Politics Brexit: not inevitable

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,020
Reaction score
3,377
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
The EU referendum in the UK, which resulted in a vote in favour of the Brexit, sent a shockwave across the business and political world. The market reacted by wiping $2 trillion worth of assets after Moody's downgraded the UK's rating, and the GBP fell at its lowest level against the USD in 30 years. All media are talking about it as a catastrophe, and some EU leaders (Juncker, Schulz) are already requesting that the UK for submit its exit plan as soon as possible. During that time the Scots are planning a new referendum for their independence from the UK so that they can remain in the EU.

But why such extreme reaction on all parts? Are none of these politicians and economists aware that the referendum is not legally binding? In other words, David Cameron has the right to ignore the results of the referendum. Why wouldn't he since he has already decided to resign in October anyway. He's got nothing more to lose, and that is the only rational way of saving the country from actual disaster. There is no reason to listen to a bunch of lower-class nincompoops who had no idea what they were really voting for. The vast majority of educated Britons and of the top business people and politicians in the EU and the USA are strongly against Brexit, because it really will damage the UK and EU economy and reduce people's freedom of movement and political rights.

David Cameron could easily circumvent the decision of leaving the EU by asking parliament to vote on the issue. And since a majority of British MPs do not support Brexit, they will reject the referendum's results and that's the end of it. If British politicians had any common sense that is what they would do.

As usual The Economist summarises the situation brilliantly:

The Economist said:
The vote to Leave amounts to an outpouring of fury against the “establishment”. Everyone from Barack Obama to the heads of NATO and the IMF urged Britons to embrace the EU. Their entreaties were spurned by voters who rejected not just their arguments but the value of “experts” in general.

One of the drawbacks of democracy is that the uneducated masses usually have no idea of what is good for them as they do not understand how the economy works. The reality of Brexit would mean that many companies in the UK would relocated elsewhere in the EU or fire a large number of people. Personal taxes would have to increase to replace the lost corporate taxes. The lower pound would result in an increase of prices for most imported products, including food and clothes, and in more expensive holidays abroad. The lower and middle classes, those who voted in favour of Brexit, would be the hardest hit as they have the smallest disposable income and are the first to be laid off in case of recession. Some analysts warned that voting Brexit would equate to shooting oneself in the foot. But for ordinary people who do not have savings or investments in a variety of foreign currencies, and that is much worse than that. Brexit could push middle-class people into poverty.

One of the stupidest reason to vote for Brexit was the mistaken belief that it would limit undesirable immigration (e.g. of Syrian refugees) and lower the risk of terrorism. Haven't they noticed that the UK is not in the Schengen Area and that passport checks are already in place between the UK and the rest of the EU? And as Britain is an island, illegal immigrants cannot easily flock into the country anyway, unless anywhere in continental Europe (mind you, some Syrians even walked through Russia to get to Scandinavia). If anything, Brexit could push Britain to join Schengen, as Norway and Switzerland did, in order to keep freedom of movement with the EU, thus removing all of today's border controls. Anti-terrorism also works better when the police and secret services of different countries can work closely together, and that would work more efficiently within the EU.

I think that the main purpose of the referendum (from the political elite's point of view) was to have the opportunity to explain to the masses how overwhelmingly positive it is for the UK to remain in the EU (and for investors to profit from market volatility, but that's the cynical side of it). Unfortunately dimwits are and will always be dimwits. I know from experience that some people are incapable of understanding rational arguments presented to them, even when they are explained as plainly as possible and repeated again and again. I am convinced from having personally tried for years to instill knowledge and reason into less educated people that some people are too stupid for their own good. That 52% of Britons voted for Brexit just confirms one more time that most people have no idea of how the world works.

I suppose that all the media reaction we are witnessing now is just another show to scare the wannabe Brexiters into regretting their action by warning of the consequences. I expect that either the referendum's results will be rejected by the political class, or that a second referendum will be held.
 
Last edited:
If the British government ignores the referendum, this Brexit theme will keep on coming back on the agenda.
I don't think this would be a good idea.
We need clarity asap.
We can't wait till october.
 
Interesting scenario. Technically possible, though I doubt if any political party, currently ruling one including, would have guts to pull it off. Could be a political suicide and riots on streets.
 
From his point of view and in terms of the consequences for him I think Cameron made a huge blunder in calling for the referendum, but I don't think there's any way that a British politician could ignore it.

He was a class act in defeat, however.

