Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptaipale | Hacker News Reader

I find it amazing how people can stay in denial about the Brexit vote: that it happened, and that people in Britain actually disliked EU enough to want to get out of it. That what people voted for is not their will.

I'm in the remaining EU, if I'd had a vote in the British referendum, I'd have voted for Remain. But the increasingly paranoid conspiracy theories about shadowy conspiracies makes me more and more disgusted with the EU status quo.

New emperor-wannabes come up with 50 billion or 100 billion or 200 billion that Britain should pay to the union. Looks like that the more absurd numbers you can come up with to punish Britain for insulting the honor of EU institutions, the better.

Get real: such payments are not going to happen. You're coming up with a "favoured trade partner" or whatever status with Uganda; you'll be able to do that with Britain as well. The British isles aren't floating away to the Atlantic, and the countries will need to continue trading.

EU is not working very well. The leader of the Commission is a drunkard. Institutions are grabbing power that I and very many others want to belong to national governments. The union wants to expand to new countries and deepen to a federal state at the same time. Very many people want free trade, but otherwise want to retain national sovereignty. Accept that, stop blaming Trump and shadowy conspiracies.

View on HN

200 billion is most probably too high, but dozens of billons? Easily. The UK has committed themselves to paying this, they don't get to withhold the money now.

Those sums aren't some arbitrarily thought up "exit fees", it's regular funding that has been decided on and committed to years ago.

If the UK wanted to avoid that they should have exited somewhere in the future, outside of the current budgetary periods.

Actually they do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/100bn-brexit-bill...

The legality is irrelevant.

If Britain refuses to pay what the rEU decides is fair, it will have a very poor position for the trade negotiations which follow.

(I'm not paying to read the Telegraph, but "admit" in the headline is loaded language, and intentionally missing the point.)

it is politically impossible to pay a bill of that scale when the UK has paid in for 40 years

the prime minister would be out within hours and would be replaced by someone who would refuse to pay it

No, Britain will have a very poor position in the negotiations that follow regardless. That's why the E.U. is insisting on the payments and citizen's rights issues being resolved first: they want a British commitment to items the E.U. cares about without having to make any concessions. If you think the E.U. will go back and renegotiate, or take British payments into account at later stages of negotiation, you're as delusional as May.

I hate to admit it, but May and Davis should absolutely refuse to play ball. They should agree to terms they think are fair here, and if the E.U. doesn't go along, prepare for a really hard brexit. Which of course means that they'll capitulate.

> prepare for a really hard brexit. Which of course means that they'll capitulate.

Ah, the "throw your steering wheel out the window" strategy in "chicken". Greece tried this. It didn't work.

What sort of "capitulation" do you expect? The EU have already said that any deal cannot be allowed to be better than EU membership (which is kind of obvious). Would "hard Brexit" include deporting the 3m EU nationals in the UK? How do you expect that to work out?

The UK is not Greece - it is, still, one of the most advanced and powerful countries in the world, of global importance culturally, economically, scientifically, militarily, and in myriad other ways. For its own sake the EU better hope the UK does not go tits up.

> the EU better hope the UK does not go tits up

Well, so do we all, so why are we doing this Brexit thing again?

Many of the really bad potential outcomes are truly within British control, such as refusing to guarantee residency to current EU residents.

A very leading question on your part there! Obviously the UK doing well outside the EU is Brussels' worst nightmare, but unless you have a crystal ball I don't think anything can be assumed either way at this point.

> the UK doing well outside the EU is Brussels' worst nightmare

So .. how, specifically, plausibly, is this going to work? What would be the main industries involved here? To whom are we going to export that we don't currently? Does this extra-EU UK include Northern Ireland? Scotland What does the border with the Republic of Ireland look like? What happens to the EU nationals already here? What happens to the British nationals in the EU?

I'm not asking for a crystal ball, I'm asking for a plan, which has been conspicuously missing. It really ought to be in the Conservative manifesto, but isn't yet.

Economists have been saying for years that the UK economy is too heavily weighted towards finance. We now have an opportunity to resolve that. On the question of what our main industries should be - how is the UK unique in facing this dilemma?

Plenty of countries seem to find other countries to export to without being in the EU.

I would expect NI to remain in the UK for a while yet. Given that we managed to bring a terrible hundreds of years long conflict to peace, surely we have the capacity to find a solution to this issue also.

