BREXIT - Britain will be out of the EU!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • vicsinad
    Senior Member
    • May 2011
    • 2337

    #31
    Originally posted by Bill77 View Post
    They ignored the fear mongers lies
    I think Pres. Ivanov highlighted the other fear-mongers in the UK:

    The President added that in a time of crisis, countries become selfish, and radical right-wing groups emerge and blame all of their problems on immigrants and Muslims, Islamophobia appears against people who flee their homes because of the hardship of war.

    “We, who are from an older generation, we experienced the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia, where there was also a system of collective decision-making. Where is that state now? We are worried by the possibility that the European Union may go down the same road”, said Ivanov.
    We received the news about what happened today in the UK with great concern, primarily because all our strategic objectives are aimed towards the European Union, stated today the President of the coun


    Originally posted by Bill77 View Post
    liberal scum destroying property
    While conservative scum focus their destruction and anger on people because life is not as valuable as property.

    Comment

    • Vangelovski
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 8531

      #32
      Originally posted by vicsinad View Post
      For example, Australia, NZ and Canada are part of the Commonwealth of Nations, while which being nowhere restrictive as the EU, does have an impact on economy and law, where the law and finance ministers of these nations get together to discuss how they can use their power and authority to influence a common policy in their respective nations. All these intergovernmental organizations that Australia, NZ and Canada are a member of do chip away at national sovereignty in order to achieve common goals.

      Sure, the EU is more restrictive on issues of sovereignty, but the members of EU are each UN members equal to those of Canada, Australia and NZ. The EU members have formed a pact/union that they believe will benefit them economically and socially. Whether or not it's true is a different matter.
      Victor, you've completely misread what the Commonwealth of Nations actually is. You can stop comparing Australia to the UK in the EU. If you want to compare it to something you can compare it to the US in terms of its sovereignty.
      If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

      The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

      Comment

      • vicsinad
        Senior Member
        • May 2011
        • 2337

        #33
        Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
        Victor, you've completely misread what the Commonwealth of Nations actually is. You can stop comparing Australia to the UK in the EU. If you want to compare it to something you can compare it to the US in terms of its sovereignty.

        You can still compare two different things that are not the same. I'm not equating them, but I am comparing them and it's fair to do so.

        Still, there are different regional and historical circumstances why it can be argued that the UK may sometimes be more willing -- and sometimes find it more necessary -- to join or remain in a union like the EU. Essentially, whether UK remained or stays out of an institution like the EU, is always going to be about self-interests. That Australia has never needed or wanted to join such an institution is mostly due to geographic and historical circumstances, and if or when the time comes where Australians think it would be in their best interests to do so, they're going to do so. Thus, because of these different circumstances, it may be unfair to use Australia, NZ and Canada as examples the UK could follow going forward.

        The USA on the other hand is essentially a federation of states that has worked quite well economically and geopolitically for the nation as a whole, especially after eliminating the natives and kicking out the Spanish, French and English armies. But there's a constant tug of how much power and sovereignty states have versus the power and reach of the federal government. When a Democrat is in federal office, there's an increase in Texan conservatives demanding independence and sovereignty, and when a Republican is in office there's an increase in Vermont liberals seeking independence or whining about moving to Canada. At the end of the day, the UK had a seat at the UN when it was a member of EU and Texas and Vermont don't.

        The primary concern for the lay person is usually not about "how will this affect my country's sovereignty", but rather about socioeconomic issues and cultural values. That's what this UK vote was really about -- had the EU been benefiting UK citizens economically and aligned with their cultural values, the loss of some national sovereignty would be a sacrifice most Brits would be willing to take.

        I argue that most nations are way too big. But it seems like people are willing to trade in their local sovereignty for security and economic benefits.

        Comment

        • Phoenix
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2008
          • 4671

          #34
          Originally posted by vicsinad View Post
          ... That Australia has never needed or wanted to join such an institution is mostly due to geographic and historical circumstances, and if or when the time comes where Australians think it would be in their best interests to do so, they're going to do so. Thus, because of these different circumstances, it may be unfair to use Australia, NZ and Canada as examples the UK could follow going forward...
          Vic,

          I think you're taking the examples of Australia, New Zealand and Canada out of the original context in which I first used those nations as an example for the UK (or what remains of it in the future) going forward.

