Brexit

[tw]

Great harm to the British economy was apparent when Elaine May went to India to promote new business connections. She returned empty handed. Because only the brainwashed in Britain think their economy will get better by finding trading partners elsewhere.

EU is properly putting the screws to dumb Brits who voted for Brexit. Friends inside so many companies currently based in Britain have plans or will be moving out of Britain once Brexit happens. Even Japanese car factories may have to close because the brainwashed were so easily manipulate by the emotional (liars).

Good for the EU. Screw the British people for voting for extremist rhetoric. The framework in a 500 page draft is apparently so ridiculous (unworkable) that neither side in Parliament can find anything good in it. We know massive job losses, especially in London and the Midlands will occur because of Brexit. The laughter at Elaine May's obvious stupid comments about an 'organized process' makes it obvious that she should be removed as Prime Minister. Since Brexit also created a weak and ineffective Prime Minister.

Brexit means a further decline of what once made Britain so strong.

Brits still have a few months to backtrack on this stupidity called Brexit. But they won't. For the same reason so many in America still respect The Don. Brainwashing, once implemented, means those cannot learn and correct their mistake.

It is good that Brits will suffer economically. They voted for it and deserve it. As with everything economic, things that affect economics become apparent only many years later. (America is still in an Obama economy.)

May's trip to India should have made obvious the stupidity of Brexit. Now and years later, the British people must and will be punished for their obstinate stupidity.

[henry quirk]

What a good lil propagandist you are.

Sensible folks 'get' and 'like' the idea of individual, regional, national sovereignty.

You 'get it' too, I reckon, but you don't 'like it', and that's why you're opposed: *communitarianism can't flourish if 'borders' exist. And a flourishing communitarianism is what you want.

Marx loves you, tw.









*to avoid page-generating misunderstanding: 'communitarianism' is an umbrella placeholder I apply to all anti-individual, anti-human philosophies. Communism, socialism, even Capitalism all fall under that umbrella, as well as any number of other **cog-generatin' ideas, systems, etc. My use of 'communitarianism' in this way falls outside the conventional defintion, hence this footnote.









**what you are if you embrace communitarianism(s) cuz, sure as hell, you ain't a self-owned, self-directing, person (an ***agent).









***as in 'agent causation', a distinct kind of 'libertarian' ****free will I believe in.









****to be clear: I don't 'have' free will; I 'am' a free will (just like the rest of you ['cept for tw, of course, cuz he's just a cog]).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Europe is pretty small from our perspective, none of the countries has all the resources to maintain a successful microcosm at today's standard. That's why they have all interacted since forever to trade their strengths, so everyone gets their needs met. Joining together to make trade easier helped them all, although it has brought some onerous annoying regulations like lower beer standards to Germany.

The UK cutting off their nose to spite their face, makes no sense. One of the UK's big strengths was coal, but coal is fading fast. Another is banking but that will fade too, being an outsider looking in.

Making the UK great again is bullshit there too, just like it is here.

[henry quirk]

"Europe is pretty small from our perspective, none of the countries has all the resources to maintain a successful microcosm at today's standard. That's why they have all interacted since forever to trade their strengths, so everyone gets their needs met. Joining together to make trade easier helped them all, although it has brought some onerous annoying regulations like lower beer standards to Germany."

Yeah, but there's a difference between 'alliance' (of sovereigns) and 'union' (which is the dissolution of sovereignty).

I've yet to see a convincing argument for the an encompassing European Union when most of the benefits of such a thing coulda been had through narrow economic alliances, alliances which coulda preserved natiional autonomies.

#

"The UK cutting off their nose to spite their face, makes no sense. One of the UK's big strengths was coal, but coal is fading fast. Another is banking but that will fade too, being an outsider looking in."

Mebbe so, but a significant number of Brits thought, mebbe still think, the benefits of blurring into 'union were/are outweighed by the cost to national autonomy.

Meh...I don't get a say, and neither do you...them folks are gonne do, or allow to be done to them, 'whatever'.

[tw]

Many clearing houses must start executing for Brexit three months before the March exit. This made worse because so many Brexit supporting Brits cannot even accept the massive penalties and job losses they deserve for voting for Brexit. So companies have even more incentive to get out of Britain.

Some 30 institutions are planning a move to Frankfurt; moving almost $1 trillion in assets. HSBC will move to Paris. Bank of America and Barclays will move to Dublin. Many insurers and asset managers are moving to Luxembourg including (I have heard) Citibank. Amsterdam may get the London Stock Exchange Group and CBOE Global Markets.

These are only the many who must make the move before Brexit. A large number of other institutions must slowly move out over the next ten years.

