A free people reasserting its sovereignty from such a grossly authoritarian power structure, plus the pleasurable side benefit of enraging Marxists? It's like Christmas in June.
We can argue all day about how Europe will fare and what countries will win and what countries will lose as a result of Brexit but does this not benefit America ?
We have had to deal for decades with an undemocratic superstate which it seems to me has not benefited us trade wise. If the EU weakens or collapses as a result of Brexit won't it be easier to deal with the European states individually ? Yes, I understand the stock market will tank temporarily. The pound will tank and the dollar will soar for now. Probably oil will be down. But it should all be temporary.
As for the UK, my knowledge is limited, but from the times I've been over I'm surprised their membership has lasted this long. Its well known that the Brits don't consider themselves Europeans. In fact when I mistakenly referred to the UK as being part of Europe when I was over there for business it was obvious I insulted everyone in the room. I never made that mistake again. "Brussels" is spoken with contempt in every paper and TV show I saw.
while there's a lot of support for leaving in England.
I wonder why.
For a variety of reasons. Just because the Scots wanted to remain in the EU along with England, doesn't mean they would still prefer to be in the EU without England. England is their largest trading partner. And consider that the EU is now weakened and there is no telling what kind of domino effect may occur. Scotland should take a wait and see approach before they do anything rash.
Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU. Both are making noises now that they may exit the UK. Scotland with another independence referendum and NI joining Ireland with a vote as per the Good Friday Agreement.
I like Europe and I am very pro the free movement of goods and services. However I do not trust other countries to protect Britain's borders and I do not trust unelected lawmakers to make sound law.
It may take some years but I actually believe we will prosper outside of the EU.
An interesting thing to see will be this country's reaction. Will the special relationship hold and the US quickly agree a trade deal or will they inflict a punishment beating on the UK for going against their wishes. I hope we look long term and forge a closer trans-Atlantic alliance.
I like Europe and I am very pro the free movement of goods and services. However I do not trust other countries to protect Britain's borders and I do not trust unelected lawmakers to make sound law.
It may take some years but I actually believe we will prosper outside of the EU.
An interesting thing to see will be this country's reaction. Will the special relationship hold and the US quickly agree a trade deal or will they inflict a punishment beating on the UK for going against their wishes. I hope we look long term and forge a closer trans-Atlantic alliance.
There will be no UK and the US will be more focused on maintaining its trade relationship with the EU, a much larger and more lucrative market.
And this is not only a catastrophe econimically, it's also a major blow to the European post-world war order. A stable and unified Europe has always been beneficial to the US. The big winner of the Brexit and a potential collapse in Europe in the long run is: Vladimir Putin.
I'm a novice when it comes to this, but here's a question I care about: Will this make Europe more or less reliant on our defending them (militarily) in the long term?
There's going to be more departures from the EU. Already chatter about a handful of countries moving to leave. Greece is a strong candidate. Poland, Italy, Spain also.
RE: A blow to an unelected, stultifying superstars is always a good thing
A free people reasserting its sovereignty from such a grossly authoritarian power structure, plus the pleasurable side benefit of enraging Marxists? It's like Christmas in June.
So, why did the chief enabler of Brexit -- Prime Minister David Cameron -- just resign?
This will change hardly a thing. UK isn't disappearing from the face of the Earth and the Continent will be right were it was yesterday. 660 mill people remaining in the EU will still be buying products (mainly from China) and 65 mill Brits will still be buying and selling around the world.
There will need to be adjustments to trade agreements, but you'd have to be out of your mind to think the world ends because the Brits said FU to being forced to take orders from Brussels.
Hope my broker will wait a day and start buying after the markets craps the bed today...
The Euro is overpriced and the Brits never gave up the pound (as did the Scandinavians who never gave up their kroners). So what changes?
The big change will be the UK's border and immigration restrictions. I guess it is a good day to apply for a job with UK Customs and Immigration.
the UK would be smart to get out now. For those who think it's doom and gloom, countries like Norway aren't in the EU and trade with Europe and other countries. The EU is a big mess.
Who everyone was championing as some heroine, comes out as a huge loser in this both in current terms and in historical contexts. Her immigration stance is going to cause Germany huge problems in the short term and the EU boondoggle over economics and unchecked immigration pushed by Germany have helped precipitate its own demise.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
Who everyone was championing as some heroine, comes out as a huge loser in this both in current terms and in historical contexts. Her immigration stance is going to cause Germany huge problems in the short term and the EU boondoggle over economics and unchecked immigration pushed by Germany have helped precipitate its own demise.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
Who everyone was championing as some heroine, comes out as a huge loser in this both in current terms and in historical contexts. Her immigration stance is going to cause Germany huge problems in the short term and the EU boondoggle over economics and unchecked immigration pushed by Germany have helped precipitate its own demise.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
and it seemed that working class folks drove the Leave votes, and immigration was the major issue. But I don't think it's a far reach to connect the dots between a squeezed working class, stagnant wages and immigration as the scapegoat.
and it seemed that working class folks drove the Leave votes, and immigration was the major issue. But I don't think it's a far reach to connect the dots between a squeezed working class, stagnant wages and immigration as the scapegoat.
Why is immigration a scapegoat? It is not an imagined problem. It is the problem. The free borders and work rules overloaded a nation. As jobs appear, the EU people are free to move (like moving from NY to AZ). I don't think the actual European people moving freely was a problem, but it was the North African and Middle Easterners and the freeloaders as a result that drove the issue.
Complicated issue.
The demographics are interesting. the 18-34 y/o group basically knew nothing else and probably liked being able to move freely about the Continental job market. The older crowd preferring the way it was and staying home.
and it seemed that working class folks drove the Leave votes, and immigration was the major issue. But I don't think it's a far reach to connect the dots between a squeezed working class, stagnant wages and immigration as the scapegoat.
Why is immigration a scapegoat? It is not an imagined problem. It is the problem. The free borders and work rules overloaded a nation. As jobs appear, the EU people are free to move (like moving from NY to AZ). I don't think the actual European people moving freely was a problem, but it was the North African and Middle Easterners and the freeloaders as a result that drove the issue.
Complicated issue.
The demographics are interesting. the 18-34 y/o group basically knew nothing else and probably liked being able to move freely about the Continental job market. The older crowd preferring the way it was and staying home.
Scapegoat was the wrong term, but making immigration (and xenophobia) the main issue covers for a lot of other reasons, including failings in economic policy, as it has for the last 200 years.
The EU overstepped it's governance...
BamaBlue : 7:44 am : link : reply
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
As the EU progressed, there simply aren't many great reasons for the top heavy countries to stay in it. The UK and Germany become almost like welfare subsidizers for the rest of the group. From an economic standpoint, if the UK was ever truly in, they'd have converted to the Euro. They have always had reservations about the EU, and finally enough was enough. The perfect storm of Brussels control, an undue % of economic burden put on them, the constant worry about the weaker nations casing ripples and the immigration situation made now the right time for them to leave.
This isn't a Doomsday thing. The UK will still have trading partners and the EU will continue on for now, and if it does break up - I'm not sure even that is the horrific thing people think it is.
Quote:
Scapegoat was the wrong term, but making immigration (and xenophobia) the main issue covers for a lot of other reasons, including failings in economic policy, as it has for the last 200 years.
Since 60s and 70s disastrous era, the UK has been doing ok, holding their own. The oil and gas industries have been solid.
Nothing wrong with "xenophobia." I wouldn't want the cretins and freeloaders that invaded the UK, either. I think the French are far more xenophobic than the Brits. Their intolerance and isolation of the North Africans from their former colonies is startling. The Brits were far more welcoming or tolerant might be a better term.
I think if France or Germany vote to leave the EU, Xenophobia would be a primary or close to primary reason. Moreso in France because Germany also has the same issue as UK where they shoulder a financial burden for the lesser countries. In the UK, immigration issues factored in, but was down the list on reasons for voting to leave.
I think if France or Germany vote to leave the EU, Xenophobia would be a primary or close to primary reason. Moreso in France because Germany also has the same issue as UK where they shoulder a financial burden for the lesser countries. In the UK, immigration issues factored in, but was down the list on reasons for voting to leave.
I don't see the Germans being xenophobic, France yes. The Germans have embraced immigration as the immigrants fill jobs left open by a declining working age population (this explained to me by a German Immigration officer to my bewilderment). The French want to protect French culture at all costs. Two different animals.
At what point Germany says they aren't shouldering the Med EU nations, I haven't a clue.
The EU overstepped it's governance...
BamaBlue : 7:44 am : link : reply
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
As the EU progressed, there simply aren't many great reasons for the top heavy countries to stay in it. The UK and Germany become almost like welfare subsidizers for the rest of the group. From an economic standpoint, if the UK was ever truly in, they'd have converted to the Euro. They have always had reservations about the EU, and finally enough was enough. The perfect storm of Brussels control, an undue % of economic burden put on them, the constant worry about the weaker nations casing ripples and the immigration situation made now the right time for them to leave.
This isn't a Doomsday thing. The UK will still have trading partners and the EU will continue on for now, and if it does break up - I'm not sure even that is the horrific thing people think it is.
^This. Everyone will survive. But I do think the Scots and the Irish may leave England.
I've made no secret about my dislike for a particular politician, but he is in large part the consequence of a bureaucratic and technocratic elitism that feels itself above the pulls of the electorate and looks down upon it. There are other causes of that just as there are other causes of it, but this is perhaps the first news in a couple months that causes me to doubt the outcome in November.
If the markets are any indicator of the general perception
Or expected results for companies and the country coming from this vote then economically this wasn't a good idea. Luckily the markets don't really follow any thing or make any sense so who knows. The market reaction has been essentially chicken little.
I'm indifferent to the BREXIT personally. My prediction is a rough transition period with slow and low growth. For the EU I think we see more referendums.
Countries are stronger when they are united. Hopefully this doesn't start a period of nationalistic nonsense that leads to more European conflict.
I agree and believe this is a step backwards. Hopefully, in 100 years or so humans are working together for the important things. John Lennon is rolling over in his grave
Or expected results for companies and the country coming from this vote then economically this wasn't a good idea. Luckily the markets don't really follow any thing or make any sense so who knows. The market reaction has been essentially chicken little.
I'm indifferent to the BREXIT personally. My prediction is a rough transition period with slow and low growth. For the EU I think we see more referendums.
Patrick - Remember that the markets popped up 1.5% yesterday for no reason other than the polls were showing "Remain" was winning. Any move today is going to be exaggerated by yesterday's pop was based on nothing other than a poll.
''Interesting how Scotland is firmly intent on remaining
Ten Ton Hammer : 12:14 am : link : reply
while there's a lot of support for leaving in England.
I wonder why.''
TT, - historically, in the way back machine, the Scots big nemesis and worse (see braveheart etc) at times (great in other ways) were the English.
The Scots at times, very traditionally, looked to France as a friend and counter balance to the English, The English are still obviously a major part of Britain, and some in Scotland still make those associations, using Europe as a counter balance. So, whereas for Northern England, 'out' means independence, for some Scots 'in' means independence (from historic England).
That said, you might see Scotland as having a sort of duality, are they New Hampshire (socially conservative and independent or libertarian politically) or are they Vermont (x new Yorkers also having an independent streak but leaning socialist within that sentiment)?
I was for Scotland IN Britain and Britain OUT of EU, with Scots gaining more power within Britain via legislation.
The EU overstepped it's governance...
BamaBlue : 7:44 am : link : reply
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
As the EU progressed, there simply aren't many great reasons for the top heavy countries to stay in it. The UK and Germany become almost like welfare subsidizers for the rest of the group. From an economic standpoint, if the UK was ever truly in, they'd have converted to the Euro. They have always had reservations about the EU, and finally enough was enough. The perfect storm of Brussels control, an undue % of economic burden put on them, the constant worry about the weaker nations casing ripples and the immigration situation made now the right time for them to leave.
This isn't a Doomsday thing. The UK will still have trading partners and the EU will continue on for now, and if it does break up - I'm not sure even that is the horrific thing people think it is.
But don't be deluded into thinking that the EU ever truly united the region. What started as a good concept to pool resources and rely on each countries strengths to drive commerce has devolved into the top countries having to shoulder the woes of the weaker countries.
If it was truly united, there wouldn't be half the countries using the Euro and the other half retaining their old currency. There wouldn't be some countries joining and then shirking their responsibilities knowing that they can be bailed out.
Instead of being united, centralizing the political decisions in Brussels but having the economic strength in other areas only served to cause resentment and disarray.
You do realize that British Marxists supported Brexit, and that other similar parties across Europe felt the same way?
And Russia and China are ecstatic.
Why would the Chinese give a shit? Their crap is still headed to both the UK and EU. Their market share won't change.
As for Putin, NATO is more important (deterrent) than the EU.
Quote:
You do realize that British Marxists supported Brexit, and that other similar parties across Europe felt the same way?
And Russia and China are ecstatic.''
----------
Rather, Britain of old, as an island state, was a much more staunch supporter of the west and western values than it has been, as a mollified junior partner within the EU, who have done very little in opposing the enemies of the west, Germany being so close to Russia geographically, and France being, well, you know, France, tricky, often duplicitous historically, or at least, you know.
I would think that Russia and China and ISIL loved how formerly staunch Britain had been compromised geopolitically by having always to team with those two, and that Russia remembers what a strong, tough Britain looks like.
As for America, we need tough, singular minded partners like the old Britain of Churchill.
As for British Marxists, who cares what those very few idiots really thought?
Except their Prime Minister has been saying she doesn't think the Brits will like much.
Quote:
Norway's Prime Minister, whose country is often put up as a model by Brits who want to leave the European Union, tells CNN that Brits won't much like life outside the Union.
"We are a small country," Prime Minister Erna Solberg told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday. "I think it will be more difficult for British voters to accept that Brussels decides and the Brits don't have a say."
"I think those who are saying there's a good romantic story outside the European Union are underestimating the challenge that the whole process of division will have."
Quote:
Norway rejected EU membership in its own 1994 referendum. But the country nonetheless has access to the so-called "single market" trade zone -- access for which it pays heavily both in money and by allowing free movement of people and capital. "We really are, on some issues, more part of Europe, without the decision-making, than Britain is, Solberg said. Norway, the Prime Minister said, accepts decisions made by EU leaders and representatives and enshrines them in Norwegian law without having any official seat at the table."
"We try to lobby and put our weight into the decision-making process, but when the final decision is made, the Norwegian politicians and the Norwegian people have to accept most of those regulations. I don't think that a large country like Britain would like to have that type of decision-making being made without participating in the decision making."
Or expected results for companies and the country coming from this vote then economically this wasn't a good idea. Luckily the markets don't really follow any thing or make any sense so who knows. The market reaction has been essentially chicken little.
I'm indifferent to the BREXIT personally. My prediction is a rough transition period with slow and low growth. For the EU I think we see more referendums.
Patrick - Remember that the markets popped up 1.5% yesterday for no reason other than the polls were showing "Remain" was winning. Any move today is going to be exaggerated by yesterday's pop was based on nothing other than a poll.
Indeed I do, it makes no sense and it happens. I'm personally hoping for an inexplicable market crash here. My investing horizon is 40 years, I'm going to need some dips to buy into to make any type of return like previous generations saw. So long as the next market crash isn't the apocalypse all will be well. And really even if it is - money would no longer be a concern lol.
The Brits were smart not to join the currency union
and they are smart to get out of this mess too. It is completely counter intuitive to think that reliving yourself of another layer of rules, regs, fees and taxes can be bad for your economy.
Implying the economic cost to the EU may be more than to the UKs to what the scaremongers were predicting.
And all of that is secondary to a democracy peacefully determining its destiny. Whatever short perturbations result, long term its all good. Good buying oportunity for long term investors.
I can see why Scotland and Ireland would want to leave the UK over this, but it doesn't make any sense to join the EU.
This will change hardly a thing. UK isn't disappearing from the face of the Earth and the Continent will be right were it was yesterday. 660 mill people remaining in the EU will still be buying products (mainly from China) and 65 mill Brits will still be buying and selling around the world.
There will need to be adjustments to trade agreements, but you'd have to be out of your mind to think the world ends because the Brits said FU to being forced to take orders from Brussels.
Hope my broker will wait a day and start buying after the markets craps the bed today...
The Euro is overpriced and the Brits never gave up the pound (as did the Scandinavians who never gave up their kroners). So what changes?
The big change will be the UK's border and immigration restrictions. I guess it is a good day to apply for a job with UK Customs and Immigration.
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
Countries are stronger when they are united. Hopefully this doesn't start a period of nationalistic nonsense that leads to more European conflict.
I agree and believe this is a step backwards. Hopefully, in 100 years or so humans are working together for the important things. John Lennon is rolling over in his grave
Nonsense. Countries can stand united without having a huge bureaucracy ruling over them. That is what NATO is. And frankly the European countries can't defend themselves militarily, so it's unlikely they will start any kind of wars with each other.
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "long term." The short term of Brexit could lead to very unsettled socio-economic times, which I'm hoping is confined to Great Britain. But, if the economic malaise spreads, then the "short term" can morph is to quite a few years.
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
Probably s good buying opportunity after the initial crash.
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
Fear mongering is effective. The market response already shows that. There won't be an apocalypse but there will be plenty of people speculating and talking about one, which causes volatility.
wrong again. I was hearing how Remain was going to be the vote by a 52-48% margin. This is in line with other recent mistakes by polling. Are people not telling the truth when being polled, or do the pollsters put their own spin on things?
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "long term." The short term of Brexit could lead to very unsettled socio-economic times, which I'm hoping is confined to Great Britain. But, if the economic malaise spreads, then the "short term" can morph is to quite a few years.
The economy has been unsettled for a long time, while mainly being run by the experts that are predicting any change will be a disaster. They obviously don't have the confidence of the people.
will make the Dow and Nasdaq even stronger. The Dow is off about 450 points right now, but that was to be expected. Markets dont like chaos. Europe was already chaotic, especially because of its economic and immigration problems. Brexit succeeding makes it even more so, at least in the short run.
Stocks in my view are already overpriced, but money has to go somewhere. There will be a flight to security, which means money will go into the stocks of the great American companies that make up the Dow, and even the stock market as a whole. It might also go into real estate in the U.S.
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "long term." The short term of Brexit could lead to very unsettled socio-economic times, which I'm hoping is confined to Great Britain. But, if the economic malaise spreads, then the "short term" can morph is to quite a few years.
The economic malaise is much more likely to come from Greece or possibly Spain or Italy and was inevitable regardless of the results of the Brexit vote.
a leave politico, mentioned that 'gaining control over immigration and etc will take the wind out of the sails of any few true racists', I tend to agree.
Similar here, we want to play noble card, show how pluralistic we are, and I am,
but many also want to ignore that the very few true racists within the populist movements gained voice under left leaning regimes, whereas, under a Reagan, for example, the very few true racists were -more- marginalized, not less, having no 'wind' in their 'sails'.
