Does Brexit Validate our Founding Father's fears about Pure Democracy?
In both the Federalist Papers AND the Constitutional Convention, it is extremely clear the distaste most of those involved in creating today's America had for democracy, which they saw as mob rule which allows "emotion" rather than "reason" to drive important decisions.
Friday's referendum on leaving the European Union was an exercise in democracy where fear, emotion, scare tactics by politicians ruled the day with worldwide consequences ... none of them good.
Were our Founding Father's right to fear democracy?Are you assuming that the people (the mob) were wrong to vote to leave? Because the politicians convinced them to? It has seemed to me that the politicians were not, generally, wanting such a move.
No assumption at all. The vote was a visceral, emotional reaction to the same crap that Trump spouts in America. There isn't any serious British economists who think England will come out economically better off; but nobody paid attention.
Politicians in Parliament where mostly "Stayers" yes, but the British Independent Party, who managed the "Leave" campaign, has been growing in strength, just as the similarly-minded Conservative/Tea Party types have in the US. They use the same hyperbolic, lie-based propaganda the far-Right uses here; i.e. Trump and Cruz rolled into one.
They won by appealing to emotion rather than reason.You cannot judge just by political ideology alone , Trump may be more of a protectionist mentality , but a balance in export -import trade as proportioned to the entire economy is important to ALL economies . " having all our eggs in one basket " is not wise , but letting other governments decide our economic prosperity by picking and choosing the quality and price of OUR eggs , Is just plain stupid..
Go U.K. !Then through that reasoning, you would support referendums in any state to secede from the national gov't.? Each State has a right to chart it's own course? (I had a CFO work for me who thought that.)
Tell me, why did/do farmers form cooperatives rather than "go-it-alone" as you and 52% of old Brits want? (I say old because there was a bright divide between those 50 and older when compared to under 50)International alliances are different than American state secessions !?, If your reasoning cannot tell you that , well I don't know how explain economic trade to you . Have you ever heard the term "too big to fail ", the divides of wisdom between yours and my age , are very wide I'd say ! If a farmer grows carrots and has a failed carrot year ; I understand the local coop , however , If Argentina grows carrots for 12 cents each what good does it do to grow ours here at a dollar thirty and think that we can have fair trade ? I think you better find another example young man .
As to our central government so chosen by the colonial states , we need it , we own it and it ain't going no where , At the cost of civil war , read your history !Many conservatives like you barely acknowledge the authority of the federal gov't, they have always leaned toward States doing their own thing regardless of what the federal gov't thinks is best for the nation or its citizens.
So yes, it is an apropos comparison.
Two months have gone by and England is beginning to suffer from an ill conceived decision by a slight majority of the British citizens. Economists predict it will only get worse.
The you ARE making that assumption. I don't see that you have any valid reasoning to do so, in spite of the experts opinions on one small facet of the question.
Do you even understand how absurd what you just wrote is? "in spite of Experts opinion one one small facet (meaning the whole British economy!) of the question"? That is the only valid question outside their paranoia fear of legal immigrants. My god man.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had the impression that Great Britain runs on a government much like the U.S. -- part republic and part democracy.
Democratic elections are required to prevent too much power in the hands of too few people in a republic.
If the vote turns out to be the wrong one, then the problem lies with an ignorant voter base. Another vote down the road is possible.
Is there any other answer?I saw that - that lots of people are wanting a second vote. If it doesn't go my way, well, we'll just vote over and over until it does. Too much of that in the US as well - hundreds of votes on abortion, gun control, etc. - why can't the losers just accept what happens and adjust to it?
I don't know what belonging to the EU was doing to the UK, don't understand why the vote in the first place, really, but it is done and the people spoke. Let it go!YES, the same answer John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Mason wrote extensively about ... you can't trust the populous en mass because they (we) are too easily manipulated and too readily let emotion trump reason, as we are currently seeing with Trump supporters.
If you recall, assuming you have read the Papers, the only vote the People (meaning white, male, property owners) could cast was for the House of Representatives. The Senate and President where chosen by others who were not the People at large. Why do you think this, or do you think the Constitution was flawed to begin with?
I really don't think so. From what I understand about the EU, countries like UK were contributing more that their share to the EU while some countries like Greece were being propped up and virtually getting a free ride while enjoying the benefits of its socialism to its own citizens. What is wrong with a country being fed up with a "forced economic contribution" to the EU, as another commenter called it. I wondered how long the UK was going to continue to put up with it.
