I'm irritated from a selfish standpoint: I was in London and Bath about a month ago and that vacation was a lot more expensive than it would be now! Talk about non brilliant!
Seriously though, it will be interesting to see how fast the markets stabilize. And whether Scotland actually tries to leave the UK at this point (to which some English would no doubt say "brilliant!")
Also, good for England to stand up for the democratic idea that anyone making governing decisions should be accountable to the people (e.g., elected by the people and not appointed). They will do better in the long term, but even if they don't they did right thing.
^
Free thinking people that is. The problem here is that we have a growing class of people that want the gubmint to take care of everything for them. They're too stupid to realize that once the gubmint gets it's hooks in you it won't let go.
Massive overreaction? Or black swan event? The truth is, nobody knows. The Dow has gone from around 6,500 after the 2008 crash to over 18,000 in the past year. It crashed in 2000 and 2008. It's 8 years since the last crash. We might be in store for another one. Time will tell.
I very much agree with these last 3 posts by Meursault, vincemichaels, and TheeOSU. Britain's economy may suffer some short-term dislocation, but it will prosper from this decision in the long run. Furthermore, even if they don't prosper for some reason, it was the right thing to do.
I'm relatively certain that Scotland will hold another vote for independence soon and will vote this time to leave the UK and then apply to join the EU. I'm also inclined to believe that Northern Ireland will eventually leave the UK and rejoin Ireland (and, therefore, the EU).
So what point in history will the confederate Government come back and divide the US ? Maybe this time we can win reclaimed the south then go take over Mexico as original planned
of course you hoy polloy idiots that have no actually money invested would be pro-brexit. i on the other hand realize that the peasants in england would be better off as part of the eu. the hoy polloy in england just voted to destroy the uk by causing the scots and northern irish to leave and youve fucked up the world economy
you idiots will probably cause the apocalype by voting for my former boss Donald Trump. trust me hes an idiot and he only entered the race to help Hillary because they have a secret cabal that i happen to be privy to. now he thinks he can do a better job than she can and hes actually trying to win. but shes just corrupt where as he is corrupt and crazy
" If my 401k drops any lower I might have to cut back to just hand jobs "
Yeah and if mine drops anymore they're going to come to my house and start asking for more money. If I don't have any they'll probably ask for the titles on my cars!
Just a reminder, this was a *non binding" referendum. Parliament doesn't have to even vote on it, and nothing will happen anyway until a formal note to withdraw is submitted to Brussels in accordance with the treaty. Only at that point, does it become irrevocable, and they can still make it only a partial withdrawal depending on negotiations.
With Leave winning by 52% to 48% margin, a turnout of 71.8%, and more than 30 million people voting, they better do something right or their likely to have another revolution. That is unless the Brits have become wussified.
@Clubber: Oh, I didn't say Parliament would *not* comply, only that there's no legal requirement for them to do so. :) I don't know how Parliament is divided on this issue, but at one time, I'd read that they weren't more than lukewarm about it, except for a vocal minority than managed to somehow pressure Cameron to put it to a vote. That's my recollection, which might be faulty. :)
Given that, and the absence of a hard date, I imagine they'll dither about it, delay negotiations, and otherwise obstruct as long as they can. Unless Cameron's replacement is one of the Leave proponents, or they manage to gain some more control in Parliament, of course.
I'm def no studient of politics and don't know all the particular implications (for/against) in this matter - but I'm def one that is extremely warry of big government and that is what the E.U. appears to me at a basic level - England seems to have managed if not thrived for most of its history w/o having to be part of the E.U. - again IDK know much about the particulars of the E.U. but I can't see why non E.U. countries cannot still engage in effective/fair commerce/trade w/o having to be in the E.U. (they probably did it well for most of their history prior to the E.U.).
We're all bumping this thread so that Londonguy can find it later. :)
From what I heard, the U.K. Is is no hurry to withdraw officially but the rest of the EU wants a quick divorce because they are the ones who are worried they might suffer with referendums in EU countries and more uncertain thrown into their stock markets. If economies go into recession because people are holding off spending until things settle down, the longer the wait, the worse their economies might become. Technically nothing changed the other day except a vote happened. The rest of the EU is acting like a big fight happened and that the UK struck a major blow at them. Maybe it felt that way politically.
I'm not sure. I'm not European or British. Just my take on it all. Draghi was real good this morning though. He helped put me back to sleep or his translator did whomever was talking on the financial channel at 4 am eastern.
Our feds are trying to turn our country into an "EU". Federal powers are quite limited by the US Constitution, but the feds have just about obliterated states rights.
