Jump to content

#Brexit


[Unactive Account]

Recommended Posts

You just briefly explained what inflation was. Dont just think of the companies and their customers here either, the companies have to import their materials to produce the goods too. More expensive materials to produce (now) more expensive product. More companies are more likely to go under because they cant afford the materials, not because they lose customers during an inflation period. 

 

Before I comment, I want to say that as Canadian I'm just watching this from the sidelines.  I'm mostly for less government if you don't absolutely need more government (which is basically what the EU seems to be at this point...it seems like they achieved their goal of creating a prosperous and peaceful Europe a long time ago).   I won't take sides though.

 

That said, there is a real danger here and it's not one that will disappear with a populist government.  The problem is how monetary policy is managed (hint: it's totally undemocratic and that is true for virtually every Western country).  Here's how this might play out in terms of monetary policy (hypothetical scenario): 

 

Britain enters a recession, brought about by inflation of the pound and low confidence from the market (remember, I said hypothetical, this might happen, it might not.  We don't know at this point).  In order to keep consumer spending high, Britain's central bank lowers interest rates even further.  The logic behind that is to get more money into the hands of consumers in the form of loans (e.g. mortgages, lines of credit, etc.).  People think this is great at first, because they now have access to more money than they did before.  The effect that will have though is to drive up certain markets, and the primary "benefactor" will be the housing market, which will be driven up by low interest rate mortgages.   So basically, housing prices rise even though you're technically in a recession (to be clear, you don't have more money - you just printed more of it).  This in turn creates a housing bubble that sees properties achieve unrealistic valuations.  But as long as the interest rate is low, people continue to be able to afford high housing costs because the banks are giving them access to mortgages.  

 

As long as interest rates stay low, you remain in the happy bubble (let's disregard the fact that you're taking out massive loans, basically signing away your freedom for the next 20 - 30 years).  However, the party can't continue forever.  Eventually, interest rates need to go up.  What happens then?  Housing prices decrease, because there's less demand (higher interest rates = smaller and fewer loans).   What is the result of that?  

 

> Person bought a house during the bubble for 500,000 pounds.  Paid for mostly by a bank in the form of a loan. 

> Interest rates go up, and now that house is worth only 400,000 pounds

> Person still owes 500,000 though, because that's what the bank bought the house for and he owes the bank

> In effect, Person just lost 100,000 pounds of their investment 

 

This is partially what drove the financial crisis in the US in 2008.  It is also what is currently happening in Canada (fun fact: the Central Bank of England is run by a Canadian....) where we've "enjoyed" historically low interest rates for years.  For example, check out this insanity: 

 

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/01/86-year-old-point-grey-house-listed-2-million/

 

Ended up selling for $2.6 million and going nowhere but up. 

 

Who wins?  The banks.  Who loses?  The citizens.  And again, it's the poor and the middle class who lose since you can only weather this storm if you're rich and have savings.  If you're lower or middle class though, you of course don't have any savings because the government told you it was a great idea to dump everything you own into investments which are doomed to tank because interest rates can't stay low forever.  

 

So to all the Brits out there: beware.  You got rid of one layer of government, now you need to keep a close eye on the remaining government.  If they act like all governments seem to, they will favour short-term gain over long-term prudence.  Keep a close eye on what the Bank of England does in the remainder of the year, this will be your major indicator for where you're going.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't think you can call the BBC impartial after the coverage they've put out so far. I also find it strange that Alastair Campbell goes on about xenophobia when he is complicit in the genocide of millions of Iraqis based upon non existent "weapons of mass destruction", and later abandoned Afghani interpreters by refusing them asylum. I'd wager money he's also complicit in Dr Kelly's murder.

 

Oh, and if the EU punishes us we could always veto sanctions on Russia (that are actually harming the people of Crimea rather than Putin) and agree a trade deal with Russia just to spite them for giving Putin a reason to unlawfully annex Crimea. Whilst the original intentions behind the EU were noble, it simply hasn't delivered what it says on the tin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain enters a recession, brought about by inflation of the pound and low confidence from the market (remember, I said hypothetical, this might happen, it might not.  We don't know at this point).  In order to keep consumer spending high, Britain's central bank lowers interest rates even further.  The logic behind that is to get more money into the hands of consumers in the form of loans (e.g. mortgages, lines of credit, etc.).  People think this is great at first, because they now have access to more money than they did before.  The effect that will have though is to drive up certain markets, and the primary "benefactor" will be the housing market, which will be driven up by low interest rate mortgages.   So basically, housing prices rise even though you're technically in a recession (to be clear, you don't have more money - you just printed more of it).  This in turn creates a housing bubble that sees properties achieve unrealistic valuations.  But as long as the interest rate is low, people continue to be able to afford high housing costs because the banks are giving them access to mortgages.  

