Brexit, Big Deal or Hiccup?

So Great Britain has withdrawn from the European Union, David Cameron will resign by October, and stocks tumbled. I have no opinion right now, just some questions, as I'm just now hearing about it.

First, is this really an earth-shattering event? What changes?

In principle, nothing changes immediately. Britons remain EU citizens and business continues as before. In practice, many believe trade, investment and political decisions will quickly anticipate British departure from the bloc. The EU could also face a Britain breaking apart as europhile Scots plan another push for independence and seek to join the EU on their own.

Here's how Europe is responding:

EU leaders and the heads of EU institutions in Brussels have delivered statements that broadly stress a mantra of Three Rs: Regret - at losing nearly a fifth of the EU economy and more of its military and global clout; Respect - for the will of the British people; and Resolve - to keep the other 27 together. They also reminded Britain that it remains a full member for the time being, with all the rights and obligations that entails.


The media is sure milking it in an attempt to make it relevant to the November election here. And Donald Trump, predictably, thinks about what's in the decision for him. As for whether the decision is good for the UK or Trump (who is backing it) consider: "A poll of economists by Reuters predicted Britain was likelier than not to fall into recession within a year."

Trump should remember:

More than half a million Britons signed a petition earlier this year to bar Trump from entering Britain, where he has business interests, in response to his call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Who supported Brexit?

Older voters backed Brexit but the young and well educated mainly wanted to stay in the EU. London and Scotland supported the EU, but swathes of England that have not shared in the capital's prosperity voted to leave.

I'll be interested to see what it means in the crime-fighting arena. Will the UK and Europe still recognize each others arrest warrants? Will they allow each other access to law enforcement databases? Here's an article from last week discussing the implications from a security standpoint.

< Thursday Night TV and Open Thread | Indonesia: Militants Get Second Chances While Drug Traffickers Face Death >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The EU budget will take a hit (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ragebot on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    since GB is a net contributor.  There are more EU citizens working in GB than GB citizens working in the EU (1.2million GB in the EU and 3 million EU in GB) so a net out migration from GB is possible depending on the details of exit the agreement.

    London voted heavily to stay, in part based on the amount of financial services it provides.  While some of the revenue from these services to the EU would be lost London is a world class financial center so some would remain.

    Part of the problem with the benefits of a EU wide economy is that those who benefited were concentrated in places like London and even more concentrated in the top 1, 5, or 10% with fewer benefits going to lower level workers.

    Many economists predicted GB was headed for a recession and the exit from the EU likely assures this.  With the possible exception of Germany and the Netherlands the same is probably true for the rest of the EU members.

    Even before the Brexit vote there were problems agreeing on the EU budget.  One especially difficult problem related to how to deal with an ever increasing number of folks entering the EU.  Another problem is lack of agreement on the way GB will exit.  Cameron's plan to go slow has been bashed by Schulz who wants to speed it up.  

    While there is talk of Scotland splitting from GB and joining the UK Spain has threatened to veto that since it would give hope for an independent Catalonia.

    Overall there seems to be no agreement among the members on how to deal with the exit.  The UK was the EU's second-largest economy and largest military power.  So not only is there a pocket book hit but Putin and his ambitions are also a worry.

    The link Jerlyn provided about security issues was an interesting read.  One blurb in particular stuck with me.

    As an experienced advocate before the European Court of Justice, I am well aware that its judgments do not always give pleasure to national governments.

    Since a lot voters for the Brexit were motivated by a move for stronger national government and less dictates from EU officials I have to wonder if there not be a move to lessen the power of the European Court of Justice in GB.

    The right is so used to worshipping (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    rich people that they just automatically assume that Soros MUST be an "icon" for someone, when in reality he's only ever been an icon to select members of the investor class.

    Of course to some that Soros supports progressive causes is nothing short of unforgivable and traitorous..

    ... a very big deal, given the potential for tremendous political fallout thanks to Prime Minister David Cameron's gambit to unify his Conservative Party under his leadership in advance of mandatory 2015 parliamentary elections.

    Essentially, he secured the support of Boris Johnson and the party's its Euroskeptic wing by promising to submit the question of Britain's continued membership in the EU to a public referendum prior to 2017.

    In obvious retrospect, Cameron's concession proved to be a remarkably foolish one, because yesterday's results rendered his 2015 electoral triumph a Pyrrhic victory.

    There are now renewed and angry calls in Scotland to again seek independence in the wake of the Brexit debacle, given that Scots voted to remain in the EU by a greater than 2:1 margin, and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has already publicly committed herself and her party to explore that option.

    Sinn Fein leader Declain Kearney is similarly calling for a referendum in Northern Ireland -- which also decisively voted to remain -- on the question of reunification with the Republic of Ireland, which so happens to be an EU member.

