Brexit - The £ - and Tesla

[WannabeOwner]

Tell that to people who lost tons in stocks and currency

That's just a form of gambling though ... people who make those sorts of volatile investments ought to know that they can go up, as well as down. For those who are in for the long game they will get the long term average ... but those who speculate are ... ermmm ... speculating.

Leave campaign sold false promises to many of those people.

No way of knowing what the future will actually hold, so the proof of this pudding will be in several years time, looking back with 20:20 hindsight, but my personal view is that the claims of Remain were wild, and purely based on trying to instil fear and seemed to me to be "unlikely" or "guesswork". The claim by Leave that they would pump hundreds of millions a week into the NHS was a huge error of judgement, but that apart the rest of their claims that I heard seemed, in the main, "plausible"

 

[Canuck]

That's just a form of gambling though .

Yes, all those people having their money the bank in the UK were gambling.

They should have known to convert it to other currencies before the vote or risk losing its buying power.

And how dare retirees who worked all their lives and now want to travel be upset by the outcome of the vote. They gambled their money away holding it in the bank in cash.

 

[kort677]

The claim by Leave that they would pump hundreds of millions a week into the NHS was a huge error of judgement, but that apart the rest of their claims that I heard seemed, in the main, "plausible"

claims like this one are just pandering to the ill informed masses. like I stated earlier this vote was a referendum on sovereignty, immigration excesses and a rejection of the faceless unelected EU lords in brussels.

 

[kort677]

Yes, all those people having their money the bank in the UK were gambling.

They should have known to convert it to other currencies before the vote or risk losing its buying power.

And how dare retirees who worked all their lives and now want to travel be upset by the outcome of the vote. They gambled their money away holding it in the bank in cash.

they were let down by their left leaning leadership in london and brussels. this time is slightly different because in addition to the "little guy" getting screwed the oligarchs and big money types took a swift kick to their jewels as well.

 

[lklundin]

France , Denmark, Holland just to name a few will want their referendum ASAP.
Brexit was the snowball that started the avalanche, from the top of a very big mountain.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Given the lack of joy on the side of the victorious Leave-movement, I consider this less likely.

Assuming that the UK can summon the decency to invoke article 50, I think it is at least as likely that:
1) Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will declare independence and will as a successor state to the former UK continue in the EU without further ado, probably with adoption of the Euro.
2) without the always feet-dragging UK the remaining EU will accelerate their integration - and finally do something about the current, burdensome zero-taxation of large corporations that the "financial services" of the City is facilitating.
3) Without the EU, England and Wales will see financial institutions, IT-companies and other high-tech companies leave, their real estate market will implode and they will basically end up looking like the post-USSR east European countries when they were so hell-bent on joining the EU.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Canuck]

they were let down by their left leaning leadership in london and brussels. this time is slightly different because in addition to the "little guy" getting screwed the oligarchs and big money types took a swift kick to their jewels as well.

I don't look at this as a left vs. right issue in the same way I don't look at the Trump supporters to be "right leaning" and the Clinton supporters to be "left leaning", as many people are quick to label them. I like to look at the facts, such as the fact that the so-called red states, where people say they are all for "conservative values" in fact take most of the federal handouts, and the blue states, where people are "left leaning" in fact are more self-sufficient and less reliant on government.

I see the Leave movement as playing to people's fears that their government won't continue to support them, and pay for hospitals, and other social programs, since the money will have to go to immigrants and poorer EU countries, rather than to them. Conversely, the Remain movement said it was better for business, and the economy, to remain since less borders means the freer flow of commerce and goods, which of course the vast majority of entrepreneurs and business people keenly support.

The problem is that people don't remember, or learn about, the depression, trade wars, the cold war, Tear down this wall! and what the openings of borders, and clawing back of of tariffs, have brought us. Trump and Putin both love the Leave vote. Trump is just ignorant and self-serving, but Putin has an agenda. Eastern Europe was devastated by the freer trade and freer borders of the West. He wants to bring Russia up and the West down -- and isolation in the West, as the UK voted for, assists him with that agenda. If anyone has any doubt about that, just look at the recent past...

