UK forum members, BREXIT?

[zapta]

So please don't pretend any largesse is solely altruistic!

The 'any' and 'solely' exaggerations are yours, not mine.

Look at the Chinese model, they trade with whoever controls the country, regardless of any moral judgment. It works for them, can work for us just the same. The world is an ungrateful place.

[Kjelt]

Obama comes to power saying he was going to wrap up these wars and close Guantanamo.  None of that happened.  He has the distinction of being at war longer than any other president.

He inherited that stinking pile of s**t from the republican president before him and everytime he wanted to do something the republican majority voted against it. That is not power that is a stand of powers and nothing can be done.

Why on God's Green Earth are we building up US forces in eastern Europe?  If Russia wants Poland back, let them have it!  It's not a US problem.

Indeed it is not, and ww3 is not your problem either if it were not that the nuclear fall out will contaminate the whole world.

[tggzzz]

So please don't pretend any largesse is solely altruistic!

The 'any' and 'solely' exaggerations are yours, not mine.

Look at the Chinese model, they trade with whoever controls the country, regardless of any moral judgment. It works for them, can work for us just the same. The world is an ungrateful place.

Er. I think you mispelled "can"; in that sentence the correct spelling is "did and does".

Plus dominant powers, US included, aren't averse to ensuring the local strong man is friendly to the US. Start by considering what happened to the democratically elected President Allende in Chile, and then move onto later examples.

The world isn't divided into black-and-white; everything (USA included) is shades of grey.

[rstofer]

Obama comes to power saying he was going to wrap up these wars and close Guantanamo.  None of that happened.  He has the distinction of being at war longer than any other president.

He inherited that stinking pile of s**t from the republican president before him and everytime he wanted to do something the republican majority voted against it. That is not power that is a stand of powers and nothing can be done.

Why on God's Green Earth are we building up US forces in eastern Europe?  If Russia wants Poland back, let them have it!  It's not a US problem.

Indeed it is not, and ww3 is not your problem either if it were not that the nuclear fall out will contaminate the whole world.

See, that's the thing!  Nobody wants the US to intervene until they want us to intervene on their behalf.  Everybody wants to pick and choose for us.  Well, here's a newsflash:  You don't get to make those decisions!

Bush Sr. was right about the ME.  Get in, kill a bunch of people and GTH out!  Did Junior learn from his father?  No!  He just had to try to one-up the old man.  But, hey, the entire region is in flames.  Our work there is done.

And, frankly, if WW III is confined to Europe, I think I would prefer to see us sit it out.  We've been there and done that - a couple of times.

[apis]

One reason to head straight for Sweden is the outrageously liberal family reunion rules you have saddled yourself with.

That may be the reason why so many choose to come to Sweden. But if we start lowering our standards in order to try to make the refugees go to some other country instead, it will become a race to the bottom. Every country will keep lowering their standards so they don't end up with Sorteper. So it's not really a solution. The liberal family reunion rules wouldn't be a problem if the refugees were distributed evenly among the member countries. Then all countries could have whatever rules they wanted.

[rstofer]

Obama comes to power saying he was going to wrap up these wars and close Guantanamo.  None of that happened.  He has the distinction of being at war longer than any other president.

He inherited that stinking pile of s**t from the republican president before him and everytime he wanted to do something the republican majority voted against it. That is not power that is a stand of powers and nothing can be done.

He did inherit the problem and as Commander In Chief he could, at any time, tell the military to pack up and come home.  The Congress has nothing to say about it.  Even if they did, the country is tired of war and even those of us who despise him would back that decision.  He didn't do it!  He let the military roll right over him!

As to Guantanamo, take the prisoners back to where they came from and close it down.  Thirty days max!  If the prisoners don't want to go back or the country doesn't want them, air drop them - parachute or not, their choice.  Don't tell me it couldn't be done!  What couldn't be done, and Congress rightly wouldn't allow, is to bring the dirt bags to the US.  They might attain rights we would rather they not have.

[zapta]

Going back to Brexit, what is the next step? Conservative party elect Cameron's replacement? What is the timeline for that?

