The UK voters look set to provide another surprise. The pound has moved substantially as exit poll data has come out.
Source: TradingEconomics, accessed 5pm CST.
From Reuters Instant View:
LEE HARDMAN, CURRENCY ANALYST AT MUFG
“The market will be praying that this exit poll has got it wrong. Currency volatility is the best proxy for market fears. If the Conservative ship is sinking then the market will be looking for a life boat.”
appears as though there is buyers remorse in the UK. ultimately these bexiters are simply going to leave the table, and somebody else (or some other party) will be left to clean up their extensive mess.
I agree with this.
I strongly felt May should have called an election within 3-6 months of the vote, not later than, say, November of last year.
I would have slow-walked Brexit discussions until that time, and emphasized to the voters that this is a pivotal vote and that Brexit required a Parliament elected on a mandate to leave the EU. Had she done that at the time, she would either have gotten a mandate or a rebuke. With a mandate, she could have proceeded with confidence. With a rebuke, she would not have spent so much British political capital annoying the French and Germans.
As it is, May now has the worst of all worlds — neither a mandate nor a clear rejection of Brexit — and all this after having thoroughly alienated the other EU members. (If you look at the vote counts, this election was a rejection of Brexit, by the way. I am not surprised by the outcome.)
I heard an interview yesterday with a guy who I took to be a ‘Little Englander’, the equivalent of an Ohio Trump supporter. He said that, well, he was too busy and couldn’t be bothered to vote. Incredible. This was clearly a second referendum on Brexit, and he didn’t think it mattered? Of course he did, but he had lost confidence in his cause.
We will see this weakness with Trump voters as well. The little guy wants to rebel, but at the end of the day, he is not confident in his views. He is intimidated by his educated betters, and if he fears the wheels could come off the wagon, he will defer once again to the elite. This, to me, is the interpretation of the UK vote.
I expect something similar here in the US come 2018.
steven, i am in line with your thoughts. the critical mistake made in great britain was to allow a nonbinding brexit vote to become binding, without any discussion of how the end game should be played out. the government should have stepped up and said the populist brexit vote will be taken seriously, and it will formally be considered through a snap election followed by a vote by parliament on the matter of brexit. instead you ended up with a government who was bullied into brexit but was not truly committed to the cause. recipe for disaster.
Why is Brexit so daunting? Suppose Great Britain wishes to redefine the relationship with Europe to the status quo minus the labour mobility provisions.
Will Europe cut off its nose to spite its face and makes sure that trade and investment in both the UK and the rest of Europe are negatively impacted? Does the EU need to punish the UK in order to prevent other unhappy partners from exiting?
Are we all blithely assuming that the Europeans have the same vindictive, grudge-carrying personality of the President of the USA?
https://www.infowars.com/merkel-threatens-uk-over-brexit/
The UK just blinked.
Does the EU need to punish the UK in order to prevent other unhappy partners from exiting?
In a word, yes. The EU needs to make an example of the UK so that other countries don’t get the same idea. The UK’s maximum leverage was just before the Brexit vote. After that, the EU held all of the cards. The UK is not in any position to redefine any part of the relationship. The UK has zero leverage. It’s just a matter of how much pain the EU wants to inflict.
“Are we all blithely assuming that the Europeans have the same vindictive, grudge-carrying personality of the President of the USA?”
when the US had a part of the country attempt to secede from the union, we fought a war. the EU is not as integrated as the US, but the EU system as a whole fails if people are allowed to leave on a whim. once you see the EU permit such behavior, you know the end of the european experiment has arrived.
as for grudge carrying personalities, there are EU member states who behaved in such a way towards greece. so we have evidence the EU can act in such a manner.
“Why is Brexit so daunting? Suppose Great Britain wishes to redefine the relationship with Europe to the status quo minus the labour mobility provisions.”
That is an contradiction in itself. By suggesting this you display a clear lack of understanding, in Trump Units: 0.7 TU.
And a little bit European history for you which may give you an background for the interesting negotiations that will happen the next 1.5 years: It was an UK pet project to expand the EU eastward in order to weaken the Paris-Berlin axis. The UK had the same 7 year grace period as everybody else for limiting immigration from the new states, it did not use it. At the same time the UK was unable/unwilling to limit immigration from non-EU countries.
Therefore, there is on the continent abolutely no motivation to give UK any concessions in respect to the four freedoms. If the UK wants to limit EU immigration it can to as WTO member.
“Will Europe cut off its nose to spite its face and makes sure that trade and investment in both the UK and the rest of Europe are negatively impacted?”
