Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[notquitethere]

OK, this and free movement is pushing me towards voting against Brexit: the last thing I want is for the full power of banksters to be unleashed.

[Loud Whispers]

OK, this and free movement is pushing me towards voting against Brexit: the last thing I want is for the full power of banksters to be unleashed.

Unleashed? Maintained

The warning underscores a twist in what is turning into an increasingly fractious fight over whether the U.K. should opt for “Brexit”: the business groups that have the most to lose are neither European nor British.
For years, big U.S., Swiss and Japanese investment banks have used the U.K. as a financial springboard into the EU. A key attraction: the right to seamlessly sell their services across 28 nations without having to get regulatory approval in each individual country. Today, the U.K. is a European hub for derivatives and foreign-exchange trading. Around half of the U.K.’s £6.9 trillion ($9.8 trillion) in banking assets are held by non-British institutions, according to Fitch Ratings.
To save on costs and build economies of scale, banks concentrated large chunks of their global operations in Britain. Come the vote on June 23, this structure could be blown apart. Big international banks “have the most to lose,” said Chris Bates, a partner at law firm Clifford Chance, who has advised several banks on their Brexit plans.
No one knows what exactly would happen if the U.K. voted to leave the EU. The process could take years. The U.K. might be able to negotiate access for its banks to the EU. Or it might not.
But faced with the prospect of spending billions of dollars to rejig their operations, banks have been lobbying intensively against Brexit.

MONEY EX NIHILO

[notquitethere]

See this is the trouble, for each reason for there's a countervailing reason against.

Here's what I want:

- Land reform
- Devolution of power
- Free movement
- The destruction of the Tory Party through fractious in-fighting

In or out?

[Loud Whispers]

- Land reform

What kind? Ownership, rent, construction, regulation, investment asset/vs homeownership stuff?

- Devolution of power

Vote UK

- Free movement

Vote EU

- The destruction of the Tory Party through fractious in-fighting

Buy popcorn

[Loud Whispers]

"Cabinet ministers insulting each other is almost routine these days," he says. "But, like a forest fire, the European anger keeps spreading, threatening to consume more and more fresh Tory timber, leaving only scorched earth behind."
Even Prime Minister David Cameron, a figurehead for the Remain camp, has admitted that the debate has damaged his friendship with outgoing London Mayor Boris Johnson, who has thrown his weight behind Vote Leave.
"I'm still friends with Boris," he said in a recent interview, "just perhaps not such good friends."
BAD BLOOD

Polls show UK is creepin' - as always, much too early to call victory. Much of this is probably Obama's fault, since he gave Britbongs a massive middle finger after he's already been disregarding the UK for so long; I find it sad that the romanticism of the special relationship (and the romance) will most likely perish with the summer. That he spoke with Cameron's words and not America's was noted.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dank polls, neck and neck - I believe it will be a matter of who mobilizes more people to vote.

Also as a sidenote the Mayoral elections are happening today, Zac Goldsmith vs Sadiq Khan are the biggest contenders. Don't know how that's gonna turn out, but it's one to watch

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I wish Owlbread was still here on the regular. I'd love to see him scheming to support the Leave campaign for backlash against Scotland.

[Starver]

Should I join this thread? Why not. If not just TW, with this P.

Position: ambivalent, but tending towards Bremain.

Reasoning: the unknown chaos of a post-Brexit future looks worse than the original potential unknowns of a non-Brexit future.

Prefered future: one in which no such referendum had even been orgaised in the first place as the possibility of Brexit has already stirred up regional and world politics, upsetting the apple-cart and leaving us with (more) bruised apples to sell even if we decide we don't dislike our fellow apple-sellers after all.

I blame: conservative infighting, building upon an election 'promise' that the party never thought it would even have to fulfill...  And, like with Scotland, it'll be a genie that can't be put back into the bottle until 'outs' get their out, like a great social ratchett.

[Loud Whispers]

I wish Owlbread was still here on the regular. I'd love to see him scheming to support the Leave campaign for backlash against Scotland.

Backlash? Cameron might be rectally sore but he's reviled pretty much everywhere so I don't see it

Should I join this thread? Why not. If not just TW, with this P.