If Scotland chooses independence I wish them good luck. I think it will be a shame, but Scotland is beautiful and I will still visit, and I hope Scots will still feel welcome in whatever remains of the UK. I don't understand why the break up of the UK should be thought of as so terrifying. It's not like Hadrian's wall would be going back up.

I'd expect some kind of arrangement to be reached on expats because forced repatriation would be terrible PR on both sides. That said, the EU has more to lose on this issue as there are far more EU citizens in the UK than the reverse, and these EU citizens in the UK are mainly of working age, and the EU cannot provide enough employment as it is (hence these EU citizens coming to the UK for work).

I agree it would have been better for the government to have a plan. There was a considerable degree of complacency that there would be a victory for Remain. Clearly there are many issues to be resolved, but I think it's a little premature to write off the UK.

> Economists have been saying for years that the UK economy is too heavily weighted towards finance. We now have an opportunity to resolve that.

But the cause of this issue is not due to being a member of the EU; other member states have more balanced economies. Can you explain what has prevented successive UK governments from addressing this imbalance, yet will now be resolved by Brexit?

What level of detail should this plan contain? Too much detail and you give away our negotiating position and tie the negotiators hands; too little and people will complain about lack of detail. Would you accept a plan which comes with the caveat that compromise and negotiation means that none of the plan may work out the way it is described? What about a plan that changes on a weekly basis due to circumstances and negotiation?

I don't believe it is possible to provide a plan that will satisfy people who want to remain in the EU, and I believe that people who want to remain in the EU and are asking for a plan know this well.

You're not going to get the plan you want. A vague overview of goals is the best you can hope for, and exactly what you've been given.

The EU has a plan in public: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/31/full-eus-draft-gu...

So does the UK:

https://www.planforbritain.gov.uk/information-leaving-eu/ https://www.planforbritain.gov.uk/12-negotiating-objectives/

Let me guess. Not enough detail?

>Many of the really bad potential outcomes are truly within British control, such as refusing to guarantee residency to current EU residents.

Hasn't the British leadership been saying all the time that they want a mutual agreement to guarantee residency? Of course they cannot give a unilateral guarantee, such an agreement is needed. It's the EU that's acting stupid here.

It's absolutely clear that a deal between EU and Britain will involve mutual agreement to allow current resident to stay, both ways. Handling future residencies may then be different.

I trust this so much that I'll support my kid to start in a university in UK this fall, and the Brexit outcome will likely be seen during his studies. I'm certain that his studies won't be interrupted because of residency issues.

Of course the UK could give a unilateral guarantee. Why shouldn't they be able to?

The EU has already offered an agreement to May, but she refused -- it guaranteed more rights (existing rights) than she wanted.

It's also not at all clear who will be able to stay. Students? Pensioners? Unemployed people? Family members? Seasonal workers?

My colleague's daughter will be studying elsewhere this autumn. She was interested in a British university, but her parents didn't want the risk of international fees in the future.

Can you clarify what this poor trade negotiation position is?

Worst case, we go to WTO tariffs. The effect of that in theory is that EU imports to the UK will reduce, as they become more expensive relative to the same goods from non-EU countries (note that our tariffs to non-EU countries will reduce post Brexit).

UK exports to the EU will also reduce for the same reason. However, given that we're a net importer it should be clear who is in the worst position.

If the UK can sign a couple of decent trade deals with large economies like India, USA, China then we won't be worried about the EU trade at all.

Can they sign those trade deals? When? In ten to twelve years?

The UK doesn't even have the bureaucracy anymore, the capable negotiators to conduct more than a few smaller or maybe one big trade deal.

The deals between the EU and Switzerland took more than a decade. And Switzerland didn't poison the atmosphere.

Additionally, the US aren't in a big hurry. Trump said otherwise while he was campaigning, but now he has already made clear tzhat a trade deal with the EU is a priority and the UK will have to wait (after Merkel had to tell him ten times that Germany cannot and will not negotiate a separate trade deal with the US).

I wish the UK the best, but I am very much in favor of us playing hardball. It's fascinating to watch the UK's non-strategy, a bit like a bit car crash. You have guilty feelings about stopping and staring, but you just cannot help it.

You don't actually need a trade deal with a country to trade successfully with them (hopefully I don't need to give examples of this).