[MK14]

Going back to Brexit, what is the next step? Conservative party elect Cameron's replacement? What is the timeline for that?

Actually we already have a new one (starting on Wednesday), Theresa May will be the new Prime Minister. The second female one in the UK.
Their opponent dropped out, hence the news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

[apis]

We freed them from a dictator

The CIA put him there in the first place 

Indeed. All the problems in the middle East are f*ck-ups from the US. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, you name it and there has been some involvement of the US which enabled the mess we are dealing with now. Just read some history.

To be fair, the soviet union were also messing around in the middle east and so was the UK (surprise!). At least the UK was involved in Iran. Anyway, ever since oil became important those with superpower ambitions have been plundering in the middle east. Now the world need to stop using fossil fuels anyway so maybe they will eventually get some peace, if ww3 doesn't happen before that.

[rolycat]

Obama comes to power saying he was going to wrap up these wars and close Guantanamo.  None of that happened.  He has the distinction of being at war longer than any other president.

He inherited that stinking pile of s**t from the republican president before him and everytime he wanted to do something the republican majority voted against it. That is not power that is a stand of powers and nothing can be done.

Why on God's Green Earth are we building up US forces in eastern Europe?  If Russia wants Poland back, let them have it!  It's not a US problem.

Indeed it is not, and ww3 is not your problem either if it were not that the nuclear fall out will contaminate the whole world.

See, that's the thing!  Nobody wants the US to intervene until they want us to intervene on their behalf.  Everybody wants to pick and choose for us.  Well, here's a newsflash:  You don't get to make those decisions!

Bush Sr. was right about the ME.  Get in, kill a bunch of people and GTH out!  Did Junior learn from his father?  No!  He just had to try to one-up the old man.  But, hey, the entire region is in flames.  Our work there is done.

And, frankly, if WW III is confined to Europe, I think I would prefer to see us sit it out.  We've been there and done that - a couple of times.

The thing about world wars is that they tend not to be confined to a single continent.

America did its damnedest to sit out both world wars; it only entered WW1 because German U-boats were sinking American ships and the Germans proposed an alliance with Mexico against the USA. And everyone knows why it was forced into WW2.

[apis]

If you look at the longest lived "divisions" (countries), they work because they are geographically, culturally, socially and economically the same.  When two areas that aren't the same join, they always ultimately split up.

Example? Isolationist countries have always ended up poor and technologically backwards. China seems to be doing great and has a very heterogeneous makeup.

Isolationist is not the opposite of united, so your statement above has no bearing on what you said earlier.  Previously, you said larger unions lead to more stability and less war, which is provably false.  Many of the wars which have been fought in the history of the world were about people who wanted out of unions.  And no empire has stood the test of time throughout the history of the world - ever.

No, what I wanted to say was: if everyone wants autonomy by themselves and no democratic cooperation the result is less stability. It is true that bigger entities are no guarantees for peace, nor do I think unions or large countries have value in itself. But I believe that cooperation in a democratic way on larger geographic scales are necessary to solve many problems humanity is facing. EU is a way for the European countries to cooperate peacefully, and everyone in the union profits from it.

Nobody could rationally argue that the countries which currently make up the EU are close enough geographically, culturally, socially and economically that they will stand the test of time.

Evidently lots of people could, can and do. Besides, the cultural and social differences of the EU (and nation states in general) were artificially engineered during the 19th century. What about the US, all those geographically, culturally, socially and economically different states seems to get along just fine.

Who is arguing that the EU will stand the test of time?  Can yo provide a link to a source?  I haven't heard anyone making a rational and reasoned argument that there is anything about the EU that indicates it will continue to exist in 1,000 years - I'd like to see your source, however.

It is obvious that all those who are in favor of the EU also think it will last more than a few years, is it not?

We do have thousands of years of history that is littered with empires and unions that all fell apart, 100% of the time.  We also have individual nations that have lasted for thousands of years.  So the data suggests that empires don't work, but sufficiently discrete nations can and do work.

