The UK votes to leave the EU

[Rothman]

The very early ideas of the EU circled around trying to get France and Germany not to fight with each other.  Until they're out, I sort of shrug at the other departures.

That said, I've always thought that either country just needs a wave of ultra-nationalism and the EU is kaput.

[english si]

Switzerland and Norway seem to be doing just fine outside the EU...I'm sure the UK will manage just fine, despite the initial shock to world markets.

AFAICS, most of the financial issues were created thanks to #ProjectFear saying that there would be recession. There was a sudden shock, the market over corrected and then after reassuring speeches were made, the market started climbing back again with probably a good two thirds of what was 'lost' in the freefall regained today.

Meanwhile, I don't think the UK will get everything they want. They want to restrict immigration from the EU to the UK, but I bet they still want the right to move to the EU to retire.

Indeed, but given that treating all immigrants equally and not discriminating based on passport has been smeared as racist, and given the massive circlejerk of hate that has been Remainers on the internet today, it's pretty clear that we will keep free movement of people as nothing else would be politically acceptable. We'll keep the hatred of some towards immigrants as we won't have fixed the issues of control and we'll keep the shitty treatment of non-EU migrants and we'll call it 'tolerance'.

They don't want to be part of the EU common market

Don't we - now, sure, some do, but saying we can't be part of the single market without meeting various requirements was a repeated attempt to try and scare voters into voting Remain. An EFTA/Swiss style deal seems to be what we'll end up with.

They want to restrict products manufactured according to draconian EU laws from coming into the country

Nope. the idea of leaving the single market is to be able to not have to keep to the EU regs for products made in and for our own market. We'll happily buy their goods.

but want to bring back 50 bottles of booze from a day trip to France.

It's not the late 90s - the booze cruise doesn't pay anymore as France upped their taxes. Unless you are buying 50 bottles, of course! And obviously, you've misread the situation wrt what Brexiteers want

There are many citizens who will not want to entirely give up their access to Europe, and that access works both ways.

Access how? Being a full citizen of every country and entitled to benefits and all that as if you were from there? Or being able to work/study there? The latter isn't going away and the only people who've suggested it were straw manning Remanians!

In exchange for tightening immigration from newer EU countries, they could loosen rules for other non-EU countries with favored status, such as Commonwealth Countries, the U.S. Special Relationship, etc.

The issue with Polish immigrants isn't that they are Poles and we'd prefer Kiwis. The issue with EU immigrants is that there's no control over who or how many, and meanwhile we're subjecting non-EU migrants to tight restrictions as to minimum earnings, etc. It has to be treat ALL migrants (from all countries) the same or it's no change from now.

Its no different than Americans wanting something drastically new with Drumpf and Sanders.

No, it's different from that - the high vote shares last year for the Greens, UKIP, SNP were that. What this was like was like that thing you'll celebrate the 240th anniversary of next Monday, though not quite as extreme. It's not a shift of the sides in the debate, it's changing the rules of the debate.

[Truvelo]

At the end of the day, I don't blame the UK for leaving the EU. They signed up for a very different organization many decades ago, an organization that has drastically increased in size and scope in those decades...

Exactly, the EEC as it was known then consisted of a small bunch of countries with similar economies and standards of living. What ruined things was when it started expanding eastwards where living costs are considerably different to the west. It's no surprise to see mass immigration westwards where a cleaner in the UK can be on similar wages to a skilled job in the former eastern bloc countries, not to mention those who come purely to milk our generous welfare system. Rather than a Brexit it would be better if all the countries east of Germany and Austria exited.

[mtantillo]

At the end of the day, I don't blame the UK for leaving the EU. They signed up for a very different organization many decades ago, an organization that has drastically increased in size and scope in those decades...

Exactly, the EEC as it was known then consisted of a small bunch of countries with similar economies and standards of living. What ruined things was when it started expanding eastwards where living costs are considerably different to the west. It's no surprise to see mass immigration westwards where a cleaner in the UK can be on similar wages to a skilled job in the former eastern bloc countries, not to mention those who come purely to milk our generous welfare system. Rather than a Brexit it would be better if all the countries east of Germany and Austria exited.

