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you Germans split Poland with Putin....
      No?

    7. Re:The Naked Truth by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      - They kept their old monetary unit (GBP)

      Frankly, Euro is a gooberty gook. And the ECB has no clue and no powers. While some countries in the Euro zone can benefit and recover from a weak Euro, others need a strong Euro. So how does it help? A weakened GBP will help more exports. By the way its just markets reacting irrationally. My take is, GBP will be better off than Euro.

      - They kept the *right to refuse entry* (not signed SENGEN)

      Good, they can refuse the entry of terrorists that Germany and friends are welcoming with open arms.

      Spain is in trouble with high unemployment (21%) with youth unemployment at a staggering 45%. And the longer it stays in the EU the longer it will have to suffer. A currency devaluation can help Spain too, just like it would help Greece. But Germany will not let that happen, because they are doing extremely good while Spain suffers. But why should Germany care?

    8. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. How do you reconcile that with dragging many unwilling Scots out with you?

    9. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct. Also I find it simply excessive that 10% of the GNP of UK is generated by financial services in London's financial district. That's so unbalanced that it has gone past the tipping point where it will crash sooner or later. And the sooner the better.
      That's besides the fact I consider that financial services are basically stealing money from its legitimate owners (and often not legitimate, with money laundering being a not negligible part of it). It's a legal way of stealing money, but I still consider it as fundamentally stealing.

    10. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention that Britain stood alone in keeping its inherently unjust common law system, resisted every push for democratisation of the EU, resisted every push for establishing what the core European values are, constantly supported American interests within EU over the interests of Europeans or even its own citizens, and that it's the only major European country with an anti-democratic political system so twisted that it's almost got a US-style two party system.
      Speaking from a Dutch perspective, the basic problem of having Britain in the EU is that it simply isn't on board with the European project. Culturally, the British aren't European, they're more American than anything else. Economically, they were only in it for the money. Socially they oppose everything that's just. Politically, they're a twisted screwed-up country. Having Britain within the EU held us back because it made any kind of reform towards a better place where Britain doesn't want to be very hard, and at the same time I imagine it held Britain back too. We're simply too different, so let's peacefully go our separate ways.

    11. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territories. It's part of the UK. The people living there want to be part of the UK.

    12. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let's argue a third time. It won't end well for you.

    13. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could not agree more. We'll see in a few years when Britsh Refugees seek asylum in EU nations how well this deal has worked out for them.
      Schotland, resurrect Hadrian's Wall to keep the economic refugees out, and remain in the EU!
      N Ireland do the sensible thing and join your Southern brothers.
      France, plug the Chunnel ASAP!

      As for the UK - go F yourselves, royaly!

    14. Re: The Naked Truth by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up

      This is an acute reaction to the vote. Like the markets going down. It'll all settle down and go back up soon.

    15. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ireland is still in the EU. Northern Ireland will have to leave the EU, as that is part of the UK (but perhaps might finally secede?)

    16. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In summary:

      Schotland: Go F yourselves, build a wall, remain in EU.
      N Ireland: Go F yourselves, join Ireland.
      Other parts of UK: Just go F yourselves.
      France: Plug the Chunnel.

      Did I get that right? Glad I'm not Schotland or N Ireland. France has it easy, it just needs more refugees.

    17. Re: The Naked Truth by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even we uncouth Americans recognize the UK for what it isâ"a country that liked to be in the EU whenever it suited them, to the extent that they wanted to be, but also pretended that none of the rules applied to them.
      (...)
      And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up. If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. (...) Some of the EU member nations might well decide to do that just out of spite.

      Yes, Britain was in a relationship with the EU but didn't want to commit as the EU was going more and more in the direction of the United States of Europe, one border, one currency, one everything. And now they finally said "I think we've grown apart, I'm breaking up with you" and you want them to go into full psycho ex-girlfriend mode? I'm surprised it actually came to this, but I think retaliation from the EU would only hurt their reputation and strengthen the UK resolve to go their own way.

      I think this is a good opprtunity to show that this is not the US, we're not going to start a civil war if you want to secede. This is not the Soviet Union where tanks will roll in your streets to occupy you. If you don't want to be a part of the EU, nobody's forcing you. I'm from Norway, a country that has rejected the EU twice in 1972 and 1994 and one of the reasons has been the feeling that this loss of sovereignty is permanent, you can join but if we find out this was a bad idea we can in practice never leave. Well now we'll see.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re: The Naked Truth by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them.

      This is exactly what is going to happen. Other far right parties in the EU are now calling for their own referendums, and there is no way that the EU will want to do anything to encourage them. Even if it means having a 10% tariff on German cars and French wine exports to the UK, it's a relatively small price to pay to keep the EU together.

      The UK is going to be punished hard for this. We can't expect to walk away from the EU and get a better or even the same deal that we had, that's just a fantasy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) UK got privileges no other country got:
      - They kept their old monetary unit (GBP)

      There are 11 different currencies used in the EU you idiot.

    20. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the markets going down. It'll all settle down and go back up soon.

      Don't hog it. You're clearly smoking the strong stuff.

    21. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - They kept colonies in other countries of the EU (Gibraltar) even though it's clearly illegal and have a specific article forbidding it.

      As a Canarian, I wholeheartedly agree!
      Now would you please...

    22. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all you, as a Spaniard, care about is Gibraltar. LOL. A good example of why the EU is a shambles.
      Unfortunately we don't have a better shambles with which to replace it.

    23. Re:The Naked Truth by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Crikey, you mean the UK tried to retain a strong trading relationship without abandoning its sovereignty? How dare we!

      How's the 45% youth unemployment working out for you btw? The Euro has been _such_ a success hasn't it.

    24. Re: The Naked Truth by iris-n · · Score: 1

      The UK is a lost cause, they are worried about other EU countries who might consider leaving if the UK gets a sweetheart deal. What would be worse for the EU, having trade barriers with the UK, or losing Sweden and Denmark?

      --
      entropy happens
    25. Re: The Naked Truth by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. The impact on the rest of the EU would be small compared with the impact on the UK.

      The EU doesn't have that much power... The UK is nearly 10% of the entire economy of the EU and is the 6th largest economy in the world. They also have the 6th largest military expenditures and after the US and Russia, have the most nuclear weapons.

      We don't need another European war, thank you very much... what you suggest would end up with one...

    26. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      UK imports 40% of their food from Europe. Cheese and dairy products from France. Salami and other meat products from Sweden and Germany. Fruits and vegetables from Spain. UK employs hundreds of thousands of workers from France in the financial industry. London has a severe housing shortage, which drives up wages and that keeps the economy going.

    27. Re:The Naked Truth by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It's good to be one of the founding members, and one of the major contributors. Hell I remember back in the early 80's the massive arguments against letting Spain and Portugal into the EEC... Well here we are 40 years later and suddenly the EU seems to have turned into some form of international welfare system where poor and bankrupt countries get to join and get proportionally more say in things than the actual economies that run the show. And now they want to let the Turks in? Buh bye... have fun.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    28. Re: The Naked Truth by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah have fun there trying to support the whole show there just you and maybe the French will pay more. By the way Erdogan wants another few billion euro a year or he's going to flood you with "refugees" again. But he's a nice guy and a friend let him in to the EU and give him lots of seats in the government what could possibly go wrong.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    29. Re:The Naked Truth by MartinG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please don't tell us (the whole of the UK) to f**k ourselves.

      I am one of almost half the voters who wanted to remain. Almost all of my friends wanted the same. I work with people from across Europe and elsewhere on a daily basis. Some of us are very pro-Europe (although Europe is not perfect) and want to be in the EU as much as you probably do.

      Some of us DO want Schengen and more open borders.
      Some of us DO want a common currency. (or at least don't hate the idea)

      I think I stand with much of Europe and half of the UK in saying "GO F**K YOURSELVES" to the Leave voters.

      Please don't forget about us Remain voters and don't hate us! If you do, the Exit voters really HAVE won.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    30. Re: The Naked Truth by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up.

      This is a reaction of Asian markets. The Dow futures were down over 700 points at one point this morning too. The EU doesn't prop up the pound. In fact, it's quite the other way around. Without Germany, UK and France the EU is nothing. Well now it's still something, but less than what it was. Cable is going to move a lot in the next few weeks on speculation, but I would be very wary about highly leveraged long positions in the Euro...

      Another thing you could note is the markets are recovering somewhat, ever since Cameron announced his resignation. Go figure.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    31. Re: The Naked Truth by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      completely by refusing to trade with them.

      So they won't trade with Russia, and they won't trade with the UK. Gee, I sure hope you enjoy your quality Chinese, Indian and African products. You won't get American products because apart from military hardware, Boeing jets, and extremely high tech stuff we all know America doesn't actually make anything anymore...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    32. Re:The Naked Truth by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot.

      Good, they can refuse the entry of terrorists that Germany and friends are welcoming with open arms.
      Please take a job at the border and point out the terrorist, the EU will pay you a premium.

      Spain is in trouble with high unemployment (21%) with youth unemployment at a staggering 45%. And the longer it stays in the EU the longer it will have to suffer. A currency devaluation can help Spain too, just like it would help Greece. But Germany will not let that happen, because they are doing extremely good while Spain suffers. But why should Germany care?

      Please explain what Germany has to do with unemployment in Spain! I'm eager to hear your reasoning! Or what has staying in the EU to do with it?

      Probably Spain is so rich that lots of people don't have to work? Probably it is the first country in the EU ripe for General Basic Income? Who knows ...

      Most certainly the farmers in Spain produce enough food to sustain Spain without need of more workers ...

      Unemployment is the EUs fault. Wow. How retarded is that attitude?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Vast majority of Gibraltarians voted both against Spanish sovereignty and for UK membership on multiple occasions. So I'm not sure it even be considered a colony anymore..

    34. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU is the first world economy. EU is second for military.

    35. Re: The Naked Truth by martas · · Score: 1

      And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up.

      Ah yes, I'm sure the reaction of traders within hours of the referendum accurately reflects the full realities of the markets after the UK leaves the EU, which won't happen for at least 2 years because it's a complicated process.

      If the EU really wanted to have fun, they could probably make the UK economy collapse completely by refusing to trade with them. The impact on the rest of the EU would be small compared with the impact on the UK. Then in five years, they could offer to reluctantly let the UK back in with an exchange rate of two pounds to the Euro, but only if they actually started acting like real members of the EU. Some of the EU member nations might well decide to do that just out of spite.

      That's actually a great idea, and it's probably something being seriously considered in the halls of EU's power. Need to teach a lesson to all those pesky voters what happens when you go against the wishes of globalist interests. There's already talk of some people in other countries calling for referendums, so the UK needs to be made an example of.

    36. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's the naked truth from an Spaniard:

      1) UK got privileges no other country got:
      - They kept their old monetary unit (GBP)
      - They kept the *right to refuse entry* (not signed SENGEN)
      - They kept the old measuring unit system (instead of International System)
      - They kept colonies in other countries of the EU (Gibraltar) even though it's clearly illegal and have a specific article forbidding it.
      Etc.

      2) The Universal Declaration of Human Right, which all countries are obliged to comply with as is *written* in the European Treaties and Constitution, says clearly:
      Art. 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

      3) As the UK did not comply with the "rights" part of the UDHR, forced by the EU Constitution and International Treaties, and shitted in the treaties that form the core and meaning of the EU (SENGEN, no colonies, etc.) I can say anything but...

      GO F**K YOURSELVES

      PS: It's a pity that Ireland got kicked too due to their stupidity.

      It seems that you are mainly concerned about Gibraltar. Here is the opinion from another Spaniard: Gibraltar belongs legally to the UK, it was given away several centuries ago with a treaty agreed between both parties, Spain and England. The treaty is still valid and Gibraltar has been British territory since then, if the UK and Gibraltar themselves don't want to change its status, Spain has nothing to say there, just let them be.

    37. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You take their money though, when your country needs help.

      Hypocrite.

    38. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't get the anger you people exhibit.
      The EU has a procedure in place for leaving.
      The British people disagree with the direction this whole project is headed.
      You expect them to just shut up and take it?
      America went to war for their freedom. Britain is simply saying we don't want to be part of your superstate.
      Why should a country be forced into this union if its people don't want to?

    39. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, clearly the UK have pissed of European leaders now. And they are in the stronger bargaining position. Practically every expert has said that the UK economy will suffer (so will the EU but nowhere near as much) so when negotiating new trade agreements, the EU will have what they have, the UK will just have, uh, a projection of future glory...? The reality now is that the EU is a bigger and stronger market than the UK with its uncertain future so which will multinational corporations prioritize? Time is also a factor - companies know how to operate in the EU, a non-EU UK is new territory regulation-wise. And until the UK becomes more clear, more and more companies will choose the EU instead of the UK giving the former an even stronger hand.

      To me Cameron's "renegotiate membership terms and then hold a referendum" plan seemed like he was telling the EU "give us what we want or else we'll shoot ourselves in the foot". He got what he wanted but it wasn't his finger on the trigger so his gamble failed. One Briton explained to me that it was just a trick Cameron pulled to get elected and he lost control over it. He just wanted to capitalize on anti-EU sentiment in the UK to get voted into office even though he - like he made very clear - thought it nevertheless was good for the UK to be in the EU. Either way, as a European, I think this was the "right" outcome because even if the vote was almost 50/50 the sentiment to leave seemed to be a lot stronger than that to stay so if that's what the Brits want, they should have it even if it's bad for them. Only time will tell and I wish them no harm.

    40. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like an abusive exhusband going after an exwife.

    41. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacked off over Gibraltar are you? At some point you have to accept past acquisitions. Otherwise Catalonia can declare Spain in violation of human rights because Catalonia is a Spanish colony. See how absurd selecting single situations can get?

    42. Re: The Naked Truth by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I think this is a good opprtunity to show that this is not the US, we're not going to start a civil war if you want to secede. This is not the Soviet Union where tanks will roll in your streets to occupy you.

      Tanks? Civil war? We're talking about terminating the privileges UK had as an EU member, such as access to EU's internal market or input into EU's decisions.

      you can join but if we find out this was a bad idea we can in practice never leave

      We're not stopping you, but we're also not helping you.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    43. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it isn't about "getting a better deal" so much as "retaining sovereign identity" where your country comes first, not the ideals of unelected bureaucrats.

    44. Re:The Naked Truth by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that's not exactly true:

      - Ireland is also not in Schengen
      - The UK converted to metric for trade (Imperial units only used for things that are relatively trivial). In fact there were a series of "Metric Martyrs", traders in the UK who refused to move to metric were prosecuted by the UK authorities, so metrication *was* enforced.
      - Gibraltar is not in another country, despite spurious claims from the Spanish government. The Gibraltar people time and time again have said they wish to remain British - but you seem to want to force them to be ruled by the Spanish government (and you go on about "rights"!). The fact it is attached to the bottom of Spain makes it no more a part of Spain any more than Ceuta and Melilla are part of Morocco even though they are physically attached, or Portugal a part of Spain despite sharing the Iberian peninsula.
      - The UK isn't the only country that kept its currency. Denmark did too.

      Spain should never have adopted the Euro, it has in part ruined your economy, as it has damaged Ireland, Italy, mortally wounded Greece etc.

    45. Re: The Naked Truth by chispito · · Score: 1

      And as everyone predicted, the pound is tanking without the strength of the EU to prop it up.

      Maybe wait more than 24 hours to declare a financial impact.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    46. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty indicative of non-thinking.....

      1. What 'privileges'?
      - Any European country could have refused the Euro, more fool those that didn't
      - Still got stuck with 'free movement' - the ultimate cause of our immigration problems
      - 'old measuring unit system'??? oh, woe is me... the CATASTROPHE that that incurs..... (sheesh!)
      - ah, the crux of the matter. The Spanish resentment.

      2. Statement of fact. What point do you raise by quoting it?

      3. See my 'Spanish Resentment' comment above.

      If you think you're hard enough, come and get it (Gibraltar) you Spanish douche bag.

      PS - Ireland is STILL part of the EU. Your comprehension of politics/geography show you for what you are.

    47. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had we (the UK) even been CONSULTED on EU membership (it's nothing like what we voted for in '75, a COMMON MARKET) you might have a point. As it is this is the first time we have had an opportunity to vote on the E.U. and our opinion of it is probably higher than many Europeans judging by current trends on EU popularity.

      The EUs history of avoiding democracy and simply imposing its way is legendary. The UK has woken up. It's time the rest of Europe did too.

    48. Re:The Naked Truth by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Here's the naked truth from an Spaniard: GO F**K YOURSELVES

      The naked truth is that you are envious and wish that Spain was powerful and wealthy enough to be able to stand on its own too.

    49. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Because businesses are all about punishing other people and not making money.

    50. Re: The Naked Truth by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I've been tracking the GBP EUR rate all day - and it is only a few percent down at the end of the day from where it was a couple of weeks ago. It was up most of this week compared to the past three month average (it pushed as high as £1 = €1.31 at one point, which is much higher than it has been all year).

      It has been hovering around £1 = €1.27 for months, and today it was around £1 = €1.24. Hardly a collapse.

      It is worse against the dollar, but again barely more than the sort of movement you see month to month.

      Similarly, the FTSE 100 hardly collapsed as reported. It dropped around 600 points as trading opened, but by the end of the day it was only around 2-3% down, and was therefore back to the level it was at around 3 weeks ago.

    51. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the hypocracy of Spain. Complaining about Gibraltar not being part of Spain (even though the population there doesn't want to be part of Spain) whilst at the same time maintaining colonies in Northern Africa.

      You can't complain about Gibraltar being a colony whilst you have your own colonies. Give up your North African holdings first before asking for Gibraltar.

    52. Re: The Naked Truth by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      Please remember we're not all the same in the UK. Even in this referendum, the percentages were 52% to 48% in favour of leaving. As one of the 48% (in favour of remaining), I can say that I regret our leaving, and I regret our obstructive behaviour in the past.

      My hope is that you accept Scotland when it decides to leave the UK and remain in the EU. (Incidentally, I'm English).

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    53. Re:The Naked Truth by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      Me too!

      It seems the young (of which I am not one!) voted by about 75% to 25% to remain in the EU.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    54. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a good opprtunity to show that this is not the US, we're not going to start a civil war if you want to secede.

      Well, it helps that the UK doesn't hold hundreds of thousands of African slaves.

    55. Re:The Naked Truth by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot.

      Sorry, but I am not interested in your lousy opinion.

      Please take a job at the border and point out the terrorist, the EU will pay you a premium.

      I am sorry. There are no terrorists at all. Those attacks that happened in Paris, Brussels, and the molestation of women that happened at a stadium in Germany, those arrests of refugees having terror links in Austria, Germany, all that is just hog wash. It didn't happen.

      Please explain what Germany has to do with unemployment in Spain! I'm eager to hear your reasoning! Or what has staying in the EU to do with it?

      Spanish GDP has fallen since the financial crisis. A weaker currency can make Spanish exports cheaper and increase employment. But since Spain is in the Euro Zone, they cannot devaluate their currency nor can they print money. ECB is in the clutches of Germany and France.

      Probably Spain is so rich that lots of people don't have to work? Probably it is the first country in the EU ripe for General Basic Income? Who knows ...

      You definitely don't.

    56. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you tongue George Soro's old crusty butthole for fun? How does it taste?

    57. Re: The Naked Truth by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I apologise, that is really something I didn't think of.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    58. Re: The Naked Truth by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      Lol, so the UK had a sweet deal for the people within its borders and you think this a bad thing..for the people of the UK? You people are on fucking crazy pills and none of your risible revenge fantasies will come to be.

      It's humorous to me that you sound authoritarian, much like the EU, but have nothing to back up your impotent, spittle-laced tirade.

    59. Re: The Naked Truth by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

      ... the United States of Europe, one border, one currency, one everything.

      Ein Volk, Ein Sprache, Ein Geld, Ein Reich

      --
      Apologies for my ancient rusty schoolboy German, Frau Merkel

    60. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so you are saying that UK wants to break up, but wants to keep his privilege to have sex with EU?
      That's not how most breakups work. UK has filed for divorce and can go f themselves now.

    61. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >one border,

      Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

      Seriously, if the EU tries to punish the UK, it will be revealed as the fraud it is. It's perfectly happy to roll over for foreign countries when it means more trade, but try to leave and the knives come out.

    62. Re: The Naked Truth by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the Confederates started the Civil War. The Union might have eventually, and once the war started the Union intended to defeat and reincorporate the Confederacy, but firing on Fort Sumter was just plain dumb.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    63. Re:The Naked Truth by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You are still an idiot. Now even worse than before.

      Those attacks that happened in Paris, Brussels, and the molestation of women that happened at a stadium in Germany, those arrests of refugees having terror links in Austria, Germany, all that is just hog wash. It didn't happen.

      How do you recognize such "terrorists" at the border and prevent them from entering? Any idea? The world will be glad to hear them.

      The terrorists in Paris and Brussels BTW, you idiot, where born in France and Belgium. They were not immigrants.

      So have fun staring into the dark and harassing poor people at the boarder who want to flee oppression and like to immigrate into a safe country.

      As I said before: if you have an idea how to filter out the "bad guys" we are all ears ... as long as you don't: you are an retarded idiot.

      A weaker currency can make Spanish exports cheaper and increase employment.
      That is nonsense. Spain can export as cheap as they want. The "value of the currency" has absolutely nothing to do with the costs of the import of the materials with which they craft the stuff they export or the cost of work or energy or infrastructure. That was perhaps true shortly after the gold standard was lost ...
      Unfortunately they prefer to sell for more than they buy, like anyone else. Completely unrelated to Pesos, Euro or what ever. And: they simply could leave the Euro zone. As they don't do it: obviously they have a reason to stay. The value of the currency also has nothing to do with employment. Hint: there are no jobs. No one needs workers. That is actually true all over Europe. And in most first world nations. The employment we still have is due to artificial constructs: work, obey, get into debt, save money, buy houses; or be poor and fuck off.

      Your idea is a zero sum game anyway. If you would be right, Spain would devalue its currency. Which automatically means your currency rises. There would be more jobs in Spain. There would be less jobs in your country. The spanish would export more stuff to your country, because their goods are cheaper (than before). So your country produces less of the same kind. You need less workers producing the stuff you import now ...

      It is a no brainer that the world is beyond that simple stage of "supply and demand" and "currency" and "import versus export" economics.

      I suggest to visit some European Cities and you realize quickly: the value of an Euro is very different from city to city. The "devaluation" is actually happening ... regionally.

      You definitely don't.
      You neither. But unlike you, I know about which topics I have no clue.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    64. Re:The Naked Truth by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      you mean the UK tried to retain a strong trading relationship without abandoning its sovereignty?

      EU is all about trading - but, excluding: price manipulation, currency manipulation, equity manipulation, market manipulation, and so on.

      If you want to sell me something, if you want my money, you automatically have obligations toward me. If I want to sell you something to you, I automatically have obligations toward you. That's Business 101.

      Nobody is going to deal with a country which might rip off somebody, and deny responsibility because "but sovereignty!" excuse. That's Politics 101.

      P.S. You might want to visit Cuba and ask them about how they reveled for decades in sovereignty.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    65. Re:The Naked Truth by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Please don't forget about us Remain voters and don't hate us! If you do, the Exit voters really HAVE won.

      Exit voters really HAVE won. This is how voting works, decision is taken for the whole country and not only the for the 52% that say "leave". So, no, we don't hate you (neither the Leavers btw) but now you have to take action! Leave the UK and go somewhere else you can (ie not the EU) would be a good start.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    66. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that happens, who are the Germans going to sell their stuff to? Australia isn't going to buy the excess RHD cars. The rest of the EU isn't going to pick up the slack. There are more jobs tied to exporting to the UK from the EU than the other way around. If the EU stopped trading with them, then all of those people would be out of work. The average unemployement rate in the EU is around 10% now. How much worse do you want it?

    67. Re: The Naked Truth by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      They stayed in large due to the fact they were told "if you leave the UK, you'll have to apply for your own EU membership". Now that this point has been rendered moot...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    68. Re:The Naked Truth by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Frankly, Euro is a gooberty gook. And the ECB has no clue and no powers. While some countries in the Euro zone can benefit and recover from a weak Euro, others need a strong Euro. So how does it help? A weakened GBP will help more exports. By the way its just markets reacting irrationally. My take is, GBP will be better off than Euro." the thing is that no-one will never know how much stronger the Euro would have been if the UK did join it (we are the 5th largest economy or has that now dropped to the 6th?). A weakened GBP will certainly make exports cheaper but it will make imports a lot more expensive and judging on how many bleat about us importing more from the EU (is that because their goods are better or are there not enough patriotic brits to buy their own home built cars etc) than the EU buys from us, does not bode well for balance of payments.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    69. Re:The Naked Truth by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      yes, but if spain get bolshy over it once we fully leave the EU, how can we stop them in the EU courts if we are no longer part of that system? Send in the gun boats?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    70. Re:The Naked Truth by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      N Ireland could potentially have a referendum of their own to ask if they want to rejoin Ireland and if they do, they will automatically become part of Irelands EU membership

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    71. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 2013 Spain was 5th largest contributor to the EU (GB being the 4th) but 3rd largest beneficiary, six places ahead of the UK (placed 9th).

      No surprise a Span upset the trough is getting smaller.

      (http://community.openspending.org/resources/eu/funds/ )

    72. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you recognize such "terrorists" at the border and prevent them from entering? Any idea? The world will be glad to hear them. As I said before: if you have an idea how to filter out the "bad guys" we are all ears ... as long as you don't: you are an retarded idiot.

      It's really easy. You look at which countries, statistically, produce an unacceptably high percentage of undesirables. And you block all immigration from those countries. They can clean up their shit first. We don't have any obligation to provide a safe haven for them at a great risk to ourselves.

      The terrorists in Paris and Brussels BTW, you idiot, where born in France and Belgium. They were not immigrants.

      They were non-assimilated children of immigrants, which is really the same thing. Furthermore, some of them, including the leader, have actually travelled to Syria, and fought for ISIL there. If their citizenship was stripped at that point, and they were not allowed to return - a straightforward, common sense measure - they wouldn't be in Paris to do what they did.

      I also note that you have completely ignored OP's mention of mass rapes carried out by refugees and asylum seekers in Germany. "Police reported that the perpetrators were men of Arab or North African appearance ... The majority of those in detention were Syrians."

      But sure, go ahead, tell all these women that their rapists all just coincidentally happened to be Muslim refugees from the Middle East, and that it doesn't actually matter, so we should have more of those people here.

    73. Re:The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? That's what UK got? Seems like a pretty ass deal to me. When all the other members were getting preferential trade deals? Fuck. No wonder they left.

    74. Re:The Naked Truth by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      Do you even read the news? You ignorant moron!!
      Here's some news for you illiterate moron:
      http://www.dw.com/en/austria-a...
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      As for the rest of it, you learn some economics 101 and some money and banking 101. Its futile talking to an ignorant moron.

    75. Re:The Naked Truth by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      - They kept colonies in other countries of the EU (Gibraltar) even though it's clearly illegal and have a specific article forbidding it.

      Says someone from a county that does similar things. The Brits don't have clean hands either, nor do the Danes but at least the Danes just litter a little bit.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    76. Re:The Naked Truth by franzrogar · · Score: 1

      And your statement comes from the ignorance that Morocco is NOT part of EU, as the EU Constitution states.

      Oh, wait, you haven't read the EU Constitution at all, that explains why is Ignorance speaking.

    77. Re:The Naked Truth by shilly · · Score: 1

      Ahem. I understand you're cross, but you might not want to go on about colonies when Spain still owns Ceuta and Melilla...

    78. Re:The Naked Truth by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I said similar not the same fully realizing that Morocco is not part of the EU. And yes you are correct that I haven't read the EU Constitution as I am not someone who falls under their jurisdiction. The reason I mentioned those issues is because similar (not the same) complaints have been levied against Spain.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    79. Re: The Naked Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a good opportunity to show that this is not the US, we're not going to start a civil war if you want to secede.

      Apples to oranges, as the EU is not and has never been a single sovereign nation. However, in the U.S., states are expressly forbidden from seceding, despite what the "State's Right's" people try to claim. This is one reason why force was applied.

    80. Re:The Naked Truth by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      How do you recognize such "terrorists" at the border and prevent them from entering? Any idea? The world will be glad to hear them.

      You still failed to answer that.
      And economics and banking has nothing to do with recognizing terrorists at the border. So I think the moronis you, or idiot, what ever you prefer.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. An omen of a Trump victory by PapayaSF · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, it turns out that borders matter after all! And that First World citizens don't like being flooding with Third Worlders who don't necessarily want to assimilate, and in fact seem to want to make their new country more like the hellholes they escaped from. And that opinions that are criticized do better in the privacy of the voting booth than in polls. (See: "shy Tory effect" or "Bradley effect.")

    Now we have Trump, who at least talks a good game about loving his country, vs. Hillary, who wants to "fix" and "improve" it by doing things like importing more Muslim refugees and restricting gun rights. Many people are going to be shocked when Trump wins.

    (To those of you wanting to verbally abuse and downvote me: this is a prediction, not an endorsement.)

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who votes for Trump should be deported to England.

    2. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs. And they were paying their taxes and their social insurance, and they were contributing an estimated 5 percent of GDP in the UK. For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it turns out that borders matter after all! And that First World citizens don't like being flooding with Third Worlders who don't necessarily want to assimilate, and in fact seem to want to make their new country more like the hellholes they escaped from.

      Quite the opposite dude. UK would get more ThirdWorlderers as a matter of fact it already had. Look how many olive skinned people leave in London. The new London mayor is muslim and olive skinned last time I have checked. So now by exiting EU you are making it difficult for let' say Polish, Romanian and so one white people from Eastern Europe (which is a part of EU) to get in UK instead you are filling it with ThirdWorlderers(several generations already and they are definitely not going to the melting pot)

    4. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why the UK is fucked. Too many xenophobic bigots, who would burn the place to the ground just to reach an arbitrary target of "tens of thousands" immigrating. I don't even want my fiancee to immigrate any more, such is the blind hatred she would receive. The country is economically fucked anyway.

      Time to take my skills elsewhere.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and in fact seem to want to make their new country more like the hellholes they escaped from

      So, how Mexican is Texas?
      Maybe those other places aren't much like Iraq either?

      Many people are going to be shocked when Trump wins.

      The Republican party are already undermining him and cutting off the money supply. It's unlikely that he will make it on his own fortune. If he does, then I agree with you that a lot of people are going to get a shock since they appear to see him as something other than the grasping casino owner who blew a vast amount of inherited money to get to where he is. He'll make Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Clinton and all the rest look like saints in comparison. He'll make Carter look like a political mastermind.

    6. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're suggesting that most of those people settled the less populous areas in England and Whales? Wouldn't you expect London to have more immigrants than those areas, and if so, why did London vote the other way?

    7. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't come to the US or Canada. We have enough faggots as it is.

    8. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look at it positively: if the UK turns into a shithole, no-one will want to move there and a bunch of the existing EU citizens propping up the economy will leave. They'll get immigration under control yet!

    9. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.

      This is straight up corporate propaganda: people would applying for those jobs if they were remunerated fairly but that's not in the interest of the corporate elite.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    10. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs. And they were paying their taxes and their social insurance, and they were contributing an estimated 5 percent of GDP in the UK. For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.

      Poland is a second world country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

    11. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now if only you'd take your posts elsewhere. Reddit perhaps?

    12. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Immigrants have no voice and are easy to blame for everything. It's always been that way, 100 years ago it was the hoards of disease ridden Jews bringing a crime wave and stealing our jobs. Just go check some issues of the Daily Mail from around 1900.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe there's too many dirty immigrants ?

      This is the nation that ruled the ENTIRE WORLD for close to four centuries.

      Now they are drowning in a tidal wave of third world shit, with more waves of it lining up.

      Brexit was the right choice. In 20 years they can look down upon the ruins of Continental Europe, over the mosques, and say "told you so".

    14. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Sique · · Score: 1

      If you use this definition of Second World, Sweden and Switzerland would be Third World countries (see the map in the article you linked).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    15. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There are a number of factors there.

      1 - London's population is younger than rural areas, and there's a split across age groups
      2 - Some of the London boroughs are populated by the super-rich that benefit from cheap labour and economic stability
      3 - London's always had a sizeable non-British population
      4 - London is a high density living space

      That last point needs elaboration. If you live in a city centre, you don't own a car, you use public transport, you have easy access to a massive job market, you don't notice so much when it bulges at the edges and grows up or out.

