The fight to block Brexit continues on...

I predict that in 10 years, the UK will not be the only ones to have left the EU.

Like it makes a difference. The same people who much of the trade and have done so since the days of empire, will still be ripping the world off. The eu will make deals with us, many behind our backs [note the change of tone recently?]. Did anyone notice that when we [the British] sent a trade delegation to India a few years ago, one thing quietly mentioned was that there would also need to be a deal on immigration - the numbers count from India to the uk! #-o

So well done brexiteers, instead of having Polish immigrants, you will hence forth be getting them from elsewhere, Islamic countries included.
Speaking of which, today on the news was the visit of Teresa May to Saudi Arabia, meanwhile a complaint about Saudi’s and the problems in Yemen. :-"

If you guys think there was anything clever and strong about brexit, I maintain that in truth it wont be either of those things.

That will hardly be a novel experience for us.
In or out, we’re screwed either way.

Those who voted for Brexit are happy to suffer some casualties, for the release of the tyrannical grip of the EU.

The only country that was profiting was Germany (and someone recently mentioned France was too, and so France).

UK Startups were only making a profit after 4 years, due to all the bureaucratic red-tape that Brussels was drowning them under with the most rediculous trading regulations they could conjure up.

Trading has not stopped… along with the scaremongering that it would, so we are at this stage in the process:

4 years doesn’t seem like a particularly long time, especially since new businesses the world over fold at a fairly high rate. So you would predict this number will go down? To what?

For your points on France and Germany, both appear to be net payers into the EU budget (see 2014 numbers here, from Danish Parliament). What is your source that Germany and France are “the only countr[ies] profiting”?

You haven’t left yet. You only triggered the exit process one week ago. :-"

Implications are not well understood because the web of interests are never fully disclosed.
There is no doubt that this is a game where only holders of high cards are allowed to play.
For instance, tangentially, the totally regressive

childish game played between Szoros and Trump are basically a throwback about who has more, and not about party affiliation. Could it be that the House of

Lords sees a double entendre here, for the same reason(s) that engender so much hoopla in the US between isolationism and openness? To simplify what
goes on in terms of simple popular belief, misses this.

If that a billionaire populist is not a contradiction in
terms, as cause appearent , is without question a
case at hand where, simplicity rules, yet without a

grasp on the total picture.

Same goes for Brexit. The argument does not start with basic foundations such as union versus isolationism in a fast evolving changing world,
instead goes to the periphery and instilled the most
obvious signature of social consciousness, that of class.

The populist will think of effecting their manifest social position as being the effectors by popular demand, whereas the opposite may be true, their
situation may worsen as a consequence of a general
isolationist policy.

If history can be any guide, the Wilsonian era may
have set the stage for a continuation of a hundred
year of conflict. Protectionism implies more cost in terms of tariffs, security arrangements, and treaties between similarly interested groups.

One may ask the question, of an economic seer as to the future economic effect of either scenarios, and it
all leads down the road to basic ideological
differences, which is at the moment a constant preoccupation.

The other day, on some station or another, the word ideology was hush hushed, as though in an effort to silence any reference to unmask the identity of those,
who may secretly try to hide their appear entirely
confusion, nay regret this way or that.

They just don’t want to go there, it’s too deep and
makes little sense to those populists to whom simple
answers are the only ones which are worth thinking about. They are questions without answeres. Cross referencing leads to a pathologically redundant effort
to stay with the ever deepening entropic trend.

Even in Hungary, Szoros -land, a university he heavily bequeathed, defunded him on account of the new trend in political point of view.

How ineffective and confusing are the resultant populist narratives when the words are dissected and tested for validity. I think perhaps, the House of Lords, is acting carefully, not to move too fast, in a process, which has already changed many things in Brit life, which may prove countereffective when looked at backwards.

The world is getting smaller, and as it does, unification, rather then its opposite seems to make more sense, generally. The idea that isolationism will favor the general social worldwide sensibility, is largely a questionable proposition, especially illustrative of the way the question was posed to Magsj, if she thinks the economy will improve as a result of withdrawal.

