Politics Brexit: not inevitable

Referendum is the ultimate act of peoples will,
it is above kings, presidents, prime ministers,
it is the will of people,

referendum is pure democracy,
and democracy is a hard and cruel system.
peoples will is above everything,

THERE IS NO PURE DEMOCRACY, NEITHER A CONSTITUTION CHARTA is well founded or has power, IF NOT APROVED BY REFERENDUM.
although at modern times, some judges or some political parties, try to reject them,

the system of Greece from kingdom to democracy at 1970's was done with a referendum,
even today nobody say something about that, cause was peoples will,
but all say that Greece enter EU or NATO by political actions without asking the people, cause was not peoples will aproved by a referendum.
same to most EU countries,
A referendum is undeniable, and not to be arqued for one generation (about 27 years)
only after a generation can be asked again the same question,
it is not a statistical exit poll neither a life style like or not like,
IT IS THE STRONGEST ACT OF PURE HARD DEMOCRACY,

and although Plato many times spoke about δημοκρατια των αριστων, democracy of excellent people, nobody listen to him,
even at oligarchy of Sparta the apella, and at Makedonian kingdom the gatherings, democratical desicions were always above, even above Gods.
only Alexander dare once not hear, and he was abbandon and humiliated at next battle.

it is the ultimate way to keep your shelf in the 'team', respect your 'team', show your character and your generation, and prove that you are equal or better than your ancestors,
no matter if you are on the winners or on the losers side, the desicion is done, and must be respected,
it shows how descent noble and brave you are to serve the desicion of many,
although that does not mean that you may not have your ideas and speak academically about the oposite,
but you must obey the ultimate law of human society.

in fact politicians as the year before at Greece, many time ridicule the referendum with stupid questions,
but in the clear question that was at UK this time, and the so much media information, I think UK has given a lesson of pure democracy to all the world,

besides experts many times look their own profit, and not citizens profit,
many books were written about this, but Uberto Eco's 'the name of the rose' shows what experts many time think and understand.
and many times I wonder which are the limits of Democracy of excellent(experts) and Dictatorship of excellent(experts)
only rotten societies can not vote correct, and I do not believe UK is one of them. cause corruption and rust of society is an effect of rotten politicians, and I do not think UK is so much rotten,
or it was? that I can not tell, I only believe that UK citizens voice has spoke, and must be respected, instead of calling these people imbeciles,
even if brexit party took 48% we should also worry, cause 48% imbeciles means the world is turning in to stupidity,
and modern way of life creates HOMO IMBECILUS, instead of extra sapiens if we follow the principle that the ones who do not hear 'experts' are impecilles',
and their vote is just a crup. not to be taken serious.

Many Swiss people have thought or discussed about the idea of direct democracy or pure democracy. It is a concept that many people hold dear but in limitation. If a country decided to replace parliaments by pure democracy by holding referendums every day online for every political issue, using an official ID card to prevent fraudulent votes, that country would quickly fall into chaos. It would be like letting children or a bunch of monkeys taking the reins of the country. Many politicians are unknowledgeable but in many efficiently run countries they have teams of experts to advise them.

I don't think that abortion would have been legalized in any country if medical experts had not first said that it was safe until the 3rd month of pregnancy. Without experts people follow religions and traditions and social progress cannot happen.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
Indeed, more French and German dominance of the EU is to be expected, as the British counterweight has gone.
This could stimulate the desire for the exit of other member states.

That's right, although on the other side it also stimulates the tightening of the residual EU regime, which might strengthen EU in the short term. In any case both scenarios will not encourage approximation between EU nations. Probably in the very long term this will end badly for the EU, or EU will eventually consist of two or three big member states with one single strong government. Meanwhile I think that Britain will be finally better off than the EU in the long term, depending on what remains and what is worth to be called "EU".
After Britain, today the EU was downgraded by S&P.
 
damn it kicks me off,
I can write a full text.
 