          The 'Leave' campaign had often used Australia specifically as an example of certain immigration policies that the UK could adopt.
          Farage often spoke of Australia's skilled immigration 'points' policy in attracting and filling niche skill shortages.
          I'm sure other policy examples exist that the UK could adopt that have served Australia well, possibly policy reforms around securing the financial system in the country that largely insulated Australia during and after the GFC.

          In some respects New Zealand has taken the reform process even further and is seen as a world leader in many areas.

          The examples of these nations is that prosperity is often dependent on the ability to be nimble in the face of rapid global change, perhaps the 'old' world monolithic, empire based constructs are struggling to keep up and stay relevant at a time of social upheaval and globalisation.
          Last edited by Phoenix; 06-24-2016, 10:13 PM.

          Comment

          • Phoenix
            Senior Member
            • Dec 2008
            • 4671

            #35
            Originally posted by Bill77 View Post
            On a serious note..... I applaud the citizens of the UK. They ignored the fear mongers lies and actually went ahead with it and voted to leave and by this told the globalist elites to go to hell...
            The world is clearly changing, the whole globalisation and free-trade regimes are starting to bite the 99%...real wages have fallen or stagnated over the last two decades...the American's refuse to legislate a decent minimum wage for their workers, while the chasm of wages/salaries between the lowest and highest paid is currently diverging at exponential rates in every Western nation.
            This is what is feeding the populist movements all around the globe, the rise of The Donald, "Rody" Duterte, Le Pen, Wilders, Farage and Johnson...the people, the 99% no longer share in the prosperity that the 1% enjoys and protects.
            Last edited by Phoenix; 06-24-2016, 10:55 PM.

            Comment

            • Phoenix
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2008
              • 4671

              #36
              For Vic,

              Just as a side note...in regard to what the UK could learn from Australia moving forward...for a start, if the 'Remain' campaign has adopted Australia's referendum model i think it would have won...

              In Australia a 'double-double' majority is required for a referendum question to 'win'...in other words, every State in Australia has to have a majority vote for it to pass...in the recent UK example the fact that some regions voted 'Remain' and discounting the fact that the overall majority went to the 'Leave' camp, the 'Remainers' would've won.

              I think in Australia, only something like 4 out of 40+ referendums (or should that be referenda?) have succeeded...
              Last edited by Phoenix; 06-24-2016, 10:59 PM.

              Comment

              • Risto the Great
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 15658

                #37
                The oldies called it. I want to applaud the decision. But can't help feeling the youth have lost a bit of their voice. The oldies want Old Britain to rule again but the youth want flexibility and options. I'm not sure the UK can afford to turn it's back on Europe. But I think it will ultimately be good for the world to stop kidding itself. We are competing in every way as chichko Gotse said.
                Risto the Great
                MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
                "Holding my breath for the revolution."

                Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

                Comment

                • Bill77
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2009
                  • 4545

                  #38


                  So one million people don't understand how democracy works? Wow



                  And on other news...... JK Rowling who campaigned against Scottish independence just in 2014, is now calling for Scottish independence. LOL Independence by wanting to remain in an increasingly authoritarian super state? You having a laugh.... If she cared about independence and sovereignty she would have voted for it in 2014.
                  Either you believe in independence or you don't, just another example of the left having fuck all principles
                  Last edited by Bill77; 06-25-2016, 06:28 AM.
                  http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873

                  Comment

                  • Philosopher
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 1003

                    #39
                    Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                    the American's refuse to legislate a decent minimum wage for their workers, while the chasm of wages/salaries between the lowest and highest paid is currently diverging at exponential rates in every Western nation.
                    The problem with this argument is that in America this is decided by states, not at the federal level. Federalism is the issue.

                    More importantly, it assumes, quite incorrectly, that all people, irrespective of their jobs, deserve a certain amount of income. This sounds plausible from a humanitarian and socialist perspective, but not from an economic one.

                    Comment

                    • vicsinad
                      Senior Member
                      • May 2011
                      • 2337

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                      Vic,

                      I think you're taking the examples of Australia, New Zealand and Canada out of the original context in which I first used those nations as an example for the UK (or what remains of it in the future) going forward.
                      You're right; I did take them out of context in my latter posts. You make solid points on what UK can do without being a member of the EU. I think I was trying to minimize the importance of sovereignty in this context and emphasize that this decision is really what Risto said Goce Delcev says this world is all about.

