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.