Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Global Politics => Topic started by: tomahawk6 on June 23, 2016, 21:06:42

Title: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 23, 2016, 21:06:42
Looks to me that the Brits may close the page on their experiment

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live-coverage--the-brexit-vote-184037100.html#

- mod edit of thread title to add result -
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: S.M.A. on June 23, 2016, 21:52:43
The Brexit will have some adverse affects on Commonwealth countries such as Canada, since there are many UK-Canada economic links such as the Bombardier plant in Northern Ireland:

Daily Hive/Vancity Buzz (http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-eu-britain-united-kingdom-brexit)

Quote
How the UK's Brexit vote could impact Canada
London


(...SNIPPED)

Impact on Canada

For Canada specifically, the real implications of the aptly named ‘Brexit’ are not so much the impact on trade, but rather foreign direct investment (FDI). Many Canadian businesses and corporations have a strong presence in London, given that the UK serves as Canada’s economic gateway into the world’s largest singularity.

In 2015, approximately $93 billion of Britain’s FDI came from Canada, representing nearly half of the $191.5 billion in FDI that goes from Canada to Europe annually. Europe is the second most popular destination for Canadian investors.


“If this were to be cut off, if Britain were to leave, these investments would no longer make sense,” said Hübner. “There would be geographical and economic reconsiderations through relocating those kinds of things.”

(...SNIPPED)

BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-36046169)

Quote
EU referendum: Bombardier tells workers it would be better off if 'UK remains in EU'
By Julian O'Neill BBC News NI Business Correspondent

    14 April 2016
    From the section Northern Ireland

The boss of Bombardier in Belfast has told its staff that "it is better for our company that the UK remains within the EU".

The Canadian-owned firm is Northern Ireland's biggest manufacturing employer

It employs around 5,000 people in its aerospace business.


The firm's Belfast vice-president Michael Ryan wrote in a letter to staff that the "European debate is very emotional".

The referendum will take place across the UK on Thursday, 23 June.

But, he said that Europe has been good to the company in terms of investment, air travel and giving free movement of goods.

'Informed decision'

The aerospace firm's Northern Ireland operation exports 95% of its products - 33% of them directly into Europe.


(...SNIPPED)


Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 23, 2016, 21:56:09
I'd be voting to leave if I was a resident.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: cupper on June 23, 2016, 22:47:28
My company stocks will take a hit. (We were bought by a holding company of a French owned multi-national)

And Little Donny Trump went over to Scotland today to check out his latest developments.

Latest update I heard (10:00pm EST) it's a dead heat 50.0 to 50.0

Voting in the industrial north east of England is coming in much higher than expected for leaving.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Spencer100 on June 23, 2016, 23:09:12
Wow 50/50 right now
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 23, 2016, 23:12:09
I'd be voting to leave if I was a resident.

I think there are probably good reasons to leave and good reasons to stay, but on the whole it's a big risk and for those who personally have something to lose or gain from it, I wonder if they will ever respect the results:

""I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm made a fool of .. but either way whether I'm right or wrong, if we do stay part of this union it's doomed - it's finished anyway."   Nigel Farage: Whatever happens, we'll win the war over EU  bbc.com --- the link disappeared as I was typing this!
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: PuckChaser on June 23, 2016, 23:28:06
Live updates from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-results-live-brexit-most-likely-outcome-says-leadi/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-results-live-brexit-most-likely-outcome-says-leadi/)

51.4% leave with 40% polls reporting as of this post.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: marinemech on June 23, 2016, 23:34:08
nearly dead heat, 16.8 million votes needed to win referendum so long way to go
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: NorthernOtter on June 24, 2016, 00:23:27
For those interested, John Oliver did a great piece on this earlier in the week.

https://youtu.be/iAgKHSNqxa8
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Dimsum on June 24, 2016, 01:31:47
Well, at least Scotland won't be as expensive for EX Joint Warrior  :nod:

This may end up being one of the bigger blunders for the UK.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: MCG on June 24, 2016, 01:37:45
BBC is calling it a win for the exit at 52% over 48%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36615028
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Thucydides on June 24, 2016, 01:45:15
Now we will see how the UK political establishment reacts, since they were dead set on the Remain side.

I am also curious as to how our own government will react. I never saw any discussion on what Canada's position should be, or what contingencies were in effect for either a Stay or Leave result. OF course they don't seem to have contingencies planned for much else either, but that is a huge omission on their part.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 24, 2016, 01:52:07
Cameron has got to be toast. It is difficult to see how he retains confidence of the House of Commons now.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 24, 2016, 01:55:39
BBC Live Coverage

I note that Sinn Fein suggests this is a good chance for a vote for a United Ireland as Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU, like Eire:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36615028

This will be interesting to watch, especially if the Russians take it as an opportunity to apply pressure...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 02:23:56
What you are seeing is a revolt against Internationalism, not Globalism - the mercantile philosophy, but Internationalism - the political philosophy.

Britain will come out fine.  Money traders and politicians may have a bad day but, perhaps unfortunately, they too will survive.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 24, 2016, 04:42:07
BREAKING..... David Cameron to resign as PM.I find this development a bit surprising.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-pm-cameron-says-step-down-october-brexit-072846606--business.html

Bloomberg experts predict a $500b loss in the markets following the vote.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/bloomberg-analysts-half-trillion-erased-global-markets-following-brexit-vote/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: milnews.ca on June 24, 2016, 06:15:09
BREAKING..... David Cameron to resign as PM.I find this development a bit surprising.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-pm-cameron-says-step-down-october-brexit-072846606--business.html

Bloomberg experts predict a $500b loss in the markets following the vote.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/bloomberg-analysts-half-trillion-erased-global-markets-following-brexit-vote/
As close as it was (51.9 go, 48.1 stay), I'm still kinda surprised to see how it tipped.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2016, 06:23:16
Anyone taking bets on who's next?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Inspir on June 24, 2016, 07:23:30
Anyone taking bets on who's next?

Ireland and Malta
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Ostrozac on June 24, 2016, 07:24:32
This will be interesting to watch, especially if the Russians take it as an opportunity to apply pressure...

The Russians don't exactly have to apply pressure for fractures to appear in the European Union -- the Europeans are doing fine applying those pressures all by themselves.

When a tree is already falling, you don't need to pull out the chainsaw.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2016, 07:50:29
Ireland and Malta
Looking into my magic ball.

Scotland tries to separate from GB,  fails by a slim margin.

Italy looks for a new deal or it leaves, EU doesn't budge, Italy has a vote and they leave.

Spain follows shortly after.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Lightguns on June 24, 2016, 07:54:57
Regardless of the vote, everything that is wrong in the UK will still be wrong next month.  The place is virtually a police state in terms of individual freedoms, a pit of Islamic hate and the North Africans will still beating on the Chunnel door. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: runormal on June 24, 2016, 08:51:03
Now I haven't been following this over extensively, however from what I have been reading they believe it will take at least 2 years to unravel this.

It would then make sense would it not for Britain to have a second vote once everything has been figured out?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: George Wallace on June 24, 2016, 09:09:01
BBC Live Coverage

I note that Sinn Fein suggests this is a good chance for a vote for a United Ireland as Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU, like Eire:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36615028

This will be interesting to watch, especially if the Russians take it as an opportunity to apply pressure...

As did Gibraltar.  This made me wonder if there may now be a movement for Gibraltar to go its' own way and leave their unique position as a British Overseas Territory.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 24, 2016, 09:11:26
Now I haven't been following this over extensively, however from what I have been reading they believe it will take at least 2 years to unravel this.

It would then make sense would it not for Britain to have a second vote once everything has been figured out?

You are correct.The establishment may decide that hitting the reset button would reverse the vote.I was wondering if this result helps Nigel Farage and UKIP win a majority the next election ?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: George Wallace on June 24, 2016, 09:12:49
It will not be an instantaneous split.  It is going to take quite a while to negotiate the separation, and in the meantime it may prove to be the best for the EU as member nations come together to renegotiate terms of inclusion to improve the EU, correcting many of its faults.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Altair on June 24, 2016, 09:13:21
Now I haven't been following this over extensively, however from what I have been reading they believe it will take at least 2 years to unravel this.

It would then make sense would it not for Britain to have a second vote once everything has been figured out?
No. Once article 50 (leaving the EU) is triggered the British and EI have two years to negotiate but once triggered it's irreversible from my understanding
Title: Re: Brexit Vote Today
Post by: Lightguns on June 24, 2016, 09:21:40
As did Gibraltar.  This made me wonder if there may now be a movement for Gibraltar to go its' own way and leave their unique position as a British Overseas Territory.

Not likely, there is still the Spanish threat.  I doubt the EU would have any teeth to keep the Spanish from fifth columning an independent Gibraltar.  The big worry for Gibraltar is British retirees who fear being isolated at the tip of Europe. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 24, 2016, 09:59:55
As I have mentioned before, for all the sabre rattling, Spain is not in an economic position to refuse the money from well off British citizen within or without its borders, so I see little risk there. Nor can Gibraltar really make it on its own. It's sole economic product is it's valuable military location -so!!!

In any event, I think that no one in these forum can actually say with any certainty (or with more than wild speculation) what will happen or how things will unfold, especially considering the fact that negotiations - and negotiation positions - on either side have not even been developed yet and that I am certain no one in these fora have ever bothered to actually read the pile of treaties - some bigger than a bible - that have been entered into in the last 60  years to end up with the EU. These will have to be somehow undone .

All we can say is that the next ten to twenty years will be interesting to watch in Europe and it will be stuff for the history books.

At this point in time however, the best advice comes, as usual, from Star Trek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4XPTmmvVow
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Karel Doorman on June 24, 2016, 10:10:04
What UKIP(and others) is/are failing to tell the people that as they say they're against the "elite"forgetting that they themselves are the elite as well.  ::)

The Brexit campaigners are for more power to the employers and less for the workers,so to say that the normal people are getting the better deal is a lie.

It will be a longterm task to renegotiate all the treaty's the best way for Britain(if possible),but done is done.Also a new poll is dawning For Schotland and Ireland to stay in the EU.So it's not finished yet.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 24, 2016, 10:37:56
First, a reminder from "Yes, Minister" about UK's reasons for joining the Common Market (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE) -- "pig's breakfast" accomplished! ;D

No. Once article 50 (leaving the EU) is triggered the British and EI have two years to negotiate but once triggered it's irreversible from my understanding
I've heard/read the two-year timeline, too, but I think there's a LOT of tangled ball of string to untangle, so that may be optimistic.

What UKIP(and others) is/are failing to tell the people that as they say they're against the "elite"forgetting that they themselves are the elite as well.  ::)
Ah, UKIP's Nigel Farage:  "Nigel Farage claims he's won Brexit 'without a bullet being fired' " (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-claims-hes-won-8271149)  Well, maybe one (http://bit.ly/28QaCft) ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Colin P on June 24, 2016, 11:23:58
I would have much preferred a 60-40 split either way, more concise and clear. As far as I am concerned the EU brought this on themselves, the basic idea was good, but they couldn't stop piling on more and more stuff. The UK will suffer for a bit, but the EU members can't ignore a market of 64 million people and trade will happen. The real problem is that once the UK leaves and survives, others might decide they have had enough and pull the pin as well. Frankly the EU should strip itself back to the basics of free trade and stay clear of everything else. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: GAP on June 24, 2016, 11:35:35
I think one of the overriding concerns that drove the Brexit vote was the forced immigration by the EU. The rules made the UK have to accept them once they were landed.

I don't know all the details, but the UK was literally being overrun by financial immigrants with no way of stopping them nor with removing them.

They can now do so and tell the EU to stuff it.

edited to add: In fact the best thing the UK can do is start shipping out illegal immigrants and close it's borders.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 24, 2016, 11:36:50
Farage isn in over his head. I really hope somebody who is less of a Donald Trump as leader of the UKIP before the next election: https://youtu.be/o6UIj72XVz4

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 24, 2016, 11:41:27
I don't know all the details, but the UK was literally being overrun by financial immigrants with no way of stopping them nor with removing them.

They can now do so and tell the EU to stuff it.
I heard a lot of "those Ukrainians/Poles/Romanians/Georgians are stealing jobs from Italians" when I was in Italy last year, too -- but I also noticed almost all of the Ukrainians/Poles/Romanians/Georgians I saw working were doing jobs a lot of Italians didn't seem to want to do (mostly in-home live-in senior's care).  I wonder what'll happen if this pool of folks who'll work where others don't seem to want to dries up?
... EU members can't ignore a market of 64 million people and trade will happen ...
:nod:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: GAP on June 24, 2016, 11:45:26
I heard a lot of "those Ukrainians/Poles/Romanians/Georgians are stealing jobs from Italians" when I was in Italy last year, too -- but I also noticed almost all of the Ukrainians/Poles/Romanians/Georgians I saw working were doing jobs a lot of Italians didn't seem to want to do (mostly in-home live-in senior's care).  I wonder what'll happen if this pool of folks who'll work where others don't seem to want to dries up? :nod:

The same thing Canada does....lie like hell...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Lightguns on June 24, 2016, 12:38:18
Funny how all the world's master-minds are responding like no one has ever run an independent country before.  It's not that flicking hard.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 24, 2016, 12:41:44
Funny how all the world's master-minds are responding like no one has ever run an independent country before.  It's not that flicking hard.

I heard one comment from a voter that prior to the EU, the UK had been running itself quite successfully for many decades and centuries.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cavalryman on June 24, 2016, 12:48:42
I'm getting a lot of entertainment in watching my left leaning friends and acquaintances self-destruct on Facebook.  Brexit seems to be the biggest disaster to befall humanity since... since...  [:p  More entertaining even is the lack of self-awareness in the way they're characterizing those who voted 'leave.'  Sadly, in the interests of maintaining peace, I've so far resisted pointing this out.  Must stay away from Facebook  :-\
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 12:50:19
Re Gibraltar - the counter is Ceuta.

If Britain's claim to Gibraltar is invalid.  Spain's claim to Ceuta across the water is equally so. Go back to the days of the Tangiers Regiment and swap?

Re Who is next? 

I put my money on the Dutch and the Danes.  Although Hollande and Merkel both have to get through elections in 2017.  And the Brits will still be negotiating then.

Re Britain's position.

The Poles, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Swedes, Finns, Danes, Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks all want something that Britain can offer - Britain's forces and its nuclear umbrella.   They also want access to Britain and the world's 5th largest economy.  The same goes for Cyprus and Malta.

The core anti-Brit vote will come from those currently in power in Brussels, Luxembourg and Paris.  As usual.

Re Stability

Everything takes time and nothing is ever what it seems.  Politicians and bureaucrats will continue to play the same game with modified rules.

Re Scotland

Scotland is not a country, no more than Northern Ireland and certainly not London.  Sturgeon is reduced to hoping that Sadiq Khan, the Lord Mayor of London will assist her in getting a seat at the negotiating table.   Spain, France and every other country with a separatist tendency will reject that.  Scotland has to become a country before it can apply to become an EU member.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: S.M.A. on June 24, 2016, 12:52:40
The global shockwaves of the Brexit continue to be felt:

Yahoo Finance (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-financial-markets-stocks-currencies-falling-uncertainty-103847265.html)

Quote
A single word explains why financial markets everywhere are nosediving
On Thursday, Britain voted to exit the European Union. Global markets are falling sharply. But the Brexit alone doesn't justify the magnitude of the sell-off.

By Sam Ro | Yahoo Finance – 3 hours ago

British voters stunned the world as they voted to leave the European Union.

The results were followed by the worst crash in the British pound against the US dollar ever. At one point, the pound had fallen to a 30-year low of around $1.32. Meanwhile, stocks markets around the world are plummeting, with the UK's FTSE 100 down 4.5%, Germany's Dax down 7.1%, and Japan's Nikkei down 7.9%. Dow futures are down 540 points, or 3% from Thursday's levels. Investors and traders everywhere are losing money today.

And so begins what could be a two-year long, very complicated process of renogitiating trade deals and other policies as the UK aims to decouple from the EU.


(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 24, 2016, 13:26:24
I'm getting a lot of entertainment in watching my left leaning friends and acquaintances self-destruct on Facebook.  Brexit seems to be the biggest disaster to befall humanity since... since...  [:p  More entertaining even is the lack of self-awareness in the way they're characterizing those who voted 'leave.'  Sadly, in the interests of maintaining peace, I've so far resisted pointing this out.  Must stay away from Facebook  :-\

When in doubt, quote the first leader of a united Europe:

"If the populace knew with what idiocy they were ruled, they would revolt."

Charlemagne
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Colin P on June 24, 2016, 14:16:22
If Scotland left the UK to stay with the EU, that would be a marriage the EU would long regret, a Greece without the food or the weather.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 24, 2016, 14:31:07
If Scotland left the UK to stay with the EU, that would be a marriage the EU would long regret, a Greece without the food or the weather.
But with scotch ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cavalryman on June 24, 2016, 14:37:11
But with scotch ...
Which will all vanish in domestic consumption once the Scots realize they were better off in the UK - which by then will have realized that it's better off without Scotland's drag on the public purse  ;D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: FJAG on June 24, 2016, 14:46:25
If Scotland left the UK to stay with the EU, that would be a marriage the EU would long regret, a Greece without the food or the weather.

Who gets custody of the North Sea oil?  :dunno:

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 24, 2016, 15:10:36
Who gets custody of the North Sea oil?  :dunno:

 :cheers:

Good point. Will Norway buy out the Scots? LOL. Maybe they will pump it dry in the next 2 years.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Lightguns on June 24, 2016, 15:14:06
Good point. Will Norway buy out the Scots? LOL. Maybe they will pump it dry in the next 2 years.

Without the South paying the Scot welfare bill, they will have to pump it out. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 15:42:24
Who gets custody of the North Sea oil?  :dunno:

 :cheers:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/shetland-may-reconsider-place-scotland-yes-vote-alistair-carmichael

All good Vikings together.  Up Helly Aa! and such like.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/UpHellyAa2%28AnneBurgess%2930Jan1973.jpg)

Greenland, Iceland, Faeroes, Shetlands, Orkneys, Hebrides, Man, Norway, Denmark.....Might even include the lands north of the Wash and Anglia if they promise to behave.   >:D

Oops.  Forgot one.  The Fries.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Dimsum on June 24, 2016, 15:44:50
Tangent, but I was asked why PM David Cameron had to (?) step down after the Brexit vote was finalized.  I didn't think it was also a non-confidence vote?  Or did he just feel it was a good time to cut his losses and go?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Good2Golf on June 24, 2016, 16:18:24
Quote
The results were followed by the worst crash in the British pound against the US dollar ever.

Worst?  -9.5% stabilized for the day...even if it sits there for some time to come, there have been bigger swings for less important things...like Day #2 for Lululemon...  puh-lease... ::)

The UK will be fine.  It's not like the country every started using the Euro... 

EU has bigger issues...like wasting 1/5 of a Billion Euros per year (http://www.thelocal.fr/20131121/why-the-eu-parliament-must-remain-in-strasbourg)... ::)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 16:21:51
 :goodpost:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 16:24:28
Tangent, but I was asked why PM David Cameron had to (?) step down after the Brexit vote was finalized.  I didn't think it was also a non-confidence vote?  Or did he just feel it was a good time to cut his losses and go?

He didn't have to go. And I don't think it was a case of cutting his losses - that suggests an unemotional calculation.  I believe he just couldn't face the thought of getting up in the morning to continue doing the same job under the changed circumstances.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: ModlrMike on June 24, 2016, 18:45:00
He didn't have to go. And I don't think it was a case of cutting his losses - that suggests an unemotional calculation.  I believe he just couldn't face the thought of getting up in the morning to continue doing the same job under the changed circumstances.

I would add perhaps an old fashioned sense of honour. Appearing to have lost the support of the people, it seems reasonable that he would fall on his sword.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 21:06:33
One final comment from me on the day.

I have been seeing an awful lot of this: "What happens next?" 

The short answer is exactly the same as it was the day before the referendum and the same as it would be had the Brits voted to stay.

No one knows.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 24, 2016, 21:18:33
Cameron had really no choice. The party was split, with a sizable caucus on the right pulling for the Leave side. Although, according to a Conservative MP who was interviewed on BBC News hour this morning, the Leave supporters in the caucus did give him a letter after the results were final asking that he not resign, and they felt that he would be the best person to lead the negotiations.

The rumours running around are that Boris Johnson is the favorite to replace Cameron.

And also heard that they won't initiate Article 50 proceedings for a few months.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 24, 2016, 21:26:29
Canada seems to be the country of choice for anyone who wants to flee their own country when things go to hell politically.

Brexit fallout: ‘How to move to Canada’ trends in U.K. after European Union vote

http://globalnews.ca/news/2784868/brexit-how-to-move-to-canada-trends-in-u-k-after-european-union-vote/

Quote
It seems many Britons are looking at making the big move across the pond after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.

On Friday, after the U.K. voted 52 per cent in favour of bouncing from the European Union, many internet users began to search on Google “How to move to Canada.”

According to Google Trends, the term was searched most frequently in Wales, followed by England and Scotland. “How to move to Canada from UK,” “move to Canada from UK,” and “Can I move to Canada?” were also popular search terms.

Following the referendum, many took to social media to say they were packing up and moving across the pond.

According to Google Trends, once the Brexit results were officially announced, “What is the EU?” was the second-most searched question in the U.K., while “What does it mean to leave the EU?” was the most searched.

It’s seems Canada is a popular destination for foreigners upset with the political situation in their homelands.

Earlier this year, Americans were threatening to move to Canada if Donald Trump becomes president. The same threat was made in November over the States’ plan to allow Syrian refugees in the country.

And in the summer of 2015, social media lit up with the same threat after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Canada had legalized same sex marriage in 2005.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 24, 2016, 21:32:55
The Canada Party is trolling the UK and the US. They tweeted:

Quote
Dear UK: We will swap you Scotland for the U.S. Straight-up trade, no givesies backsies. ‪#‎Brexit‬
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 24, 2016, 22:15:19
Sorry. Canada doesn't accept white, english speaking people anymore. Unless you happen to have a Syrian passport and you're Muslim.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: RomeoJuliet on June 24, 2016, 22:22:45
Sorry. Canada doesn't accept white, english speaking people anymore. Unless you happen to have a Syrian passport and you're Muslim.
Absolutely incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 24, 2016, 22:30:35
One final comment from me on the day.

I have been seeing an awful lot of this: "What happens next?" 

The short answer is exactly the same as it was the day before the referendum and the same as it would be had the Brits voted to stay.

No one knows.

 :goodpost:

They spent centuries going it alone against Europe. The corporate knowledge on how to do that is still there. They won't have any insurmountable problems going it alone again.

There are other countries that are fed up with the balance of power flip flopping only between Germany and France, being dealt out of negotiations, being told who and how many immigrants they have to take, yada, yada, yada. If enough of these look at the UK and say 'Hey, it works!' the EU will be nothing but a very expensive, failed experiment when they all pull out.

Canada, the US, Europe (in general) and some other countries in the free world are getting sick of professional politicians. People have decided they want some miniscule control over their own lives and are starting to lash out at anything that even resembles government control. It's bad enough when they are your own elected people, but when it's someone in another country telling you what to do, it's getting intolerable for lots of people.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: George Wallace on June 24, 2016, 22:32:44
Which brings us to this:

(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13502521_626722507493947_7288654383646757448_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 24, 2016, 22:33:01
Absolutely incorrect.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 I really didn't think I would need a sarcasm smilie there. Who knew?  :dunno:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 24, 2016, 22:55:30
I really didn't think I would need a sarcasm smilie there. Who knew?  :dunno:

I don't get what the sarcastic joke was really supposed to be there.  Canada accepts immigrants based on their points score, no matter their skin colour.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: YZT580 on June 24, 2016, 23:17:33
It is OK to make fun of yourself and others with politically incorrect jokes, honest!  I sometimes long for the days of polack, newfie, and Irish jokes.  Now the only ones you can laugh at or about without risk of being sued are the Baptists.  Seriously though, the EU brought this upon themselves with their louse-milking over trivia and trying to dominate the whole of every society.  And all administered by unelected officials who are answerable to no one, or so it seems.  They have pages of regulations just describing what shape and size a tomato must be before it can be marketed.  I think that the British just got tired of being told, they don't take kindly to that and never have.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: MilEME09 on June 24, 2016, 23:21:26
The Canada Party is trolling the UK and the US. They tweeted:

Would you really want scots and newfies in the same army? we already have radios that barely work, whats the point if the people on them cant be understood!?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: YZT580 on June 24, 2016, 23:27:31
They at least would understand each other.  And they make great sergeant majors simply because no one understands them.

If you can, read Colby Cosh's column in the National Post re: us and Brexit.   I's link it but I am electronically challenged. Basically calls us hypocrites for criticizing in Britain's aspirations the very things that we enjoy for ourselves, well written IMHO.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 24, 2016, 23:37:59
YZT

The ties that bind.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/Red_Rose_%28Socialism%29.svg/195px-Red_Rose_%28Socialism%29.svg.png)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 24, 2016, 23:45:16
It is OK to make fun of yourself and others with politically incorrect jokes, honest!

Yeah, sometimes I'm too defensive.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 25, 2016, 00:06:59
I just read that Brussels (EU HQ) wouldn't let Britons buy Dyson vacuums because of the machines power usage.

That is the kind of utter bullshit that had Britain walk. Hopefully, a bunch of others grow a spine and walk away also. The New World Order is collapsing and it's not soon enough.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 25, 2016, 00:12:12
Watching the news tonight, they put the economic losses in perspective:

Globally stocks lost a total of $2.1 Trillion US, US exchanges lost $850 Billion.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 25, 2016, 00:15:58
Scots are trolling Trump on Twitter over his erroneous tweet about Scotland celebrating the results.

So far my favorite is weasle headed f#$%trumpet, with mangled apricot hellbeast a close second.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 25, 2016, 00:18:08
The historian and constitutional expert Lord Hennessy explains why the UK has never really warmed to Europe.

The crossbench peer told PM presenter Eddie Mair: "Europe was set up by clever, catholic, left wing, French bureaucrats, and most Brits have got problems with at least three of those five." 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 25, 2016, 00:32:19
"The Wogs start at Calais."
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 25, 2016, 01:15:08
The historian and constitutional expert Lord Hennessy explains why the UK has never really warmed to Europe.

The crossbench peer told PM presenter Eddie Mair: "Europe was set up by clever, catholic, left wing, French bureaucrats, and most Brits have got problems with at least three of those five."

He's right, and so should we (as JT pushes us into the EU) ... http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/index.aspx?lang=eng




Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 25, 2016, 02:42:00
Because it's the Trudeau government that negotiated CETA....
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 25, 2016, 02:45:15
Left wing bureaucrat.  Catholic cleric.  All same same.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 25, 2016, 08:56:29
Only when Europe casts off their socialism will they see econmic improvement.The millions of refugees they have accepted will be a huge drag on their economy and a blow to their national identity.The refugees should be returned to their home countries as a start.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Jarnhamar on June 25, 2016, 09:36:14
Only when Europe casts off their socialism will they see econmic improvement.The millions of refugees they have accepted will be a huge drag on their economy and a blow to their national identity.The refugees should be returned to their home countries as a start.

Well said.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 25, 2016, 11:33:28
Because it's the Trudeau government that negotiated CETA....

He is leading the government in power, is he not? He could have said lets have a look at this agreement more closely and make sure it ties the boxes of the best interests for Canadians instead of just certain small groups of Canadians aspiring to some more European.

That trade deal imposes on Canada business a set of rules, regulations and standards that go far beyond anything that is pragmatically needed to trade freely and fairly. Now, to be fair, rules that require certain emissions standards, power connections etc. are one thing if they are tied to the use of the product on their own and in the EU. But to impose those requirements all the way back into the manufacturing process of all goods manufactured or designed here, regardless if destined for the EU, is costly for business, interferes with our ability to create our own rules of production and sale, and that reduces the sovereignty of our own institutions just a little, and collectively, little by little becomes too much.  Some businesses will flourish, some will pull back and not trade at all. Western Canadian mine and minerals (including heavy oil)
if they ever had a chance of rebounding, is hobbled a little by this particular agreement unless the only customers are on the pacific coast and happen to be India and China.

However the integration of those rules into our own domestic laws puts this country at the mercy of EU trade requirements that contain social policy and security objectives not necessarily in the best interests of Canada. And yes, the Cons started the process and were perhaps responsible for some or even most of the outcome. So much again for real change though, eh?  We already suffer some of these issues long ago with ITARS and our export control compliance regime that is dictated in large measure by the United States, and even when we do have certain successes under NAFTA etc, we still seem to eventually come out on the losing end.

I don't trust the EU and it's Parliament, fair trade access to the common market is where this should stop. 

 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 25, 2016, 12:27:15
I just read that Brussels (EU HQ) wouldn't let Britons buy Dyson vacuums because of the machines power usage.

That is the kind of utter bullshit that had Britain walk. Hopefully, a bunch of others grow a spine and walk away also. The New World Order is collapsing and it's not soon enough.

Just say No! No! No! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVt_1ByddUQ
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 25, 2016, 12:54:35
Just say No! No! No! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVt_1ByddUQ

They need another Iron Lady over there.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: MilEME09 on June 25, 2016, 13:26:14
They need another Iron Lady over there.

We need leaders with backbones period, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 25, 2016, 13:37:01
Scots and Northern Irish should think before they leap out of the UK.

With the UK out of the EU and imposing more controls on migrants into the UK, people who wanted to get into the UK will be looking for EU member countries somewhat like the UK as alternate destinations.

The UK has a population around 64 million into which newcomers are absorbed; Scotland has 5.5 million; Ireland and Northern Ireland combined would be about 6.5 million.  Scotland and Northern Ireland as part of the EU would not retain much of their Scottish and Irish character after a couple of generations.

Look to Belgium for the example.

If the bureaucrats in Brussels want to make the divorce rough to punish the UK, they will quickly find their chains pulled up short by Germany, which does a lot of exporting to the UK.  Merkel is already in enough trouble over her foolish decision to throw open the doors, and I doubt she will want to wear political sh!t on behalf of unelected technocrats.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 25, 2016, 14:09:24
England rules, Scotland goes, Putin laughs:
Quote
Mark Collins – BREXIT. Yes. UK? EU?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/mark-collins-brexit-yes-uk-eu/

Ain’t universal suffrage democracy a hoot?..

(https://i1.wp.com/images.npg.org.uk/800_800/8/7/mw62687.jpg?zoom=2)

...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClvnULTWkAACHXT.jpg)

...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 25, 2016, 14:22:01
Rather fitting.

https://www.facebook.com/britishcommonwealth2/videos/1125295727510356/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: S.M.A. on June 25, 2016, 14:26:42
Canada seems to be the country of choice for anyone who wants to flee their own country when things go to hell politically.

Brexit fallout: ‘How to move to Canada’ trends in U.K. after European Union vote

http://globalnews.ca/news/2784868/brexit-how-to-move-to-canada-trends-in-u-k-after-european-union-vote/

Ha. You obviously are still chuckling from all those Americans who want to hide here in Canada if Trump gets elected (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/want-to-move-to-canada-if-trump-wins-not-so-fast-20160505). Now they'll have competition.  ;D

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/uk-eu-brexit-vote-move-to-canada-1.3651308)

Quote
Britons seek to 'move to Canada' after Brexit vote
Google reports surge in U.K. searches for 'move to Canada,' 'move to Gibraltar'

CBC News Posted: Jun 24, 2016 1:55 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 24, 2016 4:53 PM ET

When elections don't go a certain way in the U.S., many voters inevitably utter the slogan, "I'm moving to Canada."

Britons on social media also took up the refrain after the result of the U.K. referendum became clear last night.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 25, 2016, 16:01:50
Ha. You obviously are still chuckling from all those Americans who want to hide here in Canada if Trump gets elected (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/want-to-move-to-canada-if-trump-wins-not-so-fast-20160505). Now they'll have competition.  ;D

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/uk-eu-brexit-vote-move-to-canada-1.3651308)


:nod:

Frome the Canada Party FB Page

Quote
The Canada Party

We're not saying British refugees aren't welcome in Canada, we're just saying the Americans are already taking up lots of room.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 25, 2016, 16:34:27
Seeing Sir Humphrey talking about "old times" reminded me that I found another echo of "old times".

1643

The Scots aligned themselves with London.  Wales and much of England was of a different opinion.  The Irish were involved in their own discussions.  The Bourbons, having done whatever it took to secure Paris and scupper the French aristocracy were taxing their citizens dry and making life as miserable as possible for the Hanoverians on the throne in London.  The rest of Europe was cheerfully contesting whether one stand or sit while praying.

We've come a long way since then.

Oh, and there was a steady stream of Frenchmen, Dutch, Germans and Swiss seeking employment in British cities.


Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 25, 2016, 18:55:33
Rather fitting.

https://www.facebook.com/britishcommonwealth2/videos/1125295727510356/
Classic - pig's breakfast, accomplished!
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 25, 2016, 21:45:26
Aaaannnnd, now they want a do over.

More than 2.5M sign Brexit do-over petition

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/25/nearly-25m-sign-brexit-do-over-petition/86385466/

Quote
More than 2.5 million people have signed an official online petition calling for a re-do of the Brexit referendum, generating so much traffic on Saturday that Parliament's website temporarily crashed.

The official UK Government and Parliament petition follows Thursday's shocking referendum in which 51.9% of United Kingdom voters supported leaving the European Union. It passed with a turnout of 72.2%

The newspaper The Telegraph called the feverish online response "the biggest surge of support Parliament's website has ever seen."

The text of the petition is succinct: "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based (on) a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum."

According to the Express newspaper, however, the author of the petition — who submitted the petition a month ago — is not upset over the outcome of the referendum, rather he had submitted it in the expectation that the "remain" forces would prevail, and wanted to set up a second bite of the apple.

De Montfort University activist William Oliver Healey tells the Express that his strategy "has been wrongly hijacked by the remain campaign."

The Parliament's Petitions Committee, which considers whether such submissions should be taken up in the House, will hold its next meeting on Tuesday.

Theoretically, the government could ignore the referendum, which is not legally binding. However, Prime Minister David Cameron, who announced his resignation in the wake of the vote, said the government would honor the results and take steps to leave the alliance.

Labour legislator David Lammy says Thursday’s national vote was non-binding and “our sovereign Parliament needs to now vote on whether we should quit the EU.”

He says some “leave” supporters now regret their votes and Parliament should vote on Britain’s EU membership. He said “we can stop this madness and bring this nightmare to an end. … Let us not destroy our economy on the basis of lies and the hubris of (’leave’ leader) Boris Johnson.”

Constitutional experts say Parliament cannot easily ignore the will of the people. Alan Renwick, deputy director of University College London’s Constitution Unit, says “in legal theory that is possible. In practice, that is absolutely not possible.”

Come on people, you should have thought about this before we left! :facepalm:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 25, 2016, 21:53:56
 :rofl:

Thousands Of British Refugees Make Dangerous Journey Across The Irish Sea

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/06/24/thousands-of-british-refugees-make-dangerous-journey-across-the-irish-sea/

Quote
THE IRISH coast guard has today issued a nationwide warning for the East Coast as hundreds of thousands of British refugees risk their lives to cross the Irish sea in an attempt to flee the impoverished and unstable nation.

Dinghies overflowing with desperate migrants are so far half way through their journey, many with women and children aboard, wishing to make a new start on the Emerald Isle.

“We have rescued hundreds of people from crafts due to overcrowding,” winchman Derek Ryan of Rescue 117 told WWN today. “It’s a terrible situation as many of these people are only hoping for a better quality of life in the EU”.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has called an emergency meeting in the Dáil this afternoon to help find a solution to the influx of British refugees.

It is expected many of those landing on the Irish coast will have to be quarantined, as they are not a part of the European Union.

“Emergency prefabs will be erected to help cope and house these poor unfortunate people,” Mr. Kenny stated. “I urge everyone to do what they can to help support the migrants in anyway, whether that be waiting with hots cups of tea on the shoreline, to giving them fresh clothes to wear”.

An estimated 450,000 people have already fled the UK mainland to neighbouring EU countries.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cupper on June 25, 2016, 21:57:43
If you're going to make a competition of it, my money is on them losing the title come November.

BRITISH LOSE RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT AMERICANS ARE DUMBER

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/british-lose-right-to-claim-that-americans-are-dumber

Quote
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—Across the United Kingdom on Friday, Britons mourned their long-cherished right to claim that Americans were significantly dumber than they are.

Luxuriating in the superiority of their intellect over Americans’ has long been a favorite pastime in Britain, surpassing in popularity such games as cricket, darts, and snooker.

But, according to Alistair Dorrinson, a pub owner in North London, British voters have done irreparable damage to the “most enjoyable sport this nation has ever known: namely, treating Americans like idiots.”

“When our countrymen cast their votes yesterday, they didn’t realize they were destroying the most precious leisure activity this nation has ever known,” he said. “Wankers.”

In the face of this startling display of national idiocy, Dorrinson still mustered some of the resilience for which the British people are known. “This is a dark day,” he said. “But I hold out hope that, come November, Americans could become dumber than us once more.”
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: ModlrMike on June 25, 2016, 22:19:53
If you're going to make a competition of it, my money is on them losing the title come November.

Mugs game. Either way the Brits win in November.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 25, 2016, 22:26:18
Aaaannnnd, now they want a do over.

More than 2.5M sign Brexit do-over petition

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/25/nearly-25m-sign-brexit-do-over-petition/86385466/
I'm curious how many of those who signed the petition actually voted in the referendum ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: PuckChaser on June 25, 2016, 22:50:03
That's not how democracy works. You don't just keep getting to do it over and over until you get the results you want. 72% of the electorate voted (crazy high for western elections). They get to do what they want.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Old Sweat on June 25, 2016, 23:00:28
I believe Churchill once said something to the effect that a conversation with an average voter would put one off democracy. While hideously elitist, it does raise the issue of ill-prepared voters.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 25, 2016, 23:26:16
I believe Churchill once said something to the effect that a conversation with an average voter would put one off democracy. While hideously elitist, it does raise the issue of ill-prepared voters.

The danger of protest voting.  Sometimes you get an outcome you didn't really want.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cavalryman on June 25, 2016, 23:39:53
The danger of protest voting.  Sometimes you get an outcome you didn't really want.
I'm sure Premier Notley isn't complaining.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 25, 2016, 23:45:30
Or JT.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 25, 2016, 23:51:16
Or JT.

It's not a protest vote when people actually get what they wanted.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: PuckChaser on June 25, 2016, 23:58:39
It's not a protest vote when people actually get what they wanted.

Yep, everyone that voted Liberal actually voted Liberal, and not just "Whoever was going to beat Stephen Harper".
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 26, 2016, 00:13:48
Yep, everyone that voted Liberal actually voted Liberal, and not just "Whoever was going to beat Stephen Harper".

 ;)

Although I'd wager there's more than one ABC Veteran who's suffering buyer's regret seeing as they were gulled by false promise.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 26, 2016, 00:35:11
Yep, everyone that voted Liberal actually voted Liberal, and not just "Whoever was going to beat Stephen Harper".

The Liberals are the party that Canadians have historically picked to govern them.  I voted for Trudeau rather than against Harper.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: YZT580 on June 26, 2016, 00:42:12
I question your sanity then.  Why is everyone so sure that the British screwed up?  They are better off getting out of the EU.  It is called independence and is exactly the same logic that we used when we became a nation in 1867 and why we are not the 51st state.  It is the reason Estonia, Latvia, Finland etc. are glad that they are not part of Russia.  So why are we ridiculing their desire not to be ruled from Brussels.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 26, 2016, 00:46:41
I question your sanity then.  Why is everyone so sure that the British screwed up?

Leaving the first comment aside (you'd have to question the sanity of a plurality of Canadians), for the short to medium term, it's definitely difficult to see how this is a plus for the UK.  Economic growth is predicted to go down worldwide because of it.  Companies like Airbus are going to have to examine their operations because of it.  New trade agreements will have to be forged.

