BREXIT(?)

It's a tough one gents for sure. I don't know what will happen and will "Keep Calm and Carry On" as best I can.

But to say the Brits were somehow blind to the financial risks just ain't right. Cameron spent £9m on the IN campaign and that was largely based on fear, telling us about the huge financial risks.

Britain voted OUT despite this, they know the risk, but think it is worth it. The EU has morphed, very gradually, from an economic community to a strange body whereby un elected people make all sorts of decisions, some minor and petty, some major and deep, all without anyone to answer to. It has declared its cause as being "ever greater union" which will not yield until Europe is one state. I assure you that the US people would not put up with it either.

The thing is, no one is discussing root cause as to WHY the vote went the way it did. Claiming that the (est) 30m + who voted OUT are all stupid just doesn't cut it.

Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome, we must not ignore such a massive display of 'people power'. We all live in democratic countries who have made great sacrifices in the name of democracy before. We have to understand the what and why behind all of this.

Remember, it is not long since Cameron tried very hard to get some reforms in the EU. He needed to do this to appease the pressure on him in the UK. Despite being a major contributor to the EU (circa £19b per year), and despite the EU politicians knowing the strength lf feeling in the UK, he actually got almost nothing and the UK press beat him badly for this.

Despite this he then spent £9m on the 'in' campaign, he fought hard, desperately trying to remain in the EU. The 'In' campaign was much bigger and stronger than the 'Out' campaign.

The 'out' campaign won by a greater margin than any recent political party in a general election.

The voting turn out was over 80%. The last general election turn out was only 62%.

What does all this tell us? That the public opinion was massively motivated by this subject and massively against the current version of the EU.

I say 'current EU' because even Boris Johnson (prominent out campaigner) said Europe is a good thing, but needs to change.

I humbly suggest the EU leadership has to re evaluate. The UK referendum has demonstrated that the EU cannot rely on 'threats' to force member states to remain any longer.

It must become something that the people (not only politicians), of all member states actually value... and want.

First step towards this is the need to actually listen to member states concerns and genuinely look for solutions.

Ignoring and threatening has to be replaced by listening and acting...
 
@FastEddie

Well said in your post above.

@FrankDamp

5000 miles is meaningless, as the Western World is connected via the global banking system. The banksters are bringing everyone to financial Armageddon.

@GrandPaul

I concur, and recommend all to re-read his post and take whatever measures you can. If you do not concur, live bliss fully and have a good day.

Slick
 
Wars have been fought over far more minor issues.
Including civil wars......
 
I doubt if the UK will leave the EU, it will fall apart within two years that it is will take to leave I reckon - lots of elections on the continent next year should be interesting.
 
Many intelligent and factually accurate posts here, including Danno's.

Here in the U.S. we have controversy about NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement and the TPP the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These are sold as "free trade" which is a lie. In fact, they are mechanisms by which our politicians sell advantages to special interests. Examples - manufacturing, entertainment, labor, pollution control, and the like - all are eager to buy tariff protection or regulatory protection or other benefit from the politicians. Warren Buffett seeks what he calls "moats" as a precondition to investment. His most successful investments are insurance companies - the perfect industry for him because it is particularly regulatory in its very nature; they are a fat pot of capital that the politicians target to force purchases of regulatory and tax protection from the government.

The history of trade, is always about predation by government. It is about skimming, the dispensation of favors, strong men with weapons shaking down producers, being paid protection money to pick winners and losers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... onal_trade

The only thing truly free trade needs from government is the enforcement of the right to create, to keep, and to sell your own property.

Notice how none of the talking heads are saying that the fall of the Pound is good for British industry?
They are "court economists" and "court journalists" whose bread is buttered by their membership in the establishment.

BTW . . . . . Ken is absolutely correct, if you need parts made in Britain, the time to buy them is now.
 
xbacksideslider said:
Many intelligent and factually accurate posts here, including Danno's.

Here in the U.S. we have controversy about NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement and the TPP the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These are sold as "free trade" which is a lie. In fact, they are mechanisms by which our politicians sell advantages to special interests. Examples - manufacturing, entertainment, labor, pollution control, and the like - all are eager to buy tariff protection or regulatory protection or other benefit from the politicians. Warren Buffett seeks what he calls "moats" as a precondition to investment. His most successful investments are insurance companies - the perfect industry for him because it is particularly regulatory in its very nature; they are a fat pot of capital that the politicians target to force purchases of regulatory and tax protection from the government.

