Brexit Official
- Thread starter SunnyJim
- Start date
bobtokes
Well-Known Member
there would have to be another vote, nothings going to change, brussels has already stated there will be no new deal
DonBrennon
Well-Known Member
It was never just about controlling emigration, it was more about democracy for those who wanted to leave and all about big business for those who wished to stay. More and more power and money would have moved to Brussels and there's not a thing we would have been able to do about it. It was becoming more like a dictatorship every day, this will really put the fire up their arses.
I've heard the statement "why fix what's not broken?" spouted about a lot...........well the EU was already seriously broken, if you couldn't see this, you need to open your eyes.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. Britain had already rejected monetary union. It's Germany that holds the majority of debt to the peripheral countries. Germany has been the strongest proponent of the EU and also country that has benefited the most from the union. For them its a mixed bag of costs and benefits with the balance on the benefit side. Not so for Britain. To say that German debt affected Britain's decision to exit is just another example of Spiderdude's inability to see past his own nose.
The vote to leave was all about rejection of the idea that Britain is a European country, just like Italy. The majority voted for the ability of the people of the UK to decide for themselves the means of controlling borders, immigration and economy. It is in my mind a blow to globalization which is a good thing, but given some of the reasons cited by the less informed, it is also a sign that decisions like this are in part made by bigots and racists.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Bigots and racists have just as much right to make decisions as you do.
It has been mentioned that the open borders ethic was a big issue with the rejection as well. And the fact that faceless burecrats in other countries decided the rules of countries far away.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Thanks for agreeing. Now, I'll have to go off and reflect for while. You agreed with me. Where did I go so wrong?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
The Brexit vote was a vote against those who look down their noses at the "less informed". Who could have predicted that Britains would resist the subversion of their culture by their betters?
Who would have predicted that democratic congressmen would stage an anti bill of rights sit-in? Yet here we are.
I didn't think Trump could possibly win the presidency come November. Now, I am more and more convinced that he will be the next president. He is the lesser of two evils. The "less informed" will once again confound their masters.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
holy shit, the klanman is back.
was it his "ban all muslims" rhetoric that hooked you, or the "deport all mexicans" rhetoric which made you cum in your geriatric geezer pants, cop?
bluntmassa1
Well-Known Member
Hopefully the states break up too nobody wants to live like bitch ass California.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I guess that you have voices in your head that tell you what others are thinking because your opinion isn't reflected anywhere. Not polls, quotes from people, or anywhere except maybe kkk or neonazi blogs (not that I've checked). Many times when people were asked why they were leavers, they did say they felt that foreigners were being forced on them. Also smaller businesses were not able to take advantage of economic union. I actually think this is a victory for common people to voice their desire to control borders and for their representatives to control economic decisions.
This bit about "they resist subversion of their culture by their betters" never came up. And it's not an issue in other aspects of their society. Britain's monarchy are not British but they love their queen and her family.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I take the Brexit results as a barometer of general dissatisfaction with the ruling class. You know, the smug putdowns of "less informed" voters sort of stuff. It's a simple reaction, really. It's the same thing driving Trump's popularity.
That's why I think Trump is likely to win the presidency. Combine the overall anger with the status quo with Hillary's toxic personality, and imperious criminality and you have a recipe for a blowout election result for Trump. Not that I think Trump will be a good president, he probably won't, but he will be no worse than Hillary.
Dr.Amber Trichome
Well-Known Member
Now that the British have made their decision, its time to start up a new IRA bombing campaign through downtown London.
We will start with the Liberal moron, Tony Blair, and lets not rule out the British royalty. The last time they got one was in 1983 with Lord Mount Batton. They are way overdue.
To British Snobbery, now you have come to a more civilized part of the world.
We will start with the Liberal moron, Tony Blair, and lets not rule out the British royalty. The last time they got one was in 1983 with Lord Mount Batton. They are way overdue.
To British Snobbery, now you have come to a more civilized part of the world.
-
- bloody wankers.lol
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
LOL
cry some more ya little bitch. they are less informed. they even proved it.
there has never been a candidate in the history of the united states who was less popular than trump you retard.
jesus christ, get with reality.
you also predicted a romney win ya fucking cuck.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
"I take the Brexit results as...blah blah" Who gives a shit what you take as a result? I mean, every time you open your mouth, you spout white supremacist or bigoted shit, along with chronic bad breath and the whiff of onions.