One of the main issues, IMO, is that the EU expanded too fast. They went from 15 mostly similar countries (in terms of cost of living, living standard, prior history) to 25 overnight in 2004. Then before they were fully integrated, Bulgaria and Romania came on board in 2007. There was no time to really learn the effects of integrating the eastern countries in when all of a sudden they make up nearly half the EU.

This is why I suspect the UK may try to negotiate individual "freedom of movement" pacts with some of the pre-2004 expansion (The "EU-15") member states but not with the former Eastern bloc members.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Glad to see the Brits strike a blow for national sovereignty. And also loved seeing Obama get poked in the eye, again, on the international stage. He opposed Brexit and he opposed Netanyahu's re-election in Israel. In both instances he got rebuked.

Obama hardly got 'poked in the eye'. He has nothing to do with British or EU politics or policy, he's a spectator like the rest of us in America. You should be cheering Obama, given your politics, not only is he droning the shit out of poor sods on the other side of the world, he's got US forces dicking around right next door to Putin. Not even Saint Ronnie had those kinda balls. Not even when they shot down KAL 007.

XT1585

[english si]

Obama hardly got 'poked in the eye'.

He came an told us to Remain else we'd be 'back of the queue'. Leave gained a couple of points as a result of his intervention.

He has nothing to do with British or EU politics or policy

Hence why the British people acted negatively towards him.

Though, obviously, he is part of the wider world, and his intervention was sought by Cameron to try and scare people like me, who wanted out of the EU to escape the Little European mindset and be able to make trade deals with the world (of course, the USA was low down the list of priorities because it tends to act in a protectionist way, like the EU, and so it wouldn't be a Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc low hanging fruit where the deal could be done very quickly).

he's a spectator like the rest of us in America.

So why did he come and intervene? He flew across the Atlantic and back just to visit the UK, and other than smooze with the Royal family, his speech asking us to Remain is the only thing he did. The UK responded with a big "sod off" then, and again on Thursday.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Obama hardly got 'poked in the eye'.

He came an told us to Remain else we'd be 'back of the queue'. Leave gained a couple of points as a result of his intervention.

He has nothing to do with British or EU politics or policy

Hence why the British people acted negatively towards him.

Though, obviously, he is part of the wider world, and his intervention was sought by Cameron to try and scare people like me, who wanted out of the EU to escape the Little European mindset and be able to make trade deals with the world (of course, the USA was low down the list of priorities because it tends to act in a protectionist way, like the EU, and so it wouldn't be a Singapore, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc low hanging fruit where the deal could be done very quickly).

he's a spectator like the rest of us in America.

So why did he come and intervene? He flew across the Atlantic and back just to visit the UK, and other than smooze with the Royal family, his speech asking us to Remain is the only thing he did. The UK responded with a big "sod off" then, and again on Thursday.

Yes, all that affected his standing in America profoundly, as well as the American people. The only people who noticed were American Rightists, who hang on any little crumb of negativity they can get to reinforce their loathing of the man for no particularly good reason(as they seem to be oblivious to any legitimate criticism of him).

[english si]

Yes, all that affected his standing in America profoundly, as well as the American people.

Where was I talking about America? Why are you only looking at America, especially as this is a thread about the UK and EU?

The UK was a country that hadn't really stopped deifying Obama in the way that many Americans did in 2008. But in the space of a few moments in April, the shine wore off and the reaction was to defy him. As the 'leader of the free world' who came and intervened and was not only not successful, but reacted to negatively, he should have some egg on his face.

[english si]

Showing everything wrong with the EU - Merkel organised talks for today to look at EU-strategy, but only between Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy - ie the pre-1973 block, ignoring 21 other countries! And the institution itself wasn't represented.

The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Showing everything wrong with the EU - Merkel organised talks for today to look at EU-strategy, but only between Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy - ie the pre-1973 block, ignoring 21 other countries! And the institution itself wasn't represented.

The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.

Who said anything was 'right' with the EU?  Leaving may have been the right decision in the long term, despite the immediate sequelae, which reeks of petty vengeance being wrought by financial entities dissatisfied with the vote. Largely, the way Leave was sold may have been wrong, playing on people's fears of immigrants and whatnot, but in and of itself, it's not a bad idea, and it gave globalisation a big kick in the slats.

