Help me understand Briton's exiting the EU.

[sdifox]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

EDIT: don't neglect the See also, there were a few others that didn't get as much press.

Hang them all.

 

[sdifox]

Including the bastards that covered it up.

 

[flexy]

The crooked liars are fleeing the sinking ship.

What amazes me most is that even as those guys have exposed themselves as liars with false promises, and now leaving the ship to settle with fat checks, leaving their mess to others....many Brexiters are not phased WHATSOEVER. There are even voices heard that Farage, the Uber-slimeball and liar "should be knighted". One can only shake the head about this insanity.

By the way, did you know that Boris Johnson gets £226,000 a year (about £20,000/month) only for writing his weekly column in the Daily Telegraph?

The Brexiters "decent people" who struggle, those who actually voted for this seem to also be "all ok" with this too...

 

[shady28]

Souce on the foreign rape gang story?

British Girls Raped by Muslim Gangs on "Industrial Scale"


Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness


Police 'covered up' violent campaign to turn London area 'Islamic'


Oxford grooming gang jailed: Dogar and Karrar brothers get life for abuse and rape of young girls

 

[0roo0roo]

So, basically, a bunch of people voted for things they don't understand on false promises and basically now no one knows what to do?

Seems about right?

Relevant on independence day, they like the United States gave themselves a chance to sink or swim based on their own merits rather than live under distant and unaccountable rule.

The people understood enough to know to leave, the margin for victory would have been even greater if not for the Cox murder and the subsequent media storm, a constant onslaught of negative media propaganda which continues to this day. I watched the brexit stream live, and you could read Dimbleby and co's faces. They were so certain they had controlled perception and thus reality until the results hit them in the face. Their efforts to demoralize, to sow fear had failed. Their credibility has to have taken a hammering, either they were deliberately skewing perception, or they were incompetent.

In any case
http://pastebin.com/p4tf8CC3

A United States of Europe
Rocking MrE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUATkgnnMtg

#Brexit: A Reason to Care
Voltaire's Ghost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9u-4RVwChs

The Moment Of Truth
Pat Condell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFt-pRIvL9E

Hilarious thing is that the most Googled search term in the UK AFTER elections by Brits was "What is the EU?"

This sounds so 'Murrica.

You vote on shit you don't understand, all emotional and biased, and go "all-in" ass forward, consequences be damned.

Just no
https://medium.com/@dannypage/stop-using-google-trends-a5014dd32588#.9xcbivbxu

The number of people who actually "searched" was incredibly small.

The media manufactures news to fit their agenda.

 

[lopri]

The crooked liars are fleeing the sinking ship.

What amazes me most is that even as those guys have exposed themselves as liars with false promises, and now leaving the ship to settle with fat checks, leaving their mess to others....many Brexiters are not phased WHATSOEVER. There are even voices heard that Farage, the Uber-slimeball and liar "should be knighted". One can only shake the head about this insanity.

By the way, did you know that Boris Johnson gets £226,000 a year (about £20,000/month) only for writing his weekly column in the Daily Telegraph?

The Brexiters "decent people" who struggle, those who actually voted for this seem to also be "all ok" with this too...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars

UKIP leader Nigel Farage also resigned today. He wants "his life back."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader

Nigel Farage has resigned as leader of Ukip, saying he had fulfilled his political ambitions after successfully campaigning for the UK to vote for Brexit and that it was time for him to take a rest.

It is the third time he has stepped down as the party leader, but Farage dismissed the idea of coming back again in the future and claimed standing as an MP was no longer top of his to-do list.

Speaking at a press conference in Westminster on Monday, he said: “During the referendum I said I wanted my country back … now I want my life back.”

Apparently he is a member of the European Parliament.. representing the UK collecting paychecks from the EU?

So now Cameron gone, Johnson gone, Farage gone.. who's left? And the left is self-immolating. No one wants to actually do the hard work other than pounding the table.

 

[Spungo]

Nigel is awesome. The people vote with you, you drop the mic, you walk off the stage.
Since he achieved his goal, there's no reason for UKIP to exist anymore. He at least acknowledged this.

 

[agent00f]

British Girls Raped by Muslim Gangs on "Industrial Scale"


Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness


Police 'covered up' violent campaign to turn London area 'Islamic'


Oxford grooming gang jailed: Dogar and Karrar brothers get life for abuse and rape of young girls

It's always interesting when the media (& presumably their audience) love to specify ethnicity of perps when they're muslim. Though I guess to be fair they sure had their field day that time when the victims where white, though.