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
Saying things will stay the same is almost as silly as saying the apocalypse will happen. This is a new situation that has never happened before. At this point no one knows wtf will happen. Those that voted leave will insist things will mostly remain the same and those that voted stay will scream apocalypse. It is more likely that both groups are wrong then either one being right.
will make the Dow and Nasdaq even stronger. The Dow is off about 450 points right now, but that was to be expected. Markets dont like chaos. Europe was already chaotic, especially because of its economic and immigration problems. Brexit succeeding makes it even more so, at least in the short run.
Stocks in my view are already overpriced, but money has to go somewhere. There will be a flight to security, which means money will go into the stocks of the great American companies that make up the Dow, and even the stock market as a whole. It might also go into real estate in the U.S.
Economy concerns, concerns about subsidizing weaker countries and the drag on the economy, controlling your own destiny, controlling your own borders (ie immigration), all played into it. I don't know why some people just want to blame xenophobia. This US style of painting anyone against you as a racist is getting ridiculous. Also let me point out, that wanting to control your own borders and immigration policy does not mean you are against immigration.
I also agree with FMIC above, EU left very little benefit for the strong countries. They just end up subsidizing Greece, Italy, etc.
RE: As a subtext, what is interesting is how the media gets it
wrong again. I was hearing how Remain was going to be the vote by a 52-48% margin. This is in line with other recent mistakes by polling. Are people not telling the truth when being polled, or do the pollsters put their own spin on things?
I mean, I mildly supported Remain (I didnt do a lot of research), and fully expected this pull back.
But other than the FTSE, who really gives a shit? Traders I guess. I buy broad based index funds and dont buy and sell on news. Really, I dont sell at all. I guess if you are someone who needed all their money today, this sucks. Otherwise, give it time.
Economy concerns, concerns about subsidizing weaker countries and the drag on the economy, controlling your own destiny, controlling your own borders (ie immigration), all played into it. I don't know why some people just want to blame xenophobia. This US style of painting anyone against you as a racist is getting ridiculous. Also let me point out, that wanting to control your own borders and immigration policy does not mean you are against immigration.
I also agree with FMIC above, EU left very little benefit for the strong countries. They just end up subsidizing Greece, Italy, etc.
I'd say being on the Euro absolutely helped the strong countries. If Germany had an independent currency, it would be very, very strong and would thereby hurt Germany's export economy. You can net the good vs the bad for being in the EU and on the Euro, but to ignore that benefit is a mistake.
It goes to show how manipulated all polling markets truly are. The devil is always in the details.
Polls can be manipulated in many ways. How you ask the question, who you ask it to, how big your date range or sample size is, etc. Polls are useless and are just another political ploy to push an agenda. Ever wonder why MSNBC polls differ from Foxnews polls?
A private exit poll conducted on Thursday by the businessman Lord Ashcroft showed that there was no difference between male and female voters but very sharp differences between voters according to age, ethnicity, education and personal wealth.
Most of those working full- or part-time voted to remain, for example, while most of those who are not working wanted to leave. More than half of those on a personal pension voted to leave, a figure that rose to two-thirds of those on a state pension. Some 55% of those who own their homes outright voted to leave.
The Lord Ashcroft page is really slow, so I'll link to the Guardian instead.
people are killing the polls when they predicted that this would be a close vote and that's exactly what happened. The traditional pundits and betting markets, which ignored the polls and thought that "remain" would win, looks pretty foolish this morning.
Moral of the story... ignore commentators and look at actual data.
Saying things will stay the same is almost as silly as saying the apocalypse will happen. This is a new situation that has never happened before. At this point no one knows wtf will happen.
This is a new situation? How?
For centuries, the UK operated as a stand alone economy. The EU was actually just a blip in their history. They never lost control of their currency. There will be an impact, especially in the short term, but not a drastic change of events. The EU can't afford to alienate the UK and the UK can't afford not to trade with the EU.
By necessity, things will mainly remain the same.
The idea that this is a radical time in the UK history is either fueled by ignorance or by the ones who want to "Remain".
A private exit poll conducted on Thursday by the businessman Lord Ashcroft showed that there was no difference between male and female voters but very sharp differences between voters according to age, ethnicity, education and personal wealth.
Most of those working full- or part-time voted to remain, for example, while most of those who are not working wanted to leave. More than half of those on a personal pension voted to leave, a figure that rose to two-thirds of those on a state pension. Some 55% of those who own their homes outright voted to leave.
The Lord Ashcroft page is really slow, so I'll link to the Guardian instead. Link - ( New Window )
Countries are stronger when they are united. Hopefully this doesn't start a period of nationalistic nonsense that leads to more European conflict.
That is exactly what I am afraid of. Fascist demagogues thrive on this kind of crap.
I am not a little horrified that Britain's counterpart to Elizabeth Warren was murdered by a radical white supremacist fascist in all this. DISGUSTING.
The stronger case could be made for sticking with the devil you know
Some here are understating the potential, though by no means guaranteed, ripple effects; and the unknown unknowns. Its not difficult to imagine far-reaching political and economic consequences, though the very fact that one cannot necessarily pinpoint them is whats worrying. Also not difficult to imagine a much ado scenario.
More broadly, I dont like what this says about the UKs (rather Englands) desire to lead on the world stage. We need fewer, not more, Switzerlands. The British are sensible people who largely elect sensible leaders. We need their voice as the world grows increasingly restive. An insular self-interest, at times seemingly beneficial, will continually miss the forest for the trees. The world is irrevocably globalized in manners beyond mere economics.
I wonder to what extent the attacks in Brussels, Paris, and perhaps Orlando made the difference in this close contest.
By the way, its amusing how Greg has pigeonholed this complex issue into his petty, parochial, and emotion-driven worldview.
Not only do we have to export to survive, we have also to attract new investments into Britain to provide new jobs and allow industry to expand. Since January 1973 at least 82 companies from the rest of the Community have either started or expanded operations in Britain. Can we honestly expect that Europe and the rest of the world will continue to invest in Britain if we leave the Community?
Therefore the Community gives us access to secure supplies of food helps us to obtain the industrial raw materials we need provides us with a large home market for our exports gives us a greater chance of attracting foreign investments into Britain.
To leave such a Community would not merely be a leap in the dark, it would be like a leap overboard from a secure ship into dark and unchartered waters.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
RE: RE: RE: Many of the Brits who voted for Brexit...
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
To answer your question, I think this is a short, and expected blip. England, and the UK, survived on their own for generations very well. In fact they were only "ala carte" members of the UK anyway. The fact they never even changed over their currency is a huge plus in the exit transition. The rest of the EU needs the UK services so new agreements will be put in place. This will also relieve the UK of having to subsidize failing countries who are only functioning through EU $$.
In addition they get to control their own immigration and economic policies again. Outside of the expected short-term blip, I see no real downside.
The only issue I see is that Scotland could vote to leave the UK. They were close last time anyway, and now they have the pro-EU sentiment to add to the mix.
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
Because that's the initial knee jerk reaction of the suckers who just read headlines spewed by group think gov't and big bank "economists" who are dependent on the status quo. The pros will be buying at the bottom and reap the benefits. Were I still a fixed income portfolio manager I'd be waving in GBP bonds all day after the initial sell off. There isn't even a currency issue to worry about here.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Cameron was for staying in the EU, in fact he has now resigned because of this vote.
RE: As a subtext, what is interesting is how the media gets it
wrong again. I was hearing how Remain was going to be the vote by a 52-48% margin. This is in line with other recent mistakes by polling. Are people not telling the truth when being polled, or do the pollsters put their own spin on things?
That was pretty incredible. I wonder what the net effect is. Does it deter the "losing" side to not bother or spur them into action?
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Cameron was for staying in the EU, in fact he has now resigned because of this vote.
I think you've missed the key point here...Cameron put Brexit on the table originally to protect his flank from far right Nativisits. He never thought it would pass. But he's the one who served it up. And now he has downed the poison meal.
Countries are stronger when they are united. Hopefully this doesn't start a period of nationalistic nonsense that leads to more European conflict.
That is exactly what I am afraid of. Fascist demagogues thrive on this kind of crap.
I am not a little horrified that Britain's counterpart to Elizabeth Warren was murdered by a radical white supremacist fascist in all this. DISGUSTING.
You are literally the only person in the world comparing Jo Cox to Elizabeth Warren. I live here and I had never heard of Jo Cox before she was tragically killed. FYI her killer was deeply mentally ill and known to police. He doesn't speak for anyone voting leave.
From what I have read about inaccurate polls in the US, a massive problem occurs when the makeup of the sample population often doesn't parallel the makeup of ultimate voters.
In this case, I suspect that the huge turnout among unemployed and underemployed voters, virtually all of whom voted leave, was missed. The polls going in were nearly all quite close, so a mistake in sampling can throw the whole thing off.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Cameron was for staying in the EU, in fact he has now resigned because of this vote.
I think you've missed the key point here...Cameron put Brexit on the table originally to protect his flank from far right Nativisits. He never thought it would pass. But he's the one who served it up. And now he has downed the poison meal.
Thats true, but your post read like Cameron was with the Brexit Crowd. He was absolutely against it, and has not lost his job due to it. He pushed it to put it to rest, but he was in no way supportive of it.
From what I have read about inaccurate polls in the US, a massive problem occurs when the makeup of the sample population often doesn't parallel the makeup of ultimate voters.
In this case, I suspect that the huge turnout among unemployed and underemployed voters, virtually all of whom voted leave, was missed. The polls going in were nearly all quite close, so a mistake in sampling can throw the whole thing off.
Hey manh- I'm wondering what this does to corporate inversions.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Umm. Yes. It is almost the textbook definition of a short term issue. You think the Pound is just going to collapse based on this news?
Again - seems like the thought process of either somebody who has bought into the fear mongering or is pretty ignorant about Global economics.
Lets say the worst case scenario unfolds. France, Spain and Italy follow the UK out of the EU. It collapses , the independent European states erect trade and travel barriers and Putin encroaches further on the former Soviet states. None of this is going to happen over night. It may take up to a decade. Its going to take the Brits 2 years and any states that follow will have the additional burden of uncoupling their currencies. What is more likely to happen is that things will remain pretty much the same. What remains of the EU will become what it was originally intended: a free trade zone and economic union. The obnoxious social engineering which so enraged the Brits will be curtailed or eliminated.
Supposedly this is going to hurt the weaker states in the Union, but even with the EU it hasn't worked out well for Greece or the PIIGS.
From what I have read about inaccurate polls in the US, a massive problem occurs when the makeup of the sample population often doesn't parallel the makeup of ultimate voters.
In this case, I suspect that the huge turnout among unemployed and underemployed voters, virtually all of whom voted leave, was missed. The polls going in were nearly all quite close, so a mistake in sampling can throw the whole thing off.
The polling wasnt bad. Polling had it as a razor thin margin, some with Leave winning. Final vote was within M.O.E. Betting/currency markets got it wrong.
Quote:
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 7h7 hours ago
Repeating myself, but the Brexit polls weren't bad. Showed a toss-up. Question is why so few people believed them.
RE: As a subtext, what is interesting is how the media gets it
wrong again. I was hearing how Remain was going to be the vote by a 52-48% margin. This is in line with other recent mistakes by polling. Are people not telling the truth when being polled, or do the pollsters put their own spin on things?
Been wondering this myself. Like what happened with the polling in Michigan for the dem primary?
said Remain would win? Or did it report on the actual polling and then what the currency and betting markets indicated? Honest question -- which "The Media" sources gave some big guarantee?
The polls there were off by as much as 8 points. You can't compare an election event such as this to primaries in the U.S. In U.S. elections especially primaries or caucuses the turn out it light. The enthusiasm that one candidate generates over another is hard to predict and affects turnout. In the UK turnout is huge and mobility is a lot less than it is in the states. One would think it wouldn't be that hard to take a broad poll and then normalize it for socio economic class, geography, political affiliation and what ever are the important factors over there. I can only assume they have very sloppy polling methods over there as compared to the states.
Lets say the worst case scenario unfolds. France, Spain and Italy follow the UK out of the EU. It collapses , the independent European states erect trade and travel barriers and Putin encroaches further on the former Soviet states. None of this is going to happen over night. It may take up to a decade. Its going to take the Brits 2 years and any states that follow will have the additional burden of uncoupling their currencies. What is more likely to happen is that things will remain pretty much the same. What remains of the EU will become what it was originally intended: a free trade zone and economic union. The obnoxious social engineering which so enraged the Brits will be curtailed or eliminated.
Supposedly this is going to hurt the weaker states in the Union, but even with the EU it hasn't worked out well for Greece or the PIIGS.
Ron I agree except with Putin. I would say he would try to encroach, but NATO is not affected. So he's not coming West. East Europe will not forget the USSR. He may try to garner financial favors, but nobody will trust him.
I don't think the UK for one minute is renouncing their NATO commitments.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Umm. Yes. It is almost the textbook definition of a short term issue. You think the Pound is just going to collapse based on this news?
Again - seems like the thought process of either somebody who has bought into the fear mongering or is pretty ignorant about Global economics.
Might as well include my entire passage...
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
Are the EU counties going to stop buying from GB? No, The price of GB items may increase when the trade agreements end - mean time new agreements will be made.
Will GB stop buying from the EU? No or they will buy from other sources.
One door closes, another opens. China fills the void, or the US or Japan.
GB holds a pretty big card because of the oil fields, too.
Yes, there could be some long-term economic repercussions from this decision.
I know that most people here think that there is a significant first mover advantage won by the British, but a number of commentators have stated that they always had the first mover advantage; why did they use it so quickly?
Let's take a look at potential long-term ramifications of Brexit:
1. Bilateral trade negotiations. Yes, there are countries outside the Union who have not suffered, but some of the stalwarts of the Union (Germany and France) are going to take this as a slight. Essentially, the British have to understand that either they look West, or start producing cheaper consumption goods, or they face a period of pretty strict isolationism within a wider European area.
2. Worker pay stagnation. Nothing stagnates domestic wages like a lack of immigration. The dynamics of education accumulation, wage and benefit growth, and movement of labor around industry is traditionally largest in EVERY country when immigration is high. By precluding both Eastern European and Middle Eastern immigration, I expect the wages of the working class in the UK to remain stagnant, in real terms, for a long time.
3. Yes, there are fiscal, monetary, and regulatory benefits in place. But some people think that "decentralization" directly leads to economic growth. That is simply a false Austrian assertion that is parroted by talking heads who have no idea what they are talking about.
Decentralization ONLY works when the subsequent rules that are used to govern the relationships are not rent-seeking. When you have a right and hard-right coalition making some some quite significant power plays, do you really expect that there won't be some tremendous opportunities to roll back one of the greater drivers of growth in the past 40 years: globalization.
may be quite severe. People don't think that there are sizable long-term ramifications from what may be an arterial bleed over the next few weeks and months?
The trust placed in the London market was, in large part, due to its long-term stability and its rather transparent (and historical) rules. They have changed some of the laws of the game. That has impacts.
kicker - weren't you (slightly) in favor of Leave?
Are the EU counties going to stop buying from GB? No, The price of GB items may increase when the trade agreements end - mean time new agreements will be made.
Will GB stop buying from the EU? No or they will buy from other sources.
One door closes, another opens. China fills the void, or the US or Japan.
GB holds a pretty big card because of the oil fields, too.
With regards to the last point, I would think the possibility of a successful Scottish independence referendum might cause some uncertainty. They'd have to redraw the EEZ maps of the North Sea and Scotland has a pretty strong claim to a large portion of the UK's oil reserves.
RE: kicker - weren't you (slightly) in favor of Leave?
The last few posts are trying to correct some egregious views that there may be no long-term ramifications from this issue. I'm at the very least trying to paint a much more realistic picture. Plus, all the scenarios are probabilities, rather than certainties.
My view is that (optimistic) we can get over the right and hard-right anti-immigration issues in the UK and in the US; a lot of people are, quite frankly, morons when it comes to the impacts of immigration. Plenty of evidence out there, but they are mouthbreathers about it. Immigration, to western countries (even of low skill workers) is a net benefit to a country.
There are also tremendous benefits to eliminating the fiscal and monetary uncertainty caused by being a member of the Union. Not knowing if countries will really be mandated to follow the rules placed on them more recently is a pretty large fiscal strain in the future.
Are the EU counties going to stop buying from GB? No, The price of GB items may increase when the trade agreements end - mean time new agreements will be made.
Will GB stop buying from the EU? No or they will buy from other sources.
One door closes, another opens. China fills the void, or the US or Japan.
GB holds a pretty big card because of the oil fields, too.
With regards to the last point, I would think the possibility of a successful Scottish independence referendum might cause some uncertainty. They'd have to redraw the EEZ maps of the North Sea and Scotland has a pretty strong claim to a large portion of the UK's oil reserves.
This is true. Although I suspect BP has the franchise on those fields - not sure how that would shake out. Scottish independence is interesting. Would they leave the UK to join the EU? They might to show their disdain for England.
It's like if New York left the United States, and then upstate decided they wanted to stay.
The EU is losing a huge economic power. It's going to be harder for Great Britian companies to build out side of Britian.
This is a poor analogy in my opinion. A more accurate analogy would be if there was (hypothetically) a North American Union consisting of the US, Canada and Mexico and 52% of the US population decided it didn't want their country to be controlled by bureaucrats in Ottawa, Canada. I would be among that 52%.
The vote was clearly demarcated along a age groups. No surprise the older, more conservative generation wanted to leave. Things were always better back in the day.
Let's face it. Globalization in inevitable and I don't think this is the death knell to the EU that some here hope it is. The economic partnership will be revisited and lessons will be learned. In its current form or some other. Both sides are overreacting to this atm. No one knows what the short or long term repercussions are.
And the Russians and Chinese aren't some big winners. They have severe problems with their own economies - least of all having to do with the EU or UK.
Finally, what difference does it make whether Spain or Greece leave? The PIIGS have been a massive money suck.
These referendums or most any form of direct democracy are (to borrow a common British word) daft. And potentially very dangerous.
"But the people should have a say."
The people do have a say. Every time they cast a vote for their preferred prime minister/president/member of Parliament/Congress, etc. they have a say.
Referendums undermine the very point of a representive democracy, a deliberate system of government far superior to the alternatives. The masses should not (directly) decide public policy.
(Except of course when they get weed legalized, then they're awesome).
RE: I don't think this is a big deal either way...
The vote was clearly demarcated along a age groups. No surprise the older, more conservative generation wanted to leave. Things were always better back in the day.
Let's face it. Globalization in inevitable and I don't think this is the death knell to the EU that some here hope it is. The economic partnership will be revisited and lessons will be learned. In its current form or some other. Both sides are overreacting to this atm. No one knows what the short or long term repercussions are.
And the Russians and Chinese aren't some big winners. They have severe problems with their own economies - least of all having to do with the EU or UK.
Finally, what difference does it make whether Spain or Greece leave? The PIIGS have been a massive money suck.
One thing you got dead right, anything that lowers the price of crude is NOT good for Russia.
RE: Just a wider point beyond this single issue...
