news Britain has left the EU, your thoughts?

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

The reaction by remain voters just twelve hours after the results were announced ranges from petty to truly deluded. Calling for another referendum? Sorry, but David Cameron said that the vote would be final.

 

Most of us Remain supporters are worried and afraid. Of course there will be a knee-jerk reaction, but rest assured that the UK's strong democratic tradition means that vocal disappointment is all it should be.

 

 

 

Scotland leaving the 400-year union and joining the EU, despite the fact that they have little to no economic power, no industry, and lax tourism?

 

By putting independence higher than their economic well-being maybe? The SNP only need to offer a convincing ideal for them to vote for, even if it won't work - once they're out, they're probably out for a while.  

 

 

 

Uncertainty breeds uncertainty, and RyanAir CEO Michael O'Leary's recent statement, that his company will not invest in the UK for at least two years, is a poor bloody show. I've no doubt that every leave voter knew that it would never be easy, both economically and socially. But remain has to admit that the leave campaign won.

 

Businesses will be loyal to themselves and their profits. And yes, Leave won - I am concerned that many voted without really understanding the implications, but such is their right. Those who wish to put leaving the EU ahead of other concerns may do so - that is their prerogative and their decision. 

 

 

 

So, remainers, do not extend Britain's suffering. But work with your fellows to improve our great nation, perhaps to heights it has never seen.

 

The problem is that there is a fairly clear divide in the population about what is best for the UK. I voted Remain because I believed that it was best - I still do. Now that the decision has been made to leave, the question is 'How far?' Leave didn't run a cohesive campaign in that regard - there was a lot of disagreement about what sort of deal the UK would have with the EU afterwards, and with the lack of a clear Leave narrative we have uncertainty and no particular group can really claim a mandate to support their specific view. I advocate a Norwegian deal, which would include freedom of movement being on the table - something that the EU values quite highly and would be a powerful negotiating tool. Farage and UKIP would, naturally oppose this, but my hope is that Boris will prove to be more pragmatic and use whatever tools are available to get the best deal.

 

 

 

A large proportion of the remain supporters were attempting to shame the leave supporters into switching by making the whole debate about immigration, and accusing everyone who wanted to leave of being racist and xenophobic.

 

Immigration was repeatedly cited as the 'most important' topic - rating above the economy and the NHS. The joke went that not everyone voting Leave was racist, but every racist was voting Leave. I have sufficient faith in the UK population that racism was not a factor for most, and if Leave wish to distance themselves from the anti-immigration standpoint I will feel much more relaxed about the whole affair.

 

Now, if allowing freedom of movement isn't that big an issue, then by using it as a bartering chip we can go for a much better deal. It will also solve some of the more serious the Gibraltar and Northern Ireland concerns. I suspect it was the dissatisfied anti-authority vote that proved key, but I am sure that the numbers are being analysed and a more comprehensive conclusion will be drawn -  if we have another election soon (which won't do wonders for stability or our negotiations), appealing to the 'Out-swingers' will be at the forefront of most parties' minds.

 

 

 

If these people care so much about people outside their borders, they should be donating their money to charities that get shit done. I'm serious. By improving the living conditions inside other countries, people from those countries would rather stay there.

 

The UK has a huge foreign aid budget, a fact of which I am immensely proud. The problem is that UKIP, the key anti-immigration party is also in favour of slashing this budget, so as someone who does care about the world at large they have alienated me whichever approach I wanted to take (The government is a lot better placed to organise aid compared to most charities as they can combine it with what amounts to foreign policy PR for the benefit of the country - saving two birds with one aid package, so to speak.) The EU also makes significant contributions, and spreading the housing of refugees across the continent to ease the burden is the most logical solution.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Once In A Blue Moon

[Lil Pip 775]

Denim&Venom, on 24 Jun 2016 - 01:19 AM, said:

Britain is screwed. Here's why.

 

The economic downsides would be true for a new nation as well compared to say a new region being taken in my an older country but if they have their reasons to separate I think its fine even with some damages to economy they can make themselves more unique. It just takes time to build up a better economy and they could always try trade with other countries. But I don't fully understand each side so can't say for absolute certain.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay, but as it's a part of britain, is forced to leave. Maybe scotland will have another go at leaving the UK because of this.