I think you overestimate how long it takes to sign a unilateral trade deal when the parties want to make it happen. The reason the EU trade deals take so long is that 28 countries have to agree on the EU side (which will indeed be a problem for Brexit, but hardly the UK's fault).

Non strategy? As previously stated, we have a net trade deficit with the EU and are the EU's biggest export destination. Do you really think BMW group etc are going to want to stop selling cars to the UK?

Also as previously pointed out any import/export detriment to the UK from increased tariffs will be offset by the corresponding tariff reduction when trading with the rest of the world. That's not the case for the EU.

That's without considering the money we'll save on contributing to the EU budgets.

Those sums aren't some arbitrarily thought up "exit fees", it's regular funding that has been decided on and committed to years ago

Oh but they are, because they ignore the things that the UK has already paid for! We could for example calculate exactly how many miles of Ireland's EU-funded road building projects are actually "owned" by the UK based on our contribution. Should we be entitled to charge Ireland tolls for those sections of roads too?

Dozens of billions I agree with. But isn't £12 billion just the accepted EU membership cost after rebates that we continue to pay while we negotiate our leaving the EU? This 'Brexit divorce' bill of €100 billion (£84 billion) confuses me. As far as I understand this is to cover commitment costs to the year 2020. £84 billion over that period is £24 billion yes? How does this square with the £12 billion annual cost of EU membership after rebates? Does this then mean that the £24 billion a year Brexit divorce bill consists of the 'known' £12 billion membership commitments and then £12 billion 'hidden' costs or is it the £12 billion known membership fee plus hidden costs of a £24 billion divorce bill? If it is indeed a punitive financial slap for leaving, does this not make the inherent attitudes of the EU powers that be somewhat akin to a cult like Scientology?

Those sums aren't some arbitrarily thought up "exit fees"

They are, actually:

1) The number being cited keeps changing (upwards)

2) When asked how they calculated those figures, and what the legal basis was, the Commission said it wasn't going to tell you.

There is a useful analysis of what's going on here:

https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/pb_barker_brexit_...

Exactly. "Trump and his billionaire friends bought the Brexit vote", even before Trump became president. This is just typical leftst rethoric of not accepting defeat. The UK (67% of the people, not the government) voted to be a part of the CE, not the EU. Then the EU happened, the Euro, the centralization of power and now Germany runs the show, unilaterally imposes austerity on other states (Greece, Cyprus, Italy), invites in 2+M refugees and then imposes migrant quotas on everyone.

The EU president is taking a rough stance with the UK to make an example out of it.

"people in Britain actually disliked EU enough to want to get out of it"

The people of Britain where split 52% - 48%. Hardly a clear mandate politicians make it to be.

Note that the split was between classes, a term that has been anathema in western politics since the 80s or so.

Present and former industrial workers basically all voted leave, while knowledge workers and finance voted remain.

What is telling is how the former class' way of life was ravaged first by thatcher's union busting, and then by management (under pressure from finance) either moving production abroad, or shipping cheap workers in.

Knowledge workers, particularly the kind that is frequenting this very site, have a much easier time moving around as the needs or desires require. Especially as the market segment prefer younger employees, unlikely to be "burdened" by family and such.

> Present and former industrial workers basically all voted leave, while knowledge workers and finance voted remain.

Do you have a source for that claim?

According to The Australian:

"Leave was backed by almost two-thirds of those considered “working class and non-workers”, meaning skilled manual workers through to those with lower grade jobs, pensioners or welfare dependants."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/brexit-who-vot...

You omitted the young Vs old divide.

'shipping cheap workers in'.. and from where did these workers come? The EU perhaps?

Hence the general election.

Don't think it is "hence". Whether to exit the EU or not is not up for vote.

Yes, it is. The commission have said article 50 is reversible, and intermediate arrangements can be indefinite. One party is campaigning for another referendum. And so on.

Your original comment was about mandate; that is what I will be voting for.

" krona 2 minutes ago [-]

Yes, it is. The commission have said article 50 is reversible, and intermediate arrangements can be indefinite. One party is campaigning for another referendum. And so on. Your original comment was about mandate; that is what I will be voting for."

I have no problem with that.

I just wanted to say that I agree with you and I find your point perfectly respectable, and I have no idea why you get downvoted.

On a related tangent, what reasons are there not to publicize votes and voters in discussion fora?