      If you live in a rural town, enjoying open countryside, have to travel to find work, you notice when people start building on that countryside, clog the roads, start taking the few jobs available.

      The impact of high immigration is just felt far more outside of London than in.

    16. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not good work no one is applying for.

      It's bad work people need.

      Like it or not a lot of the population depend on low paying low skilled labour to make ends meet. They don't want these jobs any more than Polish people want these jobs. But both want money to live so they do these jobs.

      Now a line worker in a factory position, doing 12 hour shifts for minimum wage, will have somewhere in order of 100 applicants if it's posted. What motivation is there to treat your employees with respect, or pay them a decent wage, when you know theres 99 others waiting to fill that job?

      It's not as if the massive influx of low skilled, uneducated workers suddenly meant the Brittish working class could go and work in media. Or just not work.

      I don't even think it's the fact that they came over here is to blame for the rise of hyper-right groups like UKIP. I think it's attitudes like yours. The assumption of malice whenever anyone talks about this issue. The idea that all immigration is obviously a net good for everyone and questioning it is at best idiocy and at worst dangerous lunacy. Working class have been complaining for years about unchecked immigration, and every time it's treated as if they're saying "murder all foreigners." That drives people to the extremes, because the extremes are the only ones who will talk openly about this. And obviously that radicalises people. When the answer to "can we look at our immigration policy" is either "stop being racist" or "yes, kill all immigrants" a lot of people will accept one or the other. It does no good to anyone for these to be the only two topics of debate.

    17. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Poles are to the UK as Mexicans are to the US, and Moslems are pretty much the same in both countries.

    18. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.

      As a Lithuanian (a lot of my fellow countrymen are in the UK, not me though) I think that it wasn't that nobody else was applying for the jobs, just that the Poles and Lithuanians ask for way less money to do the same job.

      This usually goes like this:
      1. Someone decides to go work in the UK and does so.
      2. He lives extremely frugally and saves up as much money as possible.
      3. He quits his job, returns home and lives in luxury, maybe start your own business.
      4. Repeat if needed.

      The reason for this is that the average salary in Lithuania is 748EUR (before taxes), but obviously not everyone gets it. The minimal salary is 350EUR (before taxes) and the majority of the people who decide to emigrate get the 350 assuming they can get a job in the first place. The salaries in the UK are much higher and the UK has the advantage of being an English-speaking country (second language is mandatory here and the vast majority of schools chose to teach English) compared to other EU countries.

      I personally would be pissed if some Belorussian or Ukrainian offered to do my job for half of my current salary, so I assume the Brits are pissed too. Thankfully, Belarus and Ukraine are not part of the EU, so those people can be refused entry (AFAIK you can get a work visa, but the employer has to pay you above the average salary, so no importing cheap labor), less thankfully, our wages are one of the lowest in the EU so nobody from the EU wants to come.

      While the "Leave" group only got a bit less than 52% votes, those who voted to leave most likely felt more strongly toward their decision than a lot of those who voted to remain (after all, if you do not really care either way, you are probably going to vote "it it ain't broken enough, don't fix it").

    19. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the dentists I've seen in the last 10 years have been from the EU. Pretty sure dentists are paid well.

    20. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatcher promised that trickle-down economics would make everyone better off eventually, just the rich had to get richer first. The rich got richer and the moment that the less wealthy/poor started to see a benefit the rich saw them as a cost and arranged mass migration to fill jobs that they weren't prepared to increase the wages of. For them prices of goods go up to what the market will bear but wages can't go up in a similar 'supply and demand' fashion.

    21. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Migration cannot be a free for all when those incoming have no money and no skills, and no jobs.

      The most powerful country on the planet limits who can live there, and has done so for decades. You only get it if you have money or a real skill. Road sweepers and car washers obviously isn't that in demand, and they're not allowed to stay.

      The UK will be fine. The bankers and top 0.1%ers are cashing in with the fluctuations in the markets and exchange rates. Just like they always do.

      Even if all EU trade stopped today, only 12% of UK's trade would be affected. But that isn't going to happen, the UK is the largest buyer of EU products after Germany, and the largest when it comes to buying German cars (Mercs, BMW, Audi, dodgy emissions corp). That means we have more than enough money, which the EU will still desire.

      It also removes the shackles for trade agreements with the other 88% of the world's market; which will soon be boosted once Article 50 gets going. 2020?

      I find it hilarious drama queens are up in arms, typical gen-MEers that have yet to live in the real world. The huge rise in the extreme right across Europe tells you shit is getting bad everywhere, far worse than here.

      Chill out, all will be good; even better when we can let the Scots go their own way. Homogenisation of societies is bad. Enjoy and savour our national differences. It's what makes travelling fun.

    22. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll Remain. And bring in your fiancee.

      This is why the UK is fucked. Too many xenophobic bigots, who would burn the place to the ground just to reach an arbitrary target of "tens of thousands" immigrating. I don't even want my fiancee to immigrate any more, such is the blind hatred she would receive. The country is economically fucked anyway.

      Time to take my skills elsewhere.

    23. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Livius · · Score: 1

      Or, maybe there is more than one objection to the EU approach (or rather lack thereof) to cross-border migration.

      Not wanting to compete for jobs with people who have lived their entire lives with a vastly different standard of living is not racism or any other bigotry. The difference is bigots are able to clearly articulate their objections. Others who feel something is wrong can't quite put their finger on what the underlying problem is.

    24. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Carter your best president?

    25. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xenophobic bigots

      What a simple, effective putdown for the working class which has witnessed the bargaining power of labour crushed underfoot by outsourcing of capital, and importing of ever cheaper migrant workers. They are all skin-head racists and their "concerns" should never, ever be heeded. They should listen to their betters, who know the benefits of neoliberalism firsthand.

    26. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody ever said Americans have a corner on the market for stupidity.

    27. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The idea is that countries joining the EU bring themselves up to a minimum standard, which arguably isn't high enough in terms of wages. Then after they join they rapidly harmonize with the other countries, like Ireland did. Other countries can have controls on immigration for the first few years to account for this time.

      When you look at the results it actually works quite well. The people who do come here come to work and contribute, and do vital jobs that British people don't want. Our economy, and particularly our National Health Service, is about to be wrecked by the harsh immigration policies that will be introduced.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      All the evidence is that while there is a very small downward effect on wages at the bottom end, it's vastly offset by the contributions that immigrants make. What we will have now is jobs that still only pay minimum wage but British people are forced to do them as austerity bites even further. The economic damage will do far more to drive down wages than immigration ever did.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple to explain really: People from poor countries can go to rich countries, work for less because they expect to retire in their home countries, so they don't have to save for an expensive retirement in the rich country where they go to work. This means that people who were born in the rich country feel cheated, because they can only earn enough to retire in the poor country, not the country they were born and raised in.

      I know because I live in a much poorer country (New Zealand) than the UK, but which is the relative rich country compared to where our government is flooding us with immigrants from poor countries (Phillipines, China, Indonesia, India) and rich countries (UK, China, HK, US). These people can go home to retire, where they will find it very comfortable to live on the inflated income they earned while living here, but people born in this country have no hope of owning property or saving enough for a NZ retirement, so we are going to have to pick some strange, unfamiliar, foreign country to retire in. The migrants keep flooding in, and the older generations are making an absolute killing on the real estate speculation and cheap labour that this brings; since they already have their retirements in order, they are spending up all the economic gains the government praises these migrants for bringing to this country, buying evaporating wealth like BMWs, Mercedes, boats, holidays in Europe etcetera.

      And if you're under 30 in this country, and were born here and your parents were born here, you are already a minority, you don't get to vote against this, because the older generation including your parents and all the resident migrants are voting for more trading away your inheritance for short-term gains.

      It might be fair and democratic. It's a really shitty feeling knowing that you can never have a house, a home and raise a family in the country you were born in, because it's being sold off piece by piece to outsiders with lower expectations or fatter wallets. I earn a good salary for an engineer in this country (which is 1/4 of what I could get if I was allowed to work in the US), and house prices are rising yearly in my city by more than my yearly income. I can move to Australia as many kiwis do. I can't move to the US, UK or any of the other places that speak english and will feel at all familiar to me.

      Losing your home or becoming a slave in your own home is a shitty feeling, whether it's justified by leftist egalitarian theories or not.

    30. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      This is why the UK is fucked. Too many xenophobic bigots, who would burn the place to the ground just to reach an arbitrary target of "tens of thousands" immigrating. I don't even want my fiancee to immigrate any more, such is the blind hatred she would receive. The country is economically fucked anyway.

      Time to take my skills elsewhere.

      I have a female friend from Asia who some years ago fell in love with a guy from an EU country (not the UK) and they got married. She's not Muslim by the way, so none of what I have to say has to do with religion. She legally immigrated to his country after they got married. I don't want to name the country because they have so few Asians there that it might actually be possible to identify her if I give too many details. She has told me that while the people in that country are outwardly nice on the surface, she feels pretty strongly that inside they are actually quite prejudiced against non-white people like her. She and her husband both really had enough of this so they moved to the UK thinking it surely had to be better. I don't think they even stayed a year before they moved back to his country. I'm positive they'll never consider living in the UK again. It was so bad with "xenophobic bigots" as you say that the problems in her husband's country seemed tolerable by comparison.

    31. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm white but actually half Asian, so often people say things around me that they wouldn't say if they knew my true ethnicity. One of the most common scenarios is waiting in a queue somewhere, like the supermarket or the dentist's surgery. Someone with dark skin gets served first, and as soon as only white people remain in the room the muttering about immigrants clogging up the system starts.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it a fucking rest, and go put some ointment on your ass.

    33. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Why would a country welcome someone who seems to only want to complain?

      It's an honest question, BTW. Countries don't have to say yes to immigrants -- they can choose to say no. Why should they say yes? What's in it for them to say yes? Smiles from ruling-class pundits?

    34. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

      It's amazing that people are so brainwashed these days that being patriotic and proud of your country is twisted somehow into being racist and hateful.
      What is a nation without borders after all? It is nothing...

      Perhaps if your country had a lot of free loaders moving in and harassing your citizens, you would see the benefits of having borders and a strong country. It's not about keeping people out, it's about integrating them as proud, productive citizens in their new country.

      It's the people that believe that they can just move in and change the country to suit their needs which are upsetting so many. Sounds like you fall into this camp, as now that it's not going the direction you prefer, you're bailing out rather than trying to make it better.

      Bye!

    35. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the same argument they use for H-1Bs in the US. Sorry, no one is going to work for less than market wages unless they're absolutely desperate, which is what the people coming over here on H-1Bs are. Globalization has enriched the 1% while crushing the middle class in all nations. It's only in the countries that lacked a middle class previously that are doing better but most of the their populations are still in dire poverty. The people who do all the real work and foot the bill for the poor who can't pay taxes and for the rich who do their best to cheat the system, have had enough!!! To hell with globalization!

    36. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      As it were, it wasn't Third Worlders which caused the UKIP to rise, it was First Worlders, mainly from Poland, which were taking the low paying jobs

      Technically speaking, Poles would be "second worlders". The original formulation was a Cold War thing, and Poland was in the Russian "Second world" block.

    37. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has been a common argument surrounding illegal immigrants for years where I lived in southwestern United States; that they were taking jobs nobody else wanted. About 10 years ago I moved to Portland and on the first day there I was eating lunch at a Jack in the Box looking out the window and something just felt really off. Suddenly it dawned on me that it was the landscaping crew outside that was throwing me off, none of them were brown...

      After spending a couple years there I realized there are plenty of people already here willing to take those 'undesirable' jobs, if they're paid appropriately. And I'm not talking a fortune. None of the landscapers, framers, etc. I met there lived like kings. I wouldn't even necessarily call them middle class. But they made enough to put a roof over there families heads and food on the table.

    38. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      That is an american definition.
      One that makes no sense.

      The original definition was:
      first world: rich industrialized, mainly west Europe and north America, but also Japan and south Korea, Australia etc.
      second world: countries in the process of industrialization like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Egypt, South Africa etc. not really poor, intact infrastructure etc. but unimportant on global markets
      third world: very poor nations, mainly agricultural, weak political system, poverty and starvation, lack of medical attention, no working school system and or government
      fourth world: everything like third world, but even worth

      Political position, defense pacts, or lack there off never was part of the originaldefinition of first, second, third or fourth world. However it is interesting how NewSpeak influences our thinking, isn't it? Especially when it is "truth" on Wikipedia.

      Poland never was a second world country. And if you want to focus on your brain dead definition of first/second world etc.: Poland is in the EU ... in the NATO ... out of the Warschau Pact: so it is definitely not Second World anymore either.

      And if you have not realized it yet: the third and fourth world as we know it from the 1970s don't exist anymore. Except for a dozen African countries perhaps.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically the EU has the makings of a classical Fascist system: a corporatist system to subjugate workers.

    40. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews weren't "immigrants" to Europe, they had been living in Europe for many centuries. Furthermore, the people who denounced minorities as "job stealers" and "disease ridden" was the predecessors of the technocratic elite that is now trying to architect Europe and failing badly.

    41. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Dogers · · Score: 1

      Or maybe because people don't want to pay the higher prices? Would you get in a £20/hr plumber or a £60/hr plumber?

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    42. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right wing fire will chase you. Leftist trash like you pushed way to hard, way to fast, and people didn't like it. And don't pretend like you care about the economy. The only time the left pretends to care is when it is to argue for bring in more immigrants. Otherwise you'd be railing against capitalism.

    43. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that you should get paid more than people who are capable of doing the same job as you, simply because of who your parents are?

    44. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      You know nobody takes the label "xenophobic" seriously anymore right? Nor does anyone care if you call them "nationalistic". Normal, well adjusted adults vote in their own best interested. This certainly doesn't mean 0 immigration, it means measured, controlled immigration in a manner that benefits the actual citizens of a nation.

    45. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything I have read about Trump (not the fluff the media serves up to sell advertising) suggests he will not become President for a number of reasons, but crazier things have happened, and if he does, he's doomed to fail. He's a hard hitting business man, not a politician.

    46. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, doing good work no one else is applying for is frowned upon in the UK.

      This is straight up corporate propaganda: people would applying for those jobs if they were remunerated fairly but that's not in the interest of the corporate elite.

      so you are saying that it is the fault of Eastern Europeans that the British owners pay low wages/salaries?
      that the Eastern Europeans applied for those jobs because they were low paid.

      if you think that the pays will arise now while the prices will remain the same, you are delusional. All this means now is that all those white christian eastern europeans will be replaced by african and asian workers.

    47. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Carter your best president?

      Carter was the cautionary tale of how being honest loses you the Presidency. Nobody has made that same mistake since.

    48. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      it was anyone who spoke a different language that was the problem. their is a huge population of small minded ignorant brits here in the UK.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    49. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      the sovereignty argument is crap. if we undo all the legislation related to EU membership (and i bet we don't except for immigration), we won't be able to trade with them. so therefore we will have to make rules based on others. i bet we may have to do that with any other trade agreement we may get with the larger economies as they can crush us underfoot on the deal due to their size. no doubt the TTIP based agreement will be the US's first draft.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    50. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poland is second world

      though none of that has meant much since the 90's

  12. RIP Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    RIP our stupid country and the idiots who live in it. Looking forward to people suddenly realising that the EU are going to actually negotiate our access to the single market rather than completely surrendering to us. Would be pretty ironic if we ended up getting forced into Schengen.

    1. Re:RIP Britain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Briton I know (I'm not British) said that it will be unprecedented irony if the UKIP first makes the UK shrink into just England and Wales which then ends up reapplying to join the EU which by then will be much more federal and the first question on the membership application is "When do you replace (your currency) with the euro?" and the second "When do you join Schengen?" The guy is a world traveler and thinks the whole Brexit campaign is immature nationalistic bullshit and doesn't personally care much either way since he hasn't lived in the UK for 15 years but all over the world. I'm Swedish and inevitably come to think of one of our former kings, Karl XII, whose nationalist and expansionist policies and numerous wars was what made our country shrink to its current size from having been a regional superpower. Because he tried to make Sweden so much greater, the retards, uh, nationalists in Sweden celebrate his birthday with no regard for what his escapades actually resulted in.

  13. Good for the Brits by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    EU was an American project, it never made sense from point of view of creating free trade (if that was ever the goal, which I do not think is the reality). If you want free trade as a nation all you have to do is stop creating barriers to trade at the government level, people will trade, that is never the problem. Creating a larger, transnational corrupted government to reduce the trade barriers associated with a smaller, national corrupted government (all governments are corrupt by definition, there is no such thing as a government that is not corrupt, that is patently, historically, factually impossible to achieve, which is why governments shouldn't exist AFAIC and if they exist, they should be as tiny and irrelevant on large scale as possible, maybe government at the street level, not even municipal, maybe none at all).

    Anyway, good for UK. I am sure that it will still trade with the rest of the EU countries as do countries that never participated in the EU project in the first place. China is not in the EU, neither is the USA or Australia, etc., yet they trade with the EU. UK will trade with the EU of-course and it will do so on terms that will not put its sovereignty in a questionable position.

    My ultimate position is that there should be no governments, but if they exist, they should be as small as possible (hopefully small enough to kick them in the balls singlefootedly, so to speak).

    UK will do fine and in the next few months ideas of EU exit will spread among many other countries in that block. Portugal, Italy, Spain, France, Sweden will be looking at it very closely now.

    EU was a flawed idea from every perspective from the very beginning, what is Greece doing in the same 'economic zone' with the same common currency with Germany? Latvia? Lithuania? Romania? Cyprus? That's not only a different league, that's not even the same game. When Germany joined this idiocy, the Germans immediately lost over half of the value of the Mark. Germany needs to quit this project, but of-course it will double down instead, but I think now that UK left, Merkel will not be re-elected and hopefully for the Germans they will get somebody who will do something that is in the best interests of the Germans.

    Get rid of the Euro and reduce trade barriers with other countries but do not let others just step all over yourself.

    1. Re: Good for the Brits by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

      The EU was formed to end the wars in Europe, right after WW2. In that respect it did marvelous and I for one don't mind paying for that privilege. The EU isn't perfect by far, but it beats the alternative

    2. Re:Good for the Brits by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Anyway, good for UK. I am sure that it will still trade with the rest of the EU countries as do countries that never participated in the EU project in the first place. China is not in the EU, neither is the USA or Australia, etc., yet they trade with the EU. UK will trade with the EU of-course and it will do so on terms that will not put its sovereignty in a questionable position.

      The funny part is that many European countries never joined the European Union to start with anyway. Of course there is Russia and most of the other former USSR states: Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. Then the former Yugoslavia states: Serbia, Croatia, Albania, etc.

      But even 'mainstream' Western European countries stayed out of it, notably Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland.

      In addition several members of the EU never adopted the euro currency: Denmark, Sweden, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic. Since the UK kept the pound, they don't even have to work on reforming their currency, or making massive changes in their banking institutions.

      So for all the bluster of how the UK is doomed for leaving the EU, it seems several countries in Europe are doing fine

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re: Good for the Brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The EU is a union (or federation) institution, built on the EFTA trade agreements, which again stems from the original (coal and steel) trade agreements between some of the central european countries.

      There is no tangible indication that EFTA nor EU is the reason for the absence of wars in Europe since WW2. Also, a lot of people see the current political direction of the EU as a direct course back into war, or something very close to war.

      Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that it will not work to forcefully unite a large number of very different countries. Maybe it would be better to reform EU to be a free and transparent cooperation by a number of 100% sovereign states?

      (And maybe the EU would be more popular if the people working there did not grant themselves exceptionally low taxes, and a large number of other fiscal advantages. And waste a ton of money moving between Brussels and Strasbourg. And unbelievably manny examples of similar waste of tax money).

    4. Re: Good for the Brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you think the fact that continental Europe let itself fall to a dictator elected by the Germans means Germans from continental Europe should dictate anything to an independent country which had to shoulder a large part of the burden of restoring it.

    5. Re:Good for the Brits by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      So for all the bluster of how the UK is doomed for leaving the EU, it seems several countries in Europe are doing fine

      Doomed is too strong a word, but bear in mind that there's a big difference between never agreeing to join an economic community and telling that community to eff off. If this goes forward, they'll be at the mercy of the remaining EU members, hoping that the EU members don't decide to stick it to them out of spite, and I'd argue that the EU has little to lose by doing so at that point....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Good for the Brits by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      You are quite uninformed

      1) Two former Yugoslavia states are in the EU - Croatia is, in fact, one of them. The rest wants to follow, but aren't stable enough economies for now. Ukraine really wants to be in, but it will take a few decades at the very best. Georgia isn't even really Europe anymore, it is Asia, just as Turkey, or Azerbaijan.

      2) Norway and Iceland are EFTA members which is not really far away from being an EU member, they pay into the EU budged, adopt most of the legislation and have to accept the same unrestrected free movement. Switzerland has so many bilateral treaties with the EU, they are basically in the same situation.

      3) Latvia and Lithuania have, in fact, adopted the Euro. The rest of your list is obliged to adopt the Euro by their EU treaties as soon as certain criteria like inflation rate and budget deficit are met.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Good for the Brits by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      "Quite uninformed" is a bit much since the most important part of your post that directly contradicts mine is whether Croatia is in the EU. I was working from a spreadsheet I have from a couple years ago, and apparently it needs minor updating. Similarly, Latvia and Lithuania have recently adopted the euro, so I have to update those items in my spreadsheet as well. So, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

      Other than these three minor issues, which are my fault for not keeping my spreadsheet updated, my post is not incorrect. Your points are noted, but they don't change the reality that the UK is simply joining the many European countries which are not currently in the European Union.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:Good for the Brits by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The great thing is that now that the UK has voted out, several other countries are going to follow.

      By the time the UK's existing trade agreements with the EU lapse, the EU will be smaller, substantially different, and several of its current members will be delighted to return to strong trade relations with the UK outside of the EU.

    9. Re:Good for the Brits by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Lithuania has the Euro since 2015. Before that, the exchange rate was fixed to the Euro (before joining the EU it was fixed to the US dollar).

      After fully adopting the Euro, prices jumped up significantly (we joke that the currency was changed, but numbers remained, 1EUR=3.4528LTL). Salaries, not so much ("calculated honestly"). It became economical to drive 200km to Poland for shopping.

    10. Re:Good for the Brits by gtall · · Score: 1

      "My ultimate position is that there should be no governments" Oh, so Grandma can come and live with your bringing her medical bills with her? And the legions of low income people can also come to live with you when they retire since they won't have been able to save enough on their own?

      While we're at it, maybe you'd like to buy your meds from Joe's Bait and Drug Emporium since there'll be nothing stopping them from opening up shop. Your airlines do not need no stinkin' regulation either because losing a few planes per year is cheaper than complying with government regulators. Maybe they'll promise to be really safe so you won't mind flying on them. Let's also get rid of immigration authorities, most of Africa wouldn't mind moving to the UK and you'd be happy to open your home for them along with Grandma and the low-income retirees you'd said you take.

      You'll be wanting an insurance company to cover your own medical bills. They won't mind any of your previous conditions and be happy to accept you, yes? You could also buy insurance from Joe's Bait and Drug Emporium, it turns out they have a sideline in medical insurance.

      Food is important for you to live, yes? Untainted by pesticides, yes? Adhering to what the packaging says it is, yes? It turns out Joe's Bait and Drug Emporium has another sideline on producing healthy food for you, the pesticides they use to farm it are there for your health, just learn to live with them.

      And while we're whacking government, let's get rid of science and technology grants because no self-respecting anti-government nut needs science...it just happens....by Joe's Bait and Drug Emporium, they have another sideline on science projects they run for your benefit...errr...especially the one attempting to counter that disease you just managed to acquire.

    11. Re:Good for the Brits by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you are american or european, but I think you are seriously underestimating how unpopular the EU is with the citizens of most EU member countries.
      It might not be at the same level as it is in England, but there is a widely held view that the EU is undemocratic.
      Whether this is true or not doesn't even matter all that much. What matters is that this is how people see it.
      The fact that referendums on various EU decisions are often ignores only bolsters this sentiment.
      If people see that england is punished for brexit it will only increase the unpopularity of the EU further.
      What we need is to accept that the EU is heading in a direction that many (maybe even most) people are unhappy with, and we need to change it before it is too late.
      I didn't want brexit, but I hope that at least it will lead to some positive reform of the EU.
      Because if it keeps heading in this forced direction everyone is against the whole thing will fall apart.

    12. Re: Good for the Brits by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The EU was formed to end the wars in Europe, right after WW2. In that respect it did marvelous and I for one don't mind paying for that privilege. The EU isn't perfect by far, but it beats the alternative

      To be correct, that was the EEC. But the EU naturally grew out of that.

      The problem now is that war is now thinkable in Europe; the UK economy will crash, they will have to seek a bail-out from the USA who will require the UK to join the USA and become another state in the union. Then the USA will use the UK as a staging ground to invade Europe!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    13. Re:Good for the Brits by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      So for all the bluster of how the UK is doomed for leaving the EU, it seems several countries in Europe are doing fine

      They are doing fine and were never in the EU.

      The UK will be leaving the EU and trying to disentangle itself from that will really fuck things up. It could take 500 years for things to stabilise.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    14. Re:Good for the Brits by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      The great thing is that now that the UK has voted out, several other countries are going to follow.

      "Liking or not liking" the EU is not the same as "in or out". So it is not going to happen.

      Oh, Brexit would make a splash. But.

      First. When UK economy would stagnate for few years - and NHS would see even less funding - even nationalists would come to their senses. First-world nationalists tend to lose support quickly, when people's living sandard is on the line.

      Second. UK is unique in that it is living in a virtual media bubble. You have a completely perverted image of the EU, created and nourished by the media over the past 15 years. I know it, because 15+ years ago I was reading lots and lots of UK press. And the reporting was on completely different level. I have seen it changing from small stupid lies and half-jokes 15 years ago. To stupid unfustified accusations 10 years ago. To blatant lies and red herring - on front pages! - 5 years ago.

      Some saner UK reporters are depicting that it is as if the people started believing their own lies.

      Even here on the thread, most US readers know political system of the EU better than the most UK readers. And that's the f*cking Slashdot, where more or less exclusively only highly educated people are gathering. Let it sink for a moment: UK, being part of EU, knows less about EU, compared to the US who is related to EU only remotely.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    15. Re: Good for the Brits by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      the main overriding reason for the EU was to stop constant wars. common trade agreements had to be in place to create that economic level playing field. If you don't attempt to have a level playing field, you just get arguments and worse.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    16. Re:Good for the Brits by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      those countries, as already pointed out, are to all intents and purposes part of the EU due to the rules they have to abide by and funds they have to pay to belong to get free trade. they are at a disadvantage in that they cannot influence any of the trade rules, they just have to suck it up.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re:Good for the Brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dream on. The only reason I've ever even thought to do business with UK residents and UK companies was because they were members of the EU which simplifies a lot of things. Now I'll just choose another market. Why? The UK market is bad. The customers are bad* and the service provided by the companies are generally bad.

      (* as a whole there are more "bad" customers in the UK compared to other main markets like France, Germany - that doesn't mean most customers are bad, most people everywhere are good people)

  14. Congratulations, Britain! by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First order of business should be to sign all the free-trade deals that the EU was preventing. Canada, Australia, China, etc.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by encad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And now get fucked royally by them, because they arent a 350 mil. consumer block anymore.

      Congrats to that

    2. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an Australian, the free trade agreements with China was one of the worst things to happen. The EU is smart to block it. But hey if you want to destroy your manufacturing industry and turn into a USA style intellectual property powerhouse backed by only services then be my guest.

    3. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Great, I'm really looking forward to competing with China on standards and wages.

      The EU is going to punish us hard now. There are already rumblings from the far right about referendums, and they will want to stamp down on those hard. The Pound and markets are crashing. It's already too late, and those non-EU countries we want to do deals with are now going to pray on our weakness and desperation to do some kind of deal, any kind of deal as soon as possible.

      Oh, and we will probably have Boris in charge, so double, sorry triple fucked.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Thatcher has already destroyed British manufacturing industry anyway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by renzhi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't understand this. GB is already part of one of the biggest free trade blocks and they decided to withdraw. And, now you want them to go to negotiate yet more free trade agreements with distant countries, with their diminished negotiating power? That's a very bizarre way of reasoning.

    6. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those things are one sided.
      For example - Australia and USA.
      Australia can't sell beef, steel, sugar and a pile of other things to the USA but got some pretty nasty copyright and other laws imposed as a consequence of the "free-trade deal". Australians can't buy software direct from the USA at a US price and can't buy some US audiobooks at all. Tents, boots, electronic equipment - so many things blocked from sale online - free trade was it?

      The only thing that comes out of a free trade deal is boasting rights for the person who sat at the table as things are signed away, which is worth a few votes for three years or more until people work out that the deal was worthless or perhaps even damaging. That's long enough for a popularity boost and many in politics are happy to sell of the prosperity of other people or to fuck their nation over for personal benefit.


      If it's with China expect the conditions to change without notice.

    7. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That point did not escape 48% that voted to remain in the EU.

      Well said.

    8. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But the game is not that simple, and EU will surely play to establish new agreements with all those countries to preserve, change or create stronger commercial ties within the two years ahead, they'll have then to choose between EU or UK..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Thatcher Britain's version of "GW Bush did it!"?

    10. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It makes sense when you understand that the people who wanted out are the 1%ers, the wealthy with businesses that have annoying overheads like "sick pay" and "maternity leave", and who can't compete fairly with China because they aren't allowed to use leaded paint or inject their animals with antibiotics and steroids.

      For them this is great. The UK will become like an English speaking China, right off the coast of the biggest and most lucrative trading block in the world. High quality English speaking staff at Chinese labour rates and Chinese regulatory levels. Driving down the Pound makes our exports cheaper too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The EU is going to punish us hard now.

      Meh, don't worry about them, you have the USA as your friend...

      Now you actually DO want Trump to become US President, because he'll be biased towards the UK over the EU, vs Hillary who will be the reverse...

    12. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that.

      --
      entropy happens
    13. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's with China expect the conditions to change without notice.

      China is Darth Vader?

    14. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The US, who won't even buy our beef... Who we are best friends with, except for Israel. And maybe Japan.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Labour and the unions destroyed the British manufacturing industry. Thatcher only had to deal with the consequences.

    16. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK has no manufacturing. Like most western world countries, the mega-rich closed them in the 80s and set up shop in the east. India and Pakistan were early beneficiaries, but they were out done by even lower wages in Korea, Singapore, and lastly China - who, let's be honest, took the ball ran with it.

      We now have millions of people on zero contract hours that can only work through agencies. The big corps will not take on staff, they'll buy in man-hours from a few massive agencies. Again, the mega-rich make more money, while the workers need state support to survive.

      This has little to do with the EU, other than millions of poor, unskilled people migrating for former eastern bloc nations to what they believe is a better life (i.e. instant state house and income) in the west.

      Think of it this way: Would the USA allow the countries of the American continent equivalent access and state support that EU mandates? Like fuck they would.

    17. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing that we are number 7 in the rankings in world manufacturing. Manufacturing output is about the same as always it's just not that important to the economy as it used to be

      https://www.eef.org.uk/campaigning/news-blogs-and-publications/blogs/2016/apr/official-british-manufacturing-output-ranks-us-7th-in-the-world

    18. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's got sod all to do with the economy. The vote was based on old peoples rose tinted glasses on the past and 'to many immigrants' into the country.

    19. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Livius · · Score: 1

      Back in the '80s Canada learned the hard way that "free" "trade" was just a slogan. It's never had anything to do with free trade the economic philosophy.

      It's surprisingly effective to use a term as an Orwellian euphemism for its opposite; all these decades later people are still being fooled by it.

    20. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You don't have Trump yet, who will kick over a lot of old political nonsense...

      That is why you voted for Brexit, same problem, the old people in power didn't want to give it up, neither does the RNC or DNC here, they both want to hold on to it at any cost and Trump is a threat to that.

      Look at Trumps tweets already, committing to backing the UK...

