|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
The EU bureaucrats certainly deserve this result. The banksters in London finally have received their comeuppance for years of economic benefit at the expense of England's hinterlands. Lots of good things could result from this, and it was never certain that Britain could help reform the EU if it had remained.
Well done to Nigel Farage. It is the first World-historical accomplishment for the modern far-right.
Also, Cameron resigned! Not sure what it all means for Labour or Tories in general, though. |
Are you kidding?
Wait...no, you're not...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But unfortunately the Brexit camp is associated with Farage and all the immigration nonsense which is really a none-issue and turns the majority off. |
Farage may not be everyone's cup of tea, but immigration was THE issue in this referendum, and as millions of Africans, Arabs, and other vibrants pour into Merkel's Europe, it will become the defining issue of this century. It is either stopped and reversed, which means electing 'far-right' politicians, or Europe is done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
Farage may not be everyone's cup of tea, but immigration was THE issue in this referendum, and as millions of Africans, Arabs, and other vibrants pour into Merkel's Europe, it will become the defining issue of this century. |
Well, it was certainly an issue, and it was an issue even when it was Eastern Europeans rather than "vibrants" as you describe them. But I for one am not so quick to accept that as the whole story. I suspect the European Union's treatment of Greece has also been a real factor; working class citizens of Britain might be considered complete idiots by the people running the European Union, but they're probably clever enough to look at at the treatment the people of Greece have had heaped upon them and realize, "This could just as easily happen to me, and the people behind it would be just as happy to do it." Yes, immigration is relevant, but so is broader economic and governmental policy. It's no doubt part of why Iceland also realized continuing to pursue E.U. membership was unwise and gave up on it shortly after it experienced a few powerful E.U. states try to bully it into economic submission as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otus
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
Farage may not be everyone's cup of tea, but immigration was THE issue in this referendum, and as millions of Africans, Arabs, and other vibrants pour into Merkel's Europe, it will become the defining issue of this century. |
Well, it was certainly an issue, and it was an issue even when it was Eastern Europeans rather than "vibrants" as you describe them. But I for one am not so quick to accept that as the whole story. I suspect the European Union's treatment of Greece has also been a real factor; working class citizens of Britain might be considered complete idiots by the people running the European Union, but they're probably clever enough to look at at the treatment the people of Greece have had heaped upon them and realize, "This could just as easily happen to me, and the people behind it would be just as happy to do it." Yes, immigration is relevant, but so is broader economic and governmental policy. It's no doubt part of why Iceland also realized continuing to pursue E.U. membership was unwise and gave up on it shortly after it experienced a few powerful E.U. states try to bully it into economic submission as well. |
That seems like an odd conclusion to draw. There's no shortage of issues the referendum could have been about, but if there was one overwhelming issue, it was definitely immigration as bigverne said. Regions of the UK that have benefited from the EU, or EU money/programs, still voted decisively for leave, so the notion that they voted leave out of fear of what the EU might do to them economically a la Greece doesn't seem to hold much water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Regions of the UK that have benefited from the EU, or EU money/programs, still voted decisively for leave, so the notion that they voted leave out of fear of what the EU might do to them economically a la Greece doesn't seem to hold much water. |
Greek "benefited" from participation in the European Union as well, until it didn't. It's interesting that both you two and the European Union's elite want this all to be almost entirely about immigration, you because you feel its a validation of your ideology, and them because it allows them to smear and insult those who voted for British independence as 'stupid racists' rather than as people who simply don't trust the European Union to hold their interests dear. Immigration policy is one example of that lack of trust, yes, but I've seen a number of British people express concerns regarding the increasing impact of the European Union on British self-governance in general. I've also seen some suggest that the U.K. has a greater cultural affinity with the Commonwealth and "Anglosphere" countries, and that they'd rather see the U.K. grow closer with them than the continentals.
