The future of the EU and the UK, post-Brexit

You do realize populist / anti-establishment parties exist on both sides, no? Syriza ran against the EU, against the establishment, and on Greek independence. The fact that they aren't psychotic neo-nazis doesn't make them any less "a populist or anti-establishment candidate".

 

You're right. They did run as a populist choice. I was making more of a comment about what they actually did. They sold out.

 

I think you're going to find that happening a lot. The Brexit leaders all ran as fast as they could from actually governing the post-Brexit UK and left a pro-EU person in charge to clean up the mess. Trump has already flipped from draining the swamp to filling it. He's gone from cleaning up corruption to putting corrupt people and conflicts of interest all over his leadership team and cabinet. He'll back off on his tariffs and all the other populist rhetoric too when it comes down to it. Trump will end up governing as your typical big-business conservative when it comes down to it - just with a lot of hateful rhetoric mixed in. This will take place anywhere far-right people win the EU too. The problem is that these guys' rhetoric is not compatible with reality.

 

That's not true. Three key Tory Brexiteers have been given key positions. Farage isn't an MP so he never really had a chance to do anything on behalf of the state but he's been massively active on media commenting on activating Article 50. I don't know why you people keep on running this lie when that's been pointed out many times apart from you trying to paint a narrative just like you're doing with Trump. You should've learned already from the election that liberals get it totally wrong. Same thing with Syriza, it's not realistic when you're intent on governing as the left.

 

As I have said many times, far right and far left are actually not really at opposite ends of the spectrum, but pretty close to each other, weirdly.

 

Yes, they've been given secondary positions. Notice what happened with the Brexiters aiming to be PM. They all found ways to weasel out of it.

And do you disagree that Trump went from arguing to drain the swamp to loading up his transition team and key positions with the very lobbyists from the swamp he once complained about? Do you think putting a longtime Wall Street banker in as Treasury Secretary is about fighting for Main Street over Wall Street? He literally said hedge-fund guys get away with murder and just shift money around instead of doing anything of value, and then put a major hedge-fund guy in charge of Treasury.

 

Three Leavers ran for the Conservative leadership - Liam Fox, Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom. Fox and Gove were eliminated in several rounds and Leadsom was harassed into quitting in the finals. There's way more party politics in the British government because of their parliamentary system. More than half the Tory MPs did not want Brexit and wanted a more compromising PM - you don't always get what you want. Still, Liam Fox is now secretary of state for international affairs. Another prominent Leaver, David Davis, is spearheading the committee for Brexit. There is an argument that some of the Leave MPs were running as controlled opposition. Remember, they're part of the establishment that needs to be taken down and the Conservative party, as a whole, are Blairites. There's only one guy you have to watch regarding Brexit and that's Nigel Farage. Just watch Farage. He's doing everything he could possibly do as someone who's not an MP.

With regards to Trump, a lot of his picks are outside Washington. He has a few like Reince, which is smart considering he needs someone to guide him around. I don't believe everyone in Washington is bad, neither are all the lobbyers; it's lobbying that needs to go. His Treasury pick is from Goldman Sachs, so what? Who knows these people, really? But what we do know is that they have a background, as does Trump. Most of all, he got Steve Bannon, who's anti-establishment to the core. Let's see how his cabinet performs, at this point.

 

Thanks, interesting read as well as some good comments.
So, I've been living in Italy for the past year or so and my impression, like the rest of us, they just don't trust politicians and the government.
I was talking yesterday about the referendum with a guy here that voted No.
He said he didn't want the prime minister to be gone, he said the Constitution should be changed. But he also said that along with the big changes, there were a lot of fine print between them. He was more afraid about what he didnt know and was reluctant to getting tricked into than choosing Yes which he believed should be the solution.
Confusing indeed, but this untrust in the government (establishment like you portrayed it) is the driving force in the political world today.
It's a bit uneasy and quite fragile in Europe at the moment, as well as in the states I guess.

 

I made a few corrections to your strawman but, yes, it's reasonable to people who have common-sense.

 

Funny because here you were talking about just plain migrants...or are all migrants terrorists? Also pretty sure the whole bombing thing does much to get rid of terrorism.

 

The terrorists are using the migrant routes to get into Europe, it's a well documented fact. Anyone with half a brain would've been able to know what I was referring to.

 

Not sure how you think that addresses my point...well hey, I think your big idea of bombing countries where terrorists come from could work out! May not get the actual terrorists but it'll help Dei sleep at night!

 

Think harder.

 

The fact is, it doesn't. It's just your odd argumentative weapon where you mention something like 'Migrant Routes' and then go "I can't believe you know nothing about that!" but it has little to do with you thinking it is a good idea to bomb countries because "Terrorist."

 

As from what I understand from him, the referendum wasn't that straight forward.
There were a lot of 'but' and 'if' and they were afraid that even though everyone knows a change is needed and stability of government is Important, in case of a Yes, the prime minister will abuse his power and make a lot of crucial small changes that they did not agree upon.
Italy is a mess, but so is Greece, France, Portugal and pretty much the whole of Europe politically speaking

 

All the countries in the Eurozone are in trouble, save for Germany. That currency just does not work because the countries have different economies and work practices. Britain's doing moderately well, they're not in the Eurozone. Switzerland is doing really well, they're not in the Eurozone.

Renzi lost the referendum for one simple reason: he made it about himself by saying he'd quit if 'No' won. Some people voted with regards to the constitution, which is the actual topic of the referendum but mostly people voted to get rid of Renzi. Even if they wanted constitutional reform, they didn't want it now or in the form Renzi proposed and that it's not the real problem in Italy, it's the stinker that it's in the Euro.

 

I kind of agree, but it's mostly just people are confused. They dont want the Euro to fall because it will pretty much crash them all, but at the same time they understand they're hanging on a thread.
They want a change but very much afraid of its outcomes.
I'm not a big believer in the concept of the Euro zone but I do appreciate its benefits. Just hope that they'll manage to do a gradual change instead of a big fall down.
I think the Brexit is more of a litmus test to see if a gradual separation can be done.

 

Some of those countries will need to get out of the Euro and massively depreciate; Greece foremost. They have too much debt. It's going to be a very bitter pill but it's the only way.