Trump was the opposite of a class act. It may indeed be that we're seeing a sort of populist uprising with both the Brexit vote and Trump's rise, but he's suffering in U.S. polls because he's too much of a clown. He's also offended too many women, and deeply alienated a lot of Hispanics by some of his more extreme opinions. He could have gotten some of them, but they couldn't stomach the idea that their grandparents in some cases, here for decades, would be rounded up and deported. He just doesn't know when to shut up. George Bush had Laura to rein him in and tell him to cut down on the cowboy rhetoric, but Trump just has a mute Barbie doll.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by The Economist
The vote to Leave amounts to an outpouring of fury against the “establishment”. Everyone from Barack Obama to the heads of NATO and the IMF urged Britons to embrace the EU. Their entreaties were spurned by voters who rejected not just their arguments but the value of “experts” in general
.
But isn't it truth that they have listened to the politicians/establishment who claimed there will not be long lasting consequences of Brexit?
I think these "natural conservatives" listened only to anyone who confirmed their point of view, including many politicians/establishment and some economists. It is more of a typical behaviour of human being. We tend to agree with anyone who confirms our point of view, and consider it as truth.
It is more about people being uncertain and scared in today's geopolitical climate, and these emotions always bring "natural conservative" in us and we drift into isolationism. Build walls and hide.


I'm not saying that there are no issues with EU and economic and political establishment screwing few things up. They do screwed up a lot, but not more or less than in previous decades. So, I just don't think it explains the whole going extreme right or extreme left and growing isolationism and nationalism (we/they) trends in Europe and America.
 
Maciamo... Why do those on your side blame the dumb masses at every turn, while ignoring the elephant in the room? Radical Islam is driving this response. Frankly these voters are behaving in a rational manner--what trumps self-preservation?
 
Haven't seen you for quite a while.

Britain will come out all right. It will probably form some sort of relationship with the Scandinavians especially Denmark and Norway and also have closer ties with Canada, Ozzieland and New Zealand. Of course there is the USA and the Commonwealth. Britain is unique and different from other European countries as it has so many ties.
 
For all those who don't believe in a democratic vote from people, these people live in the wrong century........you mind is fixed on a feudal system.

Just realise that globalization, destroyed the middle-class and the vote was the reaction of the middle-class PLUS the lower class who once could achieve to get to the middle-class, but cannot due to the stupid system that has been adopted from the introduction of globalization.

England/Britain will be far better off out of Europe ...................they can ignore crazy Merkel now
 
The EU referendum in the UK, which resulted in a vote in favour of the Brexit, sent a shockwave across the business and political world. The market reacted by wiping $2 trillion worth of assets after Moody's downgraded the UK's rating, and the GBP fell at its lowest level against the USD in 30 years. All media are talking about it as a catastrophe, and some EU leaders (Juncker, Schulz) are already requesting that the UK for submit its exit plan as soon as possible. During that time the Scots are planning a new referendum for their independence from the UK so that they can remain in the EU.

But why such extreme reaction on all parts? Are none of these politicians and economists aware that the referendum is not legally binding? In other words, David Cameron has the right to ignore the results of the referendum. Why wouldn't he since he has already decided to resign in October anyway. He's got nothing more to lose, and that is the only rational way of saving the country from actual disaster. There is no reason to listen to a bunch of lower-class nincompoops who had no idea what they were really voting for. The vast majority of educated Britons and of the top business people and politicians in the EU and the USA are strongly against Brexit, because it really will damage the UK and EU economy and reduce people's freedom of movement and political rights.

David Cameron could easily circumvent the decision of leaving the EU by asking parliament to vote on the issue. And since a majority of British MPs do not support Brexit, they will reject the referendum's results and that's the end of it. If British politicians had any common sense that is what they would do.

As usual The Economist summarises the situation brilliantly:



One of the drawbacks of democracy is that the uneducated masses usually have no idea of what is good for them as they do not understand how the economy works. The reality of Brexit would mean that many companies in the UK would relocated elsewhere in the EU or fire a large number of people. Personal taxes would have to increase to replace the lost corporate taxes. The lower pound would result in an increase of prices for most imported products, including food and clothes, and in more expensive holidays abroad. The lower and middle classes, those who voted in favour of Brexit, would be the hardest hit as they have the smallest disposable income and are the first to be laid off in case of recession. Some analysts warned that voting Brexit would equate to shooting oneself in the foot. But for ordinary people who do not have savings or investments in a variety of foreign currencies, and that is much worse than that. Brexit could push middle-class people into poverty.