That's right, although on the other side it also stimulates the tightening of the residual EU regime, which might strengthen EU in the short term. In any case both scenarios will not encourage approximation between EU nations. Probably in the very long term this will end badly for the EU, or EU will eventually consist of two or three big member states with one single strong government. Meanwhile I think that Britain will be finally better off than the EU in the long term, depending on what remains and what is worth to be called "EU".
After Britain, today the EU was downgraded by S&P.

The rerunning of elections in Austria will now serve as a barometer to were things are heading. If Norbert Hoffer manages to win with a clear mandate after the brexit experience then the real trouble is going to start.
 
Many Swiss people have thought or discussed about the idea of direct democracy or pure democracy. It is a concept that many people hold dear but in limitation. If a country decided to replace parliaments by pure democracy by holding referendums every day online for every political issue, using an official ID card to prevent fraudulent votes, that country would quickly fall into chaos. It would be like letting children or a bunch of monkeys taking the reins of the country. Many politicians are unknowledgeable but in many efficiently run countries they have teams of experts to advise them.

I don't think that abortion would have been legalized in any country if medical experts had not first said that it was safe until the 3rd month of pregnancy. Without experts people follow religions and traditions and social progress cannot happen.

what expert on abortion?

abortion was known from antique, remember silphium?

It was Lenin who first legalize it to show women that is with them, and welcome them to commustic ideas
It needed 53 years to reach USA and Texas to pass as law the 3 trimesters
1 the woman's choice
2 the doctors choice, (possibly lethal pregnacy)
3 not legal cause kills a formed human being,

Abortion is a diplomacy of judges and law to suit both womn's rights and religion-state,
at medieval times how many women choose abortion in order to avoid an unwanted pregnacy, for example from rape etc etc

ABORTION LEGALIZED AS THE FIRST DEMAND of women sufrage movements at USSR and much later at USA,
It was the legalization of abortion that started a new industry of family sex/reproduction programming and created the experts, not the oposite
and do you remember the 'experts' that suggested the spiaral-coil or the diaphragm, how many women suffered from those 'experts'?
at 1900 the experts suggested mercury for curing syphilis, no matter the reactions of mercury, today experts do they also suggest such?
so
EXPERTS OF BREXIT TOMOROW MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS WISE ONES, OR AS CLOWNS according the results,
don't rush to make them experts, most of them are just 'golden boys', parrots of another one voice-will
the experts suggested to use even planes to spread the DDT, with a huge enviromental disaster, found even at polar bears milk, which might even pass to humans,
Today is Forbiden, so do you believe that the experts of 1950's can be considered today as experts?
come on, just Golden boys with high publicity that suggest the easy way solution.

besides who expert is correct at a dilemma? the Yes one or the No one?
they are both experts.


I do not know about Swiss and referendums, but I know that in Denmark and Iceland are often, at least much often than in my country,

PS
If Swiss is about a referendum of joining EU for example,
Do you believe that you will not find experts that say no? or experts that say Yes?
so who is the expert then? The YES one? or the NO one?
then comes your power, your opinion-vote. the referendum,

PS2
expert = the one who is experienced with a working prosses, a model, a know how,
Do we have experience with a country leaving the EU? NO
then we have no experts, only modern Sibyllas or Cassandras etc etc.
since we have no experience, all these are just like modern prophets
It is like the court of Troy when show Myceneans outside the city.
No one is expert, but all want to say something for publicity, and some like to be prophets,or prognosticators, or clairvoyants to get the glory tomorrow
 
Who knows what the future will bring, but I just heard something to the effect that our stock market has recouped all of the Brexit "losses".

This just underscores how much of all of this is hysteria. An extraordinary decision, in my opinion, to re-run an entire presidential election. Were the postal votes enough in number to change the ultimate results? It was about 30,000 votes in total, right, that separated the two candidates?
 
I think it will happen. Juncker and friends have made quite clear that because Britain voted to leave, they want them out. He said there would be no hurried second referendum etc. "Out is out". It's sad this is what the EU has become. An Islamophile, fascist mess.
 
