Brexit shenanigans

[HenryJames 65884]

 

[HenryJames 65884]

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

In this context, it’s reminiscent of the old Kinison rant: “we have deserts in America...we just don’t live in them! Go where the food is!”

Sorry your town is dying. Leave, and go where the jobs are. W. Va coal miners, I found your jobs. They are now construction and oil jobs in Texas. Go there.

And politicians lying to these people, and telling them that stay put, I have a plan to bring the jobs to you, is hurting us all. A lot.

There’s a living to be made in the new EU and UK...it ain’t in a dying town in the middle of nowhere.

Trouble is, most of the UK is losing ground. British Steel, coal, cotton milling, shipbuilding, automaking, etc...all gone or greatly diminished. London has become a dystopian nightmare full of Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes and other such obscenely wealthy reprobates. Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. And expensive. 

Ex father in law spent a good chunk of his life working in Germany and the UAE....I'm curious if jobs like those are still available to semi-skilled guys like him. (He is a rough old cob -- a lefty who loves to get drunk and fight, or at least he did when I knew him. He claimed his mates in Germany called him "The Dusseldorf Destroyer.") That was so prevalent in the '80s and '90s, there was a popular BBC sitcom about it -- Auf Wiedersehen, Pet. 

Now, as I understand it, those jobs are going to Indians and Filipinos, so there's another avenue gone. And it wasn't a very attractive one to begin with -- yes, the pay was outstanding for someone with his relative lack of education, but the trade-off was you were away from your family most of the time. 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Also, I must admit that there is a very strong racist component to this; I was somewhat incorrect in my saying it was more about Poles than Pakistanis. It's about both...Ex and I had a long talk about this yesterday and she told me her dad has become more and more and more racist over time, to the point where she has told him to stop sending her British FW:FW:FW emails about the "blasted Pakis."

But I also have to say this: a great many of the South Asians are doing a piss-poor job of assimilating. And that's where everything about England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, gets especially terrifying. It makes you start thinking like Steve Bannon, with his ideas of a war between cultures.

[HenryJames 65884]

What does it all mean, Hugo? What does it all mean?!

[Biff Tannen 45491]

It means Rohrabacher is a traitor, but we already knew that.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

The EU is going for fiscal unification.  All your tax revenues are belong to us. Not sure why the UK would go for that.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/20/france-germany-curb-national-sovereignty/

[bolverk 29394]

I'm not clicking on any Breitbart article. Why don't you provide us with the pertinent text?

From the url, I can only guess that this has to do with Franco-German discussions regarding common fiscal policies for the Eurozone area, the lack of which has long been blamed by economists as the cause for the Greek crisis a few years ago.

You do realize that the UK has never been in the Eurozone and has never expressed interest in joining it, right? And, as such, this issue is entirely irrelevant to Brexit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[workswithseed 2033]

On 11/21/2018 at 2:42 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Yeah, that seems so democratic there.

[NBMisha 224]

This is much worse than our current situation.  But it is symptomatic of where we are headed.

Traitors running the show.

[Brisketexan 104537]

22 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, that seems so democratic there.

Sounds like an interesting piece of evidence to present to the people.....

In a vote about whether they wish to proceed with the specific proposal.  Because the twitter post you are responding to remains the simple truth.  The people voted "we want to move away from here!"  And now, the leadership has negotiated the best deal they can get: you get to move to a trailer outside of Bismarck, N.D.  So, do you want that deal or not?  Your approach is "you said you wanted to move, now enjoy your trailer!" The sane, and democratic approach is "you voted in favor of the IDEA of moving.  Now, here is the REALITY of moving.  How do you now vote?"

Put the matter to the people to decide.  If they decide that this is the deal that they want, then that's how they will vote, and I'm sure they will enjoy many happy years  outside of Bismarck.  But they should have the opportunity to decide.  It is their fate.  Now that they know what it will look like, they should be allowed to decide it.  You oppose it, because you know as well as I do that a trailer outside of Bismarck/this Brexit deal sucks.  Reality often does, when compared with the fantasy that gave rise to the quixotic quest in the first place. 

