One of my good friends (met him while at Glaxo) is an expat on a work visa and he is very distressed by this vote. He sees this decision as throwing a whole new set of trade issues.

Funny. There is a much calmer, more insightful thread (or two) on this over on PARF. ...but ooohh, so scary. --a Political:eek: forum. (not directed at you flat)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/919397-britain-votes-britain-first.html

Richard Simmons?

The Leave camp argued that the UK could enjoy full access to EU markets, without being in the EU. They suggested, as a possible scenario for the future, Norway's relationship with the EU.

Norway is not in the EU, but joined the EFTA (European Free Trade Association). Norway has pretty much full access to trade in EU markets and its citizens have freedom to travel, work, and live in the EU. In return, EU citizens have freedom to travel, work, and live in Norway, Norway must adopt some EU laws, and Norway pays a substantial amount (about $200MM/year currently) toward EU programs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

I think the UK will not want to negotiate a relationship similar to Norway's. And the EU won't be willing to give the UK a better deal.

Switzerland was also held up as an example. Switzerland, like Norway, has pretty much full access to the EU markets, without being in the EU. However, Switzerland is also a member of the EFTA and has agreed to freedom of movement by people, applicability of much EU law, etc.

Again, the UK probably won't want to submit itself to the Swiss deal and the EU won't give the UK a better deal than the Swiss and Norwegians.

So then the example used was the US, which trades deeply with the EU without being subject to EU rules of movement, EU law, etc.

Well, the UK is of tiny power and importance compared to the US, in terms of economic importance and political leverage. It can't simply demand or expect the same deal the US has.

The UK will have to negotiate its own deal with the EU, and the EU has every reason to be very tough on the UK. The EU wants to discourage other countries from leaving, by making an example of the UK. The EU will be influenced by European industries that would like to use tariffs and barriers to take business from UK companies, for example in finance, autos, aerospace, pharmaceuticals. Some of the leading UK companies will likely move to the EU, and thus reduce the UK's leverage further.

In the coming years, it will be in the EU's interest to lure or force as many jobs out of the UK as possible, to reduce or terminate EU support for programs in the UK, and to see the UK markets and economy hurt as much as possible. Hence Junkers' statement demanding that the UK invoke Articl 50 right away and leave the EU ASAP.

Do you seriously think Obama helped the situation by creating one of the largest refugee crises in history and pompously lecturing and insulting the Brits he disagrees with?

Meh, there's so much scheisse to wade through to get to the good stuff. I have no interest in even running into it, so I just don't go there. Like I said previously, I'm sure there are occasionally decent threads and bits of info, but all too often it devolves into name calling and poo flinging, and I'm just not interested in that carp.

Well, I'm afraid it won't be long before this thread is moved, but isn't it ISIS and Syria that created a refugee situation?

This doesn't have to go to PARF, but you see how easily it could.

Cairns' initial post, included his opinion of Obama's role in the refugee crisis and that could have been left out. It is an arguable opinion that is the core of PARF engagements. It is PARF because it establishes the political position of the poster and puts politics squarely at the center of one of the points of his argument. It invites response because the refugee issue is a legitimate factor in the results of Brexit. That small portion of his overall post becomes the fork in the road as to whether or not the thread goes to PARF.

Techweenie's response was a benign call out to the diversion of the thread.

The two posts, quoted above, are two more steps down the diversionary fork, and one of those steps was made by the very poster who doesn't want the thread to go PARFy. It need not happen. Ignore the small portion of cairns' otherwise straightforward and accurate post, and move on. Don't respond or argue any side of the two posts quoted above. Don't attack either poster for their responses, but simply move back to the topic at hand.

I think if we leave out the personal insults there is no reason for the thread to go to Parf. But I would point out that the decision to even hold a referendum was political in and of itself and that politicians, including Obama, were the most vocal in making the arguments for and against. Hence I'm not sure how you could discuss the decision without discussing the political arguments that were being made and how they effected the result. I think the refugee crisis as well as Obama's statements affected the outcome. But these weren't the only factors by a long shot.

