Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tankie
    replied
    Just found this post , seems to sum it up for me .


    For those of us who always knew that Project Fear was a shameful deceit, the speed and scale of the economic establishment’s u-turn after Britain's astonishing, wonderful vote for independence came as little surprise.

    Overnight, the great and the good suddenly remembered what they are paid to do and rushed to calm the financial markets. Rather than stoking fear and loathing, they moved to reassure: Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, who committed a major, unforgivable error of judgement when he backed George Osborne’s campaign of disinformation, delivered a good, early morning speech to reassure a traumatised City.

    He made it clear that the Bank stood ready to provide extra liquidity; had he chosen neutrality rather than partisanship, this would have been the kind of intervention he would have made during the campaign, explaining that he stood ready to facilitate whatever decision the British people chose to endorse. He has plenty more tools in his armoury if the volatility returns, or the economy slows too much.

    It isn’t just the Governor who has belatedly become much more constructive. Many of the other bodies that had previously warned of a catastrophe were we to Leave are now rightly focusing on trying to make the new reality work.

    The IMF, in its most sensible statement since the referendum battle began, urged the UK and EU to negotiate a smooth transition. The G7 said that the UK economy and financial sector remain resilient, and that they are confident that Britain is “well-positioned” to address the consequences of the referendum outcome.” That, of course, is the role of such organisations at a time like this: to pour oil over troubled waters.

    Lagarde
    Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, has called for a smooth transition
    The problem is that one cannot simply undo Project Fear. The endless threats and warnings of economic Armageddon have made a permanent impact on the psyche of many, and will doubtlessly become partly self-fulfilling in the months to come.

    It’s not just remainers who are worried: some Leavers are equally nervous. Some big firms will believe their own propaganda. The business community made a grievous error when it put its name to Osborne’s scare campaign, grossly exaggerating any economic downside from leaving; it and the rest of us will now all pay a price as a consequence.

    But the good news is that Carney’s intervention and the knowledge that other central banks stand ready to help quickly calmed things down in London, if not in continental bourses. The FTSE 100 actually closed up 2pc for the week, after fluctuating madly. The FTSE 250, a purer barometer of UK Plc, has been hit more heavily but is only down to where it was in February.

    The pound has slumped, of course, a development that will have benefits to exporters as well as costs to those purchasing imported goods or going on holiday. There will be other short-term economic impacts. House prices may slow for a while, and office capital values may dip until investors begin to understand better the details of whatever new trading arrangements we end up striking with the EU. Some projects may be delayed. But it will quickly become apparent that the next British government will be the most pro-globalisation in recent history.

    It will quickly become apparent that the next British government will be the most pro-globalisation in recent history
    In many cases, nothing at all will change when it comes to the ability to trade goods, services or capital. As businesses, financial institutions and economists begin to engage with Brexit properly, they will start to see how it can be made to work with minimum disruption, and thus begin to relax. When that happens, funds will begin to be unblocked, and activity will bounce back.

    Business is pragmatic above all else, and will soon lose patience with the ideological doom-mongers, those obsessed with highlighting problems rather than finding solutions. Companies that worry about the possibility of facing extra costs must begin a dialogue with the Treasury and the Department for Business; a cut to corporation tax could easily cancel out some extra non-tariff barriers, for example.

    One way forward would be for the UK to join the European Economic Area in a Norwegian-style deal as a transitional solution, before negotiating our own, a la carte relationship. One goal should be to ensure that British-based banks are still able to use the financial services passport to allow them to trade freely with the continent.

    Leave a comment:


  • tankie
    replied
    From the daily patriot .

    One point to note , it can breed , please watch the vid which is going viral
    ,



    Hello Readers, I’m going to tell you a story, are you sitting comfortably?....then I'll begin
    Once upon a time there was a 19yr old girl named Holly, Holly voted Remain and was upset when Leave won,so she knew she would have to do something so with her Power-puff girls rucksack and lots of cans of RedBull, she went with her friends to an EU rally in the big city-London-, demanding a 2nd referendum on staying in the EU, she was really angry and she huffed and she puffed and she stamped her feet really loud, due to this shouting and stamping she really scared people and so one person thought they would wave a white flag in peace and speak to Holly as she obviously had a lot to say and tell people why she and others like her were right, and those who had voted leave were so nasty and wrong, so the person asked.
    Person: "why are you angry"?
    Holly: because they have taken my beloved EU away and it’s not FAIR :( It has all been about immigration, people voted out for all the wrong reasons
    Person: Ohhh :/ what things do you like about the EU?
    Holly who was eager to show her intellect said, the NHS ? (D'OH!!)
    Alongside this she praised the EU for uniting us together and "welcoming everyone into Britain, because it is a great place to come, we need to think about our passports and food it’s all European…
    Person: ohhhh I see and what things do you like about the UK?
    As Hollys face contorted to think of something she replied laughing awkwardly I don't know, it's mostly negative
    History Lesson Holly:
    One of the greatest and proudest UK institutions is the National Health Service (NHS) set up by Britain NOT the EU, in 1948 its key principles were
    1. Services were provided free at the point of use;
    2. Services were financed from central taxation;
    3. Everyone was eligible for care (even people temporarily resident or visiting the country).
    And that ladies and gentleman is why the older generation had to take it upon themselves to vote in the masses to help (as some NOT all of the younger generation who had verbally attacked the older generation for ruining and wrecking their country) had to take action to create a future of hope which would not be governed by the fat bureaucrats in the big scary castle far away.
    The End......
    You can now sleep well tonight knowing the LEAVE side won and us so called older generation i.e. anyone over the age of 30 saved our country ;)