Long term, there are also some real negatives.  The move to leave the EU could spark other moves to leave the EU.  The relative peace and security that has taken hold over Europe for the last decade could very well be in danger.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 26, 2016, 00:49:07
I question your sanity then.  Why is everyone so sure that the British screwed up?  They are better off getting out of the EU.  It is called independence and is exactly the same logic that we used when we became a nation in 1867 and why we are not the 51st state.  It is the reason Estonia, Latvia, Finland etc. are glad that they are not part of Russia.  So why are we ridiculing their desire not to be ruled from Brussels.

"(I)t is highly questionable whether when 'Europe speaks with one voice', as we are so often told it is doing, anyone is really listening. Europe's reputation as a serious player in international affairs is unenviable. It is a feeble giant who desperate attempts to be taken seriously are largely risible. It has a weak currency and a sluggish inflexible economy, still much reliant on hidden protectionism. It has a shrinking, ageing, population and, with the exception of Britain, rather unimpressive armed forces and, not excepting Britain, muddled diplomacy." -- Margaret Thatcher
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 26, 2016, 00:55:37
Leaving the first comment aside (you'd have to question the sanity of a plurality of Canadians), for the short to medium term, it's definitely difficult to see how this is a plus for the UK.  Economic growth is predicted to go down worldwide because of it.  Companies like Airbus are going to have to examine their operations because of it.  New trade agreements will have to be forged.

Long term, there are also some real negatives.  The move to leave the EU could spark other moves to leave the EU.  The relative peace and security that has taken hold over Europe for the last decade could very well be in danger.

Stop sounding like Mark Carney.  The Sky isn't falling, things will get back to normal faster than not.  Britain existed and thrived for centuries before the EU and will do so after the divorce.  They just lost a ton of dead weight like any divorcee and will be healthier for it
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 26, 2016, 01:30:07
Stop sounding like Mark Carney.  The Sky isn't falling, things will get back to normal faster than not.  Britain existed and thrived for centuries before the EU and will do so after the divorce.  They just lost a ton of dead weight like any divorcee and will be healthier for it

I think I trust Mark Carney a bit more on this issue.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 26, 2016, 01:54:01
I think I trust Mark Carney a bit more on this issue.

Britain gave the EU a chance to see if being governed by Brussels as opposed to London.The majority decided that there was no longer a benefit to remain.If the EU fails it will morph into the Common Market from whence it came.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 26, 2016, 02:11:27
I question your sanity then.  Why is everyone so sure that the British screwed up?  They are better off getting out of the EU.  It is called independence and is exactly the same logic that we used when we became a nation in 1867 and why we are not the 51st state.  It is the reason Estonia, Latvia, Finland etc. are glad that they are not part of Russia.  So why are we ridiculing their desire not to be ruled from Brussels.

YZT

I am coming to believe that the problem lies in forgetting the names of Farel, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox.  Three hundred years of struggle against the Papacy, Gallicans, Lutherans, Anglicans, all of whom accept that authority and manna come from above and need an enlightened, occasionally benevolent, class of priests to interpret the laities needs to them as they are unable to do it for themselves. 

Farel et al, the good citizens of Zurich and Geneva, the Sea Beggars, the Dutch, the Palatines, the Huguenots and the Covenanters,  all of them, have always presented the exisentential threat to the "interpreters".

After the French revolution the priests became socialists only they developed a new catechism, a new set of rigidly held beliefs.  Fabians met socialists and the socialists met the Quiet Revolution.  And the great and the good stayed in place with new titles and slightly less ostentation.  Lesser clergy became bureaucrats and journalists.

Britain was built on the backs of Farel et al as was the US.  And they are the mob, the populists, that the great and the good have been struggling against ever since.

In my view, the reason for the anger at the upstart Brits is that they thought they had the fire contained, if not suppressed,  And now it seems to have broken out all over again.  And threatens to engulf their projects.

Farel et al promoted universal education - to permit every individual to come to their own conclusions for themselves.

The competition actively suppressed information, reduced education to catechism and controlled access to the priesthood.  It depends on certainties and fears chaos.

I saw an article in the National Post about a French Canadian professor visiting at Oxford in Political Science.  He was shocked at the Brexit vote.  His comment summarizes the problem.  This professor of Political Science said, despairingly, "I don't understand the majority of the electorate".

Britain's first Labour Prime Minister:

Quote
MacDonald was born at Gregory Place, Lossiemouth, Morayshire, Scotland, the illegitimate son of John MacDonald, a farm labourer, and Anne Ramsay, a housemaid.[4

Quote
Ramsay MacDonald received an elementary education at the Free Church of Scotland school in Lossiemouth from 1872 to 1875, and then at Drainie parish school. He left school at the end of the summer term in 1881, at the age of 15, and began work on a nearby farm.[7] He was not to be destined for a working life in agriculture. In December 1881 he was appointed as a pupil teacher at Drainie parish school (the entry in the school register of staff recording him as 'J. MacDonald')

Ramsay MacDonald was a product of the society created by Farel, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox.  A society where the world's first lending library was opened to allow lead miners to educate themselves in the hills of Ayrshire.  A society that promoted egalitarianism through the Women's Institute, the Co-Op, the Masons and the Labour Party - all of them subscribed by articulate working men and women - like Ramsay Macdonald, Keir Hardie, my great grandfather, secretary treasurer of the South Ayrshire Labour Party and my grandfather, mason and elder of the kirk.

And no an elitist amang them all.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 26, 2016, 02:12:40
Stop sounding like Mark Carney.  The Sky isn't falling, things will get back to normal faster than not.  Britain existed and thrived for centuries before the EU and will do so after the divorce.  They just lost a ton of dead weight like any divorcee and will be healthier for it

 :goodpost:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 26, 2016, 02:13:14
I think I trust Mark Carney a bit more on this issue.

Feel free to listen to that broken record to your heart's content.  The Sun will still continue to rise in the morning.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 26, 2016, 02:33:01
Feel free to listen to that broken record to your heart's content.  The Sun will still continue to rise in the morning.

It's not a question of that, but of it's relative brightness.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 26, 2016, 03:56:42
I am a pessimist by nature, but Carney only seems to have one song in his repertoire and he makes me look like the worlds biggest optimist.  So far, his doom and gloom have not materialized with what he was crowing for Canada etc.  I stand by my beliefs that his over the top performance being, just that, over the top.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 26, 2016, 14:14:10
I continue to be surprised at the vehemence with which the Brits are being anathematized by the establishment voices.  I thought we were long past that in our liberal, secular, enlightened world.

Quote
If the United Kingdom does leave the EU, some wonder, who might be next? And if others do abandon Brussels, how long can the union itself survive?

Those aren’t specious fears. Euro-skepticism is on the rise in many parts of the continent. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, support for the EU fell by 17 percentage points in France last year, 16 percentage points in Spain and eight percentage points in Germany. Among residents of 10 EU countries surveyed by Pew, only 51 per cent viewed the union favourably. An overwhelming majority of those surveyed, meanwhile, disapproved of the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis. And a majority or plurality in nine of the 10 countries told Pew they wanted some powers returned from Brussels to their national governments.

The factors driving that discontent are economic, political and sometimes inchoate. The refugee crisis and the lingering hangover from the 2008 financial collapse have both played significant roles. But so too has the EU’s own unshakeable image as a faceless, meddling bureaucracy, said Jeffrey Kopstein, a professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine. “Somehow it’s been sold as a project that’s distant and non-democratic,” he said.

Kopstein thinks that image is mostly myth. But it has been a remarkably intractable one. The Brussels suit, imposing regulation from on high, has been the key straw man for populists and nationalists across the continent for years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/0625-fo-eu

It occurs to me that the first argument against the Brits is the group version of the ad hominem attack designed to discredit "the other".

In this case we are talking about:

Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson - "court jesters"
Old folks - "out of touch and irrelevant"
Leavers - "racists"
Brits in General - "Brits" - roast beef, garlic and frogs have been the basis of political discourse for centuries.
Foreign supporters - "Racists", "anglo-saxons", "neo-liberals", "fascists" and worst of all "populists"

Alinski Rules
Quote
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Maybe there should be less time on the ridicule and more time spent trying to understand their point of view and their take on "The Brussels Suit", the mythical straw man that Kopstein refers to above.


Backing it up in time again.


1560.

This was a bad year for the good and the great.

After 43 years of dealing with individual cities in Switzerland rising up and deciding they were going to ignore the authority of Rome and its self-declared ability to make and break princes they lost a whole country.

Marie de Guise died.  Scotland was lost to John Knox and the Scots Confession that implemented Calvin's democratic government (since derided by the great and the good as a theocracy).  The Valois heir was briefly taken from the Guise faction by the Huguenot reformers at Amboise and the senior Guise family members arrested by the Coligny faction.  The iconoclast reformers of La Rochelle joined the Scots in tearing down statues of saints.

The great houses of Edinburgh, Paris and Rome were not happy: the Stewarts, the Valois, the Guise, the Medici, the Strossis.

1562

Two years later they picked up on a practice that had been useful earlier.  They set out to exterminate the dissenters.  The Guise faction undertook to massacre the dissenters at Wassy in France.

The open wars between the authorities and the dissenters started and would continue for a few centuries. The date of termination is debatable.

1565

Sweden, which had been one of the first countries to reject the authority of Rome when the Vasas accepted Lutheranism, was also one of the first countries to reject Calvinism as heresy - Calvinism, which preached that authority came from below and that everyman was his own priest.

1566

The Dutch broke out and also rejected Rome and started breaking statues as they too adopted Calvinism.

This is what the great and the good fear.

Having struggled for 500 years against Calvin (forget his peculiar notions on bread and wine and witches etc) they found themselves slowly being able to put themselves back into a position of dispensing, indulging, patronizing and authorizing.

Rome had relocated to Brussels.


Most Brits don't remember this history, although some of us older ones were taught it.  I suppose the same could be said in the Netherlands and Switzerland.  But the cultural memory, the impulses that rejected that centralizing authority are still very much in evidence.  And that, again, is what the great and the good fear.

They, as Orwell suggested, have purloined the word "democrat" and relegate democrats to being mere "populists".











Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 26, 2016, 15:26:28
You know, it seems to me the UK managed to stump yet one more attempt at European dominion by the French or German.

In the last few centuries, the French first tried to dominate Europe by conquest - but Napoleon was ultimately defeated by the Russian and the Anglo-saxon nations, with some assistance from the German. Then, the German thought "Hey! that's a great idea, but we should be the dominator", and the Kaiser's forces were defeated by the Russians and Anglo-saxon nations, with the assistance of the French this time. And the german tried again under Hitler and again were defeated by the Russians and the Anglo-saxon nations, with the French pretty much staying on the sideline this time but still vying to reap the spoils of victory.

Anyhow, the French and the German got together after this and they basically decided "we should stop fighting between the two of us and just work together to dominate Europe. We don't have to worry about Russia this time - they have their block and the USA are keeping them in check, so we only have to watch for the Anglo-saxons, so we have to be sly".

And so they started with a very innocuous sounding little ploy called the European Coal and Steel Community.

Well, we know how that developed! And now, they have been foiled again by the Anglo-saxons  :salute:

 [:D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Eaglelord17 on June 26, 2016, 16:08:12
The Liberals are the party that Canadians have historically picked to govern them.

I completely disagree with this statement. Yes the Liberals have historically governed for slightly longer, that being said it is only slightly longer. Roughly 20 years more of governing out of 149 years isn't that much. The other part that is interesting is that the early Liberal party has more in common with the current Conservative party than it does with its more modern descendant. The whole natural governing party argument I really don't place much stock in.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1 stay
Post by: cavalryman on June 26, 2016, 16:45:17
Aaaannnnd, now they want a do over.

More than 2.5M sign Brexit do-over petition

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/06/25/nearly-25m-sign-brexit-do-over-petition/86385466/

Come on people, you should have thought about this before we left! :facepalm:
Perhaps not
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/hah-liberal-media-pranked-4chan-poll-second-eu-referendum-totally/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/hah-liberal-media-pranked-4chan-poll-second-eu-referendum-totally/)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 26, 2016, 16:48:40
A point on Brexit negotiations - the Schedule.

The Euromats are pushing hard to have the Brits start negotiations immediately and start a two year clock.  If the button were pushed now the clock would run out in June 2018.  It will likely be the end of the year before the Brits can get a negotiating team in place.  That pushes the resolution date out to Dec 2018.

Meanwhile the following things happen:

Elections in Lithuania this October
Elections in Romania in December
Elections in Netherlands in Mar 2017
Elections in France in Apr 2017
Elections in Iceland in Apr 2017
Elections in Germany in Oct 2017
Elections in Luxembourg in Oct 2017
Elections in Czechia in Oct 2017
Elections in Italy in Feb 2018
Elections in Cyprus in Feb 2018
Elections in Hungary in Apr 2018
Elections in Malta in Jun 2018
Elections in Sweden in Sep 2018
Elections in Latvia in Oct 2018
Elections in Bulgaria in Oct 2018

17 out of 27 countries are in positions of possibly changing their instructions to the Euromats of the EU negotiating team.

Some are at risk of pulling out of the association completely.

Some are keen to have Britain continue to show leadership on the Eastern Flank of NATO.

Some would appreciate retaining access to Britain regardless.

It is being argued that Britain is short of negotiators. No.  Whitehall is short of negotiators.  Britain has some of the most successful negotiators on the planet.  They just all happen to be in the private sector.  I am sure that there is at least one City of London banker, or a Richard Bransom entrepreneur, willing to take on the challenge.

And other cards the Brits may have to play?  Free trade with India?  With China? Hong Kong? Singapore? Australia? Switzerland? Norway?.....How about Turkey and Ukraine?

I don't think Canada is in the cards with our current government.  The previous government under PM Harper would have moved to support Britain.  Our current PM is ideologically more in tune with the Euromats of Brussels.  He won't be signing any bilateral treaties with Britain anytime soon.

And our next election will happen in 2019, after the Article 50 negotiations terminate - and about the same time that the Euromats have to face their electors directly.





Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 26, 2016, 17:38:29
And this article is required reading to understand the Euromats' fears and the opportunities for Britain's negotiators.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

The Chief Euromat is already having to defend his title.

Quote
Brexit was Juncker's fault and he must go, says Czech foreign minister

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/brexit-was-junckers-fault-and-he-must-go-says-czech-foreign-mini/

And this from one of the sanest commentators today: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/26/parliament-must-decide-what-brexit-means-in-the-interests-of-the/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 26, 2016, 18:02:45
The 'common man' is starting to come into their own. They have, except in the most despotic of nations, begun to show the utter disdain and contempt for the politicos and are feeling empowered enough they have begun to fight back. The whoa is us crowd, the professional politicians, are seeing their sway and power disintegrating before their eyes. Big business and global financiers, that control those politicians are losing their grasp on their NWO.

Real people who are tired of living under, ever increasing, stupid rules that are designed to keep the elite in power, have had enough. The US election, BREXIT, et al are those road signs that are showing the disdain the working person feels for the power of demagogues who feel that it is their right to run the world, the way they want, in order to maximize their own profits.

All the 'Remain' propaganda is being fousted, on the world, by those elites and their PR firms, the MSM that they all own. News and talk programs are nothing more than big, long commercials for those in power. They are not to be believed. Which is another thing that the common working person has had just about enough of also. 

This will not be the end of Britain as we know it, but it probably is the end of the EU, period. France and Germany will just have to give up the idea of being Europe's rulers.

It might be a good time to start looking at retirement property in Greece or Italy.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 26, 2016, 18:49:35
A bit of "reverse tea leaf reading" via a paper prepared by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (attached) a few days before the big vote:
Quote
... Possible Aftermaths

Technically, the referendum is only advisory for Parliament, but the government has asserted that it "would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate's decision." There is no precedent for a country withdrawing from the EU, so a high degree of uncertainty exists about how the separation might work.

A vote to leave is unlikely to force the UK out of the EU immediately. Under its treaty framework, the way for a member country to withdraw from the EU is to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, opening a two-year period in which the two sides would attempt to negotiate a withdrawal agreement.

There is no preset time frame for the notification that begins this process. The timing of the notification would be a political decision that could be delayed by holding a Parliamentary debate on the exit beforehand, for example.

The main purpose of the withdrawal agreement would be to settle transition arrangements in policy areas covered by EU treaties. Until the negotiation is concluded, the UK would remain a member of the EU and subject to its rules. Details about the future arrangement of the relationship between the UK and the EU likely would be negotiated as a separate agreement.

Many observers believe that the process of negotiating these agreements would likely take considerably longer than two years to complete. As expressed by the UK government itself, "a vote to leave the EU would be the start, not the end, of a process. It could lead to up to a decade or more of uncertainty."

Analysts have expressed concerns that a vote to withdraw from the EU could cause an economic shock that would leave the UK facing weaker economic growth, higher inflation, and depreciation of the pound, with potentially significant negative consequences for the U.S. and global economies. The UK might face a period of domestic political instability if a Brexit vote imperils the position of Prime Minister Cameron or fuels a renewed push for Scotland to separate from the UK.

Some are concerned that a Brexit could prompt a wider unraveling of the EU. At a time of growing skepticism toward the EU in many member countries, a UK departure could lead to more calls for special membership conditions or referendums on membership in other countries. Others suggest that the EU could emerge as a more like-minded bloc, able to pursue deeper integration without UK opposition.

A vote to stay in, on the other hand, could give Cameron a freer hand in shaping EU initiatives and restore the UK as a key player in the EU ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 27, 2016, 00:08:00
For the past few years I've been reading increasing amounts of stuff written by economists, political scientists, and the occasional sociologist about the importance of studying politics and economics with a strong human behavioural component, rather than as a simple exercise in remorseless mathematically-driven rational calculations.

And now all the pundits who object to the result are bleating about how the benighted underclasses have done the wrong thing, by their failure to reach the conclusion that is so obvious if you do the remorseless mathematically-driven rational calculations correctly.

If the factor you treasure above all others had zero weight in someone else's estimate, it doesn't mean he is wrong.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Furniture on June 27, 2016, 02:56:32
For the past few years I've been reading increasing amounts of stuff written by economists, political scientists, and the occasional sociologist about the importance of studying politics and economics with a strong human behavioural component, rather than as a simple exercise in remorseless mathematically-driven rational calculations.

And now all the pundits who object to the result are bleating about how the benighted underclasses have done the wrong thing, by their failure to reach the conclusion that is so obvious if you do the remorseless mathematically-driven rational calculations correctly.

If the factor you treasure above all others had zero weight in someone else's estimate, it doesn't mean he is wrong.

I believe this strikes at the key behind the Brexit, Trump and Ford... People are sick of the rich and powerful telling them how wonderful things are. The average Canadian/American/Brit doesn't own stocks or care about the exchanges. The average voter cares about how their individual standard of living compares to what they expect and are promised, and the reality is most have been sold a pipe dream by politicians who only care about being elected so they can draw exorbitant MP/Congress benefits and pay.

It doesn't matter that many of the people who run for office do so out of a sense of duty, all it takes is the perception that they are there to serve themselves first. In Canada the recent pay rtaise for MPs serves as a reminder that even at home the ruling class is out of touch with the average voter.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 27, 2016, 04:22:24
Yeah, common people, like Trump.

Anyway, I haven't turned down any pay raises lately.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 27, 2016, 04:28:15
Common people do like Trump, I agree.  Pay raises, haven't seen one of those for some time.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jmt18325 on June 27, 2016, 05:19:18
Common people do like Trump, I agree. 

I know that you know that I didn't mean that at all.

Won't they be ever so disappointed in him if he wins though.  There's nothing common about him.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 27, 2016, 05:55:24
I know that you know that I didn't mean that at all.

Won't they be ever so disappointed in him if he wins though.  There's nothing common about him.

I think they'll be disappointed with either option on the table.  Most options leave you wanting.  We are no different here.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Lightguns on June 27, 2016, 08:10:35
;)

Although I'd wager there's more than one ABC Veteran who's suffering buyer's regret seeing as they were gulled by false promise.

Not according to their twitter account, they re-tweet liberal propaganda like a partisan party member (which they likely are).  But speaking of regret, County Cornwall, poorest county in UK, is now changing their minds as most of their welfare benefits comes from the EU.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 27, 2016, 11:51:24
With the Labour party tearing itself to pieces, I'm sure there's more than on on the dole who's nervous now.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2016, 12:48:01
Interesting article from CNN on the Brexit broken promises that are already taking shape.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/news/economy/brexit-broken-promises/index.html

I think I agree with the first two.  Clearly the leaver side made some promises it can't or won't keep.  The third one though is too early to tell. But if the economy continues to tank, it might be a good thing for any country that might have issues with separatists and what not.  It may be something to discourage them from leaving their own unions.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 27, 2016, 13:25:41
Surely the point is that the UK now has the authority to reallocate those funds as it sees fit.... and that could include a new hospital, or any other application foreign or domestic.  But that money will be controlled by Westminster and not Brussels.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2016, 13:37:50
Surely the point is that the UK now has the authority to reallocate those funds as it sees fit.... and that could include a new hospital, or any other application foreign or domestic.  But that money will be controlled by Westminster and not Brussels.

The point is that leaders on the leave side are backing away from statements they made prior to the referendum.  And yes they can allocate funds any way they want, the problem is that those sectors who were assured that those funds would still go to them are being told that now, that might not happen.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: YZT580 on June 27, 2016, 14:28:51
One thing is certain.  The EU is going to play hardball right up until the final divorce papers are signed and acted upon.  They will make it as noticeably difficult as possible to discourage other would-be exiters. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2016, 14:37:40
One thing is certain.  The EU is going to play hardball right up until the final divorce papers are signed and acted upon.  They will make it as noticeably difficult as possible to discourage other would-be exiters.

They have already stated that no discussions, formal or informal will be made until article 50 is initiated.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 27, 2016, 15:01:17
One thing is certain.  The EU is going to play hardball right up until the final divorce papers are signed and acted upon.  They will make it as noticeably difficult as possible to discourage other would-be exiters.
:nod:

So, out-of-left-field scenario:  is the UK government going to be craven enough to say, "well, a referendum provides us with INPUT from the public, but this'll have to be voted on" now that there's a lot of folks soiling their silks? 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 27, 2016, 15:22:54
Germany has already said there is no reason to be nasty.  Britain is to take its time to get a negotiating team in place.

The Germans are leaning towards a modified Norwegian solution.  The French are leaning towards a modified Swiss solution.

German industry has said they don't want to lose access to the British market for cars.

Hollande has started to be less histrionic after a talk with Merkel.

A meeting of BeNeLux plus France, Germany and Italy has pissed off the other 21 who have decided to have their own meetings. 

The French and German foreign ministers have floated the prospect of eliminating all national sovereignty. Lead balloon.

The Czech Republic has called for Juncker's resignation.

It is all to play for.

The game of Rugby has an interesting history.  A game of football was being played.  At some point a chap name of William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it.  Chaos ensued.  Two sports emerged.  Rugby and Soccer.

Some of the Brits have just picked up the ball and run with it.  We wait to see what will emerge.

And by the way - on the subject of campaign statements - there are statements and there are statements and there are interpretations of statements.

"We can move money to health care."  "We will move money to health care." "They said they would move money to health care."

Equally:

"The universe will end."  "A black hole will ensue."  "Your pensions will disappear." "Nobody will trade with us ever again."

And let us not get into the subject of domestic Canadian politicians and campaign statements.



It is permissible to point out worst case scenarios during debate.  Equally it is permissible to point out best case scenarios.  Both scenarios are equally unlikely.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Journeyman on June 27, 2016, 15:29:33
The game of Rugby has an interesting history.
Oh, and this whole scenario isn't tragic / magnificent enough (perspective dependent),  you had to bring up rugby.....after Canada's boring 20-18 defeat by Italy yesterday....   :(   *****!



(That's all I've got on Brexit;  I'm still going through John Oliver's "analyses" (in the CBC sense of the word) on YouTube until the dust settles a bit  :pop: )
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 27, 2016, 15:35:58
I'm with this 'MEPpit':

EU Debate - Oxford Union. Daniel Hannan MEP


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzNj-hH8LkY
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 27, 2016, 16:23:00
Oh, and this whole scenario isn't tragic / magnificent enough (perspective dependent),  you had to bring up rugby.....after Canada's boring 20-18 defeat by Italy yesterday....   :(   *****!
As a descendant of a round-ball-fanatic country, I didn't want to mention it ...  >:D
... on the subject of campaign statements - there are statements and there are statements and there are interpretations of statements.

"We can move money to health care."  "We will move money to health care." "They said they would move money to health care."

Equally:

"The universe will end."  "A black hole will ensue."  "Your pensions will disappear." "Nobody will trade with us ever again."

And let us not get into the subject of domestic Canadian politicians and campaign statements.

It is permissible to point out worst case scenarios during debate.  Equally it is permissible to point out best case scenarios.  Both scenarios are equally unlikely.
:nod:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 27, 2016, 18:45:30
The point is that leaders on the leave side are backing away from statements they made prior to the referendum.  And yes they can allocate funds any way they want, the problem is that those sectors who were assured that those funds would still go to them are being told that now, that might not happen.

So just like the Trudeau Liberals then.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 27, 2016, 18:55:14
The Brits can afford to hold off a bit on Article 50. Right now the EU wants to punish them and make it a nasty acrimonious divorce.

Meanwhile, a number of other countries are planning referendums.

By the time Article 50 is invoked by Britain, the EU just might be negotiating from a position of weakness and fighting other sovereign  states on a number of fronts.

If a few others go along with Britain, it might well be the end of the EU.

And really, who needs to be told you can only buy two bananas at a time and they have to be straight, not curved, or other such nonsense.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 27, 2016, 19:06:04

And really, who needs to be told you can only buy two bananas at a time and they have to be straight, not curved, or other such nonsense.

Which is why I would have voted to leave.  The meddling From Brussels would piss me off to no end.  Nevermind being pushed around by Germany or this migration issue.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 27, 2016, 21:47:49
>Brexit broken promises

Given the evolution of the Lisbon Treaty, claims about misrepresentations by those opposed to EUnification need not be taken seriously.

I doubt many EU members are going to go to the wall to satisfy the desire of EUrocrats to punish Britain.  Spain, for example, needs tourist dollars.  I can't imagine why the average Spaniard would accept any fraction of hardship to satisfy fat technocrats in Brussels.

The harder Brussels squeezes, the more likely it becomes that additional EU members will slip the grasp.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 27, 2016, 21:54:20
So just like the Trudeau Liberals then.

Yep. Minus the hair and the uhms. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Colin P on June 28, 2016, 12:44:29
>Brexit broken promises

Given the evolution of the Lisbon Treaty, claims about misrepresentations by those opposed to EUnification need not be taken seriously.

I doubt many EU members are going to go to the wall to satisfy the desire of EUrocrats to punish Britain.  Spain, for example, needs tourist dollars.  I can't imagine why the average Spaniard would accept any fraction of hardship to satisfy fat technocrats in Brussels.

The harder Brussels squeezes, the more likely it becomes that additional EU members will slip the grasp.

Plus Spain has it's own separatist issue to deal with and won't be keen on accepting an independent Scotland.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 28, 2016, 12:51:49
Plus Spain has it's own separatist issue to deal with and won't be keen on accepting an independent Scotland.
Not to mention Belgium's tensions ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 28, 2016, 13:36:31
Plus Spain has it's own separatist issue to deal with and won't be keen on accepting an independent Scotland.

Maybe, but it is keen on getting some sovereignty over Gibraltar.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 28, 2016, 16:30:25
Scotland to the rescue of English as EU official language?

Quote
Brexit prompts a push to end English in the European Union
...
With the impending British exit from the European Union, the polyglot Babel that has 24 official languages may soon strike English off the list, according to officials here, who note the change with a mixture of sadness and glee.

...if Britain pulls out, the European Union will lose the only nation that has designated English as its official language inside E.U. institutions. Each country is allowed to pick one tongue, and Ireland and Malta — the other two E.U. nations that are predominantly English-speaking — chose Gaelic and Maltese, respectively. But they are tiny compared with the juggernauts of France and Germany, which supply the other two “unofficial” working languages of the European Union...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/28/brexit-prompts-a-push-to-end-english-in-the-european-union/?wpisrc=nl_wv&wpmm=1

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Rocky Mountains on June 28, 2016, 17:29:16
Scotland to the rescue of English as EU official language?

Mark
Ottawa

What about Ireland?  The first language is English. The second language is Polish.  The third language is Irish.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 28, 2016, 17:39:52
Rocky Mountains: From the story:

Quote
...Each country is allowed to pick one tongue, and Ireland and Malta — the other two E.U. nations that are predominantly English-speaking — chose Gaelic and Maltese, respectively...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 28, 2016, 20:24:07
Until such time as Art 50 is invoked by the UK,there is no Brexit.Maybe not even then because the EU Parliament and governing body must agree to how such an exit would occur.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 28, 2016, 20:26:19
Even better ...
Until such time as Art 50 is invoked by the UK, and the process is completed, there is no Brexit.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on June 28, 2016, 21:09:29
Some interesting things that I picked up listening to various discussions on the way to work this morning.

First, a though experiment. Is it possible that the whole referendum was never intended to actually decide if the UK were to pull out of the EU, but rather a response by Cameron to his detractors (at least in part) within the party to put up or shut up, specifically Boris Johnson? It's no secret that there has been animosity between the two going back to their college years. It gives Cameron the ability to walk away from the leadership and lay blame for the fiasco at the feet of the far right detractors in the party.

Second, although the results show a majority of votes for the Leave side, it's not really a strong, clear mandate to leave. 52% to 48%. a swing of roughly 635,000 votes would have resulted in a split vote. It could easily be justified that staying with the status quo is the best course of action, and pursuing changes to the various treaties and agreements is the more desirable option. And this may well be the out that the Brits may use to unring the bell.

Third, the results are not legally binding, so Cameron could just ignore the results at his own peril. However, going back to the first point, he has a scapegoat to hang it on, and I suspect that his quick decision to resign and delaying the trigger on article 50 for the enjoyment of his successor could well be Cameron's intended course of action, without having to say he's going to ignore the will of the people. And the uproar seems to help rather than hinder his cause if that is indeed the plan

With respect to the reaction of the EU political leadership, the aggressive stance they are taking may well backfire. They may in part be emboldened by the results of the bullying they laid on Greece to force the changes that they wanted without consideration of the effect it had on the Greek economy (and I agree something needed to be done, and in this case their course of action may have gotten them what they wanted). But they seem to have forgotten that the UK is not Greece, and this is going to cause pain across the board. Yes, it may be more of a show to warn the weaker states from pulling the same stunt, but it will come back to bite them in the ***.

Ultimately, I can see this ending with a whimper rather than a brawl. A bunch of drunken idiots starting out playing poke chest, and ending with everyone crying, hugging and expressing their love for each other. Rational (for Europeans that is a stretch) heads will prevail, and they will sit down and address the concerns that precipitated the events.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on June 28, 2016, 22:02:32
And to add insult to injury.  :rofl:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on June 28, 2016, 22:24:09
Nigel Farage wins the Sore Loser Award.

Brexiteer Nigel Farage To EU: 'You're Not Laughing Now, Are You?'

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/28/483857209/watch-brexiteer-nigel-farage-to-eu-youre-not-laughing-now-are-you?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160628

Quote
Nigel Farage, a member of the European Parliament and the leader of the U.K. Independence Party, spoke on the floor of the European Parliament on Tuesday morning.

It was a special session of the Parliament, called in the wake of the U.K.'s decision to leave the European Union. Farage — whose eurosceptic right-wing party was firmly in favor of the Brexit, and who personally campaigned quite passionately for it — was grinning.

And on a day marked with fiery speeches, his stood out.

Farage was booed from the start — he could barely get out "Good morning." The president of the European Parliament had to chastise the gathered lawmakers into letting Farage speak. When he finally began, here's what he had to say.

"Funny, isn't it?
"When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me.
"Well, I have to say, you're not laughing now, are you?"


Farage told the other members the source of their anger was clear:

"You as a political project are in denial. You're in denial that your currency is failing. You're in denial — well, just look at the Mediterranean! As a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the Mediterranean you've done very well.
"You're in denial over Mrs. Merkel's call last year for as many people as possible to cross the Mediterranean into the European Union [which] has led to massive divisions between within countries and between countries."


Farage invoked the controversial history of the EU Constitution. It failed to be ratified as its own treaty, but most of the elements of the proposed constitution were instituted through the Treaty of Lisbon.

"The biggest problem you've got and the main reason the U.K. voted the way it did is because you have — by stealth, by deception, without ever telling the truth to the rest of the peoples of Europe — you have imposed upon them a political union.
"And when the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union and rejected the constitution, you simply ignored them and brought the Lisbon Treaty in through the back door."
 


Farage called the vote "a remarkable result":

"What happened last Thursday was a remarkable result — it was, indeed, a seismic result. Not just for British politics, for European politics, but perhaps even for global politics, too.
"Because what the little people did, what the ordinary people did — what the people who've been oppressed over the last few years and seen their living standards go down — they rejected the multinationals, they rejected the merchant banks, they rejected big politics and they said, 'Actually, we want our country back. We want our fishing waters back. We want our borders back.' ...
"In doing so, we now offer a beacon of hope to democrats across the rest of the European continent. I'll make one prediction this morning: the United Kingdom will not be the last member state to leave the European Union."


Here's the line that brought the assembly — which had been occasionally grumbling during Farage's speech, with a few smatterings of applause — into a rage.

"I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. But listen, just listen."

During the resulting uproar, the president of the EU Parliament, Martin Schulz, had to call for order. He chastised the MEPs by, well, insulting Farage's own party:

"I do understand that you are getting emotional, but you are acting like UKIP usually acts in this chamber, so please, don't imitate them," he said.

He also told Farage to cut it out.

"You really can't say that, I'm sorry," Schulz said.

Farage highlighted the trade relationships between the U.K. and Europe, and told an audibly amused Parliament that attempts to punish the U.K. for its departure would only hurt the 27 countries remaining in the EU.

"That trade matters. If you were to cut off your noses to spite your faces and to reject any idea of a sensible trade deal, the consequences would be far worse for you than it would be for us."
[Laughter from MEPs]
"Even no deal is better for the United Kingdom is better than the current rotten deal that we've got. But if we were to move to a position where tariffs were reintroduced on products like motorcars then hundreds of thousands of German works would risk losing their jobs."


Here's how he closed:

"Why don't we just be pragmatic, sensible, grown-up, realistic — and let's cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal.
[Laughter.]
"And thereafter, recognize that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world.
"But do that, do it sensibly, and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future."


Farage was met with some applause and a great deal of booing, and sat down with a visible smile.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 28, 2016, 23:20:03
>they will sit down and address the concerns that precipitated the events.

I doubt it.  If the pro-EU people get their way despite the result, they will pocket the win and carry on with their program.  If they were inclined to address concerns, they would already have done so.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on June 28, 2016, 23:35:12
>they will sit down and address the concerns that precipitated the events.

I doubt it.  If the pro-EU people get their way despite the result, they will pocket the win and carry on with their program.  If they were inclined to address concerns, they would already have done so.

Actually I was referring more to the member countries of the EU than the British parties. And they have the incentive that the nationalist movements in their own countries may well push for their own departure.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on June 29, 2016, 01:44:24
Fallout in the Labour Party:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/jeremy-corbyn-lefts-lunacy/

Quote
Jeremy Corbyn and the Left’s Lunacy
NOAH ROTHMAN / JUNE 28, 2016

The two most direct and visible effects of the Brexit vote have been a financial shock and a political implosion. Post-Brexit economic instability is the result of a panic, and it is reasonable to expect the markets to find a new equilibrium soon. The collapse of political stability in Britain, however, is rooted in more fundamental factors that won’t be resolved quickly. The resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron has thrown the Conservative majority into turmoil, but a revolt within the minority Labour Party against its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is also ongoing. It is an ugly reflection on Labour and the left in general that it took a failed plebiscite on Europe to finally wake the party up to what a noxious, paranoid, graceless figure their leader truly is.

Brexit would not have passed as narrowly as it did if it were not for the support of Labour voters to retreat from the EU. That represents a stunning humiliation for the Europhilic center-left Labour and a remarkable defeat for Jeremy Corbyn—although he does not personally view it that way.

Corbyn has always been hostile toward European integration. While conservatives of the “Euro-skeptical” variety tend to cast a suspicious eye on the EU for its anti-market values, Corbyn finds the EU suspiciously too laissez-faire. He voted against the Maastricht Treaty, which created the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty, which established its constitution. He criticized the terms on which Greece was provided loans in exchange for adopting austere budgetary restrictions as being too harsh. “There is no future for a Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage,” Corbyn wrote as recently as 2015.

This stance is remarkably out of step with his internationalist party, and the failure to prevent Brexit appears the straw that broke Labour’s back. In the wake of the referendum vote, the majority of the shadow Labour government has resigned. Despite all these clear signals that Corbyn has lost the faith of his fellow party members, he still insists he will not vacate his post. Even the Labour-friendly Daily Mirror was reduced to begging this “decent man,” in a “heartfelt message,” to resign “for the sake of your party” and “country.” 47 resignations later, the party declared an open revolt against Corbyn—172 Labour MPs voted against their leader in a confidence vote on Tuesday.

Corbyn is a man who by any sane calculation should never have been elevated to his present position. He bemoaned the fate of the Taliban after September 11th, and claimed that there had been a “manipulation” of information by the omnipotent but ill defined “they” to manufacture international conflict. This kind of conspiratorial thinking is not new to the man who became the Labour’s leader. In an article for Labour Briefing in 1991, Corbyn called the Coalition ouster of Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait a “curtain-raiser for the New World Order.”

When the United States finally killed Osama bin Laden in a Special Forces operation in 2011, Corbyn called it an “assassination attempt,” in which no effort was made to capture the terrorist and bring him to trial. That rendered the al-Qaeda leader’s death a “tragedy” on par with the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in 2001.

Corbyn has long been infatuated with radical Islamist terrorists, if only because he approves of their targets. He described the Iranian terrorist organization Hezbollah and the murderous Hamas in Gaza as the West’s “friends,” and supported a total arms embargo on Israel. Corbyn has gleefully shared a stage with the most unhinged European Holocaust deniers and defended those fringe figures who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by the Israeli Mossad.

Under Corbyn, the Labour Party has been implicated in one anti-Semitic incident after another. In early May, the Telegraph reported that 50 Labour members had been secretly disciplined over anti-Semitic and racist comments amid an “influx of hard-left supporters following Jeremy Corbyn’s election.” Formerly peripheral views about Hitler and Israel’s support for ISIS, which were once relegated only to the darkest fringes of society, were out in the open. They had found a mainstream champion.

Corbyn is not the disease but a symptom; a lagging indicator of an ideology gone mad. Labour’s leader has recklessly legitimized conspiratorial anti-Western and anti-Semitic thought. Corbyn represents so much more than the British left’s overcorrection away from Blairite centrism. He exemplifies an unattractive impulse among younger liberals in America and Britain to embrace the perpetually adolescent unreconstructed socialists of the 20th Century as they struggle to comprehend and navigate the challenges of their own time. These formerly marginal figures were once consigned to the fringe for a good reason.

It has long been obvious to all but the most blinkered of paranoid basement-dwellers that Corbyn is unfit to lead the Labour Party. His elevation to his current position confirms the belief that the Western left has become reckless and radicalized. It wasn’t Corbyn’s conspiratorial thinking, his anti-Semitism, his flirtation with violence and autarky, or his apologies for terrorists that robbed Labour of confidence in their eccentric leader. It was his failure to campaign hard enough to preserve European subsidies that did him in. That fact alone exposes how truly deep the rot within the British left goes.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 29, 2016, 07:23:33
Is it possible that the whole referendum was never intended to actually decide if the UK were to pull out of the EU, but rather a response by Cameron to his detractors (at least in part) within the party to put up or shut up, specifically Boris Johnson?
If that was the case, Cameron clearly forgot the addage, "be careful what you wish for" ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2016, 11:27:42
I wonder how long they will play hard ball.  No freedom of movement, no access to the single market.  Given that anger at freedom of movement was a plank in the leave campaign

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2016, 11:32:47
This is a decent article that shows the various options that the UK could adopt after they leave. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36639261

Interesting models that I was unaware of.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 29, 2016, 11:40:36
I note that the next PM now negotiates with:

An active trigger in his hand (Article 50)

Freedom to use it

A sense of urgency in the opposition in Europe

And,

Is negotiating 1 on 1 (UK to Europe) not 1 in 28.

