Brexit and climate change

by Judith Curry

Some speculations on Brexit and climate change.

Did climate change cause Brexit?  

Ha ha.  Well, the politics of climate change policies seems to have influenced the voters.  there seems to be a substantial confluence of British climate change skeptics and people that voted ‘yes’ for Brexit.   Climate policies are one of the topics of concern regarding EU overreach.  It turns out that a large percentage of the British population are skeptical of human caused climate change. From Brexit Is Also A Repudiation Of EU Global Warming Mandates:

Conservative pollster Lord Michael Ashcroft surveyed 12,369 Brits voting in Thursday’s referendum and found 69 percent of those who voted to leave the EU saw the “green movement” as a “force for ill.”

Funny that AGW skepticism was sold as an American aberration. It seems to be alive and well in Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

Will Brexit influence the Paris Climate Change Agreement?

There are numerous dimensions to the potential impacts of Brexit on the Paris Agreement:

•  Guardian: Leave victory risks delaying EU ratification of the Paris deal, leaving the door open for Obama’s successor to unpick the pact

More importantly, for the rest of the world, the Leave campaign’s victory provides a fillip globally for groups opposed to climate action, and if it causes delays to the Paris accord coming into effect, it could provide an opening for aspiring right-wing leaders – including Donald Trump – to try to unpick the pact.

The Brexit vote will be used as a rallying cry for an agenda that frequently includes climate scepticism among its tenets, alongside curbs to immigration and to government regulation.

Many climate sceptics around the world will have been encouraged by the Brexit vote, as there is so much overlap between the two camps, and environmental and carbon goals under the EU were a key target of the Leave campaigners.

• Politico: 5 ways Brexit will transform energy and climate

One oft-voiced concern is that the departure of Britain — which has been a climate leader within the bloc — could weaken the E.U.’s climate ambitions, on top of the general chaos expected to ensue as Brexit now unfolds (which will surely distract all parties from climate policy).

“The UK has generally argued for stronger action on emissions within the EU, so its absence will make it more difficult to counter the arguments of those Member States, such as Poland, which want slower and weaker cuts in emissions,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

•  WaPo: Why an E.U. without Britain is bad news for the fight against climate change 

“We don’t know how long the exit process is going to take, and secondly, whether that would end up with the UK still in the single market, like Norway, and therefore still within the burden sharing agreement, or completely outside the EU as a separate state, and therefore, would submit its own [climate pledge],” Jordan said. “And in fact, it could take years until that’s clear.”

“UK will not now take part in the sharing out of the EU 2030 target contained in the EU [pledge], and Brexit will likely make it more difficult for the EU to achieve that target as UK has been cutting its emissions by more than the EU average,” Ward said by email.

•  Climate Change News: Six questions for UK and EU low carbon ambitions as British voters reject continued membership of world’s largest single market

In the short term, it could benefit global efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions growth, former UK climate chief Chris Huhne told Climate Home. That’s because the market volatility set loose by Brexit is likely to lead to a UK recession, and potentially a global slowdown. In the 2008-09 economic crisis emissions fell 1.4%.

Longer term the EU will lose its second-largest economy and a key driver of the region’s low carbon policymaking, the founding member of the 13-strong Green Growth Group of EU nations. Despite a vocal quorum of climate sceptics the UK has consistently argued for Europe to target 50% greenhouse gas emission cuts by 2030, as opposed to the current 40%.

Historically, the UK has adopted a European leadership role with France and Germany on arguing for tougher emission cuts, rolling out a regional carbon market and formulating energy policy.

London is a centre for global green finance and services, UK hi-tech companies are pioneering smart, energy efficient devices, electric vehicles are a major part of the car industry’s long-term strategy.

For one, don’t expect the EU to ratchet up its 40% cuts target with the UK no longer a player.

Secondly, expect eastern states like Poland to play merry hell over the effort sharing deal with a Brussels leadership they are already in conflict with.

How will Brexit change the British response to climate change?

Britain has been a strong proponent in the EU for aggressive emissions reductions.  There has been a positive feedback effect in the context of the EU, whereby Britain influenced the EU and the EU reinforced the UK commitment politically within the UK.  There seems to be a large segment of the UK population that does not support drastic emissions reductions, and if the new PM (possibly Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage) does not support these policies, then we might see a change.  But it may be that Britain’s overall response to climate change may not change.

However, in deciding how to accomplish emissions reductions, Britain will no longer be constrained by EU preferences.  Dare we hope that nonsensical policies such as importing wood chips from the U.S. to be burned at Drax may be dropped in favor of nuclear power?

Here are some articles that provide insights:

•  Guardian: UK’s out vote is a ‘red alert’ for the environment

From the ‘red-tape’ slashing desires of the Brexiters to the judgment of green professionals, all indications are for weaker environmental protections

• Climate Change News: Six questions for UK and EU low carbon ambitions as British voters reject continued membership of world’s largest single market 

After a year of inertia and increasingly spooked investors, Whitehall is expected to release a new energy plan by the end of the year.

A damning report from consultants at EY in May noted the government’s track record for “policy U-turns”, downgrading the UK to 13 out of the top 40 markets for renewables.

Plans for new energy projects would fall rapidly from 2017 said the analysis, with the potential for an energy deficit through the 2020s if wind, solar and nuclear projects did not pick up.

Given the long lead-times on projects, key energy companies may yet look elsewhere, fearful of the candidates who could replace Cameron in Number 10.

That, UK energy secretary Amber Rudd warned, could lead to a £500m “electric shock” in the 2020s as a result of low investor confidence.

Others like justice secretary Michael Gove say Brexit could lead to lower bills: “One of the ways in which we can help those most in need is by cutting VAT on domestic fuel,” he said in May.

•  Business Insider: Brexit could have terrible consequences for the environment 

Pro-Brexit farming minister George Eustice told The Guardian in May that the EU’s environmental restrictions were “spirit-crushing”. Yet he also said the government could take some of $18.7 billion USD (May 2016 exchange rate) that Britain won’t need to pay the EU anymore, then earmark that money toward new and more innovative green initiatives.

But Britain’s environmental minister, Rory Stewart, strongly disagreed with this optimism, telling The Guardian:

“It is European action that put a stop to the devastating impact on our forests of acid rain, and we are now tackling air quality by cutting harmful emissions. Through the EU we have improved more than 9,000 miles of rivers since 2010 and our water environment is in the healthiest state for 25 years.”

The UK government has openly said that EU legislation was the main force behind its own efforts to combat air pollution, which has been tied to the premature deaths of an estimated 40,000 Britons each year.

One bright spot is that EU farming policies, which led to widespread growth of industrial agriculture, are actually more destructive than the ones Britain may implement on its own.

•  Forbes:  How will Brexit affect UK nuclear energy?

UK has been significantly more open to nuclear energy than most traditional EU states and that the EU has issued a number of mandates for renewable energy production that specifically exclude nuclear.

Many opinion formers in the UK are influenced by the anti-nuclear philosophy and politics of Germany and Austria that are backed by EU-wide regulations.

But plenty of UK voters object to being muzzled in this way — and nuclear is only one example.

The good news is that the UK will now be free to use its judgement on nuclear energy and work with others worldwide to ensure the future.

How will Brexit impact scientists and climate change science?

So, will anything actually change for climate science in Britain?  Apart from the issues of funding, which depend on the state of the economy and national priorities, the biggest issue is the flow of scientific research talent to and from Britain.

Here are some assessments on this issue:

The National Geographic article specifically calls out climate science:

The United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union could disrupt research as well as commitments to fighting climate change. 

“It’s depressing, but the uncertainty doesn’t help,” says Philip Jones, research director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, England. “I just hope that science doesn’t get forgotten in all of this.”

“My main concern in the big picture is potential damage to the U.K.’s reputation as a destination for top-flight researchers,” says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute. “Researchers put a lot of emphasis on the ability to recruit and ability to travel, and if these changes affect our ability to recruit the best and brightest of the world’s academics, then we’re in trouble.”

From the Scientific American article:

But potentially the biggest impact of Brexit on research is likely to be how it affects the flow of talent to and from the U.K. The Vote Leave campaign focused primarily on fears about immigration, so this could signal a potentially very damaging reduction in the number of researchers from other countries who choose to study and work in the U.K.

When Brexit is complete, citizens of the other 27 member states are unlikely to have the automatic right to work and live in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is possible that the U.K. will introduce immigration policies that would allow qualified researchers to enter. However, the negative rhetoric around immigration may make the U.K. seem an unwelcoming and unattractive place for overseas researchers to pursue their work, even if the rules do allow it.

And if the U.K. discovers that it is difficult to attract high-quality researchers from abroad, it will also find it more difficult to retain its best home-grown minds. Successful modern science is based on the principles of openness and collaboration that are the antithesis of the “Little England” attitude of many campaigners who promoted Brexit.

In addition, many international businesses and companies that carry out research and development are based in the U.K. because it helps to access the European Economic Area. If, as seems likely, the U.K. leaves the EEA as well as the E.U., many companies may choose to relocate their operations to another member state.

JC reflections

Well Brexit is quite astonishing really in terms of the democratic process.  It is exhilarating, really, regardless of which side you are on.   A tweet from Nasser Saidi reminds us that:

Contrast #Brexit voting on existential, constitutional matters whereas in #Lebanon & rest of Arab countries we are not even allowed to vote

Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff has an interesting article on the democracy angle, I was particularly struck by this quote:

The current… standard for breaking up a country is… less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

Whether Brexit turns out to be good or bad (and for exactly what and for whom), within Britain and the EU,  remains to be seen.  It will surely shake up Brussels and the UNFCCC regarding climate change, which is a good thing.

With regards to climate science, scientists from elite institutions are overwhelmingly against Brexit, and the concerns that have been raised are important ones. But the political rise of skepticism about AGW in Europe could be long-term advantageous to getting climate science out of its current myopic focus on human-caused climate change.

The other demographic that was adamantly against Brexit was younger voters, who highly value the seamless ability to live and work in any of the 27 countries of the EU. Surely this will influence the decisions of many students as to whether to attend a British University and the decisions of many young faculty members as to whether to seek employment at British Universities.  The potential dynamics for a ‘brain drain’ are there; it will be a challenge to Britain to ensure that such a drain does not materialize.

The economic impacts of Brexit are the big wild card, of particular relevance here are the political viability of the environmental agenda and support for science.

And finally, I can’t resist adding the cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker:

551 responses to “Brexit and climate change

  1. Pingback: Brexit and climate change – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. Curious George

    Outside of the EU, the UK will be suffer as much as Switzerland does.

    • Great comment!!!

    • And to deal with EU the UK will need to make the same kind of bilateral agreements as SUI does when it deals with EU.

      In other words, it’ll have to abide to mandates and regulations upon which it can’t vote anymore.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Thanks, Willard. While the UK will need to abide by EU rules on things it sells to the EU, it no longer will have to abide by EU rules on the other 99.97% of their activities.

        So it’s not at all the same, in fact it is totally different.

        w.

      • catweazle666

        Willard: “In other words, it’ll have to abide to mandates and regulations upon which it can’t vote anymore.”

        You mean in the same way that the USA, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea – to name but six – already have to to export to the EU?

        And in the same way that the UK has to do to export goods to those same states and the rest of the World?

        So in the worst case the UK may have to pay some tariffs – estimated to be around 3% – on exports to the EU, meaning that the EU exports to the UK will have to do the same. And, as the EU exports around ten times more to the UK as vice versa, the UK comes out comfortably in front.

        You consider this to be a problem precisely why?

      • > [I]t no longer will have to abide by EU rules on the other 99.97% of their activities.

        This implies that the EU-UK activities are 0,03%, Willis.

        Citation might needed.

        ***

        > You mean in the same way that the USA, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea – to name but six – already have to to export to the EU?

        To pick the biggest among the “but six”:

        Economic barriers between the EU and the United States are relatively low, not only due to long-standing membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) but also recent agreements such as the EU–US Open Skies Agreement and work by the Transatlantic Economic Council. The European Commission claims that passage of a trans-Atlantic trade pact could boost overall trade between the respective blocs by as much as 50%. However, economic relations are tense and there are frequent trade disputes between the two economies, many of which end up before the WTO’s ‘dispute settlement’ mechanism. Economic gains from a Trade Treaty were predicted in the joint report issued by the White House and the European Commission.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#Background

        Sometimes, Donaldian muscle flexing ain’t enough.

      • Thanks for the list of upcoming targets, Willard.

      • It might be hard to “target” international trade agreements without indulging into some kind protectionnism, jim. Yet Angry Boris succeeded.

        Admittedly, it’s easier for neo-cons.

      • David Springer

        UK has a $24bn trade deficit with the continent. The US is Britain’s largest trading partner with Germany a far second.

        The continent will miss Britain far more than Britain will miss the continent.

      • Pray tell Willard why GB can’t negotiate similar arrangements as the US.

        You got nothing but scare tactics.

      • > [W]hy GB can’t negotiate similar arrangements as the US.

        Who says they can’t, timmy boy?

        You got nothing more than misreading.

      • “In other words, it’ll have to abide to mandates and regulations upon which it can’t vote anymore.”

        It will also be able to create its own mandates and regulations upon which it will no longer require the good graces of the EU to enact. As this is much the same as the UKs dealing with the rest of the world, including Commonwealth countries, this hardly seems like a big deal – in either direction. And since the EU will need to abide by the UKs rules to trade with the UK – instead of shoving their own rules down the UKs throat – they may approach such rules with a much better attitude with respect to how these rules affect UK citizens and companies. At least, they will have to if they want to trade with the UK. Given the various trade balances, this would appear to be more important for the EU to get right than the UK.

      • > And since the EU will need to abide by the UKs rules to trade with the UK – instead of shoving their own rules down the UKs throat – they may approach such rules with a much better attitude with respect to how these rules affect UK citizens and companies.

        Indeed, the UK can then create all kinds of protectionnist measures it deems fitting. It can even turn purple in trying to pretend it’s more liberating to create two sets of rulz, one for the insular market, and others for the outside.

        Let’s see how it’ll fare with its trading partners. Better yet, let’s see how it’ll fare with its own industries. They’re the ones that’ll have to pay to abide by more rulz.

        Those who cannot remember their economic past are condemned to throw all kinds of tantrums.

      • David Springer

        Nice tantrum, Willard. A bit on the subdued side but palpable nonetheless. The history Brits are probably remembering is like rulers of the world and it doesn’t compare well to taking marching orders from inferiors on the continent.

      • > The history Brits are probably remembering is like rulers of the world and it doesn’t compare well to taking marching orders from inferiors on the continent.

        Inferiors, like those who sat on their thrones, and those whose family still does, perhaps.

        Start here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom#The_2008_recession_and_quantitative_easing

      • @Willis:

        “So it’s not at all the same, in fact it is totally different.”

        It’s not totally different Willis. Broadly speaking the UK will either have to accept EU rules and regulations but not have a say on what they are, or end up having to negotiate individual deals with the EU member states.

        Most of the EU is based on the rules and regulations that are in the common interest. The UK parliament simply delegates the formulation of these rules to the EU (of which it was an extremely influential member) in order that they be agreed to by all member states.

        Take fishing quotas for example. If there were none the north atlantic fishing stocks and the economies that depend on them would have collapsed. The fisheries policy, like all good compromises, made everyone unhappy but they were necessary. What if one country did the right thing but another did not, because it was under pressure from its lobby groups? A tragedy of the commons would ensue.

        If the UK wants access to the single market, it will still have to pay to be in it, still have to abide by all its rules, but it will now have no say in what they will be.

      • catweazle666

        Agnostic2015: “It’s not totally different Willis. Broadly speaking the UK will either have to accept EU rules and regulations but not have a say on what they are,”

        Once again you demonstrate you haven’t a clue what you’re blethering about.

        In point of fact, there is no requirement whatsoever for the UK to have a trade agreement with the EU to sell tham products and services, any more than China or Japan has to have a trade deal inorder to conduct highly profitable business with the EU.

        The United Kingdom has a trade deficit with the EU of around 1 to 10, ie we give them ten times as much money as they give us. Since the UK joined the EU, tariffs have dropped considerably, so if the EU imposes tariffs on us, we will impose them on the EU, and we will be the winner by around 10 to one. That will permit us to recompense any traders that lose out on the deal and still be well in profit.

        So lay off the mendacious Project Fear alarmist propaganda, we British aren’t having any of it.

      • agnostic2015 said:

        Most of the EU is based on the rules and regulations that are in the common interest.

        And you call yourself “agnostic”?

        Go figure.

        Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is ususally applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the specific privileges which they hold.

        — REINHOLD NIEBUHR, Moral Man and Immoral Society

        Or:

        The old progressive arguments that the government would act in “the public interest” were a mere rhetorical camouflage for regulatory actions that actually served private purposes….

        The core social and economic problem in Knight’s view was one of “discovery and definitions of values — a moral, not to say a religious, problem,” which stood in great contrast to the progressive aspirations for “value-free” scientific management of society….

        Knight doubted that there could be any possibility of the scientific management of society… Human reason, he believed, was a frail instrument, often corrupted by the baser elements in human nature….

        For Knight, even a priesthood…could not be exempt from the general human condition; the professional experts will be sinners as well.

        Knight marks the beginning of a fundamental break of the Chicago School with the Progressives of Samuelson’s ilk, a new assumption that self-interest will be expressed not only in the marketplace but also in the actions of government and indeed perhaps in every area of society….

        The “plea of communism,” Knight argues, with its claims to scientific authority, is much “like that of Christianity;” both asserting unique access to final truth and in this way justifying “absolute authority, ignorning freedom.”

        Communism is only one of the species of modern totalitarianisms, each of which offers “a priesthood as the custodian of scientific Truth, ‘conditioning’ each generation in helpless infancy to unquesitoning belief.”

        These new modern forms of scientific authoritarianism drew on “an inheritance” from earlier Christian traditions of “conformity to a sacred law and obedience to consecrated authority, Holy Mother Church and Holy Father King.”…

        [By] explicitly rejecting the orthodoxies of the progressive gospel and the prescription for the scientific management of society, contemporary libertarian thought opens the way to discussion of whole new governing principles.

        — ROBERT H. NELSON, Economics as Religion

      • > In point of fact, there is no requirement whatsoever for the UK to have a trade agreement with the EU to sell tham products and services, any more than China or Japan has to have a trade deal inorder to conduct highly profitable business with the EU.

        Sometimes, a lack of trade agreement comes at a price:

        The EU also has preferential arrangements with some important UK export markets: Switzerland (4), South Korea (15), and Russia (18). Additionally, the EU has concluded a preferential trade agreement with Canada (17) and is negotiating such agreements with the U.S. (1) and Japan (14).

        If it left the EU, the UK would have to negotiate preferential trade agreements with these countries or its firms would lose (or not gain) privileged access to their markets. This would put British firms at a disadvantage relative to their EU competitors.

        http://ukandeu.ac.uk/uk-trade-and-the-implications-of-leaving-the-eu/

        What were you saying about blathering, again?

      • The major problem for Britain will be services, not manufactured goods. If the UK leaves the single market then all the major banks including the British ones will move their European operations out of London. This is already underway .

        Depending on this and that the major beneficiaries will be Dublin, and maybe Edinburgh, but certainly anybunny who wants to buy a house in London. Banks are already refusing to renew some mortgages for fear that they will go underwater.

      • @catweazle:

        “Once again you demonstrate you haven’t a clue what you’re blethering about.”

        On the contrary I know a great deal about what I am “blithering” about.

        While you are right we don’t need a trade deal with the EU to sell to a specific member state, the whole purpose of the EU is make it easier for countries in the EU to sell to one another.

        The way it works is that each country has its own priorities over consumer protection, safety standards, packaging, labelling, and so and so forth. What the EU does is make regulations regarding these that every member state can agree to, so that anyone selling to the EU who abides by those regulations is able to sell to ANY member state. IT’s a way to standardise regulation.

        We would STILL have to agree to those regulations and pay to be a member of the single market if we want to remain in it, but we would have no say on those regulations. Taxes and tariffs are relatively easy to deal with, but complex regulations are not.

        BTW the trade deficit with the EU is NOTHING LIKE 1 to 10.

        https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/EU_and_Non-EU_Data.aspx

        In April for example we exported to £12 billion and imported £19 billion. But the trade deficit (with the EU) has hit all time record.

        @GlenStehle:

        “And you call yourself “agnostic”?”

        Yes.

        “Go figure.”

        YOU go and figure.

        You seem to think the EU is a government (judging by the quotes you are quoting). It is not. It is a unique body whose members seek to align their policies with one another. There are those who would like to see the EU become more like a sovereign government, and that’s an argument well worth having. But the benefits of being in the EU, especially for young people, are absolutely enormous, and their is no upside to us leaving. None at all.

  3. Brexit could be the best thing that’s happened in decades, to save the world from the stupid policies being planted on us in to foster the Loony Left’s agendas – especially their advocacy of CAGW to scare the pants of the population.

  4. BREXIT is a great day for common sense and a great reality check. Next to Exit Netherlands France (yes France), Hungary, Denmark AUstria, Greece, and perhaps Spain and Italy.

    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA,

    • I can´t resist putting in this paragraph by Christopher Monckton:
      “Indeed, No-way and Nixerland having already voted down the EU, Brexit may well be swiftly followed by Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium. At this rate, soon the only country still participating in the European tyranny-by-clerk will be Remainia.” :)

    • BREXIT is greater than life.

      Next is California and Texas.

      • David Springer

        The other 49 states will never leave Texas. Most of them would dump California though.

      • +1000 Springer.

      • In a truly historic move, forty-nine governors, 98 Senators and each member the House of Representatives from those states participating met in the nation’s capital to discuss whether or not they should let Texas leave the United States of America for good.

        […]

        “Don’t get me wrong,” one Ohio state representative told us, “we want all fifty states in the union, and we want them all thriving. But Texas sure does take a lot of Federal tax money for a state that supposedly hates taxes. I wonder where they think those huge defense spending contracts would go once they weren’t part of this country anymore,” the Republican asked rhetorically adding, “I mean, I’m a conservative Republican and even I understand that the Civil War settled this shit for a reason, but maybe Texas needs to learn their lesson the hard way.”

        http://modernliberals.com/49-states-considering-letting-texas-secede/

      • David Springer

        Secession porn? Interesting.

      • David Springer

        If Texas decided to leave it wouldn’t need permission and standing alone it would be the 11th largest national economy in the world.

      • “I wonder where they think those huge defense spending contracts would go once they weren’t part of this country anymore”

        Guess this dumba$$ is unaware of the fact the US government buys military hardware from non-US companies, or that US companies either own and operate production facilities in other countries, or subcontract out various components to those countries.

      • Guess this cheerleader can’t even give a cite to tell us more about that market.

        If he could tell us how many foreign people it hires, that’d be great too, since the US Army is still one the most important employers in the world.

      • And California would be the 8th:

        http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-world-economy-20150702-story.html

        As if your boasting had any relevance: Austin has more people than Iceland, yet Iceland can stand on its own.

      • Willard

        I would genuinely welcome your observations and comments on the current position and purpose of TTIP.

        http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm

        Us Brits have been preoccupied with other matters. Will it help or hinder trade. Will it help the EU or Britain in Brexit?

        tonyb

      • My official response to legal concerns are in line with the Auditor’s:

        Turn it over to lawyers.

        Even if you don’t really ask, I can tell you that anyone who read Judy’s can predict the Denizens’ opinion on the TTIP. Let me give you an entertaining hint:

      • Willard

        Iceland can stand on its own

        OUR WARRIORS HAVE CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF ÓÐINN AND ÞÓR IN THE GROUP STAGES… THEY FEAR NOT VALHALLA.

        The live twitter feed during tonight’s game is highly recommended.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/rvkgrapevine

      • Willard,

        Instead of showing off your skill at googling and pasting links to a blog, you might consider finding a professional to discuss your continuing obsession with cheerleaders and boys.

      • BTW, the dumba$$ I was referring to was the Ohio representative, not you Willard. I consider you to be a smarta$$, which is preferable to the former. One with a weird obsession.

      • Seems that England is ready to meet Texas’ soccer team, timmy boy:

        As ever, thank you for your concerns.

  5. If the pound is weakened and oil prices rise there may also be calls to reduce green taxes in the UK.

  6. Off thread I know, but relates to recent flooding in the EU.

    “Of Climate Science and Peer Review

    Climate scientists are rushing to self-publish papers ahead of formal peer review as a form of climate activism. Will it work?”/

    No need for peer review if climate disaster is imminent, wot?

    Does anyone else detect a faint stink of desperation?

    Cheers.

    • Source.
      Andrew Hoffman: “There’s an idea that creators of knowledge should not cross into advocacy, that if we cross that fuzzy line, we lose the objectivity of the academia and we start getting into very tricky territory. We’re still trying to figure out where that line is.”

  7. I am struck by certain similarities. It seems the main stream ‘elites’ are out of touch with voters. Now, voters are supposed to be insulted from democracy by ‘republic’. What we learn is that when ‘republic’ is not responsive to democracy, ‘republic’ fails. We have now seen that once. We may see it many more time in the next few years. Arise and awaken, citizens.

    • ristvan “I am struck by certain similarities. ”

      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.

      228 years later the message comes back: Sometimes we can vote for the Tree of Liberty. But as seen from all the whinging, it’s best to keep Jefferson’s advice at hand.

  8. 15% of UKs GDP is exports. What with the pound plummeting, exports should be cheaper for the buyers. That may actually boost the economy, cause more energy consumption, and increase CO2. That is, the oft-predicted recession may not materialize. So the effect on climate change may be to exacerbate it, assuming CO2 is a major driver, and we don’t yet know if current warming is due to CO2 or simply natural variation.

    • They have a net trade deficit, making it net bad, because that gap just increased.

      • Simply cutting energy costs should transform their economy. And they can do that just by removing the Renewables Obligation. OK, they do probably need to do a bit more than that, but sending half the renewable energy companies to oblivion would provide a massive boost to the economy. [Yes, a boost. We’re talking here of Bastiat’s Windows on a massive scale – the jobs you see, versus the jobs you don’t see].

      • Well, they’ll save a net 8 billion on the EU bill. That’ll help.

      • Jim,

        Currency devaluation is a standard method of reducing trade deficits. Exports increase because their price is lower in other nations. Imports fall because their price is higher at home.

        This is why some many nations with strong economies want cheap currencies, with China the poster child for this.

      • As of today, I don’t think that has come into effect while the price changes have. It’s going to be a case of trade rearrangements that may take months to happen.

      • JIMD

        For every £6 of goods we sell the EU, they Sell US £10. We have a trade surplus with the rest of the world. Devaluation is always said to be net neutral.

        tonyb

      • Since 1998, the United Kingdom has been running consistent trade deficits mainly due to increase in demand of consumer goods, decline in manufacturing, appreciation of the GBP and deterioration in oil and gas production. In 2015, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with Germany, China, and the Netherlands. The biggest trade surpluses were recorded with United States, Ireland and United Arab Emirates.

        http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade

      • Tony, the immediate effect of devaluation is neutral. But if it persists, the demand for exports will increase and the demand for imports will decrease. If the import goods are satisfied with home-grown goods, it could be a win-win for the Brits.