I'm basing this on the sentiments I've heard from British people on my other forum rather than news media "analysis." On the one hand, that does make it somewhat anecdotal in character. On the other hand, it to some degree insulates it from narrative as well. I suspect the British people would be a lot less concerned about immigration issues if they felt everything else was going well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Regions of the UK that have benefited from the EU, or EU money/programs, still voted decisively for leave, so the notion that they voted leave out of fear of what the EU might do to them economically a la Greece doesn't seem to hold much water. |
Greek "benefited" from participation in the European Union as well, until it didn't. It's interesting that both you two and the European Union's elite want this all to be almost entirely about immigration, you because you feel its a validation of your ideology, and them because it allows them to smear and insult those who voted for British independence as 'stupid racists' rather than as people who simply don't trust the European Union to hold their interests dear. Immigration policy is one example of that lack of trust, yes, but I've seen a number of British people express concerns regarding the increasing impact of the European Union on British self-governance in general. I've also seen some suggest that the U.K. has a greater cultural affinity with the Commonwealth and "Anglosphere" countries, and that they'd rather see the U.K. grow closer with them than the continentals.
I'm basing this on the sentiments I've heard from British people on my other forum rather than news media "analysis." On the one hand, that does make it somewhat anecdotal in character. On the other hand, it to some degree insulates it from narrative as well. I suspect the British people would be a lot less concerned about immigration issues if they felt everything else was going well. |
This, plus Farage et al. lied about what it would mean to pull out/many people in poorer parts didn't realize that it would end EU subsidies.
My one British friend, who by all accounts comes from an elite family, would have voted for it if he hadn't become a U.S. resident, and it was the sovereignty bit, not any racist feelings (I think). I'm sympathetic to the leave crowd, although almost no one else I know is. I think the recent events are a greater indictment of how financial markets work than anything else. It might have been a stupid, self-defeating way of going about leaving though. Ill-planned bout of hubris on Cameron's part, that seems clear regardless if one favors leave or remain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Regions of the UK that have benefited from the EU, or EU money/programs, still voted decisively for leave, so the notion that they voted leave out of fear of what the EU might do to them economically a la Greece doesn't seem to hold much water. |
Greek "benefited" from participation in the European Union as well, until it didn't. It's interesting that both you two and the European Union's elite want this all to be almost entirely about immigration, you because you feel its a validation of your ideology, and them because it allows them to smear and insult those who voted for British independence as 'stupid racists' rather than as people who simply don't trust the European Union to hold their interests dear. Immigration policy is one example of that lack of trust, yes, but I've seen a number of British people express concerns regarding the increasing impact of the European Union on British self-governance in general. I've also seen some suggest that the U.K. has a greater cultural affinity with the Commonwealth and "Anglosphere" countries, and that they'd rather see the U.K. grow closer with them than the continentals.
I'm basing this on the sentiments I've heard from British people on my other forum rather than news media "analysis." On the one hand, that does make it somewhat anecdotal in character. On the other hand, it to some degree insulates it from narrative as well. I suspect the British people would be a lot less concerned about immigration issues if they felt everything else was going well. |
But it's been a while since Greece benefited, which is not the case in the UK. I doubt either think they have much in common, because they don't, and it likely played a minor part if any here. It's not that we want it to be about immigration, that's simply what it was, more than anything else, about. It was a vote on the dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the main ingredient in that dissatisfaction was immigration. Yeah, it was a factor, but it was the biggest factor by far. Everything else can't possibly be going all that well when you're being invaded and have lost most of your historic capital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
But it's been a while since Greece benefited, which is not the case in the UK. |
Isn't the UK actually a net contributor to, rather than a net benficiary of, the European Union budget? If your government takes your tax money and hands over a non-trivial lump of it to the E.U., and then the E.U. hands you back a small portion of said lump, is that truly a "benefit?" I'm not sure these people see the matter the same way you do, at least the ones with whom I have spoken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
