Boris Johnson is the new British Prime Minister

[Antiboyscout]

I suspect people are going to dispute the idea the EU is going to collapse.

And the idea that getting out early would be helpful, as in or out of the EU the UK's economy is inextricably tied to them so an EU collapse is going to hit them like a ton of bricks whether they are in or out of the EU, and leaving behind the EU when there is a US president that believes economics is zero sum is a fantastically stupid move, potentially locking them into worse deals than those leaving later would get.

The point of the EU is to tie the economies of europe together. That's like saying it's a bad idea to get a divorce because you share a bank account with your spouse. You share the account BECAUSE you got married. That's what the single market and heavy regulations do.

And because the UK's biggest trading partner is the EU, they are still going to bound by those regulations, with no way of affecting them, until the time of the collapse. Geography means that the UK's trade is going to be primarily with other European countries, and the even most of the trade

How in the hell is leaving later and being lumped together with a dozen equally desperate countries after the collapse supposed to let the UK get a BETTER deal?

I mean for one it means only one collapse instead of two. For another it would mean the potential to keep the EU name and operate on the many favorable trade deals negotiated by the EU.

What second collapse? When the EU goes a lot of scared desperate money will be looking for any safe haven they can. A whole lot of money will flood into the UK banks, and being detached from the EU system only makes the UK a safer bet.

The second collapse caused by the UK having nowhere to send its exports. Additionally, if the former EU is a mess, why put your money in a nation that by geography will always be tied to the EU? Why not take it to the US or one of the many Caribbean tax havens instead? And even then it's dependent on Brexit not completely gutting the British banking industry.

Some will come to the US but the US won't take it all and tax havens don't have there own currencies.
Proximity makes the UK tied to europe? The entirety of British history after the war of the roses and before WW2 would seem to prove otherwise

[Riedquat]

What's really upsetting is how history and trends repeat worldwide, regardless of ethnic or national background. For the BREXIT thing, I see a huge case of buyers' remorse. Hell, I heard people who had abstained from voting would have considered doing so if they had known this would be the result. Then come a few months later, and people regretted not voting when the choices were literally Trump and the woman the corporate media and the right-wing institutions spent 30 years tearing down to prevent precisely this from happening. It's really sad and predictable. I'm tired of it. It's why I've given up trying to fight for humanity. Let humanity take care of itself. I only care about those close to me.

A post which appears to suggest that there's something wrong with wanting Brexit. That's very arrogant. Nothing at all wrong with not wanting the sort of thing that the EU is, and there's nothing wrong with wanting it and wanting to be part of it either, it's just individual preference about how you like the world to be. I am, however, thoroughly sick and tired of (ironically enough considering how one side keeps trying to claim they're the opposite) the prejudice and lack of tolerance displayed towards people who simply want a different thing to others.

[Draco Dracul]

The second collapse caused by the UK having nowhere to send its exports. Additionally, if the former EU is a mess, why put your money in a nation that by geography will always be tied to the EU? Why not take it to the US or one of the many Caribbean tax havens instead? And even then it's dependent on Brexit not completely gutting the British banking industry.

Nowhere? The countries involved will all still exist and want to trade (in any case the UK imports rather more than it exports). A big problem with a lot of the EU discussions is that they seem to revolve around extremes - trade as is or no trade for example, nothing in between, and fail to differentiate between the EU and its members as individual sovereign nations in their own right (which doesn't exactly endear it to some).

Okay, it will lose half of it's total export trade without the EU.
In terms of trade to a nation outside the EU there is no difference between the EU and member nations as trade must go through the EU.

Some will come to the US but the US won't take it all and tax havens don't have there own currencies.
Proximity makes the UK tied to europe? The entirety of British history after the war of the roses and before WW2 would seem to prove otherwise

One, between those periods the affairs of Europe greatly effected the UK. Two, the empire is dead, the UK no longer has colonies to draw on and it never will again.

What's really upsetting is how history and trends repeat worldwide, regardless of ethnic or national background. For the BREXIT thing, I see a huge case of buyers' remorse. Hell, I heard people who had abstained from voting would have considered doing so if they had known this would be the result. Then come a few months later, and people regretted not voting when the choices were literally Trump and the woman the corporate media and the right-wing institutions spent 30 years tearing down to prevent precisely this from happening. It's really sad and predictable. I'm tired of it. It's why I've given up trying to fight for humanity. Let humanity take care of itself. I only care about those close to me.

A post which appears to suggest that there's something wrong with wanting Brexit. That's very arrogant. Nothing at all wrong with not wanting the sort of thing that the EU is, and there's nothing wrong with wanting it and wanting to be part of it either, it's just individual preference about how you like the world to be. I am, however, thoroughly sick and tired of (ironically enough considering how one side keeps trying to claim they're the opposite) the prejudice and lack of tolerance displayed towards people who simply want a different thing to others.

