Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Cheesy]

I completely agree with @Bury Red and I feel the same way. I like being in Europe, I like being a European and I have no desire to go back to what we had when I was younger. I'm still really angry that that's been taken away from me.

We have to assume that the people who chose not to vote were not interested in/uninformed about the whole thing, which generally happens if you are OK with the status quo. If someone offers you something different, people who want it will not miss their chance to vote. The same thing happened in the Welsh Assembly vote, I think just over one-quarter of the electorate actually voted "yes". Almost three-quarters either voted "no" or simply didn't care enough about it to vote at all.

I really think that for referendums, we need a much higher percentage voting "yes" before any changes are made - at least 75%.

The problem is though that this is a bit of a dangerous assumption. You can assume that, yeah, but it could also equally be argued the other way: that people who didn't vote didn't care all that much about the EU and weren't bothered about remaining in it, but didn't care enough to leave either. You'd also probably never see referendums on such issues - David Cameron would've never offered a Scottish or EU referendum at all had it required 75% to pass, because it'd be a waste of time since everyone knows it's not going to be anywhere near that high.

75% is just a bit too big of a number. It's massive - imagine 74.9% of the population voting one way on a particular issue and not getting it. You'd be talking about denying the will of an overwhelming, emphatic majority.

I wonder if a sort of "best of three" option would be viable for such decisions? Have three votes, spread over a few months. First to two wins - you've then got a decisive, confirmed choice, and more of a basis that it wasn't a kneejerk, sudden reaction.

 

[devilish]

I don't think that'd work. Such figures would probably end up being relatively spineless, more propaganda tools for bigger EU figures than anything else. They'd also probably be construed by a large part of the general public as out of touch figures coming over to tell us what to think...and they'd maybe have a point. I mean, what would happen when someone makes a legit criticism of the EU? Does the ambassador just go, "Yeah, fair enough", or do they argue in favour of everything EU related?

He would be giving the eu perspective of issues + he would feed the eu with information regarding what is hurting the people living most. Populism is spreading like wildfire and the eu have been caught napping on a number of issues. It's time we counterattack Populism

 

[Wibble]

I completely agree with @Bury Red and I feel the same way. I like being in Europe, I like being a European and I have no desire to go back to what we had when I was younger. I'm still really angry that that's been taken away from me.

We have to assume that the people who chose not to vote were not interested in/uninformed about the whole thing, which generally happens if you are OK with the status quo. If someone offers you something different, people who want it will not miss their chance to vote. The same thing happened in the Welsh Assembly vote, I think just over one-quarter of the electorate actually voted "yes". Almost three-quarters either voted "no" or simply didn't care enough about it to vote at all.

I really think that for referendums, we need a much higher percentage voting "yes" before any changes are made - at least 75%.

Voting (or at least turning up to vote) should be compulsory. It is here and nobody finds it odd. There is a small fine if you don't and there are few who actually don't want to vote, just lots of lazy people.

 

[Wibble]

The strongest support for Brexit came from Conservatives, not Labour. Labuor Brexit voters were well under half of 2015 Labour voters.
Of course, it may be true that a majority of the the Conservative Brexit voters are working class, in which case, they voted against their interests repeatedly.

I was talking about places that get the most benefits from EU funding

 

[Jippy]

The problem is though that this is a bit of a dangerous assumption. You can assume that, yeah, but it could also equally be argued the other way: that people who didn't vote didn't care all that much about the EU and weren't bothered about remaining in it, but didn't care enough to leave either. You'd also probably never see referendums on such issues - David Cameron would've never offered a Scottish or EU referendum at all had it required 75% to pass, because it'd be a waste of time since everyone knows it's not going to be anywhere near that high.

75% is just a bit too big of a number. It's massive - imagine 74.9% of the population voting one way on a particular issue and not getting it. You'd be talking about denying the will of an overwhelming, emphatic majority.

I wonder if a sort of "best of three" option would be viable for such decisions? Have three votes, spread over a few months. First to two wins - you've then got a decisive, confirmed choice, and more of a basis that it wasn't a kneejerk, sudden reaction.

Not sure about best of three- it would drag on interminably.
If the threshold was 51% of the electorate, rather than the turnout, that might be a start. If you start considering whether it should be 60% or 75%, the numbers are just arbitrary.

 

[Cheesy]

Not sure about best of three- it would drag on interminably.
If the threshold was 51% of the electorate, rather than the turnout, that might be a start. If you start considering whether it should be 60% or 75%, the numbers are just arbitrary.

