The UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

and they need to stick to their guns. preserving the political stability of the union is more important than getting a deal with us.

The EU's roadmap to winning in this scenario is to sit on their hands and do nothing, really.

"So, you thought the EU was a bureaucratic mess of red tape and unnecessary regulations, eh? And now you want out within two years?

...


HOW DO YOU LIKE US NOW, SAXON KNOW-NOTHINGS?"

[Novus America]

Then again, some remain voters were just voting for the status quo, not because they agreed with the EU.

The status quo is doing no harm.

For you, maybe. For many things are not going well.

[Uxupox]

Highly doubtful that the people of Northern Ireland want to "reunify" with Ireland.

[Zeinbrad]

Did you not consider that perhaps the EU project was the revolution that has now failed. After all it hasn't been around very long compared to the hundreds of years that Britain managed to survive without such a federalised superstate style approach. Now we can get back to some 'Order and peace'.

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

They were just letting the Nazi's win to make them feel better for themselves. Those damn Soviets and American didn't give the UK the chance to unveil it's super cool superweapons.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The status quo is doing no harm.

For you, maybe. For many things are not going well.

Aye. Many of which have nothing to do with the EU. On the other hand, many things are going good precisely because there is an EU.

[Conserative Morality]

we got a badass over here folks.

Pedro, its a simple matter, you need to speak English in order to be understood, if you go all 'you can't tell me what to do I wrote what I want!!!!" Then I simply don't know what you mean, because there's a great bloody big difference between a secular humanist, and a social humanist. Actually, there isn't really, but its important.

...

I don't even know how to respond to such blatant racism and horrid abuse of the English language.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As for the EU being in limbo... haven't they already called a leaders' summit that excludes the UK?

I believe so. But that'll just give them time to work out a preferred outcome in the negotiations - in the knowledge that they won't even know who they will be negotiating with (let alone what that person will actually want) for maybe half a year.

The DJIA is an absolutely massive index, the largest stock index in the world. It moves 2% pretty frequently.

The DJIA is also just about the worst index possible. If you're interested in talking about US equities, just use the S&P 500.

They're predicting as much as a 40% slide by October.

Depending on what the UK does, it might be accurate, or not.

[Novus America]

Did you not consider that perhaps the EU project was the revolution that has now failed. After all it hasn't been around very long compared to the hundreds of years that Britain managed to survive without such a federalised superstate style approach. Now we can get back to some 'Order and peace'.

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

The U.K. did not win the war with the EU though. I am not sure how that applies to this situation.

[Geilinor]

Those were your words, I'm just repeating them back.

I don't have a dog in this fight, to be honest. I'm not gonna be hurt by Brexit since I am across the pond.

But you were repeating them incorrectly, I never said 'Secular Humanists', I said 'Social Humanists'. Own up to your mistakes. Improve your reading comprehension. Then again, Latinos y'know?

What is "social humanism"?

[Kriga]

Well...just look at the debacle of a Revolution that took place in Russia. Or better yet, look at the French Revolution. Sure, the monarchy was corrupt, but the fear and anarchy it led to was not worth the price. Had it been handled differently, with order restored quickly, perhaps the situation would have been different.

But no. Radical ideologues like Robespierre had to foster fear and terror to exert their will. Their attempts to create a new order all ultimately failed, and a status quo always returned. With Order and peace.

Abolishing it will only repeat the cycle. Hopeless radical takes advantage and abolishes the existing state's institutions, only to try and transform it into a state of his own design (or his revolutionary creed). Said ideologue and his supporters are defeated, and before you know it, pragmatism and order is back in the fold.

Abolishing the state has never helped man. To say so otherwise, is the rambling of radicals and hopeless idealists who believe they can fight the system with passionate dedication to whatever godforsaken ideology they adhere to.

Yes, but where did I say I wanted that? I was giving an example of a case where a stronger state and strong economy is utterly irrelevant to a party's ideological ends when that is gained by organisations, methods, policies antithetical to those ends.

Mind repeating that point then? Because all i h heard was you ranting about how much you hate multinational states, and your complete disregard for the state when i said that a strong economy was key to a strong state.

Which you were very quick to dismiss in favour of your ideological whims.

[Vajorr]

So this suddenly become relevant

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's cute that you think I made a mistake just because I didn't quote you word for word.

I don't have to.

we got a badass over here folks.

Pedro, its a simple matter, you need to speak English in order to be understood, if you go all 'you can't tell me what to do I wrote what I want!!!!" Then I simply don't know what you mean, because there's a great bloody big difference between a secular humanist, and a social humanist. Actually, there isn't really, but its important.

[Novus America]

For you, maybe. For many things are not going well.

Aye. Many of which have nothing to do with the EU. On the other hand, many things are going good precisely because there is an EU.

Perhaps. But the establishment is not fixing the problems. People want something new.

[Talvezout]

It's cute that you think I made a mistake just because I didn't quote you word for word.

I don't have to.

we got a badass over here folks.

Pedro, its a simple matter, you need to speak English in order to be understood, if you go all 'you can't tell me what to do I wrote what I want!!!!" Then I simply don't know what you mean, because there's a great bloody big difference between a secular humanist, and a social humanist. Actually, there isn't really, but its important.

It would be nice if you explained that difference.

And if you didn't randomly get all racist as well.

[Quaxoglia]

Well, they have chosen to leave us.