      • Well the leave vote and the devaluation of the pound sterling certainly don’t bode well for Germany and its mercantilist policies.

        The UK has a trade deficit of over $50 billion a year with Germany. That’s about the size of the US’s trade deficit with Mexico (which Trump has made such a big campaign issue of).

        Can the UK reindustrialize, after having made the previous decision to rip its industry assunder by neoliberlism? Likewise, can the US reindustrialize, as Donald Trump says it can?

        https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/ForeignTrade/TradingPartners/Tables/OrderRankGermanyTradingPartners.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

      • Curious George

        Common Core economics.

      • More complete nonsense.

        There are multiple factors impacting a nation’s economy. While it cannot be evaluated in isolation, a lower value currency tends to make exports a better value. That can be offset by it increasing the cost of imported goods. Economists like us to believe they can load into a formula and presto we can accurately predict outcomes. Economists are generally wrong on that score.

  9. Only the political and economic climate can be changed by Brexit, which is patently as misunderstood in its effects as CO2.

  10. If Britain isn’t in the EU, that does not imply that the young can’t work there or in some country that is in the EU. That will be up to Britain. All these dire predictions are taking place before the “new” Britain emerges. People can’t seem to resist this logical fallacy. Not sure what it’s called, but it’s rampant.

    • Others may identify it more accurately, but to me it looks like a version of the one-sided argument. The zero-sum economy is a version of it. This logical fallacy is all too prevalent at present, and is difficult to counter because the counter-argument has more subtleties and unknowns. (The greens are adept at scaring with unknowns).

      • PS. And that’s why the young in Britain voted heavily to Remain. Older people have picked up on the subtleties of life, while the young are more vulnerable to ideologies.

      • catweazle666

        “PS. And that’s why the young in Britain voted heavily to Remain.”

        Those that could be bothered to get off their backsides and vote, that is.

        Turnout % of each age group in the #EURefResults: 18-24: 36%, 25-34: 58%, 35-44: 72%, 45-54: 75%, 55-64: 81%, 65+: 83%.

        Now the yoof are all kicking off claiming they’ve been robbed of their future by nasty old people.

      • It’s not fair because they couldn’t vote on their smart phone, donchaknow.

      • Catweazle

        Have you a source for those figures as I couldn’t find the data when I was looking yesterday.

        I would bet that it is the young who couldn’t be bothered to tear themselves away from Glastonbury, forgot to register or didn’t get a postal vote, who are petulantly stamping their feet and demanding another referendum.

        As Farage said; ‘its not the best out of three’

        tonyb

      • verytallguy

        Tony, if you rely on Farage, here’s what he said *before* the vote

        In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.

      • VTG

        No I don’t rely on Farage and have never voted for him.. Its just that his remark was pithy and amusing.

        Apparently only 37% of the 18-24 age group bothered to vote, yet I suspect they are vastly over represented in the current online poll for a second referendum.

        I wonder if we should organise a second online petition along the lines of;

        ‘The undersigned suggests that those who didn’t even vote in the first referendum should remove their names from the online petition demanding a second referendum.’

        Do you want to sign up for that VTG?

        tonyb

      • verytallguy

        Tony,

        I don’t support a second referendum, or any petitions associated with it. Your apparent contempt for the young who did not vote is not attractive; it would be better to reflect on why the young choose to disenfranchise themselves. Personally I find a position where young people are forced into a future they don’t support by the views of people who will be dead by the time it’s implemented rather distasteful.

        The brexit proposition was a fantasy driven by a classic campaign of demonisation of foreigners. Those who voted for it will not see their dreams delivered, simply because they were impossible.

        Politicians will go into further contempt as this becomes apparent, and the only other certainty is that the dispossessed whose votes finally sealed the outcome will be the ones who suffer the most.

        Beyond that, who knows?

      • VTG, You sound very diplomatic when you explain how stupid we are, when you are the real smart cookie.

      • verytallguy

        Arch,

        The only one of us to mention stupidity so far seems to have been you.

        Addressing actual points made rather than inventing things might help you avoid any such accusations in future.

      • I think the young should be protected from dodgy cartels and fancy Amway-style stitch-ups masquerading as Free Trade. Then there’s the mad Reich thing.

      • VTG said “Your apparent contempt for the young who did not vote is not attractive; it would be better to reflect on why the young choose to disenfranchise themselves. ”

        It’s just a fact the youth, by its very nature, hasn’t much experience with the world. They tend to take what they see at face value and can be snookered easily. The voting age probably should be 30, although in many cases even that is barely adequate.

      • “The brexit proposition was a fantasy driven by a classic campaign of demonisation of foreigners. Those who voted for it will not see their dreams delivered, simply because they were impossible.”

      • verytallguy

        Jim

        They tend to take what they see at face value

        I’m not sure which young people you talk to, but those I encounter have great insight and provide very cogent analysis, often seeing straight through the simplistic messages spun by politicians.

      • A question to consider: how many supporters of Brexit stayed home because they didn’t think it had a chance? But now they know it does…

        Another thought: perhaps such “constitutional” questions should always be required to have a second vote, maybe 6 months later, and pass both. That gives time to think.

        Add that to a universal requirement for “none of the above” to be present in any decision among candidates, and it could have a fundamental change on the nature of “democracy”.

      • Hard Evidence: do we become more conservative with age?
        http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-47910

        For whatever the cause is, older Britons do vote more conservative.

      • What a pity that those cogently insightful and analytical “young people”, with their great weight of numbers and massive MSM and establishment prompting, didn’t show to vote.

        One could say they were alienated, self-disenfrachised victims of the patriarchy etc etc. (Please consult SJW handbook for full list of First World disadvantages.)

        Or one could simply say they didn’t vote.

      • verytallguy

        mosomoso

        one could simply say they didn’t vote.

        Or, one could make the effort to engage one’s brain and think about *why* they didn’t vote, what has changed over recent decades to drive this trend, and even more important, how to change it in the future.

      • Danny Thomas

        Allowing on line voting with a phone app.

      • The simple fact is that the SJW crowd believes the ‘game’ is rigged so there is no point in voting. I know, I tried to get them to vote…

      • Heaven help the young who are helped to “understanding” by benevolent finger-waggers, especially by our sanctimonious Green Betters with their engaged brains.

        Let the young be young. They didn’t vote. Neither did I when young and bouncing between addresses all over NSW. Made up some great excuses to wriggle out of the compulsory voting fines which apply in Oz.

        Spare us the pathos and faux concern. They didn’t vote. That’s that.

      • VTG

        I do not have any contempt for the young who did not vote. Why are you making things up?

        Your inventing all sorts of reasons as to why they didn’t do so is fruitless. Many forgot, some were doing other things, some couldn’t be bothered and no doubt there are myriad other reasons. I know of several that went off to Glastonbury. If they think a music festival is more important than an event that will have a profound effect on them that is their prerogative. The vote was not suddenly sprung on them but announced many months ago and registration was extended to allow them to register.

        The plain fact is that MOST could have voted had they considered it important enough, but chose not to do so. If you don’t vote but could have done you shouldn’t complain about it afterwards.

        The 28% overall that did not vote (apparently some 63% of the youngest age group) could presumably be thought of as not having a strong opinion either way on the matter and would have been happy with either result. As the leave vote prevailed, presumably they are happy with that and can be added to the 52% that DID actually vote for this option?

        tonyb

      • verytallguy said:

        Or, one could make the effort to engage one’s brain and think about *why* they didn’t vote, what has changed over recent decades to drive this trend, and even more important, how to change it in the future.

        What “trend” are you speaking of?

        Can you marshall any empirical evidence that demonstrates a “trend” of lower voter turnout for young people in the UK? Just the opposite seems to be taking place.

        http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/155071/Response-for-website-2513.pdf

      • I believe the low voter turnout of the youth is an intrinsic quality. Here is voter turnout by age in the US. Same story as UK. Youth have more immediate concerns: a job, getting laid, getting drunk, partying, etc. Not to say ALL of them are like that, but you have to admit, unfortunately for some activities, these pursuits diminish with age.

        http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

      • Tony

        I didn’t make anything up; this from you was contemptuous of the young. 

         

        I would bet that it is the young who couldn’t be bothered to tear themselves away from Glastonbury, forgot to register or didn’t get a postal vote, who are petulantly stamping their feet and demanding another referendum.

        If I told you you were lazy and petulant,  that would be showing contempt. 

        Own your words.

      • Jim and Glen,

        evidence as requested

      • verytallguy,

        I don’t know where you got your “evidence,” but I got mine from the UK Electroral Commission, which got it from Ipsos MORI. As they state in the letter I linked, it is illegal for the government of the UK to gather the age of voters due to voter privacy laws.

        Here’s an update:

        https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx

        There is no trend towards lower voter turnout for young voters. If anything, the trend is towards greater voter turnout for young voters.

        It looks like the “trend” you claim is taking place is like CAGW: it is nowhere, except in the minds and manufactured “evidence” of some climate scientists.

      • catweazle666

        Glenn Stehle: “There is no trend towards lower voter turnout for young voters. If anything, the trend is towards greater voter turnout for young voters.”

        Really? From your posted graph:

        18 – 24 43%
        25 – 34 54%
        35 – 44 64%
        45 – 54 72%
        55 – 64 77%
        65+ 78%

        Sure doesn’t look like that to me! Would you like to try again?

      • Glenn,

        it’s from the LSE and is consistent with yours but over a longer time period.

        http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/is-the-uk-electorate-disengaged/

        You may wish to reflect on the content of your final paragraph.

      • verytallguy,

        Here’s your data:

        Here’s mine:

        How does one explain the conflicting data?

        My data comes straight from the horse’s mouth, from the UK Electoral Commission and Ipsos MORI (with links provided), whereas yours comes from some study done by some “researchers” from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

        But of course we know “researchers” and “scientists” would never cook the data to score political and ideological points.

      • Glenn,

        But of course we know “researchers” and “scientists” would never cook the data to score political and ideological points.

        Your answer when presented with data you think doesn’t support your position is just to deny it? Amazing.

        (Plus, you actually look at the data they aren’t incompatible anyway)

      • Vtg

        No, you are inventing things again. I outlined a few scenario and then amplified them, you are obviously more thin skinned than i am and take offence on the part of others when none was intended or made.

        Tonyb

      • verytallguy

        Tony,

        You characterised young people as lazy and petulant.

        Own your words.

      • catweazle666

        verytallguy: “You characterised young people as lazy and petulant.”

        Given that only about a third (36% in fact) of the 18-24 age group could be bothered to turn out to vote and it is certain that 100% of them did not to vote for remain, and that now that demographic is whining piteously that their future has been stolen from them, I think he has a very good point, in fact.

      • verytallguy said:

        Your answer when presented with data you think doesn’t support your position is just to deny it? Amazing.

        (Plus, you actually look at the data they aren’t incompatible anyway)

        The data “aren’t incompatible anyway”?

        It’s pretty obvious from that claim that you don’t do things like numbers, charts and mathematics.

        Nor do check primary sources, preferring instead to rely on secondary sources for your “data.”

      • The exact numbers are of course different, but here in the US older people have consistently had higher voter turnout than the younger cohorts. My guess is that the numbers Catweazle shows below aren’t all that much different from the regular elections in the UK. So often we are told there is little difference between candidates, but the $$ spent to get someone elected suggests otherwise. Elections has consequences.

      • David Springer

        “it would be better to reflect on why the young choose to disenfranchise themselves”

        I suppose someone lacking in critical thinking skills might need a lot of time to figure it out. For the rest of us the answer comes readily enough: sloth.

      • Glenn Stehle,

        In general, people become wiser as they get older. They’ve seen more stuff ups the older they get. As they become wiser they become more conservative.

        The young and those who never mature from being Lefties are more gullible and tend to follow their pack.

      • verytallguy

        The young and those who never mature from being Lefties are more gullible and tend to follow their pack.

        Well said Peter, never one to follow the pack at Climate Etc ;-)

      • VTG, If you like the One, why are you still running with the pack? You do support AGW science, from the looks of it however.

      • Ah, the VTG we’ve all come to know.

        Starts his argument off with making a false claim that TonyB has ” … contempt for the young who did not vote …” and then demonstrates his moral superiority by informing us that “Personally I find a position where young people are forced into a future they don’t support by the views of people who will be dead by the time it’s implemented rather distasteful.”

        It’s probably a waste of time to point out to the jackoff that nobody is being forced and that if young people disagree with policies and decisions they have this little known option called voting. Since many of them chose not to do so, they can at least register their disagreement by voting with their feet.

      • Another VTG gem:

        “Or, one could make the effort to engage one’s brain and think about *why* they didn’t vote, what has changed over recent decades to drive this trend, and even more important, how to change it in the future.”

        I’m guessing the gear he’s engaged is Reverse. That would explain his failure to understand that young folks eligible to vote have always had a low participation rate, at least in the US. Been that way ever since I could vote. My kids are in that age demographic. I was rather impressed when they developed enough interest to attend a rally and vote in the primary awhile back. Less impressed by them supporting Bernie, but one can’t have everything.

      • It’s probably a waste of time to point out to the jackoff

        Classy as always, denizens.

      • That would explain his failure to understand that young folks eligible to vote have always had a low participation rate,

        Or you could look at the data posted which shows these rates have worsened.

        The brain timg. Engagement thereof.

      • Mike Jonas You referred to Bastiat! +1just for that!

      • Funny that the guy who intentionally attributes false statements to another raises the issue of class. Maybe if you had any VTG, you’d be treated in a like fashion.

        Regarding referral to “the” data. That is but one set. Two other sets provided here give a different picture. And even your data shows that younger voters have traditionally exercised their right to vote at a lower rate than older voters.

      • Heh, old voters will have to bear the short term transition costs and won’t be around to reap the benefits in years to come. ;)

      • verytallguy

        Timg

        And even your data shows that younger voters have traditionally exercised their right to vote at a lower rate than older voters.

        The trend timg.

        The engagement of the brain timg.

        Make at least some token effort. You make England’s against Iceland look impressive.

  11. The purported major losses for Britain from Brexit are all major losses for the EU too. Surely the EU will be smart enough to negotiate a Brexit which keeps all the benefits going for both. [And for anyone who thinks the EU is not smart : they were smart enough to get the UK to join, all those years ago.]. It’s at least 2 years before anything concrete happens, and if cool heads prevail – as I sincerely hope and expect they will – then the market panic of the last 48 hours will soon be seen to be absurd. But, of course, it will be too late to prevent George Soros from pocketing yet another large slice of our money..

    • David Wojick

      Where does this “at least 2 years” figure come from? I thought 2 years was the outside figure. The break will be clean when the Brits stop paying their dues, which could happen quickly once the new PM hits the ground.

  12. Nigel Farage: British diplomacy at its best

    It took him 7 years to get the British Referendum; when it was held he won!!!

  13. “Fighting” climate change – especially the relatively slight and benign warming since the mid-19th century – is about as realistic as a Second, Third or Fourth Reich taking on Russia. (First Reich was busy messing up elsewhere.)

    Say no to a German Empire and yes to free trade that is actually free and not a fiddle or a cartel. We, the Anglosphere, actually won the war. Time to act like it. Don’t wait till there’s a European Army draining the resources of national armies, staffed with Muslims, allied or merged with neo-Ottomans and bossed up by people with names like Schulz and Merkel. As for a very well funded Euro police force with all kinds of overriding powers…

    Have we taken leave of our senses, or what?

    • The EU just established beachheads on Scotland and Northern Ireland. This much island hasn’t fallen this fast since the USMC went island hopping in WW2.

      • Yes, I hear they’ve screamed out of the blocks in those regions and also the City.

        They’ve already regulated kilt lengths, heads on Guinness and linen grades. Fast and fast/medium pace bowling in low light has been banned. Half the England eleven will have to be left-handed and gay, with twelfth man holding the balance (so it will still be possible to field six right-handers who are cis-gendered, though this loophole is being reviewed).

        That’s just Monday’s action.

      • As with football, it’s the rules that make it a fun game.

      • But it is the Elitist referees, who ruin the game for all those that are drafted.

  14. Willis Eschenbach

    I don’t see how an independent Britain will be worse off than an independent Switzerland or an independent US. This seems true no matter what context is being discussed (e.g. climate science, research scientists, general scientific research, etc.).

    And I cannot imagine the US giving up its own sovereignty to the extent required by EU membersip.

    I say bravo, Britain, well done. Make your own errors, win your own fights, be your own country. Congratulations.

    w.

    • Yup. Plus many.

      • China spending was 886.9bn yuan in 2016 or about 4 times (400%) of their 2005 spending. At that rate they will be spending more than the US in less than a decade.

        I wouldn’t end NATO yet.

    • Make your own errors, win your own fights, be your own country.

      Does this mean we can end NATO, as well?

      • That figure for U.S. defence spending looks low.

        There are a number of spending items in the budget that go towards paying for our hallowed security state that don’t get marked up explicitly as defense spending. When you add in these other items, we’re bumping $1 trillion a year.

        It costs a lot of money to maintain neoliberalism and “free trade” across the globe.

      • Glenn Stehle,

        When you add in these other items, we’re bumping $1 trillion a year.

        So around the same as the US spends on the Climate Industry?

    • No shoot. Made up bs to scare people. There is no fundamental reason for existing the EU to damage British economy.

    • David Springer

      +1

    • “I don’t see how an independent Britain will be worse off than an independent Switzerland”

      Because Switzerland is too small for its voice to be significant with in the EU which is why it hasn’t bothered chasing membership further. Switzerland is a great example FOR the UK to stay in; it has to pay to be a member, it has to accept the free movement of people, and it has NO say in the rules that affects them.

      The idea that the UK gives up it’s sovereignty to be in in the EU is NONSENSICAL! I wish people could grasp this…..

      The EU is a club, not a government. It is not a sovereign entity, let alone a sovereign state. It is made up of sovereign states that delegate the formation of rules and regulations so that they cohere across Europe. The EU isn’t something that just “happens” to us.

      Ultimately sovereignty lies with the UK, as it always had. We gain nothing back by leaving, and we lose control of our destiny by leaving since we no longer have the opportunity to shape our destiny through Europe.

      The EU has lots of problems, but virtually none of them are popularly or correctly characterised. For example, virtually no one voting knew or understood how the EU actually works. It is incredibly complicated, inefficient, ponderous and bizarre, in ways to numerous to explain here, but it still actually somehow manages to fumble along and do what it’s supposed to do.

      You realize that the EU has REDUCED bureaucracy for ordinary people don’t you? Before Maastricht, try being a musician touring through Europe. Musicians had itemize every single item they were taking and seek visas for each country. The paper work was endless. Now, they just go…no fiddling about. I could go on……

      • gnostic2015 said:

        [The EU]…still actually somehow manages to fumble along and do what it’s supposed to do.

        Right, which is to implement and enforce Germany’s mercantilist, neoliberal hegemony not just over the German rank and file, but the rest of Europe’s proles as well.

      • catweazle666

        Agnostic2015: “The idea that the UK gives up it’s sovereignty to be in in the EU is NONSENSICAL!”

        Absolute drivel. It is you that is NONSENSICAL!

        We can’t even vary the rate of tax on female sanitary products without permission from the Kommissars in Brussels – and when Cameron went cap in hand and requested it be lowered, his request was refused. Do you seriously contend that a state that can’t even set the tax on tampons is sovereign?

        You really haven’t a clue what you’re blathering about.

        In any case, since 23 June it is now entirely irrelevant, as thankfully the UK is exiting the EU.

      • “You really haven’t a clue what you’re blathering about.”

        On the contrary I absolutely have a clue. I think what you need to do is some due diligence. Everyone thinks that these rules and laws are dictats from Brussels. They are not.

        Under EU AND UK constitutional law, the ultimate sovereign authority is the UK government. I posted a link to a lecture given by a professor in EU and UK constitutional law down thread. This is basic stuff they teach first year law students.

        If you don’t like the idea of being in the EU, it 1) suits you to think of it as some kind dictatorship, 2) probably formed your view points from similar views in the first place. That doesn’t make it true.

        The UK gets it’s way in Europe 90% of the time. If you don’t like the EU or don’t like where it is heading then our own government is much to blame as anything else.

        In fact one of the EU’s big probelms, is that is seductive and easy for our own governments to blame the EU for their own failings. The reality is, if we want something a certain way, we can have it. What we CAN’T do as a member of the club is stuff things up for other members. If you see that as lack of sovereignty, the freedom to be ar$eholes to everyone, then that’s up to you. Personally, the kind of country I want to live in is one that is compassionate and cooperative, even as it fights for its own self interest.

        I strongly recommend actually finding out exactly how the EU works. It is far more bizarre than you probably realize. Those bonkers laws we all laugh about are actually the product of hideous horse trading and negotiation that makes “Yes Minister” look like a dull text book. Yet, those very same laws actually allow industry to be efficient, because it is one reg to suit all states. And they are the most difficult thing to negotiate in trade agreements outside of an economic area such as the EU.

      • catweazle666

        agnostic2015: ” Yet, those very same laws actually allow industry to be efficient,”

        More absolute, 100% 24 carat unmitigated twaddle.

        Unlike you, I have done business within first the EEC and subsequently the EU ever since its inception in the early 1970s – finally as the managing director of a high-technology company with a multinational clientele spread from Japan to the USA and all points in-between, and the EU was far and away the most bureaucratic, restrictive practice ridden area I had to do business in.

        And I can absolutely assure you that efficiency is absolutely the last thing the EU regulations have created – utterly the opposite in fact.

        So stick to watching your youtube videos and reading the mendacious propaganda sheets from your masters in Brussels, and stop patronising those of us who have actual experience with the over-bureaucratic nightmare.

      • Yes, Brussels has nothing to say about how EU nations manage their affairs. From the article:

        BRUSSELS—The European Commission on Sunday authorized Italy to use government guarantees to provide liquidity support to its banks, a spokeswoman said, disclosing the first intervention by a European Union government into its banking system following the U.K. vote to leave the EU.

        The June 23 referendum sparked a steep sell-off in banking stocks followed by intense volatility this week. That has exacerbated already existing troubles in the Italian banking sector, which is suffering from high levels of bad loans and poor profitability amid super-low interest rates.

        The Italian liquidity-support program includes up to EUR150 billion in government guarantees, said an EU official. Several other European countries with weak financial systems already have similar support systems in place.

        The commission spokeswoman declined to comment on the amount of guarantees that were authorized, but said that the budget requested by the Italian government had been found to be proportionate. The Italian economy ministry declined to comment.

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-commission-authorized-italian-government-to-support-banks-1467297630

      • jim2,

        Well we all know that private banks are absolutely sacrosanct, and will never be allowed to fail, in a project as thoroughly neoliberal as the EU.

  15. Regarding Brexit, two comments. There is an article in the Financial Times saying Brexit could slow US economic growth by .2 percent over 6 months. Yet, consider that our exports with Britain is .3 percent of GDP. Brexit will now be trumpeted as the reason for a very many ailments.

    There is a good chance that the act of Brexit will lead to punishment. As an example, Obama’s threat that Britain would go to the back of the trade line. Of course, he has cover, referring to the TPP, but Obama has lied to the American people on at least two occasions. The lie that a video caused Benghazi, and the lies about the ACA.

    As a poster here made clear a month or so ago, the majority of the US population is still experiencing a recession, with median incomes down over the last 18 years. The nationalism associated with Brexit, in my view is a good thing. Competition too is a fundamental part of life. Monopolies lead to stagnation. Chalk one up for freedom, and a strike against the malign forces of uniformity and conformity.

    • If Brexit nukes the TPP, it will be such a blessing.

    • “Competition too is a fundamental part of life. Monopolies lead to stagnation.”
      Makes me wonder – As natural selection is a principle for competition which provides evolution in nature – I think free competition is fundamental for sound evolution in science, economics and politics. Any monopoly or unfair suppression of alternatives or competitors, or any corruption of the selection process, will unsettle conscious citizens. Eventually the people will stand up against it.

    • David Springer

      “As a poster here made clear a month or so ago, the majority of the US population is still experiencing a recession, with median incomes down over the last 18 years.”

      The poster was me and the time was 8 years not 18 years. It declined in the first 4 years of Bush then it was built back up to very near the 1999 peak by the end of his term. It began dropping like a stone when Obama took office and is down 6.4% as of 2015.

  16. Latest book and documentary.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.



    http://www.drtimball.com

  17. [Repost]
    Brexit: Britannia rules again as the bulldog bites
    THE AUSTRALIAN
    JUNE 25, 2016

    Greg Sheridan
    Foreign Editor

    “The magnificent British Bulldog people stood defiant once more. They were told what to do by their Prime Minister, David Cameron, who tried to scare them to death by predicting Armageddon if they voted to leave the European Union.

    It was clear that if they rejected the EU, they were rejecting Cameron. And that’s what they did. Thirty-three million of them voted and their decision was clear.

    The leaders of every major political party in Britain — Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist, Green — all these party leaderships and more campaigned for a vote to Remain. The only parties that formally endorsed Leave were the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Democratic Unionists in Ulster.

    Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel weighed in to support Cameron, as did many European national leaders. In what may have been the most foolish and counterproductive foreign intervention in his presidency (though there are plenty of competitors), Barack Obama threatened the British with trade banishment. The British chattering classes themselves overwhelmingly backed the Remain case.

    But it seems the British people don’t respond well to being bullied.

    Pause for a moment and consider the magnitude of their magnificent democratic achievement. They have thrashed this issue through for years, for decades. No one could possibly say the British weren’t exposed to the Remain case. They have been members of the EU for 43 years. They are a conservative electorate in that they rarely embrace anything radical.

    And yet the result was stunning. The turnout was 72 per cent, six per cent higher than the general election turnout last year and higher than any national vote since the early 1990s.

    The British lion roared. By the decisive margin of 52 per cent to 48 per cent, Britain ignored the threats, defied the instructions, refused to do as they were told and politely but resolutely, in the midst of pouring rain, voted in historic numbers to leave the EU forever.

    Certainly, there are deep divisions in Britain over this and the nation’s leadership needs to address national reconciliation. Above all, no one should question the legitimacy of the mandate to leave.

    Scotland voted by more than 60 to 40 to remain. London voted to remain. Northern Ireland, quite narrowly in the end, and not in a huge turnout, also voted to remain. But all the rest of England and, importantly, Wales voted with absolute clarity to leave.

    Younger people were more inclined to remain, older voters to leave. Throughout the Labour heartland in the north, the margins for leave were enormous. Most of the central populations of the biggest cities voted narrowly to remain, but the suburbs were big for leave. But Britain’s second biggest city, Birmingham, voted to leave.

    Politically, the first casualty was David Cameron, who gambled once too often. In the end both the Leavers and the Remainers had something like contempt for him. The Remainers felt he betrayed his promise to get real change from the EU or himself lead the push for Leave. They also detested the hysterical and dangerous fear campaign he waged.

    But the Leave campaign holds him in equal disdain. If he truly thought leaving the EU was so inherently catastrophic why did he ever put it on the national agenda? Cameron’s serial miscalculations had a kind of grandeur about them. This was stupidity on a historic scale.

    But the political questions long term are just as perplexing for Labour. Its voters defied its leaders throughout the country.