    And within the Conservative Party itself, all eyes are on Boris Johnson, the mercurial former London mayor who almost certainly has to be considered the early favorite to succeed David Cameron as British prime minister in October.

    Strange days, indeed.

    The problem for (none / 0) (#3)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:57:57 AM EST
    Scotland and Ireland leaving the UK is that Spain has made it clear they will veto EU membership for them since Catalonia would be given hope for their independence.

    Additionally an independent Scotland (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by BTAL on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 05:37:20 AM EST
    would not qualify to become EU member based on their projected economic size, income and debt ratios.  The EU learned a hard lesson when they fudged the books for the Greek entry - they won't do that again.

    As I said in reply to ragebot,... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 06:49:41 PM EST
    ... Scotland is an autonomous country within the United Kingdom, is further recognized as such by many world bodies.

    Further, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and her party have taken the position that Scotland is already an EU member, and would seek independence in order to protect that current status in the EU, thus rendering any prospective withdrawal from the EU nonbinding to them.

    The question as to whether Scotland would have to re-apply for EU membership on its own upon its attainment of full independence has yet to be determined. Spain may insist that Scotland must apply on its own, but as ragebot noted, Madrid has its own struggles with the Catalonian secessionist movement, and therefore the Spanish government's own position regarding Scottish independence dovetails rather neatly with its own particular domestic agenda. In any event, Spain does not speak for the entire EU.




    Scotland is not (none / 0) (#93)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    a completely autonomous country (as proven by its recently failed independence vote).  Nor is it a current member in its own right of the EU (EU States).  Its membership is completely based on being a part of the UK.

    Yes, Scotland would have to apply for membership and No, it does Not meet the economic requirements for member status.  


    Data and analysis (none / 0) (#99)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    From the theGuardian comparing an independent Scotland to other countries.  

    From the Spectator.co.uk.   An independent Scotland could easily have been the next Greece

    Neither provides a rosy picture for an independent Scotland much less EU membership.


    FYI, Ireland is already an EU member. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 06:20:59 PM EST
    Were Northern Ireland and Ireland to reunite under the flag of the Irish Republic, the EU would likely have little or no say in the matter. Scotland currently enjoys substantial autonomy over its affairs, and is already a member of the EU by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom. Whether or not Scotland would have to re-apply for EU membership on its own, or Spain could seek to expel Scotland from the EU for seeking and attaining full independence from London, are open questions.

    When it rains, it pours. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    Brexit, the gift the keeps on giving:

    "It's a complete change of outlook that opens up new possibilities on Gibraltar not seen for a very long time. I hope the formula of co-sovereignty--to be clear, the Spanish flag on the rock--is much closer than before."
    - José Manuel García-Margallo, acting Spanish foreign minister, arguing that Brexit has reopened the question of Gibraltar's sovereignty

    Anyone want to wager how long it will be before Argentinians argue that Brexit allows them to revisit the issue of the Falkland Islands?



    If anything (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 06:11:02 AM EST
    This is a victory for democracy. The EU has four unelected presidents!!!!  Effectively the EU is regulation without representation.  

    Prediction. In fifty years this vote will be held in similar regard as Churchill's decision to outmaneuver Halifax.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 07:11:34 AM EST
    don't know how you can declare victory or predict anything. There is a giant reshuffling of the deck going on and absolutely nobody can predict how the cards will eventually fall.

    Personally, I think that for many British voters this "victory" will be of the pyrrhic type, at least in the short to mid term.


    Short term (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 09:35:20 AM EST

    They will most likely be fine thereafter. The immediate EU response will be to punish,

    But how many other nations already have 1 foot out of the EU?

    Netherlands and France just need a vote, and they will be gone also.

    The EU worked fine as a trade appartus, but when the "elite" (ooh, that term again) in Brussels started telling individual countries what they can and cannot do


    Britain's decision to extricate itself from the EU was patriotic, not nationalistic. Indeed, if there is any group within the debate that seeks to impose "a particular way of life . . . on other people," it is the one that wants ever-closer integration into Europe, and, eventually, a federal super-state.

    Britain's leaving the EU have much of an effect on either of the two organizations that have kept Europe at peace for the last seven decades: those, of course, being NATO and the United States military. Once the exit is complete, there will be a dramatic change in how and where the United Kingdom's decisions are made. What those decisions are, however, is up to the electorate. If Britain wishes to trade with the world, it can. If it wishes to engage militarily, it can. If it wishes to reconstruct some of the EU's apparatus while retaining its sovereignty, it can do that as well.

    We often forget that England was (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    the cradle of democracy as the world, having forgotten Greece to a large extent, emerged from the Dark Age. It stubbed its toe numerous times but still...