But it's been a while since Greece benefited, which is not the case in the UK. |
Isn't the UK actually a net contributor to, rather than a net benficiary of, the European Union budget? If your government takes your tax money and hands over a non-trivial lump of it to the E.U., and then the E.U. hands you back a small portion of said lump, is that truly a "benefit?" I'm not sure these people see the matter the same way you do, at least the ones with whom I have spoken. |
Depends on the part of the UK, as I mentioned, poorer parts of the UK actually get funding from the EU, and where lied to by leave campaigners that it would continue. Also, regardless of whether it is a benefit or not, leaving will make the UK poorer. Whether or not that should be the case aside, it is clearly the case. Also, say what you will about trade, having to renegotiate trade deals with as many people as they will have to cant be a product of prudent foresight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, regardless of whether it is a benefit or not, leaving will make the UK poorer. |
In the short term, at least. Whether it prospers in the long term or not will depend upon how the British comport themselves going forward. This kind of economic short term thinking -- "Oh, no, the stock markets are down and the Pound lost some of its value relative to the dollar, the world is ending and the market Gods have spoken!" -- is surely itself at the core of some of the society's ills.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, say what you will about trade, having to renegotiate trade deals with as many people as they will have to cant be a product of prudent foresight. |
If prudent foresight had been employed until the present, would there be any need for the populace to vote for a massive change of course? Renegotiating trade deals is a relatively minor obstacle, which is probably why so much of the hysteria has been focused on that point; magicians always keep your eyes off of the place the actual trick is happening, right? The bigger question is how the people of the U.K. can capitalize upon the moment to ensure future governments do better than past ones, and the answer isn't entirely clear. If there's a reason for pessimism, it lies there as I see it, not in fretting over the U.K. having to subsidize its rural citizens directly rather than indirectly (with the exact same money, mind you), or having to re-negotiate some trade treaties.
One interesting thing is that Scotland strongly voted to remain. Scotland is also experiencing increased immigration; it's total immigrant population is still lower than that of England, but that's because it doesn't have London massively tipping the scales, and from an "immigrant demographic" perspective, the average rural Scotish village probably isn't massively different from the average rural English village; the same rural English villages which voted to leave the European Union strongly enough to pass the measure. Given this, if immigration were the dominant factor, why would Scotland not have strongly supported leaving? It implies to me that there's a degree of complexity here in the choices people are making, and cultural factors as well. In Swartz's defense, one of those cultural factors could be an increased feeling of importance vis a vis London, which could mean London's demographics sit more heavily in the mind of a rural Englishman than a rural Scotsman and create an increased sense of "invasion." I have not heard that articulated much from British people I know, but it could be understandable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| One interesting thing is that Scotland strongly voted to remain. Scotland is also experiencing increased immigration; it's total immigrant population is still lower than that of England, but that's because it doesn't have London massively tipping the scales, and from an "immigrant demographic" perspective, the average rural Scotish village probably isn't massively different from the average rural English village; the same rural English villages which voted to leave the European Union strongly enough to pass the measure. Given this, if immigration were the dominant factor, why would Scotland not have strongly supported leaving? It implies to me that there's a degree of complexity here in the choices people are making, and cultural factors as well. In Swartz's defense, one of those cultural factors could be an increased feeling of importance vis a vis London, which could mean London's demographics sit more heavily in the mind of a rural Englishman than a rural Scotsman and create an increased sense of "invasion." I have not heard that articulated much from British people I know, but it could be understandable. |
Even though immigration has been increasing as it has been in White countries everywhere, Scotland is much more free from diversity, and it's still new enough there that the problems caused by it have had much less of an effect on the populace. London is the mud magnet but England has places far from London like South Yorkshire where cultural enrichment has been an ongoing problem for decades. Scotland doesn't have anything similar.
