Do you honestly believe, Jon, that the extreme right wingers who will soon lead the UK government - Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Chris Grayling and John Redwood - will support 'education, healthcare, culture, travel'?  They are ideologically opposed to social welfare and public services.  They actually hate them.  As soon as they're in power, they will return to this government's programme of cutting back public services and privatising public ones with renewed vigour because - in their philosophy - public services are inherently wrong - and closing or privatising them is right.

One of the functions of the European tier of government was that it was a force of moderation of politics, whether of the left or the right.  An extremist government - like the one that the Brexit voters have called down upon the UK - can do incalculable damage because it is driven by ideology, not by the pragmatic needs of the people.

Then, of course, there's the inevitability that Scotland will use the Scottish vote result to justify another UK membership referendum.  Welcome to the end of the United Kingdom.

"The participation in NATO activities is, imho, a different kettle of fish. Refugees would've attempted to come anyway, but with lesser freedom of movement they wouldn't have gotten around as much."

Yeah, I'm not saying refugees targeted Europe because of NATO (though terrorists obviously did), but that NATO helped create the refugee (and terrorism) crisis in the first place (Sadaam, Qadaffi --> ISIS), and Europe is a lot closer geographically, so it was bound to get the lion's share (so to speak).

Of course. Official policy is the more the merrier. And if you want to smoke weed that's fine, as long as you brought enough to share.

I honestly believe that we are better out than in yes. I have wanted this for at least 20 years and I couldn't be happier. 

But not addressing any of the specific questions, big surprise. Of course I don't expect you personally to be able to, but it'd be nice to think there was more to it than this.

"Do you really think our country is so poo we can't decide things for ourselves any more? are we so dumbed down that we have to be told what to do?"


What, exactly, is it that we were being forced to do against our will that will now change?

But what about my questions Jon: do you agree with the Tory hard right's agenda of reducing public services and social welfare?

And if the United Kingdom comes apart at the seams as a consequence - as seems likely - will it have been worth it?

But why? There must be reasons behind your decision.

I am not a top fan of the EU. It is flawed, and does have its fair share problems and wacky ideas. However, Britain has benefited a lot from membership.

This vote will likely mean the break-up of the UK as we know it. Scotland will go for independence again, and will likely get it this time. Even Northern Ireland will be mulling the next steps over as they voted Remain, and they do benefit a lot from EU investment.

Overall, the result will mean an unpleasant recession, job losses, and lots of real damage to families and communities. The break-up of the UK will simply mean that England and Wales will be left as a small and far more isolated country with no say in what happens around us any more.

I honestly do not see where optimism comes from. Woohoo, we can maybe make 5% more rules ourselves than we could before. If we want to trade with Europe without exorbitant fees, we'll still need to accept their immigration policy, so plenty of things that are not liked about the EU won't change.

Overall, fast forward 10 years from now, and I strongly suspect that Britain will be in a far worse state on so many levels than it is now, and a lot of people will be ruing their mistakes.

Just interested: how has Britain benefited?

7 Arguments for leaving:

1. Membership in the EU threatens Britain's Sovereignty

2. The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations

3. The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms

4. The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster

5. The EU allows too many immigrants

6. The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU

7. The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU

Now, I don't live there - so I don't know if the above statements have a direct impact or not. Perhaps the financial collapse of 2008 has had more of an impact in this decision than anything else. Or do you think Britons just wanted independence from the EU, forget the reasons? 

I know immigration is a big part of it as well. Here, immigration is a huge, hot-button issue. For me, I have no problem with legal immigration. But we have too many people here who are living in the U.S. illegally, then we have to provide social services to them. The law is the law, but the current administration refuses to enforce it (although, to be fair it has been a problem for years), along with others areas of the law the current administration conveniently ignores.

My cousin wanted to move here from the U.K. in the '70s and was not allowed to because he might have taken an American job. Now, seems he could just sneak in from Mexico, have a couple of rugrats who are automatically citizens and be allowed to stay by inaction of the government.

I'd be genuinely interested to hear the reasons why it would have been better for Britain to stay in the EU. But it appears that votes from other countries to leave the EU could come. What of the impact of France, Italy, Sweden, Gemany should they all decide to leave?

Answers to your points:

1) How exactly?

2) Which regulations do you mean? And don't forget, we could veto and influence these previously.

3) Again, which radical reforms are needed in your opinion?

4) True. But we don't use the Euro, and we do have a exception that UK money will not be used to bail out any more Eurozone countries. Hence, this doesn't apply to us.

5) Refugees/immigrants are not part of the free-roaming aspect of the EU. We decide how many or how few to accept.

6) We fully control none-EU immigration, yet figures are still high. This is our own doing - not the EUs. Also, if we want to continue to trade with the EU without high costs, we'd still have to accept free movement of EU citizens - just as Norway and Switzerland have to do. The overall impact of within-EU-migration over 10 years is not actually that large (1 in 84 I believe).

7) The amount is peanuts. It's 0.8% of GDP, and doesn't take into account our rebates, or the various trade advantages that it brings. Since we voted for Brexit, the pound has lost value that matches roughly 10 years-worth of contributions (just to put it in context).