    The Conservatives may have met the UKIP challenge by achieving Brexit, and now surely they will have a Brexit Prime Minister, but UKIP always posed as big a challenge to Labour as it did to the Conservative Party. It could now eat Labour’s vote in the north in the way the SNP did in Scotland.

    Hardly a handful of Labour MPs backed Brexit. Never has the gap between working-class people and their new political class representatives looked so vast.

    The markets reacted with volatility. The value of the pound plunged. So did British stocks. So did many Asian stocks, including Australia’s. It all looks alarming,

    But there is no fundamental economic reason for this to happen. It is a result, mainly, of Cameron’s extreme fear campaign.

    In trying to scare the pants off British voters about what would happen in the event of a leave vote, Cameron, and his equally demagogic Chancellor, George Osbourne, certainly scared the pants off the markets. If the Prime Minister tells the world the economy will blow up if the people vote to leave, then markets react accordingly. More than anyone else, more certainly than the British voters, Cameron has contributed to bringing about the market reaction to the Brexit vote. The sheer, gruesome irresponsibility of the way Cameron and Osbourne conducted the remain campaign will be an enduring black mark against whatever historical record Cameron has.

    Of course, markets are always skittish. Several other factors have contributed to this market overreaction on the first day. One is that the bookmakers got the result wrong and an absurd faith had been put in the sagacity of the bookmakers.

    And two, the markets themselves got the result wrong, although in due course it will be fascinating to see what currency trades the giant hedge funds engaged in during the days leading up to the vote.

    And finally, ever since the global financial crisis of 2008, the world has been worried that it doesn’t totally understand what triggers a crisis in global markets. Therefore any abrupt change, and certainly one on the scale of Brexit, will set markets off.

    But it is overwhelmingly likely that the markets will settle down in short order. Certainly this was the message of Treasurer Scott Morrison. Britain, he pointed out, has its own currency, its own Central Bank. There will be no change in financial or banking regulations. And the actual machinery of Britain leaving the EU will take at least two years.

    Morrison took extensive advice from the Reserve Bank, Treasury and other economic agencies. The strong consensus is that the consequences of Brexit for Australia will be quite limited.

    Morrison spoke well and responsibly. Every responsible national leader in the world now should be trying to calm markets and project stability. Much as many national leaders didn’t like Brexit, their nations all now have an overwhelming interest in making it work well and stably.

    This will be especially hard for Cameron himself, for the time he remains as PM. He tried to bolster his case by defaming his country. He tried to make Remain strong by painting Britain as weak. He insulted people who might vote Leave, and that turns out to be a majority of his countrymen.

    International leaders, including Australian leaders, must equally accept the legitimacy and integrity of this vote. They need to calm any markets that listen to them. And they need to look forward.

    Again, Morrison got this right when he said the decision offered Australia opportunities as well as a period of market volatility. He foreshadowed that Britain itself might soon want to start special trade negotiations with Australia.

    The Brexit leader, Boris Johnson, has identified Australia as the first nation Britain would like to do a trade deal with. All foolish and temporary politics aside, there is likely to be a real strategic opportunity for Australia here.

    It is also important not to misinterpret this result politically. Britain did not vote against the world. Johnson and the other Leave leader, Justice Secretary Michael Gove, and indeed the Spectator magazine all rejoiced in the slogan: out of Europe and into the world.

    Britain’s historical attitude to the EU is actually much more consistent than it seems. Britain joined the European Economic Community, which later became the EU, in 1973. It ratified this decision in a referendum in 1975. At that time, the EEC stood for a free market and liberalisation.

    Britain in that period was sinking in the failure of socialism. As such it was, not surprisingly, the far Left, especially Tony Benn, who led the campaign to leave the EEC. The issue that later became such a negative for the British, the free movement of people throughout the European Union area, was a small issue, indeed, when it involved six small West European nations which were all close by to each other and had roughly the same standard of living and did not, incidentally, experience vast flows of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

    Britain’s economic revival took place under Margaret Thatcher and her pursuit of unilateral policies of liberalisation and opening up markets.

    At that time, European regulation was light. But during the 1980s and 90s, and especially under the statist leadership of Jacques Delors, the French politician who was for a time president of the European Commission, the EU changed fundamentally.

    The grievous breach between the political and economic culture of Britain, on the one hand, and the EU on the other, opened up. The EU became extremely ambitious in its regulation. Much that Thatcher did would probably have been impossible under the later straitjacket the EU imposed on its members’ policies.

    Delors himself became a hero of the anti-Thatcher movement and had a triumphal appearance at the British Trade Union Congress. The momentum of European integration continued for a long time. Europe lived on the moral capital of its liberal, free market past.

    The sense of international engagement which the term Europe had once conveyed became instead over time a sense of disenfranchisement, undemocratic diktats from Brussels, and a regulatory regime that was the opposite of liberalism. It was only by the greatest good fortune that Gordon Brown was able to stop Tony Blair from taking Britain into the disastrous euro common currency.

    The British were serious about their membership of the EU and their commitment to it. It took years, decades, of nearly insane EU policy, years of international crises wholly manufactured by the EU, namely the euro crisis and the ridiculous failure to secure external borders while insisting on absolute freedom across internal borders, to produce this final British revolt.

    But the British people, while patient, are not fools, and they are not cowards.

    Their actions now show the utter folly and unreality of the EU leadership in Brussels. These people refused to offer any serious concessions to Cameron as he tried to negotiate more reasonable terms for British membership. Indeed, so far the EU leadership has shown itself utterly resistant to meaningful reform.

    The EU itself now confronts a profound existential crisis. It is going to lose its most successful and dynamic member. Its population base will shrink suddenly. The EU could have kept Britain with only modest changes concerning the free movement of people inside the EU.

    Instead there are opinion poll results in Denmark and The Netherlands which show majorities in those countries now favour leaving the EU themselves. By their pig-headed obstinacy and refusal to compromise, the EU leadership has given the greatest boost possible to eruoscepticism all over the continent.

    So here comes Nexit, Dexit, a return perhaps to Grexit, and next year Marine Le Pen will offer a radical rejection of the EU to French voters.

    It is a tremendous tribute to Britain that it has dealt with all these issues patiently, peacefully and in the end decisively.

    But the contradictions at the heart of the EU project are now surely unsustainable. The currency union of the euro zone implies ultimately a fiscal union, and no fiscal union can logically exist without political union. In other words, the EU is committed to its death spiral of a super state and lacks the imagination to conceive of a different way.

    The only policy makers in the world who have an interest in the British exit being as painful as possible are the gnomes of Brussels.

    If they really believed in liberalism and democracy they would respect the British choice and try to show that they can work with diverse neighbours. But the EU is really all about power. The EU has always hated referendums, hated anything which smacks of real consultation with voters.

    For all that, Britain is not leaving Europe, it is leaving the EU.

    This is a seismic moment in global history, but it is wrong to present it as a negative or destructive moment.

    It is instead one of the few seismic moments in history generated entirely by a democratic movement and an exercise of the ballot box.

    It is not a blow to the international project. Still less is it a blow to the ideal of liberalism. It is a blow instead to the fatally flawed, anachronistic, statist model of the EU.

    There is something entirely magnificent about this.

    It is all too easy to misinterpret popular movements. When the Tea Party first became active in the US Republican Party its highest priority was getting the federal budget deficit under control, making America live within its means. The absolute failure of the Tea Party, not least because it had such poor leaders, resulted in the mutation of this decent sentiment into the many indecencies of Donald Trump.

    Cameron and the British establishment tried to override the countless sound objections the British people had to the way the EU operated. Cameron’s only real saving grace before history will be that by submitting the issue to a referendum he let democracy have its head.

    The bulldog bit.”

  18. Geoff Sherrington

    Have you ever eaten fish and chips in newspaper at the seaside, then thrown the leftovers around?
    Watched the seaulls squark and fight for windfall gains that they did not help create?
    Does this remind you of many folk in the money industries when the unexpected Brexit vote emerged?
    These folk seemed not to have careful contingency plans. There is an impression of panic.
    If the money sector did not plan well, what confidence can there be that there will be wise and considered planning for actions such as the future financing of climate research?
    Will ad hockey continue? Will vested interests continue to be heard? Will crafty money people continue to be involved in policy formulation that generously lines their pockets?
    Surely the Brexit result was a strong signal that ordinary citizens are sick of being kicked around by bureaucrats and politicians. We ordinary people need to spend much effort to insist on recognition of that inferred outcome.

    • +! squillion

    • One also must consider that the ultra-rich can roil markets in what might be called a terrorist act. This creates the illusion of chaos and it will be levered, Alinsky-style, to influence events.

      • Yep.

        Like when the banksters threatened to wreck havock on the US economy if congress didn’t pass TARP.

      • We need a constitutional amendment barring tax dollars from being used to bailout anyone for anything. Close that door so people have no expectation of it and it might shape behaviors towards the more sane and rational. If not, it will at least protect the taxpayer.

        They might say to a Chrysler or a Goldman-Sachs, “You can borrow a decade’s worth of your tax receipts at 5% interest.”

        At any rate, the obscenity of them paying themselves large bonuses with tax dollars would end as would the moral hazard of the ‘on offer’ bailout.

  19. nabilswedan

    In the absence of climate science, the public will make climate related calls. Good news for the public can never be wrong.

  20. The concept behind the EU is sound. The world needs to move away from nationalism and towards acceptance of those from different cultures, with different beliefs, unless of course they are trying to kill you.

    But the execution could not have been worse if they had set out to make it so. The Euro, the lack of democracy, and the ever-tightening web of strangling regulations; all these are killing not only the member states but also their trading partners in the developing world.

    In a Western democracy, the voters have little real choice. They must accept a party’s manifesto wholesale, even if it includes policies they find distasteful or wasteful. What a refreshing change it is to see individual questions put to the people. We would be able to select the foreign policy of one candidate and the energy policy of another and choose the best person to execute them. Perhaps the age of referenda has dawned.

    • The concept behind the EU is sound.

      Not really. Maybe with Brexit and all the Euro-skepticism, they’ll go back and come up with another approach.

      The world needs to move away from nationalism […]

      Let’s back up. The “nation-state”, as it (roughly) existed from the 18th through mid-20th centuries, is obsolete. It grew from the institution of national armies, which caused a much larger amount of inter-contact, and intermarriage among people from previously isolated villages and regions. (Note that there was little or no tribalism left in Western Europe. The feudal system within “Christendom” had pretty much destroyed and replaced it.)

      Something has to replace it (nation-state), and that replacement will take place in a context of globalization, simply because technology, both economic and military, makes it almost impossible not to.

      But “globalization” just means everybody gets placed in a global context. It doesn’t specify what kind of context. There are many flavors of potential globalization, including such things as a world empire (US or Chinese, for instance), or a world-spanning caliphate.

      Cramming a bunch of nation-states, and imitation “nation-states” full of semi-civilized tribal types, into a big clump ruled over by a bureaucracy that doesn’t really answer to anybody they don’t already dominate, is an option that just took a major blow.

      If Brexit can do this to the EU, could “US Out of UN, UN out of US” do the same to the UN?

      What a refreshing change it is to see individual questions put to the people. We would be able to select the foreign policy of one candidate and the energy policy of another and choose the best person to execute them. Perhaps the age of referenda has dawned.

      Well, it could certainly shake things up a little. Perhaps such referenda could be instituted as a control on cancer-like bureaucracy.

      • IoN? (Internet of Nations)

      • AK

        “Something has to replace it (nation-state), and that replacement will take place in a context of globalization, simply because technology, both economic and military, makes it almost impossible not to.”

        Technology changes faster than human nature. The speciation phase for Homo sapiens sapiens ended about 100,000 years ago, give or take. Group affiliation isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Nor will basic human emotions like fear, jealousy, or attachment disappear. We are still coping with the technological innovation of agriculture and it’s progeny – social stratification and inequality.

      • The speciation phase for Homo sapiens sapiens ended about 100,000 years ago, give or take.

        Probably more like 50,000. Though evolution has continued (CF adult lactose tolerance).

        Group affiliation isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Nor will basic human emotions like fear, jealousy, or attachment disappear. We are still coping with the technological innovation of agriculture and it’s progeny – social stratification and inequality.

        True, but the nation-state in its present (pre-WWII) form has only been around for a couple centuries.

        Human nature may change slowly, but the social configurations that are (temporarily) in place can change much faster. AFAIK most anthropologists don’t regard the “tribal” system as having existed before agriculture, for instance. (I admit I’m skeptical, but they could be right.)

        Technology, that is gunpowder, followed by the Industrial Revolution, created the nation-state, out of the relatively feudal/post-fuedal system inherited from Acre. Technology has rendered it obsolete.

      • AK said:

        AFAIK most anthropologists don’t regard the “tribal” system as having existed before agriculture, for instance.

        There’s little agreement amongst scientists on this point.

        Neoclassical economists and evolutionary biologists who reject multi-level selection theory believe that humans are all exclusively egoistic.

        Non-orthodox economists and evolutionary biologists who believe in multi-level selection theory argue that humans are not exclusively egoistic, at least the majority of them, and often put the interests of the group above their own individual self-interest.

        Much more on this can be found here:

        Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life
        http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/moral%20sentiments.pdf

      • @Glenn Stehle…

        AFAIK most anthropologists don’t regard the “tribal” system as having existed before agriculture, for instance.

        There’s little agreement amongst scientists on this point.

        Well, I did say I was skeptical. But I’ll repeat, AFAIK there’s a good consensus on the subject, much better stronger than on climate. Nothing in your link shows otherwise.

        Neoclassical economists and evolutionary biologists who reject multi-level selection theory believe that humans are all exclusively egoistic.

        Non-orthodox economists and evolutionary biologists who believe in multi-level selection theory argue that humans are not exclusively egoistic, at least the majority of them, and often put the interests of the group above their own individual self-interest.

        Nothing to do with whether “tribalism” existed prior to agriculture.

        As I understand the consensus definition of “tribalism”, it’s something like:

        •       Me against my brother,

        •       me and my brother against my cousin(s),

        •       me, my brother, and my cousins against the rest of the clan,

        •       me and all my clan against the rest of the tribe

        •       me and all my tribe against other tribes.

        Having studied the subject somewhat, I would add some items (all IMO):

        •       A powerful enforcement mechanism is that somebody who is expelled from his place becomes prey for everybody.

        •       Ultimate enforcement is via predator pressure: a unit (family, clan, tribe) that fails to support its members, or punish their “treason”, can expect to be hunted down in detail and destroyed. This creates an obligation that a unit cannot avoid without bringing destruction upon itself.

        •       “Honor killing” fits right into this paradigm: since the obligation is via kinship, a woman who risks setting up kinship ties unsanctioned by the unit and its culture puts the unit, and its larger containing units, at risk of being obligated to intervene in support of kin who aren’t obligated to honor its behavioral strictures.

        And so on. Note how it’s held together by predator pressure: if there are no inimical tribes to enforce the need for tribal unity, the clans will fall apart into bickering. (Or upgrade to tribes if population supports.)

        Similarly all the way down the chain to groups no bigger than a band of chimpanzees.

        I’m not saying there won’t be some other social structure, encompassing the same behavioral building blocks that tribalism does, also nationalism, urban loyalty (CF Hellenic “city-states”), religious “universalism” (e.g. “Christendom”, caliphate), feudal and patronage loyalty, and so on.

        Your proposed “put[ing] the interests of the group above their own individual self-interest” would play a role in all of those, as well as the preceding structures expressed by current-day chimpanzees and bonobos.

        Of course, there’s also the question of how “individual self-interest” is defined: the cost/risk of being seen not to participate in a group-interested project could easily be, and be perceived to be, higher than the cost/risk of participating. Even when the project involves bloody combat.

      • AK,

        Cutural evolution takes place much faster than biological evolution.

        Man has evolved culturally very quickly over the past few thousand years, learning to solve his collective action problems, which has resulted in tribes (empires or nation-states) of ever-increasing size.

        Does this trend have a limit? Can mankind evolve sufficiently to have one big, sole, global society, as the Marxists, neoliberals and neoconservatives envision?

        How quickly, under the right conditions, could our biological hard-wiring evolve?

      • Cutural evolution takes place much faster than biological evolution.

        That’s part of the point I was originally making.

        Man has evolved culturally very quickly over the past few thousand years, learning to solve his collective action problems, which has resulted in tribes (empires or nation-states) of ever-increasing size.

        Not relevant to what I was saying. We may have some semantic confusion here: I was using the term “tribalism” in the technical sense. Empires, nation-states, etc. are not tribes. Calling them that might be justifiable in a metaphorical extension of the word, but it’s a different meaning.

        And your picture hardly demonstrates your point. The quantum jumps in size shown by your chart (of unknown provenance, and I’m skeptical of its data) match up with specific technological advances, which enabled organizational changes:

        •       ~3000BCE: Bronze enabling superior weapons and incenting long-range trade/transport of tin.

        •       ~800-500BCE: Widespread use of iron/steel for arrowheads, enabling horse-archers and light cavalry, also (IMO) widespread adoption of the longbow, together spelling the collapse of the chariot-warrier aristocracy and the feudal(?) princedoms of West Asia.

        How that interacts with “learning to solve […] collective action problems” should, IMO, remain sub judice.

        Can mankind evolve sufficiently to have one big, sole, global society, as the Marxists, neoliberals and neoconservatives envision?

        I would envision such a “one big, sole, global society” as the biggest existential threat to our species’ existence that has ever existed.

        Unfortunately, I’d also say it’s almost inevitable, given current and (probable) future technology. We’ll just have to see whether humanity survives these dangerous shoals.

      • AK,

        The technology aspect is intriguing.

        The fact that our government, working hand-in-glove with wealthy families like the Rockefellers, hasn’t turned us all into completely compliant obedient, obsequious clones with the use of science and technology is certainly not for a lack of trying.

        Human Resources
        https://vimeo.com/102686111

      • The technology aspect is intriguing.

        Technology is intimately linked with culture. Even our closest relatives have “cultures” which include technology, including technology for getting drunk.

        In trying to unravel the reasons behind various historical developments, it’s critical to be aware of the technology, and how it enables various types of behavior.

        This used to be de rigueur in social/historical sciences, I wonder if it’s become less so in the last decade or so.

      • AK,

        For me it starts with Family, God and Country. Add in concepts of Duty and Honor. That gives one pretty solid framework for how to act.

      • @timg56…

        That gives one pretty solid framework for how to act.

        I’m not really talking about “how to act.” I’m talking about the study, from the outside, of how societies frame and incent their members’ actions.

      • AK,

        and I’m saying how societies incent people becomes irrelevant when people have solid foundations and belief systems. They can incent all they want, but if it is outside the framework I mentioned, they are wasting their time.

      • “[S]olid foundations and belief systems” is just a way of describing some aspects of how societies incent their members’ actions.

        It doesn’t even really matter whether those “belief systems” are true, at least WRT the incentive.

        For instance, if the members of a society believe in life after death, with rewards and punishments consistent with behavior during life, it can incent its members to give up their lives, and many other things, in defense of that society’s values. This can constitute an important competitive adaptation for the society.

        CF suicide bombers and virgins in the afterlife.

    • “The concept behind the EU is sound.”

      No, it isn’t. It is delusional because it doesn’t recognize a fundamental characteristic of human behavior. The elites do not realize that they are part of a transnational tribe but the rest of the world is not. A small percentage of the global population travels and works internationally and does not feel or identify with the strong feelings of nationalism of their home country. Elites, due to their innate intelligence and education, with confidence reinforced by their social status, are capable of crafting even more elaborate and fortified internal narratives than the average person. Of course, they are, like the rest of us, blind to their own bias.

      • justinwonder said:

        The elites do not realize that they are part of a transnational tribe but the rest of the world is not.

        My thoughts exactly.

        I see globalization as rule by a transnational plutocracy (“tribe” in your vernacular) that has figured out how to solve its collective action problems, while the rest of us helots spend all our time fighting amongst ourselves.

        The ideology which informs this global plutocracy is what is known as neoliberalism.

        What we are seeing is the wheels coming off of neoliberalism and the global plutocracy, because as you say, it is “delusional because it doesn’t recognize a fundamental characteristic of human behavior.”

    • The concept behind the EU is sound. The world needs to move away from nationalism and towards acceptance of those from different cultures, with different beliefs, unless of course they are trying to kill you.

      Different cultures do have different values, many times in direct conflict.
      ( Witness the Oralndo shooter who had one American cultural identity which encouraged the freedom to visit the night club and a traditional Islamic identity which led him to shoot it up ).

      The Brexit is not the cause of the breakup of Europe, it is the symptom. Europe’s fertility rates are very much lower than replacement. All European cultures are in decline and efforts to preserve tradition are understandable.
      The most popular boys name in London is Mohamed.

      That’s fine, but what culture of Mohameds does this foretell? Secular Mohameds that embrace freedom? women’s rights? the right to lend/borrow? separation of Mosque and State? Respect for atheists? the theory of Evolution?

      Or religious Mohamed’s that subjugate women? deny freedom? death to infidels ( atheists first )? demand conversion or zizya? deny scientific principle? disregard rule of law?

      There are cultural values that are unacceptable.

      • Turbulent Eddie said:

        There are cultural values that are unacceptable.

        Yep.

        The paradox is that the power of culture is utterly contrary to the most fervently held beliefs and values of the advocates of multiculturalism.

        Multiculturalism is a movement of the left, emerging from the counterculture of the 1960s. But culture is powerfully conservative.

        Culture is what enforces obedience to authority, the authority of parents, of history, of custom, of superstition.

        Deep attachment to culture is one of the things that prevents different people from understanding one another. It is what pushes groups into compliance with practices that can be good or bad, depending on one’s point of view.

        Suttee (the practice, eradicated by British colonialism, in which Indian widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands) and female circumcision, as well as the spirit of rational inquiry and a belief in the sanctity of each human life, are products of cultural attachments of different kinds.

        Those who practiced suttee, or who believe that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death, do not believe there is anyting bad about these practices, any more than those who practice rational inquiry under conditions of freedom think there is anything wrong with that.

        The reality of culture is something that the ideological multiculturalists would despise, if they knew what it was. The power of culture, especially the culture rooted in ancient traditions, is anathema to the actual goals and ideology of multiculturalism….

        The point is that while multiculturalism is in some instances what it sounds like it should be, a fuller realization of American pluralism, it is for the most part a code word for something that, again, is not multi, or cultural, or even an ism. It is a code word for a political ambition, a yearning for more power, combined with a genuine, earnest, zealous, self-righteous craving for social improvement that is characteristic of the mentality of the post-1960s era in American life.

        — RICHARD BERNSTEIN, Dictatorship of Virtue

    • MIke Mellor,

      I do like the idea of moving from Democracy 1.0 to Democracy 2.0, but I don’t know that I’d ring the death knell for nationalism just yet:

      Marx may have said that the proletarians has no country; it is well known that the proletarians have never shared this point of view. The lower social classes are especially suceptible to nationalism, chauvinism, and imperialistic policies.

      Or:

      For the fact is that Marxism lost its main bet at the outset. It wagered its entire claim to historical inevitability on the idea that humankind would divide along the lines of class, not nationality.

      In this it was wrong.

      Because the bonds of nationhood were so much stronger than those of class, the Revolution could only be exported in three forms: as direct conquest by Moscow, as in eastern Europe; by the reinvention of ancient, xenophobic, authoritarian structures with a “Marxist” veneer, as in Mao’s China; and as a handy form of rhetoric which gave “internationalist” legitimacy to nationalist chieftains and cauldillos as in Ceacescu’s Romania, Castro’s Cuba or any number of ephemeral African regimes.

      But the basic promise of Marxism, an internationale of workers joined as a transnational force by common interests, turned out to be a complete chimera.

      — ROBERT HUGHES, Culture of Complaint

      I suspect that, to paraphrase Hughes, the neoliberal promise of ‘an internationale of global elites joined as a transnational force by common interests’ will also turn out to be a ‘complete chimera.’

    • Is it sound in the same way the concept outlined in the Communist Mainfesto is sound.

    • Mike….”The concept behind the EU is sound. The world needs to move away from nationalism and towards acceptance of those from different cultures, with different beliefs, unless, of course, they are trying to kill you.”

      This is sort of a muddled mess, isn’t it?. The concept behind the EU is terrible. The EU of today. Not the EU imagined by Winston Churchill. Two very different things. There is nothing wrong with nationalism. Nothing at all. The fact that some men turn out to be rapists does not argue that all men should be castrated. Nationalism is local control, is the decentralization of power and that is a good thing. Here’s a metaphor: Good fences make good neighbors.

      As to acceptance of those from a different culture, I think the world at large does a pretty damn good job of it.

      You say, ‘Unless, of course, they are trying to kill you.’ Well, when they are invading your country with tanks, the answer to that is pretty obvious. But, when their ideology is Fascist, Supremacist & wholly Intolerant of anything but themselves, when they are willing to enslave 50% of mankind, and kill the Kafir by stealth, by beheading, by migration, by out-breeding them, when they lie and wrap their ideology in religious garb, then many people get very confused.

      If the migrants came goose stepping into Europe wearing Nazi armbands, proclaiming a love of freedom, the populace would be rightly skeptical. But if they walk in, in flip flops, wearing Burkas and carrying iPhones, the populace is easily guilted into accepting them. Yet, anyone wearing a Burka is a member of a Fascist ideology and should be viewed with great suspicion. In fact, anyone proclaiming themselves to be a Muslim is saying they have adopted a Fascist, Supremacist ideology. Why would any sane person invite them into their midst? No, not every Muslim is a Fascist. But the one’s who aren’t are anomalies. Why? A core tenant of Islam is that there is NO separation of religion and state. That alone makes anyone professing an allegiance to Islam totally incompatible with any Western Democracy.

      The 2nd aspect that the Lefty, Globalists, multicultural, we know best for everyone, seems to totally ignore is this: What kind of person takes as a moral exemplar, a Murdering, Pillaging, Raping, Sex Slave trading, Warlord who engaged in countless acts of mind numbing barbarity? I’ve asked this question of many people and to date, gotten, let’s see, zero answers.

      Remember, a Muslim is one who adopts the religion of Islam (not a race) as laid out, not just in the Qu’ran, but in the Sunna, which consists of the Hadith, Muhammed’s instructions on how to be a good Muslim and how to treat the Kafir. And the Sira, Mohammed’s biography ,which is filled with examples from his own life on how to be a good Muslim. If anyone disagrees with what I’ve said above you would do well to read all three before responding.

    • “The concept behind the EU is sound. The world needs to move away from nationalism and towards acceptance of those from different cultures, with different beliefs, unless of course [sic] they are trying to kill you.”

      I answered this and included some thoughts on [I s l a m] which shoved it into moderation.

      The short version: The EU, as executed, is the same stupidity as any socialist/fascist state. I’m sure Churchill did not have that in mind.

      Nationalism is a very good thing. Doesn’t mean it can’t be misused and abused but the very good thing about nationalism is that it is the decentralization of power, local control, that can coalesce around a common identity. “Good fences make good neighbors.” Very important and ignoring that will lead to nothing but human misery and grief. The elites with their grand visions create a tribe out of their ‘eliteness’ and so their psychological needs for tribe are realized, yet they don’t realize that and seek to deny it to everyone else cause it suits their purposes and lifestyles.