Again a clear lack of understanding, but you are actually in good company with many brexiters:
The EU is not only an economic but also an political project. As a result, EU-27 countries will of course accept an economic loss in order to minimize the political fall out.
“Does the EU need to punish the UK in order to prevent other unhappy partners from exiting?”
Punishing is a little bit too hard. Simply by not letting the UK cherry pick some options there will be enough economic damage in the UK that everbody can clearly see the advantages of a EU membership.
Greece and the UK are hardly the same matter.
greece was punished by a select group within the EU. the punishment was meant to set an example.
there is talk that the british should also be punished, to set an example for other exits. as this has not occurred yet, i agree it is not quite the same matter. but there are similarities in the ideas of a “punishment” as a response.
The E.U. has created inflexibility and stagnation. Europe may be much better off without the E.U.. I think, those countries need to become more independent. I doubt Germany will invade the rest of Europe again.
The E.U. has high unemployment, slow growth, and per capita income over $10,000 a year lower than the U.S., along with more social problems.
The E.U. is the main competitor of the U.S.. Yet, it lags badly in the Information Revolution. The U.S. leads the rest of the world combined in the Information Revolution (in both revenue and profit), and also leads the rest of the world combined in the Biotech Revolution (although Switzerland bought the second largest biotech firm from the U.S.). It’s a very pathetic performance.
European countries are just too different to be that integrated. They need to control their own destinies – do what’s best for them.
There are fewer and limited opportunities in the E.U. for upward income mobility than the U.S.:
Rising riches: 1 in 5 in U.S. reaches affluence
December 6, 2013
“New research suggests that affluent Americans are more numerous than government data depict, encompassing 21% of working-age adults for at least a year by the time they turn 60. That proportion has more than doubled since 1979.
Sometimes referred to by marketers as the “mass affluent,” the new rich make up roughly 25 million U.S. households and account for nearly 40% of total U.S. consumer spending.
In 2012, the top 20% of U.S. households took home a record 51% of the nation’s income. The median income of this group is more than $150,000.”
****
Growth in the
Residential Segregation
of Families by Income,
1970-2009
“The proportion of families living in affluent neighborhoods doubled from 7 percent in 1970 to 14 percent in 2007.
Likewise, the proportion of families in poor neighborhoods doubled from 8 percent to 17 percent over the same period.”
My comment:
In 1970, the proportion of Americans in the “affluent” and “upper income” classes, and also in the “low income” and “poor” classes were relatively small, while the proportion of Americans in the “high middle income” and “low middle income” classes were very large.
If you break down those six classes into three classes, the high and low classes grew and the middle class shrunk. Those three categories are almost equal in size today.
In 1970, both the high and low classes were about 18% each, while the middle class was over 60%. In 2007, both the high and low classes were about 30% each, while the middle class was over 40%.
Many middle class Americans moved into the higher classes, while many immigrants from dirt poor countries moved to the U.S. and into the lower classes.
Despite conventional wisdom, there has been tremendous upward income mobility in the U.S..
Europe today is roughly where the U.S. was in 1970 in “Residential Segregation.”
Americans shouldn’t be surprised there’s more income and wealth inequality.
We had tens of millions of low-skilled immigrants, with families and little wealth, move to the U.S., e.g. from Latin America, while we also had perhaps millions of high-skilled or wealthy immigrants move in, e.g. from Asia, including India. That in itself will create inequality.
Of course, the domestic black population has been in a general decline, since the 1960s, e.g. from single mothers and crack babies.
I think, lowering middle class taxes, reducing regulations, and raising the minimum wage will help close the income gap, while maintaining employment.
“Of course, the domestic black population has been in a general decline, since the 1960s, e.g. from single mothers and crack babies.”
a lot of the single mothers were a result of a federal drug war that locked up young black men for nonviolent drug offenses. many of those drugs came through noriega in panama, who was protected by the reagan and bush administrations. perhaps fewer blacks would have been incarcerated had reagan not been in business with a major drug trafficker.
There’s a positive relationship between drugs and crime. Under Reagan, both drug usage and crime declined. During the drug cultural revolution, of the 1960s and 1970s, when drug laws were lax and lenient, crime rates soared.
The “War on Drugs” was in response to the soaring crime rates caused by drugs.
For example:
“Controlled Substances Act of 1970
Passed U.S. House 392-16
Passed U.S. Senate 97-2
Every President since Nixon supported it…Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, responded with programs that were essentially a continuation of their predecessors… Bush maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss…Clinton, Bush and Obama continued this trend, maintaining the War on Drugs.”