I think it would be very interesting to be able to identify "voting blocks" and voting patterns on HN. I'm not saying HN should implement that, but it could make for an interesting experimental feature for forum software.

> The British isles aren't floating away to the Atlantic, and the countries will need to continue trading.

Europe has been bluntly honest about this. They've said that the UK leaving the single market will hurt them, but they're bigger than the UK and the UK will hurt more. They've also pointed out that they can't give the UK a soft landing, as they need to show that leaving the EU is not without consequences; there's a few states thinking of departing, and if departing is painless, why wouldn't they?

Remember that the EU isn't just about the fat cats in Brussels. It's also about bringing the people together. Europe has historically been the most divisive and warlike continent, with neighbours at each others' throats since records began. You only need to go back to the 90s to see a genocide between europeans who looked the same as each other, and it's within living memory that Europe gave us the worst war of all time and the Holocaust. But 'bendy bananas' is worth it, right?

If EU needs to scare its members to show how badly a leaving member would be treated, it's no longer a union of consenting, democratic members. It's not the union that I voted to join, a union that works for the benefit of member countries under guidance of their respective governments for free trade and co-operation; someone started to build an empire and is now mightily pissed off as some people don't want to be in an empire but just have a free trade union of independent countries.

This is naive. Divorces are designed to be painful and marriage was literally a union of people who wanted to be together.

> They've also pointed out that they can't give the UK a soft landing, as they need to show that leaving the EU is not without consequences; there's a few states thinking of departing, and if departing is painless, why wouldn't they?

You've just described an abusive relationship. The EU should make people want to be in it, not afraid of leaving it. Are other EU member states OK with being bullied and threatened in this manner?

"Remember that the EU isn't just about the fat cats in Brussels. It's also about bringing the people together. Europe has historically been the most divisive and warlike continent, with neighbours at each others' throats since records began..."

The creation of the EU may or may not have helped to bring peace in the beginning, but there's no reason to think it has anything to do with maintaining peace today. We have the UN, NATO, and the unimaginable destructive power of modern weaponary keeping the peace between nations in Europe today. Heck, even the "World shrinking" power of the Internet probably plays a bigger part these days.

"The creation of the EU may or may not have helped to bring peace in the beginning"

May or may not? Care to point out the last war between EU members?

Did you not get as far as the sentence immediately following the one you quoted? I listed a bunch of likely reasons for there being no War between EU countries.

Just because the EU happened to exist during a period of peace, does not mean it is the reason for it. There was a little thing called World War 2 that may also have played a part.

Care to point out the last war between two first world democratic countries?

Given that 'first world' means 'US and its allies', that's clearly a loaded question. There was no war between second-world communist countries either.

If you take out the 'first world' bit, then yes, there's been plenty of war between democracies, including World War I: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

How many of those communist countries were democracies though?

I think my point stands, it's pretty rare for democracies to go to war. If you take the example of WW1, I doubt many people would consider Germany to have been a democracy in our modern understanding of the word.

Anyway where's your evidence that the EU somehow prevents war?

There's nothing to stop the EU going to war with someone else (when they get a military) for starters.

"First world" nowadays effectively includes much of the original "Third world" (such as Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, France, Yugoslavia or Mexico ).

As I understand it (American here), it's not only about preventing member countries from leaving the EU. It's also about stifling separatism within those countries. If Britain can leave the EU without painful trade restrictions, then regions like Catalonia may find less convincing the argument that they must remain part of Spain in order to enjoy the benefits of the EU.

What about stifling separatism as an effect if the refugee crisis that Bruxelles was unable to manage, which prompted leaders like Orban to take matters into their own hands?

The same argument could be used for keeping Silesia inside Poland or Catalonia inside Spain - surely you want them to want to stay,not keep them by force, right? But both of those regions(and I am sure there are others like it around the globe) have their own groups of people who are unhappy to be part of a larger country and have aggressive campaigns to leave.

In an ideal world, I would like all EU countries to merge into one Federal Republic, like US, where UK trying to leave would be no less ridiculous than Silesia trying to leave Poland or Oregon trying to leave US. Yes, they all can - but it doesn't make the idea any less stupid.

..Silesia inside Poland [..]But both of those regions(and I am sure there are others like it around the globe) have their own groups of people who are unhappy to be part of a larger country and have aggressive campaigns to leave.