The history of trade, is always about predation by government. It is about skimming, the dispensation of favors, strong men with weapons shaking down producers, being paid protection money to pick winners and losers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... onal_trade

The only thing truly free trade needs from government is the enforcement of the right to create, to keep, and to sell your own property.

Notice how none of the talking heads are saying that the fall of the Pound is good for British industry?
They are "court economists" and "court journalists" whose bread is buttered by their membership in the establishment.

BTW . . . . . Ken is absolutely correct, if you need parts made in Britain, the time to buy them is now.
Click to expand...

Good points!

But imagine how you'd feel if NAFTA or TPP morphed from trade organisations into governments... Governments that ruled your own... Doesn't sound so attractive does it?!?
 
Fast Eddie said:
Good points!

But imagine how you'd feel if NAFTA or TPP morphed from trade organisations into governments... Governments that ruled your own... Doesn't sound so attractive does it?!?
Click to expand...

A parallel example is that of the UN, which has morphed from a peacekeeping organization into a regulatory one, and attempts to supersede national sovereignty.

Slick
 
Fast Eddie said:
It's a tough one gents for sure. I don't know what will happen and will "Keep Calm and Carry On" as best I can.

Remember, it is not long since Cameron tried very hard to get some reforms in the EU. He needed to do this to appease the pressure on him in the UK. Despite being a major contributor to the EU (circa £19b per year), and despite the EU politicians knowing the strength lf feeling in the UK, he actually got almost nothing and the UK press beat him badly for this.
The 'out' campaign won by a greater margin than any recent political party in a general election.
The voting turn out was over 80%. The last general election turn out was only 62%. quote

Voting turn out was 72% -I don’t know where you got your 80% from :?:


Before the vote, Cameron said he will do whatever the British electorate voted for and stay in office, so now we have a wonderful situation of Cameron deciding to leave the PM office, leaving us in limbo because he will not activate article 50 to the EU and Jeremy Corbyn refusing to resign his position (as he is entitled to do so) despite about 20 labour front benches resigning :!: :shock:
Click to expand...
 
Bernhard said:
...so now we have a wonderful situation of Cameron deciding to leave the PM office, leaving us in limbo because he will not activate article 50 to the EU and Jeremy Corbyn refusing to resign his position (as he is entitled to do so) despite about 20 labour front benches resigning
Click to expand...

If only our elected idiotic, money-wasting, lying, thieving "representatives" would resign as matter of "principal"!

NEVER HAPPEN!
 
Bernhard said:
Fast Eddie said:
It's a tough one gents for sure. I don't know what will happen and will "Keep Calm and Carry On" as best I can.

Remember, it is not long since Cameron tried very hard to get some reforms in the EU. He needed to do this to appease the pressure on him in the UK. Despite being a major contributor to the EU (circa £19b per year), and despite the EU politicians knowing the strength lf feeling in the UK, he actually got almost nothing and the UK press beat him badly for this.
The 'out' campaign won by a greater margin than any recent political party in a general election.
The voting turn out was over 80%. The last general election turn out was only 62%. quote

Voting turn out was 72% -I don’t know where you got your 80% from :?:


Before the vote, Cameron said he will do whatever the British electorate voted for and stay in office, so now we have a wonderful situation of Cameron deciding to leave the PM office, leaving us in limbo because he will not activate article 50 to the EU and Jeremy Corbyn refusing to resign his position (as he is entitled to do so) despite about 20 labour front benches resigning :!: :shock:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't know where I got the 80% from, some exaggerated headline or another it seems! Even at 72% though, my point remains the same.

Regarding Cameron, seems he's damned whatever he does... If he stayed, folk will say he's a hypocrit etc. if he goes, folk say he's abandoning us all etc.

One thing has to be certain... Corbyn can't possibly survive this!
 
Fast Eddie said:
xbacksideslider said:
Many intelligent and factually accurate posts here, including Danno's.