There is another thread on Trump post there dumbass.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. It means the slaves decided to move from the big EU plantation back to a smaller one.
The individual people still have a master, that hasn't changed.
Attachments
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
There is an important distinction to be made between individual debt and government created debt.
Government "debt" is not the kind that individual people enter into via a voluntary agreement.
It is the kind of debt that governments create by "giving" people things by writing bad checks against the future labor of the individual slaves.
The slaves eat the bread thrown into the crowd and whine when the circus leaves town, then all that's left is huge piles of elephant shit. It will happen in the USA too.
In a voluntary free market world, these problems would not exist since, "debt" is not something that one person can create for another via uni-lateral "agreements".
At the root of the problem, is the idea that government has superior rights to each individual. When that superstition ends,so does the problem.
SpiderDude
Well-Known Member
Alan Greenspan ( June 24th 2016 ) ~ Ran the largest central bank in the world for 15 years.
" The global economy is suffering from even bigger woes than the decision by U.K. voters to leave the European Union, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday.
”This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Greenspan said in an interview on CNBC. “The global economy is in real serious trouble.”
The rejection of British voters of the status quo in Europe was fueled by a “massive slowing” in the growth rate of real incomes that is widespread across Europe, Greenspan said. This, he said, is creating serious political problems that are not easy to resolve. Behind the slowdown in income is the sharp drop in worker productivity, according to Greenspan. Governments have to cut entitlements to reflect this weakness, he said. The biggest concern is not a recession, but stagnation, the former Fed chief said.
“The euro-area…is failing,” Greenspan said.
“Greece is in real serious trouble and it is not going to continue in the euro very much longer irrespective of what is going on currently,” he said. Asked what he would do if he was still Fed chief, Greenspan said: “I would worry.” “This is the worst period I recall since I’ve been in public service,” he said. “There is nothing like it,” he said, including the 23% drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on a single day in October 1987. The former Fed chairman said that the root of the "British problem is far more widespread." He said the result of the referendum will "almost surely" lead to the Scottish National Party trying to "resurrect Scottish Independence." Greenspan said the "euro currency is the immediate problem." While the euro and the euro zone were major steps in a movement toward European political integration, "it's failing," he said.
"Brexit is not the end of the set of problems, which I always thought were going to start with the euro because the euro is a very serious problem in that the southern part of the euro zone is being funded by the northern part and the European Central Bank," Greenspan said. Even with that in mind, the European Central Bank is limited in what it can do because these fundamental problems like the stagnation of real incomes don't have easy solutions, Greenspan told CNBC. "There's a certain amount that monetary policy can do, but our problem is fundamentally fiscal," he said, adding that this is true in the United States as well as "every major country in Europe." Part of the problem is that the "developed countries are all aging very rapidly," which is leading to a higher ratio of government spending in the form of entitlements, Greenspan said. The 90-year-old Greenspan presided over the Federal Reserve for 19 years, starting with the administration of President Ronald Reagan through that of George W. Bush.
" The global economy is suffering from even bigger woes than the decision by U.K. voters to leave the European Union, Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday.
”This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Greenspan said in an interview on CNBC. “The global economy is in real serious trouble.”
The rejection of British voters of the status quo in Europe was fueled by a “massive slowing” in the growth rate of real incomes that is widespread across Europe, Greenspan said. This, he said, is creating serious political problems that are not easy to resolve. Behind the slowdown in income is the sharp drop in worker productivity, according to Greenspan. Governments have to cut entitlements to reflect this weakness, he said. The biggest concern is not a recession, but stagnation, the former Fed chief said.
“The euro-area…is failing,” Greenspan said.
“Greece is in real serious trouble and it is not going to continue in the euro very much longer irrespective of what is going on currently,” he said. Asked what he would do if he was still Fed chief, Greenspan said: “I would worry.” “This is the worst period I recall since I’ve been in public service,” he said. “There is nothing like it,” he said, including the 23% drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on a single day in October 1987. The former Fed chairman said that the root of the "British problem is far more widespread." He said the result of the referendum will "almost surely" lead to the Scottish National Party trying to "resurrect Scottish Independence." Greenspan said the "euro currency is the immediate problem." While the euro and the euro zone were major steps in a movement toward European political integration, "it's failing," he said.