Both drug use and crime steadily declined, since the 1970s, although there have been periodic epidemics, like the crack epidemic of the late ’80s and early ’90s. Criminals typically don’t get locked up for just using drugs. They’re often charged with more than one crime. It’s ridiculous to blame Reagan. Of course, putting more criminals in jail reduces crime, including violent and property crimes.
the reagan administration actually aided and abetted the cocaine drug operations in the 80’s from latin america. they were not the single cause, but the reagan administration was a responsible party to the flow of cocaine from latin america to the usa. but reagan had to keep the communists out of latin america. the result was collateral damage.
Well, I cannot say I ever found your comments valuable, and here I see that I will not have any reason to go back in my appraisal. What you put here is simply propaganda, and often from obsolete sources.
The EU is not “punishing” the UK. It is just not giving in to unreasonable demands.
The EU can live with a BATNA of “no deal” in March 2019.
Just as we could live with Greece crashing out.
Greece gets a EU subsidy of 2.7% GDP per year and rising, and if they are not able to generate a 3.5% surplus including that, but before any debt & interest payments, even for a very few years, it is a net drain
http://money-go-round.eu/Country.aspx?id=EL&year=2015&method=gdp
PeakTrader: “Of course, the domestic black population has been in a general decline, since the 1960s, e.g. from single mothers and crack babies.”
PeakTrader again flying his racist flag.
Percentage of African Americans with greater than $200K income in 1960: 0%
Percentage of African Americans with greater than $200K income in 2000: 2%
Percentage of African Americans with greater than $100K income in 1960: 2%
Percentage of African Americans with greater than $100K income in 2000: 13%
Percentage of African Americans with greater than $35K income in 1960: 36%
Percentage of African Americans with greater than $35K income in 2000: 54%
All numbers in inflation adjusted 2000 dollars.
While African Americans still lag behind because of 400 years of brutal racism, to say that they have been declining since 1960 (due to crack babies, no less) is pure unadulterated racist BS we’ve come to expect from PeakTrader.
Racist discrimination by people like PeakTrader is a large part of the reason why African Americans have had such a hard time. PeakTrader sees an African American, he immediately thinks “crack baby.”
But African Americans are catching up, which is a large part of the white Trumpist “economic anxiety,” — white resentment at losing their long privileged position.
Real GDP actually increased substantially, since the 1960s. So, real incomes increased substantially. Also, blacks disproportionately have more crack babies. Moreover, there are many more single moms today raising children, often from more than one father. If you think the black population, in general, is doing well, you’re either an idiot or a racist. For example:
https://www.cjpf.org/who-uses-crack-cocaine-and-why/
Also, I may add, if you click the link that blacks are 21 times more likely to go to jail for crack than whites, you’ll find 83% of crack traffickers are black.
peak, why do you think blacks are 21 times more likely to go to jail for crack than whites? did you even read this article? the war on drugs deliberately targeted the black populations, resulting in significant incarceration of young black males and the resulting single moms. policies such as stop and frisk perpetuate this inequality.
Baffling, yes, I read the article. Don’t you know it’s biased? You should look at the statistics instead of the twisted and false narratives. For example, 83% of crack traffickers are black and less than 6% are white. The court system punishes traffickers more severely than users. Also, criminals are often charged with more than one crime. The court system punishes violent crimes more severely than other crimes. Blacks, for example, commit over half the homicides in the U.S.. Don’t be so easily fooled, just because you want to believe in nonsense that fits your political narratives.
why is there a criminal difference between crack and powder cocaine? same drug, different penalties. also different users-black vs white in its heyday.
Congress believes crack cocaine is much more dangerous and harmful than than powder cocaine. Hispanics predominantly use powder cocaine:
https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2007/10/01/crack-vs-powder-cocaine-a-gulf-in-penalties
you can learn a bit more about the racial disparity in what had been disparate sentencing for the same drug. there is a big difference between the profile of users and the profile of arrested offenders.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial-disparity-in-crack-sentencing
Baffling, you completely ignored the differences I cited between crack and powder cocaine, along with differences in crime.
I guess, you believe over 95% of Congress is racist.
peak, it is the same drug. one form of it is sold in a different environment to different users. it took 2 orders of magnitude more powder form of the same drug to get an equal sentence.
“I guess, you believe over 95% of Congress is racist.”
nope. congress did overturn these past rules, so they apparently acknowledge something was wrong with them. you do not acknowledge the problem with those old rules. perhaps you have an issue with racism? or right and wrong?