Hello
Welcome to Britpol Brexit Bread

Position: ambivalent, but tending towards Bremain.
Reasoning: the unknown chaos of a post-Brexit future looks worse than the original potential unknowns of a non-Brexit future.

In what does it look so?

I blame: conservative infighting, building upon an election 'promise' that the party never thought it would even have to fulfill...  And, like with Scotland, it'll be a genie that can't be put back into the bottle until 'outs' get their out, like a great social ratchett.

Crank it :D

[Starver]

Welcome to Britpol Brexit Bread

Buzzing, Buddy! Bersonally Bleased to Be-here.

Position: ambivalent, but tending towards Bremain.
Reasoning: the unknown chaos of a post-Brexit future looks worse than the original potential unknowns of a non-Brexit future.

In what does it look so?

Let's keep it down to three basic subjects of uncertainty:

What trade deals do we get, with Europe, when we are (further) outside of Europe? Do we get some backlash because of our leaving? (Caveat: if we decide to stay, we'll probably also get backlash for daring to even ask the question... But hard to tell which would be greater.)

On the world stage, can we even be more significant, on our own? Well, not in situations where Europe is already a prime player on the world stage, and now we're expected to be running to catch up to the party again, rather than riding the EU tank (or at least sitting in back of the EU pickup).  We might get a boost in our current independent relationships (or get credit within Commonwealth circles... perhaps), but there's a lot of unknowns.

If we aren't paying Europe, for them to pay some of it back for some important things that our government currently isn't paying for, what's the chance that the 'saved' money will still be (at least partially) spent on things that European funding is no longer available for?  (Low, because the government will already have spent it on populist money-sinks, not important ones.)

What I don't fear is border controls. (At least on mainland Britain, in the immediate future. Northern Ireland/Eire might be tricky, and if a pro-EU Scotland gets a consolation Scexit and Scre-entry back into the EU, on the back of a UK-ish Out result then that will get complicated, but would be years away.) We'll still be surrounded by water, with all the benefits/problems that lends to those intending to travel here for fair means or foul. The French end of the Chunnel will still be guarded in line with current thinking of what barriers are needed for the integrity of such an infrastructure (i.e. just behind the curve, at times).  We'll still not be in Schengen.  We'll still be considered El Dorado in the minds of distant foreigners who believe in our own ancestral propaganda and believe our land to be God's own. We'll still be considered to be a viable target for those that consider our country to belong to the Devil.  We'll continue to grow our own terrorists (though maybe export less, leaking through to the continent and beyond on 'day trips' and 'holidays' before trying to leak back in again, along with the repentent returners) with barely a thought as to whether the land adopted by their parents is more or less 'wrong', according to their current mindset, now more disconnected from Europe.


The future is so unknown, but the inflection point of Brexit is a scary corner that I can currently see nothing of much good beyond, in the timeline. And I'd not have that to 'look forward' to.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: wall of text (click to show/hide)

Buzzing, Buddy! Bersonally Bleased to Be-here.

Some curious beezness going on here

Let's keep it down to three basic subjects of uncertainty:
What trade deals do we get, with Europe, when we are (further) outside of Europe? Do we get some backlash because of our leaving? (Caveat: if we decide to stay, we'll probably also get backlash for daring to even ask the question... But hard to tell which would be greater.)

Don't know, trade will go on; we'll not be further outside of Europe because we chose not to be a part of the Commission, geography remains the same. With membership of the EU we get none since the EU doesn't want us negotiating on behalf of ourselves, which I find is rather shit when it comes to trading with our historical partners :P With control of our own trade we'll be deciding whether we want accession into the TTIP, we'll still be in the WTO and assuming we don't just negotiate with countries bilaterally and the EU is particularly vindictive, they have no mechanisms to stop Germans or French trying to sell the British their wares without hurting themselves much too much. Lil countries like Singapore have more success negotiating than the EU, yet while we try to secure free trade the EU tries to secure protectionism - with the added cost of paying to them to do so, and to give them supremacy over our law. The latter is a certainty I do not find fond.
In regards to backlash what kind do you mean? If you mean general, I would expect one from the Commission and Europhiles, support from Eurosceptics, and also Sweden (that one still surprises me). Visegrad group are on the fence, because they are eurosceptics but also like visaless travel to the UK.

