• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brexit: just what does it mean to European Posters?

For me it means the following.

1) Uncertainty across the board which is not good. Economically it can have wide ranging consequences the longer the uncertainty goes on and with the delaying tactics of the British, then this can hurt us all.
2) The further rise of right wing fascism and neo nazism in Europe.
3) Increased nationalism and racism and xenophobia.

I certainly fear for the future of Europe and the world in general. This movement towards nationalism and xenophobia is not good..... as it will lead to war.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice,—is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other. --John Stuart Mill
 
Do you have any predictions on or fears about the type of war, where, and why the war will be fought?

I have:

In some European countries, far-right populists gain power via election, and/or a kind of civil war, or at least massive civil unrest emerges. Russia then sends "peace troops" in favor of the far-right side, as they are anti-Western and pro-Russia. NATO-loyalist neighbors would feel threatened. The unrest would spread and both sides would interveen. Same would happen if, say, Le Pen in France was elected without civil war, and then turned her back on NATO and allied with Russia instead.
 
I have:

In some European countries, far-right populists gain power via election, and/or a kind of civil war, or at least massive civil unrest emerges. Russia then sends "peace troops" in favor of the far-right side, as they are anti-Western and pro-Russia. NATO-loyalist neighbors would feel threatened. The unrest would spread and both sides would interveen. Same would happen if, say, Le Pen in France was elected without civil war, and then turned her back on NATO and allied with Russia instead.
Vladimir Putin must be very happy with Brexit.
 
I have:

In some European countries, far-right populists gain power via election, and/or a kind of civil war, or at least massive civil unrest emerges. Russia then sends "peace troops" in favor of the far-right side, as they are anti-Western and pro-Russia. NATO-loyalist neighbors would feel threatened. The unrest would spread and both sides would interveen. Same would happen if, say, Le Pen in France was elected without civil war, and then turned her back on NATO and allied with Russia instead.

That's interesting, because some of the far right in this country give more praise to Putin than Obama. They also like the anti-LGBT laws in Russia, and think Putin is a real man. I remember how they were even mocking photos of Putin and Obama working out, inferring Obama is a ***** and weak leader.
 
Well, if that's what people want, then let's get over with it and start WW3 already. The idea of unity was apparently too noble for Europeans who have hate and chauvinism in their blood.

No seriously, if you think I wanted to say further integration is an end in itself, you misread me. Maybe it's even useful transferring some authority from the EU level back to the national states -- but whatever remains of the EU just must be democratically legitimized. If it can't be, nobody will accept the EU, and we can as well start immigrating to Canada before the continent goes up in flames.

Haha, you really need to understand the motives and feelings that flared up here. I voted remain but felt for a long while that Brexit may be choice. What I've been trying to say that prosperity and safety usually prevent people feeling the need to go to war; the EEC started at a trade zone and was a success - we all did well out of it and there was no war among members. Problems have arisen since the EU itself started to soak up sovereign powers through various institutions. I don't feel that breaking up the EU is important - but I do feel rolling back treaties is the key.

Democracy resides in the sovereign states and should do with agreement where trade is important. Greater integration only leads to greater alienation.
 
I have:

In some European countries, far-right populists gain power via election, and/or a kind of civil war, or at least massive civil unrest emerges. Russia then sends "peace troops" in favor of the far-right side, as they are anti-Western and pro-Russia. NATO-loyalist neighbors would feel threatened. The unrest would spread and both sides would interveen. Same would happen if, say, Le Pen in France was elected without civil war, and then turned her back on NATO and allied with Russia instead.

I have another question... what do you think a modern Fascist Europe would look like? Is there a Fascist philosophy out there stating what they stand for and their goals? We have Trump saying he wants to deport a bunch of people, but I don't see it happening very easily or without a fight. If he tries to kick out American born Muslims, that would create international issues. It's more realistic that he would try to ban certain passports from entry or VISA approval.
 
Vladimir Putin must be very happy with Brexit.

For Russia an Brexit is ambiguous. On the one hand, Russia is very interested in Europe as in the strong economic partner and the neighbor. And an exit of Britain weakens the EU from the point of view of Russians. With another, Russia isn't interested in the EU as the strong political opponent. And therefore the dissonance in the EU from this point of view for Russians is positive.