"Draghi was real good this morning though. "
------------------
@Shark: Did you know that both Draghi and Bernanki were students of our vice-fed chair Fischer?
Actually Spain and Greece need to get out of the EU so that they can deflate their own currency. The Euro itself has been a disaster for the poorer countries.
@Clubber: Since the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, the federal powers have been greatly expanded. To the point where the States are no longer free to "experiment" concerning certain things. Mostly, this is good, since it means that the Bill of Rights, among other things, are binding on the States, and not just the Federal government.
In the other hand, it opens the door to overreach by overzealous bureaucrats.
This looks more like a self-inflicted wound, than a logical choice, always remember that bleeding ends eventually, so I wouldn't sweat this long term. The markets will factor this in like they always do and the traders will look for another scare to force the herd to swerve in another direction. This really doesn't foreshadow anything it just shows that with the proper marketing anything can be sold to many, but the people that sit tight and continue to follow steady investment principles will profit in the long run.
@Clubber wrote: The left itself has been a disaster for the poorer population.
-----------------------------------------------------
I hear what you are saying and you may be correct.
Thing is, I think the importance of Fed policy is underrated. After the 2008 crash, we had Bernanke flooding the economy with cheap money and the EU going in the opposite direction with austerity. Austerity does not work during a severe recession and the EU changed course later on. I think voters in UK don't understand the cause and effect and, instead, blame everything on immigration.
Again, poor countries like Spain and Greece need control of their own currency.
I probably shouldn't get sucked into a political discussion, but I'm curious why Clubber thinks the state level in the US is intrinsically better than the federal level. Is it just your interpretation of the constitution? Or is there actually something better about the state level?
In Europe I can see more of a point. The member states of the EU have long been separate countries. I'll leave the benefits/drawbacks of Brexit or EU membership up to the judgement of Britons and Europeans. But here in the states, why is the federal government more tyrannical (or potentially tyrannical) than say California or New York or Florida?
Is it just size? The idea being to keep as much government local as possible. If so, do you realize that there are about 10 times more people in California than there were in all 13 states at the time the constitution was ratified. And about 5 time more in NY and Florida.
Should we break up the big states so the average person has more say? For example, look at the transgender bathroom controversy in NC I suspect (though I admit I haven't seen surveys, if they exist) that the majority of Charlotte residents don't like that state law. Charlotte has been trying to attract multinational corporations and that law may interfere with continued economic growth in Charlotte. Maybe Charlotte should set its laws and let Wilmington or Winston-Salem set their own laws on the issue.
Whether letting people choose the bathroom they want is a good or bad idea isn't the point. The point is that people in NC have diverse opinions on the issue and people with different opinions may be in the majority in different places. If the federal government shouldn't have a say in those law why should the state have a say?
Everybody should be worried about government overreach and violations of our rights. But I don't see why states in the US are necessarily better than the Federal government.
Quite simply, if for no other reason geography. EX: Ten to one, government in Florida knows a hell of lot more then politicians in DC do about hurricanes. Just a timely example as we are IN hurricane season.
To Clubber that would be a valid point if our Florida government wasn't so thoroughly corrupt in allowing people to build in areas where they are all but certain to be destroyed by a storm, and then they expect to get the federal government to step in with FEMA and shoulder the cost of reconstruction. Just to clarify I do believe in states rights but we need to have real oversight, not our stupid and greedy coastal zoning boards.
@Clubber: I know, I was agreeing with you. :) Just adding some detail about *why* that was the case, and some perspective about why it's not *all* bad.
After andrew I took nothing from the government. Well, the FHP did deliver my clean clothes to me after my sister washed them. At least a couple of times.
That's fair enough Clubber, but your position still doesn't make sense to me. You've typically phrased these comments in terms of freedom and constitutionality. Saying Florida knows how to handle hurricanes better than the feds might be true, but it isn't a freedom issue. It's just an efficiency issue.
twentyfive also makes an important point. What if a state fucks things up? Are the residents of the state fucked or does the federal government have responsibility to help?
I don't believe in states rights. In a federal system like the US both the states and the federal government are entrusted to respect and protect the rights of individuals.
If a state decided that warrantless searches would be fine would that make them ok because it was the state level and not the federal government?
To 4got If you want to use my statement you need to include the entire thing you left out a major portion of my statement which was " I do believe in states rights 'but we need to have real oversight' " You left out the oversight part of my sentence. If you want to disagree that is your right but represent my position correctly please.
