England maybe leave EU june 23.

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Dolan »

Amsel_ wrote:1) I'll repeat for the dozenth time that I'm bringing up these domestic issues to show a microcosmic failure on the part of the EU. This isn't meant to be an argument on its own. It's just supposed to show supposed "leaks in the dam" about the EU not assuaging macro issues. Isolationist policies are also rather unlikely. There's no reason these countries can't trade with each other without the EU.

Dude, does your federal government have to account for every lil shit that happens inside one of your state? Is the Trump administration to blame for Illinois being one of the states with the worst roads in the USA? Or is the local administration? Does Illinois having bad infrastructure show a failure of centralised government or just local mismanagement? You probably don't blame your federal government for every failure of administration that is apparent at a state level. Then why would you blame the EU for these "microcosmic failures", if the EU is not even a country like the US.
Also, I've got news for you, the EU does a lot more than just facilitating trade between its members. A lot more. But not in areas which are the exclusive authority of sovereign states.
There is such a thing in the EU called the principle of subsidiarity. Which means that in areas in which the EU has no exclusive competence, it's up to each EU country to conduct their own policies. And when it comes to economic performance or public order, that's always the case. EU countries don't really lose their sovereignty when they join the EU, they just pool their sovereignty in some areas of common interest.
2) Surely you have seen the massive right-wing surge that has been explicitly anti-EU.

Yeah and most of them do not even share a common platform. You know, for example Steve Banon came to Europe to organise some kind "European awakening" here, after he got kicked out of the Trump administration, so he came here to lick his wounds by trying to somehow stir things up in Europe. You know what these local right-wing parties told him? To take his plans and put'em where the sun never shines. That's what Scandinavian right-wing parties told him, that's what Central European right-wing parties told him too. Only the Dutch, the French, some Belgian dude, and Italians were somewhat interested, but for example Le Pen rejected any idea that Banon would be involved in her party anymore than just a "consultant" and as someone who provides polls. That's all. All this narrative about some kind of major brewing right-wing uprising is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.

3) When those countries buy U.S. assets they are increasing our GDP. According to you, it should balance out. But inflation isn't just matching GDP to the money supply. Money creation is not inflationary as long as there are goods and services to buy with that money.

Which is not the case when you create new virtual currency, crediting accounts with new digital money that have no coverage whatsoever in the real economy. Because that's what you're doing when you're overspending. You are creating more currency beyond the forecast value of your GDP. The quantity of goods and services will not magically increase too. More money will be chasing a smaller quantity of goods and services.

Those examples (Japan, Greece, Western Europe) are so different and have such different underlying real-economy contexts, that for me to prove why this argument is not relevant it would take me a book, at least. Japan has a much different work ethic compared to Greece, their debt is mostly owned by Japanese citizens and part of their deflationary issues are also created by a general decline in demographics, during the last few decades. It's a very long story and it doesn't have much to do with monetising debt. It would be a gross oversimplification to claim Japan has been doing so well economically thanks to monetising debt. It would be a very shallow argument, the economy does not work only based on monetary forces. Or maybe that's what Americans think, the economy is basically printing more money, making more cheap credit available, period. That explains it all.

6) If one nuke goes off, all of them go off. That has been the situation since the cold-war.

In what way, when did this ever happen? When did one nuke go off which triggered the others to go off too?

7) The Louisiana territories never really developed their own nationality. Meanwhile Catalonia has its own language, history, politics, ethnicity, and culture. Time alone doesn't disqualify them from comparison to Yugoslavia.

Well they were Spanish. The Spanish could put any population they wanted there, it was their property. They could move half of their population there and it could be a new country. It's not like there is such a thing as an ethnic American either. So why would Louisiana continue to be part of the USA, when it could split, if all the people who were of Spanish or Mexican-Spanish ancestry could claim their independence from the USA?
Catalonia wants to be independent because their economy is doing well, that's why. There has been a trend at some point among some regions that were doing very well economically to claim they should split with the main country and go it alone. Same thing happened with Northern Italy. And what happened? Nothing, it all fizzled out.
We had something similar here in Romania, where in Transilvania there is a similar current of opinion, a similar distrust for Bucharest (basically our Washington) and a desire to go it alone, because they think they would do better by themselves. It's just regional pride, they feel that they are superior to the rest of the country and they don't want to pay taxes and fund another region which is less economically developed. Where would we all be if every region in a country that shares this superiority complex were allowed to split from a country? California could split from the USA, New York too, London from the UK, Flanders from Belgium (they speak a different language too), etc etc.