One of the stupidest reason to vote for Brexit was the mistaken belief that it would limit undesirable immigration (e.g. of Syrian refugees) and lower the risk of terrorism. Haven't they noticed that the UK is not in the Schengen Area and that passport checks are already in place between the UK and the rest of the EU? And as Britain is an island, illegal immigrants cannot easily flock into the country anyway, unless anywhere in continental Europe (mind you, some Syrians even walked through Russia to get to Scandinavia). If anything, Brexit could push Britain to join Schengen, as Norway and Switzerland did, in order to keep freedom of movement with the EU, thus removing all of today's border controls. Anti-terrorism also works better when the police and secret services of different countries can work closely together, and that would work more efficiently within the EU.

I think that the main purpose of the referendum (from the political elite's point of view) was to have the opportunity to explain to the masses how overwhelmingly positive it is for the UK to remain in the EU (and for investors to profit from market volatility, but that's the cynical side of it). Unfortunately dimwits are and will always be dimwits. I know from experience that some people are incapable of understanding rational arguments presented to them, even when they are explained as plainly as possible and repeated again and again. I am convinced from having personally tried for years to instill knowledge and reason into less educated people that some people are too stupid for their own good. That 52% of Britons voted for Brexit just confirms one more time that most people have no idea of how the world works.

I suppose that all the media reaction we are witnessing now is just another show to scare the wannabe Brexiters into regretting their action by warning of the consequences. I expect that either the referendum's results will be rejected by the political class, or that a second referendum will be held.

You're calling 52% of their population nincompoops? My only concern is that "Brexit" won't achieve the goals which the NATIVE/INDIGENOUS population of Britain sought to achieve. My fingers are crossed.

Aren't Norway and Switzerland doing just fine?
 
Interesting scenario. Technically possible, though I doubt if any political party, currently ruling one including, would have guts to pull it off. Could be a political suicide and riots on streets.

I very much doubt so. In the last two days Remain voters have managed to gather 2.5 million signatures and counting for a petition to hold a new referendum, hoping to overturn this one. There was already half a million signatures a few hours after the results were announced. At present half of the country is fuming and angry at Leave voters. Since the vast majority of young, motivated and energetic people are among those most angry at Brexit, it would be unwise not to listen to them. There are far more chances of having riots (+ a collapsed economy as I explained above) if the government decides to carry on with Brexit than if they try to defuse it by ignoring the 52% (mostly working class and elderly) for everyone's sake.
 
From his point of view and in terms of the consequences for him I think Cameron made a huge blunder in calling for the referendum, but I don't think there's any way that a British politician could ignore it.

I don't write much about politics, but in one of my few posts on British politics I had warned six years ago that electing David Cameron as Prime Minister might be disastrous and lead to the UK leaving the EU or hurting its relationship with the EU. Here is what I wrote in April 2010:

Maciamo said:
The way I see it is that David Cameron, if elected, might do a lot of damage, not to the EU but to Britain itself. Further opt-outs will end up penalising the UK without much effect on other members. His isolationist policies will give a bad image to Britain and possibly ostracise the British politically and economically. All the Tories will achieve is missing opportunities to influence the future of Europe. The pound might well fall further, which would render imports, so important for British consumers, exceptionally expensive, with direct effect to augment the cost of life and make Britons poorer.

It's exactly what happened, but in even worse, as it's not just led to opt-outs but the possibility of complete withdrawals from the EU.

Ironically in the meantime Mr Cameron changed his tune and led a strongly pro-EU campaign for the last few months. But he was elected on the promise to hold the referendum and since he miscalculated his ability to convince the electorate that EU membership is far better than the alternative, it did end up in a disaster.
 
Last edited:
(Its a little confusing having the same title on two threads. Can they be merged?)

Maciamo said:
David Cameron could easily circumvent the decision of leaving the EU by asking parliament to vote on the issue. And since a majority of British MPs do not support Brexit, they will reject the referendum's results and that's the end of it. If British politicians had any common sense that is what they would do.

In this case this is not possible and it will ridicule the democratic process. The referendum has been called for by the EU skeptics for a while and they are a strong and aggressive voice. There has been a long and heated debate prior to the referendum. The question was very clear. In or Out. so no one can really question the outcome of it. If you ask me this should have happened before. The Irony is that if the referendum was held say 10 years ago I have no doubt the leave campaign would not just have a 2% lead but much more. The results of the Younger age group says it all.
 
Maciamo... Why do those on your side blame the dumb masses at every turn, while ignoring the elephant in the room? Radical Islam is driving this response. Frankly these voters are behaving in a rational manner--what trumps self-preservation?