On the world stage, can we even be more significant, on our own? Well, not in situations where Europe is already a prime player on the world stage, and now we're expected to be running to catch up to the party again, rather than riding the EU tank (or at least sitting in back of the EU pickup).  We might get a boost in our current independent relationships (or get credit within Commonwealth circles... perhaps), but there's a lot of unknowns.

What is your criteria of significant? Do we become more significant by resigning from the Security Council for example? The Commission is not a prime player on the world stage as it has no powerbase and has failed in every crisis presented before it, it's rather puzzling really how they are being outplayed by the likes of Turkey

If we aren't paying Europe, for them to pay some of it back for some important things that our government currently isn't paying for, what's the chance that the 'saved' money will still be (at least partially) spent on things that European funding is no longer available for?  (Low, because the government will already have spent it on populist money-sinks, not important ones.)

Pretty high given that suddenly billions of sterling would become available without raising taxes. I could be cool with the Commission spending money on British populist money-sinks if they were using our own money, but using our own money to spend it on their behalf? Nah, we should spend it for ourselves. Paying the unaccountable Commission in the hopes that they use some of that money on Britain, and then that money allocated to Britain on our vital industries instead of just used to gain the support of academics - why aren't we using that money for ourselves to pay off our national debt or fund our NHS? Heck, why don't we use that money to subsidize our own businesses, increase our foreign aid budget or fund our own education? Commission says so
We get the ridiculous situation where independent wildlife charities, instead of conserving the environment, use EU funds we gave the EU to campaign for British EU membership instead of environmental conservation.

What I don't fear is border controls. (At least on mainland Britain, in the immediate future. Northern Ireland/Eire might be tricky, and if a pro-EU Scotland gets a consolation Scexit and Scre-entry back into the EU, on the back of a UK-ish Out result then that will get complicated, but would be years away.) We'll still be surrounded by water, with all the benefits/problems that lends to those intending to travel here for fair means or foul. The French end of the Chunnel will still be guarded in line with current thinking of what barriers are needed for the integrity of such an infrastructure (i.e. just behind the curve, at times).

We already have our Common Travel Area and we're already being integrated further into the European Union, heck we're already complying with the Schengen Information System. As it stands now we're only allowed to put security checks upon EU citizens, they're allowed entry into the UK sans visa - so everyone Germany and Sweden lets in and gives citizenship can walk into the UK for as long as we're a member of the EU. It's why we always vote Poland in Eurovision :D
No point being in an island if the door is open, least of all if the EU takes control of our coast guard.

We'll still not be in Schengen.  We'll still be considered El Dorado in the minds of distant foreigners who believe in our own ancestral propaganda and believe our land to be God's own. We'll still be considered to be a viable target for those that consider our country to belong to the Devil.  We'll continue to grow our own terrorists (though maybe export less, leaking through to the continent and beyond on 'day trips' and 'holidays' before trying to leak back in again, along with the repentent returners) with barely a thought as to whether the land adopted by their parents is more or less 'wrong', according to their current mindset, now more disconnected from Europe.

We'll still be in the ever closer union. We'll actually be able to refuse them entry and send them back to Europe, so we don't pay the price for Germany's open asylum. We'll be able to continue vetting our own borders and still maintain our own intelligence services without the EU getting in the way, or worse still attempting to take it over. We won't have to deal with the EU letting terrorists in or allowing them to set up cells without opposition or surveillance.

The future is so unknown, but the inflection point of Brexit is a scary corner that I can currently see nothing of much good beyond, in the timeline. And I'd not have that to 'look forward' to.

