1. No it doesn't.

2. No it isn't.

3. That's Capitalism you're thinking of.

4. Really? Guess the US dollar is also a disaster then, given their similar value.

5. No it doesn't.

6. No it couldn't.

7. But would still have to spend it in order to expand our economy (both internally and overseas), so moot really.

It's all well and good to come up with 7 grand arguments as to why we should leave the EU, but where's the actual evidence to support the claims? Hint: there is very little, because the vast majority of reasons to leave the EU are complete and utter bullshit.

Sorry, Dave. I should have posted my source. I confess I don't know enough about the issue save for what I have read. I don't know if I should take the word of "scholars" or the news or the man on the street.

Here's the source.

I suppose in some respects, it is all in one's viewpoint and how EU membership may (or may not) have affected their lives.

Again, sorry. See my post to Dave.
 
Except many people felt differently. They're wrong and you are right?

Have you read The Atlantic? Seems reasonable enough.

Read as much of both of those links as I could - a lot of waffle with no substance.


>>Except many people felt differently. They're wrong and you are right?

There you go again, confusing feelings with reality. Also: yes.

'Why not Texit?': Texas nationalists look to the Brexit vote for inspiration

http://gu.com/p/4yjk4?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

OK, kos. So tell me: why are you right and they are wrong? 53% disagree with you. Of the seven arguments for leaving, why are they invalid?
 

Don't get cute. There is no reality in Brexit for me, kos - at least not yet - I DON'T LIVE THERE. Since I removed my money from the stock market long ago and invested elsewhere, that won't affect me directly, either.

Instead of telling me one-word answers to reasons I posted (again, sorry for not sourcing it), how about telling my why "experts" are wrong? Are you a political science, global affairs expert? That is a serious question kos.

Is it possible that there are people in Britain that voted the way they did on emotion alone? Why would they vote to exit the EU if the ramifications are as bad as you say? Remember, because I live in the U.S., we are getting a slanted view of things. The issue is much more complex than most over here would know.

It is interesting to note, as I read some news about Brexit, that it isn't even a done deal yet. Parliament has to approve the measure which may not happen for up to two years - is this true? The other issue is Article 50 and how it will be applied, together with having to repeal the European Communities Act. It's not such a neat and tidy package.

You haven't posted 7 arguments for leaving. Even after reading your source, there is no argument - just rhetoric. To argue is to present evidence to support your position, and there is very little evidence to support any of the 7 points you quoted.

Take immigration as an example. Net migration last year was equivalent to 0.5% population growth. If our infrastructure can't handle 0.5% increase in population then I would suggest the problem is lack of investment and proper planning, not migration, that's the problem. We have a falling birth rate and aging population, we *need* migration to keep our society running. Politicians on both sides know that, which is why the Leave campaign and now backtracking on their promise to stop migration from the EU.

There are "experts" on both sides of the debate, but anyone claiming to be an expert most likely isn't one.

I think the vast majority of people voted on emotion alone, one of the major soundbites from the Leave campaign in the last few days was "people in this country are sick of listening to experts", which pretty much sums up the Leave vote for me. They'd happily shoot themselves in face, as long as they get to kick Johnny Foreigner in the balls at the same time.

> It is interesting to note, as I read some news about Brexit, that it isn't even a done deal yet.

The referendum was basically an opinion poll, and does not in itself activate Article 50 - though its result does nullify the negotiations David Cameron made earlier this year. The two year figure you've heard is the default maximum (it can be extended) for negotiations if/when Article 50 comes into play.

There's information on the process here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13802.htm

The summary section (after chapter 7) gives an overview if you don't want to read it all, or there's a single 304 KB PDF document if preferred.

So... what is it you are talking about, exactly?

It is a very interesting situation to watch.  Of course, as I said, I will avoid expressing my opinion about if it is a good / bad decision to exit the EU, especially since it doesn't matter.

A couple of observations from the far west side of the US (based on information from our perfectly unbiased news feeds of course)

a) Good luck with things.  I really mean this with the best of intentions.

b) Usually these types of events have less impact than expected, because financial institutions hate instability, so they will pressure all of the governments involved into figuring it out.

c) We have the exact same challenge of laws / taxes / debt being passed in California with just 50.1 % of a vote.  It leads to many poor decisions. (again, I am not saying that Brexit is good / bad - really don't know).  I just cannot understand how a law can be passed as meeting a "majority of votes" with less than 60%.  That is just not a sufficient % to base a decision that affects peoples lives. 

50.1 % might be enough to decide what type of wine or beer to order, but not for laws and taxes.

d) The UK has already started on its path to be part of China by joining it's version of the IMF.  This vote more or less seems to seal this fate, much to my dismay, as I am not a fan of China policies.

e) At least here in the US, we didn't interpret the vote as being racist driven at all, rather that similar to here, a lot of people are being left behind by the economy, and the value of our own currency has fallen rather dramatically.  Meet the $50 bill, its the new $20.    In "constant dollars", most wages here have fallen.




 

Looks like any gains on the GBP/USD rate made later on Friday have already been lost.

Throw in Labour imploding and we're looking at an interesting week/month/year.

