Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Vikarion on 23 Jul 2016, 00:13
-
Well, the mods have been complaining about not enough complaints, so I thought I'd start up a thread to give them some content, so to speak.
[Dear mods, that was a joke. I hope)
So, there are a good bit the more European-inclined on these boards, and being the ignorant 'Murican that I am, I've been mostly hesitant to adopt any real opinion on it. Thus, my policy of reading everything I found about it, and quizzing random people with strange accents.
So! On a scale of one to three, do y'all rate the Brexit to be...
1. Hmm, probably the right decision. Indeed, yes.
2. Definitively, absolutely, positively the correct choice!
3. BRITTANIA RULES THE WAVES...
4. The above choices do not nearly encompass the range of possible opinions, even were we to limit it to only one side of the referendum. I will therefore explain further upon the thesis in regards to my opinion regarding the result of the referendum, and also as to how those who think otherwise are thundering dunderheads!
-
I don't think even the Brits had any idea what they are going to do after Brexit. Probably need to wait another year or so and see what happens.
-
The good parts of the EU, are outweighed by the bad parts. And, because of recent events in two larger members, i.e. France and Germany, there might not even be an EU in the next few years.
The good parts include: various rights for citizens, scientific co-operation, protection of trademarks, travel across the EU, and a few other things.
The bad parts are numerous. There are a lot of non-elected bureaucrats with some very un-democratic ideas.
Take for example, the time when the Irish held a referendum about a proposed constitution for the EU. The voters rejected it, and so, the EU had to revise their proposals, as it had required unanimity from the member states.
What the EU did in response, was insert changes into a number of different existing treaties, and not proposing a new treaty containing all the changes that were desired. This was done with the intent of confusing voters as to what it was they were actually voting for. It was done so as to make discussing changes difficult and obscure. Because the bureaucrats see the citizens as an obstacle to the EU project.
"It is unpenetrable for the public"
"The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty. The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly. This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats"
That's what French politician Valéry Giscard d'Estaing had to say about it.
As for another un-democratic example, take the Common Fisheries Policy.
"The original six Common Market members realized that four countries applying to join the Common Market at that time (Britain, Ireland, Denmark including Greenland, and Norway) would control the richest fishing grounds in the world. The original six therefore drew up Council Regulation 2141/70 giving all Members equal access to all fishing waters, even though the Treaty of Rome gave no authority to do this. This was adopted on the morning of 30 June 1970, a few hours before the applications to join were officially received. This ensured that the regulations became part of the acquis communautaire before the new members joined, obliging them to accept the regulation."
Changing the terms of an agreement. Yes. Quite. A bit like changing the Constitution of the United States after John Hancock and all had already signed it, without acknowledging that that would be an Amendment that would require a proper process, no ?
And then there's the effect that the Free Movement of People has, in the sense of perpetuating deprivation, and effectively legalising slavery.
What the free movement of people allows, is the creation of slums, inhabited by migrant workers paid poverty wages, which has the effect of suppressing incomes for native workers.
A slum property, with 6 migrant people sleeping in bunkbeds in a room intended for one, and those migrants are paid only just the legal minimum wage. Now, the migrants can afford to live like that, because their families live in other countries, and they can send money home to support their family.
The slums are owned by management companies, whose shareholders are often local employers, and the migrants have to pay rent, which finds its way to the employer, making those migrants effectively much cheaper to employ than a native worker who lives in their own house.
This is particularly noticeable in the case of agricultural workers, who live in a bunkhouse on the farm property.
A migrant farm worker, paid £250/week, and living in the bunkhouse and having to pay £50/week in accommodation and "employment agency" fees to the farm owner, effectively costs £200/week. The migrant can afford to send the bulk of that money abroad to support their family living elsewhere, where living costs are much cheaper.
A native worker, at the same pay rate, living off-site in their own house, costs £250/week. They're fundamentally more expensive to employ. And £250/week is not enough to run a house and support a family. At best, it is merely existing, not living.
What the free movement of people effectively allows, is for large industrial employers to preserve their investments in plant and machinery, by allowing them to bring in slaves from abroad to live in slums, so that the employer can benefit from low wage rates without having to move the industry into a lower-wage country.
