I couldn't of said it better myself.  Everyone should watch this, its too truthful 

Lets hope the Leftists anti-freedom army doesn't call another referendum 

Edited June 25, 20169 yr by officerAMR

5 hours ago, Hystery said:

I'm actually laughing a bit at those salty people now asking for another referendum. First, if the result was inverted, I doubt they'd ask that. And second, about people regretting their vote... they're simply stupid, and should not be allowed to vote for a second referendum if it was to happen again. They apparently didn't take their vote seriously and voted a bit randomly, too bad for them, democracy isn't a thing for indecisive people.

The people "regretting their vote" are probably Remainers trying to add doubt to the results, which won't work. They can get 5 million people to sign their petition if they want, it really doesn't matter, everyone was told the result was binding. Plus the 'EU Referendum Act 2015' does not permit the decision to be reversed, at least not easily:

 

1 minute ago, Cyan said:

The people "regretting their vote" are probably Remainers trying to add doubt to the results, which won't work. They can get 5 million people to sign their petition if they want, it really doesn't matter, everyone was told the result was binding. Plus the 'EU Referendum Act 2015' does not permit the decision to be reversed, at least not easily:

 

haha, the people who want to be part of the EU have been screwed over by their own laws lol 

For the first time the EU has actually enforced democracy, shame it has been under these circumstances 

Anyway even if we went back in the damage has been done. Its like jumping off the titanic and then climbing back on 

5 hours ago, Hystery said:

I'm actually laughing a bit at those salty people now asking for another referendum. First, if the result was inverted, I doubt they'd ask that. And second, about people regretting their vote... they're simply stupid, and should not be allowed to vote for a second referendum if it was to happen again. They apparently didn't take their vote seriously and voted a bit randomly, too bad for them, democracy isn't a thing for indecisive people.

I think if the results were flipped, we'd just see the other side pissed and calling for another referendum.

As for the remorse, I blame that in part on the British government, and Brexit, and circumstances. There is little in way of substance about the exact exit strategy. The UK will have to negotiate the agreements and contracts. The British position isn't exactly better. And there are few people out there, particularly in the media, offering sound reassurance.

There is just reason for pause. However, there is no turning. The losing side shouldn't be so remorseful, and look to move forward and ensure a voice in the process that has set forward. That is just my American take.

I should also note, the United States should try not to meddle too much. My fear is we, like others, will try to take advantage of the situation.

11 hours ago, Ranger61 said:

 

There is just reason for pause. However, there is no turning. The losing side shouldn't be so remorseful, and look to move forward and ensure a voice in the process that has set forward. That is just my American take.

I should also note, the United States should try not to meddle too much. My fear is we, like others, will try to take advantage of the situation.

Well thats a media bias, RT (Russia Today) Ran a interview explaining why brexit could be a good thing as an example 

The bankers and Multinational Corporations are very pissed off so they're trying to make everyone feel bad for voting out.

 

To be fair America was exploiting us before we left with TTIP 

2 hours ago, officerAMR said:

To be fair America was exploiting us before we left with TTIP 

Ah, that good TTIP...

The thing that no European citizen wants, but that the EU parliament will vote favorable for.

That's what is wrong with the EU.

What is with all the comments about the US? The US has nothing to do with the EU as they are not a member (it is the European Union, not the European Union + the US). EU members are not "vassals to the US" as someone put it, that is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. And as for disbanding NATO there is very much still a need for it. While tensions are not nearly as high as they were in the Cold War there are still enemies to the West and having a defensive pact is helpful especially to smaller nations with less capable armies. I'm not even sure why the US or NATO got drug into this conversation as neither of them have anything to do with Brexit or the EU.

