Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 01:32:30 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/brexit-poll-shows-leave-in-10-point-lead-two-weeks-before-vote
A poll of 2,000 voters shows a 55/45 in favour (and as we're discussing the UK, I insist on proper English spelling in this thread!) of leaving the EU.
Where do you guys stand on this issue? Should the UK withdraw from the European Union, or remain in?
Post by: Little Joe on June 10, 2016, 01:43:31 PM
In an attempt to get away from the Orange One and the Doormat...I think they should withdraw and apply for admission as the 51st state of the USA.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/brexit-poll-shows-leave-in-10-point-lead-two-weeks-before-vote
A poll of 2,000 voters shows a 55/45 in favour (and as we're discussing the UK, I insist on proper English spelling in this thread!) of leaving the EU.
Where do you guys stand on this issue? Should the UK withdraw from the European Union, or remain in?
And if we adhere to your cockeyed spelling demand, will you then spell correctly on other threads? ;)
But seriously, I don't think it is as simple as "exit" or not. IF the exit, then they need to be prepared to take on a whole new set of challenges. If they examine the expected consequences and prepare for it, then I have no problem with it.
Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 01:48:20 PM
I think they should withdraw and apply for admission as the 51st state of the USA.A "Leave" vote would trigger a process by which the UK would give notice of their leaving to the EU, and a negotiation process would ensue. After, IIRC, 2 years, either the negotiated exit, or a pre-determined formula exit will occur.
And if we adhere to your cockeyed spelling demand, will you then spell correctly on other threads? ;)
But seriously, I don't think it is as simple as "exit" or not. IF the exit, then they need to be prepared to take on a whole new set of challenges. If they examine the expected consequences and prepare for it, then I have no problem with it.
It would be so much simpler than other countries, because the Brits wisely held onto the Pound as their currency, rather than the Euro. They will, however, be able to ditch things like EU mandates on the size of bananas and the amount of carbon they can use.
Post by: Little Joe on June 10, 2016, 02:00:24 PM
A "Leave" vote would trigger a process by which the UK would give notice of their leaving to the EU, and a negotiation process would ensue. After, IIRC, 2 years, either the negotiated exit, or a pre-determined formula exit will occur.I wonder what it would take to negotiate a "FLexit".
It would be so much simpler than other countries, because the Brits wisely held onto the Pound as their currency, rather than the Euro. They will, however, be able to ditch things like EU mandates on the size of bananas and the amount of carbon they can use.
Post by: Steingar on June 10, 2016, 02:07:12 PM
Post by: bflynn on June 10, 2016, 05:05:37 PM
Personally, I expect the UK to "leave" in some form because they have a history of independence from Europe. I am surprised they ever joined in the first place.
There are levels of leaving. A country can exit the currency but keep reciprocal trade and border agreements in place. They could exit the governence and keep border crossings open. Or they could step away entirely and go back to the days of having customs all over.
Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 06:16:41 PM
What has the EU been successful at doing?The UK cannot exit a currency they never joined.
Personally, I expect the UK to "leave" in some form because they have a history of independence from Europe. I am surprised they ever joined in the first place.
There are levels of leaving. A country can exit the currency but keep reciprocal trade and border agreements in place. They could exit the governence and keep border crossings open. Or they could step away entirely and go back to the days of having customs all over.
Post by: LevelWing on June 10, 2016, 06:46:45 PM
But seriously, I don't think it is as simple as "exit" or not. IF the exit, then they need to be prepared to take on a whole new set of challenges. If they examine the expected consequences and prepare for it, then I have no problem with it.What kind of challenges? They kept their currency and aside from potential political backlash for Cameron, I don't see a whole lot of challenges emerging. They wouldn't be beholden to the immigration policies that the rest of the EU is nor would they have to get permission before they wanted to implement something within their own country. They would be independent and sovereign nation again.
I say let them exit if they want.
Post by: bflynn on June 10, 2016, 07:05:07 PM
The UK cannot exit a currency they never joined.
Was thinking of Greece, Italy, Spain...
Post by: Anthony on June 11, 2016, 04:33:37 AM
What has the EU been successful at doing?
Importing Muslims at an alarming rate over the past thirty years to destroy each individual country from within while pushing unemployment rates to 20%.
Post by: JeffDG on June 11, 2016, 06:35:40 AM
http://time.com/4364697/brexit-frank-luntz-poll/
Post by: nddons on June 11, 2016, 06:47:10 AM
What kind of challenges? They kept their currency and aside from potential political backlash for Cameron, I don't see a whole lot of challenges emerging. They wouldn't be beholden to the immigration policies that the rest of the EU is nor would they have to get permission before they wanted to implement something within their own country. They would be independent and sovereign nation again.I agree. They should only stay if they wish to be part of the New World Order. "Great" Britain is no longer Great, and their immigration policies (I don't know if they were European Union mandates or their own foolishness) have led to an Islamic nation within its own borders.
I say let them exit if they want.
Post by: nddons on June 11, 2016, 07:01:03 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
Post by: Number7 on June 11, 2016, 03:59:40 PM
Post by: Bob Noel on June 11, 2016, 05:38:29 PM
The European Union has been a resounding success however you look at it. ...
why do you believe it has been a resounding success?
Post by: abbamovers on June 11, 2016, 10:09:35 PM
They don't like what Europe has become, dominated by the Germans.
They want out now, to plot their own destiny.
Witness the building up of a European Army controlled by the Germans.
When the French had their version of 9/11 they didn't call on Nato they called for their own European solution.
The French don't trust America to protect them anymore, especially when you have Obama running around the world apologizing for past perceived American wrongs.
He's over in Japan apologizing to Abe for nuking them, how you think that looks to the Chinese?
It makes us look weak.
The Chinese know we had a duty and a right to stop Japan any way we could, they lost over 14 million of their own to the Japs , a rate of over 100,000 per month in the most brutal and barbaric ways possible.