Agree with just about everything here.  I didnt know they were reducing interest rates though, which makes me wonder if theyre starting to float towards negative rates like some other places have. The upside of reduced rates you mentioned, but adding onto that, keep in mind a low interest rate shows a weak currency. Foreign investors arent likely to invest in currencies with low rates, which is the U.S.'s problem right now. This means if the currency is weak against others then imports and exports are going to suffer which plays a huge part in a country's GDP. Britain is going to struggle with that for a while until they get some solid trade going. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with just about everything here.  I didnt know they were reducing interest rates though, which makes me wonder if theyre starting to float towards negative rates like some other places have. The upside of reduced rates you mentioned, but adding onto that, keep in mind a low interest rate shows a weak currency. Foreign investors arent likely to invest in currencies with low rates, which is the U.S.'s problem right now. This means if the currency is weak against others then imports and exports are going to suffer which plays a huge part in a country's GDP. Britain is going to struggle with that for a while until they get some solid trade going. 

 

To be clear, I don't know if they will do that.  However, if a substantial amount of money leaves Britain (as is projected with financial services industry mass exodus to the European mainland), the government will have to do something, and printing more money and lowering interest rates have been the favourite tools to combat recessions for a long time now.  

 

It should be mentioned that low interest rates are by definition not conservative policy (since they stress investment and going into debt, rather than frugal personal finance).  So considering that Britain's next government will most likely be quite to the far right, they may choose not to go down this path.  However, the problem is of course that it's pretty difficult to tell people that the government wants to incentivize savings, when the general population doesn't have anything to save (as tends to be the case in recessions).  So the people will demand some sort of relief, and it just might be in the form to easier access to loans.  

 

I understand that all the Bexiters are in high spirits atm.  This is a rejection of the status quo, a rejection of the European elite and most importantly, it's a call for change that benefits the people.  Unfortunately, I'm a cynic.  Remember this shit? 

 

Article-2-Obama-change.jpg

 

Rewind for a second to 2008.  We were all so full of hope.  Finally, after 8 years of Clinton and worse even 8 years of Bush, we were going to get real change.  We were going to tackle income inequality, we were going to tackle the environmental crisis, we were going to withdraw from senseless wars and instead start the peace making process.  Finally, we were going to have a president in the White House who acted in the best interest of the people everywhere.  Things were really going to change....

 

Now look at everything 8 years later.  Nothing has changed.  The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and that is even after the giant wake up call that was/is the global recession of 2008.  The environment is more fucked than ever.  The Middle East is more destabilized than it's ever been and Europe is being overrun by unmanageable numbers of migrants fleeing rape, pillage and murder.   Corporations continue to post record profits while small businesses are failing.  We are working longer hours, making less money.  Literally every single promise in that "Change" campaign has not been kept, and if something was delivered, it was some shitty, watered down version of what it was initially promised to be (e.g. Obamacare).  

 

I don't blame Obama for this.  The system is not set up to change (in the US congress is responsible for that, in Canada it's the senate and the house, etc. all countries have these processes which slow everything to a grinding halt and make sure that real change does not actually happen.  Wouldn't want to upset any lobbyists now, would we?).  It is meant to keep operating more or less as it has for decades, if not centuries.  And that goes for every single Western democracy.  I would love to see the Brexiters prove me wrong.  I would love it if they exposes something deeply rotten and managed to provide a working alternative.  Sadly though, historical evidence suggests that we will not see big change.  Some things will get shifted around, but basically things stay the same.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, I don't know if they will do that.  However, if a substantial amount of money leaves Britain (as is projected with financial services industry mass exodus to the European mainland), the government will have to do something, and printing more money and lowering interest rates have been the favourite tools to combat recessions for a long time now.  

 

It should be mentioned that low interest rates are by definition not conservative policy (since they stress investment and going into debt, rather than frugal personal finance).  So considering that Britain's next government will most likely be quite to the far right, they may choose not to go down this path.  However, the problem is of course that it's pretty difficult to tell people that the government wants to incentivize savings, when the general population doesn't have anything to save (as tends to be the case in recessions).  So the people will demand some sort of relief, and it just might be in the form to easier access to loans.  