According to the NY Times:

In sharp contrast to England and Wales, Scotland voted for Britain to remain in the bloc by 62 percent to 38 percent, with all of its 32 council areas in favor. Northern Ireland also voted overwhelmingly to stay.

You know, I say that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be given the chance to secede from the UK and rejoin the EU. Just because England and Wales really wanted this doesn't mean that Scotland and Northern Ireland have to as well.

[Malinter 3,064]

   Although Britain has the EU, it has instead become a US protectorate, for many American businesses have all ready replaced many of Britain's traditional businesses, so they merely replaced Brussels with Washington D.C., and independence from Europe, to dependence on the United States. Even if the UK got closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, these countries do not have enough GDP to prop up the UK, politically or economically, and these countries still trade with the EU, so time will tell if the UK can be successful, but it would need the United States even more now. It seems like the UK fell into the nationalist trap, thinking they do not need their neighbours to thrive, I think the UK has learned too much from the United States, Britain could look more like an American state or territory, than the sovereign country, you might be surprised how much American influence there is in the country, especially from General Dynamics UK and Lockheed Martin, all I can say is good luck and farewell, Britain is not an empire anymore, and it's culture is beginning to look more American, it's a victory for the Anglo-sphere, but victory can leave a price more costly than they were expecting. 

 

Unlike the US. We're not isolationists. The UK never intended to cut off all connections with the EU and it never will. Its geographically impossible for us NOT to be involved with Europe in one way or another. We just wanted to be able to have a better say in how our country is run and leaving is what we had to do to get it. 

 

 Also the UK looks nothing like an American state. Not enough guns and lack of geography. No state in the US has the guts to do what we have done. I'd dare a state to leave the US constitution. XD

[Jonny Music 3,308]

This was the truth that Paul Joseph Watson said before the voting day:

[yeet 2,026]

Although Britain has the EU, it has instead become a US protectorate, for many American businesses have all ready replaced many of Britain's traditional businesses, so they merely replaced Brussels with Washington D.C., and independence from Europe, to dependence on the United States. Even if the UK got closer to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, these countries do not have enough GDP to prop up the UK, politically or economically, and these countries still trade with the EU, so time will tell if the UK can be successful, but it would need the United States even more now. It seems like the UK fell into the nationalist trap, thinking they do not need their neighbours to thrive, I think the UK has learned too much from the United States, Britain could look more like an American state or territory, than the sovereign country, you might be surprised how much American influence there is in the country, especially from General Dynamics UK and Lockheed Martin, all I can say is good luck and farewell, Britain is not an empire anymore, and it's culture is beginning to look more American, it's a victory for the Anglo-sphere, but victory can leave a price more costly than they were expecting.

 

Bruh we'll never be like America. For a start we know how to make a decent cuppa, and secondly we aren't isolating ourselves from Europe to theoretically suck Americas dick. We can still trade with European coubtries, we only left the EU. We left nothing else. Germany still plan to trade with us, we will trade with everyone we did before, it'll just be somewhat difficult to start off with when we leave the EU for good, but after probably a year it'll be smooth sailing.

 

Also our culture is again nothing like Americas, America do stuff differently, they behave differently. I'm not saying any of us are better than the other, and I'm not degrading America by saying we're nothing but like them, but they are two different animals, and we've been caged for a while. Let's just hope we make the most of it being uncaged.

[BritishBrony2012 719]

I voted to leave, gald we did. Also going igonre these Remainers (who want to stay in EU) they annoyed me with their excuses like we doom and stuff. Believe Britain come be great with EU but we not away from Europe and The World we just a Self-govern Country.

[Malinter 3,064]

Already seeing people moping on the news and its only the 1st day. What part of No. Body. Elects. These. A**holes. do they not understand? Millions died so that we could have the right to vote on our countries future and the EU can just stamp all over it. They might as well go to a war cemetry and save the Eurocrats the trouble and jump on the graves themselves.

