View Topic

Although not all of the results have been counted/released yet, as of right now it is nearing 5am BST and the margin of Leave-Remain is about 14 million to 13 million (52%-48%). While not legally binding, this vote means that the United Kingdom Parliament will soon draft the necessary laws to exit the European Union (Brexit).

Live results and vote count shown here.

As Wintreath's resident Brits, I suggest @Weissreich and @HannahB open up for comments, although this thread is for anyone with an opinion over the EU referendum and the past 48 hours in British politics. I believe Weiss has been campaigning for the Remain side, but I'm not sure about Hannah's opinion/vote if she's willing to share.

My opinion to be shared later. And I know I'm an American butting into British politics, but that's the American way

We were actually monitoring the results all night on the IRC channel...it was definitely a roller-coaster as remain was initially predicted to win, leave got a big head start, remain seemed to start to even it out, and then leave slowly built their lead back up.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that we're seeing an emergence of a backlash on the immigration issue in a lot of places and that backlash appears to have been a large part of what powered the vote to leave. It's the same backlash that has powered Donald Trump's candidacy in the United States, and the rise of a number of right-wing groups in Europe. I'm sure they will all take heart in the result, but I think everyone else will live to regret this. =/

The biggest thing that I hate about leave is Nigel Farage. Fuck UKIP.

Let's not pretend this was only immigration fears at work. There were some perfectly rational reasons to vote "leave," as well.

I've said it in another topic and I'll say it again : all people should be free to govern themselves as they see fit. Greater political integration is a mistake our descendants will live to regret, and so is mass immigration. I'm not a racist, nor am I stricto sensu a xenophobe. I don't hate or fear foreigners. I just think everyone should have his own sandbox to play in however they want and I don't understand why this isn't a correct opinion for me to have. "Racist" and "xenophobe" are one of these terms people throw around when they don't have actual arguments. What is so great about "diversity"? I've yet to find an answer to that one.

Returning to the topic at hand : I've long held the dream that power would return closer to the people as communication technology gets better and better. Delegation of power is a necessary evil, so it should be done only when necessary. People delegate power to Parliaments and their representatives to enact laws in their name. They do not do it to create more legislators, which are harder for the people to rein in the longer the leash is. Imagine for instance that you give power of attorney to your son, who in return gives a power of attorney in your name to some other person you don't know. In that sense Brexit is a good thing.

As I said, I like the idea that they'll govern themselves (I mean, seriously, have you seen the type of laws the EU imposes on all its members? It's goddamn ridiculous). My concern is what this means for the world economy. That said, I must agree with Seroim's assessment that the EU is being childish with its threats. They could well end up damaging Britain (and the world economy) much more than the Brexit will.

And let's also be honest: Britain's politicians won't necessarily be better equipped to do a good job for the country than the EU. People are people.

EDIT: And let's be honest about something else, too. This probably isn't going to be a win for true democracy either. If British politicians are anything like politicians all over the world, they'll still do whatever the fuck they want, democracy be damned. All politicians consolidate power. So in that sense, I don't see how a localised bunch of assholes would be better than a bunch of assholes on another continent.

Let's not pretend this was only immigration fears at work. There were some perfectly rational reasons to vote "leave," as well.

Whatever those "perfectly rational reasons" were, to a large extent they're not the reason people voted to leave. Rather, it was the idea that the EU policy of free movement of people within the EU was causing immigrants to move to the UK and taking jobs from Britons. Even now, I'm hearing that some people are calling on the government to do away with the free movement policy as it applies to the UK asap even before they leave the EU in the next few years, essentially violating EU law in the process.

Unfortunately, you're seeing the exact same rationale from the Republican Party in the US, except that the US version is more explicitly racist...it's not just that Mexicans are coming to take your jobs, it's that they're sending rapists and murders and all kinda of bad people. Oh yeah, and we should ban the largest religion in the world, too. You can't deny that there's a rise of nativism across the United States and Europe, and you can't deny that the rise is in response to an immigration backlash.

And in fairness, the EU had to make the threats they did and will have to extract the harshest terms on UK, else they risk enabling the right wing nationalist movements of other countries.

It'll be good for the average worker in the UK if they aren't idiots and immediately join all of the free trade zones again.  Protectionism has worked pretty darn well for Norway I think...

On another note, I'm glad to say that at least there is still one ACTUAL democracy in the world.  No big corporations wanted the UK to leave, I don't think.

Why shouldn't the largest religion on earth be panned, when it explicitly calls for Jews to be murdered and for women to be slaves to their husbands?

Indeed, why shouldn't all similar religions be panned, Christianity included?

Because I think it's well-understood that most Muslims or Christians don't support those things, and understand that it's wrong to target an entire group of people because of the actions of a few extremists. If we're going to overcome religious extremism or extremism at all, it will be through tolerance and love...not intolerance and hate.

Let's not pretend this was only immigration fears at work. There were some perfectly rational reasons to vote "leave," as well.

It wasn't supposed to be, but it ended up being a central focus of the exit debate.

Spoiler

If you really want me to, I can go and find the collage of every paper headline that screams IMMIGRATION THE REAL ISSUE. Just to prove to you that yes, it became about immigration.

I've said it in another topic and I'll say it again : all people should be free to govern themselves as they see fit. Greater political integration is a mistake our descendants will live to regret, and so is mass immigration. I'm not a racist, nor am I stricto sensu a xenophobe. I don't hate or fear foreigners. I just think everyone should have his own sandbox to play in however they want and I don't understand why this isn't a correct opinion for me to have. "Racist" and "xenophobe" are one of these terms people throw around when they don't have actual arguments. What is so great about "diversity"? I've yet to find an answer to that one.