From The Economist:

The problem ... they are so preoccupied by crisis management - getting the deal over the line if you are Ms May, engineering a general election if you are Mr Corbyn, or salvaging "true Brexit" if you are a Brexiteer - that they haven'y got any time to think about what actually caused the crisis. The greatest tragedy of Brexit is that it is consuming the solution to the problems that cause the volt to leave in the first place.

[glatt]

Even though we are about three months out from Brexit, my firm is now advising clients who want trademark protection in the UK to file joint trademark applications in the EU and the UK.

The current EU trademarks will be grandfathered in to the UK once it leaves the EU, but future trademarks must be filed in both locations if a company wants protection in both places. And since the process of having a trademark approved in the EU takes about 3 months, we're now at the time when a new trademark filed today will issue in the EU after Brexit, so that company would have no protection in the UK from an EU trademark. They would have to file all over again in the UK and wait for that process to be completed, delaying protection there by months or more.

I'm not sure how this will impact my firm. We have a London office that handles EU trademarks for us, and I suppose they will still offer that service as well as the less desirable UK trademark service, but will clients think to come to a law firm in London to file EU marks after London leaves the EU? We may see a decline in overall business. We also have an office in Brussels that could handle the EU trademark work, but all of our knowledgeable EU staff is in London.

Interesting times.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

Great harm to the British economy was apparent when Elaine May went to India to promote new business connections. .

Theresa May.

[Undertoad]

You're brainwashed, it was Elaine May.

She's still with us!

[Happy Monkey]

She was brought up on the Late Show last week. One of the guests was in a play with her.

[Undertoad]

Also, tw has helped us to understand a very good point.

If you want people to vote the way you want, insult the living shit out of them.

Don't bother with their concerns. Their concerns are dumb. You're the one who is smart! There's no need for convincing and trivial things like that. The dumb people should listen to their betters who truly understand things.

The biggest problem is when they listen to people on their side, the dumb side! Then they become brainwashed and the election doesn't go the way we like! At that point it is a compleat disaster and we have to double down on insulting them. We have to get the media involved to explain to them over and over why they are dumb.

Elaine May can help but without Mike Nichols she is a shadow of her former self.

[xoxoxoBruce]

She used to be a Berliner.

[tw]

Brexit is already in trouble. The bad parts have not yet started.

Brexit supporters will remain in denial even as things degrade over the next tens years.

No one has yet posted one fact that justifies Brexit. That reality is somehow insulting to Brexit supporters - who only voted their emotions.

There is some pathetic prime minister called May. Even her fist name will be forgettable. History will record her unremarkable tenure.

[sexobon]

30 years from now, everyone will be talking about what courageous people of vision the Brexiteers were; but, the old naysayers now don't care because they won't be around anymore for anyone to say I told you so.

[sexobon]

Winners don't have to provide justifications, it's the losers' responsibility to justify why they shouldn't have lost.

Rationalizations of losers are worthless if they can't appease the winners.

[DanaC]

This isn't about who did or did not win - it's more a question of what did they win?

I.m not a brexiter - I voted remain. And my preference if we are to exit, is that we do it in a staged and controlled fashion that doesn't cripple our economy - but ... with hindsight, given that that was never going to be acceptable to the stronger brexiteers, we'd have been better off going for a clean break from the start and planning for that.

As it what we are currently looking at is something nobody is happy with. I would favour a new referendum. There are enough people who voted brexit in expectation of something very different (both sides lied constantly during the campaign, and most Brrits, myself included, are woefully uninformed about Europe and our relationship with it) to warrant a new vote.

If I order an expensive piece of kit off the internet and when it arrives it is a pile of shit, I can send it back and get a refund.

For a lot of people who voted to leave they have just received a steaming turd through the post instead of their spanking new piece of democratic freedom.

The first referendum we voted on whether we wanted to leave europe - it was a fairly amorphous proposition and barely anybody knew what that would actually mean. We voted on principle. Now I think we should get the chances to vote on details and facts.

We also used a very bizarre voting system. Almost any important decision that might change the way an institution, party or country will organise itself - the structural decisions, not just who occupies the seats - require a two third or 60% majority. We ran a constitutional vote like a party political vote and got a result much like those we get in our first past the post parliamentary elections: victory with slightly over half the vote. Almost a split own the middle between those supporting the winning proposition and those supporting the losing proposition.

To change the structure of the nation shouold require more than being able to mobilise a handful more people than the other side - it should require a groundswell of popular support.
If it is genuinely the will of the people - a majority of the people - that we leave, then a new referendum will confirm that.