I've been noticing some asymmetry in the EU debate. To summarise, the leave campaign have been attacking and invalidating the remain camp's arguments, but the reverse, as far as I can see, has not been happening.

For example, the leave campaign has been attacking the remain camp as follows:

• David Cameron and other high-ranking politicians stand to gain jobs in Brussels, and thus have a personal interest in staying.

• The jobs apparently linked to the EU are mostly not in danger. Trade deals are not necessary for trade.

• etc.

Meanwhile, here are some leave arguments that the remain campaign has not, as far as I can find, made any rebuttal of:

• It's stated that the general public cannot vote the current EU government out of office periodically if said government has upset them (whereas we can do that with our UK government). Can the remain campaign comment on this?

• EU supporters tend to be big, established businesses who can deal with excessive regulation but know that such regulation cripples startups that could one day pose a competitive threat. Can the remain campaign comment on the concern that entrepreneurship might be being stifled by the EU, or the accusation that they will benefit more than the population as a whole if we stay?

• etc.

<TL;DR paragraph>

So, my question is, has anyone else noticed this? What's the general feeling at the moment as to whether we stay or leave, and has it changed since my mention of it in the never-ending thread? Can anyone provide convincing counterarguments to the leave campaign's arguments, since the remain campaign don't seem to be doing it? Or have I just missed it and does anyone know where to find those arguments?

Counter leave: economy will plummet, probably more than it did in 2009. And there're a lot of supporters of this thesis. & well, honestly you gotta be really clueless to imagine economy won't get instant damage. How will it cope in the very long term is up for debate.

Append:
& something to support my claim.

I think it'd be cool to see the world power dynamics change a little bit. It could be a step toward tighter relations with the USA.

But I don't know what's best for Brits. I don't care what it'll do to the EU (in this context)--that's their problem since Brits need to do what's best for themselves.

I also think citizens in general would be better off if international trade was reduced / more difficult. This whole NAFTA, TTIP B.S. has done nothing to help the average citizens and the more independent nations, the harder it will be to implement more "screw the lower/middle class" trade deals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#United_States

http://ttip2016.eu/blog/ttip%20jobs.html

Anyone can say what they want about NAFTA, but post NAFTA it's almost impossible get a "US made" car that isn't produced in Mexico. Heck, even my two Volkswagen P.O.S.'s were assembled in Mexico, and they fell apart at the seams before they hit 100,000 miles.

Meanwhile, my Toyota was 100% built and assembled in the USA and has zero problems whatsoever. No stuttering, no signs of aging, no broken parts. And I'm passing 120,000 miles. (My Jetta didn't even hit 80K before the timing guides, timing chain, and camshaft gears exploded due to faulty-designed chain guides. Oh, and the transmission explodes because the differentials have rivets and they shear off at 100K, as well as a $1.00 retaining clip that snaps and allows the idler gear to rub against first gear slowly tearing the transmission to pieces.)

[edit] A quick glance at the wiki shows a large variety of options for how Britain can do business with the EU. That sounds like a great deal and a great opportunity to negotiate terms that are better for Britain.

Oh... a politics thread on the internet... I already regret participating. Also, inb4 someone mentions a certain someone who is probably going to be president of the US(it will happen, even if this is UK/EU politics).

In my usual left-wing-anarcho-hippy-zen-ist tone I just want to throw in this:

In a neoliberal extremist capitalist world ruled by finance mongers and megacorps who shit on basic human rights and democracy(and who continue trying to weaken countries by wanting to establish their own laws at their own courts where they can sue countries if any of their(the countries) laws cause them financial losses), it hardly seems to matter whom anyone votes into or out of office, whether nationally or in constructs like the EU, so... I'm not sure "we can vote UK gov out of office" is really a leave argument or whether it is a point that is irrelevant in the decision between staying or leaving.

Also a bit defeatist... meh.

Yeah I noticed that too. It's pretty much a pattern that keeps turning up all over the place.

Obviously Britain should leave, and the notion that that might be bad for the economy and therefore they should remain is false on multiple levels. To start with it is principles and morals, so denigrating the issue to one of financials is a weasel tactic. Additionally, the EU is going down the tubes, remain and go down with them.

The EU might not be perfect, but if you want to have anything to say in the world. Bigger is usually better.
Unfortunately some EU members act like a 3 year old child.. Demanding the whole mastodont moves from belgium to france and back. Just because they want to feel important too. That kind of mentality is a bigger problem than the EU itself.

I'm not sure, but is it even correct to talk about an EU government? IIRC, the powers of the EU commission are rather limited and most of the more important decisions require the consent of national governments or parliaments. I don't know exactly, but it might well be that Britain could veto most things it doesn't like anyway.

Well, the EU has never been more than a "single market" most of the time. So my view would be that leaving would certainly not facilitate access to that market, which is, by the way, the biggest in the Western world. In fact, by unifying regulations and abolishing trade barriers within the EU, it has done a lot for all kinds of enterprises who conduct business in several EU countries. I wouldn't think it'd get any easier when Britain left, when you might have to deal with member states individually. I can't see this would be easier for small enterprises. As I understood it, the EU is about reducing bureaucracy by harmonising regulations.
Of course, big enterprises can entertain more lobbying staff at Brussels, but I doubt that is different in London or elsewhere.

There is another pro-EU argument contrary to your first one: It might be nice to have another institution watching over national states in case something goes wrong in an individual state...

I'm certainly not pro-EU (light bulbs, anyone? process of (s)election of commission personell is dubious at best), but just because it is flawed like so many things I don't think it is a good idea to abandon the project altogether.

Generally, I feel all this anti-EU sentiment is part of a bigger anti-establishment movement which, currently, seems to take the form of a renewed nationalism around the globe. I sincerely doubt any of this will solve any of the real problems. It'll only make things worse.

This. Generally this is the reason I believe. It's something people won't like to confess to, so it finds it's exits in various "benefits for big corporations", "personal interest of politicians" kind of accusations.

Well, like I said, the EU has so far been mostly about creating the single market. Its primary purpose is economical, it has only limited actual power in "non-economical" fields of policy, so it's kind of natural to have economic arguments.

Just checked some random statistics about the UK's "most important trade partners". According to these, the UK has 44+% of its exports going to EU countries (the US being the single most important trade partner with 14%) and 42+% of its imports from EU countries, with only US (8.7%) and China (7.5%) as major non-EU-trade partners (both behind Germany, though).

