51.6% counted and Leave has 51.7%.
Wow.
Live in Oxford. This was very, very unexpected - but I have a feeling it had to do with the weather as well, as that depressed turnout somewhat in the south and in London especially. But I think it comes down to the 'shy Tory' syndrome that we had last year, where a lot of people didn't come out as wanting to Leave (and, if you look at the map of the results in England - the heavy Leave areas are the non-affluent ones. That says enough about the state of the UK). What is not unexpected is that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to Remain...I do have to wonder if that might mean future independence referendums. For NI in particular, having a securitized border with the rest of Ireland could be seen as a betrayal of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
Yeah. Brexit doesn't help the rural Leavers, but it does hurt the people they feel are responsible for their depressed state. So they vote for it just to watch it all Burn. As an American looking down the barrel of a potential Trump presidency, that worries me greatly.
Procedurally, yes. But don't kid yourself. Brexit = Trump Conservatives and Remain = Sanders/Clinton Liberals. It's the same meal, only one eats their peas with a knife, and the other eats their peas with a spoon. have exactly fuckall to do with each other
Farage isn't enough of an example? :-) The majority of my info comes from my friends who work for the EU in Brussels, my friends who are journalists for The Economist and other reputable news sources, and my experience living in the region and working with the journalists there. Boris Johnson was just basically London's version of Emperor Norton... fun to watch his antics, but not really empowered to do anything. (The Mayor of London is a largely ceremonial role.) And yet, his campaign, driving around the south with his bus with blatantly wrong figures on it that had been debunked even by his own people, just gathered more and more support the more he lied. (Remind you of anyone?) Right-wing National Front nutbags supported Leave. Sober and thoughtful people and institutions supported Remain. Shit... Farage even said "the revolution has come without a shot being fired" two fucking days after one of his supporters shot and killed Jo Cox, while calling her a "traitor" for supporting Remain.
I lived through the Ska years, when the National Front was a HUGE problem in England, and destroyed football, music, and everything else they could get their hands on. I am seriously concerned that every Nazi-wannabe is going to see Brexit as a vote for them and their worldview...
Yes. The media doesn't speak for the people, it speaks at them. As it drifts further and further from center, the population doesn't necessarily follow -- but the factions that find themselves in disagreement with the "consensus" get quieter. For obvious reasons.
Welp, it's official. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36615028 edit: I wonder if this will mean a third referendum for scotland - they voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Wow, I didn't think it would actually happen. Stock markets are crashing already. EDIT: David Cameron just resigned. Also, this:
The generational split was known for some time following lead-up polling. A slightly darker image I saw included the data on how long each age group would have to live with their decision. Edit:
5 years. Less than 5 years. Barbarians always come from the north to destroy, then inhabit, then become co-opted by the culture of the south.How long do you think the EU is going to last?
How long do you think the Euro is going to last?
what has history revealed to us about the cycles of mankind?
I doubt the EU is that easy to kill. It's such a large, comprehensive and vital bureaucracy - I think it could survive another economic crash. The EU might go through turbulent times but my guess is that it will be mostly intact when the dust settles a bit.5 years
Got ya. I was wondering whether you had some particular insights that I didn't on the longevity of the EU besides earlier discussions. You're right though, this whole event is such an oddity that anything but guesswork is probably baseless. That said, EC leader Juncker is already turning up the heat. I seriously wonder when Article 50 will be evoked, or if they just keep kicking the can down the road.
I thought it wouldn't be too bad, but this generational split is more like a Grand Canyon. Which is particularly upsetting when you consider that the Brexit is essentially a 'fuck you' vote. Also, did you mean this picture? It's one of those images that went viral / was jpegged too fast, so I didn't really believe it to be true until I found that tweet above myself. 
I know that a lot of the impetus for the Brexit comes from an unseemly place, but I am not convinced that it is going to be entirely bad for the U.K. I think that remains to be seen. I recall when the euro was created, and many said that the U.K. was killing itself for keeping the pound. That worked out quite well for them. What I wonder, is if there are better ways for states to interact rather than forming regional unions. As technology progresses, there might be increasing efficiency of interactions while still retaining diversity that optimizes for the needs of each individual participant.I thought it wouldn't be too bad, but this generational split is more like a Grand Canyon. Which is particularly upsetting when you consider that the Brexit is essentially a 'fuck you' vote.