Amusing that the police weren't able to do their job in some of these cases exactly because of concern over bigot (ie. lynchmob) reactions, and of course bigot types blame everyone else except themselves.

 

[agent00f]

Relevant on independence day, they like the United States gave themselves a chance to sink or swim based on their own merits rather than live under distant and unaccountable rule.

This worked back in the day of empire, and somewhat afterward, but not when the current game theory includes the contemporary EU.

The United States worked because it became the EU of NA, but unless England plans on pulling a Hitler across the channel it will be more like the Cuba of NA.

Nigel is awesome. The people vote with you, you drop the mic, you walk off the stage.
Since he achieved his goal, there's no reason for UKIP to exist anymore. He at least acknowledged this.

More like a hit & run the way he exited from britain & back to his cushy EU job.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The United States worked because it became the EU of NA

No it didn't and that's the whole point. When USA won independence they won their right to be a self governening democratic nation using the principles of democracy that the UK is based on. This allows the people to elect representatives and hold them accountable for what they do.

This is precisely what the EU is not, no one who makes the laws are elected they are merely appointed and so anyone who values democracy much necessarily be against the EU because it's anti-democratic.

 

[agent00f]

I was talking about economics, but if you want to discuss politics instead then US federal power override the states. For example the south was forced to end segregation by fiat from above, not by local elections (at which point state rights became a huge deal). That's the model the EU is ostensibly heading toward because of america's success at it.

 

[sdifox]

Nigel is awesome. The people vote with you, you drop the mic, you walk off the stage.
Since he achieved his goal, there's no reason for UKIP to exist anymore. He at least acknowledged this.

Except he kept his post in the EU Parliament, the place he just got UK out of.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I was talking about economics, but if you want to discuss politics instead then US federal power override the states. For example the south was forced to end segregation by fiat from above, not by local elections (at which point state rights became a huge deal). That's the model the EU is ostensibly heading toward because of america's success at it.

Well the problem with the EU is that it was originally just an economic union but it's transformed into a political union, you cannot have one without the other, if you want to remain democratic then you have to leave.

Federal law over rules local law in the USA but federal law is still democratically chosen by all the member states and the people get their chance to vote for who makes or vetos those laws. There's division in the UK just the same as in the US, we are made of several countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and it's the UK as a whole who belong to the EU but inside that border of the UK decisions are made democratically.

I've seen this spin before from numerous people in the remain camp in the UK, fundamentally at the end of the day the EU is anti-democratic and that goes against our values, and remember that while you compare the EU trying to emulate the US model (which is a false equivelancy) remember that the US got that model by copying the same values as the UK, we've practiced democracy and held those values long before the USA.

 

[K1052]

Federal law over rules local law in the USA but federal law is still democratically chosen by all the member states and the people get their chance to vote for who makes or vetos those laws.

There is no "and" there. We elect people to Congress to make law and the Executive either enacts or vetoes, we do not vote on it directly. The very idea of referendums on national policy would have been objectionable to the most of the people who wrote the Constitution. Hamilton and Madison even specifically laid out the dangers of direct democracy in the Federalist Papers and went to lengths explaining how that chaos of that system would be avoided with the Republic.

If anything the decision to Brexit vindicates their concerns.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Sigh...

Yes and the people elected MPs into parliament to represent the public and those MPs all voted in the house of commons on should the government offer the people an in/out referendum on the EU and that the bill was passed unanimously.

While many of the MPs swayed towards remain rather than leave in opposition to the voting public, what they were absolutely unanimously agreed upon was that it was democratic to offer up the choice to the public to have their say and that option should be in/out and that a majority vote would win. And that's what happened.

The point is that in both the UK and in the US you can vote to elect people into power to represent the people for short periods and they represent the people on national matters.

Where as in the EU people are appointed positions of power without ever being elected and hand down rules which the MEPs can only veto, which is inherently anti-democratic because the appointed aren't directly responsible to the people.

Referendums aren't held lightly in fact this is only the 3rd ever in the UK, and because it's such a big matter that affects everyone in a very fundamental way, the government voted to pass that power to the common people to vote on and that the vote would be accepted on a majority win and that's what has happened. The government weren't so incompetent as to realise that people in a direct democracy might not make an ideal choice it was understood that some people will vote for bad reasons or misinformation (that an MP might not) but the MPs thought that the people had the right to decide this particular matter as evidenced by their unanimous vote to let the public make it.