You are imagining things - there's no real separatist movement in Silesia, those who campaign for "independence", are just doing it as a practical joke, the same way some people in US declare their religion as "Jedi" and have some meet-ups, local fan groups, etc. Plus, there's only few hundred, maybe a thousand of them.

Please, do not give HN community the wrong impression that they are a real thing.

I'm really confused here. Maybe the community that would like Silesia to be independent is small, but it's real. The one that wants independence of Catalonia certainly is very real.

I mean, what's your main argument here, I feel like you haven't even addressed my main point?

My main point was that I'm sick and tired with the amount of FUD about Poland in the West, so I wanted to point out the false analogies.

Silesia is nothing like Catalonia - I know that because I live there (Silesia, I mean). There's no real support for the separatists ideas, because at the end of the day Silesians are not really that different from Poles - except maybe that they talk with slight accent and have a dozen or two of words borrowed from German. The concept of them demanding autonomy is as alien to me as the Switzerland demanding access to the Atlantic Ocean coast :)

EDIT: to be clear, I have nothing against granting them autonomy. In fact I think that getting rid of Silesia would solve most of Poland's economic problems :)

And the world is quite small and I'm from Silesia as well.

I never said their demands weren't ridiculous, but they do exist. I was expressing a view that countries wanting to leave EU should be seen with the same ridicule as Silesia wanting to leave Poland(as small and insignificant that number of people is). In an ideal world at least.

Self determination is stupid?

What do you mean by that?

It sounded like you said that people choosing to govern themselves is stupid. Like the mere concept of people wanting to be governed by people who at least speak the same language as themselves is ridiculous.

>a few states thinking of departing, and if departing is painless, why wouldn't they?

That sounds awfully... federalist. If that's the best reasoning they can give for staying, then better to leave.

The stick is the only thing left if you throw away the carrot.

"They've also pointed out that they can't give the UK a soft landing, as they need to show that leaving the EU is not without consequences; there's a few states thinking of departing, and if departing is painless, why wouldn't they?"

That says something truly horrible about the EU as an institution - that, by the admission of its leaders, what they think will continue to hold it together in the future is threats and intimidation.

Presumably this is because they intend to enact more Weimar-style tactics like they did to Greece and Cyprus and they think that the consequent impetus to leave across the EU will only strengthen.

The fact that they've been clear, up front and honest about this and May is in denial about it doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

The threat isn't one of invasion or punitive payments, it's simply "if you leave, we're not going to give you preferential treatment in trade or politics". It's kind've self-evident - if you choose to leave the union, why should you still get to play with their toys? If a US state seceded from the union (not that it can), the US wouldn't give it sweetheart deals.

If you choose to go it alone, then why shouldn't the union say 'business is business', and do the standard thing in business: hardball. Use your size to squeeze the best possible deal for yourself. The UK 'wanted' out, and that's what 'out' gets you.

I think it would be way easier to devolve into an authoritarian government when there's no one to tell you to slow down and rethink it.

There's already plenty of Nazis in Britain. "Britannia rules", "Destroy the fascist/socialist/capitalist EU" (yeah, make up your mind please), "kick out the foreigners".

Remove the EU oversight and they can do whatever they want.

are there really that many Nazis in Britain? Sure, the BNP are pretty fascist, but they're such a minority party as to be almost completely irrelevant. Being a nationalist, disliking the EU or being anti-immigration are not traits that make someone a Nazi, and overusing the term diminishes quite how horrific the Nazis were and makes room for actual neo-Nazis to think they are more commonplace than they are, bolstering their confidence.

If you want to criticise people for these traits then do so, but using "Nazi" as a snarl word does nothing to back up your point. If you are arguing that there are many actual Nazis in the UK, I'm fairly skeptical but open to believing you if you have the data to back up your position.

I don't know their actual numbers. Yeah, probably should've said Nationalists, but I wanted to accentuate what the worst case scenario happened. Unlike other countries with nationalism on the rise, the UK can actually do a lot of damage (including to itself).

I don't think nationalism is really tied to Nazism fundamentally. Nazis were very ethnically focused where civic nationalism really isn't - it's about valuing your own country and it's history, and wanting to protect its values. It's basically a synonym with patriotism. It's a big leap to go from nationalism to Nazism.

> It's a big leap to go from nationalism to Nazism.