From the mid-1990s to 2008, we experienced the longest period of economic growth in the modern history of the UK. By 2004, unemployment had been falling steadily for a decade and economists were starting to worry about critical labour shortages, particularly low-skilled work in areas such as agriculture, food processing and manufacturing.

For decades, experts had been trying to find ways of getting Europeans to be more mobile. In the US, where people moved between states far more than Europeans moved between countries, it was proving easier to get the right people into the right jobs at the right time.

Once the decision was taken, Britain’s economic success proved a big draw, and not just to eastern Europe. Over the past 10 years, roughly half the annual EU arrivals have been from the group’s original member states – the wealthier western European nations, whose population movements here receive relatively few objections. So, while the Polish plumber was the headline grabber, Britain also became a magnet for French financiers, Danish designers and Spanish students.

The migrants who did arrive from the EU’s newer states had higher employment and lower wage rates than the UK population. Taken together, the EU migration of the last decade fed Britain’s economy at both ends of the labour market. And it has been a two-way street. There are an estimated 2.9 million EU nationals living here, and an estimated 1.8 million British migrants in the rest of the EU.

 

[lklundin]

Eastern Europe was devastated by the freer trade and freer borders of the West.

Would you care to explain this part of your comment?

 

[Canuck]

Would you care to explain this part of your comment?

Although I am typing this from my hotel room in Dusseldorf, I think you are in a better position to describe this to me but I'll give it a try:

First off, I am using the word "devastated" as meaning to destroy much or most of (something). Before 1989, West Germans were free to travel, do business, and trade freely. East Germans were not. When the wall came down, East Germans came to the West. West Germans did not go East. Why? Because the standard of living was higher, there were more jobs, and more opportunity in the West. And East Germany today is not the same as the pre-1989 East Germany -- the basic economic fundamentals of pre-1989 East Germany have been mostly destroyed or devastated.

Taking isolationism to an extreme, let's look at North Korea. Sure, it doesn't have a problem with illegal immigrants but part of its population is starving.

 

[kort677]

And East Germany today is not the same as the pre-1989 East Germany -- the basic economic fundamentals of pre-1989 East Germany have been mostly destroyed or devastated.

do you think that this is a bad consequence?

 

[kort677]

interesting but IMHO opinion a flawed analysis. your comment that hillary supporters are not left leaning is where you lost me.

 

[Canuck]

do you think that this is a bad consequence?

Of course not. I said everything that was great about the West - freer travel, freer business, freer commerce. This is what the Remain vote was about.

interesting but IMHO opinion a flawed analysis. your comment that hillary supporters are not left leaning is where you lost me.

Of course many are. But my point was that there are a lot of Trump supporters who take much more from the public purse than a lot of Hillary supporters. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

I can't vote in the States but if I could I would vote Hillary over Trump and I know in doing so I am one who would have paid much more into the system than the vast majority of Trump voters. And I'm certain there's a lot of Hillary voters like me.

So many people like to think the left (liberals) are takers and the right (conservatives/republicans) are givers. I'm not so certain that's true.

 

[kort677]

Of course not. I said everything that was great about the West - freer travel, freer business, freer commerce. This is what the Remain vote was about.

yours is an absurd attempt at trying to compare e germany prior to reunification to present day britain. the against vote was propelled by the reasons I specified. your failure to understand the motivation of the leave voters is an issue.

 

[kort677]

I can't vote in the States but if I could I would vote Hillary over Trump and I know in doing so I am one who would have paid much more into the system than the vast majority of Trump voters. And I'm certain there's a lot of Hillary voters like me.

So many people like to think the left (liberals) are takers and the right (conservatives/republicans) are givers. I'm not so certain that's true.

again you are oblivious to the motivation of the people who support trump. you are also ignoring hillary's massive flaws.

 

[lklundin]

Before 1989, West Germans were free to travel, do business, and trade freely. East Germans were not. When the wall came down, East Germans came to the West. West Germans did not go East. Why? Because the standard of living was higher, there were more jobs, and more opportunity in the West. And East Germany today is not the same as the pre-1989 East Germany -- the basic economic fundamentals of pre-1989 East Germany have been mostly destroyed or devastated.

