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.

80 of 1,592 comments (clear)

  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 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
    4. 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."
    5. 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...
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  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 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*
    3. 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".

    4. 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?

    5. 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...
    6. 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'?
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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 *
    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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
  3. 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 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?

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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 *
  4. 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 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.

    2. 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
  5. 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 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*
    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. Re:An omen of a Trump victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now if only you'd take your posts elsewhere. Reddit perhaps?

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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?"
       
      :(

  9. 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.

  10. 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?
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.

  19. 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
  20. 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."
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.

  27. 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
  28. 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).
  29. 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.

  30. 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.
  31. 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.