I mean if you think that crippling the UK is worth it for the principle of it, more power to you. Though I can't say I know what that principle is as the UK is going to come out of this with less sovereignty that before as it will be subject to the regulations of the EU, and over a barrel when making other trade agreements, while having no say in either.

[PerrySimm]

Well the coalition with the DUP appears stable at the moment. We'll see how far that sticks when the border checkpoints start going in on All Saints' Day.

[Yukaphile]

Not even discussing BREXIT so much as the mindset. People are still people. It's amazing how little we've learned in 10,000 years...

[Antiboyscout]

Some will come to the US but the US won't take it all and tax havens don't have there own currencies.
Proximity makes the UK tied to europe? The entirety of British history after the war of the roses and before WW2 would seem to prove otherwise

One, between those periods the affairs of Europe greatly effected the UK. Two, the empire is dead, the UK no longer has colonies to draw on and it never will again.

But she's still and island, and she still has the 2nd or 3rd most powerful navy in the world. This makes her flexible in ways Germany and France can't be.

[Madner Kami]

But she's still and island, and she still has the 2nd or 3rd most powerful navy in the world. This makes her flexible in ways Germany and France can't be.

U-hu.

[...]

On paper, the Royal Navy’s 89 ships include one helicopter carrier, six amphibious assault ships, six destroyers, 13 frigates, seven attack submarines and four ballistic-missile submarines. The rest are minesweepers, survey ships and other support vessels, many no larger than the U.S. Coast Guard’s small patrol ships.

Only the six destroyers, 13 frigates and seven attack submarines can be considered true frontline vessels, with adequate sensors, weapons and protection to fight and survive in a battle with a sophisticated foe. The other ships require escort through dangerous waters.

[...]

But that’s assuming there are enough sailors to operate the ships. The Royal Navy has shed people faster than ships. Britain had 39,000 sailors in 2000. It now has a little more than 29,000, at least 2,000 short of its authorized strength.

Fleet planners tried to address the personnel shortage by sidelining two of its most powerful ships. This summer, for example, the Royal Navy placed the large Type 23 frigate HMS Lancaster in “extended readiness”: It was tied up pierside, its crew assigned to other vessels.

[...]

Last month, the new attack submarine HMS Ambush collided with a merchant vessel off Gibraltar. The sub suffered serious damage and limped back to Britain for repairs that could take months, if not longer.

That accident reduced the Royal Navy’s undersea combat strength by nearly 15 percent. It was a stark reminder that Britain has almost no naval strength in reserve.

[...]

Source: [url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk-military-navy-commentary/commentary-what-the-u-s-should-learn-from-britains-dying-navy-idUSKCN10L1AD[/url]

The article is from 2016. And let's make special mention of the UK's largest and most powerful vessel, HMS "Queen Elizabeth". The aircraft carrier that has no aircraft. By contrast Germany offers 65 commissioned ships including 10 frigates, 5 corvettes, 3 minesweepers, 10 minehunters, 6 submarines, 11 replenishment ships and 20 miscellaneous auxiliary vessels and we are not even trying to be a naval power...

That's no point. Yes, there are issues with democracy in the UK (there's a very good argument that a change of party leader who's also a sitting PM should trigger a general election) but that in no way makes complaints and dissatisfaction about a lack of democracy elsewhere illegitimate. At least he'll have to face a general election in a few years (if he lasts that long).

True, but this shows the hypocracy at work and how little it really has to do with the theme announced. People decry a lack of control when their means of control are the issue in the first place, yet somehow think that leaving the EU gives them back control even though they are left with the exact same means of control. Remember how the EU is structured? It does have an elected parliament (which is admittedly weak) and a comission which is staffed by people "elected" by the national governments. In essence, the people responsible for the laws that are allegedly so opressive are the same people that sit in their government and guess what the Brits are left with once they leave the EU?

I've written this elsewhere, what is happening here is a projection of a domestic political crisis that will not at all be solved by that projection and now that Boris Johnson has been "elected", it just emphasizes how truely fucked up the british political system and establishment is and how quite the contrary of a solution BrExit really is, because it obviously makes everything worse, even before the BrExit even happened.
The EU meanwhile, I have no doubt, is and will be blamed for everything, including the "election" of Boris Johnson, even though the EU is literally doing nothing except waiting for Britain to sort it's shit out, since almost three years now, just watching while the UK deconstructs itself further and further.

those who refuse to rule out no deal (which is just writing "SCREW ME OVER!" on your forehead)

For better understanding: What is writing "screw me over!" on your forehead? The act of refusing a No Deal?

Those who'll try to force no deal through, those who refuse to rule out no deal (which is just writing "SCREW ME OVER!" on your forehead), those who are desperate to do anything rather than face the results of a democractic vote to leave, those who think negotiation is "here's what we want, you agree", I've a pretty dim opinion of the lot of them.