9) I don't have any ill will towards Europe. I just dislike the EU out of economic and national-sovereignty concerns. A stronger, independent Europe will make for much better allies than the flimsy little-girls, of both sexes, who seem to have a monopoly on power over there.

And a stronger Europe will not exist if every European country goes it alone, in the name of some 19th century ideology that led to two world wars. I fail to see how Europe would be stronger if each state went back to the constant bickering and petty conflicts that characterised their history until the second part of the 20th century.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Amsel_ »

1) The federal government does hold a lot of responsibility for infrastructure. It might not be entirely their fault, but on some level it is.

2) I don't see what Bannon has to do with this. There's been a very clear rise in the right. Whether or not they agree on certain issues doesn't matter, but virtually all of them are anti-EU.

3) It means that as long as we have the capacity to supply goods and services, we can afford it. If we're giving everyone a trillion dollars then that will obviously have some deleterious effects, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that deficits are fine, and even necessary, to stimulate economic growth. I bring this up because members of the EU have to get money second hand from whatever the ECB puts into existence.

Also, you seem a bit inconsistent. Earlier you said "If bond buyers send those dollars back to the US economy, by purchasing other assets from the US, you get higher inflation. Simple as that." but now you say "their debt is mostly owned by Japanese citizens". If the U.S. is supposedly countering inflation by shipping bonds overseas, shouldn't it be bad that Japan holds most of its own debt?

4) You are so desperate to win an argument with a stranger on the internet. It's funny, but also kind of confusing.

5) It doesn't matter if Catalonia could have been genocided. It wasn't. Catalans are still a people. The situation there isn't too different from the Yugoslav one.

6) Why are you presuming that dissolving the EU would recreate the 19th century? This entire argument is about whether or not the EU is preventing wars. You can't include the conclusion as part of your premise in order to prove the conclusion.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by spanky4ever »

I would like to get into the discussion, but it would take me a wall of quotes, and 6 pages of reading. Could you boil it down bois?
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by deleted_user0 »

just read...
Canada Jam
Jaeger
Posts: 3107
Joined: May 16, 2015
ESO: Hyperactive Jam

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Jam »

Can you read it to me daddy?
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Dolan »

Amsel_ wrote:2) I don't see what Bannon has to do with this. There's been a very clear rise in the right. Whether or not they agree on certain issues doesn't matter, but virtually all of them are anti-EU.

We've had fringe anti-EU parties in Europe for decades. From both sides of the political spectrum (far right and far left). This is nothing new. What is new is that these parties have become mainstream now, since people have grown frustrated with how their governments handled the migrant crisis. And that's a good thing, because this made governments take a step back and start curbing the influx of migrants. It's just the beginning, more corrections are on the way.
La Lega from Italy won elections on an anti-EU platform, but once they got to power they started toning down their maximal demands. Now they don't want Italy out of the EU or out of the Eurozone anymore. Reality struck them: people don't really want that. Same for le Pen in France. She stopped demanding a Frexit referendum and no longer wants France to leave the Eurozone. At most, her party would want a referendum on France's Eurozone membership, which according to polls they would lose conclusively.
Last, but not least, not all EU countries have been marked by this neo-populist trend. Romania doesn't have an ultra-nationalist party anymore, because we've been there and done that and realised it doesn't lead anywhere. People here realised you can't improve your living standards with bombastic slogans. It might be the case that we've been spared from a return of far right, ultranationalist parties because we almost had no migrants at all.
So, the European political landscape is a lot more complex than people from across the ocean can imagine.
3) It means that as long as we have the capacity to supply goods and services, we can afford it. If we're giving everyone a trillion dollars then that will obviously have some deleterious effects, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that deficits are fine, and even necessary, to stimulate economic growth. I bring this up because members of the EU have to get money second hand from whatever the ECB puts into existence.

Why should the government stimulate "growth"? The government shouldn't control the economy. I thought Americans liked the idea of a self-regulating market. Why do you need your government to stimulate the economy, do you think the government is better at managing the economy than the economy/the market itself?