The Chief Negotiator (Juncker) can't be sure of his job, is already discovering that any Bulls that he issues to shun the UK are going to be ignored, and will ultimately get new instructions from his masters in the European Council - the European Parliament being a very weak reed.


The Euros want access to the British market, the British banks and the Royal Navy and support for their economies/armies.

They fear having a low tax haven 22 miles off their west coast - especially an "Anglo-Saxon" one trading freely with the US.


The Tories seem to be coalescing a lot faster than Labour.  Boris Johnson is taking an early election off the table.  The markets are starting to move on.

The Integrationists of the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic persuasion are at risk because Britain has now empowered the Classical Liberals and Nationalists all across Europe, including the European Parliament and in Juncker's own European Commission.

Negotiations continue.

It is just like old times.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 29, 2016, 13:03:38
Six key questions about the Brexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915

Canadians should be watching all of this unfold as it may be used as a precedent for separation in Canada in the not so distant future.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on June 30, 2016, 00:02:32
Marine Le Pen on how the Nativists in Europe look at the Brexit. Like the Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump insurgency brewing in the United States, many people are not happy at how their lives, hopes and prospects have been rearranged by political "elites" and are seeking means of redress. While you and I might agree that Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen don't represent the "best" choices, these are the ones on the table right now, so anyone looking to offer an alternative will have to get to work right away. (In the UK, I suspect the clear choice is Boris Johnson. Who is our Boris Johnson?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/marine-le-pen-after-brexit-the-peoples-spring-is-inevitable.html?_r=1

Quote
Marine Le Pen: After Brexit, the People’s Spring Is Inevitable
Lire en français (Read in French)
By MARINE LE PENJUNE 28, 2016

PARIS — IF there’s one thing that chafes French pride, it’s seeing the British steal the limelight. But in the face of real courage, even the proudest French person can only tip his hat and bow. The decision that the people of Britain have just made was indeed an act of courage — the courage of a people who embrace their freedom.

Brexit won out, defeating all forecasts. Britain decided to cast off from the European Union and reclaim its independence among the world’s nations. It had been said that the election would hinge solely on economic matters; the British, however, were more insightful in understanding the real issue than commentators like to admit.

British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom.

The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will.

Countries in the eurozone face an even less enviable situation. In the name of ideology, different economies are forced to adopt the same currency, even if doing so bleeds them dry. It’s a modern version of the Procrustean bed, and the people no longer have a say.

And what about the European Parliament? It’s democratic in appearance only, because it’s based on a lie: the pretense that there is a homogeneous European people, and that a Polish member of the European Parliament has the legitimacy to make law for the Spanish. We have tried to deny the existence of sovereign nations. It’s only natural that they would not allow being denied.

Brexit wasn’t the European people’s first cry of revolt. In 2005, France and the Netherlands held referendums about the proposed European Union constitution. In both countries, opposition was massive, and other governments decided on the spot to halt the experiment for fear the contagion might spread. A few years later, the European Union constitution was forced on the people of Europe anyway, under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. In 2008, Ireland, also by way of referendum, refused to apply that treaty. And once again, a popular decision was brushed aside.

When in 2015 Greece decided by referendum to reject Brussels’ austerity plans, the European Union’s antidemocratic response took no one by surprise: To deny the people’s will had become a habit. In a flash of honesty, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, unabashedly declared, “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”

Brexit may not have been the first cry of hope, but it may be the people’s first real victory. The British have presented the union with a dilemma it will have a hard time getting out of. Either it allows Britain to sail away quietly and thus runs the risk of setting a precedent: The political and economic success of a country that left the European Union would be clear evidence of the union’s noxiousness. Or, like a sore loser, the union makes the British pay for their departure by every means possible and thus exposes the tyrannical nature of its power. Common sense points toward the former option. I have a feeling Brussels will choose the latter.

One thing is certain: Britain’s departure from the European Union will not make the union more democratic. The hierarchical structure of its supranational institutions will want to reinforce itself: Like all dying ideologies, the union knows only how to forge blindly ahead. The roles are already cast — Germany will lead the way, and France will obligingly tag along.

Here is a sign: President François Hollande of France, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy and acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of Spain take their lead directly from Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, without running through Brussels. A quip attributed to Henry Kissinger, “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” now has a clear answer: Call Berlin.

So the people of Europe have but one alternative left: to remain bound hand-and-foot to a union that betrays national interests and popular sovereignty and that throws our countries wide open to massive immigration and arrogant finance, or to reclaim their freedom by voting.


Calls for referendums are ringing throughout the Continent. I myself have suggested to Mr. Hollande that one such public consultation be held in France. He did not fail to turn me down. More and more, the destiny of the European Union resembles the destiny of the Soviet Union, which died from its own contradictions.

The People’s Spring is now inevitable! The only question left to ask is whether Europe is ready to rid itself of its illusions, or if the return to reason will come with suffering. I made my decision a long time ago: I chose France. I chose sovereign nations. I chose freedom.

Marine Le Pen is president of the National Front party in France. This essay was translated by John Cullen from the French.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 30, 2016, 09:13:30
Marine Le Pen on how the Nativists in Europe look at the Brexit. Like the Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump insurgency brewing in the United States, many people are not happy at how their lives, hopes and prospects have been rearranged by political "elites" and are seeking means of redress. While you and I might agree that Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen don't represent the "best" choices, these are the ones on the table right now, so anyone looking to offer an alternative will have to get to work right away. (In the UK, I suspect the clear choice is Boris Johnson. Who is our Boris Johnson?)

Well it isn't Boris Johnson.  http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36672591

Bernie Sanders isn't in the same group as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen and Boris Johnson.  At least not in terms of what people are angry about. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2016, 11:45:04
I think the "coalescing" of the Tories just accelerated.

Don't know the final PM / Chancellor combination - Maybe Gove / May? What is the best role for an articulate cheerleader like Boris?

And by the way, wrt Saunders, Saunders and Trump appeal to exactly the same demographics - those not engaged by the status quo.  In Europe the status quo is defined by the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (neither of whom are democratic) and who have a vested interest in making the most of their limited legitimacy.  Historically the majority of Europeans has rejected both their houses.

In the US the status quo is a lot harder to define. It has shallower historical roots.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 30, 2016, 12:08:41


And by the way, wrt Saunders, Saunders and Trump appeal to exactly the same demographics - those not engaged by the status quo.  In Europe the status quo is defined by the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (neither of whom are democratic) and who have a vested interest in making the most of their limited legitimacy.  Historically the majority of Europeans has rejected both their houses.

In the US the status quo is a lot harder to define. It has shallower historical roots.

What you are talking about is populism.  That is what they have in common.  The demographics (and the motivations) are very different.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2016, 12:27:17
No, with respect, I reject the term populism for the pejorative implications that are associated with it.

Citizens are citizens and in nations with universal franchise all citizens issues and concerns need to be addressed and valued equally in debate.   It is inappropriate to write off whole sectors of society as not being worthy of consideration.

Universal franchise has only been available for one hundred years - and in many places a lot less than that.  Are we to already start trimming?

Bernie's supporters are not rich.  Neither are Donald's.  Generally speaking both groups of supporters are not conventionally engaged by the existing authorities and their supporters.  Donald and Bernie may be coming at the problems of these people from different perspectives but apparently they are addressing their concerns in ways that nobody else is or has been.

Democracy is not democracy if it is "moderated" to such an extent, by courts, by trimmers, that the citizenry ultimately concludes that the game is a sham and that they are relegated.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 30, 2016, 12:58:28
No, with respect, I reject the term populism for the pejorative implications that are associated with it.


Not sure why you are rejecting the term.  You essentially just described populism. 

Definition here:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populist  and here https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/populism

"the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite"


The negative connotation is when there are racial or bigoted overtones associated with a certain brand of populism or what the core issue of the people is.  The word is fine and perfectly acceptable.  The fact that you opt for a more PC version does not change the fact that they are indeed populists.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2016, 14:02:47
'Atsfunny.

I have been accused of being PC.!

First time for everything.  [:)

I could equally cite the dictionary definitions of gay, pride, democrat, republican, Scot and Brit, or even Quebecer and challenge you not to react at a visceral level.

I accept your definition.  Equally, I argue, that the majority of the commentariat does not subscribe to populism as an acceptable philosophy.  Any more than the Senate was appreciative of Caesar's base of support.

Consequently, for the duration, I look for more neutral terms in which to frame the debate.

By the way:

Venstre is the Danish word for Left -

Quote
Venstre[note 1] (Danish pronunciation: [ˈʋɛnsd̥ʁɐ], literally "left"), full name Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (English: Left, Denmark's Liberal Party), is a conservative-liberal[6][7] and agrarian[8] political party in Denmark. Founded as part of a peasants' movement against the landed aristocracy, today it espouses an economically liberal pro-free market ideology.[9]

Venstre is the major party of the centre-right in Denmark, and the third largest party in the country.

Quote
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 30, 2016, 14:24:28
'Atsfunny.

I have been accused of being PC.!

First time for everything.  [:)

I could equally cite the dictionary definitions of gay, pride, democrat, republican, Scot and Brit, or even Quebecer and challenge you not to react at a visceral level.

I accept your definition.  Equally, I argue, that the majority of the commentariat does not subscribe to populism as an acceptable philosophy.  Any more than the Senate was appreciative of Caesar's base of support.

Consequently, for the duration, I look for more neutral terms in which to frame the debate.

By the way:

Venstre is the Danish word for Left -

I think it's when they use the word demagogue that the words and definitions get confused.  Both are similar in nature and definition.  Populism can be used as a front for demagoguery. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2016, 14:28:22
Quote
Demagogue | Define Demagogue at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/demagogue
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. 2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people. verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.

You tell why your man isn't a demagogue and I will tell you why my man isn't a demagogue. And the debate will continue at the visceral level.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Journeyman on June 30, 2016, 14:36:29
Look at you guys, going all ScrabbleTM on us.     ;D



I was going to say "lexicography," but I didn't want to come across as some sort of geek.    :geek:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on June 30, 2016, 14:43:11
You tell why your man isn't a demagogue and I will tell you why my man isn't a demagogue. And the debate will continue at the visceral level.

I'm not sure where it is exactly I defined who my man is exactly? Or accused anyone of that.

I stated that they are both populists with support from different demographics. Not sure why you think the debate about the definitions being used is visceral.

So, yeah...not sure where we're going with this.    :dunno:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2016, 15:25:14
Short form:

Any discussion is better served examining what is on the table rather than what might be on the table or what might be the motives of the people doing the proposing.

And I don't know who your man is, nor does it really bother me.  It is just that the word demagogue, like so many others that are chucked around, is loaded with baggage.  Merely to utter it suggests an opinion.

I do have to say that, with respect to Brexit, I fully expect, in light of the current situation in the UK it wouldn't surprise me if a Third Party showed up with a primary platform of Separating Westminster. 

Labour has already lost its base to UKIP and the Tories are looking more and more as if they are going to pragmatically and carefully slag them off as well while trying to finesse the results of the referendum and hold off triggering Article 50 until the referendum itself is stale dated.

Church vs chapel all over again.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on June 30, 2016, 16:55:52
While Cameron and the British "elites" may try to game the Brexit and thwart the will of the people, they may discover (much like those who dismissed the TEA Party movement in the United States) that what comes afterwards is far worse. The dismissal of the TEA Party movement's concerns by the newly ascendent Republican Congress and Senate after the midterms is the trigger that allowed Donald Trump to happen. The "Occupy" movement is the mirror image on the left, the Democrats tried to play them but once the Occupy crowd discovered that Goldman Sachs had far more pull with the White House and presumptive Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton then they did, Bernie Sanders was almost inevitable.

At any rate, the EU "Parliament" and more importantly the various unelected bodies that actually run the EU are trying to stampede the UK by demanding that Britain invokes Article 50 ASAP. If the British Parliament does so, then the window to thwart the Brexit closes and the British people will be free to forge a new social, political and economic arrangement.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 30, 2016, 18:14:20
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/how-boris-johnson-was-brought-to-his-knees-by-the-cuckoo-nest-pl/

Apparently Mr. Gove is a clever man.  And his wife may be more clever by half.

Quote
The historian and constitutional expert Lord Hennessy explains why the UK has never really warmed to Europe.

The crossbench peer told PM presenter Eddie Mair: "Europe was set up by clever, catholic, left wing, French bureaucrats, and most Brits have got problems with at least three of those five."

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,123419.msg1442188.html#msg1442188
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 30, 2016, 18:33:56
Politics is a blood sport.  I am a little surprised, however, that Boris walked into the ambush so easily.  I also wonder what this will cost Gove in the long run by showing is true colours like this.  Bugger can't be trusted.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 01, 2016, 19:09:45
While Britain is getting all the attention on this side of the pond the EU is just as bothered.

A great article in Der Spiegel on the State of Play.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-triggers-eu-power-struggle-between-merkel-and-juncker-a-1100852-2.html

Short form: Juncker and Schulz may have over-played their hand.  They sought to side-line the nation states of Europe, a long held dream of the Socialist International (and for that matter the Catholic Church).  It looks as if Britain's leaving has moved the dynamic in favour of the nation-state.

More to follow.

Meanwhile:

   a review of the 10 year trend lines of the major stock market indicators shows that the Brexit blip doesn't escape the level of background noise - so much for armageddon.

and

 in the UK, a scenario that Ralph Klein would have recognized, a stampede of politicians trying to get to the head of the parade.  Along the way they are doing their level best to secure a hold on the most powerful negotiating tool since Colt's Peacemaker - the right to sign off on Article 50 -

Britain has given their politicians (and for that matter the European ones) a great opportunity to secure a better arrangement.

A loaded gun - and a stampede of politicians knifing each other to get at it.

Better than day time soaps.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 01, 2016, 19:36:15
Further to the debate on who has the greater right to represent Europe - Juncker's Commission and Schulz's Parliament or the Heads of the National Governments:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.futurelabeurope.eu%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2FNo.1-EP-2014-general-results.png&hash=3582ff151e93fc23387f35f261bcf6e4)

Most countries couldn't get more than 50% of their population to be bothered to vote.  Only 3 countries rose to at least Canadian levels of involvement (perhaps unsurprisingly two of them are Belgium and its gated community of Luxembourg) and Slovakia only say 13% of its population turn out.

The vast majority of Europeans just couldn't be bothered.

Meanwhile "About one-third of the 751 MEPs are Eurosceptic." per the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28107633)

So the majority couldn't be bothered and of the minority that could fully one third (from all points of the political compass) are opposed to ever greater integration.

And finally

Europeans opposed to more Europe:

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef-1.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fcpsprodpb%2F7756%2Fproduction%2F_89905503_how_europeans_view_eu_gra624.png&hash=fb46c3d51e289c431078d977b7888878)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 01, 2016, 19:56:51
And Bryony Gordon presents "A Regiment of Women"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/while-male-leaders-stoop-to-willy-waving-it-is-the-women-who-are/

Poor old John Knox.  [:)

For what it's worth - I'd be backing Andrea Leadsom right about now.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: YZT580 on July 01, 2016, 23:00:59
Don't read too much into the Belgian election turnout.  In Belgium, voting is mandatory.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 01, 2016, 23:57:12
That explains something:

They also have one of the largest Nationalist sectors - Vlaams et al.

Thanks YZT
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 02, 2016, 01:33:24
Don't read too much into the Belgian election turnout.  In Belgium, voting is mandatory.

Like the gross mismanagement of colonies? :)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: YZT580 on July 02, 2016, 09:18:49
Like the gross mismanagement of colonies? :)
  You may inadvertently or maybe intentionally hit on a significant truth.  The direct descendants of the folks who screwed up the Congo and other such places are the mandarins that are running the EU. Perhaps the same mindset prevails.  It is indeed chapel vs. church as Chris suggested a couple of pages ago. Leopold of Belgium believed in the hereditary divine right of kings to rule without interference from the masses and established the Congo as his own personal fiefdom in order to exercise this privilege.  In this he was aided by thousands of his own countrymen who took advantage of his stance to fill their pockets. 

Here is a thought to think on. Democracy has done its most development in countries which were at the very least protestant and more often than not reform or chapel dominated.  Countries dominated by either the RC or by the 'so-called' enlightenment lagged far behind in the emergence of a dominant democratic movement and as France demonstrated, such movement as there was often resulted in very bloody revolt.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 02, 2016, 18:46:25
On the Somme, Democracy and Dependency.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-01/author-michael-morpurgo-writes-poem-to-mark-100-years-since-the-battle-of-the-somme/

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FCHcwfIhWEAAwLF5.jpg&hash=fd556d7fb0583b23328c196ba3158d3a)


https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cardinal-sarah-those-who-want-to-eradicate-poverty-make-christ-a-liar-they

Quote
A poor person feels dependent on God; this bond is the foundation of spirituality.

- Yes, poverty is a Christian value. The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish, and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on July 02, 2016, 20:01:14
  You may inadvertently or maybe intentionally hit on a significant truth.  The direct descendants of the folks who screwed up the Congo and other such places are the mandarins that are running the EU. Perhaps the same mindset prevails.  It is indeed chapel vs. church as Chris suggested a couple of pages ago. Leopold of Belgium believed in the hereditary divine right of kings to rule without interference from the masses and established the Congo as his own personal fiefdom in order to exercise this privilege.  In this he was aided by thousands of his own countrymen who took advantage of his stance to fill their pockets. 

Here is a thought to think on. Democracy has done its most development in countries which were at the very least protestant and more often than not reform or chapel dominated.  Countries dominated by either the RC or by the 'so-called' enlightenment lagged far behind in the emergence of a dominant democratic movement and as France demonstrated, such movement as there was often resulted in very bloody revolt.

Although there may indeed be a link between Protestantism and Democracy, I'm a bit more inclined to suggest that the development of the "maritime system" by the Netherlands and then England starting in the 1500's probably had a lot more to do with this. Continental powers needed to spend most of their time and energy looking over their shoulders at other continental powers, and needed large, effective hierarchies to manage the resources needed to maintain effective standing armies.

Maritime powers, in contrast, could spend much more time and energy focused on getting rich through trade, since the Navy was generally sufficient to maintain security (this works best when you are an island, or a separate Continent, as in the case of the United States, the Netherlands and earlier the Hanse always had a land border to defend as well...). Traders generally resent people trying to muscle in on their business, regardless if these are pirates, other traders or their own government, so work to ensure people are NOT in their business, and support structures and institutions which give them the most leeway.

Britons, being a "nation of shopkeepers" from way back, are simply reverting to form. When 60% of your laws are being imposed on you by outsiders who you don't even have any means of redress against, then you most certainly will go to support the structures and institutions  that impede your work the least.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 03, 2016, 01:43:22
Although there may indeed be a link between Protestantism and Democracy, I'm a bit more inclined to suggest that the development of the "maritime system" by the Netherlands and then England starting in the 1500's probably had a lot more to do with this. Continental powers needed to spend most of their time and energy looking over their shoulders at other continental powers, and needed large, effective hierarchies to manage the resources needed to maintain effective standing armies.

Maritime powers, in contrast, could spend much more time and energy focused on getting rich through trade, since the Navy was generally sufficient to maintain security (this works best when you are an island, or a separate Continent, as in the case of the United States, the Netherlands and earlier the Hanse always had a land border to defend as well...). Traders generally resent people trying to muscle in on their business, regardless if these are pirates, other traders or their own government, so work to ensure people are NOT in their business, and support structures and institutions which give them the most leeway.

Britons, being a "nation of shopkeepers" from way back, are simply reverting to form. When 60% of your laws are being imposed on you by outsiders who you don't even have any means of redress against, then you most certainly will go to support the structures and institutions  that impede your work the least.

Yep....

'Cargoes'

Quinquireme of Nineveh from distant Ophir,
Rowing home to haven in sunny Palestine,
With a cargo of ivory,
And apes and peacocks,
Sandalwood, cedarwood, and sweet white wine.

Stately Spanish galleon coming from the Isthmus,
Dipping through the Tropics by the palm-green shores,
With a cargo of diamonds,
Emeralds, amethysts,
Topazes, and cinnamon, and gold moidores.

Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the Channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rails, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.

John Masefield

https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/cargoes.html

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 03, 2016, 12:09:25
Isn't there something more than coincidence that the rise of the "maritime system" in the Netherlands and "England"/Britain was concurrent with both the reformation and with the local attraction to Calvinism?

In the North, which had only been attached to the Church system for a couple of hundred years, the preferred mechanism for resolving disputes was the Thing - a gathering of peers.  They didn't appeal to higher authority, lord or priest, they resolved matters themselves.

The notion seems to have had some currency in Switzerland for some time.  Apparently Zwingli was hired by City Council as the People's Priest, not appointed by the Church - and this was contemporaneous with Luther's call for reforms.   The same City Council called for debate and a plebiscite on the issue of smashing statues with the outcome determined by a show of hands.

The Swiss still prefer the local referendum.

The British prefer trial by jury of peers to judgement by authority.

The Scots Covenanters and their English counterparts, the presbyterians, like the Swiss chose to elect their priests locally and retain the right to fire them and hire replacements.

I am not debating whether protestants are nicer people than catholics, or better, or better intentioned.  Clearly they are not.  We have both burned a lot of witches and quite a few of each other.  But I do think there is a difference in cultural affinities.

Nor do I think it is a British thing although I do think there is some merit to the notion of Britain as being a "nest of pirates" - a phrase apparently coined by Phillip II of Spain.

Along the Atlantic Seaboard it is hard to the point of being impossible to determine when nationalities begin and end. 

Scots found refuge in the Netherlands and also, in turn, fought for the Netherlands against the Spanish.
Henry VIII's Mary Rose foundered, in part, because the crew spoke a number of languages and lost cohesion when panicked.
Dutch Sea Beggars found refuge in English ports.
The Sea Beggars also found refuge in La Rochelle
Richelieu had to hire Dutch and English ships to take on La Rochelle
Champlain's neighbour in Brouage was a Dutchman who carved on the lintel above his door "Wol Gode Betrout Die Heft Wolgebout - He who puts his trust in God has built well"
Champlain served alongside Brits in Brittany against the Guise faction.
Champlain surrendered his post of Quebec to merchants from Dieppe who had business interests in London and La Rochelle and who, like Radissons and Grosseillers, sailed under the British flag.  The Kirkes were subsequently burned in effigy in France as traitors.

Brits and French sailed together to take on Spaniards.
Dutch, Brits and French, and Spanish Moriscos, took to the seas and turned Turk, sailing from Moorish ports like Sallee, rather than serve under the Pope.
The same people later found refuge in places like Port Royal Jamaica and New Orleans and flew what ever flag pleased them.

The common denominator is a rejection of authority, and a "catch me if you can" life.  Property was to be earned, taken, possessed, owned by the actions of the individual.  It was not something to be surrendered to authority and redistributed, to be dispensed.

Were they nice people? No, not necessarily.

They were different people - and they saw the world differently and regardless of the language they spoke: Dutch, Breton, Provencale, Xaintongeais, Palatine German, any of the Swiss languages or even Spanish or Italian, they all ended up finding a secure refuge in the United Kingdom under the Union Flag and the Hanoverian monarchs.

Refugees from the Languedoc and Savoy became:

Commander in Chief British Forces in 1759 - Jean Ligonier
Lt Governor of Nova Scotia prior to Cornwallis - Paul Mascarene
Governor of Jersey  and Peer of Ireland - Maj General Joan Cavalier

Other foreigners of note to the army are names like Prevost, Bouquet, de Rottenberg.......

That is Britain's exceptionalism. In my opinion.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 03, 2016, 12:31:00
Then I guess it took them a long, long time, but they just (finally?) voted not to take any more refugees.  ;D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 03, 2016, 12:43:42
This latest mob doesn't appear overly willing to sign up for King and Country - and a decent beer ration.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 03, 2016, 13:11:46
And the heirs of Merovech seem to be taking another hit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/angela-merkel-to-oust-jean-claude-juncker-as-europe-splits-deepe/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Loachman on July 03, 2016, 16:56:07
http://takimag.com/article/ancient_history_all_over_again_taki?utm_source=Taki%27s+Magazine+List&utm_campaign=fc2867c231-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f7706afea2-fc2867c231-379415789#axzz4DLrcQFO5

Ancient History All Over Again

by Taki Theodoracopulos

July 01, 2016

The two most beautiful words in the history of the world, and in any language, are “Molon Labe,” the accent on the second syllable of both words, the b pronounced v in the second. These two little words were the laconic response by King Leonidas of Sparta to the offer by the great Persian king Xerxes of not only safe passage, if they lay down their arms, but also a settlement of lands of better quality than any they had possessed up to that time.
       
 You know what I’m talking about. The Hot Gates, or Thermopylae, in Greek. The year is 480 B.C., the month is August, and the Persians number more than 1,250,000 fighters, accompanied by 1,800 triremes in support. The rest of the Greeks under Themistocles are praying for time—and gales—farther south, and Leonidas has only 300 Spartans he can count on. (The Thebans have already seen the Persian hordes arriving and have left the battlefield.) The Persian scouts who surveyed the Hot Gates’ defenders in astonishment were allowed to gallop around freely. Later in the day an emissary from Xerxes approached the Spartans. The offer of safe passage and riches to come if they lay down their arms was made, followed by Leonidas’ answer, “Molon Labe,” or “Come and get them.” The great Brit historian Tom Holland called these Spartan bits “gems of cool,” and they were the coolest words one could utter in 480 B.C. When the Persians tried to reason with the Spartans, who brazenly combed their long hair, by telling them that their million arrows would hide the sun, they announced this excellent news: “If the Medes hide the sun, then so much the better for us, we can fight in the shade.” (The Spartans thought arrows mere spindles, to be swiped away with their shields.)

“You Brits chose freedom. You should be proud.”

It was gallows humor, but those two words by Leonidas I first heard from my Spartan mother when I was very, very young. They led to immortality for Leonidas and his 300, the preference for death to a life of cowardice and shame, but a richer one, to be sure, and a far more comfortable one. The Spartan never gave it a second thought. “Come and get them” was all he said when asked to lay down his arms. “Molon Labe,” the two greatest words ever uttered.
       
 And we all know the rest: After the heroic Spartan stand, Miltiades and 10,000 Athenians slaughtered the Persians on the beaches of Marathon, and Themistocles bottled up the Persian fleet in Salamis and sank it. No Persian invaded Greece ever again, but Alexander went over there and took the whole kit and caboodle. It all started with Leonidas’ two little words. They have obsessed me ever since I was a little boy, and in a very, very small way I’ve tried to live up to them by never backing off, and by hero-worshipping Rommel’s 7th Panzer, the defenders of Iwo Jima, and the U.S. Marine Corps, among many others, including the Polish lancers’ charge at Somosierra (successful) and that of Pickett at Gettysburg (unsuccessful). Which brings me to the present.
       
 Two thousand four hundred and ninety-six years later, there are no cool bits. Just a lot of moaning and groaning and “let’s do it all over again” by the losers. No, I am not comparing the self-sacrifice of the Spartans to the Leavers, but freedom is freedom and there are no other words to replace it. frig Juncker and the technocratic dictatorship of Brussels—they’ve already enslaved my country, but they will not enslave England. (Scotland will play it like Thebes did in 480, but then it might not.) All people should say “Molon Labe” to the Circe-like offers of money and comfort by the E.U. technocratic hordes, “Molon Labe” until the bureaucracy reforms itself and its rigid, doctrinaire ways. Juncker, an unelected Xerxes but without the king’s grandeur, showed his petty spirit when rebuffed by the Brits last week by puffing up his sunken chest and warning there will be consequences. My arse. All the Brits need to do is trigger Article 50 at their convenience, not Juncker’s, as is the law, and assure countries like Germany and France that “we continue to trade.” Brussels would never reform itself if the status quo prevailed, and would have continued to lie about freedom of “labor” movement, having turned it into free movement for everyone and anyone.

And now for the Greek chorus of women announcing doom and gloom. One American woman wrote that populism, nativism, and isolationism are the future. Bollocks. A Brit hack blamed Boris for the whole thing. More bollocks. A bald NY Times man announced the end of the world. On the BBC, a female academic (who sounded anything but) blamed us oldies. The good professor Starkey had the perfect answer: “Would you prefer we gave two votes to anyone under 30, my dear?”
       
 The Greeks fought off the Persians because they tried to conquer us through force of arms. The Brits said no to the E.U. because it tried to conquer through stealth and lies. The E.U. would never reform itself without a push. Now it has been pushed rather hard. Modern Greece chose the easy way six years ago because we no longer have Spartans leading us—just Ephialteses, Ephialtes being the traitor who led the Persians to outflank the 300 through a pass. Greece is an E.U. protectorate, so heaven help us. You Brits chose freedom. You should be proud.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 03, 2016, 21:35:26
 :goodpost:

Excellent post Loachman. Milpoints inbound.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on July 04, 2016, 01:19:03
The reform may pro may not be related to the Maritime System. The Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta of the time was very Catholic, yet they too were far more "liberal" than their counterparts, and Switzerland is a bit of a conundrum since they were one of the epicentres of the Reformation without being involved in Maritime trade at all....

I suspect that the ability to trade and exposure to large numbers of outside influences had a large effect on the growth of both the Maritime System and the distrust of external hierarchies are all related.

At any rate, the Shopkeepers are back in the saddle, and we can only wait and see how the British use their new powerful negotiating position.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Karel Doorman on July 04, 2016, 09:14:05
Wether it's the wise choice or the bad choice for the UK,well we'll have to wait and see(personally actually not sure if leaving was the best,but ok it's happenend now move forward)

What  i'm shocked(maybe a bit ) about is that Boris Johnson has said he's not the right man to be the future Prime. [:(
And now Nigel Farrage has said he wants his life back,so goodbye. :facepalm:

It's all well and true to light the fire but then when the voting is done and the outcome(you wanted is there)you'll have to stick around and help your country forward on the path chosen,to leave(it in political chaos) after that ,well that's the easy way out(not how it should be done)

That's how i see it.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 04, 2016, 10:32:52
Farage resigns as UKIP leader:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader

Geez, the party leads are all falling like dominoes. Since when did Britain become such a nation of 'quitters'?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2016, 10:41:24
In fairness to Johnson - I don't think he had many options, or at least probably didn't see many options available, one Gove stuck the knife in right before Johnson was due to declare his candidacy.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to find out he regretted his decision the morning after.

What a ****-up!

Still, it'll all come right in the end.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on July 04, 2016, 14:59:30
Farage resigns as UKIP leader:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/nigel-farage-resigns-as-ukip-leader

Geez, the party leads are all falling like dominoes. Since when did Britain become such a nation of 'quitters'?

The word I'm hearing around here today is that it was some time in 1783. ;D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2016, 15:52:13
The word I'm hearing around here today is that it was some time in 1783. ;D

Some things are worth a strategic withdrawal.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Loachman on July 04, 2016, 16:00:03
Had it been otherwise, we'd now be watching Earl Sir Donald vying for the crown.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on July 04, 2016, 16:25:53
More and more people are noticing that the same factors which drive the Trump phenomena and Nativist European parties also drove the Brexit. What will fall next?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/03/brexit-and-beyond-the-great-unruly-rebellion-against-the-neo-liberal-crony-capitalists.htm

Quote
Why the World Is Rebelling Against ‘Experts’
An unconventional, sometimes incoherent, resistance arises to the elites who keep explaining why changes that hurt the middle class are actually for its own good.

The Great Rebellion is on and where it leads nobody knows.

Its expressions range from Brexit to the Trump phenomena and includes neo-nationalist and unconventional insurgent movement around the world. It shares no single leader, party or ideology. Its very incoherence, combined with the blindness of its elite opposition, has made it hard for the established parties across what’s left of the democratic world to contain it.

What holds the rebels together is a single idea: the rejection of the neo-liberal crony capitalist order that has arisen since the fall of the Soviet Union. For two decades, this new ruling class could boast of great successes: rising living standards, limited warfare, rapid technological change and an optimism about the future spread of liberal democracy. Now, that’s all fading or failing.

Living standards are stagnating, vicious wars raging, poverty-stricken migrants pouring across borders and class chasms growing. Amidst this, the crony capitalists and their bureaucratic allies have only grown more arrogant and demanding. But the failures of those who occupy what Lenin called “the commanding heights” are obvious to most of the citizens on whose behalf they claim to speak and act.

The Great Rebellion draws on five disparate and sometimes contradictory causes that find common ground in frustration with the steady bureaucratic erosion of democratic self-governance: class resentment, racial concerns, geographic disparities, nationalism, cultural identity. Each of these strains appeals to different constituencies, but together they are creating a political Molotov cocktail.
 
Class Conflict

The Brexit vote reflected the class aspect of the Rebellion. The London Times post-election analysis , notes socialist author James Heartfield, found the upper classes 57 percent for remain, the upper middle class fairly divided, while everyone below them went roughly two-thirds for leave. It doesn’t get much plainer than that.

This dissent reflect the consequences of the globalization celebrated by elites in both parties. Britain’s industrial workforce, once the wonder of the world, is half as large as it was as just two decades ago. The social status of the British worker, even among the Labour grandees who pay them lip service, has been greatly diminished, notes scholar Dick Hobbs, himself a product of blue collar east London. “There are parts of London,” he writes, “where the pubs are the only economy.”

As labor has struggled, writes Heartfield, “the Labour Party became more distant, metropolitan and elitist. It sought to re-write the party’s policy to mirror its own concerns, and also to diminish working people’s aspirations for social democratic reform in their favour. “

A similar scenario has emerged here in America, where corporations—especially those making consumer goods—have grown fat on access to Chinese, Mexican and other foreign labor. Like their British counterparts, the U.S. working class is falling into social chaos, with declining marriage and church attendance rates, growing drug addiction, poor school performance and even declining life expectancy. Even during the primary campaign, as both Sanders and Trump railed against globalization United Technologies saw fit to announce the movement of a large plant form Indianapolis, where about 1,500 jobs were lost, to Monterrey.

And much as the leave wave crested in just those parts of the U.K. where trade with Europe is highest, so is Trump support highest in the Southern states that now dominate what remains of American manufacturing.

Race and Ethnicity

Ethnic minorities and immigrants have now become core constituents of progressive parties in many countries—the Socialists in France, the British Labour Party and the Democratic Party here in America. In Britain, it never occurred to party’s leaders that most new jobs created during the Blair and Brown regimes went to newcomers. One can admire the pluck of Polish plumbers, Latvian barmaids, Greek waiters and French technicians and still note that many of these jobs could have gone to native born British. This includes the children of the mostly non-white commonwealth immigrants who are now part of the country’s national culture.

 The parallels in America—a much larger, richer and more diverse country—are striking. Silicon Valley and corporate America loves to bring in glorified indentured servants from abroad, earning the assent of Hillary Clinton and the corporate shill wing of the GOP. Only Trump and Sanders have attacked this program, which has cost even trained American workers their jobs.

As tends to occur when race and ethnicity intrude, ugliness here seeps into the Great Rebellion. Trump has consciously and irresponsibly stoked ethnic resentments tied to immigration. Anti-EU continental Europeans— notably in eastern Europe but also France’s Marine Le Pen— often outdo our TV billionaire’s provocations.

Geographic Disparities

The Brexit vote also revealed a chasm between the metropolitan core and the rest of the country. The urban centers of London, Manchester and Liverpool all voted Remain. Central London has benefited from being where the world’s super rich park their money. The devastation of the industrial economy in the periphery has hardly touched the posh precincts of the premier global city.

In contrast the more distant, often working class, suburbs of London and other cities voted to Leave. Small towns followed suit. The Brexit vote, suggests analyst Aaron Renn, demonstrated that arrogant urbanites, seeing themselves as the exclusive centers of civilization, ignore those who live outside the “glamour zone” at their own peril.

Similar voting patterns can be seen in the US. The countryside, except for retirement havens of the rich, has gone way to the right. The suburbs are tilting that way, and could become more rebellious as aggressive “disparate impact” policies force communities to reshape themselves to meet HUD’s social engineering standards —for example if they are too middle class or too white—even if there is no proof of actual discrimination.

Needless to say, such policies could enhance the geographic base of the Great Rebellion, including among middle=class minorities who are now responsible for much of our current suburban growth. Already the small towns and outer suburbs have signed up with Trump; if he can make clear the threat to suburbia from the planners, he could, despite his boorish ugliness, win these areas and the election.

Nationalism and Cultural Identity

Nationalism gets a bad rap in Europe, for historically sound reasons. Yet these national cultures also have produced much of the world’s great literature and music, and the world’s most beautiful cities. Yet in contemporary Europe, these national cultures are diminishing. Instead the crony capitalist regime gives us Rem Koolhaas’ repetitious generic city, often as stultifying as the most mindless suburban mall.
Not just buildings, but historic values are also being undermined, as universities and even grade schools seek to replace cherished values with post-modernist, politically correct formulations. English students at Yale protest having to read Chaucer, Shakespeare or Milton, the foundation writers of the world’s common language whose greatest sin, it appears, was to be both English and male.

Of course, cultural and political nationalism often shows an ugly side. But everyone who shouts for the British national soccer team or chants USA at the Olympics is not a fascist; they are just people who love their country. Yet academia, the shaper of the young and impressionable, now sometimes regard any positive assessment of America as the land of opportunity or even the American flag as “micro-aggressions.” Brits and Americans have much to be ashamed about in their history, but their glorious achievements remain inspirational to many, who find attempts to replace them with some tortured global syncretism foolish and counterproductive.

Governance and Localism

When Brits told pollsters why they had voted to leave the EU, notes James Heartfield, immigration and national identity ranked high but democracy and self-governance was at the top of the list. In contrast, classes who supported remain—the mainstream media, academia, the legal and financial establishments—increasingly see themselves as rightful rulers, the benighted masses be damned.
This anti-EU rebellion is hardly limited to Britain. Since 2005 French, Danish and Dutch voters have voted against closer EU ties. Hostility to the EU, as recorded by Pew, is actually stronger in many key European countries, including France, than it is in Britain. And after the Brexit vote, there are already moves for similar exit referenda in several European countries.

But like Washington bureaucrats who can’t be bothered to pay much attention to the views of the underlings of the Heartland, the Eurocrats want to double down. But like Washington bureaucrats who can’t be bothered to pay much attention to the views of the underlings of the Heartland, the Eurocrats want to double down. The Germans, the effective rulers of Europe, have reacted to Brexit with talk about ways to “deepen” the EU, creating the basis for what some have argued would be essentially “a superstate”. This policy approach seems about as brilliant as that of Lord North, whose response to American agitation was to further tighten London’s screws. That certainly worked well.
— bringing to mind Lord North, who responded to colonial agitation by further tightening London’s screws.

This arrogance, in part, stems froms what one writer at the Atlantic has called the war on the stupid. In this formulation, those with elite degrees, including the hegemons on Wall Street and Silicon Valley, dismiss local control as rule by the Yahoos. The progressive ideal of government by experts—sometimes seen as “the technocracy”—may sounds good in Palo Alto or London, but often promise a dim future for the middle class. Expert regulation, often with green goals in mind, take hard-earned gains like car and home ownership and cheap air travel all but out of reach for the middle class, while keeping them around for the globe-trotting elites.

Where does this go

The Great Rebellion is, if nothing else, political incoherent.

Some conservatives hail it as a harbinger of the decline of progressivism. Traditional leftists hope for the return of state socialism, directed from national capitals. Racists see a vindication for their world view. Libertarians hail de-regulation while others, on the nationalist right, embrace the authoritarian nationalism of Vladimir Putin.

 Yet for all its divergent views, the Great Rebellion has accomplished this: the first serious blow to the relentless ascendency of neo-liberal crony capitalism. The revels have put the issue of the super-state and the cause of returning power closer to the people back on the agenda. The Great Rebellion allows localities relief from overweening regulations, cities to be as urban as they want, and the periphery choose how they wish to develop.

The Rebellion also allows us to move beyond enforced standards of racial “balance” and reparations , replacing the chaos of unenforced borders and enforced “diversity” with something more gradual and organic in nature. Our hope on race and ethnicity lies not in rule-making from above , but in allowing the multiculturalism of the streets to occur, as is rapidly does, in suburban schoolyards, soccer pitches and Main Streets across the Western world.