So even dropping the Bomb and killing over 100,000 of the Japs in either city to end the war quicker was very much
appreciated.
And still the Japs have never once even apologized , yet atoned for what they did in WW2 to them.
So they , the Chinese are busy filling the power vacuum left by America, they do not trust us anymore.
Now back to Europe.
The Germans took over the Dutch Army er amalgamated them into their own , they control Cyprus now a perfect
jumping off harbour for their navy on the way to North Africa. Already they have deployments around the world from
patrolling the waters off Lebanon to small detachments all over North Africa. Boots on the ground soldiers, albeit in
small numbers.
They have Malta in their pocket too, it joined the Union in 2006.
Great little staging points to win Africa if Germany needs to again.
Rommel was defeated in Africa because the Allies held these islands and used them for supply chains, the Germans remember that and are working to reverse these strategic advantages we once held.
Far be it for me to sound the alarm, but the Germans are setting up again just like the 1930's all over again and hear
we sit with our collective heads up our ass's worried about gender neutral bathrooms.
If England succeeds in breaking away she will pay dearly, the Europeans steered by the Germans will see to that.
About the only thing of value left to Britain is the financial markets of London, that will go bye bye as it is routed over
to Berlin or Brussels.
Next they will be punished by being locked out of trading markets in the EU and most likely any of Europe's other
trading partners.
I hope to God , America stands behind Britain as they are kin folk, without her we would never have won either World
Wars and this would be a very different time we'd be living in now.
And we worry about the Orange One and the Doormat :'(
Post by: nddons on June 12, 2016, 05:58:45 AM
Post by: Number7 on June 12, 2016, 06:05:17 AM
The collapse will quickly come once the majority of the working age population are living off of the minority.
The descent will be ugly and take other nations with them.
England is far better off to break away and thumb their nose at the collective and their insane politics.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 11:15:23 AM
The Brits will leave , that's for certain.
They don't like what Europe has become, dominated by the Germans.
They want out now, to plot their own destiny.
Witness the building up of a European Army controlled by the Germans.
When the French had their version of 9/11 they didn't call on Nato they called for their own European solution.
The French don't trust America to protect them anymore, especially when you have Obama running around the world apologizing for past perceived American wrongs.
He's over in Japan apologizing to Abe for nuking them, how you think that looks to the Chinese?
It makes us look weak.
The Chinese know we had a duty and a right to stop Japan any way we could, they lost over 14 million of their own to the Japs , a rate of over 100,000 per month in the most brutal and barbaric ways possible.
So even dropping the Bomb and killing over 100,000 of the Japs in either city to end the war quicker was very much
appreciated.
And still the Japs have never once even apologized , yet atoned for what they did in WW2 to them.
So they , the Chinese are busy filling the power vacuum left by America, they do not trust us anymore.
Now back to Europe.
The Germans took over the Dutch Army er amalgamated them into their own , they control Cyprus now a perfect
jumping off harbour for their navy on the way to North Africa. Already they have deployments around the world from
patrolling the waters off Lebanon to small detachments all over North Africa. Boots on the ground soldiers, albeit in
small numbers.
They have Malta in their pocket too, it joined the Union in 2006.
Great little staging points to win Africa if Germany needs to again.
Rommel was defeated in Africa because the Allies held these islands and used them for supply chains, the Germans remember that and are working to reverse these strategic advantages we once held.
Far be it for me to sound the alarm, but the Germans are setting up again just like the 1930's all over again and hear
we sit with our collective heads up our ass's worried about gender neutral bathrooms.
If England succeeds in breaking away she will pay dearly, the Europeans steered by the Germans will see to that.
About the only thing of value left to Britain is the financial markets of London, that will go bye bye as it is routed over
to Berlin or Brussels.
Next they will be punished by being locked out of trading markets in the EU and most likely any of Europe's other
trading partners.
I hope to God , America stands behind Britain as they are kin folk, without her we would never have won either World
Wars and this would be a very different time we'd be living in now.
And we worry about the Orange One and the Doormat :'(
Germany is on the march again???! Are you suggesting the EU is really the 4th Reich?? Oh brother. You read many alternate history fiction books or something. The Eu is a floundering quagmire with a pacifist at the helm sinking in bad debt. They are not a conquering army headed for North Africa. Why would they want to go there anyhow??
Britain will be fine without the EU. It will be a bit bumpy at first, but they will ultimately be better off IMO.
Post by: abbamovers on June 12, 2016, 01:51:54 PM
Germany is on the march again???! Are you suggesting the EU is really the 4th Reich?? Oh brother. You read many alternate history fiction books or something. The Eu is a floundering quagmire with a pacifist at the helm sinking in bad debt. They are not a conquering army headed for North Africa. Why would they want to go there anyhow??
Britain will be fine without the EU. It will be a bit bumpy at first, but they will ultimately be better off IMO.
I'm a pragmatist, those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Europe has a soft underbelly in the south and the Muslim radicals are exploiting it.
Europe WILL cut the source off from crossing the Mediterranean even if it means taking on the whole of Africa , Middle East included and that 2 headed snake Iran.
Europe ain't the floundering quagmire you think, she just needs a strong leader at her helm and that person is coming
faster than you think.
Keep your eye on Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, of the House of Guttenberg, direct descendant of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor.
Post by: Kristin on June 12, 2016, 02:34:51 PM
Where do you guys stand on this issue? Should the UK withdraw from the European Union, or remain in?
Taking "guys" in the gender neutral manner it is oft used, I will weigh in.
Britain, for centuries, was the center of western and classically liberal thought. From Britain the concept of government by the people and for the people was hatched. It will be sad if the UK now dispenses with that for its own people and leaves its former colony as the primary beacon of the concept that the people should be able to government themselves through elected officials.
