Brexit

[trainmaniac]

Well... UK kicked out Churchill after WWII also by democratic means.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Salome

I see this a lot, but I still have no idea what it is based on. Will the UK be plunged into the dark ages for an eternity after Brexit? - No. But why and how it would outperform a UK within the EU I don't get.
Unless the UK strikes a deal with the EU unparalleled to any of the other deals the EU has in place with European countries.
Which I severely doubt will happen.
In no negotiation can you cherry pick only that was is favourable to you, and the UK still needs the EU more than the other way around.

I totally agree with you. I honestly don't see how this is better for them in the long run except if you take a VERY long term view and you put a high premium on being able to 100% control domestic social policies over anything else.

The one thing businesses value more than anything is the rule of law and certainty. You will now see the pullout of EU institutions and personnel and a withdrawal of foreign investment. Keep in mind that the UK's foreign direct investment is NOT immobile like in other places. For example, the UK economy does not depend largely on export of resources which are immobile (like oil, gold, uranium, etc) meaning that a foreign investor can easily pick up their investment and move it into a more stable region like the EU or elsewhere. Investors don't have that same option with say, oil, which is a limited resource present in significant quantities in a small handful of countries. Why would a financial institution risk uncertainty in the UK when they can have certainty in the US or the EU?

I don't buy for a second that your average person who voted Leave understands any of this. But that is the nature of a referendum and the nature of the Remain side having run a terrible and useless campaign.

[mama cass]

you know what, the more hate and ugliness i'm seeing reported, i don't even know if a socially minded left-wing government attempting to address their concerns would make the blindest bit of difference

i think people are just either nice or nasty

VersoBooks.com

Although we appear to be in a ‘post-fact’ Britain, I feel compelled to remind readers that austerity measures are unequally distributed across the population. Certainly, the poorest local authorities, especially those in the north and east, are being hit hardest by these unprecedented cuts to public spending. However, looking more closely at the data shows us that women—and women of colour in particular—are disproportionately impacted. Because women of colour, on the whole, are more likely to be public sector employees but also living in the poorest households, cuts to vital services, such as libraries, public transport and afterschool care, translate into further immiseration as jobs are threatened and household incomes decline. Even though people of colour are more likely to be living in poverty and are being hit hardest by austerity measures, 75% of voters of colour opted to remain in the EU. What does a claim of white victimhood mean in this context?

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by mama cass

you know what, the more hate and ugliness i'm seeing reported, i don't even know if a socially minded left-wing government attempting to address their concerns would make the blindest bit of difference

i think people are just either nice or nasty

VersoBooks.com

It certainly wouldn't be an overnight change, it would take many years and really, if the left-wing leader of a non-governing party cops so much crap even before he gets elected as the leader - then it's a bit daunting to imagine how it'd be like if he was in power for any length of time. He'd have very little support among the mainstream media, which would prove an impediment to making the aforementioned changes.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I have not yet seen you define what you mean by 'far-ish' left. I can assume you mean Sanders, who is not radical by any stretch of the imagination. It seems that you apply this label to any minor deviation from standard centrist politics.



Again, the notion that I have any real common ground with the right (anymore than you do) is utterly ridiculous.



I admit to some snark, but lets not pretend you're free of that either.



Greenwald is far-left now?

Once more, you should define what you are talking about.

You can continually present as if you're above it and only you, Vlad, know what really is and is not Left or center Left or whatever. But the above is your standard response -- you yourself have never defined these terms or given any concrete example of such. Most of the rest of us, including myself, operate under assumptions held in most western democracies of what is Left and Right, while taking into account that these are never perfect alignments due to culture, history, nuance, etc. most people would place Greenwald on the Left. Most people would view Hilary as center Left in the US, more center in Europe.

If you'd like to say NO NO THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE I DEFINE IT DIFFERENTLY, that's fine, but let's not pretend as if your definitions -- or at least assumptions we have to make because you rarely give any little information -- fall into mainstream political discourse.

My earlier points stand -- the political spectrum has a fundamental circularity. The far left and the far right have much in common.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by anitram

The one thing businesses value more than anything is the rule of law and certainty. You will now see the pullout of EU institutions and personnel and a withdrawal of foreign investment. Keep in mind that the UK's foreign direct investment is NOT immobile like in other places. For example, the UK economy does not depend largely on export of resources which are immobile (like oil, gold, uranium, etc) meaning that a foreign investor can easily pick up their investment and move it into a more stable region like the EU or elsewhere. Investors don't have that same option with say, oil, which is a limited resource present in significant quantities in a small handful of countries. Why would a financial institution risk uncertainty in the UK when they can have certainty in the US or the EU?