National cultures do not need to be annihilated but allowed to evolve. In Texas, California, and across the southwestern, Spanish phraseology, Mexican food and music are already very mainstream. Without lectures from the White House or preening professors, African-American strains will continue to define our national culture, particularly in the south. In Europe, few object to couscous on bistro menus, falafel on the streets and, in Britain, the obligatory curry at the pub.

The Great Rebellion is much more than the triumph of nativism, stupidity and crudeness widely denounced in the mainstream media. Ethnic integration and even globalization will continue, but shaped by the wishes of democratic peoples, not corporate hegemons or bureaucratic know-it-alls. We can now once again aspire to a better world—better because it will be one that people, not autocrats, have decided to make.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2016, 16:50:59
Had it been otherwise, we'd now be watching Earl Sir Donald vying for the crown.

As I said,  some things are worth a strategic withdrawal......

And besides this way we didn't have to pick up the tab for keeping the French and Indians at bay any more.  And all we asked was a couple of coppers on every pound of tea.   [:D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 05, 2016, 11:57:44
Varying degrees of democracy

Quote
Perilous Plebiscites: Brexit Vote Underscores Limits of Direct Democracy

A SPIEGEL Editorial by Michael Sauga

Brexit sheds light on the problems created when the idea of direct democracy is abused. In our complex 21st century world, we have no choice but to delegate authority for most decision-making to our elected representatives.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-editorial-the-trouble-with-plebiscites-a-1101235.html

Quote
SPIEGEL: You have said that politicians in London should be given the possibility to rethink the consequences of withdrawing from the EU. It sounds as if you are hoping they will change their minds.

Altmaier: At the moment, that seems rather unlikely. But reflection is taking place everywhere -- for example what it means to reverse 40 years of integration, to leave the single market or to lose influence over how it is shaped. British institutions should be given the possibility to discuss these consequences.

SPIEGEL: There is a tradition in the EU of simply holding multiple referenda until you get the desired result.

Altmaier: You're hinting at the votes in Ireland on the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU didn't have the votes repeated, Ireland did so itself. Germany's constitution does not permit such referenda for good reasons.

SPIEGEL: Horst Seehofer, the head of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, has been advocating strongly to change that.

Altmaier: I think it is right for us to continue to be reserved at the federal level about plebiscitary elements -- especially if such decisions have direct effects on other countries, as is the case with Britain right

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/angela-merkel-deputy-says-britain-must-be-given-time-to-think-a-1101195.html

I actually agree that referenda are clumsy and brutal.  I also think that parliamentary democracy is the preferred solution.

But parliamentary democracy needs to be representative democracy or it fails.  It cannot be simply an opportunity for the heirs of the Medici, the Valois, the Hapsburgs and the Stewarts to operate as usual under the guise of democracy.  Referenda are a key component in ensuring that parliamentarians are representative.

The notion expressed here in these articles, in my opinion, has it entirely backwards.  Referenda, when held, need to address the big issues - and not be limited to whether or not cats will wear bells in the street.

The old Houses of Europe never left. 


PS - I find it curious that Adolf Hitler (May Godwin's name be praised) is continually raised as an argument against democracy. Presumably rule by Junkers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker) is preferable.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Lightguns on July 05, 2016, 12:41:53
Yup, I concur with your assessment.  It is incredible how elitist the gentlemen sounds and so openly. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on July 05, 2016, 20:57:06
As I said,  some things are worth a strategic withdrawal......

And besides this way we didn't have to pick up the tab for keeping the French and Indians at bay any more.  And all we asked was a couple of coppers on every pound of tea.   [:D

And the "loan" of the odd American sailor when it was deemed necessary to fill out the rolls of the naval service.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2016, 11:49:16
I admit my own set of filters:

But the gulf between what passes for democracy in the EU and what I perceive as democracy, is wide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/how-the-most-powerful-female-politician-in-france-used-the-bbc-t/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2016, 17:00:56
The gulf apparently isn't just a continental one:

From Theresa May's campaign manager to his fellow Conservative MPs. -

Quote
Text message in full:

"You are my friend. I respect the fact that you want Theresa May to be PM. It is overwhelmingly likely that she will be. And if she does I will sleep easily at night. But I am seriously frightened about the risk of allowing Andrea Leadsom onto the membership ballot. What if Theresa stumbles? Are we really confident that the membership won't vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes about much of modern life? Like they did with IDS [Iain Duncan Smith]. I am not asking you to respond unless you positively want to have a chat. But I hope that you will reflect on this carefully. Michael doesn't mind spending 2 months taking a good thrashing from Theresa if that's what it takes but in the party's interest and the national interest surely we must work together to stop AL[Andrea Leadsom]? xNick"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/michael-gove-ally-urges-theresa-may-supporters-to-back-him-and-k/

Apparently the Parliamentary Party of the Tories is at odds with its membership's world view.  Much like the Parliamentary Party of Labour is at odds with its membership. 

Both the Tories and the Socialists have lost contact with their bases (Middle Britain?) and left the institutional shells of the parties as battlegrounds for "extremists" - authoritarians of the left and right, in my opinion.

Disengagement of the public from politics results in a non-representative parliament.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Loachman on July 06, 2016, 17:14:15
I admit my own set of filters:

But the gulf between what passes for democracy in the EU and what I perceive as democracy, is wide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/how-the-most-powerful-female-politician-in-france-used-the-bbc-t/

She sounds remarkably like other arrogant French Royals who invited their peasantry to rise up a couple of centuries and a bit ago.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2016, 17:31:29
And meanwhile, back on the Continent:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/686697/European-Union-Schengen-zone-migrant-crisis-immigration-Frontex

Quote
EUROPEAN Union (EU) members have today voted overwhelmingly to bring back border controls in a blow to the Schengen free movement agreement.

By ALIX CULBERTSON
PUBLISHED: 08:10, Wed, Jul 6, 2016 | UPDATED: 20:35, Wed, Jul 6, 2016

As a youngster I was introduced at an early age to the difference between Licence and Liberty:  I was at liberty to play but I did not have licence to act as I wished.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 06, 2016, 17:36:15
And meanwhile, back on the Continent:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/686697/European-Union-Schengen-zone-migrant-crisis-immigration-Frontex

As a youngster I was introduced at an early age to the difference between Licence and Liberty:  I was at liberty to play but I did not have licence to act as I wished.

That must have sucked growing up in the UK, licences needed for TV, licences for kids.....
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2016, 17:51:17
That must have sucked growing up in the UK, licences needed for TV, licences for kids.....

Especially when it was your Dad, the ex-para, that was issuing your play licences .....


You get used to it....   [:D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on July 06, 2016, 22:26:39
From "The American Interest"

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/05/a-tale-of-two-cities/

Quote
A Tale of Two Cities
ELIOT A. COHEN
Britain has decided that London won’t be Brussels. Other responses to the failure of Western elites may not be so mannerly.

“As big as Agincourt,” said one pro-Brexit friend of mine, a highly intellectual former soldier of an admittedly enthusiastic type. “Well, maybe make that Suez,” he said after a pause, “but in any case, the biggest political event here of my lifetime.” Arriving in London immediately after the vote that will carry Britain out of the European Union I was inclined to agree.

The pros and cons of Brexit are complicated; reasonable people could and did disagree. But what was most interesting was the reaction to a vote outcome unpredicted by the pollsters or, just as important these days, the betting parlors. In London, and throughout most of Britain’s upper-middle class world, the quality press, and the political establishment—the Great and the Good, in short—the result was not disappointment but curious combination of despair, hysteria, and quiet elation.

Much of the outcry against Brexit was not merely despondent, but, as my Twitter feed revealed, unqualified in its belief that the vote was a catastrophe. Equally unambiguous was the contempt expressed for those on the other side. The professors, business people, and journalists making remarks about the “lizard brain of the British people” had no visible inclination to do what some American conservatives appalled by the rise of Trump have realized they need to do, namely, figure out why a majority of their countrymen went for a choice they consider dangerously crazy.

What also appeared was a manifestation of a nasty class-based bigotry, as acid and ugly as anything an 18th-century aristocrat might have expressed for an uppity cobbler who presumed to have a political opinion. It was manifested most clearly, in London at any rate, by the gilded young who immediately began snarling at the old and the working class who voted for Brexit, and talking—emptily, most likely—about leaving London for elsewhere.

The larger phenomenon here, however, is a crisis not of ignorant masses, but of elites who have failed. All societies, except perhaps the Greek city-states of antiquity, are led by elites or, as the great sociologist Digby Baltzell described them, establishments. As long as they provide their societies with some consequential benefit (prosperity, success in war, or political leadership), can absorb talented non-elite members, and display virtues that the rest of society values (public service, self-sacrifice, or military courage) they deserve to hang on and do.

The elites of London, like those of this country and large parts of the Western world, appear in many ways to have failed those tests. The crash of 2008 crystallized a view of the financial class in particular as reckless, self-dealing manipulators. As Joel Kotkin among others has pointed out, by virtue of how our education systems have evolved, elite youth increasingly marry one another, and the prosperous can (and do) give their children every leg up—which poorer parents cannot hope to match. Meanwhile, the political and intellectual elites deserve, and receive, very little credit for patriotism or courage, because they do not exhibit much. As manifested on campuses in Great Britain as here, they increasingly show themselves intolerant of dissenting opinions, and inclined to bully because they have forgotten (or never learned) how to argue.

The failure of courage, Solzhenitsyn said at a particularly dark point in the Cold War, was in danger of becoming a distinguishing feature of the West. The young people who talked petulantly of abandoning their country because of a vote they did not like were bright graduates of the best universities in the English-speaking world—and severely deficient in pluck. They had no notion of that patriotism which says that when your country is in trouble, you are supposed to fight it out, not begin checking to see if Morgan Stanley is hiring in Madrid. They are not fit to be trusted with political power.

And in the very intemperateness of their reaction lies one of the best reasons to think that Brexit is, with all its hazards, a good thing. The London of today was sliding into becoming a bigger, brighter, and more lively Brussels—so international that it had no discernible identity; so cosmopolitan in its self-understanding that it had no pride in its own history and unique character; so unwilling to accept the burdens of self-government that it preferred the administration of well-meaning but unaccountable bureaucrats to the crash and bang of democracy in action. The poison of Brussels-style Euro-politics had clearly infected those Londoners whose first impulse was to do what European politicians have done for decades: compel the lower classes who have voted the wrong way to vote again until they do the thing their betters thought they ought to have done in the first place.

At the end of the day, however, and despite the views expressed by the leaders of all the major political parties, the flagship newspapers, and most of the intellectual class, Brexit won. Bloody-mindedness probably helped. President Obama’s meddling in British politics by arguing for “remain” inadvertently assisted the campaign for “leave.” There were, it turned out, politicians and intellectuals ready to make the case for Brexit. Today, millions of Brits rightly think that they are reclaiming independence and sovereignty that had been leaching away to an amorphous and corrupt European federation cracking under the strain of multiple crises.

And although it may be rocky, it will probably work, despite the scaremongering and the doomsaying. European politicians have threatened, in effect, to punish Britain for leaving by withholding the free market if Britain does not accept all of the European Union’s rules—but their own record of yielding to pressure, ignoring their own commitments, and going back on their word suggests that in the end, they will bend. Great Britain has a larger and healthier economy than France. It cannot be coerced the way Norway was into accepting all of the European Union’s rules. U.S. politicians may even (and should) quietly remind Europe’s leaders that our sympathies are with the country whose language, literature, and legal system shaped our own, and whose armed forces are one of our most valued partners.

The Scottish nationalists, who are no longer a majority in the Scottish Parliament, may try to secede, but if they do they will have to lead Scotland into a European Union in worsening turmoil, some of whose members bitterly oppose secessionist nationalisms like theirs (e.g. Spain fearful of the Catalan independence movement), and which will not have the money to replace the billions of pounds in English subsidies that keep the Scottish welfare state afloat. As for the banks, some will no doubt reallocate staff elsewhere in Europe, but London was an epic financial center before the European Union existed, and will remain so because of the power of British rule of law, the attractiveness of the city, its physical location, and the ubiquity of English as the international language.

Brexit, like the rise of Trump, can be interpreted as a manifestation of the failure of elites, but it is a far healthier phenomenon. The Brits of 2016 are not the Brits of 1940, but if Britain could handle Philip II of Spain and Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, it can probably cope with the temper tantrums of Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission. Meanwhile, Brussels is locked into a political system that seems doomed to stasis. Brexit will have second- and third-order effects in a Europe that is economically stagnant, incapable of coping with a vast migration crisis, unable to defend itself against a much-poorer Russia to its East, and rattled by Islamist terrorists from the forgotten neighborhoods. The Brits have merely acted on sentiments shared by many Europeans; the revolt of the latter may be a lot nastier than the more orderly decision of the former.

Brexit was a courageous thing to do. If it succeeds it may mark a change not only in the structure of Europe, but in the character of our societies and those who lead them. If that is so, the British will once again, as so often in the past, set a course for others to follow, and we should cheer them on.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: ModlrMike on July 06, 2016, 22:46:22
Quote
EUROPEAN Union (EU) members have today voted overwhelmingly to bring back border controls in a blow to the Schengen free movement agreement.

That wasn't at all predictable...  ::)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 07, 2016, 00:34:11
Especially when it was your Dad, the ex-para, that was issuing your play licences .....


You get used to it....   [:D

The Off License was another matter entirely, of course.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 07, 2016, 14:17:50
Can't say I'm unhappy:

Quote
Conservative leadership: Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom in battle to be Prime Minister after Michael Gove eliminated from contest

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/tory-leadership-civil-war-deepens-as-michael-gove-ally-urges-the/

The comfortable discomfited....
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 07, 2016, 15:59:49
Good, serves the smarmy little ******* right for stabbing Boris like he did.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 09, 2016, 13:43:12
Switzerland, UK (London), Singapore, Hong Kong Financial Alliance

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3681746/Now-Swiss-banks-seek-City-alliance-wake-Britain-s-vote-leave-EU.html

With the backing of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch?

I can see the attraction.  It is the same attraction that saw Amsterdam relocate to London in 1689 in the first place.  And the same thing that has kept the Europeans chasing the "Anglo-Saxons" ever since.

Curiously the Anglo-Saxons they claim to abhor so much are the people that voted Leave while the City folks, the heirs of the Dutch, Huguenots and Palatines, are the ones that voted to Stay.  Funny old world.

And IMF commentary on the Eurozone:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3681077/Eurozone-course-economic-slowdown-Brexit-rising-uncertainty-EU-s-future-says-IMF.html



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 09, 2016, 15:17:26
No do overs.  The government rejects petition to have another referendum, PM Cameron say's absolutely not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682084/Government-REJECTS-petition-calling-second-Brexit-referendum-signed-four-million-people.html

I can imagine the howls of protest over the protest will be even louder now. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: YZT580 on July 09, 2016, 15:19:25
Now, this is interesting.
Seeing as I was unaware of these things, I expect lots of other people are as well.
 
Accepting as all the following as true, here are some examples, from a Brit friend, of why many people in Great Britain voted LEAVE.
 
Quote:
Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant,
Jaguar is owned by Tata, the same Indian company that trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.
Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.
British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.
M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with EU grants.
Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
ICI integration into Holland's AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in  Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down, leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.
UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.
Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether, even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU
The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. Cameron's campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, > Dennis etc., in the UK.
The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
 
Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK,
 
I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc. Now, we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.
 
I haven't detailed the Brit non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, Don't even go there.
 
I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.
 
Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't find a single thing.
 
If you think the EU is a good idea, please tell us why.
 
Unquote:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 09, 2016, 16:40:11
We used to marvel at the results of the EU Common Agricultural Policy while wandering 'in the cuds' in Northern Ireland.

Tiny little one or two field farms sporting spanking new infrastructure including reinforced concrete silage pits, shiny new tractors, huge paved driveways etc were home to 4 or 5 lonely head of cattle and a couple of elderly farmers. Our job being to watch these types of places closely from covert positions put us in the unique position of observing this waste of resources on a massive and unsustainable scale.

When you read about it now, it's a wonder why the US didn't try to invade 'Commie' Europe instead of Cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: dapaterson on July 09, 2016, 17:23:47
American agricultural policy is equally wasteful.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 09, 2016, 18:39:27
American agricultural policy is equally wasteful.

Agreed.  I'm not a big fan of burning either Corn or Canola in vehicles.

Those policies just mean that there is a lot of room to reduce costs.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 11, 2016, 11:50:45
The establishment now controls Article 50

Quote
Theresa May to become Prime Minister as Andrea Leadsom quits Conservative leadership race

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/theresa-may-launches-conservative-leadership-bid-as-andrea-leads/

Quote
Andrea Leadsom supporters should not despair. Brexit is safe with Theresa May

TIM STANLEY

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/11/andrea-leadsom-supporters-should-not-despair-brexit-is-safe-with/

Quote
Theresa May will start her premiership facing a deep and dangerous split in the Conservative Party

JAMES KIRKUP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/theresa-may-will-start-her-premiership-facing-a-deep-and-dangero/

Meanwhile

Quote
The EU and Nato will both want to make Brexit work

IAN BOND
DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN POLICY AT THE CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN REFORM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/the-eu-and-nato-will-both-want-to-make-brexit-work/

And the negotiations continue......

I wait to see how much "sovereignty" Britain cedes/claims/reclaims.

At the same time I wonder how much longer the Westminster Party can continue to maintain a posture of control as they lose more and more of the population's support.





Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 11, 2016, 12:15:32
Quote
Party   Seats
Conservative   330
Labour   230
Scottish National Party   54
Democratic Unionist Party   8
Liberal Democrat   8
Independent   4
Sinn Fein   4
Plaid Cymru   3
Social Democratic & Labour Party   3
Ulster Unionist Party   2
Green Party   1
Speaker   1
UK Independence Party   1
Vacant   1
Total number of seats   650
Working Government Majority   16

245 Tory MPs voted for May and Gove against 84 who supported the "Party Candidate" Leadsom

The Conservatives have a current membership of 149,800

190 Labour MPs abstained or voted against their Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, their "Party Candidate" against 40 supporters

Labour has a current membership of 503,000 that is skewing hard left and away from the Westminster Party

Approximately 190 MPs of 650 voted to Remain

17,410,742 UK citizens voted to Leave while 16,141,241 voted to Remain.  13,000,000 couldn't be arsed.

UKIP has 1 MP and a party membership of 45,000 (ca May 2015).

A story of tails and dogs.









Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on July 11, 2016, 19:31:51
Oh, great! The went with the hot looking one.  :o
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 11, 2016, 21:00:40
Oh, great! The went with the hot looking one.  :o

C'mon admit it.... you fancy Boris  ;)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2016, 01:08:02
Oh, great! The went with the hot looking one.  :o

Do you have any Brit blood in you?  Sounds like you might have an upper class predilection for Head Mistresses and canes.  Please Ma'am, can I have another one?

You have to give the Tories their due.  A few millennia of practice and they know how to efficiently stage a blood bath.  Two weeks and all done. 

Meanwhile the Socialists are still debating who will hold the knife.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cavalryman on July 12, 2016, 01:16:32
Do you have any Brit blood in you?  Sounds like you might have an upper class predilection for Head Mistresses and canes.  Please Ma'am, can I have another one?

You have to give the Tories their due.  A few millennia of practice and they know how to efficiently stage a blood bath.  Two weeks and all done. 

Meanwhile the Socialists are still debating who will hold the knife.
Socialists never could find their *** with both hands.  That's why they want everyone else to be productive.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 12, 2016, 11:45:45
Do you have any Brit blood in you?  Sounds like you might have an upper class predilection for Head Mistresses and canes.  Please Ma'am, can I have another one?

You have to give the Tories their due.  A few millennia of practice and they know how to efficiently stage a blood bath.  Two weeks and all done. 

Meanwhile the Socialists are still debating who will hold the knife.

She passed the test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNn-6FzTimY
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on July 12, 2016, 20:43:49
I have Scots and Irish blood going back 2 generations.

That same blood may have been tainted with alcohol during that last post.  ;D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 12, 2016, 22:09:38
I've got two DNA kits sitting on my desk from two different organizations. I'm going to find out once and for all where my family came from.

Just gotta wait until I'm sure there isn't going to be a postal strike. I don't want my completed kits sitting in some post office somewhere deteriorating. ^-^
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on July 12, 2016, 22:53:24
Before you send pay for it and send them off, might want to give this a listen.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91654-race-doesnt-exist-or-does-it/

Seems the results may not be as meaningful as some purport.

For instance, the "European" race from a genetic standpoint covers such a broad spectrum that you would be hard pressed to find someone in the entire global population who doesn't fall into the category.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Remius on July 12, 2016, 23:02:24
I've got two DNA kits sitting on my desk from two different organizations. I'm going to find out once and for all where my family came from.

Just gotta wait until I'm sure there isn't going to be a postal strike. I don't want my completed kits sitting in some post office somewhere deteriorating. ^-^

On a side note, there is some concern about these tests.  I did a stint at the office of the privacy commissioner and it is something I would advise against for the time being.   Canada has very limited laws in protecting people and their privacy in regards to their genetic information.  Things like insurance, employment etc.  And it could have an effect on on your kids and grandkids.   

This is a quick article on the issues it could pose. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/home-dna-tests-may-affect-insurance-employment-1.3018086

When I was at OPC it was a subject being looked into.  Just food for thought. 

Edit to add: some stuff from OPC worth a read.  https://www.priv.gc.ca/search/?rc=1&q=Genealogical+&cn-search-submit=Search
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cavalryman on July 13, 2016, 16:04:30
Boris Johnson is Theresa May's Foreign Secretary.

I actually laughed when I heard that on CBC radio just now.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on July 13, 2016, 16:29:59
I've got two DNA kits sitting on my desk from two different organizations ...
Careful, now, who they go to  ;D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: ModlrMike on July 13, 2016, 16:39:12
Isn't there a tradition of having a general election when the PM changes under these circumstances?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 13, 2016, 17:11:22
There is no such tradition and no precedent.

In addition, the UK went to five year fixed terms in any event.

In some senses the Tories might enjoy an election now given the state of the Labour party

Personally I perceive a major problem in the ongoing rise of party politics.  It becomes increasingly apparent that there are major problems when the extra-parliamentary party and the parliamentary party are not in sync.

UK Labour is experiencing it.  UK Conservatives have papered over the cracks for few more years (maybe).  And here in Canada the Liberals have adopted the Justin Movement format (much like the Corbyn format) and the CPC narrowly avoided the same fate at their last convention.

Parties will be the death of parliamentary democracy.  They act against a system based on a local constituency representative who works on behalf of all his electors.  A consideration when thinking about doing something other than First Past The Post.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: YZT580 on July 13, 2016, 17:18:10
Which is why most Canadians vote against change.  We like voting for someone who will actually (even if only in theory) represent our concerns in the national legislature.  We don't like the concept of voting and then having a collection of party hacks fill in the blanks.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on July 13, 2016, 17:25:56
... Parties will be the death of parliamentary democracy.  They act against a system based on a local constituency representative who works on behalf of all his electors ...
QFTT
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cavalryman on July 13, 2016, 17:27:39
We don't like the concept of voting and then having a collection of party hacks fill in the blanks.
This is exactly what the fans of PR don't seem to get...  :brickwall:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 13, 2016, 17:31:23
So if we go by Trudeau's plan, can you not just put the single person you want in all three slots, or leave the other two slots empty?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 15, 2016, 03:36:44
And back to Brexit:

Quentin Letts of the Mail has it about right.  Shakespeare perturbed at not writing this script.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3691290/QUENTIN-LETTS-Treachery-plots-sudden-twists-fate-Shakespeare-s-got-Westminster.html

And why do the words "A Very British Coup" keep bumping around my brain?


Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Good2Golf on July 15, 2016, 09:09:46
That's a great piece!!!

If there was one country that could successfully pull off a EUxit, it's the UK.  They may take a short-term hit, but I believe that time will out the truth of the issue that, like the motto of the fabled SAS, those who dare, will 'win' in the end.  At least the citizens of the UK will have their fate determine both by their own actions and those whom they have elected, not some unelected faceless Eurocrats operating in the dark shadows of the political back alleys of Brussels...oh, and for four days a year, Strabourg.

I sincerely wish UK citizens all the best; they will, I believe, be much envied in the years to come by many of those remaining within the contorted, highly over-regulated life that is the EU. :nod:

:2c:

G2G
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: ModlrMike on July 15, 2016, 12:27:15
The choice of Mr Johnson as Foreign Secretary was predictable. It certainly says much about how Mrs May intends to proceed.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 16, 2016, 01:45:36
The choice of Mr Johnson as Foreign Secretary was predictable. It certainly says much about how Mrs May intends to proceed.

You must have a better crystal ball than most Mike.

Meanwhile - these articles from Der Spiegel demonstrate how thick, and tone deaf the Eurocrats are.  This could just as easily be in the "Why Europe Keeps Failing" thread.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/stimulus-is-needed-to-prevent-downturn-after-brexit-a-1099769.html#js-article-comments-box-pager

Quote
This is best done in cooperation with the British, with their reputation of pragmatism. Otherwise, the ridiculous decision by a small majority of the Queen's voting subjects could soon mean that a lot of people will lose their jobs again in Germany and in other countries.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/commission-has-long-known-of-diesel-emissions-manipulation-a-1103249.html

Quote
Since at least 2010, the European Commission has been in possession of concrete evidence that automobile manufacturers were cheating on emissions values of diesel vehicles, according to a number of internal documents that SPIEGEL ONLINE has obtained. The papers show that emissions cheating had been under discussion for years both within the Commission and the EU member state governments. The documents also show that the German government was informed of a 2012 meeting on the issue. The scandal first hit the headlines in 2015 when it became known that Volkswagen had manipulated the emissions of its diesel vehicles.

Evidence based decision making indeed.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 17, 2016, 03:07:17
I have a new hero.

And he is a Labour politician member (maybe)......

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/rod-liddles-freedom-dinner-speech-labours-jew-bashing-anti-brexit-mob-tim-farron/?_ga=1.2319097.878721228.1468733576

With a glorious sense of empathy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBq1dZGrR3c
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 21, 2016, 18:20:20
Sanity

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/short-fuse-britain-why-is-everyone-so-bloody-angry/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 22, 2016, 19:04:26
From todays National Post. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.

Quote
Brexit is already proving to be a huge victory for global free trade

Lawrence Solomon | July 22, 2016 11:41 AM ET

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, after talks this week with U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, declared it was imperative that the U.S. move “as fast as possible” to “maximize the economic opportunities” of Brexit.

Jack Taylor/Getty ImagesU.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, after talks this week with U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, declared it was imperative that the U.S. move “as fast as possible” to “maximize the economic opportunities” of Brexit.

World trade, Canada’s included, is beating a direct path to the British market.

Canada has long wanted free trade with the United Kingdom, a fellow G7 country that became the world’s fifth-largest economy in 2014 after overtaking France. According to the Centre for Economics Business and Research, a premier U.K. consultancy, the fast-growing U.K. will overtake Germany over the next two decades to become Europe’s largest economy and the world’s fourth largest.

But until Brexit, Canada was shut off from this economic powerhouse, our only path to profitable U.K. trade wending through the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, which controls trade access to every EU country. And as a frustrated Canada knows only too well from almost a decade of interminable, ongoing jockeying in aid of sealing a Canada-EU trade deal, the EU is the world’s largest closed shop. No one gets to trade with the EU on preferential terms without either joining the union or trading away national sovereignty for the privilege.

Now the world, Canada included, is beating a direct path to the United Kingdom. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, after talks this week with U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May, declared it was imperative that the U.S. move “as fast as possible” to “maximize the economic opportunities” of Brexit. Kerry’s views echoed those of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull who, after his own discussions with May, stated: “So as Britain leaves the EU, what we will need to do is negotiate direct arrangements with Britain … we need to get moving on that quickly.”

According to the U.K.’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, countries are lining up to strike trade deals with the U.K. — Japan, India and China are among those that have informally committed themselves, with some saying they are eager for quick deals. The U.K. has not only become the world’s most eligible free-trade partner; it has also become its most attainable. “We can make Britain a beacon for open trade,” Fox told The Sunday Times. “We have already had a number of countries saying ‘we’d love to do a trade deal with the world’s fifth-biggest economy without having to deal with the other 27 members of the EU.'”

If not for Brexit, and with the possible exception of Canada, none of the many countries eager for U.K. trade would have access to its immense market anytime soon — these potential trading partners have been shut out since 1973, when the U.K. joined the European trading bloc and cut itself off from greater trading opportunities in the rest of the world. Now, less than a month after the Brexit vote, barely a week after a new prime minister has taken the helm, countries large and small are contemplating their access to a British market that had been blocked by tariff walls for almost half a century. Put another way, Brexit has become the biggest impetus to global free trade in more than a generation.

Once the U.K. strikes free-trade deals with the U.S., Canada and several others, it will have gained access to a much larger market than it had in the EU (the U.S. economy alone, by some measures, is larger than the EU market). From the perspective of a Canada or a U.S., the opening up of free trade with the U.K. is no less consequential: The U.K., the U.S., and Canada have a combined GDP far exceeding that of the NAFTA partnership.

The Brexit free-trade bonanza would just be starting, though, because Brexit, doomsaying notwithstanding, is opening eyes in the other EU nations. The IMF — perhaps the most prominent among the doomsayers — has entirely reevaluated its analysis. Brexit will not sink the U.K. into recession after all, it now says; instead the post-Brexit United Kingdom will best Germany and France to be one of the G7s best-performing economies, behind only the U.S. in 2016 and only the U.S. and Canada in 2017. 

In France, the Netherlands, Spain and elsewhere in Europe, the sentiment among large portions of the citizenry to leave the EU is thwarted largely by fear of the economic consequences. Brexit is showing them that the consequences of staying within a decaying EU is fear-worthy, while striking out into a world of free trade is hopeful and worth embracing. Every free-trade-oriented country in the EU that shrugs off the dead weight of the EU bureaucracy from its back and follows Britain’s lead will, like the U.K., provide countries around the world with a new free-trading partner in another free-trading round, making Brexit a defining event in the annals of free trade.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon is a policy analyst with Probe International. Fourth in a series. For the first in a series, click here.

 Article Link (http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-brexit-is-already-proving-to-be-a-huge-victory-for-global-free-trade)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 27, 2016, 13:12:08
Just been having some more "fun with numbers". (From various sources - trust me  [:D )

The UK economy generates a GDP of 1870 Billion UKP.

Annually it exports about 300 BUKP of goods and
it imports about 420 BUKP of goods.

Of the exports 133 BUKP goes to Europe and
imports from Europe are 219 BUKP.

On the basis of trade in goods the UK is worth 86 BUKP annually to the EU.

In addition, according to EU rules the UK is supposed to contribute 18 BUKP in membership fees to the EU.  (Farage's 350 MUKP / week)
The UK, thanks to Maggie, gets a discount on its fees of 5 BUKP and only has to pay dues of 13 BUKP.         (250 MUKP)
The EU then spends 4.5 BUKP of that money back in the UK bringing the UK's net contribution down to 8.5 BUKP. (150 MUKP)

The EU sells itself to Britain as a Free Trade opportunity.  But Britain has to pay up front for that privilege.

The cost of accessing the EU market (8.5 BUKP) is equivalent to a 6.4% tariff on all British exports to the EU (8.5/133 = 6.4%).

That is already higher than the average tariffs paid by non-EU members like the US, Canada and Australia. 

In addition the rebate and the reinvestment in the UK are both at the discretion of the EU.  It is not inconceivable that the EU could rescind the rebate and fail to reinvest in Britain should Britain remain in the Union.  That would drive, potentially, the contribution up to 18 BUKP or a tariff equivalent of 13.5%.

So Britain is worth 86 BUKP annually to the EU's manufacturers, providing jobs in Spain, Italy and Germany. 

And it costs Britain 8.5 BUKP for the privilege of buying those goods.

In a world where we are constantly being sold the benefits of Goods and Services Taxes, or Value Added Taxes, administered by individual consumers at point of sale in billions of separate transactions, I suggest that there is little justification for not letting the British exporters manage the cost of selling their goods into the EU by paying whatever GST/VAT/Tariff is necessary to market their product.

The EU would still receive their funding but it would be at the expense of either/or the British exporter and the EU consumer.

A side benefit for the Brits would be that they would not be on the hook for the cost of administering their 18-13-8.5 BUKP contribution to the EU (politicians and bureaucrats).

I am not aware of any equivalent membership fees being due for Canada to be a part of NAFTA.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on July 29, 2016, 01:12:46
Brexit could be the forerunner of further breakups or breakdowns wishing the EU and EU nations themselves, as this from Spain suggests:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-27/latest-political-coup-catalan-parliament-votes-secede-spain

Quote
In Latest Political "Coup", Catalan Parliament Votes To Secede From Spain
by Tyler Durden
Jul 27, 2016 1:17 PM

In the aftermath of last month's Brexit vote, there was an outpouring of concern in Europe that the British decision would embolden similar separatist movements across the continent. Earlier Wednesday, this is precisely what happened when Catalan nationalists voted to approve a plan to secede from Spain, defying the nation’s Constitutional Court and challenging acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who is currently in political limbo as he struggles to form a government.

The decision was approved by 72 regional MPs out of 135. Ten MPs from the CSP group linked to Podemos, Partido Popular and Ciudadanos walked out of the assembly and the Socialists did not vote. A recent poll shows that 48% of the Catalan population currently supports independence compared with 43% against it.

The vote, symbolic as it may be, was one of defiance toward Madrid as Spain's Constitutional Court had in recent days prohibited the regional parliament in Barcelona from voting on it. As Ansa reports, the resolution was presented by the pro-secessionist groups Junts Pel Si and CUP. The anti-secessionist parties - PP, Ciudadanos and PSC - have spoken out against the ''illegality'' of the decision. PP parliamentary chief Xavier Garcia Albiol has said that the act is tantamount to a ''coup'' against the government in Madrid and warned that there will be a price to pay for it. The head of the Socialist party, Pedro Sanchez, said there can be no democracy without common rules, while Albert Rivera, the Catalan-born leader of liberals Ciudadanos, described it as a attack on Spanish democracy. They both have rejected supporting Rajoy’s candidacy to become premier again.

Catalan regional president and pro-secessionist Carles Puidgemont instead says that the position taken by the regional MPs is ''legitimate'' and has in recent months confirmed that the goal is to achieve an independent ''Catalan Republic'' by the end of 2017.

Meanwhile, Spain’s caretaker administration - recall that Spain has been unable to form a government after two consecutive elections - said it has called on the state’s attorney to present a challenge before the Constitutional Court dismissing the plan, which lists the steps that would be followed to create independence, including drafting a Catalan constitution.

The latest escalation in the multiyear separatist movement signals renewed impetus from Catalans to break away from Spain. It coincides with a seven-month political deadlock sparked by two inconclusive elections that left the nation without a government. While Rajoy increased his party’s seats in parliament in the second vote, he’s failed to agree on governing terms with other parties, fueling prospects for a third election. Facing a parliamentary defeat, Rajoy has said he won’t undergo a vote of confidence in the 350-seat chamber that is needed to become PM unless he has received enough pledged support from rivals to guarantee his victory.

And taking advantage of the political chaos in Spain, and the lack of an actual, elected government, Catalonia just became the second European state in the span of a month to demand secession. It may not be successful this time, but as Brexit showed, sooner or later the will of the majority will prevail.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 02, 2016, 20:47:37
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-the-british-always-want-special-treatment-a-1105751.html

Quote
Financial Expert on Brexit: 'The British Always Want Special Treatment'

Interview Conducted By Alexander Jung


What direction will Britain take as it prepares for Brexit? British financial industry expert David Marsh says he believes Britain's withdrawal from the EU will do less damage to Brits than to the rest of Europe.


SPIEGEL: Mr. Marsh, did you vote to leave the EU?


Marsh: No, I voted to stay. I did though do something unusual for me: I placed a £200 (237 euros) bet on "leave" with bookmaker Ladbrokes, just in case, to have a small consolation prize.

SPIEGEL: How much did you win?

Marsh: £600 -- it relieved my pain a little.

SPIEGEL: It has now been five weeks since the referendum, and many expected an economic crash. So far, however, this has not happened. Were the concerns exaggerated?

Marsh: I think so. We have a period of uncertainty and companies may invest less. But in 20 years it is unlikely we will say that this referendum has led to a disastrous outcome. It may even offer opportunities.

SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Marsh: The pound has fallen. This weakness will help our exports, British products will be cheaper abroad. And this attracts foreign investors, as seen with Japan's Softbank taking over high-tech ARM for €29 billion euros.

SPIEGEL: Such a coup is hardly what Leavers wished for -- to have foreigners take control of the economy?

Marsh: Oscar Wilde once wrote that people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. It's nothing special for the British if everything is for sale. We have fewer sensitivities in this regard than the Germans.

SPIEGEL: But will the British be so relaxed about their flagship industry -- financial services? Some here fear a veritable exodus.

Marsh: There are certainly some sectors that are particularly affected, for example the settlement of euro transactions. But computers can carry out a lot of this already. It could also lead to the relocation of some foreign exchange trading or investment banking, but not in a large way. Over 700,000 people work in the London financial sector, at the most 10 percent will be influenced by the Brexit vote.

SPIEGEL: But the banks may lose the EU passport necessary for distributing their products in Europe.

Marsh: The big houses already have bases in Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris. You can use these centers, which does not require much effort.

SPIEGEL: Many European financial centers are trying to attract business away from London. The Hesse economic minister will go there in August and lobby for Frankfurt.

Marsh: The Parisians were already here. Competition here is good for business. There it is not just one, but 10 rivals -- that may help London. The City can operate the classic British game, the balance of power, playing off rivals against each other.

SPIEGEL: Frankfurt's hopes are premature?

Marsh: Frankfurt will not transform itself overnight into a major international financial center. Frankfurt and London could complement each other. Frankfurt could focus on financing EU industry, and London could take the global operations.

SPIEGEL: This week, shareholders have agreed to the Frankfurt-London stock exchange merger. Is it realistic to have the headquarters in the UK?

Marsh: It wouldn't be very clever to have the legal seat of the company in London. Maybe they could find another place, perhaps Amsterdam or Dublin.

SPIEGEL: The European Banking Authority will likely have to pull out of London.

Marsh: That would be a setback for the City. But we expect there'll be another two and a half years before Britain leaves the EU. A lot can happen. European politicians' ability to find compromises never ceases to amaze.

SPIEGEL: The UK is looking for a post-EU model. How would this look?

Marsh: It is certainly not like the Swiss model, nor Albanian, nor Greenlandic. I hope this doesn't sound nationalistic -- it should be a British way. There is a tendency in Germany to think that the British always want special treatment -- and that is true: We want special treatment.

SPIEGEL: And what does this consist of?

Marsh: We need to manage a compromise between our expectations and the EU's: We will still pay into the EU budget, but significantly less. We will control immigration more rigorously. And we want to maintain access to the EU internal market.

SPIEGEL: Do you really think Europe will allow this? If so, then EU critics in the Netherlands or Austria will wish to emulate this British model and leave the EU.

Marsh: That's right; the EU can't be too generous toward Britain. On the other hand, we have time on our side. Britain will probably not have a general election until 2020, while the German, Dutch and French will all go to the polls next year. Prime Minister Theresa May has time to develop Britain's European position. She can build on the UK's special status outside the euro area, where we are one of the largest trading partners. We will find a form of British exceptionalism. Frank Sinatra's "I Did It My Way" may become for the UK, "We did it May way."

SPIEGEL: What might this "May way" look like? Will the UK turn itself into a low-tax paradise with minimum regulation?

Marsh: We will certainly not become a European version of the Cayman Islands -- we cannot afford that. Banking regulation should be at least as strict as in the EU. The financial crisis has taught us that less regulation leads to poorer results.

SPIEGEL: There are a lot of similarities between the prime minister and Chancellor Angela Merkel, this was obvious when May visited Merkel on July 20 in Berlin: They are of a similar age, similar origin and they are similarly pragmatic. Will that help British negotiations?