I didn't know how the EU was set up before this debate. I always thought it was some trade thing, but obviously, the EU has grown to have much more control than would a free trade zone. When I looked at the structure of the EU, it is clearly run by an oligarchy of bureaucrats and technocrats who own no allegiance to the citizenry. Even assuming that a United States of Europe was a desirable or practical objective, the EU structure of governance would have to change unless Europe wants to create by consent, what neither Hitler nor Napoleon could create by force -- an autocratic ruler of all of Europe.
Post by: Dav8or on June 12, 2016, 04:58:06 PM
I'm a pragmatist, those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Really? Which is the state of the world now more like, pre WW I, or pre WW II? I personally think it is the former, but the later is sexier and has better movies, I know. There won't be a repeat of either, the world has accelerated beyond those possibilities due to technology and trade. The if there is to be a conflict to come, it will be very different and far worse than either of it's predecessors.
Quote
Keep your eye on Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, of the House of Guttenberg, direct descendant of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor.
What? No Rothchilds, or Jewish banking cabals?
Post by: WildEye on June 12, 2016, 05:26:46 PM
..."So come on let it go
Just let it be
Why don't you be you
And I'll be me"
Post by: abbamovers on June 12, 2016, 05:59:01 PM
Really? Which is the state of the world now more like, pre WW I, or pre WW II? I personally think it is the former, but the later is sexier and has better movies, I know. There won't be a repeat of either, the world has accelerated beyond those possibilities due to technology and trade. The if there is a conflict to come, will be very different and far worse than either of it's predecessors.
What? No Rothchilds, or Jewish banking cabals?
I'm sure you do know. ::)
Really ? The world has accelerated beyond which possibilities ?
The ones where we destroy ourselves, due to this very technology you claim has saved us all.
Gimme a break, Mankind's capacity to do more evil is enhanced by these technologies.
Our modern world ain't no different than ancient Egypt or Rome, there is always some badass out there looking for more power, wealth etc...
The Rothchilds ?
Your sounding like Henning more everyday.
Post by: abbamovers on June 12, 2016, 06:26:17 PM
What? No Rothchilds, or Jewish banking cabals?
Look up Guttenberg if you care to bother .
I merely pointed him out since you think Merkel was inept.
He used to be her former Defense Minister of Germany.
He is young, smart, well liked, used to be a member of their armed forces and has very good petigree.
Nobility in Europe goes along way to greasing the path to power.
Many believe he can be coexed back to politics and be their next leader.
Post by: Steingar on June 13, 2016, 09:14:39 AM
why do you believe it has been a resounding success?
When I think of European history prior to the founding of the EU, it becomes blatantly obvious. The EU is still the best vanguard against demagogues and lack of democratic process. Those are far bigger threats than Muslim immigrants.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 13, 2016, 09:24:42 AM
When I think of European history prior to the founding of the EU, it becomes blatantly obvious. The EU is still the best vanguard against demagogues and lack of democratic process. Those are far bigger threats than Muslim immigrants.
If it's so blatantly obvious, then you should be able to articulate why.
How does the EU provide protection against demagogues?
Post by: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 10:19:34 AM
If it's so blatantly obvious, then you should be able to articulate why.It moves the demagogues and those who lack democratic accountability to Brussels rather than Berlin.
How does the EU provide protection against demagogues?
Post by: acrogimp on June 13, 2016, 10:32:59 AM
'Gimp
Post by: Kristin on June 13, 2016, 10:36:21 AM
When I think of European history prior to the founding of the EU, it becomes blatantly obvious. The EU is still the best vanguard against demagogues and lack of democratic process. Those are far bigger threats than Muslim immigrants.
Have you looked at the ruling structure of the EU? It is ruled by non-elected commissions and committees. That is the definition of an oligarchy.
Post by: JeffDG on June 13, 2016, 11:41:44 AM
I am hoping that the UK does indeed exit the EU and put a clear focus on what the EU actually is, a failed idea that is being raped, robbed and exploited by an existential threat that is diametrically opposed to everything Western little 'd' democracy is supposed to stand for. Good riddance.There is a fundamental difference between the British way of democratic governance (inherited across the Empire and the US) and the continental version thereof.
'Gimp
Take the basic distinction between Common Law (Brit) and the Civil Code (French/Roman). In the Common Law tradition, that which is not expressly prohibited is permitted. Under the Civil Code, that which is not permitted is prohibited. It is a completely different way of looking at the rights of the individual, and the UK is having its way subordinated to the continent.
Post by: Kristin on June 13, 2016, 12:03:21 PM
Europe has turned the corner you say? What of the rise in anti-semitism? Conflicts in the Balkans? I think we started the 20th Century with some fool thing in the Balkans and got dragged into two world wars. The Cossacks are still on the border.
Mom, your kids really think you should dump this guy you have been dating. He is a bit creepy.
Post by: Steingar on June 13, 2016, 01:36:00 PM
If it's so blatantly obvious, then you should be able to articulate why.
European history mostly consists of nationalism and internecine war. If you can't figure out why an open society with united currency and open borders is better then you should read more.
How does the EU provide protection against demagogues?
You don't get to stay in the union at all if democratic institutions are abrogated.
Post by: Kristin on June 13, 2016, 01:58:24 PM
European history mostly consists of nationalism and internecine war. If you can't figure out why an open society with united currency and open borders is better then you should read more.
It seems unrealistically utopian that all that is going to be washed away by a bureaucratic oligarchy. Further, the more it spreads and includes more the more disparate elements, e.g. other religions, cultures, etc, the more it is going to will take a strong central government and then the oligarchy gets stronger and Europe returns to what has been its natural state, which is one of rule by elites.
Quote
You don't get to stay in the union at all if democratic institutions are abrogated.
What democratic institutions are you talking about. It has almost none now. The EU Parliament is the only body that answers to the people, but as it cannot initiate any binding legislation, it is effectively toothless window dressing. There is an EU Council and an EU Commission that holds the power in some form or fashion but is not answerable to the citizenry. The EU is anything but democratic as it is not government by the people and for the people.
