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....
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....