If a state screws up, then it would be up to the people of THAT state to fix the problem. Say Florida lets shacks be built (as was the case before andrew), why should someone in Alaska or Hawaii have to pay for the fix? It all boils down to personal responsibility, put simply.
I don't think our positions are that different so I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I just phrased my comment a bit wrong. I agree that state governments do need oversight. I actually don't feel that strongly whether the states have more or less leeway, so long as they have sufficient oversight that they don't violate individual rights.
What I was objecting to is the idea that any government, state or federal (or city, county, etc.) has rights. I find the phrase "states rights" a bit scary. Individual people have rights; governments don't (or shouldn't). All governments have the potential to violate rights and I don't like the notion that we elevate one level.
That said, you clearly did take the postiion that oversight was important and I should have quoted that. The 14th amendment clearly gives the federal government the power to keep states from imposing discriminatory laws. States do have substantial power since they can sue the federal government if they feel it violates the choices of their citizens. So the oversight actually goes two ways.
Of course, the federal courts would decide those cases, but the judiciary is an independent check on the other two branches. We have to give somebody the ability to be the ultimate judge. Given where we are I don't see any reasonable way to give states more "rights" than they have. And they have quite a few (and federal judges up to the supreme court have supported states rights).
So the outcome is what you said - states have the leeway to set up their own laws but those law also need federal oversight. Although imperfect, that system ultimately acts to protect individual rights. I just don't like the specific phrase "states rights".
I know that londonguy was pro. I can see the point because my understanding is that the EU is much less democratic that our federal govt.
That said, a friend of mine (who I unfortunately didn't say hi to when I was last there) was staunchly pro-EU. He felt the economic costs were too high and (jokingly) felt London+Scotland should form "Scotdon", secede from the UK, and stay in the EU.
I don't have a strong feeling myself since I've never lived in the UK or any other European country. I just wish that the value of GBP had gone down before I went on vacation. That would have been ace!
50 comments
Latest
Seriously though, it will be interesting to see how fast the markets stabilize. And whether Scotland actually tries to leave the UK at this point (to which some English would no doubt say "brilliant!")
Also, good for England to stand up for the democratic idea that anyone making governing decisions should be accountable to the people (e.g., elected by the people and not appointed). They will do better in the long term, but even if they don't they did right thing.
Free thinking people that is. The problem here is that we have a growing class of people that want the gubmint to take care of everything for them. They're too stupid to realize that once the gubmint gets it's hooks in you it won't let go.
I'm relatively certain that Scotland will hold another vote for independence soon and will vote this time to leave the UK and then apply to join the EU. I'm also inclined to believe that Northern Ireland will eventually leave the UK and rejoin Ireland (and, therefore, the EU).
you idiots will probably cause the apocalype by voting for my former boss Donald Trump. trust me hes an idiot and he only entered the race to help Hillary because they have a secret cabal that i happen to be privy to. now he thinks he can do a better job than she can and hes actually trying to win. but shes just corrupt where as he is corrupt and crazy
now you know. your welcome
:)
Yeah and if mine drops anymore they're going to come to my house and start asking for more money. If I don't have any they'll probably ask for the titles on my cars!
Brilliant!
I bet that's the way Kim Basetter spells it!
This is far from over.
With Leave winning by 52% to 48% margin, a turnout of 71.8%, and more than 30 million people voting, they better do something right or their likely to have another revolution. That is unless the Brits have become wussified.
Given that, and the absence of a hard date, I imagine they'll dither about it, delay negotiations, and otherwise obstruct as long as they can. Unless Cameron's replacement is one of the Leave proponents, or they manage to gain some more control in Parliament, of course.
Seems other European "nations" were offended by the vote and want them out. And then there are those that wish to follow suit.
From what I heard, the U.K. Is is no hurry to withdraw officially but the rest of the EU wants a quick divorce because they are the ones who are worried they might suffer with referendums in EU countries and more uncertain thrown into their stock markets. If economies go into recession because people are holding off spending until things settle down, the longer the wait, the worse their economies might become. Technically nothing changed the other day except a vote happened. The rest of the EU is acting like a big fight happened and that the UK struck a major blow at them. Maybe it felt that way politically.
I'm not sure. I'm not European or British. Just my take on it all. Draghi was real good this morning though. He helped put me back to sleep or his translator did whomever was talking on the financial channel at 4 am eastern.
------------------
@Shark: Did you know that both Draghi and Bernanki were students of our vice-fed chair Fischer?
Actually Spain and Greece need to get out of the EU so that they can deflate their own currency. The Euro itself has been a disaster for the poorer countries.
"The Euro itself has been a disaster for the poorer countries."