XT1585

[Otto Yamamoto]

Yes, all that affected his standing in America profoundly, as well as the American people.

Where was I talking about America? Why are you only looking at America, especially as this is a thread about the UK and EU?

The UK was a country that hadn't really stopped deifying Obama in the way that many Americans did in 2008. But in the space of a few moments in April, the shine wore off and the reaction was to defy him. As the 'leader of the free world' who came and intervened and was not only not successful, but reacted to negatively, he should have some egg on his face.

I was just pointing out the effect or lack thereof in America, nothing more. It's good that the English saw him to be a shill for globalisation interests. It'd be nice if his American fan base would wake up...

XT1585

[Otto Yamamoto]

http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/

So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.

XT1585

[cpzilliacus]

Problems that I have with Brexit:

(1) May well lead to the end of the United Kingdom and Great Britain as we know it (plenty of Americans like to confuse Britain and England anyway) - I think there's a pretty good chance that Northern Ireland and Scotland will be leaving - and though Wales voted to Leave, when they see the cut-off of EU aid, I think they  may leave remain as well.  That leaves England as a not-so-Great Britain, with one or two land borders with the EU (and the Channel Tunnel).  This is a strategic problem for the United States.

(2) Bad for an assortment of economies (including the UK and the United States), with little or no reward for anyone.

(3) The immigrants that the English codgers have been  complaining about are already there (and I doubt that they will be sent home to Poland or Estonia or Romania or Bulgaria or wherever they are from).

(4) The analysis of the vote reveals that it was the English elderly that won it for the leave side.  Reminds me of the elderly protestors against the 2009 Affordable Care Act in the U.S. claiming to be "Tea Party" and carrying signs that read "Keep the federal  government away from my Medicare," a remarkably stupid and misinformed position - though I also strongly suspect that the young people of Britain, just like the United States, are not very interested in voting, which enables the political power of those codgers.

(5) The only big winner in all of this is the kleptocracy that Czar Vladimir Putin runs in Moscow.  Getting the EU (and its constituent nations) and eventually NATO to break apart (while he makes modest investments in disinformation outlets like RT.COM and covertly funds right-wing extreme parties like Marine LePen's operation in France) allows him to achieve objectives of re-establishing the Soviet Empire and perhaps even  taking over nations that were never east of the Iron Curtain (so his oligarchs have more economies to plunder).

[hbelkins]

http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/

So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.

Emphasis added. Pun intended?

XT1585

Color (white text) removed. What's that all about? Something automatically added to your post?

[cpzilliacus]

http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/

So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.

Pretty clear that it can.  And if the UK government falls and elections have to be held (seems a good possibility), then Labor would be pretty smart to give Jeremy Bernard Corbyn the axe and run on an overtly pro-EU campaign, and if they win, Brexit is effectively nullified.

[cpzilliacus]

The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.

If Texas were to want to pass a bill asking for secession, my response would be that's fine, but the United States will cede all of what is now Texas back to its original owner, Mexico - with the understanding that all Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D payments to anyone living in Texas  are turned-off permanently on the effective date.

[Otto Yamamoto]

Also submitting this for consideration http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Varoufakis-Blames-Neoliberals-Like-Hillary-Clinton-for-Brexit-20160625-0008.html

XT1585

[jwolfer]

The equivalent would be if Texas voted to succeed and the Governor of New York had a meeting with NH, MA, RI, CT, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC and GA representatives with no federal representative to discuss the response of the rUS to such a vote.

If Texas were to want to pass a bill asking for secession, my response would be that's fine, but the United States will cede all of what is now Texas back to its original owner, Mexico - with the understanding that all Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Part D payments to anyone living in Texas  are turned-off permanently on the effective date.

Texas gained independence from Mexico and then requested to join the US.  And Mexico gained independence from Spain in the 1820s, so really Texas was part of the Spanish empire longer than part of Mexico or the US

If any state seceded successfully, there would be payments to the US government... like West Virginia having to pay Virginia back
There would be tons of negotiating

[Otto Yamamoto]

http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/

So it's all wind and sails, anyway. The government has the option of trumping the will of the people. H/T to my Mrs., who pays attention to these things when I don't have the time.