  21. “A vote for Brexit in the UK referendum on EU membership would mean that the COP21 agreement would have to be rewritten, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said today (22 June) in Brussels. Christiana Figueres, one of the architects of the historic deal struck last December to limit warming to no more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels, said the international pact, “would require recalibration”. ” –James Crisp, EurActiv.com, 22 June 2016

    “The departure of the EU’s second-largest economy could have unsettling implications for the Paris climate accord. U.K. voters’ decision to exit the European Union sent shock waves through world markets today, including the energy sector. The consensus from policymakers, clean-energy advocates, and analysts was that while “Brexit” will not completely derail the EU’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris climate accord, it will certainly throw a spanner in the works.” –Richard Martin, MIT Technology Review, 24 June 2016

    • “A vote for Brexit in the UK referendum on EU membership would mean that the COP21 agreement would have to be rewritten, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change said today (22 June) in Brussels.”

      There are two unsettling things about that statement:
      1 The agreement must be extremely poorly written if that is really a significant issue

      And, much more alarming:

      2 It is extremely unwise by an United Nations unelected bureaucrat to misuse her power by trying to influence the outcome of a national referendum by her public statement

      Further, (from euractive.com):

      “Figueres was alongside Energy Union Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and business magnate Michael Bloomberg, who is also UN special envoy for cities and climate change, to launch the Global Covenant of Mayors.

      The Covenant is the merger of the EU’s Global Covenant of Mayors and the US Compact of Mayors, two initiatives driving forward climate action at city level.

      Bloomberg said, “From America’s point of view, the UK staying (in) the EU is a very positive thing for the world economy and world peace.”

      This illustrates how far-fetched the interpretation of United Nations charter has come. Appearing of behalf of United Nations – necessarily under the charter of United Nations – their unelected megalomaniacal bureaucrats implicitly say that UK leaving European Union has significant negatively impact on world economy and world peace! Blomberg actually says that this is America´s point of view!

      This is pure politics – nothing to do with United Nations charter.

      United Nations is out of control – far out of line with their charter.

      • Science of Fiction,

        Thank you for that very interesting comment.

      • catweazle666

        So our vote for Brexit has put the Useless Nonentity’s nose out of joint too, has it? Well, how about that!

        Seems every day reveals new reasons to rejoice that we did a good day’s work on June 23rd.

    • One of the subsequent commenters said the comment is going viral on Facebook. Do you suppose this is the beginning of crowd-sourced policy?

    • This will be fun to watch. The Leave leaders will have to respond, I’m thinking.

    • Non-binding, hmmm…
      Somebody, and it won’t be Cameron, has to physically push the button, and knowing now what we know about the pound, the markets, #regrexit, petitions for other referenda, etc., who is going to do that? Tough one.

      • JD, you confound two things. 1. The voter referendum ‘button’. That will be a to do for Cameron’s successor. IMO Boris Johnson, well played. 2. Regrets, shock, horror, redo…do not touch the ‘button’. In that hope you are deluded. The British people have already spoken.
        Or, are you a ‘know all’ totalitarian like Obama on CPP and Immigration?

      • There is a meaning to non-binding, and it has become clear that there was voter confusion about the actual changes being voted on. Being non-binding, it makes sense for Parliament to vote to ratify this.

      • jimd

        you must stop thinking Huffpo is some sort of oracle on Britain. It isn’t. It shares some of the same writers as The Guardian. It is always coming from a certain direction and is hugely biased.

        tonyb

      • catweazle666

        Wishful thinking, Jimbo.

        So now we can add British politics to the ever-growing list of things you haven’t a clue about.

        The United Kingdom is going to leave the EU – that is an absolute certainty – whether you like it or not, and all your wittering won’t alter that.

        Live with it.

      • Yes, apparently many of the British who voted for to leave the EU didn’t even know what it was they were voting to leave. #regrexit

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

        Symptomatic of the same sort that vote for Trump who will be have their own regrets if he gets elected. If these people would just realize their life will be so much better with four years of Hillary to bash around and impeach rather than to actually have to defend the stupidities and calamities that Trump will bring. (But, of course, they will blame those on Obama and Democrats too.)

      • Yes, “what is EU” was a trending search item in Britain AFTER the vote. Most non-political people, which is most people, didn’t care about the EU much before this.
        Boris wanted a better deal, which now he can try to negotiate before pushing the Article 50 button. If he gets a better deal, there could be another referendum on it with him taking the Remain side. That would be the best route forwards. He may not get a much better deal, but some minor concession by the EU might allow him to save face.

      • Yes, “what is EU” was a trending search item in Britain AFTER the vote.

        Of course, this is also after the vote to join the EU in the first place.

        It’s interesting, but not surprising, that people project an ideological allegiance to one side or the other.

        The secular factor of European, and even Eurasian, decline is also why CO2 based effects are irrelevant: Eurasia is experiencing slowing and in many places now, shrinking population.

        Demand to preserve cultures, and demand for all goods, including fossil fuels, are in an inevitable decline going forward.

        Rather than wrongly worry about CO2, this is more evidence that our concerns should be about economic stagnation and political instability.

      • Demographically, the Brexit charge was led by the elderly. Poor dears seeking a return to the past of their memories. However, they were backed up by the less educated folk in the English white towns who don’t trust foreigners either.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “Demographically, the Brexit charge was led by the elderly. Poor dears seeking a return to the past of their memories.”

        Wrong as usual, Jimbo.

        You haven’t actually seen the analysis of the demography, have you, you’re just parroting the twaddle from the sore losers – people just like you.

        Do you never get tired of making a total idiot of yourself.

      • The demography was very clear. The older the group, the larger the brexit share. The top end (65+ yo) were near 61%, but also education was a predictor (only high school 66%).
        http://www.politico.eu/article/graphics-how-the-uk-voted-eu-referendum-brexit-demographics-age-education-party-london-final-results/

      • maksimovich1

        However, they were backed up by the less educated folk

        Talebs on the case and Pseudo intellectuals like Jim are well framed.

      • Only statistically less educated (college versus no college) has been shown. Interpret it how you like.

      • stevenreincarnated

        The interpretation that comes to my mind is that the less educated are having to deal with the ramifications of the poor decisions made by the more educated than the more educated have to. Why else would they be unhappy?

      • The Conservative government has some stuff to answer for regarding taking benefits away. This might have fed the feeling of not being cared about, so they wanted to get attention.

      • When the so-called IYI elite blames voters that it is misguided, ignorant, and undereducated, it’s bad.

        When Nassim blames the IYI elite (or just about any of his target du jour) of being misguided, ignorant, and undereducated, it’s just another tweeting day.

      • In Nicolas’ own words:

      • stevenreincarnated

        Just not smart enough to know who makes them unhappy? Is that it, Jim?

      • steven, no, some of them think Cameron’s policies are making them unhappy and they wanted to protest that in the most direct way they could. That only has to account for a few percent to tip the scale. I have seen enough people express that to see that it was a big factor.

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “Poor dears seeking a return to the past of their memories. However, they were backed up by the less educated folk in the English white towns who don’t trust foreigners either.”

        That nasty, bigoted piece of hate-filled drivel clearly demonstrates that you know nothing of the English or England, and not a great deal about people either. You are truly a profoundly unpleasant little man.

      • You have seen the interviews with these people. Don’t pretend they don’t exist.

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “You have seen the interviews with these people. Don’t pretend they don’t exist.”

        Around 17 million people voted for Brexit Jimbo, and Brexit had a majority of around 1.4 million.

        Are you claiming you watched interviews with ALL of them?

        So you saw at most two or three lowlife specially cherry-picked picked by the interviewer (I bet it was a BBC staffer) who reinforced your nasty, bigoted prejudices against white non-university qualified Northern British voters. You really are a piece of work, aren’t you?

        My point stands.

      • These people were probably not hard to find in certain areas of England, and there are enough of them to swing a close vote.

      • Demographically, the Brexit charge was led by the elderly. Poor dears seeking a return to the past of their memories. However, they were backed up by the less educated folk in the English white towns who don’t trust foreigners either.

        You mean they “don’t trustthese “foreigners”?

      • These or anyone with their skin color if you know what I mean.

      • catweazle666

        JimD: These or anyone with their skin color if you know what I mean.”

        Wrong again, Jimbo.

        The immigration problem is with Eastern Europeans, primarily Poles and Romanians who are taking all the low-paid jobs and living in shared accommodation, hence working for lower wages than the indigenous unemployed – hence the issue of Great Britain wishing to remove the Freedom of Movement clauses in the Lisbon Treaty.

        It will certainly surprise you to know that a considerable number of British Asians also voted for Brexit, because they are suffering at least as much from the influx of white Eastern Europeans from the EU as the indigenous British, and that many of the Brexit politicians, especially UKIP, desire to skew the immigration numbers far more towards qualified citizens of the old British Commonwealth such as India rather than unqualified Eastern European labourers something our membership of the EU prevented, thus totally demolishing your vile accusation of racism.

        As I say, you really haven’t the first clue,you have nothing but your entirly ungrounded prejudice against the white blue collar class and old age pensioners.

      • One doesn’t exclude the other. I heard that abuse against Europeans also has spiked, with Germans being told to go home too, and not in a friendly way.

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “and there are enough of them to swing a close vote.”

        So you think a 52% to 48% victory, with a majority of close to 1.4 million, is “a close vote”?

        Stop digging.

      • So that only needs 700k people who put stopping immigration as their priority to swing the vote, out of 32 million. Compared to the number of people who vote UKIP, who have certain inclinations, shall we say, that is a fraction that can be accounted for.

      • Your continual race baiting is disgusting JimD. You are part of the problem.

      • I only point to the problem, and there is one, whether you like it pointed out or not.

      • Also, for some light relief…

      • Point to problems my arse, JimD. You are a political hack, pure and simple.

      • The BBC point to the same interviews that I do. Is it wrong for them to show the Brexit voters and their views? I don’t think so. I think we learn something from them.

    • 千里之行,始於足下

    • One might think Britain has always been a part of the EU. Has never had trade with others. Has never issued their own passports, etc.

      It was easy when Britain became a part of the EU to do these things.

      I do, though, wonder what is easier, to develop “n” squared trade pacts, or one trade pact that “n” parties agree to. I also wonder what is better. I would suppose peer-to-peer trade deals.

      I suppose one might start with the EU trade pact, and individually tailor them, unless there are those who would try to sabotage Brexit.

      • Actually, I realized it is probably easier to do n squared bilateral trade agreements than one trade agreement that all agree to, since it is possible to use the one trade agreement in the n squared bilateral trade agreements.

      • Good point Ed. And the 27-party agreement pleases no one and probably serves no one but the elites after the signing.

      • edlbarbar “I do, though, wonder what is easier, to develop “n” squared trade pacts, or one trade pact that “n” parties agree to.”

        Easier? By what metric? And what about easier is the least salient of the values to be had by trade agreements?

        Easier to think and follow your own path, suffer the consequences of your own actions or put your head down, shuffle along, doing what you’re told and blaming ‘the outer’ when life goes belly up?

        Easier? By what metric?

  22. Something is afoot all right, the people do not believe what the upper crust are telling them.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/brexit-and-the-great-divide/

  23. The BrExit vote is a resounding defeat for arrogant politicians and subservient government-funded scientists who

    1. Misused public research funds to forge 97% consensus scientific support for highly questionable claims, followed by

    2. Seven years of lame, official excuses for the excesses exposed in Climategate emails in Nov 2009.

  24. Plenty thanks Judith for thi + all the rest…
    Here in Sweden, where polls show 70+% leave (ok, polls are polls, I know) BUT, regardless if 1, 2, 5… or more millinons Swedes would vote for a referendum (of any kind/topic!) the elite has ‘trunkated’ our (so called) institution to the effect, that the elite can just ‘per democratic’ vote say: No, we will not perform any referendum.
    That’s a bit (small one) of the “Swedish Way/Model”….

    Please take that into consideration when voting for reps in the UN security counsil. Sweden DOES NOT BELONG THERE!!!

    Brgds from the Bestcoast of Sweden.
    //TJ

  25. We are back at climate science alarm rhetoric. The warmist catastrophes have been replaced by Brexit catastrophes; HL Mencken style. This is not a very creative lot I might say. Worry warts. I guess it gives them something to do on a warm sunny day. I prefer a walk through the wetlands or a trip to the local water park; watch kids enjoy some of their summer freedom

  26. Also, this. Four areas where the people thought they were voting for something, but actually it wasn’t about that. Some are starting to feel like they were taken as suckers by the Leave campaign now.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-leave-u-turns_uk_576e9c3ce4b08d2c56394817?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

    • catweazle666

      Ah, the Puffington Host got its prediction wrong and now it’s throwing its toys out of the pram and making stuff up.

      Jimbo, you’re utterly clueless.

  27. It seems that to some, democracy is a wonderful thing until things don’t go their way. Then the wishes of the minority must triumph.

    Freedom of speech also seems to be much admired by some, until other people choose exercise their own freedom.

    I wonder if tribalism will overwhelm attempts to suppress it. The current 27 tribes in the EU. The different tribes in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, etc). Or the rich tribe versus the poor tribe? Or the tribes which passionately promote different beliefs – from religion to Scientism?

    All part of the variegated and rich tapestry of life.

    Cheers.

  28. A commenter from Evening Standard …

    I voted remain because of my profound dislike for all the politicos leading the Leave campaign. Quite simply, regardless of any other argument, they are all people that I have never and will never want anything whatsoever to do with. However, I can well understand those who voted Leave on the basis that the European Union is an undemocratic cartel run by grey faceless bureaucrats, of whom Jean-Claude Juncker is the prime example.

    In the aftermath of World War II when the European federalist project was born, none other than Winston Churchill called for the creation of a “United States of Europe.” In reality, the biggest voting block in Europe is and always has been the socialist block who style themselves as antifascists. This block was strengthened in the’80s by the accession of Spain, Portugal, and Greece — all countries scarred by then-recent fascist dictatorships and subsequently socialist dominated. They are the people who have pushed and pushed for “ever closer union” in the quasi-religious belief that national identity in and of itself is the root of all evil. Well, I’m sorry Winston but your United States of Europe has been looking more and more like the Soviet Union Mk.2 over the last 30 years and Thursday’s result was the beginning of the reaction against that. Others across Europe have taken note and are calling for referendums of their own.

    Mr Juncker, with his post-referendum statement, lost a great opportunity to shut up. His words did nothing more than legitimise the Brexit result. Tens of millions of Britons exercised their democratic rights last Thursday and all he is capable of is treating them like disobedient children. No Sir, that is democracy in action. Something you obviously know nothing about.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/eu-referendum-result-brussels-chiefs-order-britain-to-make-sharp-exit-after-dramatic-brexit-result-a3280641.html

    • Curious George

      EU leaders have a strange way to ask for a favor. Of course, that’s what Brexit is about.

  29. Danny Thomas

    Another take with a bit of humor thrown in: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/24/why-scientists-are-freaking-out-about-brexit/

    “Well, back to work, I guess. Time to start putting job requisitions together for the flood of scientific talent about to flee the UK…

    — Daniel MacArthur (@dgmacarthur) June 24, 2016”

    and

    “Gary McDowell @BiophysicalFrog
    US folks, prepare for a sudden rise in UK applicants for postdoc positions. And a retention of current British postdocs
    9:39 AM – 24 Jun 2016 · San Francisco, CA, United States”

    • Ye,

      There are many concerns and many ways it might night happen and many ways EU could realise its massive mistake and fix the major issues.

      But there are also potentially huge benefits that could flow to the world as a result of Brexit. We need to weigh one against the other.

      1. Remain. Status quo. EU continues to slide continues to harass as slowly confiscate the countries it used to control before the collapse of the USSR under US President Regan’s strong leadership. And the western democracies continue to slde backwards as we get engulfed by socialism and one loony left scare campaign after another – e.g. CAGW.

      2. Leave. Disruption to the status quo. Many opportunities to, bit by bit, develop and implement more rational policies – especially energy, immigration and border security policies.

      I see this potential disruption as a great opportunity – to fix the EU either with or without GB in it. But EU governance is the problem that needs to be fixed. If EU can recognise and acknowledge the problems and rectify them, that would be great. But with Comrade Merkel (she is a committed Communist), it seems unlikely. I suspect she will preside over and be the main cause of the break up of the EU.

      • CORRECTION:

        “1. Remain. Status quo. EU continues to slide. Puttin continues to harass and progressively regain control of the countries it used to control before the collapse of the USSR and the joining or East and West Germany – which occurred largely thanks to US President Regan’s strong leadership.

      • Peter, just some thoughts on Russian intentions:

        There is now a limit to how expensive gas and oil can be. The world has lots of the stuff, and much of it is in places like Canada and the US itself. Even Australia can be said to have more gas than Qatar since the opening of the Goliath project earlier this year. It’s just that we can’t do it as cheaply as Qatar.

        Energy dominance now belongs to those who can pipe their gas and oil cheaply and in great quantities, which is why NATO/EU darling Turkey wants to become the great Sunni hub by dismantling Syria…and why Russia wants to block all that and have its hand on Europe’s energy tap.

        If Putin’s adventurism takes in a region not sympathetic to Russia, my thoughts are that he will not want the headache of the Baltic but the real advantages of the Caspian. If Azerbaijan (shiite but NATO and Turkey friendly) can’t pipe, and the Sunni states can’t pipe, I guess that leaves Russia with the most to sell at the lowest price. But will Russia want to cross over lines where the locals, unlike Crimea and the Donbass, don’t like the Bear? Dunno.

        I’m simplifying outrageously and trying to know the mind of Putin. My uneducated guess is that he is not a conqueror but a ruthless chess player who has plenty of problems at home and needs to project confidence but also moderation.

        The EU, on the other hand, is just plain nuts.

      • Mosomoso,

        I was refering to the military threat. Did you read the opinion piece in the Weekend Australian: “Putin’s new cold war’?
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/vladimir-putins-new-cold-war-spooked-nato-on-the-offensive/news-story/332a2ca392669633b5f5d356ffabf4ca
        I don’t know how to get a link to the article without paywall

      • Peter, don’t do the Australian any more, though I’m sure I miss some good bits. I much appreciate your providing the text of the Sheridan piece.

        My hope would be for some grudging collaboration between the US and Russia over the great unsolvables of immigration and Middle East stability. Turkey and the EU, the sick man and the dreamer, need to to leave the table unsatisfied but fed.

        None of this solves finally problems like Iranian influence in Africa and South America and China’s military posturing, but if there is any alternative to collaboration between the US and Russia, I can’t see it. WW1 and WW2 gave us the recipe, however awful the taste.

      • There were several really good article in the Australian this weekend. I’d urge you to go an buy a copy. Grace Collier is brilliant, as always!

      • The article by Christopher Monkton makes excellent points with good humour. I’ve posted it, but it’s in moderation.

        Here’s one paragraph:

        “Indeed, No-way and Nixerland having already voted down the EU, Brexit may well be swiftly followed by Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium. At this rate, soon the only country still participating in the European tyranny-by-clerk will be Remainia.”

      • TonyB,

        Thank you. I saw your earlier article so I tried typing in the title to get a link that did not involve paywall. But I only got the link with paywall. I expect that is what my Google finds because I have a subscription (to Australia’s most reliable and trusted newspaper).

      • @tonyb…

        You see that huge bunch of letters and numbers at the end? They probably mean it’s a one-time link of some type.

        My guess is that they have a deal with Google where they’ll generate a link like that any time somebody’s search finds the story, and it’ll only work for that person for that search.

        That’s how I’d set it up, anyway. When your browser follows a link, it sends a lot of info along with it, including the URL of the referring page. So the Web server can easily match that link with the URL Google passed along to them when the link was generated, and let you in only if they match.

        For the moment, the best way (IMO) to help people find a page that’s protected like this is to pass along a fairly unique chunk of text for them to Google. Tell them to search for the whole chunk, enclosed in quotes. Try to avoid special punctuation, outgoing links, etc.

        Eventually, if they (Australian etc.) decide they don’t want want people doing this, they’ll find a way to stop it. But for the moment it seems to work. (The title seems to work for the moment, but I’m guessing Google offers them the option of turning the feature off for the title)

      • Kind of hard to swallow notions of Putin starting a new cold war when the Western Oligarchs, drunk with power, are sending US tanks into Poland.

        I kind of think the US might get mad if Putin was doing exercises with tanks in Mexico, eh?

      • I kind of think the US might get mad if Putin was doing exercises with tanks in Mexico, eh?

        Yes. I agree with that. I do know that Russia has been behaving in a particularly inflamatory way for quite a few years. I have a engineer friend whose wife is Latvian. They travel back to her homeland from time to time. he writes that the press is not reporting what is happening. Russia sending fighter jets over the Baltic countries every few hours. The countries scramble their few just so go up an meet the Russian jest, which promptly go back into Russia. It is really scaring the population. But none of the world media is reporting it.

        Also, the Russians are sending their long range nuclear capable bombers down the English Channel between Britain and Europe.

        However, I do agree with your point and have said in the past about Russia annexing Crimea that it is Russia’s only access for it’s navy to the Mediterranean Sea and southern access to the Atlantic Ocean. Would US allow another country to block it’s navies access to the oceans ? I think not (unless it is China, it seems).

      • I’ve become somewhat a fan of Putin. While the west is hypersecksualizing its children and promoting homosecksual propaganda, Putin is installing Orthodox Christianity and Aleksandr Solyzhenitsyn in his schools.

    • catweazle666

      It is very unlikely that any subsequent British Government will have the nerve NOT to pull the UK out of the EU.

      Perhaps it is worth pointing out that it is not necessary to invoke Article 50 and use the long-winded negotiation procedures laid down therein.

      In fact, all the British Government need do is to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, and all negotiation is then on our own terms.

  30. Some people might think it no bad thing to now be at the back of an Obama queue.

  31. Thank you, America!

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    For my final broadcast to the nation on the eve of Britain’s Independence Day, the BBC asked me to imagine myself as one of the courtiers to whom Her Majesty had recently asked the question, “In one minute, give three reasons for your opinion on whether my United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union.”
    My three reasons for departure, in strict order of precedence, were Democracy, Democracy, and Democracy. For the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars – the official German name for the shadowy Commissioners who exercise the supreme lawmaking power that was once vested in our elected Parliament – have the power, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to meet behind closed doors to override in secret any decision of that “Parliament” at will, and even to issue “Commission Regulations” that bypass it altogether.
    Worse, the treaty that established the European Stability Pact gives its governing body of absolute bankers the power, at will and without consultation, to demand any sum of money, however large, from any member state, and every member of that governing body, personally as well as collectively, is held entirely immune not only from any civil suit but also from any criminal prosecution.
    That is dictatorship in the formal sense. Good riddance to it.
    I concluded my one-minute broadcast with these words: “Your Majesty, with my humble duty, I was born in a democracy; I do not live in one; but I am determined to die in one.”
    And now I shall die in one. In the words of William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon, “England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”
    Indeed, No-way and Nixerland having already voted down the EU, Brexit may well be swiftly followed by Frexit, Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovakuum, Latviaticum and Byebyegium. At this rate, soon the only country still participating in the European tyranny-by-clerk will be Remainia.
    The people have spoken. And the democratic spirit that inspired just over half the people of Britain to vote for national independence has its roots in the passionate devotion of the Founding Fathers of the United States to democracy. Our former colony showed us the way. Today, then, an even more heartfelt than usual “God bless America!”
    All who have studied the Madison papers will grasp the greatness of the Founding Fathers’ vision. They were determined that no law and no tax should be inflicted upon any citizen except by the will of elected representatives of the people in Congress assembled.
    They regarded this democratic principle as of such central importance that they wrote it down as Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States: “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Period. No ifs. No buts. No exceptions.
    Except one. The Constitution establishes that foreign treaties ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate shall have the same force of law throughout the United States as enactments of Congress.
    It is, therefore possible for any U.S. Government that can muster that Senate majority to ratify any treaty and thereby to thwart the central principle of Congressional democracy: that no Congress may bind its successors.
    The Republicans, who are not always as lively in their understanding of the threat to democracy posed by supranational and global institutions such as the EU, the UN and its bloated climate bureaucracy, are too often snared or charmed by determined “Democrats” who fully understand and thirst to exercise the power to inflict perma-Socialism on their nation by bilateral, multilateral or global treaties.
    It is astonishing how many of the GOP are willing to be cajoled and schmoozed into supporting monstrosities such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which on its face sounds like a free-marketeer’s dream but is in its small print a series of outright Socialist measures which, once the Senate has ratified them, cannot be repealed. Its climate provisions, for instance, are highly dangerous.
    It is no accident, therefore, that the bankers, the corporate profiteers, the Greens and the National Socialist Workers’ Party of Scotland – the corporatists and the communists together – made common totalitarian cause and heavily promoted the campaign to keep Britain in the EU, that paradise of vested interests and their poisonous lobbyists.
    It is likewise no accident that precisely these same national and global vested interests heavily promote the campaign to subject Britain and the world to various unnecessary and damaging measures whose ostensible purpose is to control the climate but whose real ambition is to curb capitalism, fetter freedom, punish prosperity,. limit liberty and deny democracy.
    The necessity to protect the fragile flower of democracy from the scythe of Socialism is now surely self-evident. Here are two modest proposals to ensure that the will of the people prevails over the power of the politicians, the Press, and the profiteers.
    First, every new treaty, and as many pre-existing treaties as possible, should be made subject to repeal by a national referendum – and not just by a referendum called by the governing party because it thinks it can win it but by the people via the initiative procedure. Britain would have left the EU long before now if we, the people, and not those who govern us, had had the right to put referendum questions on the ballot.
    Secondly, the governing bodies of all new supranational or global bodies exercising real sovereign power or spending taxpayers’ money from the states parties to the treaty that establishes them should be elected at frequent intervals by the peoples of those states parties.
    Otherwise every international treaty, being a transfer of power from elected to unelected hands, diminishes democracy. Britain’s membership of the European Union effectively took away our democracy altogether, so that three new laws in five (according to the researchers of the House of Commons Library) or five in six (according to the German Government in a submission some years ago to the German Constitutional Court) are inflicted upon us solely because the unelected Kommissars require it.
    Till now, our obligation has been to obey, on pain of unlimited fines.
    The vote by the people of Britain to break free from this stifling, sclerotic tyranny has sent a shock-wave through every major international governing entity. It was no accident that the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Corruption and Devastation, and various world “leaders” including Mr Obama, broke with democratic convention by openly promoting a “Remain” vote in a flagrant attempt to interfere in Britain’s decision.
    Mr Obama’s intervention was decisive. The moment he demanded that Britain should remain within the EU, the polls began to swing against it. It was only when, in his maladroit fashion, he had sought to interfere in Britain’s decision that so many undecided voters woke up to the danger that the manoeuverings and posturings of the international governing class represent to democracy.
    What will Britain’s decision mean for the climate debate? Of course, it will break us free from the EU, whose governing elite had seized upon the climate issue as a purported ex-post-facto justification for the now-hated bloc’s continued existence.
    We are left with our own British governing class, which has until now been no less determined than the EU to damage our economic and environmental interests by shutting down vital coal-fired power stations and carpeting our once green and pleasant land with windmills.
    Now that the EU and its devoted poodle Mr Cameron have been consigned to the trashcan of history, it is near-certain that any new British Cabinet will take a more alert and less acquiescent stance than the present lot on the climate question.
    It may even occur to the new Cabinet to check whether the rate of global warming is anything like what the profiteers of doom had predicted; to count the number of downstream businesses – such as cinder-blocks made from fly-ash out of coal-fired power stations – that have been destroyed by the EU’s war on coal; and even to wonder whether the forest of windmills that infest our once beautiful landscape are now extracting between them so much kinetic energy from passing storms that they are slowing them down, causing far more flash flooding than slightly warmer weather would (if and when it happened).
    In the past, there was no point in our politicians asking any such questions, for our policies on all matters to do with our own environment were set for us by the unelected Kommissars of Brussels, whether we liked it or not.
    Now that our politicians are going to have to learn to think for themselves again, rather than acting as an otiose, automated rubber stamp for directives from Them in Brussels, perhaps the Mother of Parliaments will begin to calculate the enormous economic advantage that Britain will gain by abandoning all of the climate-related directives that have driven our coal corporations, our steelworks and our aluminium works overseas, and have killed tens of thousands by making home heating altogether unaffordable.
    We, the people, are the masters now. Our politicians will have to reacquire the habit of listening not to Them but to us. Here, and in the rest of Europe, and eventually throughout the world, let freedom ring!
    Thank you, America, and God save the Queen!
    http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2016-044-comment-by-lord-monckton-on-brexit/

  32. Pingback: Brexit And Climate Change | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  33. Judith

    Little England? Nonsense. Britain has always been an international country which is why you are all speaking English and many have ancestors from here.