The people do have a say. Every time they cast a vote for their preferred prime minister/president/member of Parliament/Congress, etc. they have a say.
I'd say it's a pretty slender thread that connects UK voters to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
RE: Just a wider point beyond this single issue...
These referendums or most any form of direct democracy are (to borrow a common British word) daft. And potentially very dangerous.
"But the people should have a say."
The people do have a say. Every time they cast a vote for their preferred prime minister/president/member of Parliament/Congress, etc. they have a say.
Referendums undermine the very point of a representive democracy, a deliberate system of government far superior to the alternatives. The masses should not (directly) decide public policy.
(Except of course when they get weed legalized, then they're awesome).
Not sure I agree there either. Were we to use national referendums here, does anyone really believe that Congress would still be dicking around over a sensible (and national) gun policy? Legalizing Marijuana?
What does our system accomplish, apart from protecting incumbents - who then take hard left/right positons to insulate themselves from primary opponents within their own party - since that's the only threat to a gerrymandered district?
but then the British people should elect Reps/PMs who would sever that thread. Referendums are far too prone to whimsy (speaking beyond this one issue).
Then your beef is with gerrymandering (one I fully share). And the excessive advantages of the incumbents (duly checked by term limits, long overdue for Congress)
The fact that the masses deciding public policy does sometimes lead to desireable outcomes does not negate the potential for chaos or, at the very least, a whole bunch of expanded programs that few will ever vote to pay for. Not that our Fed reps have been particularly provident (although many states have been including as of late, shockingly, California), but gov't by the people would be far worse. A certainty.
The impacts obviously are yet to determined, but as pointed out above the cause should and will be the concern. The biggest risk to the safety and economic security of Europe is seclusion, racism and exclusion. The polling as to 'why' among those most rapidly slipping the economic ladder in the UK is downright scary. There is a giant swath of the English public for whom this exit is about securing against the perceived threat of immigration. And the political inertia that thrust this to a vote was about immigration. That's not to say it's the only issue, the only motive nor even important to many, but minus the ire of the former middle class, of whom many directly tie their slip upward to foreigners this never goes to vote.
Then your beef is with gerrymandering (one I fully share). And the excessive advantages of the incumbents (duly checked by term limits, long overdue for Congress)
The fact that the masses deciding public policy does sometimes lead to desireable outcomes does not negate the potential for chaos or, at the very least, a whole bunch of expanded programs that few will ever vote to pay for. Not that our Fed reps have been particularly provident (although many states have been including as of late, shockingly, California), but gov't by the people would be far worse. A certainty.
Yes. Biggest problem is gerrymandering.
I also think that when it comes to larger issues that affect everyone, and, because our electeds have proven themselves incapable of compromising on anything but pay increases for themselves - some issues deserve a national referendum.
Apart from some specious states rights arguement, does it make sense to anyone that there isn't one gun policy that applies to all states. A national drug policy? Same sex marriage? Bizarre.
Then your beef is with gerrymandering (one I fully share). And the excessive advantages of the incumbents (duly checked by term limits, long overdue for Congress)
The fact that the masses deciding public policy does sometimes lead to desireable outcomes does not negate the potential for chaos or, at the very least, a whole bunch of expanded programs that few will ever vote to pay for. Not that our Fed reps have been particularly provident (although many states have been including as of late, shockingly, California), but gov't by the people would be far worse. A certainty.
Yes. Biggest problem is gerrymandering.
I also think that when it comes to larger issues that affect everyone, and, because our electeds have proven themselves incapable of compromising on anything but pay increases for themselves - some issues deserve a national referendum.
Apart from some specious states rights arguement, does it make sense to anyone that there isn't one gun policy that applies to all states. A national drug policy? Same sex marriage? Bizarre.
The existence of an amendment to the constitution is not a policy argument, which was the question. Pointing to the 10th amendment may answer WHY the law is what it is, but not WHETHER the law should be what it is.
Also, the 10th amendment is entirely superfluous, a fact that was noted even at its adoption. The Supreme Court has noted that it "added nothing" to the Constitution
Quote:
Apart from some specious states rights argument, does it make sense to anyone that there isn't one gun policy that applies to all states. A national drug policy? Same sex marriage? Bizarre.
States rights is not specious. Each state is a mini-nation. It is not bizarre.
We could always throw out the Constitution, dissolve state legislatures and terminate governors....
The existence of an amendment to the constitution is not a policy argument, which was the question. Pointing to the 10th amendment may answer WHY the law is what it is, but not WHETHER the law should be what it is.
Also, the 10th amendment is entirely superfluous, a fact that was noted even at its adoption. The Supreme Court has noted that it "added nothing" to the Constitution
Whether or not it's superflous, or adds nothing, it is still there and is the law of the land and must be heeded. Or repealed by further amendment.
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
RE: RE: We give the general public too much credit here
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
You're being generous. Most people don't know the adjoining state to theirs and probably think Canada is part of the USA.
RE: RE: RE: We give the general public too much credit here
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
You're being generous. Most people don't know the adjoining state to theirs and probably think Canada is part of the USA.
I dated a girl once, where upon watching a TV show (I think it was House MD), asked why a character needed a passport to enter Canada.
but the fact that the markets and the currency are taking a pounding is not proof that this was a bad decision. For one, Britain over the next several years is going to have to deal with the fact that the Continental powers will welcome bad news about her economy (in the same way that the austerity-phobes trumpeted every piece of bad economic news when Cameron was pushing something that looked like austerity). Britain will be punished, implicitly or explicitly, by those who disagreed with the decision and who seek to prevent copycats. There are potential economic benefits to departure, especially if Britain can present itself as being a low-regulation, liberalized market relative to the Continent.
But on the whole, this smarmy, condescending response to this vote on our side of the pond and on theirs does not help matters. Some of the most important catalysts for this vote were policy decisions made by other leaders, specifically the shortcomings of our Iraq/Syria policy from 2011 on and then the decisions made on the continent to take in large numbers of refugees. These decisions were, in numerous instances, lauded by these same decisionmakers who are angry and aghast at the Leave vote.
RE: RE: We give the general public too much credit here
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
I believe in it for some things. But on matters that really require expertise, they add nothing. I dont care how many laymen form the crowd, there isnt an amount of wisdom that comes forth that will reliably make sure that a bowel resection is done properly. I'd rather one average surgeon do that.
Similarly, there are a lot of reasons to believe that the crowd (or when we dont like what they do, the mob), is really not all that suited to coming up with the optimal course of action for something as complex as Brexit. And unfortunately, speaking for our country, "expertise" has become a dirty word.
that's not my snotty way of saying that the mob were a bunch of fools for voting Leave. I leaned Stay but I bought some of the arguments for leave (especially ones that didnt involve the term "Muzzie"), and I could see an informed, rational person voting Leave.
the dairy one (mayo) and the vinegar one. Both are good. I prefer the mayo one in most applications, and in particular in a little paper cup at NY diners. I think the vinegar one tends to pair with BBQ.
RE: RE: RE: We give the general public too much credit here
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
You're being generous. Most people don't know the adjoining state to theirs and probably think Canada is part of the USA.
My wife's sister, on learning that we were moving to Chicago (years back) said, "That's in Florida, isn't it?"
Three kids in the family, one smart and talented (my wife), one dumb as a box of rocks, and the other a raving maniac biker wannabe. Here's to the future of gene splicing.
There are lots of different takes on coleslaw, many with no dairy at all. Of course, it it looks like someone jizzed all over it, then it's likely to be dairy.
I saw a woman ask if an egg bagel was vegan once...
...consequences/meaning of Brexit, but also what was behind Brexit, which included a strong dose of Nativism. Left unchecked, this impulse can have some very unsavory consequences.
RE: RE: but I haven't read this whole thread - why is coleslaw an issue
...consequences/meaning of Brexit, but also what was behind Brexit, which included a strong dose of Nativism. Left unchecked, this impulse can have some very unsavory consequences.
If you keep saying racism (or its functional equivalents) over and over again, it loses its sting and people stop fearing the label.
RE: RE: RE: but I haven't read this whole thread - why is coleslaw an issue
...consequences/meaning of Brexit, but also what was behind Brexit, which included a strong dose of Nativism. Left unchecked, this impulse can have some very unsavory consequences.
If you keep saying racism (or its functional equivalents) over and over again, it loses its sting and people stop fearing the label.
Or... there are plenty of Nativists who neither know what the word means and are unaware of how well they fit the definition.
"Racist" or "Nativist" or "Xenophobe" are serious terms...
effectively serious charges. And if you use them to describe everything with which you disagree, from opposition to large-scale immigration to voting for a candidate whom you dislike, the charge is going to lose its sting.
effectively serious charges. And if you use them to describe everything with which you disagree, from opposition to large-scale immigration to voting for a candidate whom you dislike, the charge is going to lose its sting.
Dune, I've come to ignore people who think you have to like everyone and if you don't you are a racist, xenophobe, etc. In fact I'm disgusted with the bullying associated with it. You are 100% correct, the meaning is lost or diluted when disagreement means racism and it is bullying.
None needed I really didn't know if there was something in coleslaw that made it dairy. I don't like it but if there is someone out there throwing cheese and other shit in there I might give it another try.
effectively serious charges. And if you use them to describe everything with which you disagree, from opposition to large-scale immigration to voting for a candidate whom you dislike, the charge is going to lose its sting.
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
In my view, this is an early sign, of more political messes...
ahead. Add accelerating technological change and its impact on jobs, and the destabilizing economic affects of climate change, and I worry about governmental systems ever getting decently stable in the foreseeable future.
The pull of nativism is just likely to grow--not linearly, but inexorably.
An example of the impact of technological change in the third world, see the link, about Addidas taking manufacturing out of China and the like, and re-siting in developed countries--using robots and very few jobs. More to come.
I find it really really difficult to be optimistic over the near to intermediate term. Link - ( New Window )
effectively serious charges. And if you use them to describe everything with which you disagree, from opposition to large-scale immigration to voting for a candidate whom you dislike, the charge is going to lose its sting.
Your words may be relevant, but they don't apply to me. And if you think they do, you are seriously mistaken.
That physical geography has not changed, but the psychological geography has. Suddenly it will make much less sense to headquarter a big international firm in London, or for a Japanese car-maker to locate a factory one that aims to sell into Europe in the north-east of England. Why do it, if you could be in Germany instead? Why come to post-Brexit Britain, where there could soon be the hassle of visas and tariffs and all the rest? Why bother?
The risk is that Britain becomes a kind of offshore oddity, quirky but irrelevant shut out of the action of its neighbouring continent. That shift will be felt first by the City of London: perhaps few will shed any tears for them, even if financial services are or used to be one of this countrys biggest employers. But eventually that new view of Britain could percolate through, affecting our creative industries, our tourism and eventually our place in the world.
Tariffs are going up sharply, both in and out. Close to 200 treaties will have to be negotiated with Europe, and any treaties that resulted from being part of the EU will have to be renegotiated with other countries as well. London as a financial center will diminish--not clear yet how much, but it will diminish. And this creates a pretty strong incentive for Scotland to have another referendum to leave the UK. It would surely pass. We have woken up in a different country. - ( New Window )
effectively serious charges. And if you use them to describe everything with which you disagree, from opposition to large-scale immigration to voting for a candidate whom you dislike, the charge is going to lose its sting.
In it's own way, it's bigotry.
Oh, I see. I make the obvious point that Nativism and Xenophobia were ingredients in the Brexit vote, and you label me a racist in return. Yowzer... you've got quite an imagination there!
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
And if every comment you make consists of accusations of bigotry you're also willfully blind. Because you'r right, less than 100% of these campaigns are high minded and good natured. Of course, less than 100% of EVERY campaign this year is high minded and good natured. And FAR more than 0% of the campaigns you loathe are based on xenophobia and racism and nativism.
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
And if every comment you make consists of accusations of bigotry you're also willfully blind. Because you'r right, less than 100% of these campaigns are high minded and good natured. Of course, less than 100% of EVERY campaign this year is high minded and good natured. And FAR more than 0% of the campaigns you loathe are based on xenophobia and racism and nativism.
make that far more than 0% are based on issues other than xenophobia and racism and nativism.
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
And if every comment you make consists of accusations of bigotry you're also willfully blind. Because you'r right, less than 100% of these campaigns are high minded and good natured. Of course, less than 100% of EVERY campaign this year is high minded and good natured. And FAR more than 0% of the campaigns you loathe are based on xenophobia and racism and nativism.
njm... this last precious piece of yours sounds like you tied your tongue into a triple knot and then tried to say something brilliant, but it just came out all twisted. Why don't you try again?
That physical geography has not changed, but the psychological geography has. Suddenly it will make much less sense to headquarter a big international firm in London, or for a Japanese car-maker to locate a factory one that aims to sell into Europe in the north-east of England. Why do it, if you could be in Germany instead? Why come to post-Brexit Britain, where there could soon be the hassle of visas and tariffs and all the rest? Why bother?
The risk is that Britain becomes a kind of offshore oddity, quirky but irrelevant shut out of the action of its neighbouring continent. That shift will be felt first by the City of London: perhaps few will shed any tears for them, even if financial services are or used to be one of this countrys biggest employers. But eventually that new view of Britain could percolate through, affecting our creative industries, our tourism and eventually our place in the world.
Tariffs are going up sharply, both in and out. Close to 200 treaties will have to be negotiated with Europe, and any treaties that resulted from being part of the EU will have to be renegotiated with other countries as well. London as a financial center will diminish--not clear yet how much, but it will diminish. And this creates a pretty strong incentive for Scotland to have another referendum to leave the UK. It would surely pass. We have woken up in a different country. - ( New Window )
That kind of strikes me as a worst case. Short term there will indeed need to be a lot of negotiating. But the UK itself a market that is an attractive place to sell. Will the rest of the EU cut off it's nose to spite it's face and sharply raise tariffs? Who, at least in the short term, is going to replace The City and it's expertise? And to what extent will the freedom from Brussels bureaucrats and their regulations give the UK an advantage that at least partly partially offsets the downsides of leaving the EU.
And what of inversions? Does getting away from Brussels make the UK more attractive than Ireland or the Netherlands (particularly if they lower the corporate tax rate)?
The Brits were complaining about immigration
there are 3 million from EU currently in UK
most are Polish , Portuguese Croatian and Spanish
(there is also immigration from Britain former empire
which won't be effected per se by their leaving the EU.)
But there are 1.3 Million Brits who currently live in EU countries
So you are talking a net of 1.7 million immigrates out our a population of 64 million
hardly a country being "overrun by immigrates"
London is financial center of EU which has driven a lot of the prosperity in the city and conversely the UK
I could see EU financial center drifting to another city like Amsterdam in the next 10 years ...
I think that UK won't be devastated by this as much as diminished
10-year Treasury yield down 19 bps in one day implies a combination of very weak global economic outlook and a flight from risk. British yield down 29 bps to 1.08%, and German down from .09 to minus .05%. Japan is at -.18%. These are very scary numbers, and people I know who know this stuff are weighted toward this being an undershoot, not an overshoot.
Very scary and uncertain times. Could the UK climb out of it? Not quickly, I don't think.
If you think there is a chance they don't ratify...
you belong in another discussion. And if by the people you mean the unemployed, the underemployed and the undereducated, yeah they got a roaring victory until they see how it effects their economy.
RE: All 32 local authorities in Scotland delivered a remain vote.
UKsit, anyone? To quote a Tom Paxton song from the Sixties, they are Leaving London--although London would actually like to go with them. Scotland Sees Its Future as Part of the EU. - ( New Window )
And England is by far Scotland's biggest trading partner, so spurning one union for another (albeit a somewhat looser affiliation) doesn't necessarily make much economic sense either.
that is not remotely surprising, nor is it indicative of long-run economic catastrophe. Time will tell, and intervening economic news (economic or political catastrophe elsewhere in the EU, positive economic news in the next several months in the UK) could mitigate this significantly.
Now that isn't to say that the entities that desperately wanted the UK to remain won't be happy to kick them when they're down, both out of spite and to discourage others who would leave, but it is to say it is too premature to rate this an economic disaster.
UKsit, anyone? To quote a Tom Paxton song from the Sixties, they are Leaving London--although London would actually like to go with them. Scotland Sees Its Future as Part of the EU. - ( New Window )
And England is by far Scotland's biggest trading partner, so spurning one union for another (albeit a somewhat looser affiliation) doesn't necessarily make much economic sense either.
Little known fact is that Scotland's 3 big exports are Scotch whiskey, wool, and drunk Scotsmen who are pissed that their clothes are itchy.
If I were Cameron I call for a second referendum with binding language and dare the Leave voters to go over the cliff again now that we know how awful things will be in the UK if they leave
If I were Cameron I call for a second referendum with binding language and dare the Leave voters to go over the cliff again now that we know how awful things will be in the UK if they leave
The process will take years to implement. Im not going to make a prediction, but I could absolutely see another vote in a year. Could go the other way. This one was close.
Cameron says next PM will invoke it, not him. And he doesnt plan on stepping down until October. Who knows when (or even if) the next PM will invoke it. Depends on the mood of the country and who wins, I assume.
RE: RE: Supposedly this referendum was non binding
If I were Cameron I call for a second referendum with binding language and dare the Leave voters to go over the cliff again now that we know how awful things will be in the UK if they leave
The process will take years to implement. Im not going to make a prediction, but I could absolutely see another vote in a year. Could go the other way. This one was close.
The other way around it is if the Remain Tories show some political courage and vote with Labour to sack their own government, leading to a new election
Would just play into the enduring criticism of the EU, which is that it is undemocratic and that when proponents don't get the result they want at the ballot box they just do it anyway.
Would just play into the enduring criticism of the EU, which is that it is undemocratic and that when proponents don't get the result they want at the ballot box they just do it anyway.
The British voters pretty much committed economic suicide. I know about respecting the democratic will but they screwed up so badly that they have to find a way out of this by any means necessary. There is a good chance that first world living standards will no longer exist in most of the UK if they leave
Would just play into the enduring criticism of the EU, which is that it is undemocratic and that when proponents don't get the result they want at the ballot box they just do it anyway.
The British voters pretty much committed economic suicide. I know about respecting the democratic will but they screwed up so badly that they have to find a way out of this by any means necessary. There is a good chance that first world living standards will no longer exist in most of the UK if they leave
That is flatly fucking absurd, just alarmist bullshit. And the elitist pricks who are pushing that garbage are the reason why Leave got 52% of the vote.
Would just play into the enduring criticism of the EU, which is that it is undemocratic and that when proponents don't get the result they want at the ballot box they just do it anyway.
The British voters pretty much committed economic suicide. I know about respecting the democratic will but they screwed up so badly that they have to find a way out of this by any means necessary. There is a good chance that first world living standards will no longer exist in most of the UK if they leave
That is flatly fucking absurd, just alarmist bullshit. And the elitist pricks who are pushing that garbage are the reason why Leave got 52% of the vote.