No, it's not. Just look at what happened to the AfD in Germany - first they were just euro-critical nationalists, and not even three years later they have open holocaust denials in the front row (http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/afd-politiker-designi...).

Add to this the countless other antisemites, supporters of right-wing terrorists like PEGIDA - Petr Bystron, leader of AfD Bayern, calls for the AfD being a "shield" for Pegida and Identitäre Bewegung, while Heinz Meyer, leader of Pegida München, is under suspicion of founding a terrorist group - the road from nationalism to outright nazism and terrorism is VERY short.

I think Germany is a bit of a special case here, for obvious reasons. Consider that the Republican party in the US is nationalistic, but nothing like the Nazis. The conservative party in the UK is nationalistic (queen and country and all that), but isn't Nazi-like.

> Consider that the Republican party in the US is nationalistic, but nothing like the Nazis

Would you bet on this still being the case in four years? With Bannon (of Breitbart "fame") and friends in the government, plus all the open xenophobia and what I can only summarize as "politics for old white men"... the Republicans have always been right-wing but after 8 years of opposing Obama (including the rise of the Tea Party) they've went very far to the right already.

For what it's worth, some of the most vocal Trump supporter base (especially in the Internet, /pol etc.) are outright Nazis. And no, I don't consider smearing swastikas as "for the lulz" but as open worshipping of Nazism instead.

yes, I would bet on this being the case in four years. Bannon (and Breitbart in general) are not Nazis, Trump received a larger share of the AA and hispanic vote than Romney (and doesn't appear to me to be a racist, despite near-constant insistence from journalists that he is), and isn't the Tea Party about libertarianism?

I wouldn't take anything that comes out of 4chan seriously, as they're known for intentionally riding the line of Poe's law. In the same way that I assume /r9k/ isn't full of obese autistic children who abuse their mothers, I assume /pol/ isn't full of fervent Nazis who hate Jews.

>I would bet on this being the case in four years

Sure, I doubt the Republican party will be aligned with Nazism or anything like it, but there are new elements (from Trump's side) that want to push it in that direction. I don't think they'll succeed in the long-term, but the risk is there.

>Bannon (and Breitbart in general) are not Nazis

Nazism/National Socialism refers to a specific German ideology. Of course neither Brannon nor Breitbart are aligned with Nazism. But that's obviously not what the parent post was trying to directly say.

Breitbart and Bannonism promotes a very ethno-nationalistic agenda (among other agendas), with elements of various philosophies from the past century. It'd be very ignorant to just call them all Nazis or fascists, but also ignorant to say that because they're not Nazis they don't share any of their views.

Breitbart and Bannon are:

* Very anti-immigration from countries that don't have a high percentage of whites (see Bannon's comments on Asian immigrants, and his and Breitbart's comments on Muslim immigration, Mexican immigration, etc.)

* Extremely pro-Christianity and anti-Islam

* Pro-Zionist, as part of what Bannon sees as some sort of global "war" between Judeo-Christianity and Islam

* Anti-American (or non-conservative) Jews (see Bannon's alleged comments to his wife about not wanting his kids in a school with so many Jews and "too many Hanukkah books", and far-right nationalist Jews like David Horowitz posting articles attacking American Jews like Bill Kristol for not being sufficiently pro-Israel and pro-Trump)

What do you call an ideology like that? No it's not Nazism, but it's ultra-nationalistic and sees a large portion of the world population as essentially being lesser than the populations of predominantly-white countries. Bannon clearly wants America to have some degree of ethnic purity, which is similar to far-right ideologies like the Nazis'.

To be clear, that oversimplifies Bannon's beliefs, as he certainly has a strong economic-nationalist, protectionist, and authoritarian ideology as well. But between almost anyone else who's held so much power in the White House, he's probably the closest we've had so far to a Nazi, even if he absolutely is not a Nazi.

>I wouldn't take anything that comes out of 4chan seriously, as they're known for intentionally riding the line of Poe's law. In the same way that I assume /r9k/ isn't full of obese autistic children who abuse their mothers, I assume /pol/ isn't full of fervent Nazis who hate Jews.

This is an argument Milo and others use a lot. That it's all just ironic or post-post-post-post ironic trolling and most of them don't really believe the shitposts they make. And /pol/ (and /new/ and /b/) did start out that way, with an ironic edginess rather than genuine contempt towards non-whites and women, but starting around 2011 or 2012, /pol/ was slowly co-opted by full-on Stormfronters.