    21. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      same problem, the old people in power didn't want to give it up

      It's actually the exact opposite. People were made to think that was the issue, but in fact it's those in power wanting more of it by leaving the EU and it's rules. The rules that protect consumers and employees and the environment. They want the power to get rid of all that an increase their own wealth.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He thinks Boris is going to win and he wants there to be someone with a worse haircut than his at summits and shit like that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      So Britain with 60M people gets 2.54%, while Germany with 80M people gets 6.93%? That's like twice the efficiency! And the Japanese output is even crazier.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    24. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very much already there

    25. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      High quality English speaking staff at Chinese labour rates and Chinese regulatory levels.

      The UK is known for being a bit hopeless at manufacturing, though. And if their deal gets sufficiently worse, they'll just go back to being on strike every week, and they won't be manufacturing anything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a European that have lived in London and now working on China, traveling a lot of the world, I have seen most British consider Australia, Canada and China as colonies because of the British Empire.

      But those countries don't want to be colonies any more, specially China, they remember the China - UK relationship all too well, it was humiliating to China and they want revenge.

      Canada provably is ok with it though, they continue issuing notes with the Queen on it.

    27. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by jcr · · Score: 1

      The UK has no manufacturing.

      I'm sure that would be a great surprise to all the people in Derby making jet engines.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    28. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are a 65 mil consumer block with wealthier citizens than all but one of the other EU countries.

      The UK is a choice market to sell to. Nobody in their right mind would throw that market away.

    29. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you find that "wealthier citizens than all but one"?

      If you sort EU countries plus UK by median wealth, the UK comes out in its best position, in 5th place.
      If you sort by mean wealth or mean net wealth, it's 8th place both times.
      Look it up on wikipedia.

      For a Western European company, that's not really a ranking to be proud of.
      [O/T] It's still better than Germany, but if there is one thing Merkel hasn't done, it's making her citizens wealthier (she made the _country_ strong, but I wouldn't want to live and work as an average German).

    30. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing we really make locally anymore is the Raspberry Pi.

    31. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Australia should welcome trade with China. Australia has lots of resources. China needs resources and has stuff to offer in return. Trading with a country like China is better than fighting a war with them.

    32. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Powerhouse"? Maybe "cesspool".

      If you were using that snarkily, then "whoosh", and I stand corrected.

      (posting AC to preserve moderation)

    33. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes sense when you understand that the people who wanted out are the 1%ers

      I guarantee you that it is not the 1%ers that wanted out. The 1%ers live in London and they voted Remain. It is the ignorant masses, those with no foreign holdings and whose jobs were threatened by the migrants, that wanted out -- unskilled and low-skilled labor. And they are the ones that will truly suffer for it.

    34. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure you know what 1% means?

    35. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Australia should welcome trade with China. Australia has lots of resources. China needs resources and has stuff to offer in return. Trading with a country like China is better than fighting a war with them.

      The word for a country which exports raw materials and imports industrial goods under the threat of invasion is "colony".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    36. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Now you actually DO want Trump to become US President, because he'll be biased towards the UK over the EU, vs Hillary who will be the reverse...

      I very much doubt either Trump, Hillary or any other US President will put up with British delusions of grandieur to the extent EU did. After all, UK was a member of the EU, but not of the US.

      But hey: all yours. Enjoy having the special little snowflakes.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's still isolation, enmity, and someday maybe a war versus trade and peace and some amount of mutual benefit. Saying the word "colony" doesn't tip the scales.

    38. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Australia has lots of resources

      A country relying only on resources is at the complete economic mercy of its trading partner. A good example of that is ... Australia which is in the absolute shitter now that China isn't buying the ridiculous amounts of coal we were digging out of the ground.

      What now? There's nothing left to fall back on. We certainly can't complete on a free trade basis as we're on an even economic playing field while the government burdens the locals with stuff like health, safety, and minimum wages. People seem to forget the reasons trade barriers exist in the first place.

    39. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It's actually the exact opposite.

      The election heat map would disagree with you...

      Northern Ireland, Scotland, and London voted to remain, and that's about it. Everyone else voted to leave (in terms of districts).

      Sure, the financial business in London was great, but the average person is not better off today than 20 years ago, too much cheap labor, too much migration, that is what you miss...

      We have the same problem in the US, which is why Trump ran right over 16 other people running for the Republican ticket... The well off are just fine, but the average worker hasn't seen a pay increase in 20+ years... Yet Democrats have been in office for a majority of that time and sometimes have also controlled Congress. So why hasn't anything been done?

      Because the Democrats AND the Republicans basically just want to play the game as it is, without change, while letting the rich get richer.

      Hillary is deep in the pocket of Wall Street, it is a sick joke that anyone thinks she cares about "the little people".

      Why do you think Bernie Sanders got so much support? And he is a crazy socialist! (Americans generally hate that word)

      Americans are sick and tired of the status quo...

    40. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt either Trump, Hillary or any other US President will put up with British delusions of grandieur to the extent EU did. After all, UK was a member of the EU, but not of the US.

      You don't understand... The EU wanted to rule over the UK, but the US has no desire to rule over the UK, nor any delusions that it wants to be ruled over...

      We want to be friends, we're asking the UK to hang out with us, not get married... the UK is not going to become the 51st state...

      If I were US President, one thing I'd suggest to the British would be a swap of military bases, both for mutual defense and as a sign of friendship and mutual interest. Let us base 5,000 troops and some ships in England, and you can base 5,000 troops and some ships in the US. A token force as a reminder of friendship and shared ties that go back nearly 500 years...

    41. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia, economy glued to mining.
      US, economy diversified into technology, energy production and is R&D home to the worlds most successful companies.

      Hmm. As a New Zealander married to a US citizen, I could choose to live in either country. Give you one guess where I choose to live.

    42. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The election heat map would disagree with you...

      Northern Ireland, Scotland, and London voted to remain, and that's about it. Everyone else voted to leave (in terms of districts).

      Come again? It's actually a bit more diffuse than you realize.

      What map did you look at?

      It would be nice to find a population based one, sometimes that can be a good bit misleading.

    43. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      You should believe that.

      It's not like you have any choice anymore.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    44. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that one of the arguments for leaving the EU was to prevent free trade with China? EU didn't impose enough trade barriers to please the Conservatives who wanted to "protect" the British industry.

    45. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they've already done that

    46. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      unfortunately you cannot hit the xenophobes with a big enough clue stick to make them see sense. hatred rules !!

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    47. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand this. GB is already part of one of the biggest free trade blocks and they decided to withdraw. And, now you want them to go to negotiate yet more free trade agreements with distant countries, with their diminished negotiating power? That's a very bizarre way of reasoning.

      I think the idea is that now that they've shoot themselves in the foot European trade wise - for reasons unrelated to trade - they are now looking for other dance partners.

      As a European, I regret them leaving for all our sake & wish them well ... but I also suspect that this is going to be a terrible move for their economy long-term - assuming the EU survives (as I believe it will).

    48. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the narrow minded view of the majority of the uneducated population that are fed 'facts' from Rupert Murdoch and his friends every waking hour. It's completely irrational, but makes sense when you think that the reason the health service your parents fought hard for is in ruins is because of immigrants from Kosovo, and not because of establishment elites syphoning off public money into their own purses... Very sad, and I'm sad to say many of my own family fell for it all (and still defend their decision based on the lies they've been told).

      Captcha: Unsuited. No shit - I'm definitely unsuited to continue living in the country my family has resided for the best part of 1500 years...

    49. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It remains to be seen whether EU can actually meaningfully stomp down on all those referendums. Right wing is on the rise all across Europe; remember what happened this year in Austria? We'll see more of this, until the existing issues are resolved one way or another. And it's not clear whether EU can resolve them...

    50. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is also the possibility that the UK itself might sabotage its own exit. Most of the opposition parties will likely argue for remaining in the Single Market, which means we get all the rules and freedom of movement but no say in them. Like Norway. In which case, leaving is pointless and simply a downgrade of our current arrangement.

      Since half the Tory party didn't want to leave and will be at odd with the next likely leader, and there will probably be a general election this year, it's possible that enough will support remaining in the Single Market to make it happen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What will happen if EU decides to play hard? i.e. "You guys can stay, but all that preferential treatment that you said you need, and then voted to leave anyway? Forget about it. Euro and Schengen - or GTFO".

    52. Re:Congratulations, Britain! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Then we are fucked.

      Interestingly this means that whoever is Prime Minister next is pretty much screwed, as there is no outcome that doesn't end in disaster for them personally.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  15. How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, John Oliver eviscerated the Leavers on his show! How could this happen? How could racist old white men hijack the vote? It is 2016!

    1. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long until some of those brexit voters start asking "Can we kick the Muslims out now?"
       
      :(

    2. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't hijack a vote unless you can force other people to either not vote or change their vote.
      What kind of force did the racist old white men use?
      Perhaps there are just a lot more racist old white men than there are non-racists, younger people, non-white people and women combined.

    3. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know you're making a sensible argument when you call 50% of the British population racist.

    4. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The episode wasn't shown in Britain until late last night so it wouldn't influence the vote.

    5. Re: How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a point there.
      If the British are anything like what I see and hear here in Belgium, it's more like three fourths are racists when it's about foreigners moving into their neighborhood, and four fifths are anti-racist when it's about others trying to keep the strangers out of their neighborhoods.

    6. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long before we can start construction on the gas chambers?

    7. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the squealing to start that the EU is bullying us on the trade table after arrogantly and incorrectly saying how strong a position we are in.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re:How could Britain vote to leave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is [Current Year]!" is a retarded argument that can be used to justify ANYTHING.

      Preservation of sovereignty, self-determination is very important.

      This will never be a borderless world unless you want anarchy (or can somehow force everyone to adopt the same cultural norms), or we live on more than one world, and thus a single global government would make more sense (speaking of the far future though).

  16. So EU civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2016-?

  17. Pound is in the toliet by ebonum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ummm. Isn't this want everyone wants? A weak currency? Everyone says China is getting stupid rich and kicking everyone's ass because their currency is weak. It isn't fair! Weak currency == unstoppable.
    So now the pound has dropped a lot. All of England's exports just got cheaper. We need US businesses to call them an unfair currency manipulator and push for high tariffs. That will fix things! (this is sarcasm. Something no one seems to get here.)
    Me thinks those Savile row suits just became a lot better looking.
    Seriously, A weak pound will help the UK. It is a plus when selling your goods. More people will visit.

    1. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah if only the UK had a manufacturing based economy instead of a consumer based one.

    2. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The pound is down because the UK's biggest "export" is "the City", London's financial district. The banks have repeatedly said before the referendum that the influence of the London stock market is going to be all but wiped out, and that the financial industry, which has been driving the British economy, would leave London and move to Paris or Frankfurt. Unlike the "real" economy, which will "only" be hampered by uncertainty over tariffs, the financial industry can and will actually leave. Many people who are quick to say good riddance now will quickly learn to rue this day.

    3. Re:Pound is in the toliet by encad · · Score: 1

      Yeah if only the UK had a manufacturing based economy instead of a consumer based one.

      If they even had that. Most money in the UK was shifted in London, with focus to financials. A reason for so many to vote for Brexit were their shitty life circumstances.

      So close to no manufacturing, close to no consumerism and their financial sector will kill itself now while the pound tanks.

    4. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Zedrick · · Score: 1

      > Seriously, A weak pound will help the UK. It is a plus when selling your goods

      The problem is, the UK doesn't produce any goods. I don't think I have anything that's made in the UK, but lots of stuff made in Germany/USA/China/Taiwan/France etc.

    5. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking of anther vacation. It's been about 15 years since I was last there and was pretty expensive. Also moar rpi3s and marmite.

    6. Re:Pound is in the toliet by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Yes! Time to go to London!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK still has the 5th largest industrial output in the world
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sector_of_the_economy

    8. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't some of the Raspberry Pi's made in the UK? With millions sold there would be at least a couple of hundred thousands in profit, despite the tanking pound.

      Perhaps they can sell off some land to cover the rest of the expenses. Do they still have any colonies?

    9. Re:Pound is in the toliet by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I feel with you, that is only because you are to poor (and me too) to afford an Jaguar or a Rolls-Royce.
      Considering that Rolls-Royce is from Manchester, one of the poorest cities in the UK ... that is a real shame, isn't it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Pound is in the toliet by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The UK still has the 5th largest industrial output in the world

      That will make a nice epitaph for your economy

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Macfox · · Score: 1

      If it was 1960. UK manufacturing is a faction of what it was. Post WWII the Brits exported huge volumes to commonwealth countries and they also controlled large stakes in foreign industries. Here in Australia the Brits owned all the stevedores, and big chunk of manufacturing. They had it all locked up. Between entering the EU and losing control of the Australian dollar, the Brit's cashed out to the US and Asia, but they never replaced that manufacturing capacity at home or abroad. Brexit will solve the immigrant problem, but the cost will be very dear for an economy of services, rent seekers and consumers.

      --
      Area51 - We are watching...
    12. Re:Pound is in the toliet by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      With the pound in the toilet they might get a balance of manufacturing.

      --
      ...
    13. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be kidding. How come the country that started the Industrial Revolution does not produce anything?

    14. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The UK's manufacturing output is actually higher than it has been at any other time in history. It's just not goods that you have in your home (and it employs relatively few people).

    15. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Your premise is wrong. The UK is still a major manufacturer.

      Your logic is also wrong. Whether it's goods or services, the demand curves bend the same way.

      But don't beat yourself up for being ignorant. The peanut gallery loved it!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also if the UK sells desirable goods.

      Warm beer? no thanks.

    17. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what manufacturing and assembly stuff it does have is about to shut up shop and leave.

      Nissan for example, does it make sense for them to keep their car assembly in the UK when they export most of them to the EU? Probably not.

    18. Re:Pound is in the toliet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now the pound has dropped a lot. All of England's exports just got cheaper. ...
      Seriously, A weak pound will help the UK. It is a plus when selling your goods. More people will visit.

      All the of above is absolutely true ... in theory.

      However, personal anecdote (I'm European): just yesterday my wife & I were discussing this & reflecting how we're going to change our previous behavior of buying British goods & going on trips to Britain. We have specific British goods we regularly buy that we were saying we'll have to find European replacements for, and we've decided against going to London for our next short break.

      I doubt we're alone in not wanting to embrace someone who has just rejected us.

  18. tired of batshit crazy socialist regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't blame the UK. The EU is full of crazy ass socialists who have created ridiculous regulations. As if the right to be forgotten wasn't crazy and stupid enough, the human rights for robots is downright insanity. All of this creates a tremendous economic burden and a lot of debt. The UK showed a ton of sense by getting out now before they go down with the rest of Europe.

  19. EU is not about who is in by Max_W · · Score: 2

    but more about who is out,- who is not in, or not in yet, or almost in, or practically in except currency, etc.

    There is the UN United Nations Organization. It is a comprehensive universal framework. However it seems that for some countries it is beneath dignity to work in an universal organization together with all others, and that is why this drive create small elitist unions, to show off that they better than others. But it will not work in a globalized world.

    1. Re:EU is not about who is in by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The UN is a good place for people to yell at each other (much better than shooting) and make deals. It can't be an actual government, since it represents too many cultures that are too different. An actual government that includes the traditional West, China, and the Middle East is going to be dictatorial to some of them.

      Globalization is increasing, and the EU is a step in the right direction. There's enough shared culture and values in most of Europe to make a government possible.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. Blame the migration policy and not integrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Refer to a map of how areas voted, those that have been swamped by Eastern Bloc millions were clearly "out" (the blue), whereas protected areas in capital cities (yellow) were massively "in". Scotland were "in", but they survive on English taxes and EU handouts. They are not good enough to qualify to EU membership on their own. Strange as that sounds, when 3rd world nations are accepted.

    Perhaps if those moving to the UK integrated, rather than set up no-go zones for the locals, the backlash may not have occurred. The Indian and Pakistanis immigrants did just this in the 60-80s. The "European" and Russians generally do not.

    EU immigration allowed for millions of broke, unskilled people to freely live off the UK tax payers; yet highly skilled, UK university educated people from non-EU countries are kicked out with two years. Migration will always happen, it's a good thing; but what's happening in the EU is the same as the USA giving free access to their country to Mexico and most of the nations in South America at the expense of the US tax payer. It's ain't gonna work, or go down very well.

    1. Re:Blame the migration policy and not integrating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that UK voted to stop inmigration. And before they begin to expel migrants they should begin accepting the migrants they sent to North America and Australia. Specially the North Americans ones that plan to make a wall to stop the Native Americans of the South (aka Mexicans).

    2. Re:Blame the migration policy and not integrating by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Now that UK voted to stop inmigration. And before they begin to expel migrants they should begin accepting the migrants they sent to North America and Australia. Specially the North Americans ones that plan to make a wall to stop the Native Americans of the South (aka Mexicans).

      Don't you mean the descendants of English migrants who want to stop the descendants of Spanish migrants?

      Or are you under the impression that the Spanish Conquistadors let the native populations survive in meaningful numbers?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Blame the migration policy and not integrating by Superdarion · · Score: 1

      Or are you under the impression that the Spanish Conquistadors let the native populations survive in meaningful numbers?

      Perhaps a bit off-topic, but in many of the latinamerican countries the native populations were not decimated by the Spanish, but rather enslaved. That's why from Mexico to Peru the population is still mostly indigenous.

  21. Re:Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a pathetic angry person

  22. Nice one UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice one UK. Now you will get more Niggaz, Pakistani, Indians and Arabs instead of white Eastern Europeans. BTW most of Western Europe did the same mistake already. :-)

  23. Rebellion against political consensus by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I voted "remain" in the end, but it was a close run thing. I'm philosophical about the results; we won't know the real implications for some time. But be under no illusions, this was not just about the EU. Indeed, the EU never really dominated the campaign. It was a rebellion against a long standing political consensus and, in particular, the legacy of Blairism. In essence, Blairism was the marriage of Thatcherite economics to social mores which had previously been the concern of the far left; basically free markets plus multiculturalism. The intention was that over time, the population would buy into that. In London and Scotland, it more or less happened. But in much of the U.K., the population went the other way. An unbalanced economy dependent on financial services squeezed their finances and living standards, while mass immigration forced down wages and created visible, angry, unassimilated immigrant communities in their midst. Moreover, the usual channels of democratic restoration were blocked. Blair's biggest achievement was to foster a media environment which labelled any questioning of the social consensus as racist and a legal system which in some cases made it an arrestable offence. Meanwhile, too many of our institutions changed their ethos from public service to "thought leadership"; trying to reform the population rather than meeting its needs. The vote, I think, needs to be seen as a rebellion against that. I wish the result had been different, but I accept that it wasn't. I live and work in London and my whole circle voted to remain. My parents live in the suburbs of a northern city and they and their circle voted to leave. I had been warning colleagues for weeks that I thought a Leave win was likely; I thought the polling was both running into "social acceptability bias" and underestimating the likelihood that the lower income groups would vote. This, incidentally, is why I would bet on Trump winning in November, scary though that is. And things feel scary in the UK this morning. But a proper discussion of why the vote went the way it did and an acceptance that we need to at least accept and tolerate our divisions rather than widening them would be good first steps.

    1. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post, good explanation of what happened.

    2. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why be scared? This is simply a natural correction. You can't just shut up everyone's fears by telling them they're horrible, racist people for not towing the party line. Frankly, the only thing that isn't labeled as 'racist' these days is bias against folks of the wrong colour. Which is sad, because there's still plenty of legit racism about that's getting cover due to all those crying wolf, when we really ought to look out for anyone getting shabby treatment based on fitting into some category.

      But kids these days are, as we were in our day, all too easily manipulated by whatever appears to be most popular.

    3. Re: Rebellion against political consensus by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Scary doesn't always have to mean bad. Jumps into the unknown are always scary and this is a huge jump for the UK. But jumps into the unknown aren't always the wrong move (and with today's vote, it is just too soon to judge). Worth noting that the Remain campaign was slick, disciplined and, by conventional standards, much better than the Leave campaign. But Leave, after spending most of the campaign fighting among themselves, won back a lot of ground in the last fortnight. In essence, they took ownership of the "scary" thing and flipped the table by asking "what is so great about the status quo?" This is a long way from business as usual politics.

    4. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      This, incidentally, is why I would bet on Trump winning in November, scary though that is. And things feel scary in the UK this morning.

      And actually at this point, you should WANT Trump to win...

      Right now the UK could use a powerful friend, and the USA is powerful indeed... Trump will take the UKs side over the EU, where as Hillary will do the reverse (and has already said so)...

    5. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good analysis and summary. A couple of points I'd disagree on but the overall view is spot on.

      But as Portal1 also goes to show below, it's an age related issue. People remember a lot of FUD that emerged a decade or so ago, the often quoted 'straight bananas' problem or similar.

      And I'd agree with you on Trump. It doesn't look like it from here, but the disaffected in every country and going to rebel against globalisation and they are in the majority.

    6. Re: Rebellion against political consensus by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, correct. We live in interesting times.

    7. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by iris-n · · Score: 1

      You're overthinking it. The results show clearly that the wealthy regions voted to remain, and the poor ones voted leave. This is law number one of politics: if people are doing badly, they are going to vote against the status quo.

      --
      entropy happens
    8. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why am I not surprised you're a Trump idiot?

    9. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by magpie · · Score: 1

      Scotland bought into Blairism?!?!? Since when? Scotland was the last bastion of old labour until too many Blairites got into power in the rotten "Scottish" Labour party, then well...They now have one MP and some how managed to be less popular than the tories in SCOTLAND!!!

    10. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Bravo Sir!

      I have similar feelings but my own post was way to scattered and incoherent compared to yours! Excellent!

    11. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      It's more interesting than that:

      http://www.theguardian.com/pol...

      It would seem that the poorer you are, the less educated, the lower your social grade, and the older you are, the more likely you were to vote leave.

      I would say that the wealth statistic was not a cause, but really a symptom. It would seem smart people voted to remain, and dumb people voted to leave, and it would seem there are slightly more dumb people in the UK than smart people.

    12. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that they are poor because they are dumb? Come on, you are ignorant of the realities of English society. They don't have equal opportunities there. If you want to have a proper education, that costs real money. And I'm not even talking about universities, but about schools.The result is, social mobility is really low. It matters much more whether your parents are rich than whether you are smart.

      --
      entropy happens
    13. Re: Rebellion against political consensus by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But Leave, after spending most of the campaign fighting among themselves, won back a lot of ground in the last fortnight. In essence, they took ownership of the "scary" thing and flipped the table by asking "what is so great about the status quo?"

      Which is hilarious, because the EU is about changing the status quo. Brexit is about preserving it. The UK never really wanted to change the status quo, because it was doing great. That's why they never got on the Euro. They don't REALLY want to make life better for their less fortunate neighbors... fuck 'em. That's the British way. If life becomes better for other nations in the EU, who will the Brits take advantage of? They've lost their stomach for empire-building.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am saying that dumb people are poor. They are poor because they are less educated, have fewer or no qualifications, and therefore work (if at all) lower income earning jobs.

      The realities of English society are irrelevant. How, or why, they are less educated does not change the fact that they are less educated, and therefore dumber.

      The reality is, higher educated people who understand the issues voted to remain, lower educated people who are more influenced by propaganda and/or who do not understand the issues voted to leave, and I think that is very interesting.

    15. Re:Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Meanwhile, too many of our institutions changed their ethos from public service to "thought leadership"; trying to reform the population rather than meeting its needs.'

      As an American, I really didn't expect to find a statement summing up our Obama administration in these threads.

    16. Re: Rebellion against political consensus by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, correct. We live in interesting times.

      You might want to rethink your choice of words. With the rise of populist nationalism in the US and the UK, Russia lebensrauming into the Crimea/Donbass, and Brexit threatening the stability of the EU I feel like I'm back in the 1930s. Something tells me that there is a very good chance of the next decade or so becoming very interesting times, and painfully so.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    17. Re: Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling that's exactly what GP meant.

    18. Re: Rebellion against political consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you drunk, wetback-boy?

  24. This is a lesson for anti-Trump people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be a wake up call for people who think that Trump could never be elected president in the US.

  25. Different expectations by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    I live in Germany, but am not a German citizen. I think the UK was interested in being in a free trade block of European nations with similar economies and cultural ideals. I think the political establishment on the continent believes that a "United States of Europe" is the only acceptable natural and desired end-state for Europe. Eventually these different expectations had to be addressed.

    1. Re:Different expectations by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And even if we opt for a USE, there are different models for such a USE: a centralized ideal French-style, a federalized one German-style, ... and economically, a more socialist-authoritarian one French/German-style, a more capitalist-liberal one British/Eastern-European-style. Trying to find a common ground and to converge towards a model that is acceptable by all member states is nearly impossible. Just look at the total fiasco that the single currency Euro turned out to be: due to different financial philosophies between North and South, the whole Euro-Zone is shattered, and their central bank is printing billions of Euros like there's no tomorrow, heading right towards a super crash. Frankly, the anti-USE in the UK have won, and it pains me to say: they were right. I too was hoping for some kind of USE, but I grew disillusioned. I think right now that the EU should be rebooted and rebuilt (much more carefully) from scratch. On the second try, things could improve. As it stands now, keeping working on it will only add more misery to an utterly broken design, IMHO.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Different expectations by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Plan to throw one away. You will, anyway.
      --
      Fred Brooks

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  26. Not all Scots want to leave GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scottish fishermen have been bitterly complaining about fishermen from other EU countries fishing inside the Scottish waters, depleting the fish stock

    To the Scottish fishermen, Britain leaving the EU is a good news

    1. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was pretty much just England and Wales that wanted out, you should re-check the results- Northern Ireland was 55% remain

    2. Re:Not all Scots want to leave GB by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, now that Britain has left the EU, those pesky politics-aware fishermen will be sure not to enter Scottish waters!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by Cederic · · Score: 2

      40% of voters in Scotland voted to leave the EU. That may not be the majority, but it's a bit silly dismissing two fifths of the population.

    4. Re:Not all Scots want to leave GB by Teun · · Score: 1

      Crap, even well before the EU there were bilateral agreements about fishing rights.
      Or did you already forget mr. Gove's gaffe of last week about the reason his did shut down his fishing business?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it is just as silly to ignore the near 50% of people who voted to remain?

    6. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Just nitpicking, but you are mixing up 2/5ths of the population with 2/5th of the "people of age to vote" and actually "did vote".

      So with probably 70% participation in votes, where probably 80% of the population are old enough to vote, 40% means: 0.4*0.7*0.8 = 22.4% bottom line just about one fifth of the population ...

      So, the vote in UK was something like 49% versus 51%. In other words if a few more unemployed drunk yards had chosen to vote pro EU before going to the pub the result would have been 51% versus 49%.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      One third of Scottish voters voted to Leave, so let's not pretend that Scotland is homogeneously pro-EU, and it means a second independence referendum, even with Brexit on the horizon, is going to be straightforwad.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Not all Scots want to leave GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be extra sure now that the Royal Navy will have permission to chaingun them back to Iceland.

    9. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      Especially as just 24% of the electorate voted in the current (rudderless) Government.

    10. Re: Not all Scots want to leave GB by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      40% of voters in Scotland voted to leave the EU. That may not be the majority, but it's a bit silly dismissing two fifths of the population.

      How is ignoring 40% of Scottish Leave voters worse than ignoring 48% of UK Remain voters? Isn't flip-flopping the principle much more silly?

  27. Timmy Cook Not Phased At All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timmy Cook, CEO Apple inc., is going full speed ahead with his plans to marry Paul Ryan before Obama leaves office and all of Obama's executive orders are nullified.

    Timmy sees Ryan as his perfect as in "FABULOUS" sex partner and will stop and nothing to "GET RYAN".

    Ha ha

  28. How ages voted by Portal1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith
    HOW AGES VOTED
    (YouGov poll)
    18-24: 75% Remain
    25-49: 56% Remain
    50-64: 44% Remain
    65+: 39% Remain#EUref
    6:24 PM - 23 Jun 2016

    If they would have waited some years it would been a remain.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
    1. Re:How ages voted by sexconker · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, as people get older they get wiser and vote more conservatively.

    2. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, as people get older they get wiser and vote more conservatively.

      More conservatively certainly.

    3. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh, they won't understand until they have kids and watch, aghast, as things repeat like they did for us.

    4. Re:How ages voted by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0, Troll

      Elderly brains are weaker hence old people become set in their ways. Conservative, yes. But not wise.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:How ages voted by jareth-0205 · · Score: 0

      Ben Riley-Smith @benrileysmith
      HOW AGES VOTED
      (YouGov poll)
      18-24: 75% Remain
      25-49: 56% Remain
      50-64: 44% Remain
      65+: 39% Remain#EUref
      6:24 PM - 23 Jun 2016

      If they would have waited some years it would been a remain.

      It's very little more than a fucking coup. Those that have made their money and can now sit on it and ride out any problems can have their day. The young, who have been shat on by the previous generations virtually constantly in the recent decades, get fucked over again. They will have to live with the consequences that have been imposed on them, and economic problems will fall far more heavily on them than anyone else.

    6. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oldest Britons overwhelmingly chose leave. The youngest Britons overwhelmingly chose not to vote.

      Also, these same pollsters predicted a 4 point victory for remain so I wouldn't necessarily trust these numbers.

    7. Re:How ages voted by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      That's interesting and not surprising at all. Older people tend to vote for nation-first, less immigration etc...
      Besides, other aspects of the results are also interesting, and show the real difficulty of a referendum where everyone has a vote: expect the less informed people to comprehend economic and world strategic notions in order to choose knowingly, while it's so tempting to take a decision based on more basic arguments like the current immigration, unemployement (...) situation.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      They will have to live with the consequences that have been imposed on them, and economic problems will fall far more heavily on them than anyone else.

      Great Britain has been a successful democracy for nearly a thousand years...

      It has been part of the EU for 43 years...

      I think it will survive just fine on its own, it IS the world's 6th largest economy...

    9. Re:How ages voted by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't bet on it. Most people 18-24 don't have any major responsibilities except taking care of themselves and the EU provides opportunities for studies, travel and meeting people from other cultures. In the 25-49 segment you have people who care about jobs and what kind of country their kids will grow up in. You see it for example in the age distribution in cities, people go to the big cities to live, work and party there but when it comes to raising a family they often move somewhere else. I think it will be the same with the attitude to EU, what membership gives depends on your phase in life.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what they all think. However EU scepticism has been growing for years, despite older population dying.

    11. Re:How ages voted by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      It has been part of the EU for 43 years...

      I think it will survive just fine on its own, it IS the world's 6th largest economy...

      I thought 5th... Anyway. When it joined the EEC it was the "sick man of Europe". It grew into that position *while inside the EU*. Who knows what happens outside again.

    12. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I hate democracy too. I mean sometimes you don't win. What's the point in it if you don't always get your way?

    13. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Young - head pumped full of rainbows and unicorns by teachers

      Middle-aged - had a good whiff of the lies and hypocrisy of politicians. Figured out that their education was mostly rainbows and unicorns. Want to ensure that governments can be gotten rid of by voting them out.

      Old - seen the results of a Europe with superstate ambitions. Most likely had to fight and suffer horrible deprivations to save YOUR freedom from a real fascist.

      But yes... sure... it' all about old racists.

    14. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Well, for about 400 years it ruled 1/4 of the whole planet... There is a reason there is a saying "the sun never sets on the British Empire"...

      So much changed so fast after WWII, the world is still recovering from it...

      A lot depends on what happens during the breakup... it could be messy, or rather nice... and a lot depends on who becomes President in the US, how much of a friend the UK has in the US.

      I know if it were put to a vote here, I'd stand with the UK on ideological grounds, if nothing else, and the history of our special relationship.

      Note: I'm aware that relationship has been rocky at times, including a rebellion and war, but that's ok, our time together goes back longer than that...

      Note 2: I like France and Germany as well for other reasons. France for helping us win independence (I will be forever grateful for that, more Americans should be), and Germany for being, well, Germany and providing us with so many brilliant scientists and inventions and other things... more than most Americans know about...

    15. Re:How ages voted by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once again, the Baby Boomers fucked us. No houses, financial meltdowns, an economy built on debt and an "I'm all right Jack" attitude, and now out of the EU too. It makes me wonder how much more damage they can do before they die off.

