UK forum members, BREXIT?

[apis]

Sweden is larger than a lot of European countries...

Scandinavians tend to think in terms of heads, not area. According to that worldview, Canada and Australia are also smallish countries.

Yes, I was thinking primarily of the population size, not land area. And Scandinavia cover the same latitudes as Alaska... very few people live in the northern parts and you can't really do any crop farming north of Denmark. (It's a lot warmer during winter than in Alaska though, thanks to the gulf stream.)

But the discussion here is about independence from the EU (and the US), and compared to all of EU or USA Sweden is tiny small also if you consider area (it's about the same size as California).

The point I was trying to make was that even in Sweden with its 10 M people, some still complain about power being too centralized and want independence for Skåneland or Jämtland, etc, . And English complaining about power being centralized in Brussels is also sort of ridiculous considering what their own union with Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales looks like. As some 'mericans are saying here, California might as well be broken up in smaller states. You can keep breaking things up until you only have 1 person kingdoms, which would be the same as anarchy, which most people agree isn't a good way to organize things.

So, I suspect most people also agree that different levels of cooperation/organization are necessary, but it's important decisions are made at the right level, and that is what the principle of subsidiary is about. So EU is actually very good in that regard.

But the really astonishing/outstanding feature part is that Sweden among the very few European countries dont have a constitutional court so in practice any civil servant who abuses the system goes entirely free, which has been proven many many times. And in the latest parliament voting to decide if such a court should be implemented the environmentalists and socialists vote no, no wonder!

We don't need a constitutional court because any Swedish court can rule that a law is unconstitutional and therefore invalid, so our normal courts doubles as constitutional courts, sort of. Having a special constitutional court with politically appointed judges like many other countries wouldn't improve anything.

Sweden is a tiny country.

Tiny? Have you looked at a transverse mercator projection map recently?

Here's a geekier projection 

[zapta]

... As some 'mericans are saying here, California might as well be broken up in smaller states. You can keep breaking things up until you only have 1 person kingdoms, which would be the same as anarchy, which most people agree isn't a good way to organize things.

http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Appeal_to_Extremes.html

[Tepe]

http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Appeal_to_Extremes.html

Of all the places you could have chosen, why did you pick a Young Earth creationism one?

[Simon]

The fact is we live in societies because it makes sense even insects have cottoned onto this one. However the size of the society can be up for debate. As a human race I don't see why we can't be organised in reasonably small entities rather than huge things like the EU or the whole world for that matter. The essential thing is that we behave like adults (oh sorry I'm talking about common people and politicians) and work together. It doesn't matter what country we belong to we all want peace well unless of course you're talking about Russia and Putin. We should all understand that protecting the environment is essential for ourselves and everybody else. At the end of the day the reason why you need such entrenched politics and rules and regulations is because the brutal fact is that people are selfish and don't care about others so we have to make rules in order to work together.

The problem is that every rule gets abused. Back in the day the original founding states agreed on freedom of movement and this was fine because we were 6 or 7 countries of equal economic and political standing and there was no particular reason why everybody in one country would want to emigrate to another. As far as I'm concerned freedom of movement means that people may emigrate for various reasons perhaps to marry a foreign partner and live with them in their own country or where specific skill sets are required in a country and only foreign nationals have these and therefore they are not taking work away from others which does not really make sense when you are looking at things on a more global scale. But then the EU became a political empire and a means of influencing countries which is quite clear when you look at the mess that happened in Ukraine where basically there is a tug of war over Ukraine remaining faithful to the old Russia or time more links with the EU nations. So we have allowed many countries to join who are nothing like the founding countries and now we are having the rules that were originally implemented for a few countries on an equal footing used and abused for the purposes of everyone.