Problem is though, this pretty much makes most referendums pointless; even the popular ones with high turnout will almost certainly not have over 50% of the vote in their favour unless they win by a landslide.

And it doesn't really settle anything. If a majority vote for a change in a referendum and don't get it, they just keep on campaigning until they get another referendum and they then do win. Why should the status quo choice receive automatic protection? Surely if 50% of the turnout don't vote to Remain within the EU either, it shouldn't be recognised as a valid result? I struggle to see the point in a referendum at all if you're potentially going to just ignore the winner.

 

[Jippy]

Problem is though, this pretty much makes most referendums pointless; even the popular ones with high turnout will almost certainly not have over 50% of the vote in their favour unless they win by a landslide.

And it doesn't really settle anything. If a majority vote for a change in a referendum and don't get it, they just keep on campaigning until they get another referendum and they then do win. Why should the status quo choice receive automatic protection? Surely if 50% of the turnout don't vote to Remain within the EU either, it shouldn't be recognised as a valid result? I struggle to see the point in a referendum at all if you're potentially going to just ignore the winner.

Yeah, fair point. As Bury said though, leaving cos 36% voted for it doesn't feel right at all.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I completely agree with @Bury Red and I feel the same way. I like being in Europe, I like being a European and I have no desire to go back to what we had when I was younger. I'm still really angry that that's been taken away from me.

We have to assume that the people who chose not to vote were not interested in/uninformed about the whole thing, which generally happens if you are OK with the status quo. If someone offers you something different, people who want it will not miss their chance to vote. The same thing happened in the Welsh Assembly vote, I think just over one-quarter of the electorate actually voted "yes". Almost three-quarters either voted "no" or simply didn't care enough about it to vote at all.

I really think that for referendums, we need a much higher percentage voting "yes" before any changes are made - at least 75%.

I've tried to avoid posting in any Brexit thread but thought I'd just say that very little will happen till about 2019 or even 2020 and then I still think the Uk and the EU will come to some sort of agreement . Probably meaning the Uk will still have access to the single market but still to accept freedom of movement but not having a vote in the EU parliament. I will congratulate Brexit on a completely pointless win whilst the Uk economy suffers.
Anyway I wouldn't be so downcast, your European rights and situation will probably not change, just your pocket will be hit.

What I do find amusing is those who say that they don't seem to notice much difference since the referendum. Well apart from the Pound collapsing nothing much has happened, because the Uk haven't left yet!

 

[devilish]

Voting

I think that the problem in the UK is that the system seem to be built in a way to incentive people not to vote. As said before, I voted in the UK general elections last time round and I was shocked how ridiculous the system is. First of all the list I had to choose from were 5 random dudes I've never heard about. Secondly the area I live in is so Tory that voting to anybody apart from the Tories is considered a wasted vote. Finally the system is so skewed that the 3rd most popular party ended up with just 1 seat. Taking such system in consideration why bother? Especially voting seem to be done on a working day so anyone who bothers working is disadvantaged as opposed to the elderly and the bums.

I am aware that there's a big difference between referendums and GE. However these are people who had learnt that their vote is worth nothing. Can you really blame them for not turning up when it really matters?

What I find ridiculous is why British expats and immigrants who had been working in the UK for a number of years weren't allowed to vote. These are the people who will be impacted the most by Brexit. What kind of message do you give when elderly people with one foot in the grave/bums who spend days in the pub are allowed to choose the UK's future while those who actually finance them through their own taxes aren't?

Brexit reasons

I think that the Leavers have a point. I am all in favour of freedom of movement but it was naive to think that if third world countries are allowed within the EU there wouldn't be an exodus of immigrants from poor countries to the richer ones. Its also ridiculous to think that uncontrolled and unmonitored mass immigration wont cause a havoc in local communities. Immigration should have been better monitored with EU new applicants being carefully vetted and with freedom of movement rights being countered with duties. For example an EU criminal should be deported and his freedom of movement right revoked for a number of years. Also Immigrants shouldn't be allowed to stay in a country without having a job either.

Having said

a- while reform was necessary the UK's decision of choosing the nuclear option (Brexit) was stupid. Many EU countries are fed up of this sort of freedom of movement and if the UK cared of leading the dances by asking for some serious reforms on this regards then rest assured that plenty of countries would have supported them.

b- reforms would have cut both ways. There's plenty of UK expats who live in mainland Europe who do absolutely nothing (ie they are retired). Some of them are so patronising that they can piss even the most Anglophiles of people.