What I know for certain is that if the United Kingdom does not take back its sovereignty now, it will be lost and our state will cease to be. From then on we'll be under the control of the European Commission which has demonstrated itself to be dangerously incompetent on a level that I find too suicidal by politician standards. I look forward to not just being allowed to vote for things by the Commission I owe no loyalty to, rather to have self-determination in my own hands from my own country. I look forward to us not merely being the deregulated capital node to allow internationalists easy exploitation of the European market; if they make a killing ripping off Europeans incapable of defending their own sovereignty, what is the point of such inequity if the UK itself bears no profit? Such exploitation benefits individuals, I look forward to them leaving or adapting. I look forward to free trade and slicing away pointless bureaucracy that discriminates against the UK, it simply is not worth it to have our regulations controlled by people who have zero penalties if they fuck our country up and zero oversight by our country - and bloody hell, will I be glad to have our EEZ, Spaniards will never again send British fishermen into destitution. I would be quite happy to see our law once more supreme over ourselves, should be quite happy to see London actually try to produce wealth instead of just throw money at the Commission to see if they'll kill French socialists dead. I most look forward to sunshine in Nigeria, India and the Anglosphere :)

Anything specific or particular that vexes you? I like specifics, because I can only respond to generals with generals

Also London mayor news:

Summary of Barnet happenings
Zac Goldsmith has most to lose from the failures at Barnet polling stations given the borough's 236,000 registered voters tend to back the Tories, writes Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent.
The council is also Tory held, though Labour came within two seats of taking control in 2014 after a surge in support in the capital.
Barnet overwhelmingly backed Boris Johnson for London Mayor in 2012 with the Conservative candidate winning around 82,000 votes compared to Ken Livingstone’s 58,000.
The political reality means Labour sources have dubbed the failure a ‘blue-on-blue’ blunder – Tory voters most likely losing out from problems created by a Tory-run council.
Barnet also has the largest Jewish population of any borough in England and Wales – 15 per cent of all residents are Jews – according to the 2011 census.

RIP Zac Attack's career, killed by Barnet bants happening

The authority has promised an investigation into how some people were unable to vote because their names were missing from the poll list.
It confirmed all 155 polling stations had been affected but said staff had accurate registers by 10:30 BST.
Voters whose names were missing had been allowed to apply for an emergency proxy vote.
In a sign of how extensive the problems were, staff at one station said that of the first 30 voters to show up, only three were on the register. The rest were told to come back later.
The Barnet and Camden constituency returning officer, Andrew Travers, said: "We did everything we could to resolve the issue as quickly as possible and updated lists were sent to every polling station by 10:30, at which point all residents were able to vote as normal.
"Taking part in the democratic process is a fundamental right for our residents and the main focus this morning was to resolve the situation as soon as possible. We will fully investigate the cause of the problems that have arisen. I would like to apologise to everyone who experienced problems with voting in Barnet today."
'Farce'
Staff were told a "printing error" was to blame. The council said it was unable to confirm how many of the 236,196 people registered to vote had been affected by its mistake.
Black cab driver Adam Barnett said the mix-up meant he would have to go back to the polling station for the third time in one day to cast his vote.
He said he was first turned away at 07:00 from the polling station in Bells Hill.
"I was one of a number of people who had turned up first thing and couldn't vote. They still hadn't got the updated list when I went back a second time after 10. It's just a farce," he said.
Voter David Fraser was among those turned away. "I'm now not going to be able to vote," he said. "I don't have time to go back."

DEVASTATING BLUNDERS

Looking like it's gonna be a Sadiqi breeki Mayoral race to replace Boris's face

[Starver]

Cutting it down. I'm not on my PC and too much text is mentally tiring on touchscreen keyboard.

(Struckout 'trade' because its not just trade, its all deals but...)

we'll not be further outside of Europe because we chose not to be a part of the Commission, geography remains the same.

Geography means nothing in a globalised world. Just because the English channel is reputedly the busiest shipping lane on the world doesn't mean we have to be involved in the trade that passes through it.  Transatlantic flights don't need to stop off or terminate on the UK. Spain could host an international banking sector the size of London's, if necessary. The euro might have had its problems, but the pound could easily tumble if enough scary scenarios hove into view,  or even suffer a split if Scotland leaves ([South] Sudanese Pound, anyone?).

And that we can, upon being ejected from the EU, immediately resume 'independance' and sovereign relations with the world..? It'll take some time, and bargaining from a postition of weakness and urgent necessity, which is sure to draw in the carrion-eater kind of deals from all quarters, while we try to ward them off and get (what we think are) deals of truer worth.

Not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it's a rocky road with many uncertainties and I don't trust the obvious candidates for being the ones to get them done properly.