 

I understand that all the Bexiters are in high spirits atm.  This is a rejection of the status quo, a rejection of the European elite and most importantly, it's a call for change that benefits the people.  Unfortunately, I'm a cynic.  Remember this shit? 

 

Article-2-Obama-change.jpg

 

Rewind for a second to 2008.  We were all so full of hope.  Finally, after 8 years of Clinton and worse even 8 years of Bush, we were going to get real change.  We were going to tackle income inequality, we were going to tackle the environmental crisis, we were going to withdraw from senseless wars and instead start the peace making process.  Finally, we were going to have a president in the White House who acted in the best interest of the people everywhere.  Things were really going to change....

 

Now look at everything 8 years later.  Nothing has changed.  The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and that is even after the giant wake up call that was/is the global recession of 2008.  The environment is more fucked than ever.  The Middle East is more destabilized than it's ever been and Europe is being overrun by unmanageable numbers of migrants fleeing rape, pillage and murder.   Corporations continue to post record profits while small businesses are failing.  We are working longer hours, making less money.  Literally every single promise in that "Change" campaign has not been kept, and if something was delivered, it was some shitty, watered down version of what it was initially promised to be (e.g. Obamacare).  

 

I don't blame Obama for this.  The system is not set up to change (in the US congress is responsible for that, in Canada it's the senate and the house, etc. all countries have these processes which slow everything to a grinding halt and make sure that real change does not actually happen.  Wouldn't want to upset any lobbyists now, would we?).  It is meant to keep operating more or less as it has for decades, if not centuries.  And that goes for every single Western democracy.  I would love to see the Brexiters prove me wrong.  I would love it if they exposes something deeply rotten and managed to provide a working alternative.  Sadly though, historical evidence suggests that we will not see big change.  Some things will get shifted around, but basically things stay the same.  

The government might be right-wing, but both the leave and remain campaigns were cross-party efforts - and politicians have realised this.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/

 

If Boris can deliver on this, then I think we'll be alright.  He was a decent Mayor of London, after all.

 

We might also be causing a bit of a stir in regards to European politics.

 

And I think this letter from the Telegraph sums it up really:

 

SIR – An email that I received early on Friday from a dear Swedish friend said it all: “What you have done will mean so much for so many, and gives us all hope that democracy will survive and is stronger than all those who wish to control us. Thank you.â€

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38% voted out in Scotland. Some voted remain to stop indyref2.

Indeed. And the previous Scotish referendum only passed with 55%-45% wanting to remain in the U.K.

 

If now 2/3 scots now voted to stay in the E.U. - and the only way to do this would be an independant schotland,

 

... well ... that leaves only 1/3 of 55% to be in favor of remaining in the U.K.

 

 

That's 18% vs 82%. 82% out ... that's a bit harder then 52%

 

 

 

-------------------

And hey, on the second referendum ... who cares, right?

 

If the U.K. really wants out, then the second referendum will give the same result as the first.

 

You can't argue that it is proven now, that the people have spoken and they want out, if you're to afraid to simply ask "are you sure?"

 

If you're afraid they will answer otherwise, you're afraid that the majority of people actually doesn't want to leave. Which would make leaving undemocratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

-------------------

And hey, on the second referendum ... who cares, right?

 

If the U.K. really wants out, then the second referendum will give the same result as the first.

 

You can't argue that it is proven now, that the people have spoken and they want out, if you're to afraid to simply ask "are you sure?"

 

If you're afraid they will answer otherwise, you're afraid that the majority of people actually doesn't want to leave. Which would make leaving undemocratic.

Wasting tax payers money; slowing down the process of an already democratically decided vote - who cares? The British taxpayer cares.

After all the scaremongering from the media recently I wouldn't be surprised if it has swung a few votes over - seeing as everyone has suddenly become and economic and political expert over night.

 

Whilst the £ has devalued (Now 74p to the Dollar/81p to the Euro - 2 weeks ago it was 70p/Dollar 79p/Euro) and this does have quite a large effect when you are moving millions; billions, everyone acts as though the UK is doomed.