In truth, government for the people and by the people only works with a subset of the global population that ascribes to the same basic set of cultural values. That is why "multiculturalism" does not work when the cultures are too disparate.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 13, 2016, 03:09:10 PM
European history mostly consists of nationalism and internecine war. If you can't figure out why an open society with united currency and open borders is better then you should read more.
European history is like the history of every other part of this earth.
Prior to the formation of the EU, there were other wars after WWII?
You claimed that EU is better for Europe. Are you unable to articulate why?
Post by: nddons on June 13, 2016, 03:30:00 PM
European history is like the history of every other part of this earth.Concentration of political power has never really worked out for the good. Except for trade, I think it's a losing proposition for the more advanced/successful countries in Europe.
Prior to the formation of the EU, there were other wars after WWII?
You claimed that EU is better for Europe. Are you unable to articulate why?
Post by: Anthony on June 14, 2016, 05:55:34 AM
European history is like the history of every other part of this earth.
Prior to the formation of the EU, there were other wars after WWII?
You claimed that EU is better for Europe. Are you unable to articulate why?
He's just for BIG GOVERNMENT COLLECTIVISM like he's been taught by his BOLSHEVIK mentors.
Post by: Number7 on June 14, 2016, 06:03:26 AM
European history mostly consists of nationalism and internecine war. If you can't figure out why an open society with united currency and open borders is better then you should read more.
What would you suggest in the weay of reading material, Rules For Radicals?
Mad Magazine?
Huffington Post?
Post by: LevelWing on June 23, 2016, 08:22:50 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results
Post by: JeffDG on June 23, 2016, 08:25:34 PM
Post by: nddons on June 23, 2016, 08:43:51 PM
I didn't think the Brits had it in them to tell the Eurocrats to sod-off....Agreed. I hope that this nationalism is a trend, and a sharp kick in the teeth of the New World Order.
Post by: Dav8or on June 23, 2016, 08:50:24 PM
I didn't think the Brits had it in them to tell the Eurocrats to sod-off....
Oh, they have fended off more than one invasion by continental forces in the past. Apparently there are still some Brits that want stay British. Good for them. I personally support their independence.
Post by: Kristin on June 23, 2016, 09:34:34 PM
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 04:42:53 AM
CNN is now calling the election for LEAVE. Good for Britain! I would have hated to see the cradle of democracy smothered in the tentacles of bureaucracy.Nicely put!
Post by: Little Joe on June 24, 2016, 05:08:02 AM
CNN is now calling the election for LEAVE. Good for Britain! I would have hated to see the cradle of democracy smothered in the tentacles of bureaucracy.I'm glad to see it too, even if it is going to cost me a few hundred thousand dollars, on paper, in the short run.
But Britain has always been the cradle of "Bureaucracy".
I spoke to my wife today about planning a vacation in Britain this year to show support and spend some dollars.
Post by: Steingar on June 24, 2016, 05:34:42 AM
Agreed. I hope that this nationalism is a trend, and a sharp kick in the teeth of the New World Order.
I don't. It was unbridled nationalism that caused the 20th century European wars. Don't need to go back to that.
This is already opening up painful divisions. There will almost certainly be another Scotland independence vote, and it will succeed this time. Says Spain's foreign minister: "The Spanish flag on the Rock is much closer than before," referring to Gibraltar, an English possession since 1713. This is going to let out some serious demons. Reminds me of the old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".
Post by: bflynn on June 24, 2016, 06:59:06 AM
Great time for a vacation to the UK.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 24, 2016, 07:39:49 AM
Sort of like what we have with DC agencies telling people in a far corner of Wyoming what they are allowed to do and making them pay for it as further insult.
Post by: Steingar on June 24, 2016, 08:28:35 AM
This isn't so much nationalism as it is a stand against central control by far away unaccounted bureaucrats.
Sort of like what we have with DC agencies telling people in a far corner of Wyoming what they are allowed to do and making them pay for it as further insult.
Wyoming is part of a much larger nation. Wyomingites have to abide by Federal laws just like the rest of us.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 24, 2016, 08:51:04 AM
Wyoming is part of a much larger nation. Wyomingites have to abide by Federal laws just like the rest of us.
yep - even then, there are supposed to be things reserved for the State to decide.
And the UK's membership in the EU isn't same kind of thing as the USA
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 08:56:37 AM
I don't. It was unbridled nationalism that caused the 20th century European wars. Don't need to go back to that.Not a big fan of independence, huh? Dependence is so much more comfortable.
This is already opening up painful divisions. There will almost certainly be another Scotland independence vote, and it will succeed this time. Says Spain's foreign minister: "The Spanish flag on the Rock is much closer than before," referring to Gibraltar, an English possession since 1713. This is going to let out some serious demons. Reminds me of the old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 09:03:27 AM
yep - even then, there are supposed to be things reserved for the State to decide.You are SUCH a 10th Amendment dinosaur!
And the UK's membership in the EU isn't same kind of thing as the USA
Don't you know that all power comes from the benevolent dictators entrenched in a 64 square mile kingdom known as "Washington DC."
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 09:05:45 AM
And the UK's membership in the EU isn't same kind of thing as the USANot yet.
The Eurocrats stated goal was a "United States of Europe" where it would have been much the same thing. They took the European Economic Area that the UK joined in 1973 and slowly tried to morph it into a federal super-state, in which the UK would have become a mere province of the USE.
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 09:07:54 AM
A question for everyone:
What if a state decided to withdraw from the United States right now? Last time there was a civil war, but honestly, I don't think the People of the United States, nor the government, has the stomach for that right now.
If the state of Madeupia held a plebiscite to withdraw from the United States:
a) Would they be permitted to do so?
b) Should they be permitted to do so?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 24, 2016, 09:23:57 AM
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 24, 2016, 09:24:45 AM
Wyoming is part of a much larger nation. Wyomingites have to abide by Federal laws just like the rest of us.
As expected, you miss the point again. What might be applicable to life in DC does not necessarily work for people living in a remote rural part of the country. Being forced into the same box by people who don't have to live with the results is tyrannical.