What truly pisses me off about Brexit is not Brexit itself but the very fact that lead to Brexit. Politicians pushed Brexit because of their own agenda and with total disregard of what is good for the country. They backed something they disagreed on (Boris) or simply have no clue about (Davis and Farage). They lied (Gove, Farage) and insulted people/institutions that they are bound to make a trade deal with (Boris) and when shit hits fan they simply jumped ship. That's totally unacceptable. Hence why I believe a second referendum (or alternatively an early GE is called) is necessary in few years time. It wont be between Brexit or remaining but between the status quo (ie revoking Brexit) and any deal negotiated by the Boris-Fox-Davis axis. Let the British people vote on something tangible rather then on lies and wishful thinking.

Brexit success

I seriously cant see a way of how the UK can get away with this. A good deal with the EU will mean the consensus of all EU nation, many of whom having a different agenda from one another. Germany may be persuaded to be more flexible regarding freedom of movement if the automobile sector is safeguarded but others simply cant care less about Germany's automobile sector and would want something else. There would also be countries who would be eyeing London's financial services and if they are confident that they can take a big piece of the cake, then rest assured that they will veto anything on their way and force the UK for a hard Brexit. Neither the EAA (which needs the approval of all EU + EAA countries) nor the WTO option.

As said, I believe that the only way out of this is to work hard for a Brexit deal and then let the people judge if its good enough for them or not. This time round they will be armed with knowledge rather then lies

 

[JPRouve]

Problem is though, this pretty much makes most referendums pointless; even the popular ones with high turnout will almost certainly not have over 50% of the vote in their favour unless they win by a landslide.

And it doesn't really settle anything. If a majority vote for a change in a referendum and don't get it, they just keep on campaigning until they get another referendum and they then do win. Why should the status quo choice receive automatic protection? Surely if 50% of the turnout don't vote to Remain within the EU either, it shouldn't be recognised as a valid result? I struggle to see the point in a referendum at all if you're potentially going to just ignore the winner.

That's the point though, this type of questions need to fully backed. An easy change needs to be avoided.

 

[Cheesy]

Yeah, fair point. As Bury said though, leaving cos 36% voted for it doesn't feel right at all.

Yeah, I agree. The whole process has seemed a bit silly and rushed, with a narrow victory on the basis of some claims that varied between being tenuous and outright shite...but then we shouldn't have voted in a Tory government who were willing to give a referendum if we weren't willing for that to happen.

It's kind of telling that most of the outrage and annoyance has come afterwards. If Remainers had put as much into the campaign itself as they did into possible revotes and the outrage afterwards, we wouldn't be in this position now.

Voting

I think that the problem in the UK is that the system seem to be built in a way to incentive people not to vote. As said before, I voted in the UK general elections last time round and I was shocked how ridiculous the system is. First of all the list I had to choose from were 5 random dudes I've never heard about. Secondly the area I live in is so Tory that voting to anybody apart from the Tories is considered a wasted vote. Finally the system is so skewed that the 3rd most popular party ended up with just 1 seat. Taking such system in consideration why bother? Especially voting seem to be done on a working day so anyone who bothers working is disadvantaged as opposed to the elderly and the bums.

I am aware that there's a big difference between referendums and GE. However these are people who had learnt that their vote is worth nothing. Can you really blame them for not turning up when it really matters?

What I find ridiculous is why British expats and immigrants who had been working in the UK for a number of years weren't allowed to vote. These are the people who will be impacted the most by Brexit. What kind of message do you give when elderly people with one foot in the grave/bums who spend days in the pub are allowed to choose the UK's future while those who actually finance them through their own taxes aren't?

Pretty much spot on. The FPTP system is a bit silly and ridiculous. Counter-arguments often say it's there so we all have our own MP's, but then a lot of MP's are shit and very comfortable in their positions, often voted in with very low mandates of under 50%. They tow the party line anyway, meaning there's no reason to go for an individual candidate instead of a party unless you find them to be an excellent representative.

Again, though...we bring it on ourselves by allowing for it to continue. It's not easy to change, yeah, but if Remainers are annoyed that more people didn't turn out to vote and that there wasn't enough interest, then they should absolutely not be voting for the main two parties who allow this apathy through their continued support of a voting system for no other reason than the furthering of their own motives and desire for power. I'm gonna assume a large portion of Remainers were still Tory/Labour voters, and their own parties are very, very responsible for the current apathy and populism in the UK through their own incompetence, partiality to tabloid newspapers who sensationalise news, and desire to take no responsibility for everything and blame the opposition constantly, to the point where people are losing faith in both of them...mainy Labour at the moment.