A native worker cannot compete in those conditions, and it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.
And finally, Donald Trump has just this week effectively said that NATO is over. He's pretty much given Comrade Putin a free hand to invade the Baltic states and establish "facts on the ground", just like they did in Ukraine.
So, all over Europe, there's the creation of socio-economic situations that promote the extremists, with racial and religious tension, bolshevism and fascism both on the rise, and the Internet allows these groups to gain traction a lot quicker than ever before.
Good job everyone, it's like nothing was learned in the past 100 years.
There's also the question of yet another independence referendum in scotland, but i'll talk more about that later.
-
Wow.
-
Yeah, uh...wow. :ugh:
-
I'm genuinely not sure if this is serious or just a very elaborate troll.
-
I'm genuinely not sure if this is serious or just a very elaborate troll.
I don't know why it would be a troll, or why you would think that. I've seen similar concerns expressed by others. I just didn't expect such a long, detailed response so quick.
-
Because 'EU legalizing slavery; being to blame for rising issues of nationalism, racism, religious extremism' is a bit far out for any reasonable discussion.
The real tl;dr is that the EU is to blame for everything bad that is happening. It should be an eyeopener to see how quickly the most prominent leave campaigners jumped ship when the vote was through. Bonus points for immediately turning around and saying that the majority of the bold claims (more money for healthcare, no immigrants anymore) are not going to happen. Now others have to deal with the mess.
-
:brilliant:
Nah.
Seriously, I think it´s bad, particularly for Britain´s youth. They could lose a lot of opportunities, like education and work. This could be the start of a EU break-up. There is also a rather large group in the Netherlands that would like to leave the EU, even though that would probably be quite bad for our economy.
The EU might not be directly responsible for rising nationalism, racism and religious tensions, but it doesn't seem to have any answers to those things.
-
Because 'EU legalizing slavery; being to blame for rising issues of nationalism, racism, religious extremism' is a bit far out for any reasonable discussion.
It was pretty obvious to me that she meant "wage slavery".
-
Because 'EU legalizing slavery; being to blame for rising issues of nationalism, racism, religious extremism' is a bit far out for any reasonable discussion.
It was pretty obvious to me that she meant "wage slavery".
The EU doesn't even need to exist for there to be wage slavery. Just look at Chinese Sweat Shops. How about the intern system in the United States (those guys don't even GET wages)?
-
'EU legalizing slavery; being to blame for rising issues of nationalism, racism, religious extremism' is a bit far out for any reasonable discussion.
Not solely to blame, but it certainly doesn't help.
It has created, or helped to create, a situation whereby a large number of people do not benefit from the prosperity that the good points of the EU helped to create.
Take for example, university education. Things like the ERASMUS programme, whereby students can spend time abroad as part of their studies, and the Modena? thing which seeks to establish equivalency between different countries degree courses. This helps university graduates, giving them a range of opportunities to study and work across the entire EU. Similar things for university researchers - a wider range of opportunities to work and conduct research. This kind of academic co-operation is a good thing.
For non-graduates though, things are different. The usual response by politicians is that native workers should "up-skill" in order to compete with migrants for jobs. Those same politicians in Scotland, have massively reduced the number and availability of college places, hugely reduced the further education budget, and closed many colleges, which severely restricts the ability of people to gain new skills.
E.g. a skill that is always in demand, is driving a JCB excavator or similar plant. Now, to drive one of those (as an employee that is) requires a particular qualification. Several colleges used to offer skills courses for excavator operation. But those have been cut back. So, people without the qualification are unable to gain it easily.
So, a construction industry employer, is looking at recruiting skilled foreign workers, or having to pay to train up unskilled native workers. It's cheaper to recruit skilled foreigners, than to go through the difficulty of training native workers.
And like I said, because foreign workers families don't live in the UK, they are much cheaper to support, which has the result of wage suppression for workers in the UK.
Maybe I have a different perspective though, because I work in these kind of deprived communities, and I have also worked while living in a bunkhouse on a sporting estate, alongside foreign workers. So, my experiences and therefore my viewpoints will be different from someone from a different socio-economic background.