Whatever a democracy is, it's certainly NOT MPs voting to give the public the chance to decide on a referendum and then when they're unhappy with the results pulling that out from under them. It was known at the time that the bill was passed that an in/out referendum could result in an out vote and that such a vote would be respected. If parliament and the MPs didn't think the people should be making that decision then they shouldn't and presumably wouldn't have voted on the bill to put the decision into the hands of the public.

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh...

Yes and the people elected PMs into parliament to represent the public and those MPs all voted in the house of commons on should the government offer the people an in/out referendum on the EU and that the bill was passed unanimously.

While many of the MPs swayed towards remain rather than leave in opposition to the voting public, what they were absolutely unanimously agreed upon was that it was democratic to offer up the choice to the public to have their say and that option should be in/out and that a majority vote would win. And that's what happened.

The point is that in both the UK and in the US you can vote to elect people into power to represent the people for short periods and they represent the people on national matters.

Where as in the EU people are appointed positions of power without ever being elected and hand down rules which the MEPs can only veto, which is inherently anti-democratic because the appointed aren't directly responsible to the people.

Referendums aren't held lightly in fact this is only the 3rd ever in the UK, and because it's such a big matter that affects everyone in a very fundamental way, the government voted to pass that power to the common people to vote on and that the vote would be accepted on a majority win and that's what has happened.

Whatever a democracy is, it's certainly NOT MPs voting to give the public the chance to decide on a referendum and then when they're unhappy with the results pulling that out from under them. It was known at the time that the bill was passed that an in/out referendum could result in an out vote and that such a vote would be respected. If parliament and the MPs didn't think the people should be making that decision then they shouldn't and presumably wouldn't have voted on the bill to put the decision into the hands of the public.

There are tons of rules and regulations that are passed in the US (and the U.K., I suspect) that come from people who are appointed and not elected. In fact this comprises the majority of what the federal government does in the US and the EU, as the EU is primarily a regulatory body. They are appointed by our elected officials just like the European Commission is appointed by yours. In addition, the European Parliament is directly democratically elected in elections that are actually more democratic than the UK's, has veto power over the commission's acts and can even remove the commission if it wants to.

Saying the EU is anti-democratic is nonsense. It could be more democratic, but then again so could the UK and the US.

 

[K1052]

Referendums aren't held lightly in fact this is only the 3rd ever in the UK, and because it's such a big matter that affects everyone in a very fundamental way, the government voted to pass that power to the common people to vote on and that the vote would be accepted on a majority win and that's what has happened. The government weren't so incompetent as to realise that people in a direct democracy might not make an ideal choice it was understood that some people will vote for bad reasons or misinformation (that an MP might not) but the MPs thought that the people had the right to decide this particular matter as evidenced by their unanimous vote to let the public make it.

Conversely I view that action as an abdication of their responsibility to represent the actual interests of their constancies rather than it's whims. The mechanism alone doesn't make the decision virtuous.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

There are tons of rules and regulations that are passed in the US (and the U.K., I suspect) that come from people who are appointed and not elected. In fact this comprises the majority of what the federal government does in the US and the EU, as the EU is primarily a regulatory body. They are appointed by our elected officials just like the European Commission is appointed by yours. In addition, the European Parliament is directly democratically elected in elections that are actually more democratic than the UK's, has veto power over the commission's acts and can even remove the commission if it wants to.

Saying the EU is anti-democratic is nonsense. It could be more democratic, but then again so could the UK and the US.

They are appointed by officials who themselves are elected and can be held responsible by simply voting someone else in after 4/5 years.

The EU is the opposite, the commision who aren't elected but appointed suggest new laws and the MEPs who are elected simply get to accept them or attemt to veto them, the elected MEPs cannot do things like suggest new laws, so we have an unelected commission essentially in power and they cannot be held accountable directly by the people because the people cannot vote someone else in, they can only vote on MEPs who themselves have no power.

There's a gap between the people and who they vote for and the people at the top and that what makes it undemocratic, the reason why democracy works is that it has a fail safe for if elected representatives start doing things against the best interest of the people, we can vote someone else in.

Conversely I view that action as an abdication of their responsibility to represent the actual interests of their constancies rather than it's whims. The mechanism alone doesn't make the decision virtuous.

But the way democracy is set up right now allows for this, so you have to accept that flaw, the problem I have with a lot of the remain camp or people who argue for it, is that democracy is the best thing until they don't get what they want, then there's all this backsliding and argument about how technically this thing isn't as democratic as they'd like or not democratic by some arbitrary standard.

