I can top that:Isgrimnur wrote:
BBC wrote:UK votes to leave the UK
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
I didn't say good deal. I have no idea what kind of a trade agreement we will end up with but we have years to make an agreement and I fully believe we will make one with our closest ally. Obama bluffed and it's going to show. It's ok, I approve of what he did, it was a good attempt to sway people to the remain side, but I still recognized it as a bluff.Fireball wrote:The United States isn't exactly in a "free trade" sort of mood, and after all the EU-oriented businesses in the UK move to Paris and Berlin, there won't be nearly as much reason to negotiate a great deal with whatever is left of the UK in 2018. The more immediate issue for the imbeciles who voted "Leave" will be convincing Northern Ireland, whose peace agreement relies on the free flow of people, capital, and goods into Ireland that Brexit just threw into disarray, and Scotland not to leave the UK.Chrisoc13 wrote:I'm sure most of what Obama said was bluster. A new trade agreement will be worked out with the UK. We have years to do it anyways.
Why should Scotland and Northern Ireland be dragged out of the EU by the votes of angry, old Englishmen?
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
Churchill wrote:The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
malchior wrote:The trade agreements issue was brought up. Apparently thy need to renegotiate with dozens of nations now on top of the EU. And access to the single market (if they get it) will be still subject to the same rules and regulations. They already had control of immigration and their borders. It isn't even relly clear what benefit thry are going to get. It is really bizarre.
Sorry should have said the same or worse. I agree it's stupid. But it isn't the death of the UK.Carpet_pissr wrote:They will be lucky to get the same requirements! Without the economic bargaining power of the EU behind them, if we are referring to agreements with non-EU nations, they are likely to have a rude awakening. And hell, even the EU talks may not go the way they hope. You think the experienced negotiators in Brussels will go easy on the secessionists who just thumbed their nose at them? (I really don't know - it depends a lot on how much the EU needs Britain vs the reverse, but certainly politics and butt hurt will come into play as well).
Defiant wrote:The British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it
Churchill wrote:The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
"Even though I voted to leave, this morning I woke up and I just — the reality did actually hit me," one woman told the news channel ITV News. "If I'd had the opportunity to vote again, it would be to stay."
Well, it sounds like both Scottish independence and possibly Ireland as well is back on the table, so yeah, it may have killed the UK as we know it.Chrisoc13 wrote:Sorry should have said the same or worse. I agree it's stupid. But it isn't the death of the UK.Carpet_pissr wrote:They will be lucky to get the same requirements! Without the economic bargaining power of the EU behind them, if we are referring to agreements with non-EU nations, they are likely to have a rude awakening. And hell, even the EU talks may not go the way they hope. You think the experienced negotiators in Brussels will go easy on the secessionists who just thumbed their nose at them? (I really don't know - it depends a lot on how much the EU needs Britain vs the reverse, but certainly politics and butt hurt will come into play as well).
If Scotland and Ireland end up leaving (not a certainty but definitely a possibility) then that's exactly what it will be. Unless of course you count England and Wales as the new UK.Chrisoc13 wrote:Sorry should have said the same or worse. I agree it's stupid. But it isn't the death of the UK.Carpet_pissr wrote:They will be lucky to get the same requirements! Without the economic bargaining power of the EU behind them, if we are referring to agreements with non-EU nations, they are likely to have a rude awakening. And hell, even the EU talks may not go the way they hope. You think the experienced negotiators in Brussels will go easy on the secessionists who just thumbed their nose at them? (I really don't know - it depends a lot on how much the EU needs Britain vs the reverse, but certainly politics and butt hurt will come into play as well).
They literally got nothing out of this. At best, they have a more expensive version of the system they have now but without a voice in future EU policy. At worst, they lose the ability to trade effectively with almost all of their major trading partners, and their role in Europe is greatly diminished. Either way, they probably lose Scotland, and have all sorts of new troubles with Northern Ireland.malchior wrote:The trade agreements issue was brought up. Apparently thy need to renegotiate with dozens of nations now on top of the EU. And access to the single market (if they get it) will be still subject to the same rules and regulations. They already had control of immigration and their borders. It isn't even relly clear what benefit thry are going to get. It is really bizarre.