Also, you seem a bit inconsistent. Earlier you said "If bond buyers send those dollars back to the US economy, by purchasing other assets from the US, you get higher inflation. Simple as that." but now you say "their debt is mostly owned by Japanese citizens". If the U.S. is supposedly countering inflation by shipping bonds overseas, shouldn't it be bad that Japan holds most of its own debt?

Well, that's why I also said these cases you quoted (Japan, Greece, USA) are all so different from one another. What I meant to say is that most of Japanese debt is owned domestically. It's not really owned mostly by private buyers (my mistake for the imprecise wording). It's mostly owned by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) (and other governmental entities like the social-security fund). And they have different rules and legislation on how they manage this. The BoJ is actually returning the interest it gets from buying this debt from their own government back to the selfsame government. So it's all just one giant accountancy trick to run a large budgetary deficit. But that works because the Japanese are very disciplined and have the economic output to match even large amounts of fiscal stimulus. Running a deficit and printing your own money is no magical device to boost your economy. Zimbabwe has been printing their own money and running a deficit too and in July 2008 they had an inflation rate of 231,150,888.87%.
Going back to the inflation argument, Japan's high level of domestically held debt didn't create much inflation because most of it is not openly traded on the market. It's held by their central bank. Which is different from how things are done in the USA, where there's a multitude of market participants who trade Treasury bonds.
4) You are so desperate to win an argument with a stranger on the internet. It's funny, but also kind of confusing.

It doesn't really take me much time to reply to these arguments. I can do it during breakfast, for a few minutes. It's a good exercise, though maybe a bit wasteful.

5) It doesn't matter if Catalonia could have been genocided. It wasn't. Catalans are still a people. The situation there isn't too different from the Yugoslav one.

If you come to Europe and tell anyone here that the situation from Catalonia isn't too different from the one in Yugoslavia (a country that no longer exists), you will see what people's reactions will be to such a statement. They will be baffled. That's why people often say Americans don't understand other regions and people's local history and politics.
If Catalonia and Yugoslavia were so similar, how come only the latter's situation led to a full-blown war, but not the former's?

6) Why are you presuming that dissolving the EU would recreate the 19th century? This entire argument is about whether or not the EU is preventing wars. You can't include the conclusion as part of your premise in order to prove the conclusion.

There's no good argument for European countries to go back to the autistic politics of the pre-20th century era. And the EU is not the product of globalisation, as the alt-right and some other conspiracy theorists claim, it's the product of regional integration. It couldn't work with any random country from outside of Europe, because it's based on a common history and some common cultural layers. This is what Banon and his ilk don't understand when they spout their BS about Europe.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by deleted_user0 »

4) You are so desperate to win an argument with a stranger on the internet. It's funny, but also kind of confusing


Lmao... if you say shit like that it actually reflects on your own mindset. Pathetic...
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Amsel_ »

1) Those parties are backing away from leaving the EU for political reasons. The disdain for the EU is still there. My point is that there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the EU, and they could be voicing problems I haven't heard about. Typically when there are large movements in support of something that the media, government, institutions, and whoever else are calling foolish, there is an underlying problem not being addressed.

2) The government took responsibility for the economy when it decided to create a currency and enforce property rights along with other regulations. The government created the economy, for better or worse. I see no reason not to involve them in their own creation. They have a lot of power that a lassaiz-faire regime would not. Particularly over monetary policy. The government essentially has a monopoly over an asset called currency. I think it's important that we make sure that monopoly is acting in the public interest.

3) The Japanese government and its proxy institutions own a large share of Japanese debt for a few reasons. One I would like to mention is their decades long quantitative easing policy, which removed a lot of these assets from the market. I would also like to mention that bonds don't come from nowhere. They have to be bought. When a bond is bought, the money used to purchase it is removed from the economy, and the bond is created. When the bond matures, that money is recreated and given back to the person who owns the bond. So these bonds didn't just appear from nowhere. There were already assets in the economy to cover them; be it money or goods and services able to be purchased. The question of who owns the bonds doesn't really affect the underlying statement I'm trying to make about monetary policy.