    We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Winston Churchill
    Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/winston_churchill.html

    Freedom is never bought on the cheap.


    Charles Moore (none / 0) (#12)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    From the Telegraph


    Seen from the pro-EU point of view, the EU elites have been proved right in their belief that the people should never be consulted. In this sense, Mr Cameron is the leader whom they will now resent above all others. It is because of his reluctant capitulation to democracy that the whole edifice has come tumbling down.

    So the result exposes a huge gap between the powerful and the rest. Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron - all have seen themselves as embracers of modernity. A badge of that modernity, they have believed, has been the EU. Now voters have recognised that the EU rejects modernity, because it denies the rights of the people and confirms the sense of powerlessness which we have felt since the banking crisis.

    Churchill had so much respect for freedom (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 02:17:15 PM EST
    and self-determination that he was willing to bomb from the air and gas African, Indian, and Afghani villagers in defense of England's.

    What!!! (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    You mean Churchill was not perfect?

    However, he was the perfect man for the job at hand,

    As opposed to Chamberlain, who oddly resembles many of todays political elite


    No western leader in the last 100 years (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    has been more tirelessly mythologized than Churchill.

    Though the Brits seem to be on the whole much more objective about him and his legacy than the American conservative community is.


    Come now (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    No western leader in the last 100 years has been more tirelessly mythologized than Churchill.

    I call with FDR and raise with JFK.


    Not even close (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    Three more books and two new BBC specials further lionizing Winston "exterminate the brutes" Churchill came out while I'm writing this.

    Well, Ronald Reagan sure comes close. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 07:54:40 PM EST
    I daresay Republicans would try to rename every single airport and federal building in the country after the guy, if they could. Talk about your cults of personality! They're so committed to mythologizing Reagan that they actually ignored the man's request that Congress not rename Washington National Airport after him, and did so anyway.

    Weinberg says (none / 0) (#57)
    by CMike on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    Beginning at page 707:
    We must now turn to Winston Churchill. From 10 May 1940 until the summer of 1945 he controlled the British war effort as Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, and he subsequently wrote a widely read multivolume account of the war to make sure that contemporaries and future generations would see the conflict and his role in it the way he preferred.

    In his account of the run-up to the war, he was  careful not to mention that in the summer of 1938, while publicly chastising Neville Chamberlain for his policy toward Czechoslovakia, he was privately telling the Prague government that if in office he would most likely follow the same policy. The Battle of Britain was won by the fighters Chamberlain had insisted on having built; perhaps that had some connection with this being the only important battle of the war after which the winning military leader, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, was canned.

    In his influential memoir history, Churchill emphasized a point that has become one of the major myths of the war. He claimed that he had opposed major concessions to the Soviet Union...

    There's more at the link, but nothing, for instance, about Churchill's WW1 participation in the Gallipoli fiasco.


    As First Lord of the Admiralty, ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 09:18:51 PM EST
    ... Winston Churchill was one of the foremost proponents of the 1915 Dardenelles campaign, having argued vociferously that seizing Constantinople would knock Turkey out of the First World War and open a much-needed supply route to an increasingly besieged Imperial Russia. Instead, unexpectedly fierce Turkish resistance and the corresponding incompetence of British commanders rendered the Battle of Gallipoli the greatest single debacle in British military history. Churchill was sacked as a result.

    Exterminate the brutes.. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 08:31:05 AM EST
    "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good...and it would spread a lively terror."

    "I do not admit that any great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken it's place"

    The best that I can think to say
    about Churchill is that he was like the vital "war-time consigliere" Michael Corleone talked about in The Godfather: England's best man at the time for the dirty job at hand. Or as Alfred North Whitehead put it, "Churchill isn't a decent man, but this no time for decency."

    Unfortunately there was no influential coterie of American and Likudnik neocons in England in 1945, so Churchill was voted out practically as soon as the war was over. Hurray for Democracy!


    The problem being (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    short term pain is political poison, many of the Brexit supporters stand to suffer the most, there are already signs of buyer's remorse.

    Meanwhile there is uncertainty in the mid-term, and there is little argument across the economic and political spectrum that uncertainty is Kryptonite to the investment class. It's almost impossible to imagine that GB's will not be inhibited to some degree.


    And what is your proof of buyers (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    remorse???  Shouldn't we at least drive the car home before dreading the payments?

    Please, spouting Leftie talking points really doesn't improve you.


    People coming (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    forward but the main thing that has set it in is the big lie told by (someone else help me out with the name) saying that the NIH could be funded if GB left the EU. He now has done a 180 saying more austerity for the Brits due to the vote and basically admitting he was lying to the voters.