Marsh: There is good chemistry between the two. You can talk of "Angela May and Theresa Merkel" as Europe's new tandem. Yet the chancellor faces the tougher task. Her room for maneuver is narrowing, the more she faces Europe's economic problems: the debt issues in Greece, the banking crisis in Italy, the monetary policy of the European Central Bank.


SPIEGEL: What should she do?


Marsh: She is in a dilemma. Merkel's supporters may desert her if she's too conciliatory. But then the Germans cannot always say "no" when it comes to aid for countries in crisis or softening the Maastricht criteria (on deficit spending). They don't have the strength.

SPIEGEL: Who will suffer most from Brexit: the UK or the rest of Europe?

Marsh: The British face a short, sharp shock that will subside relatively quickly. In Continental Europe, the process will last longer and be more painful. Although I voted against leaving the EU, I see Britain's s future more optimistically than that of the rest of Europe. Yet if Germany and the UK formed an alliance, both would have it easier.

About David Marsh

Andrea Artz / DER SPIEGEL
David Marsh, 64, is a leading expert on the European financial industry. He is the co-founder and managing director of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum, a London think tank for financial and economic issues. He previously worked for various financial institutions and as a journalist. Between 1978 and 1995, he worked for the Financial Times in Germany, France and England.

A neat summary of Brexit to date -

And of course the Brits want special treatment.  They're British.   [:D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on August 18, 2016, 22:24:26
Defying expectations; UK unemployment falls after the Brexit:

http://order-order.com/2016/08/17/unemployment-falls-brexit/

Quote
guardian
Enjoy these two entries from the Guardian politics liveblog this morning:

8:09am: UK jobless claims expected to rise following Brexit vote – Economists polled by Reuters are expecting a 9,500 jump in claims

9:34am: A big surprise in the labour market data: the number of people claiming unemployment benefits fell by 8,600 in July, a month after the Brexit vote. No sign yet then that the Brexit vote is hurting the jobs market…

Economists wrong about the impact of Brexit, shocker. “We’ve heard enough from experts…”
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2016, 12:27:30
Sir Humphrey's heir (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/brexit-is-not-inevitable-and-britain-could-eventually-remain-in/): "Brexit is not inevitable and Britain could remain in the EU, says Lord O'Donnell"

Quote
.. no "rush" ...

...

Before his peerage, Sir Gus O'Donnell, as he was then known, was in charge of the Civil Service between 2005 and 2011 under three prime ministers - Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

The crossbench peer said: "Lots of people will say, 'We've had the referendum, we've decided to go out, so that's it, it's all over'.

"But it very much depends what happens to public opinion and whether the EU changes before then.

"It might be that the broader, more loosely aligned group, is something that the UK is happy being a member of."

... complicated and take "a very long time"...

..... "a huge administrative and legislative change" ....

....

Lord O'Donnell also warned against rushing to trigger Article 50, which starts a two-year countdown to Brexit.

"The key for Government is to have a strategic plan to say 'what kind of UK do we want? What is our place in the world? What are we trying to achieve in these negotiations'?"he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Once you have got those strategic decisions sorted out, then you can go about thinking about 'so when should we implement Article 50?' I wouldn't be in a rush."....

....
He added that elections in France and Germany next year meant "it is not even clear which leaders our Prime Minister will be negotiating with, so I don't think there's any great rush to do it".....

... it was going to be a "tough ask" for the civil service to take the UK out of the EU because Britain was "very short" of trade negotiators.

..."It is a big task, an enormous task that will take up a lot of the time both of the Government and Parliament over the rest of this Parliament."

The counter-point (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/gus-odonnell-has-made-a-mistake-even-the-suspicion-that-civil-se/): "Gus O'Donnell has made a mistake. Even the suspicion that civil servants will try to block Brexit is dangerous"

And in other news, with disastrous timing, Sir Anthony Jay (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755216/Sir-Antony-Jay-creator-Yes-Minister-dies-aged-86.html) has just died.



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 28, 2016, 21:35:21
Sir Humphrey's heir (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/brexit-is-not-inevitable-and-britain-could-eventually-remain-in/): "Brexit is not inevitable and Britain could remain in the EU, says Lord O'Donnell"

The counter-point (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/27/gus-odonnell-has-made-a-mistake-even-the-suspicion-that-civil-se/): "Gus O'Donnell has made a mistake. Even the suspicion that civil servants will try to block Brexit is dangerous"

And in other news, with disastrous timing, Sir Anthony Jay (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755216/Sir-Antony-Jay-creator-Yes-Minister-dies-aged-86.html) has just died.

Why bother staying in the EU? The UK has a lot more going for it than it realizes...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-what-next-reasons-to-be-positive-eu-referendum-jeremy-corbyn-a7104016.html
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Old Sweat on August 28, 2016, 21:43:38
Why bother staying in the EU? The UK has a lot more going for it than it realizes...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-what-next-reasons-to-be-positive-eu-referendum-jeremy-corbyn-a7104016.html

After all, who else could have invented a currency system based on 20s and 12s, and then tossed in guineas for the upper classes? And for the mechanically-minded, the British automotive industry aimed at frustrating the home mechanic!

My RCAC friends are invited to discuss Centurion maintenance. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2016, 21:59:26
After all, who else could have invented a currency system based on 20s and 12s, and then tossed in guineas for the upper classes? And for the mechanically-minded, the British automotive industry aimed at frustrating the home mechanic!

My RCAC friends are invited to discuss Centurion maintenance.

2 farthings, one ha'penny
2 ha'pennies, one penny
Tuppenny bit
Thruppenny bit
Sixpenny bit
12 pennies, one shilling
2 shillings, one florin
2 shillings and sixpence, half a crown
5 shillings, one crown
20 shillings, one pound
21 shillings, one guinea (which I never actually saw, nor did I see a sovereign)

There - what's so hard about that?  Had it all figured by the time I was six.  How else was I going to buy my Kit Kat on the way to school? 
Also worked wonders when I came to working in bases other than 10 - silly decimal system.
 
Edit: in any event - according to Wiki - we can blame the Dutch.

"Low Countries

In the principalities covering present Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, the cognate term schelling was used as an equivalent 'arithmetic' currency, a 'solidus' representing 12 'denarii' or 1/20 'pound', while actual coins were rarely physical multiples of it, but still expressed in these terms."

We also got the Florin from Florence.

International monetary exchange.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 29, 2016, 02:04:38
After all, who else could have invented a currency system based on 20s and 12s, and then tossed in guineas for the upper classes? And for the mechanically-minded, the British automotive industry aimed at frustrating the home mechanic!

My RCAC friends are invited to discuss Centurion maintenance.

I'm guessing the global system of trade they established and dominated for centuries will stand them in good stead, if reinvigorated in a new form freed from the requirement to kow tow to an ever increasingly cloistered and anti-competitive EU.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 30, 2016, 12:09:08
This is curious.

The Daily Express loves its Gotcha! headlines.  It also loves Euro-baiting.  This headline is not a big surprise as their headlines rarely have much to do with the meat of the article or the position of characters in the piece.

Quote
FEDERAL EU BLUEPRINT: Brussels SIX-POINT plot to turn Europe into a SUPERSTATE unveiled

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/705229/European-Union-Brussels-EU-superstate-unveiled-MEP-Guy-Verhofstadt

What is interesting is this one comment buried in the body of the article:

Quote
Instead, member states should be given an ultimatum to either accept all the terms the Brussels club lays down or leave and become an “associate member” with access only to the single market.

Given that access to the Single Market is the only real sticking point for the Brits - the only thing they really want from the EU - I sense that "Brussels" may be telegraphing that it is ready to concede the match and let Britain have access on bespoke terms.

The debate then shifts to what those terms are.

My current sense of the state of play is that when Article 50 is triggered a deal will be signed very shortly afterwards.   A lot of negotiation seems to be going on despite the ban on negotiation prior to Article 50.

It is in everyone's interest to clear this matter up quickly.  Short term economic and geo-political realities will trump philosophical principles.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cupper on August 30, 2016, 21:15:12
Interesting move by the EU, considering that the biggest complaint is interference by unelected foreign politicians on state matters.

And it also has implications for future trade negotiations between the US and Europe.

Apple Ordered by EU to Repay $14.5 Billion in Irish Tax Breaks
EU says tax deal with Ireland allowed Apple to pay almost zero tax on European profits between 2003 and 2014


http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-received-14-5-billion-in-illegal-tax-benefits-from-ireland-1472551598

Quote
The European Union’s antitrust regulator has demanded that Ireland recoup roughly €13 billion ($14.5 billion) of unpaid taxes accumulated over more than a decade by Apple Inc., a move that intensifies a feud between the EU and the U.S. over the bloc’s tax probes into American companies.

The size of the tax demand, which came in a formal decision issued Tuesday, risks further unsettling multinational companies, which face a broader international effort to curb aggressive tax avoidance. But the commission’s decision shows companies could be on the hook for past behavior and potentially be handed big bills for allegedly unpaid back taxes.

The sum is the highest ever demanded under the EU’s longstanding rules that forbid companies from gaining advantages over competitors because of government help.

The decision—which ordered a payment well above most analysts’ expectations— is likely to be the subject of years of appeals up to the EU’s top court. It could also set off a broader scramble by the U.S. and individual EU governments over the right to tax billions of dollars of offshore profits made by Apple and other large companies.

Apple disputed the reasoning of the decision and said it would appeal. Chief Executive Tim Cook, in an open letter, added: “Apple follows the law and we pay all the taxes we owe.”

Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan said he disagreed “profoundly” with the European Commission’s decision and said Ireland would appeal the decision in order “to defend the integrity of our tax system.”

The European Commission said tax arrangements that Ireland offered Apple in 1991 and 2007 allowed the company to pay annual tax rates of between 0.005% and 1% on its European profits for over a decade to 2014, by designating only a tiny portion of its profit as taxable in Ireland.

“The commission’s investigation concluded that Ireland granted illegal tax benefits to Apple, which enabled it to pay substantially less tax than other businesses over many years,” said European antitrust commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

Mr. Cook described the decision as “an effort to rewrite Apple’s history in Europe, ignore Ireland’s tax laws and upend the international tax system in the process.”

Under EU rules, Ireland has four months to calculate the exact amount the commission says Apple owes and collect the cash. Apple, whose shares fell by 0.8% Tuesday in New York, said it would put the money in an escrow account pending appeals.

Ms. Vestager said Apple would also be expected in the future to pay taxes based on the ruling, but it is unclear how much that would boost the company’s effective tax rate because Apple changed its European tax structure in 2015.

Lawyers said that the EU had been aggressive in calculating the amount of unpaid taxes it says Apple owes. “It certainly is a massive amount,” Philipp Werner, a Brussels-based partner at law firm Jones Day. Apple posted a profit of $7.8 billion in its most recent quarter.

The Obama administration and U.S. lawmakers said the decision upended international tax norms and could cut into the U.S. tax base by giving companies foreign tax credits that would reduce their eventual U.S. tax bills.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Treasury Department said “retroactive tax assessments by the commission are unfair, contrary to well-established legal principles, and call into question the tax rules of individual Member States.”
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 30, 2016, 21:41:35
And further to that - this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/30/ttip-trade-pact-near-failure-as-france-demands-total-halt-to-us/) from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Quote
... But there is little doubt that free trade advocates have lost the battle for public opinion in Europe, where activists have turned TTIP into a Gothic horror story, a secretive stitch-up by corporate lawyers that allows capitalist interests to game the international system at the expense of working people.

The Left has made much of negotiation documents leaked to Greenpeace that suggest the EU’s ‘precautionary principle’ has succumbed to the rival ‘risk based’ doctrine of the US, allegedly opening the way to a “race to the bottom in environmental, consumer protection, and public health standards”. Free traders have struggled to rebut this.

Mr Korteweg said the EU elites took the public for granted, failing to sense the growing backlash against globalisation. “They dropped the ball and lost control in framing the narrative,” he said.

The parallel drama in the US has different contours. Public wrath is largely directed at the Pacific trade pact (TPP), seen as a tool for multinationals to undercut US standards by exploiting cheap labour and lower ecological standards in Asia.

 Americans are more relaxed about free trade with Europe. TTIP has not been a major issue in the presidential campaign, though Donald Trump would almost certainly kill it in the unlikely event that he were elected president.

The TTIP crisis is essentially a European story. The project is not yet dead but support is ebbing away in a string of countries. While German Chancellor Angela Merkel still supports the talks, just 17pc of the German public back the accord. She can no longer keep her Social Democrat (SPD) partners in the coalition fully on board.

Sigmar Gabriel, the German economy minister, said over the weekend that talks were going nowhere. “The negotiations with the US have de facto failed because the Europeans would naturally not submit to American demands. I can’t imagine that the social democrat movement in Europe will opt to carry on and say ‘we stick to the whole bad deal’”, he said.

Two comments

- personal belief - the precautionary principle is the ultimate statement of conservatism - thou shalt not change, modify or adjust

- Sigmar Gabriel - is of the Social Democratic Party of Germany -  along with Hollande's Socialist Party - charter members of the Socialist International.  Britain's Labour Party is an Observer.  The Socialist International is the organizing forum for the social democrat movement. This is the supra-national project driving the EU.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on September 07, 2016, 14:43:39
Quote
Britain is building a 13 foot-high concrete wall to keep migrants out

POSTMEDIA NETWORK

FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 09:34 AM MDT | UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2016 09:47 AM MDT

Calais

Migrants walk past security fencing at the Jungle migrant camp on Sept. 6, 2016, in Calais, France. (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

Donald Trump will be proud.

Britain is constructing a 13 foot-high concrete wall to stop migrants reaching the U.K. from the northern French port of Calais.

The $30-million wall will run about 1 km around the main highway and port.

It has only taken 458 years.....

Quote
Richard Cavendish remembers how France took Calais, the last continental possession of England, on January 7th, 1558.

Taken by Edward III in 1347, Calais had become the main port through which English wool was profitably exported abroad. From 1536 it sent members to the English parliament and the town’s fortifications were repaired in Henry VIII’s time, but the castle was allowed to fall into decay and the garrison was reduced.

In 1557 when Mary Tudor was queen, her husband Philip of Spain involved England in war with Henri II of France. The French king saw an opportunity and in December 1557 Philip sent word to London of an impending attack on Calais. The government decided to send reinforcements under the Earl of Rutland, but England was gripped by so serious an epidemic of influenza that fit men were difficult to find. Rutland’s expedition embarked on January 2nd, but when they arrived they found that the Duke of Guise had struck swiftly across the frozen marshes on the town’s seaward side to seize the entrance to the harbour and the fort that commanded it. The English were unable to reach the town, which the French bombarded to such effect that it surrendered on the 7th. Plans for a counter-attack were abandoned and Queen Mary famously said that when she died, Calais would be found engraved on her heart.

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/fall-calais
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on September 07, 2016, 14:59:13
Will the UK make France pay for the wall..... ;)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on September 07, 2016, 15:28:15
No. But it is Brit Coppers on French soil.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on September 21, 2016, 16:57:09
https://www.facebook.com/TribesPeople/videos/1671348653124505/

The link goes to a video timeline of European spheres of influence (more than just borders it appears to show regime change as well) for the last 1000 years
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on October 12, 2016, 20:34:12
One law for thee and another for me

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/12/if-europe-insists-on-a-hard-brexit-so-be-it/

Quote
If Europe insists on a hard Brexit, so be it

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 12 OCTOBER 2016 • 8:28PM

If the central purpose of Brexit is to restore the supremacy of Parliament, we should congratulate Labour for forcing a debate on the proposed terms of withdrawal. Let us demand that MPs should have a vote as well.

Brexit belongs to no faction. The referendum was not an election where the winner takes all. The circumstances are entirely sui generis and extremely delicate.

Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, and the constitutional implications of this have yet to be confronted. A great majority of those below the age of thirty opposed Brexit, and many feel betrayed. It amounts to an inter-generational crisis.
 
The exact contours of Brexit were never defined. There was no Manifesto. The binary ballot presented to us on June 23 - nolens volens - contained not a single word about immigration. Many who voted to leave the EU want a liberal, amicable, open settlement with Europe.

It is the proper role of Parliament to discern the national will, and to impose its verdict on ministers. Theresa May is well-advised to bow to this imperative before Article 50 is triggered, even if raucous wrangling in the House greatly complicates negotiating tactics with Brussels.

That said, one must guard against certain vested interests in the City that are actively seeking to whip up hysteria in financial markets. There is an attempt underway to create a bad Brexit narrative in the hope of overturning it, or at least to frighten the country into a minimalist outcome that achieves much the same thing.

The interests of the financial elites should not be conflated with the national interest. A legitimate case can be made that they are in conflict.

Paul Krugman, the Nobel trade theorist, says the UK has been suffering from a variant of the "Dutch Disease", an over-reliance on finance that drove up pound and hollowed out manufacturing industries. This economic deformation has greatly enriched London's financial set and those who service its wealth, if non-one else.

There may be serious economic trials ahead as we extract ourselves from the EU after more than forty years, but the slump in sterling is not one of them. The devaluation is necessary and desirable. The pound is now near 'fair value' based on the real effective exchange rate used by the International Monetary Fund.

All that has happened is a correction of the extreme over-valuation of sterling before Brexit, caused by capital inflows. This left the country with the worst current account deficit in peace-time since records began in the 18th Century.

The fall is roughly comparable to the devaluation from 2007 to 2008 - though the same financial elites who talk so much of Armageddon today played it down on that occasion, mindful that their own banking crisis was the trigger.

The latest fall in sterling is comparable to 2008, which proved benign

We can argue over how much the 2008 devaluation helped but it clearly acted as shock absorber at a crucial moment. It was in any case a far less painful way to restore short-term competitiveness than the 'internal devaluations' and mass unemployment suffered by the eurozone's Club Med bloc.

But there is a deeper point today that is often overlooked. Central banks across the developed world are caught in a deflationary trap. The 'Wicksellian' or natural rate of interest has been falling ever lower with each economic cycle and is now at or below zero in half the global economy,  a full seven years into the expansion.

This paralyses monetary policy and has dark implications for the next downturn. It is why central banks are desperately trying to drive down their currencies to gain a little breathing room, or in the case of the US Federal Reserve to stop the dollar rising.

By the accident of Brexit, Britain has pulled off a Wicksellian adjustment that eludes others.

With luck,  the economy may even generate a few flickers of inflation, enough to let the Bank of England raise interest rates and start to restore 'intertemporal' equilibrium.

Personally, I have been in favour of a "soft Brexit" that preserves unfettered access to the single market and passporting rights for the City, but not at any political cost - and certainly not if it means submitting to the European Court, which so cynically struck down our treaty opt-out on the Charter in a grab for sweeping jurisdiction.

But what has caused me to harden my view - somewhat - is the open intimidation by a number of EU political leaders. "There must be a threat," said French president Francois Hollande. "There must be a price... otherwise other countries or other parties will want to leave the European Union."

These are remarkable comments in all kinds of ways, not least in that the leader of a democratic state is threatening a neighbouring democracy and military ally. What he is also admitting - à son insu - is that the union is held together only by fear. He might as well write its epitaph.


Mr Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel invariably fall back on the four freedoms -movement, goods, services, and capital  -enshrined in EU treaty law, as if they were sacrosanct.

These freedoms are nothing but pious shibboleths. They often do not exist, and where they do exist they are routinely honoured in the breach. Services make up 70pc of the EU economy yet account for just 22pc of internal EU trade. All attempts to open services up to cross-border commerce have been defeated, to the detriment of Britain.

The sorry saga of the Services Directive in 2006 tells all you need to know about how the EU works. "The French and Germans gutted it," said Professor Alan Riley from the Institute for Statecraft.

The 'country of origin rule' that would have allowed firms to operate anywhere in the EU under their own domestic law was dropped, casualty of the "Polish plumber" scare. The directive did not cover health care, transport, legal services, professions, tax experts, and the like. Germany protected it guilds.

Online and digital trade across borders remains minimal, riddled with barriers. Britain's All-Party Parliamentary Group for European Reform concluded that "there is no single market in services in any meaningful sense."

As Brussels correspondent I covered the parallel fiasco of the takeover directive. This too was sabotaged by France and Germany,  after fourteen wasted years. They reinstated poison pills and a host of tricks in an explicit attempt to stop 'Anglo-Saxon predators' taking over their companies, even as their own companies were free to stalk British prey.

"It was disgusting," one Commission official told me at the time. Frits Bolkestein, the quixotic single market chief, was despondent.  "It is tragic to see how Europe's broader interests can be frustrated by certain narrow interests," he said.

So much for the freedoms of capital and services. Nor has the free movement of people been strictly upheld. France and Germany - unlike Britain - blocked access to their labour markets and welfare systems for East Europeans for seven years after they joined the EU in 2004. It was political decision.

The four freedoms are really just aspirational guidelines, enforced when expedient, neglected at other times. The rigid exhortations from Paris, Berlin, and Brussels that there can be no free trade with Britain unless there is unrestricted migration - even after leaving the EU - is politics masquerading as principle. If they want to find a compromise solution, they can do so easily.

It is an odd spectacle. On the one hand the EU is so insecure that it talks of punishing Britain to deter other escapees; on the other it exhibits an imperial reflex, demanding submission entirely on its own terms, seemingly unable to accept or even to imagine a reciprocal trading relationship based on sovereign equality.

Mr Hollande wishes to bring about the hardest possible Brexit. If this proves to be the EU position - and it may not be, since it is lunacy and he for one will soon be irrelevant - it does at least clarify the issue.

A hard Brexit was never my preference. While the economic benefits of the EU customs union are greatly overstated, it would be no small matter to unwind the nexus of cross-border supply chains that has evolved over decades.

But if that is the only choice, so be it.

It was ever thus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11207721/Why-do-France-and-Germany-keep-breaking-EU-rules.html

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on October 24, 2016, 13:58:46
Hard Brexit might not go as well for Europe as they would like to think:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tax-idUSKCN12N09K

Quote
UK could slash corporation tax to 10 percent if EU blocks Brexit trade deal: Sunday Times
By Kylie MacLellan | LONDON

Britain could slash corporation tax to 10 percent if the European Union refuses to agree a post-Brexit free trade deal or blocks UK-based banks from accessing its market, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unidentified source.

The newspaper said the idea of halving the headline rate from 20 percent had been put forward by Prime Minister Theresa May's advisers amid growing fears other EU member states will take a hard line in Brexit negotiations.

The tax cut would be used to try and persuade the EU to grant "passporting" rights for financial services firms to continue operating across the EU, the newspaper said, in a sign of the likely animosity of the upcoming divorce talks.

At a Brussels summit last week EU leaders were clear they would not allow Britain to "cherry pick" things such as free access to the market for certain sectors without taking on the full responsibilities of EU membership.

"People say we have not got any cards," the newspaper quoted an unidentified source familiar with the British government's thinking as saying.

"We have some quite good cards we can play if they start getting difficult with us. If they're saying no passporting and high trade tariffs we can cut corporation tax to 10 percent," the newspaper quoted an anonymous source as saying," the source was quoted as saying.

Cutting corporation tax could attract companies away from the EU to Britain, boosting its economy and challenging Ireland's preeminence as Europe's low tax home for large international companies.

EU leaders have warned that if Britain places limits on the free movement people it will lose its preferential access to the single market, leaving London-based international banks worried they could lose their right to sell services across Europe.

Writing in the Observer newspaper, the chief executive of the British Bankers' Association said the uncertainty over Britain's future relationship with the EU meant most international banks were already looking at which operations they would need to move out of the UK.

"Their hands are quivering over the relocate button. Many smaller banks plan to start relocations before Christmas; bigger banks are expected to start in the first quarter of next year," Anthony Browne wrote.

Japanese carmaker Nissan (7201.T), whose Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn met May this month to discuss his concerns over Brexit, on Sunday denied a story in the Telegraph newspaper that it had decided to make its new Qashqai model in Britain.

Nissan's CEO has warned he could scrap potential new investment in Britain's biggest car plant unless the government pledges compensation for any increased tax costs resulting from Brexit.

"No decision has yet been taken. That decision making process concludes next month," a spokesman at Nissan told Reuters.

(Additional reporting by Costas Pitas; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Canuck_Jock on October 24, 2016, 15:32:56
Hard Brexit might not go as well for Europe as they would like to think:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-tax-idUSKCN12N09K

Good call.  George Osborne suggested corporation tax cuts last spring after the vote.  I recall the EU wasn't particularly pleased.  But, push comes to shove, if the EU wants to apply revenge over common interest, corporation tax cuts are fair game.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on November 05, 2016, 23:06:44
The Brexit was a triumph of populism and democracy, now the Remain faction is attempting to derail the "will of the people". It is interesting to see how they are trying to get their "correct" result. Considering Clegg leads a party with only 8 seats, I can;t see this having a happy long term result for them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3907376/Nick-Clegg-Brexit-saboteur-Former-Lib-Dem-leader-branded-undemocratic-reveals-plans-use-unelected-Peers-water-EU-exit.html

Quote
Nick Clegg the Brexit saboteur: Former Lib Dem leader is branded undemocratic as he reveals his plans to use unelected Peers to water down EU exit

Theresa May vows to defeat 'undemocratic plot' to slow down Brexit
Nick Clegg said he would propose amendments in Parliament vote
Former Lib Dem leader wants 'soft Brexit' allowing workers free access
But Prime Minister is confident Supreme Court appeal will succeed
By JAMES SLACK POLITICAL EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 00:28 GMT, 5 November 2016 | UPDATED: 00:52 GMT, 5 November 2016

Theresa May last night vowed to face down a ‘profoundly undemocratic plot’ by Nick Clegg and a band of unelected peers to frustrate Brexit.

The former Lib Dem leader said he would take advantage of a High Court ruling saying Parliament must have a vote on leaving the EU to try to derail the Government’s plans.

Mr Clegg – who left his party with only eight MPs after he took it to the brink of annihilation at last year’s general election – said he would table amendments at Westminster which allow only for a so-called ‘soft Brexit’.

This would involve keeping Britain inside the single market, and continuing to allow EU migrant workers free access to the UK.

Critics said it was proof the only reason MPs had been demanding the courts give them a say was so they could sabotage Brexit.

The Prime Minister yesterday said she was ‘confident’ that an appeal to the Supreme Court would succeed – and that she would be able to launch Brexit negotiations without a vote by MPs or peers.

In a series of phone calls to European leaders, she insisted her timetable for triggering Article 50 – the two-year process for leaving the EU – in March would not be blown off course by the row with the courts.

On a visit to Germany, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also insisted it was full-steam ahead.

He said: ‘You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. I would really not read too much into the legal decisions that you have just seen.’

'Hard or soft, sweet or dry, there are 50 shades of Brexit':...

MP who quit over Brexit saying he can no longer live with...

But one of Mrs May’s ministers made it plain the Government would fight Mr Clegg all the way if it came to the crunch.

David Jones, Minister of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union, said: ‘Nick Clegg has given the game away.

‘He didn’t like the answer the people gave in the referendum and now he’s admitted he wants to work with other parties to try to block the process of Britain leaving the EU. It is profoundly anti-democratic.’

Yesterday, there was continuing fury about the High Court’s decision to force a vote in Parliament on triggering Article 50.

If the appeal to the Supreme Court fails, it will mean the introduction of an Act of Parliament.

Mr Clegg and other Remainers would then be able to amend the legislation to try to get their own way.

In a radio interview, the former Lib Dem leader made clear he was already plotting how to do this.

Mr Clegg told the BBC: ‘We will seek ... to amend the legislation such that Parliament would say to Government that it should pursue a soft Brexit.

'There should be some means by which the British people can have a say on the final deal.’

He added: ‘If the Government, on the other hand, digs its heels in and says, “we are going to go for a more self-harming, hard Brexit and not give anyone a say on the final package”, then of course I think people will say “hang on a minute, we are not sure we are going to give you the consent to proceed on that basis”.’

There is particular concern that the 104 Lib Dem peers in the Lords could block or delay Article 50.

Yesterday, a Tory peer who supports Remain said she would side with attempts to frustrate the will of the 17.4million who voted to leave.

Baroness Wheatcroft said Mrs May’s deadline of triggering Article 50 by the end of March looked like ‘an impossible target’.

She added: ‘I think that it’s only right to delay until we have a clearer idea of what it actually entails and I think there will be others in the Lords who feel the same way.

'How many, it’s hard to say, but I think there could be a majority who’d be in favour of delaying Article 50.’

Labour MPs also said they would vote to block Brexit. Tottenham MP David Lammy said: ‘My constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain. So I’ll represent my constituents in Parliament.’

Remainers have already held meetings on how to use the judgment to force the Government to reveal its hand.

Tory ex-cabinet minister Theresa Villiers said: ‘Frankly I think it would be a constitutional outrage if unelected Liberal Democrat peers were to stand in the way of a clear result of a referendum in which 33million people took part.’

Fellow Tory MP Charlie Elphicke added: ‘It is shameful to see unelected peers publicly plotting to subvert the will of the people.’

In a series of calls yesterday, Mrs May told European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and Germany’s Angela Merkel she is confident the Supreme Court will overturn the High Court’s ‘disappointing’ ruling.

The case is due to be heard in December, with a verdict due in January.

No 10 dismissed concerns that it was wrong to criticise the judges who took the decision.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said: ‘I don’t think the British judiciary is being undermined.’

Angry NHS worker says she 'hopes Brexiters children get sick'

Ministers have privately warned the decision could delay the triggering of Article 50 by up to a year.

But senior Government sources said that – if the appeal was lost – emergency legislation would be introduced which could be passed within a week.

The time for debates would be limited and the Commons and Lords would be ‘dared’ to defy the wishes of the of the public.

Opposition MPs who support Remain yesterday criticised the Daily Mail and other national newspapers over their coverage of the High Court ruling.

They claimed it was wrong to attack the panel of three judges, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, which delivered the verdict.

The Mail’s front page was headlined ‘Enemies of the people’, with pictures of the three judges.

Labour spokesman Richard Burgon said it was ‘unacceptable’ to attack the judges personally.

He criticised Liz Truss, the Lord Chancellor, for not speaking out in defence of the ‘independence’ of the judiciary.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Ostrozac on November 06, 2016, 06:46:02
The Brexit was a triumph of populism and democracy,

As an alternate observation, the Brexit vote was a side effect of an internal civil war within the Conservative Party -- a civil war that shows no signs of slowing down. And given the weak state of Her Brittanic Majesty's Opposition, there's really no outside force which would act as a common enemy to unify the Tories. An election could be held tomorrow, and the Tories would win a resounding majority -- but it still wouldn't solve anything as the party itself is hopelessly divided.

Expect shenanigans for several years from both sides (both Euroskeptic and Europhile).
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 06, 2016, 09:58:04
As an alternate observation, the Brexit vote was a side effect of an internal civil war within the Conservative Party -- a civil war that shows no signs of slowing down. And given the weak state of Her Brittanic Majesty's Opposition, there's really no outside force which would act as a common enemy to unify the Tories. An election could be held tomorrow, and the Tories would win a resounding majority -- but it still wouldn't solve anything as the party itself is hopelessly divided.

Expect shenanigans for several years from both sides (both Euroskeptic and Europhile).

Yes, but it reflects splits that go well beyond the Conservative Party, the UK or even Europe.

An especially crude form of populism is on the rise, reminiscent of the 19th century "Know Nothing" nativist movement in America or even of US Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 20th century ...

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alabamapioneers.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FKnow-Nothing-Party2.jpg&hash=4a0a572845440609d96d0341b4afbcfa) (https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fall-len-all.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F04%2Fjoe-mccarthy-2.jpg&hash=c43492dd3d9a079ecb466a7582b07b84)

... but it is everywhere, including amongst Canadian Conservatives who want to ban headscarves and have "loyalty checks."

The splits are highly visible in all of Europe and in America and, I daresay, in Canada, too ... and not just inside the CPC. They, the populists, will, I am fairly certain, run their course, albeit not without some bloodshed, maybe even in November 2008 when some people don't get what they want. Populism is a throwback to Athenian "democracy" which was, by and large, a form of mob rule in which the loudest, often  most outrageous "voice" carried the day. One would like to think that we have, over the past couple of thousand years, tempered the "tyranny of the majority," but ...  :dunno:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 06, 2016, 13:00:25
The problem is really quite simple - the leaders are no longer leading in a direction that others wish to be led.

Until those that see themselves as leaders stop patting themselves on the back for coming up with ever new and interesting ideas, promoting change, and thereby increasing the rate of change then the problems will continue.

They are setting themselves apart from those who have quite enough change in their lives already from a variety of other causes. 

The Deplorables don't need self important gits with good idea fairies on their shoulders proposing the stabling of unicorns in their back yards.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.historynet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimage%2F2010%2FVietnam%2FOct2010%2F600x265xfrag%2CP5B1%2CP5D.jpg.pagespeed.ic.jA9KTQt8m0.jpg&hash=82e91377012d8de1d6efc21d718318a7)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 06, 2016, 13:49:57
And by the way, constant denigration of the other as Deplorables, know-nothings, red-necks, crackers, populists, the uneducated..... The Old Contemptibles..... will not have the desired effect. Unless, of course, one doesn't desire reconciliation.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Jed on November 06, 2016, 16:01:19
And by the way, constant denigration of the other as Deplorables, know-nothings, red-necks, crackers, populists, the uneducated..... The Old Contemptibles..... will not have the desired effect. Unless, of course, one doesn't desire reconciliation.

 :goodpost:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: FJAG on November 06, 2016, 21:21:55
The problem is really quite simple - the leaders are no longer leading in a direction that others wish to be led.

Until those that see themselves as leaders stop patting themselves on the back for coming up with ever new and interesting ideas, promoting change, and thereby increasing the rate of change then the problems will continue.

They are setting themselves apart from those who have quite enough change in their lives already from a variety of other causes. 

The Deplorables don't need self important gits with good idea fairies on their shoulders proposing the stabling of unicorns in their back yards.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.historynet.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimage%2F2010%2FVietnam%2FOct2010%2F600x265xfrag%2CP5B1%2CP5D.jpg.pagespeed.ic.jA9KTQt8m0.jpg&hash=82e91377012d8de1d6efc21d718318a7)

Anyone can lead people to where they want to go.

It takes a great leader to take people where they ought to be going even if they don't want to get there.

 ;)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 06, 2016, 21:53:39
And by the way, constant denigration of the other as Deplorables, know-nothings, red-necks, crackers, populists, the uneducated..... The Old Contemptibles..... will not have the desired effect. Unless, of course, one doesn't desire reconciliation.


I'm not sure you can, or even want to try to reconcile what I called this "especially crude form of populism" with the mainstream ...

First, I'm not sure that mainstream is, any longer, anything like a majority. There are more than one populist movement out there and several of them are "crude" and unpleasant and unlikely to be "reconciled" with, shall we say, more conventional, conciliatory politics. Together they, those outside the mainstream may be the new majority ... but they are not together and, in my opinion, it is less likely that they can unite than that they can reconcile with the "limp" moderates like me.

Second, I'm not sure that the populists can sustain themselves long enough to be reconciled: look at the old CCF and the Progressives (Manitoba) in the 1930s and '40s.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on November 07, 2016, 12:50:36
And by the way, constant denigration of the other as Deplorables, know-nothings, red-necks, crackers, populists, the uneducated..... The Old Contemptibles..... will not have the desired effect. Unless, of course, one doesn't desire reconciliation.
That goes both ways -- i.e., Communists, Socialists, union-indoctrinated idiots, tree-huggers, etc.  It's getting harder and harder to find space in the middle (not just on this but a whole swack of issues) when the extremes seem to be getting further apart.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 07, 2016, 13:52:17
I don't disagree with Tony but I challenge Edward.

Consider the origins of Whigmaleeries and Tories.  Or even the role of Freemasons in public discourse and their associations with Covenanters, Puritans and Quakers and all the other non-conformist disestablishmentarians.

You can cite the Gordon Riots and Luddites amongst others but you also have to give credit to the Chartists.

Of course reconciliation is possible, as is adjusting the flow of the mainstream.

I just saw an article describing the secret of Trump as "Pace".   I don't know if I accept that that is a conscious strategy by Trump but I do accept the validity of the concept.  It is a restatement of the Ralph Doctrine of getting to the head of the parade and leading it.    The best way to influence a herd is to become part of the herd, be accepted by the herd and then gently nudge the herd by the application of slow, continuous pressure.  The article suggested that this is what Trump has been doing by taking "outlandish" positions and then slowly moderating them and bringing his new supporters with him back closer to centre. 

I do know that the surest way to come to a decidedly unpleasant end is to stand in the way of a charging herd or a bursting dam and demand your rights.

With respect to the CCF, and the Progressives - they are still with us and their principles are part of the national dialogue.  Pragmatism and time heal.  Currently Wildrose and the PCs in Alberta are coming to the same conclusion.  They can stand on ceremony or they can pragmaticallly accommodate the wishes of the electorate that care less for debates of angels on pins and more about jobs and bread on the table.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 07, 2016, 15:14:32
I don't disagree with Tony but I challenge Edward.

Consider the origins of Whigmaleeries and Tories.  Or even the role of Freemasons in public discourse and their associations with Covenanters, Puritans and Quakers and all the other non-conformist disestablishmentarians.

You can cite the Gordon Riots and Luddites amongst others but you also have to give credit to the Chartists.

Of course reconciliation is possible, as is adjusting the flow of the mainstream.

I just saw an article describing the secret of Trump as "Pace".   I don't know if I accept that that is a conscious strategy by Trump but I do accept the validity of the concept.  It is a restatement of the Ralph Doctrine of getting to the head of the parade and leading it.    The best way to influence a herd is to become part of the herd, be accepted by the herd and then gently nudge the herd by the application of slow, continuous pressure.  The article suggested that this is what Trump has been doing by taking "outlandish" positions and then slowly moderating them and bringing his new supporters with him back closer to centre. 

I do know that the surest way to come to a decidedly unpleasant end is to stand in the way of a charging herd or a bursting dam and demand your rights.

With respect to the CCF, and the Progressives - they are still with us and their principles are part of the national dialogue.  Pragmatism and time heal.  Currently Wildrose and the PCs in Alberta are coming to the same conclusion.  They can stand on ceremony or they can pragmaticallly accommodate the wishes of the electorate that care less for debates of angels on pins and more about jobs and bread on the table.


I suspect we are, by and large, in violent agreement ... some populist movements do reconcile, fairly easily, with the "mainstream," that's why I mentioned the CCF and the Progressives. The CCF could not, until the 1950s, get beyond their prairie populist roots as a co-op based movement without too much in the way of ideological baggage. It took David Lewis and the Canadian Labour Congress to make them a Canadian analog of the UK's Labour Party with a distinct, "mainstream" (albeit the left wing of the folks under the bell curve) ideology.

But there is, and it's evident in many European parties, in  the American ones, too ~ in the various factions of both the Democrats and the GOP ~ and, I suspect, in some factions of the Conservative Party in Canada, too, that "crude" form of populism that I think cannot be reconciled, not, at least, until it gives up many of its AIMs or we, moderates, surrender ours. The "crude" populism is not confined to the ideological right, the ideological left is just as "crude" in its beliefs and practices, and I do not believe that you can reconcile "crude," ideologically puritanical doctrines with moderate, pragmatic ones, not unless the  moderates surrender.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on November 08, 2016, 02:06:15
I'll jump in with my favourite hobbyhorse of people seeking new answers to the new questions of the day.

Republicans and Democrats in the US were once wild, totally non-respectable movements with outlandish ideas, but since their outlandish ideas reflected and answered the evolving issues of These United States in the early to mid 1800's far better than the Federalists and the Whigs, they became the governing parties and the Federalists and Whigs are now footnotes to History.

Many issues caused by changing demographics, technology and economic change are no longer answerable by the mainline political parties of today (and indeed many of the social and political structures we have are not suitable for current conditions any more). Since the Powers That Be are set up to maximize their advantages using these institutions and structures, they have no incentives to change, so pressure builds to change things by those of us who are not getting the opportunities and rewards from the system.

First there was the TEA Party movement.