Of course dpinzow's post is bullshit. Nothing that drastic will happen. But if Boris Johnson becomes PM, as he likely will, then those who voted to leave, the increasingly dispossessed, embittered, and racist little Englanders, will be hoist by their own petard as inequality expands and what remains of the British social safety net more quickly dismantled.
We emphasize what we want on this thread and others, but while you rail against the elites (whose mismanagement is the structural cause of this crisis), it is anti-immigrant hysteria of the working classes that is the proximate one. When economic disaster strikes, anti-immigrant feeling will only heighten.
Some of the anti-immigrant, anti-refugee sentiment is just racist nonsense, but this idea that people can't raise any concerns about the same without being shouted down as bigots clearly drove the UKIP's rise over time, it has driven a lot of what has happened in our country. I have mixed feelings about this and I've been quite clear about my sentiments about what is happening in this country, but if we don't find a way to discuss these topics constructively, to make the case for the policies we want to see enacted, we don't learn any lessons from this.
How will make it without our Masters ? God bless the English with the balls to take their fucking country back. Oh my God, but look at the stock market ! The game continues
How will make it without our Masters ? God bless the English with the balls to take their fucking country back. Oh my God, but look at the stock market ! The game continues
Brits lose the right to claim Americans are dumber -
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
X100. Let's call a spade a spade. Come on.
RE: Brits lose the right to claim Americans are dumber -
1) this will take several years to implement and it's not clear how much will actually change. They're not out of the EU on Monday. The EU could play hardball on trade and that will be very interesting to see.
2) I don't see how any reasonable person can argue this is the best interest of the UK from an economic perspective. Banking alone will lose a bunch of jobs.
3) IMO, we'll see another vote at some point once they find out the Stay was correct.
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
X100. Let's call a spade a spade. Come on.
And the Leave voters told you what they think of people like you doing so.
and undoubtedly it is playing a role on this side of the pond too. But if you think the grievances can be boiled down to that, or that the voters have no legitimate concerns on the subject, you risk something like this happening here. And what is truly concerning is that support for Leave was consistently underestimated, probably because people are unwilling to answer honestly about their voting intentions lest the pollers "judge" them.
of insufferable twats telling them how stupid they are, I'm sure that'll show them. And that assumes there are no economic crises on the continent, no major terror attacks, nothing that might stoke this.
Think its not a big deal for the UK or the world at large
Problematic for Germany and that was going to come within the next five years anyway
I think the UK will be better off in the long run if they make the right moves in the years ahead
Corrections and implosions to come have little to do with the EU or this vote
Speculators have a field day and fuel as much uproar as possible so they extract rent from rumor.
I hope the signal is more of a throw the bums out mentality. Thats an acceptable message to the elite, imho. Racism is not. And although it is popular to ascribe racism which is surely there; lets not ignore that broken social contracts and the "feel" of broken social contracts as upward mobility declines post 2008 ( dont forget that the UK and Ireland also suffered from the empty banking system follies of the 1990-2016 time frame) finds a safety valve in angry votes rather than revolution.
Last thing I would say is to note that "racism" and resistance to assimilation can be two sides to the same coin...fear
then it might behoove the self-styled globalist elite to think twice about making insults and accusations their first and last responses.
If these elites consistently indicate to the British working class that they scorn and detest them, and the working class perceives that the elites in their own country have less regard for them, their countrymen, than foreign nationals.....is it really a surprise that the working class has absolutely no trust in or respect for the opinions of those elites?
doing, just calmly and soberly pointing out what they claim are the reasons why it was a mistake. Gotcha.
This vote was about much, much more than mere economics, and tut-tutting about economics while ignoring the cultural aspects is simply foolish and willfully blind. Libertarian though I consider myself, I have always believed that libertarianism's belief in the absolute supremacy of economics over culture is a massive blind spot.
But it gets to the point I've been trying to make fairly well.
Quote:
Somehow, over the last half-century, Western elites managed to convince themselves that nationalism was not real. Perhaps it had been real in the past, like cholera and telegraph machines, but now that we were smarter and more modern, it would be forgotten in the due course of time as better ideas supplanted it.
That now seems hopelessly naive. People do care more about people who are like them -- who speak their language, eat their food, share their customs and values. And when elites try to ignore those sentiments -- or banish them by declaring that they are simply racist -- this doesnt make the sentiments go away. It makes the non-elites suspect the elites of disloyalty. For though elites may find something vaguely horrifying about saying that you care more about people who are like you than you do about people who are culturally or geographically further away, the rest of the population is outraged by the never-stated corollary: that the elites running things feel no greater moral obligation to their fellow countrymen than they do to some random stranger in another country. And perhaps we can argue that this is the morally correct way to feel -- but if it is truly the case, you can see why ordinary folks would be suspicious about allowing the elites to continue to exercise great power over their lives.
does not always capture the broad spectrum of the experience. What constitutes a net benefit for the country as a whole, perhaps even a significant one, may be a net loss for particular geographic or demographic swaths of the country. And Thatcherite though I am, a great deal of the British economic growth that began around the ascension of Thatcher was concentrated in the financial sector (which largely voted for and funded Remain) and in energy extraction, so while the urban and rural working class may benefit indirectly from that growth they may not appreciate it as such.
Doubt it will harm or hurt the lower middle class. They were in for a hard time since 1914.
Upper middle class engineers and tech companies from the UK have a lot to offer. As Dune noted their North Sea and ME energy services capabilities still leave them amongst the world's best. After the US and Canada.
They are and will have a limited future. True under any scenario. But pride and a sense of self determination and unique role in the world is a national asset. And they do have that.
I wouldn't put money into the UK but I'd never bet against the Brits.
I love the people of this country and its Constitution more then I would ever trust the Bastards who would try to subvert it and their minions in government .http://www.naturalnews.com/054454_BREXIT_victory_Independence_Day_European_Union.html
Natural News peddles something than other anti-vaccine bullshit?
The elites have failed. They want to claim that if the people vote for more independence and say in their future that it will be a disaster. Well, who has caused the conditions we have today that resulted in this vote? The very elites that are now warning us if we don't let them continue down their path, it will be a disaster.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
The elites have failed. They want to claim that if the people vote for more independence and say in their future that it will be a disaster. Well, who has caused the conditions we have today that resulted in this vote? The very elites that are now warning us if we don't let them continue down their path, it will be a disaster.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
Looking at the Brexit from an historical standpoint seems called for here. (Apologies in advance if saying the following seems didactic and presumptuous. It is meant only as a reminder.)
Historically, from very ancient days, Britain has gone its own way and been on its own rather than developed as an extension of and integral part of European culture (if it can be said that there is an integral European culture, which is itself questionable).
Neither Germany nor Britain were integral parts of the Roman Empire during its long history. The rest of Europe was -- and the roots of European society, law, commerce, and culture were inherited from that Empire. After that Empire fell in the West in the Fifth Century, Clovis, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne exerted controlling influence in Western Europe, but not over Britain. Instead, Anglo-Saxon culture in Britain continued to develop mostly on its own, albeit with strong elements borrowed from or imposed by Viking culture -- not the case for Europe -- for several hundred years. That changed with the successful Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, but, though conquered, the already matured and deeply embedded Anglo-Saxon cultural core of Britain remained dominant. Yes, Roman Catholicism extended not only to all of Europe, but to Britain as well, but, like Germany, the source of the Reformation, Britain, for its own reasons, broke from Roman Catholic authority beginning in the Sixteenth Century. Subsequently, wars of conquest were fought and constantly threatened between Britain and France (and Spain) up to and including the Napoleonic and, later, the Nazi conquests. Britain, with a little luck and a lot of talent, remained free of both at great cost.
With this history, how can it be surprising that Britain has decided to go its own way without external interference and governance by Brussels as any part of the EU?
Whether in the end, this decision will have dramatically different social or economic consequences for Britain as compared with Europe, and just what those will be, remains to be seen. But there surely there should be nothing shocking about the Brits once again insisting on reestablishing their separateness from Europe, as the Brexit vote indicates they wish to do.
I remind us though that the Normans were not French. The Normans were Vikings. Vikings the French Co opted with land or Vikings who extracted good land in return for "protecting" the softies from more raids down the rivers. Yeah and some viking Christian religious and legal beliefs
The William the Conqueror was a direct descendant of Rollo Lothbrok. Vikings with good land were not pure raiders but never lost the taste. Imho, what we call the Normans were not Southern Christian french noblemen. They were o two generations removed from pure ass Viking.
If I asserted that it's fun to think of the noble family squabbles and subsequent exploration and sea based exploitation as very Viking and then submit England not Scandanavians as having quite Viking roots...it would be fun to explore.
I close the point by reminding us that since Vikings had little use for writing or records...how do we know who conquered who? The creation myths of all nations exist to make all feel better.
Four score and seven years ago our forefathers started a noble experiment where everyone was equal? They did?
wasn't completely foreign to England either, having a legitimate claim to the throne based on his parentage and the purported wishes of Edward. While the Conquest did import a lot of Norman nobility into the realm it is not so decisive a break as popular imagination holds.
I remind us though that the Normans were not French. The Normans were Vikings. Vikings the French Co opted with land or Vikings who extracted good land in return for "protecting" the softies from more raids down the rivers. Yeah and some viking Christian religious and legal beliefs
The William the Conqueror was a direct descendant of Rollo Lothbrok. Vikings with good land were not pure raiders but never lost the taste. Imho, what we call the Normans were not Southern Christian french noblemen. They were o two generations removed from pure ass Viking.
If I asserted that it's fun to think of the noble family squabbles and subsequent exploration and sea based exploitation as very Viking and then submit England not Scandanavians as having quite Viking roots...it would be fun to explore.
I close the point by reminding us that since Vikings had little use for writing or records...how do we know who conquered who? The creation myths of all nations exist to make all feel better.
Four score and seven years ago our forefathers started a noble experiment where everyone was equal? They did?
Take care Percy
Thanks Bill for the compliment and input on the Viking-French connection (of which I was ignorant -- especially your mention of Rollo Lothbrok, new to me). The "everyone . . . equal" part remains as amusing as ever.
"There exists some argument among historians as to whether Rollo was a 'duke' (dux) or whether his position was equivalent to that of a 'count' under Charlemagne. According to legend, when required to kiss the foot of King Charles, as a condition of the treaty, he refused to perform so great a humiliation, and when Charles extended his foot to Rollo, Rollo ordered one of his warriors to do so in his place. His warrior then lifted Charles' foot up to his mouth causing him to fall to the ground."
This seems to me wholly consistent with the feelings underlying the Brexit vote (a mere 1100 years later).
RE: Yeah, because that's all that the whining cunts on the losing side are
doing, just calmly and soberly pointing out what they claim are the reasons why it was a mistake. Gotcha.
This vote was about much, much more than mere economics, and tut-tutting about economics while ignoring the cultural aspects is simply foolish and willfully blind. Libertarian though I consider myself, I have always believed that libertarianism's belief in the absolute supremacy of economics over culture is a massive blind spot.
+1
There is a lot of elite arrogance displayed on this thread. The same arrogance that the Brexit vote, the Trump phenomenon, and even the Sanders campaign is a rejection of. It's about a lot more than economics but at its heart it is a rebellion against a system that seems to have benefited only the elites. For years, on this board we have heard people wax eloquently about how the huge disparity in income levels was not that important, well this is what you get when people feel like they have no recourse for their grievances against a system that no longer represents or addresses their interests. Most of us on this board are lucky, we live in the NY area or Washington DC area, where the economies are fairly vibrant. Outside of those areas is a whole other America that is hurting. Last weekend, I was down in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Totally different world there. You can see how bad off people are down there with absolutely no hope that their economic condition will substantially improve.
The elites have failed. They want to claim that if the people vote for more independence and say in their future that it will be a disaster. Well, who has caused the conditions we have today that resulted in this vote? The very elites that are now warning us if we don't let them continue down their path, it will be a disaster.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
Well if want to go to root causes, the refugee crisis was caused in part due our and the UKs disastrous foreign policies. If you don't like refugees, stop contributing to cause. Maybe stop invading and intervening in foreign countries
the voice of white Appalachia, which is of course ironic because of his origins. Whether you think they do a good job of it or not, politicians (particularly Democrats) court poor voters of color. Their policies, effective or not, are aimed at addressing their perceived woes. And both parties court wealthy, educated voters of all colors. But the Democrats haven't had a politician of consequence from Appalachia since Edwards, maybe since Clinton, and frankly identity politics is a slap in the face to those who don't feel themselves especially "privileged." The ordinary Republicans have little more than platitudes to offer them too. I don't like the phenomenon, but I think we underestimate it at our peril. And of course Appalachia isn't a geographic phenomenon, there are pockets of Appalachia from Maine to Idaho and Florida out to California.
Brexit had much to do with the assuming away of those people, that they would vote not at all or for the Labour or Tory pols they had long supported and the Remain vote their leadership advocated.
The elites have failed. They want to claim that if the people vote for more independence and say in their future that it will be a disaster. Well, who has caused the conditions we have today that resulted in this vote? The very elites that are now warning us if we don't let them continue down their path, it will be a disaster.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
Well if want to go to root causes, the refugee crisis was caused in part due our and the UKs disastrous foreign policies. If you don't like refugees, stop contributing to cause. Maybe stop invading and intervening in foreign countries
Of course the refugee crisis owed much to a pusillanimous foreign policy from 2009 on, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
the voice of white Appalachia, which is of course ironic because of his origins. Whether you think they do a good job of it or not, politicians (particularly Democrats) court poor voters of color. Their policies, effective or not, are aimed at addressing their perceived woes. And both parties court wealthy, educated voters of all colors. But the Democrats haven't had a politician of consequence from Appalachia since Edwards, maybe since Clinton, and frankly identity politics is a slap in the face to those who don't feel themselves especially "privileged." The ordinary Republicans have little more than platitudes to offer them too. I don't like the phenomenon, but I think we underestimate it at our peril. And of course Appalachia isn't a geographic phenomenon, there are pockets of Appalachia from Maine to Idaho and Florida out to California.
Brexit had much to do with the assuming away of those people, that they would vote not at all or for the Labour or Tory pols they had long supported and the Remain vote their leadership advocated.
Not a DT fan, but at least he seems to 'get it'. Maybe it's the manner of speech or just not being of the political elite, but people are responding. Flyover America getting its revenge.
You have people who support policies (and candidates) like restricting trade, limiting immigration, nationalism building walls, etc, etc. People claim they're sick of the "elites". That doesn't mean those policies are correct or even in their best interest. Those so called elites just happen to be right in many cases.
If you don't have a believable vision for better times ahead and the path you are selling does not take into account growing realities. ..then you are an elite not a leader.
The answer given by elites on immigration does not sound sustainable.
You know this by extrapolating the future of the century on only two dimensions:
Water and Arable land.
All the rest is talking stuff. Europe has food and water. The Me increasingly has more people and less water. Extend the trend 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
The elites are right?
I grant their not be any good answers. But the elites are leading? Or selling?
Again that's a guess at what goes through people's minds if I was sitting in a row house in Manchester.
It's at least 100 years of tight resources. Tough to show people a better life when the future has no tailwind and for some there are significant headwinds on the basics.
Last guy to be right that the future was going to hold less growth and require lower expectations was despised for it. Who follows someone who says the future is less?
People want hope not truth. But if you sell them hope but instead they sense the truth is too far a gap to promise...then they reject you.
You have people who support policies (and candidates) like restricting trade, limiting immigration, nationalism building walls, etc, etc. People claim they're sick of the "elites". That doesn't mean those policies are correct or even in their best interest. Those so called elites just happen to be right in many cases.
You a fan of Robert Frost?
"I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors.""
...is that home country governments did not properly plan ahead of time to help support/subsidize/re-train displaced workers. Ironically, that sort of centralized planning is anathema to the self-same business people and economists who supported Globalism. It's as if they swallowed hook, line and sinker the idea that the Magic Hand of Adam Smith would miraculously solve the woes of all the unemployed. But, maybe, what was really needed was a heavy dose of government intervention.
But it gets to the point I've been trying to make fairly well.
Quote:
Somehow, over the last half-century, Western elites managed to convince themselves that nationalism was not real. Perhaps it had been real in the past, like cholera and telegraph machines, but now that we were smarter and more modern, it would be forgotten in the due course of time as better ideas supplanted it.
That now seems hopelessly naive. People do care more about people who are like them -- who speak their language, eat their food, share their customs and values. And when elites try to ignore those sentiments -- or banish them by declaring that they are simply racist -- this doesnt make the sentiments go away. It makes the non-elites suspect the elites of disloyalty. For though elites may find something vaguely horrifying about saying that you care more about people who are like you than you do about people who are culturally or geographically further away, the rest of the population is outraged by the never-stated corollary: that the elites running things feel no greater moral obligation to their fellow countrymen than they do to some random stranger in another country. And perhaps we can argue that this is the morally correct way to feel -- but if it is truly the case, you can see why ordinary folks would be suspicious about allowing the elites to continue to exercise great power over their lives.
Link - ( New Window )
The most amusing thing for me is that there is almost nothing more Marxist than the idea that economic interest trump nationalism and it's an idea that has been routinely proven wrong. On the eve of World War I all the major socialist parties of Europe pledged not to fight in a war that was clearly aimed at stalling the workers revolution and perpetuating the capitalist system, yet they did.
Significant part of many problems. Banking elites especially forgot that nations are the largest social yet governable organizing entities yet found amongst humans.
It used to be that capital was not so boundaryless. But global free flow of capital has proven to have very very uneven disruptive impacts on labor and average person per nation.
average as in no access to promote slanted popular opinion but come vote time
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
RE: Maybe one root problem to economic globalism...
...is that home country governments did not properly plan ahead of time to help support/subsidize/re-train displaced workers. Ironically, that sort of centralized planning is anathema to the self-same business people and economists who supported Globalism. It's as if they swallowed hook, line and sinker the idea that the Magic Hand of Adam Smith would miraculously solve the woes of all the unemployed. But, maybe, what was really needed was a heavy dose of government intervention.
How about less government in the form of crony capitalism that rewards companies that shift jobs overseas (after the government has convinced some of the population that the over taxation and regulation is in their best interest, but only serves to drive said jobs elsewhere). They take with two hands and then pretend to give back what was ours originally with one.
Significant part of many problems. Banking elites especially forgot that nations are the largest social yet governable organizing entities yet found amongst humans.
The banking elites also seem to have concluded that, in all important ways, they were running the governments of those nations and, in the end, could feed off their ability to tax. People generally have become tired of that.
Quote:
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
Very painfully, and only by showing up the establishment as corrupt and splintering what was in place at the outset as rulers with armies eventually won out over popes and their imitators who lacked them. In the ME they still seem to be organizing entities, perhaps because of what is built into their texts and their confused, internally murderous history and culture.
Significant part of many problems. Banking elites especially forgot that nations are the largest social yet governable organizing entities yet found amongst humans.
The banking elites also seem to have concluded that, in all important ways, they were running the governments of those nations and, in the end, could feed off their ability to tax. People generally have become tired of that.