Agreed about the attractiveness of stability for investors, but I would disagree that the EU has been stable or that it will be in the future. The Euro has been fluctuating rather badly and the entire edifice is being weighed down by a couple of severely flagging economies in Greece and Spain, with more likely on the way. Ultimately I think Greece is indicative of an intractable problem for the EU in that giving up control of your own monetary policy is not sustainable in the long run. We've been seeing that there is no way to enforce fiscal reform measures on individual states, and ultimately stable places like Germany will stop propping up economically weaker states.

Admittedly I don't know how entangled the UK is in the financial structure of the EU (whether they are paying into the central bank or anything like that), but seems to be dissociated themselves from all that is a good idea.

The big winner from all this will probably be the US in that even more investment will flock over here.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

You can continually present as if you're above it and only you, Vlad, know what really is and is not Left or center Left or whatever. But the above is your standard response -- you yourself have never defined these terms or given any concrete example of such. Most of the rest of us, including myself, operate under assumptions held in most western democracies of what is Left and Right, while taking into account that these are never perfect alignments due to culture, history, nuance, etc. most people would place Greenwald on the Left. Most people would view Hilary as center Left in the US, more center in Europe.

If you'd like to say NO NO THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE I DEFINE IT DIFFERENTLY, that's fine, but let's not pretend as if your definitions -- or at least assumptions we have to make because you rarely give any little information -- fall into mainstream political discourse.

Hell, fair enough. You have some kind of point on this occasion. I would have thought 'far left' would be pretty universally defined as anti-capitalist, although I have to disagree with your perception of Hillary's position on the political spectrum, that's fine, whatever.

However, what you've written below ...

My earlier points stand -- the political spectrum has a fundamental circularity. The far left and the far right have much in common.

You're a believer in the horseshoe theory? There's absolutely no legitimate basis for that, and honestly, it's borderline insulting. Especially since ideologies on either end are complete opposites and that it is absolutely shameful on your part to suggest they have much in common.

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by anitram

I totally agree with you. I honestly don't see how this is better for them in the long run except if you take a VERY long term view and you put a high premium on being able to 100% control domestic social policies over anything else.

The one thing businesses value more than anything is the rule of law and certainty. You will now see the pullout of EU institutions and personnel and a withdrawal of foreign investment. Keep in mind that the UK's foreign direct investment is NOT immobile like in other places. For example, the UK economy does not depend largely on export of resources which are immobile (like oil, gold, uranium, etc) meaning that a foreign investor can easily pick up their investment and move it into a more stable region like the EU or elsewhere. Investors don't have that same option with say, oil, which is a limited resource present in significant quantities in a small handful of countries. Why would a financial institution risk uncertainty in the UK when they can have certainty in the US or the EU?

I don't buy for a second that your average person who voted Leave understands any of this. But that is the nature of a referendum and the nature of the Remain side having run a terrible and useless campaign.

Time for Toronto to take over the high finance mantle!

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Most people would view Hilary as center Left in the US, more center in Europe.

Irvine, in Europe, i believe the whole scale shifts a lot further to the left compared with the US, and even Democrats are at least close to if not further right than the British Conservatives... i think our Socialists (here in France) would be seen as Communists over there

it's the same between France and the UK - the Conservative equivalent in France are not as far right as the Conservatives in Britain

[mama cass]

ha i did the Political Compass thing - i'm a far-left Libertarian apparently, south-west of the Greens - god knows who i should vote for

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

It certainly wouldn't be an overnight change, it would take many years and really, if the left-wing leader of a non-governing party cops so much crap even before he gets elected as the leader - then it's a bit daunting to imagine how it'd be like if he was in power for any length of time. He'd have very little support among the mainstream media, which would prove an impediment to making the aforementioned changes.

this whole demolition of Labour right now is nothing but a diversion for the Tories to avoid scrutiny over this mess - it's sickening...

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by mama cass

this whole demolition of Labour right now is nothing but a diversion for the Tories to avoid scrutiny over this mess - it's sickening...

Tories relieved they really didn't have to do much! I read Diane Abbott's Guardian article today, there was a mention of many Labour MPs hurling insults at Jeremy Corbyn during the meeting. Though I figured he's thick skinned enough to deal with whatever comes his way.

I still struggle to understand how many people at all could sympathise with the coup plotters in this.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Tories relieved they really didn't have to do much! I read Diane Abbott's Guardian article today, there was a mention of many Labour MPs hurling insults at Jeremy Corbyn during the meeting. Though I figured he's thick skinned enough to deal with whatever comes his way.

I still struggle to understand how many people at all could sympathise with the coup plotters in this.

it's actually making me feel completely ill, it's horrible - i could never have actually imagined something like this

i am reaaaally hoping Corbyn will stand his ground - if Cameron wants him out (he actually said to him "for god's sake man, GO") then he definitely should stay - hopefully his supporters will remain loyal... from what i'm reading, many are sick of the Blairites and feel it's time for new politics - i hope he will be able to deliver...