Today there is Donald Trump

Should he lose the election, the next wave will be far uglier and much more forceful (perhaps this is the evolving "Alt Right" movement or oe of the various sub branches?). Even if Trump wins, too many changes are desired and too many new ideas need to be tried. Maybe the "Alt-West" sub branch of the Alt Right is the kernel of the new political movement on that side, and "Occupy and the "Bernie Bros" represent the core of the opposition.

Strange times indeed.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 08, 2016, 12:00:12
....

Strange times indeed.

The Revolutions of 1848 (http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/1871/section1.rhtml)

And ERC - No violence in OUR agreements. 

My problems with this world are with the supposed adults who prey on young kids and teach them to despair then harness their hormonally challenged, sleep deprived bodies and give them a "legitimate" outlet for their destructive impulses as they correct their world.  Extreme athlete.  Revolutionary. Soldier.  Not much to choose amongst them.  If you can bend them to your purpose.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on November 15, 2016, 10:40:19
This is an interesting article which goes a bit more in depth as to the sorts of conditions that change to create a "Revolt of the Elites". More ominously, it also suggests that these conditions are responsible for civilizational decline and fall as well. It is well that the people are reacting against this through measures like the BREXIT, voting for nationalist parties and other means to break the hold the "elites" have created, and hopefully the turmoil will be relatively mild as the drawdown occurs:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-12/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-society-frays

Quote
Blame Rich, Overeducated Elites as Society Frays
143NOV 12, 2016 1:58 PM EST
By
Peter Turchin
This article was first published in Bloomberg View on Nov. 20, 2013.

Complex human societies, including our own, are fragile. They are held together by an invisible web of mutual trust and social cooperation. This web can fray easily, resulting in a wave of political instability, internal conflict and, sometimes, outright social collapse.

Analysis of past societies shows that these destabilizing historical trends develop slowly, last many decades, and are slow to subside. The Roman Empire, Imperial China and medieval and early-modern England and France suffered such cycles, to cite a few examples. In the U.S., the last long period of instability began in the 1850s and lasted through the Gilded Age and the “violent 1910s.”

We now see the same forces in the contemporary U.S. Of about 30 detailed indicators I developed for tracing these historical cycles (reflecting popular well-being, inequality, social cooperation and its inverse, polarization and conflict), almost all have been moving in the wrong direction in the last three decades.

The roots of the current American predicament go back to the 1970s, when wages of workers stopped keeping pace with their productivity. The two curves diverged: Productivity continued to rise, as wages stagnated. The “great divergence” between the fortunes of the top 1 percent and the other 99 percent is much discussed, yet its implications for long-term political disorder are underappreciated. Battles such as the recent government shutdown are only one manifestation of what is likely to be a decade-long period.

WEALTH DISRUPTS
How does growing economic inequality lead to political instability? Partly this correlation reflects a direct, causal connection. High inequality is corrosive of social cooperation and willingness to compromise, and waning cooperation means more discord and political infighting. Perhaps more important, economic inequality is also a symptom of deeper social changes, which have gone largely unnoticed.

Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. The “1 percent” becomes “2 percent.” Or even more. There are many more millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires today compared with 30 years ago, as a proportion of the population.

Let’s take households worth $10 million or more (in 1995 dollars). According to the research by economist Edward Wolff, from 1983 to 2010 the number of American households worth at least $10 million grew to 350,000 from 66,000.

Rich Americans tend to be more politically active than the rest of the population. They support candidates who share their views and values; they sometimes run for office themselves. Yet the supply of political offices has stayed flat (there are still 100 senators and 435 representatives -- the same numbers as in 1970). In technical terms, such a situation is known as “elite overproduction.”

A related sign is the overproduction of law degrees. From the mid-1970s to 2011, according to the American Bar Association, the number of lawyers tripled to 1.2 million from 400,000. Meanwhile, the population grew by only 45 percent. Economic Modeling Specialists Intl. recently estimated that twice as many law graduates pass the bar exam as there are job openings for them. In other words, every year U.S. law schools churn out about 25,000 “surplus” lawyers, many of whom are in debt. A large number of them go to law school with an ambition to enter politics someday.

Don’t hate them for it -- they are at the mercy of the same large, impersonal social forces as the rest of us. The number of newly minted MBAs has expanded even faster than law degrees.

LAWYER GLUT
So why is it important that we have a multitude of desperate law school graduates and many more politically ambitious rich than 30 years ago?

Past waves of political instability, such as the civil wars of the late Roman Republic, the French Wars of Religion and the American Civil War, had many interlinking causes and circumstances unique to their age. But a common thread in the eras we studied was elite overproduction. The other two important elements were stagnating and declining living standards of the general population and increasing indebtedness of the state.

Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions. Consider the antebellum U.S.

From 1830 to 1860 the number of New Yorkers and Bostonians with fortunes of at least $100,000 (they would be multimillionaires today) increased fivefold. Many of these new rich (or their sons) had political ambitions. But the government, especially the presidency, Senate and Supreme Court, was dominated by the Southern elites. As many Northerners became frustrated and embittered, the Southerners also felt the pressure and became increasingly defensive.

Slavery had been a divisive force since the inception of the Republic. For 70 years, the elites always managed to find a compromise. During the 1850s, however, intra-elite cooperation unraveled. On several occasions Congress was on the brink of a general shootout. (As one senator noted about his “armed and dangerous” colleagues, “The only persons who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers.”)

Although slavery was the overriding issue dividing the elites, they also differed over tariffs and cultural attitudes toward immigration. In the decade before the Civil War these centrifugal forces tore apart the two-party system. The Democratic Party split into its Northern and Southern factions, while the Whigs simply disintegrated.

CIVIL WAR
Slavery was an absolute evil and was going to be abolished, sooner or later. But its abolition didn’t need to result in hundreds of thousands of Civil War deaths. (About the same time, Russia banned serfdom without a civil war. The Russian Revolution came 50 years later -- when Russia was hit by its own elite overproduction.)

This U.S. historical cycle didn’t end with the cataclysm of the Civil War. Huge fortunes were made during the Gilded Age and economic inequality reached a peak, unrivaled even today. The number of lawyers tripled from 1870 to 1910. And the U.S. saw another wave of political violence, spiking in 1919–21.

This was the worst period of political instability in U.S. history, barring the Civil War. Class warfare took the form of violent labor strikes. At one point 10,000 miners armed with rifles were battling against thousands of company troops and sheriff deputies. There was a wave of terrorism by labor radicals and anarchists. Race issues intertwined with class, leading to the Red Summer of 1919, with 26 major riots and more than 1,000 casualties. It was much, much worse than the 1960s and early 1970s, a period many of us remember well because we lived through it.

The spike in violence then was relatively mild, perhaps because it fell in an era known as the Great Compression. Economic inequality had started to decline after 1930. The difference between the incomes of the rich and poor was compressed. Elite overproduction was reversed: The number of millionaires (in 1900 dollars, $1 million equals almost $30 million today) declined in absolute terms (while population continued to grow).

The Great Compression unraveled in the late 1970s, when workers’ wages stagnated. We are living in a new cycle of growing inequality, elite overproduction, ideological polarization and political fragmentation.

Today we are seeing not just a bitter struggle between the Democrats and Republicans; the Republican Party itself is fragmenting. Now, as during the 1850s, many of the political elites disdain compromise and are instead inclined to fight to the bitter end. Thankfully our senators haven’t armed themselves with revolvers and Bowie knives. (Interpolation: The Democrat party is suffering the same problem, consider how the "Bernie Bros" are going to interact with the various other wings of the party, for example).

PREVENTING CATASTROPHE
We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s. And because complex societies are much more fragile than we assume, there is a chance of a catastrophic failure of some kind, with a default on U.S. government bonds being among the less frightening possibilities.

Of course, catastrophe isn’t preordained. History shows a real indeterminacy about the routes societies follow out of instability waves. Some end with social revolutions, in which the rich and powerful are overthrown. This is what happened to the Southern elites -- decimated in the Civil War, beggared when their main assets, slaves, were freed, and excluded from national power in Washington. In other cases, recurrent civil wars result in a permanent fragmentation of the state and society.

In some cases, however, societies come through relatively unscathed, by adopting a series of judicious reforms, initiated by elites who understand that we are all in this boat together. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Several legislative initiatives, which created the framework for cooperative relations among labor, employers and the government, were introduced during the Progressive Era and cemented in the New Deal.

By introducing the Great Compression, these policies benefited society as a whole. They enabled it to overcome the challenges of the Great Depression, World War II and the Cold War, and to achieve the postwar prosperity. Whether we can follow such a trajectory again is largely up to our political and economic leaders. It will depend on all of us, rich and poor alike, recognizing the real dangers and acting to address them.

(Peter Turchin is the author, most recently, of "Ages of Discord: A Structural-Demographic Analysis of American History.")

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Peter Turchin at Peter.Turchin@UConn.edu

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Halifax Tar on November 15, 2016, 11:32:13
This is an interesting article which goes a bit more in depth as to the sorts of conditions that change to create a "Revolt of the Elites". More ominously, it also suggests that these conditions are responsible for civilizational decline and fall as well. It is well that the people are reacting against this through measures like the BREXIT, voting for nationalist parties and other means to break the hold the "elites" have created, and hopefully the turmoil will be relatively mild as the drawdown occurs:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-12/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-society-frays

Good find.  I shred it on my FB.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on November 15, 2016, 11:57:38
Hate to have to add this, but ...
My problems with this world are with the supposed adults who prey on young kids and teach them to despair then harness their hormonally challenged, sleep deprived bodies and give them a "legitimate" outlet for their destructive impulses as they correct their world.  Extreme athlete.  Revolutionary. Soldier.  Jihadi.  Not much to choose amongst them.  If you can bend them to your purpose.
... and dealing with that bit in orange makes it hard to deal to deal with the bit in yellow  :(
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on November 25, 2016, 15:00:59
Evidently, the pressure release valve is stuck somewhere in the EU, as Italy is now embarking on a referendum which could conceivably lead to them leaving or radically redefining their place in the EU. A "NO" vote is considered to be a distinct possibility, and voters in Italy seem to see rejecting the Government's plan with a "NO" vote is a raised finger to their establishment:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/735716/Italy-NEXT-to-reject-establishment-as-protest-vote-set-to-WIN-referendum-shock-poll-finds

Quote
Italy NEXT to reject establishment as protest vote set to WIN referendum, shock poll finds

ITALY is set to deal a hammer blow to its government as the latest polls revealed voters will punish Matteo Renzi's administration in the upcoming referendum.
By REHEMA FIGUEIREDO
PUBLISHED: 06:03, Fri, Nov 25, 2016 | UPDATED: 10:25, Fri, Nov 25, 2016

The prime minister's failure to reach out to working class suggest large regions will snub Mr Renzi's plan for constitutional reform.

A Demos poll has revealed Mr Renzi's reforms will be rejected by an 11 percentage point margin in the south of the country - where most of the poorest regions are located - compared with a seven-point margin across the country.

As the nation prepares for a momentous referendum, which could spark an exit from the European Union, Mr Renzi said that he would have no interest in running the country if voters reject the proposed constitutional reform.

Luca Comodo, director at polling company Ipsos, says most voters believe that rejecting Mr Renzi's plans is a vote for change, particularly in southern regions where the economic damage inflicted by the deep recession that followed the global financial crisis hit voters particularly hard.

Mr Comodo said: "The south is where protest and rage are amplified."

If the reform goes through - it will reduce the power of the senate (the equivalent of the House of Lords in the UK) and take back legal power from 20 regional governments.

Those in favour of the change say it will make passing laws easier but those against it say it will centralise power too much.

But many Italians are not voting based on the reforms but on their confidence in Mr Renzi's leadership.

Mr Renzi's response has been to ramp up his campaign efforts in a desperate bid to win over voters in these regions - with visits to Sicily, Sardinia, Puglia and Campania (including the city of Naples).

The embattled prime minister has also proposed tax breaks for companies that create jobs in the south to tackle youth unemployment and stimulate investment, in a last ditch attempt to swing the referendum his way.

Italy is the eurozone's third-largest economy but most ordinary Italians, particularly those living in the south, still struggle to get by.

Emanuele Fusco, a 25-year-old barman, said: "A Yes vote is just a way to fool people. We should send this government packing and let everyone know how much they've screwed us."

Mr Renzi, 41, is coming under increasing pressure as the December 4 vote draws nearer with the anti-establishment Five Star Movement campaigning against him as well as a rebel faction within his own party.

Martina Riccio, a 32-year-old market researcher, said: "I would change some things about the constitution but I wouldn't have it touched by those in power now.

"Many people are voting No because they are against Renzi, without even knowing what this entails."

Italy's rules mean that if the vote goes against Mr Renzi, the country's president, Sergio Mattarella, could still ask him to lead a technical government which would have to amend the electoral system before an emergency election next year.

Related articles
 EURO CRISIS: Renzi’s referendum threatens single currency
 Italy's nervy PM says referendum wil will be DECISIVE for EU
 Eurosceptic party demands fresh election as Renzi faces referendum
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2016, 20:59:16
Thucydides - it's a poll.

Next thing you'll be telling me you believe what you read in the papers.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on November 27, 2016, 21:33:41
A poll predicting a possible outcome to a referendum. If the poll is accurate (and after having been badly burned by the Brexit, Trump's election and other "unexpected" outcomes I think pollsters are modifying their methodology so their credibility does not sink beneath the waves), then there will be some serious repercussions in the EU.

And it hardly takes a master pollster to see a growing wave of people raising the middle finger to their so called elites.....
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 28, 2016, 00:31:35
A poll predicting a possible outcome to a referendum. If the poll is accurate .....then there will be some serious repercussions in the EU.

And it hardly takes a master pollster to see a growing wave of people raising the middle finger to their so called elites.....

Agreed on all of the stipulated points.

I wait to see how tolerant the masses are if they find themselves at odds with the courts.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on November 28, 2016, 09:58:14
Next thing you'll be telling me you believe what you read in the papers.
Good one ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Good2Golf on November 29, 2016, 18:54:53

And it hardly takes a master pollster to see a growing wave of people raising the middle finger to their so called elites.....

Meh.  Let them eat cake.  What could possibly go wrong?


   ;)
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on December 28, 2016, 13:36:24
Scotland discovers complications in trying to leverage the Brexit to Scottish independence:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/27/spain-nixes-scottish-plan-to-stay-in-the-eu/

Quote
Spain Nixes Scottish Plan to Stay in the EU

The Spanish government has killed a Scottish plan to maintain Scotland’s membership in Europe’s common markets, saying that all of the UK must be either in or out. The Telegraph reports:

Jorge Toledo, the Spanish Secretary of State for the European Union, flatly rejected the First Minister’s proposals for a differentiated deal for Scotland whereby it would stay in the single market even if the rest of the UK comes out.

His intervention is significant as all of the other 27 EU member states have to agree the terms of Brexit, effectively giving the Spanish a veto over any special treatment for Scotland.

It came only 48 hours after Ms Sturgeon unveiled her highly complicated proposals at a press conference, during which she brushed away warnings that the Spanish would oppose the plans.[..]

Ms Sturgeon’s paper argued that Scotland could join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Economic Area (EEA) as a means of gaining full access to the single market if the UK sponsored it.

The Telegraph quotes a Scottish academic, Daniel Kenealy, who remarked that this seemed a back-door to the EU, which seems about right. It also would have been a front-door to independence. The Scottish would need to be assured of continued membership in the EU for Scottish independence to be attractive. Since Brexit, the Scottish National Party, which controls Scotland’s devolved parliament in Edinburgh, seem to have been hoping that anger with London would lead to sympathy and a warm welcome from Brussels. (How little things change, the Scots thought: when Scotland was independent in the Middle Ages, France’s perpetual war with England led to a natural and long-lasting “Auld Alliance” with Scotland.)

But a desire to punish the Brits has been only one of many Continental reactions to Brexit—and arguably not even the dominant one. Another important one is a feeling that Continental Europe is lucky to be rid of the frightful headache that was the UK’s membership—with Britain’s different expectations and aims, for the EU, its different history, and enough economic weight to slow up the whole project of European integration. People who feel this way may be in no hurry to welcome a sub-tribe of the British (as they’ll see it) back. And thirdly,
Brexit has shown the Continentals just how serious the reemerging nationalism can be; people who focus on this aspect may be reluctant to fan its flames further by encouraging Scottish nationalists.

For the Spanish in particular, as well as other nations with worries about break-away regions, the second and third combine to argue for putting any plans for Scottish EU membership into deep-freeze. Spain has been hinting at this for years, and it’s something the SNP has signally failed to grapple with: Madrid is arguably a bigger foe to Scottish independence than London. Certainly, it has been a more effective one of late.

Now, the SNP faces a big challenge—one that, whenever the situation becomes sufficiently clear to the Scottish voters, could prove existential. It’s hard to miss the irony: the voters of Scotland strongly opposed Brexit, so much so that the difference in the vote north versus south of the ancient border was advanced at the time as a strong argument for a renewed push for independence. Now it looks like Brexit could do more to keep Scotland in the EU than anything in a generation.

Scottish independence plus membership in a growing EU/common market looked like a smart, future-oriented play in the context of Scotland’s left-wing political milieu. But being the smaller and poorer of two lonely, unwelcome nations on the fringes of Europe looks far less attractive.

The Scots may jump yet; Brexit itself shows that rational calculation in such things only takes you so far. But the SNP’s dreams of being an actual independence movement, rather than just a successful regional party, just took a big hit.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Target Up on December 28, 2016, 14:44:04
What slays me about BREXIT is the reaction to it on this side of the moat, especially down south.  Why is anyone shocked that Britons would prefer to be ruled from Whitehall than Brussels?  It seemed to be a pretty great idea in 1770 something, didn't it?  If the EU would have stayed with the original plan, as a trading block only, it would still be flourishing, but it morphed into something rotten.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on December 28, 2016, 20:27:14
What slays me about BREXIT is the reaction to it on this side of the moat, especially down south.  Why is anyone shocked that Britons would prefer to be ruled from Whitehall than Brussels?  It seemed to be a pretty great idea in 1770 something, didn't it?  If the EU would have stayed with the original plan, as a trading block only, it would still be flourishing, but it morphed into something rotten.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: biernini on December 29, 2016, 10:39:34
It is well that the people are reacting against this through measures like the BREXIT, voting for nationalist parties and other means to break the hold the "elites" have created, and hopefully the turmoil will be relatively mild as the drawdown occurs:
Quote
PREVENTING CATASTROPHE
We should expect many years of political turmoil, peaking in the 2020s. And because complex societies are much more fragile than we assume, there is a chance of a catastrophic failure of some kind, with a default on U.S. government bonds being among the less frightening possibilities.
[...]
In some cases, however, societies come through relatively unscathed, by adopting a series of judicious reforms, initiated by elites who understand that we are all in this boat together. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Several legislative initiatives, which created the framework for cooperative relations among labor, employers and the government, were introduced during the Progressive Era and cemented in the New Deal.
(emphasis mine)
I'm not sure how you can reconcile that bolded part with your persistent haranguing of "leftists" and "progressives".
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on December 30, 2016, 11:50:30
You seem to overlook the "New Deal", besides being modelled after the Italian "Fascist Corporate State" also ensured the 1929 depression became the "Great Depression". The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428) by Amity Shlaes documents how the Great Depression was perhaps extended by seven years due to the interference of the government in the economy. A different data point is to ask you how the Great Depression of 1921 affected America? America slipped into a depression in 1921, but President Calvin Coolidge restrained then Treasury Secretary Herbert Hoover from intervening in the economy, and the economy shook off that depression in less than a year....

The real issue is we have been force fed "revisionist history" for most of our lives to support a "narrative". No history course I ever took mentioned the depth of the Great Depression was 1938, and in fact, I was taught that the cause of the Great Depression was unknown. Even then, the primary cause of the Great Depression was understood to be the massive debt overhang caused by the Great War (and you notice no Conventional Media ever notes the relationship between the economic crisis of 2008 and the gigantic debt overhang we have created since welfare state explosion of the 1960's and 70's...)

Historiography is a descriptive science, but you have to correctly identify and highlight the events, not retroactively erase them from memory.

The observable events of today can be traced to counterproductive or maladaptive actions the so called "elites" have been undertaking since the 1980's (if not earlier) and the effects these actions have had on the general population. A good introduction (written in 1994) is The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+revolt+of+the+elites) by Christopher Lasch. The various political classes of the western world, and their enablers in the Bureaucratic State have settled on "Progressivism" as the tool to weild the most power and damp down the potential opposition by buying off the poor with welfare, so breaking "Progressivism" is perhaps the greatest means of toppling the various power structures that have been used to entrench the current system. The fact that Progressivism is now pretty much morally, intellectually and financially bankrupt makes it all the easier.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Canuck_Jock on December 30, 2016, 12:08:29
What slays me about BREXIT is the reaction to it on this side of the moat, especially down south.  Why is anyone shocked that Britons would prefer to be ruled from Whitehall than Brussels?  It seemed to be a pretty great idea in 1770 something, didn't it?  If the EU would have stayed with the original plan, as a trading block only, it would still be flourishing, but it morphed into something rotten.

Spot on. :goodpost:

The British, Scandinavians and most of Eastern Europe is happy with the free trade but the EU is much more than that. It is the 'political project' aspect driven largely by France and Germany that has caused the most unease in the UK. Add to that the EU injecting itself into the judicial and social policy and it was a recipe for a messy ending.  Good fences making good neighbours is sage advice.

Ironically, considering the somewhat sanctimonious tone of the Canadian government on Brexit, I think the UK would be as happy as larry with a NAFTA style arrangement with the EU.

How would the Canadian electorate respond to free movement of people within NAFTA? Would there be greater movement northbound or southbound?



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on December 30, 2016, 12:37:26
I think you can write the whole of European history on the authoritarian road that connects the Vatican to the Ardennes.  Caesar, Merovech, Charlemagne, Salians-Ottonians, Angevins-Capetians, Guelphs-Ghibellines, Hapsburg-Valois, Bourbons, Napoleon, Avignon-Rome, Cluny-Citeaux, Cathars-Catholics, Huguenots-Romans.

The rest of Europe has been victim to the mayhem of that corridor for 2000 years and more.

That is where a "political union" is most needed.  The rest of Europe is much more "accommodating". Their history is one of the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire), Burgundy and the Hanseatic League. 
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on January 06, 2017, 15:07:03
Interesting historical comparison between the Brexit and the repeal of the Corn Laws. Sadly, in these times, the political parties who supported the repeal of the Corn Laws are ow firmly against the Brexit:

https://fee.org/articles/brexit-is-like-repealing-the-corn-laws-all-over-again/

Quote
Brexit Is Like Repealing the Corn Laws All Over Again
Paul Marshall
Thursday, January 05, 2017
 
Of all my uplifting reading over the Christmas period, none was more so than John Morley’s great “Life of Richard Cobden”. One great Liberal’s biography of another. It is uplifting not only because of the quality of the writing but also because of the many parallels between the Repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and Britain’s decision to leave the European Union in 2016.

Germany lacks the military ambitions of 1830s Prussia, but it is following the game plan of the Zollverein in most respects.

Cobden rose from modest beginnings as the son of a Sussex farmer to become a highly successful Stockport manufacturer of calico and one of the co-founders, with John Bright, of the Anti-Corn-Law League.

He was a great traveller, eager to learn from the lessons of rivals and neighbours. In 1838, he undertook a month’s tour of Germany, paying particular attention to the workings of the Zollverein, the customs union established in 1833 under the leadership of Prussia.

The parallels between the Zollverein and today’s EU are striking, especially in so far as they relate to Prussia (then) and Germany (now). Here is what he wrote:

“The effect of the League must be to throw the preponderating influence over thirty millions of people into the hands of the Cabinet of Berlin. By the terms of the Union, the money is to be collected and paid by Prussia; a very little financial skill will very easily make the smaller states the pensioners of the paymaster. Already…Prussia…is said to be two millions out of pocket …owing to her having guaranteed the smaller partners certain amounts of revenue. Besides the power that such a post of treasurer will confer upon Prussia, other causes must tend to weaken the influence of lesser states’ governments…..A common standard of weights and measures, as well as money, is preparing, and these being assimilated….what shall prevent this entire family of one common language….from merging into one nation?”

Ring any bells? Of course the eurozone does not speak one language and it has many more divergent cultures than the members of the Zollverein. So the process will take longer. But the process is the same: first the customs union, then a single currency, then merged sovereignty. What Cobden prescribed for Britain was global free trade and an end to protection.

Germany today does not have any of the military ambitions of 1830s Prussia. But it is following the game plan of the Zollverein in most other respects. Poorer states are guaranteed income transfers (with Brussels taking a commission along the way). The ECB distorts monetary policy to keep alive the most indebted governments. And the “influence of lesser states’ governments” has been weakened to the point of installing puppets in Italy and Greece. We already know that the eurozone will eventually face the choice between full fiscal union or enduring a series of state defaults.

Cobden did not have any animus against the Zollverein. That was Germany’s business. But he certainly didn’t take it as a model. Instead, what he prescribed for Britain was global free trade and an end to protection.

That was also Britain’s choice in 2016. Would we continue to subscribe to a customs union which imposed tariffs of up to 30 per cent on agricultural products from Africa and prevented us from striking free-trade agreements with the developing (and developed) world? Or would we choose to break free and restore our status as the world’s beacon of free trade?

Thankfully we chose the latter.

In 1846, the Repeal of the Corn Laws opened up a new era of unparalleled prosperity for this country based on the expansion of trade. Hopefully, Brexit will do the same as we gain access to the developing world for our service industries in return for opening up our agricultural markets.

Yet the Liberal “Democrats” have set their face firmly, not only against the democratic will of the people but also against our re-opening to the world. Vince Cable, for one, must feel conflicted. In his contribution to the Orange Book (which I edited with David Laws in 2004), he described the Common Agricultural Policy as “an economic, environmental and moral disgrace”.

Not much has been done to reform it since then so presumably his views haven’t changed.

The only disgrace today is that the Liberal Democrats have so lost touch with their roots that they have subordinated all policy making to their infatuation with an undemocratic regional customs union. Cobden will be turning in his grave.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2017, 02:43:42
A penny drops:

“The way to combat populism is to be popular, be popular and you can solve issues.”

Pierre Moscovici, Socialist of France – EU Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/756284/EU-economy-worse-great-depression-Joseph-Stiglitz-Davos
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2017, 02:48:11
“Not all those who vote for populist ideas are the bad guys.

“In most cases they are good guys, they are fellow citizens and they have real concerns about the future of their children, jobs opportunity, concerns about security.”

Pier Carlo Padoan - Italy’s finance minister speaking at Davos

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/756534/davos-world-economic-forum-brexit-italy-pier-carlo-padoan-trump


Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on January 21, 2017, 18:17:06
"Events, dear boy, events."

Quote
What does President Trump do to Brexit?
James Forsyth
 
21 January 2017
10:32 AM

With Theresa May expected to head to Washington next week to see President Trump, I have a look at what the Trump presidency might mean for Brexit in my Sun column this morning. Despite his protectionist rhetoric, on full show again yesterday, Donald Trump is keen on a US / UK trade agreement. He has told people that he would like to get personally involved in negotiating the deal. I understand that his transition team has done more work on it than they have for any other agreement.

Squaring the circle between Trump’s protectionist rhetoric and his enthusiasm for a US / UK deal isn’t as hard as it first looks. The UK is not one of the low wage economies that Trump rails against the US doing deals with. It is hard to imagine that a trade deal with the UK would be seen to threaten job losses in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin—the states that delivered Trump the presidency. So, a US/UK trade deal during the Trump presidency does look possible.

One consequence of Trump’s election is that Britain is more important to Europe’s security than it has been for sixty odd years. His alarmingly ambivalent attitude to Nato and his desire for better relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia despite its actions, means that democratic European countries can be less sure of America’s protection than at any time since the founding of Nato.

The new president has also reversed US policy towards the EU. For sixty years, Washington has—often unthinkingly—supported European integration. But Trump has changed that; he and his team prefer strong nation states to big, supranational organisations. He talks about how other countries will follow the UK out of the EU and is planning to appoint a Brexit backer to be the US’s ambassador to the EU.

Trump’s hostility has rattled EU leaders. I understand that when Theresa May spoke to Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk after her Brexit speech on Tuesday, they both brought up Trump’s comments about other countries leaving the EU. They both stressed how pleased they were that May had made clear that she wanted the EU to succeed.

This has been a major factor in the constructive EU reaction to May’s speech; Tusk compared it to Churchill’s vision of Britain and Europe. It opens-up the possibility of a sensible Brexit deal. This would see Britain outside the EU but bolstering it on security as it tries to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat and Russian aggression. The relationship would be underpinned by continued, close trading links between the UK and the EU.

If Britain can secure free trade deals with both the US and the EU, then this country would have a real chance to secure a more prosperous future for itself.

From today's Spectator.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/president-trump-brexit/

Trump has just strengthened May's hand immeasurably.   Europe needs an interlocutor and it needs a defender.  May is quite willing to be both......from outside of the EU.

Loose ends need to be tidied up quickly.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on February 10, 2017, 13:24:23
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/

From the "Mastermind" of the Vote Leave campaign - In sum: history as bunch of small things and random chance.  Best of luck!

Quote

I am not clever, I have a hopeless memory, and have almost no proper ‘circle of competence’. I made lots of mistakes in the campaign. I have had success in building and managing teams. This success has not relied on a single original insight of any kind. It comes from applying what Charlie Munger calls unrecognised simplicities of effective action that one can see implemented by successful people/organisations.

Effective because they work reliably, simple enough that even I could implement them, and ‘unrecognised’ because they are hiding in plain sight but are rarely stolen and used. I found 10-15 highly motivated people who knew what they were doing and largely left them to get on with it while stopping people who did not know what they were doing interfering with them, we worked out a psychologically compelling simple story, and we applied some simple management principles that I will write about another time. It is hard to overstate the relative importance in campaigns of message over resources. Our success is an extreme example given the huge imbalance in forces on either side. In many ways Trump’s victory has little resemblance to what we did but in this respect he is another example.

We also got lucky.

Quote
In January 2014 I left the Department for Education and spent the next 18 months away from politics. A few days after the 2015 election I wrote a blog about Michael Gove’s new job touching on the referendum. When I wrote it I assumed I would carry on studying and would not be involved in it. About ten days later I was asked by an assortment of MPs, rich businessmen, and campaigners including Matthew Elliott to help put together an organisation that could fight the referendum. I was very reluctant and prevaricated but ended up agreeing. I left my happy life away from SW1 and spent eight weeks biking around London persuading people to take what was likely to be a car crash career decision – to quit their jobs and join a low probability proposition: hacking the political system to win a referendum against almost every force with power and money in politics. In September we had an office, in October ‘Vote Leave’ went public, in April we were designated the official campaign, 10 weeks later we won.

Quote
I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum.

Quote
A warning. Politics is not a field which meets the two basic criteria for true expertise (see below). An effect of this is that arguments made by people who win are taken too seriously. People in my position often see victory as confirmation of ideas they had before victory but people often win for reasons they never understand or even despite their own efforts. Cameron’s win in 2015 was like this – he fooled himself about some of the reasons why he’d won and this error contributed to his errors on the referendum. Maybe Leave won regardless of or even despite my ideas. Maybe I’m fooling myself like  Cameron. Some of my arguments below have as good an empirical support as is possible in politics (i.e. not very good objectively) but most of them do not even have that. Also, it is clear that almost nobody agrees with me about some of my general ideas. It is more likely that I am wrong than 99% of people who work in this field professionally. Still, cognitive diversity is inherently good for political analysis so I’ll say what I think and others will judge if there’s anything to learn.

Quote
Discussions about things like ‘why did X win/lose?’ are structured to be misleading and I could not face trying to untangle everything. There are strong psychological pressures that lead people to create post facto stories that seem to add up to ‘I always said X and X happened.’ Even if people do not think this at the start they rapidly construct psychologically appealing stories that overwrite memories. Many involved with this extraordinary episode feel the need to justify themselves and this means a lot of rewriting of history. I also kept no diary so I have no clear source for what I really thought other than some notes here and there. I already know from talking to people that my lousy memory has conflated episodes, tried to impose patterns that did not actually exist and so on – all the usual psychological issues. To counter all this in detail would require going through big databases of emails, printouts of appointment diaries, notebooks and so on, and even then I would rarely be able to reconstruct reliably what I thought. Life’s too short.

Quote
It is hard to explain the depth of TV derangement that gobbles up SW1 souls. Much of politics involves very similar tragi-comic scenes re-created by some of the basic atoms of human nature – fear, self-interest and vanity. The years, characters, and contexts change, the atoms shuffle, but the stories are the same year after year, century after century. Delusions and vanity dominate ‘rationality’ and ‘public service’. Progress, when it comes, is driven by the error-correcting institutions of science and markets when political institutions limit the damage done by decision makers at the apex of centralised hierarchies. It rarely comes from those people, and, when it does, it is usually accidental or incidental to their motives.

Quote
Reality has branching histories, not ‘a big why’

Much political analysis revolves around competing simple stories based on one big factor such that, in retrospect, ‘it was always clear that immigration would trump economic interest / Cameron’s negotiation was never going to be enough / there is an unstoppable populist tide’, and so on. Alternatives are quickly thought to have been impossible (even if X argued the exact opposite repeatedly). The big event must have had an equally big single cause. Confirmation bias kicks in and evidence seeming to suggest that what actually happened would happen looms larger. People who are quite wrong quickly persuade themselves they were ‘mostly right’ and ‘had a strong feeling’ unlike, of course, the blind fools around them. Soon our actual history seems like the only way things could have played out. Brexit had to happen. Trump had to win.

You see these dynamics all the time in historical accounts. History tends to present the 1866 war between Prussia and Austria as almost inevitable but historians spend much less time on why Bismarck pulled back from war in 1865 and how he might have done the same in 1866 (actually he prepared the ground so he could do this and he kept the option open until the last minute). The same is true about 1870. When some generals tried to bounce him into a quick preventive war against Russia in the late 1880s he squashed them flat warning against tying the probability of a Great Power war to ‘the passions of sheep stealers’ in the Balkans (a lesson even more important today than then). If he had wanted a war, students would now be writing essays on why the Russo-German War of 1888 was ‘inevitable’. Many portray the war that broke out in August 1914 as ‘inevitable’ but many decisions in the preceding month could have derailed it, just as decisions derailed general war in previous Balkan crises. Few realise how lucky we were to avoid nuclear war during the Cuban Missile crisis (cf. Vasili Arkhipov) and other terrifying near-miss nuclear wars. The whole 20th Century history of two world wars and a nuclear Cold War might have been avoided if one of the assassination attempts on Bismarck had succeeded. If Cohen-Blind’s aim had been very slightly different in May 1866 when he fired five bullets at Bismarck, then the German states would certainly have evolved in a different way and it is quite plausible that there would have been no unified German army with its fearsome General Staff, no World War I, no Lenin and Hitler, and so on. The branching histories are forgotten and the actual branch taken, often because of some relatively trivial event casting a huge shadow (perhaps as small as a half-second delay by Cohen-Blind), seems overwhelmingly probable. This ought to, but does not, make us apply extreme intelligent focus to those areas that can go catastrophically wrong, like accidental nuclear war, to try to narrow the range of possible histories but instead most people in politics spend almost all their time on trivia.

We evolved to make sense of this nonlinear and unpredictable world with stories. These stories are often very powerful. On one hand the work of Kahneman et al on ‘irrationality’ has given an exaggerated impression. The fact that we did not evolve to think as natural Bayesians does not make us as ‘irrational’ as some argue. We evolved to avoid disasters where the probability of disaster X happening was unknowable but the outcome was fatal. Rationality is more than ‘Bayesian updating’. On the other hand our stories do often obscure the branching histories of reality and they remain the primary way in which history is told. The mathematical models that illuminate complex reality in the physical sciences do not help us much with history yet. Only recently has reliable data science begun to play an important role in politics.

Andrew Marr wrote recently about the referendum with a classic post facto ‘big event must be caused by one big factor’ story:

‘Connected to this is the big “why?”. I don’t think we voted to leave the EU because of clever tacticians or not-quite-clever-enough pollsters, or even because Johnson decided that one of his columns was better than another. I think we voted to leave because so many British people had been left behind economically and culturally for so long, and were furious about it; and because, from the 2008 financial crisis onwards, they had accumulated so much contempt for the political elites. In these circumstances any referendum narrows down to a single question: “Are you happy with the way things are?” The answer was “no”.’ Andrew Marr, October 2016.

‘The big why?’ is psychologically appealing but it is a mistake. In general terms it is the wrong way to look at history and it is specifically wrong about the referendum. If it were accurate we would have won by much more than we did given millions who were not ‘happy with the way things are’ and would like to be out of the EU reluctantly voted IN out of fear. Such stories oversimplify and limit thinking about the much richer reality of branching histories.

Much more at the link - as the author said: he would have made it shorter but he didn't have the time.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: dapaterson on March 31, 2017, 11:20:57
Boris Johnson may succeed where Gerry Adams never did: Northern Ireland is talking reunification.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brexit-northern-ireland-don-duncan-1.4045368

Quote
Northern Ireland, the other region of the U.K. that voted overwhelmingly against leaving, has a failed economy and is unable to survive on its own. It currently receives annual funding from London to the tune of $16.5 billion Cdn — so a Scottish-style bid for independence isn't viable. Yet there are mounting calls for Northern Ireland to leave the U.K. and reunite, after 96 years of partition, with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on March 31, 2017, 13:34:51
I'll believe that the day that I see the last protestant church in Belfast close.  :nod:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on March 31, 2017, 14:49:52
Since BREXIT is perhaps the second most public display of the breakdown of the "old order" (President Donald Trump being the first), this article is probably best here. IT speaks to an idea that I have floated in the past; current institutions, social structures and so on are no longer suitable for the current environment of demographic, technological, economic and social changes.

We have no idea what is next (although there are plenty of groups out there who believe their program will fill the gaps), but voters are rea acting angrily with their votes, their wallets and bypassing the gatekeepers in media, academia and the bureaucracy wherever and whenever they can. The collapse of political parties is one sign of the process (the parties no longer have relevant answers to the questions of the day) and on a larger scale, mass movements and even revolutions and wars are part of the process (Occupy, the rise of nationalist parties in Europe, the Arab Spring and the Shiite/Sunni civil war in the Middle East, not to mention increasing Russian and Chinese adventurism). The next decades will be "interesting" in the Chinese sense:

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/03/30/perhaps-before-we-know-it/

Quote
Perhaps Before We Know It
BY RICHARD FERNANDEZ MARCH 30, 2017

What do strategists do when they can't predict the future? Eleanor Roy of the Palm Beach Daily News summarized a talk by former NSA director Michael Hayden warning of a growing level of uncertainty in the world. The old international system is failing from multiple causes, he said, and no one is sure what comes next.

“The system that the world has relied on for self-governance for the last three-quarters of a century is pretty much at the end of its fiscal life,” ... He predicted that not long from now, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Lybia will not exist in the form we know now.

“Frankly, they don’t exist now,” Hayden said. “The only organized military force in Iraq today fighting on behalf of what you and I think of as Iraq are the 5,100 Americans. No one else in that country under arms is fighting for Iraq; they’re fighting for Sunni Iraq, Shia Iraq, Kurdish Iraq, Turkmen Iraq.”

He called the process a natural erosion that can’t be contributed to one factor.

“We’re not just [faced] with fixing the problem of the current system. I’m telling you the current system is going under and cannot survive. It is a macro-tectonic issue here,” Hayden said.

He described Russian President Vladimir Putin as not having “more than a pair of 7s in his hand,” and predicted that Russia soon will be forced to reconcile with its nation’s problem of low life expectancy.

In the face of such warnings naturally we have to do something.  The instinctive reaction of politicians when visibility is poor is to repeat the actions which stabilized things in the past. To bar the same doors.  To brick up the same windows.  Toot the same horn.  Thus they do things like reinforcing NATO defenses on Russia's western border; watch North Korea and China. They try to get a grip on the amorphous problem in the Middle East.