I agree that it is very hard to say how this will turn out for the UK. For all we know they might "leave" the EU only in name. One thing that is sure though - which also relates to your comment on ways that states interact - is that the barriers that the EU has been removing over the past decades will, to an unpredictable degree, be put up again. I think that removing barriers and allowing the free movement of goods and people has been great for progress in general. Ironically London is a great example of a place that really benefited from the free movement of people within the EU, as so many people from all kinds of backgrounds have moved there. If geography has taught me anything it's that where you are matters, so where you can move matters almost as much.
As someone born in a desirable place with freedom of movement, it's difficult for me to speak to those barriers from an informed perspective. It's very complicated. To what extent is progress about improving all places, and to what extent is it about enabling people to move to the good ones? If it is all about enabling movement, then having individual nationalities really gets in the way. Also, cultures that cannot co-exist with others in close proximity also get in the way. There's an interesting kind of phenomenon where the people that seek a place for one reason change it into another. Personally, I am ok with that. It's what I see around me here in the US, and it seems to be a good thing. However, the US is pretty unusual in that respect. We have a short history, a lot of resources, and a powerful Federal government. Ultimately, what I hope we see, is a world with freedom of movement, but places with all sorts of cultural and economic experimentation, that we are free to move into or out of. I really don't know if Brexit is a move towards or away from that.
When talking about the EU barriers in particular, I'm too young to remember anything else. The only big change I remember was the Euro being introduced, which only made buying stuff a bit easier on holidays. But I do know a bunch of people that have benefitted greatly from those removed barriers. Especially at a university you meet so many people from other EU countries or people who have lived abroad for a while that Europe might as well be a federation. Personally, I think having great mobility will inevitably lead to great places. How great that place is depends on where its drawing it's people from. I grew up in the capital of a rural-ish provence, where not infrequently the local newspapers lamented that capital for draining the countryside of people and knowledge. But at the same time, there are articles out there talking about the mobility of people from those peripheral provinces of the Netherlands towards the big cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam, which is a move I did myself last year. And there are people leaving those places to move to Berlin or London. Each successive place can be seen as contributing more to progress. There's a reason the very first thing urban geographers are taught is Christaller's Central Place Theory - while it is outdated, the idea of a hierarchy of cities is still relevant. The degree to which culture plays a role in this can definitely be argued over, but as someone living in a culturally rich and very dense country I feel like there is always room for cultural diversification and experimentation.
Thank-you for this thoughtful comment. I write this from (stunned, appalled, embarrassed) London, where all around seems apocalyptic. I hope you're right - that we can begin to organise our society not on the basis of the Bretton Woods institutions (that were great for rebuilding a post-WW2 world, but may be no longer relevant to our generation) of states interacting with one another, but on some system of direct economic exchange between and political participation of individual citizens. I hope that can happen. What worries me is that no-one is proposing anything. It was a vote against, not a vote for. And now we have no Prime Minister, even: no direction, no leader. But your comment gives me hope. Change is needed, better systems are needed, and I suppose a bit of chaos is inevitable in the grander process.
technology progresses with adequate infrastructure. That is a key step. It is not the only step, but it is a huge one... Where has technology taken us with the U.S. constitution? Free speech; is this not technology in the forms of social framework? Building upon the foundations of nation prior. We ( by we I mean them), ought to read a history book, or drop some acid and go to India or something because the picture is clear to some, and completely blurry to a number of others. I think the dizzying effect is messing with our heads. Market economics, in the purest form and the pursuit of wealth to ensure the building blocks for life - I argue, is the best functioning form of governance on a large scale. It doesn't matter what your beliefs, your sex, race, or anything else are. Mankind (though it is beginning to truly push these boundaries) is enslaved to the laws of physics, and nature. It isn't perfect, especially when greedy bastards are not grounded on moral codes. That is why you have a bigger stick, and/or you wall up your own nest, as nature evidences. But the progression of technology has given cause to evolve the notion of freedom - look at this thread for example: we are freely exchanges thoughts and ideas - and we are all living across the globe, by our own systems of rules. Cryptocurrencies effectively negate central governing bodies and their involvement in financial transactions. Technology - in the progression of solar - wind - renewable energy - is toppling the heavily 'corrupted' industries surrounding the older means of acquiring energy. And MUCH of the basic 'needs' (utilities, and infrastructure to promote less "primitive" means of sustenance) that were provided through the taxes of central governing bodies. These vested interests now... who, now I am seemingly advocating as the devil, are looking out for their own best interest - like (almost) any person would naturally do after 3 days without water or food (those tibetan monks though are incredible to study). They're just full of their own kool aid. A storm is coming. Technology, for lack of a better understanding, IS the new union right now. The innovation of the tech I evidenced has far outpaced the scale and central governing bodies behind them... Greed is the problem behind regional unions. The idea is great, but in reality it is just devolves into a beaurocratic nightmare, and the snowball starts at every turn where real wealth acts in their own best interest. The most appalling types of people in the world today are the ones who preach union, conformity, 'sacrificing your own values to help others', etc. while eating from a silver spoon and living a life that is above the subjects they 'advocate.' That is the truth in the status quo, and soon, there will be a new one that will present itself... one who didn't buy into the game Nixon enacted. You want some real financial advice? The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not dumb enough to think their finite source of incredible wealth is worth hedging on the survival of a fiat currency. See ya'll in a week.