Most non-British Europeans I know say: "Well, they've already got special rebates, what else do they want now?"
Now I will stop the propaganda.
No, really, the EU is far from perfect. For example, the commission is the only institution with the right to initiate EU legislation. IMHO, this should be given to the EU parliament, too.
It's always a good idea to challenge the Eurocrats. ^^ But as Mr. Cameron seemed to be quite stressed, I have the impression his gamble got out of hand.

edit: Now I've done the absurd and spent about half an hour of the evening reading through some of the UK websites from both camps. The pro-leave people in the comments sections seem to have found a purpose for their anger and excess free time... This seems to be about emotion, not about rational arguments.

I would completely change the structure of the EU government and remove all national governments without replacement. Then instead give all power to the EU parliament. There would be no more possibilities for states to exit after that - it would just be one big country

And the reason is, instead of having 28 corrupt and incompetent governments, there would be only a single one left. And getting rid of 27 of those would be a huge win If the UK exits before that, my idea would only get rid of 26 governments - so of course that would be very bad.

Actually you'll need to cite some examples. Every example bigger is worse.
Cities vs towns:
City is bigger, city is worse. Instead of a superior house and land package, you have an inferior apartment, and you have to pay more for the privilege.

Population of country:
China and India have low standards of living, New Zealand and some other small pop countries have the highest standards of living. In India, many places do not even have plumbing because they cannot afford to there are too many people. Whereas they had indoor plumbing in fucking ancient greece. How many thousands of years ago was that? They had a few people that worked together locally and made a nice little city with good amenities, and they could afford to do that. Bigger is worse.

Like I know what you're thinking: Economy of scale. Create a good, powerful system (the EU) and it will be able to make everything even better than if everyone duplicate the effort and work on their own. But by now, after all these years it is time to face the music. The reality 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, this year, how it likely will be next year. It is atrocious. Stop reinforcing defeat and just axe it. The sooner you do the sooner you can start rebuilding after the EU disaster. Or don't, and wait another decade. Britain has bad leadership, otherwise this would be a non-issue.

Before you start saying that the EU is undemocratic, think about this. Is it democratic to have a hereditary head of state? Is it democratic to have a system where one party can receive 15% of the popular vote but 0 MPs, as UKIP did? Every democracy works following its own rules, and sometimes those rules may be perceived strange or illogical by outsiders. That doesn't mean that it's not a democracy.

EU citizens vote on the EU parliament. After an election, the EU comission (=government) is composed of politicians, one for each country, nominated and approved by the EU parliament. The EU is governed according to transparent rules, and people get a say on their actions in a regular election cycle.

When trying to understand the EU government, you have to also look at governments in other European countries. The EU government system is actually very similar how the government works in many EU countries (AFAIK), certainly in the Netherlands and Germany. The system in the UK is different, more similar to the American system, where each politician is tied to a constituency. I think a lot of the misunderstandings in Britain about the EU are related to the fact that their democratic system is so different from most countries in the continent.

I think leaving the EU because you don't like some of the policies is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Unfortunately not true. approved: yes, nominated: no. This is done by the European council "taking the results of the European elections into account". The council consists of the heads of national governments.

I stand corrected. But then the european council consists of elected officials, so there is still democratic oversight. I'll admit that it's a bit indirect. And unfortunately the EU constitution was rejected, what we have now is a hodgepodge.

Still, it's better to push for change from within rather than stand in the sideline and complain.

In my experience, it seems that the further away a representative is, the less likely they are to represent the will and best interests of their constituents. It's hard to demand work from someone you can't see.

On the other hand, the more politicians are elected, the more they are dependant on campaign donations and thus more bribable. You see this in the US, where there is so much money going around in elections that the only politician not in somebodies pocket, are the ones that are billionaires from the start.

... and especially those will, of course, always "represent the will and best interests of their constituents."

Interestingly, the remain campaign have pointed out that we have the European Union Act 2011 (semi-useless Wikipedia link) which, as far as I can tell, is broadly intended to prevent the UK government from transferring any further UK Parliament powers to the EU without a referendum. It was prompted by the EU's adoption of the Lisbon Treaty which apparently took place despite an Irish referendum that rejected it.

To state the obvious, this act won't have been winning us friends in Brussels, but it does also help us to feel that our democracy - which must be at least a little bit legitimate since the Conservatives and Labour know we can flipflop between them when they upset us - will be protected if we stay in.

[EDIT]
I've heard a new viewpoint now: that the UK is one of the most corrupt EU member states in terms of tax evasion, and many of the prominent Brexiters (such as Nigel Farage) embody that corruption, as well as standing for the unregulated capitalism that leads to an increasing divide between the rich and poor (such as - one of my bugbears about this country - Assured Shorthold Tenancies, which basically mean tenants can't risk standing up for their rights against landlords). The EU naturally wants to control and regulate this, which is good. Meanwhile, there is the view that sovereign states tend to go to war with each other, and the EU, for all its faults, prevents that happening within most of Europe.

One question is who would lead the UK in the event of a Brexit, and if it's all the people currently campaigning for it, then the above viewpoint is probably worth taking note of.

That's an interesting point. Britain contains the City of London (which is separate from "London"). The City of London has its own government, laws, and exemptions from British law, is run solely by trade groups, and is probably responsible for the majority of corruption in that country.

11,000 people. "arguably the financial capital of the world."

[edit] Wrong video.

Woah.. Cool.

I resent being presented with binary options, especially when put as a false dilemma from both sides.
I am sticking to my "vote strike" and refusing to endorse an inherently corrupt system with my participation.
Though I am still amazed that people seem to not grok the golden rule...

Look at the big picture. All the EU is, is a club of democratic nations, related by geography, trying to cooperate, trade, and prevent war.

Why would you not want to be part of that?

All the other stuff is just nagging about tiny details. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter what the EU says about vacuum cleaners? The exact rules of the game are being debated all the time, different political fashions come and go.

The only thing that remains at the core: cooperation, trade, peace.

Unfortunately those are unsubstantiated assertions. There are people claiming that the EU is run dictatorship-style, with no democratic process in place to replace the people in charge if they don't put the people first, making it possible for them to not put the people first. Those claims are equally unsubstantiated of course.

While citations would help, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to do their own research, and that's why I want to see a healthy debate where mistaken assertions are challenged. My original complaint was that I couldn't find any challenges to the 'leave' campaign's assertions.

