Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Brexit

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Brexit

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

axeil posted:

Full EU Parliament with all law making power and creating transfer payments to other countries via taxation to level out the economic imbalances. If the EU is a plan to eventually make a United States of Europe just go ahead and make the thing already. The halfway house they have ends up hurting more than helping.

Exactly as likely to happen as the US and Mexico agreeing to enter a union with fiscal transfers which is to say no.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 07:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:35

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Pochoclo posted:

The GBP will be worth 0.3 USD. Unemployment will rise to 30%, poverty to 45%. Shantytowns will rise in all public parks as law erodes. Welcome to the third world.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 08:02

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

Just the other day the Supreme Court upheld the race-conscious admissions plan of the University of Texas; the Southern Strategy is literally imploding on live television; eight years ago we elected a black man as president (which, yes, is silly to cite as if it were the endgame, but it's still awesome and was nearly unimaginable before then); and with any luck we're on the verge of flipping the Supreme Court for a generation which, if accomplished, sets the stage for gains on pretty much everything you mentioned in your last post.

The fact that white people by themselves aren't enough to carry an election ought to be enough. That is the horrible dystopian future imagined by the European right - and what the Trumpstaffel think they can reverse or stop.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 18:14

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Utnayan posted:

Or the more important question, how will Scotland feel when they are bailing out Greece again and do the benefits of the EU trade agreement outweigh, in revenue, the bailouts paid to countries which are in rapid decline. (Particularly, Norway and the forever red head step child, Greece)

The UK is not in the Eurozone and have not bailed out Greece.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 21:29

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Without the PAL hardware they're effectively paperweights. The cost of building a brand new naval base capable of servicing SSBNs would be only slightly more expensive than adding that capability to an existing naval base.

It'd almost make more sense to lease space at King's Bay in Georgia and keep your subs and warheads on American soil on a permanent detachment, families and all. We could teach the submarine service proper Southern racism!

Nah let's base them in Tallinn.It's time. Burn everything.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 21:48

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

pigdog posted:

It's as if EU shouldn't be taking unto itself so many responsibilities that the people can't even enumerate everything it does, let alone consent to all of it.

It's true, governments are bad.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 22:27

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

vyelkin posted:

Yeah let's throw away Scotland, throw away 12% of our economy, and not even achieve the reduction in foreigners we were hoping for. What a loving brilliant plan.

Don't forget London :v:

Ars Technica posted:

James O'Malley, a fellow UK tech journalist, has created a petition on Change.org asking Sadiq Khan to declare London independent from the rest of the UK. At the time of publishing the petition had almost reached the 35,000-signature threshold. Given London's very strong vote for remaining in the EU, we expect there'll be a lot of rumblings over the next few weeks about a possible secession. Apparently it's not completely impossible, either: a professor from the LSE told the BBC that Khan is "well within his rights to tell the government London didn't vote for Brexit and that City Hall now viewed the government as dysfunctional," thus triggering a process where London could become an independent city-state.

Obviously not going to happen but it's good stuff nonetheless.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2016 14:21

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Mr. Belding posted:

How cool would it be for Mexico to not have control over its own fiscal policy? How do you think US enforced austerity would treat poor people in countries with struggling economies? We have a fantastic example of how this would work, and it's not pretty. The fact that this idea has any champions is mind boggling but here we are.

I guess it would look like Puerto Rico.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 14:20

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Mr. Belding posted:

The tone struck me as celebratory. As if the UK will be somehow getting it's just desserts if Germany makes these negotiations retributive. It's probably not wrong to bet on Germany to be proud and unfriendly, and turn a potential disaster into a guarantee, but it's not a reason to reach for the champagne.

They don't have to be retributive. They'll simply offer a deal similar to Norway's - although perhaps not quite as favorable given that there for a while has been grumblings about the deals Norway and Switzerland has. That mans the UK will end up paying more to the EU than they do now which is perfectly fair because they currently don't pay a whole lot. The Leave campaign may view that as unfair and retributive but it's not up the EU to make them feel good about themselves. It will be fair but not better than what they have now.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2016 16:00

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Play posted:

I guess I always pictured the British electorate as being a bit more cultured, a bit more well-informed and a bit better at evaluating evidence than the electorate here in America. And that may still be true, but it's not true enough obviously!

Someone called it Trumpism and I think that's accurate. It's the same mechanism - the lower/middle classes are under pressure and they're angry. The easiest solution you can offer is blaming someone who can't retort - nebulous foreigners. The difference is that the US is younger and more diverse than most European countries so you can't as easily build a majority on xenophobia anymore. In Europe we're just now starting to deal with seriously becoming more ethnically diverse and we're doing it with an older, crotchety population. It has more wind here.