Such steps may help, but none of these precautions are necessarily sufficient when the nature of impending dangers is still unknown. Some experts believe the biggest challenge in any future war is to recognize it has started. "The first day of the next major conflict shouldn’t look like war at all according to William Roper, who runs the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office, or SCO. Instead, imagine a sort of digital collection blitzkrieg, with data-gathering software and sensors setting of alarms left and right as they vacuum up info for a massive AI. Whoever collects the most data on Day One just might win the war before a single shot is fired."

“My prediction for the future is that when we go out to fly planes on the first day of battle, whether they are manned or unmanned, that the purpose of the first day or the second day will not be to go out and destroy enemy aircraft or other systems. It’s to go out, collect data, do data reconnaissance, so that our learning system gets smarter than [the enemy’s],” Roper said Tuesday at an Air Force Association event on Tuesday. “Every day you fly, you get that exponential increase in sophistication.”

Not being able to recognize a threat may seem puzzling at first.  But Bruce Schneier warns that the next attack might come from your refrigerator. "Last year, on October 21, your digital video recorder — or at least a DVR like yours — knocked Twitter off the internet. Someone used your DVR, along with millions of insecure webcams, routers, and other connected devices, to launch an attack that started a chain reaction, resulting in Twitter, Reddit, Netflix, and many sites going off the internet. You probably didn’t realize that your DVR had that kind of power. But it does."

We no longer have things with computers embedded in them. We have computers with things attached to them.
Your modern refrigerator is a computer that keeps things cold. Your oven, similarly, is a computer that makes things hot. An ATM is a computer with money inside. Your car is no longer a mechanical device with some computers inside; it’s a computer with four wheels and an engine. Actually, it’s a distributed system of over 100 computers with four wheels and an engine. And, of course, your phones became full-power general-purpose computers in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced.

We wear computers: fitness trackers and computer-enabled medical devices — and, of course, we carry our smartphones everywhere. ...

This is the classic definition of a robot. We’re building a world-size robot, and we don’t even realize it.

And we don't even realize our cars can turn on us.  Schneier's warning sounds quite ominous, but should we relax because the William Roper plans another world-sized robot to find out what is attacking us on the day?  It's all contingent on our finding out in time.  Thus Michael Hayden's observation that the current world is eroding proves less helpful than it seems is because no one can quite say what is approaching behind the fog of future developments.

Perhaps one reason for the current revolt against giant institutions like the EU, the UN and the Federal government  is a subconscious realization among Western voters that technological and social change has gotten inside the loop of bureaucratic response; that whatever is pounding on the door will prove too fast for the sclerotic central planning bureaucracies to handle.  There is no longer much confidence in the capacity of legacy institutions to identify problems at long range and to intercept them before it's too late.  Perhaps the most frightening thing about the Obama years was how he laughed at "Governor Romney" for warning Russia might be a problem.

They couldn't see it coming.  They couldn't seem to see anything coming.  Consequently the voters have decided to downsize, not necessarily in the interests of quality leadership but to optimize for reaction time; to appoint someone who will actually act -- even in error -- before it is too late.

The public may not know precisely what the weathers of the world bring but they misgive the wind they are feeling on their faces. Of course the future may simply bring a gentle breeze, but then you never know.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on April 06, 2017, 17:51:11
Jeremy Warner has it almost right - He is a Remainer now determined to make the best of what he saw as a bad situation.  But the alternative to Globalism is not Isolationism.   That is no more true than asserting that all Liberal voters voted for deficit financing.

The alternative to Globalism is not Isolationism any more than the alternative to Communism is Fascism. 

You can still be a nationalist and believe in free trade and allowing folks into your country for a look around and a pint of beer, and maybe a chat about the next big idea.

The problem arises when those that don't like negotiating with the people they are negotiating with try to undercut the negotiator by going directly to his clients. And thus the value of the Canada Pension Plan and the Baby Bonus and why Quebec insisted on being unique.

Quote
Global Britain or isolationist island? Brexit has set us up for a monumental clash of ideas
JEREMY WARNER
Jeremy Warner 6 APRIL 2017 • 8:46PM

There have always been two types of globalisation – one driven by integrationist intent and the other by the holy grail of free trade. The first is best represented by the European Union, essentially a form of top-down suppression of national sovereignty in pursuit of the supposed nirvana of a world without borders.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that nobody much likes this kind of globalisation, with the exception, that is, of the international elites that preside over it.

In this sense, the votes for Brexit and Trump have much in common. Both represent a rejection of an imagined utopia of economic integration, policed by global government. The idea is well intentioned, even admirable in some respects, but many Westerners have come to believe they are being made to pay far too high a price for its supposed benefits.
 
In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump promised: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first”. Theresa May tiptoed around much the same narrative in her party conference speech last October. Britain would take back control over its own destiny, she said, and then, more pointedly, “If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.”

I was in Washington at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund when Mrs May made her remarks. They could have been directed specifically at this gathering of global policy elites. Many imagined they were. The reaction was one of horror; their world, seventy years of post-war liberalisation in the making, appeared to be crumbling before their eyes. As the economist Stephen King puts it in a compellingly argued new book on the retreat from globalisation – Grave New World; the End of Globalisation and the Return of History –  “Isolationism is, once again, becoming a credible political alternative. Without it, there would have been no Brexit and no Trump.”

Yet for those who listened beyond the nativist soundbites of Mrs May’s speech, there was also an entirely different message. We were leaving the EU, she said, in order to more effectively pursue the goal of a “global Britain”, one of sovereign nations trading freely with one another for mutual benefit.

It is not isolationism, but this second, more market driven vision of globalisation that the UK Government pretends to champion. And to give them their due, ministers are setting about it with gusto; an exhausting programme of international travel has been put in train. For Philip Hammond, it was Germany last week and India this. Despots or democrats, it matters not; for Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, it was off to Manila to talk about “shared values” with the self-confessed killer, President Duterte. And for Mrs May, it was a whistle stop tour of the Middle East, ending with the golden goose of Saudi Arabia.

Singapore; for some Brexiteers, Singapore is an economic model Britain should aspire to post Brexit, but this is not what many people thought they were voting for

This is a very different form of globalisation to the creeping subjugation of the nation state represented by the EU. Even so it is almost bound to be in conflict with the isolationist instincts of many of those who voted for Brexit. Like all successful political movements, Brexit was a grand coalition of forces, in this case between the overtly populist, anti-immigrant and protectionist at one extreme and of libertarian idealism at the other. As a pragmatist, and during the referendum campaign, reluctant Remainer, Mrs May appreciates only too well the challenges of squaring the circle. There was and remains a monumental clash of ideas at the centre of the case for Brexit.

All free trade negotiations with India, for instance, start with a demand from India for a lot more work permits. That’s not going to sit happily with many of those who voted for Brexit. It is, moreover, a very odd champion of global free trade that starts by repudiating it with its near neighbours, as inevitably will be the case if we end up with the threatened “no deal” with the EU.

Perhaps the closest thing to the completely open, global facing economy the Government aspires to is Singapore. We can applaud the low tax, small state model Singaporeans have carved out for themselves over the past fifty years, but I doubt the discipline and self-reliance of their approach holds many attractions for large parts of the UK electorate. In achieving its growth, Singapore has seen levels of immigration which make Britain’s seem trivial; nearly a third of the population is foreign.

International trade is in the long run always good for the economy; it’s a great engine of change and progress. But inevitably, there are casualties; many workers will find themselves displaced by the low cost foreign competition it gives rise to.

The row over Gibraltar is fortuitous for the Government in some respects. It frames the EU as the enemy, and therefore helps mobilise patriotic support against the Brussels machine. But underlying contradictions at the heart of the Brexit bandwagon cannot for ever be swept under the carpet. Sooner or later, they will have to be confronted. The real tests of Mrs May’s leadership still lie ahead.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/06/global-britain-isolationist-island-brexit-has-set-us-monumental/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on April 22, 2017, 18:13:59
While this is about the 2018 election, the sort of insular thinking displayed by not only Hillary but the entire campaign apparatus seems to be in effect on a global scale. If the political, bureaucratic, academic and media classes cannot even define who they are or why they are doing what they do, then it is more than just that the People find spokesmen and leaders who do know what they want to do and why:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-the-new-book-that-brutalizes-the-clinton-campaign-w477978

Quote
Yikes! New Behind-the-Scenes Book Brutalizes the Clinton Campaign
'Shattered,' a campaign tell-all fueled by anonymous sources, outlines a generational political disaster
By  Matt Taibbi

There is a critical scene in Shattered, the new behind-the-scenes campaign diary by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, in which staffers in the Hillary Clinton campaign begin to bicker with one another.

At the end of Chapter One, which is entirely about that campaign's exhausting and fruitless search for a plausible explanation for why Hillary was running, writers Allen and Parnes talk about the infighting problem.

"All of the jockeying might have been all right, but for a root problem that confounded everyone on the campaign and outside it," they wrote. "Hillary had been running for president for almost a decade and still didn't really have a rationale."

Allen and Parnes here quoted a Clinton aide who jokingly summed up Clinton's real motivation:

"I would have had a reason for running," one of her top aides said, "or I wouldn't have run."

The beleaguered Clinton staff spent the better part of two years trying to roll this insane tautology – "I have a reason for running because no one runs without a reason" – into the White House. It was a Beltway take on the classic Descartes formulation: "I seek re-election, therefore I am... seeking re-election."

Shattered is sourced almost entirely to figures inside the Clinton campaign who were and are deeply loyal to Clinton. Yet those sources tell of a campaign that spent nearly two years paralyzed by simple existential questions: Why are we running? What do we stand for?

If you're wondering what might be the point of rehashing this now, the responsibility for opposing Donald Trump going forward still rests with the (mostly anonymous) voices described in this book.

What Allen and Parnes captured in Shattered was a far more revealing portrait of the Democratic Party intelligentsia than, say, the WikiLeaks dumps. And while the book is profoundly unflattering to Hillary Clinton, the problem it describes really has nothing to do with Secretary Clinton.

The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway.

In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters' need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem.

In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry.

This passage describes the mood inside the campaign early in the Iowa race (emphasis mine):

"There wasn't a real clear sense of why she was in it. Minus that, people want to assign their own motivations – at the very best, a politician who thinks it's her turn," one campaign staffer said. "It was true and earnest, but also received well. We were talking to Democrats, who largely didn't think she was evil."

Our own voters "largely" don't think your real reason for running for president is evil qualified as good news in this book. The book is filled with similar scenes of brutal unintentional comedy.

In May of 2015, as Hillary was planning her first major TV interview – an address the campaign hoped would put to rest criticism Hillary was avoiding the press over the burgeoning email scandal – communications chief Jennifer Palmieri asked Huma Abedin to ask Hillary who she wanted to conduct the interview. (There are a lot of these games of "telephone" in the book, as only a tiny group of people had access to the increasingly secretive candidate.)

The answer that came back was that Hillary wanted to do the interview with "Brianna." Palmieri took this to mean CNN's Brianna Keilar, and worked to set up the interview, which aired on July 7th of that year.

Unfortunately, Keilar was not particularly gentle in her conduct of the interview. Among other things, she asked Hillary questions like, "Would you vote for someone you didn't trust?" An aide describes Hillary as "staring daggers" at Keilar. Internally, the interview was viewed as a disaster.

It turns out now it was all a mistake. Hillary had not wanted Brianna Keilar as an interviewer, but Bianna Golodryga of Yahoo! News, an excellent interviewer in her own right, but also one who happens to be the spouse of longtime Clinton administration aide Peter Orszag.

This "I said lunch, not launch!" slapstick mishap underscored for the Clinton campaign the hazards of venturing one millimeter outside the circle of trust. In one early conference call with speechwriters, Clinton sounded reserved:

"Though she was speaking with a small group made up mostly of intimates, she sounded like she was addressing a roomful of supporters – inhibited by the concern that whatever she said might be leaked to the press."

This traced back to 2008, a failed run that the Clintons had concluded was due to the disloyalty and treachery of staff and other Democrats. After that race, Hillary had aides create "loyalty scores" (from one for most loyal, to seven for most treacherous) for members of Congress. Bill Clinton since 2008 had "campaigned against some of the sevens" to "help knock them out of office," apparently to purify the Dem ranks heading into 2016.

Beyond that, Hillary after 2008 conducted a unique autopsy of her failed campaign. This reportedly included personally going back and reading through the email messages of her staffers:

"She instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. … She believed her campaign had failed her – not the other way around – and she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who,' said a source familiar with the operation."

Some will say this Nixonesque prying into her staff's communications will make complaints about leaked emails ring a little hollow.

Who knows about that. Reading your employees' emails isn't nearly the same as having an outsider leak them all over the world. Still, such a criticism would miss the point, which is that Hillary was looking in the wrong place for a reason for her 2008 loss. That she was convinced her staff was at fault makes sense, as Washington politicians tend to view everything through an insider lens.

Most don't see elections as organic movements within populations of millions, but as dueling contests of "whip-smart" organizers who know how to get the cattle to vote the right way. If someone wins an election, the inevitable Beltway conclusion is that the winner had better puppeteers.

The Clinton campaign in 2016, for instance, never saw the Bernie Sanders campaign as being driven by millions of people who over the course of decades had become dissatisfied with the party. They instead saw one cheap stunt pulled by an illegitimate back-bencher, foolishness that would be ended if Sanders himself could somehow be removed.

"Bill and Hillary had wanted to put [Sanders] down like a junkyard dog early on," Allen and Parnes wrote. The only reason they didn't, they explained, was an irritating chance problem: Sanders "was liked," which meant going negative would backfire.

Hillary had had the same problem with Barack Obama, with whom she and her husband had elected to go heavily negative in 2008, only to see that strategy go very wrong. "It boomeranged," as it's put in Shattered.

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation – i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

They were determined not to make the same mistake in 2016. Here, the thought process of campaign chief Robby Mook is described:

"Mook knew that Hillary viewed almost every early decision through a 2008 lens: she thought almost everything her own campaign had done was flawed and everything Obama's had done was pristine."

Since Obama had spent efficiently and Hillary in 2008 had not, this led to spending cutbacks in the 2016 race in crucial areas, including the hiring of outreach staff in states like Michigan. This led to a string of similarly insane self-defeating decisions. As the book puts it, the "obsession with efficiency had come at the cost of broad voter contact in states that would become important battlegrounds."

If the ending to this story were anything other than Donald Trump being elected president, Shattered would be an awesome comedy, like a Kafka novel – a lunatic bureaucracy devouring itself. But since the ending is the opposite of funny, it will likely be consumed as a cautionary tale.

Shattered is what happens when political parties become too disconnected from their voters. Even if you think the election was stolen, any Democrat who reads this book will come away believing he or she belongs to a party stuck in a profound identity crisis. Trump or no Trump, the Democrats need therapy – and soon.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on April 22, 2017, 21:30:39
Isn't the thread about Brexit and not the Clinton failures?

I was getting ready to move it when I realised I can't  ;D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on April 22, 2017, 22:00:11
The reason for the Clinton failure seems tied to the larger failures which lead to the BREXIT, the growth of alternative, nationalistic parities across Europe and other issues which the various political, bureaucratic, media and academic classes seem unable to dampen down, explain or understand.

Thinking about voters as "cattle" to be prodded into the correct direction, being unable to come up with a coherent core idea to explain why people should bother to support you, or being unable to recognize that politicians and political movements are being buoyed up by millions of dissatisfied voters and taxpayers speaks to a very profound dysfunction of the various groups of people who presume to rule us or tell us what to do, how to think and act and so on.

We have seen glimmerings of this in Canada as well, from the Reform Party (probably 10 years too early) to the Ford brothers to current CPC leadership contender Kevin O'Leary posturing as a Canadian Donald Trump, so I would not be too quick to dismiss this as not being applicable to Canada, nor be too smug in assuming it can't happen here......
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 23, 2017, 22:00:18
The reason for the Clinton failure seems tied to the larger failures which lead to the BREXIT, the growth of alternative, nationalistic parities across Europe and other issues which the various political, bureaucratic, media and academic classes seem unable to dampen down, explain or understand.

Thinking about voters as "cattle" to be prodded into the correct direction, being unable to come up with a coherent core idea to explain why people should bother to support you, or being unable to recognize that politicians and political movements are being buoyed up by millions of dissatisfied voters and taxpayers speaks to a very profound dysfunction of the various groups of people who presume to rule us or tell us what to do, how to think and act and so on.

We have seen glimmerings of this in Canada as well, from the Reform Party (probably 10 years too early) to the Ford brothers to current CPC leadership contender Kevin O'Leary posturing as a Canadian Donald Trump, so I would not be too quick to dismiss this as not being applicable to Canada, nor be too smug in assuming it can't happen here......


I see where Thucydides is heading, and I agree that it and Brexit and Marine LePen are all part of a bigger "problem:" misunderstanding populism.

I am the first to admit that I have, seriously, misjudged populism, in its various forms. I expected the Albertans to elect Jim Prentice, backed as he was by Danielle Smith ~ I really didn't see why anyone would vote for an untested NDP in uncertain times; boy was I wrong. I expected the Canadian general election to be a hard fought race between Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair ~ once again I was seriously wrong; I totally misread the mood of the electorate and I'm still puzzled about why anyone would ever vote for Justin Trudeau to be anything more than 2nd vice president of the senior class. I argued that, however narrowly, the Brits would vote with their heads, not their hearts and remain in the EU ~ wrong again. Although I could not see why anyone would vote for Hillary Clinton I was flummoxed when enough people actually voted for Donald Trump: the world (America and Britain and Canada, anyway) had, it seemed to me, taken leave of its senses. I still have trouble reconciling what happened with what I regard as rationality.

The fact appears to be that the second decade of this century is characterized by the rise of populism or, at least, the (temporary?) demise of "machine politics." Those of us who are interested in history and politics need to take note.


Edit: (3) typos
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Brad Sallows on April 23, 2017, 23:44:49
Another take (https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html) on the roots of Brexit / Trump / intermediate French election result.

One of its themes: populism is on the rise because people who have convinced themselves they have earned (deserve) their positions in the protected class - rather than having been gifted [them] on the foundations of being born with aptitude and some social capital from their parents' achievements - have lost touch with (in some cases outright despise) their fellow citizens.

One "tell": when they congratulate themselves for their open-mindedness, is it because they extend their hands to "different" people in their own social/economic class, or across classes?
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Good2Golf on April 24, 2017, 01:22:48
Another take (https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html) on the roots of Brexit / Trump / intermediate French election result.

One of its themes: populism is on the rise because people who have convinced themselves they have earned (deserve) their positions in the protected class - rather than having been gifted [them] on the foundations of being born with aptitude and some social capital from their parents' achievements - have lost touch with (in some cases outright despise) their fellow citizens.

One "tell": when they congratulate themselves for their open-mindedness, is it because they extend their hands to "different" people in their own social/economic class, or across classes?

A good read; thanks Brad.

It would seem Canada too, has its share of "Bobos." :nod:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on April 24, 2017, 13:40:52
Juliet Samuel, in today's Telegraph, has it about right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/theresa-may-showing-eu-defeating-populism-requires-listening/

Quote
Theresa May is showing the EU that defeating populism requires listening to voters
JULIET SAMUEL
Juliet Samuel 24 APRIL 2017 • 6:01AM


Theresa May's success on a mainstream platform marks her out in Europe

Recently, EU president Jean-Claude Juncker made an odd and revealing remark. Addressing the European Parliament on the topic of Brexit, he declared: “The choice of the British people, however respectable it may be, does not fit into the march of history, not European history and not global history.”

Even now, as Britain prepares to leave and France is dangerously closer to electing an anti-EU, populist firebrand, true Brussels believers cling to a central article of faith: whatever happens, history is on our side. If something should derail the EU project, it is not part of history, but an aberration from its natural order. This mind-set goes a long way towards explaining why the EU is in such a dysfunctional mess.

It is also Britain’s rejection of this doctrine that explains why, in six weeks’ time, a British prime minister is likely to become one of the only leaders in Europe currently able to increase the majority of her mainstream political party, rather than ceding ground to extremists. The key difference is that, for Britain and its political leaders, populist backlashes aren’t “aberrations” of history that need to be kept tightly under control until they blow over. They are symptoms of something that has gone wrong. The British solution to populism is not to dig in, but to listen.
 
This is quite difficult to do if, in your oddly abstract world view, those who object to the pace of change around them are actually outside history. If, from the narrow windows of your airy palace in the clouds, you see history as a metaphysical and perfectible concept, rather than as the result of millions of accumulated actions and reactions performed by real human beings, then it is very hard indeed to accept that something as grubby and stupid as democratic populism should be allowed to alter its course.

Mr Juncker’s assessment of European history, however, is not unusual. It is, in fact, an integral part of EU doctrine. Every step of its development has been couched in terms of a dialectic – thesis and antithesis resulting in a new synthesis.

One of the EU’s founding fathers, Jean Monnet, believed that the EU would be “forged in crises”, each one triggering chain reactions of greater demand for integration. And every project the EU has embarked upon, from enlargement to the euro and free movement, is couched as an irreversible step on the way to full union. Every regulation introduced justifies itself on the principle of “harmonisation”, as if the creation of a single legal edifice is bringing Europe’s nations into tune with nature.

Believing history is on your side is a powerful boost. But it also leads to misjudgments. The dialectic, for example, doesn’t seem to be working the way Monnet predicted. According to one analysis of polling data, called “Monnet’s Error?”, each step forwards in integration actually triggers a drop in support for the EU. This doesn’t “fit”, as Mr Juncker might say.

The logical conclusion one might draw is that the EU theory of history is wrong. And if it is, then popular dissent against it cannot be dismissed as the dying throes of a retrograde faction. Instead, leaders must engage with it, make their case and, if they want to restore support for the EU, give some ground.

This is exactly what Theresa May has done in response to Brexit, even though she didn’t support it. She understood that Brexit voters are not to be insulted, pitied or ignored. Their view on the country’s direction is not an inconvenience or aberration; it is actually the stuff that makes a democracy.

Reading the will of an electorate isn’t always easy. Mrs May has, though, drawn the right conclusions. Voters are not happy with the pace of change and they are concerned not just with hard, economic matters, as a Marxist would suppose, but also with the dramatic cultural shifts they see around them. And because Mrs May was so ready and clear about her acceptance of that message, she will now be able to make the case for some compromises when it comes to striking a deal with Brussels. Rather than leading us off into a crazed populist mania, as many EU types claimed she was doing in her first months, she has created space for moderation.

What Mrs May understood is that listening to voters isn’t conditional upon their agreement with a particular agenda. Of course, nor does it mean pandering to the mob’s every whim or indulging racist demands made by a hard core of populist loudmouths. Too many liberals are determined to conflate the views of such extremists with the broader discontent expressed by the mass of voters. But assuming that all populist voters are morally beyond the pale is just another way of excluding them from the debate. They are seen to be “on the wrong side of history”, and therefore irrelevant.

For the EU, this approach has been a political disaster. It has relied on the apparently self-evident excellence of its project to propel it forwards. But that isn’t working. The share of the vote being picked up by Europe’s centrist, pro-EU parties is in decline. That is why they often have to govern by grand coalitions of the main centre-Right and centre-Left parties, creating the sense that mainstream politics only permits stiflingly narrow debates.

A month after Britain voted for Brexit, the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy spoke at an event in London. Knowing him to be staunchly pro-EU, I expected a tirade against Britain’s folly. Instead, he was full of sorrow for the EU. “Europe without the UK might be an impossible situation,” he declared, “[suffering] a loss of spirit and life that might be fatal.”

The spirit he meant was Britain’s ability to translate popular feeling into democratic politics. Not the rule of the mob or governance by constant referendum, as Brussels’ leaders fear, but the wisdom of leaders to read the public mood and respond, knowing how to execute that peculiar mix of leading and following required of politicians. The EU’s leaders have been relying instead on a philosophical fantasy. What they will see, when Britain votes in a strengthened Tory government, is that a good leader knows when to fight and when to retreat and, in doing so, slays the populist dragon.

In an article, also in the Telegraph but a couple of days ago, Harry de Quetteville, the Telegraph's principal French correspondent noted this about France

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/22/france-revolutionary-mood-weekends-election-will-bring-turmoil/

Quote
there is no doubt that France today does feel critically unsettled, and that a sense of crisis appears to be overwhelming the fiercely unyielding, centralised state which is so crucial to dictating both national security and the very essence of what it means to be French. As France goes to the polls, both those pillars of government authority appear to be crumbling.

To start with, France’s intelligence agencies seem incapable of guaranteeing the safety of the people. This is no criticism. Clearly they are faced by an immense challenge, and do not share the obvious security advantage that we in Britain enjoy by being an island.

But France is now a country where presidential candidates are instructed to wear bullet-proof vests to rallies, where the Champs-Elysees is struck days before a crucial poll, and where security advice to citizens can sometimes simply amount to a vague “stay off the streets”.

Some 239 people have been killed by terrorism in France since the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015. If the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens then, when it cannot, voters are of course tempted to reach for alternative remedies at the ballot box, no matter how unpalatable.

The second aspect is yet more fundamental. De Gaulle – him again – may have famously trumpeted dazzling regional variety in France when he asked: “How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?” But the truth is that the French state, since the Revolution, has tried to impose a coherent, unique French identity across the country, rolling it out from a central administration in Paris. On language, culture, and religion France has been intolerant of deviation from the secular, Academie Francaise-imposed norm. And proudly so.

That “our way or the highway” attitude is admirable in many respects. But it does mean that French identity has been far less elastic than British. Arguably, the upshot is that the state has no idea what to do if large numbers of its citizens – especially second and third-generation North and West African Muslim immigrants – reject the classic model of French identity.

Not that any country has the definitive answer to this. But France’s difficulties, because of its history, geography and deeply-ingrained bureaucratic understanding of how to foster national unity, are particularly acute.

Again I reiterate that the issue is one of rule of experts enforcing a Justinian Code built on Platonic Ideal versus the messy business of accommodating your neighbour in parliament so as to avoid coming to blows.

Europe has sorted itself geographically over the millennia into regions of accommodation and regions where the Platonic Ideal is demanded.  Curiously, in my opinion, those Platonic regions are also the regions where the locals are most likely to ignore the experts as they argue and create evermore rules and regulations, and just get on with their lives.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on April 24, 2017, 13:50:23
Related.

Quote
'POWER GRABBING' May SCOLDED by EU bureaucrat who claims election 'WILL NOT help Brexit'

THE EU’S Brexit coordinator Guy Verhofstadt has condemned Theresa May as a “power-grabbing opportunist” and claimed the election result will not help Brexit talks.

By VINCENT WOOD
PUBLISHED: 00:06, Sun, Apr 23, 2017 | UPDATED: 01:08, Sun, Apr 23, 2017
   
The Europhile said Britain’s political climate had descended into “surrealism” after Theresa May’s decision to ask “the British people how they would like their full English Brexit served”.

But he claimed the results of the June 8 snap election has nothing to do with Brexit.

He said: “It appears this election is being driven by the opportunism of the party in government, rather than by the people they represent.

He claimed the results of the June 8 snap election will make no impact on Brexit

“We can safely presume that by calling this election, Theresa May does not wish to throw into doubt the result of the referendum, but to solidify her support.”

Verhofstadt, who said earlier this month the relationship between Britain and the bloc was “never a love affair”, claimed the election was just an extension of the “Tory cat fight” which led to the EU referendum.

Writing in the Observer he added: “As with the referendum, which many European leaders saw as a Tory cat fight that got out of control, I have little doubt many on the continent see this election as again motivated by the internal machinations of the Tory party.

“What has been billed as a ‘Brexit election’ is an attempted power grab by the Tories, who wish to take advantage of a Labour party in seeming disarray to secure another five years of power before the reality of Brexit bites.

“Will the election of more Tory MPs give May a greater chance of securing a better Brexit deal? For those sitting around the table in Brussels, this is an irrelevance.

“British officials will represent the people of the UK in the negotiations, regardless of the number of Tory MPs.”


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/795276/General-Election-2017-Theresa-May-Guy-Verhofstadt-Brexit-news-EU-European-Union

Sorry for the usual Daily Express hyperbole but the final, highlighted paragraph, in my mind, says it all.  In keeping with both Samuels and deQuetteville's opinion above, here we have a strong supporter of the EU, and a member of the European Parliament, explicitly stating that parliament doesn't matter because the bureaucrats will be making the deal.

And in that lies a gap wider than the Channel and probably wider than the Atlantic.  But, unfortunately for Canada, is a gap that we find in Ottawa and that exists between Calgary and Montreal.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 24, 2017, 14:59:19
The French economy is a mess... no wonder they're looking for change.

But, I wonder, what would they be willing to give up to get it? I don't see them kicking the 'soft life' into touch anytime soon....

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39656069
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on April 24, 2017, 15:38:55
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/french-presidential-election-polls-finally-got-right-calling/

There is a fascinating map there that suggests that LePen may do better in round 2 and, that her party may do well in June.  It is fascinating because of how the lines seem to mirror all sorts of ancient cleavages in France

Les Bleus

Franks
Merovingians
Carolingians
Capetians
Burgundians
Cistercians
Gallicans

Les Rouges

Gauls
Visgoths
Angevins
Cluniacs
Cathars
Huguenots

With Paris as a Movable Feast, well worth a mass.

Edit: Forgot one.  The Gauls.  Add them to Les Rouges



Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on May 30, 2017, 13:05:38
Same map, again apologies for the spamming, but this map also provides insight into the EU, the Brexit Negotiations, potential trade agreements, and the value of the Brits to the EU and vice versa.

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viewsoftheworld.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fgdp2015.jpg&hash=a9b4d5c77c291a5cdd19c5ed9b0b17fe)

Britain is a big country.

Western Europe and Eastern Europe are different countries

Japan is also a big country.

China is biggish but there are a lot of people wanting to share the pie.

Canada, India and Australia are not so big.

British money, Canadian and Australian resources, Indian labour.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 08, 2017, 21:19:17
Election night chaos with the possibility of a hung Parliament.Tories may have lost their majority.If this happens maybe no Brexit.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 08, 2017, 21:38:48
Looks like they're going to be in the hurt locker.  No doubt she feels like Harper felt on election night.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Retired AF Guy on June 08, 2017, 21:41:43
Election night chaos with the possibility of a hung Parliament.Tories may have lost their majority.If this happens maybe no Brexit.

Still a lot of confusion because the predictions are based on exit polls which could be wrong. As for Brexit, I think that horse has already bolted the barn - there is no going back.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 09, 2017, 02:31:19
Latest from BBC attached - 641/650 seats reporting with Team Blue:  UK in a minority (source (http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results)).

If the Tories couldn't make all the changes they wanted under their majority, wonder how easy it'll be if it ends up a minority again?

:pop:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 09, 2017, 08:29:44
And the latest (source (https://twitter.com/AFP/status/873138858149498880)) ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 09, 2017, 09:11:33
Meh....

Democracy.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on June 09, 2017, 10:48:41
Looks like a Tory- DUP government.DUP is a fan of Brexit. May should not have called for an election, she had 3 more years before the next election.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 09, 2017, 12:08:32
Looks like a Tory- DUP government.DUP is a fan of Brexit. May should not have called for an election, she had 3 more years before the next election.

That was then.  This is now. 

The only thing you can say for sure is it is time to pull your investments in pollsters, pundits and prognosticators.

The gods laugh.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: FJAG on June 09, 2017, 17:55:19
Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 09, 2017, 21:18:28
At least they wouldn't be contesting the original text....
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 09, 2017, 22:31:46
I'm enjoying the photos of Lord Buckethead running against May in her riding.  And Elmo, too.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: cavalryman on June 09, 2017, 23:04:11
Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".

 :cheers:

And yet it still sounds more sensible than the NDP's LEAP manifesto  [:D
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: FJAG on June 10, 2017, 00:02:08
And yet it still sounds more sensible than the NDP's LEAP manifesto  [:D

True that although a bit apple and oranges.  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 10, 2017, 12:13:57
Both require faith.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: milnews.ca on June 10, 2017, 20:35:25
Had to chuckle. Read an article in one of the UK papers that I follow that said that the DUP's basic political platform is "basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections".
That, and wanting to keep Northern Ireland British. 

With them being the king makers, I wonder how easy this guy's (https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-northern-ireland) job's going to be?  Especially with a Northern Ireland-Ireland border that's used to being a lot more easy to get through lately than it used to be during The Troubles.  Not to mention that whole flag fracas (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20651163).

Interesting times, indeed ...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Thucydides on July 24, 2017, 18:22:56
The EU makes the case against itself in trying to discredit the UK's negotiating team. It seems lack of self awareness permeates much of the globalist Political and Bureaucratic classes:

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/eu-authoritarianism-complexity/

Quote
The EU: Authoritarianism Through Complexity
By George Friedman

In recent weeks, EU negotiators have claimed that the British negotiators of Brexit are not sufficiently sophisticated to understand the complex issues being dealt with, and that, in essence, it is frustrating for EU negotiators to deal with unskilled negotiators. I have found that dealing with unskilled negotiators has frequently created opportunities for me, but apparently the EU wants to have a better team to play against.

A great deal of this is, of course, political maneuvering. The EU desperately wants to avoid a British withdrawal from the bloc. By making this charge, it hopes to discredit the British negotiating team and sow distrust between the British public and the negotiators. Implicit in what is being said is that the British team is going to fail to get a good deal for Britain, and that therefore the risks of Brexit for Britain are pyramided. Why the EU wouldn’t keep this fact secret, and negotiate a superb deal for itself, is a mystery, but the posture is almost that the EU wants to save the British from their own stupidity.

It’s not a bad maneuver, but it unravels at a certain point. The British team consists of well-educated and experienced civil servants. In claiming that this team is not up to the task of understanding the complexities of EU processes and regulations, the EU has made the strongest case possible against itself. If these people can’t readily grasp the principles binding Britain to the EU, then how can mere citizens understand them? And if the principles are beyond the grasp of the public, how can the public trust the institutions? We are not dealing here with the complex rules that allow France to violate rules on deficits but on the fundamental principles of the European Union and the rights and obligations – political, economic and moral – of citizens. If the EU operating system is too complex to be grasped by British negotiators, then who can grasp it?

The EU’s answer to this is that the Maastricht treaty, a long and complex document, can best be grasped by experts, particularly by those experts who make their living by being Maastricht treaty experts. These experts and the complex political entities that manage them don’t think they have done a bad job managing the European Union. In spite of the nearly decadelong economic catastrophe in Southern Europe, they are content with their work. In their minds, the fault generally lies with Southern Europe, not the EU; the upheaval in Europe triggered by EU-imposed immigration rules had to do with racist citizens, not the EU’s ineptness; and Brexit had to do with the inability of the British public to understand the benefits of the EU, not the fact that the benefits were unclear and the rules incomprehensible. The institutionalized self-satisfaction of the EU apparatus creates a mindset in which the member publics must live up to the EU’s expectations rather than the other way around.

The EU has become an authoritarian regime insisting that it is the defender of liberal democracy. There are many ways to strip people and governments of their self-determination. The way the EU has chosen is to create institutions whose mode of operation is opaque and whose authority cannot be easily understood. Under those circumstances, the claim to undefined authority exercised in an opaque manner becomes de facto authoritarianism – an authoritarianism built on complexity. It is a complexity so powerful that the British negotiating team is deemed to be unable to grasp the rules.

In essence, the British position seems simple. The U.K. wants to be part of a European free trade zone, modified again like it has been in the past. It wants to determine its own fate rather than be governed by the EU. If there is to be aid to member states, then it will be voted on by the Parliament. In other words, they do not want to disrupt trade. Nor do they want to be governed by a system that doesn’t work very well.

So long as the British negotiating team plays by EU rules, it will lose. The myriad points of darkness that make up the vast complexity of the EU structure cannot be negotiated. In part, they exist so that they cannot be understood. If the British negotiators start with the elegant institutional and moral principles that frame their unwritten constitution, they can present the terms under which they will work with the EU. Not to worry – the Germans won’t stop trading with the British. They can’t stop, and the British will have the upper hand if they employ British aplomb and remember that excluding Britain from the free trade zone is not an option for the EU. From there, it is simple.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2017, 19:15:59
I hear the voice of Humphrey -   


Quote
Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years

A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.

By LARA DEAUVILLE
PUBLISHED: 16:01, Fri, Nov 24, 2017 | UPDATED: 17:43, Fri, Nov 24, 2017
   
Almost all of the shocking predictions – from the loss of British sovereignty, to monetary union and the over-arching powers of European courts – have come true.

But damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.

That last detail was the only thing the disgraceful paper – prepared for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) – got wrong.

This 1971 document shows exactly what the plan was

The unknown author – a senior civil servant – correctly predicted the then European Economic Community (the EEC effectively became the EU in 1993) was headed for economic, monetary and fiscal union, with a common foreign and defence policy, which would constitute the greatest surrender of Britain’s national sovereignty since 1066.

He went on to say “Community law” would take precedence over our own courts and that ever more power would pass away from Parliament to the bureaucratic system centred in Brussels.

The author even accurately asserts that the increased role of Brussels in the lives of the British people would lead to a “popular feeling of alienation from Government”.

But shockingly politicians were advised “not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures… to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”.

Prime Minister Edward Heath kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s

They were told to preserve the impression that the British Government was still calling the shots rather than an unelected body of foreign politicians – and that the ruse would last “for this century at least” – by which time Britain would be so completely chained to Brussels it would be impossible to leave.

Document FCO30/1048, which has now been declassified under the 30-year rule, still shocks and angers Brexiteers.

Annabelle Sanderson, a Brexit expert and former advisor to Nigel Farage said: “Despite all the claims from politicians of many parties that the EU was not about becoming a central state this 1971 document shows that is exactly what the plan was.

“Arch Remoaners from Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories need to check this out and ask themselves why they are MPs if they don’t actually want Westminster to be in charge of this country.

“We voted for Brexit what needs to happen is a proper clean break from Brussels so we can once again become a sovereign nation with money being spent in this country on services we need and have Parliament and courts making and ruling on the laws.”

Document FCO30/1048 still shocks and angers Brexiteers

The writer and journalist Christopher Booker, one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, said: “Here was a civil servant advising that our politicians should connive in concealing what Heath was letting us in for, not least in hiding the extent to which Britain would no longer be a democratic country but one essentially governed by unelected and unaccountable officials.

“One way to create an illusion that this system was still democratic, this anonymous mandarin suggested, would be to give people the chance to vote for new representatives at European, regional and local levels.

“A few years later, we saw the creation of an elected European Parliament – as we see today a craze for introducing elected mayors, as meaningless local figureheads.”

The pro-Europe Sir Edward Heath was leader of the Conservative Party from 1965 to 1975.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2017, 19:19:00
And this -

Quote
'No EU-UK deal? It is not the end of the world', says WTO chief

 Liam Halligan
25 NOVEMBER 2017 • 9:43PM

Roberto Azevedo is not your typical Brazilian. Quietly spoken, and instinctively cautious, the director general of the World Trade Organisation is a career diplomat to his well-manicured fingertips. While a highly effective communicator – fluent in four languages – he belies the national stereotype for flair and flamboyance.

Azevedo, though, is a major figure on the global political stage – by far and away the most important trade diplomat on earth. As such, he’s been taking a keen interest in, and has some interesting thoughts on, the UK’s Article 50 negotiations with the EU.

.... If Britain fails to strike a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU ahead of March 2019, when we’re scheduled to leave, then UK-EU trade reverts to WTO rules. While some claim this would be a disaster, not least parliamentarians determined to frustrate Brexit, Azevedo disagrees.

“About half of the UK’s trade is already on WTO terms – with the US, China and several large emerging nations where the EU doesn’t have trade agreements,” he says. “So it’s not the end of the world if the UK trades under WTO rules with the EU.”

"If you don’t have a fully functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs – but it’s not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageable"

Acknowledging that an FTA would be best, with WTO rules involving reciprocal UK-EU tariffs, Azevedo still gainsays the gloom-mongers. “If you don’t have a fully functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs – but it’s not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageable.”

He points out that to maintain current levels of access in nations where the EU has already struck FTAs, the UK will need to negotiate new agreements with such countries after Brexit. But won’t the fact that EU agreements already exist with such countries help the UK to reach such deals? “Trade deals are always complex,” says Azevedo. “But it may be helpful as some of the trade harmonisation is already there – that could act as a shortcut.”

