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.

78 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: 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".

    2. 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...
    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 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."
    6. 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...
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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*
    4. 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".

    5. 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?

    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 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*
    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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."
    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 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.
    16. 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.

    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. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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?
    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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.
  6. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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
  7. 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?

  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!

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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*
  15. 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 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. So the UK says to the EU... by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Funny

    See eu later!

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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
  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.

  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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).
  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.
  39. 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 *
  40. 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."