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 Â
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 doesn’t 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... Â
...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 wasn’t 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 rage…look how close Hofer came to winning in Austria. Boring old Austria…
I’d imagine many Americans sympathetic to the Leavers would take issue with the fact that the United States funds nearly ¼ 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 catastrophe…one 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 there’s 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. You’ve conflated the two.
Yeah, direct democracy may work out here & there short & long-term – I’m 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 Â
I’d imagine many Americans sympathetic to the Leavers would take issue with the fact that the United States funds nearly ¼ 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 we’ve elected should make the decision yay or nay.
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 doesn’t 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 wasn’t 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 rage…look how close Hofer came to winning in Austria. Boring old Austria…
I’d imagine many Americans sympathetic to the Leavers would take issue with the fact that the United States funds nearly ¼ 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 catastrophe…one 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 there’s 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. You’ve conflated the two.
Yeah, direct democracy may work out here & there short & long-term – I’m 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 we’ve elected should make the decision yay or nay.