"Brexit is not the end of the set of problems, which I always thought were going to start with the euro because the euro is a very serious problem in that the southern part of the euro zone is being funded by the northern part and the European Central Bank," Greenspan said. Even with that in mind, the European Central Bank is limited in what it can do because these fundamental problems like the stagnation of real incomes don't have easy solutions, Greenspan told CNBC. "There's a certain amount that monetary policy can do, but our problem is fundamentally fiscal," he said, adding that this is true in the United States as well as "every major country in Europe." Part of the problem is that the "developed countries are all aging very rapidly," which is leading to a higher ratio of government spending in the form of entitlements, Greenspan said. The 90-year-old Greenspan presided over the Federal Reserve for 19 years, starting with the administration of President Ronald Reagan through that of George W. Bush.
SpiderDude
Well-Known Member
Milton Friedman's prophetic article written 15 years ago:
"The Euro: Monetary Unity To Political Disunity?"
...... SAN FRANCISCO - A common currency is an excellent monetary arrangement under some circumstances, a poor monetary arrangement under others. Whether it is good or bad depends primarily on the adjustment mechanisms that are available to absorb the economic shocks and dislocations that impinge on the various entities that are considering a common currency. Flexible exchange rates are a powerful adjustment mechanism for shocks that affect the entities differently. It is worth dispensing with this mechanism to gain the advantage of lower transaction costs and external discipline only if there are adequate alternative adjustment mechanisms.
The United States is an example of a situation that is favorable to a common currency. Though composed of fifty states, its residents overwhelmingly speak the same language, listen to the same television programs, see the same movies, can and do move freely from one part of the country to another; goods and capital move freely from state to state; wages and prices are moderately flexible; and the national government raises in taxes and spends roughly twice as much as state and local governments. Fiscal policies differ from state to state, but the differences are minor compared to the common national policy.
Unexpected shocks may well affect one part of the United States more than others -- as, for example, the Middle East embargo on oil did in the 1970s, creating an increased demand for labor and boom conditions in some states, such as Texas, and unemployment and depressed conditions in others, such as the oil-importing states of the industrial Midwest. The different short-run effects were soon mediated by movements of people and goods, by offsetting financial flows from the national to the state and local governments, and by adjustments in prices and wages.
By contrast, Europe’s common market exemplifies a situation that is unfavorable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, whose residents speak different languages, have different customs, and have far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to the common market or to the idea of "Europe." Despite being a free trade area, goods move less freely than in the United States, and so does capital. The European Commission based in Brussels, indeed, spends a small fraction of the total spent by governments in the member countries. They, not the European Union’s bureaucracies, are the important political entities. Moreover, regulation of industrial and employment practices is more extensive than in the United States, and differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state. As a result, wages and prices in Europe are more rigid, and labor less mobile. In those circumstances, flexible exchange rates provide an extremely useful adjustment mechanism.
If one country is affected by negative shocks that call for, say, lower wages relative to other countries, that can be achieved by a change in one price, the exchange rate, rather than by requiring changes in thousands on thousands of separate wage rates, or the emigration of labor. The hardships imposed on France by its "franc fort" policy illustrate the cost of a politically inspired determination not to use the exchange rate to adjust to the impact of German unification. Britain’s economic growth after it abandoned the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few years ago to refloat the pound illustrates the effectiveness of the exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism.
Proponents of the "Euro" often cite the gold standard era from 1879 to 1914 as demonstrating the benefits of a common currency. But the gold standard also had its costs. The period was characterized by declining prices from 1879 to 1896, rising prices thereafter, and sharp fluctuations within each period, especially severe in the 1890s. The standard was viable only because governments were small (spending in the neighborhood of 10 percent of the national income rather than 50 or more percent as now), prices and wages were highly flexible, and the public was willing to tolerate, or had no way to moderate, wide swings in output and employment. Take away the rose-colored glasses and it was hardly a period or a system to emulate.
As of today, a subgroup of the European Union -- perhaps Germany, the Benelux countries, and Austria -- come closer to satisfying the conditions favorable to a common currency than does the EU as a whole. And they currently have the equivalent of a common currency. Austria and the Benelux three have, to all intents and purposes, linked their currencies to the Deutschmark. However, these countries still retain their central banks and hence can break the link at will. Any country that wishes to link to the Dmark more firmly can do so on its own, simply by replacing its central bank with a currency board, as some countries (such as Estonia) outside the EU have done.