They aren't welcome anymore. If they (those silly leave voters) think that they are still welcome in Ypres
and in the Western Corner Battlefields in Belgium. Well, think again. We don't want you to visit us anymore.

Go, and don't come back.
Backstabbers.

I'm also very dissapointed. The eldery people have voted for the future of the youth.
They wanted to remain.
Well done, (Un)United Kingdom.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

we got a badass over here folks.

Pedro, its a simple matter, you need to speak English in order to be understood, if you go all 'you can't tell me what to do I wrote what I want!!!!" Then I simply don't know what you mean, because there's a great bloody big difference between a secular humanist, and a social humanist. Actually, there isn't really, but its important.

...

I don't even know how to respond to such blatant racism and horrid abuse of the English language.

It's amusing he's trying to correct me on the use of "Secular Humanist", and "Social Humanist", and then he admits there's no difference.

[Novus America]

To be fair also, many Leave voters were voting against "the establishment" rather than against Europe, and some said they did not care if they were made poorer as a result.

What is a little starvation amongst friends, amirite?

People are not going to starve because of this though.

[Ethel mermania]

Did you not consider that perhaps the EU project was the revolution that has now failed. After all it hasn't been around very long compared to the hundreds of years that Britain managed to survive without such a federalised superstate style approach. Now we can get back to some 'Order and peace'.

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

I have seen arguements made that the euro is a continuation of the German central banks policy goals of the 193p's. Only they called it the reichmark.

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe so. But that'll just give them time to work out a preferred outcome in the negotiations - in the knowledge that they won't even know who they will be negotiating with (let alone what that person will actually want) for maybe half a year.


The DJIA is also just about the worst index possible. If you're interested in talking about US equities, just use the S&P 500.

They're predicting as much as a 40% slide by October.

Depending on what the UK does, it might be accurate, or not.

[desire to see it all burn intensifies]

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

They were just letting the Nazi's win to make them feel better for themselves. Those damn Soviets and American didn't give the UK the chance to unveil it's super cool superweapons.

Such as that hilarious weaponised joke they had lying around somewhere at Dinby Road.

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

The U.K. did not win the war with the EU though. I am not sure how that applies to this situation.

It prevented other wars from happening, though. The former approach to a lack of resources in Europe was a good old invasion. After the Second World War, Europe began sharing her resources. And everybody prospered.

[Gauthier]

And Spain will Veto your application into Europe and we will allow you to wither and die. Happy Independence Day!

Damn, why all the hate? Anyway, Scotland could get in if Germany just told Spain not to do it. They may have leverage to do that. Honestly, I think Scottish independence would be justified now. Before I was against, but now I'm open to it.

Or if somehow Scotland could hand over Gibraltar on a platter to Spain.

[Great Nepal]

Who by? The EU is not a command economy, they cannot magically direct many different businesses to start buying from somebody else because of wrongthink in Albion.

They don't need to, they can put up standard rate tariffs and businesses going for cheaper product will go for one where they don't need to pay tax on. Yes trade will continue, but it will be at a much slower pace.

Demand does not spring out of thin air, for some time those German car manufacturers will see a glut in profits.

Yes while the banking sector will be glad to ensure London isn't financial centre anymore; also so will the British companies. Who will be able to hold out longer? Economy of $18.5 trillion or one of $2.849 trillion?

Now given the EU's current economic situation do you think they can afford for things to get worse? For slower growth, perhaps unemployment amidst refugees, greek bailout III and general economic malaise?

Yes most certainly they can. UK economy is likely to be in recession, longer UK economy declines - ie. longer a deal isn't reached more likely possibility of fracture in UK as areas start considering and demanding independence. Again which economy can absorb the shock better - the larger one.

Yes, I entirely accept your point: the EU was designed to be a single trade bloc for collective bargaining, that does not necessarily mean the design will work. They sell lots of crap to us, they need our purchases, they are desperate to hold the union together and bring the crisis to a clean conclusion. We've taken the leap, we may as well stick to our guns.

1. Firstly that is silly logic, we'd need to continue buying lot of those stuff; more important factor is what percentage do we sell to them vs them to us. We sell ~45% of our stuff to them, they sell ~8ish% (I think it was, maybe few points up or down) to us. How long can we sustain significant decline in 45% of our sales vs they can in 8ish% of their sale? More diverse source of income = less importance of individual nations and vice versa.
2. Going by that flawed logic, we'd never get a trade deal with EU because it'd be vetoed by most of the countries who make up the EU. We have trade surplus with them, therefore it stands to reason (based on your logic) that they'd care less about that trade or even be opposed to it. Therefore they'd veto any such deals and since every EU country has a veto; we'd be fucked.

[Imperializt Russia]

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

I have seen arguements made that the euro is a continuation of the German central banks policy goals of the 193p's. Only they called it the reichmark.

Those arguments are clearly bollocks.

[Hurdegaryp]

Because Great Britain could have won the Second World War easily without the support of the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

I have seen arguements made that the euro is a continuation of the German central banks policy goals of the 193p's. Only they called it the reichmark.

Also it is said that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Aye. Many of which have nothing to do with the EU. On the other hand, many things are going good precisely because there is an EU.

Perhaps. But the establishment is not fixing the problems. People want something new.

By throwing away everything that the 'establishment' did change over the past sixty years. That's not progress. Progress is slow and steady.