Back when I was a reporter and reporting on government, I saw for myself that government was nothing but legalized mob rule.I believe that was straight from your heart.
BOOM!
Dear idiotic, out of touch British media,
http://louderwithcrowder.com/dear-dumbf … 27iw_krLIVThat is because Britain recieves more economic value than what they pay in. Also, if Mississippi went bankrupt, your logic would be to let them fail.
The EU and America was a voluntary choice by the individual European Nations and the Colonies in America to join together for mutual benefit. In both cases the participants agreed to the rules. One major difference is the EU has a clause for a nation to opt out where the States don't. But it should have been the elected gov't of England to opt out, not the masses which are too easily swayed by emotion and lies.
My opinion is yes, they were right. Democratic rule is much different than democratic selection of representatives. Democratic rule is mob rule.
GAAnd ANY rule is of the people , by the people , for the people , the only difference between government styles and descriptions today is how far away from the will of the people who created these governments have the chosen leadership morphed !
In America , all fault lies with the people ! Apathy , the stupidity of entitlement , intellectual naiveté and lack of political wisdom and maturity in the voter IS THE FAULT of all of us , the voters.
IF AMERICA IS TO WORK UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT ,more than 60 %percent of eligible voters in a presidential and 40 %percent in midterms has to get of their a$$ and vote ! The only excuse for America's condition today is YOUR [my ] fault .Very true, but you need to go one more step in your thinking. The People of both England and the US choose who will represent them in the central gov't. If they don't like the gov't's policies, then they need to elect ones who will carry out there will; not take unthinking action by mob rule.
"...not take unthinking action by mob rule."
... as a choir member, I might add a few other descriptors; misinformed, ill-informed, and purchased - action by mob rule. Unless of course the "central government" is so entrenched that "mob rule" is the only action left to citizens.
I didn't look it up, but I recall something about the Brexit vote being a political campaign promise that backfired massively. I think the sentiment for the vote was already simmering, and government had been scrambling to deal with it when the campaigning PM offered the referendum as a vote-for-me prize.
Could the Brexit vote issue be similar to our, (U.S.), 90+% incumbency vs. 14% approval rating reelection problem? When arrows don't work - you look for a big rock. (like the referendum, or Trump?)
GAYes, that was a promise made by David Cameron; he couldn't comprehend the people wanting out of the EU. But then a Trump happened where most everything out of the Leavers mouths was a lie.
I had never thought of your analogy in the those terms, but it is quite apropos..
I think the founding fathers did an amazing job putting in place a system with just the right amount of checks and balances to ensure people could have a fair say, but without anyone person or political party able to dictate. The problem is that it's a system based on mutual respect, and compromise. Two things that seem to be lacking in current political discourse.
Jefferson feared democracies mob rule mentality would supersede any sensible rational thought in the heat of the moment. Wars and economic crisis come to mind. But in the process we have developed an elitist class who lives above those they require take the burden. We have lost our representation to a group who base their decisions on personal gain and not what is best for the country and its' people. Our debt is a prime example. The illegal immigration undermines the ability for upward economic ability while it only increases their voter base. These are the reasons an outsider with outrageous comments has gained the ear of the common man. Because he speaks to their plight.
And John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. (I think I wrote John Mason in error in an earlier post)
What I predict are:
1) An almost certain recession, maybe depression, in England
2) Highly probable recession in the EU
3) A good chance at a recession in America
4) A strong move in Scotland to secede from England in order to remain in EU, they voted 62% to 32% to stay
5) A reasonable chance for a referendum in Northern Ireland to merge with Ireland for the same reason.
Britain's main trading partner is the EU and British industry should be contracting dramatically as EU businesses turn inward to protect themselves from an unstable British economy
There is a possibility London will fall from top spot as the financial trading center of Europe and pass that title on to France or Germany.
A very wealth German artist told me yesterday that he suspected the Brits would bail and he converted his pound-based holdings (the go to currency behind the dollar) into other currencies; guessing correctly that the pound would fall. He also noted that England doesn't really have anything the world wants pointing out that the Rolls-Royce is owned by Volkswagen and the Bently by BMW (which, until our conversation thought that stood for British Motor Works ... wrong, it is Bavarian Motor Works.
There current account is heavily negative, meaning they import much more than they export which leads to sending pounds out of England only to return in the form of loans (foreigners buying British debt) and that is only going to get much worse. This has the potential of leaving England in the same position countries like Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and many third world countries who were driven into bankruptcy when loans were called or not extended.