Post by: Steingar on June 24, 2016, 09:33:25 AM
As expected, you miss the point again. What might be applicable to life in DC does not necessarily work for people living in a remote rural part of the country. Being forced into the same box by people who don't have to live with the results is tyrannical.
If a majority of citizens feel that the Federal Government is tyrannical and doesn't serve them it will likely cease to exist. People elect the politicians in this country. to some extent that' s what you're seeing in Trump. and outsider, "burn the house down" candidate. If people all feel the way you do he'll not only get elected POTUS, but he will not be the last.
Thankfully very few people feel as you do. Wyoming has a shade over half million people in it. There are more than that in my one-horse town.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 09:50:20 AM
I'm glad to see it too, even if it is going to cost me a few hundred thousand dollars, on paper, in the short run.
But Britain has always been the cradle of "Bureaucracy".
I spoke to my wife today about planning a vacation in Britain this year to show support and spend some dollars.
Democracy does require some bureaucracy which in turn is a constant threat to the democracy. It is not clear to me that our system of government will eventually correct itself and trim back the bureaucracy. Ditto Britain. However, the EU had clearly, by its structure, insulated the bureaucracy from the people so there was no hope of trimming back the bureaucracy.
You should head over there before the exchange rate recovers. My niece and nephew arrived in UK the day before Brexit. I told them not to convert all their dollars to pounds right away. I am sure that they didn't listen to the old bat, but I gave the advice anyway. ;D
Post by: Dav8or on June 24, 2016, 09:52:08 AM
OK...
A question for everyone:
What if a state decided to withdraw from the United States right now? Last time there was a civil war, but honestly, I don't think the People of the United States, nor the government, has the stomach for that right now.
If the state of Madeupia held a plebiscite to withdraw from the United States:
a) Would they be permitted to do so?
b) Should they be permitted to do so?
a) In theory, yes but I would expect this state to repay all federal investments in that state before it goes.
b) In theory, yes but I doubt that would happen in reality. In the case of the US, it would be a really bad idea for most states to go it alone. There are a few states that I think could pull it off, namely California, Texas and maybe New York. The rest would likely flounder and go badly, or just be impractical.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 10:00:13 AM
Not yet.
The Eurocrats stated goal was a "United States of Europe" where it would have been much the same thing. They took the European Economic Area that the UK joined in 1973 and slowly tried to morph it into a federal super-state, in which the UK would have become a mere province of the USE.
Had the EU been set up on the model of the US, or some such, where you had representation by state and representation by population, maybe Brexit would not have passed. But the structure that insulated the reins of power from the will of the people rendered it sufficiently undemocratic that even the average citizen could understand that they had no real say.
The EU issue is complicated by the fact is that most of the members have very little in common with each other. America worked because the society was defined on certain principles and people arrived in dribs and drabs and assimilated. There is no such agreed upon principles that a US of Europe has.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 24, 2016, 10:36:24 AM
If a majority of citizens feel that the Federal Government is tyrannical and doesn't serve them it will likely cease to exist. People elect the politicians in this country. to some extent that' s what you're seeing in Trump. and outsider, "burn the house down" candidate. If people all feel the way you do he'll not only get elected POTUS, but he will not be the last.So the individual doesn't count, only the collective. Well, I shouldn't be surprised.
Thankfully very few people feel as you do. Wyoming has a shade over half million people in it. There are more than that in my one-horse town.
I didn't elect Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. Neither did the vast majority of citizens. But we have to live with their edicts.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 24, 2016, 10:41:30 AM
America worked because the society was defined on certain principles and people arrived in dribs and drabs and assimilated.
Recent events making that an obsolete statement. People coming in legally or otherwise do not share the same values and have no intention of adopting them.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 10:49:34 AM
So the individual doesn't count, only the collective. Well, I shouldn't be surprised.
I didn't elect Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. Neither did the vast majority of citizens. But we have to live with their edicts.
None of the four issued edicts as that is beyond the powers given them. They are senior, so have more power, but Wyoming has had Cheney and Alan Simpson, and Kentucky has McConnell, NC had Helms, etc, etc.
Post by: Dav8or on June 24, 2016, 10:54:02 AM
So the individual doesn't count, only the collective. Well, I shouldn't be surprised.
I didn't elect Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, et al. Neither did the vast majority of citizens. But we have to live with their edicts.
Umm... that's kinda dumb. You did vote for some kind of creature that either does, or does not go along with the usual suspects. The person you voted for may not have won (mine never, ever does) but your state and your district is represented. If it's not going the way you want, you have to convince your neighbors and others in your district to come around to your position.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 10:54:07 AM
Recent events making that an obsolete statement. People coming in legally or otherwise do not share the same values and have no intention of adopting them.
If you are referring to refugees, I agree tend to agree with you, especially as the Muslims are concerned. If you are talking about Hispanics, I used to believe that too, but 25 years in California have shown me that they assimilate pretty much as other immigrant groups have. The first generation tends not to really get the language thing and tend to congregation in communities, but the subsequent generations are unremarkably American. This is no different from the Italians, Poles, etc.
That said, we still need to fix immigration and do something with our porous borders. We should only be accepting immigrants who can contribute and not be a burden.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 24, 2016, 11:20:33 AM
Umm... that's kinda dumb. You did vote for some kind of creature that either does, or does not go along with the usual suspects. The person you voted for may not have won (mine never, ever does) but your state and your district is represented. If it's not going the way you want, you have to convince your neighbors and others in your district to come around to your position.
I can't influence people in San Franpsycho or other places in the land of fruits and nuts or similar high population Demo enclaves, but I have to live with their values.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 24, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
If you are referring to refugees, I agree tend to agree with you, especially as the Muslims are concerned. If you are talking about Hispanics, I used to believe that too, but 25 years in California have shown me that they assimilate pretty much as other immigrant groups have. The first generation tends not to really get the language thing and tend to congregation in communities, but the subsequent generations are unremarkably American. This is no different from the Italians, Poles, etc.