Here in the U.S. we have controversy about NAFTA the North American Free Trade Agreement and the TPP the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These are sold as "free trade" which is a lie. In fact, they are mechanisms by which our politicians sell advantages to special interests. Examples - manufacturing, entertainment, labor, pollution control, and the like - all are eager to buy tariff protection or regulatory protection or other benefit from the politicians. Warren Buffett seeks what he calls "moats" as a precondition to investment. His most successful investments are insurance companies - the perfect industry for him because it is particularly regulatory in its very nature; they are a fat pot of capital that the politicians target to force purchases of regulatory and tax protection from the government.

The history of trade, is always about predation by government. It is about skimming, the dispensation of favors, strong men with weapons shaking down producers, being paid protection money to pick winners and losers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... onal_trade

The only thing truly free trade needs from government is the enforcement of the right to create, to keep, and to sell your own property.

Notice how none of the talking heads are saying that the fall of the Pound is good for British industry?
They are "court economists" and "court journalists" whose bread is buttered by their membership in the establishment.

BTW . . . . . Ken is absolutely correct, if you need parts made in Britain, the time to buy them is now.
Click to expand...

Good points!

But imagine how you'd feel if NAFTA or TPP morphed from trade organisations into governments... Governments that ruled your own... Doesn't sound so attractive does it?!?
Click to expand...

Fast Eddie - Actually, in effect, that is exactly what we have. These agreements have treaty status. which under the US Constitution, makes them superior to any law enacted by Congress. They are supra-governmental. Further, the cronyism is so powerful that, for the TPP, Congress passed a law saying that - before ratification - they themselves were to be kept out of the loop, that the actual text of the agreements would be kept secret even from Congress itself, that the Obama administration would only provide an executive summary, that only the leadership could actually read it, in a room from which they could not take out a copy. THAT is how desperate they are to keep the actual terms/payoffs/benefits/winners-losers secret. Then, after the Senate ratifies it, it has treaty status and is locked in, beyond review of the courts or Congress.

It is the same censorship as Nancy Pelosi used to pass Obamacare . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
 
The solution to bad trade agreements is very simple; don't buy the cheap crap that puts your own citizens out of jobs and it won't matter what the bureaucrats and the minions of the rich and powerful do or what paper they sign.

Injecting Obamacare into this discussion is another attempt to push a personal political agenda, and I just wish everyone would stick to the subject. We could go off on a tangent about the "28 pages" which link high-level Saudis to 9-11 ( also never released to the public, available to a select few on an 'eyes-only' basis), but what would that have to do with Brexit?

Right now, the US stock market is dithering because all the second-guessers are betting on Brexit's negative effect on the world economy and selling off in a minor panic that, at it's heart, is only meant to give the vultures something to scoop up and profiteer when prices rise again. Not a damn thing to do with the profitability or the viability of the companies whose stocks are being undermined, just more paper-pushing and false wealth creation by manipulators too lazy to work. Even though our market recovered the immediate loss today, you have to ask yourself who benefits from it? Brexit, like any other seismic shift, is just another excuse to screw somebody for gain.
 
No worries, US stock market is headed right back up, as most rational analysts and reasonably savvy investors knew it would.

UK stocks will also return to normal presently.

EU, maybe not so much. The ones paying a disproportionate share of carrying those mobsters will soon follow Great Britain.
 
It seems that the days will be numbered for the EWho, they want us to rush through article 50 - for their own benefit. This is not surprising when the FTSE has outperformed the Frankfurt stock exchange daily this past week and most probably many of the others, this has been kept quite while the EWho bureaucrats are engrossed in our exit.

It is also been reported this morning that Singapore Bank are no longer giving money for their nationals to buy money in London, good riddance - lets keep that business here with British banks, as for HSBC and their idle threats for moving to Paris, it was only a few months ago they wanted to move to HK - must have an EU un-elected commissioner at the helm of that corporation.

Whilst the steel plant in South Wales was being put up for sale, the good'ol USA placed tariffs on chinese steel - we could not do that in the UK as the EWho said it was unfair and may hurt steel production in other member states. Despite what many UK steel supporters think, we do not produce a full range of steel in the UK, so much of it has to come from abroad.