1 minute ago, l3ubba said:

What is with all the comments about the US? The US has nothing to do with the EU as they are not a member (it is the European Union, not the European Union + the US). EU members are not "vassals to the US" as someone put it, that is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. And as for disbanding NATO there is very much still a need for it. While tensions are not nearly as high as they were in the Cold War there are still enemies to the West and having a defensive pact is helpful especially to smaller nations with less capable armies. I'm not even sure why the US or NATO got drug into this conversation as neither of them have anything to do with Brexit or the EU.

Its many things which are far too long to explain here, but in a TD:LR format

The reasons why tensions are so high is because of NATO constantly trying to cause a unjust war with Russia to make itself relevant.

And do you really think NATO is protecting smaller countries? Not really, its a mechanism for the US to fight its unjust wars. And even if NATO got its way and started a war with Russia the countries which would be instantly ruined would be these smaller countries in East Europe. NATO is the biggest threat to world stability, It always has been since its creation 

Furthermore NATO forces these smaller eastern European poor countries to spend 2% of its GDP on its military instead on its peoples. The Biggest threat to the west is itself 

1 minute ago, officerAMR said:

Its many things which are far too long to explain here, but in a TD:LR format

The reasons why tensions are so high is because of NATO constantly trying to cause a unjust war with Russia to make itself relevant.

And do you really think NATO is protecting smaller countries? Not really, its a mechanism for the US to fight its unjust wars. And even if NATO got its way and started a war with Russia the countries which would be instantly ruined would be these smaller countries in East Europe. NATO is the biggest threat to world stability, It always has been since its creation 

Furthermore NATO forces these smaller eastern European poor countries to spend 2% of its GDP on its military instead on its peoples. The Biggest threat to the west is itself 

LOL that is the funniest thing I've read today! Yeah NATO is the one causing Russia to invade Crimea and forcing Russia to wage a proxy war in eastern Ukraine. All NATO's fault right there (sarcasm if you couldn't tell). And who is to say that if the Baltic countries such as Estonia and Lithuania weren't NATO members Russia wouldn't do the same to them? They (the Baltic countries) have been trying to become less dependent on Russia for energy in the past few years just like Ukraine was doing when they got invaded. If those Baltic countries weren't NATO members Russia might have tried the same with them because they aren't too happy about that right now.

What "unjust wars" has the US fought with NATO? You could argue that the invasion of Iraq was unjust but other than that NATO hasn't been drug into any unjust wars by the US.

1 minute ago, l3ubba said:

LOL that is the funniest thing I've read today! Yeah NATO is the one causing Russia to invade Crimea and forcing Russia to wage a proxy war in eastern Ukraine. All NATO's fault right there (sarcasm if you couldn't tell). And who is to say that if the Baltic countries such as Estonia and Lithuania weren't NATO members Russia wouldn't do the same to them? They (the Baltic countries) have been trying to become less dependent on Russia for energy in the past few years just like Ukraine was doing when they got invaded. If those Baltic countries weren't NATO members Russia might have tried the same with them because they aren't too happy about that right now.

What "unjust wars" has the US fought with NATO? You could argue that the invasion of Iraq was unjust but other than that NATO hasn't been drug into any unjust wars by the US.

You do realise Russia was allowed in Crimea since 1991 under international agreement between the former legitimate Ukrainian government? (not the US puppet thats been put in place) 

And you do realise that the majority of the Crimean people voted to join Russia? Not once did Russia send troops from its land. The only Russian troops in the area were Navel troops which protected its own bases (which i remind you we're legally there since 1991) and set up to prevent Ukrainian Paratroopers from recreating what they did in Kiev. 

And it was the US who caused the Referendum to be called in Crimea to begin with. DId you know that Ukraine and Russia was going to sign a $13 billion trade deal with Russia just before the legitimate Ukrainian government fell?

You dont need to search far to realise that Russia invaded Crimea is the dumbest thing NATO has ever said. I'd like to see 2 navel infantry brigades manage to take the whole of Crimea and not take any resistance.

Why would Russia want to take Baltic states lol? What reason would they want to do that? Taking over countries is economically unenviable and stupid. In the words of Putin "Russia would attack NATO in a mad mans dreams" 

Okay, i guess the US does most unjust things without NATO's help. 

