Brexit

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:00 am

Chrisoc13 wrote:
Sure it's possible. But those are both worst case scenarios for the UK. Hence my calling it a knee jerk reaction. It's probably not going to end up being the worst case or the best, but somewhere in between.

Worst case scenario was leaving the EU. Those are just add-ons.

mori · Post by **mori** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:15 am

How is this going to mess up my ability to secure work permits for my foreign born players in future Football Manager games

?

But seriously I wonder how this will affect sport. More limits on foreign players playing in England? That would seriously hamper marketability in the Americas.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:36 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Sure it's possible. But those are both worst case scenarios for the UK. Hence my calling it a knee jerk reaction. It's probably not going to end up being the worst case or the best, but somewhere in between.
Worst case scenario was leaving the EU. Those are just add-ons.

So worst worst case then is what you are arguing? I guess I thought we were discussing events after the vote. Which if we were then Scotland and northern Ireland leaving are the worst case I would think, but both are far from a given.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:30 pm

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:33 pm

Fear of immigration drove the leave victory – not immigration itself

Yet the details of the referendum demonstrate a paradox – that those who have experienced the highest levels of migration are the least anxious about it. The highest levels of remain voters were in areas of highest net migration, while some of the strongest leave areas have had the fewest recent new immigrants.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:47 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Rip wrote:Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day.

They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.

And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.

Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
Interesting choice.

Quoting Chesterton's "The Secret People" is a revealing choice.

Hard to believe this type of reactionary, anti-modern future is something anyone would embrace, but RIP, Trump, and our English friends seem firmly in favor.

"The Secret People" was written in 1908, when Chesterton was 33 or 34, a popular and modestly successful writer living with his wife in London.

Here Chesterton is venting his dislike of modernity, as embodied in Edwardian England. You can argue that there is a contradiction here. Chesterton is enlisting the common people of England in support of his point of view; yet the English people of that time were rather keen on modernizing reforms. Lloyd George's redistributionist "People's Budget" of 1909 was popular; female suffrage was an issue of the day; and so on.

Chesterton was, though, a romantic reactionary writing metrical verse, not a politician running for office. Allowances must be made. The poem is saved from absurdity by readability — it is included in Kingsley Amis's Popular Reciter — and some memorable phrases: "a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale," "they have bright dead alien eyes," and of course the refrain "… we have not spoken yet."

Chesterton once referred to this poem as "my history of England." One might write an equally good potted history in verse from a point of view opposite to Chesterton's; but again, this is poetry, not political science.

Plus, there is the huge anti-Semitic aspect of Chesterton's baggage, but I'm sure those quoting him today after BREXIT don't share those parts of his worldview, right, RIP?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:53 pm

Does liking a poem imply acceptance of the authors political ideology? Does that work for music as well. If I like a Michael Jackson song must it infer I approve of abusing little boys?

Take your strawman army and use it to reinforce the EU army, they will need it.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:57 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:
Sure it's possible. But those are both worst case scenarios for the UK. Hence my calling it a knee jerk reaction. It's probably not going to end up being the worst case or the best, but somewhere in between.
Worst case scenario was leaving the EU. Those are just add-ons.
So worst worst case then is what you are arguing? I guess I thought we were discussing events after the vote. Which if we were then Scotland and northern Ireland leaving are the worst case I would think, but both are far from a given.

They're worst for the UK but not the worst for NI and Scotland. Leaving the EU was the worst for them, leaving the UK may be an improvement for them. That's what they'll be debating in the coming months. It's not knee jerk, it's the next logical discussion.

IceBear · Post by **IceBear** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:59 pm

Defiant wrote:Bank of England Well Prepared For Brexit

Did people in the UK also lose their accent because of this referendum?

That's because he's Canadian. He was the former head of the Bank of Canada until Britain hired him away

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:07 pm

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:09 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Ireland is in the EU. The are on the Euro. If the North gets [more] fuct economically, it would provide further impetus for unification. Every supporter of unification will now call for more votes and referendums on the matter.
Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has called for a border poll on a united Ireland, after the UK has voted to leave the EU.

Please stop quoting Sinn Fein leaders wanting unification with Ireland after this vote as if it means anything. This is nothing new - being the political arm of the IRA, they've always wanted unification, but there's no indication that the Unionists feel the same way even after this vote. The idea that Brexit changed something in Northern Ireland ignores hundreds of years of bloody history. Just because the UK is leaving the EU doesn't mean that the Unionists are ready to jump into bed with Ireland.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:15 pm

Kurth wrote:

Hard to believe this type of reactionary, anti-modern future is something anyone would embrace, but RIP, Trump, and our English friends seem firmly in favor.

I've been reading about it extensively and trying to avoid reaching overwrought conclusions. We naturally see everything through the prism of domestic politics, so it's easy to see this as more evidence of rising fascism. And maybe it is; that case can be made. I'm just not ready to go out on that limb yet.