Good riddance to the them all - they will come crawling back when they want to sell us their Lamb (NZ Lamb is a restricted import under EWHo trade regulations) and Spain will go cap in hand to the Germans for handouts when they can't sell their fresh salads to us. Ireland will have a massive economic crisis if the trade is stopped as most of it is with the UK. The EWho seems as short sighted and bureaucratic as ever, like standing on a sand castle with the tide coming in - they can see what is going to happen them but will do nothing about.
 
The biggest economy in Europe is Germany.

Their biggest market is the second biggest economy in Europe... The UK !

Trade always finds a way. Europe and the UK will trade, and have to do so amicably. It cannot be stopped, despite the politicians !
 
Anger and resentment against the EU is not a british thing. There is widespread distrust in the unelected faceless eurocrats in many coutries on the european continent too including mine, and if drastic reforms will not take place soon, more countries could follow Britains example.
The thing is, the local europhile politicians will never give us the oportunity to speak out in a referendum like in the UK.
Cooperation between european nations is a good thing, however, we do not need the army of burocrats in Brussels for that.
 
Peter R said:
Anger and resentment against the EU is not a british thing. There is widespread distrust in the unelected faceless eurocrats in many coutries on the european continent too including mine, and if drastic reforms will not take place soon, more countries could follow Britains example.
The thing is, the local europhile politicians will never give us the oportunity to speak out in a referendum like in the UK.
Cooperation between european nations is a good thing, however, we do not need the army of burocrats in Brussels for that.
Click to expand...

Yeah but...

Do your Brit bikes still talk to your Italian and vice versa... or is there 'tension in the air'...?!?
 
The parallel is pure, Danno. Pelosi embargoed the text of Obamacare exactly as the text of these trade agreements was embargoed.

When it is really crooked, the power elites abhor transparency and will not give the public a chance to affect the outcome. As Peter R said, the other EU politicians will not follow Cameron's "mistake" in allowing referenda.

As Fast Eddie said "trade will find a way." Yes, but I would add - but at a cost. Interest groups buy protection from the politicians in the form of tariffs, or whatever barrier or Warren Buffett "moat" they pay for. Then, competitors, often called "smugglers" or some other pejorative, find a way. There is a cost but that cost is less than the spread, so smuggling remains profitable.

As an aside, the second President of the U.S., John Adams, before the Revolutionary War was a smuggler. He smuggled tea from Ceylon and the Danes to evade King George's tariff on tea. At the Boston Tea party, the "Indians" who threw the British Tea into the harbor were working for/with John Adams. The twist to that story is generally not taught. The reason the tea smugglers threw that tea into the harbor is that King George, in response to protests over the Stamp Act and other tariffs, had CUT the tariff on tea ! That cut was so great that Adams and his fellow smugglers were caught out with tea that they had paid too much for! They had to destroy that British tea in order to be able to sell theirs.

It is only in the very modern world that policy makers have imagined that borders and citizenship are archaic and useless impediments to trade. They have forgotten about the "free rider" problem. Throughout the history of trade, borders and citizenship were a way to force everyone who enjoyed the benefits of government - defense, courts, contract enforcement, property rights, common infrastructure/walls/gates/wells/irrigation - to pay for those benefits. Suppose some stranger walks into town, is he supposed to enjoy what everyone else has previously paid for? No, not so fast. Pay up. Pay a head tax, pay a tariff on the load of grain you brought in, and so on. Of course, this was not always so democratic, it was also, and mainly, just some strong man and his family and his thugs, who set themselves up as royalty, and who threw bones to their bishops and priests to make up stuff like the "divine right of kings" and so on. The point is that that list of the benefits of government is what enabled large scale trade - made it possible for producers: to plant, to build, to manufacture, to specialize. Production precedes sale. And borders and citizenship are critical components.
 
After all the hoohaa, they all seem to be standing around and saying "whats next".
Doesn't seem to have been well thought out.
Or thought out at all, really..... ?

'Boldly stepping out into the unknown',
or boldly stepping off into the abyss ???
 
With the soon to be former Prime Minister, and presumably most of the rest of the cabinet, firmly in the remain camp they were probably thinking that there would be no change to plan for. And with 2 years to negotiate the exit there is little that could be done in the meantime, except keep calm and carry on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top