 

[Cheesy]

That's the point though, this type of questions need to fully backed. An easy change needs to be avoided.

On what basis? Why shouldn't that apply the other way two? What's the reasoning for the change to a status quo needing greater backing, apart from the fact we mostly support the status quo in this instance?

 

[JPRouve]

On what basis? Why shouldn't that apply the other way two? What's the reasoning for the change to a status quo needing greater backing, apart from the fact we mostly support the status quo in this instance?

Because this type of referendums have deep consequences. Just look at the commercial agreements, the UK needs to negotiate with almost every countries on the planet, it's going to take some times, so imagine if a new government decides that a new referendum should be had in 10 or 15 years and the Brexin win with 50.1%, you have to negotiate again with a ton of countries and you put your companies in the uncertainty.

You seem to think that I say it because the Brexit won but it would have been the same story if they lost, that's how it works in France or at Brussel.

 

[Cheesy]

Because this type of referendums have deep consequences. Just look at the commercial agreements, the UK needs to negotiate with almost every countries on the planet, it's going to take some times, so imagine if a new government decides that a new referendum should be had in 10 or 15 years and the Brexin win with 50.1%, you have to negotiate again with a ton of countries and you put your companies in the uncertainty.

You seem to think that I say it because the Brexit won but it would have been the same story if they lost, that's how it works in France or at Brussel.

So why are we having them if we're unwilling to deal with those consequences when the result goes the way which will involve more work/potential disruption? If we were that unhappy with the possibility of Brexit and what it'd involve then people should've been ardently campaigning against one happening, and against voting for any party advocating one in 2015.

 

[JPRouve]

So why are we having them if we're unwilling to deal with those consequences when the result goes the way which will involve more work/potential disruption? If we were that unhappy with the possibility of Brexit and what it'd involve then people should've been ardently campaigning against one happening, and against voting for any party advocating one in 2015.

The problem concerns the swings in opinions, the qualified majority is hardly swinged because there is a 20 points of percentages delta while the simple majority allows a 0.2 delta. Since Brexit is a long term decision, you don't want to put yourself in a situation where you actually don't have the support of the voters for a long time.

As for your second sentence, you are right people should have campaigned against it, if they were against it, instead of just labelling brexiters as "Idiots".

 

[Mozza]

Was the Telegraph's lead story yesterday and they've oddly written it as fact rather than conjecture. I guess they may well be planning it, but getting the EU to agree is a whole other issue.

The Telegraph has become a joke, virtually identical to the Express in its tub thumping

 

[Stanley Road]

Well said Bury. I've already applied for an Irish passport for my son. Wish I could get one.

Im entitled to one, if only i could think of 1 reason why I'd want one

 

[Wibble]

To be part of Europe is a decent reason I'm thinking. For me it is being able live and work where and when I want. My son might well need these rights fairly soon so a UK passport will most likely be useless.

 

[Stanley Road]

He would be giving the eu perspective of issues + he would feed the eu with information regarding what is hurting the people living most. Populism is spreading like wildfire and the eu have been caught napping on a number of issues. It's time we counterattack Populism

Its whats causing a rise in populism that needs to be addressed. unfortunately you may find yourself attacking some of the things you actually stand for.

 

[Stanley Road]

To be part of Europe is a decent reason I'm thinking. For me it is being able live and work where and when I want. My son might well need these rights fairly soon so a UK passport will most likely be useless.

You dont know that yet

 

[Stanley Road]

And as ive mentioned before, we have quite a few non eu passport holders working in our office. If you learn something good passports become irrelevant

 

[Wibble]

And as ive mentioned before, we have quite a few non eu passport holders working in our office. If you learn something good passports become irrelevant

In my son's case a good passport makes a huge difference as there are non-EU quotas.

In my case it will probably prevent me from retiring in Europe.

 

[Massive Spanner]

And as ive mentioned before, we have quite a few non eu passport holders working in our office. If you learn something good passports become irrelevant

That's a very single minded approach.

The difference between being able to enter these countries on a whim to work/travel and having to obtain a very relevant skill set to a particular country at that exact time is quite enormous.

 

[devilish]

Its whats causing a rise in populism that needs to be addressed. unfortunately you may find yourself attacking some of the things you actually stand for.

I think populism rise out of two issues

a- the EU inability to identify what's pissing off people in time and act upon it
b- the people's lack of knowledge about how the EU really works

This allow politicians to exploit the latter to build career in politics by exaggerating the former.