Exactly what particular things have happened in the history of EU, which proves that this is a big problem? Maybe this could happen, if things would go wrong, but has it happened already?
I'm not a big EU supporter, in fact, I voted NO, when we had the Finnish referendum. But because we joined the EU and that's how things roll right now, I fully support it now. Though I'm prepared to loosen a lot of things, putting more emphasis on peace, environment and refugee politics, than on economics.

How so? All I said was that the EU is a club trying to cooperate, trade and prevent war. I thought that would be pretty uncontroversial. But lets try to substantiate that somewhat

Trade
Surely I don't have to prove that the EU is promoting trade? The EU is a free trade zone. Even the most ardent Brexiteer would admit that, and Brexit arguments are usually about how the shortfall in trade with the EU would be compensated.

Cooperation
Some of the many ways the EU promotes cooperation: by giving exchange grants to students through the Erasmus program, by scientific funding to cross-border research, by removing visa requirements and removing border checks through the Schengen treaty (which Brits unfortunately opted out of). Member states cooperate on environmental policy, policing (Europol), security.

Peace
I know that I can't prove that the EU has ensured peace. Nobody can, for that we'd need a portal to an alternative universe where the EU doesn't exist, and see what is going on there. All I can tell you that throughout History, Europe has been plagued by war culminating in two devastating world wards right until 1945. Then in 1950 the first foundations were made for what is now the EU with the schuman declaration. Quoting wikipedia:

This was really a breakthrough: right after the devastation of two World Wars, an effort was made to do something different, to give up some sovereignty (over Coal and Steel production in this case) with the specific aim to establish peace. One thing led to another, the history of the EU can be traced directly to this first step.

There is a lot more on wikipedia. I think that should make a good read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBi-KXc0CRk

As German comedian Oliver Welke said after seeing that: "Bitte geht einfach." (Please just leave.)

So, even though this post does not provide anything of substance to the discussion, at least it might give a good laugh to some of us.

Dennis, that video is honestly making me want to stay in the EU.

Amarillion, thanks for that - it was definitely necessary. Perhaps you're unaware of just how compellingly the leave campaigners are coming across!

One argument coming from the leave campaigners is that the EU is on the verge of incorporating Turkey, which is apparently risky, not necessarily because if the Turks but because it would create a common border between the EU and Syria. The good news is that I actually found a rebuttal of that argument, from John Major. Turkey has apparently negotiated one thing, or met one of about 30 criteria for joining the EU, and a lot of the problems there (whatever they are - as I said, I don't know) would have to be resolved before it could happen. Meanwhile, every country in the EU could singlehandedly veto it.

Now what's interesting is that the above-linked video has a majority of dislikes. Is it fair criticism or is it just that there's a massively strong leave sentiment on YouTube? Could it be that the people on YouTube are the people with the most problems in life (hence the need for distraction) and therefore the most likely to want to shake up the system? Surely there must be at least one video on YouTube that argues for staying in the EU and is good - why is every one of them disliked?

So that's why Merkel is bending over backwards to accommodate them.

Not to mention the cologne cover-ups.

[edit] So apparently my first link isn't working, so here's the full URL:

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/merkel-okays-turkeys-request-to-charge-comedian/

My guess is that that won't happen in the next 20 years, perhaps never. The resistance to that happening is very great, also in normally pro-EU countries like the Netherlands. With the recent referendum in NL that rejected the association treaty with Ukraine, Dutch politicians are weary of even small steps towards EU expansion. To overcome that weariness, Turkey would have to show a massive, consistent, long-term change towards better human rights policies, and that's not going to happen under current leadership.

Having said that, the EU is in a tough spot. They want to reduce immigration from Syria, and for that they need the help of Turkey. Turkey is a country with many human rights issues, and it is a poor fit with the values of the EU. But you can't negotiate if there is nothing on the table. So they have to give up something to Turkey too, a lot of money, and probably also visa-free travel for the Turks. The choice is between pandering to the Turks or a mediterranean full of drowning refugees (and we'll probably end up with both).

I would argue again, that also this is a detail. The refugee crisis is a temporary effect, caused by war in Syria. The big picture of the EU remains the same, it is about peace, trade and cooperation. All the rest is just a political wind that can change direction from one year to the next.

I think youtube comment threads are probably not the best place to research an issue.

edit: one more thing. In the UK I often see arguments like "The euro is a failure", "immigration policy of the EU is a mess", "the EU needs to be reformed". If you hear these things over and over again, then it becomes almost impossible not to see the EU as a horrible mess. But...

The euro is a failure Depends on how you define failure. The Euro is a daily fact of life for 300M people. With the banking system unified, I can transfer money, set up automatic transfers, or manage direct debits to companies from Italy to Finland, with zero extra charges: no rate conversion fees or other banking charges. My bank's online banking service no longer has separate forms for foreign and local transfers, they are one and the same. Think what a great benefit this is if you want to start a small online business: 300M customers can reach you with ease. I'll admit that the Euro hasn't been kind to greece, but don't forget that the Greek themselves still wanted to stay in the Euro throughout the crisis. To them, the Euro still represents the future.

immigration policy of the EU is a mess Of course it is, but that is because immigration is inherently tough to deal with. You want to balance charity, humanity, human rights, security, protect low paying jobs, get young workers to pay for pensions in an aging population, and deal with an undercurrent of xenophobism that exists accross the continent. And then you have to negotiate an agreement with 28 partners. Would you be able to come up with any better solution?

the EU needs to be reformed Perhaps, but different people would like different reforms, so you have to look at who is saying this. For example, conservatives in the UK complain about the working hours directive of the EU. This is a policy that would be very much supported by Labour. So is the EU the problem, or is this right-wing politicians complaining about a left-wing policy? Does this come back to a sovereignty issue, are the tories complaining that they can't change a policy even when they have a majority in parliament? But then Scottish nationalists also have a point that they can't overturn rules set in Westminster. If tories managed to dismiss the working hours directive, then perhaps SNP would like to re-instate it at the Scottish level. What this boils down to is a refusal to compromise. But you can't cooperate with 28 different countries without some compromise.

By the way, the EU is bound by the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" which defines several civil rights for citizens of EU member states. According to Wikipedia, the UK government was afraid its citizens could actually go to the European Court of Justice to attempt to enforce their Charter rights in the UK (and it feared increasing cost for business), so they negotiated a protocol ensuring the powers of the ECJ would not extend over UK law.
Now, who is "taking away our rights" here?