However, The war against Assad is unjustified, fighting the only people able to repeal ISIS doesn't sit well with me, dont know about you? Its almost like NATO is using ISIS as a vehicle to peruse its own goals in the middle east? 

NATO has essentially set up a Korean war style poxy war in Syria with Russia.

 

I could keep going on but i'll link this 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/347133-deadly-irony-us-calls-russia/

I'm going to leave this here to show how "unhappy" the Crimean peoples are will be reunited democratically with Russia (bear in mind the majority of Crimeans are ethnic Russians) 

 

Anyway back to Brexit 

2 hours ago, officerAMR said:

You do realise Russia was allowed in Crimea since 1991 under international agreement between the former legitimate Ukrainian government? (not the US puppet thats been put in place) 

And you do realise that the majority of the Crimean people voted to join Russia? Not once did Russia send troops from its land. The only Russian troops in the area were Navel troops which protected its own bases (which i remind you we're legally there since 1991) and set up to prevent Ukrainian Paratroopers from recreating what they did in Kiev. 

And it was the US who caused the Referendum to be called in Crimea to begin with. DId you know that Ukraine and Russia was going to sign a $13 billion trade deal with Russia just before the legitimate Ukrainian government fell?

You dont need to search far to realise that Russia invaded Crimea is the dumbest thing NATO has ever said. I'd like to see 2 navel infantry brigades manage to take the whole of Crimea and not take any resistance.

 

 

You sound like one of the government-paid trolls we have here in Russia. If you are indeed a foreign citizen who learns from online sources, that's OK. If you're Russian please let me know you're spreading tales knowingly and I would stop wasting my time arguing with you. 

We did sent forces to Crimea. Igor Strelkov (rings any bells?) had nothing whatsoever to do with our Navy there, and he was one of the key figures in the Crimea operation with his people, and he also played a key role in starting the Donbas civil war (he basically organised first armed groups of separatists), acting with Kremlin's blessing, as he is one of the Malafeev's people. 

A 13 billion deal? Yep, we were lending money to pro-russian politicians. How does that change anything? 

Taking over countries is economically unenviable and stupid.

That's why I love you Putin fans, you leave logic behind.

We're already in a huge crisis caused by the Crimean takeover. Joining this peace of land was a disaster for the economy, and after that our own government imposed sanctions that hurt Russians more than foreigners. This did not stop our president. He cares a little over our well-being here, but he cares a lot about the country's greatness, just like those Soviet leaders did. 

And yet I don't deny Crimean people were glad to join us. Of course, Russia is much, much better than Ukraine. But now they're feeling the crisis too.

All in all, you're either a troll, or you don't have a single idea of what you're talking about. I'm not going to address all those NATO claims, but I hear enough bullshit about how great Putin is everyday on the radio, and reading it here is just too much. 

5 hours ago, officerAMR said:

You dont need to search far to realise that Russia invaded Crimea is the dumbest thing NATO has ever said. I'd like to see 2 navel infantry brigades manage to take the whole of Crimea and not take any resistance.

Why would Russia want to take Baltic states lol? What reason would they want to do that? Taking over countries is economically unenviable and stupid. In the words of Putin "Russia would attack NATO in a mad mans dreams"

I'm not going to respond to your whole post because I think Hastings' response covers pretty much everything I would have said, but I will respond to this part.

It was more than 2 naval brigades that took Crimea, Russia sent more troops when the crisis started and they took Crimea without any resistance. I do not doubt that the Crimean people wanted to join Russia since they are mostly ethnic Russians as you stated but Russia has a pretty long history of rigging elections and other votes so I wouldn't put it past them when it comes to Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

I never said Russia wants to take the Baltic states but they might try some more clandestine operations to influence governments to do what Russia wants. They have done it in the past and they have been caught doing more than just "humanitarian operations" in eastern Ukraine.

