# Brexit



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Congrats to our friends across the pond on your new independence day. May your kingdom prosper now that you are free of the dictators on the continent.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Thank you. It's a welcome and long-overdue development - and hopefully a wake-up call to other countries under the EU yoke. There is turmoil in the currency markets however - a good time to unload a stash of euros.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A good time for Americans and the rest of the world to by British. I believe the pound is ~1.24, the lowest it's been in 30 years.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> A good time for Americans and the rest of the world to by British. I believe the pound is ~1.24, the lowest it's been in 30 years.


Indeed. Fill your boots.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I went to bed expecting a narrow Remain win. 

Just shows do not trust polls or even bookies. People can lump on to make a result look likely - a relatively cheap form of invisible advertising.

Brits stood up to all the bien pensants telling us it would be a disaster. All the 'old and uneducated' turned out in droves to cast a vote.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Yes but now you won't have the privilege of propping up failing European socialist states who have failed their own citizenry and are seeking refuge off the fat of your land. 

I find it rich that the Italian PM is asking for swift retribution so as to limit the contagion effect. A country that by all measures is benefiting greatly from the union and being propped up by other, more productive countries. 

At least the UK never abandoned then £. Imagine what a disaster it would be to have to unwind yourself not only from he sclerotic EU but also from that sham of a currency they trade in.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I am curious to see which other economically viable EU country follows Britain's exit. Now, they can't be forced to take in troublesome refugees.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

I wonder how many of the other leaders will be told by Merkel what they should do and if they tow the German line how their electorates will react.

"Merkel says Germany has a specific interest and responsibility for the EU to succeed and she has invited the French, Italian and European leaders to talks on Brexit next week."


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Frexit? Nexit?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Deutschxit.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)




----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> View attachment 16218


Nothing a bulldozer can't fix.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ by the way, it's exactly these types of emotional and infantile appeals to remaining in the EU that some were using. As though there is something sacred about the European Union.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ by the way, it's exactly these types of emotional and infantile appeals to remaining in the EU that some were using. As though there is something sacred about the European Union.


Please, it's funny! I just read that story to one of my kids two days ago.

All kidding aside, what we should all be afraid of is the boost this might give to the Scottish independence movement. We can all manage fine with the UK out of the EU. The sky has not fallen. But the breakup of the UK, particularly in this context, would be a very bad thing.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Why? As an American I don't see how it is my concern how the UK decides to govern itself. It may or may not be bad for Britain overall, but that's a matter for them to decide. 

We will still do business with the UK and the EU. I honestly don't see how Scotland can manage on its own.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Scotland had a referendum to leave the UK not long ago and voted to remain in - somehow I don't think the EU will exert a sufficient lure for them to vote differently, assuming there were to be another referendum. If they did, however, it would be rather inconvenient having a land border with an EU country. This will be the case in Ireland, of course.

Hopefully the whole wicked EU set-up will fall apart soon, now that their principal source of moolah is leaving.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Why? As an American I don't see how it is my concern how the UK decides to govern itself. It may or may not be bad for Britain overall, but that's a matter for them to decide.
> 
> We will still do business with the UK and the EU. I honestly don't see how Scotland can manage on its own.


True. But:

1. Without Scotland, the UK because just another smallish European country. In terms of geopolitics, it becomes nearly irrelevant. The US loses an ally that still has some heft.
2. Speaking of heft, Scotland is a big deal for UK/NATO defenses, if for no other reason than the nuclear submarine facilities there, which are nearly irreplaceable. I'm sure treaties can be worked out with the Scots, but again, the UK would find itself being much diminished in terms of its capabilities.
3. And this is true also even if the UK stays together but leaves the EU: A major reason why Europe has been as stable at it has been since the end of WWII is the fact that there's a three-way dynamic between the UK, F, and G. F is too small to match G and counter-balance it. F plus the United Kingdom can. This is why smaller EU countries like the Netherlands are unhappy about Brexit: Without the UK, Germany finally after nearly a century and two world wars gets its wish and becomes the giant of Europe. That's when stuff gets weird, especially with Russia gleefully watching and egging people on. The UK out of the EU is therefore already a problem, but it seems clear that the weaker the UK becomes in general, the greater the imbalance in Europe.

Now, why does this matter to the US? Well, think about the 1920s-and 1930s. The League of Nations and all that were in part an effort to tame Germany and create a system that balanced Germany by combining the power of F and the UK, with US backing. But what happened was that F and the UK were not at all on the same page, leaving F isolated, and the US just wandered off thinking that it could let Europe take care of itself, asking, "what does this have to do with me?"