The other chart I'm trying to track down is voter turnout by age, which made for depressing reading.
Looks like mk's recession investing projection came a little early, too, nowaypablo.
Ha. I was so fucking prescient yesterday. But not really feeling it OMG Brexit I should have bought a lottery ticket.Sitting at my desk
I have no understanding of the implications of Brexit happening, good, bad, both?
Minus the apocalyptic soothsaying by both parties: What basically has to happen now is the UK and the EU have to re-negotiate how they wish to do business. This is likely to both take a while and increase the standing of the UK in the EU. Meanwhile, it's looking like Scotland and Northern Ireland are also seeing this as a cue to attempt their referenda again, thereby miring the UK in particular and the EU in general in how, exactly, they choose to do business and conduct law. It's possible/likely that other countries will make similar moves, thereby essentially forcing the EU to redefine the EU, which is going to take a while. It's going to make it a lot harder for the EU and its member states to trade in an agile fashion for a while. The world will not end. Dogs and cats will not sleep together. HOWEVER a whole bunch of people who firmly believe they have better shit to do are now going to have to burn a shit ton of blood and treasure on treaties and trade agreements and boring shit like that while the rest of the world aren't. Chances are good that whatever Europe looks like in ten years, it'll be ten years behind the rest of the world. Make of that what you will.
I highly doubt that Brexit will set the EU back ten years compared to the rest of the world. The EU has always been intensely bureaucratic, and negotiations about trade and immigration are pretty routine. Even if the vote had gone the other way, I expect that the UK would have wanted to renegotiate some of its agreements with the EU. While EU bureaucracy is likely to be focused on signing new agreements with the UK for the next little while, I doubt that the EU will actually become significantly more bureaucratic as a result. It may even become less bureaucratic in the long run if members see Brexit as a sign that the EU needs to be more agile. HOWEVER a whole bunch of people who firmly believe they have better shit to do are now going to have to burn a shit ton of blood and treasure on treaties and trade agreements and boring shit like that while the rest of the world aren't.
You miss the point: the EU won't become more bureaucratic, it'll suck down time and energy getting back to the level of bureaucracy it already has. Trade agreements don't happen overnight. Look at it this way - EuroCorp has a problem. The Anglophile's Union has just voted to strike. EuroCorp must now renegotiate its union contract with Anglophile or else it gets no fish'n'chips, Monty Python or bomber parts. Worse than that, the Anglophile's Union is talking about busting up Local 101 into two locals, both of which will need to renegotiate, and the Irish Spring contingent is talking about joining O'Shaughnessey's. That's just to get back to zero. Meanwhile, Le Victor Hugos have noticed that the Anglophile's Union are renegotating their contract, maybe they should? Las Tortillas and the Cannolis have been threatening to bolt for half a decade and the Spanikopetas almost walked out of the building a half-dozen times last year. They might not be under renegotiation now, but neither were the Anglophiles this time last year. So while that isn't erupting, it isn't settled, either. Uncle Sam Corp across the street? None of these issues. The Tandoori Oven? Ascendant and devoid of union problems. The Argentinian Steakhouse has different problems and the bikini waxers just north are about to be under new management but those issues don't have the time horizon of collective bargaining agreements and restructuring. Will it take ten years? I have no better idea than anyone else. It'll take a while, though, and it won't be good for increasing Europes competiveness on the world market in the meantime. After? Well, that's the point - making Europe more competitive while also providing better living conditions for the people doing the work. I've been through a few strikes. They take forever and nobody ends up happy.