It was definitely a bad thing for the UK's establishment. It's probably a bad thing for Europe, both socially and economically. It might be a bad thing for the global economy, and by extension the US economy. If I thought it would turn out to be a good thing for the marginalized and dispossessed, I'd be more sympathetic even though my own fate is tied to the status quo. However, things rarely work out in favor of the marginalized and dispossessed, and I'm not seeing any persuasive arguments that this will be any different.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:29 pm

Grifman wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote: Ireland is in the EU. The are on the Euro. If the North gets [more] fuct economically, it would provide further impetus for unification. Every supporter of unification will now call for more votes and referendums on the matter.
Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has called for a border poll on a united Ireland, after the UK has voted to leave the EU.
Please stop quoting Sinn Fein leaders wanting unification with Ireland after this vote as if it means anything. This is nothing new - being the political arm of the IRA, they've always wanted unification, but there's no indication that the Unionists feel the same way even after this vote. The idea that Brexit changed something in Northern Ireland ignores hundreds of years of bloody history. Just because the UK is leaving the EU doesn't mean that the Unionists are ready to jump into bed with Ireland.

There are more than just hardline Unionists and hardline Loyalists in northern Ireland.

As far as ignoring hundreds of years of history, far from it. But hundreds does include the past quarter century, you know.

I'm not taking sides here. I didn't quite McGuinness because he's Sinn Fein, I quoted him because he holds a high level executive office in Northern Ireland.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:39 pm

Tony Blair: Brexit’s Stunning Coup

The center must regain its political traction, rediscover its capacity to analyze the problems we all face and find solutions that rise above the populist anger. If we do not succeed in beating back the far left and far right before they take the nations of Europe on this reckless experiment, it will end the way such rash action always does in history: at best, in disillusion; at worst, in rancorous division. The center must hold.

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:57 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
cheeba wrote:This was non-working and working-class poorer people making the decision to leave.
This was old people making the decision to leave over the objection of young people.

Except the young people didn't object. You have to vote to object.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 2:09 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: This was old people making the decision to leave over the objection of young people.

Erm, pretty much *any* democratic decision is the majority making a decision over the objection of the minority.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:11 pm

Defiant wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: This was old people making the decision to leave over the objection of young people.
Erm, pretty much *any* democratic decision is the majority making a decision over the indifference of the minority.

Mortoned

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:17 pm

Defiant wrote:Fear of immigration drove the leave victory – not immigration itself

Yet the details of the referendum demonstrate a paradox – that those who have experienced the highest levels of migration are the least anxious about it. The highest levels of remain voters were in areas of highest net migration, while some of the strongest leave areas have had the fewest recent new immigrants.

AB has a story about a scared old man in a town with immigrants, so consider yourself debunked.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:24 pm

Defiant wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: This was old people making the decision to leave over the objection of young people.
Erm, pretty much *any* democratic decision is the majority making a decision over the objection of the minority.

Yes, but as pointed out here, the issue is that this is one of scared old people trying to return Britain to some earlier imagined time. But they'll be dead soon and won't have to live with much of the consequences of their actions. The young (who don't want to live in that Britain) are the ones that will bear the brunt of the consequences of what scared old people have done here.

Old people are the worst.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:46 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:I'm not taking sides here. I didn't quite McGuinness because he's Sinn Fein, I quoted him because he holds a high level executive office in Northern Ireland.

Yeah, but quoting him is irrelevant because he IS Sinn Fein. Come back when a prominent Unionist politician says the same. Then you would have something

Edit: FYI, I'm not taking sides here either but I've seen other people quoting this for the same reason you did, when it is totally irrelevant

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:48 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Yes, but as pointed out here, the issue is that this is one of scared old people trying to return Britain to some earlier imagined time. But they'll be dead soon and won't have to live with much of the consequences of their actions. The young (who don't want to live in that Britain) are the ones that will bear the brunt of the consequences of what scared old people have done here.

Old people are the worst.

By the same token, they've already had to live with the consequences of the EU for 40+ years, far longer than those young people have had to.

I don't think much of the decision, but that's democracy for you.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 3:49 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:Old people are the worst.

Watch it there, sonny boy!

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:03 pm

Defiant wrote:By the same token, they've already had to live with the consequences of the EU for 40+ years, far longer than those young people have had to.

What are these old people, fucking time travelers?!? The EU has only existed for 23 years. And by "young people" I mean "people under the age of 50".

There's an awful lot of folks in that block that have lived as part of the EU for the same amount of time, they just aren't fearful old people yet.

And look, this is their country, they get to do what they choose to do. I get that. My concern is for what the scared old people in my country are about to do.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:09 pm

Ah, presumably you are including the precursor arrangements, which the UK joined in 1973? I'll allow it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:18 pm

Well, they do have all those police boxes.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:18 pm

I corrected myself first, you get no points.

I mean old people, who are the worst.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:56 pm

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:34 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:"Once Article 50 is triggered, the terms of Brexit will be negotiated not by British politicians or diplomats, but by the other 27 nations of the EU. And, when the members are ready, they will present the British government with a departure agreement on a "take it or leave it" basis."

