It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Unofficial anthem of Brexit:
;) New era for the UK outside the EU.
Will the UK like the doom Sayers predict, become a third world economy ?
or will the UK enter another golden age ?...... Perhaps neither,
More likely, we'll carry on pretty much the same as always. ;-)
Essentially all the available evidence suggests the UK economy will contract or not grow as much as it would have done in the short term.
There are already loads of examples of businesses going under, moving abroad or just choosing not to invest in the UK.
Longer term will probably just depend on the state of the global economy.
It's hard to find any serious economist who things Brexit will be good for the UK.
Brexit will have cost the UK $200 billion by the end of 2020. That's more than the total contribution the UK has made during its 47 year membership.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/brexit-bulletin-eu-exit-has-already-cost-britain-170-billion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/brexit-bulletin-eu-exit-has-already-cost-britain-170-billion
Brexit is quite simply the most idiotic act of self harm any democratic state has ever inflicted on itself. Astonishing really. A real testament to the post truth era.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-31/bmw-postpones-work-on-next-generation-mini-model-due-to-brexit
Its just that the mainstream (mainly Tory supporting) media in the UK are not telling people what is actually going on.
The fact that people actually don't realise the massive damage already done is a sign that we live in a post truth era. Facts don't matter anymore, it's just one "opinion" against another.
Could make for an interesting Bond plot maybe.
That's astonishing.
Why is what ok, @Thunderfinger?
I couldn't have put it better myself, the fact businesses have already said they are pulling out or already have just says it all yet people continue to think this is a good idea.
The delusion that has been displayed since this lunacy kicked off will be studied for years.
The devil is in the details. How did they come up with that number? My personal job is one that straddles mathematics and psychology and to be quite honest, the creation of a statistic is all on how you slice the pie (what you include and what you don't).
This thread, these opinions, these links.
Some of the people who were interviewed and their reasons for leaving the EU were a stark reminder of humans beings hard-wired to follow leaders regardless of scrutiny, and the primal pack, tribal mentality.
In short, referenda are a terrible way to run a country,
This was totally lost on some voters, because it wasn't written on the side of the bus. Its easier to motivate people through anger and fear. Believe me I work in branding.
Even though your arguments are true, the stance that Britain (and all other EU countries) were handing over power to an undemocratic bureaucratic money spilling machine is true as well. I'm not saying brexit was a good idea, but amongst all the rubbish and populism both sides had valid points. The vote, in the end, had little to do with the mess the conservatives made out of the whole affair in the last 3 years.
Now I've really tried (and lately succeeded) to abstain from meddling in this discussion and let the Brits fight it out against themselves. But now I feel I have to speak up, respectfully (this is not a discussion about Trump), and I wholeheartedly disagree with the description of the EU as "an undemocratic bureaucratic money spilling machine". It is not undemocratic, although in my opinion it could be improved upon in that regard.
The problem is the stress field between the one person, one vote principle on the one hand and the need to respect the member states' rights on the other. Same, by the way, as in basically all federations: You have the House of Representatives in the US more or less (not getting into gerrymandering here) representing a certain number of voters per congressperson, but at the same time the smallest states have the same number of senators as the largest. Is that undemocratic? I don't know. But why would, say, Malta join the EU if it plays no role whatsoever in the decision process...since it wouldn't have even a single MP in Brussels if it were represented only in proportion to the large members states. I think the EU is doing a marvelous job evening this out. And it seems to me that those deploring a lack of basic democracy here are usually the same ones that condemn discrimination of their own country if the majority is against them. Tough luck, but no argument.
Bureaucracy? The EU has fewer employees/public servants than each of most major European cities, wherever you draw that line. As an example, fewer than Munich. Better paid, to be frank, but they are also governing or administering close to 500 million people...and saving a lot of work for the member states who have simply ceased to regulate entire sectors on their own. Just look at the administrations that the UK will have to set up to make up for not profiting from the EU ones.
Money spilling? Where there's spending, there are grifters. But overall, the goal and effect of EU spending has been in line with its purpose: To approximate living conditions among the member states. (As an aside only: Yes, this means that the more well-off member states have to spend more and receive less from the organisation itself...but gain important and functioning new markets, and the "net payer" argument just doesn't work. Germany has always been a net payer, and always made a shitload of money from the EU. Why shouldn't Britain?).
I truly wish Britain the best of luck, and I'm coming from what is probably the most Anglophile region there is over here. So no, I'm not eagerly awaiting the proof that Brexit will be a total failure. But I also strongly feel that the EU, in spite of some shortcomings, is absolutely the best thing that ever happened to the continent of Europe, that the Schengen accord is among the emotional highlights to bring nations together, and that the Euro is a blessing in spite of concerns of some monetary experts. I do not want a return to more nationalist states, but an amalgamation into a united Europe. I don't give a damn for past greatness and chauvinism. And that's why I'm sad to see Britain move away from what I consider the major peace project of our time. But there's no use crying over spilt milk, and the EU 27 will be stronger than the 28 considering the British role over the last 40-some years.
Agree with all this. Im probably 80/20 pro EU.
Demos cratos means 'the will of the people'. So is in example the two party system with electors democratic? No, because party politics get in the way of the choice of 'the best option'. Of course the representatives of different countries should be devided in an equalised way. But the fact that European citizens have next to no influence on who's on the list to be chosen and the fact that if they're voted into parliament they have next to no power at all (only the right of vote, no initiative legislative power) makes them highly party depended and the system undemocratic. Need I remind you how the referendums in France and the Netherlands were treated?
The euro has kept southern European countries in deadlock with high depts and no chance to invest to become more productive. This is not just 'some wconomists", but most saying that. So keeping the south poor and restraining the north of course helps to equal things out, but it's far from productive. The idea was that the euro would bring Europeans together and would warm them to the super state idea. It was an experiment, and 20 years later it sure hasn't worked. Quite the opposite in fact. The fact that the Brussels bureaucracy is smaller than the one in Munich doesn't tell us much. If Brussels did the same work as the municipality of Munich for all Europeans, you'd have a point. It doesn't. It doesnt even 'govern' much as all directives are implemented by national governments. What makes it bureaucratic is its supsessability to start making rules that are superfluous. That are affecting far more than necessary and doing harm in the process, meant for local sircumstances and inplied all over. And again, it's hardly the will of the people rather than organised lobby groups that's implemented. Going back to nation states is the other extreme and I'm certainly not advocating that. But turning a blind eye to an ideal running off the rails is just as bad.
Well said.
The sad truth is that Remainers faced a perfect storm in 2016. The Middle East refugee crisis, Boris Johnson's cynical decision to back Leave, and the fact the leader of the Labour Party was a lifetime Eurosceptic all combined to create the slimmest of majorities for a Leave vote.
Had the referendum happened a couple of years earlier, or later I doubt Leave would have won. A massive tactical blunder by David "essay crisis" Cameron.
This thread will now be closed. Please go here for an explanation and a chance to comment.
Thank you.