I agree that there will likely be some new bureaucracy created by Brexit, but I don't think its impact is likely to be all that significant in the grand scheme of things because: A) The EU already has tons of bureaucracy. Compared to all of the meetings on migration, the environment, food safety, transport, inter-EU trade partnerships, non-EU trade partnerships, Antici/Mertens meetings etc. etc. the meetings with the UK will unlikely be a significant additional burden on the EU. They may be a more significant burden on the UK, but it's difficult to know for sure. B) There likely would have been new bureaucracy regardless of how the vote went. Given how close it was, I'm sure that there would have been efforts by Cameron and co. to shift the UK's role within the EU, which would have similarly led to new meetings. The meetings are probably going to be more numerous than they would have been if Remain won, but they might actually be more efficient due to Brexit, since both parties want to limit uncertainty and the fastest way of doing that is to get new agreements signed ASAP. Your strike analogy implies that all UK-EU trade and production is going to suddenly cease until new agreements are in place. EU-UK trade today is pretty much the same today as it was yesterday. Will EU investment in the UK will decrease until new agreements are in place? Probably. But it's not like factory workers walked out of a job. The workers will keep working, trucks/ships will keep trucking/shipping, and bureaucrats will keep on bureaucratizing. This isn't your employees going on strike. This is your employees deciding they want to switch to a different union in a bargaining year. Sure, you'll have to negotiate a new contract, but you likely would have had to do that anyway. EDIT: As for comparisons to other countries, they all have bureaucratic trade deals and coalitions, from the TPP and NAFTA to BRICS and the SCO. All of those require a significant amount of bureaucratic upkeep, and each of them was created without setting member states back a decade in terms of trade.
You aren't paying attention. Yes, the EU has tons of bureaucracy. But now, instead of slowly phasing some out and phasing some in, now they've all been challenged and the agreements between the EU and UK are about to be cancelled. It's the difference between "we can work this out" and "we're re-negotiating everything." EU-UK trade today is the same as it was yesterday. But when they push the button on Article 50, it won't be. And meanwhile, every other member state is going to fight this very battle. I didn't say they were striking. I said they voted to strike. A strike authorization is where bureaucracy gets really ugly. Meanwhile, work continues apace. Do you understand now?
No... I am paying attention. I just disagree with you. Let's keep the condescension out of this, okay? The EU-UK trade agreements are unlikely to be cancelled until new ones are put into place. It wouldn't benefit anyone. Article 50 isn't a Big Red Button that suddenly nukes all trade agreements. In fact, it's a fantastically vague section of a treaty, which means that exactly how Brexit will work after Article 50 is invoked (whenever that happens) will be up to the UK and the EU, and I doubt that either side is going to go for an option that causes a sudden drop in trade between them, considering that both sides benefit from that trade. Maybe. Maybe not. Undoubtedly separatist/nationalist parties will get a bit of a boost for a while, which may or may not continue on depending on how exactly Brexit pans out for the UK. But referenda take a long time to put together, and the UK was arguably much better-positioned for an exit than a lot of other member states. It remains to be seen if the extra boost actually gives other member states the kind of momentum that they would need in order to get to a referendum of their own, much less to vote Leave. You've been arguing that the first sentence is key. I have been arguing that the second sentence is much more important than the first. Work will continue apace, despite the new bureaucracy. Will the bureaucracy get ugly? Possibly. As I said, Article 50 hasn't even been invoked yet, so I'd say it's a bit premature to make calls on how the logistics will play out in the long run. You aren't paying attention.
But now, instead of slowly phasing some out and phasing some in, now they've all been challenged and the agreements between the EU and UK are about to be cancelled.
EU-UK trade today is the same as it was yesterday. But when they push the button on Article 50, it won't be
And meanwhile, every other member state is going to fight this very battle.
A strike authorization is where bureaucracy gets really ugly. Meanwhile, work continues apace.
I disagree. The only thing Britain gave the EU was a financial hub. Now that the British economy is tanking (and 40% of Britain's total value is the land in and around London), the Brits have nothing the EU needs. The next problem is the Spanish election in two days... do the voters take the Brexit path, or do they double-down on the enormous benefits they have reaped from their recent economic turnaround, and keep the incumbents in place? This is the "tipping point" domino for the EU, in my mind.
https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx 5 billion pounds of imports from Germany alone, just last month. World's 5th largest economy. It's not as simple as you want it to be. The "next problem" could be any one of a dozen things, and it's absolutely the "tipping point" for the EU in nearly everyone's mind... but Europe has to trade with itself and with others and whether you call that the EU or CheeseEaters Inc. is going to be a lengthy and expensive process that Europe is now required to go through.