I don't fault Russia for any of this. They are doing what they think is in their best interest and it is nothing the US hasn't done in the past too. That doesn't mean that I think we should just roll over and let them do what they want. This is all part of the game and that being said that is why NATO is still relevant.

I'm really shocked that so many people in here only seem to see the bad things about the EU. From "I read that..." to "I heard..." there is little substance and a lot of speculation involved. Basically all the "unique interpretations" anti-EU parties like to mention. It's easy to be against something. I don't even understand how someone can actually dislike the idea of entering a close relationships with countries nearby. People in Europe have a lot in common and as such it only makes sense to work on a supranational way of interacting. Where is the benefit of 20+ countries each doing their very own thing? It doesn't help anyone. Businesses have to deal with a lot of different laws and rules, same for people. Cutting red tape is important. We live in a connected world where together as a people we are strong. We should be facing the problems of the world together and not alone.

And it's not just about free trade withouts tariff barries and customs within the EU. Thanks to the power of the EU (~20% of global economy) it opens up a lot of other market and great deals for all of its members, deals they are not able to negotiate on their own. The UK in particular also gets a lot of money from EU countries via FDI, notable 47% of all FDIs in 2011 - worth $1.2 trillion. While you guys spent less than 0.5% of your GDP for EU related costs. You can not only move easily across the EU, but you can also work in every country, which is a great thing on its own. You also enjoy lower mobile phone charges, credit card fees or proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. You can study abroad to avoid the old-fashioned idea of England that studying should be expensive (great way to keep the poor people stupid or makes the banks rich) and attend an University in a country that believes that education is a right, not a privilege (seriously, take Eton College for example, not affordable by any normal guy yet it produced 19 prime ministers. Nepotism at its best). It also helps fighting criminals, as extraditing criminals criminals wanted in other EU countries or hiding from UK law in other EU countries is much easier.

I think immigration is a plausible reason to vote against the European Union. It's not because immigrants are bad and all, it's because we are in the European Union which basically means we are required to let them come in to the country, and we are a small enough country as it is, with not enough jobs, not enough money and yet we aren't allowed to slim down the amount of people that come to this country, or get the ones who have skills that can contribute to this country. @Ben

No, it's because other members of the European Union have this massive burden and as part of a union, helping each other is a thing. So that's why you are "required" to take a few immigrants so the countries in the south don't have to deal with everything on their own. Imagine it the other way round: Wouldn't it be nice of Italy and Greece to take refugees arriving at your coasts so you don't have to take of them on your own?

Instead we get stuck with thousands of people travelling across Europe and ending up here in the United Kingdom because English is the language most of them know the basics of, and thus they settle down here. The problem with this is, people are called racists for saying "I'm genuinely scared there won't be many jobs left" and that's just idiotic, its a logical thing to think, and it's arrogant that people are called racist for merely being concerned at the mass-immigration.

This is just completey wrong. The UK gets 60! Asylum applications per 100,000 local population (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911) compared to e.g. Hungary (1800), Sweden (1667) or Germany (587). This is a joke and something the Uk can easily cope with. And thinking that immigrants taking away jobs is a logical thing is absolutely ridiculous. If a company really decides to hire someone barely speaking your language with a hard to verify degree instead of an UK resident, well I think the UK resident is the problem. How can you believe someone like that is able to compete?

Of course Trump supported Leave, leaving the EU opens up so many opportunities for the UK to trade with whoever they want without the permission of the EU. Thats good for his own Business as well as business from China and the rest of Asia. @officerAMR

Yeah, I can totally imagine the strong position of the UK negotiating with China. Let me remind you that the economy of the UK is a joke compared to China (GDP PPP 20,800,000 vs 2,700,00 int$) while the EU has around 19,000,000. Why do you believe that you will get a better deal in said situation? When in history was it ever useful to be small and unimportant when negotiating terms? I'd also question the fact that the uk had to ask for the EU's permission to do business with whatever country they want.