    https://youtu.be/qIjUESuwqes




    Click image for larger version

Name:	13494798_1766825523595704_7270007917122383719_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	74.8 KB
ID:	1468923


    /\ RESPECT young people , RESPECT /\
    Last edited by tankie; 27 Jun 16,, 11:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • citanon
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    Back to the point..... I only mentioned that simple majorities aren't the whole picture, and perhaps in this case, a simple majority isn't appropriate to decide the outcome (notice I never said to change the outcome of the current vote).




    So any instance of government policy requiring more than a 50% yes vote is utterly shameful? That's almost precisely what your argument you just made boils down to.


    Don't get me wrong. I was pissed that the transportation tax initiative in Los Angeles only garnered 65%, and hence failed by 1 percentage point. I consider that a situation where a simple majority is needed. But a California leaving the U.S. referendum? A simple majority won't do.... in my opinion.
    These are some pretty idiotic arguments this thread has devolved into thanks to you.

    LA requires 66%, Senate needs 2/3 to override veto, this statedoes this, this county does that and it has relevance to Brexit because of what exactly?

    News flash, we have those standards because THE PEOPLE APPROVED THAT PARTICULAR STANDARD. Just like British voters, including the Monday morning quarterbacks, had no problems with the referendum being simple majority up until the day after. Well, guess what? You set it up this way. Don't cry when you lose it.

    Maybe you should now apply your lesson learned to the next SCOTTISH independence vote??? What's that? That's what I thought.

    And dividing London as a separate piece? Could this get more moronic, or elitist ?

    How about you try something productive, like respecting the Democratic decision of your fellow voters and moving forward?

    Because right now, you are living up and then going so beyond the worst stereotypes of elitist entitled liberal millennials, that you are becoming a caricature of the caricature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    Back to the point..... I only mentioned that simple majorities aren't the whole picture, and perhaps in this case, a simple majority isn't appropriate to decide the outcome (notice I never said to change the outcome of the current vote).




    So any instance of government policy requiring more than a 50% yes vote is utterly shameful? That's almost precisely what your argument you just made boils down to.


    Don't get me wrong. I was pissed that the transportation tax initiative in Los Angeles only garnered 65%, and hence failed by 1 percentage point. I consider that a situation where a simple majority is needed. But a California leaving the U.S. referendum? A simple majority won't do.... in my opinion.
    I am trying to figure out why a simple 50%+1 vote wont cut it. Majority wants out and are held hostage of the minority. If you want to prevent a situation where 25%+1+1 would decide, put a bar at 70% turnout or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    From my understanding of it - and I'm 99% sure I am right - it is the EU that negotiates any trade deals on it's members behalf; thus TTIP is negotiated not by individual countries but between the US and the EU.
    True but that is a deal that applies to all of the EU. You only need these agreements with two countries.

    I figured you will still be part of the common market. To be part of the common market requires free movement of people. Otherwise no access to the common market.

    I can see a custom deal to control flow of people worked out here between the UK & the EU, like Denmark has in place.

    You want to allow free medical care to everyone, if you are setup for 100k and 300k show up then it causes a problem. Sounds a lot less xenophobic when its phrased this way isn't it.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Jun 16,, 09:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    Well, if you vote them with 2/3 majority, the Senate would need 3/4, no?


    Hey, I am all about efficiency
    Back to the point..... I only mentioned that simple majorities aren't the whole picture, and perhaps in this case, a simple majority isn't appropriate to decide the outcome (notice I never said to change the outcome of the current vote).


    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    "So, democracy is not majority rules, but a vast majority rules? Hmmm... Now, that's something I can't digest. What's next 66,66% for President or to form a Government?"
    So any instance of government policy requiring more than a 50% yes vote is utterly shameful? That's almost precisely what your argument you just made boils down to.


    Don't get me wrong. I was pissed that the transportation tax initiative in Los Angeles only garnered 65%, and hence failed by 1 percentage point. I consider that a situation where a simple majority is needed. But a California leaving the U.S. referendum? A simple majority won't do.... in my opinion.
    Last edited by Goatboy; 27 Jun 16,, 09:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    Yeah, and I guess you'd rather the Senate of the United States not have the power to override a stupid veto by the president by garnering a 2/3 vote? .... or would you prefer an all powerful executive, not subject to a representative government?
    Well, if you vote them with 2/3 majority, the Senate would need 3/4, no?