As for the USA, if you are suggesting that the different states are analogous to European countries, then you don't know much about the USA or Europe.  There is no reasonable comparison between US states and European nations - I mean, language alone proves the comparison patently untrue.  Add in social, economic and political differences and it just drives the point home.   And even then, the USA will not likely stand the test of time.  Neither will most of the nations that currently exist on this earth.  The EU most definitely won't.  I doubt it will even survive my lifetime.  I'm older than the EU and it's already falling apart.

There are also numerous small individual nations that didn't last. And there are heterogeneous empires that did, like China. The US and EU are not the same but the US have been a union far longer and it's a union of a different kind. From what I know the US isn't that homogeneous either.

[rstofer]

Obama comes to power saying he was going to wrap up these wars and close Guantanamo.  None of that happened.  He has the distinction of being at war longer than any other president.

He inherited that stinking pile of s**t from the republican president before him and everytime he wanted to do something the republican majority voted against it. That is not power that is a stand of powers and nothing can be done.

Why on God's Green Earth are we building up US forces in eastern Europe?  If Russia wants Poland back, let them have it!  It's not a US problem.

Indeed it is not, and ww3 is not your problem either if it were not that the nuclear fall out will contaminate the whole world.

See, that's the thing!  Nobody wants the US to intervene until they want us to intervene on their behalf.  Everybody wants to pick and choose for us.  Well, here's a newsflash:  You don't get to make those decisions!

Bush Sr. was right about the ME.  Get in, kill a bunch of people and GTH out!  Did Junior learn from his father?  No!  He just had to try to one-up the old man.  But, hey, the entire region is in flames.  Our work there is done.

And, frankly, if WW III is confined to Europe, I think I would prefer to see us sit it out.  We've been there and done that - a couple of times.

The thing about world wars is that they tend not to be confined to a single continent.

America did its damnedest to sit out both world wars; it only entered WW1 because German U-boats were sinking American ships and the Germans proposed an alliance with Mexico against the USA. And everyone knows why it was forced into WW2.

So, we baited Germany into sinking the Lusitania as it ferried supplies to the UK?  We put US lives at risk and just dared Germany to sink it.  Something like that...  It was in all the papers at the time!

At the government level, the leadership did all they could to get us involved.  The people themselves were reluctant (publically, so was the President) and until something catastrophic happened, we stayed out.  Had we not baited Germany, and placed US lives at risk, the outcome could have been much different.  If we had stayed out of WW I, would we have been able to stay out of WW II?  In both cases, our involvement was a result of our support for the UK.

I just don't see where the US has an obligation to be the world's unwanted policeman.  We should defend the hell out of our borders and let the rest of the world defend theirs.  Nobody likes our politics, nobody likes our economy, they just want to borrow our military for a while.  I wish we were smarter than that.

The UK is in a similar position.  They are the big guns in Europe and Europe may not realize it but they REALLY need the UK.  Maybe not as a member but certainly as a friend.  If the UK sits the next one out, I wouldn't be surprised if we did too.

[rstofer]

There are also numerous small individual nations that didn't last. And there are heterogeneous empires that did, like China. The US and EU are not the same but the US have been a union far longer and it's a union of a different kind. From what I know the US isn't that homogeneous either.

We are not even homogeneous even within an individual state.  California is a perfect example where the population centers have one set of beliefs and the agricultural areas have another.  It is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority where the entire Central Valley is unrepresented in decision making. Ever wonder why there is a North Carolina and South Carolina?  How about North Dakota and South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia?

[boffin]

And Lush cosmetics to move production from the UK to Germany.  The exodus begins.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14603911.Lush_founder__Voters_said_they_don_t_want_our_EU_staff___we_ll_grow_our_business_in_Germany_instead/

[Tepe]

That may be the reason why so many choose to come to Sweden. But if we start lowering our standards in order to try to make the refugees go to some other country instead, it will become a race to the bottom. Every country will keep lowering their standards so they don't end up with Sorteper. So it's not really a solution.

They have to be lowered at some point. There is a limit to how many people your society can absorb at a rapid rate. Currently you have about 27% of Sweden's population having at least one foreign born parent. The Swedish government must have thought that limit had been reached since it decided to closer the borders.

The liberal family reunion rules wouldn't be a problem if the refugees were distributed evenly among the member countries. Then all countries could have whatever rules they wanted.