In Russia now most of people rejoices to an Brexit for the second reason. But Putin isn't similar to the person who is guided by short-term benefit. And in the long term of a consequence of an exit of Britain from EU for Russia are still not clear. So I wouldn't risk to draw conclusions, Putin rejoices or not :)

But, in general, very, very many Russians today doubt that Britain eventually leave the EU.
 
I have another question... what do you think a modern Fascist Europe would look like? Is there a Fascist philosophy out there stating what they stand for and their goals? We have Trump saying he wants to deport a bunch of people, but I don't see it happening very easily or without a fight. If he tries to kick out American born Muslims, that would create international issues. It's more realistic that he would try to ban certain passports from entry or VISA approval.

I guess it wouldn't be openly fascist or tyrannic -- but modelled after the example Putin's Russia is giving: A pseudo-democracy with a pseudo-democratic facade, which is entirely hollowed out behind that facade.

Pluralism and will building processes would be replaced by mob rule: A charismatic leader, who is not checked by a truly free press or independent courts, makes a lot of noise, addresses the basest instincts, fears and prejudices of the populace, and by doing that creates a certain atmosphere in the public -- then opinion polls would reflect these opinions, and the leader would present himself as the personification of "the will of the people". The minorities who disagree? Screw them, they have to conform, eat or die, democracy is when two wolves and one sheep democratically decide what to have for dinner. All the leader has to do is giving loud answers to questions that wouldn't even have been asked without him. Lots of nationalistic rhetorics, symbols, mythology to smear that machine.

In Germany i.e., the far-right of the 20s (including the Nazis) had this theory of "will of the people": It is not created by fair processes in which pluralistic opinions and voices have a say, but "gesundes Volksempfinden" ("healthy feeling of the people" -- widespread sentiments and prejudices) have to be personified by the leader, who then acts in accordance with "the people" (which is supposed to be a monolithic block, dissense is abnormal). This "democratic" side of the Nazis is often overlooked; they excessively used referenda.

You can see similar developments in Hungary and Poland already. Free press is being eroded, the judiciary is eroded, the executive is strengthened excessively.

Basically, that would be "fascism light". The Nazis formally abandoned the free system. The new populists use the same tactics "light", they don't need to do away with freedom entirely or formally, in order to be able to still claim being a free country. Restrict the press just enough to be a little louder than your opponents. Or (ab)use the existing deficiencies in the media.

You can see hints of that already: Whenever an AFD politician or Trump says something "politically incorrect", they get a lot of attention and the media is doing their job by giving them free advertizement. The Nazis formally did away with a free press -- why do that, when you can perfectly abuse an existing one?
 
Last edited:
Well, if that's what people want, then let's get over with it and start WW3 already. The idea of unity was apparently too noble for Europeans who have hate and chauvinism in their blood.

No seriously, if you think I wanted to say further integration is an end in itself, you misread me. Maybe it's even useful transferring some authority from the EU level back to the national states -- but whatever remains of the EU just must be democratically legitimized. If it can't be, nobody will accept the EU, and we can as well start immigrating to Canada before the continent goes up in flames.

Thing is GG, it's very difficult to maintain that reasonable argument for greater integration based on greater democratic accountability when the EU project is being led by people like your own Herr Schäuble who was quoted as saying that democracy cannot be allowed to get in the way of austerity. I fear that as much as the immigration crisis, the Troika's handling of the Greek crisis last summer proved to many people that the EU/ECB are not only out of touch with the pain their austerity-only policies have caused, but that a state of permanent austerity is their goal. While I think Brexit is the very opposite of a rational solution to the lurch away from democratic accountability, I can understand why people who don't have access to digestible and reliable guidance on complex economic issues might think that it was. They are going to be sorely disillusioned when they realise that the Brexit Emperor Boris has invisible clothes. It won't take very long.
 
What... that was a British Nationalist that did that and we are not allowed to talk about it in a conservation about problems of rampant nationalism? Sorry if it offends someone, but that is the lay of the land as they say.

But maybe we should get back on topic... some what.