[Vlad n U 2]

To mobilise 10,000 supporters within short notice is pretty impressive, and I certainly doubt you'd have as many coming out for say, Ed Milliband or any potential new Labour leader. I think he has enough grassroots support and that he's attracted those on the left usually very reluctant to be positive towards Labour otherwise.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

You're a believer in the horseshoe theory? There's absolutely no legitimate basis for that, and honestly, it's borderline insulting. Especially since ideologies on either end are complete opposites and that it is absolutely shameful on your part to suggest they have much in common.

Ideologies might be opposites, but there's a lot of crossover in what attracts people to those extremes, tactics, traits, and without talking for Irvine, I think that's what he's getting at.

In the US for example our two current extremes have a lot of crossover; they're both post fact, both driven by and scapegoat "the system" yet ironically they're both calling for more system as the answer, they're both stricken with racism and sexism, and both have an absolute hatred for anything Clinton.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Most people would view Hilary as center Left in the US, more center in Europe.

I'd say that in general the Democrats are viewed as center-right to the rest of the world. There is no real (viable) left in the USA. You could probably say that Sanders was center-left.

In my eyes Dutch anti-islam, anti-EU, anti-everything politician Wilders and his party are then very close to the Republican party. And yes, with Wilders being a Trump-like figure, though more political savvy.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by BVS

Ideologies might be opposites, but there's a lot of crossover in what attracts people to those extremes, tactics, traits, and without talking for Irvine, I think that's what he's getting at.

In the US for example our two current extremes have a lot of crossover; they're both post fact, both driven by and scapegoat "the system" yet ironically they're both calling for more system as the answer, they're both stricken with racism and sexism, and both have an absolute hatred for anything Clinton.

Look, I think this is a more reasonable response than what Irvine provided. If you're speaking purely as far as populist left and right goes, in this case Sanders and Trump - who don't necessarily offer significant overhauls of the current system even despite railing against what they perceive as being the establishment, then I understand your reasoning here (even if I don't necessarily see it the same way, especially in regards to what you suggest is rampant sexism/racism in Sanders fanzones, and I can't quite say I agree that Sanders' opposition to Clinton is quite on par with Trump's). And yes, in this case, I would not suggest that Sanders and Trump are exact opposites for sure. With Irvine's posting in this particular thread, it's easy to get the idea that he's talking on a universal political level rather than simply just the US (or just the UK).

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by BVS

Ideologies might be opposites, but there's a lot of crossover in what attracts people to those extremes, tactics, traits, and without talking for Irvine, I think that's what he's getting at.

In the US for example our two current extremes have a lot of crossover; they're both post fact, both driven by and scapegoat "the system" yet ironically they're both calling for more system as the answer, they're both stricken with racism and sexism, and both have an absolute hatred for anything Clinton.

These are all superficial observations, though - basically saying people on either end are disaffected, which is to be expected the further one drifts from the center. I think Vlad is right that the two are not ideologically comparable: the "far left" is about equity and the "far right" is about inequity. I know how fashionable it is in here to hate on Bernie, but I would wager you would much rather see him in the White House than Trump.

Furthermore, reducing far right / far left in the US to Trump vs Sanders respectively is a fallacy; those who really are on either end of the spectrum probably have no interest in either of those candidates.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

To mobilise 10,000 supporters within short notice is pretty impressive, and I certainly doubt you'd have as many coming out for say, Ed Milliband or any potential new Labour leader. I think he has enough grassroots support and that he's attracted those on the left usually very reluctant to be positive towards Labour otherwise.

let's hope so

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Agreed about the attractiveness of stability for investors, but I would disagree that the EU has been stable or that it will be in the future. The Euro has been fluctuating rather badly and the entire edifice is being weighed down by a couple of severely flagging economies in Greece and Spain, with more likely on the way.

I think you're now making the mistake of looking at the EU as a whole instead of its member states separately. Yes, not every economy is in strong shape, but many are. So those are attractive for investors for its economical climate. What is very important for many companies investing in a EU country is its access to the common market, the other EU economies. And that is where it'll hurt the UK. Investing in the UK does not mean anymore having access to the rest of the EU. For that you'll have to invest in an EU-member country. Now, this does not mean that there'll be no investment in the UK at all. But for a European HQ a company will likely choose another country.

Admittedly I don't know how entangled the UK is in the financial structure of the EU (whether they are paying into the central bank or anything like that), but seems to be dissociated themselves from all that is a good idea.

London is a prime financial hub, with many banks and HQs located there. Question is now how much of it will move to another country once the UK is out of the EU. I understand that Frankfurt, Amsterdam and probably Paris are likely contenders. The UK's influence in the financial structure of Europe will certainly decrease.

The big winner from all this will probably be the US in that even more investment will flock over here.

If you want to have access to the European markets you will have to invest in the EU. So I'm not sure if the US will be the big winner.