It won't work for two reasons. One is the one I mentioned earlier, that people have the right to move freely so it will be rather pointless to try to confine them to specific parts of the EU. The other one is, of course, that it is abundantly clear that a number of EU countries are against any kind of redistribution of immigrants.

[boffin]

We are not even homogeneous even within an individual state.  California is a perfect example where the population centers have one set of beliefs and the agricultural areas have another.  It is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority where the entire Central Valley is unrepresented in decision making. Ever wonder why there is a North Carolina and South Carolina?  How about North Dakota and South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia?

One of the bigger issues is that the US Senate is very undemocratic, with every state getting two representatives. 
Wyoming, population 600,000 - 2 senators
California, population 39,000,000 - 2 senators

This allows the much more conservative small states to hold on to the Senate when that is in no way representative of the people.

[Tepe]

So, we baited Germany into sinking the Lusitania as it ferried supplies to the UK?  We put US lives at risk and just dared Germany to sink it. 

Yup

[zapta]

Going back to Brexit, what is the next step? Conservative party elect Cameron's replacement? What is the timeline for that?

Actually we already have a new one (starting on Wednesday), Theresa May will be the new Prime Minister. The second female one in the UK.
Their opponent dropped out, hence the news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

This was fast. What's the next big step, parliament voting on article 50? What's the expected timeline for that?

..Now the world need to stop using fossil fuels anyway so maybe they will eventually get some peace, if ww3 doesn't happen before that.

Wars happened long before we started to dig the ground for coal.

[Tepe]

Going back to Brexit, what is the next step? Conservative party elect Cameron's replacement? What is the timeline for that?

Leadsom is no longer a candidate

[doobedoobedo]

And Lush cosmetics to move production from the UK to Germany.  The exodus begins.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14603911.Lush_founder__Voters_said_they_don_t_want_our_EU_staff___we_ll_grow_our_business_in_Germany_instead/

Except they're not moving production to Germany. They're opening additional factories in Germany and Croatia (as they announced in February).

[Kjelt]

As to Guantanamo, take the prisoners back to where they came from and close it down. 

Yes why don,t you? You can,t! Youre pushing them to european countries to please take them.

[Tepe]

You can't compare the demographics of the US with homogeneous societies like Denmark.

Homogeneous? Not so much anymore.

[mtdoc]

Plus dominant powers, US included, aren't averse to ensuring the local strong man is friendly to the US. Start by considering what happened to the democratically elected President Allende in Chile, and then move onto later examples.

It started well before Allende. The 1953 CIA coup to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and install a US friendly dictator - the Shah - all at behest of the Oil interests. This can be argued, was the precursor for all the current problems with US/Ismlamic relations. Blowback...

This was closely followed the 1954 CIA coup to overthrow the democratically elected President of Guatemala and install a US friendly military dictator friendly to the United Fruit Company.

And on it goes - US intelligence and military used to further our corporate/economic interests abroad.....

But we are not unique. It's not an American trait - it is a human trait.   Other empires have done the same throughout history - the British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Ottoman, Romans, etc, etc...  It's just now we are all currently living with the consequences of the actions of the US empire.

[zapta]

You can't compare the demographics of the US with homogeneous societies like Denmark.

Homogeneous? Not so much anymore.

Don't worry, the immigration will make it homogeneous again.

[MK14]

Going back to Brexit, what is the next step? Conservative party elect Cameron's replacement? What is the timeline for that?

Actually we already have a new one (starting on Wednesday), Theresa May will be the new Prime Minister. The second female one in the UK.
Their opponent dropped out, hence the news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

This was fast. What's the next big step, parliament voting on article 50? What's the expected timeline for that?

..Now the world need to stop using fossil fuels anyway so maybe they will eventually get some peace, if ww3 doesn't happen before that.

Wars happened long before we started to dig the ground for coal.

I think they will either, head for a new general election, because the main opposition (labour) are potentially weak at the moment, and suffering from their own leadership battles.

Or they will press on, and handle the article 50 thing.

I'm NOT sure which they will do. If it is the general election option, I presume they will delay the article 50, until AFTER the new elections.