-
The EU didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing. If there is one thing that we don't cherish enough as Europeans in regard to the EU then it's that it brought a quite long lasting peace to this region of the world. But if the EU breaks up and the nationalists get the upper hand and war rages again over Europe, then people will probably still blame the EU for it.
But let me rebutt some of the more concrete points made by Louella:
That the Free Movement of People has the effects Louella describes isn't really a problem that's the EU is to blame for: Over here in Germany we don't have those exact problems. That's probably because we have another structure in regard to how wages are agreed upon with the workers unions being a big player in this. We also have a dedicated education system outside for non-academic professions, which might play a role as well. Also, even though Britain isn't part of the Schengen Area, the british government supported the influx of foreign Europeans when there was the eastward enlargement of the EU. They had the option to go for a more restricted movement in a transition period, like Germany did. The fact is that Britain went above and beyond what the EU demanded in regard to taking in people.
I also think that the British government failed to take care of their citizenry, instead pushing their economy to rather employ foreigners for cheaper wages in an effort to keep their economy 'competitive'. The loosers are certainly the simple british workers. But to blame the EU for that is somewhat ridiculous!
I also predict that the brexit won't change the situation, as now the UK suddenly got even more dependent on cheap labour to stay internationally competitive.
Up to the next - actually the other point:
Yes, the EU is undemocratic in many of it's structures. But it's not like this because the EU institutions want it to be like this per se, but rather mostly because the national governments don't want to loose power in relation to the EU. That's because the "construction of Europe" is not organized by the EU, but the national governments.
The British government played always an exceptional role in this, especially unwilling to cede power to the EU and mainly looking for it's own advantage. In fact I think the UK had the best balance of benefits/costs in regard to EU-membership compared to all other memberstates, getting special treatment on numerous occasions.
So, the "numerous bad points" of the EU boil down to these two, basically. The first being mostly a problem of the british economic policy, the latter being a problem resulting from natinal states being unwilling to cease power to a EU of the Europeans, rather wanting to keep an EU of the nation states. While that's something done by most, if not all member states, the UK is certainly not innocent in this.
That's not to say that a lot of the criticism in regard to the undemocratic structure of the EU isn't legitimate. But who really thinks that international treaties in the EU will become more democratic, that Europe will become more democratic, if the national functionaries that prevented European democracy are just going on like before, acting on a level of national interests? Does anyone really expect that the trade relations, the regulations and treaties the UK has with the rest of Europe will have more democratic legitimation after the brexit? Or that Europe will get a democratic constitution once any institutional need for that constitution has been eliminated?
Also, which recent events in France and Germany are you alluding to? I see no events over here that have any power to cause the EU to cease existing, especially not in the next few years.
Yes, the EU has to change - and with it the member states. Yes, there's a certain risk for other nations to want to leave the EU as well. I think the people will come to realize with the brexit example that it's a bad idea.
Meanwhile the UK has to struggle to stay united. Scotland doesn't seem to be prepared to leave the EU. I think it's more realistic to see the UK "fail" and to witness a "little Britain" than to see a dissolution of the EU.
I think this rant explains that I think that the brexit was and is a stupid thing. It hurts the UK more than it helps. It hurts the EU as well, but not quite as much as the UK, I think. Time will tell. But I really think that Europe needs the EU, the Europeans need the EU. Not alone for something as petty as ensuring our continued economic prosperity in a globalised economy, but moreover for the sake of peace in Europe.
-
And all these deprived communities can look forward now is a few years of Thatcherism Mk II. But I'm sure it'll get better afterwards. ;)
-
Also, which recent events in France and Germany are you alluding to? I see no events over here that have any power to cause the EU to cease existing, especially not in the next few years.
The rise of the Far Right political parties, e.g. the Front Nationale in France, and Aktion Fur Deutschland in Germany, which are using the recent refugee crisis, the terrorism crisis, and other things to promote their agendas, a lot of which are anti-EU.
And all these deprived communities can look forward now is a few years of Thatcherism Mk II
Great, isn't it.