I can see that you have not followed the Leave vs Remain campaign closely in the last few months as I have. The Leave campaigners argued that EU citizens living in the UK costs the NHS (Britain's fully-subsidised healthcare system) billions of pounds, when in fact EU citizens in the UK contribute vastly more to the British economy than they cost it (UK gains £20 billion from European migrants according to a UCL economist). For this reason the Leave campaign is seen mostly as deceitful and xenophobic and has only been supported by Far Right parties in Europe, such as Marine Le Pen in France.

The question of Syrian refugees is irrelevant to the UK for three reasons:

1) Britain is an island and refugees can't just walk there by ignoring political borders, as they did elsewhere in Europe.

2) The UK is not in the EU's visa-free, border-free zone (Schengen Area), so leaving the EU won't change anything in that regard. In fact leaving the EU would surely prompt the UK to join Schengen like Norway and Switzerland and therefore allowing any Muslim immigrants accepted in, say, France or Greece, to legally live in the UK too. In other words being in the EU but not in Schengen allows Britain to benefit economically from the EU without having to open its borders.

3) There are almost no Syrian refugees in Britain today. Only 5000 have been accepted, much less than Denmark (which is 12x less populous than Britain) or Belgium, and even remote Australia (3x less populous than the UK). In comparison Germany has already welcomed 600,000 refugees, i.e. over one thousand times more than the UK ! You can check statistics on the number of Syrian refugees by country here.

So clearly Brexit has nothing to do with Syrian or other refugees. On the other hand, Britain has the third largest Muslim communities in Europe, nearly 5 million of them, mostly Pakistani and Bangladeshi from the former British Raj. Yet Brexit is not going to change anything about that. There has never been any talk by any party to expel Muslim immigrants - only European people living and working in the UK ! In fact, even Priti Patel, the British minister for employment, who is of Indian descent (although Hindu, not Muslim) ardently supported the Leave campaign.
 
The Irony is that if the referendum was held say 10 years ago I have no doubt the leave campaign would not just have a 2% lead but much more. The results of the Younger age group says it all.

You can't possibly know that. Young people are generally more open-minded, tolerant and cosmopolitan-minded than their elders. This was as true 10 years ago as it is today. What the Brexit vote has shown is a clear age gradient: the older people get, the more isolationist, bitter, resentful and xenophobic they tend to become, and the less the listen to rational arguments, preferring to vote with their guts and their feet instead. That describes the senescence of the human brain, not the fact that Britons born in the mid-20th century were less international-minded than young people today. In fact British people have been the most internationally minded and liberal people on Earth since the 18th century.

One probable reason why so many working class and retired people voted for Brexit is that they feel discontented with their lot and abandoned by their politicians. But this trend is happening all over the Western world, and is far worse in America or France than in Britain today. People just can trust or relate to their politicians anymore and feel that the wealth gap is widening and job prospect decreasing for the less educated or the less adaptable. So the Brexit vote was essentially a protest vote aimed at maiming the establishment and richer Londoners. Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party is Britain's equivalent to Europe's Far-Right parties, which have all been rising dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis.

Brexit was caused essentially by laid-off factory workers unhappy about their job being relocated to China, taxi drivers that can't cope with the rise of Uber, and an growing precariat forced to accept zero-hour contracts. But quitting the EU won't help solve the problem. In fact, the EU has been the principal force protecting workers from the excesses seen in American, and an England outside the EU will become increasingly like the USA, where half of the population now lives below or near the poverty line.
 
You're calling 52% of their population nincompoops? My only concern is that "Brexit" won't achieve the goals which the NATIVE/INDIGENOUS population of Britain sought to achieve. My fingers are crossed.

So when Priti Patel campaigns for Brexit, that's the native Britons trying to reclaim their country?

Aren't Norway and Switzerland doing just fine?

Both countries are special cases. Norway is rich thanks to petrol. It has as much petrol as the UK for 15x less inhabitants. Do the maths. Switzerland has enriched itself by protecting the money of Nazi leaders, African dictators, European and American tax evaders, and a whole lot of other morally dubious people. With banking secrecy coming to an end, Switzerland's future doesn't look bright.