Also, on the topic of Zimbabwe. Their issue wasn't monetary, it was macroeconomic. Mugabe ethnically cleansed the country and in the process destroyed the entire agricultural base. Inflation is to be expected in circumstances where the economy is being attacked outright.

4) The Yugoslav position was a bit different. They had a difficult transfer of power over to a new leader, and this naturally spurred factionalism on the basis of ethnicity, religion, and prior nationality. Had Franco's transfer of power not been so smooth, we would have likely seen a stronger bid for secession. If Madrid were to collapse right now, then I would fully expect a provisional Catalan government to be set up within months.

5) I'm not sure you read my reply correct. I wasn't advocating a return to 19th century politics. I was questioning the idea that the EU was somehow the only thing standing in the way of going back to that 19th century situation.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Amsel_ »

umeu wrote:4) You are so desperate to win an argument with a stranger on the internet. It's funny, but also kind of confusing


Lmao... if you say shit like that it actually reflects on your own mindset. Pathetic...

When I said that, it was referring to the way he was arguing. He seemed insistent on arguing over every little detail, while ignoring the main argument itself. I see this a lot on the internet, and it usually leads to me just dropping the conservation. If you look at the chain of replies, you can probably see why it got a negative reaction out of me.

Dolan: "Yeah, that anti-missile system turns us into a very convenient target for the USA. Meaning, that's the first target Russia is going to preemptively strike, to make sure they're not getting hit while trying to reach more distant targets. You're welcome, I guess."

Amsel: "If one nuke goes off, all of them go off. That has been the situation since the cold-war."

Dolan: "In what way, when did this ever happen? When did one nuke go off which triggered the others to go off too?"

My point was that the entire world would be destroyed, so proximity to Russia didn't matter. This mutually-assured-destruction has been the status-quo for decades. He misinterpreted this as me saying all the nuclear weapons in the world were launched during the cold-war. I took this as a strong sign that he was just looking for every piece of my text to disagree with me over, which lead me to accuse him of just trying to win instead of discuss. I would apologize if it were just a reading-comprehension gaff or a language-barrier issue though.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Dolan »

@Amsel_

Welp, that's because you said "that has been the situation since", which sort of implies that something that you were describing (bombs going off) has been happening since the cold war.

I don't like nitpicking but if you make a statement of action:
If one nuke goes off, all of them go off

And then say this has been happening... What other conclusion can I draw from that? That's why I asked when did this happen. I'm not looking to dodge any issue, if you think I ignored something, you can point it out to me and I'll go back to that point, no problem.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Amsel_ »

Dolan wrote:@Amsel_

Welp, that's because you said "that has been the situation since", which sort of implies that something that you were describing (bombs going off) has been happening since the cold war.

I don't like nitpicking but if you make a statement of action:
If one nuke goes off, all of them go off

And then say this has been happening... What other conclusion can I draw from that? That's why I asked when did this happen. I'm not looking to dodge any issue, if you think I ignored something, you can point it out to me and I'll go back to that point, no problem.

I was talking about mutually-assured-destruction, which serves as a preventative to nuclear strikes. We've been in this situation where no one wants to nuke or attack anyone who might nuke them since the cold-war. It seems like common sense that I wasn't talking about a nuclear exchange that actually happened. I followed the sentence you quoted with "That has been the situation since the cold-war." which is present perfect (progressive?) tense, implying I was talking about something which started in the past and continues to this day.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by gibson »

So this thread is relevant again I guess. Can someone explain to me what exactly happened today and what it means for England going forward as I'm too lazy to do research myself
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Horsemen »

It ain't happening bois
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by fightinfrenchman »

S T R O N G A N D S T A B L E
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 5033
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: edeholland
GameRanger ID: 4053888
Clan: ESOC

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by edeholland »

gibson wrote:So this thread is relevant again I guess. Can someone explain to me what exactly happened today and what it means for England going forward as I'm too lazy to do research myself
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/15/uk/brexit-vote-theresa-may-gbr-intl/index.html
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by duckzilla »

gibson wrote:So this thread is relevant again I guess. Can someone explain to me what exactly happened today and what it means for England going forward as I'm too lazy to do research myself