Note that social and worker's rights such as "the right to fair working conditions, protection against unjustified dismissal, and access to health care, social and housing assistance" are also a part of these rights.

edit: There are also articles about the protection of personal data, the environment, consumer protection, and a "right to good administration". I didn't know!

My impression is that its "European effects" are in part caused by Merkel's stupid way of dealing with it. Her whole "refugee"-policy has been a total mess. Merkel is Stalinist by upbringing (she grew up in former communist East Germany), a bad democrat and an even worse European. Due to her Stalinist-autocrat style unilateral decision making, often involving 180° turns, combined with her lack of understanding politics beyond clinging to power, she has managed to bring far-right populists about 20% of the vote in regional elections first time since the 1930s, as far as I know. It's a total disaster and if the other leading political personell wasn't constantly making the impression of being even more incompetent, she would already have stepped down.

Everyone who is thinking it would be nice to have control of our borders should read this.

After reading that I have even less desire to ever visit another country. Some of the incidents mentioned in that article and comments seem like my country treats legal visitation more harshly than a fair amount of illegal immigration.

So after Brexit, they could treat people from the EU like this, too.

Yep, I have a friend from USA with a similar experience when he went to the UK for a conference.

About taking fingerprints though - that's done routinely when entering the USA, tourist or business trip.

Polls suggest it's gonna happen. It'll hurt. Good thing I don't trade UK stocks, it's gonna be nightmare to analyze what's gonna be hurt least. I bet some companies gonna even benefit somehow.

Append: About immigration crisis.. It's not as simple as political wind. It's millions of people who are likely to stay & who aren't all that in to your system of values. Now this has two points:

A) They're younger than your average, so they're gonna do simple job allowing you to become a doctor, financial adviser, engineer & etc'
They're mostly without education, & are poor competition to EU natives, or immigrants from "whiter" countries like Russia. You can say you'll benefit economically from them.

B) They're not gonna assimilate as easy as you'd like, and are gonna be an aesthetic problem for generations. There will be changes of culture, system of values, look(both clothes, & genetic) and a hell lot of other things which people don't want in their homes. *

*- I do hope I didn't cross the border of political-correctness here, although I'm aware I'm at the border.

Indeed, it looks like it will happen. At least it will be... informative... May you live in interesting times...

aesthetic problem? Strange choice of words.

By the way, I have been one of those EU immigrants to the UK at one point. I stayed only for two years though.

I don't think they're too uncomfortable with people from Netherlands immigrating, they surely want the Syrians way less though.

Aesthetic problem for generations.. Well, I see it about like this: an immigrant is different from native, it's always the case. However, if you can't distinguish his children from children of natives it's fine. If you can't, you get changes you may not want to have in what you consider your home. And I don't talk skin color, rather habits.

I'm quite sure Brits are way less comfortable with these changes than say, Israelis or current Americans, who wouldn't prosper if not the immigration.

Well, today's voting day!

I watched Thunderf00t debate with Sargon of Akkad for nearly three hours.

Incidentally, on the subject of Islam and whether its people are generally dangerous in large numbers and all that 'racist' talk, the point has been raised to me that there may be just as many native criminals in the various European countries, but the difference is that criminals with a shared minority origin/religion are more likely to club together than native criminals. The question of whether Germany is treating Muslim criminals equally harshly to how it treats its own criminals, I don't know the answer to, but I think it's fair to say that if the police chief and media are trying to keep it secret that some crimes such as the Cologne attacks were perpetrated by Muslims, that may simply be because lots of people are racist and will assume all Muslims are like that, and it doesn't necessarily mean those people are actually getting lenient treatment because of being Muslims (which in my view would be bad). I'd be interested to know if anyone has any reliable material on this subject. And, for what it's worth, it's not really as if Britain does things any differently from the EU - if you believe that large groups of Muslims are dangerous (even if it's just because of the countries many happen to have come from rather than the religion itself), then we have plenty of places where they are allowed to congregate and reinforce their own messed-up values amongst themselves without being forced to adapt to the country they're living in. I assume that isn't the EU's fault, because how could it be?

Meanwhile, I've been watching the introductory videos here, and the one about regions and nations in particular...

None of this changes the fact that it's very difficult to know whom to believe, and if I just look at what I find convenient, I like having the freedom to go and work in Germany, and I'm glad my other half has the freedom to research German literature in England too (as if). So, I'll be voting remain

Worst case, in 5 years, Britians rejoin the EU if they don't like being apart.

I'm watching BBC One. Early results from Newcastle and Sunderland are further towards leave than anyone expected.

I fully expect to stay up all night. Got some food cooking now.

There's a bit of pathetic fallacy going on: we seem to have stormy weather and semi-power-cuts, although my computer hasn't lost power yet. Those things we heard about the apocalypse coming if we leave feel true

[EDIT]
Something strange is going on. So far we've had 9 local authorities declare the counts for their areas. Foyle is not one of them, yet I think the BBC may have accidentally half-announced some results for Foyle, and it now has higher figures for remain than, say, the Guardian.

BBC1 says 299,598 want to leave vs 280,820 to remain so far.
Guardian says 257,816 want to leave vs 227,726 to remain so far.

I guess it'll clear up sooner or later...

Wow, I really expected you guys to remain.

Here's a link to The Guardian for anyone interested.

I still hope we do. The big cities are coming out in favour of remain. It's looking a bit bleak though.

I think the difference is that the BBC have partial results for Northern Ireland and The Guardian don't.

2:33 a.m. and I didn't have the foresight to stock up on chocolate while the shops were open

OMG. David Cameron might have to step down tomorrow if they vote OUT.

MWAHAH

Nigel Farage has given a victory speech

This could be history in the making!

Hope everything goes well for you British chaps! But destabilizing "the powers that be" sounds like a super win for, as one of your leaders said, "Real people" instead of multi-national corporations.

Pound -8.5%
S&P 500 -5%
Germany's DAX -9%
UK FTSE is -8% as well, making it about -16% in $.

I wonder if these leavers voted the same way if the knew.

The going opinion seems to be that the leave vote came from the poorest people. They probably can't see how those numbers mean anything to them.

I doubt the EU is even remotely responsible for their problems, but we have some very insistent liars in government - the remain camp of course didn't at any point say "Don't blame the EU, blame us - we'll reform," and the leave camp blamed the EU probably just because it was an easy target with the referendum coming up. I'm not talking about all the politicians here, but certainly some of the most prominent ones. And it is possible I'm wrong about them being liars, or that the truth is somewhere in between.