Look at /pol/ today and tell me that they don't have a very sizeable % of posters who genuinely admire Hitler and want a Nazi-like regime.

As for /r9k/, that's more of a mixed bag with a lot more trolling and baiting, but I think you'd agree at least 40% of the regular posters there genuinely detest "roasties".

> I wouldn't take anything that comes out of 4chan seriously, as they're known for intentionally riding the line of Poe's law.

Well, you don't take 4chan seriously... but unfortunately e.g. police tends to do so, just look at the countless swattings. Or the media, look at the Macron fake leaks or the massive hate campaigns which now mostly originate on 4chan since reddit has banned doxxing outright or dedicated hate places like fatpeoplehate.

> and doesn't appear to me to be a racist, despite near-constant insistence from journalists that he is

Uh. Have you never watched a Trump speech, or the executive orders from Trump and their fallout?! Donald Trump is at the very least an open racist, with some of his actions leaning towards Nazism.

> Trump received a larger share of the AA and hispanic vote than Romney

No one forbids people to vote for Trump even if the consequences will directly harm themselves. In fact, anyone who voted for Trump except the rich could have known that he/she voted for a racist who will do anything to harm them if it suits his way.

> Bannon (and Breitbart in general) are not Nazis

Breitbart is a frontrunner of pushing antisemitic and xenophobic propaganda. You'll find interesting parallels between Breitbart pieces and the realities of Nazi Germany. Trust us Germans on this one, it appears that due to our history we spot the parallels easier than others.

Also, Nazism did not start with Auschwitz, it began with xenophobia, us-vs-them (i.e. us-vs-jews) divisive rhetoric (which is now rebranded as us-vs-muslims/us-vs-"illegal immigrants"), propaganda (as "fake news" were called at the time), anti-"communist" fights, plus a healthy dose of imperialism ("Lebensraumerweiterung"). The only thing which the Trump presidency and his supporters lack currently is the aggressive imperialism, but he's doing some "progress" in that area.

No the repubs are not nationalistic. If they were they would not have been so eager to sell themselves to the Russians.

> I don't think nationalism is really tied to Nazism fundamentally.

Nationalism is inherently tied to xenophobic forms of right-authoritarianism, though not necessarily the particular forms called out as Nazism or Fascism.

> It's basically a synonym with patriotism

No, it's not, though nationalists equate the two.

There's always a scapegoat. Whether it's the jews, the foreigners, the oppressive union, the former Nazis, nationalists will find something to blame but their own people or country.

" It's a big leap to go from nationalism to Nazism."

No it's not. Nazi comes from German: Nazionalsozialismus. National socialism. Propaganda peeps love pulling that one.

Do you think it's also a small leap from socialism to Nazism? FYI, Hitler took over the Nazi party and reshaped it in his image. Nationalism is a right wing ideology where national socialism is "third position" which is a rejection of both left and right politics.

How are we to know which words you mean, and which words you don't mean?

This argument for increased centralization has become very tiring, on both sides of the Atlantic.

"If you let people form smaller communities, some of those smaller communities might contain NAZIS!!!! Won't somebody think of the children?????"

The government is thinking about the children. They will know exactly what people think of the children.

I have no sympathy with your argument, which boils down to the "British cannot be trusted to boot out a government they don't approve of", which begs a few questions. EU oversight is overrated (current Hungarian and Polish governments kept in check?) and lacks its own checks and balances (EU parliament is a uniquely weak affair).

If anything EU rules are making the situation worse.

And it would not surprise me if elements within EU welcome the rise of these groups, because as it was said about Mussolini "at least he made the trains run on time".

Damn it, just watch the events in Greece a year or so ago.

If anything, EU rules and regulations is what is giving those groups fuel to their fire.

Leaving EU, thus allowing a debate about these issues without the EU regulations acting as a trump card, may well de-fang them.

So far, it looks like they'll continue to blame the EU long after the exit. Oh, they're fucking up our trade deals because US/China has preference for larger trading partners, oh, they're a protection racket that doesn't allow us to talk to members separately, oh France/ROI doesn't give a shit about illegals crossing the border, oh Germany is forcing the EU to buy from them instead of the UK (not because the quality is better and taxes are lower, they're just the 4th Reich obviously)...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com