Yesterday, the following happened:
  • British parliament voted on the negotiated brexit agreement between the british government and the EU
  • The agreement is bad in any respect, since 1) it probably leads to economic downturn due to brexit itself, 2) it does not solve the "Northern Ireland problem" (true Brexit would mean to get a hard border between Ireland/Northern Ireland -> high potential for renewed ethnical strife and civil war), 3) the agreement would create a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of GB, thus splitting the country in itself
  • The agreement was voted down
  • Nobody knows what to do now, since it is obvious that no matter in which direction UK will head now, it will lose horribly. If UK goes hard Brexit, you will see its economy decline, more parts of the banking sector leave, and huge inner-societal division between irish catholics/protestants and scots/welsh/brits. If UK stays in the EU, the political establishment betrays all promises it has made in the last 4 years, trust into democracy will be shaken further and the legitimacy of the whole system will be at stake.
  • Politicians are largely aware of the above. Hence, Theresa May is likely to win the vote of confidence. This is because 1) no conservative wants to have her job since you can only lose and 2) conservatives do not want to hold new elections in order to avoid Jeremy Corbyn as potential prime minister.
I think the UK is in an existential crisis and there are no politicians around which have a promising potential to find a solution. Jeremy Corbyn is maybe the weirdest of them all.

Direct democracy is a nice thing in smaller, local contexts. For big questions, where populists and demagogues have a lot of time to shape public opinion by lying and dividing people, direct democracy has a good potential to yield results like this.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
Germany supernapoleon
Lancer
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep 9, 2015
ESO: Supernapoleon
Location: Munich

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by supernapoleon »

I think a hard Brexit does not necesserly mean that the econemy goes down. The UK is a member of the WTO (World Trading Organisation) and thus the UK will have at least the same trading standards with the EU as with the US ect. Ican even imagine seperate traing agreements with the EU in a few years like with Switzerland.
The Brexit just gets too much hype from the media in my opinion.
"I'M SOOOOOO GOOD AT THE GAME"
Hazza wrote: "I mad u win cos u get carried all game and have to lame every game"
Image
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by duckzilla »

supernapoleon wrote:I think a hard Brexit does not necesserly mean that the econemy goes down. The UK is a member of the WTO (World Trading Organisation) and thus the UK will have at least the same trading standards with the EU as with the US ect. Ican even imagine seperate traing agreements with the EU in a few years like with Switzerland.
The Brexit just gets too much hype from the media in my opinion.

You overestimate the WTO, undererstimate the effects of "in a few years" and concentrate on economic issues, which are only one part of the problem. The Brexit is definitely not "hyped", but a fundamental crisis for one of the largest economies on the planet. It is an economic, cultural and social crisis where no one can predict a possible outcome. In the end, anything could happen between staying in the EU whilst risking civil war and leaving whilst breaking apart. The social and cultural cohesion is utterly destroyed.

The UK has been declining in power and influence ever since the end of the 2nd World War. But the current status is ridiculous and, frankly, just sad. The UK basically invented modern day diplomacy and was hugely successful with it for 200 years. Nowadays, the country is stuck with hazardeurs, snobs and elitists as politicians such as Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg. Socialized in Eton and Oxford, they never experienced a normal life and have no ideas of the problems of the common people. These guys are so detached from reality that even the foreign minister compares the EU with a prison. They just use their populist agenda to promise people entirely unrealistic things such as an internationally relevant "global britain" by planning to construct military bases in the caribbean and south-east asia. In the end, these guys do not care for anything else but their own grandeur.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

  • Quote

Post by Dolan »

The only solution for the UK is to leave planet Earth and follow its cosmic destiny of trading with the entire universe on its own terms.

Image

It's what the people voted for!!

#cosmic-britain
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by spanky4ever »

@duckzilla I read your posts above with great interest, and you make a very good summary of what is happening right now. After this, you finish your post by saying;
I think the UK is in an existential crisis and there are no politicians around which have a promising potential to find a solution. Jeremy Corbyn is maybe the weirdest of them all.

You made good arguments previous to this, but here you simply state a "fact" without any elaboration or argumentation, as if it was something we all agree on. I would like to hear more about your arguments that lead you to this conclusion :?: Could be interesting :!:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by spanky4ever »

supernapoleon wrote:I think a hard Brexit does not necesserly mean that the econemy goes down. The UK is a member of the WTO (World Trading Organisation) and thus the UK will have at least the same trading standards with the EU as with the US ect. Ican even imagine seperate traing agreements with the EU in a few years like with Switzerland.
The Brexit just gets too much hype from the media in my opinion.