Who knows what the future will bring, but I just heard something to the effect that our stock market has recouped all of the Brexit "losses".

This just underscores how much of all of this is hysteria.

The stock market depends solely on the mood of the shareholders buyers and sellers and the kind of confidence they show at one particular time. Nothing has really changed economically in Britain (as yet), so the stock markets and just indication of moods and not tangible Economic results. We will have these tangible results in the months to come (after three months we would have the first indications, but it will be yet a longer journey) and the trend they will produce. That would all depend on commodity prices, investment in the country, the strength of the labor market and so on. To have a correct picture we are going to have to wait a minimum of two years when Britain officially pulls out completely from the EU with whatever package they would manage to obtain.

If over this period Britain remains economically sound as at present....then that is bad news for the EU (there will be an ongoing pressure for some countries to pull out)
If Britain performs Better then present............................................then its very bad news for the EU (and we see a number of countries pulling out)
If Britain Economy goes backward..................................................some anti EU sentiments will halt and maybe recede.




An extraordinary decision, in my opinion, to re-run an entire presidential election. Were the postal votes enough in number to change the ultimate results? It was about 30,000 votes in total, right, that separated the two candidates?

yes the difference was less then 1%. This will be a barometer in the short term. If Norbert Hoffer wins the election even with a small majority then we are seeing an on going steady momentum towards the dismantling of the EU. I will say no more.....I believe the saying 'history repeats itself' holds incredibly true.:unsure:...........
 
The stock market depends solely on the mood of the shareholders buyers and sellers and the kind of confidence they show at one particular time. Nothing has really changed economically in Britain (as yet), so the stock markets and just indication of moods and not tangible Economic results. We will have these tangible results in the months to come (after three months we would have the first indications, but it will be yet a longer journey) and the trend they will produce. That would all depend on commodity prices, investment in the country, the strength of the labor market and so on. To have a correct picture we are going to have to wait a minimum of two years when Britain officially pulls out completely from the EU with whatever package they would manage to obtain.

If over this period Britain remains economically sound as at present....then that is bad news for the EU (there will be an ongoing pressure for some countries to pull out)
If Britain performs Better then present............................................then its very bad news for the EU (and we see a number of countries pulling out)
If Britain Economy goes backward..................................................some anti EU sentiments will halt and maybe recede.






yes the difference was less then 1%. This will be a barometer in the short term. If Norbert Hoffer wins the election even with a small majority then we are seeing an on going steady momentum towards the dismantling of the EU. I will say no more.....I believe the saying 'history repeats itself' holds incredibly true.:unsure:...........

the US stock market fully recovered, European didn't, and the Euro and British pound dropped
and indeed stock markets are very nervous and tend to overreact
but these are signs not to be neglected
furthermore the UK and the EU both have been downgraded, I beleive it was by S&P

Brexit is not the biggest problem, it is a symptom
the EU should be a fantastic project, but it isn't because much of its potential is squandered by mismanagement and politicians who are not held accountable and look only at their own carreer/pension and interests
if EU government doesn't change its course more accidents will happen
 
the US stock market fully recovered, European didn't, and the Euro and British pound dropped
and indeed stock markets are very nervous and tend to overreact
but these are signs not to be neglected
furthermore the UK and the EU both have been downgraded, I beleive it was by S&P

Brexit is not the biggest problem, it is a symptom
the EU should be a fantastic project, but it isn't because much of its potential is squandered by mismanagement and politicians who are not held accountable and look only at their own carreer/pension and interests
if EU government doesn't change its course more accidents will happen