      Of course they are probably quite well insulated from this, having little if any mortgage to pay off and plenty of assets to cover the damage to their pensions. Of course they expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for those pensions if things get really bad, due to a massive sense of entitlement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:How ages voted by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Just think about it. The age 50+ group born before 1966 had been around and part of the "social revolutions" of the 1960s and 1970s.
      When people get older they instinctively want to be around their own kind. Either family, race, religion, or nationality. As we get older we become less tolerant towards difference and consider them risks. This does mean we grow old and become biggots, but our comfort zone narrows.
      So the post WWII generation who created the EU is now feeling threatened by it.
      So if you wait only a view years the vote would probably be the same as people would switch sides. The only way to change it is to change their identity from Brittish to EU member.
      Just like how I'm the United States before the civil war people identified more with their state (I am a New Yorker) vs with the country (I am an American) where after the civil war the identification had changed slowly.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:How ages voted by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      "the sun never sets on the British Empire"...

      The saying actually was: "the sun never sets on Spain".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they would have waited some years it would [have] been a remain. ...assuming that a person's political ideology is set in stone, or that the era a person was born in determines their political stance. That's not what I see here. What I take away from this isn't that "old people tilted the vote"; what I take away is that a person's politial ideology changes as they mature. In essence, younger people are more easily enchanted by the promises of consolidated political power, and older people are more skeptical of it. Look at your numbers again. It's almost a perfect curve.

      To be sure, this is something that can be observed every day right here on slashdot. The younger the person, the quicker they are to support centralization of political power, and the quicker they are to reject decentralization of political power.

    19. Re:How ages voted by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      Well, for about 400 years it ruled 1/4 of the whole planet... There is a reason there is a saying "the sun never sets on the British Empire"...

      Well they can have fun with the Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Byzantines, etc. I'm a Canadian with strong ties to England (mother and brother have English passports) and I believe that they have just taken a giant step in their long decline.

      Funny you say that it depends "how much of a friend the UK has in the US", considering that people who voted to leave the EU ostensibly did so because they wanted more independence.

    20. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You arrogant little prick. We paid into our pensions and expect back only what was agreed when we took them out. We bought our own homes with wages earned from working.

    21. Re:How ages voted by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else have a problem with those bandings? I would love to see the raw figures (might take some time tonight to crunch them) but the bandings are totally unequal, which probably lends to the results.

      18-24 - covers a 6 year range.
      25-49 - covers a 24 year range.
      50-64 - covers a 14 year range.
      65+ - who knows!

      The larger the range, the more average the vote is likely to be.

      I would love to see what the actual spread is like year-by-year rather than in seemingly arbitrary bands...

    22. Re:How ages voted by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      Big time. Isn't it funny how the BBs blame the younger generations for having all the attitudes they have. They got free education, free healthcare and they want a free pension. Meanwhile younger generations have to pay for all those things and they label them as slackers with a sense of entitlement. No wonder the world is fucked.

      The only BBs who give a shit about any other generation are so few that they make no difference anyway.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    23. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give those 18-24's a few decades of getting fucked by rampant leftism and apologist approaches and they'll be more in the "leave" direction.

    24. Re:How ages voted by Macfox · · Score: 1

      Too bad there won't be the jobs or the competitive EU labor to support their lifestyles.

      --
      Area51 - We are watching...
    25. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The demographics might be heading toward screwing over Europe, England might fare better on its own.

      http://jdsawyer.net/2016/06/24/now-i-can-finally-talk-brexit/#more-10959

    26. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you spent your wages on yourselves, the money that went into your pensions you also spent on yourselves, and now you expect people that had nothing to do with your pension, or any agreement, to give you money. Fuck off you self-entitled twat*.

    27. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITT: Stupid children bemoan the decisions of people who have actually lived life and developed wisdom.

    28. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elderly brains also have experienced life for 2x-3x longer that you whippersnappers, and hence have made a more informed choice.

    29. Re:How ages voted by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      The figures are interesting, but I'm not sure your logic is sound. People tend to change their outlook as they get older, so waiting a few years might mean the result wouldn't change at all.

      --

      jh

    30. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like an economy built on debt, join the crypto-anarchist revolution. The boomers will be the last to understand.

    31. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the wisest people I've met are older.

      They are old enough to actually realize many of their views as a youngster were crap.
      They are old enough to realize that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.
      They still have courage (takes courage to walk with hip replacements).

      Not all of them, but honestly, the way you seem to despise older people sucks. The good news is that time doesn't discriminate, and you will get a chance to revise your views in a few decades time.

       

    32. Re:How ages voted by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      considering that people who voted to leave the EU ostensibly did so because they wanted more independence.

      Wrong. You failed to give the actual reason behind my vote, you dirty liar.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    33. Re: How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      young, who have been shat on by the previous generations

      You do realize that was just as true for the previous generation a generation ago, and for the generation before that another generation before, etc.?

    34. Re: How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right.
      Let's take away the right to vote from women and peasants, and everything is solved.

    35. Re:How ages voted by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      By age group, 18-24 year olds are the most homicidal and most hate-filled group:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

      http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...

    36. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5th is California.

    37. Re:How ages voted by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      Not all of us. My mortgage is paid off. Yet I voted remain. (Part of the 44%).

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    38. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, what you see there isn't "some old people with outdated ideas", you see the natural and inevitable switch from liberal idealism to conservative reality as life beats the crap out of that idealism. You start paying taxes, you buy a house, you have debt, you need a job or it all goes to heck in a hand basket and you're homeless and unable to get a job (as some rich guy decides he wants larger profits and outsources your job to a cheaper labor market). The government is supposed to protect us from that abuse, and it doesn't because it's obsessed with terrorists and abortion and gun control and gay rights and whatever other stupid marginal issue can be leveraged to lead stupid sheep voters to keep whoever is in power there as long as possible.

    39. Re:How ages voted by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      By age group, 18-24 year olds are the most homicidal and most hate-filled group:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

      http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/8...

      That could just demonstrate the fact that those prone to violence or those living in violent places/situations tend to die young, so many simply don't make it out of the 18-24 age group.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    40. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your kids will say the same about you someday.

      Well, maybe not *your* kids, but you get the point.

    41. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Well they can have fun with the Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Byzantines, etc. I'm a Canadian with strong ties to England (mother and brother have English passports) and I believe that they have just taken a giant step in their long decline.

      The irony is that Winston Churchill is generally looked at as a great leader of the UK, when in truth he led the UK to ruin...

      Had he made a deal with Hitler, as evil as he was, the UK might well still have its Empire. Instead Winston Churchill bankrupted the UK and forced it to give up much of that Empire. In turn, the rise of America came from that war and then the cold war that followed. Had Hitler been able to fight Russia, he might have won without interference, but more likely it would have ended up like India and Pakistan, or North and South Korea, without one side or the other able to win.

      Hitler really had no idea how big Russia really was and bit off way more than he could chew, but Russia had its own issues. Letting two horrible leaders fight it out would have been the smarter choice for the UK.

      Thus, Winston Churchill was a fool who destroyed 400 years of Empire over idealism...

    42. Re:How ages voted by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Great Britain was a country, much less a democracy in 1016 or so. I know you said, "nearly" so were you going for when the Normans conquered? And pretending that there was something remotely democratic about the government?

      I also don't get the part about being in the EU for 43 years. The EU didn't even exist 43 years ago (formed in the early 90s). Is this like how job postings for Java developers would want "10 years Java experience" when the language wasn't even five years old? Or is it like how the United States of America was founded around the year 1000 when Eric the Red found Skraelings in Newfoundland?

      Maybe there's a big "whoosh" coming, but I just can't see it. Must be *far* over my head...

    43. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I know you said, "nearly"

      Well, 800 years, a thousand years, who's counting? :) It all gets a bit murky when you decide to pick these dates...

      Was it the Magna Carta? 1215? Except that was still fought over...

      Before then? After then?

      I also don't get the part about being in the EU for 43 years.

      I'm giving it the most generous length possible:

      "Britain joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, with Denmark and Ireland."

      No, that wasn't the "EU", but it was the start of it...

      If you make it shorter, then my point becomes stronger, not weaker. :)

      Or is it like how the United States of America was founded around the year 1000 when Eric the Red found Skraelings in Newfoundland?

      If you ask some Americans, the United States of America was always here, the UK was just not letting us be free and the French were busy throwing down their rifles and running away! :)

      Lots of Americans are stupid, what can I say?

      The United States of America is a country in progress, much like the UK is and was for a long time... we now recognize gay marriage for example... (which as a conservative right-wing person, I support, believe it or not)

    44. Re:How ages voted by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      That could just demonstrate the fact that those prone to violence or those living in violent places/situations tend to die young, so many simply don't make it out of the 18-24 age group

      No, the statistics wouldn't even remotely work out on that. While homicides are much more common among the 18-24 year old group, they are nowhere near common enough to affect population statistics significantly.

      In any case, there are plenty of other scientific results that show that young males are prone to violence, prejudice, and sociopathy, something that gradually diminishes as people get older.

    45. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, this is Hitler we're talking about. He's not known to be good at keeping promises. But even ignoring that...

      The US over took the UK economically long before WW2, perhaps even before WW1. The Empire was already on its way out. UK had a bigger military, but that's before the US devoted its industrial might to creating the "arsenal of democracy". As long as the US eventually entered the war, it would have became a military power.

      Which it most certainly will sooner or later, as it wasn't UK or Germany who got US (officially) into war. It was Japan. Japan of course also were a threat to the Empire's holdings in Asia.

      Then we have to consider that one of the reasons Germany (and Japan) lost was because it had to fight on two fronts. If Britain made an agreement with Hitler, Germany might have been able to invade Russia earlier, with the Luftwaffe that was not exhausted from the Battle of Britain, and the results could be a lot different.

      Also note that Germany was a relatively small nation with limited access to resources. This was why it was in such a hurry to conquer territories. Making an agreement to buy time is to the advantage of Germany, who is short on time. Ditto Japan.

      In short, even if the UK didn't fight Hitler then, they would have had to fight eventually, and the US would still join eventually.

    46. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      The saying actually was: "the sun never sets on Spain".

      It was, until the UK did it better... :)

      Now it is America's turn! While we have less of an "Empire", the sun never sets on US military forces, our overseas bases, or nations that... for better or worse, do what we want them to do...

    47. Re:How ages voted by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It was, until the UK did it better... :)
      Not really, as the british Empire vanished as an empire around the same time as the spanish. Give or take half a hundred years :D

      the sun never sets on US military forces Well nitpicking :D
      It did around 9/11 as the world realized you have no forces in your own country. Well, besides a Carrier or an occasional sub on maintenance.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    48. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      It did around 9/11 as the world realized you have no forces in your own country.

      If you believe that, then you really don't know anything about the US...

      A single terrorist act does not mean we're defenseless... any nation can be attacked on the first day without warning and be successful, the question is, three days later would the attacker be sorry for doing it...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      As of 31 December 2009, a total of 1,137,568 personnel were on active duty within the United States and its territories (including 84,461 afloat). The vast majority (941,629 personnel) were stationed at bases within the contiguous United States.

      9/11 started and ended within 2 hours... no nation will respond to such an event that quickly when it is a new thing... We now maintain combat air patrols randomly around cities and more often around big cities and keep fighters on alert at various locations...

      It is expensive to maintain a war footing 24/7, but during the cold war we did it with various forces...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      EC-135 Looking Glass aircraft were airborne 24 hours a day for over 29 years, until July 24, 1990

    49. Re:How ages voted by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we used the resources of an empire to stop the Nazis.

      In hindsight, I'm glad we did. I'd have no issue with doing it again. Churchill was a great wartime leader and is recognised as such because when Britain goes to war, we have a habit of winning. We were already at war by the time he became PM and with his leadership, we won.

      Losing the Empire? Well worth it. We helped most of those countries establish internal rule and gave them enviable stability, it's been a beautiful example of how to give away am empire.

    50. Re:How ages voted by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      it's been a beautiful example of how to give away am empire.

      Yep, it didn't cause the rise of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, endless war in the Middle East, India and Pakistan obtaining nuclear weapons and fighting multiple wars, and on, and on... We won't even talk about how much Africa is a mess because of this...

      Yea, it has been all peaches and roses...

      *roll eyes*

      You either don't know your history or have chosen to not know your history.

      Churchill was a great wartime leader

      Yea, yea, that is what you were taught so you believe it. The sad thing is that most people never really question what they were taught...

    51. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it didn't cause the rise of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, endless war in the Middle East, India and Pakistan obtaining nuclear weapons and fighting multiple wars, and on, and on... We won't even talk about how much Africa is a mess because of this...

      Yea, it has been all peaches and roses...

      *roll eyes*

      You either don't know your history or have chosen to not know your history.

      You're attributing cause and effect, without a systematic analysis. Islamic terrorism has a multiplicity of causes, such as unrest over Israel, Soviet and American intervention, the dictators in place (religious and otherwise) and mere corporate exertion over resources.

      Africa is in a similar position. Very little of the disruption can be traced to Britain's dis-establishment of empire, and some can be said to arise from their colonial conquests and the method thereof.

      From an abjurement of responsibility perspective, the best result would probably be complete detachment, but the real world doesn't allow that.

      The sad thing is that most people never really question what they were taught...

      The sadder thing is when people think being a contrarian makes them smarter, that they've got some hidden wisdom they can smugly lord over others.

    52. Re:How ages voted by klui · · Score: 1

      He meant more who voted to leave would be dead in a few years to sway the vote.

    53. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while i am an "american" who has little love for baby boomers...

      but re: "an economy based on debt" i believe the "loan money into existence" and "fractional reserve banking" (what they call it in the u.s.) .....goes back hundreds of years. predates the baby boomers by centuries. the usury is said to have expanded with goldsmiths, but they did not invent it either. making all currency "debt" was just the next logical step.

      ditto with so-called "credit money" and "checkbook entries" ...in the u.s. these are not legal tender, checks and credit cards are optional, people are essentially bartering international private currencies when they voluntarily accept them for the printed value, (not just hyperbole, creating "money" is the perogative of kings, the "banks" are behaving as "sovereigns" when they do this, "legally" or not)

      people accept such "not legal tender" checks and credit card payments with only faith that a "bank" can provide legal tender if desired...such "credit money" and "checkbook money" exists at any given time in multiples of actual legal tender/assets the banks hold, they are "never asked to make good" (in the u.s. see "a primer on money, banking, and gold")

      the private bank of england, the big one everyone loves to finger: 1694

      jesus threw the money changers out much earlier, and was crucified.

      i am all for griping about baby boomers' lack of values and "i got mine"...but the usury hydra monster took over the world ~2000 years ago.

      see also especially "the struggle for world power" and "red symphony"

      "an economy built on debt" has been going on a long time around the world...in the u.s. (see "primer" book) the "banks" were creating their own private currencies before any such laws existed re: "credit" and "ledger entries"...the "federal reserve" and "fractional reserves" was merely an extension of prior practice.

      i hate to be a nosy american butting in to other people's arguments...but the usury hydra monster enslaved the world long before the "baby boomers" showed up :/

      "an economy based on debt" is just usury pushed to its maximum (although they are surely always trying for more)

    54. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the struggle for world power" -- 1st edition 1958.

      author "for over thirty years he worked closely with the late Captain Henry Kerby, Member of Parliament"

      if the baby boomers failed to act for decades and escape a "an economy built on debt" it was not for lack of information at their finger tips....

      "so you see, my dear AmiMoJo, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." -- Coningsby

    55. Re:How ages voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wouldn't. People vote differently when they're older because their opinions change, and the younger you are the more naive you tend to be. Older people tend to be more cynical. Those 18--24 year olds that voted 75% to remain would have voted 39% to remain when they've reached 65+. This divide between younger and older generations have happened for all time.

    56. Re:How ages voted by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Voting conservatively would be a remain vote i.e. don't upset the apple cart.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    57. Re:How ages voted by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, there was extensive footage about the "why was no air force around" when 9/11 happened.

      What I remember was: they had like 8 planes in strike range to NYC. 4 flight ready, the others out of service.

      Bottom line neither "close" to the Pentagon nor to NYC were any fighters even theoretically able to intercept the planes.

      On the other hand in Europe until recently fighters are always in the air, obviously because the former NATO/Warsaw-Pact border was close, now it is further away (from Germany), but incursions of Russian fighters into NATO area - or Sweden - (and vice versa) happens dozens a time per day.

      With "until recently" I mean: France and Germany e.g. fly significantly less now as the "frontier" shifted farer east.

      Anyway, I don't plan to invade the USA ... in the near future :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    58. Re:How ages voted by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I think prefect42 meant that as young remainies become old, they'll turn into leavies. It's not certain but it's certainly plausible.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    59. Re:How ages voted by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder how much more damage they can do before they die off.

      Their damage is done; they might do more, yet, but short of WWIII I doubt they can dig much deeper (he says, knocking on wood.) Instead, I'm more concerned about how we keep the younger generations from filling the gap they leave behind.

      "Kids these days" has been a meme for almost as long as written history. "Old people ruin everything" appears to have a stronger historical backing. Unless we make some heavy inroads into... honestly, I'm not even sure what would need to be changed, but something must be or the younger generation of today will, in 30-40 years, be the old codgers who vote selfishly based on empty promises and fear-mongering.

      The only major difference for this (our?) generation is that they began life already able to reach the furthest corners of the world thanks to the Internet. Could that be enough to break the cycle and allow them to continue voting with educated empathy? Is there even such a possibility?

  29. Eurovision Song Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this means that bloody programme is banished from our tv screens, although if they still let us compete they all might vote in our favour to make us host it the next year out of spite for leaving the EU... aw bollocks.

  30. My fears by Evtim · · Score: 1, Troll

    Scattered [useless?] thoughts but I need to get it out from my chest:

    My deepest fear is that this will be used as an excuse for another eternal "economic crisis". Because you make more money when shit happens....

    Regarding the brexit - I supported both sides. Honestly! On one hand I am [very] disappointed by the EU, on the other I think it will go worse for all of us now...but will it go worse because of some real issues or because the financial sharks will happily create a crisis?

    At the very bottom I see this as vote against the whole socio-economic system; however since people do not realize that the very foundations of the system need re-evaluation they shoot down indiscriminately everything they can every time they are asked (EU constitution, anyone?)

    The statements ATM from diplomats and politicians [from EU, not Brits] are INSANE! Many have said [e.g. the French diplomatic mission in my country] that this was all Putin's fault (I am not kidding!!)...I mean there is nothing more idiotic and revealing than to keep excusing your greed and incompetence with the big scary bear. The bear is not that big neither it is very scary and in fact the EU has been playing the role of a buffer in the new war between US and Russia. European leaders claim that Europe is making its own destiny yet the surveillance/police states are in full swing, secret trade negotiations, 25% unemployment among young people [what to do? - bail the banks!!], robots taking our jobs [what to do? - RAISE the pension age, increase taxes!!] and the propaganda in the media is insufferable..

    Perhaps by bad luck or bad luck reinforced by wrong decisions I suffered by the system in western Europe and I still suffer [got bankrupted by the medi-care system; family screwed by job market]. So in my eyes I cannot stand the system that spills money left, right and center, going to wars nobody wants [except the money makers and their bitches the politicians], endlessly destabilizing the economy while at the same time the regular honest tax payer and decent member of society gets screwed.....again and again....and even VILIFIED [terrible white slavers sexist racist chauvinist pig]....no help from anywhere because I do not belong to any minority [LGTB or whatever] or majority [religion] group....so disappointing!

    1. Re:My fears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scattered [useless?] thoughts but I need to get it out from my chest:

      My deepest fear is that this will be used as an excuse for another eternal "economic crisis". Because you make more money when shit happens....

      Regarding the brexit - I supported both sides. Honestly! On one hand I am [very] disappointed by the EU, on the other I think it will go worse for all of us now...but will it go worse because of some real issues or because the financial sharks will happily create a crisis?

      At the very bottom I see this as vote against the whole socio-economic system; however since people do not realize that the very foundations of the system need re-evaluation they shoot down indiscriminately everything they can every time they are asked (EU constitution, anyone?)

      The statements ATM from diplomats and politicians [from EU, not Brits] are INSANE! Many have said [e.g. the French diplomatic mission in my country] that this was all Putin's fault (I am not kidding!!)...I mean there is nothing more idiotic and revealing than to keep excusing your greed and incompetence with the big scary bear. The bear is not that big neither it is very scary and in fact the EU has been playing the role of a buffer in the new war between US and Russia. European leaders claim that Europe is making its own destiny yet the surveillance/police states are in full swing, secret trade negotiations, 25% unemployment among young people [what to do? - bail the banks!!], robots taking our jobs [what to do? - RAISE the pension age, increase taxes!!] and the propaganda in the media is insufferable..

      Perhaps by bad luck or bad luck reinforced by wrong decisions I suffered by the system in western Europe and I still suffer [got bankrupted by the medi-care system; family screwed by job market]. So in my eyes I cannot stand the system that spills money left, right and center, going to wars nobody wants [except the money makers and their bitches the politicians], endlessly destabilizing the economy while at the same time the regular honest tax payer and decent member of society gets screwed.....again and again....and even VILIFIED [terrible white slavers sexist racist chauvinist pig]....no help from anywhere because I do not belong to any minority [LGTB or whatever] or majority [religion] group....so disappointing!

      Wow, it has been years since I commented on this site. This is one of the best posts I have read in an internet discussion ever, as it very concisely expresses most of my own thoughts about the state of politics and economics. Thanks for writing this!

    2. Re:My fears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very reason there was referendum for it is that there weren't much difference between those two possibilities(leaving vs staying). Damned if you don't, damned if you do. They made a referendum so that that citizens would shoulder the responsibility for the decision in the end, whatever it will be.

    3. Re:My fears by Qwertie · · Score: 1

      Huh? Who marked this 'troll'? It's a reasonable post and honest opinion.

      While indications are that a large proportion of LEAVErs are just suffering from an anti-immigrant fervor, there are also real and substantial flaws in how the EU is set up. 'Course, there are also real and substantial flaws in how the UK is set up (first-past-the-post elections, anyone?)... sigh.

  31. Captain leaving a ship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the captain leaving a ship at first sight of trouble ahead of all the others....

  32. Is it a binding referendum by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Is this a binding referendum?
    In other words; is the government forced to do as voted or do they have wiggle room to weasel out of it?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Is it a binding referendum by encad · · Score: 1

      There is debate about that.

      In theory the houses could block a ratification of the Article 50 Trigger by Cameron, but I think most agreed on honouring the result.

    2. Re:Is it a binding referendum by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      The Queen could intervene and block this as well but, that is extremely unlikely.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    3. Re:Is it a binding referendum by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      But most probably agreed on the assumption that the vote would be "in", so I doubt many will try to stick to their promise.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Is it a binding referendum by locofungus · · Score: 1

      Is this a binding referendum?
      In other words; is the government forced to do as voted or do they have wiggle room to weasel out of it?

      Technically, no. This is an advisory referendum - hence why in the event of a dead heat there was no way to break the deadlock.

      However, I don't see how any government could possibly go against the will of the people and ignore this decision (and survive) unless there was something truly catastrophic that happened (such as WWIII) where the conditions changed so much that they could reasonably justify postponing activating article 50 and then another vote (after the war was finished)

      It's somewhat bizarre that around 70% of sitting MPs support remain. And the Brexiteers wanted to "reclaim parliamentary sovereignty." So we're going to have the team negotiating new trade deals with Europe being the team that didn't want to do that - and it's hard to see how that proportion could change much even with another general election.

      I'm not sure if the Prime Minister (who will not be David Cameron) needs Parliamentary or Royal authority to activate Article 50. So it's possible that Parliament or the Queen could theoretically block this from moving forwards up until a general election elected enough pro brexit MPs. But I think pro remain MPs will respect the will of the people and either support any request for authority or, possibly, abstain. Even if the Queen had come out as an ardent pro-remain supporter (which she hasn't), I can't imagine any way she'd reject the will of the people. And if she did there would be a quick referendum on removing the Monarchy and we'd be back to the same position.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    5. Re:Is it a binding referendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I guess they don't want a far right victory on the next election.

    6. Re:Is it a binding referendum by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's only binding if you don't want national riots that would almost certainly result in immigrants being targeted.

    7. Re:Is it a binding referendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strictly speaking it is only binding because the government said it is, they could legally ignore it, but that won't happen.

    8. Re:Is it a binding referendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The commons or the lords could also block it before it gets anywhere near the Queen. Referendums are actually only 'guidance' for the government.

    9. Re:Is it a binding referendum by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Despite what the tabloid leak said, HMtQ was pro remain.

      After all, most of her relatives are krauts.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Is it a binding referendum by swb · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat bizarre that around 70% of sitting MPs support remain.

      This seems to fit either one of two narratives.

      Narrative 1: Brexit was so colossally ignorant and short-sighted that the on-average better informed MPs were largely in agreement on the value of staying.

      Narrative 2: The principal beneficiaries of remain are the establishment and they always support whatever's good for the establishment.

      I think it's possible that both can be true at the same time -- the logic of remain is stronger, yet the perception among the electorate is that EU membership isn't making their lives better and principally benefits the elite power structure.

      It seems to strongly parallel the rise of Trump. His ideas are crazy, but many people see the establishment power structure as so corrupt that support for Trump isn't support for Trumpism, but a desperate bid to disrupt the establishment because they don't think the establishment is helping them.

    11. Re:Is it a binding referendum by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, the Queen is of German ancestry.
      So perhaps we only have to tell her to behave as a nice puppy ... oops, a nice puppet ... would?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Is it a binding referendum by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It seems to strongly parallel the rise of Trump. His ideas are crazy, but many people see the establishment power structure as so corrupt that support for Trump isn't support for Trumpism, but a desperate bid to disrupt the establishment because they don't think the establishment is helping them.

      And just like the rise of trump, the supporters are spectacular idiots. Brexit is about maintenance of the status quo, not improving it. And Trump is so status quo that nobody could be moreso.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Is it a binding referendum by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Legally, it's non-binding. In practice, it's REALLY hard to see any government deciding to just ignore it.

    14. Re:Is it a binding referendum by swb · · Score: 1

      I question whether the supporters are idiots or just desperate enough to believe a bad choice that disrupts the status quo is better than more status quo.

  33. So the UK says to the EU... by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Funny

    See eu later!

    1. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Time for Texas to find its balls and USExit the federation as well.

    2. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      UK would like so much to keep saying "buy buy"!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See eu later!

      Not if they see UK first.

      When the UK economy has tanked and they want to rejoin they won't get close to getting such a sweet deal they had the first time around.

    4. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      TEXit, you mean.

    5. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed to understand the portmanteau in a spectacular way. Of all the names states and nations on earth, "Texas" is very probably best fitted to combining it with "exit".

      What I'm trying to say is, you meant: Texit.

    6. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      the naming scheme would be Texit.

      your use of usexit, which, you know, incidentally sounds like a very inappropriate iphone app of some kind, gives away your bias toward American, rather than Texan.

    7. Re:So the UK says to the EU... by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be #Texit?

  34. I feel rejected. by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wanted to check on the progress of the Brexit vote, so I went to the CNN website, but it only said in large black letters "LEAVE".

    Jeez, they didn't have to be so mean about it.

    1. Re:I feel rejected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans like stuff to be spelled out and simple. Not wrapped up in two pages of text, sarcasm and witty jokes, aint no one got time for that!

      Take their cars for example, the Canadian versions have lots of little pretty icons for things like Oil, window washer level low, trunk open, door ajar. The exact same car also assembled in Canada out of the same plant but sold in the US, will often have the text versions.

    2. Re:I feel rejected. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Don't worry they were just giving you some good advice. The last time I looked at CNN's site it would have made GeoCities page owners' eyes bleed. Seriously it makes a facebook feed look well laid out.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  35. Re:Fuck you by William+Robinson · · Score: 1
    Because, maybe this could as well be end of EU as whole. Or maybe split of UK. And finally it affects how companies in US are going to do business with them. Changes in laws, changes in trade agreements, fine for monopolistic approaches....everything changes. Hell the Dow futures are down 4%. Asian markets have melted. Sterling is down 10% and down are many currencies. It affects entire world. It affects the way US will export and do business.

    Maybe you are only interested in knowing how Ballmer scratches his ass, but I certainly think this is relevant news to us.

  36. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US has its problems, yes. But it's hardly dead, and that's a pretty dumb thing to say. The US is still the world's largest economy. The US exerts a tremendous amount of political influence. The US has a massive military with a hell of a lot of firepower. That hardly sounds dead to me. In so many ways, the US is actually a rock of stability compared to Europe. Since the Civil War, we haven't had any states seriously try to leave the US. Our Presidency has been handed over peacefully each time to the winner of the election. We haven't fought wars over here in North America for a long time. Despite our faults, the US has been extremely stable and will probably continue to be for a long time. The rest of the world knows it, too. That's why, for example, the dominant reserve currency throughout the world is the US Dollar. If we were truly that bad, the world wouldn't trust the US Dollar. I know that it's practically a sport around here to bash the US, but we've been quite a bit more stable than Europe.

  37. The B-Ark have taken over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..before we could send them on their way.

  38. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 3, Informative

    The European Union is not a state, but it has its shortcomings, though. For example, most EU citizens don't really know who prepares the laws, how these people are chosen or elected (often not even elected), how do EU laws affect national drafting of laws and so forth. Even the good things' origin, such as the benefits of a single market, are not known, and people don't realize that it's the EU that allows them to order pretty much anything from another EU country over the Internet without any more hassle than what they would have if they ordered it locally.

    I reckon Scotland will be leaving the UK soon and might join the EU as a sovereign state later on. The fate of Northern Ireland is a big question mark, but they're obviously not happy with the UK leaving and this might start a similar political movement there too.

    --
    -SR
  39. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You do not understand idioms

  40. Quick Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prime Minister David Cameron has announced his resignation and will be stepping down by October.

  41. Re: You made it, Syrians! by someone1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I see, not even the EU sceptic UK politicians really wanted this. They just wanted to beat Cameron and probably blackmail the EU. I believe this has backfired, and the UK will suffer. (EU too, but to a much less degree). I'm sure Farage and the rest of the crooks wanted that Brexit fails, but only barely. Now, lets see how UK will fare without the cheap EU workers, increased trade tax, visa to the EU and all the 'good things' non-EU countries have to cope with.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  42. Do not worry, U.K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the U.S will make you into a different kind of favorite pet now. You will be taken cared of, and the U.S will ultimately get more leverage in the region. Just as was intended.

  43. News: EU is not to become USE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good news everyone! The main driver for turning the EU into the Unites States of Europe is on the way out. Now EU can focus on things like privacy and consumer rights again as the UK seemed to look at their cousins in the west with admiration and following their trends didplayed a "Oooh, totaliarism is the Next Big Thing? We want some too!" mentalty.

  44. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US most definitely still has a lot of power and influence politically, economically and military. though it is on a rapid decline for 2 of those 3 and the 3rd requires the first to for long term survival.

  45. From a very far on looker by renzhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the perspective of a very far on looker (a Canadian living in China), the result of the referendum is very unfortunate. Since WWII, generations and generations of people, with long term vision for a stable and peaceful Europe, had put their weight to form the Union. It's certainly not perfect, but it's better, by a long measure, than the situation in the first half of the 20th century. I am quite amazed that more older generation stand by the Leave camp. I would have thought that they should be the ones who know better. With one referendum, which is more fueled by temporary discontent than calm reasoning, they want to dismantle what took years and years to gradually build up. The chain reactions in the coming years won't be pretty, and I hope I would be wrong.

    I was born in Cambodia, been through the Khmer Rouge regime, lost 80% of our family, spent 8 years in a refugee camp in Vietnam, and was lucky enough to be accepted in Canada when I was 18. In the 1990s, I was very happy to see the Berlin wall fall, and that Europeans countries were merging into one block with their interests tightly interconnected, and I could only dream of a same scenario for Asia, a scenario that would take many many more years to even be a prospective, if at all.

    1. Re:From a very far on looker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a very strong "stay" supporter, I still have to say that to the older generations the moves of the EU towards political/economical union and an EU army actually looks like the buildup in the early part of the 20th century. The arrogance of a political class that thought they were unassailable in their "old boys' club" in the EU, which was actually setting up a ramming course with Russia over Ukraine and the Eastern Expansion of the EU.

      Turkey is a good example of an external country playing off of that to their own benefit, and it (Turkey) also played a significant part in the debate as the Brits (and I imagine most right-thinking people in the EU) really don't want Turkey in its current political state to accede to the EU.