Moody is already looking at downgrading their credit rating, which, if it happens, only compounds England's woes.
BTW, this is the same Nativistic path Trump wants to put America on.In a smaller country there is less to fear. In a country like ours, size and structure matters. England can take care of themselves as they always have. Leave 'em alone, My Esoteric!!
Now if they can just keep better control over their borders!!!!
But can they control them ... being a small, sea-exposed land mass?
Don wrote: " That might be a relevant argument IF they had actually lost it." ( It = their sovereignty.)
… Yes, they are being overrun with other nationalities (Muslims extremists?) tromping onto their shores. WHO KNOWS WHAT COULD HAPPEN? You, Don, are worried about a lower standard of life when they
COULD loose their s o v e r e i g n t y !!!!!
We in US, of all people, should understand their position and be as HELPFUL as possible!!!
The US position should be one of encouragement!!!!!
(SHAME on any US president who would not take this position.)I agree the the founders in general loathed pure democracy because they felt it tended to descend into mob rule as was the case in the French revolution.
The founders I am confident, would have approved of the results of the Brextic vote for many reasons. I believe the founders would have seen the modern British state as somewhat oppressive and would see the Brextic vote as a move of a free people moving towards self rule and not as mob rule.
To have an elite body controlling the economies of the European powers would have been seen as a dangerous consolidation of government power. The founders would have been aghast to have a sovereign nation be forced by an elite governing body to import and support migrants from other nations and they certainly wouldn't approve of having to financially subsidize the poor decisions of other nations.I am not sure where you get the idea that England doesn't have self-rule, I think they would be extremely surprised to here that.
A little history. Britain by vote of Parliament Voluntarily joined the EU in 1973 where the government exercised their self-rule; there was no referendum. Their elected officials did the same kind of thing our elected officials do. They KNEW what they had negotiated and it served them well until some nut-jobs on the right began their campaign of what THEY now admit were flat out lies and misdirection and exaggeration, much like what Trump is doing today. Bottom line - England "was not Forced" to join.
There is no doubt in my mind, having read all of the Federalist Papers that they would have point to the Brexit vote as an example of just enough people having the wool pulled over their eyes to destroy the economy for the other 48%.
I have no doubt either that Scotland will vote again to succeed and win this time; for they voted heavily to remain in the EU.
If a nation cannot have its own economic sovereignty because of the unbalanced economy of outside influences then YES Brexit is the right answer , Which ,by the way , changes almost nothing in their trade agreements . True trade agreements with tariffs , when necessary , are and have always been a part of healthy economic trade .
The people of Britain were tired of everybody coming in from other countries and walking all over them.
Its a matter of power through country. One's OWN country to love and defend ...
Where one can pursue "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Read John Locke
They don't call a country "homeland" for nothing.
"homeland noun
native land, country of origin, home, birthplace, hometown; roots, fatherland, motherland, mother country, land of one's fathers …" On-line Thesaurus"… Alternatively, the EU could free itself of its most awkward member, making the EU easier to lead and more effective."
well, Good!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0Essentially , England lost it's sovereignty , any citizen in an EU country was able to go anywhere in THOSE countries, UK's massive forced economic contribution to EU. went to other countries with very little return . It had military implications , why cannot a people re-claim their country if so desired ?
Liberals -pick your reason for them not to -
1 -racism
2 -racism
3-racism
or
4-racism
Anybody beginning to see how shallow liberals are ?Reclaim their country from what? The economic realities of the 21st century?
Norway is not a member of the EU. To access the single EU market it has to accept the free movement of labor, comply with EU rules, and pay the EU a percentage of its trade profits. Same applies to Switzerland. Neither are forced to accept these terms. They choose to accept because it benefits them economically.
The UK will have to negotiate its own deal like Norway and Switzerland. It's possible the UK could get more favorable terms than those countries, but unlikely. The EU will not want to alienate existing non-members it trades with by giving the UK preferential treatment. And it's likely they will play hardball on the negotiations to show the remaining members they are better in that out.
So to trade in the single market the UK will likely need to accept the free movement of labor, compliance with EU rules, and pay a percentage of their profit (which is what they did as a full member). They can choose not to, but 48% of their exports go to the EU so that would be a loss of almost half their export revenue (around 200 billion a year). It's unlikely they can afford that. So they can have full sovereignty if they choose, close their borders, not comply with any EU rules etc. But if they don't do that, then it's not because of the EU, it's because economic realities mean they just can't afford to. Such is life in a globalized world.Perhaps we'll pick up a large chunk of their trade, both ways.