295bc5173f42823a4f1124cd2ffd430b.png

We see here that this is literally what the markets of the world do, they rise and fall, in fact we had an even bigger crash the other week and yet nobody really seemed to care; then we bounced back up as always.

As always, everything is looking uncertain and everyone has begun to panic; before long just about everything will stabilize. If you don't believe me you can look at what happened in 2008 which was a crash close to being comparable with the Great Depression, albeit recovered in a shorter time. We climbed back up even though it was a major hit - this being a minor disturbance in the scheme of things is likely to do the same.

e528518bed92bbcf8d59cd6c2e005fec.png

The crash to the left is the 08' disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all the scaremongering from the media recently I wouldn't be surprised if it has swung a few votes over - seeing as everyone has suddenly become and economic and political expert over night.

You could likewise argue that more people voted 'no' because of the scaremongering about immigrants, about taxes that go to the E.U. and that about the E.U. forcing laws upon the U.K.

 

 

But the crux of it all is that you're fully aware it's possible you don't have the majority anymore - yet dispite that, you want to go through with it anyway.

 

Cool, but then don't go around thinking that what you're doing is democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasting tax payers money; slowing down the process of an already democratically decided vote - who cares? The British taxpayer cares.

After all the scaremongering from the media recently I wouldn't be surprised if it has swung a few votes over - seeing as everyone has suddenly become and economic and political expert over night.

 

Whilst the £ has devalued (Now 74p to the Dollar/81p to the Euro - 2 weeks ago it was 70p/Dollar 79p/Euro) and this does have quite a large effect when you are moving millions; billions, everyone acts as though the UK is doomed.

295bc5173f42823a4f1124cd2ffd430b.png

We see here that this is literally what the markets of the world do, they rise and fall, in fact we had an even bigger crash the other week and yet nobody really seemed to care; then we bounced back up as always.

As always, everything is looking uncertain and everyone has begun to panic; before long just about everything will stabilize. If you don't believe me you can look at what happened in 2008 which was a crash close to being comparable with the Great Depression, albeit recovered in a shorter time. We climbed back up even though it was a major hit - this being a minor disturbance in the scheme of things is likely to do the same.

e528518bed92bbcf8d59cd6c2e005fec.png

The crash to the left is the 08' disaster.

For that graph to really speak volumes to you, the 08-09 crash is really what you should focus on. 08-09 was caused by mostly an abnormally large about of consumer debt, a lot of which was contributed to housing. Housing was going sky high at the time and lenders were looking to keep these numbers high through their loans. If the situation we're in now that Gren and I were talking about, people taking out money to buy with is only going to end up reenacting this crash I feel like. All bubbles pop eventually and we're really trying to poke it right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could likewise argue that more people voted 'no' because of the scaremongering about immigrants, about taxes that go to the E.U. and that about the E.U. forcing laws upon the U.K.

 

Cool, but then don't go around thinking that what you're doing is democratic.

M-muh immigrants! R-racist! Just because people voted out does not equate to them solely believing that going out stops any migrants from the EU or the rest of the world.

N-not democratic! The referendum was completely democratic in case you didn't notice - the people voted; they voted out.

I'm willing to leave it at that rather than spend to another 142.4 million just because the losing side are upset and wish to waste more time and money to maybe get the result that they want - so I guess that means if remain hypothetically win, "outers" are entitled to a third referendum?

 

 

For that graph to really speak volumes to you, the 08-09 crash is really what you should focus on. 08-09 was caused by mostly an abnormally large about of consumer debt, a lot of which was contributed to housing. Housing was going sky high at the time and lenders were looking to keep these numbers high through their loans. If the situation we're in now that Gren and I were talking about, people taking out money to buy with is only going to end up reenacting this crash I feel like. All bubbles pop eventually and we're really trying to poke it right now. 

You could honestly be right, hopefully all this panic doesn't come to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaving the European Union is not the solution, it is a necessary start to deal with problems European Union can't solve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And hey, on the second referendum ... who cares, right?

 

If the U.K. really wants out, then the second referendum will give the same result as the first.

 

You can't argue that it is proven now, that the people have spoken and they want out, if you're to afraid to simply ask "are you sure?"

 

If you're afraid they will answer otherwise, you're afraid that the majority of people actually doesn't want to leave. Which would make leaving undemocratic.

Some people waited 41 years for a second referendum, not 41 hours. They were never offered a referendum on Maastricht, Brown went back on his Lisbon treaty referendum promise. Oh, and the original referendum was on "staying in" - not signing up. We'd already been in the EEC for 2 years, and further attempts at integration won't work.