Could easily be restated. The left itself has been a disaster for the poorer population.
In the other hand, it opens the door to overreach by overzealous bureaucrats.
-----------------------------------------------------
I hear what you are saying and you may be correct.
Thing is, I think the importance of Fed policy is underrated. After the 2008 crash, we had Bernanke flooding the economy with cheap money and the EU going in the opposite direction with austerity. Austerity does not work during a severe recession and the EU changed course later on. I think voters in UK don't understand the cause and effect and, instead, blame everything on immigration.
Again, poor countries like Spain and Greece need control of their own currency.
They should open some FKKs
That's my point, in a lot fewer words.
In Europe I can see more of a point. The member states of the EU have long been separate countries. I'll leave the benefits/drawbacks of Brexit or EU membership up to the judgement of Britons and Europeans. But here in the states, why is the federal government more tyrannical (or potentially tyrannical) than say California or New York or Florida?
Is it just size? The idea being to keep as much government local as possible. If so, do you realize that there are about 10 times more people in California than there were in all 13 states at the time the constitution was ratified. And about 5 time more in NY and Florida.
Should we break up the big states so the average person has more say? For example, look at the transgender bathroom controversy in NC I suspect (though I admit I haven't seen surveys, if they exist) that the majority of Charlotte residents don't like that state law. Charlotte has been trying to attract multinational corporations and that law may interfere with continued economic growth in Charlotte. Maybe Charlotte should set its laws and let Wilmington or Winston-Salem set their own laws on the issue.
Whether letting people choose the bathroom they want is a good or bad idea isn't the point. The point is that people in NC have diverse opinions on the issue and people with different opinions may be in the majority in different places. If the federal government shouldn't have a say in those law why should the state have a say?
Everybody should be worried about government overreach and violations of our rights. But I don't see why states in the US are necessarily better than the Federal government.
Quite simply, if for no other reason geography. EX: Ten to one, government in Florida knows a hell of lot more then politicians in DC do about hurricanes. Just a timely example as we are IN hurricane season.
After andrew I took nothing from the government. Well, the FHP did deliver my clean clothes to me after my sister washed them. At least a couple of times.
twentyfive also makes an important point. What if a state fucks things up? Are the residents of the state fucked or does the federal government have responsibility to help?
I don't believe in states rights. In a federal system like the US both the states and the federal government are entrusted to respect and protect the rights of individuals.
If a state decided that warrantless searches would be fine would that make them ok because it was the state level and not the federal government?
State governments can also be tyrannical!
The people were wise enough to get outta dodge, so I think they will decide wisely. It is up to them, no others.
I don't think our positions are that different so I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I just phrased my comment a bit wrong. I agree that state governments do need oversight. I actually don't feel that strongly whether the states have more or less leeway, so long as they have sufficient oversight that they don't violate individual rights.
What I was objecting to is the idea that any government, state or federal (or city, county, etc.) has rights. I find the phrase "states rights" a bit scary. Individual people have rights; governments don't (or shouldn't). All governments have the potential to violate rights and I don't like the notion that we elevate one level.
That said, you clearly did take the postiion that oversight was important and I should have quoted that. The 14th amendment clearly gives the federal government the power to keep states from imposing discriminatory laws. States do have substantial power since they can sue the federal government if they feel it violates the choices of their citizens. So the oversight actually goes two ways.
Of course, the federal courts would decide those cases, but the judiciary is an independent check on the other two branches. We have to give somebody the ability to be the ultimate judge. Given where we are I don't see any reasonable way to give states more "rights" than they have. And they have quite a few (and federal judges up to the supreme court have supported states rights).
So the outcome is what you said - states have the leeway to set up their own laws but those law also need federal oversight. Although imperfect, that system ultimately acts to protect individual rights. I just don't like the specific phrase "states rights".
I know that londonguy was pro. I can see the point because my understanding is that the EU is much less democratic that our federal govt.
That said, a friend of mine (who I unfortunately didn't say hi to when I was last there) was staunchly pro-EU. He felt the economic costs were too high and (jokingly) felt London+Scotland should form "Scotdon", secede from the UK, and stay in the EU.
I don't have a strong feeling myself since I've never lived in the UK or any other European country. I just wish that the value of GBP had gone down before I went on vacation. That would have been ace!
And then as it is happening, and allowing for Germany, is it now likely that the EU will move further to the Left?
SJG
Founder, can we enter Mexico City as an outdoor strip club? Anyone been there and want to submit a review?
http://doxyspotting.com/?p=110031
Janis Joplin - Ball and Chain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp0hftK…