The British are leaving the British are leaving!
Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 4 months ago to The Gulch: General
The vote heard around the world. Kudos to the British people for getting this right. A lot of establishment forces lined up against them. Curious to see what happens next...
Guess if a vote to leave wins again, some sort of court action will be sought.
That's how libs in this country generally behave.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/b...
'Young people, graduates, and big cities tended to favour "Remain". Elder, less educated people and rural populations were more likely to back "Brexit".'
I thought I'd translate what it really means:
Naive, indoctrinated, relief recipients tended to favor "Remain". Experienced, less indoctrinated, and working people were more likely to back "Brexit".
What many don't realize is that this is just a step. Now comes the 1-2 year process of negotiating the actual exit itself. I think it is safe to say from the market's reaction, however, that there is a fair amount of upheaval.
my 2 bits.
Rex Murphy: Results of the Brexit referendum is a rebuke to Western elites
It’s an old concept I grant you, but nonetheless worth restating. If you want to know what people really think and feel about an issue, have them vote on it, have a referendum. It’s a principle we might want to hang on to in Canada, if it comes to changing how we vote. But for now the most firm illustration of its wisdom is the just-known results of the Brexit referendum.
The often-ignored, sometimes quite rudely deplored British people have spoken and, to the horror of enlightened opinion, respectable party leaders, the ever-guiding liberal intelligentsia, have decided they don’t want “in” the European Union. The vote comes as a mighty shock to broad-minded continentalists and supranationalists everywhere, but particularly the high elites of British politics. The Guardian’s readership will need special help — grief counsellors are already overwhelmed.
The EU vote is the most dramatic illustration to date of how the “guiding elites” of many Western countries have lost the fealty and trust of their populations. Of the gap between ordinary citizens, facing the challenges of daily life, and the swaddled, well-off and pious tribes of those who govern them, and increasingly govern them with a mixture of moralistic superiority and witless condescension.
ut a decade ago, “Euroskeptics” were a slender group, derided by their betters as xenophobes and bigots, a splinter faction of regressive nationalists and illiberal tribalists. That, at least, was the approved version from on high. And from those smug heights, they dismissed with icy contempt the concerns of ordinary people that the “EU project” was draining their national identity, dissolving centuries-old democratic systems, and forcing their submission to an alien, unelected and unaccountable Brussels super-government.
Above all, they dismissed concerns about changing the nature of their country by the new rules on immigration, and the abolition of all borders between the ancient states of Europe.
The Europe-firsters of the British establishment — journalistic, academic and political — were essentially taking the hoary line of Gertrude Stein about Oakland — “There is no there, there” — and telling the broad mass of one of the oldest, most successful nation-states the world has ever seen, that such was Great Britain.
Events in Libya, and Syria, and the mass migration from the Middle East flowing from the disasters of those and other countries, continued global Islamic terror, the gruesome attacks on London’s streets, and in Paris and Brussels, too, accelerated and intensified the concern and alarm of those who saw their country drifting away from them, losing its coherence, shedding its core identity.
There are lessons here for the U.S., particularly now with the emergence of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the presidential campaign. Barack Obama shocked a great slice of the American public with his executive order (since suspended by the Supreme Court) — a pure fiat from the Oval Office — to exempt five million illegal aliens, what Time magazine described as “the largest single immigration action in modern American history.” He did this with a wave of his imperious pen. It was a decree less fit for a president than an emperor, a clear flight of that “Caesarism” which all good Obamaphiles prefer to see only in demon Trump.
It was effected without the consultations and accommodations with a concerned electorate that should always precede great changes in a nation’s character and circumstance. Nothing gave more of an uplift to Trump and Sanders (they’ve both been riding the same wave of distrust of the governing class) than Obama’s highhanded and supercilious dismissal of working-class worries on immigration.
Obama also bears not a little blame — if blame is the word — for the Brexit vote. His inactions in Syria, his famous declaration of the “red line” and the retreat from it, coupled with the mess of his (and Hillary Clinton’s) intervention in Libya, are heavily responsible for the great migratory convulsions of the Middle East.