I think you are right here, and I also think that EU could be more willing to negotiate this kind of deal, now that they are faced with a hard Brexit. EU will lose a lot of money with hard Brexit, cos they will not get all those billions of Euros that are in the negotiated deal.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by duckzilla »

iwillspankyou wrote:@duckzilla I read your posts above with great interest, and you make a very good summary of what is happening right now. After this, you finish your post by saying;
I think the UK is in an existential crisis and there are no politicians around which have a promising potential to find a solution. Jeremy Corbyn is maybe the weirdest of them all.

You made good arguments previous to this, but here you simply state a "fact" without any elaboration or argumentation, as if it was something we all agree on. I would like to hear more about your arguments that lead you to this conclusion :?: Could be interesting :!:

Jeremy Corbyn is the head of the opposition and played a confusing role in the whole Brexit story. He was already in his position during the process towards the Brexit referendum in late 2015/early 2016. During that time, he never really positioned himself as either pro or contra Brexit. It is a bit difficult to interpret why he did not, but it is often seen as contributing factor for the final outcome of the referendum. There was no big party which was consistently in favor of staying in the EU. Since the referendum, he is just constantly bashing the government without, to my knowledge, giving any proper idea how to do it better. His main argument is that the negotiation results are bad. Which is understandable! Because the whole Brexit idea and everything that surrounds it is not thoroughly thought through.

It is the job of good politicians 1) to understand the complexity of the topic and 2) to make the public understand it as well. None of the politicians succeeded here, some even openly lied about the topic (Farage etc.). Cameron at least found a position by saying that he prefers to stay in the EU, even if he was poor on explaining why. Corbyn did not even find a position! Now it is difficult for me to see why and I can see two potential answers: a) Corbyn did not understand the complexity of the topic and, hence, really was not able to find a position, or b) he did not position himself out of power political reasons. Both of these make him a questionable politician.

To me, Corbyn is the human manifestation of the whole Brexit misery. Just like the UK as a whole, he was not able to find a proper position towards Brexit, neither in early 2016 nor today. Just like the political class as a whole, he seems (!) to use the Brexit topic for his own political ambitions and chooses the easy way of just attacking the current government.

iwillspankyou wrote:EU will lose a lot of money with hard Brexit, cos they will not get all those billions of Euros that are in the negotiated deal.

I could be wrong here, but I think this is not true. The "billions of Euros" are not really a new part of the negotiated deal. According to international law, the UK has to pay them anyway in order to fulfill contracts it has signed years ago. You could think of examples like fonds for investments into infrastructure. Countries plan that many years ahead and if the UK now drops out of the EU, they still have to pay what they agreed on beforehand. It is just that british politicians like to vilify the EU by saying that the EU wants a lot of cash in exchange for a Brexit deal. That's fake news.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by Dolan »

Corbyn has been vague about his position on Brexit, because his party and his party members all the way down to grass roots are just as divided as the rest of Britain. Labour is overwhelmingly pro-Remain and pro-EU, but there is also a non-trivial percentage of Labour voters who also voted for leaving the EU. If he supports one particular position, he risks antagonising the rest of his party and losing votes. Hence, his public hesitation to pick any sides and his preference to just assume tactical positions (ie, supporting one thing now and then maybe supporting a slightly different thing tomorrow, depending on how the political debate and context have changed). Of course, when you do that, there's also the risk of appearing undecisive and lacking vision, but that's a smaller risk than openly antagonising one slice of your party. He's doing this to make sure Labour will not split on the issue of Brexit, right when they're polling pretty close to Tories. If he didn't do that, Labour risked losing votes to Lib Dems and even the SNP (in Scotland). Think of how many young Brits are both pro-EU and major Corbyn fanbois. If Corbyn came out openly in support of Brexit and rejected any chance of staying in the EU, then all those young voters would take down their Corbyn posters from their rooms. So, he has to compromise on this issue, that's why he says he would renegotiate a new deal with the EU to make sure jobs are protected and the UK continues to stay in the customs union or even the Common market. Of course, these are just pipe dreams, but who cares, the electorate's fears are placated.