True... none of which the Brits are known for, nor do they produce a markedly superior version than others on the market. Now put a trade wall in between your British supplier of train cars, and no trade restrictions between you and a potential Hungarian supplier... and see how quickly people move their money onto the Continent, and away from Britain. And nations within the EU give priority to fellow EU nations, before going "offshore" for their suppliers, and... I just don't think Britain holds any cards. At all. They bluffed, the players fanned their cards on the table, and the Brits were holding a Queen against the EU's Full House. Bam.
I think the opposite. The EU needs to make leaving as painful as possible for Britain, to dissuade other member states from considering similar referenda. And, now that the British economy is crashing, Britain has nothing the EU needs. The EU can be as punitive as they want to be. They gain nothing from being nice to Britain, or making things go smoothly for them. By leaving, Britain threw away the only cards they held: Member Status. Now they are another Moldova... a country on the edge of the EU with little to offer, and everything to gain. But yes... I do believe the EU will go through an internal process house-cleaning, and take dramatic steps to increase their agility and responsiveness to member states' complaints.
In terms of having a say in trade agreements, the UK's trade with EU members is a much more significant bargaining chip than its member status. The UK hasn't stopped producing goods and services, nor has it suddenly ceased all trade with the EU. EU-UK trade is beneficial for both parties, and it will almost certainly continue in one form or another despite yesterday's vote. As for being punitive, undoubtedly there will be some petty politics, but from a pragmatic perspective, neither the UK nor the EU benefit from drawing out the negotiations. Investors don't like uncertainty, and there's going to be uncertainty until new deals are signed.
The EU gains nothing from letting Britain off easy, and has everything to lose. Making it easy for Britain to leave and maintain all their existing trade agreements with EU partner states simply emasculates the EU and everything it stands for and is trying to accomplish. The EU hasn't even existed for a generation yet. And the real benefits won't be felt for two more generations. You need people BORN in the EU - and their kids - before you have the cultural identity established, and treasured, by those who live within it. When separate states is an inconceivable state for those commuting to work every day. If the EU is going to live through this, they have no choice but to run Britain through the wringer, and make them jump over every possible hurdle they can conceive. Otherwise this amazing experiment dies before it even reaches puberty.
You may well be right. Ultimately it's hard to say how individual states will react. Juncker was fairly testy in calling it "not an amicable divorce", although Hollande was more positive and Merkel mainly urged caution as well as reportedly stating that relations with the UK would be "close and based on cooperation". Personally, I think that money talks, and the EU will want to continue to have access to UK markets and vice-versa, so future agreements will have to be somewhat beneficial to both sides (although I'm sure compromises will be made on both sides, as well). There is some danger of other states wanting to leave (thus threatening the integrity of the EU) but, as I mention in another reply, referendums take time to organize, and in some ways the UK was better positioned for an exit than a lot of other members. It's difficult to say how many countries will actually even put together referendums, much less leave, but I think it's a bit premature to claim that the EU is in serious jeopardy, even if the UK's exit is smooth/beneficial. Personally, I'm hopeful that future agreements between the UK and EU are drawn up with cool heads and based on sound economic principles, rather than being predicated on the idea of punishing the UK or on a fear of being 'emasculated'. Ultimately only time will tell, though.The EU gains nothing from letting Britain off easy, and has everything to lose. Making it easy for Britain to leave and maintain all their existing trade agreements with EU partner states simply emasculates the EU and everything it stands for and is trying to accomplish.
The EMU, for one. Those who have taken on the Euro would need to develop an entirely new currency if they chose to leave. And implementing a new currency from the ground up - design, minting, etc - is phenomenally expensive. That right there will keep the smaller countries around. I do miss the Dutch Guilders. Prettiest currency ever made. and in some ways the UK was better positioned for an exit than a lot of other members.
One of England biggest products is its banking services sector. Im sure other countries would be happy to take a piece of England baking pie and will maneuver to create uncertainty for English banks. As for trade it may be more difficult for England to negotiate for its own interest now that it has threatened to leave. Carve outs for English businesses and industries may be ignored because hey they are leaving anyway so why bother.
Chances are good that whatever Europe looks like in ten years, it'll be ten years behind the rest of the world. This is, as usual, the KB point of insight that no-one else is talking about. Everyone is already arguing about immigration status, market volatility, whether any other nations need a referendum. The medium is the message; our attention has already strayed.HOWEVER a whole bunch of people who firmly believe they have better shit to do are now going to have to burn a shit ton of blood and treasure on treaties and trade agreements and boring shit like that while the rest of the world aren't.