    So you have no proof (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    And One More Time

    If a politician was booted for telling lies Obama would be long gone and Hillary would be in retired and ducking the FBI.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    I do. It's Nigel Farage and he told the voters there would be funding for the NHS if they voted to leave the EU and the next day said pretty much admitted he had been lying to everybody. Read here

    You have shown time and again you're unable to separate fact from fiction and conspiracy theories from reality. So continue to believe the nonsense that rattles around in your brain. Whatever.


    The point is not that politicians (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 06:52:07 AM EST
    lie. I agreed with that. The point is that all you have is a bunch of Lefties whining about the resultsl

    You wanna hear some real (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    whining about the results, just wait till November.

    Nigel (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 05:17:09 PM EST
    I found it.

    Brit version of (none / 0) (#74)
    by coast on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:10:40 AM EST
    You can keep your doctor.

    A central LEAVE pledge made to the elderly (none / 0) (#7)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    was a lie.

    George Soros says big deal (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    And he has come out of retirement to short the pound again. Says he is also prepared for an exodus from EU too, thinks Italy is next. He is forecasting economic hardships.

    Nothing like having an icon of the Left (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    publicly trying to destroy a country's economy.

    My Granny use to say (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    "there is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us it's hard to tell them from the rest of us".

    Soros certainly has a checkered past going back to WWII but I can't fault him for recognizing a chance to make money based on foolish actions by others.  It does not a genius to figure out when a nation spends more on benefits for it's citizens than it gets in taxes the value of it's money will decrease.  Normally this takes so long that shorting currency does not produce enough profit to make it worth while; but once a critical point is reached betting against a countries currency is a sure thing.  Another consideration is that the country has to be big enough supply and demand for the currency to make it worth while.  Venezuela is an example of a country with a worthless currency that no one shorts.

    While I may not agree with what Soros does with his money I give him credit for being able to make it.


    Absolute bullsh#t (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    What is going to crash all the markets of what is recognized as the free world is this notion that the citizens aren't worth caring for.

    That is what Soros recognizes. Supply side economics...fail, trickle down brought to us by Reagan and Thatcher and still being shoved down our throats...failed long long ago.


    And I thought (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    Lindsay Lohan's take on the Brexit was the silliest so far.

    Perhaps your inability to grasp what economically (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    Is occurring has to do with the fact that you read Lindsay Lohan

    Bet my bank account (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    is bigger than your bank account.  I also have a law degree and a masters degree in regional economic development.  While I am aware of several schools of economics your ideas seem well out of any mainstream economic theory I am aware of.

    I equate reading LL to reading the Onion, good for a laugh.


    I don't believe a word of what (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    You just typed. It's the internet. No one knows you're a dog.

    I am willing to bet (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    You are just another day trader

    Really? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 08:52:48 PM EST
    ragebot: "I also have a law degree and a masters degree in regional economic development."

    Boy, you sure had me fooled. I've had you pegged as just another uninformed winger with a laptop and Wi-Fi access. Now I've learned that you're an uninformed winger who has no apparent respect or use for his advanced education.

    Gott in Himmel.


    If the truth be known (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    my undergraduate degree is in math.  FSU DURP has a joint grad/law school degree program I entered after getting my math degree.  My strong science background helped me get in on the ground floor with lots of computer related areas.  I was one of the first students to use a word processing program for my papers.  I also did a lot of work using SPSS and later SAS for statistical analysis.  But my sailing background got me interested in GPS early on.  Back when it was necessary to apply differential correction to GPS data I was one of the first to do that in the Southeast.  Several employers paid for my training with ESRI so I was usually ahead of the curve.  Once I started private consulting I was doing cartography work and getting paid the hourly rate a PE and crew got for mapping.  The thing was with a law degree and very accurate maps I was in demand for lots of zoning work and writing EIS.  During this time I also completed 15 Ironman distance triathlons.  I had a Garmin GPS unit that fit in a backpack and was an avid biker.  I would ride my mountain bike with the Garmin on my back and could literally produce ESRI layers that were more accurate than the PEs were doing shooting with a crew.  Never was much involved in politics till I got involved in making maps for redistricting after the 1990 census.  I created layers with voter registration and local government boundaries.  At first I tried to simply make the districts as simple polygons.  Little did I know how silly that was.

    Bottom line it completely turned me off to politics.  As Bob Hope said "no political party can fool all of the people all of the time, that's why we have two political parties".

    All this allowed me to retire early, buy a nice sailing catamaran, and enjoy life while I was still young enough to sail.


    Interesting bit (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 07:33:46 AM EST
    About the redistricting

    It was sorta a favor (none / 0) (#67)
    by ragebot on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    for a politically involved lawyer I knew.  The thing was few pols are  willing to pay for what I consider top notch tec support.  As a rule the Republicans are way behind the curve in what I will term automated voter turn out efforts, I get the feeling they view it as unamerican to bus folks to the polls to vote.  Hillary is the poster child for incompetent tec support.  What ever one thinks about her email mess it certainly was not close to being bleeding edge.  Not to mention the recent DNC hack job.  My guess is the reason the RNC was not hacked is that there is nothing worth hacking.

    Bottom line is it is much easier for good tec guys to make more money doing something else than working for pols of either flavor.


    I believe that (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 08:03:52 AM EST
    And in my work in related tech industries I knew enough to know the best ones are by nature unlikely to work for the government in any from.

    Bahahaha (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    Whatever Jim

    ... one would be forgiven for wondering publicly if he's even able to sleep at night without the prescriptive assistance of a doctor. But you didn't hear that from me.

    Psycho babble becomes you (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 06:54:59 AM EST
    The record of Soros is well known. Wrap him around you. Enjoy.

    Soros is the evil puppet master (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    the Right needed after it became unfashionable to talk about the Freemasons, The Protocols of Zion, and communists in the State Department..

    So they're left with Soros and secret Kenyan Muslims.


    I would say (none / 0) (#76)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    Soros is comparable to the Kochs,

    Although he is never attacked by the right as vehemently as the Kochs are

    Even though the Kochs are not 1 dimensional and mostly liberterian, they were built up to be the ultimate boogeyman


    I don't think George Soros (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    Is a pious saint. He has been very vocal though in attempting to tell the little people of the UK that leaving the EU would hurt them even more than the existing austerity that the Tories were putting them through. He was honest with them, but they voted for it anyway.

    When have the Koch brothers ever cared about anyone but themselves?


    I won't list them (none / 0) (#81)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    But they are famous for their philanthropy.

    They were made into boogeymen for the Left, so blog readers would donate to help defeat the evil Kochs.

    They area fund raising tool , and that is all.

    Most of their political efforts is for libertarian causes.

    Soros, lol, warning the poor Brits. Did he warn them last time he shorted the pound?
    And you think he didn't have a bet riding on this also,


    Saints and Sinners


    That (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 07:17:21 PM EST
    must be the good type of philanthropy, not the scam CGI is....right Trevor?

    Arguing about the morality of the ultra rich the is fruitless. Billionaires to the right of us Billionaires to the left of us...... the ones on the other side always look evil.


    Yes (none / 0) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 05:50:08 AM EST
    Of course it is.
    If you were really interested you could look it up yourself,
    But you are too fully invested in the boogeymen under the bed legend that has been sold to you

    Of course (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 06:26:33 AM EST
    CGI helped solve the AIDS crisis in Africa helping people conservatives deem "the unworthy" therefore it must be condemned as a scam even though it has an A rating from Charity Navigator.

    The Kochs are pure and holy because they sponsor a dinosaur exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History where you have to pay to get in.


    From US News (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    Article here, and something that must be considered if you want to talk Koch

    Richard White, a Stanford historian and Gilded Age expert, says we've been here before: at the turn of the last century, industrial philanthropists made eye-popping donations "to justify great fortune and an attempt to use that to control the direction of societal and cultural change."

    Carnegie, a major player in the railroad and steel industries, used his wealth to sprinkle grand libraries stamped with his name in towns across the country. White says the goal was to promote individual self-improvement -- but not necessarily for his employees.

    At the same time he attempted to increase American literacy, White adds, "his workers are working 12 to 14 hours a day" with little time to go read a book.

    Like the Kochs, Stanford, Carnegie, Andrew Mellon and most of the GIlded Age tycoons were, primarily, tough, savvy businessmen who wanted to make lots of money, West says.

    Big Deal or hiccup? (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    The UK voters have gone with hiccup over big deal. And, that is what the world has to work with. So, the British government should move with dispatch to implement its exit.  David Cameron plans to stay on as PM until October, for some reason, and wait for his Tory successor to trigger Article 50-- essentially, the irreversible path of estrangement.

    Cameron's delay in vacating his position is counter to that expressed by the success of the referendum. He should pack his bags now. The EU exit needs to proceed immediately in keeping with the vote, and also, to demonstrate to the remaining 27 members of the EU that it is but a hiccup to leave.

    Moreover, the bed made by the Brexit advocates needs to be slept in by them so as to show that they are the leaders they claim to be. They need to show the older citizens who voted for exit that the "350 pounds  per week" claimed to be sent to the EU will now be able to be directed to the National Heath Service--badly in need of help owing to the cuts of the Tories austerity programs.  Nigel Farage is now saying that will not happen.  It was a mistake, sure, but it will demonstrate their genius. As many supporters said, in response to no serious economist, believes exit is a good thing--we have had enough experts.  Yes, it is time for the dense and non-elites.

     And, to show that all the problems of intra EU immigration and the lesser extra EU immigration will disappear as promised.  The new leaders can show that their demagoguery is not the same as the scapegoating culture of the Arab world they target.

    And, the UK can reclaim its "lost sovereignty " getting out of oppressive regulations such as the size of hair dryers, with little or no benefits, other than efforts to assure peace and prosperity.

     And, jettison the undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats, and return to its Constitutional Monarchy, and get rid of the elite, by replacing Cameron by a contest between MPs and then members, who will become automatically PM.  No requirement to hold an election until 2020.  If it is to be undemocratic, it will be the UK who is undemocratic. As it is written.


    Let's wait and see (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 11:58:27 AM EST
    whether the petition circulating in the UK now, asking for a redo, receives the requisite number of signatures to require action in Parliament.

    I read that the petition is trending almost as fast as the record number of Google searches by Brits asking, only after they voted, "what is the EU"?


    It is possible (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    that Cameron's delay in resigning, and the associated reason for waiting to trigger Article 50, is to gauge the buyers remorse. (a new movement). Including, the reality of successionist movements in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

     In 2014, both Belgium and Spain indicated that they would block Scotland's admission to the EU. Spain was concerned about Catalonia and Basque areas,  and Belgium, was worried about Flanders, the richest part, would want to go.

    But, now, those calculations may be inoperable. The EU may take a new look at Scotland, and even, Northern Ireland (or a united Irish Republic) as seemingly impossible as that was a few days ago.

    However, the idea that the Brexits can dilly dally, and see how things work out, will not be in the interest of the EU.


    David Cameron is leaving. He's a lame duck. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 07:15:06 PM EST
    His political position as leader of the Conservative Party is now untenable. He will be replaced at the party conference in October, and his successor will take his place as prime minister.

    Were Cameron to renege and attempt to stay on as PM, he would run a considerable risk that Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats would immediately call for a vote of no confidence, in the hope that Conservative MPs opposed to Cameron's leadership, led by Boris Johnson, would would join them in a floor vote and bring down the government.

    Were that vote to succeed, Cameron would then be compelled to go to Buckingham Palace, ask the Queen to formally dissolve Parliament, and call for new elections. Conservatives, who still have almost four years remaining of a five-year term, would likely not want to risk that in any event.



    The Conservatives have already done (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    So much damage to the UK. Horrible situation they are all in.

    According to a British tenor whose (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    tweets I follow, the petition already has the required signatures.

    Some reports are (none / 0) (#26)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    2,000,000 signatures on the petition, well above the 100,000 needed for the MP's to consider it.  But if there is another Brexit vote that goes the other way what happens if there is a petition to reconsider that vote.  I would bet a nickle it would get a similar number of signatures.  So how many do overs are allowed, 2 out of 3, 3 out of 5, where does it stop.

    Let's please remember that the ... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    ... the Brexit referendum was an advisory referendum -- that is, its results are entirely non-binding, and Parliament would be entirely within its rights to ignore it if members so desire.

    So from a legal standpoint Parliament, and not the British electorate, actually has the final say regarding the UK's status as an EU member. Whether or not certain key Conservative MPs, whose respective constituencies voted in favor of leaving the EU, would be willing to risk potential public wrath by ignoring the Brexit vote is another matter altogether.



    How totalitarian of you. (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 07:08:47 AM EST
    But I am not surprised.

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 08:14:29 AM EST
    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    Sorry (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    Jim, a duly elected legislative/deliberative body having the final say(with checks and balances), is the essence of all democratic governance.

    Our founding fathers were wary of the "tyranny of the masses" and actually limited direct influence of voters to one half of one third of our government.

    The biggest flaw in democracy is that people will more often vote for their own self interest(real or perceived) over the common good.


    No, you just described a constitutional (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:42:26 PM EST
    republic with democratic institutions.

    Necessary to this is three equal legs of government.

    One is supposed to be elected on a rotating segment basis for a longer period of time than the other to make it more deliberative in principle than the group that is elected for a short period of time with all members standing for election at the same time. Supposedly the latter group would be more open to the people's wishes.

    Theoretically the other elected officer is supposed to enforce the laws passed by the legislature and provide leadership in times of crisis as well as other house keeping duties.

    The third is supposed to review laws brought to their attention by people harmed by the laws and then rule as to the constitutionally of the law.

    No place in there will you find that they are supposed to respond to an Internet poll that has an accuracy of +/- 90%.


    That's why (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    true democratic rule by plebiscite is undesirable even dangerous. There are reams of evidence showing the electorate can be extremely misinformed, easily misled and often voting more on emotion than rational thought.

    This past Thursday the "mood" of the British voters, at that singular moment, shifted the geo-political-economic axis in a rather dramatic fashion. It's a hell of a way to run a country and participate in a global economy.