While the EU has cut around 50 FTAs, most are with very small countries. Despite 60 years of trying, Brussels has failed to strike deals with the US, China, Brazil, India and almost all other large economies. Why is this? “Trade deals are difficult but there is an additional complicating factor for the EU, which is agriculture,” says Azevedo. “Once you start negotiating with a big agricultural exporter, they want market access – and, for the EU, that’s a sensitive sector, both politically and economically, a sector that makes itself heard.”

After Brexit, Britain can be more flexible in its approach and quicker to react within the WTO, as you don’t have to coordinate with all the other members of the EU
As the global centre of economic gravity shifts east, multilateral institutions are having to adapt. While Azevedo’s own appointment, in 2013, reflected this shifting balance of power, does he feel there’s further to go? “The WTO was updated with the entry of China in 2001, and Russia in 2012 – two very large and important economies,” he said. “That represents an update – and these members are very active, so the WTO is changing.”

And what difference will the UK make at the WTO, acting as an independent trading nation for the first time since 1973? “I hope Britain will help co-operation among nations – which has always been your traditional approach,” says Azevedo. “The UK has many qualified professionals – and generally liberal views on trade.”

After Brexit, Britain can be “more flexible in its approach and quicker to react within the WTO, as you don’t have to coordinate with all the other members of the EU”, observes Azevedo. “You will lose the weight of the EU as a market, but the UK is by no standards a minor economy or a minor player in the multilateral system.”

As our conversation draws to a close, Azevedo smiles for the first time, revealing a big toothy grin. “I think Britain has an opportunity,” he says, “a chance to contribute in a way that is consistent with the quality of your professionals and the size and importance of your economy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/25/no-eu-uk-deal-not-end-world-says-head-wto/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: FJAG on November 25, 2017, 22:34:43
The latest cost of quitting Brussels? British farmers learn of sprouts crisis because of a shortage of seasonal workers from Europe  ;D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117679/The-latest-cost-quitting-Brussels-sprouts-crisis.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5117679/The-latest-cost-quitting-Brussels-sprouts-crisis.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on December 02, 2017, 11:40:48
A good example of the quality of most Euro MEPs and their thought processes:

EU should 'force UK to give us English language after Brexit', former Italian PM says

The European Union should adopt English as one of its most prominent languages after Brexit because the move would "force" the UK to "give to us one of the very best products of Britain", a former Italian prime minister has said.
Mario Monti, who is also a former EU commissioner, said Europeans "should find ways to upgrade the use of English" in official bodies after Britain's departure from the EU.

The move would serve "two purposes" - forcibly taking one of Britain's "very best products", and increasing the European Union's competitiveness with the UK on the world stage.

The comments prompted raised eyebrows among Eurosceptic Tory MPs, although Peter Bone, a member of the Commons Brexit committee said: "I thank the former prime minister for recognising that English is the language of business and the international language.

"I think that's supposed to be a compliment."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/25/eu-should-force-uk-give-us-english-language-brexit-former-italian/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 30, 2018, 02:10:01
The English Channel: the World's Largest Tank Trap :)


German ambassador: second world war image of Britain has fed Euroscepticism

Exclusive: Peter Ammon says some Brexiters were motivated by a sense of national identity built around UK standing alone

“I spoke to many of the Brexiteers, and many of them said they wanted to preserve a British identity and this was being lost in a thick soup of other identities. Obviously every state is defined by its history, and some define themselves by what their father did in the war, and it gives them great personal pride.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/29/german-ambassador-peter-ammon-second-world-war-image-of-britain-has-fed-euroscepticism
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 16, 2018, 12:31:00
Foreign involvement in internal affairs....


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/15/tory-rebels-leading-britain-towards-brexit-name/

Quote
... are the Tory rebels part of a wider plan to stop Brexit?

While Mr Grieve insists he does not want to stop Brexit, he likes to keep company with those who do.

On Wednesday Mr Grieve attended a meeting at the European Commission’s London headquarters in Smith Square (which was, ironically, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative HQ) convened by avowed opponents of Brexit.

Among the groups represented were Best For Britain, the anti-Brexit group founded by Hungarian-American investor Mr Soros, known as “the man who broke the Bank of England” after he bet against the pound during the 1992 Black Wednesday crisis.

The group has been courting hundreds of MPs that it believes it can convert to its cause of a second referendum. Each one is shown electoral data that “proves” they could increase support in their constituency by backing a second referendum or a “soft” Brexit.

Among the MPs targeted are Conservatives in constituencies with a high number of Labour Remainers: by appealing to those voters, the theory goes, they could scoop up thousands more votes at the next election. Presentations are being held three times a week attended by MPs individually or in groups.

Why this matters is that if Best For Britain succeeds in “turning” enough MPs (and it has a target of recruiting 100), Mrs May could be powerless to stop amendments to forthcoming Brexit-related bills that would achieve what Mr Grieve wants.

And there are many more facets to the well-funded campaign. As MPs geared up to vote on Tuesday, the Financial Times carried a full-page advert urging MPs to defy the Tory whip.

It reproduced the November front page of The Daily Telegraph that described 15 rebels as “The Brexit Mutineers” but replaced the headline with “The Brexit Heroes?”

The advert was paid for by the US-based civil rights campaign group Avaaz, which was founded by two other groups that have together received £1.3 million from Mr Soros.

Nor is Best For Britain the only anti-Brexit group out there. It works in collaboration with eight other groups that all moved onto the same floor of Millbank Tower in Westminster in March, including European Movement UK, Britain For Europe, Scientists for EU, Healthier IN the EU, InFacts, Our Future Our Choice and For Our Future’s Sake.

Once mocked as a disparate group of zealots getting in each other’s way, they are now disciplined, drilled and co-ordinated.

Also sharing the building’s first floor is Open Britain, which includes the People’s Vote campaign and which has organised next Saturday’s march.

It is funded by Roland Rudd, the chairman and founder of the PR company Finsbury who has been dubbed the “Godfather of Remain” and is a close friend of former Labour Cabinet minister Lord Mandelson.

Open Britain has close contact with MPs from all parties, with Mr Grieve, Anna Soubry and the former education minister Nicky Morgan among its former supporters.


Friends and associates .... https://www.americanprogress.org/series/global-progress/view/
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: SeaKingTacco on June 16, 2018, 12:41:45
I guess foreign interference is ok, as long as it is US Progressive causes doing the interfering...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on June 20, 2018, 21:42:40
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/977225/Brexit-news-UK-EU-House-of-Lords-Theresa-May-European-Union-Withdrawal-Bill

The enclosed video clip is classic in its demonstration of British Parliamentary Democracy at its finest.  Sir Humphrey would be pleased.  (As would R.D. Laing for that matter).

For the record, it means that Theresa May continues the battle.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 09, 2018, 19:17:28
The British people voted to leave the EU, but PM May seems to be trying to ignore that.In fact several ministers are leaving her government in opposition.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on July 18, 2018, 20:16:38
As a Brexiteer at heart I feel some stake in this discussion.

At the same time, as I have said upthread, I am immensely proud of the democratic display my mother country is putting on.

It is not efficient.  It is profoundly disconcerting, both to the Brits and the rest of the international community.  But it is considerably better than the alternatives .....

Here we see people within parties, Labour and Tory, voicing and voting their principles in the House.  We see debates in cabinet.  We see cabinet ministers quitting so as to be free to voice opposition to the government.  We see ministers and shadow ministers taking to their preferred newspapers to offer their opinions whole and entire without editorializing by reporters.  We see pundits discussing those opinions.  We see groups forming to oppose peacefully using the legitimate means at their disposal.  We see protests in the public square, petitions to parliament and appeals to the courts. 

What we don't see is blood in the streets....

For the bureaucrats of the world it must be terribly annoying to have all these people interfering with their jobs and making things more difficult for them.... but, for me, it is what democracy looks like.

Precious few trained seals in evidence at Westminster.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 18, 2018, 21:07:59
Too bad the purveyors of our own Westminister application can't do the same.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 06, 2018, 19:41:34
Much has been made of Britain's poor decision with respect to Brexit and how the position outside the EU is so inherently bad that Britain must have a deal other than one based on the WTO.

There are contrary opinions - such as this one -

But the Society opinion is that a deal must be made or Britain will suffer.

William Hague, remainer, former leader of the Conservatives and one time Foreign Secretary, and one suspects strong proponent of May's Chequers Proposal, has today penned a piece in the Telegraph suggesting that Macron needs to move and make a deal with Britain or else

Quote
Within Britain, many of us who have advocated pragmatic solutions to Brexit would switch to calling for this country to maximise its competitive advantage against the rest of Europe in every way possible – open the freeports, make financial regulation more attractive for those locating in the UK and halt payments to the EU budget.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/06/france-key-credible-brexit-deal-macrons-interest-make-happen/

Curiously that is the very argument that the Brexiteers have been making all along - that Britain, freed of the EU regulatory regime, has the tools to remake itself again, prosperously.

Hague's submission seems to me to indicate that the Brexiteers are correct in thinking that even British supporters of the EU, the Remainers, are willing to knee-cap Britain in order to maintain and support the EU regardless of economic costs to Britain.

Pretty hard to get a good deal when the people doing the dealing don't want to be dealing in the first place.

Staff Edit: Removed link, as it lead to user's desktop...
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 10, 2018, 12:43:51
Offered without comment - and quoted in its entirety

Quote
Why is it that so many leading Brexiteers studied history?
Greg Hall
 
 
 
The history boys: Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Arron Banks (Getty)
Greg Hall

11 August 2018

9:00 AM


What do Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dominic Cummings all have in common? They are Brexiteers, of course. Yet little is it known that they all studied history or classics at university. Add to this list John Redwood, Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan, Owen Paterson and Douglas Carswell — some of the most influential Eurosceptic MPs from the past 30 years. Michael Gove may have studied English literature, but as education secretary he sought to establish a ‘narrative of British progress’ in the history curriculum. Boris has written a biography of Winston Churchill and Nick Timothy has written a biography of Joseph Chamberlain. Even two of the so-called ‘Bad Boys of Brexit’, Arron Banks and Nigel Farage, are self-proclaimed history buffs. After claiming that Ancient Rome was ‘destroyed’ by immigration, Banks was called out by classicist Mary Beard, to which he retorted: ‘I studied Roman history extensively — you don’t have a monopoly on history!’ Nigel Farage is a regular visitor to the battlefields and cemeteries of Europe.

Why is this significant? Much has been made by the liberal left of the association between Brexit and nostalgia, whether it be the dream of returning to an imperial past or the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. Take Back Control. And the implication of nostalgia is not a positive one; after all, when the term was first coined it referred to a medical condition. Many opponents of Brexit would argue that Brexiteers do have a medical condition — Anna Soubry has already said that all the banging on about Europe is ‘not particularly good for their [the Brexiteers’] mental health’. It may be nostalgia for some, but for others, such as the Question Time audience member who rebuffed Matt Forde last May, Brexit is about ‘the future not the past’.

And if nostalgia is unhelpful, then so too is amnesia. In the UK our past is not comprehensively taught — hence Gove’s reforms; and when it is, it is often the subject of derision. I am not suggesting that anyone who studied history or has a similar degree is a Brexiteer — far from it in fact. More than 300 prominent historians signed a letter to the Guardian before the referendum encouraging Britain to Remain. Yet it is no coincidence that many of the leading Brexiteers have. Whereas the Declaration of Independence is gospel in America, in the UK only a history graduate like Jacob Rees-Mogg could describe the White Paper agreed at Chequers as ‘the greatest vassalage since King John paid homage to Philip II at Le Goulet in 1200’. The pollsters at Vote Leave decided that ‘Take Back Control’ was the most effective slogan, but what it communicates is the doctrine which the History Boys continue to espouse: parliamentary sovereignty. If you know your British history, then you’ll known that this is not an abstract idea but something which parliamentarians have wrestled for since, well, not long after Le Goulet.

In comparison, the leading opponents of Brexit such as Ken Clarke QC, Keir Starmer QC, Tony Blair, Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry and Matthew Parris all read law or jurisprudence at university. To be sure, they have appealed to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, but only since the referendum, and in order to soften the withdrawal process. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, the prime ministers who brought the UK into the European Economic Community, studied the now-infamous philosophy, politics and economics. So too did Michael Heseltine, David Cameron, Peter Mandelson, the Miliband brothers, Yvette Cooper and Will Straw, the director of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign. Does this point to conspiracy? No. But it is an interesting pattern to highlight. The old ruling class — politicians such as Herbert Asquith, Harold Macmillan and Boris — studied the classics. The new ruling class — the ‘experts’ — have studied vocational degrees like law and PPE. Whereas our rulers were once versed in the past, they are now versed in technocracy.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule and I am not suggesting that those who oppose Brexit have not studied history or are not interested in it (Dominic Grieve and George Osborne, for instance, read history). But it does not seem too unreasonable to presume that many of the influential opponents of Brexit in politics and the media do so because of their education. If you studied modules on European law or international political economy at university, rather than, say, the Glorious Revolution, it is not surprising that you will come to prioritise the global over the national, the present over the past. Undoubtedly the lawyers ‘understand the importance of statute’, as Soubry put it, but do they understand the importance of history? Magna Carta and what it stands for becomes one of many legal cases to memorise, not a founding national document.

Where does this leave Brexit? I’ll leave the detail to Theresa May, but I suspect that the outcome she achieves will not end this Thirty Years War between our representatives. This is a war which began, and which may have to be settled, on campus. To be sure, such a divergence of outlook among political representatives is not new. Following the French Revolution, Edmund Burke reflected on the fact that the Third Estate, the body of men which came to dominate the legislature in 1789, was composed mainly of lawyers. Fuelled by Enlightenment theories and self-interest, they overturned the ancien régime.

In our case, forget the Bad Boys of Brexit: 23 June 2016 was the work of the History Boys, and its destiny lies with whichever group of graduates holds the balance of power.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/why-is-it-that-so-many-leading-brexiteers-studied-history/


Edit: And thanks to the moderators for catching my security problem on the preceding post.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on August 22, 2018, 12:02:41
So, the big argument in Britain is whether or not it needs a deal with the EU or it "crashes out" without a deal.

The population at large seems a lot more sanguine about the no-deal/WTO/FTA prospects than does the "establishment".  The "establishment" is at one with its legal advice.

Which brings us to this briefing from the Law Society:

Quote
10.40am update: Legal sector growth could halve by 2025 without trade deal

Growth in the legal sector could halve by 2025 if the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal, the Law Society has warned.

The professional body has estimated the secotr would grow by 2.2 percent each year between 2019 and 2025 if the UK pursued a soft Brexit, remaining inside the customs union and single market.

But this growth could halve to 1.1 percent if the UK exits the bloc without a trade deal.


The figures, compiled by Thomson Reuters, showed that opting for a no deal over a soft Brexit would wipe almost £3bn from the turnover of the sector.

The Law Society also predicted that by 2025 there could be up to 5,000 few people employed in the legal sector if the UK agrees a Canada-style free trade agreement with the EU.

But this could rise to 10,000 if the UK leaves the EU under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1006709/brexit-latest-news-no-deal-brexit-michel-barnier-emergency-talks-northern-ireland

Cynics might suspect some special pleading on the part of Law Society support for the EU and Free Trade Agreements.

It sounds as if businesses are faced with competing costs.  They can either pay the costs of filling out paperwork to comply with tariffs, or, they can pay the costs of hiring lawyers to fill out paperwork to avoid tariffs.

Apparently the Law Society has its preferences.

I suppose we should be glad that we have lawyers negotiating trade deals.


Edit to add link
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on September 29, 2018, 12:50:50
I hear the voice of Humphrey -   


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

More on  FCO30/1048 -

This, in 1971, represents an explicit internationalist proposal to Edward Heath from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office laying out the procedures and benefits for eliminating national sovereignty, the sovereignty of parliament and the necessary transfer of power to European bureaucrats and the European Court of Justice.   Democracy would be limited but, hopefully, at some point in the future, weather permitting, it would be restored at the European level - Westminster would be relegated.

It also describes how the plebs need to be kept in the dark until it is too late for them to do anything about it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/883540/FCO-30-1048-Brexit-EU-secret-document-damned-Britain-EU-membership

Quote

A SECRET document prepared for pro-Europe Tory Prime Minster Edward Heath shows how the Foreign Office knew EU membership would dismantle Britain as a sovereign nation.

By LARA DEAUVILLE
PUBLISHED: 09:01, Fri, Sep 28, 2018 | UPDATED: 20:27, Fri, Sep 28, 2018
   
More damningly, in line after line, the faceless Whitehall mandarins behind the astonishing briefing paper FCO 30/1048 actively welcome Britain’s decline and Europe’s predominance.

The briefing paper acknowledges that Britain would in time become little more than a puppet state of Brussels, after ceding judicial and executive powers to the fledgling EU – then called the EEC.

But, instead of sounding alarm bells, the authors of the paper warn ministers to hide the truth from the British public.
 
And, damningly for Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, and all those who kept quiet about the findings in the early 70s, the document, known as FCO30/1048, was locked away under Official Secrets Act rules for almost five decades.

What the writers – famously championed by Mr Heath – could not have envisioned was that the British public would see though the audacious abuse of power and vote to LEAVE Europe in a fiercely contested referendum half a century later.

To some critics the lie is at the heart of the Brexit battle faced by Theresa May as she prepares to face her embattled delegates at Tory Party Conference, in Birmingham next week.

The classified paper, dated April 1971, even suggested the Government should keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership means predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening by which time it would be too late to leave.

Bizarrely FCO 30/1048 reads more like an educated anarchists’ guide to crushing Britain’s political standing on the world stage than the sober briefing of civil service pillars of the British establishment.

The language suggests repeatedly that the British people are too stupid to grasp the implications of joining the EEC (which became the EU in 1993) and that indeed this stupidity could be used against them to hide the truth until it was essentially too late to do anything about it.

Again and again they assert that Britain’s parliament will be sidelined and that, sooner rather than later, there will be a United States of Europe with a single currency.

Here we read between the lines of the most damning paragraphs of the FCO 30/1048 and explain what the writers really meant:

The paper starts with a academic discussion of sovereignty – arguing that sovereignty is not necessarily a good thing.

By page five we are left in no doubt as to the author’s position on sovereignty as he writes:

“Sovereignty is a technical concept with in many ways only limited bearing on the questions of power and influence that form the normal preoccupation of foreign policy.”

And after some rambling paragraphs about the Queen having sole sovereign law making power in Britain he cuts to the chase saying:

“Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action.”

The first acknowledgement that Britain was about to transfer significant powers to Europe.

A few paragraphs later he confirms this saying: “we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the United Kingdom, even in derogation of United Kingdom statutes, and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none.”

And further the authors not only concede the handing over of power but that this is a no-going back deal:

“we shall be accepting that the Commission will jointly represent the member states, who to that extent will have their individual international negotiating powers limited; and we shall in various fields be accepting a wide degree of coordination of our policy with that of the rest of the Community. All of this we shall be accepting “for an unlimited period,” with no provision for withdrawal.

In a clumsy attempt to diminish the massive changes to the way Britain is governed the writer says: “Overall it is clear that membership of the Community in its present form would involve only limited diminution of external sovereignty in practice.”

But just a page later the author makes it crystal clear that it is just a matter of time before Europe starts eating away at Britain’s ability to govern itself saying: “The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 'to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples'.”

Paragraph 12(I) is one of the most damning – as it clearly details the way in which EU law will trample over British law. But that this must be kept from the common knowledge of the British people.

He writes: “By accepting the Community Treaties we shall have to adapt the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (i.e. without any further participation by Parliament) of Community laws not yet made (even though Ministers would have a part, through membership of the Council, in the making of some of these laws). Community law operates only in the fields covered by the Treaties, viz, customs duties; agriculture; free movement of labour; services and capital; transport; monopolies and restrictive practices; state aid for industry; and the regulation of the coal and steel and nuclear energy industries. Outside this considerable range there would remain unchanged by far the greater part of our domestic law.

“Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have required us to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation.”

Clause III adds with shocking prescience that the seismic legal shift would in effect be creating a federal law in a United States of Europe. And this was 46 years ago, back in 1971.

He writes: “The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court’s decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.


"(iv) The Law Officers have emphasised that in accepting Community Law in this country we shall need to make it effective as part of a new and separate legal order, distinct from, but co-existing side by side with, the law of the United Kingdom. They have referred to the basic European Communities Treaty provisions as amounting “in effect to a new body of ‘Federal’ statute law.”


Next he deals with the reality of the homogenising of British life into European life and says:

“In lay terms we may say that if Britain joined the Community there would be many implications for both external and internal (particularly parliamentary) sovereignty. Some of these would be wholly novel, and the general effect particularly in the longer turn would be of more pervasive and wide-ranging change than with any earlier commitments. Largely this is because the Community treaties when drawn up were seen as arrangements not merely for collaboration but for positive integration of large parts of the economic and social life of the Member States. As a result the conventional theoretical line dividing internal from external affairs has become blurred, a process which as we have seen is already advancing with the development of transnational economic activity.”

The patronising tone deepens further as the writer suggests Britain is populated by xenophobes who have a large ‘mistrust of foreigners.’ He bizarrely quotes novelist Nancy Mitford saying: “Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

He writes:

15.(i) National Identity: "We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity, the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most nations.

"When “sovereignty” is called into question in the debate about entry to the Community, people may feel that it is this “Britishness” that is at stake.
Hence Mr Rippon’s pointed question “are the French any less French?” for their membership. There is another, less attractive, aspect of this national pride. This is the large measure of dislike and mistrust of foreigners that persists in Britain. Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

"(iii) Remoteness of the Bureaucracy: It is generally acknowledged that in modern industrialised society the impersonal and remote workings of the Government bureaucracy are sources of major anxiety and mistrust. The operations of democracy seem decreasingly fitted to control the all-embracing regulatory activities of the Civil Service. In entry to the Community we may seem to be opting for a system in which bureaucracy will be more remote (as well as largely foreign) and will operate in ways many of which are already determined and which are deeply strange to us. This bureaucracy is by common consent more powerful than compared with the democratic systems of the Community than is ideal. Yet the way to remedy this balance without reducing the Community to a mere standing association for negotiation between national Ministers is by strengthening the Community’s democratic processes which in turn means more change and more “loss of sovereignty.”

The following paragraph iv is so damningly anti-British it reads like the ramblings of some pseudo Guy Burgess type Oxbridge communist attacking, as it does, Britain’s idea she has any power on the world stage as fantasy.

He writes:

"(iv) National Power: As explained in paragraph 6 above, questions of power and influence have a close popular connection with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world and that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can proceed only by treaty, alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and international financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power. Joining the Community does strike at these attitudes: it is a further large step away from what is thought to be unfettered national freedom and a public acknowledgement of our reduced national power; moreover, joining the Community institutionalises in a single, permanent coalition the necessary process of accommodation and alliance over large areas of policy, domestic as well as external. Even though these areas may be less immediately relevant to survival than defence, as covered by NATO, the form of the Community structure and the intentions explicit in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome emphasise the merging of national interests.”

In a section that could have been written 46 minutes ago rather than 46 years ago he deals with the inevitable – and welcome – single currency, and the prospect of an EU army.

He writes: “…but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. This sort of grouping would bring major politico/economic advantages but would take many years to develop and to win political acceptance. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.”

Towards the end the anti-British, pro-Europe rhetoric is in full flow, accepting Britain’s notion of itself as an independent state would be completely dismantled. Britain would be a European state, it’s Parliament neutered.

"19...then over a wide range of subjects (trade, aid, monetary affairs and most technological questions) Community policies toward the outside world would be common or closely harmonised. Although diplomatic representation would remain country by country its national role would be much diminished since the instructions to representatives would have been coordinated among member states. By the end of the century with effective defence and political harmonisation the erosion of the international role of the member states could be almost complete. This is a far distant prospect; but as members of the Community our major interests may lie in its progressive development since it is only when the Western Europe of which we shall be a part can realise its full potential as a political as well as economic unit that we shall derive full benefits from membership."

"20. …of the functions of the Community could probably only take place with concomitant development of the institutions of the Community. It is hard to envisage the necessary decisions being taken under the present organisation of the Community; more effective decision-making at Community level would either require majority voting on an increasing range of issues in the Council or stronger pressures to reach quick decisions by consensus. In either case the role of the Commission would become more important as the Community became responsible for the regulation of wider areas of the internal affairs of the member states and this would in turn increase the need to strengthen the democratic institutions of the Community, including perhaps a directly elected Parliament. In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well as the erosion of 'parliamentary sovereignty'."

FCO 30/1048 even predicts Michel Barnier’s current attempt to bully and punish Britain for having the temerity to leave the EU saying member states would probably nominally have the ability to leave until about the year 2000, but such a move would have increasingly damaging economic consequences for the defector.”

And in yet another sideswipe at the British public he says it will be important for politicians to deal with – or cover-up – “anxieties about British power and influence (masquerading under the term sovereignty) by presenting the choice between the effect of entry and on Britain’s power and influence in a rapidly changing world.”


“After entry there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community. This counsel of perfection may be the more difficult to achieve because these same unpopular measures may sometimes be made more acceptable if they are put in a Community context, and this technique may offer a way to avoid the more sterile forms of inter-governmental bargaining. But the difference between on the one hand explaining policy in terms of general and Community-wide interest and, on the other, blaming membership for national problems is real and important.”

Finally, in conclusion, the writers concede openly that Parliament will be made effectively redundant saying:

“To control and supervise this process it will be necessary to strengthen the democratic organisation of the Community with consequent decline of the primacy and prestige of the national parliaments.”





And then, there is this headline:

Nations putting the EU in danger
Mon, October 23, 2017


My personal take on this document is not just concern about the impact on Britain about the document itself but the fact that it is indicative of broad tranche of western thought.  And, unfortunately, in my opinion, that thought finds common ground in Ottawa, the State Department, the EU and Whitehall.  It also finds expression in parties as diverse politically as the Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and the Church parties of the right.  The common ground is the belief in the requirement for supra-national agency and is based on the notion that somewhere along the line there is a perfectable human agency that can determine absolute answers and render perfect laws and usher in the millenium on earth.  This notion is currently defined as the liberal rule of law.

In fact, in my opinion, it is the age old quest for control rationalized by other means.

As the heir of non-conformists, dissenters, disestablishmentarians and other reprobates: I object.


PS - I didn't run out of yellow ink. I got fed up hitting the switches. There is too much of import in that article.


Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: FJAG on September 29, 2018, 19:28:29
Chris

I'm not taking issue with your opinions at the end of the post. Those are yours and fairly held. I do take issue with the article itself and the issues that it raises specifically about its suggestion that FCO30/1048 considered the public stupid and advocated a program of misdirection and concealment of the facts.

The article does not provide a link to the paper itself so that a reader can check for himself but fortunately it's not that hard to find online. I've located one that is an "annotated" version. The text in italics, is the actual paper and the unitalicised text are the annotated comments. I found this one useful because one could read the criticism directly with the actual text and form one's own conclusions.

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/FCOsovereignty2.pdf (http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/FCOsovereignty2.pdf)

I don't think that there is any doubt that the writers were advocating in favour of union with the EEC and were actively laying out both the benefits as well as the shortcomings, principally the reduction/loss of sovereignty and that EEC institutions would take predominance over domestic ones. At the time that's what the whole issue was; to build a strong and powerful central community which would be greater, stronger, richer than it's independent parts.

In my view that is what a ministerial paper should do in advising the various ministers of the facts, options, risks etc.

Along the way it points out that there are perceptions and anxieties within the public that must be understood and addressed. Specifically the paper says:

Quote
Before entry it is important to deal squarely with the anxieties about British
power and influence (masquerading under the term sovereignty) by presenting the choice
between the effect of entry and on Britain’s power and influence in a rapidly changing world

The article interprets this as "cover-up". I think that's a major and unfair leap.

Similarly, the article talks about:

Quote
The patronising tone deepens further as the writer suggests Britain is populated by xenophobes who have a large ‘mistrust of foreigners.’ He bizarrely quotes novelist Nancy Mitford saying: “Nancy Mitford’s Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that: “Abroad is hell and foreigners are fiends.”

This comes from para 15(i) of the paper which starts:

Quote
We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive
fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity,
the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances
and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most
nations. We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing and education of the distinctive
fact of being British. Given our island position and long territorial and national integrity,
the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances
and entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than that of most
nations.

Let's call a spade a spade. The Brits were, and continue, to be xenophobes. All you need to do is read the Daily Mail and you'll see articles that look back at WWII and Nazis every second day. They just can't let go of the fact that the continent is populated by Krauts, Frogs, Dagos and various other groups of strangers. The paper is neither patronizing nor bizarre; it states a fact in subtle tones and cautions the ministers to be aware of that underlying public opinion.

Like I said before. We may all differ on whether or not the EU (or the EEC at the time) is a good thing, and there are  fair positions to take on both side of that issue. I think that this article, however, takes the clear fact that the authors of the paper were in favour of union and advising the ministers of the various upside and downside issues and spins that into some fanciful yarn that there was a massive bureaucratic conspiracy to hide the truth from the public in order to implement their plan.

Read the paper for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

 :cheers:

Edited to fix my crappy grammar
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on September 30, 2018, 13:57:58
Thank you for posting the link.  Quite expositive.

The issue continues to be one of power and how to influence it.  Quebec and Alberta already have issues internally with people contending over whether or not their provincial governments are reflective of the needs and wants of the residents.  Those are communities of millions.  They have problems with Ottawa acting in ways often seen at odds with their wants and needs and felt to be ignoring them on the basis of serving the needs and wants of the larger community.   It is an open debate as to whether or not the needs and wants are being fairly understood by the government of the day or whether or not the needs and wants are revealed truths that surpass the understanding of mere mortals. 

The larger the community the less the opportunity for the individual to influence either the community or its leadership.  The larger the community the greater the opportunity for the leadership to indulge its sense of infallibility and act according to the leaderships sense of needs and wants - and we are left with relying on the benevolence of the leadership.   Which is where we started.

I, for one, uniquely, as an individual, am not prepared to put my faith in the benevolence of a single, unique, individual purporting to act infallibly in the name of 7 billion single, unique, individuals.

We have ample historical examples going back 12,000 years of failed attempts to establish empire both internally and externally.

I believe that Quebec has been somewhat less than happy with such efforts both pre- and post-1867.   

Parliamentary democracy, within cultural and geographic limits, at least has the advantage of tamping down internal discord for a couple of centuries and doing no worse externally than more absolutist neighbours.

Yours in Xenophobia.   :cheers:
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: FJAG on September 30, 2018, 15:41:12
Thank you for posting the link.  Quite expositive.

The issue continues to be one of power and how to influence it.  Quebec and Alberta already have issues internally with people contending over whether or not their provincial governments are reflective of the needs and wants of the residents.  Those are communities of millions.  They have problems with Ottawa acting in ways often seen at odds with their wants and needs and felt to be ignoring them on the basis of serving the needs and wants of the larger community.   It is an open debate as to whether or not the needs and wants are being fairly understood by the government of the day or whether or not the needs and wants are revealed truths that surpass the understanding of mere mortals. 

The larger the community the less the opportunity for the individual to influence either the community or its leadership.  The larger the community the greater the opportunity for the leadership to indulge its sense of infallibility and act according to the leaderships sense of needs and wants - and we are left with relying on the benevolence of the leadership.   Which is where we started.

I, for one, uniquely, as an individual, am not prepared to put my faith in the benevolence of a single, unique, individual purporting to act infallibly in the name of 7 billion single, unique, individuals.

We have ample historical examples going back 12,000 years of failed attempts to establish empire both internally and externally.

I believe that Quebec has been somewhat less than happy with such efforts both pre- and post-1867.   

Parliamentary democracy, within cultural and geographic limits, at least has the advantage of tamping down internal discord for a couple of centuries and doing no worse externally than more absolutist neighbours.

Yours in Xenophobia.   :cheers:

I'm a bit of a xenophobe myself and not really a fan of the EU as structured. I sometimes wonder about how a big city like Toronto or New York can function and the answer is quite simple: by one neighbourhood at a time. The trick is finding exactly the right division of responsibilities between what goes on at the local level and what happens at the ever expanding higher regional etc levels.

IMHO that's where the EU fails. It throws too much power at the central government in dealing with issues that are much better dealt with at the local level. I put this down to the fact that much of the EU functions under a civil code system. Civil codes, again IMHO, tend towards being micromanagement systems. I think laws work best when they restrict or forbid specific unwanted acts and leave individuals and companies to operate freely and innovatively everywhere else rather than setting out a formula or process that must be followed by everyone in all cases. The US offers an interesting contrast having a common law basis but a codified statute system. More importantly it is a system of dual sovereignty as between the federal and states governments as may be limited by it's constitution.

I spent quite a few years working with individuals from the EU and noted that there was a tremendous difference in attitude to many things between the northern more Scandinavian/Germanic (including the UK) nations and the southern Latin (Roman influenced) countries like France, Spain, Italy etc. I would think it would be very difficult to create any system that would create consensus amongst such disparate cultures.

I expect that the debates as to which is the superior system are be endless.

 :cheers:

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on September 30, 2018, 16:10:14
I believe that debates over the superiority of systems are endless and that "finding exactly the right division of responsibilities" is a mugs game.

It is precisely for those reasons that I oppose the centralization of authority and commend local democracy regardless of whether or not local democracy produces a system under which I might wish to live.

With centralization I am left with two options.  I must obey or fight.  With dispersed local democracy the odds are that I can find a location where I can live with convivial values.

The only trick required is toleration of cultural norms - no matter how ugly they may seem to others.

Edit:

One of the more interesting parts of the Canadian Experiment was the settling of the Prairies.  The Governments of the Day encouraged "ghettoization" as some would deride it today.  They encouraged the transposition of whole communities to create like-minded communities on the Prairies.  Hungarians in Esterhazy.  Ukrainians in Vegreville.  French in Gravelbourg.  Icelanders in Gimli. Dutch. Scots. Catholic. Orthodox. Mennonites. Hutterites. Mormons. Reformers.

This encouraged the local, as a "support group", with a common culture, rule book, language, church and sense of community while the various communities figured out how to work with the neighbouring communities and with their new national governments.

Canada was intentionally a patchwork of independent communities:  An exportable model.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on December 03, 2018, 13:39:33
I believe I have found the answer.  Why is the government of the UK having such a hard time with Brexit?

Quote
But the Prime Minister will struggle to paint much of a picture given that the Government is still trying to nail down the nuts and bolts.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/03/theresa-may-keeps-giving-mps-reasons-vote-against-brexit-deal/

Painting a picture with nuts, bolts and a hammer is not a strategy that immediately commends itself to me
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on December 12, 2018, 15:19:47
A thought about Chaos.

The governing party is responsible for finding solutions.
The opposition is responsible for critiquing those solutions.

At the next election the governing party will be held to account by the public for the quality of those solutions.

The public will then decide whether to allow the the governing party to continue governing.
The leader of the opposition may then have an opportunity to take over governing.

Now, both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbin have parties that are split over Brexit.
This is a problem for Theresa as she tries to find solutions.
This is not a problem for Jeremy.  All he has to do is continue to oppose her solutions.

Jeremy is in the position where all he has to do is not interfere with an enemy intent on destroying itself.

Meanwhile Brexit.

Jeremy is on record as wanting to leave the EU.  40 years in parliament and nary a kind word.
Theresa in on record as wanting the remain.

The public is split with not much of an advantage either way.  No particular electoral advantage for either party.  Half the population will blame the governing party regardless of the outcome.

The opposition will throw away its electoral advantage if it ends up supporting whatever deal the governing party proclaims.  Including no deal.

In the event of no deal the governing party gets the blame and the opposing party gets the opportunity.

And Jeremy Corbin?  He gets to leave the EU, as he has wanted for the last 40 years, put two fingers up to the establishment, wreck the Tories,and be free from EU interference while he imposes his brand of socialism on the UK.

My take?  Jeremy Corbin will do what it takes to ensure "no deal" and that Theresa and the Tories take the blame.

As a Brexiteer - pluses and minuses. 

Britain survived Cromwell, Harold Wilson and Clement Atlee.  Might have to dig deep again.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 29, 2019, 20:54:37
Only in England are these titles imaginable together--PM Theresa May says:

Quote
...
But I believe that with a mandate from this House and supported by the Attorney General, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, I can secure such a change in advance of our departure from the EU...
https://www.independent.ie/ca/business/brexit/it-is-not-renegotiable-theresa-may-under-fire-as-she-bids-to-drop-the-brexit-backstop-37762125.html#

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on March 14, 2019, 19:27:16
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/uk-poll-results/page/3/

An absolutely fascinating link - 74 pages of opinion polls ( I got to page 2 and a bit) on every question of the day pertaining to Brexit, deals, immigration, tariffs and what matters - up to March 11.

A great antidote to the headlines and all those drunken, sleepless MPs at Westminster.  25% are scared of leaving. 25% are determined to leave. 25% don't know and 25% don't care.

The sun will rise in the morning as usual and bills will have to be paid.
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on March 27, 2019, 11:47:38
I have been refraining from commenting on this democratic exercise which, in the main, is still being conducted by the rules (although, to be honest while the match is still mainly on the pitch it is looking more and more like an Old Firm Cup final at Ibrox with a bent Ref).   I am reduced to following events with both amusement and bemusement because I don't really expect an outcome on this one any more. No more than I expect a resolution of the Basque, Provencale and Catalonian problems - Or Scotti Tcheuchters vs Covenanting Picts. 

However - this really caught my attention:

Quote
In an attack on MEPs critical of a long Brexit delay, Mr Tusk urged them to still consider British Remainers as "Europeans".

He said: "You cannot betray the 6 million people who signed the petition to revoke Article 50 or the increasing majority who want to remain in the EU, they may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by the UK parliament but they must feel they are sufficiently represented by you in this chamber because they are Europeans."

For those of you not keeping up - there is an on-line petition (accessible by anybody from any country) with some 6 million names calling for Brexit to be cancelled.   Just to be clear some 17 million voted to leave, 16 voted to stay, another 16 or so didn't care enough to get out of bed, and a bunch more weren't eligible to vote.

What gets me about President Tusk's comment is that he is from Poland. 

What would be his reaction if he saw the following in the daily news:

Quote
In an attack on MEPs critical of a long Brexit delay, Mr Tusk Putin urged them the Russian Parliament to still consider British Remainers Communists in Poland as "Europeans  Russians".

He said: "You cannot betray the 6 million people who signed the petition to revoke Article 50 or the increasing majority who want to remain in the EU those who want to rejoin with Mother Russia, they may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by the UK Polish and EU parliament(s) but they must feel they are sufficiently represented by you in this chamber because they are Europeans  Russians."

As I have said elsewhere - it is easy to become cynical when you hear rhetoric like this.

The good news is that none of this really matters.  We're still here despite thousands of years of the same rhetoric and worse actions.

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Baden Guy on March 27, 2019, 12:23:31
98 Reasons To Stay In The EU: Benefits Of Membership For The UK

https://smallbusinessprices.co.uk/remain-eu/   :2c:

Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on March 27, 2019, 12:36:55
Quote
Philip Cross: The state’s increasing intrusion into our lives in the name of control and structure is stifling vitality
Feeling alive is what many people want more than the material comforts promised by government and proffered by corporations

(https://financialpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/cubicle.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=780)

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-the-states-increasing-intrusion-into-our-lives-in-the-name-of-control-and-structure-is-stifling-vitality?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1mcUQD4sfC-I-fHwgPVMlCzOiMzKZGEPenmnpdMbGfxlpIoheaHj5b2po#Echobox=1553692688
Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on March 27, 2019, 13:37:56
Londoners at work - above

Londoners at home - below

(https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2018/02/estate-regeneration-heygate-architecture-news-hero-1.jpg)

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/25/article-2164074-13C230ED000005DC-21_964x761.jpg)

Londoners on holiday - 1947

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/25/article-2164074-13C231C5000005DC-291_964x876.jpg)


Title: Re: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay
Post by: Chris Pook on March 27, 2019, 13:42:34
And Londoners on holiday today

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Conwy_Caravan_Park_-_geograph.org.uk_-_52176.jpg)