Can you or veen or somebody answer the following for me? I think I'm missing something fundamental. Great Britain is leaving the European Union, which is a politico-economic union of states, correct? The EU is supportive of the WTO and open and free trade. Would it be unfair to say that their single market is the next step up (and government driven...) from things such as NAFTA / TPP / other international trade agreements? If this is the case, then is there not cognitive dissonance in the outcry over a British exit of the EU when compared to opposition to the trade agreements listed above?
There's a lot of tribalism in politics. There's also a lot of false equivalency. For example, a referendum on EU membership does not, will not, and can not have anything to do with a Trump presidency no matter how much some people may want to draw parallels. NAFTA and TPP have benefits for some people and drawbacks for others, just like EU membership. The benefits trumpeted for the EU drew primarily on the agility and collective bargaining powers of a single currency. The UK, for example, thinks it's all that but from a population standpoint it's California, Oregon and Washington. From an economic standpoint it's California plus Washington. Meanwhile, the US from a population standpoint is... well, the phrase I like is that there are more honor students in China than there are students in the US and India will be bigger in a few years. That matters if you're a national corporation. If you're a weaver or a die maker or a cobbler or a haberdasher it matters fuckall. Post-war Europe was shaped primarily by the Marshall Plan and secondarily by the Non-Aligned Movement. In other words, in service to and then in defiance of the United States. The current political upheaval in Europe is due to citizens realizing that the past 20-odd years since the formation of the WTO hasn't really worked out as well as they'd like. The emotion driving the Brexit? It's what fueled the Sanders campaign, not the Trump campaign. Be careful whenever someone says "X is just like Y" because it means they don't want you to think about X and they don't want you to think about Y.
I dont know if I agree there. The demographics dont match very well for one. A lot of the brexit momentum was fueled by the economic migrants coming from Syria, Iraq, and potentially Turkey but there is also common ground with the sanders side with isolationism to fund the NHS. There is just a lot of frustration to go around from both sides and any movement that can hit enough of those frustrated voters has potential to take pretty drastic changes.The emotion driving the Brexit? It's what fueled the Sanders campaign, not the Trump campaign
The way I understand it is that trade agreements like TTP mean that the lowest common denominator is used, whereas the EU strives for regulations that are above the average of most of the countries involved. For example, much of the EU nature policies are modeled after the Dutch policies that were one of the leading environmental policies back in the day, so the EU enforced that level of nature protections across all of Europe. TTP could mean that products that do not live up to EU standards could still be sold here, a double standard which many deem unfair.
The more economic theory I read, the more I'm reminded that macroeconomic theory has few data points. I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. I think there are a lot of opinions and the ones that will turn out to be right will trumpet it from the rooftops and the ones that turn out to be wrong will dissemble. I think it's noteworthy that much of economics right now is being driven by central bankers, and this vote puts them on notice that centralization is falling out of vogue. The Rationalists have been arguing that the disintegration of the EU has been a foregone conclusion since its inception... but they've been saying that since its inception. I'm thankful to be an American today, that much is certain.
I guess I would bet on Hardball because the guys in Brussels want a stronger union not a weaker one. If they can force England to change their mind it might keep other nations from trying to same thing. If things get bad enough for Britain after the vote the EU may even end up with a more integrated Britain and not less.
I know very little about economics, but it seems to me the UK is bolstered from economic and other turmoil by being part of such a strong coalition - despite its many, many failings and rampant bureaucracy. The currency markets seem to agree and are very jittery about the very real possibility of the UK leaving. Like most large regions, the whole of European history is steeped in conflict and war, with shifting alliances and animosity. Every state has its friends and enemies, but there's a long standing sense of entitlement in the UK (probably most evident in England itself.) They've never recovered from the fact they are no longer an empire that rules globally and being a part ot the EU has been a sore point for so many (I think) due to the lack of absolute control and a feeling of impotence or enforced weakness. Part of that stems from the fact that they are a global economic and banking force and are often blocked from doing what they want by other EU members. I think the EU has been an incredibly strong, stabilising influence on not just the economies but in dealing with conflict and avoiding it through more diplomatic means. It deoesn't stop all confilct or favour every economy, but overall I think it's a force for good. I'm immensely sad to see the vote to leave so strong, particularly in England. It seems so bllinkered and short-sighted. It reminds me of the apocryphal story when heavy fog covered the English Channel - the closest point between the UK and mainland Europe. The headlines in the papers "Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off".