In Scotland, we are being asked to choose between austerity imposed by Westminster, austerity imposed by Brussels/Berlin, and austerity imposed by Holyrood.
If there's a second referendumb on independence, that gets a "yes" vote, then there'll be statues of SNP politicians erected all over, and there will be lots of books published by politicians, and they'll all make bank, while public services continue to crumble, with the poorest in society suffering the most.
But there's always enough money for pay, expenses, and pensions for politicians.
So that's OK.
-
The same things are happening in America, from mexico down to chile (which i happen to live in), "workers" are coming from ecuador, colombia and paraguay, which are countries much cheaper to live in than my own.
The trade treaties, and cooperations agendas have also created a tension between inmigrants and locals.....
I'll dare to say that WW3 will explode in 5 years if the trends continue, but this time, it will be civilians against the established powers, and politicians will be used as scapegoats on both sides.
-
Just to note, in Britain we have a civil service larger then that to run the entire EU organisation. HMRC alone employs almost as many as the EU does. Further, laws in Britain are recommended and drafted by unelected civil servants, and it's lawyers working for the opposite side that are the ones who find choice parts of proposed laws fpr opposition MPs to hammer on.
To note, this is exactly how every democratic government works in the world. Lawyers and civil servants write the laws themselves since they have the knowledge to do so, politicians set the overarching agenda of their policies that the civil service works to fulfill in writing said laws. MPs then vote on them, and I assure you there's probably a lot of MPs who don't read the full text of given laws and instead follow legal advice and/or the party line. This is nothing new.
In regards to EU laws, most of them relate to industry and work standards. This is not unusual for a free trade market, where it is more efficient for manufacturing standards, working standards (considering workers are treated as an import/export commodity under the EEC) and so on to match up within the area. Britain has enjoyed exemptions to many of these for some time, including the working time directive.
Now, to come clean I voted leave. Not because of immigration but because the EU is inefficient when it comes to a changing global market place. I am pro remaining in the EEC including free movement of workers and accept losing a seat on the negotiating table as the price for the freedom to draw up favourable trade deals with Commonwealth nations like Australia, Canada and India as well as China without needing to get everyone else in Europe on board.
-
Side note as I have stepped into this debate I will be completely hands off if there will be a need for moderation, sorry Mod Team :S . So far though I think there hasn't been any need and no reports have been raised. Hopefully, while impassioned people's views may be, we might be able to have a discussion about this but I do remind people pre-emptively not to get carried away.
-
Also, which recent events in France and Germany are you alluding to? I see no events over here that have any power to cause the EU to cease existing, especially not in the next few years.
The rise of the Far Right political parties, e.g. the Front Nationale in France, and Aktion Fur Deutschland in Germany, which are using the recent refugee crisis, the terrorism crisis, and other things to promote their agendas, a lot of which are anti-EU.
The 'Alternative für Deutschland' (that's the name) is honestly no real threat to the EU. First, they aren't really able to get a majority in the Bundestag. Second, especially with the brexit now, support for the EU is on an alltime high in Germany at the moment and rising as recent polls show - which is part of why the AfD won't make it into the government.
The Front Nationale I'm not so certain about, but I doubt that they will be any more successful. They tried for a long time now and they repeatedly failed. Maybe someone from France is able to elucidate on the situation with them, though.
-
Given the way that the right is being proved completely correct about the risk of bringing in migrants, on pretty much a weekly basis, I wouldn't underestimate their potential for seizing power on a major scale, at least in some provinces. The French are getting rather fed up with being blown up, shot up, or run over every time they go out to have some fun, so I suspect that, at the very least, Hollande's government will not win another election. At the very most, France might decide to change its mind about the free flow of bodies across borders.
-
As with Brexit, projecting fears onto simple solutions preached by demagogues will have an impact on elections, I agree. However that doesn't make these simple solutions feasable at all, unless you want to go full fascist and round everyone up into prison like camps, including those who have already been living in the country for years or generations. The attackers in Orlando and San Bernadino have been born in the US, Nice has been living 11 years in France and around half of the attackers in Paris (including the attack on charlie hebdo) have also been born in France or Belgium. Oh and the Brussel attacks had 4 out of 5 also born in the EU (Belgium and Sweden).