This should trigger another vote from Scotland, this time it'll be a leave as well. By the way, the count of unhappy with the EU in France is even bigger than this of UK.

What UK?

In my impression, ignorance and frustration have prevailed. I can understand the latter, but I doubt the EU was the right target for it. Anyway, good luck.
Edit:
If Britain wants access to the single market, they will have to agree to allowing unrestricted free movement of workers/employees - as Norway ans Switzerland had to. So shutting the borders is probably not going to work. They'll also have to pay for access to the single market, but now they will not be able to decide how that money is used. Plus, they will have to conform to lots of EU regulations - as Norway and Switzerland have to - without the power to influence them.
We'll also probably see some of the banks move to the continent or Ireland.

I think we'll have to get used to seeing the Trump-Johnson hairstyle on TV.
And Cameron will go down in history as one of the worst prime ministers.

I think the hope is that this will weaken EU's ability to blackmail nonmember countries to get them to open their borders, to dictate policy to them, etc. At least that what we are hoping for here in Norway

The article is in French, but the map speaks for itself:

http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2016/06/24/brexit-la-carte-des-resultats-par-circonscriptions_4957131_4355770.html

Your face when you see EU is breaking up:

{"name":"610439","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/f\/8ff6846000b794b593c03734b240d73e.jpg","w":521,"h":353,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/f\/8ff6846000b794b593c03734b240d73e"}

yeah which one will be next

I'm clueless what are the French laws. But Lee Pen is strong there, and it's likely such a move would find a lot of support among the French, their EU approval is lower than this of UK. If she can get a referendum, it may pass.

Then we get real economic catastrophe though, 2009 gonna be flowers.

I awoke to news of the Brexit subsequently followed by my parent company's stock prices plunging. Not sure what that implies if anything. It just so happens this year is the earnout year for our company, so fun times ahead?

What's the company?

The (short-term) stock price issue is silly from doomsayers. When the price goes down, tons of people buy in. It's only the long-term that matters. So a short-term drop doesn't mean it won't rebound even higher shortly.

They went over that on the YouTube BBC live stream.

[edit]

Oh man. Reddit is FULL of glorious salt. "The spice must flooowwwww..." Non-stop comments from 18-year olds about how "seniors are insane and dooming the country." because they obviously know everything they need to know at 18.

Bitch please, just leave.

Phew what a day.

I happened to be in England the past week. The headlines of the tabloids were pretty awful in the run-up. "Vote leave, to depart a decaying, dying continent!" Talk about hyperbole.

Today, my English colleagues were pretty miserable and depressed all day, I think somehow they didn't quite believe it was going to happen until the end. Don't forget 48% voted to remain.

Now we get to watch this unfold for at least another two years. Like a slow motion train crash.

{"name":"JCCcYze.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/7\/07e2cfa6b00afc8a07933a420b1b1d37.jpg","w":620,"h":465,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/7\/07e2cfa6b00afc8a07933a420b1b1d37"}

US and UK should totally make our own European Union. We'll even call it, "European Union" just to confuse the hell out of everyone and mess up Wikipedia searches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#/media/File:World_share_of_nominal_GDP_IMF_WEO_2015.png

Also, the top GDP country putting money into the EU? The UK. Winners always want to keep their winnings.

So if we made a USA + UK + China and Japan, we'd basically be running the planet.

When is the split "official"?

No no, wait.

{"name":"brexit_meme11.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/e\/be211531689fad249c1c4ed1f08c8395.png","w":640,"h":641,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/e\/be211531689fad249c1c4ed1f08c8395"}

{"name":"brexit_meme6.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/4\/44af3d577ee613bb3d7a5812d9c0a9c8.png","w":640,"h":480,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/4\/44af3d577ee613bb3d7a5812d9c0a9c8"}

{"name":"brexit_meme8.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/9\/49550eb65ba87cc258fd1f64273036e8.png","w":640,"h":677,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/9\/49550eb65ba87cc258fd1f64273036e8"}

{"name":"brexit_meme15.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/6\/1634c40f3ee34a47ae3ab5394a276c50.png","w":640,"h":618,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/6\/1634c40f3ee34a47ae3ab5394a276c50"}

That's it...

I predicted that Britain would exit for various prophetic reasons which I won't go into details about here, but lets just say, if you believe in your bible (and I know many here do not) this is very significant prophetically.

{"name":"610440","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/3\/734ed6dd1be0201dadf421b5bdb92a42.jpg","w":625,"h":595,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/3\/734ed6dd1be0201dadf421b5bdb92a42"}

Brexit changes everything in EU. What else could it do, UK being one of the three big ones. It's stupid to talk about new referendi at this point. EU is broken right now. People talk about at least two years for Brexit to become true. It will be a hell of a divorce process, where lawyers do their best to prolong it all, while tax payers pay. But that's another discussion. My point is that the next referendum can only take place when we know what an EU without UK is. We need to know what to exit from. A referendum right now could only be about whether to repair EU or to trash it.

And next up, they'll campaign to bring back the empire and colonialism, slave labor, genocides and all that fun stuff.

It seems there is a petition for a new referendum that a million people have already signed... Which means parliament will have to debate it. Interesting times.

A second referendum would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

What will happen next is that the UK prime minister has to send a letter to formally invoke article 50 of the treaty. Both Cameron and Johnson are already stalling on this step. But EU politicians are going to put pressure now to make the divorce rapid.

Don't expect leniency from the EU. They are going to throw the UK under a bus to safeguard the rest of the union against eurosceptisicm. Or rather, after the UK threw itself under a bus, the EU is now going to run it over again.

Well.. Now it is the right thing to do. No one gonna benefit from EU breakup, due to the crisis it'll create. Despite, probably in the very long term US, Russia, & China will love to see EU collapsing. Their negotiating power will rise dramatically.

Apparantly, now those regions which received the most EU money in GB were those who voted for Brexit in high proportion. So now they want London to pay them what the EU paid before... This seems to become rather messy.

This is gonna be such a disaster....

For your viewing pleasure: Brexit: The Anime

Well, we don't understand the song..
Also it should be granny shouting @ the robot. The rest wanna stay.

My little contribution (I made this myself):

Well, there's indeed a bit of a generational problem here. I've read that young people were ~ 75% pro-remain. But in old Europe, their whole generation is apparently too small to influence the outcome on the whole (!).
We don't know how this will turn out yet, but there might well be less opportunities for young people.