Quote:
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
Very painfully, and only by showing up the establishment as corrupt and splintering what was in place at the outset as rulers with armies eventually won out over popes and their imitators who lacked them. In the ME they still seem to be organizing entities, perhaps because of what is built into their texts and their confused, internally murderous history and culture.
What my thoughts have been for a time.
Growing a global society while trying to merge different societies is the biggest obstacle.
I'm not talking purely the middle east but cultures around the world.
Should 3rd world societies that still espouse 13th and 14th century views be expected to readily assimilate into Ist world 22nd century societal views without push back?
I don't think so.
It's way above my pay grade and expertise and I have no offer what an easy solution or a solution is.
Significant part of many problems. Banking elites especially forgot that nations are the largest social yet governable organizing entities yet found amongst humans.
The banking elites also seem to have concluded that, in all important ways, they were running the governments of those nations and, in the end, could feed off their ability to tax. People generally have become tired of that.
Quote:
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
Very painfully, and only by showing up the establishment as corrupt and splintering what was in place at the outset as rulers with armies eventually won out over popes and their imitators who lacked them. In the ME they still seem to be organizing entities, perhaps because of what is built into their texts and their confused, internally murderous history and culture.
What my thoughts have been for a time.
Growing a global society while trying to merge different societies is the biggest obstacle.
I'm not talking purely the middle east but cultures around the world.
Should 3rd world societies that still espouse 13th and 14th century views be expected to readily assimilate into Ist world 22nd century societal views without push back?
I don't think so.
It's way above my pay grade and expertise and I have no offer what an easy solution or a solution is.
Not had to figure out what the problem is.
What to do, that's the dilemma.
Not that I have any new solution to suggest, but you might want to take a look at just how Charlemagne went about it in the case of the Saxons.
Would just reinforce what everyone has long said about Europeanization, which is that it is anti-democratic and that its proponents are more than willing to ignore the electorate.
Would just reinforce what everyone has long said about Europeanization, which is that it is anti-democratic and that its proponents are more than willing to ignore the electorate.
Is it anti-democratic?
The British people over the years elected the politicians who Europeanized their country. Is there evidence these politicians did so illegally?
No, they should not find a way to invalidate the results; that would be both unwise and impractical. But that does not mean the referendum wasnt a stupid fucking stunt in the first place, contrary to the idea and traditions of their established modern system of government. Regrexit is a perfect example of why the whims of the masses should not decide public policy. If they wanted out of the EU, then elect politicians who will chart such a course. Transformational elections are all the ragelook how close Hofer came to winning in Austria. Boring old Austria
Id imagine many Americans sympathetic to the Leavers would take issue with the fact that the United States funds nearly of NATO (headquartered where? Why Brussels, of course). Perhaps this contingent could swell enough support to prompt a national referendum on whether to pull out of this globalized military and instead spend the money domestically on infrastructure or on the Pentagon.
That would be ridiculous.
If military experts and Commanders in Chief (properly versed in the politics of the Korean peninsula, the Senkaku Islands, Ukraine, etc.) are proving inept, vote in a CiC who will chart an alternative course. We may yet in November
If you have a problem with this dynamic, take it up with Madison.
A little impressed when Overseer whips out his "whims of the masses" the next time someone suggests that 90% of Americans support "common sense" gun regulation.
I suspect he will be intellectually honest given his posting history, but he will be one of the few.
but if they hold their second independence referendum in a couple years I wonder if the average Englishman would sooner see them bugger off. At the ballot box the two countries have quite different political preferences and have for 40 years. England voted for Leave by 6.8%, Wales by a full 5%. Even Northern Ireland was significantly closer than Scotland. If Scotland wants independence cool, but the rump GB, if it wanted to, could exact at least as dear a cost as the EU wants to exact from the UK for the exit, including a significant share of the oil revenue.
but if they hold their second independence referendum in a couple years I wonder if the average Englishman would sooner see them bugger off. At the ballot box the two countries have quite different political preferences and have for 40 years. England voted for Leave by 6.8%, Wales by a full 5%. Even Northern Ireland was significantly closer than Scotland. If Scotland wants independence cool, but the rump GB, if it wanted to, could exact at least as dear a cost as the EU wants to exact from the UK for the exit, including a significant share of the oil revenue.
Well, it's a lot to just say "bugger off" to such a large chunk. But you make a good point about their differing points of views, especially with oil priced as it is at the moment.
and sarcasm at the end, no doubt. But inaccurate if so.
I am broken-record consistent on the point that public policy should be decided by elected politicians, very small scale localized matters perhaps excepted (but even then...). Direct democracy is far more often than not a catastropheone that often unfolds insidiously. Brown, e.g., has done a serviceable job cleaning up California but it was a house of horrors when he took over largely due to a conveyor belt of whimsical and mostly discordant referendums.
The representative kind is overall inarguably the least bad system. Ideally the non-venal sort (#campaign finance reform) but beggars...
And theres nothing wrong with referencing polling in order to bolster one's case...the cited poll is correct, and noteworthy. But only to influence policy makers (who, yes, should certainly observe their constituents preferences). Not to set policy. Youve conflated the two.
Yeah, direct democracy may work out here & there short & long-term Im happy weed is legal in certain states (inhale) but with ghastly trade-offs.
so what -- what says those 3.2million aren't people who voted remain in the first place?
The "funny" part is that it seems it was a "leave" petition at the onset ...
Quote:
Oliver Healey - English Democrats
21 hrs
***CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!!!***
Dear All
Re: EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum petition
This petition was created at a time (over a month ago) when it was looking unlikely that 'leave' were going to win, with the intention of making it harder for 'remain' to further shackle us to the EU. Due to the result, the petition has been hijacked by the remain campaign. Admittedly, my actions were premature however, my intentions were as stated above. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE OF A LEAVE VICTORY AT THAT TIME!!! Having said that, if it had not been mine, it would have been orchestrated by someone on the remain campaign. However, since I am associated with the petition and before the press further associate me with it I felt the need to better clarify my position on the issue even if it looks bad. I am it's creator, nothing more! The logistical probability of getting a turnout to be a minimum of 75% and of that, 60% of the vote must be one or the other (leave or remain) is in my opinion next to impossible without a compulsory element to the voting system.
There is also at least a moderate-sized "oh shit" crowd who were not aware that this would be treated as binding, or who have come to see some problems with leaving that they didn't see before the vote.
How many in those categories? I have no idea. It's not zero. But, it probably doesn't matter, either. It appears to be irrevocable.
Meanwhile, much of the rest of the EU appears to be in the "what's your hurry, here's your hat" camp.
RE: RE: Finding a way to scam out of the referendum result
Id imagine many Americans sympathetic to the Leavers would take issue with the fact that the United States funds nearly of NATO (headquartered where? Why Brussels, of course). Perhaps this contingent could swell enough support to prompt a national referendum on whether to pull out of this globalized military and instead spend the money domestically on infrastructure or on the Pentagon.
Pretty weak analogy. NATO places no limits on the US with respect to the use of it's military. It also sets no requirements with respect to force levels, type of equipment used and how that equipment is manufactured and procured (although the US could certainly use some advice re: procurement). The fact that much of NATO falls below the amount of military funding they're supposed to have means that NATO is weaker than it should be, but in no way places limits on the US with respect to freedom of action.
The point was that, if we were to pull out of NATO, it would be absurd to do so via a national referendum. The leaders of our country who weve elected should make the decision yay or nay.
Turns out it was started before the election by a "Leave" supporter who was convinced Remain would win. This was an attempt to stop it, but now the Remain supporters have hijacked it. Also they have eliminated around 100K signatures which were fraudulent. Link - ( New Window )
the voice of white Appalachia, which is of course ironic because of his origins. Whether you think they do a good job of it or not, politicians (particularly Democrats) court poor voters of color. Their policies, effective or not, are aimed at addressing their perceived woes. And both parties court wealthy, educated voters of all colors. But the Democrats haven't had a politician of consequence from Appalachia since Edwards, maybe since Clinton, and frankly identity politics is a slap in the face to those who don't feel themselves especially "privileged." The ordinary Republicans have little more than platitudes to offer them too. I don't like the phenomenon, but I think we underestimate it at our peril. And of course Appalachia isn't a geographic phenomenon, there are pockets of Appalachia from Maine to Idaho and Florida out to California.
Brexit had much to do with the assuming away of those people, that they would vote not at all or for the Labour or Tory pols they had long supported and the Remain vote their leadership advocated.
Not just Appalachia. There is plenty of devastation in places like Rome, Utica, Ansonia, Seymour, Bristol, Waterbury, Youngstown. And it is more than "pockets". Whole swathes have been affected.
John Oliver's Hillariously Profane Reaction To The BREXIT vote
I was listening to Boston Public Radio this morning. The state is blaming Brexit, in part, for next years deficit claiming they will see less revenue from capital gains.
I wonder why.
We have had to deal for decades with an undemocratic superstate which it seems to me has not benefited us trade wise. If the EU weakens or collapses as a result of Brexit won't it be easier to deal with the European states individually ? Yes, I understand the stock market will tank temporarily. The pound will tank and the dollar will soar for now. Probably oil will be down. But it should all be temporary.
As for the UK, my knowledge is limited, but from the times I've been over I'm surprised their membership has lasted this long. Its well known that the Brits don't consider themselves Europeans. In fact when I mistakenly referred to the UK as being part of Europe when I was over there for business it was obvious I insulted everyone in the room. I never made that mistake again. "Brussels" is spoken with contempt in every paper and TV show I saw.
I wonder why.
It may take some years but I actually believe we will prosper outside of the EU.
An interesting thing to see will be this country's reaction. Will the special relationship hold and the US quickly agree a trade deal or will they inflict a punishment beating on the UK for going against their wishes. I hope we look long term and forge a closer trans-Atlantic alliance.
Link - ( New Window )
It may take some years but I actually believe we will prosper outside of the EU.
An interesting thing to see will be this country's reaction. Will the special relationship hold and the US quickly agree a trade deal or will they inflict a punishment beating on the UK for going against their wishes. I hope we look long term and forge a closer trans-Atlantic alliance.
There will be no UK and the US will be more focused on maintaining its trade relationship with the EU, a much larger and more lucrative market.
So, why did the chief enabler of Brexit -- Prime Minister David Cameron -- just resign?
There will need to be adjustments to trade agreements, but you'd have to be out of your mind to think the world ends because the Brits said FU to being forced to take orders from Brussels.
Hope my broker will wait a day and start buying after the markets craps the bed today...
The Euro is overpriced and the Brits never gave up the pound (as did the Scandinavians who never gave up their kroners). So what changes?
The big change will be the UK's border and immigration restrictions. I guess it is a good day to apply for a job with UK Customs and Immigration.
I don't blame them at all.
The EU is losing a huge economic power. It's going to be harder for Great Britian companies to build out side of Britian.
The breakdown by age is pretty striking: 18-34 year olds voted heavily to remain, while the older generations broke decisively to leave.
Help the US and Russia......as EU becomes much less attractive
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
FYI DOW futures -377
SP Futures -80
So yea gonna be a blood bath. but this is SHORT TERM IMO
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
Agreed.
Quote:
Who everyone was championing as some heroine, comes out as a huge loser in this both in current terms and in historical contexts. Her immigration stance is going to cause Germany huge problems in the short term and the EU boondoggle over economics and unchecked immigration pushed by Germany have helped precipitate its own demise.
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
Agreed.
CANT AGREE MORE. PERFECTLY written
FYI DOW futures -377
SP Futures -80
So yea gonna be a blood bath. but this is SHORT TERM IMO
Of course it is temporary. It may drop 400 today and Monday go up 250 and then regain it all by next Friday.
The breakdown by age is pretty striking: 18-34 year olds voted heavily to remain, while the older generations broke decisively to leave.
Reminds me of this:
Twitter - ( New Window )
Why is immigration a scapegoat? It is not an imagined problem. It is the problem. The free borders and work rules overloaded a nation. As jobs appear, the EU people are free to move (like moving from NY to AZ). I don't think the actual European people moving freely was a problem, but it was the North African and Middle Easterners and the freeloaders as a result that drove the issue.
Complicated issue.
The demographics are interesting. the 18-34 y/o group basically knew nothing else and probably liked being able to move freely about the Continental job market. The older crowd preferring the way it was and staying home.
Quote:
and it seemed that working class folks drove the Leave votes, and immigration was the major issue. But I don't think it's a far reach to connect the dots between a squeezed working class, stagnant wages and immigration as the scapegoat.
Why is immigration a scapegoat? It is not an imagined problem. It is the problem. The free borders and work rules overloaded a nation. As jobs appear, the EU people are free to move (like moving from NY to AZ). I don't think the actual European people moving freely was a problem, but it was the North African and Middle Easterners and the freeloaders as a result that drove the issue.
Complicated issue.
The demographics are interesting. the 18-34 y/o group basically knew nothing else and probably liked being able to move freely about the Continental job market. The older crowd preferring the way it was and staying home.
Scapegoat was the wrong term, but making immigration (and xenophobia) the main issue covers for a lot of other reasons, including failings in economic policy, as it has for the last 200 years.
BamaBlue : 7:44 am : link : reply
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
As the EU progressed, there simply aren't many great reasons for the top heavy countries to stay in it. The UK and Germany become almost like welfare subsidizers for the rest of the group. From an economic standpoint, if the UK was ever truly in, they'd have converted to the Euro. They have always had reservations about the EU, and finally enough was enough. The perfect storm of Brussels control, an undue % of economic burden put on them, the constant worry about the weaker nations casing ripples and the immigration situation made now the right time for them to leave.
This isn't a Doomsday thing. The UK will still have trading partners and the EU will continue on for now, and if it does break up - I'm not sure even that is the horrific thing people think it is.
Quote:
Scapegoat was the wrong term, but making immigration (and xenophobia) the main issue covers for a lot of other reasons, including failings in economic policy, as it has for the last 200 years.
Since 60s and 70s disastrous era, the UK has been doing ok, holding their own. The oil and gas industries have been solid.
Nothing wrong with "xenophobia." I wouldn't want the cretins and freeloaders that invaded the UK, either. I think the French are far more xenophobic than the Brits. Their intolerance and isolation of the North Africans from their former colonies is startling. The Brits were far more welcoming or tolerant might be a better term.
I don't see the Germans being xenophobic, France yes. The Germans have embraced immigration as the immigrants fill jobs left open by a declining working age population (this explained to me by a German Immigration officer to my bewilderment). The French want to protect French culture at all costs. Two different animals.
At what point Germany says they aren't shouldering the Med EU nations, I haven't a clue.
Quote:
The EU overstepped it's governance...
BamaBlue : 7:44 am : link : reply
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
As the EU progressed, there simply aren't many great reasons for the top heavy countries to stay in it. The UK and Germany become almost like welfare subsidizers for the rest of the group. From an economic standpoint, if the UK was ever truly in, they'd have converted to the Euro. They have always had reservations about the EU, and finally enough was enough. The perfect storm of Brussels control, an undue % of economic burden put on them, the constant worry about the weaker nations casing ripples and the immigration situation made now the right time for them to leave.
This isn't a Doomsday thing. The UK will still have trading partners and the EU will continue on for now, and if it does break up - I'm not sure even that is the horrific thing people think it is.
^This. Everyone will survive. But I do think the Scots and the Irish may leave England.
I'm indifferent to the BREXIT personally. My prediction is a rough transition period with slow and low growth. For the EU I think we see more referendums.
I agree and believe this is a step backwards. Hopefully, in 100 years or so humans are working together for the important things. John Lennon is rolling over in his grave
Already started before the UK. See Poland.
And Russia and China are ecstatic.
I'm indifferent to the BREXIT personally. My prediction is a rough transition period with slow and low growth. For the EU I think we see more referendums.
Patrick - Remember that the markets popped up 1.5% yesterday for no reason other than the polls were showing "Remain" was winning. Any move today is going to be exaggerated by yesterday's pop was based on nothing other than a poll.
Ten Ton Hammer : 12:14 am : link : reply
while there's a lot of support for leaving in England.
I wonder why.''
TT, - historically, in the way back machine, the Scots big nemesis and worse (see braveheart etc) at times (great in other ways) were the English.
The Scots at times, very traditionally, looked to France as a friend and counter balance to the English, The English are still obviously a major part of Britain, and some in Scotland still make those associations, using Europe as a counter balance. So, whereas for Northern England, 'out' means independence, for some Scots 'in' means independence (from historic England).
That said, you might see Scotland as having a sort of duality, are they New Hampshire (socially conservative and independent or libertarian politically) or are they Vermont (x new Yorkers also having an independent streak but leaning socialist within that sentiment)?
I was for Scotland IN Britain and Britain OUT of EU, with Scots gaining more power within Britain via legislation.
Quote:
The EU overstepped it's governance...
BamaBlue : 7:44 am : link : reply
What started as an economic union quickly turned into a political machine. With France and Spain very unlikely to support a union dominated by Germany, it looks like their departures are inevitable.
As the EU progressed, there simply aren't many great reasons for the top heavy countries to stay in it. The UK and Germany become almost like welfare subsidizers for the rest of the group. From an economic standpoint, if the UK was ever truly in, they'd have converted to the Euro. They have always had reservations about the EU, and finally enough was enough. The perfect storm of Brussels control, an undue % of economic burden put on them, the constant worry about the weaker nations casing ripples and the immigration situation made now the right time for them to leave.
This isn't a Doomsday thing. The UK will still have trading partners and the EU will continue on for now, and if it does break up - I'm not sure even that is the horrific thing people think it is.
Good points by you both.
But don't be deluded into thinking that the EU ever truly united the region. What started as a good concept to pool resources and rely on each countries strengths to drive commerce has devolved into the top countries having to shoulder the woes of the weaker countries.
If it was truly united, there wouldn't be half the countries using the Euro and the other half retaining their old currency. There wouldn't be some countries joining and then shirking their responsibilities knowing that they can be bailed out.
Instead of being united, centralizing the political decisions in Brussels but having the economic strength in other areas only served to cause resentment and disarray.
Quote:
You do realize that British Marxists supported Brexit, and that other similar parties across Europe felt the same way?
And Russia and China are ecstatic.
Why would the Chinese give a shit? Their crap is still headed to both the UK and EU. Their market share won't change.
As for Putin, NATO is more important (deterrent) than the EU.
''RE: Greg
schabadoo : 9:00 am : link : reply
In comment 13007151 kicker said:
Quote:
You do realize that British Marxists supported Brexit, and that other similar parties across Europe felt the same way?
And Russia and China are ecstatic.''
----------
Rather, Britain of old, as an island state, was a much more staunch supporter of the west and western values than it has been, as a mollified junior partner within the EU, who have done very little in opposing the enemies of the west, Germany being so close to Russia geographically, and France being, well, you know, France, tricky, often duplicitous historically, or at least, you know.
I would think that Russia and China and ISIL loved how formerly staunch Britain had been compromised geopolitically by having always to team with those two, and that Russia remembers what a strong, tough Britain looks like.