If you back democracy to make decisions that you agree with then you necessarily consent to that same democracy making decisions you disagree with, you can't pick and choose either you support it or you don't.

As a libertarian and leaning towards voluntarism (no state at all) from a philosophical and moral point of view (and I believe the basis of secular morality should be the NAP) democracy is fundamentally immoral because it uses the initiation of aggression against otherwise peaceful people on the whim of the majority or an elected majority, and that's not right. But shit we're stuck with democracy and for its faults it's still the best system on earth to this day and I genuinely believe in 100's of years time we'll have a much more libertarian governance right now it's this or worse.

FWIW I don't think virtue enters into the EU in fact none of the EU is virtuous in the first place because all these EU laws are enforced with violence fundamentally, do something they don't like you get fined don't pay your fine then it's off to jail at gunpoint and if you resist you're shot. If you want to argue virtues and morals then the EU is less virtuous because it enacts more laws more broadly and is responsible for more aggression against more people (threats to enforce laws).

 

[fskimospy]

They are appointed by officials who themselves are elected and can be held responsible by simply voting someone else in after 4/5 years.

The EU is the opposite, the commision who aren't elected but appointed suggest new laws and the MEPs who are elected simply get to accept them or attemt to veto them, the elected MEPs cannot do things like suggest new laws, so we have an unelected commission essentially in power and they cannot be held accountable directly by the people because the people cannot vote someone else in, they can only vote on MEPs who themselves have no power.

There's a gap between the people and who they vote for and the people at the top and that what makes it undemocratic, the reason why democracy works is that it has a fail safe for if elected representatives start doing things against the best interest of the people, we can vote someone else in.

But the way democracy is set up right now allows for this, so you have to accept that flaw, the problem I have with a lot of the remain camp or people who argue for it, is that democracy is the best thing until they don't get what they want, then there's all this backsliding and argument about how technically this thing isn't as democratic as they'd like or not democratic by some arbitrary standard.

If you back democracy to make decisions that you agree with then you necessarily consent to that same democracy making decisions you disagree with, you can't pick and choose either you support it or you don't.

As a libertarian and leaning towards voluntarism (no state at all) from a philosophical and moral point of view (and I believe the basis of secular morality should be the NAP) democracy is fundamentally immoral because it uses the initiation of aggression against otherwise peaceful people on the whim of the majority or an elected majority, and that's not right. But shit we're stuck with democracy and for its faults it's still the best system on earth to this day and I genuinely believe in 100's of years time we'll have a much more libertarian governance right now it's this or worse.

FWIW I don't think virtue enters into the EU in fact none of the EU is virtuous in the first place because all these EU laws are enforced with violence fundamentally, do something they don't like you get fined don't pay your fine then it's off to jail at gunpoint and if you resist you're shot. If you want to argue virtues and morals then the EU is less virtuous because it enacts more laws more broadly and is responsible for more aggression against more people (threats to enforce laws).

The commission is appointed by national government who are themselves elected. This is similar to how other regulatory bodies function in the US. More importantly, saying that the EU Parliament is powerless when it can both remove the commission and veto any and all laws is absolutely ridiculous.

Again, saying the EU is not democratic is sheer nonsense. If that's why you voted to leave you appear to have been the victim of more misinformation from the leave camp. The sheer dishonesty that they employed is shameful.

 

[K1052]

But the way democracy is set up right now allows for this, so you have to accept that flaw, the problem I have with a lot of the remain camp or people who argue for it, is that democracy is the best thing until they don't get what they want, then there's all this backsliding and argument about how technically this thing isn't as democratic as they'd like or not democratic by some arbitrary standard.

If you back democracy to make decisions that you agree with then you necessarily consent to that same democracy making decisions you disagree with, you can't pick and choose either you support it or you don't.

My failure to endorse the decision of the mob may be, in the strictest dictionary definition of the word, undemocratic but in the context of representative democracy that is practiced that distinction makes little actual difference. I accept that electeds sometimes make decisions counter to my personal desires. I do not accept the power of the mob to make those decisions for me.

 

[fskimospy]

My failure to endorse the decision of the mob may be, in the strictest dictionary definition of the word, undemocratic but in the context of representative democracy that is practiced that distinction makes little actual difference. I accept that electeds sometimes make decisions counter to my personal desires. I do not accept the power of the mob to make those decisions for me.

Yeah I'm not sure how he isn't getting that you can support representative democracy but not pure democracy. Pure democracy often leads to stupid outcomes. Anyone who doubts this should just look at California's proposition system.