To cap things off, during his trip to Britain during the referendum, Obama warned that if the country were to leave the EU, in any future trade deal it “would be at the back of the queue.” This was seen both as interference and an insult. The words of a Telegraph columnist capture the sentiment this intrusion provoked: “(T)he condescending tones that Mr. Obama used (may produce) the reverse effect” from the one intended.
fbFind Full Comment on Facebook
Indeed. There is a price for governing from on high, for being detached from voters’ expressed concerns and anxieties, and for characterizing those concerns and anxieties always as small-minded, or proceeding only from anti-liberal biases, or xenophobia and racism. Might it not also be possible that people in turbulent times, in an uncertain economy, increasingly apprehensive that their leaders are not listening to them and do not care to listen, will finally decline to follow those leaders? David Cameron has just now learned that the hard way. He has announced his resignation as prime minister.
Not explore the real problem. The real problem is that people have opinions based on facts and the reality of behavior that is threatening to them.
Want to fix racism fix the bad behavior.
Being mindful of a certain group or cults because of threatening beliefs or behavior is not racism , nor is pointing out flaws in character and recommending adoption of stronger ethics that lead to a successful contributer to self and family.
Recommending how to live a responsible productive life. That is the basis for the PC leftists
To call one a racist and to me even worse Uncle Tom if the suggestion comes from a black person.
Old Dino was still laughing when I wrote all of the above. I've settled down now.
No it was with Norman Dodd just before he died in
1987. Easy to find when you have time I say a must see for all lovers of freedom. it explains 2 issues unsound banking and unamerican activities of non- profits.
The "Creature" of course was born in part from the then recent financial panic of 1907 - actually just the most recent salvo of crises designed to create a central bank - leading to the Jekyll Island confab, the election of Wilson in 1912 and the creation of the Fed Reserve in 1913. Probably implemented in 1914, like you say.
It reminds me of the ACA.
They lied lied lied and said the fed reserve would keep banks from failing --------16 years later every bank in the country failed.
My father in law told of going to the bank with his father and the door was padlocked and all their savings gone!
I am just hoping your Norman Dodd reference has nothing to do with this particular lineage of influence.
You presume to offend the tender feelings of our progressive shriveled up for aging Animal Farm more than equal pseudo-intellectually supremacist elite betters.
I fully expected him to make the exit process as painful as possible, then have another referendum to try to reverse the decision next year.
As to Cameron resigning, he f'd up. He was trying to use the referendum to isolate a rogue faction in the government and disenfranchise them. He knew they would push for the 'leave' option and thinking that there was a huge constituency against leaving the EU he could discredit them and secure his power base. Unfortunately, the referendum passed. In the UK parliament, when a minority party is in control they need to maintain confidence in their rule or parliament could desolve and a new general election has to be held to reform the parliament. (Since 2011 they have 14 days to reform a coalition to prevent this). So if Cameron remained, a vote of no confidence could be called and trigger a new general election which the 2011 law was enacted to try to make the general election more or less an every 5 year thing instead of a random could happen anytime event.
Click the link to scroll down to view a chart I previously stumbled onto today~
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/...
Kudos on your "Commander-of-Grief."
Why the liberal voter falls for this line all the time I really don't understand, maybe it is the cheque they get......Brussels just wasn't sending the cheque!
I am hopeful thought that this is s bell weather of the future.
Give 6 months and things will be better overall. Customers in EU will still buy British goods
The establishment is trying very hard to discredit trump to protect their power structure. He doesn't have political correctness to protect him If the system didn't permit his election through dirty tricks or assassination, the system will lose the support of a LOT of people. That means a de facto revolution. Probably a civil war between entitled people and producers. It will be the entitled people who will turn violent as the producers stop funding them
Alex Epstein.
We might see a Celtic union, formed by an independent Scotland and a unified Ireland. That would pare Great Britain down to "Not so Great" Britain, consisting of England, Wales, and Cornwall (hardly ever mentioned - the Cornish get no respect). The big item of contention there would be rights to North Sea oil revenue, which the Scots want the lion's share of if they split.