What I could and should have left out is my opinion regarding the cause of the refugee crisis- I agree that was diversionary and not pertinent to the point being made. That's another discussion in and of itself and one more suited to parf hence please accept my apologies for the diversionary statement. Carry on.....

lmao

Yes, but the people who already sold just fold and hold. They will buy back on very favorable terms, while everyone else takes a beating.

You might seem as entitled or self-gratifying to start a basically political thread in the non-political forum, then plead in the title to not get political, then continue to moan about the proper forum for this thread, all the while knowing and acknowldeging that you placed this thread in the wrong forum.

In my opion, you violated forum rules and really should just pipe down.

The proper thing to do was to post in the right thread, over in the political forum and not be such a pussy about it.

Yes. Partly. 2.4 million were displaced when we invaded Iraq. Then ISIS arose in part from the disbanded Iraqi army. And ISIS got traction in Syria where it was on the "good" side against Assad.

Nothing at all complicated about the Middle East if you listen to Yell Radio. But for those who are a bit more serious and want to follow along, here's a guide to interrelationships.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1466893618.jpg

So lots of people are digging up old Yes Minister scenes... lol

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EkpS-yBj7gY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for the "Yes Minister" clip.

I'd forgotten what a good show that (and the later version "Yes, Prime Minister") was.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN....hmmm....

Let's see - the US political system is in turmoil, the Brits are turning away from Europe, it looks like Scotland is going independent, and maybe even Ireland united.

If England and the US get together (we can just say we're sorry about throwing the tea in the harbor and the unfortunate unpleasantness that resulted) we both can have what we want - a political system where the leader resigns when he makes a major mistake and where national elections are mercifully short, and some degree of economic stability for the island in the north Atlantic. Not to mention a great place to go for vacations.

<iframe width="840" height="630" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/850Hxu5Zwxo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I apologize for my diversionary remark and you and the OP continue down the same road quoting history from MSNBC.

The thread should be moved.

And if you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.

http://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1.wpen...on-cartoon.jpg

http://heatst.com/uk/****offobama-trends-in-britain-as-barack-disses-brexit/

I don't have access to MSNBC, but the facts are the facts whether you like them or not.

ISIS: The “unintended consequences� of the US-led war on Iraq | Foreign Policy Journal

As for Brexit, the petition to "redo" the vote is now at 2.6 million signatures, which is approximately 2X what the 'leave' margin was. It seems a large proportion of voters had only the fuzziest idea of the consequences of the vote, and some of the 'leave' leaders lied about the benefits.

Britain generally has low unemployment, but there are areas where the influx of 600,000 Poles has upset the locals... In many cases, areas most dependent on EU membership benefits went heavily on the 'leave' side. The effect of EU membership is highly variable by geography across the UK; exemplified by Scotland's near 2:1 'remain' vote.

Sorry mate if you want to argue that ka-ka start your own thread. In parf. And isn't Foreign Policy Journal the magazine that listed Israel as a "failed state"?

With respect to Brexit it isn't the end of the world the liberal elites make it out to be. Project Fear didn't work and the people spoke. And now the elites want another chance....well they may get it and they may not but Cameron is toast...it was incredibly dumb for him to have a black man from Chicago lecture Brits on how to vote- much less use the word "queue". Brits don't like Americans telling them what to do any more than we like it when the British did. And Obama was about as convincing as Hillary with a southern accent.

But as I said Obama wasn't the only factor:

Even if a lot of deals get re-negotiated and remain essentially the same (just outside Europe), even if labor laws allow for workers already in place to stay, money was not a one way street.. a lot of the EU dues are pooled and redistributed to backwoods area thatneed it, *including* to the UK. They'll have to do that directly now, and won't be saving as much as they think. Corwall is but one example where people are like "Oh ****, you mean no more European money?" Well yes! Also it's gonna suck for a huge amount of brit expats owning places in provence, spain, italy... And IMO for the prominence of London as a financial market... I know ALL my brit friends, expats and not, are pissed off...