    The Brexit vote (for many of us) basically all comes down to that we were lied to when we (the UK) were told in 1975 during a referendum to stay or leave the EEC (at the time) that we had nothing to fear, as we were merely part of a dynamic trading block, not that this was a precursor to grab our national sovereignity and emasculate our ability to make our own decisions.

    I voted remain then, as did the overwhelming majority of my countrymen.

    The fact that an overwhelming majority of the same people-me included- now voted leave at the very first opportunity we have been given to express our opinion since then, surely tells you that things had not turned out in the manner we were promised.

    What has really got our goat is the sheer breath taking arrogance and deceits of the elite who had intended ‘ever closer’ union all along and who have subsequently been having a forty year long feeding frenzy from the gold plated EU trough of their own making.

    Politicians who have failed miserably here have gone to Europe and made a fortune -look no further than the Kinnocks.

    The turning point for me that things had to change, was when Merkel comprehensively messed up Greek debt (whose membership should never have been allowed in the first place as they fulfilled few of the 35 criteria and is still a ticking time bomb) then arbitrarily ignored the rules and invited millions of refugees and economic migrants to invade our continent, walking through national borders to a destination country-and even specific towns- they selected. Then she turned round and demanded we ALL accept some of the house guests she had invited!

    To me, this issue was mainly about our democratic right to determine our own future, a tilt at the elite, a protest about unremitting immigration changing our national identity even though we have expressly said we want it reduced (but not completely curtailed) and the apparent diminishing of European culture, values, influence and leadership in concert, it seems, with other western democracies, notably the US, who seem determined to want to withdraw from the world stage and leave it to others with less lofty ideals.

    I happen to believe that the Western democracies have, on the whole, been a force for good in the world, especially over the last 60 years and it grieves me to see us becoming complacent at defending our hard won rights and obligations and ideals as we become subsumed into one homogenous mass ruled by often unelected officials with no sense of identity.

    We don’t intend as a nation to withdraw into a corner and become diminished. The Spectator headline summed it up for me ‘out of the EU and into the world.’

    I am not a little Englander. I am English first, then British, then European and proud of all three identities. I am not proud of the EU. Nor are many of my fellow Europeans and we will see over the next year or so how this all plays out. We may yet see a Europe operating as a trade block and sill collaborating on the many issues that affect us all, but without the baleful influence of the EU hierarchy. This entity could still include the UK

    Incidentally, I never heard ONCE during the campaign anything about climate change, either from commentators or from other ordinary people. This is a red herring.

    I am proud of the blow my country has struck for self determination, excited at re-engaging with the world without the filter of European officials who know little about us, but at the same time a little scared as there is no road map to the future.

    tonyb

    • catweazle666

      “Little England? Nonsense.”

      Absolutely.

      The United Kingdom possesses the World’s fourth most powerful military, the fifth largest GDP and the sixth largest industrial output.

      Hardly “little”, by any standards – except those of the utterly discredited Cameron and his ‘Project Fear’ apparatchiks.

    • “but at the same time a little scared as there is no road map to the future.”

      The road maps to the future are what scare me. They are almost always lead us in the wrong direction .And when it’s pointed out that we are off course the designers of the road map tell us we don’t know how to a map

    • ‘Incidentally, I never heard ONCE during the campaign anything about climate change, either from commentators or from other ordinary people. This is a red herring.’

      Yes, here in the UK we’ve been saturated seemingly forever by messaging from both sides, yet climate change was simply not a feature of that messaging. Skepticism is indeed alive and kicking, even strong in the UK, but its alignment with Brexit is incidental. The leader of the Greens has expressed a negative impact of Leaving upon environmental issues, yet I never heard this picked up or discussed by anyone else. On the vast sampling of people’s views constantly showing on radio / tv, I never heard anyone else even mention climate change or environment in relation to Brexit. Of course there is an intersect of climate interested and Brexit views, yet regarding any impact on the vote there’s no indication this issue would be out of the noise.

      • Andy and Tonyb — Could you give us your insight about Brexit, Nigel Farage, and the Independent Party in the UK?

        Hope I ask my questions well — here goes: Was Brexit (A) primarily a UK and European thing?, or (B) does it represent something much deeper — a sea change in the soul of Conservatives in the UK?

        As I understand it, the Independent Party (and Nigel Farage) are minor players in the UK Parliament with only a few seats. But in the last EU Parliamentary elections, the Independent Party received the most UK seats (with Cameron & Conservatives the big losers).

        For example, one view could be that 52% of British voters simply balked at an increasing reach and footprint from Brussels within the UK — especially immigration.

        Another view — Could Brexit be a sea change in British political ideology among the electorate, closer to what we see in the U.S. GOP (especially environmental issues)?

        Now, if the Independent Party and Farage had sweeping gains in both the UK and EU elections, this would make sense. But this didn’t happen. Thanks.

      • ==> even strong in the UK, but its alignment with Brexit is incidental. ==>

        As long as you ignore the strong ideological associations.

        That’s like saying that levels of religiosity or views on gun control or even views on nuclear eneegy are incidental to views on climate change in the u.s. (albeit, those associations in the U.S. are stronger)

        They may not be causal, but “incrdental” seems to me like significant overreach.

      • Stephen

        Generally the European elections are seen as relatively unimportant. The seats cover a vast area and the candidates are anonymous . My own mep holds that position for the south west of England and Gibraltar. That should give you a hint by now of the craziness of the EU.

        Consequently , as with local elections, the electorate might see these Euro elections as a good time to give the ruling party a bloody nose without causing too much harm. This also coincides with the electorates view which is generally more sceptical of the EU than any of the major parties, who habitually use Europe to reward their cronies with secure european jobs with gold plated pensions.

        Your two statements are probably right. The 52 percent and probably many of those who voted remain are fed up wth the profoundly undemocratic mission creep and also self serving politicians and the metropolitan elite who seem to think that only their vote is valid and anyone who disagrees with them has voted wrongly.

        It’s possibly a sea change as dissatisfied Tories and labour voters- the two major parties- each found common ground with the other. Whether they would revert to type at a general election is difficult to say as constituencies tend to be more loyal to their local MP. However, in this case it may be that labour supporters would find they have more in common with Nigel Farage and UKIP and stay with him.

        However, Provided the ruling Tory government elects a leader who carries out their wishes, it is likely that disaffected Tory voters who flirted with UKIP will now be happy that they have got their way and return to the Tory party fold.

        However the wild card in all this is the profound dislike and mistrust of the established parties and anger at being bullied and that their views on the EU over many years have been ignored.

        Tonyb

      • verytallguy

        Provided the ruling Tory government elects a leader who carries out their wishes,

        The problem is, these wishes are contradictory and not enactable.

        As farage, Hammond and hannan have already pointed out.

      • J: ‘As long as you ignore the strong ideological associations.’

        I’d be interested to see your analysis of those associations. The Brexit voting patterns were complex and broke some traditional alignments. Plus the UK has never had tribal left-right alignment on CC like the US has. If your assumption is along those lines then somehow it has to accommodate the Labour Party (main left-wing) heartlands turning out in droves for Leave, and the official Conservative Party (main right-wing), and government, going all out for Remain. Added to which complex 4-way sub-nationalist votes (Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales) create further distance from simple left-right patterns. Considering that per above CC was a non-event in the campaigns for both sides, data on direct links between voting intentions and the CC issue must be extremely thin on the ground, so it’ll be particularly interesting to see what data you’ve input into your analysis. (There is essentially no gun-control debate / issue in the UK and far less polarization on religiosity, so these domains yield nothing or little over here compared to the US).

      • Tonyb and Andy — Thanks for the input. In trying to understand all the analysis of Brexit, the only thing that makes sense is Scotland changing its Facebook relationship status to: “It’s complicated”.

      • Check out the reaction of Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and…

        http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/far-right-demonstrators-take-streets-8281867

        Of course the associations are complex…we could say the same about the associations in the U.S. (look at the range of ideology among U.S. Dems who are “realists” on climate change)… which some downplay as they define “cultures.”

      • J: None of which establishes that the role of the CC issue for Brexit was more than incidental. Your link does not mention CC.

      • Andy,

        You lost Josh with this line: “so it’ll be particularly interesting to see what data you’ve input into your analysis”

      • Andy –

        Is there any particular reason that you moved from the alignment of views on CC and Brexit being incidental (which is what my comment was in reference to as it seemed to me I made quite evident) to the role of CC being incidental?

        Also, wrt the topic I was discussing, do look at the latest post at Dan’s (and, of course, the top post of this thread).

      • J: I haven’t intentionally moved topic. My original text says this:

        ‘Yes, here in the UK we’ve been saturated seemingly forever by messaging from both sides, yet climate change was simply not a feature of that messaging. Skepticism is indeed alive and kicking, even strong in the UK, but its alignment with Brexit is incidental. The leader of the Greens has expressed a negative impact of Leaving upon environmental issues, yet I never heard this picked up or discussed by anyone else. On the vast sampling of people’s views constantly showing on radio / tv, I never heard anyone else even mention climate change or environment in relation to Brexit. Of course there is an intersect of climate interested and Brexit views, yet regarding any impact on the vote there’s no indication this issue would be out of the noise.’

        I guess the wording is not ideally consistent, yet that’s also a danger of slicing a small part out. Nevertheless, the whole context is clear. And in thinking purely about ‘alignment’ rather than role or impact, I guess this is still incidental in the sense that there is highly likely stronger alignment to Leave / Remain of economic and immigration concerns and sub-national interests, otherwise the CC issue would have not been so invisible in the campaign. I think you may be pricking me with semantics here.

        At any rate, you haven’t shown any data or links which challenge that ‘highly likely’ for alignment (or role) of the CC issue with Brexit, or indeed which mention CC at all. I’m perfectly happy to believe the CC alignment is more than incidental (so per Mirriam Webster, more than ‘a minor part or result of something else’), even if for some reason this did not get expressed as a direct impact / role, as long as you have evidence to show it. On an admittedly quick scan, Dan’s post does not mention CC either.

      • Andy –

        There is more than one definition of incidental, although you picked only one with your dictionary reference (in contrast to your later usage – see below). This is particularly true in context.

        So to perhaps clarify, my assumption is that you were saying that the alignment in the UK of between views on CC and views on Brexit, respective to each other, don’t reflect a rather significant (allowing for a fairly wide range of uncertainty) overriding ideological alignment. That is what my comment meant when I said:

        As long as you ignore the strong ideological associations.

        That’s like saying that levels of religiosity or views on gun control or even views on nuclear energy are incidental to views on climate change in the u.s. (albeit, those associations in the U.S. are stronger)

        They may not be causal, but “incidental” seems to me like significant overreach.

        And I assumed my meaning was pretty clear in that…

        But perhaps not. Perhaps you thought I was speaking to the “role” of climate change (which would speak to causality) – even though I talked of ideological associations – and even though I explained I wasn’t addressing causality.

        It is interesting, btw, that in your statement I quote below, it seems to me that you do employ the meaning of “incidental” that I was responding to:

        I guess this is still incidental in the sense that there is highly likely stronger alignment to Leave / Remain of economic and immigration concerns and sub-national interests, otherwise the CC issue would have not been so invisible in the campaign. I think you may be pricking me with semantics here.

        In saying that “incidental” means that other alignments might be stronger – without any reference to “role.”

        It is also interesting that in your follow-up comment in response to me, in speaking of “links” and “associations,” it seems to me that you again spoke of ideological associations and not causality.

        Of course, in then doubling back to explicitly address the connotation of my use of incidental, you aren’t saying anything meaningful to my point anyway, as the fact that there might be other, stronger, alignments doesn’t mean that there isn’t a meaningful alignment between views on CC and views on Brexit.

        And my larger point is pretty much exactly that: Views on Brexit and CC show the same ideological-identification pattern in conjunction with the clustering of other ideological splits on other issues as we see here in the U.S. (albeit not as strong), and IMO, that alignment is not incidental, in the sense of it reflects some meaningful and important connections.

        I’ll also add on, that of course, it is my view that those alignments are essentially symmetrically oriented – and not asymmetrically configured so as to support an idealized portrait of a “culture” on one side and a loose band of independent thinkers on the other.

      • J:
        >…don’t reflect a rather significant (allowing for a fairly wide range of uncertainty) overriding ideological alignment

        isn’t this a contradiction? rather significant versus overriding.

        >It is interesting, btw, that in your statement I quote below, it seems to me that you do employ the meaning of “incidental” that I was responding to

        Well of course I do. As you note, I’d twigged what you meant and was circling back to cover it.

        Per my repitition of the full text, my own original meaning emphasized role. Yet I was attempting to add consideration of purely alignmment for you. Not without difficulty; strong cultural alignments and their expression tend to go together, yet I guess not always.

        >my larger point is pretty much exactly that: Views on Brexit and CC show the same ideological-identification pattern in conjunction with the clustering of other ideological splits on other issues as we see here in the U.S. (albeit not as strong), and IMO, that alignment is not incidental, in the sense of it reflects some meaningful and important connections.

        Absolutely there are cultural alignments regarding CC in the UK, and generically, these are most certainly ‘rather significant’ and meaningful, albeit a somewhat different and weaker (as you note) equation than in the US. I never said otherwise. In agreeing with Tony that CC was invisible in both campaigns plus all the v many samples of opinion we’d both seen, my conclusion was nevertheless that specifically in respect of Brexit CC was subordinate to other issues, i.e. incidental. I’m more than happy to be shown otherwise, but you haven’t shown.

        I guess to show that CC is more than incidental, one would need to show wrt Brexit that, if you prefer Collins, its alignment isn’t ‘happening in connection with or resulting from something more important’. Given the different groupings in both the Leavers and the Remainers, I guess this would have to be done for each grouping.

        >so as to support an idealized portrait of a “culture” on one side and a loose band of independent thinkers on the other.

        We’ve been there often before. As my main posts and many comments point out, there is cultural behaviour on both sides (albeit weaker in the UK, where all main parties left, center, and right are officially behind CC policies for instance). This is is due to cultural alliance effects; teasing out alignment (of the very kind you refer to here) sizes and sources reveals said alliances.

      • Andy –

        This discussion seems to be drawing to a logical conclusion…as such, this will be my last response (but, of course, I will read any further responses from you).

        ==> isn’t this a contradiction? rather significant versus overriding.

        What I meant is that the ideological associations cross-over and are visible against the background of a multitude of issues, The ideological alignment is overriding the specific issues at play. That’s how groups can reverse their positions on issues en masse, as we saw with Republicans in the U.S. w/r/t the insurance mandate. At one point, it was a key component of “personal responsibility.” A few years later, it was the height of tyrannical, statist government overreach. This is because what overrides everything else is the ideological clustering. And, of course, views on CC is on strand of that clustering – even if not as stark as others, and even if less strong outside the U.S.

        ==> Per my repitition of the full text, my own original meaning emphasized role.

        I see little reason to reconstruct that this point. I could present a reasoned counter-argument based on what you wrote, but what’s more meaningful, IMO, is simply clarifying what we think about the relevant issues.

        ==> Absolutely there are cultural alignments regarding CC in the UK, …

        IMO, it would probably make more sense to describe them as ideological alignments…

        ==> and generically, these are most certainly ‘rather significant’ and meaningful, albeit a somewhat different and weaker (as you note) equation than in the US.

        So it seems that largely we are in agreement in that, at least.

        ==> In agreeing with Tony that CC was invisible in both campaigns plus all the v many samples of opinion we’d both seen, my conclusion was nevertheless that specifically in respect of Brexit CC was subordinate to other issues, i.e. incidental.

        ==> In that use of “incidental,” we are in agreement there as well – I didn’t intend to argue otherwise…as I thought I’ve made clear numerous times. Although I would not go with the term “subordinate,” as while I think that the association with CC may not be as strong, I wouldn’t call it a “subordinate” association – .

        ==> We’ve been there often before.

        No doubt.

      • J:
        >IMO, it would probably make more sense to describe them as ideological alignments…

        A lot of different interpretations of the overlap of these terms. I guess simplest (but not universally held) understanding of ideology is that this means modern secular culture. More loosely a set of beliefs that characterize a culture, yet frequently albeit not exclusively this refers to strong political beliefs from approx Marx onwards, especially those that use propaganda tools etc. And less often religious belief (although it’s also the case that some folks think religions should be a subset of ideologies that happen to deal with origin and after-life, but seems a minority view). In the usage of culture from the tradition of cultural evolution, culture is anyhow the superset and covers all of religious or political or philosophical beliefs where these each reflect entrenched social systems supported upon the same mechanisms. Given religiosity is one of the alignments you mentioned, the most accepted super-set is more applicable.

        >So it seems that largely we are in agreement in that, at least.

        Good.

        >Although I would not go with the term “subordinate,” as while I think that the association with CC may not be as strong, I wouldn’t call it a “subordinate” association

        I think your semantic objections are circular. I used ‘subordinate’ to help contextualize ‘incidental’ for you. For clarity we have (same sources as above) MW: ‘less important than someone or something else’, Collins: ‘of lesser order or importance’. I hope I don’t need another word to help contextualize subordinate.

      • Andy –

        The first definition I get in a search is (adjective), “lower in rank, junior, lower, supporting.” which suggests a power relationship not just a measure of relative magnitude. And indeed, the 2nd definition (noun) I find is: “a person under the authority or control of another within an organization”

        Then we get synonyms like subservient or inferior, subject or dependent.

        For example, when I think of subordinate, I think of a “subordinating clause,”

        So those are all connotations that explain why I would not use subordinate to simply convey smaller in magnitude. You, of course, are free to use it as you like.

      • J:
        Yes, they do look like interesting links. I’ve seen some of these thoughts already and if I get time the rest looks like a good read. However, none of it speaks to your specific point about Climate Change in relationship to Brexit. On a quick ‘find’, the word ‘climate’ (and ‘warming’ too) is not even mentioned within any of these articles.

        >’…those are all connotations that explain why I would not use subordinate to simply convey smaller in magnitude’

        I think you just like arguing semantics. The ‘thing’ not ‘people’ definitions of subordinate are clearly the relevant ones in context. Subordinate is also handy here because the CC issue rarely stands alone; there are often entanglements with other issues via the cultural alignments you note, as well as CC being ‘less important’ wrt Brexit, per Collins and MW and others.

  34. As usual, data rich commentary from the Chiefio, and
    simple paths for trade and tariff schemes. Re Article 50,
    seems like good advice on cutting to the chase.

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/brexit-the-night-after-the-morning-after/

  35. A friend sent me this Al Jazeera coverage of the Brexit campaign:

    VIDEO • Brexit: The UK referendum, the rhetoric and the result – The Listening Post (Full)

    It skewers the mainstream media in the UK.

    Both sides, it says, ran a campaign of fear, fear of economic collapse on the remain side and fear of being overrun by the islamic hordes by the leave side.

    The real boogie man, however, was the mainstream media.

    It indicts the fourth estate for not doing more fact checking and for taking the campaign rhetoric, much of it lies, at face value. The MSM merely repeated the he-said she-said uncritically. The mainstream media ended up being long on mud wrestling and entertainment value and short on facts.

    The Al Jazeera report, however, is also long on narratvie and short on fact. Here are the facts that really matter to people, and the facts which rob a society’s institutions, including its scientific and intellectual institutions, of legitimacy and credibility:

    • Wow,

      That chart shows what a fantastic job Margaret Thatcher (Leader of the Conservative Party 1975-1990, PM 1979-1990) did of saving Britain.

  36. Question for Tony and any other Brits here. How do you feel about Scotland and/or Ireland breaking from the UK?

    • Also, what do you put the odds it happening?

    • jim2

      Great question. Northern Ireland? No.

      Scotland? Scotland is a great country but one that has embraced the welfare culture in recent decades too greedily. It has a wide range of benefits nowhere else in the UK enjoys, including free University education from which the English are excluded but others from the EU are not. Much of the Scottish subsidy comes from England. They did not have a balanced budget even when oil was priced so high. With the collapse in oil prices they would be running a huge deficit. The EU are welcome to pick this tab up but I doubt if the Germans et al want another slightly better off Greece, unless it is to make a political point.

      As for the chances? It depends on whether the EU elite want to punish the UK for defying them. Theoretically Scotland is not eligible to join the EU without satisfying 35 clauses (which it doesn’t) and getting in the queue.

      Theoretically new entrants MUST use the Euro. Whether the EU might waive these criteria-as they did with Greece- and fast track them is an unknown, although you still have the little matter of currency. The Scots would have little enthusiasm for the Euro and the Brits little appetite for sharing the pound and guaranteeing the reserves of what would be a foreign country

      Providing all play by the rules there is no chance of Scotland joining the EU anytime in the next 10 years. As Merkel demonstrated, rules are there to be broken when it works in their favour. Spain however would still be likely to veto it as this would set Catalonia off again.

      I would rather the Scots stayed with us-it must be one of the most successful political and financial alliances of all time. However, we are getting increasingly irritated at the idea they can call referendums when it suits them and these are only a one way street.

      tonyb

    • catweazle666

      Jim2: “Question for Tony and any other Brits here. How do you feel about Scotland and/or Ireland breaking from the UK?”

      No chance whatsoever of either happening.

      Sturgeon has already been rebuffed by the EU officials, it is not possible for a section of a state to remain in the EU if the rest pulls out, and as it would take an Act of Parliament for another Scottish independence referendum, she isn’t going to get that any time soon.

      In any case, as the economies of Scotland and Northern Ireland are both utterly dependent on the British Government for their finance, and as the price of oil is way down, they are incapable of meeting the financial criteria.

      Then there is the matter of requiring all 27 states to ratify their request, which won’t happen as Belgium and Spain would certainly veto it as both are resisting independence movements themselves – Walloonia and Catalonia, so wouldn’t want to set any precedent.

      As to Northern Ireland, it is mainly and very deeply Protestant, whereas Eire is very Roman Catholic, there would be civil war if any attempt was made in that direction.

  37. David Wojick

    The elephantine question is when will the UK payments to the EU stop? That defines the break. http://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/european-union-eu-budget-share-of-contributions/.

  38. From the article:

    With Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, one of Wall Street’s most closely followed bears says that Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen should send the Brexit campaign leaders a gift basket.

    The U.K.’s decision sent global markets reeling in its aftermath, hiking volatility and injecting uncertainty into the outlook for the world’s economy. For those reasons, a growing number Wall Street watchers think the Fed’s timetable to gradually hike interest rates have been severely curtailed, if not taken off the table altogether.

    The Fed’s willingness to begin pulling back on crisis era policy was already in doubt. “Now, Janet Yellen can blame her failure to raise rates on Brexit,” said Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital on CNBC’s “Trading Nation” this week.

    “She could even use this as an excuse to cut rates back to zero and launch QE4,” the bearish investor said, referring to a fourth round of quantitative easing, the massive bond buying used by the Fed to try and spur growth.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/25/peter-schiff-brexit-is-a-gift-for-janet-yellens-fed-policy.html

  39. From the article:

    The chairman of the Burnbrae Group told CNBC on Friday the end of the euro is looming after the British vote to leave the European Union.

    The currency hit a low of $1.0909 against the dollar after the vote, ending the session near $1.11. While many analysts have bet on a break up of the single currency in the past, the U.K.’s decision to exit the EU has raised the stakes, and led to speculation that dissatisfaction with European unity could lead other members to depart.

    Burnbrae’s Jim Mellon, who had supported the leave campaign, told CNBC’s “Worldwide Exchange” the euro is “unsustainable.” He said that within the euro zone, Germany’s currency is “significantly undervalued, but France’s is overvalued.”

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/24/after-brexit-the-euro-is-gone-within-three-to-five-years-one-expert-says.html

  40. article clip @jim2 | June 26, 2016 at 9:15 am dropped into moderation.

  41. Friday was a poor day for European stocks. Some did worse than others.

  42. From the article:

    Nicola Sturgeon has warned that the Scottish Parliament will try and block the UK leaving the EU using an obscure legal mechanism even if it infuriates the English.

    The First Minister said Brexit requires a legislative consent motion (LCM) from the Scottish Parliament as it impacts directly on Holyrood’s devolved responsibilities.

    She confirmed that SNP MSPs would seek to block any such motion, even if this meant that this blocked the UK from leaving the EU, because this would reflect the overwhelming Remain vote in Scotland.

    But David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, said he did not believe that the SNP government could block Brexit and said Scots “have to respect the result on Thursday even if we don’t like it.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/nicola-sturgeon-threatens-to-block-brexit-in-face-of-english-fur/

    • Sturgeon is delusional. I looked into this using the official scottish parliament website. The devolved powers requiring an LCM are all local. The expressly reserved powers include foreign policy, trade, and immigration–all EU issues where NO say has been devolved to Scotland.
      As for independence, there is a simple answer. Alone, Scotland is worse off than Greece. It would be a failed bankrupt mini state.
      Her noise is all political posturing and no substance.

      • catweazle666

        ristvan: “Her noise is all political posturing and no substance.”

        As good as that? Hmmm….

  43. I believe that Brexit was a direct result of the Nannycrat activities in Brussels. In 2014 they came after the UK vacuum cleaners as an example. In 2016, they targeted their tea kettles and toasters. I think that discussion brought many in the UK to the boiling point and the EU got toasted. Let alone hair dryers and the rest.

    I still have a hard time with their fuzzy math. From what I read, they wanted to take away the 3,000 Watt kettles that took 2:30 to bring water to temperature, with a 2,000 Watt unit that took 5 minutes to do the same?