                      Comment

                      • vicsinad
                        Senior Member
                        • May 2011
                        • 2337

                        #41
                        Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
                        The problem with this argument is that in America this is decided by states, not at the federal level. Federalism is the issue.

                        More importantly, it assumes, quite incorrectly, that all people, irrespective of their jobs, deserve a certain amount of income. This sounds plausible from a humanitarian and socialist perspective, but not from an economic one.
                        The federal government does decide the minimum wage. It is at $7.25. States can choose to set a minimum wage, and then the employer has to pay whichever is the higher one.

                        The federal government also lists hundreds (if not thousands) of jobs that are exempt from minimum wage. Essentially, if you're a salaried employee in certain professions, you can work as many hours in a week that the employer requires, which could bring your pay down to below minimum wage. I think most states simply follow the federal government's lead on salary laws.

                        For example, I had a job where I worked 70+ hours per week, and my monthly income was below both state and federal minimum wage. The federal law is changing in December to where a salaried employee can still work ridiculous hours, but has to be paid no less than $913 per week.

                        From an economic perspective, you have some employers finding it more difficult to keep as many employees; or if they do, they'll have less money to pocket or to invest in business. At the same time, more people making more money in America really means more people spending more money, which will give many sectors of the economy a boost.

                        Comment

                        • vicsinad
                          Senior Member
                          • May 2011
                          • 2337

                          #42
                          See...some Texans think they'll be better off if they go at it alone. These movements have been around, but are going to gain attention now and try to use that attention to gain momentum and followers.



                          After Brexit, what? U.S. secessionists hankering for 'Texit'

                          Emboldened by Brexit, U.S. secessionists in Texas are keen to adopt the campaign tactics used to sway the British vote for leaving the European Union and are demanding "Texit" comes next.

                          The citizen-driven vote in Britain can be a model for Texas, which was an independent country from 1836 to 1845, and its $1.6 trillion a year economy would be among the 10 largest in the world, said Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement.

                          "The Texas Nationalist Movement is formally calling on the Texas governor to support a similar vote for Texans," the group said on Friday. The office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott was not immediately available for comment.

                          The group, which claims about a quarter million supporters, failed earlier this year to place a vote on secession on the November ballot but aims to relaunch its campaign for the next election cycle in 2018, buoyed by the British vote, Miller said.

                          "Texit is in the air," he said.

                          Texit, for Texas exit, is a play on the British exit, or Brexit, and was trending on Twitter in the United States on Friday.

                          "Yee-haw! #Brexit shows how to get it done. Now we need a #Texit," tweeted user Phillip Paulson (@PaulsonPhillip).

                          Constitutional scholars, however, say a U.S. state cannot break away, but this has not stopped hundreds of secessionist schemes throughout the nation's history. No state has been formed by seceding from another since 1863, when West Virginia was created during the Civil War.

                          From Maine to Alaska, the bids to break away by groups often angry at taxation or what they see as an infringement of their liberties have been unsuccessful either due to the nearly impossible legal challenges or lack of support.

                          A 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed nearly a quarter of Americans are open to their states leaving the union.

                          In Texas and other states, the Brexit vote came too late for U.S. secessionist to use it as a springboard to launch drives resulting in ballot measures for the November election.

                          But it did push the idea that if they can land a measure on the ballot for secession, they have a good chance to win over voters.

                          "We intend to mimic that process here in California by putting an independence referendum on the ballot so we can exercise our right to self-determination and vote to leave or remain part of the American Union," said Louis Marinelli, president of the secessionist group, the Yes California Independence Campaign.

                          VERMONT REPUBLIC?

                          The group, which opposes what it calls mass domestic surveillance and militarization of California’s local police departments, said the state has the resources to go it alone and doing so will be in the best interest of Californians.

                          Campaigns have been simmering for years in places like Hawaii and in New Hampshire, where the Free State Project has been looking to have 20,000 people move to the New England state and set up a colony of like-minded people opposed to big government.

                          Most movements are small and centered around a few leaders. A campaign for secession in Vermont called the Second Vermont Republic lost steam when its founder Thomas Naylor died in 2012. The group was pushing for a small, democratic, nonviolent and egalitarian state.

                          "Tom would have been happy," his widow Magdalena Naylor said of the Brexit vote.