[apis]

... As some 'mericans are saying here, California might as well be broken up in smaller states. You can keep breaking things up until you only have 1 person kingdoms, which would be the same as anarchy, which most people agree isn't a good way to organize things.

http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Appeal_to_Extremes.html

The argument is valid whether you take it to the extreme or not. The more you divide an area into smaller and smaller autonomous regions the more conflict and problems you will have. And there will be a need for cooperation on a higher level to solve the problems that affect all the kingdoms in larger and larger areas. So the argument is valid, I did take it to the extreme to make the evolution of the pattern clearer and easier to see, that is not a fallacy.

[doobedoobedo]

That is why the principle of subsidiarity is so important in the EU.
From wiki:
"Subsidiarity is perhaps presently best known as a general principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where action of individual countries is insufficient.

But who decides that the individual action of countries is not sufficient?

I'd put money on it being the greatest centre of power in the EU - the democracy dodging Commission.

No, it's the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. And ultimately if a member state doesn't like a directive they can ignore it (the only thing EU can do about it is give them a fine) and/or they can leave the union.

Ah, the court with no appeal that always finds in favour of the commission.

The judges are appointed by the member states. And they do not always judge in favour of the commission. For example the court found the data retention directive invalid in 2014.

So the appointed court, can overrule the appointed commission (although it very rarely does). That's a relief.

[zapta]

... As some 'mericans are saying here, California might as well be broken up in smaller states. You can keep breaking things up until you only have 1 person kingdoms, which would be the same as anarchy, which most people agree isn't a good way to organize things.

http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Appeal_to_Extremes.html

The argument is valid whether you take it to the extreme or not. The more you divide an area into smaller and smaller autonomous regions the more conflict and problems you will have. And there will be a need for cooperation on a higher level to solve the problems that affect all the kingdoms in larger and larger areas. So the argument is valid, I did take it to the extreme to make the evolution of the pattern clearer and easier to see, that is not a fallacy.

If you had to go to the extreme of 1 person states to show that Caxit or Brexit will lead to anarchy maybe they wouldn't. ;-)

[rstofer]

So, I suspect most people also agree that different levels of cooperation/organization are necessary, but it's important decisions are made at the right level, and that is what the principle of subsidiary is about. So EU is actually very good in that regard.

That is exactly the point!  It's pretty easy to go down to City Hall and get things done.  It's a little harder at the County level, nearly impossible at the State level and completely impossible at the Federal level.  We have the most direct input to the organizations at the very bottom of the hierarchy and no influence at the top level.

It is the unreachable top level that makes the most burdensome regulations.

[dannyf]

no influence at the top level.

Sounds like a revolution is needed, every 200 or so years?

[zapta]

no influence at the top level.

Sounds like a revolution is needed, every 200 or so years?

Or a split if the population grew by an order of magnitude.

[Simon]

So, I suspect most people also agree that different levels of cooperation/organization are necessary, but it's important decisions are made at the right level, and that is what the principle of subsidiary is about. So EU is actually very good in that regard.

That is exactly the point!  It's pretty easy to go down to City Hall and get things done.  It's a little harder at the County level, nearly impossible at the State level and completely impossible at the Federal level.  We have the most direct input to the organizations at the very bottom of the hierarchy and no influence at the top level.

It is the unreachable top level that makes the most burdensome regulations.

The problem with our multilevel democracy is that it's fundamentally flawed. We directly elect MPs in an extremely unfair manner which also determines which group of these MPs gets to run the government and therefore which set of ideals and this will be based on marginal seats. For example my local Conservative MP did not even bother to campaign because he knew he would win anyway being in a safe seat instead spent all of his time trying to get a young chap a couple of constituencies away elected and succeeded. So having got more or less the MPs who wanted and a government you may or may not have wanted you then end up with ministers nominated by the elected leader of the ruling party so by this point things are already pretty undemocratic we have no control over who is our Prime Minister other than voting for their party assuming they are in power at the time because they may change as in our case and we have no control over who actually create policies. These elites elected by people who we more or less elected then nominate people to go to Europe and I'm sure you know where this is going yes we just about elect our MPs on an unfair voting system and it then carries on from there with them electing people who then decide who to send places the end result is that you have absolutely no control or guarantee over who is going to be representing you in parts of the EU. I have still not got to the bottom of how much power the commission has versus the MEPs some say the MEPs only get to vote if the commission allow it if this is true then it means the commission has a lot of power and the commission is totally and utterly unelected by us the people.