    • That’s why I switched to inductive cooking. I can bring a cup of water to a full boil in 1:24 minutes using a 1600w heating element. Plus I get bonus points for instant response time and no residual heat. A few weeks ago I posted a comment about how going from a SEER 12 to SEER 13 energy efficiency rating on air conditioners would save consumers 10’s of billions of dollars on their cooling bills and avoid the need for dozens of new power plants on the grid. The entrenched industries fought it tooth and nail and even had the Bush administration water down the rules and it took an additional 4 years before the consumer could buy the new higher efficiency units.
      The problem I see here is 2 fold, 1) the vested interest in old technology didn’t want to spend the money to upgrade their manufacturing systems and 2) poor marketing – you don’t tell people what they can and can’t buy, you sell them on the idea that the new stuff is better and cheaper to operate than their old stuff.

    • catweazle666

      ossqss: “I still have a hard time with their fuzzy math. From what I read, they wanted to take away the 3,000 Watt kettles that took 2:30 to bring water to temperature, with a 2,000 Watt unit that took 5 minutes to do the same?”

      No problem, the EU Kommissars will simply repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics and legislate that 1,000 watts of electricity can henceforth produce 1,500 watts of heat, simple as that.

      Job done!

      • Wow! I am learning a lot about why the population of not just GB, but most of EU is so angry.

        I hope Brexit is a massive wake up call to the EU Komissars. EU neeeds to go back the drawing board and reconstitute a federal government with representatives elected by the people.

    • Laugh or Cry?- And Then They Came For The Kettle…
      “The European Union is considering pulling the plug on high-wattage hair dryers, lawn mowers and electric kettles in a follow up to its controversial ban on powerful vacuum cleaners.
      […]
      A study ordered by the European Commission, currently in draft form, has identified up to 30 electrical appliances including lawn mowers, smart phones and kettles that could be covered by the EU’s Ecodesign directive outlawing high-wattage devices.”

      May I also suggest a ban on hard boiled eggs!

      • David Springer

        “May I also suggest a ban on hard boiled eggs!”

        You can have my hard boiled eggs when you pry them out of my cold dead hands.

      • You don’t let it get that far.

        You make sure the only ones with cold hands are those coming to take from you. After all it is difficult for dead hands to grab anything, including your hard boiled eggs.

      • David Springer

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold,_dead_hands

        Standard form. Take your complaint up with the NRA.

        Eventually we all get that far. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal illness.

        Write that down.

      • David Springer

        This won’t work with boiled eggs but if you buy the farm while holding a rifle in a hasty sling it will remain in at least one cold dead hand until pried away. All jarheads know this. Squids may not.

      • David Springer

        The hasty sling may be used offhand, kneeling, sitting, or prone too. It’s extremely stable when tightened up enough so it hurts. You can’t possibly walk away from a USMC rifle range with an expert badge without using it. The downside is that it slows down changing magazines slightly because you can only use one hand. In the prone position however that’s a benefit because you have to roll onto your side to eject the magazine. With a hasty sling when you roll back into firing position you’re locked precisely back on target without looking.

      • Springer: The pic of the hipster with the rifle is all wrong. The forward elbow should be touching his ribs (bone on bone) and his rear forearm should be parallel to the deck.

  44. BREXIT
    Next Exit

    The UK did by choice what Greece should have done out of necessity and to take correct past mistakes. And, it’s also what many blue-belt US cities have done and need to do– had to do: a reset.

    The only thing that changes everything is whatever the self-deluders of the world take from it, If it makes people face and deal with facts, something good can come of it.

    In the end, people are better off realizing global warming is a hoax and a scare tactic rather than blindly continuing down a road blazed by enablers of Eurocommunism.

      • Brexit, Departugal, Italeave, Czechout, Austria La Vista, Finish, Slovakout, Latervia, Byegium, Noraway, Donegary, Nethermind, Latervia, Fruckoff, Splitzerland, Polend, Donemark, Luxumbye, Mexigo… Americant: Los Adios Baby, San Diexit, San Franceaseco, New Yikes, Buston…

  45. wrt to climate change, Europe is largely irrelevant for the same reasons the EU is failing – falling populations.

    • What else could you expect when the experts all point out they will cost you and your wife $1,000,000.00, each? If things continue as they have the experts will be proven right.

  46. From the article:

    Where do we go from here? The markets were positioned for a remain vote and we are dealing with that fallout. We have dodged the immediate bullet: Today’s U.S. open, while down notably, was orderly and devoid of the massive trading halts we saw on the last big down day (Aug. 24).

    Here are some quick thoughts:

    On where we are now. We’re back where we have been for ages — a little above or below 2,050. Since mid-April, the S&P has gone from roughly 2,100 to 2,030 (mid-May) to a little over 2,100 (early June) back to 2,050, then back to 2,100, and now we’re back just a bit below 2,050. In fact, we have hovered around 2,050 for over a year. We could of course go lower, but we are still a ways from 1,800, which we saw in February.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/24/brexit-aftermath-where-do-markets-go-from-here.html

  47. George Friedman

    has been writing and speaking about the dissolution and fragmentation of Europe ( and all of Eurasia ) for some time now:

    • 47:43ff

      […] The reason that Europe didn’t have a World War III among itself is that it was occupied by the Americans and the Soviets and they didn’t want to have one.

    • Eddie,

      In “Management Challenges of the 21st Century” Peter Drucker wrote that one of the major challenges would be the growing “incongruence between economic globalization and political splintering”.

      Given the choice, people prefer smaller governments more responsive to their needs. Maybe it’s the 150 people theory at work…

      Czechoslovakia -> Czech Republic and Slovakia
      Yugoslavia -> Slovenia, Croatia, …
      USSR -> Russia, Georgia, Ukraine,…
      .
      .
      .

      Not many going the other way. Can anyone name a few?

  48. Judith Curry turned me into a newt.

    Prior to reading on climate, I was a happy liberal and believer in the NWO.
    Now as a result of being negatively influenced by you lot in the climate blogosphere, I now see the EU and the Progressive Movement as anti-democratic ideologically miserable prudes.

    Then again, I am an old white guy.
    According to the press, there are almost no old white guys in Scotland.
    Perhaps since they are low on old white guys, I could immigrate there.
    I lack grandfatherly cuteness though.

    • Old guys rule! What happened to the OWGs in Scotland? They don’t want us here in Silicon Valley either. Perhaps Scotland can put together a special work visa program for OWG STEMs?

      • Danny Thomas

        “Perhaps Scotland can put together a special work visa program for OWG STEMs?”

        Will it pay in British pounds? Might be a margin play in that over time.

  49. For some comic relief, watch this Yes Minister clip about why the UK joined EU

    • Danny Thomas

      Divide and rule. A pigs breakfast. Called diplomacy.

      I now have a better understanding of the Trump candidacy. Thanks for that!

  50. Did you know there’s a cost and downside to the Brexit? That “some people” – especially alienated yoof! – have already changed their minds or wished they’d voted? That it won’t be as simple as you think (even if you never thought so)?

    Did you know that Farage is in the middle of a scandal because someone in Leave said something about the NHS? Did you know the Brexit hasn’t actually happened yet, although you thought it would come the morning after the vote (even if you didn’t think so, and nobody thought so)?

    It’s not just the usual preachy conformists of the Guardian and HuffPo. From Business Insider to sports journal The Roar, the mainstream media is doing what it does best: patronising, manipulating, distorting. Because nobody must interfere with the good old natural balance of opinion maker and opinion receiver.

    At the height of the Cold War, a Russian dissident visiting the West expressed his amazement at the members of our “free” press. He could not understand how they did willingly what the press behind the Iron Curtain would only do under threat of torture or death.

    So the Herd of Independent Minds is unhappy with Brexit? That’s proof it’s a good punt.

  51. Where do these clowns come up with all the crying over freedom of travel, ability of people to study outside their country of residence, ability of researchers or any business to cross borders and participate? The US is not a member, yet does billions in business in the UK. I have a nephew who is about to complete his doctorate in Belgium. Having to show a passport is no hurdle to travel or commerce.

    • Yep, a lot of these dire predictions are nothing more than wishful thinking.

      • Michel de Montaigne advising us to humanize our
        idealism and distrust transcendental humours.
        ‘Essay on Experience.’ Scotland listen up…

        “People try to get out of themselves and to escape from
        the man. This is folly; instead of transforming themselves
        into angels, they turn into beast; instead of lifting, they
        degrade themselves. These transcendental humors
        frighten me, like lofty and inaccessible heights.”

      • Parallels much?

  52. “Bracksies”: how Brexit could wind up not actually happening

    http://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12031254/no-brexit-article-50

  53. Prior to the UK joining the EU foreign scholars had little difficulty studying in the UK. Why would it be any different after they leave?

  54. I’d like to thank the Brits for a great weekend. It’s been more fun than we deserve.

  55. Here that race card gets played again, this time against the Leave voters:

    VIDEO • EU referendum: welcome to the divided, angry Kingdom
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/jun/22/eu-referendum-welcome-to-the-divided-angry-kingdom-video

    • The last resort of the left: accuse opponents of being rubes, uneducated, and racist.

    • The video explains a lot about how this vote was used as a protest vote by many who were not well off, and wanted someone to blame and any way to shake it up so that they could start over in some way. Sad.

  56. Why do neoliberals and Alarmists/Warmists hate democracy so much?

    Kenneth Rogoff: Britain’s Democratic Failure
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-democratic-failure-for-uk-by-kenneth-rogoff-2016-06

    • Why do neoliberals and Alarmists/Warmists hate democracy so much?

      Because they are more swayed by the loony left’s prescriptions than the arguments and policies of the rationalists.

    • Why do neoliberals and Alarmists/Warmists hate democracy so much?

      Because they can.

    • Mr. Stehle, Mr. Lang, and PA — You really need to use a different term than neoliberalism to describe what you are trying to describe. In economics, neoliberalism is associated with the policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

      • Stephen Segrest,

        And even though neoliberalism may have been “introduced by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan” in the UK and the US, both the Labor Party and the Democratic Party certainly took the ball and ran with it.

        When it comes to neoliberalism, there is no difference between the parties. They supposedly hail from different sides of the aisle, but in reality are both on the neoliberal team.

      • How about neoantidisestablishmentarianism?

    • Stephen Segrest,

      I am fully aware that Saint Ronnie and Madonna Margaret were the neoliberal gurus of the US and the UK, respectively.

      However, the first rollout of neoliberalism was in Chile, beginning in 1975 under the dictatorship of Agusto Pinochet. You can read more about it here:

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/17/the-road-from-serfdom/

      Next would be Argentina under the military dictatorship (1976-83). You can read more about that here:

      http://jds.sagepub.com/content/20/3-4/173.abstract

      And here:

      http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-98482007000100001

      Greg Grandin, because Latin America was the crucible where neoliberalism was first implemented, called Latin America “Empire’s Workshop” in his book of that same name.

      But neoliberalism is like cancer, and after it takes hold it slowly metasizes. It not only gradually worsens and destroys the infected organ, but spreads though the entire body politic and body economic, in other words throughout the world.

      As Yves Smith noted yesterday:

      Some readers may object to Rose conflating the rejection of the EU with the destructive effects of Thatcherism. This has been an argument made by many commentators, who also happen to be members of the elite: the Leave voters took their desire for revenge on austerity-minded UK politicians out on the wrong object.

      I’m not sure I buy this “voters are dumb” argument. While Thatcher set the deinstrialiaztion-of-the UK ball rolling in a big way, economic integration with the EU allowed it to be carried further.

      But Thatcher realized that neoliberalism could only be taken so far under a democratic polity. As Grandin notes, speaking of her and Friedrich von Hayek:

      He was so impressed that he held a meeting of his famed Société Mont Pélérin there [in Chile]. He even recommended Chile to Thatcher as a model to complete her free-market revolution. The Prime Minister, at the nadir of Chile’s 1982 financial collapse, agreed that Chile represented a “remarkable success” but believed that Britain’s “democratic institutions and the need for a high degree of consent” make “some of the measures” taken by Pinochet “quite unacceptable.”

      This is where the anti-democratic governance of the European Union comes into play, because it is not possible to implement neoliberalism in a democratic polity, as Thatcher well knew.

  57. Globalization and its discontents: How the Trump/Brexit movements might herald New World Orders.
    Trump and the Leave campaign share many common political themes — the end result could be chaos

    http://www.salon.com/2016/06/25/globalization_and_its_discontents_how_the_trumpbrexit_movements_might_herald_new_world_orders/

    If Trump and Brexit plunge us into the Eliotic realm of chaos and discord, these are the words from “The Wasteland” that now may make sense to us all: “These fragments I have shored against my ruins.”

  58. Brexit: Fear, Loathing, and Anger on Both Sides of the Channel
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/brexit-fear-loathing-and-anger-on-both-sides-of-the-channel.html

    It would be for the best if…the European leaders could recognize why and how the EU and Eurozone went off the track.

    But one of its underlying principles was a suspicion of democracy and a preference for rule by technocrats. Those experts have done too well from their misrule and are too remote from the victims of their blinkered vision to be able to change course.

    Europe’s fault lines will thus open into full-bore fractures due to their refusal to abandon the neoliberal policies that sowed the seeds of this revolt.

    • Oh that vision of Utopia,
      your outpost in Europia
      has had its glory-moment in the sun
      and the process of collapsing is begun;
      something rotten in the heart of you,
      bona-fides of grotesque-gnomes of
      Brusseldom under review.

      A serf.

  59. Glenn,

    It would be for the best if…the European leaders could recognize why and how the EU and Eurozone went off the track.

    I’ve seen no sign of that so far. Just DENIAL and BLAME GAMEs

  60. UK seizes democracy it invented
    The European Union’s political system most closely resembles that of the People’s Republic of China.

    “The BBC’s Katya Adler politely put her question to Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, at his Brussels press conference on Friday: was the British referendum vote to leave the EU “the beginning of the end” of this organisation?

    First, he pretended not to hear. Then Juncker uttered the single word “No” — and abruptly walked out. The bulk of the assembled journalists, after a moment of dawning realisation … applauded. What a cosy, complacent club.

    The British radio audience got its own taste of it when Martin Schulz, the European parliament’s president, told BBC Radio 4 that “this is not a crisis for the Europ­ean Union”. Well, anyone can understand the need not to appear to panic; but sublime indifference to the public’s expressed wishes at the ballot box is almost a sacred principle of the EU.

    This is ingrained in its very orig­ins: Jean Monnet, one of its founding fathers, envisaged a new Europe governed by an elite cadre of bureaucrats who would be magnificently aloof from populism and the petty day-to-day concerns of the masses. It was a Platonic vision — that is to say, one of a benign dictatorship.

    continue …

    Google: The Australian – Brexit: Britain voted for the parliamentary democracy it invented

  61. Don’t you know Putin is lovin’ it.

    German government agrees to ban fracking after years of dispute
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/24/germany-bans-fracking-after-years-of-dispute?CMP=share_btn_tw

  62. The truth about Brexit:

    The next time a terror attack or global warming happens in Europe it will be blamed on Brexit.

  63. “Researchers put a lot of emphasis on the ability to recruit and ability to travel,”

    Then perhaps they will be happy that they no longer need long flights and the associated CO2 emisssions that working in the UK and going home for the weekend require.

  64. Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions
    https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/

    Claiming that supporters of Brexit or Trump or Corbyn or Sanders or anti-establishment European parties on the left and right are motivated only by hatred but not genuine economic suffering and political oppression is a transparent tactic for exonerating status quo institutions and evading responsibility for doing anything about their core corruption.

    Part of this spiteful media reaction to Brexit is grounded in a dreary combination of sloth and habit: A sizable portion of the establishment-liberal commentariat in the West has completely lost the ability to engage with any sort of dissent from their orthodoxies, or even to understand those who disagree with them. They are capable of nothing beyond adopting the most smug and self-satisfied posture, then spouting clichés to dismiss their critics as ignorant, benighted bigots….

    The same is true of academic elites, financial elites, and political elites….

    Brexit — despite all of the harm it is likely to cause and despite all of the malicious politicians it will empower — could have been a positive development. But that would require that elites (and their media outlets) react to the shock of this repudiation by spending some time reflecting on their own flaws, analyzing what they have done to contribute to such mass outrage and deprivation, in order to engage in course correction….

    But, as usual, that’s exactly what they most refuse to do. Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, they are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to de-legitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them.

  65. Lesson: if an unpopular government carries out a referendum and expresses their own preference, they need to be prepared for a significant protest vote opposite to their view.

  66. Pingback: Britanniasta tulee iso jälleen? | Roskasaitti

  67. dennisambler

    “The other demographic that was adamantly against Brexit was younger voters,”

    Who turned out in considerably less numbers (around 45% some polls suggest), possibly because it clashed with Glastonbury.

  68. People power defies Europe’s self-appointed elites
    THE AUSTRALIAN, JUNE 27, 2016
    Jennifer Oriel

    “Britain broke free from the European Union because it had become a wellspring of politically correct fanaticism. The free trade benefits EU membership conferred did not require a political settlement that made democratic people supplicants to supranational demagogues. The cupidity of Europe’s self-appointed elite and the arrogance of its unelected bureaucratic class provoked the leave campaign. Brexit hails the return of democracy and reason to Europe.

    It is difficult to measure the effect of mass movements in days or weeks. Be in no doubt ­— Brexit is not a single act, it is a mass movement driven by millions of people passionate about democracy and their contribution to its future. Every mass movement has an iconic moment — a picture that tells a thousand words. Brexit’s iconic image was rock star Bob Geldof on a pleasure cruiser with EU elites sticking two fingers up at a fishermen’s rally for Brexit. The EU’s let-them-eat-bread moment was met with a let them eat Brexit landslide. The largest voter turnout since the 1992 general election returned a decisive victory of 52 per cent for Brexit.

    The hard Left has gone into overdrive to revise the reality of Brexit by framing it as xenophobic and demanding another vote. It is a pity it doesn’t reflect on why it lost the vote. The pro-EU rhetorical weapon of choice against Brexit was the race card. People supporting self-determination and sovereign democracy over supranational demagoguery were vilified as racists and xenophobes.”

    Continue … Google: “Brexit: vote is an escape from EU’s politically correct fanaticism”

    • Peter Lang said:

      People supporting self-determination and sovereign democracy over supranational demagoguery were vilified as racists and xenophobes.

      The race card is the all-purpose trump card the global elites play to demonize and stigmatize their enemies.

      Heck, the Alarmists/Warmists have even figured out a way to apply it to CAGW. This, for instance, from the Environmental Protection Agency:

      Although climate change is an inherently global issue, the impacts will not be felt equally across the planet. Impacts are likely to differ in both magnitude and rate of change in different continents, countries, and regions. Some nations will likely experience more adverse effects than others.
      https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/international.html

      • Glenn,

        The race card is the all-purpose trump card the global elites play to demonize and stigmatize their enemies.

        Yes. Along with “denier” and a whole host of other words used meant in a pejorative sense.

    • ” it is a mass movement driven by millions of people passionate about democracy and their contribution to its future”

      No it’s not, it is driven by a desire to punish the UK government, ignorance over how the EU works, and fears about immigration.

      • agnostic2015 said:

        No it’s not, it is driven by…ignorance over how the EU works….

        But of course only you, one of the Enlightened Ones, knows how the EU works.

        Everyone who doesn’t agree with you is, of course, veritably ignorant white trash.

      • Agnostic

        Not so.. The British government was only voted in last year and have done nothing to warrant ‘punishment’. Most people were concerned about the overarching nature of the EU and its accountability. Other sub issues obviously came into play including immigration and costs.

        tonyb

      • Tony

        The British government was only voted in last year and have done nothing to warrant ‘punishment’

        In your opinion.

        As someone brought up in Redcar, i can assure you that there a very many people who would wish the veritable fires of hell upon this government as punishment both for its actions and inactions. (Not saying they’re right, just that there is a big swathe of opinion out there, particularly in some of the stronger vote leave areas)

      • catweazle666

        agnostic2015: “No it’s not, it is driven by a desire to punish the UK government, ignorance over how the EU works, and fears about immigration.”

        More arrant nonsense.

        You really don’t know the first thing about European – and particularly British – politics.

        And it shows.

  69. Such heinous, unforgivable racist crimes being committed in the wake of Brexit!

    Brexit: Racist abuse in UK reported since vote to leave EU
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/27/europe/racist-attacks-post-brexit/index.html

    Racial abuse is on the rise in post-Brexit Britain, a Conservative British MP has said, as police confirmed they were investigating two racially-motivated crimes.

    Anti-immigrant leaflets saying “Leave the EU – no more Polish vermin” were put on cars near a school, local police said, the day after the country voted to leave the European Union.

    On Sunday, the Polish Social and Cultural Association in Hammersmith, west London, was allegedly vandalized with a racist slogan….

    Conservative politician and lawyer Baroness Sayeeda Warsi…told Sky News that organizations working with race crime victims had seen a rise in reports of abuse since the Brexit vote….

    Warsi had previously accused the “Leave” campaign of peddling “lies, xenophobia and the politics of hate” following her decision to quit before the vote.

  70. I am climate skeptic (after many years of careful consideration from an alarmist point of view), my views and independent assessment on the subject align very closely with Dr Curry’s.

    My views on the environment and energy are that renewables are completely inadequate to be able to deal with modern and future energy demands, and that human and environmental well being are closely tied with cheap, high density energy, of which modern nuclear fission and fusion can be pretty much the only answer. On this subject, my views most closely align with Peter Lang.

    On the question of the EU however, it is my view that removing ourselves from it is absolutely crazy. Madness beyond measure.

    Most of the reasons given for leaving the EU are based on completely gobsmackingly inaccurate information. It is comparable to the utter bizarreness you often hear from alarmist views on climate change, or creationists squabbling about evolution.

    Here is a lecture given by a professor in UK and EU constitutional law shortly before the vote:

    I highly commend it to the denizens.

    Years ago, one of the very first projects in my professional career was a documentary about the EU in 2001 called “The ‘E’ word”, in a serious about how politics were failing. I should add here that politics is always failing, the same old moans and groans we hear today have been going on ever since cavemen took a vote on whether to hunt for cows or sheep.

    The documentary investigated the extraordinary convoluted EU system and concluded that the EU’s main problem was that it remote, distant, and unfathomable, and the people for whom it was acting didn’t identify with it. They identified with their own countries rather than feeling like a European citizen. Most of the problems with the EU lay in the difficulty people who work in it had to face, but broadly speaking it got the job done and has presided over the greatest period of prosperity and security in Europe’s long history. It’s image problem is not helped by the seduction of using it to blame for individual governments failings.

    It should be pointed out that:

    – If the UK want to be part of the single market, it will have to abide by the rules all the other member states have to abide by, yet it will have no say in them. This is a reduction in democracy, not an increase!

    – We would STILL have to accept the free movement of people to and from the EU, a major reason why people wanted to leave which was to control immigration.

    – Scotland, who voted heavily to remain, well may end up leaving the UK in order to rejoin the EU, OR it may be able to block the brexit. Either way, cue constitutional crisis.

    – Northern Ireland will also become a flash point, as if it needed much of an excuse already. There will be a land border between the UK (if it remains part of the UK) and the EU…..as well as Scotland if it leaves.

    We gain nothing, nothing at all by leaving. We certainly don’t gain democracy, or power to the people – what a laugh. What, you think the absolute abysmal gallery of morons in Westminister are going to make everything alright? The last has been 4 days in an absolute catastrophe for the UK, for Europe and for the UK’s standing in the world.

    • On climate, I think you’ve studied yourself into a completely wrong answer…

      but I pretty much agree with you on Brexit and the EU.

    • agnostic2015 said:

      Most of the problems with the EU lay in the difficulty people who work in it had to face, but broadly speaking it got the job done and has presided over the greatest period of prosperity and security in Europe’s long history. It’s image problem is not helped by the seduction of using it to blame for individual governments failings.

      Complete and total, defactualized nonsense.

      The only reason the ‘hired liars and bumsuckers of the lords of capital’ want to make things more complicated than they really are — an “extraordinary convoluted EU system” as you put it — is so they can baffle the proles with BS.

      The EU is a neoliberal project, pure and simple.

      And neoliberal projects always operate at the supranational level. And neoliberal projects always have one goal and one goal only: to screw working-class folks on behalf of the lords of capital. Neoliberalism is class war, conducted at the local and supranational level, and that’s the breadth and depth of it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      Here’s how it worked:

      Step 1:
      The first step in the class war was to get German workers to work for less. This was achieved with the labor “reforms,” also known as the Hartz Plan, implemented by the German government beginning in 2003. The effect was immediate, and there is nothing complex or difficult about this to understand. Wages in Germany dropped in comparison to wages in other countries in the EU.

      Step 2:
      The lower wages in Germany resulted in diminished aggregate domestic demand, which created a sufeit of manufactured goods which could be exported. These are goods which the German workers should have consumed, but were deprived of the fruits of their labor by Germany’s neoliberal regime.

      Lower wages meant lower production costs in Germany, making German goods more competititve, and more easily exportable due to their lower price, to the rest of the EU and the world. Germany began to wrack up large trade surplusses, and its trading partners, like the UK, large trade deficits. Producers in countries like the UK had a difficult time competing with the lower-priced German products, due to lower.priced German labor. Deindustrialization is the end product, with a concomitant loss of manufacturing employment in the UK and other trade deficit countries.

      The trade deficits had to be financed, and were financed by private financial institutions. Here’s what the net result of all this looks like for chronic debtor countries like the UK:

      Step 3:
      When some countries, like Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, reached the point where they could no longer pay their debts, the EU “bailed them out.” What these bailouts really amounted to, however, was bailing out the private banks that had loaned those countries money. Essentially the bad loans were moved off the books of the private banks and onto the books of the EU and the ECB, and at 100% of nominal face value. There were no discounts. The private banks were made whole for their imprudent lending, and the taxpayers of the EU and the ECB were left holding the bag.

      These loans will never be paid. As Michael Hudson is fond of saying, “Debt that can’t be repaid, won’t be repaid.” The only thing the EU and ECB are doing now is kicking the can down the road, trying to move the day of default, and the loan losses that will entail, along with the dire political consequences that will accompany that, to some date in the future.

      It’s a house of cards, just waiting to implode.

  71. Take a look at this for all you demographically minded sciencey people. Which demographic would you belong to and would a vote been representative of it?

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

    I am the first to admit here, that the sample (under 13k) size is not huge, and I don’t know how that works out across the various regions which were very split. But it is interesting.

  72. With the turmoil of Brexit and its effect on our main political parties, both of which seem to be self-destructing over the issue, climate change will fall lower down the political agenda.

    • Sensory overload. Interesting experiment of using social media to interconnected the brains of 4-5 billion people. Monsters from the Id and all that hive mind stuff.

  73. Scientists cries that they hope the science doesn’t suffer sounds more like fear of loss of funding for the Man made climate change groupthink gravy train. If I were a scientist, I would be more concerned about the blow to credibility that the climate change lie has dealt to actual science, but as it is those peddling the climate lie aren’t scientists. They are cowards who are paid to support lies.

  74. Willis Eschenbach

    agnostic2015 | June 27, 2016 at 9:00 am

    “I don’t see how an independent Britain will be worse off than an independent Switzerland”

    Because Switzerland is too small for its voice to be significant with in the EU which is why it hasn’t bothered chasing membership further. Switzerland is a great example FOR the UK to stay in; it has to pay to be a member, it has to accept the free movement of people, and it has NO say in the rules that affects them.