On the bright side this is all really very inconvenient for the 1%. Leaving Europe is bad for business, Trump is bad for business. Tapping this vein of discontent is proving impractical.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2016 10:42

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Crowsbeak posted:

Finland at least can claim decent music. Like Nightwish and Lordi.

Between that and their cuisine a functional economy is really just an incidental bonus.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2016 22:52

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

hobbesmaster posted:

Too bad he didn't answer why hes even still there.

"Gloating" is so crude.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2016 15:22

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

It's going to be so awkward when the 2020 general elections roll around and Boris still haven't pulled the trigger.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2016 20:54

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Freezer posted:

Something along those lines. They can't force Britain to invoke 50, but they can be nagging assholes in any UK related topic. Diplomatic stone walling, getting creative and start pushing regulations on financial services or even a EU special tax/regulation on fish&chips. The Greek episode has proved EU leaders can be giant cunts when pushed.

The EU didn't have a mandate to do anything about the Greek crisis. That was entirely the work of various parliaments, chief among them Germany's, refusing to hand over cash. The whole point of the Greek government campaigning for EU reform was to give it the authority to do fiscal transfers.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2016 22:46

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Pissflaps posted:

It matters because setting up a trade deal with Canada can take as long as it takes without any particular downside.

Drawing out setting up a trade deal with a country where business in it and the EU have operated in the same environment would cause unnecessary economic damage.

They definitely shouldn't draw it out but is there any indication they will do that?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 22:27

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Pissflaps posted:

My plan is simple.

haha go all in on austerity rhetoric. I love it.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 22:39

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

The EU doesn't have to do anything to make it complicated and painful because it will be no matter what.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2016 23:07

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

So how accurate is this?

Benjamin Timothy Blaine posted:

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2016 13:33

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Federalize Europe and reform the old countries as counties. There, no more supranational organization.

edit: vv United States of Fennobaltiscotlandia

Bates fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jul 5, 2016

# ¿ Jul 5, 2016 01:04

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Craptacular! posted:

I will grant you that The Beatles probably contributed more to world culture than Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine.

They're from Liverpool.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2016 20:07

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Karl Sharks posted:

this is exactly what i was prepared to say in reponse, that's why i was talking about the people who would be pro-remain in these countries as having more ammo themselves if the EU comes down on them hard

On the other hand the single market is a necessity for the UK - it's going to really, really suck to leave it. The EU can simply stand firm that you can't have the single market without free movement of labor which they have repeatedly stated before and after the referendum. The UK can chose to blow up their own economy or accept free movement which makes the referendum an exercise in futility and embarrassment. Either way it's a suitable demonstration for why the EU is good and useful and the UK is providing it without the EU having to come across as jackbooted thugs.

edit: ^^^^^ :nyd:

# ¿ Jul 5, 2016 22:20

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Craptacular! posted:

Exactly which countries are better equipped than the UK to handle an EU departure, then? Who is making all the stuff that the British are importing like mad? Is it Germans?

I don't know that other countries are better equipped but that doesn't mean the UK is well equipped. As for imports - they're produced by a variety of countries?

Imports

Exports:

In contrast to German exports:

The UK is negotiating for roughly 50% of their exports. Germany is negotiating for 7% of theirs. 10% reduction in UK/Germany trade would be inconvenient for Germany. 10% reduction in UK/EU trade would be a recession in the UK.

Craptacular! posted:

Because it seems like the EU is also on the brink of losing it's "haves" and keeping increasingly noisy "have-nots", and while they may be able to hold things together in the short term by simply giving their members a front-seat to the UK's implosion it's also possible that other countries reach the tipping point for the same problem and would rather trade on a country-to-country basis without having to ask all the burdens the EU does.

The remaining players with high GDP have less reason for sticking around each time one of their peers goes.

It's possible that the EU falls apart but restricting freedom of movement won't keep it together. It would be an undue burden on the south and it would restrict growth, especially in the countries that most need it. Beyond the practical implications the existence of the EU is the tacit recognition that Europeans are interdependent and must cooperate to achieve a greater good. Breaking boundaries and prejudices by working and studying together is important for the future of this continent both in terms of growth and peaceful coexistence. Viewing the EU as merely a trade pact is missing the point - freedom of movement is not merely the ability to retire in Spain - it's the ideological foundation of the EU and compromises won't be made lightly..

# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 02:07

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

sassassin posted:

I haven't heard anyone say that "it's really the EU who is going to feel the pain". Both sides are losing valuable trading partners. It's not a competition with one winner and one loser.

The Leave campaign has made the case that the EU needs the UK more than the other way around:

Michael Gove posted:

It is precisely because we buy more from them than they buy from us that we�re in that strong position.