Also, politically speaking, Angela Merkel is sane and moderate and isn't going to do anything crazy, but so were the German leaders in the 1920s. Then came the Depression and a bunch of other things. Then came Hitler. What happens if, maybe because of the refugee crisis, there's a far-right Chancellor in Germany? What if Marine Le Pen wins in France? What if Russia puts more pressure on the East? I could go on. These are all what-ifs, but the point is that the system rigged up in the late 1940s through the creation of NATO and the EU is to a large measure about creating a system that will be stable, will integrate Germany in a way that F, G, and the UK plus the rest of the world can live with, and will withstand shocks like the Great Depression or the election of some crazy populist. Things that weaken the system increase risk.

Some idiot on NPR was saying about Trump, "how much damage can he do?" The answer is a lot, if he does things like Harding did, when he abandoned the US security commitments to Europe, or messes with NATO, or pivots toward Putin, or does any number of things that take us and the rest of the West outside of the established security arrangements. Maybe he won't. I don't know. He hasn't said he would. Be he has said he might. Even just talking like that is, to me, a compelling argument that we really don't want to take a chance with him.

The bottom line for Americans is that a strong UK is in our national interest. A weak UK is contrary to our interests.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Sorry Tocqueville, I don't agree with your analysis.

Germany already controlled everything that happened in the EU even before Brexit. The best hope now is that other countries in Europe will vote out, otherwise nothing much will change as far as countries like Greece and Spain are concerned. 

I see no parallels (so far) with the 1920s.

Germany, in fact is a slightly bigger contributor than the UK to the EU budget, I was mistaken in my earlier post. It will have to pay over a further £2 bn a year when we leave.

The Germans have already done incalculable damage by their control over the euro and their daft policy on refugees - nothing the UK could do about that even within the EU.

Scotland leaving the UK might have defence implications - they are good infantrymen - but you are assuming that an independent Scotland would not also be part of NATO - why?

You are seeing everything from a US perspective, of course, which will not necessarily help you understand the reasons for Brexit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Wait. What? The UK is a country? Are you taking the piss? Next you'll be telling us that Africa is a country.



tocqueville said:


> True. But:
> 
> 1. Without Scotland, the UK because just another smallish European country. In terms of geopolitics, it becomes nearly irrelevant. The US loses an ally that still has some heft.
> 2. Speaking of heft, Scotland is a big deal for UK/NATO defenses, if for no other reason than the nuclear submarine facilities there, which are nearly irreplaceable. I'm sure treaties can be worked out with the Scots, but again, the UK would find itself being much diminished in terms of its capabilities.
> ...


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

Langham said:


> Germany, in fact is a slightly bigger contributor than the UK to the EU budget, I was mistaken in my earlier post. It will have to pay over a further £2 bn a year when we leave.


Well, if you want to call three times as much "slightly bigger". In 2014 Germany made net contributions of EUR 15.5B to the EU, compared to EUR 4.9B by Britain, which comes in third among net payer countries behind France (EUR 7.2B).

And, while I'm rather unenthusiastic about Ms Merkel's refugee policy myself, I'd think that her lack of success in getting concessions from other governments regarding the relocation of refugees within the EU doesn't quite gel with the notion of those dastardly Germans controlling all of Europe, hm?

I don't see a far-right government in Germany as likely soon, unless the AfD somehow achieves an astounding landslide win gaining a majority all on their own. No other major party looks willing to enter into a coalition with them. Further gains by the AfD would more likely strengthen the left-of-center camp by weakening the CDU. An FN surge in France may be a more likely event.

My major concern here is that the Brexit fallout will take away a huge amount of political energy from dealing with other unresolved issues like the Eurozone debt crisis, the Russia/Ukraine conflict, the Middle Eastern crisis, which IMO we can't really afford to at the moment.

And, while I've got misgivings about the EU as it currently exists as well, I don't see how a fragmented Europe in the face of resurgent Russian hegemonial aspirations and continuing Middle Eastern instability would be "the best hope".


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Veblen said:


> Well, if you want to call three times as much "slightly bigger". In 2014 Germany made net contributions of EUR 15.5B to the EU, compared to EUR 4.9B by Britain, which comes in third among net payer countries behind France (EUR 7.2B).
> 
> And, while I'm rather unenthusiastic about Ms Merkel's refugee policy myself, I'd think that her lack of success in getting concessions from other governments regarding the relocation of refugees within the EU doesn't quite gel with the notion of those dastardly Germans controlling all of Europe, hm?
> 
> ...


Your figures don't tally with the figures I have seen - in 2013, Germany's net contribution was 16 bn euros (£12 bn) - the UK's was £10 bn.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...n-to-eu-annual-budget-could-rise-by-2bn-afte/

A common perception here in the UK is that European countries never really listened to the UK. I always felt the relationship had many parallels with a rather bad marriage.