As for America, we need tough, singular minded partners like the old Britain of Churchill.
As for British Marxists, who cares what those very few idiots really thought?
Monday or Tuesday.
Quote:
Scoop up some good bargains in the market?
Monday or Tuesday.
Looks like Bank stocks taking some hits early.
"We are a small country," Prime Minister Erna Solberg told CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday. "I think it will be more difficult for British voters to accept that Brussels decides and the Brits don't have a say."
"I think those who are saying there's a good romantic story outside the European Union are underestimating the challenge that the whole process of division will have."
"We try to lobby and put our weight into the decision-making process, but when the final decision is made, the Norwegian politicians and the Norwegian people have to accept most of those regulations. I don't think that a large country like Britain would like to have that type of decision-making being made without participating in the decision making."
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Or expected results for companies and the country coming from this vote then economically this wasn't a good idea. Luckily the markets don't really follow any thing or make any sense so who knows. The market reaction has been essentially chicken little.
I'm indifferent to the BREXIT personally. My prediction is a rough transition period with slow and low growth. For the EU I think we see more referendums.
Patrick - Remember that the markets popped up 1.5% yesterday for no reason other than the polls were showing "Remain" was winning. Any move today is going to be exaggerated by yesterday's pop was based on nothing other than a poll.
Indeed I do, it makes no sense and it happens. I'm personally hoping for an inexplicable market crash here. My investing horizon is 40 years, I'm going to need some dips to buy into to make any type of return like previous generations saw. So long as the next market crash isn't the apocalypse all will be well. And really even if it is - money would no longer be a concern lol.
And all of that is secondary to a democracy peacefully determining its destiny. Whatever short perturbations result, long term its all good. Good buying oportunity for long term investors.
I can see why Scotland and Ireland would want to leave the UK over this, but it doesn't make any sense to join the EU.
There will need to be adjustments to trade agreements, but you'd have to be out of your mind to think the world ends because the Brits said FU to being forced to take orders from Brussels.
Hope my broker will wait a day and start buying after the markets craps the bed today...
The Euro is overpriced and the Brits never gave up the pound (as did the Scandinavians who never gave up their kroners). So what changes?
The big change will be the UK's border and immigration restrictions. I guess it is a good day to apply for a job with UK Customs and Immigration.
I don't blame them at all.
Well said section125
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
How do you arrive at this disaster? Their economy won't crash.
Quote:
Countries are stronger when they are united. Hopefully this doesn't start a period of nationalistic nonsense that leads to more European conflict.
I agree and believe this is a step backwards. Hopefully, in 100 years or so humans are working together for the important things. John Lennon is rolling over in his grave
Nonsense. Countries can stand united without having a huge bureaucracy ruling over them. That is what NATO is. And frankly the European countries can't defend themselves militarily, so it's unlikely they will start any kind of wars with each other.
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "long term." The short term of Brexit could lead to very unsettled socio-economic times, which I'm hoping is confined to Great Britain. But, if the economic malaise spreads, then the "short term" can morph is to quite a few years.
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
Fear mongering is effective. The market response already shows that. There won't be an apocalypse but there will be plenty of people speculating and talking about one, which causes volatility.
Quote:
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "long term." The short term of Brexit could lead to very unsettled socio-economic times, which I'm hoping is confined to Great Britain. But, if the economic malaise spreads, then the "short term" can morph is to quite a few years.
The economy has been unsettled for a long time, while mainly being run by the experts that are predicting any change will be a disaster. They obviously don't have the confidence of the people.
Stocks in my view are already overpriced, but money has to go somewhere. There will be a flight to security, which means money will go into the stocks of the great American companies that make up the Dow, and even the stock market as a whole. It might also go into real estate in the U.S.
Quote:
how little people understand the ramification of this decision. Thinking there will be some sort of apocalyptic crash is part of the fear mongering tactics people were trying to use to "Remain".
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by the "long term." The short term of Brexit could lead to very unsettled socio-economic times, which I'm hoping is confined to Great Britain. But, if the economic malaise spreads, then the "short term" can morph is to quite a few years.
The economic malaise is much more likely to come from Greece or possibly Spain or Italy and was inevitable regardless of the results of the Brexit vote.
Similar here, we want to play noble card, show how pluralistic we are, and I am,
but many also want to ignore that the very few true racists within the populist movements gained voice under left leaning regimes, whereas, under a Reagan, for example, the very few true racists were -more- marginalized, not less, having no 'wind' in their 'sails'.
"Manipulated" or dependent on several underlying assumptions?
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
For the most part, things will stay the same - in the long run. In the short term, there will be some impact as the UK and the EU learn to adjust.
Saying things will stay the same is almost as silly as saying the apocalypse will happen. This is a new situation that has never happened before. At this point no one knows wtf will happen. Those that voted leave will insist things will mostly remain the same and those that voted stay will scream apocalypse. It is more likely that both groups are wrong then either one being right.
Stocks in my view are already overpriced, but money has to go somewhere. There will be a flight to security, which means money will go into the stocks of the great American companies that make up the Dow, and even the stock market as a whole. It might also go into real estate in the U.S.
Gold is already up.
I also agree with FMIC above, EU left very little benefit for the strong countries. They just end up subsidizing Greece, Italy, etc.
It's a conspiracy.
But other than the FTSE, who really gives a shit? Traders I guess. I buy broad based index funds and dont buy and sell on news. Really, I dont sell at all. I guess if you are someone who needed all their money today, this sucks. Otherwise, give it time.
I also agree with FMIC above, EU left very little benefit for the strong countries. They just end up subsidizing Greece, Italy, etc.
I'd say being on the Euro absolutely helped the strong countries. If Germany had an independent currency, it would be very, very strong and would thereby hurt Germany's export economy. You can net the good vs the bad for being in the EU and on the Euro, but to ignore that benefit is a mistake.
Polls can be manipulated in many ways. How you ask the question, who you ask it to, how big your date range or sample size is, etc. Polls are useless and are just another political ploy to push an agenda. Ever wonder why MSNBC polls differ from Foxnews polls?
Most of those working full- or part-time voted to remain, for example, while most of those who are not working wanted to leave. More than half of those on a personal pension voted to leave, a figure that rose to two-thirds of those on a state pension. Some 55% of those who own their homes outright voted to leave.
The Lord Ashcroft page is really slow, so I'll link to the Guardian instead.
Link - ( New Window )
Moral of the story... ignore commentators and look at actual data.
This is a new situation? How?
For centuries, the UK operated as a stand alone economy. The EU was actually just a blip in their history. They never lost control of their currency. There will be an impact, especially in the short term, but not a drastic change of events. The EU can't afford to alienate the UK and the UK can't afford not to trade with the EU.
By necessity, things will mainly remain the same.
The idea that this is a radical time in the UK history is either fueled by ignorance or by the ones who want to "Remain".
Quote:
A private exit poll conducted on Thursday by the businessman Lord Ashcroft showed that there was no difference between male and female voters but very sharp differences between voters according to age, ethnicity, education and personal wealth.
Most of those working full- or part-time voted to remain, for example, while most of those who are not working wanted to leave. More than half of those on a personal pension voted to leave, a figure that rose to two-thirds of those on a state pension. Some 55% of those who own their homes outright voted to leave.
The Lord Ashcroft page is really slow, so I'll link to the Guardian instead. Link - ( New Window )
That is exactly what I am afraid of. Fascist demagogues thrive on this kind of crap.
I am not a little horrified that Britain's counterpart to Elizabeth Warren was murdered by a radical white supremacist fascist in all this. DISGUSTING.
More broadly, I dont like what this says about the UKs (rather Englands) desire to lead on the world stage. We need fewer, not more, Switzerlands. The British are sensible people who largely elect sensible leaders. We need their voice as the world grows increasingly restive. An insular self-interest, at times seemingly beneficial, will continually miss the forest for the trees. The world is irrevocably globalized in manners beyond mere economics.
I wonder to what extent the attacks in Brussels, Paris, and perhaps Orlando made the difference in this close contest.
By the way, its amusing how Greg has pigeonholed this complex issue into his petty, parochial, and emotion-driven worldview.
Therefore the Community gives us access to secure supplies of food helps us to obtain the industrial raw materials we need provides us with a large home market for our exports gives us a greater chance of attracting foreign investments into Britain.
To leave such a Community would not merely be a leap in the dark, it would be like a leap overboard from a secure ship into dark and unchartered waters.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
but the unintended consequence is
Northern Ireland , Scotland and perhaps even Wales will now probably leave the UK and join the EU.
Quote:
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
Quote:
In comment 13007197 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Quote:
In comment 13007377 M.S. said:
Quote:
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
To answer your question, I think this is a short, and expected blip. England, and the UK, survived on their own for generations very well. In fact they were only "ala carte" members of the UK anyway. The fact they never even changed over their currency is a huge plus in the exit transition. The rest of the EU needs the UK services so new agreements will be put in place. This will also relieve the UK of having to subsidize failing countries who are only functioning through EU $$.
In addition they get to control their own immigration and economic policies again. Outside of the expected short-term blip, I see no real downside.
The only issue I see is that Scotland could vote to leave the UK. They were close last time anyway, and now they have the pro-EU sentiment to add to the mix.
but the unintended consequence is
Northern Ireland , Scotland and perhaps even Wales will now probably leave the UK and join the EU.
Northern Ireland and Scotland possibly since they both voted to stay (scotland especially). But Wales voted similarly to england and wanted to leave.
Quote:
In comment 13007377 M.S. said:
Quote:
...will be the very same ones who are crushed in the subsequent downturn in their economy.
It won't be pretty, but -- hey -- there's a price to be paid for Nativism, and the bill is coming due.
Please explain how. How does freeing an economy from excess regulation taxes and fees cause a "subsequent downturn" in an economy.
The "bill coming due" is to GER and FRA who will continue to pay for the failed fiscal policies imposed on them internally andthe unending bailouts of the PIIGS.
Sorry M.S., but you have zero understanding of economics.
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
Because that's the initial knee jerk reaction of the suckers who just read headlines spewed by group think gov't and big bank "economists" who are dependent on the status quo. The pros will be buying at the bottom and reap the benefits. Were I still a fixed income portfolio manager I'd be waving in GBP bonds all day after the initial sell off. There isn't even a currency issue to worry about here.
Quote:
In comment 13007201 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
In comment 13007197 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Cameron was for staying in the EU, in fact he has now resigned because of this vote.
That was pretty incredible. I wonder what the net effect is. Does it deter the "losing" side to not bother or spur them into action?
Quote:
In comment 13007514 schnitzie said:
Quote:
In comment 13007201 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
In comment 13007197 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Cameron was for staying in the EU, in fact he has now resigned because of this vote.
I think you've missed the key point here...Cameron put Brexit on the table originally to protect his flank from far right Nativisits. He never thought it would pass. But he's the one who served it up. And now he has downed the poison meal.
Quote:
Countries are stronger when they are united. Hopefully this doesn't start a period of nationalistic nonsense that leads to more European conflict.
That is exactly what I am afraid of. Fascist demagogues thrive on this kind of crap.
I am not a little horrified that Britain's counterpart to Elizabeth Warren was murdered by a radical white supremacist fascist in all this. DISGUSTING.
You are literally the only person in the world comparing Jo Cox to Elizabeth Warren. I live here and I had never heard of Jo Cox before she was tragically killed. FYI her killer was deeply mentally ill and known to police. He doesn't speak for anyone voting leave.
In this case, I suspect that the huge turnout among unemployed and underemployed voters, virtually all of whom voted leave, was missed. The polls going in were nearly all quite close, so a mistake in sampling can throw the whole thing off.
Quote:
In comment 13007526 M.S. said:
Quote:
In comment 13007514 schnitzie said:
Quote:
In comment 13007201 Gary from The East End said:
Quote:
In comment 13007197 Sammo85 said:
Quote:
A lot of European countries are going to swing back to the right over the coming years. Immigration, high taxes, stagnant economics and inequality is a toxic brew ripe for changes.
We've seen that movie before and it didn't turn out so well then either.
What Gary said.
Agree with all of this 100%. THIS could be the Pandora's Box that was opened by David Cameron and the Brexit crowd. At least the former Prime Minister did the right thing... he fell on his sword before things got any worse.
Cameron was for staying in the EU, in fact he has now resigned because of this vote.
I think you've missed the key point here...Cameron put Brexit on the table originally to protect his flank from far right Nativisits. He never thought it would pass. But he's the one who served it up. And now he has downed the poison meal.
Thats true, but your post read like Cameron was with the Brexit Crowd. He was absolutely against it, and has not lost his job due to it. He pushed it to put it to rest, but he was in no way supportive of it.
In this case, I suspect that the huge turnout among unemployed and underemployed voters, virtually all of whom voted leave, was missed. The polls going in were nearly all quite close, so a mistake in sampling can throw the whole thing off.
Hey manh- I'm wondering what this does to corporate inversions.
Umm. Yes. It is almost the textbook definition of a short term issue. You think the Pound is just going to collapse based on this news?
Again - seems like the thought process of either somebody who has bought into the fear mongering or is pretty ignorant about Global economics.
Supposedly this is going to hurt the weaker states in the Union, but even with the EU it hasn't worked out well for Greece or the PIIGS.
In this case, I suspect that the huge turnout among unemployed and underemployed voters, virtually all of whom voted leave, was missed. The polls going in were nearly all quite close, so a mistake in sampling can throw the whole thing off.
The polling wasnt bad. Polling had it as a razor thin margin, some with Leave winning. Final vote was within M.O.E. Betting/currency markets got it wrong.
Repeating myself, but the Brexit polls weren't bad. Showed a toss-up. Question is why so few people believed them.
Been wondering this myself. Like what happened with the polling in Michigan for the dem primary?
Supposedly this is going to hurt the weaker states in the Union, but even with the EU it hasn't worked out well for Greece or the PIIGS.
Ron I agree except with Putin. I would say he would try to encroach, but NATO is not affected. So he's not coming West. East Europe will not forget the USSR. He may try to garner financial favors, but nobody will trust him.
I don't think the UK for one minute is renouncing their NATO commitments.
Quote:
So, the fact that British equities and the Pound took it in the shorts today was just panic selling based on fear-mongering, and its all just a temporary blip downward.
Umm. Yes. It is almost the textbook definition of a short term issue. You think the Pound is just going to collapse based on this news?
Again - seems like the thought process of either somebody who has bought into the fear mongering or is pretty ignorant about Global economics.
Might as well include my entire passage...
Or... an alternative scenario is that Brexit will lead to a tremendous amount of uncertainty that could mess up numerous trade negotiations that could extend for a very long time.
Moreover, there's nothing like uncertainty to un-glue financial markets which, of course, would undermine consumer confidence and change consumer buying habits, which in turn could easily tip the needle toward a very serious recession. And that on top of a world economy that's not exactly humming along at the present time.
IMO, it is much more incumbent on those who favor Brexit to explain how the economic benefits will out-weight the costs, rather than those against Brexit having to explain why the costs will out-weigh the benefits.
Are the EU counties going to stop buying from GB? No, The price of GB items may increase when the trade agreements end - mean time new agreements will be made.
Will GB stop buying from the EU? No or they will buy from other sources.
One door closes, another opens. China fills the void, or the US or Japan.
GB holds a pretty big card because of the oil fields, too.
I know that most people here think that there is a significant first mover advantage won by the British, but a number of commentators have stated that they always had the first mover advantage; why did they use it so quickly?
Let's take a look at potential long-term ramifications of Brexit:
1. Bilateral trade negotiations. Yes, there are countries outside the Union who have not suffered, but some of the stalwarts of the Union (Germany and France) are going to take this as a slight. Essentially, the British have to understand that either they look West, or start producing cheaper consumption goods, or they face a period of pretty strict isolationism within a wider European area.
2. Worker pay stagnation. Nothing stagnates domestic wages like a lack of immigration. The dynamics of education accumulation, wage and benefit growth, and movement of labor around industry is traditionally largest in EVERY country when immigration is high. By precluding both Eastern European and Middle Eastern immigration, I expect the wages of the working class in the UK to remain stagnant, in real terms, for a long time.
3. Yes, there are fiscal, monetary, and regulatory benefits in place. But some people think that "decentralization" directly leads to economic growth. That is simply a false Austrian assertion that is parroted by talking heads who have no idea what they are talking about.
Decentralization ONLY works when the subsequent rules that are used to govern the relationships are not rent-seeking. When you have a right and hard-right coalition making some some quite significant power plays, do you really expect that there won't be some tremendous opportunities to roll back one of the greater drivers of growth in the past 40 years: globalization.
The trust placed in the London market was, in large part, due to its long-term stability and its rather transparent (and historical) rules. They have changed some of the laws of the game. That has impacts.
and that this should NEVER have gone for a vote in the first place.
The British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it - ( New Window )
Are the EU counties going to stop buying from GB? No, The price of GB items may increase when the trade agreements end - mean time new agreements will be made.
Will GB stop buying from the EU? No or they will buy from other sources.
One door closes, another opens. China fills the void, or the US or Japan.
GB holds a pretty big card because of the oil fields, too.
With regards to the last point, I would think the possibility of a successful Scottish independence referendum might cause some uncertainty. They'd have to redraw the EEZ maps of the North Sea and Scotland has a pretty strong claim to a large portion of the UK's oil reserves.
I was, slightly in favor.
The last few posts are trying to correct some egregious views that there may be no long-term ramifications from this issue. I'm at the very least trying to paint a much more realistic picture. Plus, all the scenarios are probabilities, rather than certainties.
My view is that (optimistic) we can get over the right and hard-right anti-immigration issues in the UK and in the US; a lot of people are, quite frankly, morons when it comes to the impacts of immigration. Plenty of evidence out there, but they are mouthbreathers about it. Immigration, to western countries (even of low skill workers) is a net benefit to a country.
There are also tremendous benefits to eliminating the fiscal and monetary uncertainty caused by being a member of the Union. Not knowing if countries will really be mandated to follow the rules placed on them more recently is a pretty large fiscal strain in the future.
Quote:
It is done.
Are the EU counties going to stop buying from GB? No, The price of GB items may increase when the trade agreements end - mean time new agreements will be made.
Will GB stop buying from the EU? No or they will buy from other sources.
One door closes, another opens. China fills the void, or the US or Japan.
GB holds a pretty big card because of the oil fields, too.
With regards to the last point, I would think the possibility of a successful Scottish independence referendum might cause some uncertainty. They'd have to redraw the EEZ maps of the North Sea and Scotland has a pretty strong claim to a large portion of the UK's oil reserves.
This is true. Although I suspect BP has the franchise on those fields - not sure how that would shake out. Scottish independence is interesting. Would they leave the UK to join the EU? They might to show their disdain for England.
The EU is losing a huge economic power. It's going to be harder for Great Britian companies to build out side of Britian.
This is a poor analogy in my opinion. A more accurate analogy would be if there was (hypothetically) a North American Union consisting of the US, Canada and Mexico and 52% of the US population decided it didn't want their country to be controlled by bureaucrats in Ottawa, Canada. I would be among that 52%.