If you want to take the discussion to more personal terms, it's a well-known fact that Corbyn has been a Eurosceptic all his life. He probably wanted the UK to leave the EU since the 80s or 90s, way way before these so-called Brexiteers even got into politics. And you know why Corbyn is anti-EU and wants the UK to leave the EU? Because his economic plans, once he gets to power, include nationalising large swathes of the UK economy, such as the railroad system and this would go against EU regulations on state aid. He wants the UK to leave the EU because he wants Britain's economy to become more controlled by the state and that runs against EU rules on competition. Corbyn always viewed the UK's EU membership as a limiting factor to his plans to turn the UK into a Marxist Socialist state.

So, there are two considerations here: a tactical-political one and an ideological one. One comes from conviction, the other from applying those convictions to the current political context in UK politics.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by spanky4ever »

Dolan wrote:If you want to take the discussion to more personal terms, it's a well-known fact that Corbyn has been a Eurosceptic all his life. He probably wanted the UK to leave the EU since the 80s or 90s, way way before these so-called Brexiteers even got into politics. And you know why Corbyn is anti-EU and wants the UK to leave the EU? Because his economic plans, once he gets to power, include nationalising large swathes of the UK economy, such as the railroad system and this would go against EU regulations on state aid. He wants the UK to leave the EU because he wants Britain's economy to become more controlled by the state and that runs against EU rules on competition. Corbyn always viewed the UK's EU membership as a limiting factor to his plans to turn the UK into a Marxist Socialist state.

So, there are two considerations here: a tactical-political one and an ideological one. One comes from conviction, the other from applying those convictions to the current political context in UK politics.


I would agree with Corbin on nationalising the Railroads, and I would go further. In my country, our right-wing parties, who are in charge now, are selling off the railroads, and privetising it, bit by bit. Its not something I condone at all. I would also nationalise the big banks :uglylol: That is not the same as making a Marxist country though. The risktaking the banks have done on the saver's account is just not sustainable.

You and @duckzilla could have a point on him not being very clear about his positions before Brexit, and that could also mean that he was unsure, or that he wanted the ppl to make their choice, without him putting much weight on one scale or another. I know he has been widely criticised for it after Brexit happened.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: England maybe leave EU june 23.

Post by spanky4ever »

I could be wrong here, but I think this is not true. The "billions of Euros" are not really a new part of the negotiated deal. According to international law, the UK has to pay them anyway in order to fulfill contracts it has signed years ago. You could think of examples like fonds for investments into infrastructure. Countries plan that many years ahead and if the UK now drops out of the EU, they still have to pay what they agreed on beforehand. It is just that british politicians like to vilify the EU by saying that the EU wants a lot of cash in exchange for a Brexit deal. That's fake news.

I am unsure about this :?: Trying to find answers, but cannot (thus far).

found this from Express, its from August 30, 2018
The UK has reportedly set aside a figure of ÂŁ39billion to honour a settlement with the EU.
Even if divorce talks collapse the divorce bill could still be partially paid to Brussels.
However, previous Brexit Secretary David Davis said the UK would not pay the divorce bill unless there was an appropriate settlement from the European Union.
But this would not happen straight away with the payment being delayed, causing upheaval for EU officials working on its budget.
He said: “The financial settlement, as it’s calibrated in the withdrawal agreement, reflects a whole range of considerations, not just the strict legal obligations.
“If we left with no deal then not only would there be a question around quite what the shape of those financial obligations as a matter of strict law, but secondly on the timing.
“Remember that the timing of payments is actually - we overlook it on our side - rather important on the EU side because of the way money is distributed.
“But I don’t think it could be safely assumed on anyone’s side that the financial settlement as has been agreed by the withdrawal agreement would then just be paid in precisely the same shape or speed or rate if there was no deal.”
There may be a transition period for two years in which Britain will still be a member of the EU in all but name.
In July, the Cabinet met at Chequers to discuss the Government’s Brexit plan and negotiations.
Mr Raab recognised the compromises made by various members in the Cabinet in the hope of reaching a successful plan to achieve a deal.


Not so straight forward, I would say. It would probably need renegotiations and maybe it will be the court in Haag who have the final say; and that takes time :idea:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV