Question for londonguy.
Clubber
Florida
As our English source, how about a few words on Brexit?
Perhaps asked since Friday, but I've been offline.
Perhaps asked since Friday, but I've been offline.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
50 comments
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…