The variables are too many, the Pound is an overly highly retained value, and is bound to fall if ever there is a crisis with the dollar.

I predict a drastic lengthening of the exit process, at the very least, with caveats to augment or even reverse.

Replies will follow… tomorrow maybe.

Here are the EU losers (on the left) and the EU gainers (on the right):


[tab]

[/tab]
This relations and the fact of blackmailing are the reasons why the EU and the Euro still exist.

The EU net payers as the EU losers should leave the EU. There should be an EU net payers exit.

Why? If the existence of the EU creates positive externalities for its member, it’s likely that at least some of the net payers are getting their money’s worth. Given that Germany seems to be the EU’s most enthusiastic supporter, despite being it’s largest net payer, it also seems likely that they see themselves as benefiting from indirect benefits, despite being a direct net payer.

I agree, it will amount to a mixed bag, but depending on the British Parliament to set the tone and the measure of time.

Substantially,they will wait for signs of geopolitical change initiated by Trump. for a settling of Brexit.

26% of the population (or 37% of the electorate) isn’t a majority.

Brexiteers don’t understand what they voted for, because leaving the EU is complex and since no one else has done it before then no one really knows what it will look like or entail. It’s not like we were given five different versions of Brexit and all voted for the same version.

No, Farage made clear that if the vote had been marginal the other way round then he would have pressed for another referendum. This is classic Brexiteer self-victimisation.

Curiously, I know several people who are running profitable small businesses within 4 years of starting them up. So you’re simply wrong about this.

Curiously, all of them are concerned that without free access to the single market both their suppliers and their customers will be affected and hence their businesses are likely to make less money post-Brexit than they are now. So you’re simply wrong about this too.

Describe Brexit in detail.

No, they said it should go to a vote in the House of Commons, which it did, and who voted for it. You said you wanted to take the power back - what do you think that looks like? Running a poll in the Sun newspaper and then the government just does whatever the poll says?

It wasn’t a democratic vote.

More Brexiteer self-victimisation…

Basically, you believe a load of crap in tabloid newspapers and than by supporting Brexit you’re somehow going against the establishment and hence must be some kind of victim and rebel. It’s nonsense. The Tory party (the establishment) wanted this and are going ahead with it.

The whole ‘democracy’ narrative on Brexit is under theorized.

First, we know that less than half the population voted for it, so to insist that it is what the people want is at best dubious: it’s what some minority of people want, and a sufficient portion of the population was either indifferent or uncertain, so that that minority constituted a plurality of voters.

Second, a single referendum doesn’t even tell us very much about what those who voted want. We know that at least some people would vote differently today than they did at the time. If it’s the case that another referendum would have a different result, isn’t it more democratic to do what people want now instead of what people wanted last year?

Third, as Michael Jackson notes, Brexit is super complicated, it isn’t at all clear that this is the kind of thing we should be putting to popular wishes. People who spend their lives trying to figure out what something like Brexit would do are uncertain what the effects should be; of what value, then, is the opinion of a group of voters who have almost no understanding of the whole picture of what it means? If someone is just wrong about what will happen as a result of Brexit, then it is actually false when they say, “I want Brexit”.

As I see it ,the European Union has to approve secession as well for it is a multilateral agreement, right?

Globalization shall certainly fail. The reason is that there is no deep-hearted longing for it nor traumatic threat of it not existing. One, if not both, is absolutely required for its survival.

The EU is in a similar situation. It is conspicuously contrived, grasping the coat tails of Globalization and attempting extortion to ensure its fantasy, using technological surveillance as its security.

Britain is another story … not all together altruistic, but certainly founded in deep-hearted resolve. True Britain’s will persevere beyond the contrivances of modern technologically surveilled Man. Regardless of any voting, commandments, rebellions, or justifications, in the long run, the British shall not bow to the EU. Unlike the USA, the EU has no soul - a Frankenstein of its time and just another failed attempt of Man to supplant God (aka. the fundamental Principle by which all things exist and are maintained).