Returning to the topic at hand : I've long held the dream that power would return closer to the people as communication technology gets better and better. Delegation of power is a necessary evil, so it should be done only when necessary. People delegate power to Parliaments and their representatives to enact laws in their name. They do not do it to create more legislators, which are harder for the people to rein in the longer the leash is. Imagine for instance that you give power of attorney to your son, who in return gives a power of attorney in your name to some other person you don't know. In that sense Brexit is a good thing.

No issue with your position at all, really - you're entitled to your opinion. That said...

"I just think everyone should have his own sandbox to play in however they want"

But in the doing so we should exclude those who want to come to our country (or countries) in search of a better future? As for the stuff about the EU being undemocratic, I answered that in my reply to your post in the Say What's On Your Mind thread. If you wanted different EU officials, you should have changed who you voted for in the general election because your elected officials are the ones who chose those EU officials. It's all pretty sensible - MEP election turnout sat at 10-20% in the UK, so it was a good idea not to add another layer of elections that people just wouldn't bother voting in.

As I said, I like the idea that they'll govern themselves (I mean, seriously, have you seen the type of laws the EU imposes on all its members? It's goddamn ridiculous). My concern is what this means for the world economy. That said, I must agree with Seroim's assessment that the EU is being childish with its threats. They could well end up damaging Britain (and the world economy) much more than the Brexit will.

And let's also be honest: Britain's politicians won't necessarily be better equipped to do a good job for the country than the EU. People are people.

EDIT: And let's be honest about something else, too. This probably isn't going to be a win for true democracy either. If British politicians are anything like politicians all over the world, they'll still do whatever the fuck they want, democracy be damned. All politicians consolidate power. So in that sense, I don't see how a localised bunch of assholes would be better than a bunch of assholes on another continent.

Yeah, goddamn ridiculous... Like health and safety regulations, anti-toxicity requirements on make up, fishing quotas to protect fish stocks, pollution regulations, workers rights protections, maternity and paternity leave and pay, protection for unions, enshrining human rights at a level beyond government interference, oversight on national government decisions, freedom of trade...

Honestly, I could go on for several hours. The only negatives of the EU in terms of restrictions were the fact that you couldn't make a trade deal without having to include all of Europe, and that's just a sensible form of protectionism that kept one of the largest economic areas one of the largest economic areas in the last decade. Pretty sensible stuff.

Why shouldn't the largest religion on earth be panned, when it explicitly calls for Jews to be murdered and for women to be slaves to their husbands?

Indeed, why shouldn't all similar religions be panned, Christianity included?

Because that is oppression of the right to free expression, and a bad thing. I'm no fan of organised religion - those who know me know I hate it and see it as the cause for far too many wars in our past - but that's no reason for me to force my view on someone else.

There's also the fact you're painting over a billion people with the same brush. That's generalisation, assumption; idiotic at best, downright... I don't actually have words to express how ridiculous it is to generalise like that.


As for the purpose of this topic... I'm not going to answer. I can't, yet.

I'm not criticising the adherents to the religion, I'm criticising the doctrine itself. A doctrine that makes it all too easy for extremism to take root in its adherents, because it is itself extreme. Those people who DON'T engage in extreme practices are actually the puzzle: how the hell can they be a part of that religion, religions that actively encourage genocide, and then pretend it's okay? On some level they must know it's wrong. So why do they continue to defend it?

Let me make a comparison. If an armed man comes to murder you because of your race, sex, nationality or religious views, are you going to harp on about love, respect and compassion (and get shot, oh, 999 times out of a thousand), or are you going to disarm him, knock him out, drag his ass to prison where he is no longer a threat, and then proceed to tell him what a monumental asshole he's being, in hopes of changing him?

I'm not criticising the adherents to the religion, I'm criticising the doctrine itself. A doctrine that makes it all too easy for extremism to take root in its adherents, because it is itself extreme. Those people who DON'T engage in extreme practices are actually the puzzle: how the hell can they be a part of that religion, religions that actively encourage genocide, and then pretend it's okay? On some level they must know it's wrong. So why do they continue to defend it?

Let me make a comparison. If an armed man comes to murder you because of your race, sex, nationality or religious views, are you going to harp on about love, respect and compassion (and get shot, oh, 999 times out of a thousand), or are you going to disarm him, knock him out, drag his ass to prison where he is no longer a threat, and then proceed to tell him what a monumental asshole he's being, in hopes of changing him?

You're talking to a firm believer in rehabilitation over punishment. Throw a man in jail, he's just gonna sit and ferment in his own thoughts; tell him what he did wrong, correct him if he attempts it again, put him in jail but provide opportunities for growth and demonstrate better ways of living and the chances are he'll come round faster than if you just yelled at him and threw him in a cell.

Yes, exactly, but first you need to neutralise the threat. I didn't say anything about yelling.

Honestly, this knee-jerk reaction to anything that disagrees with your views (calling me "idiotic" no less) when you haven't even completely understood what I was saying is typical, and just as much a part of the problem as those who espouse hatred.

Yes, exactly, but first you need to neutralise the threat. I didn't say anything about yelling.

Honestly, this knee-jerk reaction to anything that disagrees with your views (calling me "idiotic" no less) when you haven't even completely understood what I was saying is typical, and just as much a part of the problem as those who espouse hatred.

Hey, if you'd used a better example I wouldn't have had a problem with what you said - as I also quite explicitly stated. Using the example of "why shouldn't the largest religion on Earth be panned" whilst generalising pretty extremely? Yeah, that I'm not okay with. Straw manning won't get you anywhere :p