I think as long as Britain keeps hanging 'in limbo', and the situation is unresolved one way or another, this economic damage (for both sides) is permanent. This is one of the key reasons why the EU has been so decisive about starting exit negotiations as quickly as possible. If and when Brexit happens after all, my suspicion is that it will harm Britain more than it does the EU, especially because the "vision" of the pro-Brexit crowd for Britain is essentially one of a narrow-minded country that wishes to isolate itself from the rest of the world. Being outside of the EU will not make Britain be a more attractive place to make business, certainly not for the anglophone countries / Britain's former colonies - their main incentive was that Britain was in the EU. I do not think that people from the Commonwealth will be any more welcome in the UK if citizens from other EU countries are not. A Norwegian/Swiss-style trade deal with the EU seems also unlikely, even if this would alleviate many of Britain's problems, mainly because it would defeat the purpose of leaving the EU in the first place: this would mean adhering to basically all obligations of the EU with respect for free travel without being actually part of the EU. Another aspect I see: Britain as a place for science will receive a massive blow - the UK has profited immensely from EU research funds, and these will go away. My suspicion is that British academia will "crash and burn" like the NHS. The same applies for agricultural business that profits from EU subventions while the UK is still in the EU. In summary, I do not see a way how Britain will come out in any way as superior in this - and all of this analysis does not account for the possibility that the UK falls apart, which, I think, is a very grave danger at this point, and one issue where I genuinely blame both the adherents of the pro-exit camp and the pro-remain camp is that they did not warn about these dangers enough.

Cameron was elected, the EU leaders are not.
That being said, referenda are stupid.
Don't overestimate the voters judgement.


If the EU leaders are not democratically elected, for what purpose did I participate two years ago in the European Parliament elections? For what purpose did I participate in the German federal election in 2013? You may not like Angela Merkel (I wouldn't blame you there if you did), but she's the elected head of government of Germany, and therefore she's an elected member of the European Council.
 
Last edited:
I genuinely blame both the adherents of the pro-exit camp and the pro-remain camp is that they did not warn about these dangers enough.

I believe that there has been lots of warnings but a huge section of the populations have deaf ears for the warnings and follow people that tell them otherwise giving an outlook of certainty and reassurance, and managed to process in their minds that all warnings is scaremongering garbage and tricks how to take people for a ride.

The Buzz words are:-
anti establishment (what is the definition of establishment?)
Politically correct (what does it mean not be Politically correct?)

Mix immigration and terrorist attacks which would naturally amplify Nationalistic sentiments and voila - you get the perfect bomb

Cornwall that has received much EU aid in return to the ailing Fishing industry have voted to Leave. But now are already claiming For the British Government to match the aid received from the EU.
 
If the EU leaders are not democratically elected, for what purpose did I participate two years ago in the European Parliament elections? For what purpose did I participate in the German federal election in 2013? You may not like Angela Merkel (I wouldn't blame you there if you did), but she's the elected head of government of Germany, and therefore she's an elected member of the European Council.

there are places at EU were the occupiers are not elected,
if remember correct place like Barozo or Van Rompuy and some others are not elected,
 
Last edited:
I think as long as Britain keeps hanging 'in limbo', and the situation is unresolved one way or another, this economic damage (for both sides) is permanent. This is one of the key reasons why the EU has been so decisive about starting exit negotiations as quickly as possible. If and when Brexit happens after all, my suspicion is that it will harm Britain more than it does the EU, especially because the "vision" of the pro-Brexit crowd for Britain is essentially one of a narrow-minded country that wishes to isolate itself from the rest of the world. Being outside of the EU will not make Britain be a more attractive place to make business, certainly not for the anglophone countries / Britain's former colonies - their main incentive was that Britain was in the EU. I do not think that people from the Commonwealth will be any more welcome in the UK if citizens from other EU countries are not. A Norwegian/Swiss-style trade deal with the EU seems also unlikely, even if this would alleviate many of Britain's problems, mainly because it would defeat the purpose of leaving the EU in the first place: this would mean adhering to basically all obligations of the EU with respect for free travel without being actually part of the EU. Another aspect I see: Britain as a place for science will receive a massive blow - the UK has profited immensely from EU research funds, and these will go away. My suspicion is that British academia will "crash and burn" like the NHS. The same applies for agricultural business that profits from EU subventions while the UK is still in the EU. In summary, I do not see a way how Britain will come out in any way as superior in this - and all of this analysis does not account for the possibility that the UK falls apart, which, I think, is a very grave danger at this point, and one issue where I genuinely blame both the adherents of the pro-exit camp and the pro-remain camp is that they did not warn about these dangers enough.