Taking isolationism to an extreme, let's look at North Korea. Sure, it doesn't have a problem with illegal immigrants but part of its population is starving.

Well, I see it somewhat differently.

During the cold war, Eastern Europe was devastated (and thus unable to rebuild itself) because of repressive regimes propped up by the USSR, except for the few even more unlucky countries, which had been annexed by the USSR. The conditions on the other side of the iron curtain had nothing to do with that - except that in order to defeat the terrible Nazi-Germany, the USA and UK had to make the morally difficult decision to ally itself with the equally terrible USSR, thus condemning (at the Yalta conference) Eastern Europe to 45 years of repression and isolation.

Yes, from 1990 East Germans could go west. It was however of much more importance that Germany, the USA and in turn the EU pumped enormous amounts of money into Eastern Europe. Not out of their goodness, but to create additional export markets for themselves - and to create an additional buffer zone between themselves and Russia. And the Eastern European countries were begging for membership of EU (and NATO) to get out of the grip of Moscow, which had caused them to suffer so much.

Yes, the basic cold war economic fundamentals of Eastern Germany collapsed and were replaced with those of Western Germany and the economy of the former Eastern Germany is still lagging behind. But people generally consider it a plus to be free from STASI, to be able to get a phone, a car or a TV without having to wait for years. And the main thing, really: You will not be shot for trying to visit your cousin.

North Korea is not that different from an Eastern European country during the cold-war. North Korea exists only because its government is supported by a powerful ally, that could not care less about the starving isolated population.

All this is the main reason, why it is a loss for Europe that the UK now wants to retract into itself. The UK is a respected economical and military part of Europe and their departure from the EU is a gain for Russia, which in spite of the tragedies of the 20th century still does not understand nor respect anything but military strength - which really comes more easily from economical strength.

 

[S'toon]

they were let down by their left leaning leadership in london and brussels. this time is slightly different because in addition to the "little guy" getting screwed the oligarchs and big money types took a swift kick to their jewels as well.

Actually, Britain's government is Conservative. Staunchly conservative. They campaigned explicitly on an austerity budget and stripping away the social safety net, even more than what they've been doing the last 8 years. Britain has mostly leaned Conservative. Remember Thatcher? Most of the past century the Conservatives have been in government. Even when the Labour Party was last in power, they followed the "Third Way" "New Labour" policies, which were pretty much the same economic policies of Thatcher, as opposed to supporting the workers.

As for Brussels, I guess you haven't noticed the way they've been enforcing conservative economic policies, not allowing countries to stimulate their economies to get out economic messes. They've been enforcing austerity to the point of pain, which makes things worse in a recession, since it tightens the economy at a time when there's not enough spending.

 

[lklundin]

Actually, Britain's government is Conservative. Staunchly conservative.

The same system being labeled "Staunchly conservative" and "left leaning" just illustrates how differently the USA and Europe define "left leaning" and "conservative" policies.

 

[S'toon]

The same system being labeled "Staunchly conservative" and "left leaning" just illustrates how differently the USA and Europe define "left leaning" and "conservative" policies.

It's interesting how in North America the term "liberal" means social liberalism, whereas in Europe it means fiscal liberalism. Fiscal liberalism being free markets, deregulation, etc.

 

[Canuck]

yours is an absurd attempt at trying to compare e germany prior to reunification to present day britain. the against vote was propelled by the reasons I specified. your failure to understand the motivation of the leave voters is an issue.

It's not absurd if you understand that all politics are on a continuim that stretches from one extreme to another. We hopefully live somewhere in between but at certain times in history we live on the ends. The "we" I am using is humanity collectively; and the time period I reference stretches well before my lifetime.

The UK voted for a more closed society -- in other words moving along the continuum in very defined direction, which is the opposite direction the West has been moving since the end of the cold war. I am currently travelling Europe and speaking to people about this issue, some of who danced on the wall when it came down, some of who moved to the West after reunification, and some of who just observed and are concerned about their future. One this is for certain: Everyone wants to offer an opinion on the UK. I often don't even bring it up. Brexit and Euro 2016 are the main topics of discussions over a beer. But I guess from Florida my opinions area "absurd". I prefer to discuss issues with people who don't insult me with language but debate me with arguments that go beyond calling me names.

again you are oblivious to the motivation of the people who support trump. you are also ignoring hillary's massive flaws.