                          (Additional reporting by Jim Forsyth in San Antonio; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

                          Comment

                          • Philosopher
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 1003

                            #43
                            Originally posted by Vicsinad
                            The federal government does decide the minimum wage. It is at $7.25. States can choose to set a minimum wage, and then the employer has to pay whichever is the higher one.
                            Thanks Vic.

                            That is not the issue, however. The issue is what Phoenix wrote:

                            Originally posted by Phoenix
                            the American's refuse to legislate a decent minimum wage for their workers
                            The issue here is a decent minimum wage. California, for example, passed the Fair Wage Act 2016, to raise the minimum wage to $15.00. The federal government is not legislating a decent minimum wage.

                            So as I wrote,

                            Originally posted by Philosopher
                            The problem with this argument is that in America this is decided by states, not at the federal level. Federalism is the issue.
                            Originally posted by Vicsinad
                            From an economic perspective, you have some employers finding it more difficult to keep as many employees; or if they do, they'll have less money to pocket or to invest in business. At the same time, more people making more money in America really means more people spending more money, which will give many sectors of the economy a boost.
                            No. What I am referring to is that a McDonald's employee flipping burgers should not be entitled to $15.00 an hour or $20.00 for the purposes of promoting fair wages. His job flipping burgers or selling food does not warrant such a high minimum wage. It takes little to no skill or education, and the only reason he is being awarded such a high minimum wage is because living off $8.00 an hour is not possible in society.

                            Comment

                            • vicsinad
                              Senior Member
                              • May 2011
                              • 2337

                              #44
                              But a decent minimum has been, can be and is in many instances decided by the federal government.

                              5 states do not have minimum wage laws and 14 other states have minimum wage laws equal to or lower than the federal minimum wage.

                              You said the issue is determined by the states and not the federal government. Well, in the above circumstances, the federal government says to those 19 states: you have to pay what the federal government deems is enough money to have a decent living. Relatively speaking, $7.25 per hour is a whole lot better than $1 an hour. At one point, $7.25 was a decent wage. And the federal government could raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour tomorrow and all 50 states would have to follow it.

                              So when you sat that the issue is determined by the states and not the federal government, it's just not accurate.

                              As far as the burger flipper, society will continue to pass that judgment on how much a CEO or manager is entitled to and how much a low-skilled burger flipper is entitled to. I had a great uncle who came here in the 60s and supported his family by flipping burgers for over a decade. There was a time when someone can do that. Now, you can't. That's the crux of the argument. Shoot, I've been both a dishwasher at minimum wage and a restaurant manager (at different places), and I'll tell you I did much more work as a dishwasher. Just made sure no one was effing up as a manager, dropping money off at the bank, and handling customer complaints. If I'm really going to sit here and think about who is entitled to what, it's rather unfair to not pay someone a decent livable wage simply because the employer can find someone else to perform that job.

                              The industry that kept the Macedonian community afloat in Michigan has been the auto industry, where many individuals get paid up to $30 an hour to place stickers on windshields or press buttons on an assembly line. Are they entitled to that much money? I don't know. Did they find a way to negotiate wages that would provide them a good living while not choking their employers out of business? Yes. Good for them.

                              If other low skilled workers like burger flippers who can't really unionize (like the auto workers) want to use legislation and government to demand a decent living, so be it. If they convince enough people and legislators, good on them. I'd rather have more people with a decent living wage than this drastic situation we have now, where in some parts of the country drugs, gangs and criminality is the only way out of poverty. They'll pump that money back in to the economy. And their employers will still be entitled to many tax breaks.
                              Last edited by vicsinad; 06-25-2016, 09:43 AM.

                              Comment

                              • vicsinad
                                Senior Member
                                • May 2011
                                • 2337

                                #45
                                This article here:

                                From Brexit to #Regrexit – an online petition demanding a second referendum on Britain’s decision to leave the EU has passed 3 million signatures.


                                Apparently, 1.5 million people have signed a petition demanding a re-vote, saying that because no party attained 60% of the vote in a vote less than 75% voter turnout, this is grounds for a re-vote. The British House will debates this.

                                When democracy doesn't mean majority rules on decisions that don't effect individual rights. Can you imagine a revote happens and there is a 75% turnout and remain wins just by a tiny margin? What kind of upheaval?

                                When people say, "I didn't vote because I didn't think my vote mattered."
                                Last edited by vicsinad; 06-25-2016, 10:41 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X