    2. Re:From a very far on looker by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      >With one referendum, which is more fueled by temporary discontent than calm reasoning, they want to dismantle what took years and years to gradually build up.
      Anon, this is a scary line of thought. Not because of what you say, but because of what is happening. UK is a country outside of EU in a lot of ways. They are even segregated from Europa itself via that seawater.
      And it has shown up for every single war and conflict far into modern times. If it wasn't for the Naval warfare, Britain would have no real reason to fight in World War 1.In World War 2, Europa practically gets Blitzed, but not Britain, because Britain is not directly a part of Europa.

      Another point is that EU is in many ways German lands and Franc lands. Germany and France is 2 countries But there is also Switzerland, Austria, Lichenstein, Belgia, Luxembourg, and surrounding countries where French or German is a auxiliary language.
      Of the mentioned, only Switzerland stands completely outside of EU, as Lichenstein is a part of Schengen Area and European Economic Area.

      So Britain leaving isn't worth anything as a note. Denmark, Sweden, any of the central members, Italia, etc. Those leaving would be a real sign of danger. That would spark the chain reacting you are speaking on about.
      Inside Europa there is no care for warfare. Nations that sided with NATO occasionally go out and bomb things on NATO missions.
        Outside of Europa there is always the danger of Russia deciding it want to try landgrab, because Russia is Russia. Turkey seem to be of no danger, but it currently serves as a proxy state, a proxy state which wants into the EU free trade economy, possibly to allow for further outsourcing.

    3. Re:From a very far on looker by Trachman · · Score: 1

      You are simply brainwashed by the people talking about vision of stable and peaceful Europe. Truth is the same people, same ruling class, brought WW1 and WW2 to the European continent, why believe them now?

      It is also the truth, that with the invention of nuclear weapons, conventional wars between more or less equal countries are no longer conventional. While you were happy to see countries merging, people were not happy with the values being shoved down their throats and thus this is a decision that they made.

      In ten years, after never ending cluster*ucking in Greece, Portugal and Italy, Brits will understand that this is the best thing that they ever done in their generation. It was a bad marriage and the time to leave is well overdue.

    4. Re:From a very far on looker by Bongo · · Score: 1

      From the perspective of a very far on looker (a Canadian living in China), the result of the referendum is very unfortunate. Since WWII, generations and generations of people, with long term vision for a stable and peaceful Europe, had put their weight to form the Union. It's certainly not perfect, but it's better, by a long measure, than the situation in the first half of the 20th century. I am quite amazed that more older generation stand by the Leave camp.

      The project may have started as cooperation-for-peace, but it changed, as movements do, as others came in and developed it. Britain is not about to declare war on Germany, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is Britain about to start expelling foreigners. I think the reason the older generation went Brexit is precisely because they know the difference between, being in a state of war, and being locked into dodgy deals with competing interests. An older lady at the bus stop this morning, for example, said she voted for the common market back in 75 or whatever, but since then it changed and is now about Brussels taking more power. That's kinda it really. The common Europe was lacking common sense. Too much central planning, Europe trying to throw its weight around, which may actually be more of a risk.

    5. Re:From a very far on looker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what the saddest part is? It's that the dream you speak of, where generation after generation work towards peace and prosperity is a LIE.

      The EU as it stands to day, is the result of unchecked expansionism of bureaucracy, corruption and megalomania. The people in Europe wanted, and was sold, peace and trade. What they got was corruption, unchecked greed and thirst for power. It started out as a trade union, run by civil servants, and at it heart it's always been like that. Everything else are just bolt-ons and stop-gap measures. There is no core of democracy, it never had those underpinnings because it's not a state, and it never was meant to be one. It's just something fucking greedy politicians and multinational corporations lately have been trying to change it into, so they can get more, un-opposable power.

      The EU can die in a fire. It's a lie, it has practically been a lie from the start, and it will never be anything but a lie.

    6. Re:From a very far on looker by Milharis · · Score: 1

      The thing is, WW2 is far enough that most of the older population wasn't born when it happened. Only the 80+ are old enough to actually remember it.

    7. Re:From a very far on looker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the EU falls apart, get ready for more European conflicts and wars.

      Time to accumulate defense contractor stock.

  46. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The bottom of your society is literally an endless abyss, whereas the EU has a well-functioning security net, and where it's easy to have a high quality of life even with a simple job. But you, you live in a supposed first-world country with third-world living standards in many parts, where people have to take two jobs just to reach the point where they can start counting pennies to make ends meet... and you call the EU a failed state? You Americans are an endless source of unintentional comedy.

  47. Re:Fuck you by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    he probably would've voted leave.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  48. Re: You made it, Syrians! by quenda · · Score: 0

    I reckon Scotland will be leaving the UK soon and might join the EU as a sovereign state later on.

    They may wish to, but other EU members would veto any attempt, as it would create a precedent for their own secessionist groups, e.g. the Basque.

  49. Re: You made it, Syrians! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    Scotland is hardly a secessionist group like the Basques. It's part of the UK but a country in its own right, and a few years ago they had a referendum on whether to stay or leave the UK. They choose to stay, but it looks like that may change.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  50. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Spanish government said during the 2014 referendum they would have no problems with Scotland leaving the UK and then gaining independent passage in to the EU - as the referendum had the blessing of the UK government.

    That didn't stop that myth being spread around though.

  51. Actually Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU, not th by Portal1 · · Score: 1

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
    Remain has taken 96 per cent of the vote in the EU referendum in Gibraltar, the first area to declare.
    More than 19,300 people there voted for Remain compared to just over 800 for Leave.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
  52. I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a number of obvious contributing factors to Brexit. Nationalism and selfishness are two of the most obvious.

    So let's consider the enlightened discussion here on slashdot, this bastion of intellectual turmoil and whatever.

    There have been several hundred comments so far. No mention of "nationalism" yet appears. One marginally related but tangential mention of "selfish" and no mentions of "selfishness". Maybe there are some hidden references, but then their invisibility reflects the failure of the moderation system. However, I think Brexit reflects a larger failure of journalism in general and a more specific failure of slashdot in particular.

    People who were capable of thinking about the future would not vote in favor of fracturing Europe. They would have been able to put the broader long-term interests of their own grandchildren ahead of their various minor terrors of foreigners stealing their jobs, especially considering that if 52% hated the EU I'd bet that a much higher percentage hate their own jobs and ought to be glad if some immigrants would steal them.

    Same rise of ignorant short-sighted stupidity has made it possible for the Donald of Trump to become a serious contender for the presidency, squatting on his bizarre high chair that he imagines as a throne. Don't look too closely at the legs: One leg for the government haters, one for the Hillary haters, a leg of bigots, and a last leg of overt racists. Yeah, a few Trumpists are smart enough to try to talk nice, but scratch a Trump supporter and you find a hater.

    My problem with all of this is that I'm a believer in enlightened self-interest (per Heinlein, even). If people see sufficiently large pictures, then they will see how their private and national selfishness has to be limited for the long-term survival of the human species.

    Why don't they see the large pictures? I think it's mostly because the existing economic models, including slashdot's pitiful economic models, drive them to short-term BS journalism and reality TV. Brexit and Trumpism are just natural outcomes. Gawd save us all, but he won't. (Even if he existed, it would be a breach of his divinely insane plan.)

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      After a few hundred more comments had been added, I came back to look things over. This time I focused on the comments that had received positive moderations.

      Personally, I used to like slashdot for the "funny" comments, but these days, not so much. There was one vaguely and slightly funny vague joke. So much for "funny".

      The "interesting" and "informative" comments were slightly. There were quite a number of "insightful" comments, and most of them were relatively good, though I personally only regarded two or three of them as truly rising to the level of insight. There was at least one comment that noted the relationship between Brexit and the rise of Trump in the States.

      Of course I have to add the sour-grapes disclaimer that my comment had not received any favorable moderation, but it wasn't a very visible comment. Lost in a long and wandering discussion, and losing a precious score point for being a bit too long for the tastes of whoever decided what a "long comment" is. Hey, I could have made it longer or shorter, but why care? This is slashdot, and in a few hours this entire discussion will vanish into the black hole.

      If slashdot had a better economic model, one of the features I'd like to put a few bucks behind would be a dynamic search capability. As it would have applied in this case, it might have helped me position my comment in a more relevant place in the discussion, perhaps as a reply to the insightful comment I already mentioned...

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    2. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by Livius · · Score: 1

      There are a number of obvious contributing factors to Brexit. Nationalism and selfishness are two of the most obvious.

      You can't be a nation without some degree of nationalism. Too much and too little are both harmful.

      You can't have enlightened self interest without selfishness. Again, either too much or too little can be bad.

    3. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Take a breath, friend. There's all kind of isms and it sounds like you've been ism'd to death. We all have... but today is not so different from yesterday. And Trump is not simply the antichrist, he's gathered the support of close to half of the voters. Some young people (for example) clearly aren't giving this enough ( clip #1 ) thought ( clip #2 ). So you'd better see this campaign through and postpone your own final judgement until the very end--- unless you want to bow out now and (merely) declare civil war on the half of everyone you meet.

      With its slight BREXIT majority the UK is not rejecting the EU outright. Those 48% who chose REMAIN will certainly see to that --- but perhaps they can now examine the individual reasons they voted that way and continue to steer the UK in that direction for the reasons that matter. And leave by the wayside the things that haven't worked out so well. Would their individual voices of these 48% have had that power in an ever-growing EU? Or is it just as the LEAVE folks said, "Better choose now. You will not have this opportunity again this generation." Or maybe ever. It is chilling to be told this.

      Britain will now be able decouple its economy from the rest of Europe to a greater extent than it is now able. Is that not what China is presently doing with the US, now that they have emerged as a world superpower? Come to think of it... being able to combine the economic might of its various countries to break the global hegemony of the United States dollar exerted through reserve currency... hey, wasn't that one of the reasons EU was formed?

      So when EU countries gather they are the mighty mice that roar. When the UK withdraws it is a dirty rat. Be wary of people who try to sell you solutions that require you to go "all in", or else you're "all out". You are usually being asked to buy into something menacing --- or just shoddily implemented.

      The EU is not just some touchy-feely utopian ideal. It's not just a shared currency and economy. It's not just some concept of a free travel zone and mass migration without border checks. It's also a powerful central planning committee, and those can really suck. Ask anyone from the former USSR.

      I find it surreal that I am living in a time when the President of Russia finds it necessary to reach out to the United States to say in effect, Beware... socialism does not work! We have tried it... only to be rebuked, because the trendy thing we are pursuing is called something else.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    4. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      If you want to understand, then ask a relevant question.

      From your so-called reply I think you can't understand and have probably never heard of Heinlein.

      Alternative explanation is that you were trying to reply to some other comment but clicked in the wrong place and the apparently relevant words were just serendipitous. Seems unlikely it was serendipitous analysis.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    5. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to say? Your reply seems rather surreal or incoherent.

      Seeking clarity, I think there are two questions that might clarify your position.

      (1) What are your primary sources of information?

      (2) Are you leading into supporting Trump?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    6. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      (1) What are your primary sources of information?
      (2) Are you leading into supporting Trump?

      Primary sources of information? Encyclopedias, successful executives, tea leaves, subway graffiti, growing up during the Cold War, and the tiny pamphlets for electronic devices that have no useful information and mostly silly warnings. What are yours?

      Trump who?

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    7. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      Another aspect of the failure of slashdot is so-called conversations like that one. I'm convinced it's a Trumpist who is at least smart enough to duck the question, and there is no reason to pay further attention.

      My problem is that I can't see problems except in terms of solutions. Now imagine that slashdot had an economic model that supported financial incentives for sincere and honest conversations? I think replies like that anonymous bit of garbage would be much less common. Not saying that such comments would go away completely, but at least they would contribute to the benefit of OTHER people.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    8. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      an economic model that supported financial incentives for sincere and honest conversations?

      Sounds like you're well on the way to forming your own European Union. You could begin by appointing yourself Chancellor of Sincerity and Honesty.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    9. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has nowhere near half the voters support. At best, he has 14-25 million out of a possible 70-120 million who will vote in the general election. His dislike percentage is higher then Clinton's. Now, he might get close to half the electoral vote due to winner-take-all in the general election, but that's not the same as saying half the country will vote for him.

      Barring any major stumbles by Clinton, I could see Trump only getting 1/4 of the electoral vote, and that's only if he survives the Republican Convention (which is looking less likely). He might have to run as an independent in the General Election in November.

    10. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Got it, you're an idiot. That's all you have to say.

      "It suggested far more people felt left behind and untouched by the economic benefits of five decades of EU involvement being trumpeted." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol...

      That's it in a nutshell.

    11. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by Livius · · Score: 1

      Or, you're in denial that someone is challenging your personal notion of 'obvious'.

    12. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How very ironic that you label people who's views are different to yours as being racists and bigots. I suggest you consult a dictionary.

    13. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      Since you're obviously a Trump voter, I'm only interested in your answer to one question: Who do you hate most?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    14. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      Very thoughtful response. Based on that evidence, must be a Trump supporter, so I have a question for you: Who do you hate most?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    15. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by shanen · · Score: 1

      Another oh-so-thoughtful response. On that evidence, I have to conclude you're a Trump supporter, and my only question is "Who do you hate most?"

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    16. Re:I blame slashdot for Brexit! Hear me out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the "intellectuals" are sophists, mere footsoldiers and pawns of untouchable elites.

      The "intellectuals" have lost touch with the common man, and choose to subscribe to a retarded blend of post-modernism, critical theory, and marxism. They're as bad as the religious right - but they espouse a secular religion instead, with their own "truths" that cannot be questioned.

      People are worried about just letting in a huge influx of economic migrants in their countries with little vetting - but they get called bigoted for hesitating.

      Most of these migrants are young men, young men often with little in the way of marketable skills for any sort of job, and in the countries they stay in there aren't many jobs for the unskilled to go around. A large amount of young men with no job prospects of any ethnicity or religion would cause problems, but there've been mass sexual assaults and rapes committed by economic migrants taking advantage of the chaos. ISIS has taken advantage of the chaos. There's also the fact these young men bring a culture that is very incompatible with enlightenment ideals with them.

      Like the enclaves of migrants that have been in Europe before them, they absolutely REFUSE to assimilate, to adopt customs of the local culture, to learn the language and become Franks, Germans, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, British, etc... This happens in the US and Canada as well. This keeps them separate from the rest of society in their own little "ghettos" of theirs and the host country's making. Sometimes it is more their own making, or the host country's. Either way it does not matter. It's like mixing oil with water.

      With the Syrian War Refugee and Economic Migrant Crises happening, and countries being forced to take them in against their wishes since they don't have the resources, jobs, or space to go around... Why would any country wish to stay if they can not just say no? The Republic of Ireland was forced to re-vote by the EU when they voted against the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU doesn't care.

      The EU doesn't care about self-determination and sovereignty.

  53. Re:Actually Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU, not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU. The UK. But Not Spain, or any other country of the EU.

  54. Media manipulation backfire. by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you get an highly politicized media forcing a side and pushing and shaming people for not taking it, you may end alienating a large portion of the population and making em disobey you, even when you're pushing for the right decision.
    And i bet at least in part, people just voted to leave because the creepy manipulative forceful thing they can't truly trust told em to vote to stay.

    1. Re:Media manipulation backfire. by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      People who bear the brunt of socialized profits might tend to have less cognitive dissonance when accused of being racist, bigoted, xenophobic and idiotic, which the megacorp controlled media seems fond of doing. At some point the truth becomes apparent, despite the propaganda, as the robber barons have us spiral down in the race to the bottom with unfettered immigration and policies that only benefit them.

      Here in the US we have two types of corporate controlled media; one that wants us to welcome cheap labor with open arms at the expense of social services and prevailing wages, and the other that wants us to let industries 'police' themselves. Despite that, somehow we've ended up with two insurgent candidates for president, both of which proffering a stand against globalization.

      That older voters favored the Brexit seems to support your theory. Perhaps having a longer lifetime of being lied to and manipulated by the political elite and moneyed interests may cause one to be more cynical and simply vote no on incumbents without fully being able to grasp the full implications and ramifications, all despite the media drumbeat of how wrong they are. There is no trust that the bought-and-paid-for ruling class is looking out for their interests.

  55. You assume too much by mha · · Score: 1

    If they would have waited some years it would been a remain.

    You assume people don't change their mind. Young people have different needs and experiences. You can't just make such an assumption based on no information but age, you will have to do the boring and very work of actually looking of looking at the details - the "Why?".

    1. Re:You assume too much by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You assume people don't change their mind.
      That actually would not have been the problem.

      Young people have different needs and experiences.
      Especially in our times.

      you will have to do the boring and very work of actually looking of looking at the details - the "Why?".
      Yeah why ...

      Anyway, what did I want to say ...

      Young people migrate. It is as simple as that. even old people do. Countries like Germany are _completely fucked up_ (except for the renewable energies and probably UBI in 30 years, if it comes at all).

      The UK even more so.

      We can't change anything by voting because the winners of WWII made sure Germany gets a legal/ruling system that never gets its head out of its own ass.

      Was it not for our engineers and our super universities and strong manufacturing industries we long had been sunk into oblivion.

      I'm approaching 50 now ... like the more progressive young, I do what every self employed, freelancer and mind worker does: I leave the country. Not to the US. That would be worse than hell. I leave simply to a country where one month payment in Germany or EU lets me live 3 or 4 years, in luxury. There are plenty of them.

      And why do I do that? Because I'm actually a very political person. Fed up with the impotence of my influence on politics. Living in Thailand, Vietnam, Bali means:
      * I don't really speak the local language - so news in newspapers and TV/Radio about "politics" does not reach me
      * I'm not involved in local politics anyway
      * even if I was (new power plant? new hotel?) I would not feel "I have to get involved"
      * I'm just a watcher

      I don't care if a politician is corrupt, fucks the wrong woman (why is stuff like that actually in the news?), and as a bonus on top of that: I don't have to care about brain dead German legislations like the GEZ or copyright payments on USB sticks or printers or scanners or DVD/CD ... as far as I know I never had anything that was copyrighted by someone else and "unrightfully" on my USB stick, nor did I scan anything nor print anything like that ...

      So for burning a back-up of my data to a DVD I have to pay a fee to "copyright holders organizations" ... I have to pay GEZ for not watching TV and not listening to Radio.

      That fee is like 18â. That is more than a cask of my favourite beer (in Germany). It is more than a special offer ticket to Berlin, 700km travels, or close to a special offers ticket to Paris (550km travels), it is something like 2 beers and a nice meal. No idea why "the ruling class" thinks every household owes the "government radio stations" two beers and a steak every month.

      It is not much money. But it is the principle. There is no way to get rid of it: except of leaving the country And that is what I do.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:You assume too much by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You can't not be involved in politics. By its very nature, politics applies to everyone. You can avoid getting involved in the part of it that affects how decisions are made, sure. But the decisions will still affect you.

    3. Re:You assume too much by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I get 50 this year.
      My plan is to live in a "cheap paradise" like Thailand.

      I live from my pension so I don't bother what the Thai decide to do with their country. If they kick me out there is Vietnam, or plenty of "cheap" islands belonging to the commonwealth or french or netherlands oversee territories or pacific nations.

      I let them do what they want as long as I can simply live in peace.

      Germany is the same as UK ... if there is a referendum: it is not binding. It is just a hint for the parliament. The time is ripe for fundamental democracy. We don't need MPs to "decide" for us.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:You assume too much by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What if they decide to kill you instead of kicking you out? Say, some local equivalent of Trump comes to power on the platform of "death to the white devils!" or some such.

      Direct democracy is great and all, but we have to work with the system that we have now to get there. It won't magically change overnight.

  56. Re: You made it, Syrians! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they do it before the UK leaves, then maybe we can just have England leave both the EU and the UK at the same time. Looking at the voting map, all of the places with weak economies (including, amusingly, all of the ones that are heavily dependent on EU farm subsidies) want to leave. Maybe we should just kick them out of the UK and let them spend a few years learning what being alone in a global economy is really like.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  57. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful
    For a moment I believed you were talking about the UK but then you wrote You Americans...

    Because let us be clear, the biggest problem for the common man in the UK was not the EU but their own government having caused a for a European nation unusual rift between the haves and have nots.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  58. Excellent news (if you live or work in London) by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    The UK will now need to show the world that it can cope without the EU. To achieve this it will need to make sure its financial centre (London), stays afloat.

    So what will it do? Well, the obvious solution is make London as attractive as possible, to make sure all the big businesses stay in the UK. And if that means sucking the life out of the rest of the country to meet this goal, then so be it.

    I'm only joking of course. London's been doing this for years already.

    1. Re:Excellent news (if you live or work in London) by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm only joking of course. London's been doing this for years already.

      London voted very firmly to stay.

      So, since we're busy fucking shit up how about we undo the work of Alfred the Great and London leaves behind Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Wales and most of Wessex and leaves the UK, and then of course joins the EU.

      If you think that London is fucking over the rest of England, just imagine how screwed they'd be if London left.

      Is there a London independence party yet?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Excellent news (if you live or work in London) by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If you think that London is fucking over the rest of England, just imagine how screwed they'd be if London left.

      They'd both be screwed, nobody can afford to live in London.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  59. Next: France? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    No doubt this referendum will have an impact on people decisions. France for instance has its presidential elections next year, and all this passion for EU-xit will definitely have its say during the coming political campaigns.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Next: France? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Why would France wants to leave the EU? Unlike Britain, they get more from the EU in the form a subsidies than they pay into it. Those wanting to get out of the EU are those people who are feeling that they are constantly paying more than they are getting back, like the Brits (and the Germans, Finns, Dutch...). The financially poorer "Club Med countries" like France would stay as long as they can find financially more stable countries in the EU like Germany, the Netherlands, Finland etc. would will be more or less willingly footing their bills. Greece, Italy, France, Spain, ... would be the last to leave. I'll be more worried about the northerners, and, maybe the easterners at this point in time. What we're seeing right now is an "Who is John Galt?" kind of Ayn Rand-ish moment, Euro-style. Maybe more countries will quietly vanish from the EU as times flies by...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  60. post-factual democracy by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    It's official - we live in a post-factual democracy.
    Sympathies to all my fellow EU citizens, and especially to my ex-EU UK unfortunates.

  61. Yes by Martin+S. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alex Salmond has already called for a second Scottish independence referendum and I don't see how that can be refuse, the same for NI. I'm pro-union and pro-eu and certainly see Scotland leaving the UK now.

    1. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Referendums are worthless if you keep having them until you get a predetermined outcome.

    2. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the "Leavers" problem with this is what, exactly?

      They want "England for the English" and for No One Else. They don't want all the 'furiners' and they think anyone who doesn't speak with a proper English accent or who can't locate their great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's hometown within the sceptered isle can go die. They merely tolerate the Scots and the Welsh and think Northern Ireland is fine as long as the actual Irish there stay in their places.

      If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave then the voters in England will rejoice. If they take Wales with them all the better. Currently, if the English had their way they would return to some sort of glorious imagined past where England was the Shining Light of Europe or some such rot and no one whose skin was darker than white bread or whose ancestors spoke anything but the Queen's English would be allowed across the borders.

      Don't kid yourself. This isn't about Freedom or Liberty or the Ternary of the EU over poor little Britain. This is just about bigotry. Rue Britannia.

    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to. They can follow Greenland/Denmark model.

  62. Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK have shown time and time again that they're a bunch of xenophobic morons...

    And this just re-affirms it.

  63. happy day by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Fuck EU

  64. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The British doing something stupid does not somehow magically make all of the problems of the United States and their obnoxious arrogance and self-centredness disappear.

  65. Surprsie, EUphiles! :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you UK, this gives hopes to us in other counties under EU "rule".

    I can't wait until we follow the path of USSR and to again see centrally-planned economy crap to collapse.

  66. Re: You made it, Syrians! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well, at least Vladimir Putin and all the new far-right groups in Europe (that are partly funded by Russia) are happy about the outcome.

    European destabilization program phase #1, successful.

    Well done, Britain.

  67. Re: You made it, Syrians! by johanw · · Score: 0

    Unlike the US we don't start a (civil) war when states wat to leave.

  68. The House of Lords by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    The existence of a second chamber in legislatures around the world is odd objectively - and is entirely a result of our House of Lords. A few states have got rid of the second chamber, or never had it - Israel, New Zealand and Nebraska. A lot of other countries struggle to know what to do with it. In that context the UK House of Lords works very well; it provides people who can seriously scrutinise legislation that MPs are too busy to look at properly. It provides a forum where ministers can get a good kicking from people who are actually experts in their topic, as opposed to being a forum for minimally knowledgeable political hacks to play to their party managers. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't invent it, but it works well as a useful check on a governing system that otherwise tends to the dictatorial.

    1. Re:The House of Lords by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      as opposed to being a forum for minimally knowledgeable political hacks to play to their party managers

      Well it was until Mr. Blair decided that it would work better if it was stuffed with minimally knowledgable political hacks.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:The House of Lords by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The existence of a second chamber in legislatures around the world is odd objectively - and is entirely a result of our House of Lords. A few states have got rid of the second chamber, or never had it - Israel, New Zealand and Nebraska. A lot of other countries struggle to know what to do with it.

      That is almost certainly due to not objectively having a purpose for the second house and instead making it a different populist representative house. Using the US's Senate as an example, if you look through writings from the founding you will readily find out that the purpose of the Senate was to create a legislative body which was not subjected to the populist opinions by make them responsible to the people at large while providing an equal say to each state of the union. The purpose was to allow them to make decisions based on what was best rather than what was popular. This divorce from the populous is the reason why it was also given a lot of the treaty responsibilities and longer terms. That would mean that foreign countries were dealing with legislators that weren't swayed by populist sentiments as well as know that those that dealt with the treaty were more longer lived.

      If both houses come about from a direct election by the citizens then you're going to struggle to identify a good purpose for having both houses.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  69. BULL PUSSY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (To those of you wanting to verbally abuse and downvote me: this is a prediction, not an endorsement.)

    BULLSHIT! Your writing style gives it away! You compliment Trump while putting Hillary's ideas in scare quotes. You also refer to him as loving his country while pointing out scary boogeymen and the stripping of rights. You are a liar. You are bad and should feel bad for being bad!

  70. Kick in the balls by Martin+S. · · Score: 3, Informative

    The picture emerging this morning on social media from friends that had so far kept quiet is that this a kick in the balls for the establishment.

    1. Re:Kick in the balls by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      I don't think they've kicked the balls they meant to kick then.

    2. Re:Kick in the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Brexiters kicked everyones balls in order to give one part of the establishment slightly less power over another part of the establishment.

  71. Fuck the proles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the uneducated scumbags were given a right to vote?!?

  72. Re: You made it, Syrians! by garethjrowlands · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. The scottish plan is simply not to leave the EU when the rest of the UK does. That means they need to come out of the UK as the UK leaves.

  73. Re: You made it, Syrians! by maroberts · · Score: 1

    This might not be a bad idea, as Northern Ireland also voted to stay in the EU. It might not be the worst idea in the world to arrange things so England and Wales are effectively going their own way as a separate state leaving Scotland/Northern Ireland as the UK as far as the EU are concerned. That way, they would never have "left" the EU and won't have to reapply.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  74. Re: You made it, Syrians! by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

    Really, troll? Massive net contributors. Only positive side is we actually get a lot more 'cash', especially when there's pressure to stop paying farmers 1/3-1/2 the budget (apparently market forces don't count in agriculture).

    Otherwise, today is a huge loss socially, culturally and, as warned hundreds of times by the Remain side, economically.

  75. Re: You made it, Syrians! by gtall · · Score: 0

    Shit Fein in N. Ireland is already attempting to use the Brexit as fodder for a campaign to unite all of Ireland under their Fascist ideology.

  76. Re: You made it, Syrians! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Then we just have the fun as Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester, London, Liverpool, Bristol, Exeter, Reading, Leeds, York, Newcastle, and Cardiff all apply to join the United Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  77. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, the UK didn't play by EU rules so they should be out.

    I hope England burns.

  78. Re: You made it, Syrians! by sce7mjm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Germany also benefits massively from cheap European workers. And also benefitted massively from loans it made to Southern Europe to buy back its own products. Somehow the media have managed to make it look like the uk has an open door policy but hate all immigrants. Far from the truth on both counts. However the large companies and beuracracies have been in cahoots setting up a large trading block to benefit themselves. Even people in Poland Are coming to realise that they no longer own their own infrastructure any more since it has been privatised and bought out by international companies, but since it is called investment, no one notices. They benefit from international jobs but at what cost? I'm glad we are out since the Nhs was under threat from European threats including Ttipp however it now means we have to make sure the right wing in the uk don't stuff it up on their own. We have less people to blame. Being in control means our level of responsibility has increased.

  79. A major blunder by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    The UK voters have just propelled their country back onto the trajectory on which they were with Thatcherism: economic disaster, unemployment, civil unrest, and the Empire won't come back. A reckless decision of self-centered nationalistic isolationists...and the beginning of the end of the EU. The many right-wing nationalistic anti-Europeans in Hungary and Poland will attempt the same move. This puts an end to the decades of peace and prosperity since WW II that are undoubtedly caused mainly by the European Union.

    1. Re:A major blunder by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You probably aren't entirely wrong, but a lot of this is a direct result of the arrogance of the EU's unelected masters. The UK went to the EU last year to negotiate assurances that its unique status within the union would be respected. He didn't come home with much to show for his trouble beyond a few mealy-mouthed pronouncements. Furthermore, it seems certain economic pressure over time would undermine what little he got.

      This failed negotiation didn't help soon-to-be-ex PM Cameron make his case with a lot of "small-c" conservative Brits who have been forced into low-paid service sector jobs, then watch even those jobs suffer wage depression due to an oversupply of cheap labour arriving from the continent.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  80. Re: You made it, Syrians! by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

    Which rules did the uk sign up to that they did not follow through?
    U.K. Law is extremely literal to the law and European regs are followed here more strictly than over the rest of Europe.

    U.K. Has had doubts over the European project from the day it signed up. 43 years later they are given another choice and they choose to leave.

    It is Europe who have massively benefited from uk membership. A member state leaving was always a risk. The eu bueracracy was too arrogant and is now paying the price.

  81. Stirrings of democracy by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    It looks like people are starting to notice that these huge trade agreements might be good for a country's economy, but that a good economy doesn't necessarily benefit average citizens.

    The EU, specifically, has run into trouble since it incorporated former Soviet states and short-listed Turkey for membership. This may have been wise politically, but it basically opened the floodgates for Third World immigration into countries that were already suffering from globalization. Once all the pretty rhetoric is scrubbed away, "globalization" simply means that decent jobs vanish along with the tariffs that protected First World workers from having to compete directly with Third World slave labour. And suddenly, quite a lot of those Third World labourers have been turning up right next door, putting even more downward pressure on wages.

    Initial joy over cheap manufactured goods has given way to anger and disgust as well-paid jobs in the hollowed-out manufacturing sector disappeared into countries where protection for workers and the environment exist only on paper. Meanwhile, tax burdens on the First World's dying middle class have skyrocketed because corporations selling into First World markets have found tax shelters offshore.

    And, of course, it's all been legal, because the political process in every large-scale democracy has been corrupted to the point where "the 1%" owns all the major parties outright, and those parties have obediently enacted laws to facilitate its depredations.

    I doubt anything like this expression of democracy, no matter whether or not it is short-sighted and wrong, will be allowed to happen again.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Stirrings of democracy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      and short-listed Turkey for membership.

      The UK was one of the big supporters of that you know.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Stirrings of democracy by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      The UK government that just got its face slapped by more than 17 million Brits was one of the big supporters of that, you know.

      There...fixed that for you.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Stirrings of democracy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I was simply highlighting the sheer insanity of leaving the EU becuse of policies being pushed by OUR government. It's utter madness because the problem (our government having those policies) still remains.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Stirrings of democracy by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Do you believe your government, the one holding those policies, will survive? I have to wonder, when such a large percentage of the population expressly repudiated them. I don't see the kind of fascism arising in the UK that we've seen in other EU countries. However, there does seem to be a strong sense that giving up control of immigration, agricultural policy, finance and other key functions of a traditional national government would lead to the UK becoming just another anonymous satrapy ruled from Belgium.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  82. Re: You made it, Syrians! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

    Well, at least Vladimir Putin and all the new far-right groups in Europe (that are partly funded by Russia) are happy about the outcome.

    I wonder about that. Brexit has put downward pressure on oil prices. Russia would need to sell its oil to fund those "far-right groups" and its other ambitions in Europe.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  83. 51.9 percent by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

    Should a prime minister resign for such a percentage? So should do its antagonist, if math matters.