May as well add Boris saying it wasn't an overwhelming victory and that we will continue very much part of Europe (obviously geographically, but he clearly means politically and economically).

The GBP/USD rate will have a big impact on my job, significant imports from China which are all done in USD.

I'm pretty confused by Boris' statement, but I'm guessing he got cold feet, and has no intention of carrying out what was voted for, assuming he'll be in a position to make that call.

I was ambivalent about the EU vote and didn't vote. On the one hand I think the sooner we stop giving a shit about nation states and start thinking of ourselves as a planet the better. And the EU was (perhaps) a step towards that with free migration and federalising some aspects of government.

On the other hand the EU is, politically, a neoliberal trading cartel, a haven for the tax-dodging wealthy and dodgy corporate activity and a strong proponent (to say the least) of austerity. It's largely failed (if it was ever an aim) in redistributing wealth (wealth gaps just keep getting bigger) or facilitating progressive policy and/or social justice, at least at a greater rate than baseline.

It's difficult to disentangle because we don't know quite what our economy and laws would be like had we never been in the EU but I suspect that it did, generally, make things better (within it, that is, its treatment of external poor countries is another matter). I'd rather have cheap food and pissed off farmers than happy farmers and poor people starving.

I think the problem is/was that the poor benefited significantly less (or at the very least, less obviously) than the well-off.

The vote was used, I think, as is happening with other votes around the world (fromt he tea party to occupy to greece to sanders & trump to the EU), as an anti-establishment protest. I think neoliberal (regan/thatcher/clinton/blairite) politics has just left too many behind, at least relatively, and they feel disconnected and ignored.

Unfortunately this is coupled with a rejection of all elites which, as we see with Trump and the EU vote in particular, means not listening to experts and rejecting facts in favour of comfortable emotional bullshit.

I would've preferred a left-orchestrated exit from (or reform of) the EU than a right-wing one but I'm not entirely sure the right benefits from this exit. I really don't think Boris and the rest expected to win and are surely going to be blamed for the coming economic fuckery.

Labour is in a mess, though. I think Corbyn has the right kind of ideas but he's fucking awful at communicating them. And is obviously being held back by the (large) blairite third-way faction in the parliamentary party. The public has, I believe, rejected their political philosophy and he needs to use that as a mandate to be rid of them and speak, with a rational voice and a return to fact, for those who feel mistreated by and disaffected towards the mainstream politics of the last ~30 years. Otherwise Labour is a pointless third neoliberal centre-right party.



 

Labour appears completely fucked, today. Total rebellion from their PLP but with apparently fuck all of an actual plan... it's oddly reminiscent of the Leave campaign in fact. I don't really see how they're going to get back from this any time soon unless Corbyn sorts it out convincingly. That's a pretty big unless.

I posted much of the same thing as your opinions in the other thread, I think. There are good reasons to want to leave, but the people in charge of us leaving are not going to be going in that direction, just the opposite.
Actually that does seem to have changed a bit over the weekend and today, it turns out that the people in charge of us leaving actually possibly don't want to after all, they're just going to mess everything up so badly that nothing much changes apart from us having the recession. Article 50 still not triggered.
 

On that, there - and on many issues here - we have a solid, common ground.
 

There were facts (?), figures and reasons, kos. Are you saying they are all made up and not a ring of truth to any of them?

 

I think Labour's one chance of winning a snap election, albeit a very slim one, was for it to consolidate behind Corbyn, and help him to capitalize on the 'brexit buyers' remorse', which financial markets are turning into a roaring conflagration as we speak.

If they're going into a bitter and divisive leadership campaign, which Corbyn is almost bound to win if his name is on the ballot (according to party rules, it must be), then they might as well throw in the towel now, and prepare for a Boris coronation.

Very few figures were given, those that were were not cited, and stating an opinion ("too much immigration" or "the euro has failed" for example) does it make them fact, they are still just opinion.

I heard him speak about 6 months ago and he came over well, but that was with a receptive audience. He treats his audience with respect and doesn't dumb down his message which means that with a proportion of the electorate he is bound to fail. Somebody like Boris who comes on with arms aloft and announces 'Big!' nods a couple of times and follows through with 'Shiny!' will succeed.

But Corbyn's real problem is the opposition ranked against him, and that's the vast majority of the press and other media and his own parliamentary party who were busy briefing against him before the ink was dry on his candidacy. The behaviour of both is just jaw-dropping. If there's a Tory crisis then expect the story to be 'Corbyn not up to exploiting Tory crisis' and the press can pick from twenty third way Labour MPs to provide soundbites. You will almost never see footage of one of his speeches. What you will see is Laura Kuenssberg with her claims about what he must be thinking, usually with a few of her barbed remarks presented as factual reporting. On Saturday morning The BBC gave Ann Coffey an 'interview' where she was able to present a character assassination of Corbyn without a challenge or critical question. the following morning, a scheduled appearance by the shadow chancellor John McDonnell was replaced with an interview with Hilary Benn, again largely unchallenged and uncritical. Sweet old Hilary gave his faint praise destruction of Corbyn with relish, every inch the conspirator - the kind of thing that would have had his father spinning in his grave.

Whoa.

Just like that, BoJo's out

The 7 days since the referendum are getting very much out of hand.