Emphasis added. Pun intended?

XT1585

Always.

Color (white text) removed. What's that all about? Something automatically added to your post?

Maybe the NYPD was just saying howdy 

[english si]

though Wales voted to Leave, when they see the cut-off of EU aid, I think they  may leave remain as well.

1) Like all areas of the British isles eligable for EU RDF funds (Cornwall, West Wales, with Western Ireland falling back into qualification) - the problems that caused them to be in need of development money is EU policy: the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agriculture Policy, the Euro (in the case of the Irish areas).
2) They haven't really liked where that money has gone - for every part-funding of the Eden project, superfast-broadband or Falmouth College, there's much more money spend on crap that does nothing and doesn't seem to be meant to - it's really not surprising that they wanted to Leave, being screwed over by membership and thus qualifying for money that is then spend incredibly inefficiently (6 times less efficiently than the British government reckons it costs to create a job).
3) Where do you think the EU gets the money to spend in Cornwall in the first place? There is no reason why the UK can't give development money to these places (and the ones that, due to the Eurocrisis haven't got any richer, but don't qualify now because the EU average income has fallen) out of the money it used to give to Brussels.

(2) Bad for an assortment of economies (including the UK and the United States),

You are still living at 8am (BST) on Friday By 9am the economy had already started recovering and most of the losses of the night before were recouped before close of play.

The FTSE finished on Friday 2% higher than at the beginning of the week (when almost everyone was thinking Remain would win 60-40), the borrowing rate is good, our credit rating is still high (even though the media are calling the second highest possible score as 'negative'). The pound is at the same rate as the dollar as it was in February - before the referendum date was announced (which was the 20th of February), though a low pound can be a good thing (lowering its value was a key part of how the UK recovered quicker from 2008 than the Eurozone). And all this despite the markets believing the fearmongering, the media saying it's the apocalypse, and also the market betting the wrong way and massively over-correcting.


And then the lower barriers Britain is now free to seek with it's nature trading markets across the world will surely help both us and them. A bit more competition in Europe will also help, forcing EU countries to become more friendly for investment and business (Ireland, whose 'Celtic Tiger' successes are owed to free-market policies of low taxes, limited Government interference kept getting told by the EU to raise their taxes. Post-bailout it has struggled to recover as the ECB keep trying to get it that they aren't undermining other EU nations by having lower taxes than them, but is thankfully able to assert enough autonomy that there was a recovery in Dublin at least).

with little or no reward for anyone.

Because being able to govern ourselves isn't something worth it? Will you attack the celebrations in your country next weekend because they caused short-term economic issues? Even 'back of the queue' Obama has called for closer UK-US ties as the UK escapes the Little European tendencies of the continent: Canada is the most European country outside Europe, but the UK was forced to loosen ties to be allowed in the EEC and then spent 30 years trying to get the EU to talk with Canada, which then took 10 years and, several years later the deal isn't ratified.

Iceland's President came out yesterday and said that they find their non-membership of the EU a good thing, that we would too, and that Brexit is good news for Iceland. Not everyone shares the doom and gloom of those that backed the wrong horse.

(3) The immigrants that the English codgers have been  complaining about are already there (and I doubt that they will be sent home to Poland or Estonia or Romania or Bulgaria or wherever they are from).

Indeed they won't be sent home. They are already there, but the immigration argument took two main forms
1) The negative one worrying about numbers due to EU expansion in the Balkans and Turkey, plus the issues of Schengen meaning ISIS (and those fleeing ISIS) in Syria and Iraq would be one border away from Calais, thanks to plans hashed out in prep for talks between the EU and Turkey that were to start this week (delayed because of the British vote because they knew, like various regulations that will hit Britain harder, that the British people wouldn't be happy with it). There was an element of Islamaphobia against Turkey (though the UK has supported their membership in the face of severe EU xenophobia against Turkish membership - until last week, when the Turkish ambassador rebuked Cameron whom they thought was their closest ally for abandoning their bid), but the main issue was the population of Turkey - numbers, not nature.