No it was a man with serious mental problems that did that.
It's an emotional subject so I'm not going to attack you for this outrageous statement. Instead I will clarify

- I'm not a member of Britain first, NF or the BNP and will never be. They disgust me.
- I'm a father of two, married to an American and I'm very well travelled. I love the world and I love Europe.
- I do not want to ban immigrants, stop muslims from entering my country nor do I want to turn away asylum seekers.
- I am however proud to be English and will never apologise for that.
 
For Russia an Brexit is ambiguous. On the one hand, Russia is very interested in Europe as in the strong economic partner and the neighbor. And an exit of Britain weakens the EU from the point of view of Russians. With another, Russia isn't interested in the EU as the strong political opponent. And therefore the dissonance in the EU from this point of view for Russians is positive.

In Russia now most of people rejoices to an Brexit for the second reason. But Putin isn't similar to the person who is guided by short-term benefit. And in the long term of a consequence of an exit of Britain from EU for Russia are still not clear. So I wouldn't risk to draw conclusions, Putin rejoices or not :)

But, in general, very, very many Russians today doubt that Britain eventually leave the EU.
Thanks for your perspective. Do most Russians in your view believe that Britain will change its mind and hold another referendum that cancels the first?
 
On a separate point Pete mentioned himself in a different thread that the high unemployment In Italy, Greece, Spain etc had nothing to do with the EU instead it was the fault of those individual countries. So then what is the point of the EU? If you have numerous countries within the same market struggling to keep their heads above water and the EU has washed their hands of it why would these countries remain? It's obvious to anyone that the EU has a serious problem convincing countries of its worth and this referendum shows that. We won't be the first to leave.
 
Haha, you really need to understand the motives and feelings that flared up here. I voted remain but felt for a long while that Brexit may be choice. What I've been trying to say that prosperity and safety usually prevent people feeling the need to go to war; the EEC started at a trade zone and was a success - we all did well out of it and there was no war among members. Problems have arisen since the EU itself started to soak up sovereign powers through various institutions. I don't feel that breaking up the EU is important - but I do feel rolling back treaties is the key.

Democracy resides in the sovereign states and should do with agreement where trade is important. Greater integration only leads to greater alienation.

So IC, we've opted ( I voted, so I guess I'm complicit in legitimising that vote) for de-integration, if not disintegration. What most concerns me now is what the plan is. Perhaps Higgins, as our only bona fide proud, British Brexiteer, can fill us in. I want the following questions answered:

  1. Why are we postponing Article 50 notification? I thought we just voted out. Why are we postponing it?
  2. What legislation/polcies are going to be enacted now to cut immigration levels to below 100,000 per year?
  3. What is our initial negotiating position going to be on the single market? Are we going to accept free movement of labour for access? Are we going to try to make the WTO regulations work so that we can pull up the drawbridge?
  4. George Osborne is widely, and rightly, criticised for threatening a post-Brexit, extra-austerity budget. Can we therefore be guaranteed that more austerity is NOT on the agenda?
  5. The Brexiteers promised that the 350 million weekly contributions to the EU would be spent on the NHS and public services. When is that likely to be legislated?

You see, I have a feeling that all of those 'Project Fear' predictions are one-by-one about to be realised. The Brexiteers are already back-pedalling on every one of their key campaign promises: "Reduce immigration? We never promised that." "Three hundred and fifty million a week? Well, we're not going to have that much available to spend."

Call me cynical or, alternatively, ludicrously optimistic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the Brexiteers are going to look for any excuse to delay Article 50 notification as long as possible and then back-track to the point at which the UK accepts almost every regulation the EU currently insist upon in order to trade as normal. I can see the referendum outcome as being almost analogous to that Greek one last year in which the Greek people said no to the Troika, then the Greek government accepted a deal that was far worse than the one the voters rejected.

Boris's desperate careerism, populism and opportunism might well turn him into the UK's shortest governing PM, and its least popular. And with Cameron still high in people's minds, that going to be some achievement. Perhaps his only political achievement.
 
Thanks for your perspective. Do most Russians in your view believe that Britain will change its mind and hold another referendum that cancels the first?