Or perhaps you never loaded up the car with your buddies, and headed to Spring Break, where you all were TOTALLY  gonna score with all those hot midwestern girls who never got to hang around cool Texas guys, and this was totally gonna be like shooting fish in a barrel!  And then you spent a week at the beach, which was fun and all, and you got plenty drunk, but you only managed to sorta hook up with this one girl from Wichita State who looked okay in the dim light of the club, but turned out to be a shade bigger than your buddy nicknamed "Tiny."

The  UK voted to "pursue the dream."  Now, the "dream" has manifested itself into cold, hard "reality."  They should vote on that, too.  Just like you should have had the chance to bail on getting sloppy in the hot tub with Wilma from Wichita State.  Dude, she even kinda had a mustache.  Come on, man.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sounds like an interesting piece of evidence to present to the people.....

In a vote about whether they wish to proceed with the specific proposal.  Because the twitter post you are responding to remains the simple truth.  The people voted "we want to move away from here!"  And now, the leadership has negotiated the best deal they can get: you get to move to a trailer outside of Bismarck, N.D.  So, do you want that deal or not?  Your approach is "you said you wanted to move, now enjoy your trailer!" The sane, and democratic approach is "you voted in favor of the IDEA of moving.  Now, here is the REALITY of moving.  How do you now vote?"

Put the matter to the people to decide.  If they decide that this is the deal that they want, then that's how they will vote, and I'm sure they will enjoy many happy years  outside of Bismarck.  But they should have the opportunity to decide.  It is their fate.  Now that they know what it will look like, they should be allowed to decide it.  You oppose it, because you know as well as I do that a trailer outside of Bismarck/this Brexit deal sucks.  Reality often does, when compared with the fantasy that gave rise to the quixotic quest in the first place. 

Or perhaps you never loaded up the car with your buddies, and headed to Spring Break, where you all were TOTALLY  gonna score with all those hot midwestern girls who never got to hang around cool Texas guys, and this was totally gonna be like shooting fish in a barrel!  And then you spent a week at the beach, which was fun and all, and you got plenty drunk, but you only managed to sorta hook up with this one girl from Wichita State who looked okay in the dim light of the club, but turned out to be a shade bigger than your buddy nicknamed "Tiny."

The  UK voted to "pursue the dream."  Now, the "dream" has manifested itself into cold, hard "reality."  They should vote on that, too.  Just like you should have had the chance to bail on getting sloppy in the hot tub with Wilma from Wichita State.  Dude, she even kinda had a mustache.  Come on, man.

Bro, you're a terrible analyst, but seriously you should start writing novels. People will pay you for your work. It's a waste of intellect to be posting here.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

Bro, you're a terrible analyst, but seriously you should start writing novels. People will pay you for your work. It's a waste of intellect to be posting here.

It's okay, dude.  She was fat and had a mustache, but you had fun, and that's what matters.

And, of course, letting the people vote on reality instead of just their fantasy.  Why are you so afraid of that?

[workswithseed 2033]

"How do you now vote?" You vote to stay. May is fucking Britain with this deal, so you might as well vote against that garbage. 

That video is just down right frightening. Someone calling for your autonomy to be stripped for the "greater good", just seems like a dangerous path to follow.

Edited November 24, 2018 by workswithseed

[NBMisha 224]

Yea, why?   

Because the vote will turn out otherwise and the prior leaders will be run out of town on a rail.  And avoiding that outcome is the most important thing, i.e. the true will of the people.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

 

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's okay, dude.  She was fat and had a mustache, but you had fun, and that's what matters.

And, of course, letting the people vote on reality instead of just their fantasy.  Why are you so afraid of that?

It's their country, and generally speaking I hold a low opinion of Brits. But I am mystified that they would want to completely abandon sovereignty in military, economic, and fiscal matters to a technocratic dictatorship located in Brussels. I simply don't understand the appeal.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Thetexashammer 1062]

dp

Edited November 24, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Brisketexan 104537]

7 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

"How do you now vote?" You vote to stay. May is fucking Britain with this deal, so you might as well vote against that garbage. 

That video is just down right frightening. Someone calling for your autonomy to be stripped for the "greater good", just seems like a dangerous path to follow.