2) The positive one, attacking the passport descrimination that treats Austrians as more worthy of living in the UK than Australians, Belgians than Brazilians, Spanards than Sri Lankans, Czechs than Canadians. The 'ConservativeIn' group, which were basically the mouthpiece of the Government (who recently upped the minimum income required for non-EU migrants to come and work to £30k - that's $42k!) stated in a leaflet that a Remain vote would see the banning entry of non-EU families - ie that if you wanted to come and work here, you couldn't bring the family unless their also qualified for entry as individuals (rather than as your dependents). The rather anti-immigrant Daily Mail has been running a story about once a month where some (English as first language and white, of course) immigrant is to be deported due to not being EU and not earning enough, despite being a nurse or something that people who read the Mail are very happy for people to come over to do. The Mail has taken the side of immigrants it's supposed to hate, because the free movement of people means discrimination that even this anti-PC paper detests. The leftist papers don't care about South African nurses being deported away from their family (but supports Hate Preachers not being deported rather than imprisoned, because their family is in Britain), and consider it racist to not be a European-supremacist.

(4) The analysis of the vote reveals that it was the English elderly that won it for the leave side.

Nope - it was an own goal by the Remain side.
1) The apathy of young vote who didn't turn up.
2) The arrogance of the Remain campaign, who thought that running a campaign saying that the EU was shit, but it's better than the T-Rex attacks that would happen if we leave, would inspire its side to victory. 
3) The arrogance of the EU - despite the Remain camp pinning all their hopes on people seeking to make Europe better (ie fit their politics, be they LabourIn or ConservativesIn or GreenIn or whatever) by reforming the EU so that it works, Junker speaking as the EU's representative to try and keep us in, had two points - that leaving was leaving (that no one was suggesting otherwise) and that there was no more reform to be had  .
4) The arrogance of Labour. They kept saying that the EU referendum was a Tory civil war and Labour areas would all vote to Remain. They didn't - the deeper the working-class red vote was, the more likely it was to go for Leave (Liverpool excepted).
5) The arrogance of Scotland. Because there was little question that Scotland would vote Remain, there wasn't much debate - the questions were all about IndyRef2, not Leave/Remain. As there wasn't much debate, there wasn't much enthusiasm, there was lower turnout than in the rest of the UK (other Remain areas had lower turnout too, though in London it was due to the weather and transport situations more than anything, and Richmond managed 80% turnout and a Remain victory, so those things were all overcome-able).

Reminds me of the elderly protestors against the 2009 Affordable Care Act in the U.S. claiming to be "Tea Party" and carrying signs that read "Keep the federal  government away from my Medicare," a remarkably stupid and misinformed position -

Were most of them old or is this your stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry? The pictures I remember of the Tea Party were of middle-aged and young people.

Which actually fits well for the northern/midlands/welsh people who tipped the balance on Thursday - the people who lost out the most by free movement with Eastern Europe where our minimum wage is a decent wage there: poor, working-class people of employment age. The Chairman of the Remain campaign said that post-Brexit wages would go up, food prices would go down - that's bad news if you are a CEO like him. It's telling that the Cotswolds, Chilterns and Chelsea were in favour of Remain, despite being Tory strongholds (who were meant to be where the support for Brexit was happening, if you believed Labour) - they are where people have au pairs from poorer parts of Europe, where house prices are sky high due to demand and people don't want to see them reduce due to lower population growth. However, higher wages and lower food costs are great if you are a poor person - so the Labour heartlands went massively for Leave.

The Labour party was just beating to UKIP to second last year (who, thankfully, killed the far worse BNP who were filling a similar gap in the market) and in response, the grass-roots elected a hard-left, highly EU-skeptic Leader. And then they wanting him to lead their Remain campaign and are now seeking to sack him because he didn't convince their natural demographics of something he wasn't commited to because of how it screws over the people for whom the party is all about (the working class) but was forced to push for as it was party policy.** The left in the UK will now be almost solely a middle-class pursuit due to a refusal to listen to people that these parties claim to represent - it needs to hear, not smear, the Tea Party equivalent. Or in walk people like Donald Drumpf (who is just as much a protest against the Democrats as the Republicans - many primary voters who voted for him were not registered Republicans: he won states by Dems/Inds voting for the authoritarian centrist) to replace them in the halls of power!