Bad for the British economy, Bad for the pound. Possible second Scottish independence referendum. Not great for the EU economy-wise, but much worse for it political stability-wise. Not great, in general.
kleinbl00 mk You guys need to step back and look at this in perspective. A vote leave does not mean live immediately. Its a non binding vote to initiate the process of trying to leave the EU. The vote won by 1-2% so not exactly a resounding victory. What you are going to see next is people preparing and making motions to leave. This will cause all sorts of panic and uncertainty in the financial markets and trigger swift corrections in the British economy. The process in general will be very painful. Unemployment will go up, the pound will crash, prices on imports will go up, EU member countries will refuse further negotiations and all sorts of doom and gloom talk will happen. How long do you really think that 2% Brexit margin will hold? 3 months? 6 months? In less than a year after the people have suffered a little bit there will be a second referendum that will "Restore Britain to its former glory" or some other bullshit and will likely undo the first vote and may even strengthen European participation in the union. The Greek bailout referendum is a good examples of what happens when you have referendums that go against established political will. Another good example is the The Treaty of Lisbon which was rejected by a dutch referendum but was subsequently backdoored into a series of smaller treaties. Like kleinbl00 pointed out a successful brexit will take years and a ton of political capital and this is just the first step of a long and hard process. I could be wrong but I just don't see this going that far.
True, it's only been hours. And I have been a bit histrionic about it, but I have watched my former home (Hungary) turn into a pseudo-nazi state over the last 10 years, and so have some experience-based fear here... Plus, the "perspective" you are touting is the British one. What about the other side? Britain has just spit in the face of every single European nation, essentially called them morons and dupes, and told them "we don't need you." Can you fathom the indignation in France, Spain, Germany, Italy? If I were a British tourist heading to the Mediterranean this year, I would cancel my plans NOW. The people there are not going to be happy to open their doors to a bunch of superior assholes who were superior assholes before, but at least pretended not to be. Businesses throughout Europe accepted the Pound and the Euro. Will they still? With the Pound tanking, just tell the pasty English twit to go get Euros instead, and come back. I think the legal aspects of the separation will take a decade, will be a complete clusterfuck, and people will stop doing business with Britain due to the constantly changing rules, and that Brits will be unwelcome in EU states. People may even be openly hostile to them. Jeeze... the Brits just managed to make German tourists look good! Ouch. You guys need to step back and look at this in perspective.
What about the other side? Fair enough I myself didn't step far enough back either. I guess I dont really see Britain as a nation that produces much other than financial services but I think that perspective might be a bit skewed. How will this affect other European nations? I dont really have much perspective on this. Can you fathom the indignation in France, Spain, Germany, Italy? That's not really true but that might be how its spun. Rejecting the unelected officials who run the EU in Brussels isn't really the same as rejecting individual nations. A lot of people in other countries are unhappy with the EU as well so maybe they will be sympathetic.Plus, the "perspective" you are touting is the British one.
Britain has just spit in the face of every single European nation, essentially called them morons and dupes, and told them "we don't need you."
'k... Uhhh... here's what I said: The world will not end. Dogs and cats will not sleep together. HOWEVER a whole bunch of people who firmly believe they have better shit to do are now going to have to burn a shit ton of blood and treasure on treaties and trade agreements and boring shit like that while the rest of the world aren't. If you're going to accuse someone of losing perspective, perhaps you should champion a position more moderated than them, rather than less.kleinbl00 mk You guys need to step back and look at this in perspective.
What you are going to see next is people preparing and making motions to leave. This will cause all sorts of panic and uncertainty in the financial markets and trigger swift corrections in the British economy. The process in general will be very painful. Unemployment will go up, the pound will crash, prices on imports will go up, EU member countries will refuse further negotiations and all sorts of doom and gloom talk will happen.
Hey man dont get defensive. Im agreeing with pretty much everything you said here. By step back I mean back from just looking as brexit being something that is a done deal that will require burning of immediate resources. Internal political capital will be wasted immediately but the vote that has concequneces and starts more serious talks doesn't mean an immediate break from the EU or renegotiation of agreements. I may have come out too apocalyptic, that was not my intent. I only meant that a lot of the consequences of brexit will become immediately obvious through some of of the forms I mentioned while many of the gains would only be realized years down the road if brexit actually got completed out.If you're going to accuse someone of losing perspective, perhaps you should champion a position more moderated than them, rather than less.
Well there is plenty of reason to worry. The brexit vote set in motion a chain of events that nobody can really guess the consequences of. That's a pretty reasonable reason to worry. When looking at the event itself its easy to get tunnel vision and see this as a final event instead of beginning in a chain of events that can be reversed or end up an completely different outcome. I think just as interesting will be to see what happens to some of the other less happy countries in the EU and see if they follow suit. As it stands the EU is unstable and will either fall apart or have to be bound toughener in a stronger union. IMO both outcomes are equally as likely so its hard to guess where things will go.