What makes you thing UK, won't be trading anyway . It isn't a matter of either all in or all out . The E.U. came to be BECAUSE of normal trading not to replace it . The top three countries contributed most $ to the EU., U.K. , Germany , . France ,, Why should then Greece or Estonia for instance ,be allowed lesser contributing factors an so a free economic ride .?
The EU, It's just global socialism , as we know socialism. Watch England flourish ! They all should hope that Germany and France don't chose to follow and why shouldn't they ? Nationalism is not a dirty word . Just ask China , and look at their economic games and success'Hope Europe joins the BRICS too. Wound be the final nail into the western eliteist coffin.
The UK will be trading. No doubt about it. It's just a matter of what terms they are able to negotiate with the EU and other countries. It's almost certain the EU will require the free movement of labor etc. as a condition of trade. If the UK can't accept that, it will need to find a new market for 48% of its exports. It's possible that trade with other countries could fill the gap. If it doesn't, the UK will have no choice but to accept the deal offered by the EU. Either way, losing half of its export income is not a realistic option. This is not what the people who voted to leave the EU voted for. They were not told that economic circumstances may mean the UK has to follow EU rules anyway, as a non-member. They were given a false narrative about "taking control of the country back" etc. which was irresponsible and misleading. The reality is, the UK may be in a worse off position outside the EU, than it was inside.
Therein lies the problem with direct democracy. Ordinary people seldom have the time or the inclination to gain expert knowledge of the factors surrounding a complex issue. That makes the political process vulnerable to propaganda and straight-out lying. That's why we elect people and pay them a salary to analyse all the relevant information and make informed decisions on our behalf. If there are issues with that system, the answer is to fix those issues, not resort to mob rule.The UK, as Don pointed out, will be trading, no doubt, but just at much less favorable terms. One promise made was that the savings from not paying for EU membership was that Britain could build hundreds more hospitals each year; a provable lie. Another was "Leavers" said the farmers would see no decrease in their profits. Independent think tanks, and common sense, disprove that has all of the EU supported subsidize would disappear and taxes must go up, it is inevitable.
The Pound is already in tatters, and that is just after one day. It is going to get much worse starting tomorrow, Monday. At the same time America is going to be hurt as the Dollar gets even stronger, decreasing exports.
The cost of doing business for British firms will increase dramatically as EU reorganizes leaving England out of the mix.
By the way, the way you know socialism isn't socialism. Only one country in Europe, Norway I think, even approaches true socialism. Northern Europe is just one type of welfare, capitalist, democracy; Middle Europe is another, Southern Europe is a third type; and America is a fourth variation. None of these countries control, in any significant way, the means of production and distribution - a characteristic that defines socialism.
Yes, do look at China; its economy has been collapsing for five years now and isn't stopping anytime soon.
The Leavers aren't displaying Nationalism, they are displaying Nativism (anti-immigration, anti-foreign, which is never a good thing.From what England paid in to the EU. It can afford far more self subsidization , Norway is a rich oil country , you cannot take an extremely rich oil country and call it socialism or even compare it to England or the US. The E.U. , no matter how it was sold to the U.K. is merely wolf socialism in sheep's clothing .
Of course there's going to be temporary economic down turn , there always is at major financial world uncertainty , fully recoverable within a short time though. I don't see a loss for trade in England , very few people care nowadays where something is made , the price is the first consideration . ........"The E.U. leaves the UK. out of the loop "........? Doubt it .
China , after incredible economic growth is only losing because we are all in an economic downturn , much to Obama supporters brainwashed baloney , To suggest a healthy amount of Nationalism or Nativism is a bad thing is simply untrue and economically naïve.
Hardly any nation today suffers economic failure because of healthy economic nativism , ONLY IN it's politics . South American countries are the prime exampling of too much political nationalism . Do we buy from them , only IF they sell to us ! i e. Chaves - Venezuela.
First of all, let me point out that this is not just England. There are four nations in Great Britain. Scotland voted in, Northern Ireland voted in, England and Wales voted out.
Secondly, the pound has already recovered to the same level it was three months ago. Tomorrow will reveal how it is actually affected.
A short term recession is predicted but remember a recession can only be declared after six months (two quarters) have passed.