    Actually the vote had been debated (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    for quite a while.

    Lifelong politicians (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    And the political elite are being shown the door

    Reykjavik (AFP) - History professor Gudni Johannesson won Iceland's presidential election after riding a wave of anti-establishment sentiment, final results showed Sunday, although the vote was eclipsed by the country's eagerly-anticipated Euro football match.

    The political newcomer, who won with 39.1 percent of votes, was trailed by businesswoman Halla Tomasdottir, also without party affiliation, who took 29.4 percent, according to results announced on public television channel RUV.

    Johannesson only decided to run for the presidency after the so-called Panama Papers leak in April which detailed offshore accounts and implicated several senior Icelandic politicians, including the prime minister who was forced to resign.

    Throughout the campaign, Johannesson emphasised his non-partisan vision of the presidency, and vowed to restore faith in the political system after years of public anger toward politicians over scandals and financial woes.

    The victory was especially sweet for the history professor and political commentator, who has never held public office and has no party affiliation, as he celebrated his 48th birthday Sunday.

    It all depends on what is being voted on. Turning sovereignty over to a foreign power is something the people should vote on.

    As a closer to home example, the people of Puerto Rico should decide to stay a commonwealth, become a state, or become independent.  That's all the people, not just a current crop of corrupt politicians.

    What do you think Canadians would do if the current bunch in Ottowa decided to become the 51st state?


    They (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    were not voting for anything, they were voting against the status-quo, any sovereignty they lost   was  turned over decades ago. In good times and bad time Great Britain took advantage of the economic pluses and suffered the political minuses offered by the EU, suddenly a set of politicians convinces enough people that they have been getting a raw deal and, bingo, a entire country is off into the great unknown.



    They were voting for (none / 0) (#107)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 28, 2016 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    For independence.
    For being able to vote for the people that make their laws.
    For making free trade agreements not subject to Brussels veto.

    yeah (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 28, 2016 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    im sure the neo Nazis so happy with the vote were concerned mostly with trade agreements.

    the irony is that i read the major condition for the EU not bludgeoning Britain over trade is if they maintain open borders.


    Do overs are unlimited (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    if they benefit the Left. Just remember the attempts in FL re 11 and 12/2000.

    Eff off Jimbo (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by smott on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    Nigel was calling for a re-do if Leave lost BEFORE the vote.

    Please do keep up with your fascist overlords latest memo.


    I really give a flip what Nigel wants or wanted (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:47:18 PM EST
    and didn't even know his name until Friday.

    The facts are that the Brits stuck a finger in the eyes of the elites.

    Standby for a repeat come November.


    That's (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 05:57:21 AM EST
    the problem, "sticking it to the elites" is nothing more than acting out by voters. It's not about policy or even ideology, but an almost childish lashing out at their alleged tormentors.

    Trust me if it turns out that the Brexit is a good thing the "elites" will do great, if it's a disaster the "elites" will only slightly less great, one guess to who really gets stuck.

    You are correct about Trump's campaign though, it is nothing more then "I'll poke'em in the eye and kick'em in the balls, that will show'em".


    Even a blind hog finds an (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 10:46:26 AM EST
    acorn every now and then...

    So yes, the real elites, the real money, will probably survive either way.

    But what the Brits, and Trump's and Sanders' people here, are protesting is watching their lives being controlled by distant people who ignore their desires.

    They see their culture changing. They see their futures being destroyed.

    They have seen their jobs sent out of the country and then what's left taken by a flood of immigrants both undocumented and documented..and the elites promising to bring in more!

    You, in your false belief that you are an elite, call them childish. I see them as a force for change.


    For someone who continually (none / 0) (#91)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 07:52:09 AM EST
    defines himself by his years of service in "naval aviation," that's one hell of a patriotic attitude. You are, without a doubt, part of the nutball wing who doesn't give a damn about the good of the country, it's future or it's standing in the world. The country be damned, let's stick our finger in the eye of the elites. Hell of a policy skippy.

    I know you haven't served (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    but the oath is to

    ... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...

    Evidently what you prefer is allegiance to the leader...

    Ask Germany how that worked out.


    Oh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    you don't remember what happened in California? Oh, that's right. It's okay if Republicans do it. We see it time and again from them. Sanctimonious lectures to everybody else that they themselves don't have to follow. There's a reason the GOP is held in such low regard across the country.

    The Repubs had a (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 07:06:38 AM EST
    recall vote and the voters recalled Gray Davis.

    The Demos didn't demand a recount as the Demos did in FL... ;-)

    In case you have missed Trump and Bernie... politicians are in deep dodo...Of course the Repub base threw out their's.... Demos kept their's.