Political turmoil on the Continent is no argument for the UK wishing to remain in. And has the EU ever had a coherent or effective policy towards Russia or the Middle East?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Langham,

Actually, I think I do understand the reasons, and in fact I'm deeply sympathetic to them for a number of reasons. The question SG asked was why should Americans care, and for me the answer to that has to do with geopolitical implications, and defense. Otherwise, I don't think we should care, and we certainly wish you all the best whatever you decide.

Scotland no doubt would be part of NATO, but one bigger NATO ally is better than two smaller ones for all sorts of reasons. There already are a bunch of small NATO allies, and they're not of much use. And cobbling together a bunch of small forces into a large one is not at all a substitute from having a single large one.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Veblen said:


> My major concern here is that the Brexit fallout will take away a huge amount of political energy from dealing with other unresolved issues like the Eurozone debt crisis, the Russia/Ukraine conflict, the Middle Eastern crisis, which IMO we can't really afford to at the moment.
> 
> And, while I've got misgivings about the EU as it currently exists as well, I don't see how a fragmented Europe in the face of resurgent Russian hegemonial aspirations and continuing Middle Eastern instability would be "the best hope".


Well said.

I hope you're right about the AfD. But the refugee issue could change that, I think. Plus a few terrorist attacks.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I don't think NATO was of the remotest relevance in the Brexit vote. Had the UK remained part of the EU, however, NATO would gradually have been weakened by the ongoing efforts of the French and Germans to create a European army. That could only ever happen at the direct cost of their commitments to NATO. Probably it will still happen (they have announced as much today), but the UK will not now be part of it.


----------



## HeartMD (Feb 6, 2015)

drlivingston said:


> I am curious to see which other economically viable EU country follows Britain's exit. Now, they can't be forced to take in troublesome refugees.


There are factions within France, Holland, and Italy that are pushing to have their own referendums.

I think Scotland has been less affected by refugee issues compared to their English neighbors, and perhaps that may be in part why they, as a whole, voted to stay. Scotland had a vote last year to remain in the UK.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ I don't think NATO was of the remotest relevance in the Brexit vote. Had the UK remained part of the EU, however, NATO would gradually have been weakened by the ongoing efforts of the French and Germans to create a European army. That could only ever happen at the direct cost of their commitments to NATO. Probably it will still happen (they have announced as much today), but the UK will not now be part of it.


The French at least have more or less given up on a European army and have been focused instead on integrating with NATO and with the UK military. Look up Griffon Strike (https://www.army.mod.uk/news/28518.aspx ). The French are keen on NATO because they they admit to their dependency on the US. But at the same time, they think NATO's more or less useless for most contingencies (things that require quick decisions, quick action, and actual violence), but they regard the UK mil as both equally capable and equally serious about war fighting. France wants a partner that's equal to it. So since the Lancaster House accords, France is all about 1) the US alliance and 2) the UK alliance, and 3) NATO.

Germany for a bunch of reasons is more keen on NATO and EU defense, but mainly because unlike F and the UK, Germany completely rules out any military adventure other than one deeply tied up in multinational efforts (EU, UN, NATO).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Veblen said:


> My major concern here is that the Brexit fallout will take away a huge amount of political energy from dealing with other unresolved issues like the *Eurozone debt crisis, the Russia/Ukraine conflict, the Middle Eastern crisis, which IMO we can't really afford to at the moment.
> *
> 
> And, while I've got misgivings about the EU as it currently exists as well, I don't see how a fragmented Europe in the face of resurgent Russian hegemonial aspirations and continuing Middle Eastern instability would be "the best hope".


Isn't the Eurozone debt crisis really a problem created by the EU and a common currency?

As for political crisis, what exactly is a united Europe doing now?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Isn't the Eurozone debt crisis really a problem created by the EU and a common currency?
> 
> As for political crisis, what exactly is a united Europe doing now?


It isn't doing well. But things can get a lot worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> It isn't doing well. But things can get a lot worse.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Such counter factual arguments are hardly convincing. "Things can get a lot worse"? What things exactly?

Things can always get a lot worse for a variety of reasons.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Such counter factual arguments are hardly convincing. "Things can get a lot worse"? What things exactly?
> 
> Things can always get a lot worse for a variety of reasons.


Europe's doing a poor job of dealing with the threats it faces. The threats can get worse while Europe's handling of the threats gets worse. One thing that bothers me is how few resources European nations either unilaterally or collective within the EU/NATO are dedicating to dealing with its threats. So while the EU's already doing a piss poor job, a weaker EU will most likely do a crappier job. A weakened NATO...A weakened UK...etc.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

History nearly always repeats itself. The EU is not that different than the alliances of European powers over the last few thousand years. They run their course and end for various reasons....usually resulting in war. Although hard to foresee a "war" in the traditional sense I would bet that the ancient expansionist caliphates would be ecstatic about the massive flow of middle eastern immigrants into Western Europe.