    Maybe you're partial to Ancient Athens style mob rule? Everyone raise their hands, if it's 51% yes, then lets go ahead and slaughter the accused as publicly and bloodily as possible, right now.
    Hey, I am all about efficiency

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    So, democracy is not majority rules, but a vast majority rules? Hmmm... Now, that's something I can't digest. What's next 66,66% for President or to form a Government?

    Slippery slope, I know, I know.
    Yeah, and I guess you'd rather the Senate of the United States not have the power to override a stupid veto by the president by garnering a 2/3 vote? .... or would you prefer an all powerful executive, not subject to a representative government?

    Maybe you're partial to Ancient Athens style mob rule? Everyone raise their hands, if it's 51% yes, then lets go ahead and slaughter the accused as publicly and bloodily as possible, right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    London would be your San Diego wrt Cali. Eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    Live in a city? Who feeds the city? Where does the city's water come from? Where does the energy that powers the city come from? Most important, sure whatever, except it relies on other parts to function. A city cannot function on its own.
    *sigh* Didn't I state before that if you divide England into 6 parts, London being one of them, then London is the most important individual piece? Did I ever state that a city can function on its own? Would you like a strawman for your cornfield? What's the heart and soul of Singapore? Is it rural Malaysia?

    By your argument, the heart and soul of California is the San Joaquin Valley? The water comes from the Sierras, the energy comes from lots of places. Greater Los Angeles and Greater San Francisco are the heart and soul of California. I don't give a damn that California feeds the nation.

    Stop the misdirection and focus on the EU

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    You misrepresent what I stated again. I'm not trying to change the outcome, I'm critiquing the political structure of the Brexit referendum. Why does criticizing the referendum automatically mean I want to change the outcome? Frankly, democracy -- referendums included -- needs to be constantly attacked, or else it will become complacent, bloated, and perhaps dangerous. I'm doing my tiny insignificant duty right now......
    So, democracy is not majority rules, but a vast majority rules? Hmmm... Now, that's something I can't digest. What's next 66,66% for President or to form a Government?

    Slippery slope, I know, I know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatboy View Post
    Thought I was clear before. If you divide England into say....6 pieces, London being one of them, then London is the most important piece. I also said the collective weight of the rest of England sans London outweighed London. But I really don't care who's heart and soul of anything.....




    You misrepresent what I stated again. I'm not trying to change the outcome, I'm critiquing the political structure of the Brexit referendum. Why does criticizing the referendum automatically mean I want to change the outcome? Frankly, democracy -- referendums included -- needs to be constantly attacked, or else it will become complacent, bloated, and perhaps dangerous. I'm doing my tiny insignificant duty right now......
    Live in a city? Who feeds the city? Where does the city's water come from? Where does the energy that powers the city come from? Most important, sure whatever, except it relies on other parts to function. A city cannot function on its own.

    I want to be able to defend the generation I had the luck to be born in, but this whole die already makes me want to puke. And I want to be clear there is no sarcasm there. No draft, low threat of nuclear war, and no major war resulting in millions killed and wounded, and a fine economy and high standard of living. What do we have to complain about?

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Within context, so what? Considering they lost the referendum, London is obviously not the heart and soul of the UK
    Thought I was clear before. If you divide England into say....6 pieces, London being one of them, then London is the most important piece. I also said the collective weight of the rest of England sans London outweighed London. But I really don't care who's heart and soul of anything.....

    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Your house. Your rules. Their house. Their rules. To try change the rules after the fact are the acts of sore losers.

    You misrepresent what I stated again. I'm not trying to change the outcome, I'm critiquing the political structure of the Brexit referendum. Why does criticizing the referendum automatically mean I want to change the outcome? Frankly, democracy -- referendums included -- needs to be constantly attacked, or else it will become complacent, bloated, and perhaps dangerous. I'm doing my tiny insignificant duty right now......

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatboy
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    Uhh...no.

    In California, referendums are known as propositions and a simple majority will make it law.

    In order to pass, the "yes" votes on a proposition must exceed the "no" votes (i.e. more than 50% of all voters who vote). Ballots which record neither a "yes" nor a "no" on the proposition are ignored in determining the outcome. In other words, the majority of voters required for passage refers to a majority of those voting on that proposition, rather than a majority of those voting in the election held at the same time or a majority of those who are registered to vote. If the proposition passes, it becomes a part of the state constitution (if it is a proposed amendment) or the state's statutes (if it is a proposed statute) in the same manner and having the same legal effect as if it had been passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cali...ot_proposition

    Uhh... yes.


    And is it really necessary to dispute my point here? There are referendums in California (the ones I mentioned previously), which require 2/3 voter approval.

    Research transportation measure R+. Or perhaps look back a couple pages for my relevant posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Originally posted by drhuy View Post
    those childish losers still wishing their grandparents just lay dead already?
    They will still come out in larger numbers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X