**though only 36% of actual Labour voters voted for Leave - just one percent more than SNP voters, and the Leader of the SNP is suggesting that there is no one in Scotland (not just the SNP voters) who voted Leave. 

though I also strongly suspect that the young people of Britain, just like the United States, are not very interested in voting, which enables the political power of those codgers.

I gather that, had they turned up at the average turnout rate, the result would have been different. However the least embarrassing figure I've seen was that something like 35% of under-35s showed up, when over 90% of their parents (well 55-65) turned up to vote about 57-43 to Leave.

Those blaming old people for (to a small extent - even the oldest groups - the ones that lived through WW2 - were only about 60-40 in favour of leaving, rather than the 79-21 in favour of Remaining that under 25s voted) reversing the small-minded and xenophobic decision to have a UK foreign policy where Europe is massively more important than anywhere else are seeking a scapegoat, seeking to vilify, other and condemn a demographic group out of hatred and prejudice.

18-35 is the biggest generation in the UK and the one that leant one-way the hardest. They had the result in their hands, and they chose to barely bother to show up. It's their fault Remain lost but Generation Snowflake must bigotedly blame the people who put us in the EEC in 1975 in the first place for the reason we won't be in it post-2018 as they can't take responsibility for their own inaction, unlike the generation that has now corrected the mistake they made 41 years ago to massively weaken our ties with places outside Europe in favour of a quick buck.

(5) The only big winner in all of this is the kleptocracy that Czar Vladimir Putin runs in Moscow.

The small noises he made were mostly that he would prefer us in - we get the EU imposing sanctions that keep his approval rating up as he can rely on the 'no one likes us we don't care' nationalism (the EU's disdain for opening some sort of mutually benificial relationship with Russia, but rather keeping the Cold War mindset from 1990 on saw him rise in popularity over the less hardline people like Yeltsin, even though he's fairly moderate these days), we'll stop the EU army where the justification the Eurocrats are giving is to show Putin who's boss - something that (like the anti-Russian law the EU-backed coup in Ukraine made to try and convince the EU that Ukraine was willing to work with the EU) Putin will have to act on by going to war. When the EU basically says to the US 'thanks, but no thanks' then MAD has disappeared and Russia is fighting the military might of France* with some ground troops, mostly from Poland.

*whom the UK will keep its military alliance formed in recent years, though not to the extent of being sucked in military action against Russia - we learnt from the mistakes of the Bush-Blair years.

Getting the EU (and its constituent nations) and eventually NATO to break apart

The two are mutually exclusive - the EU is actively trying to supplant NATO (as the US is involved and they are not European and therefore shouldn't be involved - petty regionalism at its most stupid).

allows him to achieve objectives of re-establishing the Soviet Empire and perhaps even  taking over nations that were never east of the Iron Curtain (so his oligarchs have more economies to plunder).

Don't forget the tinfoil hats to stop him reading our mind! 

Putin doesn't want power over all Europe - he wants to be allowed in the club, but if he's excluded (like he is now) he wants a strong EU, backed by NATO, so that he isn't forced to do this to keep the serious hardliners out of office who will make Drumpf look sane.

[english si]

Also submitting this for consideration http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Varoufakis-Blames-Neoliberals-Like-Hillary-Clinton-for-Brexit-20160625-0008.html

What I don't get is why Varoufakis - who was given office on an anti-EU mandate, and was thwarted time and time again, supported Remain given that Remain was always going to be seen as a vote of confidence in the current scenario. As he says "OUT won because the EU establishment have made it impossible, through their anti-democratic reign (not to mention the asphyxiation of weaker countries like Greece), for the people of Britain to imagine a democratic EU." Britain left because the Remain camp's desire to see Reform was treated with not just apathy, but revulsion by the EUrocrats.

[cpzilliacus]

3) Where do you think the EU gets the money to spend in Cornwall in the first place? There is no reason why the UK can't give development money to these places (and the ones that, due to the Eurocrisis haven't got any richer, but don't qualify now because the EU average income has fallen) out of the money it used to give to Brussels.