    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    if you're talking about FL 2000 I would think most Republicans would go back and ask for a recount on that too and that way they wouldn't have that Monkey on their Back named George W. Bush.

    Of course, the majority of Americans knew better. Too bad Republicans didn't care enough about the country.


    Every recount has shown (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:44:59 PM EST
    that Bush won.

    As for the Terminator he brought Governor Moonbeam back.


    Bush (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 06:22:39 AM EST
    lost the popular vote. He lost the popular vote because the majority of Americans realized he would be a terrible president. And he was and the GOP has to own that and it's part of the mess they are in now and no, not every count showed George W. Bush won only one did. And remember too that Scalia stopped the counting. But you have to take responsibility for your part in that disaster.

    And Clinton in '92 (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    didn't win a majority...so your point is what??

    Clinton (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    still won the MOST votes. George W. Bush didn't even win the most votes. It seems you have lost your ability to count too.

    So?? (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    You flit around like a butterfly. First a majority and then a plurality and neither makes a bit of difference in our system.

    You're trying (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    to move the goal posts again. Whatever. George W. Bush lost the popular vote didn't he?

    The subject was (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 03:22:54 PM EST
    Do overs are unlimited (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 02:50:41 PM CST
    if they benefit the Left. Just remember the attempts in FL re 11 and 12/2000.

    I (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:12:54 AM EST
    guess the umpteen votes to repeal Obamacare have no standing in your narrative?

    The subject was do overs with the people (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 26, 2016 at 09:51:51 PM EST
    involved. What a bunch of dumb Repub reps wanted to do to look good to some of their base was grandstanding matched only by the Demo reps doing a sit in about guns while dining on tax payer bought food and guarded by people with guns.

    Italy telling the EU reform is (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    Needed, the citizens have to be taken care of. Perhaps Brexit will trigger EU reform and the UK back in.

    Per my stunned relatives in UK (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by smott on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    Boris and Nigel And the Leavers are already trying to delay the actual Exit, and I don't blame Cameron for getting out ASAP. Let Boris and Nigel own the genie they just let out of the bottle, which will be quite uncontrollable despite their promises.

    There's 52 trade agreements to renegotiate, and EU is going hammer UK up the arse and make it as painful as possible, in order to dissuade other Exiters. Hard to blame them.

    Meanwhile the economy just shrunk 10% , the GBP is worth cow sh-t, the EU funding will disappear, and the poor white folk in Leaver places like Cornwall (already bleating for funding guarantees, good luck mates)  are going to get even poorer.

    TOries in power will install yet more austerity, as business rush to leave UK for the flexibility of EU (Nissan is leaving skid marks) . To say nothing of banking/investment companies.

    Man it's going to get bad. UK just went from an international banking power, to a tiny, isolated, small economy with sh-t for currency.

    I wonder if a re-do is actually possible. It would save a lot of economic pain, ironically for the Leavers. But here we are.


    Yay for freedom and a Europe of Nations! (none / 0) (#21)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    Before you know it the EU will be in the dustbin of history and the independent nations of Europe will be free to have another go at each other's throats. It's a great day for peace, prosperity, and freedom.

    And here I thought the UN (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    was supposed to do that.

    Springtime for Angela and Germany. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 07:38:23 PM EST
    Winter for Poland and France.

    If you (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    Most Americans can't imagine (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ragebot on Sat Jun 25, 2016 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    running out of TP.  A lot of them have no idea just how much they use.  Living on a boat where I have no access to a store for months at a time I take great pains to assure an adequate supply.  Any respected cruising guide will note that when traveling abroad one of the most prized trade goods is toilet paper.  A google search will turn up plenty of hits on Venezuela's toilet paper shortage.  While the expensive hotels in Cuba do have toilet paper the level of use one would encounter in the US is discouraged.  For cruiser like myself any time I visit a marina it is standard procedure to BYOTP. As for regular Cuban citizens a roll of TP will get you a good meal in trade.

    So I don't worry too much about how Brexit will affect my TP supply.


    Is either a pipe dream or the end of the EU (none / 0) (#101)
    by BTAL on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    This is never going to happen and could be the true end of the EU.

    European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled

    Definitely pipe dream:

    The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an "ultimatum".

    Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

    If this is true (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    Brexit was the right choice

    I read it also, but really doubt Germany and Brussels would push this after the Brexit vote and the simmering disillusionment with the EU in many countries


    When you study the long history (none / 0) (#106)
    by BTAL on Tue Jun 28, 2016 at 06:44:08 AM EST
    and original long-term goal of the EU, it is exactly where they've always wanted to end up.  The EU was always intended to make Europe a single political entity.  My thinking is that they (true EU believers) see BREXIT as a real threat and one possibility is this type of very aggressive response.  Throw the Hail Mary/Full Court shot.