Those politicians who live off populism are usually poorly educated and who wouldn't manage to make the big money they are currently making if it wasn't for the same bureaucracy that they love criticizing. Matteo Salvini, Beppe Grillo (a washed up comedian who created M5S after both Berlusconi and Prodi turned him down), Umberto Bossi, Geert Wilders they seem all cut from that same cloth. Even Britain own's Nigel Farage has no tertiary education and has the cheek to talk about estabilishment and politicians who had never had a career apart from politics (while surrounded by surgeons, former military officers, professors etc).

Alternatively they are the very epitome of hypocrisy. Le Pen used to represent illegal immigrants and is now against them. We've got a girl in Malta whose right hand of our extreme right man (whose obsessed about Europids and is fiercely anti muslim/jew etc) and who was previously married to a Pakistani. Nigel Farage himself is rumoured to have been spotted in a German embassy while working on dual citizenship for his family after working so hard to get Britain out of the EU. Not to forget our own Eurosceptic Ivan Grech Mintoff, another of the many Mintoff's spawns. Duminku Mintoff rose over the wave of Maltese nationalism between the 50s and 80s and dedicated his time trying to break the ties between Malta and Europe (particularly the UK). Which is kind of ironic considering that he was given a scholarship from Oxford University, he was married within the British nobility and had his daughters tutored in the UK. It was hilarious seeing his daughter trying to carry his nationalist banner while barely being able to string an entire sentence in Maltese.



If the EU have professional people, who can share the same platform these people share and they can challenge these people in discussions on that platform before they manage to get the people so angry that they become irrational, then I am sure that populism will be tackled more efficiently. These people lack of knowledge on the very issue they are slagging off so it would be so easy to expose them and have them ridiculed. Of course it would also serve the EU to know what the people's concerns are and work upon them. Call me crazy, but Id rather have people in the territory who can observe and understand what people in Greece, the Midlands etc are thinking and act upon them then locked somewhere in Brussels.

 

[Stanley Road]

That's a very single minded approach.

The difference between being able to enter these countries on a whim to work/travel and having to obtain a very relevant skill set to a particular country at that exact time is quite enormous.

What on earth are you going to work at on a whim? So you go to Greece and do what exactly? Or Austria?

 

[Stanley Road]

In my son's case a good passport makes a huge difference as there are non-EU quotas.

In my case it will probably prevent me from retiring in Europe.

GF's brother traded his NL passport in for an Ozzie passport, too much hassle getting his Chinese wife here for vacation

 

[Stanley Road]

a- the EU inability to identify what's pissing off people in time and act upon it

Yes this is it, it's partly arrogance that what they are doing is correct and everybody is happy with that. But there are many PM's in Europe that have lost touch with reality and what the common person thinks, Cameron is one of them, then they all seemed surprised at uk referendum result wtf.

Geert Wilders for all his lunacy, is the only person that wants to improve things for the common man, he's the only one that talks about it. The rest are just Neoliberal fools that's you cant distinguish between left and right. I used to love watching Wilders in political debates until he overstepped the mark by quite some.

I don't see anything wrong with populist parties like podemos I mean, for feck sake. how on earth is someone like Rajoy still getting votes in Spain, he is utter scum.

 

[devilish]

Yes this is it, it's partly arrogance that what they are doing is correct and everybody is happy with that. But there are many PM's in Europe that have lost touch with reality and what the common person thinks, Cameron is one of them, then they all seemed surprised at uk referendum result wtf.

Geert Wilders for all his lunacy, is the only person that wants to improve things for the common man, he's the only one that talks about it. The rest are just Neoliberal fools that's you cant distinguish between left and right. I used to love watching Wilders in political debates until he overstepped the mark by quite some.

I don't see anything wrong with populist parties like podemos I mean, for feck sake. how on earth is someone like Rajoy still getting votes in Spain, he is utter scum.

Do you really believe that? These people are losers, drop outs, who were lucky enough to be at the right place and at the right time and can exploit that luck to make the kind of money they cant do in the real life. Take Farage as an example. He will milk the EU till the very end, get the MEP pension and retire while Rome is burning. If the heat gets to him he'll move to Germany thanks to his dual citizenship.

Mainstream politics must step up and so does the EU. People are suffering because of it. However populism isn't the solution. Actually (as shown in WW2) its Europe's doom

 

[Stanley Road]

Yes i do believe it whole heartedly. Simply because politics has become boring pop music and if you like that then fair enough.