That said, we still need to fix immigration and do something with our porous borders. We should only be accepting immigrants who can contribute and not be a burden.
Then what's up with the Mexican flags at La Raza rallies and people reclaiming the southwest for Mexico? Are they first generation, later, what?
Post by: asechrest on June 24, 2016, 11:33:01 AM
I can't influence people in San Franpsycho or other places in the land of fruits and nuts or similar high population Demo enclaves, but I have to live with their values.
No you don't. You can have your own values.
But anyway, I am not sure what you're going on about. The states have equal representation in the Senate, and the population of citizens -- those who empower the government, mind you -- have equal representation by numbers in the House. If you have a better idea, let's hear it.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 11:34:14 AM
I can't influence people in San Franpsycho or other places in the land of fruits and nuts or similar high population Demo enclaves, but I have to live with their values.
The founding fathers did a pretty good job of balancing that. California with nearly 40M people have two senators. Wyoming with half a million have two Senators. There is clearly some balance as the heartland bemoans the influence of CA and NY in the House and CA and NY bemoan the influence of the rural heartland states in the Senate.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 11:35:08 AM
Then what's up with the Mexican flags at La Raza rallies and people reclaiming the southwest for Mexico? Are they first generation, later, what?
Every group has their wingnuts. White American has the various militia groups and white supremacy groups.
Post by: asechrest on June 24, 2016, 11:38:57 AM
Post by: Steingar on June 24, 2016, 11:44:21 AM
I had no idea Wyoming was that sparsely populated. I have double that population just in my home county. I bet the traffic is fantastic in Wyoming.
The Dakotas, Wyoming, Alaska and Vermont and Delaware all have fewer than a million people. As far as the traffic, to be honest it doesn't look that there are that many roads. Never been there though, so I can't say. I've heard its gorgeous.
Post by: Dav8or on June 24, 2016, 11:55:55 AM
Then what's up with the Mexican flags at La Raza rallies and people reclaiming the southwest for Mexico? Are they first generation, later, what?
There are two separate houses in my neighborhood that fly Irish flags along side the US flag. Having never lived anywhere else, I can't really say what it's like, but I think you always have some pride in where you are from and the people that you descended from. I imagine that if I were to move to a foreign country I might still display the US flag from time to time.
I hear people in the south still fly Confederate flags and they used to say stuff like- "The South will rise again!". What the hell is up with that?
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 11:59:04 AM
OK...If Madeupia joined with California, New Yorkia, and New Jerseya, I'd be good with that.
A question for everyone:
What if a state decided to withdraw from the United States right now? Last time there was a civil war, but honestly, I don't think the People of the United States, nor the government, has the stomach for that right now.
If the state of Madeupia held a plebiscite to withdraw from the United States:
a) Would they be permitted to do so?
b) Should they be permitted to do so?
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 12:11:40 PM
If Madeupia joined with California, New Yorkia, and New Jerseya, I'd be good with that.
I think it has been shown that the the richer coastal states contribute more to the federal coffers than they get back and the rural states receive more federal funds than they pay in. You might be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 12:21:27 PM
If you have a better idea, let's hear it.I've proposed a "third chamber" for Congress before. It would have representation based upon the amount of tax revenue collected in each state. It would only have power of taxation and spending bills. Other bills that regulate stuff (ie. a law against murder) would not need the asset of this hypothetical third chamber.
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 12:22:19 PM
There are two separate houses in my neighborhood that fly Irish flags along side the US flag.I tend to fly the Maple Leaf around the 1st of July.
Post by: asechrest on June 24, 2016, 01:01:52 PM
I've proposed a "third chamber" for Congress before. It would have representation based upon the amount of tax revenue collected in each state. It would only have power of taxation and spending bills. Other bills that regulate stuff (ie. a law against murder) would not need the asset of this hypothetical third chamber.
Interesting. I assume CA, TX, and NY would be on top. If the idea is to allow those who pay the most to the FedGov to have a greater impact on federal spending decisions, a more effective metric might involve net federal tax revenue. A bunch of states get a big return on investment in the way of federal support.
This'd be real tough for poverty-stricken states, though.
Post by: bflynn on June 24, 2016, 01:40:21 PM
Interesting. I assume CA, TX, and NY would be on top. If the idea is to allow those who pay the most to the FedGov to have a greater impact on federal spending decisions, a more effective metric might involve net federal tax revenue. A bunch of states get a big return on investment in the way of federal support.
This'd be real tough for poverty-stricken states, though.
I'm not sure basing a piece of government on money has very many positive outcomes.
Post by: Kristin on June 24, 2016, 01:46:44 PM
I've proposed a "third chamber" for Congress before. It would have representation based upon the amount of tax revenue collected in each state. It would only have power of taxation and spending bills. Other bills that regulate stuff (ie. a law against murder) would not need the asset of this hypothetical third chamber.
Dems would love that as many of the red states would have little or no representation depending on who the scheme was set up.
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 01:47:48 PM
Interesting. I assume CA, TX, and NY would be on top. If the idea is to allow those who pay the most to the FedGov to have a greater impact on federal spending decisions, a more effective metric might involve net federal tax revenue. A bunch of states get a big return on investment in the way of federal support.Part of it would also be that folks would get votes based on how much they pay in taxes. So, if you pay 100x the taxes of another person, you get 100x more votes for your rep.
This'd be real tough for poverty-stricken states, though.
And I would base it solely on taxation.
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 01:49:11 PM
Dems would love that as many of the red states would have little or no representation depending on who the scheme was set up.Well, then it would be their money.
Want to "tax the rich", well, they get more votes out of the deal, and can thus vote to lower their taxes. Exempt 47% of people from taxes? Now they get no votes at all.
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 06:44:44 PM
I think it has been shown that the the richer coastal states contribute more to the federal coffers than they get back and the rural states receive more federal funds than they pay in. You might be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
That's OK. They still irritiate the crap out of me.