Baffling, you’re just showing your ignorance again.
peak, i find this strange. i point out that you support drug legislation that was changed because it was discriminatory in nature, and you respond by calling me ignorant? ignorant would be somebody who supports discriminatory drug policy.
Baffling, you’re playing games trying to find racism where there isn’t any.
peak, if somebody continues to support a policy that has been found to be discriminatory, what would you call it?
peak, racism is not simply determined by what you say. it is determined by what you do. you want to say you are not racist. fine. but you support discriminatory, racist legislation. that is what you do. if you do not support those policies, then people have no reason to consider you racist under these circumstances. and if you do not support those policies, come out and state that clearly. but you have not done that. those policies were changed because they were deemed racist and discriminatory.
So, you would reduce murder sentences, because blacks commit over half the homicides?
if the law was written to double the murder sentence of a black man versus a white man, why would you not change the law?
peak, are you stupid or dishonest? the concern is when different sentences, which appear along racial lines, occur for the same crime. apparently you have no problem punishing a black man more severely than a white man for the same crime. i would consider that racist. you need to get your head out of the sand.
Baffling, you can’t respond to my comments. So, you create an entirely different subject and accuse me (something I didn’t comment on) of supporting it!
You’re a total joke.
peak, i have responded. you support racist policy.
I find people like Joseph amazing. He spews out propaganda that Joseph Goebbels of Nazi Germany would be proud of, supports policies that destroys the black population, shows racism towards whites, and hates republicans. Yet, he’ll call you a racist for no reason, except for mentioning blacks, which liberals seem to own.
Here the Nazi, or whatever evildoer that fits, is you. In my country if you ave a gun you are a criminal unless rather strict conditions. So there a strong correlation between guns and crimes. Given that guns are unnecessary in civilian life, the laws that limit them are rational. Drugs on the other side have a whole range of uses, some certainly damaging, but as seen with the Prohibition period in the USA, simply criminalizing them is not rational. So we have less deaths y guns, less deaths y drugs and also less people in prison.
Don’t be so ignorant. For example, culture is an important factor. Some South American countries have strict gun control laws. Yet, violent crime rates are high. And, many countries have fewer people in prison. Yet, crime is rampant, even in countries like Sweden:
Sweden’s unsolved violent crime rate at 95 percent
15 November 2008
“Robberies and violent crimes made up 75 percent of all reported crimes in Sweden last year, which added up to around 900,000. Police managed to solve 5.8 percent of them.
Bengt Svenson, the national police chief, defended his department saying: “There is often very little of value to work with. When it comes to theft, there are no witnesses, and victims often don’t know when the crime occurred. There’s really not much to go on and that obviously makes it hard to solve crimes.”
Justice Minister Beatrice Ask feels the figures are an unwelcome truth for a government that ran on a platform on crime reduction. When elected, the government promised to have 20,000 police on Sweden’s streets by 2010.
Ask feels that part of the problem lies with Sweden’s culture. “I think it has to do with the culture, the idea that there is simply nothing that can be done.” At any rate, Ask says she feels the statistics are rather disturbing and that the Swedish police could do more to clear up these cases.”
Prohibition was a success:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html
Only law abiding citizens, not criminals, which included some government forces like the Nazis, should own guns.
Guns are a deterrent.
You would leave an old lady defenseless.
Like the Nazis, you would take guns away from law abiding citizens. That’s you.
Using PT’s sparkling gun rights logic: not allowing non criminal deranged nitwits to possess assault rifles would leave them defenseless and unable to exercise their sacred rights of gun ownership.
You would allow said deranged nitwis to own and use guns until they murder anyone they choose, including old ladies with their inferior weaponry. That’s you.
Americans, who own rifles are most responsible. More people are killed by shotguns in the U.S. than rifles. Five times more people are killed in the U.S. by “knives and cutting instruments” than rifles.
“And nearly twice as many Americans were simply beaten to death with “hands, fists, feet, etc.” than were shot and killed with rifles of any kind.”
Don’t be a nitwit.
peak, do you own a gun?
It doesn’t matter.
What matters is do criminals know.
it does matter if you own a gun. you are promoting a dangerous weapon in society. why would you not own a gun?
PT believes mentally deranged nitwits need enough firepower to defend themselves against those they believe are out to hurt them. Which would be everybody.
Going out on a lmb here suggesting the late Mr. Hodgkenson was not one of your “most responsible” rifle owners.
But then he believed those Repubs were out to get him, so he stood his ground, and we all know what happened next.
If you think somebody’s out to get you, they probably are. You never know when you’ll need enough firepower to defend yourself against old ladies who are out to get you or politicians you don’t like.