-
Given the way that the right is being proved completely correct about the risk of bringing in migrants, on pretty much a weekly basis, I wouldn't underestimate their potential for seizing power on a major scale, at least in some provinces. The French are getting rather fed up with being blown up, shot up, or run over every time they go out to have some fun, so I suspect that, at the very least, Hollande's government will not win another election. At the very most, France might decide to change its mind about the free flow of bodies across borders.
Vikarion, you do realize that a) the attacks are carried out mostly by people who didn't recently migrate into the EU (see post above by The Rook) and b) that terror attacks are still on an all-time low in the EU as well? The problem is that the people voting FN or AfD don't realize this.
They are the ones, as The Rook says (I 100% agree with what he said there), that don't realise that "these simple solutions (aren't) feasable at all, unless you want to go full fascist and round everyone up into prison like camps, including those who have already been living in the country for years or generations."
And it's not only those with a certain ethnic background: We have a number of people with ethnic german background attaching themselves to salafistic ideas, even joining the IS in Syria and coming back. You'd have to take care of those, too... so, the system would need to be full fascist indeed.
Still, I stand by what I said earlier. Even if - and I doubt that - it is a realistic scenario that the dissolution of the EU will come in the form of the AfD and FN winning elections (what's more probable is that it'll start with countries in which popular referendums on exiting the EU can be forced bottom up and that wouldn't work in Germany at least, I'm not sure about France), it's still more probable that the UK loses it's unity - at least that it does so prior to that.
And no one really wants a balkanization of Europe that then will ensue.
-
deleted: mispost
-
To answer the question in the title:
It's not awesome at all.
I'm an English student at a Scottish university. I am effectively blind to my future as I have no idea what is going to happen to either of those countries.
-
To answer the question in the title:
It's not awesome at all.
I'm an English student at a Scottish university. I am effectively blind to my future as I have no idea what is going to happen to either of those countries.
As much as I feel your situation I think it's important to note a few things:
1) Nothing has changed right now. Britain is still in the European Union with all the rights and costs attached and will be until the 2 year period is up after Article 50 is triggered. From a timeline perspective you have at the very least 2 years before anything happens in regards to Britain's status with the EU, but more likely at least 3-5 years which should cover, or mostly cover, your studies.
2a) The language used by the SNP currently is a lot less impassioned about IndyRef 2. The language has shifted notably from pre-Referendum there absolutely will be an IndyRef 2 to "We're looking at all options and will discuss with Westminster" while keeping IndyRef on the table. The issue is there has now been 2 large referendums that Scotland has been involved with within the space of a couple of years, and it's likely Sturgeon is playing her cards close as there might be a lot less interest in having a third one so soon, and one on the same subject as a recent one. IndyRef1 was divisive enough, EURef more so. How would a closely contested IndyRef2 plan out is anyone's guess.
2b) IndyRef absolutely cannot happen in any clean manner without Westminster support. It's how the first one was able to run, and as much as Sturgeon bangs on that it'll happen, the very Act that allowed the creation of the Scottish Parliament contains an important Clause that gives Westminster the ultimate veto over anything created. If Scotland wants a managed independence and get the best gains from it if it should be successful, it absolutely needs Westminster's blessing and support and willingness to engage diplomatically. Right now the mood for that just isn't there, and it's likely to be something kicked into the long grass.
3) With all the above taken into account, none of the big players in UK politics fancies having a nasty scrap and are mostly taking a deep, collective breath and seeing how things pan out/negotiating. How long this honeymoon period lasts is anyone's guess, but right now it'd be political suicide to engage in any tit-for-tat measures to try and achieve aims. It's possible but I really strongly doubt the SNP will do something stupid like kick out all English Students from Scottish Universities, or cut their funding, nor do I think Westminster would try anything dodgy like pull money out of Scotland when May is scrambling to piece together a new National unity. Concilliation seems to be the message of the day.