 

The EU is flawed. Nobody wanted to be the one that left for fear of economic reprisals from there Brussel overlords. Well we became that guy and gave the EU the bloody middle finger it deserves. 

 

I've never been happier to be british as I am today

Edited June 24, 2016 by Malinter

[nolongerabout 403]

 

 

By putting independence higher than their economic well-being maybe?

 

Ah, you got me there. I do see the irony. Well, I guess it's up to Scotland.

 

 

 

Now that the decision has been made to leave, the question is 'How far?' Leave didn't run a cohesive campaign in that regard - there was a lot of disagreement about what sort of deal the UK would have with the EU afterwards, and with the lack of a clear Leave narrative we have uncertainty and no particular group can really claim a mandate to support their specific view.

 

If leave is guilty of being unclear, so is the remain campaign. While leave had the Australian points system, and a renegotiation of international trade deals, Remain had Cameron's piss-poor excuse of a "Reformed" European Union, and not much beyond that. There was no mention of TTIP at all, nothing about the planned European Army, nothing to indicate the direction the EU would take after the referendum, beyond the phrase "Ever closer union". Some clarity on both sides would be welcome, I think, now more than ever.

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

 

 

If leave is guilty of being unclear, so is the remain campaign. While leave had the Australian points system, and a renegotiation of international trade deals, Remain had Cameron's piss-poor excuse of a "Reformed" European Union, and not much beyond that. There was no mention of TTIP at all, nothing about the planned European Army, nothing to indicate the direction the EU would take after the referendum, beyond the phrase "Ever closer union". Some clarity on both sides would be welcome, I think, now more than ever.

 

I thought Remain to be fairly clear - status quo with stated alterations. Some considered Cameron's deal insufficient and hand-wavy, but most things would stay the same - the UK held veto on significant matters (such as an EU army or TTIP) and with a government victory would come a government mandate to negotiate all future matters. If we got something, it would be because number 10 thought that it was a good idea or because it was part of a good bargain.

 

Leave was mostly conservative rebels - with Boris Johnson the star of the show. As such, he will most likely end up in number 10 (with supporting act Gove in the treasury) but we will have to wait until the end of the conservative leadership contest to see who ends up running the country. An election may also be in the offing after that, as the new PM may feel the need to secure their mandate and believe that Labour is still weak enough that they can keep their majority - possibly winning over UKIP supporters as well (Boris in particular would have his eye on them.) All of this will probably delay the article 50 exit, which will leave matters up in the air. Throw in that parliament (the sovereignty of which has been repeatedly affirmed by Leave) is pro-EU by a huge margin and we have a lovely constitutional bog to wade through.

 

If we want to consider the strangest possibilities, think of this: Labour somehow win a majority government with a manifesto pledge to keep the UK in the EU? What on earth happens then? The referendum was for out, but election pledges give a mandate to remain? I doubt it's going to happen, as Labour will want to win back their disillusioned out supporters, but then they also want to win back Scotland and that would be the way to do it.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

 

 

I thought Remain to be fairly clear - status quo with stated alterations.

 

The main problem I had with the remain campaign was that they had precisely nothing positive to say about the EU, every single announcement, every single day, was threats of doom, turmoil and a plague of locusts o'er the land should we leave.  Add into that the extreme liberal element trying to boil the entire debate down to nothing but immigration and 'if you vote leave then you're a racist', and it's no wonder that the remain campaign failed to energise enough people to make a success of it.  If you continually poke a dog a stick, sooner or later it's going to get pissed off and bite you, and that is exactly what happened yesterday.

[Malinter 3,064]

If we want to consider the strangest possibilities, think of this: Labour somehow win a majority government with a manifesto pledge to keep the UK in the EU? What on earth happens then? The referendum was for out, but election pledges give a mandate to remain? I doubt it's going to happen, as Labour will want to win back their disillusioned out supporters, but then they also want to win back Scotland and that would be the way to do it.

 

Nope. It is absolute now. The EU itself has said it is irreversable. If Britain leaves, it leaves for good.