18 minutes ago, LMS said:

I'm really shocked that so many people in here only seem to see the bad things about the EU. From "I read that..." to "I heard..." there is little substance and a lot of speculation involved. Basically all the "unique interpretations" anti-EU parties like to mention. It's easy to be against something. I don't even understand how someone can actually dislike the idea of entering a close relationships with countries nearby. People in Europe have a lot in common and as such it only makes sense to work on a supranational way of interacting. Where is the benefit of 20+ countries each doing their very own thing? It doesn't help anyone. Businesses have to deal with a lot of different laws and rules, same for people. Cutting red tape is important. We live in a connected world where together as a people we are strong. We should be facing the problems of the world together and not alone.

I, on a personal level, do not deny the bolded statement. But come on. There are other ways to do that than creating a European Parliament that decides laws for the entire european territory without the approval of the population. Sure, each country can vote for its own delegates. But imagine a scenario where a bill has to be passed, your delegates vote against it because it wouldn't be good for your country (it'd ruin its economy, or create unemployment, or any other negative impact), but all other delegates vote favorable for the bill. In the end, the law will be forced on you, whether you agree with it or not, and your country will be negatively impacted because of the European Parliament (and by logical correlation, the EU). This sole fact is enough to create tension, anger and bitterness towards this system. You could argue it could be changed from the inside out, but there are way too many barriers by the way it has been made to achieve such, so the best thing to do today is to leave the EU, and rebuild it right from the start.

TL;DR

• Free market? Yes
• Common laws founded on common agreements between concerned governments and not forcefully voted at a parliament? Yes
• Mutual help between european countries when needed? Yes
• European parliament secluded from the population, voting laws applying to the entire european territory whether it is good for your own country or not? No

 

44 minutes ago, Hystery said:

But imagine a scenario where a bill has to be passed, your delegates vote against it because it wouldn't be good for your country (it'd ruin its economy, or create unemployment, or any other negative impact), but all other delegates vote favorable for the bill.

Where is the difference to state level though? In a country, 90% of the people (or delegates) could also vote for something that would only affect one state/county or a minority. It's always the same story, no matter the level.

5 minutes ago, LMS said:

Where is the difference to state level though? In a country, 90% of the people (or delegates) could also vote for something that would only affect one state/county or a minority. It's always the same story, no matter the level.

State level, delegates are elected by the country's population. Whether you support the elected delegates or not, they were still elected by people living within that same country. That's the difference between state and european delegates. I doubt you or any of your fellow citizens voted for our delegates, or the ones of Spain, Italy, Hungary, and so on. And even though, those delegates can still vote favorable for a law that will impact your country, even if your country delegates vote against it.

Yes, you are right @LMS that other countries take more people in than the United Kingdom. However, in coming to the United Kingdom, they'll be set up in a house, they'll have access to a free health services, which can't even function as it is, never mind with more people coming in, which'll happen in most other European countries, fair enough. However, Hungary take 1,800 per every 100,00, they also only have a military budget of $1,08 billion, Sweden take in the 1,667, they have a military budget of 5,77 billion, Germany take in 587, they have a military budget of $37.79 billion, this is all compared to the $65 billion the United Kingdom spends on its military.

While the Germans are putting quite a lot into their military, they haven't had a large one for the past century for quite obvious reasons, so they've had money to invest into other things, which is why their economy is so good. The United Kingdom pretty much prides itself on being able to deploy a fighting force to anywhere in the world in hours upwards to two days,  we have all that spending put into protecting countries in Europe, as well as the United Kingdom.

If you look at our Military spending, our Health Care spending, the money we will spend on housing and living for Asylum Seekers, as well as everything else, we are in a country which is pretty much always leveling on some form of chaos due to a lack of a money. 