If the EU leaders are not democratically elected, for what purpose did I participate two years ago in the European Parliament elections? For what purpose did I participate in the German federal election in 2013? You may not like Angela Merkel (I wouldn't blame you there if you did), but she's the elected head of government of Germany, and therefore she's an elected member of the European Council.

Your observations are very insightful.

I cannot emphasise too much how shocking the result has been to most people in the UK - it was very unexpected. Those voting to leave were mainly older, poorer and less skilled workers. Their votes have condemned the country to economic decline and will, ironically adversely affect those groups the most. For the most part the "complaint" of those voting to leave, was immigration - despite the fact that EU membership is largely irrelevant to the type of immigration mostly complained about.

For my part I feel bereaved - I have had my country stolen from me by a small margin of an ill-informed vote.

I have however been heartened by the very wide spectrum of people supporting and campaigning for a reversal the decision. Implementation of Article 50 is not a foregone conclusion (referenda have no status in the UK constitution - only Parliament can decide the matter) and, even if it is triggered, it is very possible that during the 2 year exit period there will be an election following which a new government would not feel bound by it. If that were to happen there would be no obligation on the EU to halt the process of departure, but it remains a real hope.

The divisions in British society caused by this issue are very deep indeed. No serious business commentator suggests that the UK would do well in the world market - and most rightly expect the country to do very significantly worse. My own view is that the economic arguments are broadly irrelevant - the European project was built on the foundations of reconciliation after 2 catastrophic European wars in the 20th Century caused by the growth of nationalism in the 19th. To give up on the creation of the worlds first non-nationalist state as a guarantee of peace and security is to betray the sacrifices of millions of Europeans who died in those terrible conflicts.

Please do not think that the result of the vote is representative of the heart of the UK - for most people here under 50, Europe remains our destiny. Current events are a tragedy in the making and a huge self-inflicted wound. Please help us.

David
 
Your observations are very insightful.

I cannot emphasise too much how shocking the result has been to most people in the UK - it was very unexpected. Those voting to leave were mainly older, poorer and less skilled workers. Their votes have condemned the country to economic decline and will, ironically adversely affect those groups the most. For the most part the "complaint" of those voting to leave, was immigration - despite the fact that EU membership is largely irrelevant to the type of immigration mostly complained about.

For my part I feel bereaved - I have had my country stolen from me by a small margin of an ill-informed vote.

I have however been heartened by the very wide spectrum of people supporting and campaigning for a reversal the decision. Implementation of Article 50 is not a foregone conclusion (referenda have no status in the UK constitution - only Parliament can decide the matter) and, even if it is triggered, it is very possible that during the 2 year exit period there will be an election following which a new government would not feel bound by it. If that were to happen there would be no obligation on the EU to halt the process of departure, but it remains a real hope.

The divisions in British society caused by this issue are very deep indeed. No serious business commentator suggests that the UK would do well in the world market - and most rightly expect the country to do very significantly worse. My own view is that the economic arguments are broadly irrelevant - the European project was built on the foundations of reconciliation after 2 catastrophic European wars in the 20th Century caused by the growth of nationalism in the 19th. To give up on the creation of the worlds first non-nationalist state as a guarantee of peace and security is to betray the sacrifices of millions of Europeans who died in those terrible conflicts.

Please do not think that the result of the vote is representative of the heart of the UK - for most people here under 50, Europe remains our destiny. Current events are a tragedy in the making and a huge self-inflicted wound. Please help us.

David
Great post David, welcome to Eupedia.
 
No offense to British, but as an American from the South, I am thinking that this Brexit may have actually been a bad idea. I am more right-wing than left. But leaving the EU seems like a total disaster.