Wow, that seems really strange. So if the pro-union EU 27 members give insanely onerous departure terms to Britain (which according to the above, are not up for negotiation), they could be "forced" to stay after all? Seems like a no-brainer approach if you are for union at all costs.

Reuters

The second EU official, asked whether Britain could launch the process and then ask to stay, said that was not foreseen by the treaty: "Once you trigger it, you cannot take it back."

If a state fails to agree a departure treaty with the others, EU law simply stops applying to it after two years.

mori · Post by **mori** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Joining the EU is like being a made man in the Mafia. You can never leave, alive at least.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:22 pm

Or like being in The Village.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:03 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/ ... hought-but

The inability of those elites to grapple with the rich world’s populist moment was in full display on social media last night. Journalists and academics seemed to feel that they had not made it sufficiently clear that people who oppose open borders are a bunch of racist rubes who couldn’t count to 20 with their shoes on, and hence will believe any daft thing they’re told. Given how badly this strategy had just failed, this seemed a strange time to be doubling down. But perhaps, like the fellow I once saw lose a packet by betting on 17 for 20 straight turns of the roulette wheel, they reasoned that the recent loss actually makes a subsequent victory more likely, since the number has to come up sometime.

Or perhaps they were just unable to grasp what I noted in a column last week: that nationalism and place still matter, and that elites forget this at their peril. A lot people do not view their country the way some elites do: as though the nation were something like a rental apartment -- a nice place to live, but if there are problems, or you just fancy a change, you’ll happily swap it for a new one.

In many ways, members of the global professional class have started to identify more with each other than they have with the fellow residents of their own countries. Witness the emotional meltdown many American journalists have been having over Brexit.

Well, here's one journalist who is not having a meltdown. I think Brexit will be somewhat costly -- if you want to understand just how complicated the separation will be, take a gander at the primer that the law firm Dechert put up for its clients -- but it’s not going to destroy the country or start a war, so if Britain wants out, then … bon voyage. I can certainly understand why my British friends who supported Remain are upset, and why people in other countries who are actually going to experience long-term effects from this decision are unhappy—if I were a Pole, I’d be worried as heck. But I don’t take it personally.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:08 pm

TL;DR - The kulaks were projecting their thoughts on the unwashed masses, so here's my projections about what the kulaks are thinking.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:10 pm

Oh, and as someone that wrote under the pseudonym Jane Galt, one would think she'd be just fine with the elites taking their ball to a new home in the most attractive country.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:23 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:TL;DR - The kulaks were projecting their thoughts on the unwashed masses, so here's my projections about what the kulaks are thinking.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:11 pm

Rip wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/ ... hought-but

The inability of those elites to grapple with the rich world’s populist moment

I don't follow

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:51 pm

Laura · Post by **Laura** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:22 am

Max Peck wrote:

Awesome!

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:41 am

Rip wrote:Does liking a poem imply acceptance of the authors political ideology? Does that work for music as well. If I like a Michael Jackson song must it infer I approve of abusing little boys?

Take your strawman army and use it to reinforce the EU army, they will need it.

When you select a poem that espouses the author's political views to make a political point in a political discussion, yes it does imply an acceptance of his ideology. Obviously.

To use your analogy, it would be like quoting a Michael Jackson song with pedophilic innuendo during a discussion about sexual abuse of children.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:21 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Rip wrote:Does liking a poem imply acceptance of the authors political ideology? Does that work for music as well. If I like a Michael Jackson song must it infer I approve of abusing little boys?

Take your strawman army and use it to reinforce the EU army, they will need it.
When you select a poem that espouses the author's political views to make a political point in a political discussion, yes it does imply an acceptance of his ideology. Obviously.

To use your analogy, it would be like quoting a Michael Jackson song with pedophilic innuendo during a discussion about sexual abuse of children.

There was nothing anti-semitic about the poem nor my ideology so your analogy fails to hold water.

Not only that it implies everyone who has ever used a Hitler quote to enforce a point is a Nazi or Stalin a Communist or Marx a Marxist. If I use a Mohamed quote will I become a Muslim?

Who are you, McCarthyroni?

Archinerd · Post by **Archinerd** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:03 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
To use your analogy, it would be like quoting a Michael Jackson song with pedophilic innuendo during a discussion about sexual abuse of children.

Or a former Illinois Governor convicted of corruption who often quoted poems that seemed to imply he was guilty as some sort of literary defense.
Here's one example;

The governor [Rod Blagojevich] quoted lines from the end of the poem, in which the hero of Homer’s Odyssey declares, in resonant blank verse, that he and his comrades still have strength to fight:
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will,
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Resolute, determined, unwearied—appropriate, no?

Yet for anyone who knows the poem, Blagojevich might as well have quit on the spot. Tennyson’s great monologue is not a show of defiance but a speech of resignation from office, by a ruler who admits he is unfit to rule.

source