We're a little island (or set of ones) on the edge of Europe, and we got 'big' because of some fortunate geology, philosophy, engineering, politicing and bare-faced cheek to go and claim lands that belonged to nobody but those that already lived there.  We don't maontain any of these advantages, any more. Not uneqivocally, anyway. And barring an indepedent space-programme (luckily ESA is European by name, but not an aspect of the EU, but the fact remains that we haven't had a British spaceflight since Prospero), or something weird involving parallel dimensions, we're stuck as far as new territories are concerned.  The means by which we'd punch better alone than as an interested party in the EU camp (giving advantages to fellow EUers, getting some things in return...) elude me. It'd probably require massive geopoitical shake-ups, and those usually don't come without a price...

...And this is already getting too unwieldy to edit, on less than half the screen available to me, but let's correct one misapprehension. I'm not saying that the EU is paying for populist money-sinks (although doubtless they are, according to which subjective POVs you subscribe to) I'm saying that an our own elected government (of whatever flavour) will spend not-the-EU's-any-more money on money-sinks, rather than practical things that do actual good. And I predict that virtually none of the withheld EU monies will go towards the NHS (maybe a little, to drag themselves out of the current dispute about their fallacious seven-day-NHS arguments) and doubt it'll go towards either debt or defecit reduction, in any noticable way.

And, for some reason, some people seem to think that every EU member state can be a net recipient of EU cash. Disagree with some of where it is going, but don't suggest that net-funding countries can drop out without repurcussions for the rest. If it's a cost to us that helps develop the overall prosperity of the Union, then perhaps we benefit.
Not that I'm pro-EU. If we were not in it, I'd not be too eager to go on. The way we are currently on the sidelines, I'm not convinced that we should merge into the EU Collective any more than now¹.

But we've been hooked on the low-grade blow for so long that going cold turkey is going to be a stressful experience.  And we've yet to see if our little chat with our supplier about the possibility of giving up the habit will make him consider our position as preferential customer, one of the few not already guaranteed to get family-rates.

This is why I have strong feelings against certain Brexit arguments, although I have strong opinions against certain Remain statements, too. You're just the unlucky one who shouted up first.  I remain, as before, undecided.  With a small but notable lean towards status quo. Or perhaps pink floyd.


¹ Another problem. If almost half of us vote out, does that mean we should opt-out even more, or are they really saying "don't go further in", by way of protest? And if almost half of us say "remain" are we going to get a smart-arse europhile taking that as a will for closer union?  I'm betting that many votets on each side will be dissapointed with what their vote 'says' to those that eventually triumph. Whichever way. And it's not even legally binding, so a 60:40 split could overturn local politics in favour of the luckier side-pickers, annoy many people but ultimately neither cement our position nor transform it into the Brave New World that is indicated. And thst ignored 51:49 split as a possibility, or closer yet.

[smjjames]

That'd still be a lot of text on a touchscreen keyboard.

Anyways, the Tories are the same as the conservatives in http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-elections-live-blog-wales-scotland-northern-ireland-london-vote/ and what's the various assembly stuff about?

[Starver]

That'd still be a lot of text on a touchscreen keyboard.

Yeah, it was hard to tell, while I was writing...

Anyways, the Tories are the same as the conservatives in http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-elections-live-blog-wales-scotland-northern-ireland-london-vote/ and what's the various assembly stuff about?

Yes, Tories are Conservatives. It's a historic name from before the current Labour/Liberal/Conservative split, when (IIRC) it was Tories vs Whigs (conservatives tendency vs liberal tendencies, at least by the day's standards) and originates back to the Civil War (ECW!) when the word was derived from an Irish dialect word for 'Outlaw' (because "God, King and Country" was not the mainstream viewpoint for one very crucial reason, in the Interregunum). Since then it has stood for that 'side' (the right) of politics, even as the labels changed. 'High Tories' were the rightmost of the right (but still somewhat mainstream, rather than BUF), but it's generally been a relative term as politics has developed and moulded itself to changing society.

And Assemblies are Welsh(/Northern Irish?) versions of the Scottish Parliament, the body responsible for the respective devolved powers for that subset of the UK, since fairly recently. There's no English Assembly/Parliament, though.

[SirQuiamus]

[Cheeetar]

The mother of all political cartoons. Christ.