Edit: Now this petition is almost at 2 million...

OMG I CHECKED AND THE KNEELERS ARE RIGHT!!

SELL SELL SELL

This is like... one of the greatest weekends of my life.

Brexit has turned the liberal media into a gigantic, childish mess.

For example:

http://www.slate.com/

1. The Best of British "Leave" Voters Realizing They've Made a Huge Mistake
2. Small but real possibility Brexit will never happen.
3. Embattled Whiteness Gave Us Brexit. It won't give us President Trump.
4. Popular support for the institutions of liberal democracy can no longer be taken for granted.
5. How the EU blew it.
6. Independence Day: Resurgence is the perfect disaster for our stupid times
7. Why Immigration Pushed Britons to Brexit (It's Not ONLY about Race)

The shear amount of assumptions in the headlines along is hilarious. Even when liberals lose, they still can't admit it was their fault. "Democracy is dying" ... when a democratic vote tells them they lost. "Everyone is stupid." "Everyone is racist... especially those 'whites'." "We lost, but we won't lose that thing we fear even more!"

It's really becoming apparent how insanely fearful liberal leaders and journalists are. That somehow, gigantic governments are the only solution, and the ONLY THING that somehow protects democracy, liberty, and provides jobs. It's an entire generation of children who have never been weaned off sucking the establishment's teats. An entire generation of alarmists who call themselves "progressive" but are really fearful of any actual change.

You would think from the amount of fear and complaining that they voted to dissolve the ENTIRE government of the UK, and not just leave a membership.

One of my favorite complaints of theirs is, "The people who voted, won't be alive to live and endure the consequences!" Even though like... "30 years old" is considered senior by this little douchebags, and that the opinions of all these people who are basically the entire backbone of the country in terms of experience and skillsets, are someone morons who are too dumb to listen to the 18-to-22-year olds being pushed by their liberal arts professors.

And the absolutely, most delicious part? As mad, whiny, and LOUD as this children are, as old as time itself, they couldn't be bothered to go to the voting booth so their opinions didn't matter at all. If they could have been bothered to pickup a history book, they would have known and adapted--but that's a perfect analogy for their stances: Completely inexperienced and subject to emotional manipulation by governments and corporations.

Things are going to keep on going. The world won't end or collapse. Brits don't need a European government to protect and provide for themselves. They're not morons. They're one of the most powerful, skilled countries in the world. And they should be allowed to make the best decisions for their country without consulting other countries.

{"name":"610441","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/2\/12a0d288c239da985da8737bee4f56f1.jpg","w":746,"h":444,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/2\/12a0d288c239da985da8737bee4f56f1"}

Append:

The numbers I've seen say 65+ are some 78% to exit. Means they essentially pushed it out, while 18-24 are about a mirror.

If we exclude these two groups however, we remain quite decisively. And well, this democracy is disgusting. The oldest the most conservative, the most nationalist generation appeared to be least divided, and made the rest suffer. And it is fucking consensus about economic harm

Two U.S. banks (JPM, & Stanley) already declared to pull 5 000 jobs out of UK on this. THIS IS only the beginning. Massive capital outflow will continue, there will be less of incentive to deploy capital via LSE(a lot of Russian companies list there, some planned listing is now in question, as a CEO said. Yes Russian capital is a drop in the ocean, but the reasoning is clear. London won't be as financial center anymore without the access to EU which it had).

& now another thing: EU will spill UK blood, or it will dissolve. In other words: if UK prospers well without EU, others may follow suit. So Brussels shouldn't let this. They won't, it's not a clear game.

Last paragraph is just thoughts. But somehow I've high degree of certainty that it's so.

The small, liberal media source* I use didn't have sensationalist headlines: "Britain Stuns World by Voting to Leave the European Union".

Maybe I should use a better one... I'm not being a good liberal boogeyman.

*: I also have BBC and NPR feeds, but they're slightly left at best. And the local newspaper feed is irrelevant...

Although refraining from voting does no favors, voting means essentially nothing. In the case of America, it simply does not matter if you vote, because those who actually present issues to legislators aren't you or me. They vote with money. The Princeton study on the support of legislation compared to wealth is incredibly depressing.

The only way for the 'non-elite' to influence legislation is organized movements with clear goals. Sadly, after the success of such movements in 50s and 60s, the benefactors of the status quo have become more successful in countering such things...

Now this is grand. Hell.. About it's about time.

OMG
I always think "But people can be THAT stupid"
Guess what....

I think you actually spelled that right.

Now the promises fall to pieces. EU contributions going to the NHS? Oh, err, "one of the big mistakes of the leave campaign".
Shutting the doors to immigration? "Errr, we want to remain in the single market and that means, the workers will get in. I mean those who want to work."

The promises of those liars and demagogues didn't last longer than 2 days. Economic problems the remain-side predicted? Well, have a look around you.

In fairness, I think there will be some people who voted for Brexit but aren't fans of Nigel Farage. Daniel Hannan campaigned for Brexit and seemed like a nice person, and when it happened, he was on TV saying that we need to find a way forward that also works for the 48% of people who wanted to remain.

The economic problems are so far caused by fear of the unknown, aren't they? And how bad are they? No one expected the exchange rates to remain unaffected, and there will be people who argue that big banks leaving London is a good thing since those are some of the people who strengthened the divide between rich and poor.

A lot hinges on how the exit is handled. Meanwhile, personally the next referendum I want to see is one that switches us to Single Transferable Vote in order to achieve proportional representation all the way up to national level. Perhaps then, all the people in poverty in this country will have someone fighting their corner and we won't get ourselves into such a ridiculous state again. How do we make this happen? I don't know. We could start a petition on the government site, but how would we gain enough momentum for it?

Single Transferable Vote explained:

I got my thoughts deeper recently. Unless UK somehow manages to workaround the referendum the way Greece did, EU will punish UK badly, they have to.

Should UK thrive outside the EU, without any bad economic consequences which will be a clear result of the exit other countries may want to follow suit. And the opposition will love to use UK as an example, overthrowing(albeit democratically) the current powers on the way.

So, in order for current line of politicians of the EU to remain in power, UK must suffer. Another thing, is that if UK won't suffer EU is likely to breakdown further, thus making both UK, and itself(and hell, all world from western south America to eastern north Siberia) to suffer from the outfall because of further EU dissolution.

Conclusion? Brussels WILL make London suffer. They have to, or it's the end. Or maybe I just love House of Cards too much. But my above guess really makes good sense. All that is required is to be selfish during the negotiations, and not let UK have any favorable ones.