    1. Re:51.9 percent by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Would it be 80% or just 50.001% the outcome is the same: UK leaves the EU.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  84. The EU is already dead.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    The UK just voted to separate from it. Literally dead? Not yet... but the dominoes were already clicking into each other before the UK left. Who wants to join the EU? Turkey? Most promising nations... that would add something to the EU have let their petitions to join lapse... aka... they basically dropped their admission appeal in a manner that saved face for the EU.

    Eastern Europe wants out because the immigration thing is not what they signed up for... and southern europe only signed up for the free money. That's gone... and with that their toleration for EU interference in their markets, economies, and politics will very quickly irk them. The French are already worrying their own version of a referendum.

    No one has a crystal ball into the future. No one knows what tomorrow will bring. But the EU could have been saved if the people running it had listened or been at all responsive to what was required to keep the EU together. They literally LAUGHED at the people that made petitions of it.

    Wrong answer. Time to die.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally dead?

      Do you literally not know the difference between figurative and literal? Let me give you a hint, Vanilla ISIS, an idea - such as the EU cannot ever be literally dead as it is not literally alive. The closest it could come to being literally dead would be if every person on the continent were literally killed in an extremely short amount of time.

      Are you proud of yourself for stepping in it that quickly?
       
       

      Wrong answer. Time to die.

      Are your ISIS friends going to help you do that?

      I hope your reason for the rest of your mostly incoherent post was that you were intoxicated, rather than busy crapping yourself and watching ISIS videos in another window. I expect at some point you will have convinced yourself that you can speak enough Arabic to be useful to them, unfortunately you will quickly find yourself wrong on that as well.

      How fitting that the captcha is "working"; as in your argument is not and you should be.

    2. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      1. You're literally a pedant.
      2. Who let ISIS into Europe? EU policy did it. And EU policy is making it impossible to close the doors. Europe won the battle against radical islam hundreds of years ago. And the fucking morons running the EU are so stupid they're figuring out how to lose wars long ago won.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who let ISIS into Europe?

      That's a stupid question. Just as the people who pledge allegiance to ISIS in the US before going on a shooting spree are US-born, the ISIS fighters in Europe are largely European born. Those in Europe who were not European born were ones who would have had legal status there before the birth of the EU.

      Have you heard of facts, son? You should try looking for some before you go off like this next time.

    4. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Like all good Marxists, you're going to avoid any responsibility for your behavior. Typical.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like a typical lapdop, you bark up the wrong tree.

      No, those squirrels aren't a deadly danger, and ISIS was the result of decades of political meddling in the Mid-East, including just after WW1, when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved.

      Pay the price, or pay the price, there is no choice.

    6. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Islam is a threat to the west merely because we allow it to be a threat. Multiculturalism via cultural marxism is what opened the door for islam to come in. Moral relativism etc.

      When push comes to shove, I suspect you'll defend all that. And if that bears out as I suspect it will... then you're actually allied with the factions that opened the door. Not me.

      Which makes you an idiot too stupid to realize his own hypocrisy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is no threat to the West at all, and even ISIS is not a threat either. Threats to the people of the Middle East who would much rather live in peace? Absolutely. But not to the West.

      Thinking in terms of threats from the Middle East is why you're barking up the wrong tree over and over.

      You'll probably destroy yourself over it.

    8. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a child in the wasting ages of empire... you think your civilization is immune to all threats from without and within. It was made great by people that built it up and made it strong.

      You. You are the problem. Not because you're doing anything but because you're stupid and vote... you are a tool for the corrupt to hold power and suck the life out of our civilization. The challenge of our age is to either educate you so that you are not so gullible. Flip your alliance so that you're isolated. Or outmaneuver your oligarchic masters. We'll try all three at once and see which one sticks.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:The EU is already dead.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a child in the wasting ages of empire... you think your civilization is immune to all threats from without and within. It was made great by people that built it up and made it strong.

      You. You are the problem. Not because you're doing anything but because you're stupid and vote... you are a tool for the corrupt to hold power and suck the life out of our civilization. The challenge of our age is to either educate you so that you are not so gullible. Flip your alliance so that you're isolated. Or outmaneuver your oligarchic masters. We'll try all three at once and see which one sticks.

      Oh my, who says Western Civilization is immune to all threats from without and within? How did you come to that idea? The remark was that Islam and ISIS weren't, this gives no indication as to what threats may exist to Western Civilization.

      You should probably practice reading a bit more carefully. If you do, eventually maybe you'll grasp what somebody else is saying, rather than go off on asides with no justification to them.

      I mean really, just because somebody says that a particular food isn't poisonous, doesn't mean food can't be poisoned, and says nothing about other poisons existing.

  85. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK provided £10bn to the EU last fiscal year.

    The real parasites are the failing states and economically poor states. Hello Poland. Prepare yourselves for another Greece bailout this year by the way.

  86. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is not the world's largest economy. The EU is.

  87. Re: You made it, Syrians! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    The value drop in oil, stocks and currencies is a short term panic reaction the markets are known for. Global demand for oil will not change because Britain exits the EU. In a short time (mostly) everything will recover to pre-crash values, with the big exception of the stocks of the British banking sector, who will be hit the hardest.

  88. NOT SO FAST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not so fast. We know the voting is heavily manipulated, and under control by the NWO.

    I believe we are looking at another Rothchild trick; I'll explain...

    When Nepeoleon was defeated, a rider that worked for Rothchild raced to London and informed the markets that Nepeoleon had won. The prices then collapsed and that enabled Rothchild to buy up the market for pennies on the pound. Then the real news came out that Nepeoleon was defeated, and it was already too late because Rothchild had most of the wealth at that point.

    I believe in a matter of days, or maybe only hours, there will be some sort of announcement of a miscount, or a stipulation where the U.K. will not ctually leave the E.U. I think it will be a "miscount", because that will have the biggest impact on the markets.

    This is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the Oligarchy.

  89. Ginger twats by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Merge them and the Scots as Transkintyria. Or if you prefer, Paddyjockoland.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  90. Happy Independence Day by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0

    Happy Independence Day, you did it congratulations happy Independence Day!

  91. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep telling yourself that.
    I bet you believe everything in the Brexit Movie too.

  92. A Petition for a Second Referendum by Whibla · · Score: 1

    For the benefit of UK readers of this site (and, incidentally the rest of Europe, imo), I am going to copy a post of mine that I've made elsewhere.

    There is a method by which members of the public can petition parliament, with that petition forming the basis for a commons debate. The parliament website says that it will "take the existing threshold of 100,000 signatures for a petition to be considered for debate in the House as a starting-point. But it also noted that there may be occasions when a debate is not appropriate—such as when a debate has already taken place in the House on the same subject"

    The petition I have in mind is here:

    Petition for a second EU Referendum

    It doesn't have quite the rationale I'd have used - personally I'd have gone with something like "Whereas the leave campaign grossly misrepresented their position and flat out lied to the voting public we the undersigned..." but there's no point filing multiple petitions to the same end, as that could potentially split the vote, resulting in a much weaker case for a second referendum.

    Of course, parliament has already debated the issue, so the chances of getting a second referendum are slim indeed. But slim is not nil! If enough signatures are gathered, if there is an overwhelming show of support, there is always a chance. What counts as overwhelming? Well, considering about seventeen and a half million people voted to leave the EU, I'd say about twenty million signatures would be required to guarantee a second chance. How can we get that many signatures? One at a time!

    Bearing in mind that in the immediate aftermath following the results about £150 billion was wiped off our national worth, one of the leaders of the leave campaign admitted that the campaign (not him, of course, never him) lied about at least one of its major promises, and, listening to Nicola Sturgeon we are facing the breakup of Great Britain itself, we simply cannot sit back and do nothing.

    So, if you voted to remain in the EU, I'm sure you need little persuading. Please sign the petition.

    If you did not vote, and, like me, are aghast at what has happened, and what will almost inevitably happen, please sign the petition.

    If you voted to leave the EU, in all good conscience, and are now realising that you were misled by the leave campaign, and are, similarly, shocked by the reactions and revelations that have followed, please, do the right thing, and sign the petition.

    Finally, after you have signed the petition, hang on to some hope, there is still a faint glimmer of it, and share this post, share the shares, or, in any other way you can, make as many people as you can aware of the petition, and encourage them to sign it.

    Please, before it's too late!

    1. Re:A Petition for a Second Referendum by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be convinced that the people who voted to leave the EU are little more than gullible fools too stupid to figure out that the "Leave" side wasn't always entirely honest...as though the "Stay" side was!

      I suspect it was exactly this kind of sneering arrogance by supporters of "Stay" along with their obvious belief that money is the answer to all questions, that played a pivotal role in yesterday's vote.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:A Petition for a Second Referendum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I sign a petition against this petition?

    3. Re:A Petition for a Second Referendum by Whibla · · Score: 1

      You seem to be convinced that the people who voted to leave the EU are little more than gullible fools too stupid to figure out that the "Leave" side wasn't always entirely honest...as though the "Stay" side was!

      How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving...

      I'm sure that the majority of those that voted to leave the EU did so in good faith, and for, to them at least, good reasons. Without knowing what specifically those reasons were I can't really comment on whether I'd agree with them or not, nor the reason for any disagreement I might have with those reasons. I do not, generally, question the intelligence of voters on either side.

      We're all guilty of being gullible (if you care to term it in such a negatively emotive fashion) however, at some point, on some subjects, and, given the way that our brains work, it can be, in the right circumstances, relatively easy to 'push our buttons', thus sidestepping any rational thought processes we might otherwise have used, in favour of a quick, and wrong, 'answer'.

      I suspect it was exactly this kind of sneering arrogance by supporters of "Stay" along with their obvious belief that money is the answer to all questions, that played a pivotal role in yesterday's vote.

      I'm sorry that you consider my post to be sneering. I'm sorry if it came across as arrogant to you. Neither was my intention.

      I'm also sorry that a single mention of a monetary figure within my post was enough to 'convince' you that I'm motivated by money, or that I believe money is the answer to all questions. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The fact is though that many people are motivated by money, or, more strongly, motivated by fear of losing what money they have. It is this last point that both sides of the, to my mind ugly public campaign, focused on to a large extent.

      I guess you could say that any of the factors that played a role in people's decision making process were the pivotal factor, at the end of the day it only takes one final straw, whichever one that happens to be among the many.

      And speaking of straws, at the end of the day that's what I'm clutching at. I am desperate, and can you blame me? We have been a member of the EU for two, possibly three, generations now. While it certainly has issues, it is be no means perfect, it has had a positive impact on all our lives in the areas of consumer regulations, employment law, the environment, and, almost certainly though more controversially, the economy. And that's just for starters...

      The results were so close that I think it would be fair to say that there is, currently, no clear cut mandate to make such a radical and irreversible change to the way this country operates, both locally and on the international stage. A second referendum would clear that up. People, pretty much everybody, from both sides of the debate, are now much more aware of what the outcome of leaving will be. A second referendum would give everybody the opportunity to benefit from that awareness. And if the vote goes the same way there can be no denying the informed will of the people, and it will go a long way towards healing any rifts between the two sides of the campaign, politically and socially.

    4. Re:A Petition for a Second Referendum by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but the basic point remains: a lot of people have had to look at their lives, and they've seen that although the UK as a political entity may have benefited from EU membership, those benefits did not accrue to them, just the costs.

      Where, besides London, did the people of England actually support EU membership? Northern Ireland's vote to remain was even closer than the UK's vote to leave, and Wales wants out, too. That leaves only Scotland strongly supporting "Stay"...and London.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  93. And don't forget about the exit package! by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And don't forget that the EU will have to give them a pretty louse "exit package", or risk making exiting the EU "appealing" to others. So, the "negotiations" won't go smoothly, and the UK will probably end up with worse deals than other non-EU countries - even if the EU itself might be losing on them.

    Another interesting thing is to note that young people overwhelmingly voted "remain" (it was about 75-25 in the 18-24 category), when the most "leave" votes were in the 65+ category (60-40). So the UK will leave due to the votes of people who won't be part of the non-EU future (for long at least)...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by khallow · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that the EU will have to give them a pretty louse "exit package", or risk making exiting the EU "appealing" to others.

      That would provide evidence that the EU is a bad place to be (as well as a slap in the face to the 48% who voted to stay in the EU). Spite will make the EU even less stable in the long term.

    2. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not spite, it is business and you could say self-preservation. You are not getting anything for free if you don't give something back. In fact, the UK already had a special status, since the EU was willing to bend many rules for their promise to stay (Schengen, Euro, trade law etc), so there is absolutely no reason to be accommodating when they break away after all that.
      It's not great for me living in the UK, but it is logical and expected (at least from the rational "remain" camp, which includes most educated people).

    3. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's not spite, it is business and you could say self-preservation.

      The problem here is that the EU is voluntary membership. If they start bullying those who leave, it'll encourage the rest to leave as well.

      Personally, I hope the EU tries to punish the UK. It'll end that anti-democratic experiment in short order.

      In fact, the UK already had a special status, since the EU was willing to bend many rules for their promise to stay (Schengen, Euro, trade law etc), so there is absolutely no reason to be accommodating when they break away after all that.

      Aside from the reasons for being accommodating in the first place which haven't gone away. The UK still has considerable economic, political, military, and diplomatic power. For example, they were the strongest and most experienced military power of the EU.

    4. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is that the EU is voluntary membership. If they start bullying those who leave, it'll encourage the rest to leave as well.

      It's not bullying to say that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. In return for access to the common market Norway and Switzerland pay 60% of a full membership fee, get no subsidies. That is, their money really goes to Brussels and Brussels do whatever they want with it - including subsidize EU industries which directly compete with Norwegian and Swiss ones. They have no say in decision-making and just have to accept EU laws and regulations as such. Not all of them and, sure, they can act a lot more independently but the EU is by far the stronger party at the bargaining table. They also had very special national core competencies (oil and banking respectively) which make them a bad reference. You could argue that the UK has had finance but that was largely precisely because of its EU membership.

      Personally, I hope the EU tries to punish the UK. It'll end that anti-democratic experiment in short order.

      The EU isn't much less democratic than most member states. This is a common misconception promoted by anti-EU politicians and reinforced by passive voters who aren't interested in how the EU operates. It has orders of magnitude fewer bureaucrats than any member state per capita (although arguably with higher pay than those in many member states). It's also very open, if you bother to follow EU decision-making. But you seem to be anti-EU and you probably don't do it. Frankly, yours is an argument from ignorance.

      In fact, the UK already had a special status, since the EU was willing to bend many rules for their promise to stay (Schengen, Euro, trade law etc), so there is absolutely no reason to be accommodating when they break away after all that.

      True and it was perplexing to me how shamelessly the pro-Brexit side made false claims about EU terms which were factually false due to the exceptions. Sure, arguing about what might have happened in the future if the UK had chosen to stay was justifiable but asserting falsehoods about the present was despicable.

      Aside from the reasons for being accommodating in the first place which haven't gone away. The UK still has considerable economic, political, military, and diplomatic power. For example, they were the strongest and most experienced military power of the EU.

      And that power was used for what? Usually when the US requested it and hardly ever when the EU expressed any intentions to flex a military muscle it didn't have.

    5. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's not bullying to say that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

      Depends on the behavior.

      In return for access to the common market Norway and Switzerland pay 60% of a full membership fee, get no subsidies.

      Oh look, two more candidates for departure. Note that now Norway and Switzerland's access is a bit less valuable due to the departure of the UK.

      The EU isn't much less democratic than most member states.

      Which isn't saying much.

      This is a common misconception promoted by anti-EU politicians and reinforced by passive voters who aren't interested in how the EU operates. It has orders of magnitude fewer bureaucrats than any member state per capita (although arguably with higher pay than those in many member states).

      There isn't a trend here towards stable or diminishing bureaucracy. As to the state of the EU's democracy, someone has already mentioned the state of the EU Constitution, which has a variety of rights which can be readily revoked by conveniently vague circumstances.

      Anyway, getting back to my first point, punishing someone for leaving the EU when there was no obligation to stay, is bullying. You can couch that behavior in whatever language you choose, but it remains. And we have this peculiar attitude of entitlement on the part of the EU. The UK contributed greatly to the success of the EU and predecessor organizations and treaties, but rather than showing regret or any sort of humble contrition for chasing away a founding member, we get this sullen, spiteful attitude from a bunch of EU supporters.

      Not everyone is on board and membership is voluntary. You may want to think about the consequences, but I still think it's for the best, if you don't. After all, I think the EU is one of the many anti-democratic influences on this world that we can diminish.

    6. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK contributed greatly to the success of the EU and predecessor organizations and treaties, but rather than showing regret or any sort of humble contrition for chasing away a founding member, we get this sullen, spiteful attitude from a bunch of EU supporters.

      Your ignorance is staggering. The UK was not a founding member. In fact, the UK joined almost two decades after the Treaty of Rome and struggled to do so because especially France resisted it and the UK got repeatedly rejected. And as a member the UK has never been fully on board so whilst both the EU and the UK economies will initially suffer, both parties will also be less hamstrung by each other, which of course is an advantage at least in the sense that both get what they want regardless of whether it's good or bad.

    7. Re:And don't forget about the exit package! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Fine. I still think it would be a huge mistake on the part of the EU to go punishing the UK.

  94. This was a states' rights vote by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    It's exactly the same issue as in the US: given a steady seepage of power to an unaccountable central government run by politicians and academics obsessed with issues the general public doesn't care about, this sentiment has been building up for years. Then add an uncontrolled wave of insurgents (not 'immigrants' in any traditional legal sense whatever) and you have a revolt.

    1. Re:This was a states' rights vote by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      If you're willing to acknowledge that the central government you're talking about has been strongly conservative more often than liberal, then I might even agree with you. The War on Drugs, the Oil Wars, erosion to the separation between church and state, re-writing laws to rob women of control over their own bodies, massive subsidies to the petrochemical sector...all of these are functions of "Big Government" as well as the perceived Nanny State.

      So are you willing to give up all these and more as well as the liberal stuff?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:This was a states' rights vote by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Britain is not about to start growing cotton and having slaves.

    3. Re:This was a states' rights vote by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Why is "liberal" and "conservative" relevant? Do you really see see gay marriage and abortion as important indicators for assessing the power of central government? I don't. I think more about budgets and power grabs like The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, NDAA 2012 and warrantless surveillance.

      The government has steadily increased its size and power regardless of who happens to be in charge. It has grown relentlessly in both absolute terms and relative to GDP. The policies of perpetual global militarism, corporate bailouts, handouts and subsidies and destruction of civil liberties have enjoyed consistent bipartisan support. You could argue that "conservative" politicians are the bigger hypocrites, but what does it matter? Both parties have pursued an agenda which has led to the accumulation of wealth and power in Washington DC at the expense of the states and the people. Corruption is the inevitable result.

      I'm willing to cut the size of the federal government by 2/3. Force the politicians to make the hard decisions on federal spending priorities and leave everything else up to the state and local governments.

    4. Re:This was a states' rights vote by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do see gay marriage and abortion as important indicators. Also drug laws. Either government is going to poke its nose into people's business or it isn't. As you say, both US parties have a marked tendency to do this.

      The problem with leaving everything up to the individual states is that they've proved time and again that they're even more interventionist than the feds. This is why "States Rights" has been code for segregation and oppression of blacks for a long, long time.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    5. Re:This was a states' rights vote by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be nice if the same could be said of Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and a few other US states.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  95. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's disgusting how a referendum of such significance- far more important than a general election- has been centered around and reported in terms of the internal, up-its-own-arse politicking of the Conservative (Tory) party. Disgusting, but not surprising.

    As you say, the whole thing started out as a political sop, designed purely to placate its own right-wing "Eurosceptic" members.

    I voted "Yes" in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for a number of reasons. A major one was that I knew the EU referendum was on the horizon and I wasn't prepared to risk Scotland being dragged out of the EU by Tories playing political football with the country's future simply to placate their own voter base in the south east of England.

    Back then, I still thought it was far more likely than not that the UK would remain within the EU; I just wasn't prepared to risk it.

    I look forward to the response of every politician that scaremongered about whether an independent Scotland's position would have the right to remain within the EU during the 2014 referendum. The same people who convinced Scotland to remain a part of the UK (#) and to accept the results of being in bed with an elephant that's barely aware of its existence most of the time. Whether that outcome was the Tory government majority across the UK as a whole in the 2015 general election rendering the SNP's overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland irrelevant (the Tories got *one* isolated seat here). Or whether that was Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will by a party and political process that has long been centered around the south-east of England.

    I'm not suggesting that all these people- especially not the Labour supporters- wanted a Tory government or the UK out of the EU (Scotland against its will). I'm saying that they placed their own UK-centric interests first, knowing the risk to Scotland. Especially the Labour supporters.

    I wonder how many of those people will have the nerve to show their faces now that the scaremongering outcome they claimed would happen if Scotland voted "Yes" to independence has come true thanks to their "No" side winning and the Tory-centric English vote dragging it out anyway.

    (#) In particular, I'm thinking of the utterly worthless Labour party (until recently dominant in Scotland) that only got back into power in the 90s- admittedly very successfully- by selling out everything they stood for in order to appeal to Middle England, turning themselves into little more than red Tories. The same Labour party that may now have elected the stereotypically left-wing Jeremy Corbyn as leader (##) but don't stand a cat's chance in hell of getting elected by that same Middle England electorate and can be dismissed as irrelevant.

    (##) Someone who at least appeared principled at first- even if I didn't agree with much of what he stood for- but was so utterly lukewarm, half-baked and borderline invisible in his support for "Remain" that one suspects this may have been intentional. (Corbyn was well-known for his Euroscepticism, but claimed to have switched to remain with some reservations. Please excuse my scepticism.)

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  96. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any precedence this will result in is the continuous threat of breaking up leaving countries. This may be very acceptable to the Spanish government.

  97. End of Soviet Europe by aliquis · · Score: 1

    End Soviet Europe instead.

    Then do the TTIP thing or whatever.

  98. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the time being.

  99. Peasants with Pitchforks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United Kingdom is dead, long live the Divided Kingdom.

    The vote distribution shows enough: it's easier to influence idiots than intelligent people. Populism wins.

    Peasants with Pitchforks had the decisive vote in this referendum.
    Come and see next episode, how London (government, banks, etc.), despite having voted remain, are blamed for the economic catastrophe that is the only possible outcome, and see them burn at the stake.

  100. Its just history by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    The UK, well England, Scotland, Whales, and N Ireland, its all going to be all right. These states have been at war, at peace, for centuries. The UK was only in the EU since the '70s. The events of history will unfold as they will, the people of the UK will push through and succeed. They always have, there is no reason to believe that won't now.

  101. So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.

    Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.

    Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

    I found these comments really interesting because you're basically saying that the UK has now become just like the USA. We have the same issues here. People in small towns with no higher education have completely different values and desires from the educated people who live in cities. I can't speak to UK politics, but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc. In fact, I'd point out that Sarah Palin has made her career out of promoting anti-intellectualism as the solution to all of America's problems. Sorry to hear you're now one of us, UK people.

    1. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      While the Republicans and the Leavers did take advantage of this split, I think you're 100% wrong about why it happened.

      Blaming those groups is putting the cart before the horse. The Republicans did have a Southern Strategy which won them a number of votes, and have ceaselessly catered to groups like this, but you don't bank on such a strategy without there being something there to begin with.

      I think what you're really blaming those groups for is giving those people a voice where they would have been hidden previously. Unfortunately, that is perfectly democratic. There was no corrupt voting here. If enough people for Remain (or for one of the other Republican primary candidates) had come out, then Remain (and someone other than Donald Trump) would have won.

      Oddly enough, I think that if the EU had been more democratic, as opposed to bureaucratic, then this would not have been an issue. But since it was not, the democratic process could be used against it in the UK.

      As it stands I was surprised about Donald Trump and about the Leave vote (although less so about the latter because the margin was much thinner), but they only won because they mobilized people to vote who had real or perceived grievances. In many cases, people who did not bother previously.

      The more progressive or moderate groups failed because they believe that they are right. The problem is that democracy is a shitty means of determining the truth value of a proposition if enough people don't want it to be right.

    2. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak to UK politics, but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc. In fact, I'd point out that Sarah Palin has made her career out of promoting anti-intellectualism as the solution to all of America's problems. Sorry to hear you're now one of us, UK people.

      Liked your comment until I got here. What utter bullshit. I guess you figure the Republican anti-intellectuals are hick-whites in flyover country who tend to have a more patriotic view of the US. For decades the Democrats have embraced the gimme free stuff anti-intellectuals.

      I'm an independent and from my point of view, the feeling is to tell our "elite intellectual betters" of both parties to fuck off and die. The resentment comes from seeing how elites (Progressives especially), are trying to lord over every aspect of our lives. You think you are smart trying to blame Republicans for everything you think is bad, but it is you who are being anti-intellectual.

    3. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean that we're more like the UK than we thought. Our country was founded primarily by UK settlers on the east coast that spread westward, after all.

      People in small towns with no higher education have completely different values and desires from the educated people who live in cities.

      Yes, this is true - but it also doesn't mean that small town residents are "less". They just grew up in a different world.

      And while you're ripping the GOP, you may want to mention that the Democratic party, which caters to the poor and minorities as well as the liberal elite, isn't exactly chock full of post-docs. They're just as full of disdain for the mythical "other side" as the more ignorant GOP members.

      The real issue isn't so much about a lack of education as it is a lack of individual enterprise, charity, hope and humility. And it afflicts every corner of the political (and socio-economic) spectrum in the US - and apparently the UK, as well.

    4. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they aren't. To think the UK is screwed is total bullshit. They survived being bombed every night. They will survive this, and may well do better. Is it a change. Yes. It's a change.

      The best thing you can do to help the people of the UK is to respect their decision and to applaud them for making one. Applaud them for having the guts to actually have a refendum. Applaud them for voting. Applaud them for making a decision.

      In short, don't despair for them. Their situation is not one to despair over. It's one to be happy for. They got to choose. The nay-sayers who said things were rigged and they would never be 'allowed to choose to exit' were wrong. They DID get to choose to leave. The system worked. It may not be the outcome you wanted, but the system (Democracy) itself worked.

    5. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you've drunk the koolaid, haven't you? You just said "if you're not a liberal democrat with a college degree living in a city, you are a stupid anti-intellectual, and someone needs to tell you how things are and you need to shut up and not have an opinion." I can't imagine why that would piss someone off.

    6. Re: So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you basically liked his comment until it started calling out your political party?

      We can see right through you scumbags.

    7. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Liked your comment until I got here. What utter bullshit. I guess you figure the Republican anti-intellectuals are hick-whites in flyover country who tend to have a more patriotic view of the US. For decades the Democrats have embraced the gimme free stuff anti-intellectuals.

      They likely think that bullshit ideologies like Intersectional Feminism, Critical Theory, and Marxism in general have a monopoly on intellectual and so anyone who disagrees with such patent horse shit is therefore anti-intellectual. People are finally getting fed up with the religion of post modern cultural relativism, in which literally nothing in that whole rotten edifice is even remotely scientific or based in anything but the purest of philosophical fantasy.

      I feel like we'll soon be calling the far left the Religious Left to suit their analogue in the Religious Right. Post modern Humanism on the one side, Fundamentalist Christianity on the other. All of them a bunch of fucking cunts.

    8. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      ... but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc.

      Good to hear that the Democrats don't have any favored voting blocks that are poorly educated like illegal aliens or the black community. Nope, they are all highly educated like the Asians or guilt ridden white college students.

      All large political parties cater to groups many groups, some of which will be better educated or more successful than others. You're merely showing your biases.

    9. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Someone claims independent status. Then flames Democrats for talking bad about Republicans.. when an independent wouldn't have a horse in that race.

      Umm, OK. I guess there's some explanation there. Somehow.

    10. Re: So the UK is now USA 2.0 by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      even better: He claims to be an independent, then flames the democrats for being mean to republicans.

      And don't call him a scumbag. Above all, he (or she) is an american. We're all in this together. Part of what makes Trumpism tick is the feeling of abandonment by all parties. If you're so upset about politics that you're willing to follow an orange faced fake haired buffoon who gleefully shouts how he breaks promises (all 6 times he declared bankruptcy is breaking promises to pay) that flies to the UK the day of Brexit and has no idea of what the hell is going on, you're in pretty bad shape. You need help more and explanations more than scorn.

    11. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Looney left.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found these comments really interesting because you're basically saying that the UK has now become just like the USA. We have the same issues here. People in small towns with no higher education have completely different values and desires from the educated people who live in cities. I can't speak to UK politics, but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc. In fact, I'd point out that Sarah Palin has made her career out of promoting anti-intellectualism as the solution to all of America's problems. Sorry to hear you're now one of us, UK people.

      WOW,
      just
      WOW,
      I am left dumbfounded by your contempt of your fellow Americans who don't share your education level, values and desires. But I am curious why your solution to their concerns is to import more people who don't share your education level, values and desires to compete for an ever dwindling supply of jobs. In fact, I really, really want to know why you put the well being of illegal immigrants above the well being of your countrymen?

    13. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rural zones in the US have ALWAYS been different, regardless of party affiliation, to the cities. They have different needs and wants.
      Blaming the republicans for that is just silly, like blaming the democrats for the sky being blue.

    14. Re: So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not anything new in the US.

      The whole purpose of the original electoral system, senate were set up explicitly to provide those rural people without as much formal education and different desires to have an an non-proportional say in the federal gov't compared to the generally more formally educated populations in the major cities so that the larger population areas can't run completely rough shod over more sparsely populated areas.

      Whether that was a good idea or bad idea overall I don't know. But it's not something that the recent Republican Party has created in the last 10 years.

    15. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found these comments really interesting because you're basically saying that the UK has now become just like the USA. We have the same issues here. People in small towns with no higher education have completely different values and desires from the educated people who live in cities. I can't speak to UK politics, but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc. In fact, I'd point out that Sarah Palin has made her career out of promoting anti-intellectualism as the solution to all of America's problems. Sorry to hear you're now one of us, UK people.

      Cities are cess-pools filled with large numbers of highly ignorant people. I say this from the perspective of having multiple masters degrees and a stronger commitment to lifetime learning than anybody I've ever met, as well as having lived both in the countryside and in multiple cities, including the heart of NYC.

      Further - as one would expect - those ignorant people frequently favor legal and political policies that turn out to be complete disasters, come with huge amounts of corruption, and are really hard to undo. The school systems in the cities are really bad, but that doesn't completely justify either the ignorance or the consequences. Every person with a high school degree should have a couple years of exposure to the social sciences, including basic economics. Until this happens, we will continue to have large numbers of idiots favoring stupid policies, and the cities simply concentrate a lot of those idiots in one place. It's not that everybody in the country is smart or well educated, but the huge numbers of city idiots has a proportionate effect.

      The arrogant, stupid, and completely invalid presumption that city dwellers are somehow better doesn't help matters. Large numbers of folks in the countryside have experienced both ways of life, and have chosen to leave the cities.

    16. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.

      Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.

      Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.

      I found these comments really interesting because you're basically saying that the UK has now become just like the USA. We have the same issues here. People in small towns with no higher education have completely different values and desires from the educated people who live in cities. I can't speak to UK politics, but some of this in the US is the fault of the Republican Party, who in the past decade started embracing anti-intellectuals as a valued voting bloc. In fact, I'd point out that Sarah Palin has made her career out of promoting anti-intellectualism as the solution to all of America's problems. Sorry to hear you're now one of us, UK people.

      from the US, it's reassuring; as we tend to have a bit of an inferiority complex relative to England in the intellectual field (anybody who appears in the US with an English accent is assumed to know what they're talking about), so it's nice to see the UK is as full of the cognitively challenged as the US is, maybe more.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    17. Re:So the UK is now USA 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in small towns with practical life skills, traditional heritage values and no high-falutin' education have completely different values and desires from the indoctrinated, shallow facebook generation who live in cities.

      FTFY - it's all a matter of perspective and experience. The young swallow the "capitalist credo" wholesale these days ,and yet they're just as likely to end up in a cité or ghetto if they don't work their arse off for minimum wage, no medical or retirement benefits, and collect their food stamps in good order.

      The USA is chock FULL of people with completely useless "degrees", that cost them a fortune in fees and they now carry enormous debt for life with no practical means to actually improve their conditions. Some fucking "education" you got there ....

