Some people must learn the hard-way

Reuters: Victory for nationalism: Johnson's win puts UK's future in doubt

This outcome can do nothing good for GB. Especially as regards future employment, as the EU is resurrecting Demand and unemployment is actually lowering. (See here.)

I'm frankly surprised. Never have I seen GB so blind. Oh, well, some people must learn the hard way.

At least the Scots got it right (from here):

Wont it be a gag to see the Brits showing their passports to get into Scotland/Ireland? (Dear me, dear me, what will queenie ever say when she has to show hers to get into a subject-nation of her "king-dom" ... :^)

 

The British are the British and if it should come to that then they will UNITE their peoples once more by force while telling the rest of the world to bugger off. It was a huge mistake to give up their sovereignty by joining the E.U.; and so, yes, freedom is likely to come with a terrible cost. It usually does.

In all honesty I have no idea if G.B. is going to survive this. But they are trying to rectify a huge error. We . . . shall . . . see.

 

They did not GIVE UP their sovereignty. It's still there in the form of each country's parliament and country participation in the EU-parliament in Strasbourg. .

The EU is a replication of the US, with separations of power between member-states. It's intent is NOT to interfere in people's lives because the heads of all the nations are represented in the European Commission that proposes all the laws. And should a law not pass in the EU-parliament, then it not adopted. The EU-Commission (Brussels) has no power whatsoever over the independent countries - unless stipulated in an EU-law that is already on the books.

There is an elected Executive Head of the EU, which as of last week a woman. She was voted into office by means of the European parliament - but she did not "run for office" as a candidate. She was proposed by the EU Commission in Brussels.

Members of the EU can feel that some laws go to far, but they are passed in order to get a legal harmony amongst all nations. For instance, as regards safety-laws (airports, highways, etc.) There is no longer any need to show a passport when going from one country to another in the EU.

Now the Brits can join the long queue at airports to show their passports. VERY AMUSING ...

 

Scots should unilaterally withdraw from the UK, as Johnson sure as hell isn't going to give them a second referendum.

 

Little question of how will they realistically pay for everything may raise its ugly wee head with the inevitable demise of the Barnet agreement.

 

Scotland will have no problems surviving economically. Possibly Oddquine will come on and fill you in.

This time though I think any deal with England will probably be impossible. We saw what they were like with the EU. Probably best to follow the Brexiters lead and simply refuse to pay our share of the deficit and other things.

Possibly linking Independence under a green deal would be a good idea given that from what I hear Boris is a Trump on the environment.

 

You can massage the amounts all you like and kid yourselves to the haggies come home but there is no way on earth that Scotland maintains its current spending levels and services with its own loot. Not a snowballs chance in hell. I’m sure that an oddquime has all sorts of links and news articles all muttering the party lines but unfortunately it’s a load of ****. Scotland cannot afford to leave the nursing tit of the BofE and the southern tax payers and if anyone thinks so including an oddquine then they’re deluded.
Alexa its a great idea and I’d love to see an independent Scotland but if you want your current level of services then it simply ain’t happening.

 

Scotland has given more to the UK than it has received but dream on,

We are entering a new world a new way of living. It may be that in this new world always having the latest keep up with the Jones will not exist.

Scotland has no need to allow its people to become slaves under the UK Oligarchy and won't.

No one is going to have much. It is quality of life which will be important.

 

its pretty much the same as ever here... still raining.... are you predicting anything of earth shattering importance.... the train may arrive on time at Cannon Street on Monday morning for example... that would be something!!!???

 

I predict that within ten years we will not have society as we have it now. If sufficient people manage to care about human life and the planet then we may have made sufficient progress for there to be some form of society though the changes we are already experiencing will be a lot worse by then and we almost certainly will have experienced some degree of famine due to poor harvest and be having lots of refugees desperate for survival. They will be mainly from third world countries who put very little into the damage of the world but will be the first hit. By then I would think lots of places in the US will be under water and loss of land will be ongoing.

If the artic ice has melted then we are finished.

But if the world has reduced its Co2 by 45% and a way has been found to clear the dimming caused in the atmosphere which is masking the effect of the damage we have already done, then it is not impossible we may have a few more years to get things down to zero and to save most people and animals and find a way to work in harmony with nature rather than the white fetish of controlling everything. We are of course moving back to white nationalism as our days turn darker.

What is needed is what we are witnessing human beings do not have.

The ££££££££ ionaires who have caused this destruction will have moved to their 100,000 year holiday homes - some of them in pods in the sky as the Amazon boss speaks of building.