Yes every 200 years or so we seem to have a revolution because we get to the point where politics has become so bent and people have got so pissed off that something breaks. In today's world however politicians have found ways around this and given that it is easier to reach many people at a time now and therefore control them we have been led into false illusions of competing with our neighbours to be better than one another when at the end of the day we are all just political footballs and the elite are sitting up there laughing at us.

If we had a PR voting system we will overcome one level of un-representative democracy but the ruling party are scared shitless of PR because it would mean they would lose power and that people might actually start to vote and people would stop voting tactically.

[mtdoc]

So, I suspect most people also agree that different levels of cooperation/organization are necessary, but it's important decisions are made at the right level, and that is what the principle of subsidiary is about. So EU is actually very good in that regard.

That is exactly the point!  It's pretty easy to go down to City Hall and get things done.  It's a little harder at the County level, nearly impossible at the State level and completely impossible at the Federal level.  We have the most direct input to the organizations at the very bottom of the hierarchy and no influence at the top level.

It is the unreachable top level that makes the most burdensome regulations.

That is the issue. Those responsible for societies ills are too far removed and are thus protected from those directly affected by the adverse consequences of their actions. The masses have no easy means to redress the wrongs. Globalist political and corporate power destroys freedom, democracy and local economies. We will re-localize eventually one way or the other- but the process with be painfull.  Brexit is just a first shot across the bow...

Charles Hugh Smith outlined the issue succinctly with this essay 2 days ago:

Neofeudalism and Peasants with Pitchforks: Corporate Power Destroys Democracy

[tggzzz]

That is the issue. Those responsible for societies ills are too far removed and are thus protected from those directly affected by the adverse consequences of their actions. The masses have no easy means to redress the wrongs. Globalist political and corporate power destroys freedom, democracy and local economies. We will re-localize eventually one way or the other- but the process with be painfull.  Brexit is just a first shot across the bow...

TTIP (and presumably TTP) are the clearest example of this. It will give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments if the local services aren't opened up to competition/exploitation. The mere fear of the lawyers fees associated with being sued will kowtow civil servants into surrender.

It is unclear whether Brexit will help/hinder that process. Certainly the right-wing politicians tend to be in favour of TTIP, and the UK might "get to the front of the queue" w.r.t. trade agreements if it bends over and accepts being shafted by the TTIP.

Trump is riding similar sentiments; I wonder what his position on such things is today.

[zapta]

Trump is riding similar sentiments; I wonder what his position on such things is today.

s/riding/advocating/
s/sentiments/reasoning/

Otherwise it's OK. 

[Simon]

That is the issue. Those responsible for societies ills are too far removed and are thus protected from those directly affected by the adverse consequences of their actions. The masses have no easy means to redress the wrongs. Globalist political and corporate power destroys freedom, democracy and local economies. We will re-localize eventually one way or the other- but the process with be painfull.  Brexit is just a first shot across the bow...

TTIP (and presumably TTP) are the clearest example of this. It will give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments if the local services aren't opened up to competition/exploitation. The mere fear of the lawyers fees associated with being sued will kowtow civil servants into surrender.

It is unclear whether Brexit will help/hinder that process. Certainly the right-wing politicians tend to be in favour of TTIP, and the UK might "get to the front of the queue" w.r.t. trade agreements if it bends over and accepts being shafted by the TTIP.

Trump is riding similar sentiments; I wonder what his position on such things is today.

TTI P was indeed one of the reasons I voted out. I don't believe for 1 minute voting out will get us out of such agreements but if we were negotiating them as the British government and not the European government so we the people will get to hear more about what is going on and be able to get our voices heard. I can go and visit my MP and give him a piece of my mind but my MP does not even know what is in TTI P.