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

The main problem I had with the remain campaign was that they had precisely nothing positive to say about the EU

 

There was a tenancy to couch the advantages in terms of what we would lose, but I heard a great deal that I liked. In contrast, nothing Leave said appealed to me. Such is democracy.

 

 

 

Nope. It is absolute now. The EU itself has said it is irreversable. If Britain leaves, it leaves for good.

 

Only if we press the button - that is, Article 50. They can't make us do it, and until we do we are in. The thing about the scenarios I suggested is that they may happen before the button is pressed, as the PM has said that he will wait for his successor to do that. If, as Leave suggest, we want four years to negotiate an out then we will need to wait two years - and there might be an election before Christmas.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Once In A Blue Moon

[nolongerabout 403]

 

 

Leave was mostly conservative rebels - with Boris Johnson the star of the show. As such, he will most likely end up in number 10 (with supporting act Gove in the treasury) but we will have to wait until the end of the conservative leadership contest to see who ends up running the country. An election may also be in the offing after that, as the new PM may feel the need to secure their mandate and believe that Labour is still weak enough that they can keep their majority - possibly winning over UKIP supporters as well (Boris in particular would have his eye on them.) All of this will probably delay the article 50 exit, which will leave matters up in the air. Throw in that parliament (the sovereignty of which has been repeatedly affirmed by Leave) is pro-EU by a huge margin and we have a lovely constitutional bog to wade through.

 

Strangely enough, I would be miffed to see either Boris, or Gove, or even Farage take up the position of prime minister. I don't think Boris has the ability, Farage won't have the support, and Gove is a mix of both. It will be interesting to see who tries to go for it first.

 

 

 

If we want to consider the strangest possibilities, think of this: Labour somehow win a majority government with a manifesto pledge to keep the UK in the EU? What on earth happens then? The referendum was for out, but election pledges give a mandate to remain? I doubt it's going to happen, as Labour will want to win back their disillusioned out supporters, but then they also want to win back Scotland and that would be the way to do it.

 

It is a conundrum. And it could possibly claw Scotland out of the SNP's grip. But as you say, it's unlikely to happen. Masses of Labour voters opted for leave, and they risk losing more and more to UKIP, so I suspect any manifesto will be veering towards the leave side of things. Jeremy Corbyn has already distanced himself from the remain campaign, and that trend looks set to continue within the Labour party. It is obvious that the Labour party could have done much more in terms of campaigning and promoting the benefits of remaining in the EU, and seem to have been a sub-par party compared to others like UKIP or the Conservatives. I must have seen the PM and Farage on the news almost every day, but Corbyn only once or twice a week, if that. I believe Labour may have lost a significant chunk of voters, due to their apparent inadequacy.

[Malinter 3,064]

There was a tenancy to couch the advantages in terms of what we would lose, but I heard a great deal that I liked. In contrast, nothing Leave said appealed to me. Such is democracy.

 

 

 

 

Only if we press the button - that is, Article 50. They can't make us do it, and until we do we are in. The thing about the scenarios I suggested is that they may happen before the button is pressed, as the PM has said that he will wait for his successor to do that. If, as Leave suggest, we want four years to negotiate an out then we will need to wait two years 

 

The EU want us out as quick as possible as they can't predict or plan for anything while Britain is in limbo between being inside and outside the EU. it can only be one or the other in their plans. Not both

Edited June 24, 2016 by Malinter

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

 

 

The EU want us out as quick as possible as they can't protect anything while Britain is in limbo between being inside and outside the EU. it can only be one or the other in their plans. Not both

 

Quite. The power over that isn't actually in their hands at the moment, though, so there isn't much they can do. 

 

It's an interesting thought that the uncertainty, which has also hit Europe hard, could itself be used as a bargaining tool - if the UK threatens a domino effect for country exits along with financial uncertainty, and the EU wants it wrapped up as quickly as possible, then there will be pressure for them to give us the sort of access and post-exit deal that we want. Rather Machiavellian if that is the case, though.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

 

 

Strangely enough, I would be miffed to see either Boris, or Gove, or even Farage take up the position of prime minister. I don't think Boris has the ability, Farage won't have the support, and Gove is a mix of both. It will be interesting to see who tries to go for it first.