You dont like change and you dont like the unknown, thats fairly obvious. As you were then. Tell that to the unfortunates in southern europe, enjoy the eu as it is. Personally i cant stand it.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes i do believe it whole heartedly. Simply because politics has become boring pop music and if you like that then fair enough.

You dont like change and you dont like the unknown, thats fairly obvious. As you were then. Tell that to the unfortunates in southern europe, enjoy the eu as it is. Personally i cant stand it.

But these people don't really propose any change, they scrupulously avoid the main problems and offer to shut mosques instead. People want jobs, they want better education for their kids, they want to enjoy retirement, they want to live the life promised to them that these populist politicians are enjoying.

 

[Stanley Road]

But these people don't really propose any change

Like mainstream parties do?

Well maybe they do propose but they don't deliver.

Should we just carry on with the norm and say "Well that's the way it is?"

 

[JPRouve]

Like mainstream parties do?

Well maybe they do propose but they don't deliver.

Should we just carry on with the norm and say "Well that's the way it is?"

They propose nothing, they divide the voters by using heinous and demagogic arguments, they don't deserve your time let alone your support.

And if you are really unhappy with the selection, go in politics be the alternative. If I wasn't spineless that's what I would have done.

 

[Stanley Road]

Ok

 

[JPRouve]

Ok

Tell me what you think, if you disagree it's fair.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

What do people envisage will happen to the property market from now up until brexit and beyond?

I'm thinking about buying a buy to let investment when and if the market dips and there are so many conflicting reports on the property outlook.

 

[Mozza]

What do people envisage will happen to the property market from now up until brexit and beyond?

I'm thinking about buying a buy to let investment when and if the market dips and there are so many conflicting reports on the property outlook.

I reckon we are going to go full on tax haven to help mitigate Brexit, houses will be a safe bet for foreign wealth

 

[Stanley Road]

Tell me what you think, if you disagree it's fair.

Well I disagree cos while I'm never going to go into politics there are people raising points that I agree with, so in essence they're doing the shouting for me.

They don't need to have the answers they just need to pose the questions. I read on here that real change in politics was happening in Scotland, really? Who with? Unless lies some sympathy with the snp, a party that had no plan if they had won, not even a currency they could use. Yet having no plan on the Brexit camp was disastrous.

It's about asking the questions, challenging the norm. I don't see any difference in the MPs across Europe, are they the type of MP's i's want? No fecking thanks.

It's a bit like ABU, I'm like 'Anyone but them'

 

[Stanley Road]

What do people envisage will happen to the property market from now up until brexit and beyond?

Same as happened before the vote. Boom / Bust. Rinse / Repeat

 

[LuisNaniencia]

Same as happened before the vote. Boom / Bust. Rinse / Repeat

But will brexit accelerate the bust in the next couple of years?

 

[devilish]

Yes i do believe it whole heartedly. Simply because politics has become boring pop music and if you like that then fair enough.

You dont like change and you dont like the unknown, thats fairly obvious. As you were then. Tell that to the unfortunates in southern europe, enjoy the eu as it is. Personally i cant stand it.

I dont think I need to ask the 'unfortunates' in Southern Europe because I am from Southern Europe myself. Actually I am from one of the most Southern parts of Europe which, from our perspective, makes the likes of Greece, Sicily and Spain the North.

Guess what? We make it work. We've got an unemployment rate which is similar to the UK, our debt levels are reasonably low (it did increased thanks to our bright government's initiative to take Greece debts upon us) and a great standard of living. That despite we're tiny, we've got no natural resources, we were a colony for around 3000 years and we were the most bombed country in WW2.

The problem with the remaining countries there is the culture. They seem to think that paying taxes is for suckers so most don't pay while expecting silver service treatment from their NHS. Corruption is ridiculously high. There was this hospital in Sicily with 15 beds and about 6 doctors in it, not to forget the endless unfinished projects whose money ended up in the pockets of organised crime. Can you blame the EU for that? Can you see Salvini who had a successful paying job in his life and who spent much of his early life participating in anti Southern Italian people protests coming with a solution for the South.

It sounds scandalous but there's two solutions for these countries

a- they are kicked out of the EU (and in terms of Southern Italy, it must be kicked out of the remaining Italy) and made accountable for their actions. In that way, if they steal, they know its their own money they are stealing from. No more Brussels or Turin money for them.

b- the EU must force more integration. If they want the German's prosperity then they have to work and act like Germans