Sure it is.  But you're going to have that voice in almost every movement/body of government.  Seriously, it's a feature of both the right, left, and wacky fringes of all directions.

The interesting thing is, reading your comment, I can't tell whether you're talking about the video of the EU discussion, or of the parliament discussion.  Which, again, is my point.  And HERE, we actually have the opportunity for people to have a vote on a real-world decision.  They should do that.  They've already voted on the vague.  Now, they should vote on the specific.

[workswithseed 2033]

5 minutes ago, NBMisha said:

Yea, why?   

Because the vote will turn out otherwise and the prior leaders will be run out of town on a rail.  And avoiding that outcome is the most important thing, i.e. the true will of the people.

People of all sorts hate the May deal, that never changed the fact that people wanted to leave the EU. 

They should have never given this to a stay candidate. Whatever Britain did the EU would never agreed with it, so you might as well go full tilt.

[Brisketexan 104537]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

It's their country, and generally speaking I hold a low opinion of Brits. But I am mystified that they would want to completely abandon sovereignty in military, economic, and fiscal matters to a technocratic dictatorship located in Brussels. I simply don't understand the appeal.

1) they aren't "completely abandoning sovereignty," and they never did so.  You vastly overstate the relationship with the EU.

2) AND, they chose to surrender SOME sovereignty for benefits that outweighed the value of that sovereignty.  Just like each of the states did when it joined the Union to become part of the United States.  That inherently involved surrendering some sovereignty, which, on occasion, has chapped the ass of several individual states.  But in exchange, they have been a part of a political and economic union that has become the most powerful and prosperous in the world.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.  With any union comes both sacrifices and benefits.  When those are brought into sharp focus, as they are now, the people should decide if they are worth it or not.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

In the last week, EU leaders across the continent have made clear that the EU is seeking both fiscal and military union. Scotland, to take one example, wanted independence.

 

It's their country, and generally speaking I hold a low opinion of Brits. But I am mystified that they would want to completely abandon sovereignty in military and fiscal matters to a technocratic dictatorship located in Brussels. I simply don't understand the appeal.

Scotland is dragged into Brexit with the UK. They want independence from the UK so they can rejoin the EU.

The UK was never part of the monetary union. Actually, un-Brexiting is their last chance at ever being an EU member while keeping the pound. In 10 years, if they want to rejoin, it will be Euro or nothing.

A military union is ideal. Right now, they have wasteful, redundant, and ineffective units. Confederacies, which they currently are, are never completely stable. Actual federalism is and should be the goal. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

People of all sorts hate the May deal, that never changed the fact that people wanted to leave the EU. 

They should have never given this to a stay candidate. Whatever Britain did the EU would never agreed with it, so you might as well go full tilt.

Which would be even worse economically for the UK. There is no good way or reason to Brexit as long as the rest of the EU band stays together. The UK is Pete Best once they're out.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) they aren't "completely abandoning sovereignty," and they never did so.  You vastly overstate the relationship with the EU.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/frances-macron-urges-reforms-to-make-eu-stronger/1314812#

Quote

Macron stressed that EU member states should move forward with plans to deepen fiscal integration, develop a common asylum policy, and create common defense structures.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-23/eu-budget-plan-is-europe-s-first-small-step-to-fiscal-reform

Quote

French President Emmanuel Macron has advocated a joint euro-zone budget, but Germany’s Angela Merkel up to now has resisted, fearing this would lead to persistent transfers from strong economies (meaning Germany) to struggling ones such as Greece and Italy. 

https://www.thelocal.de/20181113/merkel-calls-for-a-real-true-european-army

Quote

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday made a clear call for a future European army, in an apparent rebuke to US President Donald Trump who has called such proposals "very insulting".

Addressing European MEPs on her vision for the future of Europe, Merkel also called for a European Security Council that would centralise defence and security policy on the continent.

"What is really important, if we look at the developments of the past year, is that we have to work on a vision of one day creating a real, true European army," Merkel told a session of European Parliament, drawing applause and some boos.

I mean, you can deny it, but you're the last horse to leave the barn. I'm embarrassed for you.