I can not now estimate a majority or minority Russian believes that Britain is somehow remain in the EU. I have no statistics. But this opinion is very common in Russia.

The preponderance of votes for the Brexit is very small. Actually opinion is divided in half. In this dispute still can be changed again all. Among my interlocutors in Russia, many believe that to Brexit the supporters need to dial a qualified majority, 2/3 (67%).
 
No it was a man with serious mental problems that did that.
It's an emotional subject so I'm not going to attack you for this outrageous statement. Instead I will clarify

- I'm not a member of Britain first, NF or the BNP and will never be. They disgust me.
- I'm a father of two, married to an American and I'm very well travelled. I love the world and I love Europe.
- I do not want to ban immigrants, stop muslims from entering my country nor do I want to turn away asylum seekers.
- I am however proud to be English and will never apologise for that.

So IC, we've opted ( I voted, so I guess I'm complicit in legitimising that vote) for de-integration, if not disintegration. What most concerns me now is what the plan is. Perhaps Higgins, as our only bona fide proud, British Brexiteer, can fill us in. I want the following questions answered:

  1. Why are we postponing Article 50 notification? I thought we just voted out. Why are we postponing it?
  2. What legislation/polcies are going to be enacted now to cut immigration levels to below 100,000 per year?
  3. What is our initial negotiating position going to be on the single market? Are we going to accept free movement of labour for access? Are we going to try to make the WTO regulations work so that we can pull up the drawbridge?
  4. George Osborne is widely, and rightly, criticised for threatening a post-Brexit, extra-austerity budget. Can we therefore be guaranteed that more austerity is NOT on the agenda?
  5. The Brexiteers promised that the 350 million weekly contributions to the EU would be spent on the NHS and public services. When is that likely to be legislated?

You see, I have a feeling that all of those 'Project Fear' predictions are one-by-one about to be realised. The Brexiteers are already back-pedalling on every one of their key campaign promises: "Reduce immigration? We never promised that." "Three hundred and fifty million a week? Well, we're not going to have that much available to spend."

Call me cynical or, alternatively, ludicrously optimistic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the Brexiteers are going to look for any excuse to delay Article 50 notification as long as possible and then back-track to the point at which the UK accepts almost every regulation the EU currently insist upon in order to trade as normal. I can see the referendum outcome as being almost analogous to that Greek one last year in which the Greek people said no to the Troika, then the Greek government accepted a deal that was far worse than the one the voters rejected.

Boris's desperate careerism, populism and opportunism might well turn him into the UK's shortest governing PM, and its least popular. And with Cameron still high in people's minds, that going to be some achievement. Perhaps his only political achievement.

Why would I bother answering? I've already been compared to a murderer and now you're mocking me .
 
For Russia an Brexit is ambiguous. On the one hand, Russia is very interested in Europe as in the strong economic partner and the neighbor. And an exit of Britain weakens the EU from the point of view of Russians. With another, Russia isn't interested in the EU as the strong political opponent. And therefore the dissonance in the EU from this point of view for Russians is positive.

In Russia now most of people rejoices to an Brexit for the second reason. But Putin isn't similar to the person who is guided by short-term benefit. And in the long term of a consequence of an exit of Britain from EU for Russia are still not clear. So I wouldn't risk to draw conclusions, Putin rejoices or not :)

But, in general, very, very many Russians today doubt that Britain eventually leave the EU.

I don't mean to be insulting, really I don't, but frankly the opinions of Russians on anything relating to the European economy is not really of much account. The Russian economy is in the toilet. Millions of Russians live in circumstances that even the poorest of its EU neighbours left behind years, if not decades ago. Putin's politics and economic policies have absolutely nothing to teach us. The Russian economy is in recession and industrial production less than half of that of the 'ailing' Eurozone.

Any 'rejoicing' that Putin may be doing is nothing more than the blabbing of someone in the deepest state of denial.
 
Do Scots feel superior to others? No. They just dont want to be ruled by the English. That is YOUR definition of nationalism btw..