  102. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US is not the world's largest economy. The EU is.

    And we see how well it's going too, with countries voting to leave it.

  103. A win-win for Boris Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the British economy only gets hurt a little, then Boris Johnson can say, "You see, it wasn't so bad. I told you so." And if the economy goes into a steep recession, then after even an anemic recovery, he can say, "Look at how much better we're doing since my election!"

  104. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, lets see how UK will fare without the cheap EU workers,

    The GB is free to invite as many cheap workers as they want or need, the only difference is that whey will no longer be *forced* to do so.

      increased trade tax,

    The trade taxes are governed by the European Economic Area, not the European Union. Whether GB stays out of EU but in EEA (like Norway and Switzerland for instance) remains to be seen.

    visa to the EU and all the 'good things' non-EU countries have to cope with.

    Visas to the "EU" are in fact governed by the Schengen Treaty which has nothing at all to do with the EU, and the standing of GB with respect to the Schengen Zone has not changed one iota because of the referendum.

    You know, I wish that GB chose to stay, as my country is going to suffer for its leaving (as now there will be no counterweight at all to the Germany-France tandem, who will proceed to rape the rest of EU in name of their national interests until it completely falls apart). However, boy, I do have the grim satisfaction of someone having the courage to stand up and give the middle finger to crooks and liars like you and the eurocrats, who spew such blatant false propaganda. Attributing every good thing, from hens laying eggs to the sun rising, to the gracious benevolence of the EU.

  105. Re: You made it, Syrians! by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Uhh... hello? Bankers?

  106. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  107. 43 out of 26? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    European Union was formally established in November 1993, so U.K. must have invented time travel to leave it after 43 years in 2016.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:43 out of 26? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect they're including all the precursor institutions, such as the EEC. I'm only low-50-something and I'm pretty damn sure the EU proper hasn't been around for 80% of my lifetime.

    2. Re:43 out of 26? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      European Union was formally established in November 1993, so U.K. must have invented time travel to leave it after 43 years in 2016.

      It was established in 1956, but has changed name a few times. It renamed itself EU and adopted a new constitution in 1993. U.K. has been a member of the organization for 43 years, though the organization was called E.C. at the time.

  108. some editor needs a kick in the bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > after 43 years in a historic referendum

    The referendum didn't last 43 years.

  109. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But the EU is hardly the same kind of union that the USA are. Mostly in the mind of its subjects.

    The USA consider themselves a nation. When 9/11 struck, Californians felt as attacked as anyone in New York did. Do you think a Portuguese would give a shit if someone blew half of Tallinn apart? THAT is the big difference.

    The EU is an economy union, and only that. With nation states inside trying to rip as much out of the cake that this union is for their own national benefit as possible. With the Brits having been one of the worst offenders of this behavior.

    And as long as this doesn't change I will not accept that spiel that "the EU is the biggest economy". Bullshit. The EU as a unified economy doesn't exist. It is a union for corporations trying to maximize their profits, there is not anything tangible in it for the people in the union or their economies beyond the interests of the corporations.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  110. BBC: (wtf?) by MrL0G1C · · Score: 0

    BBC: No other slathdot story over last 24 hrs begings with the news channel picked.

    BBC: so why is this story prefaced with BBC:

    BBC: ?

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  111. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As far as I see, not even the EU sceptic UK politicians really wanted this.

    Of course in the great tradition of EU "democracy" whether the voters actually want this is irrelevant, right? Gotta consider those poor politicians and eurocrats, and their touchy feelings, and to hell with voters, they are just unwashed masses to be manipulated, not actually listened to. Oh, I know, now you are going to say that when they voted "leave" they actually wanted to vote "stay", but they ticked the wrong box cus... reasons.

  112. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Putin, maybe. The right wing parties in the EU, less so.

    Because one thing is certain, the EU will not tolerate easily the exit of a vassal. They will do their worst to punish the Brits for this act of high treason, and it should be pretty tough for the right wing parties in Europe to picture the now most likely dropping economy on the island up there as something they should aspire to.

    Especially the right wing populist governments of Poland or Hungary that have been throwing dirt (while at the same time accepting the influx of EU money with open arms) will have a hard time convincing anyone in their countries that it's a good idea to go as well.

    Even though if the rest of Europe could vote them out, they'd be gone before they have packed their junk.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  113. 43 Years? by slapout · · Score: 1

    I think you mean 23 years.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:43 Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK wasn't member of the original ECSC (1951), but in 1973 it did become a member of the EEC, that later morphed into the EU.
      That makes 43 years.

    2. Re:43 Years? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      No I mean 43.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  114. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reckon Scotland will be leaving the UK soon and might join the EU as a sovereign state later on.

    Telling the EU that Scotland is still good to go after England leaves is like telling Missouri "Well, St. Louis has voted to go--but on the upside, East St. Louis has offered to come over from Illinois."

  115. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The stability of multinational corporations, 'free trade' agreements, and international banksters is a stability we can all do without.

  116. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the EU has a well-functioning security net, and where it's easy to have a high quality of life even with a simple job.

    Sure, if you're African or Arab.

  117. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What you very wrongly call 'racism' is simply people reacting to economic and quality of life reality. There is a group of people not related to their society who think it's their right to move to someone else's soverign country, take their resources, not adapt to their culture, and of course attack local institutions and traditions that don't suit them. And they want to do this in sufficient numbers as to destabilize the country they're forcing themselves into.

    What sane person would put up with that?

  118. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep telling yourself that.
    I bet you believe everything in the Brexit Movie too.

    Wrong dude, I don't need to keep telling myself that. I know because I've been there and witnessed it with my own eyes and seen how the laws apply in the UK. I don't get why everybody is so anti the result of a democratic vote. Just because you were on the losing side does not mean the result is invalid. Perhaps you should keep telling yourself THAT.

    The UK Government will be more accountable and more responsible. It is our job to guide the government by lobbying and voting. Something missing from the European Union today, and hence the rise of opposition to it (which nationalists are taking advantage of). However the attempted renegotiation by the UK PM showed the arrogance and inflexibility of the EU . We where also threatened with punishment, if we left, from some parts of the EU establishment and our own government. That only served to strengthen the opinions against the EU.

    .

  119. Democracy has spoken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The result of the brexit vote is democracy. It has to be respected. It's a turning point for the world as UK will need to re-evaluate all its trade globally. And perhaps there will be many chances brought on the table for inner-EU countries and also for UK itself.
    UK, live long and prosper! V

  120. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ah, yes, the intellectual royalty has come to tell the peasants how wrong they are. Democracy must suck.

    Meanwhile, UK trade with the EU will continue full force. UK trade with Asia and the US will be unaffected, and so on.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  121. Summary is somewhat misleading by hsqueak · · Score: 1

    Remain wasn't undermined by poor results in the north of England. The vast majority of England, with the notable exceptions of London, Oxfordshire (Oxford University) and a few others, voted to leave.

    This has been an interesting vote, to say the least. Essentially, as a friend put it, England has finally voted for unity in Ireland and Scottish independence.

  122. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sadly, as an American, I agree with your sentiments.

  123. Attack on London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The globalists will not like this and will probably staged a terrorist attack and blame it on Arabs. It may very well be the catalyst of officially start WWIII.

    1. Re:Attack on London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Globalists will not like the exit vote, but wouldn't an Islamic terrorist attack in the UK be a vindication of the decision to exit?

    2. Re:Attack on London by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The majority of Islamic terrorism is actually Zionist false-flag terrorism (see former Mossad agent Victor Orstrovsky's book "By Way of Deception"). And an attack on Britain would be "punishment" for deviating from the Globalist's (Zionist) plan of a European Union. Destroying sovereignty and creating unions is a tactic designed to centralize and consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands. Britain has taken her sovereignty back :)

      It is no different than the attacks in France and Belgium. Both showed support for the peaceful BDS human rights movement and an independent Palestine state and soon after suffered terrorist attacks which were then blamed on Islamic terrorism and further spread Islamophobia around the world.

      I hope that there are no terrorist attacks in Britain or anywhere else, but there is a pattern appearing that just cannot be ignored.

      Remember the 7/7 bombing attacks in London? Crisis management firm Visor Consultants planned an "exercise" of "simulated" terrorist attacks on 4 subway trains at 4 specific times. The next day - mother of all coincidence - "terrorists" just 'happened' to attack the same subway trains, same times, same day as this "exercise".

      "Google Peter Power 7/7" for more info on the London bombings.

  124. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    I reckon Scotland will be leaving the UK

    Build a wall, and make the Romans pay for it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  125. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    It's disgusting how a referendum of such significance- far more important than a general election- has been centered around and reported in terms of the internal, up-its-own-arse politicking of the Conservative (Tory) party. Disgusting, but not surprising. As you say, the whole thing started out as a political sop, designed purely to placate its own right-wing "Eurosceptic" members. I voted "Yes" in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for a number of reasons. A major one was that I knew the EU referendum was on the horizon and I wasn't prepared to risk Scotland being dragged out of the EU by Tories playing political football with the country's future simply to placate their own voter base in the south east of England. Back then, I still thought it was far more likely than not that the UK would remain within the EU; I just wasn't prepared to risk it.

    Push for another referendum on independence. From what I understand (as an American) there are already some rumblings about holding another one and that, given the large numbers of Scots that voted Remain it might have a good chance at passing. Who knows, the EU might expedite Scotland's admission as a "screw you" to the UK, and Scotland would certainly be better off independent and in the EU than part of the UK and not in the EU. Just better hope the EU stays together, which I imagine it will because I don't think the right wing in France has enough clout currently to sustain their own push for withdrawal. BUt if the EU loses the UK and France, then it is done.

    To use a Titanic metaphor(hey, we are talking abut England here so it's appropriate), as an American watching the changing tides both here and in the UK, I envy Scotland's opportunity to get a seat on a lifeboat while I'm standing on the deck freezing and listening to violin music, with nothing to look forward to except a long, cold swim in 30 degree water.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  126. The UK has always been a part of Oceania by Bobbox1980 · · Score: 1

    And they have always been at war with Eastasia Perhaps now they will be at war with Eurasia as they always have been.

  127. Re: You made it, Syrians! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, UK trade with the EU will continue full force.

    Until we leave. Then what? The Denmark model, where we'd pay the same amount as we do now, only without any representation in the EU Parliament? Sounds like a great plan!

    UK trade with Asia and the US will be unaffected, and so on

    China has been negotiating trade deals with us as a way into the EU. If we're no longer part of that, we're a far less attractive trade partner. The USA? Maybe, though Obama did say before the referendum that it was unlikely. How well do you think a successor to TTIP will go when it's just the UK and USA negotiating?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  128. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the EU is not a nationstate, that's the main problem...
    it has a lot of actual power en essentially no actual democratic control over that power

  129. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say you didn't support any of the "other" reasons why the UK wants to leave the EU, leading me to believe all of their "other important" reasons were misdirection bullshit and it is entirely about race....

    But congrats, UK will split up and the British empire can finally finish circling the toilet it started to after WWII.

  130. +1 for independence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now schedule a vote to ban Sharia.

  131. Those pesky voters by avandesande · · Score: 1

    "The elites are not the problem, the population at the moment is the problem"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  132. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Kohath · · Score: 2

    ... the UK will suffer.

    I've heard that a lot, but how does it make sense? Was being part of the EU a great thing for the UK? If it was, why didn't they vote to stay?If it wasn't, how can you say the UK will suffer a great hardship from leaving?

    The only ways the UK suffers a great hardship on one hand without a great benefit on the other is (1) if the UK is inherently very fragile and the EU was keeping it from disaster, or (2) the EU embarks on a vengeful policy to punish the UK. Is it one of these? Or something else?

    Or is "the UK will suffer" a poorly-reasoned (or exaggerated) conclusion?

  133. Scotland by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    It makes me wonder, if Scotland had voted to leave the UK, would the UK now still be in the EU?
    I heard that a lot of the Brexit votes came from Scotland and Wales.

    Coming home to roost...

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Scotland by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You heard wrong.

      Wales voted to leave. Scotland voted strongly to stay in the EU.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  134. Re: You made it, Syrians! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Our Presidency has been handed over peacefully

    Lincoln and Kennedy would disagree with you.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  135. Re: You made it, Syrians! by oobayly · · Score: 1

    The reactions of pro-leave MPs showed exactly this, they got what they campaigned for and now they don't know what to do now. Nobody's in a hurry to declare Article 50, so we're now stuck in a limbo.

    Syed Kamall, a British Tory MEP who campaigned for Brexit defended Cameron's decision. He said: "Cameron is right to leave negotiations to his successor," arguing it does not make much difference when you trigger the procedure.

    Apart from the fact we've had one of the most volatile days in UK market history - UK banks (Lloyds, Barclays & RBS are down 20%).

    This reactions is echoed by some of my colleagues - one said "I'd really didn't think it happened" - Well done mate, you just knocked 16% of your pension*.

    * His number, not mine.

  136. Re: You made it, Syrians! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The pound sterling has fallen 10% so far today. That's the same as adding a 10% import tax to everything being imported into the UK. That's going to hurt big time.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  137. Basically ... by ContextSwitch · · Score: 1

    ... we've just gone eccentric. Damn, I've been reading to much Banks recently.

  138. Roundheads and Cavaliers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is a good opprtunity to show that this is not the US, we're not going to start a civil war if you want to secede. This is not the Soviet Union where tanks will roll in your streets to occupy you. If you don't want to be a part of the EU, nobody's forcing you. I'm from Norway, a country that has rejected the EU twice in 1972 and 1994 and one of the reasons has been the feeling that this loss of sovereignty is permanent, you can join but if we find out this was a bad idea we can in practice never leave. Well now we'll see.

    Oh, just you wait, redcoat.

    CAPTCHA: enfeeble

  139. Trump and Brexit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with this vote Britain has lost all right to make fun of America about Trump's nomination.

  140. I heard this was such earth-shattering news... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    that the UK land-mass actually tore itself away from the European Mainland!

  141. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No fucking way. If Scotland decides to join the EU as a sovereign nation, the EU will snap them up immediately just to spite England.

  142. Oh, say can you C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #include {stdio.h> # stupid less than symbol and /.

    #define BR 1

    int main()
    {
            printf("Hello, World! (Bye, EU!)\n");
            exit(BR);
    }

  143. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically, some Scots voted not to leave the UK, at the time, because of benefits transferred via UK's membership to the EU. So yeah, that might be revisited now.

  144. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For one they never switched over the the euro despite having an economy strong enough to do so. Secondly, they were the only EU member that was given special treatment for participation in the Schengen Agreement.

  145. The rebirth of Great Britain? by Texmaize · · Score: 1

    A point that most people are missing is that the countries that are most nationalist, most economically self centered, and most limit immigration are by far the most successful in the modern world. We need to look no further than China. China makes only one sided trade deals that heavily favor the country. They have tariffs. They force tech transfer of any company that does business there.

    They severely limit immigration. Although several sources claim it is growing by leaps and bounds, those measures are only by percentage. In total, China has about a half million immigrants living in a country of 1.5 billion. This is like saying I hate vegetables, and I ate one carrot last week, and now I ate two carrots this week, so I had a 100% increase in vegetable intake. In reality, anyway you look at it, not many vegetables are eaten.

    History shows that only when countries have a sense of self and purpose do they do economically well. This is true of China, Korea, Britain in the past, and any other rising nation. The common people of the West fundamentally understand this, even if their leaders do not. The wealth gap is growing. The great pushback is happening in response. The smarter people in many nations simply understand that despite what they are told by the "elites" countries become more successful as a result.

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  146. EU democracy doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The European Commission, a completely unelected body, has been attempting to decide on toxic trade 'agreements' like TTIP in secret. These would then have been imposed on EU members, without any oversight from any kind of democratic system. While I liked the idea of the EU, it had become totally corrupt, incapable of reform, had lost control of population growth through uncontrolled immigration. It was implementing a dangerous expansion eastwards that would both provoke Russia, and lead to a massive influx of economic migrants. Without the collapsed EU system of immigration, we can hopefully have something like the Australian system, where we can select immigrants on the basis of economic contribution, and perhaps we can now look towards constraining population growth, which particularly for England, has reached frightening proportions. England is becoming increasingly densely populated, which is having a massive impact on house prices. For even a professional like myself, housing is barely affordable. There simply aren't the jobs to employ millions of more people. I can only hope that the next government will not sign up to any of the toxic 'free trade' agreements, that have so catastrophically depressed wages, created a massive balance of payments deficit, lead to a race to the bottom as employees become marketable commodities, and lead to massive social division between the super rich and everyone else. I can only hope that the next government will strengthen workers rights, re-nationalise some of the state assets that were plundered by the conservatives, and proceed with a program to re-industrialise and strengthen trade unions. If they do not proceed with such an agenda, in the medium term, there will be a social meltdown, and the UK will cease to exist. As it stands, I do not expect Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom, by the time Britain leaves the EU. The will of the Scottish people is clearly quite different to that of those in other parts of the UK. Having lived for many years in Glasgow, before moving to England, it easy to see the difference. English democracy is broken, the electoral system is unproportional, and completely broken. Lobbyists corporate interests are allowed privileged access to government, while the interests of workers are ignored.

  147. Re: You made it, Syrians! by denny_deluxe · · Score: 1

    New, now! Our arrogance is quite endearing.

  148. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My take is that being in the EU had economic benefits for the UK, but that there are enough voters in England and Wales who were fearful of immigration and most likely felt that they weren't sharing in those benefits to overcome this. Stories of Romainian immigrants pissing on walls have a visceral effect. Europe as a whole seems to be even worse at integrating immigrants than the US, and I think enough people were alarmed by this that they were willing to shoot themselves in the foot. This was a gamble which backfired tremendously for David Cameron, and I just hope that Scotland manages to leave the UK now and remain part of the EU.

  149. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    Push for another referendum on independence.

    That's essentially what's going to happen.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  150. Staying in EU by Trachman · · Score: 1

    Is like staying in the marriage with Angela Merkel.

  151. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK gave far less than countries that had less to give. They also receive special treatment in the EU.

    http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm

  152. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a dual US/UK national, having lived in both places, here's my opinion - the social safety nets in Europe are generally too generous, and are an active impediment to immigrants being integrated into their new countries. If immigrants are kept in state housing and allowed to be unemployed for long periods of time, it's not healthy. An immigrant to the US knows that they will have to work, there's no option. This has two benefits - less resentment from the people already there paying taxes, since they are not paying for these people, and forced interaction with others in the society. Yes, there are areas of terrible poverty in the US, but a legal immigrant in the US has a much greater chance of being assimilated into the culture than what I have observed in the UK or Europe.

  153. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You been there or you lived there?

    There is a big difference.

  154. Re: You made it, Syrians! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, personal prosperity for the working class isn't capped at a level that most Americans would consider intolerable.

    That part just KILLS you.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  155. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Kohath · · Score: 1

    The bottom of your society is literally an endless abyss...

    They keep voting for the same people and supporting the same institutions that have failed them for decades.

  156. Re: You made it, Syrians! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > sadly, as an American, I agree with your sentiments.

    I doubt if you have the slightest real clue about it. You're probably just another "white knight" liberal who wants to feel smug "saving" people that are really just insulted by the implication.

    Britain has a lot of that too apparently. It seems there are plenty of "ignored people" that are tired of being dismissed as intolerant or racist.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  157. Re: You made it, Syrians! by wwphx · · Score: 2

    Texas keeps threatening to leave, personally I'd tell them yes. Then watch as they try to pay for all of the military bases and hardware that would be removed.

    In Arizona, Pima County/Tucson would like to secede as the Arizona Legislature has gone absolutely bat-shit crazy. One of the more interesting recent bits of ritual idiocy is the governator signed a bill adding two seats to the Supreme Court to stuff it with conservatives. The twit who proposed the bill said "We wouldn't have put it forth if the governor was a Democrat."

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  158. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, China is the largest economy in the world.

  159. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Kohath · · Score: 1

    That seems to support a conclusion that the UK will suffer in some ways and benefit in others rather than simply "the UK will suffer".

  160. London would vote stay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is heading for having a muslim majority in the neqr future. Give it 10 years and the English will not own or dominate their own capital city.

  161. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It is a union for corporations trying to maximize their profits, there is not anything tangible in it for the people in the union or their economies beyond the interests of the corporations.

    Well apart from the ability to export stuff easily. Or go somewhere else to work. Nothing that would be useful to a small business or an individual at all.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  162. Re: You made it, Syrians! by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

    Texas could do fine with a military the size of Canada's

  163. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our Presidency has been handed over peacefully each time to the winner of the election

    we haven't made it through this election yet...Neither Hillary nor Trump being elected will go over well.

  164. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the dominant reserve currency throughout the world is the US Dollar.

    Wrong. Gold is. A reserve currency needs to be trustworthy. The dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1900. All fiat currencys give the ability to pay more than is produced, which is the definition of communism.
    --
    roman_mir

  165. Re: You made it, Syrians! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    I would describe it as states rights, the idea that problems are best solved closest to home and national politicians have active contempt for much of the electorate and certain regions of the country.

    There are places where the blue state mentality is not needed or is counterproductive. Let them fuck up their own state and leave the rest of us alone.

    Despite our own differences we represent roughly the same mixture of people and nationalities. The EU is made up of entirely different nations that are actually different.

    Part of "multiculturalism" should be acknowledging this fact rather than trying to deny it.

    Governance of the EU seems dependent on ignoring it's inherent challenges rather than dealing with them head on.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  166. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    now there will be no counterweight at all to the Germany-France tandem

    Don't be silly, there's Italy.

    (Pffffff!)

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  167. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Errrr .... the rember the ERM? We had to drop out (the whole purpose of which was to align everything to form the ECU) because the British economy could not stay aligned with the rest of Europe. That kind of soured the whole EMU scheme and left a bitter taste since the rest of Europe offered no help to keep our economy stay within the ERM. So when the EURO was organized we had '5 economic tests' that where used as a guide whether we should enter the EURO. Which we never met. Greece never met any of it's tests to join the EU and the EURO either. everybody knew this at the time, yet the EU pushed it through. The mess is evidence enough, why this was a bad idea.

    We negotiated opt out of Schengen for various reasons. We did not break the rules there either.
    Look at the various grades of EU membership of the Scandinavian countries. There are exceptions to the rules all over the place. Which is why Europe is such a political nightmare.

    Short long term we may see some economic effects, in Britain and in Europe. I actually think both will benefit since Europe will now reform to prevent others leaving, which they could have done with Britain still a member, but would never agree to...That's Politics for you.

  168. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the exact reasons that you've mentioned, multiculturalism is a failed experiment.

    France has woken up to that, hopefully others will too.

  169. Re: You made it, Syrians! by ranton · · Score: 1

    The only ways the UK suffers a great hardship on one hand without a great benefit on the other is (1) if the UK is inherently very fragile and the EU was keeping it from disaster, or (2) the EU embarks on a vengeful policy to punish the UK. Is it one of these? Or something else?

    I'll have to go with both there.

    The UK may be the 5th largest economy in the world, but there is a huge cliff after the top 2. The UK has economy roughly the size of California. The European Union exists so European countries can sit at the big boy table with the US and China. Even countries like the US and China can be very fragile at times, so claiming the UK is not putting itself at a huge risk here is childishly naive.

    The EU also has a huge incentive to make this breakup as harsh as possible for the UK. The EU will almost certainly make deals which even hurt the EU as long as they hurt the UK more, since if the UK has a successful secession it will mean doom for the EU. The EU can essentially risk its own demise to hurt the UK because if the UK is successful the EU is doomed anyway.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  170. An article worth revisiting by timholman · · Score: 1

    Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal predicted the exit of the UK from the EU last February. This is an article worth revisiting to understand the psychology behind yesterday's vote, and how the same psychology may make Trump the next U.S. president.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/tr...

  171. Re: You made it, Syrians! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about the border between southern and northern Ireland. Surely they'll need to build a wall and checkpoints when EIRE (southern Ireland) is part of the EU and Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  172. Re: You made it, Syrians! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    It can be disputed that the EU is bigger than the US, economically. And if you want to talk "groups of countries" rather than actual countries, NAFTA (US, Canada, and Mexico) is bigger than the EU (about $2 trillion larger than the World Bank estimate of the GDP of the US). Or perhaps we should talk APEC (which includes the US and China) which is 2.5 times greater than the EU (with fewer countries, I might add)?

    Or is it your position that the EU is effectively one nation, and what used to be countries are now States/Provinces within that new country, so you can look at the EU as one-on-one with the US? Of course, that completely explains why countries like Britain (and France, Italy, Sweden, and the Netherlands potentially looking to join)...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  173. Re: You made it, Syrians! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Texas keeps threatening to leave, personally I'd tell them yes. Then watch as they try to pay for all of the military bases and hardware that would be removed.

    If the bases and hardware was removed, why would they have to pay for it? Is that like the Expat tax of the US but applied in reverse when talking about States?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  174. It was more valid than anything. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I notice you post AC, as people with weak opinions but strong minds tend to do... you know in your heart your position is on the wrong side of history so you make sure it's never counted against you. Pathetic.

    Immigration was not only valid but it caused the vote to go the way it did. Just being immune from having the EU dictate how many more refugees the UK HAD to take made the whole thing worthwhile, even if there is some economic downside (and we still don't even know if there is an economic downside, wait a week and see where the pound ends up at).

    This is triage, pure and simple - the citizens of the UK realized they had to stop the bleeding, even if there is some short term pain in doing so. The UK has assured itself a future now, which is something questionable about those that remain the EU.

    The funny thing is Trump is going to be president for the same reason the UK voted out. And you will all look at the same kinds of polls and conclude he cannot possibly be president for the same reasons you claimed the UK would never Leave.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It was more valid than anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait,wait, wait. Are you saying that being "not racist" is the wrong side of history? That's fukkin stoopid if you are! What bleeding are you even referring to? What needed triage? Oh and don't play that stupid AC card. I do not know who the hell you are even though you post under superkendall. Your name probably isn't even Kendall. Acting as if because you have a pseudoname that your opinion is somehow more valid is also stoooopid.

  175. Re: You made it, Syrians! by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it means that our exports are more attractive.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  176. They say but... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I live and work in London and my whole circle voted to remain.

    Or so they say, because they know the social repercussions if they tell the truth...

    Which just backs up what you said about the polling.

    And also backs up what you are saying about Trump.

    That's what people in the U.S. do not get about Trump and polls and victory. There actually are not that many undecided, between Trump and Hillary is as stark a choice as there will ever be. Trump has already won and whatever he says between now and November is essentially irrelevant, though amusing.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  177. Agism Flourishes in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elderly brains are weaker hence old people become set in their ways. Conservative, yes. But not wise.

    God you are an agist fuck aren't you. I'm disappointed in the results, but the elderly didn't vote leave because they're weak minded. They voted Leave because, instead of addressing and discussing their concerns (like unbridled immigration) in a thoughtful and educational manner, the ruling parties instead labelled them as rascists and dismissed their concerns out of hand, then gave them an opportunity to both express those concerns, and give those very same arrogant politicians a big fat black eye, and guess what?

    They couldn't resist. And while I voted the other way and am bitterly disappointed at the outcome, I don't blame them one bit.

    Unfortunately what they don't get, is that their age group would have been better protected under the EU. Now the agism that is so massive in the UK will have no more checks on it.

    1. Re: Agism Flourishes in the UK by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I am neither a brit, nor young.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  178. resign link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The link of resign should be to a page that is not login walled.

  179. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, the intellectual royalty has come to tell the peasants how wrong they are. Democracy must suck.

    The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. -- A noted British politician

  180. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fucking idiot, go read something besides a tabloid.

  181. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it means that our exports are more attractive.

    Britain has a large imbalance of imports over exports. London's finance industry will be relocating en masse to Frankfurt. There is nothing pretty about this at all.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  182. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody should use the Cultural Marxist definition of Europe, which includes asian countries like Turkey. That would be better.

    1. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just Turkey, but the stans - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, et al. None of which are European countries

  183. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lgw · · Score: 1

    The UK has a significant trade deficit, and importantly that's mostly with Germany. The EU won't be eager to stifle that net inflow of money. No reason to expect that to suffer.

    This hurts the City, because when you do only arbitrage and add no value, an extra 0.01% cost to trade is a big deal. Billionaires are very sad today.

    US companies don't care.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  184. Two Minute Hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    SJWs exist in the same sense that welfare queens, illegal immigrants, hipsters, and millennials do: mostly in the heads of people complaining about them. Virtue signalling, tribal affiliation, a convenient focus for your hatred of the Other. It's boring, stupid, and dangerous.

  185. Just London and the North? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but the remain vote has been undermined by poor results in the north of England."

    "no other region of England has voted in favor of remaining"

    Today I learn that England is composed of London and the North.

  186. Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU is a project of NY and London banksters and their relatives, like Merkel.

    They are bored and "want to do something big", that why they had the idea with ulimited Mohammedanic immigration.

    1. Re:Bingo by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      The funny part is how self assured they are about how easily they'll be able to control the incoming Islamic migrants. Surely a bunch of religious zealots will be as easy to passify as the lazy entitled Europeans they've been dealing with so far. I mean, so many of the Muslims in Europe already are "good Muslims", which is to say barely Muslims at all, certainly not the kinds of Muslims the fervently religious newcomers would recognize.

  187. As The Brittans Say: by lbalbalba · · Score: 1

    Good riddance, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  188. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lgw · · Score: 1

    Looking at the behavior of the average royal, it's easy to see why democracy works better (though I do admit some respect for Charles past middle age).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  189. Re: You made it, Syrians! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    It's also the same as giving a 10% cut to all purchases of goods and services from the UK...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  190. Greek==Rotten People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of quitting the Euro and getting their own currency back, they played a supernasty Game Of Nazi against Germans, who by 99,9% have not even lived during the Nazi time.

    I hope they will continue to burn in their self made hell.

  191. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would describe it as states rights, the idea that problems are best solved closest to home and national politicians have active contempt for much of the electorate and certain regions of the country.

    There are places where the blue state mentality is not needed or is counterproductive. Let them fuck up their own state and leave the rest of us alone.

    That's not been my experience. In my experience, those closest to you are the worst about solving problems, but the best at creating them, that the local politicians have active contempt for the populace at best, shameless exploitation of them at worse, (and other regions of the country), that the red state mentality is not needed and is counterproductive, having messed up their state and caused the rest of us to pay for fixing it.

    I'll be honest, I can't think of a single good thing that the "conservative" mindset has brought us, they're the ones who started the Civil War (after decades of stymieing any changes), gave us segregation for decades(even though they lost the slavery issue, they managed to keep on discriminating under the pretenses they adopted), and more recently increased deficit spending through 6 presidencies.

    What have *WE* gotten for it? Reagan, despite popular belief, did not *WIN* the Cold War, the Russians had to give up on their own as a result of their own militaristic choices, not their "liberal" ones. Both Bushes did nothing except invade a couple of countries and give us more disruption and terrorism, while failing to solve any problems at home like the continued abuse of the financial system by the banking industry.

    I don't know, maybe you have a different idea about what's gone on through the past political experience, but your description seems contrary to past experience.

  192. Sure Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would all be better to be (effectively) ruled by your Riad Sponsors. Those who covertly sponsor ISIS and the causeless murdering of tens of thousands.

  193. The referendum should have been about *joining* EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK always opted out of anything they could. At least leaving should be much easier for them since they are not using the Euro.
    Two things that I expect to happen are:

    1) The remaining EU can now focus on deeper integration.
    2) Multinationals will find the UK less attractive.

  194. Sure, Bankster Propagandist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should all submit to your whims, because you know everything. Except in 1929 or 2008.

    China would never ever be part of the EU, they are a proud, intelligent nation who are not ruled by banksters and their cultural Marxist offspring. China would never allow uncontrolled mass immigration like Bankster Angela does, just for starters.

  195. Canada by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Canada endorsed the not leaving the EU, largely because there has been a free trade agreement in the works for the last 5 years with the EU.

    Not sure how leaving the EU makes that deal happen faster for the UK. Possibly though, if they make enough concessions.