Modern Scottish identity is also largely based around signaling that they are more progressive than the English, whom they hate and would resent any comparison to. Small nation syndrome. They want to be recognized for being an active participant in the game plan by bigger entities like the EU because it gives them a purpose. Not really surprising they voted remain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, say what you will about trade, having to renegotiate trade deals with as many people as they will have to cant be a product of prudent foresight. |
If prudent foresight had been employed until the present, would there be any need for the populace to vote for a massive change of course? Renegotiating trade deals is a relatively minor obstacle, which is probably why so much of the hysteria has been focused on that point; magicians always keep your eyes off of the place the actual trick is happening, right? The bigger question is how the people of the U.K. can capitalize upon the moment to ensure future governments do better than past ones, and the answer isn't entirely clear. If there's a reason for pessimism, it lies there as I see it, not in fretting over the U.K. having to subsidize its rural citizens directly rather than indirectly (with the exact same money, mind you), or having to re-negotiate some trade treaties.
One interesting thing is that Scotland strongly voted to remain. Scotland is also experiencing increased immigration; it's total immigrant population is still lower than that of England, but that's because it doesn't have London massively tipping the scales, and from an "immigrant demographic" perspective, the average rural Scotish village probably isn't massively different from the average rural English village; the same rural English villages which voted to leave the European Union strongly enough to pass the measure. Given this, if immigration were the dominant factor, why would Scotland not have strongly supported leaving? It implies to me that there's a degree of complexity here in the choices people are making, and cultural factors as well. In Swartz's defense, one of those cultural factors could be an increased feeling of importance vis a vis London, which could mean London's demographics sit more heavily in the mind of a rural Englishman than a rural Scotsman and create an increased sense of "invasion." I have not heard that articulated much from British people I know, but it could be understandable. |
I agree with Fox as to the trade deals, this is the least big of deals in the whole clusterendum. As to immigration, I do believe that this will appear to be the impetus and motivation for the whole thing, if only because of the UKIP's strong identification with Leave compared to relative splits in the Labour and Conservative parties over Remain/Leave. Frankly, even more than immigration, I do think it boils down to bringing London and Brussels down a notch, although I am hardly a specialist on Europe and I can be persuaded otherwise.
Another point I feel might be a good reminder:
| Glenn Greenwald wrote: |
| More importantly still — and directly contrary to what establishment liberals love to claim in order to demonize all who reject their authority — economic suffering and xenophobia/racism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite is true: The former fuels the latter, as sustained economic misery makes people more receptive to tribalistic scapegoating. That’s precisely why plutocratic policies that deprive huge portions of the population of basic opportunity and hope are so dangerous. Claiming that supporters of Brexit or Trump or Corbyn or Sanders or anti-establishment European parties on the left and right are motivated only by hatred but not genuine economic suffering and political oppression is a transparent tactic for exonerating status quo institutions and evading responsibility for doing anything about their core corruption. |
It is absolutely the case that the xenophobes have a meritorious objection to London, Brussels, and other establishment vehicles. As I sometimes say, "Trump is nearly right on the problem, but not the solution." (a distinction he shares with Karl Marx) And if the 'Leave' vote simply would have resulted in a dramatic reduction of influx from the EU (more than half of British immigration comes from outside the EU), that would have been perfectly reasonable and fine. But the clusterendum will have much more serious, wide-ranging effects.
When it comes to assessing the result of this clusterendum, it will be ultimately be more a stain on the most ardent of the 'Leave' proponents than it will be on David Cameron. Leon points out that Farage was dishonest about subsidies. Farage immediately after the Leave result disclaimed that the cost savings from EU contributions would go to the National Health Service, and the timing on his disavowal indicates his cynicism.
Well, much worse for England will be Scotland's departure. There is very little that can stop Scotland from leaving now. Indeed, this appears to be the card the EU will play to punish England.
| German Chancellor Merkel wrote: |
The reality is that a majority of British citizens voted to leave ... so I await communication about Article 50 [the formal request for withdrawal] from the UK address to the EU
We can't have a permanent impasse |
The EU will refuse to negotiate ahead of England's invocation of Article 50. So England has to choose: invoke Article 50, and probably lose Scotland to its own referendum, or nearly totally deny the result of the clusterendum.
In the meantime, the EU will demonstrate effectively to other member-states that invoking Article 50 will lead to secessionist movements in their own countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