Post by: nddons on June 24, 2016, 06:47:05 PM
I tend to fly the Maple Leaf around the 1st of July.Why? Has a Canadian Team been in the NHL Finals sometime recently? 😉
Post by: JeffDG on June 24, 2016, 07:00:30 PM
Why? Has a Canadian Team been in the NHL Finals sometime recently?To this day when people learn I'm Canadian, Americans ask me "Does Canada have a Fourth of July?"
My deadpan response is "Yep, right after the third and just before the fifth."
Post by: Dav8or on June 24, 2016, 07:35:52 PM
I've proposed a "third chamber" for Congress before. It would have representation based upon the amount of tax revenue collected in each state. It would only have power of taxation and spending bills. Other bills that regulate stuff (ie. a law against murder) would not need the asset of this hypothetical third chamber.
How would that differ much from what we have? The states with the largest populations rake in the most tax revenue and usually have the most industry/business that also creates tax revenue. So the same states that dominate now, would continue to do so with the same political bias. California, New York, Illinois, etc would just say hell yes to more social spending and more taxes.
Post by: Dav8or on June 24, 2016, 07:39:55 PM
Well, then it would be their money.
Want to "tax the rich", well, they get more votes out of the deal, and can thus vote to lower their taxes. Exempt 47% of people from taxes? Now they get no votes at all.
And that basically goes back to what started all this- taxation without representation.
Post by: Mase on June 24, 2016, 08:21:08 PM
And that basically goes back to what started all this- taxation without representation.
Not as outlined - it would be non-taxation without representation.
Post by: Anthony on June 25, 2016, 02:54:38 AM
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 06:01:40 AM
And that basically goes back to what started all this- taxation without representation.Actually quite the reverse...no representation without taxation.
Post by: Dav8or on June 25, 2016, 09:16:11 AM
Actually quite the reverse...no representation without taxation.
But it potentially could be. This new tax congress would have the power to enact new taxes, or a complete change to the tax code, correct? So let's say the folks in this group decide that they want to pay less taxes and the way to do it is by enacting a flat tax scheme. Suddenly folks without representation are hit with a new tax they never had before. I suppose these lower class folks would have representation the next session of congress after an election cycle, but would their representation be enough to repeal the new flat tax and go back the way it was? I suspect not. Bottom line, people without representation got taxed.
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 09:32:38 AM
But it potentially could be. This new tax congress would have the power to enact new taxes, or a complete change to the tax code, correct? So let's say the folks in this group decide that they want to pay less taxes and the way to do it is by enacting a flat tax scheme. Suddenly folks without representation are hit with a new tax they never had before. I suppose these lower class folks would have representation the next session of congress after an election cycle, but would their representation be enough to repeal the new flat tax and go back the way it was? I suspect not. Bottom line, people without representation got taxed.They would still be represented by the House and Senate.
The difference being that any taxation or spending would need to be approved, additionally, by this third chamber.
So, are you saying that today that people under the age of 18 should be exempt from taxation, well, maybe 20, because there are 19 year olds who were not old enough to vote last time. How about lawful immigrants? I pay plenty of taxes, and have no right to representation.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 25, 2016, 12:18:06 PM
To this day when people learn I'm Canadian, Americans ask me "Does Canada have a Fourth of July?"
My deadpan response is "Yep, right after the third and just before the fifth."
"Yes, but we're still under the Queen of England."
Post by: JeffDG on June 25, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
"Yes, but we're still under the Queen of England."Canada?
No, Canada's Chief of State is Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. She may hold some other titles of significantly lesser consequence, but that's the important one.
Post by: Dav8or on June 25, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
They would still be represented by the House and Senate.
The difference being that any taxation or spending would need to be approved, additionally, by this third chamber.
So, are you saying that today that people under the age of 18 should be exempt from taxation, well, maybe 20, because there are 19 year olds who were not old enough to vote last time. How about lawful immigrants? I pay plenty of taxes, and have no right to representation.
OK, so this third congress is just sort of an oversight committee? Taxation bills still originate in the house, or senate and are only approved by this committee and has final say? I'm assuming for both tax increases and reductions. It sounds like changing anything to do with taxes would be even harder than it is today. Likely a long status quo.
As to minors paying taxes, that's a good question, but I'm not a lawyer. I would guess it is covered by the fact that a minor is not a full US citizen yet, so we are free to exploit them. This definitely the case with immigrants. They are not citizens so we can exploit the hell out of them! ;) Hopefully soon you will be a citizen! :)
Post by: JeffDG on June 26, 2016, 08:19:04 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2016/06/24/brexit-boosts-canzuk-replacement-european-union-column/86347818/
Quote
This is the growing movement for closer ties between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, the so-called CANZUK nations. A Change.org petition calling for bureaucracy-free movement between those 4 nations recently gained over 100,000 signatures in a few months without any financial backing or big names in support. Boris Johnson, the flamboyant ex-mayor of London, and now victorious leader of the Leave movement in the Brexit referendum, has endorsed CANZUK free movement as a near term goal.
Post by: JeffDG on June 26, 2016, 08:27:59 AM
http://www.thelocal.de/20160625/germany-says-wont-let-anyone-take-europe-from-us
Quote
“I am confident that these countries can also send a message that we won’t let anyone take Europe from us,” [German Foreign Minister Steinmeier] said heading into a meeting in Berlin of his counterparts from the EU’s six founding members.
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2016, 06:21:57 AM
Other than a footprint beginning to resemble the corruption of the UN, what benefit did the EU provide the world in general?
Other than power and money, what does the EU seek to achieve?
Post by: Steingar on June 28, 2016, 07:05:32 AM
Other than corruption, what real value did the EU provide to English subjects?Lots of British subject vacationing retire to southern Europe. The EU is also their largest trading partner.