It is highly unlikely the UK will accept free movement of people as it stands now. However, Brexiteers have said all along that the UK is happy to accept migration under control, rather than people turning up at Victoria station on buses, with no jobs or accommodation arranged.
Don't forget all is just pie-in-the-sky at the moment. Article 50 has to be triggered. A formal framework for withdrawal has to be negotiated with the EU, so we're looking at 2 years at the least, probably longer.
What is interesting is the unrest and dissatisfaction in other EU countries. Requests for their own referenda are likely to follow ours.I agree with this lady , Why should Estonia determine the U.K's economic livelihood ?Why should the socialism of Greece determine the economy of Scotland ? This decision will be a minor blip on the radar screen for the U.K's economy .
The Pound has fallen to historic lows today; bank stocks have tanked and it is getting worse; save for the Nikkei and Shanghai markets, the rest are taking another pounding on Monday; it will be a minimum of three months before Britain has a gov't capable of responding; business has stopped hiring and investing; there are moves in Scotland and Northern Ireland to breakaway; the turmoil won't stop until the break is complete in no less than two years from now; airfare will rise significantly (the EU model kept it low); ... and all of that and more in just two days.
What will tomorrow bring?
You're right, it's not just England, and the parts of the UK that voted to remain are now calling for referendums to decide whether to secede from the Union.
The pound continues to crash.
£100B wiped off UK FTSE 100 index (equates to 285 years of EU membership at £350m per year)
$2 trillion wiped off world markets.
Today the UK lost it's AAA credit rating.
The UK's economic forecast has changed from stable to negative.
Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein are all geographically in Europe but currently not in the EU, as the UK would be. Free movement of people, and compliance with at least 20% of EU rules is a condition those countries had to accept for access to the single EU market. It's very unlikely the EU will give the UK more favorable terms.
The EU needs to show other member countries that leaving is not a good option. If they don't, the EU is finished. So it's likely the UK will be given the choice of accepting free movement, and complying with EU rules or losing nearly half (48% as of April 2016) its export revenue. It is very doubtful the UK can afford that. Finding a new market for those exports is not impossible, but even in the economic climate before Brexit, that would have been difficult. Even more so now.
As the EU represents 27 economies, making up one of the largest trading markets in the world, it has much more bargaining power. Realistically, by the time negotiations begin, what is left of the UK (England, Wales and perhaps Northern Ireland) will not be in a very strong position by comparison.
I suspect the UK will stall triggering Article 50 as long as possible, in the hope that their vote will cause another EU member to follow suite, putting the EU in crisis. At that point the EU position would be weaker. Three issues with that though: 1) the UK government will come under increasing internal pressure from 'leave' voters anxious to see the results of the referendum actioned. 2) No European government in their right mind would go near an EU referendum at the moment. There may be a chance if the UK can stall long enough for an anti-EU government to be elected to another member country, which is possible, but a long shot. 3) the longer the UK stalls, the stronger the possibility that those supporting 'remain' will find a way to overturn the referendum result. Apparently the result is not legally binding, and there is already talk about MPs (the majority of whom are in favor of remaining in the EU) voting to ignore it, but I don't know how realistic that is.
In short, I think it's unlikely the UK will be able to deliver the thing many 'leavers' voted for, i.e. a solution to immigration issues. It is more likely that economic reality will force the UK to accept some form of free movement, and compliance with EU rules for access to the EU market. The question will be how much movement and how many rules. So the most the UK can realistically hope to gain from this is not having to comply with 100% of EU rules as they currently do, but that seems a tiny benefit, relative to the world-wide financial cost and the domestic political and social cost.
Looking at it objectively, it's very hard to describe this decision by the British public as anything close to good, but I suspect lots of people were not looking at it objectively. Therein lies the problem of letting people vote directly on complex issues that have global ramifications.Or , people voted the way they did simply because that they want control of their own destiny again . And so what happens if France and Germany do the same - both of which have experienced their own hell with immigration alone ! Some think the U.K. is done , I say maybe its the E.U. that's done and so what if it is . Each geographical - cultural- political entity deserves it's own identity and more than deserves to decide its own future. I am all for economic protectionism , its the same as having a strong military .
Pres. Obama should take a huge lesson from this , too bad he's a lame duck at this point , but then even lame ducks can learn a lot on the pond! This is partially war , a war of economics , and who has the right from outside of one's country - to dictate the health and viability of any free nation ? I'll answer that for you ...........No One ! Hey and you know what , that neither makes the U.K. racist , Islamophobic or bigoted , those descriptions are for the P.C. crowd only .