From the BBC's update article on Brexit: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36615028 Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was "absolutely determined" to keep Scotland in the EU so a second Scottish independence referendum was now "highly likely". Oh Boris... as clueless as ever. You just handed the keys to the drawbridge to someone else. Someone who now hates you. And you locked yourself in the castle with a xenophobe with no practical plan to move forward. Good luck. And goodbye. UKIP leader Nigel Farage hailed it as the UK's "independence day", while Boris Johnson said the result would not mean "pulling up the drawbridge".
What a fucking disaster. Britain runs away from hard work, like a petulant child. The EU now needs to stop anyone else from considering leaving, so their rulings against Britain will be draconian and punitive. Britain fades into an irrelevant island full of National Front fuckwits. The EU gets stronger in the face of this adversity, and redoubles the efforts of member nations to feel empowered over their own governance, to stave off the key reasons for Britain's exit. The financial hub moves away from London - which makes everyone happy because London is ridiculously expensive - to Brussels, Bern, Berlin, Stockholm, or any other modern city with history and room to grow. The 40% of Britain's value that is stored in property in the Southwest (aka London), tanks, and with it goes Britain's economy and buying power on the international market. Nationalist right-wing xenophobes everywhere see Brexit as a validation their causes, and every country in Europe (and the USA) see a dramatic spike in hate crimes. Brexit also validates Trump's presidential run, just as it was losing steam and about to fold in on itself, and the election is won by Hillary with a tiny margin, thereby legitimizing all the hatred and moronic policies of the Trump crowd... And... fuck. Fifty years of social progress gets thrown down the drain, and the world economic power shifts entirely to Asia.
It probably won't be that bad at all. Norway gets along with the EU just fine. Regional governance is a double-edged sword, and it doesn't cut equally for all members. The U.K. and the EU will most likely make nice in time, and have perfectly reasonable treaties. If the EU is worried about losing members, then they have their goals and/or implementation to blame. It is their job to serve the members interests such that the EU is the more attractive choice. Of course, there is an ugly wave of xenophobia fueling this, but that's not all it is. The entire world is going to be increasingly confronted with philosophical questions regarding 'state', 'citizen', 'individual', and 'self-determination'. Political structures always change as technology does.
It's cute that the people of England think they have a choice. I predict that there will be revote in the coming years to undo thus once the financial sector reams England a new one. Think Greek referendum style undo where everyone is more fucked than before but the banking sector and the euro plutocrats win
This is the first time I've been somewhat concerned for future of the UK, rather than just apathetic about it. I live in the east midlands of England. I have some family in Canada. I've toyed with the idea of moving out there before but perhaps it's time to seriously consider it.
I must. It's now been ~2 years since my family's summer holiday in Canada; I still regret missing out on then unheard of Nitobe Chinese Garden that you touted in that trip report thread. I do have some sort of inner urge to move out there. Though I'm sort of scared that I'll just be 'running away' and end up disillusioned. At the same time, I see no future for me here. At least no exciting future. I've always enjoyed the prospect of the potentially treacherous nature of the unknown versus the predictable future. At the same time it's massive step which I'm hesitant to take.
I hope that: Barring that: Barring all the above: The UK says "screw you" and remains part of the EU. The UK leaves as they are declaring they will. Scottland/Ireland leave the UK in order to join the EU. Britain stagnates and it's economy dies. Mass migration to Scotland, who allows them to move and laughs at them all the way. Eventually they all wise up and form a UK again, stronger and better than ever, with a good lesson on their minds. Those wanting to leave are correct and the UK/World does better as a result of this decision.
Total population = 100%, let's say 100 people Turnout = 70% means that 70 people went to cast votes, 30 abstained. Now, if you have 50-50 (50% vs 50% remis) means that 35 people said 'yes', 35 people said no. One more person from ones who abstained up to this point went and cast a vote for yes. Now we have: Turnout: 71%, 71 people Yes: 50.7% or 36 people out of 71 No: 49.3% or 35 people out of 71 EDIT: each time I wrote 'people' I meant it as a shorthand for 'people eligible to cast votes' for purpose of this example.
OK, I got it. Thanks! :) I misread the OP. I thought when it said counted, it meant counted as staying, not just the percentage of people counted in general. I was reading that as 51.6% as voted for staying and 51.7% as voted for leaving. But it meant 51.6% counted in total and 51.7% voted for leaving and 49.3% for staying.