�A fifth of German cars are sold in the UK and I can�t imagine that any German chancellor would want to have lay-offs at Audi and BMW factories because they were selling fewer cars in Britain. I can�t see that they would ever want to make their own life more difficult as part of the process of coming to a new and a better deal in both our interests.

Which results in inane fantasies such as this:

Boris Johnson posted:

The Brexit leader, who is the favourite to succeed David Cameron as prime minister, claimed that Britain would remain a member of the EU�s single market while introducing a points-based immigration system to limit the right of EU citizens to work in Britain.

British people would still be able to live, travel, study and buy homes on the continent but the same rights would not be automatically extended to EU citizens in the UK, he wrote. Britain would also be freed from sending �a substantial sum of money� to the EU budget, which he said �could� be used for the NHS.

And this:

Michael Gove posted:

Michael Gove, a leading Leave campaigner, repeated that, having left the EU, the UK should be outside its single market - which allows the free movement of people, goods, services and money.

Mr Gove said the UK would negotiate access to it, but not be governed by its rules.

I would pay good money to be a the first round of negotiations :allears:

# ¿ Jul 6, 2016 12:13

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Greece is Alderaan, the Euro is the Death Star, Sch�uble is the emperor. Checks out.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2016 10:32

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

MickeyFinn posted:

I don't think he thought it through that much, I think he just wanted his face on TV saying nice things. Unless he really did mean to say "we'll pay more AND have no vote, but we'll still lets the huns and the frogs in."

Quarts has the answer.

Quartz posted:

The EU has at least two dimensions. One of them involves territorial sovereignty. The other does not.

The first includes the power of the European Commission to impose laws and regulations on all the persons living in the territory of the EU. It requires acknowledging the authority of Brussels.

The second includes four freedoms for all members of the EU: free trade of goods and services, freedom of establishment, free movements of capital, and free movement of citizens. These freedoms set a limit to what the Brussels bureaucracy can do in the territory.

Political integration is not necessary to create a territory in which the four freedoms are respected. In fact, it is much easier to create such a territory if political integration is not required. Do you think it reasonable that the United States should have to become a member of the EU and adopt all the EU laws and regulations in order to have free trade with it? Or, alternatively, that the EU should become a state of the United States?
This archaic way of thinking is what the UK voted to leave.

The UK will just make their own laws and regulations and also stay within the single market which is the same as a free trade agreement. Simple.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 02:41

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

sassassin posted:

Nonsense. Maintaining trade between the UK and EU benefits both parties immensely. The UK is a significant market for many EU economies.

The principles of the EU mean that it will certainly push hard for freedom of movement as part of any deal, but it's ludicrous to imply that the UK brings nothing to the table in trade negotiations. The UK's does not hold a dominant position at the table, but it's one neither side will walk away from easily.

Of course the EU wants to trade with the UK but consider the implications of effectively creating an opt-out of freedom of movement. 1) Southern countries get stuck with most of the 3rd world immigration which they can't afford. 2) Eastern Europe gets millions of workers back they have no jobs or infrastructure for yet. 3) The EU as a whole takes a long-term productivity and growth hit. All for the purpose of the UK getting to choose which workers they would like - which would mostly mean high-value labor other countries have spent money educating. There's an ideological dimension as well but from a purely cold hard pragmatic standpoint the EU would harm itself far more by acceding to this demand than by trading less with the UK.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 13:43

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

At a minimum there's a lot of methane and hot air.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2016 19:19

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Antti posted:

"We would love to trade with the Republic of California, the sixth largest economy in the world, without having to deal with all those 49 other states."

Well it's really "We want to trade with the world's fifth-biggest economy without having to deal with the world's second-biggest economy.'"

# ¿ Jul 17, 2016 08:37

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Pochoclo posted:

Instead of french cheeses, iberic ham and belgian chocolate, I guess you guys will have to make do with uhhhh snake jerky and kangaroo meat? I have no idea what people eat in Australia but I'm guessing it contains poison.

Pretty sure they exclusively eat BBQ shrimp.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2016 20:41

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Jonas Albrecht posted:

Does the EU benefit from making the UK sleep in the bed they've made though?

The UK is free to chose any deal that isn't access to the internal market but without free movement of labor.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2016 08:20

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Letting national monuments decay into dust also seems a less than ideal solution to feeding the poor.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2016 12:29

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Dabir posted:

Why?

Because the ideal solution is to feed the poor and maintain our monuments at the same time.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2016 14:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:35

Bates: Jun 15, 2006

Spangly A posted:

you can't feed the poor without burning a few palaces and the ideal solution is to feed the poor and wipe the scourge of monarchy from the earth forever

Dismantling our cultural heritage should be the last way to find money in the budget and Buckingham is still going to be there after you guillotine the queen and abolish monarchy.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2016 14:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Brexit