Go .U.K.!You write like the UK was dragged kicking and screaming into the EU. No, instead they knew of the huge benefits they would get by joining a union and eagerly did so; just like the States did when they ratified the Constitution.
What do you think the vote would have been had the "Leavers" NOT LIED to the electorate? The three biggest promises they made if people voted to leave the EU are:
1) The money saved by not contributing to the EU would ALL go to the healthcare system. - That was a bald-faced lie, of course, because at least half of that money was returned to the UK in the form of subsidies to farmers, and other types of transfer payments. So, only 1/2 or less of the contribution is available for health care.
2) They promised the farmers that they would 1) continue to have free access to the EU markets, 2) they would not be economically affected by leaving the EU. - Another big lie. The UK will have to negotiate everything from landing rights for their airplanes, to access to markets in the EU, to Open Skies protocols, and a whole host of other privileges they voted away, and 3) losing their subsidies can be made up in unspecified other ways.
3) Immigration will be greatly reduced. - LIE #3. All that was really promised, but not made public, is they will "control" immigration. If the UK wants to partake of the benefits of the EU, then they will have to agree, just like Norway did, to abide by EU rules including free access to Britain's labor market. If they don't, the cost of living in England is going to skyrocket.More and more I am convinced that there are only TWO views here , progressive and conservative ! Duh ........., the NWO of a failingly lame duck Obama view and everything having to do with control of a countries own destiny ! Screw progressive blindness , if the idiocy of the socialist " gimme" factor is all there is ; I would rather live on my own garden !
And so would the majority of the UK people ! .....Uhhh, does a majority vote sound familiar ?I repeat so you can respond to what I asked - Would there have been a slim majority in favor of leaving the EU if they had NOT BEEN LIED TO?
Also, you never answered my question - Do you favor a States ability to secede from the Union if 50.1% of the citizens who voted say they want to?? Your commentary seems to point to an answer of Yes,
You write like the UK was dragged kicking and screaming into the EU. No, instead they knew of the huge benefits they would get by joining a union and eagerly did so; just like the States did when they ratified the Constitution.
What do you think the vote would have been had the "Leavers" NOT LIED to the electorate? The three biggest promises they made if people voted to leave the EU are:
1) The money saved by not contributing to the EU would ALL go to the healthcare system. - That was a bald-faced lie, of course, because at least half of that money was returned to the UK in the form of subsidies to farmers, and other types of transfer payments. So, only 1/2 or less of the contribution is available for health care.
2) They promised the farmers that they would 1) continue to have free access to the EU markets, 2) they would not be economically affected by leaving the EU. - Another big lie. The UK will have to negotiate everything from landing rights for their airplanes, to access to markets in the EU, to Open Skies protocols, and a whole host of other privileges they voted away, and 3) losing their subsidies can be made up in unspecified other ways.
3) Immigration will be greatly reduced. - LIE #3. All that was really promised, but not made public, is they will "control" immigration. If the UK wants to partake of the benefits of the EU, then they will have to agree, just like Norway did, to abide by EU rules including free access to Britain's labor market. If they don't, the cost of living in England is going to skyrocket.All people are "lied to " by all media and governments , what does that change , is it not up to all people to decipher their own truths and their own changes , What's wrong with English rule for the English people ?
What 51 percent of Americans are going to decide to secede from where ? Your not making any sense . Our nation divided in the choice of secession of individual statehood , America as a whole will vote on one state's decision, remember ?
The U.K. leaving the E.U. isn't like Texas leaving the U.S. , get real !
Why should the money from the U.K. 's EU. decision only go to healthcare and who decides that , you ?
Do you really believe that corporations , including farmers , won't negotiate their own deals aside from the E.U ? I think they always have and always will.$3 trillion lost from Brexit decision; credit rating reduced.
Your point is that the people of a sovereign State, say South Carolina, who voluntarily chose to join the Union and now don't want to be "controlled" by the Federal gov't should have the right to secede. Now, in America, they DON'T have that right, but your position reads like they should.
The people in England, many of whom now regret their vote to leave, made their choice based on FALSE information. Had they had the TRUTH, then the UK would still be in the EU and the English people wouldn't be on the brink of a significant lowering of their standard of living. Now, if the vote had been 60/40 to leave, that would be a different story, but it wasn't, it was just 52/48 which supports the idea the LIES (like LyinTrump) won out.