The fact that something like TTI P could even be conceived and discussed in the EU parliament is enough from me to decide that it has become a monstrosity that is uncontrollable and not very useful. The whole concept should have been thrown out at its inception instead they have been talking about it seriously for years.

[tggzzz]

That is the issue. Those responsible for societies ills are too far removed and are thus protected from those directly affected by the adverse consequences of their actions. The masses have no easy means to redress the wrongs. Globalist political and corporate power destroys freedom, democracy and local economies. We will re-localize eventually one way or the other- but the process with be painfull.  Brexit is just a first shot across the bow...

TTIP (and presumably TTP) are the clearest example of this. It will give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments if the local services aren't opened up to competition/exploitation. The mere fear of the lawyers fees associated with being sued will kowtow civil servants into surrender.

It is unclear whether Brexit will help/hinder that process. Certainly the right-wing politicians tend to be in favour of TTIP, and the UK might "get to the front of the queue" w.r.t. trade agreements if it bends over and accepts being shafted by the TTIP.

Trump is riding similar sentiments; I wonder what his position on such things is today.

TTI P was indeed one of the reasons I voted out. I don't believe for 1 minute voting out will get us out of such agreements but if we were negotiating them as the British government and not the European government so we the people will get to hear more about what is going on and be able to get our voices heard. I can go and visit my MP and give him a piece of my mind but my MP does not even know what is in TTI P.

The fact that something like TTI P could even be conceived and discussed in the EU parliament is enough from me to decide that it has become a monstrosity that is uncontrollable and not very useful. The whole concept should have been thrown out at its inception instead they have been talking about it seriously for years.

I don't understand your conclusion. The EU is the only entity large enough to stand up to the corporations. United we stand, divided we fall. Divide and conquer.

[Macbeth]

The argument is valid whether you take it to the extreme or not. The more you divide an area into smaller and smaller autonomous regions the more conflict and problems you will have. And there will be a need for cooperation on a higher level to solve the problems that affect all the kingdoms in larger and larger areas. So the argument is valid, I did take it to the extreme to make the evolution of the pattern clearer and easier to see, that is not a fallacy.

Of course we could take it to the other extreme - a true globalist world with a single commissioner in charge. But what kind of world. Perhaps a Caliphate? Sweden is well on the way of becoming the EU Caliphate as it is...

[Corporate666]

The argument is valid whether you take it to the extreme or not. The more you divide an area into smaller and smaller autonomous regions the more conflict and problems you will have. And there will be a need for cooperation on a higher level to solve the problems that affect all the kingdoms in larger and larger areas. So the argument is valid, I did take it to the extreme to make the evolution of the pattern clearer and easier to see, that is not a fallacy.

No, it's not valid.

Look at the counter-argument.  The more areas are consolidated and governance centralized, the less people feel government functions well and works for them.  That's why every empire *ever* has fallen apart, 100% of the time. 

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. 

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.  Hell, the EU hasn't even been around for a single lifetime and it's already had one major country bail out, another 4 come close to economically imploding (4 of the PIIGS), another 1 actually economically implode, and a huge amount of unrest and unhappiness based on what is going on today.

I know quite a few Poles and Romanians and most of them definitely do not see eye-to-eye with their fellow Belgians, Brits and Swedes.

[zapta]

I don't understand your conclusion. The EU is the only entity large enough to stand up to the corporations.

But who will stand to the EU (or to our monopolistic centralized bureaucracy for that matter)? 

United we stand, divided we fall.

... and independent we go where we want.

[tggzzz]

I don't understand your conclusion. The EU is the only entity large enough to stand up to the corporations.

But who will stand to the EU (or to our monopolistic centralized bureaucracy for that matter)? 

United we stand, divided we fall.

... and independent we go where we want.

Or where we are allowed to go. We aren't independent any more.