  196. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    They never got round to it when they were blowing the shit out of each other, so I doubt it's a priority right now.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  197. Britain's Exit and EU Expansion to Resist Russia by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Britain's exit is to the detriment of workers, financiers, and everybody who isn't just living on a pension or already among the political elite and wealthy in Britain. Britain will reenter the EU within a decade, as the demographics shift. The single benefit to the EU in the meantime is that removal of the xenophobic nationalists and their puppet masters (see previous description) is that it will allow more freedom to expand into the Balkans and simplify the ascension of Turkey. Farther in the future it may actually enable a greater European-Mediterranean union stabilizing the Levant and North Africa (which both have more in common historically and economically with Europe than with Sub-Saharan Africa). Only then when Europe is solid and joined with the territory formerly occupied in colonization can it face down Russia (who still retains colonized territory in Central Asia and Siberia, with large parts taken from China in the old Nerchinsk treaties).

  198. Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "ulgy old white people" meme is a Classic Marxist Rhetoric Trick.

    Marx, like other banksters wanted to destroy his host nation. Modern Marxists team up with the Mohammedists towards this end.

    Folks, be warned about their future insidious propaganda techniques. Go to the internet; blast their lies; work in secret; expect neighbours to be bought by the bastards. They will then work against you.

  199. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What?

  200. Re: You made it, Syrians! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    You are assuming the right-wing is interested in the Economy. They are not. They are interested in nationalism, isolationism, racism, traditional "christian values" and gun ownership.

    Read the news at who is celebrating. Le Pen, Wilders, Donald Trump. All the idiots.

  201. Re: You made it, Syrians! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sure, go ahead. mod me troll

  202. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

    Although English, I always thought the Scottish Independence referendum was held too early. It was clear that there would be an EU referendum at some time, and that after this would be the correct time for any Scottish Independence referendum.

    That said, if another Scottish Independence referendum is held, I think the EU will be more receptive this time to accepting an independent Scotland.

    --
    You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
  203. The UK dodged a bullet with that vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Game Theory 101

    The leader of the UK, Cameron, went hat-in-hand to the EU to plead for minor changes and was rebuffed, even with the sword of Brexit hanging over his head. The arrogant unelected thug class in Brussels sent him packing with no real compromise and not even any respect.

    Had the citizens of the UK been fooled into staying, as sadly many of the youth who have not lived long enough yet to acquired any wisdom appear to have been, the UK would now be trapped and the downward spiral would have dramatically accellerated. The Eurocrats would have been freed from ANY concern at all for the citizens of the UK and any concern that any complaints about any future abuses were anything more than hollow bluster.

    Once Cameron returned from the continent empty-handed, any person in the UK with any shred of concern for his once-proud and globe-leading nation HAD to vote "leave" if he took the time to consider the long-term implications of staying after what would have been seen as a failed bluff.

    The UK has an amazingly bright future as a once-again-free and independent nation. The wonderful people of the UK, while imperfect, once ruled much of the world and taught the world about freedom and independence and self-governance, while twice freeing the globe from great evil. It's been very sad to see them allow their elite bankers and politicians screw-up their once-great educational institutions and then use those mechanisms to propagandize their youth into rejecting their greatness and surrendering all of their history and traditions and independence into a blob of unelected paperpushers and rulemakers on the continent who would have been right at home in the reichschancellory.

    Well done, citizens of the UK! As an American, I am greatly relieved so see that our great ally who has twice been there to help put the occasional jack-booted insanity of the Germans back into its can, will remain there as a free and independent friend when the need next arises, rather than having allowed its political and banker classes to continue the slow subsuming into the future continental tyranny.

  204. whoops, forgot to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was not saying or imply that those who voted to remain in the EU were lacking patriotism (as a reading of some of that might seem to imply).

    I intended (and forgot) to add that those who voted to remain after Cameron failed so spectacularly to shake the EU into reforms and concessions were NOT unpatriotic, just that many were likely busy with their lives and happy with many benefits of the EU and heard many promises/scares of the "remain" campaign and had not thought through the future treatment they could expect from arrogant guys like Junkers after a "remain" victory.

  205. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    In the UK case, as they where the first, the outers could easily dismiss everything as scaremongering, however, as the predictions are pretty much coming true:

    - Massive losses in the financial sector
    - Scotland will have second referendum
    - Northern Ireland may try to have a referendum
    - Etc

    Further, the EU will not give a good deal in order to make an example of Britain. Other countries will not get any good deals either. The only option the UK has in order to preserve full internal market access is to join the EEA (which includes the free movement provisions).

    Thus, the fallout on the UK will be massive in the end as the EU is a lot bigger than the UK.

    The point is, the cost for leaving will be massive and it will be clear to anyone who attempts the same thing.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  206. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    Cheaper flights, phasing out of roaming fees, environmental protection,... lasting peace on the continent.

    Indeed, nothing useful at all.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  207. Re: You made it, Syrians! by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

    You are assuming the right-wing is interested in the Economy. They are not.

    People to the left such as Bernie have noted that the vast majority of the economies gains have only gone to the top couple percent. Is it wrong for the disenfranchised people to want a change? Why would people who get none of the gains care about perpetuating the current economic model?

    As for racism, that word has been so abused and played so many times that for me at least it has no meaning. Race mongers, perhaps yourself included, have cried wolf far too many times. Moreover, since racism is only a charge leveled at white people it doesn't strike me as a real thing, more a tool to be used to get people to go along with other peoples agenda lest they be labelled as "racist". To ignore the label is the best way to diffuse its power.

  208. Re: You made it, Syrians! by ultranova · · Score: 1

    Because one thing is certain, the EU will not tolerate easily the exit of a vassal.

    EU member states are not vassals. Who would be their overlord? EU doesn't exist aside from said member states.

    They will do their worst to punish the Brits for this act of high treason,

    Why? With the Brits gone maybe the rest of us can continue the project of European unification that has been going on since the Roman Empire fell. Maybe our leaders will even put the brakes on expansion and focus on integration - as this whole event showed, we need an European identity to go along with the Union to stabilize it.

    Besides, UK is too small to make it on its own in today's world, even if it doesn't splinter (Scotland is already making noises about leaving UK for EU). It either gets sucked into being someone's - most likely US's - satellite or remain in EU's periphery, only now without any formal position or say in the Union's policies. So why would the EU, even in the case it wanted revenge, do anything but watch?

    All in all, Britexit means a lot of challenges but also solves some longstanding issues and opens new possibilities in the EU. Better focus on those and let Mr. Hobbes take care of punishing stupidity, least we end up in need of some lessons ourselves.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  209. Re: You made it, Syrians! by thoromyr · · Score: 1

    The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one:

    "The EU is an economy union, and only that."

    "The EU as a unified economy doesn't exist."

    I get it, you don't like the EU, but when you can't even agree with yourself as to whether or not it is an economic union (you do realize that in English reversing "economy union" to "unified economy" does not change the essential meaning?) the rest of what you saying comes across as "blah blah blah"

  210. It's a #fuckingdisaster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jees! This is a fucking nightmare. This is why hardly any counties use direct democracy.. Public opinion is not always rational. Now anyone with a house, pension, or job is fucked. Thank you Farage, you fucking idiot!

  211. The hubris of the college educated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always convinced that they are actually thinking about the issues concerned. There is a famous example of this from back during the Vietnam War, where the college educated were the hawks. The truth is quite different - college turns you into someone suited to follow orders in a bureaucracy. The orders given were to be good little EU citizens and advocates of globalization.

    Conditioning is very powerful.

    1. Re:The hubris of the college educated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...the fact that our seats of learning aim rather at fostering mediocrity than anything higher, is due to our subconscious recognition of the fact that it is even more necessary to check exuberance of mental development than to encourage it.... They think they are advancing healthy mental assimilation and digestion, whereas in reality they are little better than cancer in the stomach."

      -Samuel Butler, 1872

  212. strengthen parliament !?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>>
    - strengthen parliament.
    >>>

    You mean cut it from 750 to 75 members?

  213. EU needs to respond with strength! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a German citizen, I am disgusted by the weak responses of the European leaders, they are absolutely pathetic:
    "We are sorry to hear this, we respect their decision, blah blah blah"

    The UK has enjoyed special priveledges in the EU, such as keeping the GBP, but even this was not enough, they want to leave. Well then, fuck them!

    The EU needs to grow a pair of balls, and respond with strength. Permanently deny the UK access to European markets, immediately deport all British citizens and seize their European assets, and ban all Britons from entering the EU for any reason whatsoever. Teach these motherfuckers a lesson!

  214. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In what units?

  215. 1.2K comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf

  216. Brains in a blender by axewolf · · Score: 1

    Rampant delusions of collectivism ensue.

  217. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best answer ever.

    (I've been here for 15 years, but not logged in for an age)

  218. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, UK trade with the EU will continue full force.

    EU trade is a free market, that includes the labour market. No free movement is equivalent to no trade at all, which is what the Leave campaign voted for.

  219. Typical BBC bias by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> vote has been undermined by poor results in the north of England.

    Exactly this kind of shit is why I dont bother with the BBC as a credible news source any more.

  220. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for the UK, due to the fall of the GBP, it is no longer the 5th largest economy.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  221. Re: You made it, Syrians! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    We have the Texas State Guard (TXSG) that falls under the direct command of the Governor of Texas. FYI.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  222. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    I have met several imigrants who are highly qualified people and who are not able to get a job. The high jobless rates in some of the groups is to a large extent simply based on racism (some times not intended).

    One friend of mine, a guy of Iranian decent was sending out his job applications after graduating. After just getting the hand for 20 graduate level positions (not even an interview), he decided to not write his last name in the application and only used the initial (he was lucky to have a European first name). The result was 3 interviews on 3 applications and he was able to choose from the 3 jobs he was offered.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  223. Re: You made it, Syrians! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

    Lol, yes because it's _inconceivable_ that Britain could decide to keep importing labor from the EU. Where did you get that idea? Did you think Britain would now build walls and ban all foreigners? Silly...

  224. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if you live in EU, but I do and actually the terrorists are slowly creating solidarity between all the EU nations. Tallinn has not been blown up yet, but I do care about the terror events in the central Europe about as much as I care about events in my own country. (An event in a place I actually visit in my daily life I would care about more.)

    So, maybe we - especially the younger generation - are slowly going in the direction of feeling like a single nation.

  225. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might have vetoed before Brexit but after, anything goes.

  226. Re: You made it, Syrians! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Even worse?

    Everybody is worse at integrating immigrants than the US. Everyone.

    The numbers causing shit storms in Europe are America's routine.

    Eurotrash really ought to visit before running their whine holes. Not just NYC and LA eather.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  227. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Us turkeys have just voted for Christmas!

  228. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit!

  229. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when they are intolerant and racist.

  230. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will. Especially once we are led by a big bloke with out of control blonde hair who can't stop telling enormous porkies.

    Pork pies = lies

  231. Re: You made it, Syrians! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Simple solution: England withdraws from the UK, which becomes the United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a new sovereign Kingdom of England formed. England isn't in the EU, the remaining parts of the UK remain, everybody's happy.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  232. Re: You made it, Syrians! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    Until a large number of employers leave because they want access to the single market. JP Morgan is only the first.

  233. Re: You made it, Syrians! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it means that our exports are more attractive.

    Not really. After all, you won't have free access to the EU market. And Scotland and Wales are grumbling about leaving and joining the EU.

    Great Britain = England, Scotland, and Wales.- so no more Great Britain

    UK = England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (and the full name is the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”) - so much for the UK

    England = Just the part of the island that is England

    So it'll be the kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.

    And the queen will have her summer castle in a foreign country (Balmoral, in Scotland). That's going to be kind of weird.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  234. Re: You made it, Syrians! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    It's also the same as giving a 10% cut to all purchases of goods and services from the UK...

    You seem to forget that the EU can impose tariffs and other restrictions on imports from the UK so they can grow their own industries. And the UK imports a lot more from the EU than it exports.

    Also, on services ... not really. Financial services are going to move to the continent, so there goes "the city" and London's over-inflated property prices.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  235. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He/she is American.

  236. Not Convinced This is The End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, I get that exiting the EU hasn't been done before, so that's new. And it is contrary to the European integration trend which, at the largest geopolitical levels, has been a rousing success. No one wants to go back to the days of the great alliances that repeatedly resulted in devastating war. More than that, Europeans now feel like they really are more than national citizens. There is a feeling of being 'European' that has added to cultural life.

    Having said all that, I doubt that Britain's exit from the EU will devastate the EU. Britain goes back to being a state on the outside. This is a condition all of Europe lived with for centuries; it's not exactly new from a state level relationships issue.

    The thing I've noted is that despite all of the crises, slow bureaucracy, and challenges, the EU has survived. I really think it will survive this too. There's far more states looking to enter the EU than to leave it. The EU might even get some useful reforms out of the Brexit, a crisis to justify some new administrative rules and regimes. Didn't the PIGS crisis cause the ECB to finally step into the light, find it's spine and take some real responsibility? It did. And this could be the same.

    As for the European wars and cultural divisiveness. Britain is connected by rail to the continent. And the motives for the Brexit are administrative, not cultural. The feeling of connection to Europe should continue as before. Whatever that means to any given Briton. There does not appear to be the seeds of a new generation of grand alliances here.

    If you asked me for my preferences and comfort level, I'd be more happy with Britain in the EU. It's a known quantity and it feels right given the large scale success of the EU in getting countries to join. However Britain leaving, I suspect it will end up being a fairly minor event for the EU. Britain never joined the currency union for instance. Others have raised the internal dynamics of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I've no skin in that game so I'll stay out of those conversations. For now!

  237. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Chinese. They've got more of them than any other country or bloc.

  238. Worked as intended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's worked out great for me. I've made more money since Obama became president than I did when Bush ruled. You think your comment is snarky but only you conservatives ever wonder where the hope and change is. The rest of us who have working eyes are too busy reaping the rewards to piss and moan about the "scary black muslim" who is "ruining" this country.

  239. Re: You made it, Syrians! by ranton · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for the UK, due to the fall of the GBP, it is no longer the 5th largest economy.

    Depends on who is measuring I think. The IMF would probably still feel the UK beats out France, but the World Bank and United Nations had the two countries close enough in GDP for France to claim the #5 spot. The UK is still #6 at worst though.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  240. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    All you mention benefits first and foremost corporations.

    Cheaper flights: How often do you fly? Moving once across the continent may be usual for the US, it is very, very uncommon in Europe. Who benefits from cheap flights?

    Roaming fees: How many people do you know abroad that abandoning roaming fees would benefit you. Besides, TANSTAAFL, telcos will not simply swallow the losses, so who gets to pay for corporations' benefit from cheaper international calls?

    Lasting peace: Mostly a side effect of corporations not wanting nation states meddling with their profits. Yes, it's nice to live in a safe environment, but don't act as if that's actually something they did for the people.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  241. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Ok, I should clarify this.

    Yes, it is a union that benefits primarily economic interests, but not of its member states but transnational corporations. There is no unified economic interest among its members. The benefits are rather mostly for corporations that don't give a shit about the EU either.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  242. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    As much as I like the idea of a unified Europe, I despise the way it was realized. I would like to live in a Europe that "feels" kinda-like some sort of "USE", but in fact, what I get to see is a bunch of nations bickering and trying to rip as much as possible out of the cake called EU for their own benefit without giving half a shit about the rest of the union.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  243. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As for the peace part, this was the reason the Union was founded. The method for this was to ensure that there would be so much economic dependence between the members that it would be unthinkable to attack the other members.

    Peace has always been the primary goal of the Union.

  244. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    And the wine, don't forget the wine. But apart from that...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  245. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Moving once across the continent may be usual for the US, it is very, very uncommon in Europe.

    There's a thing called a return ticket. People use them quite a lot when travelling for business or holidays.

    Roaming fees: How many people do you know abroad that abandoning roaming fees would benefit you. [...] who gets to pay for corporations' benefit from cheaper international calls?

    You appear to be confusing two different things here.

    Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? Shut up and go watch Honey Boo Boo.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  246. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    Indeed, there is a story about how the Swedish PM complained about the Welsh wine served during a summit in the UK. The Italian PM then made sure to send over a whole box of Italian wine to the Swedish PM.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  247. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    >"Cheaper flights: How often do you fly? Moving once across the continent may be usual for the US, it is very, very uncommon in Europe. Who benefits from cheap flights?"

    Personally, usually between 1 and 2 times a month for business and personal reasons. It does vary quite a lot between people. In any case, I have lived in four different EU states so far. It is hard to give numbers, but for short stays (say 6 months to a year) you will find that say 10-20 % have tried this out at some point for studies or work, one out of 15-20 persons will at some point live in another state for a longer time. This isn't really US-level numbers where some states have 50% populations born in other states, but it is steadily growing.

    This is actually causing problems now in that a large portion of the population in different countries are taxed but not allowed to vote. I.e. in the brexit case, 3 million EU citizens in the UK were directly affected but where only allowed to pay tax but not have a say in the issue, and secondly 1.5-2 million UK citizens outside the UK where not allowed to vote as you are only allowed to vote the first 15 years you live outside the UK. Looking at how close the results where, where these to vote, it would have had been a clear remain.

    > "Roaming fees: How many people do you know abroad that abandoning roaming fees would benefit you. Besides, TANSTAAFL, telcos will not simply swallow the losses, so who gets to pay for corporations' benefit from cheaper international calls?"

    When regulating roaming, they also reduced the inter network costs, so it does penalise the Spanish telcos which has a lot of tourists, but in general, no one suffers. About 50 % of my contacts live in another EU state and a lot of them travel around, a lot, for personal reasons and business. My wife for example have reduced her EUR 200 per month phone bills to EUR 50 per month.

    > "Lasting peace: Mostly a side effect of corporations not wanting nation states meddling with their profits. Yes, it's nice to live in a safe environment, but don't act as if that's actually something they did for the people."

    The Union was formed to create a lasting peace by tying together the member states in a mutual commercial dependence. Yes, this is a side effect of it costing too much to start a war inside the EU, but that was the main point of it...

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  248. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You answered your own question:

    The US has a massive military with a hell of a lot of firepower.

    That's why, for example, the dominant reserve currency throughout the world is the US Dollar.

    And the modern "dollar" is just paper and credit. "dollar" is meaningless at this point, for 99% of legal tender that 99% of people use. Only the big boys use actual "money" to do business.

  249. created visible, angry, unassimilated immigrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "created visible, angry, unassimilated immigrant communities in their midst."

    The discerning reader will observe that none of the problematic immigrant communities in the UK hail from Europe.

    So I remain confused how stopping Catholic Poles from doing dirty jobs in England helps stop Pakistani women from wearing the hijab.

    Unless, of course, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Syria, have recently joined the EU.

  250. Re:Zimbabwe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you also comment how this strategy then failed in Zimbabwe?

    The cold truth is the Greeks had been playing the devalue-default game for so long that NOONE would lend them money in Drachma and, only then, as interest rates and terms they couldn't afford.

    They lied their way into the Euro so they could borrow in their local currency - the Euro.

  251. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Currencies should be deflationists, so that roman mir can steal from other people by hoarding cash.

  252. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Stop shilling or read the Treaty of Rome. The whole peace-promoting bullshit was tacked on when some parts and especially Adenauer started to question the whole idea and with this they couldn't back out easily anymore. In its core the whole deal was at first a French-German cooperation for coal and steel that was later broadened to a wider economic cooperation between them, Italy and the Benelux. The new thing was that the signing countries hand over some powers to a supranational entity, and this eventually expanded to what's now the EU.

    As for traveling, what do you mean by having a return ticket? The point is that Europeans in general don't move once across the continent on average as many US people do. Someone born in Latvia does not move to Spain to work (at least usually) but stays in Latvia. Why? Well, language for one. There is no huge benefit for the average person from cheap plane tickets because aside of some larger countries like France or Spain, there is very little non-commercial air traffic going on outside of vacations. And guess what, Europeans love taking a vacation abroad, where the whole advantage simply doesn't come into play.

    As for the roaming fees, yes, what matters is that you're abroad and calling. The point is the same: The average person is not going to spend a lot of time abroad. Unless he spends a lot of time abroad (i.e. is one of the few that actually work outside their home country), where they would probably get a phone contract of that country instead. Cui bono? Who benefits? Who benefits from dropped roaming charges? The average Joe who spends 99% of his life in the country he was born? Or multinational corporations?

    I have no idea what Honey Boo Boo is, but it might help if you stopped watching it and tried something based in reality for a change. Just an idea.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  253. The United States & Kingdom of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pdf(*^):http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/7659/sjp/statements/sjp20160625.html
            The United States & Kingdom of America
            How about United Kingdom joins United States?
    It seems that it is difficult that United Kingdom keep independence.
    So, United Kingdom joins United States, then be the 51st state of the United States of America Instead of European Union.
            The United States & Kingdom of America
    How is it? > BRITONS
            How about United Kingdom joins United States?
    pdf(*^):http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/7659/sjp/statements/sjp20160625.html

  254. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You've got that the wrong way round. Upper Paddyland voted 56% remain, Wools was 53% out.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  255. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Germany exports a lot to Britain. Ferkel won't let anyone jeopardise that, for all Druncker's big talk.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  256. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lordholm · · Score: 1

    Does it matter who benefits as the fees have not been raised for the end customer? As for who benefits there are two groups, the end user / customer and the telcos from countries with lower amount of tourisms. The losers are the telcos from tourism dependent countries.

    As for the expats, they benefit even with a local contract since they likely call their parents, siblings etc. It is not just the roaming that is hit, but also the rates for calling to other member states.

    Some, say 10 years ago, it was very common to read about how people had been provided phone bills of several thousands, and in some cases tens of thousands of euros because they watched youtube without thinking about it when laying on a beach in Spain.

    You ask who benefited, well, the people benefits, if any company benefits it is a positive side effect.

    --
    "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  257. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you, nigger

    We didn't choose this, we are the 99%

  258. Re: You made it, Syrians! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    The UK can do the same on a per-country basis. You do realize that the UK economy is larger than all in Europe except for Germany? Your position makes zero economic sense, especially since many of those countries in the EU have the UK as a main trading partner. As far as finances, they won't move - the infrastructure and PEOPLE are already in-place. The reason the UK stayed the financial hub is precisely BECAUSE it didn't jump on the Euro, it never really became part of the EU. That's why it's going to stay the financial hub as well.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  259. Re: You made it, Syrians! by lgw · · Score: 1

    Yes, billionaires and investment banks really don't like the Brexit, On that basis alone it must be good.

    The simple fact is: all the "remain" arguments are practical, while the "leave" vote was one of principle. The risk of the EU becoming a non-democracy is real (that's half-true today: democratic state governments can block EC rulings, but they can't initiate them). The risk of economic collapse of the EU is real. The cultural values of Britain as something worth holding on to is seen as important by many. National sovereignty and the ability to enforce the borders, to limit immigration to some value lower than infinity, is seen as important by many

    Fundamentally, the "remain" camp was arguing money, the "leave" camp was arguing "we want to be British, not European". Which camp will actually work out better for the common man? Brexit will be a cost in the short term; time will tell the long term.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  260. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    But again, it's just a side effect. Benefits for the citizens happen as a by-product, provided they don't cut into the bottom line.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  261. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand this kind of thinking, there must simply something amiss in the cognitive abilities of the people that can write such patent nonsense.

    The EU is a cooperation agreement between independent states (some want to create one semi-state in a federal system however there are even more that want to keep the EU in the current form). By entering into that agreement there are some concessions that have to be made but also a lot of advantages.

    What you are proposing that the UK will be able to keep the advantages while not having to do the concessions. That's idiotic, ludicrous and completely disconnected from reality.

    In the real world the UK already had comparatively good terms, you paid less per capita (and in many other measurements) than compared with e.g. Finland, got a lot of subsidies and other advantages compared with other EU members etc.

    You have been in the EU a long time, long enough to see the disadvantages. I wonder how long you need outside to realize there were also a lot of advantages?

  262. Took a while to find the appropriate Dr. reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will BREXIT turn into "The Game of Rassilon", but played on a national level? [The Game of Rassilon: "To lose is to win and he who wins shall lose."]

    Of course my view may be too pessimistic, so I end by quoting Doctor #7: "Time will tell. It always does."

  263. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your really don't understand the shit position the UK is in. Any deal will have to be approved buy all other member states, and the european parlement. All of them can veto it for Any reason and then there wil be no deal and you will need a VISA when you go on holiday.

  264. Re: You made it, Syrians! by aplcomp · · Score: 1

    EU has about 28 official languages. Quess how many does US have? Not even one.

  265. Re: You made it, Syrians! by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    If a referendum were held in all the Southern States, whether or not they would like to leave the Union, I would be curious to see the result.

  266. Should be interesting to see how things shake out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scotland seems sure to vote for independence. QEII is still the queen of the Kingdom of Scotland. That will royally complicate things (pun intended). Even if they keep her on as head of state, the notion of the Crown seems very fuzzy to me – what does she own/have rights to versus what does the UK government own/have rights to.

    Also, will the lower half of the island just go by the name of England? That might piss off the Welsh since it ignores their Brythonic heritage. Would they try to secede? Could they? Poor little Charles would be prince of nothing.

    Northern Ireland I’m not so sure about. I doubt they would try to unite with the Irish Republic – the “troubles” would flare back up in a heartbeat. Yet, staying with England (or would it be “Lesser Britain”) wouldn’t be very good for them. Would they decide to try to go it alone, too?

    One thing is certain, though: now is a good time to be a lawyer in the U.K. You bastards are gonna get crazy rich.

  267. Re: You made it, Syrians! by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    This will come but it might take a few centuries.

  268. Re: You made it, Syrians! by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Why modded Troll, this is absolutely true.

  269. Re: You made it, Syrians! by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Not the idiots, idiots are easy to fool. You mean the dangerous, power grabbing, selfish sociopathic but unfortunately intelligent bastards you mention.

  270. Re: You made it, Syrians! by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Amazing. As if all of the scaremongering and propaganda was on the "remain" camp. I urge you to read the main newspapers in England, like the so ever popular Sun.

    If GB wants to remain in the EEA, they will have to accept that any EEA member can come to Britain and work without a visa. They will have to pay into the system too, like all the members.

    Guess what, GB, the EU is exactly what members states do with it. There is no supra-national system that forces it to go one way or the others. One member state, one vote on the EU council. Representation is proportional to population in the EU parliament.

    Yes, democracy sucks sometimes.

  271. Re: You made it, Syrians! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    I presume you'll be demanding an end to the House of Lords at some point then given that that's even less democratic than the EU. A lot of billionaires are very pleased judging by the gloating in the press. I wonder what would happen to Sunderland if Nissan decided to relocate to the EU. This it's pretty funny as well. Principles can be wrong, but either way you can't eat them or live in them or wear them.

  272. Their 1776 moment by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Congratulations England! You're going to gain your sovereignty back. This is change that crazy radicals would have hailed 50 years ago. Now they don't like it because it's not their change. To be hip, this is it. Statism (all its forms, marxism, fascism, communisn... and so on), fails. It's failed everywhere it's ever tried. Once central government that doesn't give a rip about anyone but themselves. England's parliament was a law body in name only. All the decisions were really made in Brussels, by foreigners. Capitalism is the antidote to tyranny.

    Down with socialism.

  273. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the US petrodollar is a joke not worth the paper it's written on. Every politician and leader with half a brain tries to get their country away from it.

  274. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the EU is hardly the same kind of union that the USA are. Mostly in the mind of its subjects.

    Agreed. It is the mind of the subjects that count, and we're still not all the way there.

    The EU is an economy union, and only that.

    Disagree. As I implied above, I think at least of some us do consider ourselves as European (I'm Irish first, European 2nd). IMO the single currency (Euro) has also bolstered this. I remember the first time I traveled to France after we had adopted the Euro, it definitely felt different than before & we were that much closer. Give it another 20 years, and we'll be closer still. These things take time.

    Of course, the UK never did get fully on board ... and the fact they didn't adopt the Euro is a sign of such.

  275. "Diversity society will fail" --Putnam; by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects; In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings."
    http://www.boston.com/news/glo...

  276. Pot calling kettle back; by NewYork · · Score: 1

    As per Washington Post, HINDUS are the most RACIST people on Earth http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  277. Re: You made it, Syrians! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    If he had written "Higher profits for airlines from more expensive flights, additional charges for telecommunications, freedom to take a big dump on the environment in the name of profits, and a few good wars to sell guns into", well those would have been things that benefits corporations first and foremost.

    Even if the only thing the EU accomplishes is fewer wars, that's a good enough reason for it.

  278. to paraphrase bill maher by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    It was a very English election:
    Pride and Prejudice 52%,
    Sense and Sensibility 48%

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  279. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1
    Replying to my own post here but:-

    [Corbyn] was so utterly lukewarm, half-baked and borderline invisible in his support for "Remain" that one suspects this may have been intentional.

    Hmm. Corbyn office 'sabotaged' EU Remain campaign - sources.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  280. Re: You made it, Syrians! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    EU will not tolerate easily the exit of a vassal. They will do their worst to punish the Brits for this act of high treason

    This will play into the hands of eurosceptic right wingers if they pitch it right. "See, EU is punishing UK for disobedience! We can be the next ones, if we turn down refugees again! Let's burn this sucker down before it happens!"

  281. Re: You made it, Syrians! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    It is a union for corporations trying to maximize their profits, there is not anything tangible in it for the people in the union or their economies beyond the interests of the corporations.

    Um, freedom of movement across EU, combined with the ability to seek a job in any country. That is actually very pro-people and anti-corporation (corporations prefer free flow of goods but restricted flow of labor, because then they can cash in on the difference in cost of living, labor protection laws etc between countries that manufacture and countries that consume).

  282. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    the queen will have her summer castle in a foreign country

    Elizabetta von Schsleswig-Holsten Pilsner (to use her actual name) has her *main* residence in a foreign country.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  283. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Germany has been united for over 25 years now. The separation still exists in their heads.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  284. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It's anti-corporation that people from Romania can flood the job markets in middle Europe easily? Gee, who would have thought...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  285. Re: You made it, Syrians! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is. It might not benefit you personally, but it sure does benefit those people from Romania way more than it benefits any corporation.

    Like I said, the way big corporations like it when they can produce shit in Romania, and pay people who make it the local prevailing wage. Then take the produced goods to you, and sell them for a price that's cheaper than what is possible with local labor, but still way more than what they actually paid in Romania. And pocket the difference. Simply put, they like to outsource, and free movement of labor is detrimental to outsourcing because they can't impose as much of a difference in wages as they could otherwise (since people will just move to where wages are higher beyond a certain threshold).

    I have to ask - why do you care about people from Romania flooding your job market, more so than people from some remote corner of your own country? What's the difference?

  286. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Mostly that they're more and the chance of pushing the wage average down is higher. And the very last thing we need is even less money on the demand side of the scale.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  287. Re: You made it, Syrians! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Well, then, you can push the wages even higher by having your region (or, hey, even city!) secede, and block everyone on the other side of the border from coming there to work. That way, the labor market will shrink, and the wages will skyrocket!

    Right?

    On a more serious note, economy is not a zero-sum game. Yes, they will depress your wages - short-term. But their country is itself a market, ripe for opportunity - and with truly open borders, your local companies (rather than transnational giants who can literally buy governments) can expand there, creating more jobs - both there (which reduces the number of people who come to compete with you locally) and here (management etc). It takes a while for this to play out, and yes, you need to do it slowly enough that it's not a shock to either economy - and I'm not sure whether EU was expanding slow enough for that, so there's a legitimate gripe there. But done right, the end result is better for everyone, because it means one less shitty country where people want to run away from and go anywhere else, even illegally (and end up living next door and "stealing your job" - and willing to work for pennies, because of just how shitty the place they came from is); where organized crime and other scum like human traffickers have a safe haven; where, eventually, discontent and jealousy breeds aggressive nationalism and/or terrorism.

  288. Re: You made it, Syrians! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Once the wages are down, the market is destroyed. Or, more exactly, once the wages are down and people can't refinance their homes anymore to live off borrowed money. THEN the market crashes. Simply due to lacking anyone able to buy anything anymore.

    Can't we ONCE learn a thing from history? Look at the depression of the 1930s. It is exactly the same, runs by exactly the same rules, has exactly the same reasons and exactly the same results. And we're even trying exactly the same useless solutions that were tried back then.

    The solution back then was a global war. I do hope we can avoid something like this this time around.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  289. Re: You made it, Syrians! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The EU economy is 5x larger than the UK economy. Also, some of the financial services are required by EU law to have their operations in the EU, so once the UK leaves, too damn bad, since everyone else will follow suit to be closer to those offices. The big banks are already looking at properties in Milan, Frankfurt, etc.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.