Let's face it. Globalization in inevitable and I don't think this is the death knell to the EU that some here hope it is. The economic partnership will be revisited and lessons will be learned. In its current form or some other. Both sides are overreacting to this atm. No one knows what the short or long term repercussions are.
And the Russians and Chinese aren't some big winners. They have severe problems with their own economies - least of all having to do with the EU or UK.
Finally, what difference does it make whether Spain or Greece leave? The PIIGS have been a massive money suck.
"But the people should have a say."
The people do have a say. Every time they cast a vote for their preferred prime minister/president/member of Parliament/Congress, etc. they have a say.
Referendums undermine the very point of a representive democracy, a deliberate system of government far superior to the alternatives. The masses should not (directly) decide public policy.
(Except of course when they get weed legalized, then they're awesome).
Let's face it. Globalization in inevitable and I don't think this is the death knell to the EU that some here hope it is. The economic partnership will be revisited and lessons will be learned. In its current form or some other. Both sides are overreacting to this atm. No one knows what the short or long term repercussions are.
And the Russians and Chinese aren't some big winners. They have severe problems with their own economies - least of all having to do with the EU or UK.
Finally, what difference does it make whether Spain or Greece leave? The PIIGS have been a massive money suck.
One thing you got dead right, anything that lowers the price of crude is NOT good for Russia.
The people do have a say. Every time they cast a vote for their preferred prime minister/president/member of Parliament/Congress, etc. they have a say.
I'd say it's a pretty slender thread that connects UK voters to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
"But the people should have a say."
The people do have a say. Every time they cast a vote for their preferred prime minister/president/member of Parliament/Congress, etc. they have a say.
Referendums undermine the very point of a representive democracy, a deliberate system of government far superior to the alternatives. The masses should not (directly) decide public policy.
(Except of course when they get weed legalized, then they're awesome).
Not sure I agree there either. Were we to use national referendums here, does anyone really believe that Congress would still be dicking around over a sensible (and national) gun policy? Legalizing Marijuana?
What does our system accomplish, apart from protecting incumbents - who then take hard left/right positons to insulate themselves from primary opponents within their own party - since that's the only threat to a gerrymandered district?
The fact that the masses deciding public policy does sometimes lead to desireable outcomes does not negate the potential for chaos or, at the very least, a whole bunch of expanded programs that few will ever vote to pay for. Not that our Fed reps have been particularly provident (although many states have been including as of late, shockingly, California), but gov't by the people would be far worse. A certainty.
The fact that the masses deciding public policy does sometimes lead to desireable outcomes does not negate the potential for chaos or, at the very least, a whole bunch of expanded programs that few will ever vote to pay for. Not that our Fed reps have been particularly provident (although many states have been including as of late, shockingly, California), but gov't by the people would be far worse. A certainty.
Yes. Biggest problem is gerrymandering.
I also think that when it comes to larger issues that affect everyone, and, because our electeds have proven themselves incapable of compromising on anything but pay increases for themselves - some issues deserve a national referendum.
Apart from some specious states rights arguement, does it make sense to anyone that there isn't one gun policy that applies to all states. A national drug policy? Same sex marriage? Bizarre.
Quote:
Then your beef is with gerrymandering (one I fully share). And the excessive advantages of the incumbents (duly checked by term limits, long overdue for Congress)
The fact that the masses deciding public policy does sometimes lead to desireable outcomes does not negate the potential for chaos or, at the very least, a whole bunch of expanded programs that few will ever vote to pay for. Not that our Fed reps have been particularly provident (although many states have been including as of late, shockingly, California), but gov't by the people would be far worse. A certainty.
Yes. Biggest problem is gerrymandering.
I also think that when it comes to larger issues that affect everyone, and, because our electeds have proven themselves incapable of compromising on anything but pay increases for themselves - some issues deserve a national referendum.
Apart from some specious states rights arguement, does it make sense to anyone that there isn't one gun policy that applies to all states. A national drug policy? Same sex marriage? Bizarre.
It's called the 10th amendment
It's called the 10th amendment
The existence of an amendment to the constitution is not a policy argument, which was the question. Pointing to the 10th amendment may answer WHY the law is what it is, but not WHETHER the law should be what it is.
Also, the 10th amendment is entirely superfluous, a fact that was noted even at its adoption. The Supreme Court has noted that it "added nothing" to the Constitution
Quote:
Apart from some specious states rights argument, does it make sense to anyone that there isn't one gun policy that applies to all states. A national drug policy? Same sex marriage? Bizarre.
States rights is not specious. Each state is a mini-nation. It is not bizarre.
We could always throw out the Constitution, dissolve state legislatures and terminate governors....
Quote:
It's called the 10th amendment
The existence of an amendment to the constitution is not a policy argument, which was the question. Pointing to the 10th amendment may answer WHY the law is what it is, but not WHETHER the law should be what it is.
Also, the 10th amendment is entirely superfluous, a fact that was noted even at its adoption. The Supreme Court has noted that it "added nothing" to the Constitution
Whether or not it's superflous, or adds nothing, it is still there and is the law of the land and must be heeded. Or repealed by further amendment.
Link - ( New Window )
And yet since it's ratification, the SCOTUS has only struck down a federal mandate twice.
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
Quote:
I find pretty funny Link - ( New Window )
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
You're being generous. Most people don't know the adjoining state to theirs and probably think Canada is part of the USA.
Quote:
In comment 13007817 bubba0825 said:
Quote:
I find pretty funny Link - ( New Window )
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
You're being generous. Most people don't know the adjoining state to theirs and probably think Canada is part of the USA.
I dated a girl once, where upon watching a TV show (I think it was House MD), asked why a character needed a passport to enter Canada.
She was hot, but so dumb.
But on the whole, this smarmy, condescending response to this vote on our side of the pond and on theirs does not help matters. Some of the most important catalysts for this vote were policy decisions made by other leaders, specifically the shortcomings of our Iraq/Syria policy from 2011 on and then the decisions made on the continent to take in large numbers of refugees. These decisions were, in numerous instances, lauded by these same decisionmakers who are angry and aghast at the Leave vote.
Quote:
I find pretty funny Link - ( New Window )
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
I believe in it for some things. But on matters that really require expertise, they add nothing. I dont care how many laymen form the crowd, there isnt an amount of wisdom that comes forth that will reliably make sure that a bowel resection is done properly. I'd rather one average surgeon do that.
Similarly, there are a lot of reasons to believe that the crowd (or when we dont like what they do, the mob), is really not all that suited to coming up with the optimal course of action for something as complex as Brexit. And unfortunately, speaking for our country, "expertise" has become a dirty word.
This is your voting public.
This is your voting public.
Not knowing the ingredients for cole slaw is an indication of someone's intelligence?
(and I agree that most people are morons)
I don't know what is in cole slaw. I just know I don't like it.
Quote:
In comment 13007817 bubba0825 said:
Quote:
I find pretty funny Link - ( New Window )
Yes, well. A good sized chunk of Americans believe that Canada is a communist country. Another chunk believe the bible to be a literal history book. That doesn't mean people don't know what they're voting for.
I'm a believer in wisdom of crowds.
You're being generous. Most people don't know the adjoining state to theirs and probably think Canada is part of the USA.
My wife's sister, on learning that we were moving to Chicago (years back) said, "That's in Florida, isn't it?"
Three kids in the family, one smart and talented (my wife), one dumb as a box of rocks, and the other a raving maniac biker wannabe. Here's to the future of gene splicing.
Not really. Cheese IS dairy. Cole Slaw can be made different ways. And maybe she has a dairy allergy.
There are lots of different takes on coleslaw, many with no dairy at all. Of course, it it looks like someone jizzed all over it, then it's likely to be dairy.
[quote] the dairy one (mayo)
Why does mayo make it dairy? (not trying to be a dick, this is a real question)
Correct. There is a misconception that eggs are dairy because of where they are sold in the supermarket, but they're not.
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
Because UK's next PM appears as though he's wearing it on his head.
Quote:
as to Britain exiting the EU?
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
But HE was wrong about cole slaw. Should he e allowed to vote?
Quote:
as to Britain exiting the EU?
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
Well, let's be honest: if you can't figure out what's in slaw, you probably aren't curing cancer.
Quote:
In comment 13008012 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
as to Britain exiting the EU?
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
But HE was wrong about cole slaw. Should he e allowed to vote?
No worries, nobody's getting my vote this time anyway. Neither side.
If you keep saying racism (or its functional equivalents) over and over again, it loses its sting and people stop fearing the label.
Quote:
In comment 13008012 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
as to Britain exiting the EU?
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
Well, let's be honest: if you can't figure out what's in slaw, you probably aren't curing cancer.
Quote:
In comment 13008016 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 13008012 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
as to Britain exiting the EU?
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
Well, let's be honest: if you can't figure out what's in slaw, you probably aren't curing cancer.
I bet Einstein didn't know.
And he didn't cure cancer, did he?
Quote:
In comment 13008012 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
as to Britain exiting the EU?
TTH thinks knowing the ingredients in cole slaw is some type of intelligence barometer.
Well, let's be honest: if you can't figure out what's in slaw, you probably aren't curing cancer.
I know some people (mathematically) smart enough to cure cancer, but too dumb to light a grill. Forget about making cole slaw.
Quote:
...consequences/meaning of Brexit, but also what was behind Brexit, which included a strong dose of Nativism. Left unchecked, this impulse can have some very unsavory consequences.
If you keep saying racism (or its functional equivalents) over and over again, it loses its sting and people stop fearing the label.
Or... there are plenty of Nativists who neither know what the word means and are unaware of how well they fit the definition.
Dune, I've come to ignore people who think you have to like everyone and if you don't you are a racist, xenophobe, etc. In fact I'm disgusted with the bullying associated with it. You are 100% correct, the meaning is lost or diluted when disagreement means racism and it is bullying.
In it's own way, it's bigotry.
The pull of nativism is just likely to grow--not linearly, but inexorably.
An example of the impact of technological change in the third world, see the link, about Addidas taking manufacturing out of China and the like, and re-siting in developed countries--using robots and very few jobs. More to come.
I find it really really difficult to be optimistic over the near to intermediate term.
Link - ( New Window )
Your words may be relevant, but they don't apply to me. And if you think they do, you are seriously mistaken.
The risk is that Britain becomes a kind of offshore oddity, quirky but irrelevant shut out of the action of its neighbouring continent. That shift will be felt first by the City of London: perhaps few will shed any tears for them, even if financial services are or used to be one of this countrys biggest employers. But eventually that new view of Britain could percolate through, affecting our creative industries, our tourism and eventually our place in the world.
Tariffs are going up sharply, both in and out. Close to 200 treaties will have to be negotiated with Europe, and any treaties that resulted from being part of the EU will have to be renegotiated with other countries as well. London as a financial center will diminish--not clear yet how much, but it will diminish. And this creates a pretty strong incentive for Scotland to have another referendum to leave the UK. It would surely pass.
We have woken up in a different country. - ( New Window )
Quote:
effectively serious charges. And if you use them to describe everything with which you disagree, from opposition to large-scale immigration to voting for a candidate whom you dislike, the charge is going to lose its sting.
In it's own way, it's bigotry.
Oh, I see. I make the obvious point that Nativism and Xenophobia were ingredients in the Brexit vote, and you label me a racist in return. Yowzer... you've got quite an imagination there!
And if every comment you make consists of accusations of bigotry you're also willfully blind. Because you'r right, less than 100% of these campaigns are high minded and good natured. Of course, less than 100% of EVERY campaign this year is high minded and good natured. And FAR more than 0% of the campaigns you loathe are based on xenophobia and racism and nativism.
Quote:
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
And if every comment you make consists of accusations of bigotry you're also willfully blind. Because you'r right, less than 100% of these campaigns are high minded and good natured. Of course, less than 100% of EVERY campaign this year is high minded and good natured. And FAR more than 0% of the campaigns you loathe are based on xenophobia and racism and nativism.
make that far more than 0% are based on issues other than xenophobia and racism and nativism.
Not you.
Quote:
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
And if every comment you make consists of accusations of bigotry you're also willfully blind. Because you'r right, less than 100% of these campaigns are high minded and good natured. Of course, less than 100% of EVERY campaign this year is high minded and good natured. And FAR more than 0% of the campaigns you loathe are based on xenophobia and racism and nativism.
njm... this last precious piece of yours sounds like you tied your tongue into a triple knot and then tried to say something brilliant, but it just came out all twisted. Why don't you try again?
Scotland Sees Its Future as Part of the EU. - ( New Window )
Quote:
That physical geography has not changed, but the psychological geography has. Suddenly it will make much less sense to headquarter a big international firm in London, or for a Japanese car-maker to locate a factory one that aims to sell into Europe in the north-east of England. Why do it, if you could be in Germany instead? Why come to post-Brexit Britain, where there could soon be the hassle of visas and tariffs and all the rest? Why bother?
The risk is that Britain becomes a kind of offshore oddity, quirky but irrelevant shut out of the action of its neighbouring continent. That shift will be felt first by the City of London: perhaps few will shed any tears for them, even if financial services are or used to be one of this countrys biggest employers. But eventually that new view of Britain could percolate through, affecting our creative industries, our tourism and eventually our place in the world.
Tariffs are going up sharply, both in and out. Close to 200 treaties will have to be negotiated with Europe, and any treaties that resulted from being part of the EU will have to be renegotiated with other countries as well. London as a financial center will diminish--not clear yet how much, but it will diminish. And this creates a pretty strong incentive for Scotland to have another referendum to leave the UK. It would surely pass. We have woken up in a different country. - ( New Window )
That kind of strikes me as a worst case. Short term there will indeed need to be a lot of negotiating. But the UK itself a market that is an attractive place to sell. Will the rest of the EU cut off it's nose to spite it's face and sharply raise tariffs? Who, at least in the short term, is going to replace The City and it's expertise? And to what extent will the freedom from Brussels bureaucrats and their regulations give the UK an advantage that at least partly partially offsets the downsides of leaving the EU.
And what of inversions? Does getting away from Brussels make the UK more attractive than Ireland or the Netherlands (particularly if they lower the corporate tax rate)?
there are 3 million from EU currently in UK
most are Polish , Portuguese Croatian and Spanish
(there is also immigration from Britain former empire
which won't be effected per se by their leaving the EU.)
But there are 1.3 Million Brits who currently live in EU countries
So you are talking a net of 1.7 million immigrates out our a population of 64 million
hardly a country being "overrun by immigrates"
London is financial center of EU which has driven a lot of the prosperity in the city and conversely the UK
I could see EU financial center drifting to another city like Amsterdam in the next 10 years ...
I think that UK won't be devastated by this as much as diminished
Barclay's stock is off 20 1/2%, as an example.
10-year Treasury yield down 19 bps in one day implies a combination of very weak global economic outlook and a flight from risk. British yield down 29 bps to 1.08%, and German down from .09 to minus .05%. Japan is at -.18%. These are very scary numbers, and people I know who know this stuff are weighted toward this being an undershoot, not an overshoot.
Very scary and uncertain times. Could the UK climb out of it? Not quickly, I don't think.
And England is by far Scotland's biggest trading partner, so spurning one union for another (albeit a somewhat looser affiliation) doesn't necessarily make much economic sense either.
Now that isn't to say that the entities that desperately wanted the UK to remain won't be happy to kick them when they're down, both out of spite and to discourage others who would leave, but it is to say it is too premature to rate this an economic disaster.
Quote:
UKsit, anyone? To quote a Tom Paxton song from the Sixties, they are Leaving London--although London would actually like to go with them. Scotland Sees Its Future as Part of the EU. - ( New Window )
And England is by far Scotland's biggest trading partner, so spurning one union for another (albeit a somewhat looser affiliation) doesn't necessarily make much economic sense either.
Little known fact is that Scotland's 3 big exports are Scotch whiskey, wool, and drunk Scotsmen who are pissed that their clothes are itchy.
The process will take years to implement. Im not going to make a prediction, but I could absolutely see another vote in a year. Could go the other way. This one was close.
Quote:
If I were Cameron I call for a second referendum with binding language and dare the Leave voters to go over the cliff again now that we know how awful things will be in the UK if they leave
The process will take years to implement. Im not going to make a prediction, but I could absolutely see another vote in a year. Could go the other way. This one was close.
The other way around it is if the Remain Tories show some political courage and vote with Labour to sack their own government, leading to a new election
The British voters pretty much committed economic suicide. I know about respecting the democratic will but they screwed up so badly that they have to find a way out of this by any means necessary. There is a good chance that first world living standards will no longer exist in most of the UK if they leave
Quote:
Would just play into the enduring criticism of the EU, which is that it is undemocratic and that when proponents don't get the result they want at the ballot box they just do it anyway.
The British voters pretty much committed economic suicide. I know about respecting the democratic will but they screwed up so badly that they have to find a way out of this by any means necessary. There is a good chance that first world living standards will no longer exist in most of the UK if they leave
That is flatly fucking absurd, just alarmist bullshit. And the elitist pricks who are pushing that garbage are the reason why Leave got 52% of the vote.
Quote:
In comment 13008286 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Would just play into the enduring criticism of the EU, which is that it is undemocratic and that when proponents don't get the result they want at the ballot box they just do it anyway.
The British voters pretty much committed economic suicide. I know about respecting the democratic will but they screwed up so badly that they have to find a way out of this by any means necessary. There is a good chance that first world living standards will no longer exist in most of the UK if they leave
That is flatly fucking absurd, just alarmist bullshit. And the elitist pricks who are pushing that garbage are the reason why Leave got 52% of the vote.
Of course dpinzow's post is bullshit. Nothing that drastic will happen. But if Boris Johnson becomes PM, as he likely will, then those who voted to leave, the increasingly dispossessed, embittered, and racist little Englanders, will be hoist by their own petard as inequality expands and what remains of the British social safety net more quickly dismantled.
We emphasize what we want on this thread and others, but while you rail against the elites (whose mismanagement is the structural cause of this crisis), it is anti-immigrant hysteria of the working classes that is the proximate one. When economic disaster strikes, anti-immigrant feeling will only heighten.
Enjoy.
Link - ( New Window )
X100. Let's call a spade a spade. Come on.
Well we already knew that 250 years ago.
Or Borowitz doesn't have a clue what he is talking about like the rest of the world.
Who knows how it will pan out.
Half will be wrong and half will be right.
Or it won't be half good or bad and the games continue.
1) this will take several years to implement and it's not clear how much will actually change. They're not out of the EU on Monday. The EU could play hardball on trade and that will be very interesting to see.
2) I don't see how any reasonable person can argue this is the best interest of the UK from an economic perspective. Banking alone will lose a bunch of jobs.
3) IMO, we'll see another vote at some point once they find out the Stay was correct.
Quote:
xenophobia and racism and nativism at all in the Leave campaign or a certain US campaign, you're being willfully blind. It doesnt describe every voter, for sure, but you're only kidding yourself if you think these campaigns are 100% high minded and good natured.