    Since Switzerland is LARGER THAN ALMOST HALF (13/27) of the countries in the EU, the “it’s too small” claim simply won’t wash. If your claim were correct, half the countries in the EU should get out immediately because they’re too small to be significant.

    The idea that the UK gives up it’s sovereignty to be in in the EU is NONSENSICAL! I wish people could grasp this…..

    If as you claim the UK doesn’t give up it sovereignty to be in the EU, count me among those who can’t “grasp that”. Please explain to us all why the UK (if it had stayed in) would have been forced to follow the lunatic antiscientific regulations regarding say hot water kettles …

    Finally, you say:

    Ultimately sovereignty lies with the UK, as it always had. We gain nothing back by leaving, and we lose control of our destiny by leaving since we no longer have the opportunity to shape our destiny through Europe.

    If the UK is a member of the EU, it has to follow rules made by unelected EU bureaucrats. How you translate that into no loss of sovereignty by the UK is a total mystery. If I had to follow rules made by some combination of unelected Central American bureaucrats I’d call that a loss of US sovereignty … seems to me that you’ve been a slave so long you’ve forgotten what freedom looks like.

    w.

    PS—What the heck does it mean when you say that the UK could “shape your destiny through Europe”??? I have no clue what you are trying to say there. Seems to me like at present what “shape your destiny through Europe” means is that you get dragged around by the nuts by Angela Merkel … is that your desired shape for the destiny of the UK?

    • Agnostic

      You would think that if Switzerland had all the pain of paying out for EU association but had few of the benefits of membership,, that they would be clamouring to join. They aren’t. Switzerland withdrew its long standing application only last week.

      https://www.rt.com/news/346884-switzerland-eu-membership-application-rejected/

      The comments on the article are interesting

      tonyb

      • climatereason: https://www.rt.com/news/346884-switzerland-eu-membership-application-rejected/

        Thank you for the link. I have passed it on to some friends who are in a panic over the Brexit vote.

      • Yes I know about that. I tried to explain about it to Willis in my reply. My wife is Swiss and I know a fair amount Swiss politics and history.

        The bottom line is; Switzerland will have to accept the principle of free movement for it to remain in the EU. The only way for this to change is if the EU was to revoke the principle EU-wide. I don’t see that happening.

        Switzerland’s politics are very different to the UK. It is not a country in the sense most people think of it, it is actually more like a miniature version of the EU. As such it can hardly take a step without consulting its people. But another principle of Swiss politics is Neutrality. Joining an economic/politic alliance is contrary to that principle. However, Switzerland was suffering very badly from not being in the Union….and on a personal note, it made my relationship with my eventual wife extremely difficult.

        So they negotiated this half way house alliance, joining of the single market, the shengen area and so on and things improved for them substantially. But they would like to not have to accept the free movement of people upon which access to the single market is contingent. I don’t see them being successful.

    • “Since Switzerland is LARGER THAN ALMOST HALF (13/27) of the countries in the EU, the “it’s too small” claim simply won’t wash”

      Well, it’s one of the reasons. The other is the nature of Switzerland itself. It’s complex, but basically Switzerland is miniature version of the EU. It is confederation of separate states called Cantons, each with their own customs, dialects, culture and tax raising powers. Switzerland has been island of stability in a very turbulent continent, and their whole outlook is immensely conservative in the traditional sense of the word.

      It’s also the most democratic nation on earth and they have several referenda per year on all sorts of issues. Due to their exceptional history and their duty to neutrality (something that was set up by Napoleon – the history of which really fascinating), joining a political union was never really feasible, and the electorate didn’t go for it. But it did go for economic union because it HAD to, they were struggling very severely in the late 90s. Once they did join however, they haven’t looked back. But it has meant they have had to pay to be in the single market, accept EU regulations including free movement of people, and they get no say in how things are run.

      “If the UK is a member of the EU, it has to follow rules made by unelected EU bureaucrats.”

      This is one of those great fallacies that abound. It just simply isn’t true. Willis, you of all people know not to just believe a consensus. I suggest looking at the link I posted up thread which will give you some idea:

      https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/25/brexit-and-climate-change/#comment-792316

      The “unelected” commissioners are basically glorified lawyers. They DON’T make the laws, they negotiate with other commissioners of the member states in order to come to a compromise on a piece of legislation put forward either by the EU parliament or by a member state or by petition. They have no say at all on what those laws should be and generally any piece of legislation has to be ratified by the European parliament. The best I guess you could say is that they could stuff up a law or prevent it from going through. But they are accountable to the democratically elected governments that appointed them.

      There ARE problems with this process, but let’s keep this brief.

      Constitutionally speaking, the supreme authority in the UK is the UK government. That’s just fact. It’s not my opinion. You can look it up or ask an expert on EU and UK constitutional law. The reason (I think) you get so much rubbish about how we have to accept this law or that law is because it suits the current government to pass the buck for difficult or potentially unpopular decisions. The bonkers laws that we all hear and laugh about, sometimes are just urban myth and sometimes (speculation alert) because the level of compromise was too great, or perhaps they just couldn’t be bothered and went for beer and mussels. But those bonkers laws allows for one regulation as standard throughout Europe, meaning if you adhere to the standard you can sell or trade anywhere within Europe. That’s one of the EU’s prime functions.

      • Agnostic

        EU law has supremacy over UK law in those increasing number of areas for which the EU is responsible. It is a basic tenet as to how the EU can function with 28 states.

        https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-law-and-uk/

        Over the last forty years much has been made about drawing red lines on specific subjects beyond which the UK government would not concede primacy to the EU but invariably these were mostly eventually conceded, but with a few opt out’s.

        In theory-but in theory only-the UK parliament can over rule EU supremacy, but in practice they don’t as the system would not work and it would have caused a major constitutional crisis, a trip to a court and a fine. You have to implement EU law (which comes in many forms) you can not ignore it.

        It is further complicated by the differing systems of law between the Napoleonic code of much of Europe and our own system. Basically (greatly simplified) Innocent until proven guilty here and that someone has to prove their innocence over there. Over here you are allowed to do something unless specifically forbidden whilst on the continent something is not allowed unless it has been specifically permitted.

        This is all a very simplified version with many caveats. Increasingly the ‘prove your innocence’ element has been written into our laws, for example in tribunals and employment law. It has been a pernicious process and in many ways contradictory.

        This item below is a very good if complex interpretation;

        https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/02/21/1000-words-if-european-union-law-is-supreme-can-parliament-be-sovereign/

        ‘The upshot is that, for as long as the UK remains a Member State of the EU, parliamentary sovereignty still exists, but it is unlawful—as a matter of EU and international law—for sovereignty to be exercised in ways that are incompatible with EU law.’

        tonyb

      • “They DON’T make the laws, they negotiate with other commissioners of the member states”….

        ….actually at the risk of contradicting myself, this isn’t entirely accurate. They can propose laws relating to their portfolio, but they can’t enact them without the consent of the EU parliament – much like a minister of an executive branch of government might.

        And the EU parliament can sack them. The point is, the idea that “un-elected bureaucrats ” dicate laws to the UK is nonsense.

      • Agnostic

        I provided a long reply to you but it is in moderation so here is a snippet.

        —– —-
        “EU laws have primacy.

        https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/02/21/1000-words-if-european-union-law-is-supreme-can-parliament-be-sovereign/

        ‘The upshot is that, for as long as the UK remains a Member State of the EU, parliamentary sovereignty still exists, but it is unlawful—as a matter of EU and international law—for sovereignty to be exercised in ways that are incompatible with EU law.’

        tonyb

      • agnostic2015 said:

        The reason (I think) you get so much rubbish about how we have to accept this law or that law is because it suits the current government to pass the buck for difficult or potentially unpopular decisions.

        The old “the devil made me do it” defense, hun?

        British politicans, like all people, I’m sure are prone to use that defense.

        Mark one up for democracy, taking that one off the table for British politicans.

      • Hi Tony,

        That is an extremely interesting article, but it does not mean that EU laws have primacy if UK parliament disagree.

        “Where, then, does this leave us? If EU law is supreme, can Parliament be sovereign? The answer is ‘yes’. Parliament can insist that domestic legislation—either generally, or in respect of particular Acts—is to prevail over EU law.”

        In practise they do not, because EU law is made BY the UK in conjunction with other member states. This is the crucial bit of the puzzle that so many don’t get.

        The EU is a unique body. People think of it as some kind of over arching authority, but it is not. In practise it “kind of” is, because the laws that it creates are derived from its members and as such would not be incompatible with it’s own sovereign intentions.

        Remember, the EU is not a sovereign state or entity. The UK is.

        I really recommend the link to the video of Prof Michael Dougan which is a fairly succinct explanation.

      • “The old “the devil made me do it” defense, hun?”

        Yes. There has been continuous snarking at the EU which has gone undefended for years. One of the rules of propaganda is to repeat, repeat, repeat. You know this from the climate change wars.

        The nature of the EU is that it has no way to address this constant stream of misinformation. Thus, people develop an idea of it that is inaccurate. I was somewhat innured to it by the documentary I made about it way back in 2000/2001. I’m not saying I know everything, but I clearly know more than most commentators on it who talk almost unceasing gibberish.

        The outstanding thing about the EU from my perspective is that 1) no one knows how it works 2) people don’t feel connected or invested in it 3) it is far more bizarre an institution than the generally ignorant critics of it realize 4) just as unfathomable as it is an institution, it is none-the-less unique and has actually done what it has set out to do, strangely continues to, and is generally a positive thing in our lives.

      • Tony take a look at this video from the same professor on EU and UK constitutional law. It’s well worth your time. It addresses some of the misconceptions and consequences of the EU and brexit.

  75. Based on a lot of previous comment and analysis of the deficiencies of the Paris “agreements”, Brexit will have no effect on climate change. .

  76. Hi Tony, what’s all this then? From the article:

    Has Britain avoided a ‘European superstate’? France and Germany ‘draw up plans to morph EU countries into one with control over members’ armies and economies’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662827/Has-Britain-avoided-European-superstate-France-Germany-draw-plans-morph-EU-countries-one-control-members-armies-economies.html

    • It appears Germany wants another run at capturing Europe, only this time without guns. Hmmm …

      • catweazle666

        Jim2: “It appears Germany wants another run at capturing Europe, only this time without guns. Hmmm …”

        And for the third time this century, Great Britain has frustrated their territorial ambitions, this time without a shot being fired or a drop of blood spilt.

    • jim2

      I am not into conspiracy theories. The EU-as it has become- was undoubtedly drawn up to favour Germany and France and certainly Germany has done much better with the Euro rate than France. There is undoubtedly a desire by the EU for ever closer union and the answer to any crisis is ‘more Europe, more integration’ (my quotes). Whether that constitutes a deliberate attempt to create a superstate with those two countries in control is another matter.

      I will read the article and see if there are any reliable references as the Daily Mail can get overexcited but often has started with grains of truth.

      tonyb

    • Jim

      I posted a reply to you but it has gone into moderation. Hopefully I have identified the sinful word and this one will go through. Consequently you might see this follow up before you see the original..

      As you say, there is a report in Mail Online of Franco German plans to create a superstate

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662827/Has-Britain-avoided-European-superstate-France-Germany-draw-plans-morph-EU-countries-one-control-members-armies-economies.html

      I take conspira** theories with a large pinch of salt after being exposed to climate change ones for decades and consequently tried to track it back. I thought the Daily Expres* was the source (which has little credibility) and as a result was just about to dismiss it when I traced it back further to here;

      https://investmentwatchblog.com/merkel-calls-for-action-to-prevent-other-countries-from-leaving-the-eu-polish-national-tv-obtains-shocking-document-about-one-european-supercountry/

      This appears to reference direct quotes to the story although I have no knowledge at all of the politics and motivation of ‘investment watchblog.’

      I can not believe that after all that has happened that anyone would think that political integration was still on the cards. I shall dig further and in the meantime have passed it on for investigation to others with more resources than I.

      tonyb

      • JIm

        Here is the English version of the original document

        http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument

        Basically the Mail Online story is roughly correct as to the content. However whether the two authors have official sanction or are merely putting forward their own ideas is harder to tell.

        tonyb

      • Tony – I’ve been reading where some euophytes want to remake the EU so that it allows more nationalism, etc. in hopes that the UK would reconsider and the other countries would be less dissatisfied. I figure this would last about as long as it takes to put Europe in permanent bondage, then all bets would be off. I just don’t trust career bureaucrats plus lefties will lie copiously to achieve whatever they believe will save … whatever.

      • jim2

        Undoubtedly some of our fellow members want to revert to a less restrictive EU. However, the hierarchy intends to make an example of the UK (and encourage Scotland to join as a separate nation) in order to send the clear message to other inmates of this asylum not to attempt their own escape or else they will face dire consequences.

        What a rotten club that threatens its members who want to leave it.

        tonyb

  77. A flesh wound:

    • And a bit premature. Nothing has changed since the vote, other than fear mongering and this sort of clap trap.

    • Hey,

      Willard got one right.

      Remember what happened when they lowered the US credit rating? Money flocked to US Treasury bonds.

  78. US futures are green right now. We’ll see what tomorrow brings. I was hoping for a 20% drop, we are far short of that.

    • After having followed the markets with varying intensity for 60 years and viewing all the factors likely to influence them for the next 6 months to 20 years, I don’t see the apparent optimism that still exists. I don’t remember a time ever with such uncertainty and reasons to be gloomy.

      Buffet is his usual giddy self so it must be my senility.

  79. Pingback: Om Brexit och klimatet - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

  80. Pingback: Judith Curry over Brexit en Clexit - Climategate.nl

  81. Berényi Péter

    I can’t resist adding the cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker

    Is the New Yorker implying the Ministry of Silly Walks can’t possibly survive Brexit?

  82. “Soros has declared ‘Brexit’ could easily be overturned and that the European Union (EU) must then be “remade”, with power transferred from national governments to EU bodies. Speaking on a wide range of topics, the billionaire stated that popular “illiberal democracies” like Hungary must be remodeled, on “European values”.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/28/soros-brexit-overturned/

    • Actually, that article and the companion article it references are biased and tendentious views of Soros’ original position. The latter contains many criticisms of the EU:

      The European migration crisis and the Brexit debate fed on each other. The “Leave” campaign exploited the deteriorating refugee situation – symbolized by frightening images of thousands of asylum-seekers concentrating in Calais, desperate to enter Britain by any means necessary – to stoke fear of “uncontrolled” immigration from other EU member states. And the European authorities delayed important decisions on refugee policy in order to avoid a negative effect on the British referendum vote, thereby perpetuating scenes of chaos like the one in Calais.

      German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open her country’s doors wide to refugees was an inspiring gesture, but it was not properly thought out, because it ignored the pull factor. A sudden influx of asylum-seekers disrupted people in their everyday lives across the EU.

      The lack of adequate controls, moreover, created panic, affecting everyone: the local population, the authorities in charge of public safety, and the refugees themselves.

      […]

      The EU’s response to Brexit could well prove to be another pitfall. European leaders, eager to deter other member states from following suit, may be in no mood to offer the UK terms – particularly concerning access to Europe’s single market – that would soften the pain of leaving.

      […]

      But the implications for Europe could be far worse. Tensions among member states have reached a breaking point, not only over refugees, but also as a result of exceptional strains between creditor and debtor countries within the eurozone.

      And so on.

      Not that I’m not highly suspicious of Soros, and anything he says. His organizations, and money, have a long track record of being used as cover for socialist agendas.

      • Interesting, I had not seen that article of Soros.
        Yes, I am pretty suspicious. The socialists love the play the dialectic, stoking both sides of the issue, but always guiding the outcome they want behind the scenes.

  83. Nigel Farage first speech post-Brexit vote: You’re not laughing now

    • This is an awesome speech – funny too! At times I thought he was just kidding! It made me laugh!

      • I watched this on the BBC this evening open mouthed. Farage certainly has loads of ba*ls. I laughed when he said none of the MEP’s had done a proper days work in their lives. Of course they are angry. They don’t like the idea of their gold plated feeding troughs being snatched away

        tonyb

      • Perhaps Nige plans to argue that lawyers don’t do propers day of work:

        In 2000 Alyn moved back to Scotland working first for a legal firm in Edinburgh and from 2002 for Richard Lochhead MSP then the SNP Group at Holyrood as an adviser on European, Justice and Business policies.

        http://www.alynsmith.eu/about

    • I know it’s mean-spirited, but listening to those home,
      well, ‘global’ truths … and watching the eurocrat –
      reactions on those eurocrats – faces, hafta’ admit to
      a strong feeling of SCHADENFREUDE.

    • Beautiful. “Most of you have never worked a normal job.”

  84. The graph below, restricted to White British respondents, shows almost no statistically significant difference in EU vote intention between rich and poor. By contrast, the probability of voting Brexit rises from around 20 per cent for those most opposed to the death penalty to 70 per cent for those most in favour. Wealthy people who back capital punishment back Brexit. Poor folk who oppose the death penalty support Remain.

    https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/looking-behind-the-brexit-anger/

  85. From the article:

    EU BACKLASH: Brexit ‘TSUNAMI’ expected as 34 referendums set to rock union

    THE EUROPEAN Union (EU) is about to be rocked by a “political tsunami” with right-wing parties across the continent calling for dozens of in-out referendums.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/684131/brexit-eu-referendum-tsunami-france-italy-netherlands

  86. Brexit signals Great Britain’s pivot to China and Russia?

    One should have seen this coming.

    As the mantle of “the workshop of the world” shifted from Holland, to Great Britain, to the US, and finally to China, and the US failed in its rivalry with Russia to control the natural gas and natural gas pipeline flows from the Middle East to Europe, the UK is going with the guys that have the productive might and the energy.

    The Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article192607.html

    But the Brexit is only a response to the decline of the United States.

    The Pentagon, which is currently preparing the NATO summit in Warsaw, has not yet understood that it is no longer in a position to browbeat its allies into increasing their Defence budget and backing up their military adventures. Washington’s domination of the world is over.

    We are moving into a new era….

    The United Kingdom will not wait for its definitive exit from the EU to develop its own policy – to begin with, dissociating itself from the sanctions levied against Russia and Syria….

    Contrary to what the European Press claims, the City of London is not directly concerned by the Brexit… [I]t will be able to use the sovereignty of London to develop the yuan market. Already in April, it obtained the necessary privileges by signing an agreement with the Central Bank of China.—

  87. Neoliberalism, the political and economic regime the US ruling class began imposing in 1975 on the world, and a few years later on its own people, is now collapsing before our eyes.

    Patrick Cockburn: How Neoliberalism and Cold War Obsessions Fractured the Middle East
    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/patrick-cockburn-how-neoliberalism-and-cold-war-obsessions-fractured-the-middle-east.html

    Neoliberalism always has the same end result, whether it is imposed in the Middle East, Europe, the US or Mexico. Here’s a great article that speaks of its delitirous effect on Egypt:

    And the rich got richer
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/nov/08/egypt-imf

    What is missing from Cockburn’s analysis is the role that the U.S. and Eurpean deep states, working hand in glove with transnational corporations and criminal mafias, have played in imposing neoliberalism on developing countries.

    The partnership between US/NATO deep states, transnational corporations and criminal mafias are the deus absconditus — the real powers operaitng behind the throne — that have forced neoliberalism upon these states over the past 40 years.

    Overt military intervention doesn’t come into play until convert deepstate intervention can no longer maintain control of the populuses of these neoliberal states.

    The covert intervention by US/NATO which was necessary to implement neoliberalism over the past four decades is missing from Cockburn’s analysis.

    Neoliberalism is never implemented voluntarily by the consent of the governed. It is always implemented by stealth and by violence.

  88. From the article:

    “Hillary Clinton is owned by Wall Street,” Trump charged of his competitor. “She spends millions and millions and millions of dollars already on me” in attack ads.

    He said she’s “married to the man that signed NAFTA,” referencing President Bill Clinton signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He added, “She’s not bringing your jobs back. She doesn’t even know about bringing jobs.”

    “She’s so totally overrated,” he stressed, saying even if she wanted to create jobs, she wouldn’t be able to do it.

    Trump, who spoke on trade earlier in the day during a policy speech in Pennsylvania, continued to rip Clinton over her help in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, which is currently awaiting a vote in Congress.

    He said the special interests involved in supporting the TPP “want to rape our country.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/28/donald-trump-tpp-supporters-want-rape-country/

  89. From the article:

    It appears, just as we warned, that Brexit was indeed the first of many dominoes. Even before the Brexit result, a poll by Ipsos Mori showed that the majority of people in France and Italy want to at least have a referendum on leaving:

    Meanwhile, over 40% of Swedes, Poles, and Belgians are in the same boat.

    But now, as Martin Armstrong notes, Brussels simply went too far. They cross the line moving from an economic union to a political subordination of Europe. Now eight more countries want to hold referendums to exit the EU – France, Holland, Italy, Austria, Finland, Hungary, Portugal, and Slovakia all could leave.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-26/civil-uprising-escalates-8th-eu-nation-threatens-referendum

    • jim

      The EU is determined to make an example of us. Surely the only club in the world where you get threatened if you want to leave? At present it seems more like an empire with vassal states that a bunch of countries freely working with each other

      The reasons to try to force us to accept a bad deal are simple. There are a slew of general elections coming up. If Britain is on its back after being kicked by the EU commission it will serve as a terrible warning to those populations wistfully looking out of the gap in the barbed wire to the outside world.

      If Britain is making a go of it that will encourage other countries to push through the gap we have cut in the fence.

      Waiting till October as Cameron wants is a sensible move (but not be achievable) as those on all sides will calm down and those in business in Europe will be able to point out to their Govts that the trading surplus is very much in their favour. They sell US £10 of good for every £6 we sell them.

      tonyb

      • Great bunch of guys!

      • it would be useful if you could explain why offering Britain the same terms as any other country outside the EU constitutes punishment.

        For instance Norway pays into the EU, accepts EU directives, free movement of people and the Schengen agreement.

        Similar proposals are likely for UK.

        How is this “punishment”?

        Of course, the Norway position is far worse for the UK than our current place inside the union…

      • > The reasons to try to force us to accept a bad deal are simple.

        The first one should be that it’s a bad deal, no doubt.

        Love the way you beg questions, TonyB.

      • I’m having trouble understanding why GB should pay anything to the EU. If the EU gets huffy about the Brexit, GB should just tear up what ever papers are between GB and EU and negotiate from there, on their terms.

      • tonyb,

        Nigel Farage, in this interview with Fox News, certainly doesn’t seem to be too worried about retaliation from the Euro thugs.

        <blockquoteNigel Farage on Brexit: “Putin Behaved In A More Statesman-Like Manner Than Obama”
        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/28/nigel_farage_on_brexit_putin_behaves_in_a_more_statesman-like_manner_than_obama.html

        As Farage says, given the UK’s huge trade deficit (£96 billion a year https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit ) with the EU, what are they going to do? Refuse to sell their products to one of their biggest customers?

        Without the British buying those German cars, Farage adds, there’s going to be one hell of a crisis with the German auto industry.

        The UK is not Greece. The Euro thugs won’t be able to grind the UK into the dirt in retaliation for its misbehavior the way they did to Greece.

        The theats are are bluff. And the markets know it.

        You can see Farage floating the baloon of a reconciliation with Putin, just like we’re seeing with Trump. Farage and Trump seem to be on the same page in this regard. Of course this is anathema to Clinton and the rest of the neocons, but I suspect the neocons are on the way out as the adults reassert control over their respective countries.

      • verytallguy

        Jim

        I’m having trouble understanding why GB should pay anything to the EU. If the EU gets huffy about the Brexit, GB should just tear up what ever papers are between GB and EU and negotiate from there, on their terms.

        Yes indeed, that is exactly and precisely what will happen. It has happened before (Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Serbia, Turkey etc). The outcomes of these negotiations have always been much less favourable terms than current UK membership of the EU.

        It’s not hard to understand why this would be.

      • There yer go verytallguy.

      • Perhaps it’s time to surrender to the argument that the older generations should not make long-term decisions for the young. Consequently, I propose that Brits and Europeans nullify the opinions, signatures and votes of older people who gave them the Maastricht Treaty all those years ago. It’s only fair.

      • @verytallguy | June 30, 2016 at 4:45 am |
        …The outcomes of these negotiations have always been much less favourable terms than current UK membership of the EU.
        *****
        If you consider “favorable” the idea that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants; I guess you are correct.

      • Uh oh, Euro!
        There’s a case
        where wizened
        old heads ought
        not to have
        prevailed.
        Maastracht!
        Pense y souvent,
        ne parle jamais.

      • It seems so unfair that a bunch of ageing, one-foot-in-grave politicians and intellectuals like the dying Mitterand felt entitled to foist Maastricht on the youth of Europe for the sake of old crony capitalists and technocrats. What did they know of the generation of Achy Breaky Heart, Melrose Place and plaid with Doc Martens?

        Yoof wuz robbed!

      • verytallguy

        jim,

        If you consider “favorable” the idea that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants; I guess you are correct.

        your unpleasant xenophobia aside, note that in your own terms, the deals European countries outside the EU have negotiated are less favourable than what the UK had inside the EU

      • verytallguy said:

        …your unpleasant xenophobia aside….

        There’s that race card again.

        However, it’s getting to be like the little boy who cried “Wolf!”.

        The words “xenophobe,” “racist,” “nationalist,” “fascist” and “Hitleresque” are losing their power, since everybody from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders to the Brexiters have become victims of that smear campaign.

        Face it, verytallguy, your’re hackneyed old pejoratives are losing their power to convict and condemn without a trial.

        So getting to the crux of the matter, do you believe a sovereign nation should not be able to select those who it allows to immigrate to within its borders, using whatever pragmatic or moral criteria the nation deems appropriate?

      • verytallguy

        Glenn,

        characterising migrants as diseased and violent is the epitome of xenophobia.

        As to racist, fascist and Hitler; these are words that you have introduced to the conversation, not me. I suggest you own them.

        do you believe a sovereign nation should not be able to select those who it allows to immigrate to within its borders, using whatever pragmatic or moral criteria the nation deems appropriate?

        A short question which implies a simplicity not achievable in reality.

        “Sovereignty” is pragmatically moot in a global world. Nations cannot, however much they might wish to, separate their decisions from those of other nations, still less from wider societal and technological changes.

        Morals, of course, transcend national boundaries.

        But neither of these points address my original reason for posting in the thread; that leaving the EU does not guarantee any change to the national judgement on immigration, and other nations who have entered into negotiations on these points have come to worse arrangements than the UK has now, if you measure that by level of control on our borders.

      • verytallguy,

        So if we cut through all your vapid BS and rationalizations, the net is this: You do believe “that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants,” to put it in jim2’s words.

        I’ve lived in Mexico for the past 15 years, and I know for a fact that Mexico has its fare share of “unskilled, diseased, and violent” individuals.

        During my stay here, I’ve had three friends who have been murdered in their homes. One was the editor of Excelsior, one of the major Mexico City daily newspapers. The other two were antique dealers.

        My next door neighbor had a brother who adopted a 10 year-old boy.

        When this boy got older, he went to the United States. There he got involved in the drug and gang scence. Afterwards he returned to Mexico.