 

Farage is not an MP, and UKIP currently only has one seat in parliament, ergo, there is absolutely no chance of Farage becoming PM, unless there is an early general election (which is technically possible, but very unlikely due to the fixed term parliament act), and UKIP somehow manages to get into power with either a majority or being the senior partner in a coalition.  That is not likely to happen.

Quite. The power over that isn't actually in their hands at the moment, though, so there isn't much they can do. 

 

It's an interesting thought that the uncertainty, which has also hit Europe hard, could itself be used as a bargaining tool - if the UK threatens a domino effect for country exits along with financial uncertainty, and the EU wants it wrapped up as quickly as possible, then there will be pressure for them to give us the sort of access and post-exit deal that we want. Rather Machiavellian if that is the case, though.

 

Britain can't exactly threaten the EU with a domino effect, as it would be a decision solely for each other country as to whether or not they hold a referendum, and Juncker has ruled out any renegotiation.

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,221]

I am glad the UK decided to leave the EU. The EU is a mess as it is right now. Especially with how the EU handled with the immigration in their counties. Next I heard (rumors maybe?) that the Dutch wanna leave next and maybe France. Quite frankly I don't blame France with wanting to leave after what happened in Paris. I have a slight feeling that the Paris attacks wouldn't have happened if the EU didn't have such an open border policy. 

[Once In A Blue Moon 894]

 

 

Britain can't exactly threaten the EU with a domino effect, as it would be a decision solely for each other country as to whether or not they hold a referendum, and Juncker has ruled out any renegotiation.

 

Not directly, but there is no doubt this will strengthen calls for an exit to the EU in other countries. And I'm not talking about re-negotiation, I am referring to the two-year exit talks that determine the UK's relationship with the EU post exit. 

 

 

Quite frankly I don't blame France with wanting to leave after what happened in Paris. I have a slight feeling that the Paris attacks wouldn't have happened if the EU didn't have such an open border policy. 

 

I do not believe that to be true. The adage that 'the bomber will always get through' is just as true today with suicide bombers as it was with the Soviet nuclear bombers - police, security and intelligence services will always do what they can, obviously, but the hard truth is that so long as there are people trying to carry out such attacks some will succeed. We do more damage to ourselves with moves such as raising boarders than any bomber could ever hope to achieve, and if we pander to the fear of them then we let them win.

[SquipyCheetah 448]

I only hope it will bring positive results and that Britain made the right choice. If things wind up going sour... We better prepare for the shitstorm then.

[Justin_Case001 4,855]

Huh.  It sounded to me like it would be in Britain's best interest to stay.  I guess John Oliver's song didn't win 'em over.  Oh well, hope it works out for the best.  Really, my only response is "wop-wop," which of course is short for:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fSL7kz8TQE

 

[Malinter 3,064]

Huh.  It sounded to me like it would be in Britain's best interest to stay.  I guess John Oliver's song didn't win 'em over.  Oh well, hope it works out for the best.  Really, my only response is "wop-wop," which of course is short for:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fSL7kz8TQE

 

 Not really. Staying would only delay the inevitable. The EU would refuse to reform, the crisis would get worse, brits would get more angrier at the EU and the referendum would STILL be more for leave as the more it when on, the less of a leg to stand on the Remain lot would have,

Edited June 25, 2016 by Malinter

[Member Berry 1,217]

Huh. I thought I had replied to this, apparently not. I voted remain as I thought it would be in our best interests to stay. I think it's stupid how people now want a second EU Referendum though. The votes have been counted as this is how democracy works. 

 

I'm just sick to death of hearing about it now. Facebook has turned into the fucking house of commons. It's happened now, we don't know exactly what's going to happen now but whinging about it isn't doing anything productive.

[Guest]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

 

I'll just leave this here and watch the results.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

 

I'll just leave this here and watch the results.

 

I googled the EU an number of times yesterday, in order to find links for yanks on other websites constantly asking 'What is the EU?'.