Additionally, you referred to the individual in the video posted above as "fringe". Guy Verhofstadt was Belgian PM for a decade. He is now the leader of the ALDE, which wikipedia calls "liberal-centrist". Liberal, in this usage., refers to classical liberal according to Wikipedia.what 

I mean, you can't get basic facts right. Verhofstadt's position is entirely mainstream establishment doctrine, shared with Merkel, Macron, and elites everywhere.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Brisketexan 104537]

"Should"

"Advocated for"

"Called for"

You were saying?  Fantasy.  Reality.  There's a difference.   

[workswithseed 2033]

21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Which would be even worse economically for the UK. There is no good way or reason to Brexit as long as the rest of the EU band stays together. The UK is Pete Best once they're out.

And the most brexiters knew this, but they wanted control over their own country.

[Brisketexan 104537]

4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

And the most brexiters knew this, but they wanted control over their own country.

Cool.  And if that's the ultimate choice they want to make, now that it's reality, not fantasy, let them make that choice. If they decide that the SPECIFIC sacrifice is worth it for "control," then so be it.

Every single political union -- whether it's the choice to live within the city limits, choice to live in a particular state, choice of that state to join the union that is the United States, choice of a country to enter into a treaty/economic union, involves surrender of some level of control in exchange for some sort of benefit.  It's a calculus performed literally millions of times.  It's performed, on a micro level, each time someone chooses to buy a house inside the city limits (with access to city services, and city rules that do things like keep a shooting range from opening up next door to you, but also includes city rules and city taxes) as opposed to a house in the county (more freedom, fewer services, less control over what your neighbor may do that may end up annoying as hell).  Either choice is fine -- each individual or  group of people can weigh the costs/benefits differently.  But they should weigh the ACTUAL costs and benefits, as opposed to the speculative/fantasy costs and benefits.  I sure wouldn't want to choose to live in a generic "city limits" unless I knew a LOT more about which city, what kind of taxes and regulations it will have, what are the costs of property in that city, what are the actual city services I will be able to receive, do they provide them worth a shit, etc.  I'd vote to move to a city if it was Houston, or Denver.  I'd vote not to if it was Detroit or San Francisco (and my "no" would have different reasons for each city).

Reality is on the table.  Reality is what should be voted on.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

48 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

And the most brexiters knew this, but they wanted control over their own country.

They still won't have control over it. London will.  You do realize that the biggest schism in Brexit is between London and the countryside, right? 

Nobody is going to do anything for the countryside, especially when London has to now circle the wagons itself. 

 

[Brisketexan 104537]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

They still won't have control over it. London will.  You do realize that the biggest schism in Brexit is between London and the countryside, right? 

Nobody is going to do anything for the countryside, especially when London has to now circle the wagons itself. 

 

But the IDEA of 'controlling your own destiny," and "telling the rest of the world to fuck off!" is worth it; I mean, the REALITY, where neither of those things work out at all, well, we should ignore that, because the people have spoken...once...before anything was real!

[workswithseed 2033]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But the IDEA of 'controlling your own destiny," and "telling the rest of the world to fuck off!" is worth it; I mean, the REALITY, where neither of those things work out at all, well, we should ignore that, because the people have spoken...once...before anything was real!

Thats what the U.S. did.

Not having to be controlled by a bigger government with people that get appointed in to "represent" you. Sounds fun to be controlled with no say.

[bolverk 29394]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

And the most brexiters knew this, but they wanted control over their own country.

No, they didn't. Many of those who voted in favor of Brexit did so on the basis of multiple bald-faced lies (it'll be cheap and EASY!) told to them by many of the same fuckers who brought us Trump.

[bolverk 29394]

15 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Thats what the U.S. did.

Not having to be controlled by a bigger government with people that get appointed in to "represent" you. Sounds fun to be controlled with no say.

European countries hold national elections to vote on their nations' representatives in the European parliament.

[workswithseed 2033]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

European countries hold national elections to vote on their nations' representatives in the European parliament.

Which appoint the EU members who makes laws. If we should get rid of the electoral college, then that should also be dropped like a hot potato.

 

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

No, they didn't. Many of those who voted in favor of Brexit did so on the basis of multiple bald-faced lies (it'll be cheap and EASY!) told to them by many of the same fuckers who brought us Trump.