On the contrary, you are seemingly painting a very dim picture of everything. You don't qualify NoDealers beyond wanting to "force their deal through", you seem to count refusing a No Deal as "screw me over!" and consider people who do not want to leave at all as desperate. You are making the same mistake as the BrExtremists and completely disregard the opinion of everyone outside of NoDeal and in particular those 49% of the british population that does not want to leave. Why exactly are those 49% of people suddenly supposed to be on board with BrExit, when they feel it is not in their interest? Is the UK suddenly a totalitarian state where the opinion of 49% of the people does not count? A state where those 49% of people have to be on board with the ideas of the 51% automatically? I'm fairly certain that is not how a democracy works, that is how a dictatorship of the many works. A democracy is defined by how it deals with the minorities, even though I sincerely doubt that you can argue in good faith, that 49% are truely a minority.

In essence, what the UK has to deal with here is a justified lack of trust in their democractic representation and political establishments, because the governments have shown themselves either incapable or unwilling to deal with domestic issues, like the deconstruction of the industrial basis, the absurd focus on financial products in London to the detriment of literally everything and everyone on those islands. The erosion of the public sectors, like infrastructure, education, health and the military services, as well as a complete inability to deal with the segregation and ghettoisation (for lack of a better word) of society, even furthering those problems by the aforementioned erosion of the public sectors and an increasing spread between rich and poor or, to call the child by it's name, large scale povertisation of society.
And not a single one of those problems are caused by the EU. Literally all of them have their roots in domestic decissions made before the UK joined the EU and the perpetual inability to deal with those issues ever since, even furthering them by their domestic policies with a frightening regularity.

But hey, let's elect people like Jacob Rees-Mogg into parliament and make Boris Johnson our prime minister. That'll solve all the problems, right? Right? Right...

[Mecha82]

I suspect people are going to dispute the idea the EU is going to collapse.

And the idea that getting out early would be helpful, as in or out of the EU the UK's economy is inextricably tied to them so an EU collapse is going to hit them like a ton of bricks whether they are in or out of the EU, and leaving behind the EU when there is a US president that believes economics is zero sum is a fantastically stupid move, potentially locking them into worse deals than those leaving later would get.

The point of the EU is to tie the economies of europe together. That's like saying it's a bad idea to get a divorce because you share a bank account with your spouse. You share the account BECAUSE you got married. That's what the single market and heavy regulations do.

And because the UK's biggest trading partner is the EU, they are still going to bound by those regulations, with no way of affecting them, until the time of the collapse. Geography means that the UK's trade is going to be primarily with other European countries, and the even most of the trade

How in the hell is leaving later and being lumped together with a dozen equally desperate countries after the collapse supposed to let the UK get a BETTER deal?

I mean for one it means only one collapse instead of two. For another it would mean the potential to keep the EU name and operate on the many favorable trade deals negotiated by the EU.

What second collapse? When the EU goes a lot of scared desperate money will be looking for any safe haven they can. A whole lot of money will flood into the UK banks, and being detached from the EU system only makes the UK a safer bet.

The second collapse caused by the UK having nowhere to send its exports. Additionally, if the former EU is a mess, why put your money in a nation that by geography will always be tied to the EU? Why not take it to the US or one of the many Caribbean tax havens instead? And even then it's dependent on Brexit not completely gutting the British banking industry.

Some will come to the US but the US won't take it all and tax havens don't have there own currencies.
Proximity makes the UK tied to europe? The entirety of British history after the war of the roses and before WW2 would seem to prove otherwise

This could be shocker for you but UK has always been part of Europe and always will because EU isn't same as Europe. It might not be part of continental Europe but geographically UK is part of Europe making all people that we call British European. UK has also had lot of involvement with rest of Europe during history even before WWII so it wasn't isolated from rest of Europe while taking colonies and exploiting people living in those places.

UK is still going to trade with other European countries after leaving. You are naive if you think that any country in this world could survive without trading with others and be isolated. Maybe you haven't realized it yet but UK hasn't been Empire for very long time so they won't be gettimng any resources that they need from subjugated places. Only reason why Japan was so long isolated before forced to open for trade was that they were still feudal society back then.

[Robovski]

Here is what I will grant: Boris Johnson seems less like a creep than most Prime Ministers, especially out of the post-Thatcher era. To compare him to Trump is a disservice to Boris Johnson. I could probably stand being in a room with him for an hour, he might even have some interesting things to talk about. He also has some actual political experience and has held public office. Trump is a clown compared to Johnson.

[TGLS]

Some will come to the US but the US won't take it all and tax havens don't have there own currencies.
Proximity makes the UK tied to europe? The entirety of British history after the war of the roses and before WW2 would seem to prove otherwise

One, between those periods the affairs of Europe greatly effected the UK. Two, the empire is dead, the UK no longer has colonies to draw on and it never will again.

But she's still and island, and she still has the 2nd or 3rd most powerful navy in the world. This makes her flexible in ways Germany and France can't be.

How? If this whole brexit thing doesn't work out, is the plan commerce raiding?