The best analogy might be the Appalachian region of the United States.  The states that make up that part of the nation  have not had the resources or will to support expensive development projects there, but the federal government, through  its Appalachian Regional Commission has - and the  result has been (relevant to AAROADS) new and expensive highway projects like Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Corridor H and the rest of the ADHS corridors.  I believe the EU has a program similar to ADHS (perhaps this).

And then the lower barriers Britain is now free to seek with it's nature trading markets across the world will surely help both us and them. A bit more competition in Europe will also help, forcing EU countries to become more friendly for investment and business (Ireland, whose 'Celtic Tiger' successes are owed to free-market policies of low taxes, limited Government interference kept getting told by the EU to raise their taxes. Post-bailout it has struggled to recover as the ECB keep trying to get it that they aren't undermining other EU nations by having lower taxes than them, but is thankfully able to assert enough autonomy that there was a recovery in Dublin at least).

Trading markets with whom? Red China?  Trading with them is more like exporting as many  jobs as possible to Shenzen, and the resulting profits used to further Red Chinese imperialist objectives.  Like it or not, the closest nations to (formerly) Great Britain are across the Channel.

Iceland's President came out yesterday and said that they find their non-membership of the EU a good thing, that we would too, and that Brexit is good news for Iceland. Not everyone shares the doom and gloom of those that backed the wrong horse.

Iceland?  Iceland?  The UK has regional authorities with greater population than Iceland, and while I like and respect them (and have visited there), statements by Icelandic politicians on the subject of Brexit carry little weight with me.

Indeed they won't be sent home. They are already there, but the immigration argument took two main forms
1) The negative one worrying about numbers due to EU expansion in the Balkans and Turkey, plus the issues of Schengen meaning ISIS (and those fleeing ISIS) in Syria and Iraq would be one border away from Calais, thanks to plans hashed out in prep for talks between the EU and Turkey that were to start this week (delayed because of the British vote because they knew, like various regulations that will hit Britain harder, that the British people wouldn't be happy with it). There was an element of Islamaphobia against Turkey (though the UK has supported their membership in the face of severe EU xenophobia against Turkish membership - until last week, when the Turkish ambassador rebuked Cameron whom they thought was their closest ally for abandoning their bid), but the main issue was the population of Turkey - numbers, not nature.

The U.S. Republican Party has tried (and mostly failed) to use claims of massive immigration of Syrian terrorists to the United States as a reason to vote for them and the presumptive presidential nominee.  Turkey has long been a member of NATO, strengthening its southern flank against Soviet Russian (Russian today) imperialist objectives.

4) The arrogance of Labour. They kept saying that the EU referendum was a Tory civil war and Labour areas would all vote to Remain. They didn't - the deeper the working-class red vote was, the more likely it was to go for Leave (Liverpool excepted).

It was a failure of leadership in  Labor (for failing to support remain) and the Conservatives for setting the referendum in the first place.  Cameron's done, and Corbyn ought to be done as well.

Were most of them old or is this your stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry? The pictures I remember of the Tea Party were of middle-aged and young people.

The Republican Party is an elderly party above all else (and the so-called Tea Party is just the right wing of an already very conservative Republican Party).  The holders of those signs were elderly (at least above the age of eligibility for Medicare, usually 65).  They see government-funded health care as something that they are entitled to (even if they seem to be  unaware that it is funded by the  U.S. federal government), and nobody else should be able to get health care unless they  have a generous employer or are independently wealthy.

U.S.-based and non-partisan Politifact waded into the fray as a result of statements made by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) - Tim Kaine on Brexit vote: Young people voted to stay, old people voted to leave.

3) The arrogance of the EU

Agreed.

18-35 is the biggest generation in the UK and the one that leant one-way the hardest. They had the result in their hands, and they chose to barely bother to show up. It's their fault Remain lost but Generation Snowflake must bigotedly blame the people who put us in the EEC in 1975 in the first place for the reason we won't be in it post-2018 as they can't take responsibility for their own inaction, unlike the generation that has now corrected the mistake they made 41 years ago to massively weaken our ties with places outside Europe in favour of a quick buck.