And like us, they should have known they were bald faced lies. 

[NBMisha 224]

Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone has to suffer for all time because of that error.  Your argument supports another vote.

We'll have ours.

[GopherRock 1765]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-12-05/u-k-trapped-in-irish-backstop-legal-advice-says-brexit-update

 

This is what May has been fighting to keep under wraps: a hard border in the Irish Sea. Considering the Ulstermen are what's keeping the Government together, this isn't going to end well for May.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

On 11/25/2018 at 3:28 AM, NBMisha said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone has to suffer for all time because of that error.  Your argument supports another vote.

We'll have ours.

That does pose an interesting question.  Why is this particular referendum being considered final and forever?  An aggy 100 year decision.  And what does final even mean?  100 years from now, its still "nope, people spoke 100 years ago, can't vote to rejoin the EU."  Or is it "process has to finish, once we are out, we can vote to rejoin, then after we are back in, we can vote to leave again."

[Brisketexan 104537]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That does pose an interesting question.  Why is this particular referendum being considered final and forever?  An aggy 100 year decision.  And what does final even mean?  100 years from now, its still "nope, people spoke 100 years ago, can't vote to rejoin the EU."  Or is it "process has to finish, once we are out, we can vote to rejoin, then after we are back in, we can vote to leave again."

There's one reason: that narrative is being pushed by the pro-Brexit crowd and their outside manipulators/taskmasters because.....they know that if this actual plan is presented to the people for approval, ACTUAL Brexit (as opposed to hypothetical Brexit, which was the subject of the prior referendum) will be rejected.

It's like Jim getting permission from his parents to go over to Bob's house on Saturday night.  But then his parents find out that Bob's folks are out of town, and Bob's going to be throwing a rager with all the weed, and all the kegs, and all the loose women (note to self -- check out Bob's place on Saturday).  Parents say "well, now that we know what will ACTUALLY be going on at Bob's, you can't go."  Jim pitches a fit -- but you made a decision that I could go, and that's FINAL!  You can't change your mind once you find out more details!  Because reasons!

If Brexit is still a good idea, now that it's an ACTUAL proposal and not just a hypothetical, then the pro-Brexit folks shouldn't have any concern about a referendum on actual Brexit.

[kevwun 15608]

Parliament is voting on May's deal on Dec 11.  It is expected to fail.  Her own ministers are telling her to delay the vote.  It's thought a large margin against it could bring down her government.

[Incredulity 11541]

In a related tangent I stumbled across House of Commons Prime Minister Question and Answer on C-SPAN. That’s actually pretty good entertainment and I wish we had a similar event with any POTUS.

[David Dennison 18646]

16 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

In a related tangent I stumbled across House of Commons Prime Minister Question and Answer on C-SPAN. That’s actually pretty good entertainment and I wish we had a similar event with any POTUS.

I wish we had a prime minister.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

On 11/25/2018 at 2:28 AM, NBMisha said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean everyone has to suffer for all time because of that error.  Your argument supports another vote.

We'll have ours.

You suffer the fools, you suffer the consequences of the fools.

 

edit: Just like us.

Edited December 6, 2018 by High Plains Drifter

[relapse98 634]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I wish we had a prime minister.

I would like a Head of State and a Head of Government because it doesn't mean if you are good at one, that'd you'd be good at the other.

(I don't want the great pumpkin as either, he's a failure at both)

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

This is why referendums are bad, mmmkay. So don't have referendums.

[HenryJames 65884]

 

[NBMisha 224]

Like father, like sons.

[bolverk 29394]

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

But Soros!

Seriously though. This is the type of mixed ideological chaos that's being spread across Europe to splinter the Western alliance and sow discontent.

[bernorange 8348]

Billionaires that support political causes I like = noble

Billionaires that support political causes I don't like = cancer

[NBMisha 224]

Disrupting elections with misinformation is not a political cause as I would define it.   That's just me.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Some Limey on the TV just said my "lol, jk, let's vote again" solution is becoming more likely.  I don't really see why it's an issue, especially when it's been shown that the same kind of Russian shenanigans occurred to subvert the opinion of the people as we saw in the US.