As to England taking its sovereignty back. That might be a relevant argument IF they had actually lost it. They never did, just like the States never lost their sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. In order to receive the greater benefits of the EU, then England voluntarily agreed to pay the lesser price of things like free movement of workers.,
Because of the siren call of nativism coupled with major deceptions and outright lies, enough votes were changed that set England on a ruiness course.
As to money going to healthcare, that is what the "Leavers" falsely promised.
Will they negotiate their own deals, of course they will; just not as good as what they used to enjoy with the EU. What the "Leavers" DIDN'T tell the voters is that in order to enjoy the same benefits they now receive from EU membership they will have to accept the same rules they currently follow, (the EU has made that very clear) but with one big difference ... they won't be represented in the EU parliament.
If a working person wants a new car, but can't afford the cost, that doesn't mean their right to control their own destiny has been taken away. It means they are subject to the same economic restrictions and limitations that most people are.
If the UK wants no EU immigration, no EU rules and no EU trading fees, but can't afford to be outside the EU market, which is the cost of those things; that doesn't mean the right of the British people to control their own destiny is being taken away. It means the UK is subject to the same economic restrictions and limitations that most countries are.
Wanting to control your own destiny is not racist or xenophobic. Assuming that most of your society's problems are caused by migrants, and can be fixed by isolating yourself from foreign nationals, is xenophobic and racist. Even more so when evidence indicates migrants put more into the UK economy, than they take out of it.
Referendums in France and Germany would have to be called by the French and German governments. The chances of that happening are slim to none.
The UK is not, by any means, "done". It has the fifth largest economy in the world. It will continue to exist as a country, albeit perhaps without Scotland and maybe Northern Ireland. However, it's economy will undoubtedly suffer, and its place on the world stage will almost certainly be diminished as it loses influence in the EU.
That influence made it an important political ally for the US. I don't beleive that will remain the case. I think there will always be shared history, culture and values, but the UK will no longer have any political importance to the US.
In contrast the EU will remain of vital political importance. It's no coincidence Putin has praised the result of the UK vote. Anything that weakens the EU strengthens Russia and China. The US will want to do everything it can to stop the EU falling apart.
Even as Kerry talked publicly about the EU avoiding "anger and retribution" while in Europe this week, I think it's very likely EU officials were talking to him about how the US can help send a message to other EU countries that leaving the EU is a bad option. Most likely by making things as difficult as possible when the UK comes knocking for a trade deal. Such is politics. In a straight choice between helping the UK get a good deal with the EU, and helping the EU not fall apart, I think President Clinton (I assume) would opt for the EU. If Trump is President, then all bets are off. Uncharted territory. Just point me to the nearest fallout shelter!
A good example of what ... stupidity and masochistic behavior?
A good example of exercising their sovereignty through distancing themselves from the globalists.
Of maintaining their independence as a country through re-instituting their own system of currency. Greece needs to do the same.You do know that England maintained their own currency, don't you?
I am not arguing that a small majority exercised their right to leave the EU, the charter England signed provided for such a process. What I am arguing is 52% made a stupid, selfish decision that will ruin the livelihood for the other 48%.
Keep in mind "England" did not exercise their sovereignty, only a little over 50% made that decision.
Globalism is a reality, the sooner you get over it and adapt to what is happening around you, the sooner your stress levels will go down. By fighting globalism you are trying to bring back the horse and buggy to replace the car."The European Union (EU) is a politico-economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. It has an area of 4,324,782 km2 (1,669,808 sq mi), and an estimated population of over 508 million. The EU has developed an internal single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states.
EU policies aim to
1. ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal market,
2. enact legislation in justice and home affairs,
3. maintain common policies on trade, agriculture fisheries, and regional development.
4. Within the Schengen Area, passport controls have been abolished.
5. A monetary union was established in 1999 and came into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the euro currency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_UnionThe British were tired of no boundaries/borders and foreign people flocking in taking advantage of a country that wasn't even theirs. The Brits wanted their own country back.
Problem is they they never lost it; they simply believed the now proven to and admitted Trump-like lies from the leaders of the xenophobic Independent Party.
In what way was the EU helping Britain? in Your View, My Esoteric? Why did the majority vote to get out of it?
"The Leave side warned that remaining would produce uncontrolled immigration, crime and terrorism, with hordes pouring into Britain from Turkey, a country of 77 million Muslims that borders Syria and Iraq and hopes to join the European Union.