Exactly. I expect that Scotland will leave, and the consensus government in Northern Ireland is going to struggle to hold things together, and might end up leaving, too.Pyperkub wrote:Well, it sounds like both Scottish independence and possibly Ireland as well is back on the table, so yeah, it may have killed the UK as we know it.Chrisoc13 wrote:Sorry should have said the same or worse. I agree it's stupid. But it isn't the death of the UK.Carpet_pissr wrote:They will be lucky to get the same requirements! Without the economic bargaining power of the EU behind them, if we are referring to agreements with non-EU nations, they are likely to have a rude awakening. And hell, even the EU talks may not go the way they hope. You think the experienced negotiators in Brussels will go easy on the secessionists who just thumbed their nose at them? (I really don't know - it depends a lot on how much the EU needs Britain vs the reverse, but certainly politics and butt hurt will come into play as well).
Not to mention the huge resulting rightward lurch without Scottish liberals.Fireball wrote:Exactly. I expect that Scotland will leave, and the consensus government in Northern Ireland is going to struggle to hold things together, and might end up leaving, too.Pyperkub wrote:Well, it sounds like both Scottish independence and possibly Ireland as well is back on the table, so yeah, it may have killed the UK as we know it.Chrisoc13 wrote:Sorry should have said the same or worse. I agree it's stupid. But it isn't the death of the UK.Carpet_pissr wrote:They will be lucky to get the same requirements! Without the economic bargaining power of the EU behind them, if we are referring to agreements with non-EU nations, they are likely to have a rude awakening. And hell, even the EU talks may not go the way they hope. You think the experienced negotiators in Brussels will go easy on the secessionists who just thumbed their nose at them? (I really don't know - it depends a lot on how much the EU needs Britain vs the reverse, but certainly politics and butt hurt will come into play as well).
No Scotland = no United Kingdom.
I think that's one underappreciated element of the Brexit... this was a vote along generational lines, and older voters basically just forced the UK out of the EU over the objections of younger voters who are going to actually live with the fallout of the decision.Fireball wrote:All this to temporarily soothe the anger of old English people who just can't stand that the world isn't exactly what it was several decades ago.
But Brexit is a permanent thing. If a bunch of nostalgic/resentful/racist oldsters vote Britain out of the EU, they'll be forcing their bitterness on a generation that doesn't want it. The truth is that Brexit will barely affect older voters either way: they mostly don't work and they mostly have only local friendships. But it will certainly affect all of the younger generations, who have decades left to live in whatever Britain is bequeathed to them. They want to grow up in a continent where they can work wherever they want and associate with whomever they please. It would be a travesty for a sour group of elderly misanthropes to deny them that.
I think it's because no one actually believed that the British people would vote to leave. There is no upside to leaving. Nothing tangible anyway. There was huge downsides for leaving. The markets are taking a dump just on the referendum alone. They haven't even left yet.Chrisoc13 wrote:I don't get how predictions were so wrong when it has been stated as too close to call.
Are you suggesting that helped the Brexit vote?AWS260 wrote: Guess he forgot about the MP murdered last week.
Farage is suggesting the Brexit campaign was bloodless and free of violence. It wasn't.Rip wrote: Are you suggesting that helped the Brexit vote?
Because my impression is it hurt Brexit, just not enough to fall it.
I agree with you about the shooting's impact on the vote. But the shooter was clearly influenced by Farage's nativist rhetoric, which has permeated the Brexit campaign.Rip wrote:Are you suggesting that helped the Brexit vote?
Because my impression is it hurt Brexit, just not enough to fall it.
The Clash here. I'm pretty sure Joe Strummer is spinning in his grave right about now.Blackhawk wrote:I find myself oddly in the mood to listen to the Sex Pistols this afternoon.