X100. Let's call a spade a spade. Come on.
And the Leave voters told you what they think of people like you doing so.
AP
It's a lot more than that.
A simplistic answer is never the cause.
Downfall of either side of a discussion. Never that easy.
AP
It's a lot more than that.
A simplistic answer is never the cause.
Downfall of either side of a discussion. Never that easy.
Are you anti American?
Problematic for Germany and that was going to come within the next five years anyway
I think the UK will be better off in the long run if they make the right moves in the years ahead
Corrections and implosions to come have little to do with the EU or this vote
Speculators have a field day and fuel as much uproar as possible so they extract rent from rumor.
I hope the signal is more of a throw the bums out mentality. Thats an acceptable message to the elite, imho. Racism is not. And although it is popular to ascribe racism which is surely there; lets not ignore that broken social contracts and the "feel" of broken social contracts as upward mobility declines post 2008 ( dont forget that the UK and Ireland also suffered from the empty banking system follies of the 1990-2016 time frame) finds a safety valve in angry votes rather than revolution.
Last thing I would say is to note that "racism" and resistance to assimilation can be two sides to the same coin...fear
If these elites consistently indicate to the British working class that they scorn and detest them, and the working class perceives that the elites in their own country have less regard for them, their countrymen, than foreign nationals.....is it really a surprise that the working class has absolutely no trust in or respect for the opinions of those elites?
This vote was about much, much more than mere economics, and tut-tutting about economics while ignoring the cultural aspects is simply foolish and willfully blind. Libertarian though I consider myself, I have always believed that libertarianism's belief in the absolute supremacy of economics over culture is a massive blind spot.
That now seems hopelessly naive. People do care more about people who are like them -- who speak their language, eat their food, share their customs and values. And when elites try to ignore those sentiments -- or banish them by declaring that they are simply racist -- this doesnt make the sentiments go away. It makes the non-elites suspect the elites of disloyalty. For though elites may find something vaguely horrifying about saying that you care more about people who are like you than you do about people who are culturally or geographically further away, the rest of the population is outraged by the never-stated corollary: that the elites running things feel no greater moral obligation to their fellow countrymen than they do to some random stranger in another country. And perhaps we can argue that this is the morally correct way to feel -- but if it is truly the case, you can see why ordinary folks would be suspicious about allowing the elites to continue to exercise great power over their lives.
Link - ( New Window )
Upper middle class engineers and tech companies from the UK have a lot to offer. As Dune noted their North Sea and ME energy services capabilities still leave them amongst the world's best. After the US and Canada.
They are and will have a limited future. True under any scenario. But pride and a sense of self determination and unique role in the world is a national asset. And they do have that.
I wouldn't put money into the UK but I'd never bet against the Brits.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
Historically, from very ancient days, Britain has gone its own way and been on its own rather than developed as an extension of and integral part of European culture (if it can be said that there is an integral European culture, which is itself questionable).
Neither Germany nor Britain were integral parts of the Roman Empire during its long history. The rest of Europe was -- and the roots of European society, law, commerce, and culture were inherited from that Empire. After that Empire fell in the West in the Fifth Century, Clovis, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne exerted controlling influence in Western Europe, but not over Britain. Instead, Anglo-Saxon culture in Britain continued to develop mostly on its own, albeit with strong elements borrowed from or imposed by Viking culture -- not the case for Europe -- for several hundred years. That changed with the successful Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, but, though conquered, the already matured and deeply embedded Anglo-Saxon cultural core of Britain remained dominant. Yes, Roman Catholicism extended not only to all of Europe, but to Britain as well, but, like Germany, the source of the Reformation, Britain, for its own reasons, broke from Roman Catholic authority beginning in the Sixteenth Century. Subsequently, wars of conquest were fought and constantly threatened between Britain and France (and Spain) up to and including the Napoleonic and, later, the Nazi conquests. Britain, with a little luck and a lot of talent, remained free of both at great cost.
With this history, how can it be surprising that Britain has decided to go its own way without external interference and governance by Brussels as any part of the EU?
Whether in the end, this decision will have dramatically different social or economic consequences for Britain as compared with Europe, and just what those will be, remains to be seen. But there surely there should be nothing shocking about the Brits once again insisting on reestablishing their separateness from Europe, as the Brexit vote indicates they wish to do.
I remind us though that the Normans were not French. The Normans were Vikings. Vikings the French Co opted with land or Vikings who extracted good land in return for "protecting" the softies from more raids down the rivers. Yeah and some viking Christian religious and legal beliefs
The William the Conqueror was a direct descendant of Rollo Lothbrok. Vikings with good land were not pure raiders but never lost the taste. Imho, what we call the Normans were not Southern Christian french noblemen. They were o two generations removed from pure ass Viking.
If I asserted that it's fun to think of the noble family squabbles and subsequent exploration and sea based exploitation as very Viking and then submit England not Scandanavians as having quite Viking roots...it would be fun to explore.
I close the point by reminding us that since Vikings had little use for writing or records...how do we know who conquered who? The creation myths of all nations exist to make all feel better.
Four score and seven years ago our forefathers started a noble experiment where everyone was equal? They did?
Take care Percy
I remind us though that the Normans were not French. The Normans were Vikings. Vikings the French Co opted with land or Vikings who extracted good land in return for "protecting" the softies from more raids down the rivers. Yeah and some viking Christian religious and legal beliefs
The William the Conqueror was a direct descendant of Rollo Lothbrok. Vikings with good land were not pure raiders but never lost the taste. Imho, what we call the Normans were not Southern Christian french noblemen. They were o two generations removed from pure ass Viking.
If I asserted that it's fun to think of the noble family squabbles and subsequent exploration and sea based exploitation as very Viking and then submit England not Scandanavians as having quite Viking roots...it would be fun to explore.
I close the point by reminding us that since Vikings had little use for writing or records...how do we know who conquered who? The creation myths of all nations exist to make all feel better.
Four score and seven years ago our forefathers started a noble experiment where everyone was equal? They did?
Take care Percy
Thanks Bill for the compliment and input on the Viking-French connection (of which I was ignorant -- especially your mention of Rollo Lothbrok, new to me). The "everyone . . . equal" part remains as amusing as ever.
And you take care, too.
"There exists some argument among historians as to whether Rollo was a 'duke' (dux) or whether his position was equivalent to that of a 'count' under Charlemagne. According to legend, when required to kiss the foot of King Charles, as a condition of the treaty, he refused to perform so great a humiliation, and when Charles extended his foot to Rollo, Rollo ordered one of his warriors to do so in his place. His warrior then lifted Charles' foot up to his mouth causing him to fall to the ground."
This seems to me wholly consistent with the feelings underlying the Brexit vote (a mere 1100 years later).
This vote was about much, much more than mere economics, and tut-tutting about economics while ignoring the cultural aspects is simply foolish and willfully blind. Libertarian though I consider myself, I have always believed that libertarianism's belief in the absolute supremacy of economics over culture is a massive blind spot.
+1
There is a lot of elite arrogance displayed on this thread. The same arrogance that the Brexit vote, the Trump phenomenon, and even the Sanders campaign is a rejection of. It's about a lot more than economics but at its heart it is a rebellion against a system that seems to have benefited only the elites. For years, on this board we have heard people wax eloquently about how the huge disparity in income levels was not that important, well this is what you get when people feel like they have no recourse for their grievances against a system that no longer represents or addresses their interests. Most of us on this board are lucky, we live in the NY area or Washington DC area, where the economies are fairly vibrant. Outside of those areas is a whole other America that is hurting. Last weekend, I was down in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Totally different world there. You can see how bad off people are down there with absolutely no hope that their economic condition will substantially improve.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
Well if want to go to root causes, the refugee crisis was caused in part due our and the UKs disastrous foreign policies. If you don't like refugees, stop contributing to cause. Maybe stop invading and intervening in foreign countries
Brexit had much to do with the assuming away of those people, that they would vote not at all or for the Labour or Tory pols they had long supported and the Remain vote their leadership advocated.
Quote:
The elites have failed. They want to claim that if the people vote for more independence and say in their future that it will be a disaster. Well, who has caused the conditions we have today that resulted in this vote? The very elites that are now warning us if we don't let them continue down their path, it will be a disaster.
And while immigration was one aspect, it's more than that. The refugee crisis is not immigration. The UK did not want to be flooded with refugees as the rest of Europe has been, and absorb all of the problems that it caused. I can't blame them for that. Look into what is going on in Calais and tell me that is just normal immigration.
Well if want to go to root causes, the refugee crisis was caused in part due our and the UKs disastrous foreign policies. If you don't like refugees, stop contributing to cause. Maybe stop invading and intervening in foreign countries
Of course the refugee crisis owed much to a pusillanimous foreign policy from 2009 on, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Brexit had much to do with the assuming away of those people, that they would vote not at all or for the Labour or Tory pols they had long supported and the Remain vote their leadership advocated.
Not a DT fan, but at least he seems to 'get it'. Maybe it's the manner of speech or just not being of the political elite, but people are responding. Flyover America getting its revenge.
The answer given by elites on immigration does not sound sustainable.
You know this by extrapolating the future of the century on only two dimensions:
Water and Arable land.
All the rest is talking stuff. Europe has food and water. The Me increasingly has more people and less water. Extend the trend 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
The elites are right?
I grant their not be any good answers. But the elites are leading? Or selling?
Again that's a guess at what goes through people's minds if I was sitting in a row house in Manchester.
Only took 6 pages pretty good discussion.
Lets try to keep on subject.
Last guy to be right that the future was going to hold less growth and require lower expectations was despised for it. Who follows someone who says the future is less?
People want hope not truth. But if you sell them hope but instead they sense the truth is too far a gap to promise...then they reject you.
People are funny and times are strange
"I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors.""
Al, was he in the Game of Thrones?
One seems more organized
There is nothing that is correct in that paragraph of economic vomit.
Al, was he in the Game of Thrones?
How do you know when you are crossing the line? Naming U.S. politicians.
Quote:
Somehow, over the last half-century, Western elites managed to convince themselves that nationalism was not real. Perhaps it had been real in the past, like cholera and telegraph machines, but now that we were smarter and more modern, it would be forgotten in the due course of time as better ideas supplanted it.
That now seems hopelessly naive. People do care more about people who are like them -- who speak their language, eat their food, share their customs and values. And when elites try to ignore those sentiments -- or banish them by declaring that they are simply racist -- this doesnt make the sentiments go away. It makes the non-elites suspect the elites of disloyalty. For though elites may find something vaguely horrifying about saying that you care more about people who are like you than you do about people who are culturally or geographically further away, the rest of the population is outraged by the never-stated corollary: that the elites running things feel no greater moral obligation to their fellow countrymen than they do to some random stranger in another country. And perhaps we can argue that this is the morally correct way to feel -- but if it is truly the case, you can see why ordinary folks would be suspicious about allowing the elites to continue to exercise great power over their lives.
Link - ( New Window )
The most amusing thing for me is that there is almost nothing more Marxist than the idea that economic interest trump nationalism and it's an idea that has been routinely proven wrong. On the eve of World War I all the major socialist parties of Europe pledged not to fight in a war that was clearly aimed at stalling the workers revolution and perpetuating the capitalist system, yet they did.
It used to be that capital was not so boundaryless. But global free flow of capital has proven to have very very uneven disruptive impacts on labor and average person per nation.
average as in no access to promote slanted popular opinion but come vote time
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
How about less government in the form of crony capitalism that rewards companies that shift jobs overseas (after the government has convinced some of the population that the over taxation and regulation is in their best interest, but only serves to drive said jobs elsewhere). They take with two hands and then pretend to give back what was ours originally with one.
The banking elites also seem to have concluded that, in all important ways, they were running the governments of those nations and, in the end, could feed off their ability to tax. People generally have become tired of that.
Very painfully, and only by showing up the establishment as corrupt and splintering what was in place at the outset as rulers with armies eventually won out over popes and their imitators who lacked them. In the ME they still seem to be organizing entities, perhaps because of what is built into their texts and their confused, internally murderous history and culture.
Quote:
Significant part of many problems. Banking elites especially forgot that nations are the largest social yet governable organizing entities yet found amongst humans.
The banking elites also seem to have concluded that, in all important ways, they were running the governments of those nations and, in the end, could feed off their ability to tax. People generally have become tired of that.
Quote:
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
Very painfully, and only by showing up the establishment as corrupt and splintering what was in place at the outset as rulers with armies eventually won out over popes and their imitators who lacked them. In the ME they still seem to be organizing entities, perhaps because of what is built into their texts and their confused, internally murderous history and culture.
What my thoughts have been for a time.
Growing a global society while trying to merge different societies is the biggest obstacle.
I'm not talking purely the middle east but cultures around the world.
Should 3rd world societies that still espouse 13th and 14th century views be expected to readily assimilate into Ist world 22nd century societal views without push back?
I don't think so.
It's way above my pay grade and expertise and I have no offer what an easy solution or a solution is.
Not had to figure out what the problem is.
What to do, that's the dilemma.
Quote:
In comment 13009023 Bill2 said:
Quote:
Significant part of many problems. Banking elites especially forgot that nations are the largest social yet governable organizing entities yet found amongst humans.
The banking elites also seem to have concluded that, in all important ways, they were running the governments of those nations and, in the end, could feed off their ability to tax. People generally have become tired of that.
Quote:
Now are religions organizing entities or educational entities? In the west we answered that question under duress and over centuries.
Very painfully, and only by showing up the establishment as corrupt and splintering what was in place at the outset as rulers with armies eventually won out over popes and their imitators who lacked them. In the ME they still seem to be organizing entities, perhaps because of what is built into their texts and their confused, internally murderous history and culture.
What my thoughts have been for a time.
Growing a global society while trying to merge different societies is the biggest obstacle.
I'm not talking purely the middle east but cultures around the world.
Should 3rd world societies that still espouse 13th and 14th century views be expected to readily assimilate into Ist world 22nd century societal views without push back?
I don't think so.
It's way above my pay grade and expertise and I have no offer what an easy solution or a solution is.
Not had to figure out what the problem is.
What to do, that's the dilemma.
Not that I have any new solution to suggest, but you might want to take a look at just how Charlemagne went about it in the case of the Saxons.
Great, you could get 100 mill to recall Obama... but with 120 are pro-Obama.
Probably 3.2 mill that voted to stay anyway.
BTW, is it a binding referendum? Since treaties are approved and signed by Parliament (?), couldn't they ignore the vote?
Is it anti-democratic?
The British people over the years elected the politicians who Europeanized their country. Is there evidence these politicians did so illegally?
No, they should not find a way to invalidate the results; that would be both unwise and impractical. But that does not mean the referendum wasnt a stupid fucking stunt in the first place, contrary to the idea and traditions of their established modern system of government. Regrexit is a perfect example of why the whims of the masses should not decide public policy. If they wanted out of the EU, then elect politicians who will chart such a course. Transformational elections are all the ragelook how close Hofer came to winning in Austria. Boring old Austria
Id imagine many Americans sympathetic to the Leavers would take issue with the fact that the United States funds nearly of NATO (headquartered where? Why Brussels, of course). Perhaps this contingent could swell enough support to prompt a national referendum on whether to pull out of this globalized military and instead spend the money domestically on infrastructure or on the Pentagon.
That would be ridiculous.
If military experts and Commanders in Chief (properly versed in the politics of the Korean peninsula, the Senkaku Islands, Ukraine, etc.) are proving inept, vote in a CiC who will chart an alternative course. We may yet in November
If you have a problem with this dynamic, take it up with Madison.
Scotland has yet to be heard from in a serious way. Are the Brits going to blow up what's left on the basis of a slender majority vote?
I suspect he will be intellectually honest given his posting history, but he will be one of the few.
Well, it's a lot to just say "bugger off" to such a large chunk. But you make a good point about their differing points of views, especially with oil priced as it is at the moment.
I am broken-record consistent on the point that public policy should be decided by elected politicians, very small scale localized matters perhaps excepted (but even then...). Direct democracy is far more often than not a catastropheone that often unfolds insidiously. Brown, e.g., has done a serviceable job cleaning up California but it was a house of horrors when he took over largely due to a conveyor belt of whimsical and mostly discordant referendums.
The representative kind is overall inarguably the least bad system. Ideally the non-venal sort (#campaign finance reform) but beggars...
And theres nothing wrong with referencing polling in order to bolster one's case...the cited poll is correct, and noteworthy. But only to influence policy makers (who, yes, should certainly observe their constituents preferences). Not to set policy. Youve conflated the two.
Yeah, direct democracy may work out here & there short & long-term Im happy weed is legal in certain states (inhale) but with ghastly trade-offs.
The "funny" part is that it seems it was a "leave" petition at the onset ...
21 hrs
***CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!!!***
Dear All
Re: EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum petition
This petition was created at a time (over a month ago) when it was looking unlikely that 'leave' were going to win, with the intention of making it harder for 'remain' to further shackle us to the EU. Due to the result, the petition has been hijacked by the remain campaign. Admittedly, my actions were premature however, my intentions were as stated above. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE OF A LEAVE VICTORY AT THAT TIME!!! Having said that, if it had not been mine, it would have been orchestrated by someone on the remain campaign. However, since I am associated with the petition and before the press further associate me with it I felt the need to better clarify my position on the issue even if it looks bad. I am it's creator, nothing more! The logistical probability of getting a turnout to be a minimum of 75% and of that, 60% of the vote must be one or the other (leave or remain) is in my opinion next to impossible without a compulsory element to the voting system.
continued ... - ( New Window )
BTW, is it a binding referendum?
No, it is not.
There is also at least a moderate-sized "oh shit" crowd who were not aware that this would be treated as binding, or who have come to see some problems with leaving that they didn't see before the vote.
How many in those categories? I have no idea. It's not zero. But, it probably doesn't matter, either. It appears to be irrevocable.
Meanwhile, much of the rest of the EU appears to be in the "what's your hurry, here's your hat" camp.
Pretty weak analogy. NATO places no limits on the US with respect to the use of it's military. It also sets no requirements with respect to force levels, type of equipment used and how that equipment is manufactured and procured (although the US could certainly use some advice re: procurement). The fact that much of NATO falls below the amount of military funding they're supposed to have means that NATO is weaker than it should be, but in no way places limits on the US with respect to freedom of action.
The point was that, if we were to pull out of NATO, it would be absurd to do so via a national referendum. The leaders of our country who weve elected should make the decision yay or nay.
BREAKING: Cameron: UK will not trigger formal EU exit talks at this stage.
BREAKING: Cameron: UK will not trigger formal EU exit talks at this stage.
That was totally expected. He'll leave the negotiating to the new PM as the negotiations will rum well past the election for a new PM.
Link - ( New Window )
Brexit had much to do with the assuming away of those people, that they would vote not at all or for the Labour or Tory pols they had long supported and the Remain vote their leadership advocated.
Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Brexit Update - ( New Window )
Ah, John Oliver. Proof positive that an idiot comedian will sound smart as long as he uses a British accent.
Enormously enjoyable. Thanks!