Your problem is that you are comparing the Scottish situation to that of the UK in the EU. That is absolutely crazy. The UK was a sovereign nation in a trade union with other sovereign nations. Scotland is defacto a province of the United Kingdom, and has zero control over its forigen policy, trade or borders. The UK had control over everything in the EU, but decided to cede some of it for the greater good. Scotland is conquered province, the UK in the EU was a willing participant.

So ask Jo Cox´s killer what he believes... he is one of your types... a nationalist.

And lets face it... the United Kingdom is a made up entity based on conquering distinct population groups in wars and those ethnic groups still matter today for many it seems .. even you, else you would not be saying English instead of British. That is the dangerous type of nationalism, that tears apart nations like Iraq, Bosnia, and so on.. and are putting serious strains on Belgium and parts of Spain.

What a terrible post. Putting somebody who politically disagrees with you in the same grouping as a murderer. You should be ashamed of yourself. But of course you aren't.
 
I don't mean to be insulting, really I don't, but frankly the opinions of Russians on anything relating to the European economy is not really of much account. The Russian economy is in the toilet. Millions of Russians live in circumstances that even the poorest of its EU neighbours left behind years, if not decades ago. Putin's politics and economic policies have absolutely nothing to teach us. The Russian economy is in recession and industrial production less than half of that of the 'ailing' Eurozone.

Any 'rejoicing' that Putin may be doing is nothing more than the blabbing of someone in the deepest state of denial.

People have been saying that for years now. Doesn't seem to make much difference
 
Why would I bother answering? I've already been compared to a murderer and now you're mocking me .

I'm mocking you how? I'm asking questions of someone who is an enthusiastic Brexiteer. Is that mockery? As far as being compared to a murderer, I must have missed that, but I'm guessing it was Pete. Amirite?
 
People have been saying that for years now. Doesn't seem to make much difference

Much difference to what? You think people do take Russian opinions seriously on economic matters? I don't think so.
 
I'm mocking you how? I'm asking questions of someone who is an enthusiastic Brexiteer. Is that mockery? As far as being compared to a murderer, I must have missed that, but I'm guessing it was Pete. Amirite?

It was and I apologise probably just misread what you were saying. I'll have a look at what you've asked and I'll answer to the best of my ability
 
Thing is GG, it's very difficult to maintain that reasonable argument for greater integration based on greater democratic accountability when the EU project is being led by people like your own Herr Schäuble who was quoted as saying that democracy cannot be allowed to get in the way of austerity. I fear that as much as the immigration crisis, the Troika's handling of the Greek crisis last summer proved to many people that the EU/ECB are not only out of touch with the pain their austerity-only policies have caused, but that a state of permanent austerity is their goal. While I think Brexit is the very opposite of a rational solution to the lurch away from democratic accountability, I can understand why people who don't have access to digestible and reliable guidance on complex economic issues might think that it was. They are going to be sorely disillusioned when they realise that the Brexit Emperor Boris has invisible clothes. It won't take very long.

Well, then screw Schäuble. :p
 
It was and I apologise probably just misread what you were saying. I'll have a look at what you've asked and I'll answer to the best of my ability

Thanks Higgins. Honestly, I disagree with you to the n'th degree on all of this. I'm depressed and angry where you must be elated and giddy, but that doesn't mean we can't debate civilly. You're a top bloke in my book, despite Everton, and Boris, and nationalism and... well, you get the picture. I agree with Pete on far more stuff than I agree with you, but I wouldn't say this to him. See my point?
 
Well, then screw Schäuble. :p

I agree, but please don't think for a second that I would conflate your views with his. I 100% agree that we have to maintain an optimism that the EU can be turned into a democratic institution that works for the benefit of the European people, and not just for European-based business, but that means taking positions that are antagonistic to the current EU power-base and establishment. That's why the only political party that I am a member of, Unidos Podemos, is arguing for the democratisation of institutions such as the ECB and the Commission. We're arguing for the imposition of the concept of subsidiarity which the current EU establishment pays only lip-service to, but which is the cornerstone of why we maintain support for the entire EU project.

In all of this debate, I hope you keep an eye on tomorrow's Spanish General Election where UP has a real chance of becoming the governing party and cutting the ground underneath the right-wing hegemony over the EU's anti-democratic development.
 
Back
Top Bottom