No, actually, it could just mean Ireland reunited.Alefroth wrote:
I think you might mean Northern Ireland. Don't mean to nitpick, but it's an important distinction.
This morning, Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuiness, a member of the republican Sinn Fein party, called for a vote on pulling Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and uniting it with the Republic.
"Brexit" threatens to undermine U.S.-Britain special relationshipChrisoc13 wrote:The special relationship won't just end because of Obama and Cameron, especially since both are leaving office very soon.
Britain’s decision to leave the European Union could send damaging shockwaves through the bedrock Anglo-American “special relationship,” raising questions about London’s willingness and ability to back U.S.-led efforts in global crises ranging from the Middle East to Ukraine. The loss of the strongest pro-U.S. voice within the 28-nation bloc, as a result of the “Brexit” referendum, threatens to weaken Washington’s influence in European policymaking and embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin to further challenge the West, analysts and former diplomats say.
The British referendum on Thursday, widely seen as reflecting a more nationalistic and inward-looking public, also risks the splintering of the United Kingdom itself, which could further reduce its role and stature in world affairs. Britain's exit -- which is not immediate and must be negotiated with the EU -- could present the next U.S. president with a decision on whether to turn to other key European partners like Germany and France, essentially downgrading America's special bond with London whose foundation was laid in World War Two.
Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, said Britain’s ability to press its views and policy preferences with its European allies and within NATO, where it provided strong political backing to the United States, will be diminished. “You clearly have a much weaker Britain whose sway in European capitals is lessened by the vote,” Daalder said. As a result, he said, the United States likely will have to work harder to maintain trans-Atlantic and European unity.
It could. Until then, Ireland and Northern Ireland are distinct and not simply interchangeable.gbasden wrote:No, actually, it could just mean Ireland reunited.Alefroth wrote:
I think you might mean Northern Ireland. Don't mean to nitpick, but it's an important distinction.
This morning, Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuiness, a member of the republican Sinn Fein party, called for a vote on pulling Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and uniting it with the Republic.
Trump will re-incorporate the US in Ireland to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The triple irish.hepcat wrote:After Hillary wins, we can set up an email server there for her.
I think the distinction here is that while Saudi has some refugees, they are not offering resettlement to them - they won't be able to become citizens.Defiant wrote:cheeba wrote: when countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait aren't taking in any?linkThere are 500,000 Syrians in Saudi Arabia, according to Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf region at the UNHCR.
About a quarter of Saudi's population are foreign workers.
(Of course, it's Jordan and Turkey thats got the most)
Gulf countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.
Other high income countries including Russia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea have also offered zero resettlement places.
Germany has pledged 35,000 places for Syrian refugees through its humanitarian admission programme and individual sponsorship; about 75 % of the EU total.
Germany and Sweden together have received 47% Syrian asylum applications in the EU between April 2011 and July 2015
Excluding Germany and Sweden, the remaining 26 EU countries have pledged around 8,700 resettlement places, or around 0.2% of Syrian refugees in the main host countries.
That makes no sense. Who cares if they have any interaction with them? The people who voted Leave are people who are (potentially) the most impacted by cheap labor.RunningMn9 wrote:That would make more sense if we didn't observe that the people most likely to actually deal with immigrants weren't a lot less concerned about immigration. It's always the people that don't really have any connection or interaction with immigrants that seem to be the most terrified.cheeba wrote:Maybe immigration is a valid concern to some of these people
Sure. But does anyone think that the people up in arms against immigration would be all that happy if the UK took in 500,000 Syrians that were there only on a temporary basis, without citizenship?cheeba wrote: I think the distinction here is that while Saudi has some refugees, they are not offering resettlement to them - they won't be able to become citizens.
That implies some rationality to their Leave vote, which appears to be a questionable prospect.cheeba wrote:The people who voted Leave are people who are (potentially) the most impacted by cheap labor.