Yes, the UK is imo no longer a democracy. It is as Paul Mason described a 'managed democracy' that is having elections but them having nothing or next to nothing to do with what happens. I strongly expect England to move to whatever the English version of fascism is and want absolutely nothing to do with it.

I look forward to Scottish Independence and a United Ireland.

 

I don't see why. Just because you're part of the same government does not need you necessarily need to be part of the same trade bloc.

Why do people think a government's laws need to be completely uniform across all its provinces?

It's still possible to find a way to keep Northern Ireland and Scotland in the EU trading bloc even if England wants to leave.

England itself can look to America for trade deals. The economy of America is more different from England than England is from most of Western Europe, meaning there is probably more potential for trade there.

And besides, the extra advantage of intra-Europe trade is probably not as directly as high as trade between Europe and other countries like China. So even if this cuts off half the trade, it will not cut off the most important trade.

Nothing in that article is actually logical or makes sense, when you look just a little below the surface.

 

Unemployment is only lowering because they have finally started putting curbs on the migration.
It's ridiculous to try to compare those rates now with a few years ago during the height of the Refugee Crisis.

 

I predict something similar, but for very different reasons.

No one's going to give a crap about the climate. Do you think they do in Mexico, Indonesia, or the Middle East? No.
As soon as the European white people die off, all your climate ideology is done for. No one will give a crap.
It will just fade into the past, like just another historical fad most people won't remember.
Meanwhile people will have much more pressing concerns. Worrying about the climate will be seen as a ridiculous luxury people can't afford.
The France of the future is going to look a lot dirtier and grungier than it did.

Now, maybe we can stop derailing this thread with all this talk about the climate.

 

That would only be the case if the EU makes remaining in the trade bloc contingent upon the free movement of people, which it likely will.
So all the blame would be on the EU for that, if it materializes.

 

And not just the environment. Both men have serious mental problems. (Boris is less obvious as regards his innate narcissism. But it's there.)

The Brits deserve Boris. They must apparently learn the hard way ...

 

Well the environment one is going to be the one which is catastrophic and which there will be no going back on. We are all in that together for good or bad. If the US, UK, Australia and so on do not do their bit they bring the entire world down with them and time is near to having run out. However yes I do agree with you. People argue that Boris is not far right but what Boris most certainly is is someone who will go after power above everything else. If that takes him to the extreme right that is where he will go. They are both narcissists. It is unfortunate we probably will not have the ability to record how humanity ended in insanity.

 

Boris is being Boris. The guy shares the same mental aberration as his American equival - both are afflicted with serious narcissism.

The Brits are not fools, and when they see what they have done does not work, they will change attitudes. (Hopefully.)

Americans are so wrapped-up in Consumption, they don't understand the fundamentals of economics. They think wrongly that the past always predicts the future. The Brits are not so self-abused. But the fundamental difference is that the "past" is a far more important force upon mentalities in the UK than they in the US. In the latter, history was yesterday and ancient-history the day before yesterday. We Yanks are always rushing mindlessly into the future.

Having lived in both countries, I don't think the Brits are so ravenously attached to Conspicuous Consumption as are we Yanks. And when it comes to the fundamental change that this new Information Age brings upon us, the British have an advantage in their ability to adapt to it.

Some comparisons between two countries that speak the same language (though differently):
*GB was the first to recognize that Healthcare was a central determinant of lifespan in the early 1950s. Whilst its "American cousins" are still paying through the nose today for the same quality-of-service, but without the same breadth of lifespan.
*The UK has been at the developmental heart of the Industrial Age since the country invented the steam-engine. But why do Brit-developers always go to the US to obtain the funding to promote their ideas? Yes, because that is where both the Money and the largest single Market is found.
*Still, GB was trading mostly with an economic-entity (EU 46% of total trade) that has considerably more in total market-size (GDP/population) than the US, and yet has decided to leave its special-partnership. That makes no economic sense whatsoever.
*Leaving the EU will not bring the UK any particular economic advantage - and quite the contrary.

Methinks the Brits have made a fundamental error that will delay its economic evolution in this Brave New World of the Information Age that is upon us.

'Tis a pity ...

PS: There is a Quality-of-life aspect that is identical between the two countries, US and GB. The percentage of the population with Tertiary-level degrees is almost identical.

 

It has survived worse. But the Brits have an historical anchor around their collective necks. It was the "greatness" of the British Empire. That "empire" is an historical and not a present "fact".

There is still that element that seems to impact British thinking - often in the most unusual ways. Perhaps Brexit may be an indication of that "unusualness". Slamming a door shut to a county's most important trading-partner requires a deliberate amount of stoopidity.