So, in short, while yes the future looks scary it seems the politicians are atleast right now talking about 'options' and 'working together' rather then throwing demands and even if an IndyRef2 happened tomorrow it's likely negotiations on it would take a couple of years at the very least and during that time your rights and current priviledges should be protected.
Honestly, I think you should be worrying more about the possibility of your particular studies being dropped funding due to austerity measures of some kind, or some other bull, then anything drastic like being kicked out over politics. As for long term prospects within Scotland or further continuation of education in the coming 5-10 years I can't really predict, no one can, but considering most of Scotland's trade happens internally within the UK I highly doubt anyone with brain capacity is going to shut down the border. These are uncertain times, but nothing is going to change rapidly so long as everyone seems to be in a talking mood.
But that's just my two cents, maybe all the politicians will say fuck it and start a mutually destructive point scoring war with legislation.
-
But that's just my two cents, maybe all the politicians will say fuck it and start a mutually destructive point scoring war with legislation.
As part of the UK, people from different parts of the UK have freedom of movement and employment within the "Common Travel Area" which includes the Republic of Ireland, whose citizens also have freedom of movement and employment within the UK. No work permits or residence permits needed. The Republic of Ireland co-ordinates with the UK government on matters of immigration as a result of this.
An independent Scotland in the EU, would have to choose between the Common Travel Area, and the Schengen zone. Being part of the Schengen zone is a requirement for ALL new members, so securing an exemption from that is a pretty big requirement, and makes you wonder what this hypothetical Scotland would have to give up. I'm thinking something along the lines of: "Erdöleinnahmen aus den Mitgliedstaaten werden entsprechend den Anforderungen zentral und verteilt gesammelt." being approved during an EU council meeting prior to Scotland's membership being official, similar to the fast one pulled with the fishing revenues. Bear in mind, that if the UK leaves, there is no requirement for EU business to be translated into English.
And that would mean a whole lot more austerity.
Without an exemption from the Schengen things, then it means that Scotland has to leave the Common Travel Area. This would penalise the vast majority of the Scottish people, by greatly limiting the employment and other opportunities available to them. Want to do post-graduate research at Oxford or Cambridge as those institutes have the best facilities for your subject ? Well, you better hope that the Home Office looks favourably upon you, because you lose that automatic right to do that, and you'd need a permit.
And there would also be customs borders. There'd have to be. Which would mean that although the 11Bn of exports to Europe would be OK, the 44Bn of exports to the rest of the UK would be penalised.
meanwhile, the SNP are abandoning the idea of "you'd be better off in an independent scotland", in favour of the idea "you'll be worse off, but have more control over how much worse you'll be off", with daft ideas like a "scottish pound" which would be pegged to Sterling, which means economic powers still reside with the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer. Additionally, and this is a big deal, a "scottish pound" pegged to Sterling is a great big "KICK ME!" sign to currency speculators. Many of them would speculate greatly on it, in an attempt to break the link with Sterling, so that they would profit from it. This would of course, be detrimental to the vast majority of Scottish people, who would see their savings evaporate.
but hey! there'll be statues of Nicola, and plenty of money for her pension.
So that's Okay.
nationalism is an ideology that should have died out in Europe nearly 70 years ago. The fact that the SNP are the largest party atm in scotland is an embarrassment.
Also, I voted Remain.
lol.
-
I was more addressing the relative short term in regards to Kala who is studying in Scotland right now. The question of the Common Travel area is not one that will be addressed by way of legal enforcement for atleast two years unless the SNP brings out laws or enforces some kind of martial law or something crazy right now or within those couple of years.
Moving forward the issue of the common travel area is likely to be a mess should Scotland vote for independance. But again this assumes that there is an IndyRef 2 and one that manages to stick in such a way Westminster cannot ignore it (not really likely for the moment) and also assumes that the SNP wins (still a bit up in the air on this one till the dust settles.)
That said I'm inclined to agree should the SNP win an IndyRef2 and remain part of the EU then it will likely cause issues on the border unless the UK is also in the EEC and accepts being linked to the Schengen zone (highly debatable that it would.)
I'm hedging my bets that IndyRef2 won't be dealt with or even really looked at till after the UK is already out, in whatever kind of relationship with Europe that may be.