So while we may not take in as many people, I think it's quite clear that we spend a lot of money ensuring the safety of people in Europe and around the world with the commitment to NATO, even though our economy is screwed beyond belief. So you add that, on-top of the fact we have to abide by laws, set by people we the people didn't elect in, which may benefit some countries, but not others, I can see why Britain left the European Union.

You are right that the idea of having close relationships with the countries you live near is a great thing, but not when you are being told what to do, by the people you did not elect, with laws you don't agree in, nor laws that aren't in the best interest of the country.  

30 minutes ago, Hystery said:

State level, delegates are elected by the country's population. Whether you support the elected delegates or not, they were still elected by people living within that same country. That's the difference between state and european delegates. I doubt you or any of your fellow citizens voted for our delegates, or the ones of Spain, Italy, Hungary, and so on. And even though, those delegates can still vote favorable for a law that will impact your country, even if your country delegates vote against it.

Just as you didn't elect the delegates of the county next to yours. Why is it such a big deal when it comes to countries/nations, but no within a country? I mean, let's be real, "the same country", what does it mean at the end of the day? One could have drawn the border on the map 100 km to the east and then you would accept the result of those people there because magically they are now in your country? In the 21st century I'm not a huge fan of the idea of nationalism and protecting "countries". We're all citizens of the world, no matter where you were born. And the fact that someone votes against something you support shouldn't be viewed differently whether they are from your "country" or an EU-country imo.

@Ben: I'm not sure if military spending is a good example here, as there is no such thing as a European Army so it's hard to say Britain did it to secure EU countries. It might have done so for NATO countries, but that's a different story. Then again, if one follows your thought and argues that since the UK spends more money protecting EU countries, wouldn't be the logical consequence working on establishing an european force to evenly make everyone pay for it? How does it help if the UK goes back into a "locked-down" state, where it still has to pay all the military stuff? I don't think it should always be about the benefits of yourself, but about progressing as a whole, in this case as Europeans. And everyone has to make a sacrifice or two for that.

What I'm trying to say about the spending is, that we have a crappy economy, so with the money we put into that, among everything else that the country provides to citizens, how is the country expected to increase the amount of Asylum Seekers we take on, and still manage to provide them with houses and money for living. We are taking in Refugee's when we don't even have enough housing or money, to house Former Soldiers who served this country, we have citizens which don't have housing, but other countries want us to do more.

Back onto the whole, being told what to do by other countries. I still find it completely idiotic, you referred to it as a 'close relationship' yet in reality we are being told by non-elected people on what we should do. Now why is it not possible for Europe to all work together closely, without having them dictate what laws this country has, I mean that's not really a close or healthy relationship.

I'm all for cooperation between the countries in the European Union, it allows for trading, but it just baffles me on how we got to this point, where it wasn't just about the economy or trading, but more about a council, not elected by the electorate telling the countries what laws they abide by.

25 minutes ago, Ben said:

You are right that the idea of having close relationships with the countries you live near is a great thing, but not when you are being told what to do, by the people you did not elect, with laws you don't agree in, nor laws that aren't in the best interest of the country.  

And this is one of the biggest failures of the current state of the EU.

While I definitely have my worries about Brexit, I have to agree with Boris Johnson on his point that Brexit provides Britain with an excellent opportunity. 

This is on the condition of a proper negotiation outcome and mostly Ms Sturgeon not inciting Scotland to leave the UK. In this case, I believe the UK would be better off in the long term with the current Leave vote as opposed to the Remain vote.

My preference would have been Remain, though, especially with the better membership conditions the great Mr Cameron had managed to secure. This would have allowed the UK more preferential treatment for its personal sovereignty.

The people of the UK have made a brave move to  take the decision to Leave. The EU's bureaucrats, that impose ridiculous rulings (things like 'The right to be removed from Google', Google' supposedly exploiting their dominant position by putting their own services on their website), have definitely had their eyes opened - action must be taken to restore EU citizens' trust.

Oh, and I couldn't resist to throw this together (for the record, I don't support Mr Farage or UKIP):