Append:
Oh well..
{"name":"610443","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/b\/0b6c748b044ea55f29ff277fcd567977.gif","w":400,"h":217,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/b\/0b6c748b044ea55f29ff277fcd567977"}

When the older British die off, the millennials can push for a vote to re-join the EU (if the EU still exists and doesn't intend to hold a permanent grudge). Until then, remain crowd should stop crying about how it affects them "more" than the older people. The older people have and deserve a say, and the majority has spoken.

What gets me the most is how these spoiled kids have learned these buzzwords to get their way, but they have no idea what they actually mean. They're actually calling a democratic vote "fascism" because they didn't get their way. It's pure insanity!

I think the background music of that video should have been by John Lennon - Imagine. Mostly for the irony...

Two major credit rating agencies downgraded UK by two notches from AAA to AA. One of these agencies is British Fitch. GBP doesn't even try rebounding. Export oriented stocks found support on weaker pound I suppose.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER BREXIT FROM THE EURO, CUP THIS TIME !!

Britain 1 - 2 Iceland

MOAR PETITIONZ!

{"name":"610445","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/e\/dea6048208263bbb602e6e75e8020da4.jpg","w":1200,"h":967,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/e\/dea6048208263bbb602e6e75e8020da4"}

It seems to me that you're taking extreme liberty in interpreting the intent of the "fascism" label. Why muddy the waters? Why do you think you have a better handle on those "buzzwords"?

Was the fade to Nigel Farage(?) meant to be some unassailable truth? The final word? Consider that you're talking about social and economic policies interacting with innumerable measures of individual differences. Just seems to me that "the world as your oyster" in part means freedom of movement, to shift and pivot without too many issues. I detect a bit of irony.

How do you know the "kids" are spoiled especially given you're separated by an ocean, and you don't know their personal realities and how they perceive the future? I suspect that their world has changed, even if just in theory, unlike you've perhaps ever experienced.

Presumably, stating the blatantly obvious, the democratic process allows for the opposition to continue the discussion until the next election/referendum. Was the "right" silent on Obama's victory over the past eight years? What matters is whether the ongoing discussion is thoughtful. The process should always be self-critical, dynamic, and not static. Or, do you prefer sheep in a democracy?

I ask these naive questions because I'm genuinely puzzled by the perceived stake held by outsiders. NWO?

[In truth, I believe you have zero answers. Rather, it seems you have taken irrational joy in the misery of millions whether it be real or imagined. At the moment, I suspect it's very real.]

Surely more old people vote for what they believe to be best for their children, than vote against it.

As I've learned, Britains in the north still suffer the consequences of deindustrialization under Thatcher. Somehow the national political establishment managed to put the blame for all problems on the EU, although, concerning immigration, it was the British government under Tony Blair which introduced free movement of workers from Eastern European countries in 2004 - unlike other western EU countries which had put a "transition period" in place to limit migration.

It's one of the biggest problems of the EU's public perception: National governments tend to put the blame for their own (past) failures on the EU and rush to claim the EU's successes as their own.

Of course. Actually, my problem is less with those usual suspects like Farage than with the likes of Johnson and other "established" pro Brexiters. It turns out now the Tory pro-Brexit camp didn't even have a plan for Brexit, because they didn't think they would actually succeed. That isn't how you lead Britain, that's just irresponsible.

{"name":"610447","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/0\/b07f84c80e9be900d3eb388a96b492e0.jpg","w":823,"h":800,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/0\/b07f84c80e9be900d3eb388a96b492e0"}

Right, so I have to rant just a little bit.

There are xenophobic hate crimes happening here and there in this country, but it's not clear to what degree the media is overblowing them because it's a hot topic. These are probably the minority and they can and will be dealt with through law enforcement. If the comparison is useful for anyone, then as far as I know, this country is largely better than America at saying that if you bully someone, it is not free speech, it is criminal and can be punished. Basically, not really a significant issue. As for the vote itself, well, for educated voters who voted leave, it was about the political establishment more than the people.

Meanwhile, apparently there is a lot of slamming of England happening in the German media. Who cares - it's only the media. You could argue that it's important, but you could also just go, as an English person, and spend some time abroad and just be nice to people and it will be appreciated. The people who matter are pretty good at judging you based on their interactions with you, not on how the media portrays your nationality.

HOWEVER. We don't live in a little bubble of people who are exactly like us, and we inevitably have people we're close to who worry about all this stuff and actually think that the silly video I uploaded (here it is again)

Interesting stuff. Also amazing how disrespectful, childish, and disruptive the fellow member state's representatives are.

I think you can glean a lot from an organization or group of people, by how they treat members who are planning on leaving.

p.s. Damn, I love a good British orator. Britain's best are so above the rest of the world's best in that regard.

This was to be made sooner or later:

@Katko:
While he is not wrong on all points, he is a bit delusional 1) speaking for the whole of Britain ("we") and 2) wanting to impose his terms on the EU.
This guy has essentially cost European tax payers lots of €€€ and ₤₤₤, without ever working constructively, with one of the worst attendance records of European parliament. Yet, MEPs have tolerated him putting on his narcissistic show for all these years (my interpretation), because it's a civilized institution.

I know several Britons who would protest that Farage belongs to their best.
While I'm not overly competent in that regard, maybe you should listen to some of Churchill's speeches to recalibrate your perception of greatness.
Mr Churchill also postulated the United States of Europe after WWII for example.

I'm going to regret posting this but... I predicted this many years ago. And just recently I told a friend of mine Britain would vote to exit before the vote took place. On the day of the vote he told me they were not going to exit based on news that was all reporting the population was overwhelmingly in support of staying, so he obviously felt I got this one wrong. I told him they would leave, and sure enough, the next day, they voted to leave.

I knew all this because of bible prophecy. The British commonwealth of nations as well as the United States are Israel of the bible, not that tiny nation of Jews. They are from Judah, who is a son of Israel, but Judah did not get Israel's blessing, Joseph's two sons did. And he also gave a prophecy about the powerful nations those two sons would end up creating. The most powerful nation the world has ever seen, which would be a colonizing nation with a King/queen on the throne that can trace their roots back to king David, and Queen Elizabeth can trace her roots back to David, and I have traced them as well (by accident while researching my own genealogy). Europe will be where the future beast power of prophecy will form, out of 10 nations with Germany as the head of it. The beast power defeats Israel, Israel is not a part of it, so I knew they had to separate from the EU. I think we will see more nations leave the EU and it will be left with only 10 (albeit economy powerful nations) nations in it. I think the Euro will drop in value and it is even possible that Germany will adopt it's old currency, which would be interesting from a prophetic standpoint... the mark.