The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe. I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.
"The Euro: Monetary Unity To Political Disunity?"
...... SAN FRANCISCO - A common currency is an excellent monetary arrangement under some circumstances, a poor monetary arrangement under others. Whether it is good or bad depends primarily on the adjustment mechanisms that are available to absorb the economic shocks and dislocations that impinge on the various entities that are considering a common currency. Flexible exchange rates are a powerful adjustment mechanism for shocks that affect the entities differently. It is worth dispensing with this mechanism to gain the advantage of lower transaction costs and external discipline only if there are adequate alternative adjustment mechanisms.
The United States is an example of a situation that is favorable to a common currency. Though composed of fifty states, its residents overwhelmingly speak the same language, listen to the same television programs, see the same movies, can and do move freely from one part of the country to another; goods and capital move freely from state to state; wages and prices are moderately flexible; and the national government raises in taxes and spends roughly twice as much as state and local governments. Fiscal policies differ from state to state, but the differences are minor compared to the common national policy.
Unexpected shocks may well affect one part of the United States more than others -- as, for example, the Middle East embargo on oil did in the 1970s, creating an increased demand for labor and boom conditions in some states, such as Texas, and unemployment and depressed conditions in others, such as the oil-importing states of the industrial Midwest. The different short-run effects were soon mediated by movements of people and goods, by offsetting financial flows from the national to the state and local governments, and by adjustments in prices and wages.
By contrast, Europe’s common market exemplifies a situation that is unfavorable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, whose residents speak different languages, have different customs, and have far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to the common market or to the idea of "Europe." Despite being a free trade area, goods move less freely than in the United States, and so does capital. The European Commission based in Brussels, indeed, spends a small fraction of the total spent by governments in the member countries. They, not the European Union’s bureaucracies, are the important political entities. Moreover, regulation of industrial and employment practices is more extensive than in the United States, and differs far more from country to country than from American state to American state. As a result, wages and prices in Europe are more rigid, and labor less mobile. In those circumstances, flexible exchange rates provide an extremely useful adjustment mechanism.
If one country is affected by negative shocks that call for, say, lower wages relative to other countries, that can be achieved by a change in one price, the exchange rate, rather than by requiring changes in thousands on thousands of separate wage rates, or the emigration of labor. The hardships imposed on France by its "franc fort" policy illustrate the cost of a politically inspired determination not to use the exchange rate to adjust to the impact of German unification. Britain’s economic growth after it abandoned the European Exchange Rate Mechanism a few years ago to refloat the pound illustrates the effectiveness of the exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism.
Proponents of the "Euro" often cite the gold standard era from 1879 to 1914 as demonstrating the benefits of a common currency. But the gold standard also had its costs. The period was characterized by declining prices from 1879 to 1896, rising prices thereafter, and sharp fluctuations within each period, especially severe in the 1890s. The standard was viable only because governments were small (spending in the neighborhood of 10 percent of the national income rather than 50 or more percent as now), prices and wages were highly flexible, and the public was willing to tolerate, or had no way to moderate, wide swings in output and employment. Take away the rose-colored glasses and it was hardly a period or a system to emulate.
As of today, a subgroup of the European Union -- perhaps Germany, the Benelux countries, and Austria -- come closer to satisfying the conditions favorable to a common currency than does the EU as a whole. And they currently have the equivalent of a common currency. Austria and the Benelux three have, to all intents and purposes, linked their currencies to the Deutschmark. However, these countries still retain their central banks and hence can break the link at will. Any country that wishes to link to the Dmark more firmly can do so on its own, simply by replacing its central bank with a currency board, as some countries (such as Estonia) outside the EU have done.
The drive for the Euro has been motivated by politics not economics. The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe. I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.
supreme bean
Well-Known Member
Now that the British have made their decision, its time to start up a new IRA bombing campaign through downtown London.
We will start with the Liberal moron, Tony Blair, and lets not rule out the British royalty. The last time they got one was in 1983 with Lord Mount Batton. They are way overdue.
To British Snobbery, now you have come to a more civilized part of the world.
Mountbatten was killed in 1979.The IRA bombing campaign lasted into the 90s.Crass remarks.U on crack?
- bloody wankers.lol