Yet you will notice that both countries are part of the EU's Schengen Area, and Norway is also a full member of the European Economic Area (EEA). If Britain leaves the EU, many politicians and journalists have already made it clear that Britain (or most likely an isolated England) will have to seek a similar deal as Norway, but that could take up to a decade to negotiate and implement, leaving the England to deal with economic and political uncertainty until 2026, an age when the world will look nothing like what we know today due to the exponential growth of new technologies. By that time, most cars will be autonomous, domestic robots will do all our chores, agricultural robots will replace the last human farmers, we will be eating lab-grown meat and have transplants from lab-grown organs, universities and high schools will have been replaced by free online courses, any text or conversation will be instantly and perfectly translated in practically any language, brain-computer interfaces will connect our mind directly to the Internet, everyone will have free 5G Internet anywhere, and half of the people will be unemployed.

That's a lot of changes. I don't know if adding more changes and uncertainty by negotiating a protracted Brexit during this tumultuous period will be beneficial for people who already feel left out by society and technology, people who are too old to adapt to the modern world or not educated/intelligent enough to embrace the fast pace of change. Brexit or not, the rich and the young will always find a way to adapt, even if that means moving abroad. Those who voted for Brexit will ironically be left with even less than they have now by pushing away people who are paying their healthcare, well-fare and pensions.
 
You can't possibly know that.

indeed as there never was one (referendum), but the strong anti and often aggressive EU sentiment in the British parliament was always alive and well maybe even stronger then it is today. The main aggressive campaigners actually came from people outside the two big parties or without much influence on them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I
 
Last edited:
indeed as there never was one (referendum), but the strong anti and often aggressive EU sentiment in the British parliament was always alive and well maybe even stronger then it is today. The main aggressive campaigners actually came from people outside the two big parties or without much influence on them

Exactly, the real force behind Brexit was Nigel Farage and his UK Independence Party. The Conservative Party was supposed to be the most Eurosceptic, and yet Cameron, Osborne and most other Torys suddenly became convinced Europhiles and did all they could to prevent Brexit. That's because they were always truly pro-EU and only said otherwise to get the votes away from UKIP.
 
So when Priti Patel campaigns for Brexit, that's the native Britons trying to reclaim their country?



Both countries are special cases. Norway is rich thanks to petrol. It has as much petrol as the UK for 15x less inhabitants. Do the maths. Switzerland has enriched itself by protecting the money of Nazi leaders, African dictators, European and American tax evaders, and a whole lot of other morally dubious people. With banking secrecy coming to an end, Switzerland's future doesn't look bright.

Yet you will notice that both countries are part of the EU's Schengen Area, and Norway is also a full member of the European Economic Area (EEA). If Britain leaves the EU, many politicians and journalists have already made it clear that Britain (or most likely an isolated England) will have to seek a similar deal as Norway, but that could take up to a decade to negotiate and implement, leaving the England to deal with economic and political uncertainty until 2026, an age when the world will look nothing like what we know today due to the exponential growth of new technologies. By that time, most cars will be autonomous, domestic robots will do all our chores, agricultural robots will replace the last human farmers, we will be eating lab-grown meat and have transplants from lab-grown organs, universities and high schools will have been replaced by free online courses, any text or conversation will be instantly and perfectly translated in practically any language, brain-computer interfaces will connect our mind directly to the Internet, everyone will have free 5G Internet anywhere, and half of the people will be unemployed.

That's a lot of changes. I don't know if adding more changes and uncertainty by negotiating a protracted Brexit during this tumultuous period will be beneficial for people who already feel left out by society and technology, people who are too old to adapt to the modern world or not educated/intelligent enough to embrace the fast pace of change. Brexit or not, the rich and the young will always find a way to adapt, even if that means moving abroad. Those who voted for Brexit will ironically be left with even less than they have now by pushing away people who are paying their healthcare, well-fare and pensions.

The Swiss will do what they used to do from the XII century until few decades ago: mercenary.
 
(Its a little confusing having the same title on two threads. Can they be merged?)



In this case this is not possible and it will ridicule the democratic process. The referendum has been called for by the EU skeptics for a while and they are a strong and aggressive voice. There has been a long and heated debate prior to the referendum. The question was very clear. In or Out. so no one can really question the outcome of it. If you ask me this should have happened before. The Irony is that if the referendum was held say 10 years ago I have no doubt the leave campaign would not just have a 2% lead but much more. The results of the Younger age group says it all.

not so, the referendum itself and outcome is the result of the growing Euroscepticism which was not so strong 10 years ago
 
not so, the referendum itself and outcome is the result of the growing Euroscepticism which was not so strong 10 years ago

With all respect I am not too sure if you really know what you are talking about, or maybe not too familiar with British (more English) psyche towards the EU in general? especially from the conservative party?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I
 

This thread has been viewed 72691 times.

Back
Top