 

Could probably swing a few votes to leave if this went viral, after all:

 

0iYrpCC.jpg

 

Oh, and this. Looks like they want to replace NATO.

 

DjjtYCR.png

 

 

You could likewise argue that more people voted 'no' because of the scaremongering about immigrants,

Restrictions on deporting foreign criminals also led to anti-immigrant sentiment, as has uncontrolled immigration and the refusal to actually debate immigration largely caused by Powell's racism in the 60's and Blair/Brown's attitude to immigration. That, and the fact that the EU's attitude to the current migration crisis has been utterly atrocious and lacked co-ordination. Both migrants (human trafficking, no proper vetting system - just police/border fences) and EU nationals (Cologne attacks) are suffering as a result.

 

Uncontrolled immigration is bad for both migrants and native residents. It leads to exploitation of cheap migrant labour, a lack of integration, unemployment, and in some cases violence towards migrants or native residents (and no, I'm not prophesising "Rivers of Blood", I'm simply talking about a small amount of violence stemming from either anti-immigrant sentiment or frustration on behalf of migrants). Immigration is a force for good, and has in the past led to the creation of wonderful new cultures. I doubt any form of immigration control proposed will be as restrictive as Australia's - it could possibly be similar to current freedom of movement rules and would certainly be an improvement for non-EU nationals. Nobody wants to stop immigration or deport EU nationals. Infact, things like Erasmus and co-operation on science/environmental issues + tourism should remain largely unaffected.

 

Take the current situation in France for example - in a few years there will likely be less violence due to further integration.

 

But nah, everyone who voted leave is a racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a purely objective standpoint, the result is a bit concerning though.  I'm not saying that it's concerning that Britain has voted to leave the EU - we won't know the true impacts for several years - but I am saying that a result of 52 vs 48, points to a country that's almost split down the middle, polarized around two very opposing viewpoints. The issue is that you're making almost exactly half the country happy, while making just slightly less than half absolutely miserable.  This could have some very negative social repercussions down the line, as the contingent of "remain' voters (which according to this result is almost half the country) blames the "Leave" voters for absolutely everything that goes wrong in Britain, thus causing further divide of the population.  The potential for significant upheaval is there most certainly, as the immediate future of Britain will be strongly impacted by investor confidence, the EU (let's not kid ourselves, the EU wants to make this a nightmare process for Britain as to discourage others from taking the same path), and the financial services industry which is threatening to move operations to the mainland.  

 

I get it, this is how democracy works, whoever gets the most votes wins.  But I'm wondering if it couldn't have been done a bit differently.  E.g. in the event that a minimum of a 60/40 split was not achieved for either side, you automatically schedule a second vote 14 days later.  So if we applied this model to the current situation, you'd now enter a second round of voting.  This would give people a chance to see that it's basically dead-even, which would have the effect of pushing the 'non-decided' in a certain direction, as well as bringing out more voters.  Honestly, I'm not sure if that's a good solution, but I do know that the 48% of Brits who voted to remain will not so easily come over to the other side, especially if the near term future proves challenging for Britain (and so far it looks that way unfortunately).  

 

There is another thing here concerning democracy, and it's a concern that the US founding fathers debated and it's an issue that is still discussed today:  how much democratic power should the individual voter have?  Let's be honest here: most people are not well informed.  How many 'remain' voters cast their ballot just because they thought a vote for 'remain' was a vote for open mindedness, togetherness, unity ..... you know, all those concepts that you 'feel' but are rather hard to quantify in actual empirical terms? On the other hand, how many 'leave' voters cast their ballot basically because they're pissed about immigration, but not knowing what the EU even is or does?  I'm willing to bet the majority of voters on either side didn't actually know what they were voting for in the truest sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another thing here concerning democracy, and it's a concern that the US founding fathers debated and it's an issue that is still discussed today:  how much democratic power should the individual voter have?  Let's be honest here: most people are not well informed.  How many 'remain' voters cast their ballot just because they thought a vote for 'remain' was a vote for open mindedness, togetherness, unity ..... you know, all those concepts that you 'feel' but are rather hard to quantify in actual empirical terms? On the other hand, how many 'leave' voters cast their ballot basically because they're pissed about immigration, but not knowing what the EU even is or does?  I'm willing to bet the majority of voters on either side didn't actually know what they were voting for in the truest sense.  