In this case it looks like an awful lot of people didn't understand the actual costs and benefits of leaving the EU and they made a dumb decision. Further evidence of why referendums are generally bad ideas.

 

[K1052]

Yeah I'm not sure how he isn't getting that you can support representative democracy but not pure democracy. Pure democracy often leads to stupid outcomes. Anyone who doubts this should just look at California's proposition system.

In this case it looks like an awful lot of people didn't understand the actual costs and benefits of leaving the EU and they made a dumb decision. Further evidence of why referendums are generally bad ideas.

A couple years in SF was more than enough to fully convince me that referendums are bad in both concept and practice. Really really bad.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think the tipping point and driving force was immigration.

The fact that any EU citizen can freely enter the UK and reside there pissed the English off.

There's a huge movement against immigration of "unwanteds" which they consider leeches to their social services, perpetually unemployed, lazy to integrate and learn the language, cultural agitants, and fear perpetrated by terrorism and increased crime.

More than one Brit will blame Merkel for initiating the Syrian refugee crisis and forcing other member EU nations to "absorb" what many consider her mess. But as members of the EU, you're Brussels HQ bitch and what they say goes. But Brits don't like to think of themselves as anyone's bitch.

Brits are proud and only had one leg in the EU anyways. They wouldn't even give up their currency.

The immigration issue is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

As well it should be! We don`t want Great Britian to be renamed Great Arab Island...lolol

 

[Spungo]

Except he kept his post in the EU Parliament, the place he just got UK out of.

The UK is still part the EU. They haven't officially left yet. Expecting him to quit his job in parliament would be like expecting Obama to step down as president after winning the election, but before anything gets passed.
"The people voted me in to enact Obamacare! I haven't done it yet, but I think I'll step down because I've proven my point."

Here's my prediction of what will happen:
1) The UK won't actually leave the EU because oligarchs will never allow it.
2) Nigel won't step down because his job isn't done.
3) Nigel will die from an unusual suicide caused by 2 bullets to the back of the head.
4) Nigel will be replaced with a pro-EU puppet.

Look how quickly the EU forced Alexis Tsipras to fall in line. Greece had a referendum on whether or not to accept some agreement with the EU. The Greek people voted against it. Varoufakis, the finance minister, resigned, and Tsipras completely disregarded the referendum and sided with the EU anyway. You can vote any way you want as long as you vote the way we tell you to vote.

The UK will have more referendums until the "correct" answer happens.

 

[agent00f]

Well the problem with the EU is that it was originally just an economic union but it's transformed into a political union, you cannot have one without the other, if you want to remain democratic then you have to leave.

Federal law over rules local law in the USA but federal law is still democratically chosen by all the member states and the people get their chance to vote for who makes or vetos those laws. There's division in the UK just the same as in the US, we are made of several countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and it's the UK as a whole who belong to the EU but inside that border of the UK decisions are made democratically.

I've seen this spin before from numerous people in the remain camp in the UK, fundamentally at the end of the day the EU is anti-democratic and that goes against our values, and remember that while you compare the EU trying to emulate the US model (which is a false equivelancy) remember that the US got that model by copying the same values as the UK, we've practiced democracy and held those values long before the USA.

If anything the EU member nations have far more power like individual vetoes than american states, you simply don't know how the EU works. Here is video from a british professor of law explaining the basic misconceptions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI, but it seems unlikely that situation will change.

A short while ago there was survey/test of EU residents for basic facts about the union. I recall Britain ranked at the bottom, which rather explains the circumstances around the vote.

The UK is still part the EU. They haven't officially left yet. Expecting him to quit his job in parliament would be like expecting Obama to step down as president after winning the election, but before anything gets passed.
"The people voted me in to enact Obamacare! I haven't done it yet, but I think I'll step down because I've proven my point."

Here's my prediction of what will happen:
1) The UK won't actually leave the EU because oligarchs will never allow it.
2) Nigel won't step down because his job isn't done.
3) Nigel will die from an unusual suicide caused by 2 bullets to the back of the head.
4) Nigel will be replaced with a pro-EU puppet.

Look how quickly the EU forced Alexis Tsipras to fall in line. Greece had a referendum on whether or not to accept some agreement with the EU. The Greek people voted against it. Varoufakis, the finance minister, resigned, and Tsipras completely disregarded the referendum and sided with the EU anyway. You can vote any way you want as long as you vote the way we tell you to vote.

The UK will have more referendums until the "correct" answer happens.

You appear to hold the view that Nigel Farage is a responsible person, which is contradicted by his most recent decision that you are literally commenting on.