"The “Remain” side, citing scores of experts and elite opinion, warned that leaving the bloc, a so-called Brexit, would mean an economic catastrophe, a plunging pound, higher taxes, more austerity and the loss of jobs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/world … .html?_r=2
How should they have reached a decision if not through a democratic vote??First, I am not arguing that they didn't reach a decision according to the established rules; rules which, by the way, our founding fathers rejected exactly because of what happened in England where a tiny majority imposed a life-changing decision on a large majority.
First, no provision was made for a national referendum, exactly to prevent the tyranny of the majority which just occurred in Britain
Second, to overturn a presidential veto takes 2/3 agreement of each House
Third, it took 70% (not 50%) agreement among the 13 States to ratify the US Constitution
Fourth, Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of each House
Fifth, It requires 2/3 of States to call a Constitutional Convention
Sixth, it requires 3/4 of States to ratify an Amendment
Seventh - it requires 2/3 vote in Senate to ratify a treaty
Eighth - It takes 2/3 vote of each House to continue disqualification of a President under the 25th Amendment
Ninth - 2/3 of Senate must agree to convict an official which was impeached in the House.
Our Founding Fathers were deathly afraid of outcomes like that in England by correctly reasoning that the masses are too easily manipulated by emotional propaganda like that used by the "Leavers". In 1780's "democracy", per se, was a dirty word.
"How should they have reached a decision if not through a democratic vote??" - by using a supermajority.
As to your question about "In what way was the EU helping Britain?", I suggest you read the Federalist Papers".
You ask "Why did the majority vote to get out of it?" - because they were lied to and their emotions and xenophobic fears were manipulated by the leaders of the "Leavers". Please consider that it didn't even come close to the 2/3 supermajority needed in the US for many momentous decisions at the federal (and some state) level.
If England wants to continue to benefit from a "single market" that the EU offers, then they are going to have to continue accepting free-movement of workers. And, to a large degree, refugee policy is an individual nation's decision already.
Your article seems to support my view of the harm this irrational decision will cause to England, to Europe, and potentially to the world.BTW, here is how the "Leavers" leadership lied to the British public
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/news/ec … index.htmlYou asked "what does EU do for Britain?" Here are a few of the reasons.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/news/ec … index.html
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
There is still far more economic power in true sovereignty , even for poorer countries . Why , because of a free and successful nations economic philanthropy and social conscience , For instance , why should England be forced to pay a percentage of their economic success for poorer nations , WHEN they have always given to other countries anyway ? Same with America , Americans are a very "giving" people . But if we just don't give our power of conscience to others to dictate . Then we get to chose who does benefit .
What has England gained by the economic union ?
Related Discussions
- 95
Musk to NYT columnist calling for ‘overthrow’ of the Constitution
by Ken Burgess 10 days ago
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/09/03 … n-1484487/The Constitution has always been the ultimate goal of the progressive left, a key obstacle that prevents them from “fundamentally transforming” America into something more to their liking and they are now getting bold enough to say it.With...
- 23
What nation best exeplifies the Socialist philosophies the left want o
by Jimbo'daNimbo 12 years ago
I can't help but wonder what the model is for all the change that the left is trying to hammerlock us into as a nation. Would someone please enlighten me as to where these policies have produced the desired result.Not just health care mind you but the whole range of Socialist desires on the wish...
- 46
Armed and Ready to Overthrow the Government if Trump Loses in 2024
by Faye V 2 years ago
Are they serious? I don't know whether I should take this as a sensationalism or something to pay attention to? I usually expect better from Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/2021/12/31/mil … 60953.html
- 52
Just In: Socialism offers Freedom AND Low taxes!
by Kathryn L Hill 11 years ago
-today in the Forums, it was stated that socialism offers freedom and low taxes. This is what we have learned today, 3/9/13 from advocates of Social Democracy for the United States (A Social Democracy promotes a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism, according to Wikipedia) Is this true?Can...
- 19
What do you think about the overthrow of the Egyptian Government?
by Greensleeves Hubs 11 years ago
I ask this question because I feel a sense of dilemma. I hate extremism in general and religious extremism in particular. I am not sure exactly what the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood government are, but the idea of any government associated so directly with religion worries me greatly -...
- 41
Living for the GOOD OF ALL
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Could you? Could you give up all self-interest? and concern for your own self-benefit in life? Is it perfectly fine to force the rich to do so?Is it perfectly fine to force ANYONE to do so?