 

Does it really matter if someone is dumb or clever - if they feel strongly enough about either side to vote shouldn't their opinion be considered just as equal as someone who has spent years studying the EU. They are still people who still have opinions, it's not like it's a vote between a second holocaust or not, there is no blatant right answer, both have their advantages for the country. Even if someone doesn't know a lot about why they want to leave there are much more of them than there are of super intelligent people who have studied the EU and know every advantage and disadvantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-------------------

And hey, on the second referendum ... who cares, right?

 

If the U.K. really wants out, then the second referendum will give the same result as the first.

 

You can't argue that it is proven now, that the people have spoken and they want out, if you're to afraid to simply ask "are you sure?"

 

If you're afraid they will answer otherwise, you're afraid that the majority of people actually doesn't want to leave. Which would make leaving undemocratic.

 

A second referendum would be sketchy as hell. The two instances are not mutually exclusive.

The people who voted for leave would be complacent "Well, we won before, I don't have to vote THIS time" or "I already voted! Why can't they take that last vote" as a protest vote.

A big reason (atleast for me) why I want us out of the EU is so they stop pulling this shit, the politicians will peddle "NO NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" and continue until they get the result they want

A second referendum could also be slipped underneath people, if you want to remain, only tell Scotland, Northern Ireland and London, those peasants in Rotherham don't need to know.

 

If you want to know how people, look at the satisfaction results.

Remain / Leave

Happy: 4%/92%

Unhappy: 88%/1%

Indifferent 7%/5%

(Source Britain Elects https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/746820394217259008)

 

Not only that, but have you seen the lengths that the remain campaign has gone through to try and get people to do another election, it wont be a "Second Referendum" it'd be the next referendum and then the next until they get their way. I mean take that petition that's going around. Having access to the information of who signed it, you'd find that more than 39,000 signatures came from the Vatican City, however, the Vatican can only hold 32 people. The Vatican city only has a population of about 800 people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to know how people, look at the satisfaction results.

Remain / Leave

Happy: 4%/92%

Unhappy: 88%/1%

Indifferent 7%/5%

(Source Britain Elects https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/746820394217259008)

You do realise that this poll shows less then half the population is happy with the result, right?

 

(not even taking into account that the numbers might be skewed what you refered to: people who are just happy it's over)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who don't like European Union & Why ?

PM_2016.06.07_brexit-01.png 
 
PM_2016.06.07_brexit-04.png
 
PM_2016.06.07_brexit-03.png

 

 

 

What do political leaders conclude about Brexit ?
=> If things don't work, it is because we need more of EU, no matter what europeans think.

 

 

France & Germany plan to lead post-Brexit EU reform :

 

Paris and Berlin want to reinforce integration within the EU after the British referendum, bolstering common defense, migration and fiscal ties among the members, media revealed citing a French-German memorandum. A common French-German memorandum entitled ‘A strong Europe in the world of uncertainties’ was released by Poland’s TVN broadcaster on Monday.

 

The document, which the Polish broadcaster claimed was a bombshell plan to create a “super-state†led by a Paris-Berlin alliance, proposed closer cooperation on internal and external security, the migrant crisis, as well as a change in the EU’s fiscal and economic policy.
 
"The EU will in future be more active in crisis management,†the memo reportedly said, proposing to introduce the “European Security Compact†– a number of military means able to deal with emerging crises, including a deployable high-readiness forces, developing common military spending plans as well as investing in conflict prevention.
 
The “European Security Compact†places special emphasis on internal security, mentioning the creation of a “European platform for intelligence cooperation,†improvements of data exchange and the establishment of an EU civil protection corps.
 
According to the leak, the foreign ministers also called migrant and refugee influx to Europe "the central challenge for the future of our continent," saying the bloc must be able to secure its external borders while remaining committed to its humanitarian values. “Europe should stay open to what migration and mobility can contribute to our society,†they went on.
 
However, when it comes to taking in refugees, the top diplomats allegedly wrote that “a situation in which the burden of immigration is unevenly shouldered by a few member states is unsustainable.â€
 
On financial policy, the paper proposed a future joint budget to "promote the convergence of our economies, achieve sustainable growth that creates jobs, and make progress towards the completion of the European monetary union.â€
 
In the meantime, Brexit has already caused both a financial downturn and political turmoil. European stocks and the euro plunged on Friday after Britain voted to leave the EU. The common currency suffered its biggest fall since its introduction in 1999. At the same time, the British pound hit a new 31-year low with shares of many British companies sustaining heavy losses.
 