Other than a footprint beginning to resemble the corruption of the UN, what benefit did the EU provide the world in general?Peace and stability for starters
Other than power and money, what does the EU seek to achieve?Open borders and unified markets.
Post by: LevelWing on June 28, 2016, 07:06:49 AM
Open borders and unified markets.How is open borders a good thing? Or are you referring to the ability for Europeans to travel freely through the continent?
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 07:08:54 AM
Lots of British subject vacationing retire to southern Europe.Which, of course, they'll now be prohibited from doing. Canadians cannot visit Florida because the North American Union does not exist, right?
The EU is also their largest trading partner.More geography and protectionism (EU tarrifing out outsiders)
Peace and stability for startersI would attribute that more to NATO than the EU.
Open borders and unified markets.The WTO has done more for open markets than the EU has, and it hasn't imposed any kind of super-state government making laws for members.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 07:10:03 AM
How is open borders a good thing? Or are you referring to the ability for Europeans to travel freely through the continent?Plus a note, neither the UK nor Ireland were ever part of the Schengen area that permitted border less travel, so that will have, let me see, carry the one, zero impact on the UK.
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 07:16:39 AM
But now, liberals thing that an superstate bureaucracy should be able to write into domestic laws the size and shape of bananas and if you want to leave, you're a racist xenophobe.
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2016, 08:38:29 AM
Lots of British subject vacationing retire to southern Europe. The EU is also their largest trading partner. Peace and stability for startersOpen borders and unified markets.
Other than progressive talking points without substance those things are either ridiculously misstated, or deliberately false in context with real facts.
Brits vacation all over the world. We have a state full of Brits every winter and more and more visiting each summer. So... What is it about the EU that is special as far as vacationing is concerned?
Trade is trade and the EU has done little but make up regulations that benefit a small cabal and ignore the people.
Peace and Stability????
Seriously???
The US taxpayers largely fund stability in Europe through NATO among other things.
Stability my ass. The only stable thing is the corruption, power grab and never ending meddling outside of their actual purpose.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 28, 2016, 08:52:59 AM
Post by: JeffDG on June 28, 2016, 09:17:19 AM
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 09:15:53 AM
the mini panic going on is going to be much ado about nothing.
And gosh - the DOW is only 2% off it's 1 month high now. How many have already forgotten that Brexit happened?
Too early to break out champagne, but most people today would say that Brexit has had very little economic impact.
Post by: Dav8or on June 29, 2016, 09:30:29 AM
I think we should bring the UK into NAFTA and make it the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.
So the UK can buy all their stuff and have it say- Hecho en Mexico?
Post by: Bob Noel on June 29, 2016, 10:02:33 AM
So the UK can buy all their stuff and have it say- Hecho en Mexico?
That would probably be better than Hecho en China
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 07:54:40 AM
Which, of course, they'll now be prohibited from doing. Canadians cannot visit Florida because the North American Union does not exist, right?I visited the Costa del Sol area (Torremolinos, Malaga, etc.) of Spain in 1982 on a college spring break. There were more British pubs than any "authentic" Spanish bars by far.
More geography and protectionism (EU tarrifing out outsiders)I would attribute that more to NATO than the EU.
The WTO has done more for open markets than the EU has, and it hasn't imposed any kind of super-state government making laws for members.
In fact a buddy and I were playing darts in a pub when an older gentleman asked if he could join us. Of course we said "Sure!" He then nodded to his wife who pulled out a case holding his personal, custom darts. He proceeded to kick our ass for the next couple of hours. It was awesome. I learned how to really play darts that day.
To bad those will be closed down now because Brexit.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 30, 2016, 08:03:34 AM
I visited the Costa del Sol area (Torremolinos, Malaga, etc.) of Spain in 1982 on a college spring break. There were more British pubs than any "authentic" Spanish bars by far.
In fact a buddy and I were playing darts in a pub when an older gentleman asked if he could join us. Of course we said "Sure!" He then nodded to his wife who pulled out a case holding his personal, custom darts. He proceeded to kick our ass for the next couple of hours. It was awesome. I learned how to really play darts that day.
To bad those will be closed down now because Brexit.
why would those be closed down? You said you visited in 1982.... when did the EU get formed?
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 09:05:36 AM
And gosh - the DOW is only 2% off it's 1 month high now. How many have already forgotten that Brexit happened?Except for the childish whining from people like Branson who cried that he lost 1/3 of the value of Virgin because of the Brexit vote. Boo fucking hoo. Grow a pair and adapt.
Too early to break out champagne, but most people today would say that Brexit has had very little economic impact.
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 09:10:03 AM
why would those be closed down? You said you visited in 1982.... when did the EU get formed?Bingo. You made my point. (I presume that's what you intended to do.)
The good doctor was complaining because the EU allowed Brits to vacation and retire in Southern Europe. My point is that they move been doing that forever, and the EU added nothing to the equation. Ergo, Brexit changes nothing to the equation either, except perhaps having to show a passport when they land in Spain, etc.
Post by: JeffDG on June 30, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
Ergo, Brexit changes nothing to the equation either, except perhaps having to show a passport when they land in Spain, etc.Not even that. The UK and IRE are not part of the Schengen area of borderless travel. Going from the UK to France involves clearing a border checkpoint, so no change there.
Basically like the flocks of Canadians who go to Florida and Arizona every winter. Seriously, when I'm on I-75 in March or October, there are more Ontario plates on vehicles than Tennessee.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 30, 2016, 09:40:53 AM
Post by: bflynn on June 30, 2016, 02:40:44 PM
Guess it's all just a memory, huh?
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 30, 2016, 05:53:04 PM
And now the Dow closed 1 point ABOVE the Monday opening....
Guess it's all just a memory, huh?
Someone, whose initials are George Soros, made a killing.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 30, 2016, 07:52:57 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/british-stock-markets-bounce-back-just-five-days-after-brexit/
Post by: JeffDG on July 01, 2016, 07:46:17 AM
FTSE 100 set for best week since 2011