I can understand the British and their want to keep immigration down or their dissatisfaction withthe EU. But still, if they do not collaborate with the EU; as well as potential threats like Russia, there may very-well be a risk that the downfall can become quite disastrous. Economically, internationally and socially.

(Just if anyone wanted this Southerners' opinion.) The UK separating from the EU seems to carry potential hazard...I was originally thinking it would have been a good idea, but I suddenly realize that it may hurt UK and even the rest of the EU. This leaves only my country (the USA, as well as Canada) to cover UK while leaving Europe hung out to dry. It makes us also more vulnerable to get into a potential conflict with Russia, and that doesn't seem like a good thing.

 
While on the subject ... I may hold some very unpopular and maverick political views. It may be a little too late to gripe. But I would much rather candidate Bernie Sanders (D) as the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton just doesn't seem to have the ability to manage to Russia and help both nations compromise more effectively. But, Donald Trump (R) himself isn't one of the best out there either.
 
Your observations are very insightful.

I cannot emphasise too much how shocking the result has been to most people in the UK - it was very unexpected. Those voting to leave were mainly older, poorer and less skilled workers. Their votes have condemned the country to economic decline and will, ironically adversely affect those groups the most. For the most part the "complaint" of those voting to leave, was immigration - despite the fact that EU membership is largely irrelevant to the type of immigration mostly complained about.

For my part I feel bereaved - I have had my country stolen from me by a small margin of an ill-informed vote.

I have however been heartened by the very wide spectrum of people supporting and campaigning for a reversal the decision. Implementation of Article 50 is not a foregone conclusion (referenda have no status in the UK constitution - only Parliament can decide the matter) and, even if it is triggered, it is very possible that during the 2 year exit period there will be an election following which a new government would not feel bound by it. If that were to happen there would be no obligation on the EU to halt the process of departure, but it remains a real hope.

The divisions in British society caused by this issue are very deep indeed. No serious business commentator suggests that the UK would do well in the world market - and most rightly expect the country to do very significantly worse. My own view is that the economic arguments are broadly irrelevant - the European project was built on the foundations of reconciliation after 2 catastrophic European wars in the 20th Century caused by the growth of nationalism in the 19th. To give up on the creation of the worlds first non-nationalist state as a guarantee of peace and security is to betray the sacrifices of millions of Europeans who died in those terrible conflicts.

Please do not think that the result of the vote is representative of the heart of the UK - for most people here under 50, Europe remains our destiny. Current events are a tragedy in the making and a huge self-inflicted wound. Please help us.

David
I couldn't agree more. A lot of the European economy seems to be dependent on Russia for a few resources as well. And if the USA chooses to back the UK more and not EU countries, then there could be an international fight over resources. And this could bankrupt us all involved (North America, Britain, Europe and Russia together.) This Brexit was like stabbing Europe in the back. I feel a lot of people will feel resentful and disgruntled to England for this dire decision. The Irish are already bickering; and it seems the Scottish are pondering on another independence referendum. Wales voting to leave (as well as with England), was a shock to me. What is worse, is that I think this will make the Irish resurrect a grudge against the British.
 
I think it will happen. Juncker and friends have made quite clear that because Britain voted to leave, they want them out. He said there would be no hurried second referendum etc. "Out is out". It's sad this is what the EU has become. An Islamophile, fascist mess.
No. Same old Croatian spouting hatred and hypocrisy... People like you are what lead Brexit to exist. Because a large percentage of neo-Fascists voted for it, evidently. (UKIP + National Front). Take your nationalist crap elsewhere. You already helped Yugoslavia to break and now are spewing hatred for your Bosniak buddies? What more do you want? And tell me then, who is the real "Fascist" now?
 
Relax folks, Brexit was the better option.

And as an American, I feel pity for Putin if he thinks Germany or the UK are now in play in any way.
 

This thread has been viewed 72690 times.

Back
Top