So in a nutshell, EU weaker, UK weaker, and when they are weak its puts an ever greater burden on US to counterbalance hostile expansionist nations and other groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dcr5468 said:


> So in a nutshell, EU weaker, UK weaker, and when they are weak its puts an ever greater burden on US to counterbalance hostile expansionist nations and other groups.


Wealthy European nations should be able to defend themselves against strategic threats, without reliance on American intervention. Of course, the United States needs to be far more non-interventionist as well...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The trouble with the EU was and still is good old fashioned mission creep. 

Take trade agreements that the US has. Most are organized around lower tariffs and opening of markets to foreign products and export agreements into foreign markets. Now we can argue about whether the US is getting a benefit or if the agreements weren't negotiated that well, but in the end they are simply trade agreements. 

The EU strayed from being an economic entity centered on trade to becoming, as all bureaucracies do, bloated and entering into territory it had no business entering. 

Why should countries literally give up sovereignty over the borders and immigration policy. Of course bloated bureaucracies are what Europeans truly excel at and have done so for centuries, but why should the UK have to involve itself in that. 

EU bureaucrats are unelected and not accountable to the UK public. Yet their policies make an impact on he lives of Brits. I'd be upset too if all of a sudden Canada started making policy that determined my course of events and I had little to no power to effectively protest. 

Europe is not an idea or an entity. It is a continent. It is a land mass divided along national lines. Countries are sovereign and cannot be held to account that some supranational organization. And that's precisely what the EU tried to do. 

The issue of immigration is at the heart of what it means to be a country and to be sovereign. "Who gets to enter our country?" That is as fumdamental a function of domestic government as is its currency. Borders define a country and the function of borders is to control the influx of people entering that particular patch of earth.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Very true Connoisseur but maybe political correctness has run amok in the UK to the extent that it has here in the US whereby speaking out in favor of controlled and enforced immigration policies gets one branded a racist.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wouldn't say racist. Bring it closer to home. How would you like it if government said anybody can move into your house? Surely you have some rights who you allow in.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

All good points SG, but the main issue I believe was the EU's lack of democratic accountability. Too many decisions made by faceless bureaucrats with no interest at all in what the British might have preferred. Uncontrolled immigration also mattered of course and the loss of sovereignty in every area.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Congratulations on the proper vote winning! I applaud this precedent.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Langham said:


> All good points SG, but the main issue I believe was the EU's lack of democratic accountability. Too many decisions made by faceless bureaucrats with no interest at all in what the British might have preferred. Uncontrolled immigration also mattered of course and the loss of sovereignty in every area.


Your second sentence says it all. Here is an article about an immigrant who became a convicted drug dealer. The UK government tried to deport him after he had served his prison sentence. He appealed his deportation to the EU. The EU overruled the UK courts and declared that he must stay in the UK.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I apologize for being a bit comedic but Brexit sounds like the name of a new cereal, don't you think?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Howard said:


> I apologize for being a bit comedic but Brexit sounds like the name of a new cereal, don't you think?


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Howard said:


> I apologize for being a bit comedic but Brexit sounds like the name of a new cereal, don't you think?


It is a great name for a breakfast cereal, and they could have sugar coated Brexit for those who have trouble facing reality.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Didn't Europe already see on polyglot empire go down about 100 years ago and take all of Europe down with it?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

What's the big problem...the people spoke and for the first time in a very long while, the world listened. Seems similar to the course of events that have resulted in the electoral dilemma the US voters will face in November. The presumptive nominees of the two parties are an idiot and an unindicted criminal, respectively. I guess that really is the best we can do(?)! People are really frustrated with their elective leadership ignoring the public voice, as the thieving hordes of professional politicians line their own pockets!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

blue suede shoes said:


> It is a great name for a breakfast cereal, and they could have sugar coated Brexit for those who have trouble facing reality.


sounds like a cereal for Brits.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Howard said:


> sounds like a cereal for Brits.


It's not cereal though, it's serious.

They have no time for democracy.
The people have voted, but the dodgy deals are now being done behind closed doors, while the media take every opportunity to decry the result.

The unelected President of the EU Parliament let the mask slip again today.

English language tweet of this now removed.
Original Italian version still in existence.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747242697119891457


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

16th Century = Divine Right of Kings

21st Century = Divine Right of Bureaucrats


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A bunch of thieves. Those people really should be hung.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WA said:


> A bunch of thieves. Those people really should be hung.


Some no doubt are well hung, but that's not my thing 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Don't like slavery.
Abortion is fine, but can't kill criminals. Something seriously wrong with thinking.


----------