And why I think it would have been better to remain:

The EU gives us free access to a huge market (nearly 50% of our country's trade is with EU nations). It gives us the right to both shape and veto EU law and policies, plus the right to veto whether other nations join. It opens up trade opportunities with other none-EU countries as working with Britain gives them easier access to the EU market. These are just a few of the benefits.

Like I say, the EU isn't perfect, but Britain has benefited a lot from being a member. And we stand to lose a lot by leaving.

1. No it doesn't.

2. No it isn't.

3. That's Capitalism you're thinking of.

4. Really? Guess the US dollar is also a disaster then, given their similar value.

5. No it doesn't.

6. No it couldn't.

7. But would still have to spend it in order to expand our economy (both internally and overseas), so moot really.

It's all well and good to come up with 7 grand arguments as to why we should leave the EU, but where's the actual evidence to support the claims? Hint: there is very little, because the vast majority of reasons to leave the EU are complete and utter bullshit.

Sorry, Dave. I should have posted my source. I confess I don't know enough about the issue save for what I have read. I don't know if I should take the word of "scholars" or the news or the man on the street.

Here's the source.

I suppose in some respects, it is all in one's viewpoint and how EU membership may (or may not) have affected their lives.

Again, sorry. See my post to Dave.
 
Except many people felt differently. They're wrong and you are right?

Have you read The Atlantic? Seems reasonable enough.

Read as much of both of those links as I could - a lot of waffle with no substance.


>>Except many people felt differently. They're wrong and you are right?

There you go again, confusing feelings with reality. Also: yes.

'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration

http://gu.com/p/4yjk4?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

OK, kos. So tell me: why are you right and they are wrong? 53% disagree with you. Of the seven arguments for leaving, why are they invalid?
 

Don't get cute. There is no reality in Brexit for me, kos - at least not yet - I DON'T LIVE THERE. Since I removed my money from the stock market long ago and invested elsewhere, that won't affect me directly, either.

Instead of telling me one-word answers to reasons I posted (again, sorry for not sourcing it), how about telling my why "experts" are wrong? Are you a political science, global affairs expert? That is a serious question kos.

Is it possible that there are people in Britain that voted the way they did on emotion alone? Why would they vote to exit the EU if the ramifications are as bad as you say? Remember, because I live in the U.S., we are getting a slanted view of things. The issue is much more complex than most over here would know.

It is interesting to note, as I read some news about Brexit, that it isn't even a done deal yet. Parliament has to approve the measure which may not happen for up to two years - is this true? The other issue is Article 50 and how it will be applied, together with having to repeal the European Communities Act. It's not such a neat and tidy package.

You haven't posted 7 arguments for leaving. Even after reading your source, there is no argument - just rhetoric. To argue is to present evidence to support your position, and there is very little evidence to support any of the 7 points you quoted.

Take immigration as an example. Net migration last year was equivalent to 0.5% population growth. If our infrastructure can't handle 0.5% increase in population then I would suggest the problem is lack of investment and proper planning, not migration, that's the problem. We have a falling birth rate and aging population, we *need* migration to keep our society running. Politicians on both sides know that, which is why the Leave campaign and now backtracking on their promise to stop migration from the EU.

There are "experts" on both sides of the debate, but anyone claiming to be an expert most likely isn't one.

I think the vast majority of people voted on emotion alone, one of the major soundbites from the Leave campaign in the last few days was "people in this country are sick of listening to experts", which pretty much sums up the Leave vote for me. They'd happily shoot themselves in face, as long as they get to kick Johnny Foreigner in the balls at the same time.

> It is interesting to note, as I read some news about Brexit, that it isn't even a done deal yet.

The referendum was basically an opinion poll, and does not in itself activate Article 50 - though its result does nullify the negotiations David Cameron made earlier this year. The two year figure you've heard is the default maximum (it can be extended) for negotiations if/when Article 50 comes into play.

There's information on the process here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13802.htm

The summary section (after chapter 7) gives an overview if you don't want to read it all, or there's a single 304 KB PDF document if preferred.

So... what is it you are talking about, exactly?

It is a very interesting situation to watch.  Of course, as I said, I will avoid expressing my opinion about if it is a good / bad decision to exit the EU, especially since it doesn't matter.

A couple of observations from the far west side of the US (based on information from our perfectly unbiased news feeds of course)

a) Good luck with things.  I really mean this with the best of intentions.

b) Usually these types of events have less impact than expected, because financial institutions hate instability, so they will pressure all of the governments involved into figuring it out.

c) We have the exact same challenge of laws / taxes / debt being passed in California with just 50.1 % of a vote.  It leads to many poor decisions. (again, I am not saying that Brexit is good / bad - really don't know).  I just cannot understand how a law can be passed as meeting a "majority of votes" with less than 60%.  That is just not a sufficient % to base a decision that affects peoples lives. 

50.1 % might be enough to decide what type of wine or beer to order, but not for laws and taxes.

d) The UK has already started on its path to be part of China by joining it's version of the IMF.  This vote more or less seems to seal this fate, much to my dismay, as I am not a fan of China policies.

e) At least here in the US, we didn't interpret the vote as being racist driven at all, rather that similar to here, a lot of people are being left behind by the economy, and the value of our own currency has fallen rather dramatically.  Meet the $50 bill, its the new $20.    In "constant dollars", most wages here have fallen.