I am a Yank who lives in France. And, as such, most of my english-speaking friends are Brits. Not out of any particular preference and only because there are more of them. Those Brits here (that I spoke to) were overwhelmingly against Brexit. And surprisingly to the point of actually adopting French citizenship ... !

 

My question would be how are they going to pay for all of it.
The UK runs already a annual deficit of 165 to 170 billion pounds

 

All countries run deficits. How so?

Because the borrow-money by issuing T-notes ("T" for Treasury) the funds from which they repay existing debt interest. that is, they roll-it over by buying more debt.

They can do that because governments are NOT INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU AND ME. Nobody is going to come knocking on their door to throw them out of the house.

Until, of course, countries cannot roll-over their debt because those buying the debt-notes refuse at some point do so fearing that the country will default completely. In which case, the country must change its expenditures that foment the debt.

And why does nobody do precisely the same with America's debt, which is the highest of any? Because debt-buyers know that a vibrant and large US-economy will continue debt-interest payments and the risk of the economy's failure is low. Due to its large economy, it more easily "rolls over" its debt than other countries.

Which is also a benefit of European Union debt that does exactly the same. The EU has not the same economic-strength (in terms of GDP per capita) as the US but it does have the means to manage its debt. That is, it rolls over continuously its debt - and when any country starts contracting too much, then the European Commission in Brussels comes down very harshly upon them.

 

I know all that. Despite economic good times they have not been able to run a surplus, like some other countries.
The UK will have to take over quiet a few duties the EU was doing for it, which means thousands of new government employees.
With a possible economic slow down, Brexit slow down, it will have less revenues.
More debt.
More debt means less investment into the country, infrastructure, social system and so on.

We see it in the US.

 

Yes, that sort of mentality worked so well for Greece...

You just want free money and are willing to trade permanently trashing the country's reputation and credit rating to get it.

And you obviously have no compunction about those investors and pensioners you'll be screwing out of their money.

This is the type of thinking of an immature and unruly child throwing a tantrum.

 

Here's to Making England Great Again

 

As I said, for as long as the world wants to hold UK-debt then the UK will continue to roll-it-over and over and over. Which is what most countries do.

What changes is this: When a country signs-on to the Treaty of Maastricht (see Item 4 on this list describing treaty-rules here) to become a member of the EU, then it assumes the responsibility for debt-management as designated in that treaty. Which means that it must keep its debt limits to within 3% of GDP.

And if it doesn't, the head of the EU bank (in Frankfurt) keeps harping, and harping, and harping until they do make efforts for and accomplish reducing its debt to within the limits prescribed in the Treaty. Howzat? Because the Central Bank of the EU is the major lender to countries that require "debt-management assistance".

There is no way for a country to get out of that rule, except, of course to leave the EU - which is what the UK is doing ...

Leaving the EU means that the UK need not observe further the Maastricht Treaty rule regarding debt. Which means that the world (that holds the UK debt) will also treat the UK differently if it does not manage that risk minimized by remaining within legal boundaries of Total National Debt. Debt-investing countries with money-surpluses know very well how to minimize international loan-risks. They start by refusing to accept the risk any further until it is maintained within reasonable limits.

And those reasonable limits are mostly designated by a positive rate of advance of GDP without which countries start reselling onto the market national-debt at cut-rates. Which makes its increasingly difficult for debt-defaulting countries to borrow more to roll-over their debt ...

 

Greece had to be reckoned with, and they have fallen into line. They were threatened with expulsion. (As I have said previously, the EU Central Bank looks over the shoulder of each member-country's debt.

And no, I have no compunction "about those investors and pensioners you'll be screwing out of their money". Because it isn't "theirs".

National Debt is ... uh ... national in scope and not individual. All citizens must support the National Debt. But, how many ask serious questions about how any presidential candidate plans on managing it!

Any country-debtor deserves to be treated harshly when they try to short-circuit the rules. Which Greeks never learned to do - besides, most rich Greeks keep their money in Europe. Like Onassis did.

Speak for yourself.

All games have rules - including the "game" of National Debt. (That Donald Dork has been playing with by augmenting by 10% the DoD-budget and thus the National Debt necessary to support it.)

And in the game of "European Union" a country gets kicked-out when it does not know how to manage its national Euro Debt. Which is only fitting. Why should the rest of Europe support the financing of the Euro and the Greeks refuse to obey the rules that they had signed-onto from the very beginning? Huh, why!?!

Greece has to learn how to "grow up" - it has always been a country run by the influential plutocrats* (Jackie Kennedy married one). And the EU has the same problem with some EU-wannabe countries (notably in Yugoslavia) that do not know how to manage a National Debt ...

*Which, for a country that invented the word "democracy" is almost laughable.