If the Argies invade again, we have to beg the French to let us borrow their carrier.

We have to ask the Chinese to lend us money so the French can build us a nuke to keep the lights on. And the Chinese haven't forgotten how we got our hands on Hong Kong.

Let's hope foreign powers continue to buy our family silver (or continue to lend us money) to finance our trade gap. And that has become more expensive to service, of course.

Nope, we are in a weak(er) position, and no amount of posturing will cover that up.

[doobedoobedo]

The fact that something like TTI P could even be conceived and discussed in the EU parliament is enough from me to decide that it has become a monstrosity that is uncontrollable and not very useful. The whole concept should have been thrown out at its inception instead they have been talking about it seriously for years.

The EU parliament know no more than your MP about about TTIP. It was negotiated by the Commission as secretively as they could. All we know about it has come from leaks. The EU parliament has little to no power compared with the Commission.

[tggzzz]

Or where we are allowed to go. We aren't independent any more.

If the Argies invade again, we have to beg the French to let us borrow their carrier.

We have to ask the Chinese to lend us money so the French can build us a nuke to keep the lights on. And the Chinese haven't forgotten how we got our hands on Hong Kong.

Let's hope foreign powers continue to buy our family silver (or continue to lend us money) to finance our trade gap. And that has become more expensive to service, of course.

Nope, we are in a weak(er) position, and no amount of posturing will cover that up.

How did your Country get to the state it is in now?

One easy step at a time.

The electricity nuke problem is easily seen to be Thatcher's legacy. The others are successive politicians  fault.

[Macbeth]

Apis I googled Sweden and the fourth return is "Sweden: Rape Capital of the West". How are your women liking the new multicultural Sweden?

Having a world without borders is a nice dream, maybe in another 1000 years or so it may even be realistic, assuming we don't kill ourselves first. There is to much cultural difference, economic disparity and mistrust for it to be practical now. You can continue with your experiment though, just don't include my Country in it, particularly after seeing what has been going on over the pond, thank you very much.

There is no such thing as native Swedish culture. Not anymore. Of course back in the 1970's we thought of ABBA, mixed naked saunas, VOLVO and meatballs. Even that is too disgustingly eurocentric and "white" for the modern culturally enriched swede. All traces of any traditional culture are to be held in shame and contempt. Even so much as when native, white, swedish girls are raped yet again by the latest influx of Somali and Arab "refugees", the ones who are all male 18-45 but claim they are 14 and are fast tracked in and given free reign in childrens schools.

Perhaps apis thinks this is great?. It is racist to demand a #rapefugee proves he is 14 and not 35 as he appears. Even his fucking facebook on his latest iPhone that he somehow manages to keep hold of, but passport he strangely loses, has all the evidence of his age and where he is from. But lets not go there... that's racist! or worse, Islamophobic! an utter contradiction if there ever was one.

The UK, other than enclaves of Tower Hamlets, Bolton, Bradford, etc. really don't want this shit.

The fast-tracking of Sweden and Germany to make these illiterate barbaric scum EU citizens is why the UK don't want anything to do with it.

Apparently Sweden has cut all its foreign aid and diverted it to these "needy" criminals. It costs them 100,000's EUR per individual criminal wideboy vs 200 EUR per individual child in a foreign aid camp. The illegal immigrant wideboys with their latest iPhones are now leading to the starvation of 500 genuine Syrian refugees per each one of them.

But hey, cultural marxists can Virtue Signal to each other on how well they are destroying the patriarchial cis white race from within.

(Oh lord, I can get references but my cider level is too much tonight! maybe tomorrow when I get ripped a progressive new one!  )

ETA: A great Swedish refugee immigrant that speaks out about the insanity is

[Delta]

[tggzzz]

(Oh lord, I can get references but my cider level is too much tonight! maybe tomorrow when I get ripped a progressive new one!  )

Too much alcohol may be the reason, but it isn't an adequate excuse.