Yes, I am oblivious to the motivation of the Trump supporters and I think Hillary is perfect...

 

[TC56]

The whole in/out debate should be about the real issue here which is that the political "elite" has for a long time not listened to its people but has adopted a "we know what's best for you, so we will do what we think. It will be interesting to see what happens given that the majority of elected MP's wanted to stay in the EU. Only they have the ability to enact the leave decision and there is every indication that at least some will try to ignore it further demonstrating how out of touch with the people they are supposed represent.

Moreover, I strongly suspect the vote was more aimed at the EU unelected officials and government commissioners to try to get them to take notice that they were going down a path that a substantial number of people do not want.

Look at the opinion polls taken in the member states asking the population what they think (yes I know opinion polls are an indicator not a definitive view of the majority ). looking at the results, there were a large number of member states who's population does not agree with their ruling representatives on the EU. In fact there was only one state that was clearly in favour of the EU. That state was the one that scuppered any deal to remain IMHO and clearly forgot that a "slice of something is better than nothing at all", and no, I don't mean Germany.

It is interesting to note how many politicians are now saying that things must change and that certain, inflexible individuals in the EU are to blame for the situation and some are calling for them to leave.

The argument that the EU has brought peace to the continent is frankly laughable. If anyone brought peace it was Oppenheimer as the threat of his little invention meant MAD.

Lets see how things go; perhaps more states will leave as part of the "domino effect" that the EU establishment is so scared of. If those states did leave then perhaps they would club together to form a common market. Oh, wait, that was what the EU was BEFORE people with high political ambitions stepped in.

Lastly, the EU has not had its accounts passed by its auditors for over 30 years. It is riddled by corruption with no will to put it right. While it is a "gravy train" for politicians and civil servants, it will never change; until that is that its overheads become so high that the general populations say enough is enough. Look at the insane expense of moving the entire commission between 2 counties every few weeks just to cater to the ego's of 2 member states. A total waste of time, money and resources.

Off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening.

 

[lklundin]

The argument that the EU has brought peace to the continent is frankly laughable. If anyone brought peace it was Oppenheimer as the threat of his little invention meant MAD.

While I generally agree with your comment especially the parts about the EU being undemocratic, I think no one can state with any certainty what caused something _not_ to happen.
Answering only "MAD" assumes that Germany would have ceased to be a threat to European stability, although it had been frequently at war with its neighbors for centuries and had committed crimes so utterly vile that people will talk about them a thousand years from now.

But let me first point out that within Europe, but outside of the EU there has in spite of "MAD" been wars in Europe:
The break-up of Yugoslavia (not just deemed a civil war, since it did involve NATO) and now also the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Putin has promised that if necessary, Russia will come to the rescue of the significant Russian minorities in the Baltic countries and while it is most likely just his usual saber-rattling, it is being taken quite seriously and is something that is unlikely to trigger the Mutually Assured Destruction, thus a scenario that the MAD cannot rule out.

Secondly, and as first stated, one cannot just write off the concern that Europe would be unstable without the integration of Germany. A major cause for WW2 was exactly because after WW1, Germany was just told to make reparations and to not re-arm itself. Luckily, a smart person in the US, George Marshall, was able to convince everybody else not to repeat this mistake and instead implement his plan. The importance of the Marshall-plan for European stability cannot be underestimated.

This platform of stability allowed for the creation of and has been taken a step further by the EU. Now where millions of EU-citizens have moved within the union (creating lots of three-passport families) a war among EU-members is unimaginable. This is something new in European history and I think one should not underestimate the significant role that the EU has played in this.

Btw, now that you specifically mention Oppenheimer, I will mention that I actually worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory for a couple of years, in what can fairly be described as a spin-off of the Manhattan project. With Edward Teller as one notable exception, I don't think the intimidatingly smart people behind the fissile and fusion bombs can be said to have been in favor of MAD.

To maybe give this post a shred of relevance to the actual topic, I will add that European integration is no simple matter.