I feel these Islamic nations where the "arab spring" rebellions took place are the biblical king of the south and the refuge invasion in Europe right now qualifies as pushing at the beast. I think this will lead eventually to Angela being replaced in Germany with a much stronger leader that will ultimately invade the middle east and strike back. Time will tell. So far these events have not surprised me at all. They are perfectly in line with prophecy.

Neil, god if ever it exists does not give a damn fuck about our little human stories, be it good or sad and terrible ones.
Remember, free will. He does not even give a damn about any prayer in the world.
Using the bible to justify everything is basically asking for the beat. If we have free will then we write the story, and at worst we will be judged at the end. If ever something like that exists.
And HOOO, man, you're so good at prediction... May I refresh yourself a bit:

-England never adopted the euro.
-Already made the same referendum before
-Already nearly left since the start
-Never adopted Shengen
-Is not present in Europe justice nor defense

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2016/06/28/l-europe-existe-les-anglais-l-ont-rencontree_4959533_3232.html

Yet... YET I'M SAD. I'm sad for all the good people who lost because of stubborn oldies that act like old farts.
I'M SAD because I know the other future was also possible. And because it was so cool to see English people around here, and to be able to go in England just with a simple train and an id card. It's a social thing, you may not understand.

To the rest of Europe, defenders of the leave looks like pure bigots, short minded bloody racist, religion supremacists. Does it hurts ? It's reality.

I hope a better futur than something guys like Farage imagine. You can replace Farage by any right/left extremist gang leader name, LePen works of course.

Could be because the man is a twat though

Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that he's half insulting throughout. But the establishment should still be "adult" enough to not whoop and holler when someone says something insulting.

When a client says something insulting at my job, I don't get to stop being a professional. I just wait till the meeting is over and talk !@#$! about them to my co-workers in private.

Another true Katkoism: Of course MEPs are all working for Mr Farage, therefore Mr Katko's relationship to his company's clients is entirely comparable.

Have you ever listened to debates of British parliament?

I suspect you've never seen question time with the PM in the house of commons?

edit: Polybios and I think alike

Here is an example

How do I embed videos?

[url] ?

I think you're missing the point.

The UK has a culture of acting like that. It's part of their government history. More over, they still have rules, including a rule against clapping--hence the "Hear hear." Did you notice ANY clapping during that video? They were still following procedure.

Moreover, while 99% of that video is quite hilarious, everyone is smiling during the interruptions--it's expected. And even then, that's a highlight reel of the most notable ones.

Back to the point:

The EU's debates are not supposed to be like that.

Imagine the difference between roaring and hollering at a NASCAR event, and at a library. The expectations for the same actions are clearly different.

These are people chosen to represent their entire countries, not local constituents. There are other countries, diplomacy, and international politics involved. The bar should be pretty damn high when you're talking to another country.

If this was the UN, people would consider it very seriously. Even though many of us consider the UN a "complete joke", they still adhere to procedures. (Out of respect for the institution.)

https://www.facebook.com/seb.read/videos/10153411326631653/

Regardless of the discussion, and opinions, I think this is a really cool video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89S1cej9TyU

[edit] It's also interesting to me, as an American, to watch the Prime Minister participate in debates in the House of Commons. I can't think of any times our President has gone to Congress and engaged in a battle of wit in debate. (I'm sure it's based in law somehow and not just some kind of preferential decision) And the VP's sole job is casting a vote if and only if the senate has tied.

Yes, but ... rather no. They are mainly organized into parliamentary groups of European parties, not according to countries (unlike the UN). You wouldn't expect the British Labour-faction to be entirely silent when Farage speaks, for example, because he is "one of them".
Besides, MEPs don't necessarily have a connection to national governments, so there is no diplomacy involved (again, unlike the UN). Mr Farage certainly hasn't, as England does not (until now) have a UKIP government. So he is just some random clown (like the others)
The European Council would be more like you imagined. If the heads of European governments (that make up the Council) would shout down one of them together, it would indeed probably be a scandal.

Wow... I didn't know that man was so arrogant... You just can not treat people that way, this is not going to end well...

Look, Chris, even the British house of commons seems united in calling Farage's behavior in European parliament "ridiculous and revolting" and that it should be made clear he's not representing Britain. You've got to face the fact you have been fooled by this clown.

Link

Well at least a title bit of common sense... This thread is better than the news...

Btw... Why all that people are acting like goats, damn is driving me crazy.

Presenting Farage as the voice of reason, and calling out the other MEPs as being rude and disrespectful, flies against the facts. Now you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

edit:

When Farage says that none of the MEPs have had proper jobs, he's the one being disrespectful and insulting.

{"name":"610449","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/805ad4058e5116ea0d7d859312da4dff.jpg","w":750,"h":695,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/805ad4058e5116ea0d7d859312da4dff"}

Now that guy's gone from UKIP leadership. Interesting how Farage and Johnson are now both gone within 12 days after it happened.

There's talk that UK will lower corporate taxes (and, of course, social budgets) considerably. Somehow this was the way I've imagined they would be headed...

A strategic exit if I ever saw one. "I've done my part" eh?

While I definitely had concerns about the guy, I was open-minded and curious to see if he could actually deliver a stronger Britain. I guess he can't.

Plan B: we have a General Election and vote for the party that promises to disregard the referendum result and never trigger Article 50, while also fix the problems in the areas that wanted to shake up the status quo. Of course, this is assuming that the EU is really going to be good for us, but hey, what's the worst that's happened so far? Austerity measures that don't apply to us because we kept our own currency, I suppose?

They are just disgusting. I mean, Farage and Johnson. They put the country in fire, and don't take responsibility.

I consider them as those extremist people that want to call your attention but they don't know what they're doing, they don't use to think about the wellness of the country but instead they're only thinking about "victories" and "proud" and all that stuff.

Kind of like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, which is blaming the US for all the bad thing that has happened to that country, or like Donald Trump in the US with his "Let's make america great again".

Words that are really good for propaganda but at the end those are empty words with no background or any base.

I never said I supported him. I said he's interesting as an outsider to British politics.

I supported Brexit and reduced globalization. Not a specific politician.