Generally correct.  But like it or not, Europe, not the former Empire, are the natural trading  partners for Britain.

Which actually fits well for the northern/midlands/welsh people who tipped the balance on Thursday - the people who lost out the most by free movement with Eastern Europe where our minimum wage is a decent wage there: poor, working-class people of employment age. The Chairman of the Remain campaign said that post-Brexit wages would go up, food prices would go down - that's bad news if you are a CEO like him. It's telling that the Cotswolds, Chilterns and Chelsea were in favour of Remain, despite being Tory strongholds (who were meant to be where the support for Brexit was happening, if you believed Labour) - they are where people have au pairs from poorer parts of Europe, where house prices are sky high due to demand and people don't want to see them reduce due to lower population growth. However, higher wages and lower food costs are great if you are a poor person - so the Labour heartlands went massively for Leave.

Has anyone given any thought to the damage done to the British (or maybe I should just say English) economy by trading with Red China and India and other nations with really low-wage economies?  And there's this from the Washington Post: The startling human toll of Brexit

The small noises he made were mostly that he would prefer us in - we get the EU imposing sanctions that keep his approval rating up as he can rely on the 'no one likes us we don't care' nationalism (the EU's disdain for opening some sort of mutually benificial relationship with Russia, but rather keeping the Cold War mindset from 1990 on saw him rise in popularity over the less hardline people like Yeltsin, even though he's fairly moderate these days), we'll stop the EU army where the justification the Eurocrats are giving is to show Putin who's boss - something that (like the anti-Russian law the EU-backed coup in Ukraine made to try and convince the EU that Ukraine was willing to work with the EU) Putin will have to act on by going to war. When the EU basically says to the US 'thanks, but no thanks' then MAD has disappeared and Russia is fighting the military might of France* with some ground troops, mostly from Poland.

*whom the UK will keep its military alliance formed in recent years, though not to the extent of being sucked in military action against Russia - we learnt from the mistakes of the Bush-Blair years.

I was no fan of the military (mis)adventures promoted by the Dick Cheney/George W. Bush Administration in Iraq.  Hugely expensive, and the nation that has benefited the most is Iran.

But containing Russian  imperialism and Putin and his oligarchs is an entirely different matter.  Putin is no friend of England or the Western system of democracy (and the oligarchs understand full well that war against the West is bad for beezniss - war against NATO never happened during the Cold War, and it will not happen now).  One more from the Post: How Brexit is a win for Putin and one from the NYT: The Security Consequences of Brexit

The two are mutually exclusive - the EU is actively trying to supplant NATO (as the US is involved and they are not European and therefore shouldn't be involved - petty regionalism at its most stupid).

The Baltics were certainly happy to join both NATO and the EU (and there are U.S. Marines in eastern Estonia right now, much to the rage of Vlad Putin).  Norway and Iceland are members of NATO but not the EU.

Putin doesn't want power over all Europe - he wants to be allowed in the club, but if he's excluded (like he is now) he wants a strong EU, backed by NATO, so that he isn't forced to do this to keep the serious hardliners out of office who will make Drumpf look sane.

I strongly disagree.  Putin, just like Joe Stalin and before him, most of the Czars, were all imperialists at heart.  What bothers Putin the most is that Mikhail Gorbachev gave up the Soviet Russian empire in East Germany, Poland and the other nations behind the Iron  Curtain, and he wants that empire back, though not if it means war against NATO.

And there's a significant difference between Russian imperialism and British imperialism.  Britain  left most of its empire in at least somewhat better condition  after withdrawal (an exception  might be Pakistan, but that came about as much because of the hatred between Islam and Hinduism), but only thanks to the EU are the former nations of the Soviet Eastern European empire better-off now (though I have major problems with the neo-fascist government of Hungary and the extremely conservative government in Poland).

Finally, there's this: An astute online comment has some wondering whether Brexit may ever happen

[Otto Yamamoto]

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

XT1585

[cpzilliacus]

That said, I've always thought that either country just needs a wave of ultra-nationalism covertly funded by the Russian Putin regime and the EU is kaput.

FTFY.

[kkt]

If nothing else, the vote will remind voters of the importance of actually showing up to cast your ballot.