As the UK is apparently struggling to digest the EU referendum result and not to fall apart, some political forces in Europe are ready to follow its lead and urge their countries to conduct similar referendums : Norbert Hofer, Geert Wilders (PVV party), Danish People's Party, Marine Le Pen (National Front) & Matteo Salvini (Northern League party).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that this poll shows less then half the population is happy with the result, right?

 

(not even taking into account that the numbers might be skewed what you refered to: people who are just happy it's over)

Remain   -   Leave

Happy: 4%-     92%

Unhappy: 88% - 1%

Indifferent 7% - 5%

It actually shows that the majority of leave - (52%) are happy; the second majority are indifferent and only 1% are unhappy.

Remain has a majority of unhappy - not so surprising considering they lost. Second majority are indifferent and 4% are actually happy with the results.

 

Perhaps you should read things through properly before blurting out your opinion on the statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remain   -   Leave

Happy: 4%-     92%

Unhappy: 88% - 1%

Indifferent 7% - 5%

It actually shows that the majority of leave - (52%) are happy; the second majority are indifferent and only 1% are unhappy.

Remain has a majority of unhappy - not so surprising considering they lost. Second majority are indifferent and 4% are actually happy with the results.

 

Perhaps you should read things through properly before blurting out your opinion on the statistics.

Thank you, but I actually know what it shows. Do you? because

 

(52% x 92%) + (48% x 4%) < 50%

 

or "less then half the population is happy with the result".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, but I actually know what it shows. Do you? because

 

(52% x 92%) + (48% x 4%) < 50%

 

or "less then half the population is happy with the result".

 

465ed4f9efa5ae08db50ffc350f2a4d4.png

Perhaps it is not half by a marginal amount, but you seem imply the addition of "the indifferent" into the "Unhappy" whereas not putting it into it's own category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ZTuh52wXE

 

"Isn’t it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to go get Britain out of the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?" 

 

That comes from a man who then insults the whole European Parliament by saying none of them "have ever done a proper job in their lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A second referendum would be sketchy as hell. The two instances are not mutually exclusive.

The people who voted for leave would be complacent "Well, we won before, I don't have to vote THIS time" or "I already voted! Why can't they take that last vote" as a protest vote.

A big reason (atleast for me) why I want us out of the EU is so they stop pulling this shit, the politicians will peddle "NO NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" and continue until they get the result they want

A second referendum could also be slipped underneath people, if you want to remain, only tell Scotland, Northern Ireland and London, those peasants in Rotherham don't need to know.

 

 

A 2nd referendum wont happen unless UK wants to have riots and possible civil war or something. Essentially pissing off those who wanted to leave. Patriotism can be a strong motivator for stupid things :S

 

If a vote were to happen again staying in the EU would probably win since it was only after the results of the vote where most voters actually understood fully what exactly it was they voted for (Many focused the immigration laws and the "take back uk" without realising fully the economical repercussions) or they would have changed their decision after seeing their currency pummel.

 

No one knows how it will turn out leaving the EU over the long run but it certain isnt all rainbows and puppies which is what alot of voters seemed to think it was going to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mister Farage,

your country had a $2990 billion GDP, exports $472 billion worth of stuff and imports $663 billion worth of stuff. A significant part of which is from trade with E.U. countries.
 
When you say "better no deal then the deal we have now" - you're spouting nonsense. Without a deal, the "german cars" you seem to presume would be in a pickle, simply will go to the people who would be driving english car (your top export product). Yet without a deal, manufacturing english cars, now for english people instead of europeans, will cost significantly more as they require various imported materials.
 
Signed,
 
Common sense

 

 

you seem to add the indifferent into the "Unhappy"

No I don't.
 
92% of 52% is happy with the result. That's what the 92% means
4% of the other 48% is happy with the result, That's what the 48% means.
 
and (92% of 52%) plus (4% of 48%) is less then 50%.
 
Ergo. I said: "You do realise that this poll shows less then half the population is happy with the result, right?"
 
Hey, remember when you said
 

Perhaps you should read things through properly before blurting out your opinion on the statistics.

Allow me to give the same advice to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...