“We, the living with heart and soul, care too little for you, thus…”

Have you heard of GOTV?

Globalization has been an economic and humanitarian boon to the world. It’s reduced war, increased living standards, increased technological development and global output significantly. For the significant portion of the world’s people who have benefited from globalization (which admittedly doesn’t include the working classes in wealthy nations), globalization is absolutely longed for as a path out of suffering.

And for everyone, it not existing absolutely presents a traumatic threat, in the form of the levels of interstate violence that existed before it. Nationalism, trade protectionism, us-vs-them mentality, all threaten to renew global warfare in the place of globalization.

Finally, the nation as a source of identity has been weakening for decades, and we have every reason to think that will continue. Communities are frequently no longer local and no longer territorial bound. People increasingly question why a person born ten miles away across an imaginary line, but with whom they interact every day online, should be subject to different laws, different standards, different opportunities.

It is the nation that is no longer longed-for, and whose absence no longer represents a traumatic threat.

This comparison is a little ridiculous. The US was not immediately a coherent whole, it coalesced by necessity against outside threats, and it still divided against itself in civil war not a hundred years after its founding. It was kept together only through the violent suppression of an attempted secession. It is still deeply divided, and its future unity isn’t at all assured.

And if the US is a young nation, the EU is still in its infancy. Its benefits for its constituent countries has been significant, and we have many good reasons to believe that leaving the EU will be disastrous for the UK (the fact of the matter remains to be seen, assuming Britain actually manages to complete the process). But turmoil in the early years of a federation is to be expected, local customs need time to adapt, language needs time to shift. Give it at least a generation or two before you pronounce it unworkable.

The UK is pretty likely to split up as a result of Brexit, and some part of it is pretty likely to rejoin the EU. So both in terms of its deep-hearted resolve, and in terms of bowing to the EU, there’s good reason to doubt your claim. Fortunately, it will be tested soon enough.

Get Out The Vote? How is that relevant? Voting can be encourage through deception, as many suggest it was for Brexit. Simply convincing someone to vote does not increase their value as a voter or their ability to accurately predict the implication of a major change in the world order.

Nor does failing to convince someone to vote tell us anything about how that person feels (again, maybe indifferent, maybe uncertain, maybe blase).

How is this responsive to Michael Jackson’s points? Am I misunderstanding what GOTV stands for?

K: Globalism has not failed and in fact, it has already won the battle…
we just need to adjust our political institutions to match this Globalism victory…
I work in a supermarket… and during the winter months, we continue to get fresh
fruits and veggies… but how? its winter… we get them from Chile… yep, we
get most of our stock of fruits and veggies during the winter from Fricking Chile…
that is how globalism has already won… economically, we already have
a global economy… political we are still in the 18 century and that will hurt us…

the EU is an attempt to get the political to match the economic… those who attack
the EU have failed to understand how your political idea’s have already been
overrun by the economic realities… in other words, you need to get your ideologies
up to speed in the 21 century… you have 18 centuries political ideology in the 21 century

we must get our political ideology to match the economy reality of the times…
and the EU was one such attempt and there will be more because you can’t fight
a 21 century war with 18 century tools and weapons and that is exactly what you
doing… fighting the 21 century reality with 18 century ideologies… catch up to
the times…

and as far as your thought that man supplanted god with man…

you can’t even show us how that god even exists… it is hard to think something
exists that has absolutely no evidence for it… no evidence of any kind except for
the faith, the believe of its followers… just another example of people holding
ancient beliefs that worked back 2000 years ago but no longer meet the reality
of the century… match your ideologies to the realities of today and you will be far
better off…believe in god worked thousands of years ago, but the new reality
says, join the 21 century and believe in the only reality that does exist… and that
is life, humans, the things of this world and not the next…

Kropotkin

Yeah, they all believe and say that, "We own ALL of ewe now…"

Unsurprisingly, the hardcore self-victimising Brexit supporter completely avoids all questions and counterarguments.

No, I have not heard of GOTV. Now explain to me, in precise details, what Brexit is going to look like. Otherwise you do not know what you voted for. Simples.