        Last week he killed his adoptive father by bludgeoning him to death with a blunt object to the back of the head. His adoptive father was 64 years old. The boy (now a young man) told the police his father had fallen on his motorcycle, causing the fatal blow. The examining physician said that could not be true.

        So this is the type of immigrants you believe should be allowed, or allowed to stay once they arrive, into the United States?

      • Here’s what the warmunist WSJ has to say about The Mythical Connection Between Immigrants and Crime, Glenn:

        Newcomers to the U.S. are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or be incarcerated.

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

        While your anecdata are sad to hear, they can’t compete with what Florida Man has to give:

      • Glenn,

        it would be so much better if you could respond to what I wrote rather than arguing with yourself .

        Far from

        You do believe “that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants

        I merely pointed out that the actual outcome of countries who have been through this negotiation has been to accept more open borders than Britain currently does, not less open. This is a fact, uncomfortable for you as that may be.

        I will note that as well as Jim, you are also now engaging in unpleasant xenophobia.

        Why you have chosen to guess what my opinions on US immigration are, I have no idea. If you wish to know what my opinions are on US immigration, just ask politely and i’ll happily respond.

      • willard,

        What, pray tell, other than trying to get folks off on bunny trails and baffle them with BS, do those statistics have to do with the price of tea in China?

        The question is whether the American people should be the ones to decide which foreigners get admitted to their country, under what criteria, under what conditions they should be allowed to stay, and under what circumstances they should be removed.

        Unfortunately, the way it works now, millions have entered the U.S. without being subjected to any screening or selection process whatsoever. But even more egregious than that, we don’t seem to do a very good job of deporting immigrants after even they have committed violent crimes:

        Almost 90,000 dangerous illegal immigrants go free
        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/almost-90000-dangerous-illegal-immigrants-go-free/article/2583597

        Nearly 60 percent of illegal immigrants identified by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as criminal threats are not deported and are eventually released.

        I wish you could tour a Mexican prison where Americans who commit crimes in Mexico are incarcerated (no bail in Mexico for violent crimes), or the Centro de Detención para Migrantes in México D.F. where American immigrants who enter Mexico without proper permission are detained.

        Peor que la cárcel [Worse than a prison]
        http://www.laopinion.com/2013/03/23/peor-que-la-carcel/

        “Not having any information about how long they will be detained, violations of their legal rights and the physical conditions that they hare held in make many detainees feel they would be better off in prison,” says Vertiz.

        And let me assure you, Mexican prisons are no holiday like US prisons:

      • °°°°°verytallguy siad:

        it would be so much better if you could respond to what I wrote rather than arguing with yourself .

        Oh, I’m responding to what you wrote allright. You’re argument is, was, and always has been “that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants.” That’s the idea that jim2 challenged, and that is the idea that you are defending.

        °°°°°verytallguy siad:

        I merely pointed out that the actual outcome of countries who have been through this negotiation has been to accept more open borders than Britain currently does, not less open. This is a fact, uncomfortable for you as that may be.

        I have no idea whether “This is a fact” or not. But whether “This is a fact” or not, your logic is unsound.

        The logical fallacies you are using are what are called an ‘appeal to common practice’ (Claiming something is true because it’s commonly practiced.) and an ‘appeal to tradition’ (Claiming something is true because it’s apparently always been that way.).

        Using your faulty “logic,” or paralogic, blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus, and homosexuality would still be a crime in Texas.

        °°°°°verytallguy siad:

        I will note that as well as Jim, you are also now engaging in unpleasant xenophobia.

        Paint the enemy with the face of evil, using any sort of false and dishonest accusations at hand, so you don’t have to respond to his actual arguments. I’m very familiar with the song and dance. But like I said up thread, your argument is getting hackneyed and overused. It really doesn’t work, other than maybe when you’re preaching to the choir.

        After all, how well did your argument work for the Remain team in the Brexit campaign?

        °°°°°verytallguy siad:

        Why you have chosen to guess what my opinions on US immigration are, I have no idea. If you wish to know what my opinions are on US immigration, just ask politely and i’ll happily respond.

        Oh, I think you let your opinion be known when you castigated jim2 for his “unpleasant xenophobia” when he said he looked unfavorably on “the idea that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent immigrants.”

      • verytallguy

        Glenn,

        Your bombastic invective against points entirely of your own imagining must get rather tiring after a while.

        Avoids the inconvenience of thinking or listening I guess.

      • verytallguy,

        Well there you go again.

        Other than ad hominem, name calling and a smear campaign, you really don’t have an argument.

      • verytallguy

        Whereas you Glenn, have a whole series of arguments, all with yourself rather than what I, or anyone else actually wrote.

        An endo-debate, perhaps.

      • verytallguy,

        Did you or did you not accuse jim2 of “unpleasant xenophobia” when he suggested that he was unfavorable to “the idea that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants”?

        A yes or no answer will be just fine.

      • verytallguy

        Glenn,

        if took the time to read what I write, you’d already know that in my opinion, choosing to characterise migrants as “diseased and violent” does indeed constitute xenophobia.

        And it is, to boot, unpleasant.

      • > What […] do those statistics have to do with the price of tea in China?

        Thank you for your rhetorical question, Glenn.

        Your anti-Mexican fear mongering can only be valid if newcomers to the U.S. would be more likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or be incarcerated. Since the opposite is true, i.e. newcomers to the U.S. are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or be incarcerated, your anti-Mexican fear mongering is not valid. I’m not sure if validity matters for the price of tea in China, but it sure does if you were to present a rational argument.

        That you spice up your anti-Mexican fear mongering with a hint of racism only shows how low Denizens can go.

        So please, very please, do continue.

        Go team!

      • verytallguy,

        If jim2 would have said “immigrants are unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants,” then what you say would be true.

        He would be guilty of a number of logical fallacies: composition (Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of some or all of a group applies to the entire group.), hasty generalization (Drawing a general conclusion from a tiny sample.), biased generalizing (Generalizing from an unrepresentative sample to increase the strength of your argument.), or sweeping generalization (applying a general rule too broadly).

        But of course that’s not what jim2 said. What he said was he was not favorable to “the idea that ones country must accept unskilled, diseased, and violent migrants.”

        In this case the words “unskilled,” “diseased” and “violent” are used as qualifiers, the very opposite of overgeneralizations.

      • verytallguy

        In this case the words “unskilled,” “diseased” and “violent” are used as qualifiers, the very opposite of overgeneralizations.

        On the contrary Glenn. These words are not used with qualification as to, perhaps how many refugees or migrants fall into these categories, or how big an issue their migration is.

        They are instead used as a signpost to fear migrants , as these migrants are in some way forced upon us (“must”) and are to be feared (” diseased “, “violent”)

        We can compare this to the definition (wiki) of xenophobia:

        “relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity”

        Yup. That fits.

      • Thanks for that bit of disingenuous drivel VTG. In context, which is Trump’s stance on b0rder control, the idea is not to exclude all 1mm1grants, as your over-the-top characterization states. It is to vet those coming in and allow only those who are not cr1min@ls, ill, or unskilled.

        You are simply a wrase b@1t0r.

      • “The question is whether the American people should be the ones to decide which foreigners get admitted to their country, under what criteria, under what conditions they should be allowed to stay, and under what circumstances they should be removed.”

        The question is whether the white people should be the ones to decide which outsiders get admitted to their neighborhood, under what criteria, under what conditions they should be allowed to stay, and under what circumstances they should be removed.

        It is assumed it’s been proved that one cannot do the above at the neighborhood level. What magic line on a map or piece of paper allows it on a national level? One’s morality I do not think comes laws written on paper by our representatives. Ideally our morality is reflected in our laws and thus it emanates from us and not the other way around.

      • Ragnaar,

        Skin color is no longer the gate keeper that determines who gets to live in a neighborhood.

        The gatekeeper now is class — household income.

      • verytallguy

        You are simply a wrase b@1t0r.

        Classy Jim.

    • verytallguy,

      It’s clear that you suffer from a rather severe reading comprehension problem.

      Either that, or you’re so anxious to paint the enemy with the face of evil that you just make stuff up.

      • verytallguy

        “Diseased” “violent” migrants.

        But not xenophobic, oh no.

        I’m not making this up Glenn.

        You couldn’t make this up.

  90. From the article:

    According to a new foreign policy document from the Brussels-based institution to be handed to EU leaders next week, a “credible European defence” is also essential to preserve good relations with the US.

    “A more credible European defence is essential also for the sake of a healthy transatlantic partnership with the United States.”

    The document will be seized on by Eurosceptics as proof of a plot to set up an EU army – a notion that has been widely dismissed by diplomats in Brussels and London.

    The warning of a European army was at the core of the Brexit campaign and became a hot topic with both sides trading blows over the truth of claims Brussels wanted to create a NATO-style organisation.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/684549/EU-cannot-rely-NATO-needs-new-defence-policy-chief

  91. Speaking of non events:

    British co-founder of stockbroker Hargreaves Lansdown, Peter Hargreaves, lost the most, seeing his fortune shrink by 19 percent to US$2.9 billion.

    In a major irony, Hargreaves was the largest donor to the Leave campaign, donating £3.2 million, according to the UK’s Electoral Commission.

    https://www.rt.com/business-projects/348345-richest-people-losses-brexit/

    INTEGRITY ™ – It’s a Flesh Wound

    • I’m sure his fortune has rebounded. Anyway, people die for freedom, $2.9 billion isn’t squat.

    • If he had been in an S & P 500 index fund, he would have lost 5 or 6%. Then made most of that back as of today. So don’t trust brokers to pick stock winner and losers.

      • > [D]on’t trust brokers to pick stock winner and losers.

        Of course not:

        arage was educated at Dulwich College, a public school in south London, and in his autobiography he pays tribute to the careers advice he received there from England Test cricketer John Dewes, “who must have spotted that I was quite ballsy, probably good on a platform, unafraid of the limelight, a bit noisy and good at selling things”.[18] On leaving school in 1982, he decided not to go to university, but to work in the City, trading commodities at the London Metal Exchange. Initially, he joined the American commodity operation of brokerage firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, transferring to Credit Lyonnais Rouse in 1986. He joined Refco in 1994, and Natexis Metals in 2003.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

  92. From the article:

    The number one issue for leave voters was democracy, by a long way. Immigration was a fairly distant second issue. But don’t assume that everyone who cited immigration wanted a complete moratorium on inward migration from Europe. I don’t think anyone expected that it would be zero migration. What we want is the ability to decide for ourselves roughly who comes and roughly in what numbers.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/live–us-stocks-bounce-to-near-pre-brexit-levels.htmlhttp://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/live–us-stocks-bounce-to-near-pre-brexit-levels.html

  93. Here’s another example of what Hillary has wrought:

    Islamic State, Political Instability Derails Libyan Oil Industry
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=145313&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-06-29&utm_content=&utm_campaign=feature_1

    Ongoing militant attacks on hydrocarbon installations in Libya have helped stem the production of oil in the country to well below pre-2011 output levels.

    “Such activity, in combination with oil embargos, has contributed to an 80 percent fall in national oil output since 2011,” said Ruth Lux, a senior consultant within JLT’s credit, political & security risk division consulting team.

    Here’s a photo of Clinton with her good Islamic extremist friends, taken in the wake of her successful campaign to topple Muamar el Gadafi:

    When is Clinton ever going to learn to “not do studpid things”?

  94. NAFTA has been nothing short of catastrophic for Mexico’s working class, but that doesn’t keep the neoliberals from flogging this old hag, now under the pretnese that it “will cut greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, boost the development of clean power and build new cross-border transmission lines as part of a clean energy plan unveiled Wednesday.”

    Three Amigos Unveil Climate and Energy Plan, Nafta Changes
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=145368&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-06-29&utm_content=&utm_campaign=feature_3

    The North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment Partnership, announced by the leaders of the three countries in Ottawa at the beginning of the Three Amigos summit, seeks to impose new restrictions on some industries in an effort to cut emissions and spur a greener economy on the heels of last year’s Paris climate summit.

    The pledges, made in U.S. President Barack Obama’s final North American Leaders’ Summit, underscore the political alignment of the three leaders at a summit previously delayed in 2015 amid a standoff over TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline. Now, 18 months later, the climate agreement shows the three countries have moved definitively beyond Keystone, one White House official said.

    The purchasing power of the average Mexican manufacturering worker’s wage has plummeted by 60% since the implementation of NAFTA:

    http://jussemper.org/Resources/Labour%20Resources/WGC-AEM/Resources/WagegapsMexAEM.pdf

    What an unbelievably cruel joke on the great unwashed of Mexico: supranational cooperation to combat the CAGW chimera is being used to justify NAFTA and put the screws to them.

    • When it comes to spin, the neoliberal kleptocrats are the masters. More from the article:

      “The Paris Agreement was a turning point for our planet,” the leaders said in a joint statement. “Our actions to align climate and energy policies will protect human health and help level the playing field for our businesses, households and workers.”

      The leaders also announced changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement, “liberalizing” rules of origin for a range of products, while calling for action to address excess global steel supply and illicit financial flows that could benefit terror groups.

      The leaders stressed the importance of trade, economic integration and open societies amid fallout over the Brexit vote and a rise in protectionist sentiment, including in the U.S.

      “We need to be very clear in describing the benefits of an integrated region,” Mexico President Enrique Pena Nieto said Wednesday morning after a bilateral meeting with Obama. “Isolationism is not a route toward progress.”

      Obama and Pena Nieto announced the Mexican president had accepted an invitation to visit Washington.

      You couldn’t make this stuff up.

      Here’s what the Mexican people think about Peña Nieto, his approval falling to a low of 30%, the lowest of any Mexican president since 1995 when Mexico’s economy was being devastated by the Mexican Pesos Crisis of 1994-1995 (the one where Bill Clinton bailed out U.S. private banks for all the bad loans they had made to Mexico):

      LA APROBACIÓN A LA GESTIÓN DEL GOBIERNO DE PEÑA NIETO CAE HASTA 30% EN ENCUESTA
      http://expansion.mx/2016/04/13/la-aprobacion-a-la-gestion-del-gobierno-de-pena-nieto-cae-hasta-30-en-encuesta

      Burning Peña Nieto in effigy in front of the National Palce in Mexico City

      • Here’s how Mexicans living in Canada greeted Peña Nieto, yelling “Murderer!” “Murderer!” “Murderer!” upon his arrival.

        None of this phased Obama, who is doing everything in his power to prop up the brutal Mexican dictator.

        Obama, like Clinton, sure knows how to pick his friends.

        It takes a lot of violence to keep neoliberalism propped up, and Peña Nieto certainly knows how to apply la mano dura.

  95. Now that the son-in-law of a big “Green Energy” investor is no longer Prime Minister, Owen Patterson who was so proud of kicking out “The Green Blob” should be brought back. I hope his replacement, Amber Rudd’s career ends after her name-calling nastiness during the TV BREXIT debates – she certainly didn’t do much for the environment. We’ll definitely need to get rid of all those expensive carbon taxes.

    I’m not surprised polling has found a nation of climate-sceptics – we tend not to mention it during conversation apart from bemoaning the loss of our countryside to ugly windmills and solar-farms. England is not only a nation of shop-keepers and dog-lovers – it’s also a nation of engineers and Tory working-class voters.

    Now that Boris has left the Conservative Leadership race, I hope that Theresa May gets it. Then we can say to the other parties “See – the ‘nasty’ party has had 2 female Prime Ministers. To be met by Women’s Libbers screwing up their faces while responding “Maggie Thatcher wasn’t a proper woman.” They’re as bad as her male colleagues were, moaning that “Maggie just keeps on trotting out ‘facts'” after they lose their PR-type arguments. Theresa seems much the same – very fact-based.

    The modern trend for transgender medical assistance seems very disturbing to me. We should all be able to operate, dress, etc as we want to, regardless of true sex. The British artist, Grayson Perry, goes around in fantastic dresses while operating perfectly well as a man. And then there’s that lovely lady, Nicola Adams, who fought to include women’s boxing in the Olympics. She didn’t need treatment with adrenaline.

  96. @jim2 | June 30, 2016 at 3:16 pm | dropped into moderation

  97. Ragnaar and VTG. Here are some ways to deal with immigration:

    From the article:
    Danish police made use of a controversial law allowing them to confiscate valuables from asylum seekers for the first time since the legislation was passed.
    Police seized the equivalent of 79,600 kroner ($11,875) from five Iranian citizens, according to an e-mailed statement on Thursday. The people had tried to enter Denmark via Copenhagen airport using “false documents,” police said. The three women and two men had a total of 129,600 kroner in cash with them, police said.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/denmark-confiscates-valuables-from-migrants-after-law-passed

    From the article:

    Over-Staying Your Mexico Visitor’s Permit
    If you overstay while visiting Mexico on a FMM permit (the usual allowance is 180 days), you will need to visit an immigration office (or the immigration center at the airport) and pay a fine before you can leave the country. The amount of the fine depends on how long you have over-stayed; it is calculated on a per-day basis and, at time of writing, will not be more than MX$6,000 pesos.

    http://www.mexperience.com/lifestyle/mexico-essentials/mexico-entry-requirements/

    https://yucalandia.com/answers-to-common-questions/new-rules-and-procedures-for-immigration-visiting-and-staying-in-mexico/#TABLE OF CONTENTS

  98. Saudi Arabia, from the article:

    It is essential for all foreign nationals to have a visa when they are travelling to Saudi Arabia, as without one they will not be allowed to enter the country.

    It should also be noted that if you are rejected for a visa then it is not usually worth reapplying as it is unlikely that you will be reconsidered. The regulations are very strict and it is important that you adhere to all the requests for documentation and other evidence as without them it is unlikely that your application will be successful.

    http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-saudi-arabia-residency

  99. Here are the kinds of people allowed by Canada:
    Types of Permanent Immigration Programs

    Fortunately, immigration to Canada is handled on the federal level, so most of the laws and rules apply across the country.
    A prospective immigrant may make use of several types of immigration programs with different implications and requirements. This is the list of the most popular permanent residency programs as at the end of 2011:
    Skilled workers and professionals
    Québec-selected skilled workers
    Investors
    Entrepreneurs
    Self-employed people
    Canadian Experience Class
    Provincial nominees
    Sponsoring your family

    http://www.expatarrivals.com/article/moving-to-canada-an-immigration-guide-for-expats

  100. More from Canada …
    Bill C-51 attained royal assent on June 18th. Among the new provisions is the power for police to arrest citizens without a warrant so long as they believe individuals may carry out acts of terror. Canada’s security and intelligence services, also know as CSIS, also gained new powers to disrupt travel, banking and websites of Canadians suspected of terrorist activity. Prior to these laws, CSIS functioned more in gathering intelligence on suspected terrorist plots.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/29/paul-gross-anti-terrorism-law-_n_8209570.html

    • Bombshell… using CAGW-style FUD dog whistles in support of bureaucratic fiat. That will tell those futbol hooligans when an unelected swedish poli sci “doctor” lays down the law.

  101. It’s amazing other coutries control immigration but Ragnaar and VTG inexplicably believe it to be a stupid idea or impossible to do. Politically motivated propaganda, I say. From the article:

    In Canadian law, a security certificate is a mechanism by which the Government of Canada can detain and deport foreign nationals and all other non-citizens living in Canada. The federal government may issue a certificate naming a permanent resident or any other non-citizen suspected of violating human rights, of having membership within organized crime, or is perceived to be a threat to national security.[1] Subjects of a certificate are inadmissible to Canada and are subject to a removal order.[2] Where the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named in the certificate is a danger to national security, to the safety of any person or is unlikely to participate in any court proceedings, the individual can be detained.[3] The entire process is subject to a limited form of review by the Federal Court.
    According to the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the overarching agency dealing with the law, the security certificate provision has existed in “one form or another for over 20 years.”[4] Its use has been documented at least as far back as 1979,[5] the year after they were implemented.[6] It is housed within the parameters of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (formerly the Immigration and Refugee Act, which replaced the Immigration Act in 1976). It was amended and took on its present structure in 1991, with an additional amendment in 2002.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_certificate

    • > It’s amazing other coutries control immigration but Ragnaar and VTG inexplicably believe it to be a stupid idea or impossible to do.

      It’s even more amazing that you’re putting words into their mouth, jim.

      Or not:

      The Tories have consciously fanned these flames. In 2005, when the Tory leader Michael Howard ran his whole general election campaign on immigration, with the insidious slogan “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?”, the party’s MP in Castle Point, on the Essex coast, asked in one leaflet: “What bit of ‘send them back’ don’t you understand Mr Blair?” During that election, I drove from the least diverse constituency in the country – St Ives in Cornwall – to the most, which was in east London. In Cornwall, the Liberal Democrat MP, Andrew George, said the racism he was hearing was a particular worry. “It’s the one resonance issue that’s favouring the Tories,” he told me. “On the doorstep people aren’t saying: ‘I’m voting Conservative because of their tax spending plans.’ People have been saying, ‘We only came down here to get away from the blacks,’ and there was no self-consciousness about saying it out loud. I’m very disturbed about it. Maybe they’re not playing the race card. But they’re playing the immigration card and that’s right next to the race card in the deck.”

      http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making

    • Are our immigration laws a fear based response? Call it immigration mitigation. Free trade mitigation. Can’t have too much of a good thing. If a Mexican wants to come here to pick tomatoes, that’s an example of free trade. Unwarranted fear should not trump this example of free trade. I ask, do we rank capitalism or fear as the more important? I suppose if free trade is not favoring us, it could be the problem. I am still hanging with voluntary exchanges, and ask any interested Mexicans, to check out job opportunities in Western Minnesota.
      Higher numbers are better:
      1) Survive
      2) Sustain
      3) Resilient
      4) Thrive
      Immigration for many decades while not always easy was an example of Thriving. Now we are falling back perhaps as far as Survive.

      • Immigration laws should be based in rationality and what is good for US citizens. Period.

      • Ragnaar,

        Lack of control of borders is one issue, but not the main issue, IMO. This explains there were two main camps advocating for Leave. I support the ‘Vote Leave’ camp

        Two Brexit visions as seen from London
        by Miles Straude on June 29, 2016

        [Editor’s note: Miles Straude works in London and voted to ‘remain’, and considers the Brexit result “a very sad turn of events”. He received many requests for his reaction and wrote this update exclusively for Cuffelinks late during this week. In an earlier note, he wrote optimistically: “It is important to know however that the final outcome does not necessarily have to be as bad as the initial headlines have made out … If the UK can maintain access to the common market, then the actual impact will be quite mild.”]

        The first fight in the ‘Brexit’ referendum was not in fact between those in the leave camp and those campaigning for remain. It was instead a fight between two very different Brexit parties seeking the nomination to be the official leave campaign from the Electoral Commission. At stake was the ability to raise and spend a large amount of money under the Electoral Commission’s campaigning rules. Grassroots Out, the party associated with Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party (UKIP), had a wide support network built up from years of railing from the political edges. Vote Leave, a movement supported by leading conservative MP’s like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, was a newer organisation seeking to run as a cross-party establishment movement. Vote Leave won the contest, becoming the official leave campaign for the referendum. This however did not stop Grassroots Out from raising a significant war chest of its own, and going on to campaign as the anti-establishment party of the referendum.

        The different campaigns to leave

        For many years, UKIP has campaigned on an anti-immigration platform. Over the past decade the relative economic success of the UK, combined with the free movement of labour rules which govern the EU, has led to a large increase in the number of Europeans living and working in the UK, a situation that has unsettled many voters across the country. Grassroots Out campaigned in the referendum on a similar theme, a heavy focus on the perceived risks coming from ‘uncontrollable’ immigration. At a time of austerity, falling living standards and rising levels of terrorism, it was an easy sell to much of the electorate.

        Vote Leave in contrast ran on a much more principled campaign. The essence of the Vote Leave argument was a democratic ideal. Britain had ceded too much power to Brussels, an unaccountable, undemocratic Leviathan. Their argument ran that a UK freed from bureaucratic red tape would go on to prosper outside of the EU, striking trade deals around the world in a manner that reflected its outward-looking, free-trading nature – a nature that was inherently at odds with inward-looking continental countries.

        Vote Leave’s vision for Britain was for a European Singapore, free-trading and outward-looking. Grassroots Out’s vision was for an end to immigration mixed with nostalgia for older times.

        These two different visions matter greatly today as the UK starts on its path towards renegotiating its relationship with the rest of Europe. In economic terms, the most important feature of EU membership is the access it provides to the European common market, the largest free trading bloc in the world. Access to the common market does not only come through EU membership however. European countries like Norway and Switzerland maintain access, whilst still retaining many of the key democratic powers Vote Leave has argued needed to be returned. Unrestricted access to the common market comes at a price however, including the free movement of labour throughout the economic zone.
        Towards the end of the campaign Grassroots Out came under considerable criticism for running highly emotive anti-immigration ads. In response to these ads, Boris Johnson contrasted his own position on the immigration issue as such, “I am passionately pro-immigration and pro-immigrants.”

        Know who will be negotiating with Europe

        With these two different Brexit visions in mind, it is important to note that it will be the conservative government of the day, led by those in the Vote Leave camp such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, who will be the ones renegotiating the UK’s arrangements with Europe. If, and perhaps it is a hopeful if, those negotiating the new arrangements are true to their cause about a return of UK sovereignty, and less concerned about immigration, then access to the single market could still be maintained. Such a result would lead to a very different, and largely positive, outcome for the UK and Europe when compared to the Grassroots Out vision for the future.

        The economic case for immigration is clear. European immigrants to the UK and pay more into the state coffers than they take out in terms of benefits. They are typically younger, healthier and more entrepreneurial than the general population at large. In every economic sense, they are a tremendous asset to a heavily-indebted economy with an aging population. How well this vision is upheld over the coming months will determine what the UK’s future relationship with Europe holds.

        Miles Staude is Portfolio Manager at the Global Value Fund (ASX:GVF), which he manages from London. The opinions expressed here are his personal views and do not consider the circumstances of any individual.

        http://cuffelinks.com.au/15368-2/

      • > Immigration laws should be based in rationality and what is good for US citizens. Period.

        Period, jim? There’s nothing rational about selling the idea that we need Trumpian crap or else Mexicans will come here rape wives and burn down cities.

        Also, there’s no optimal policy that could absolutely exclude another one. There are values at stake, which defeats the whole idea of “good for US citizens.” What’s good for you, what you believe is good for you ain’t what’s good for otters. Ask your neighbours who have family abroad to read your crap here. Record how they feel about it. Report.

        I’m stating theorems here – from a rational standpoint, we already know that what you’re arguing for can’t even exist!

        You have no idea how despicable this all is.

      • jim2:
        Yes. I believe what’s good for us is peace through trade. Peace through rising living standards here and abroad. Immigration success is what I see.
        “Immigrants and children of immigrants founded almost 40 percent of Minnesota’s Fortune 500 companies. Minnesota is a home to 18 Fortune firms, including 3M, Medtronic and Hormel Foods, which employ more than 264,000 people worldwide — generating more than $100 billion in revenues each year.” https://www.minnpost.com/community-sketchbook/2014/12/immigration-has-become-driving-force-minnesotas-economy
        Here’s Minnesota:
        West – Germans
        North – Scandinavians
        Iron Range – Slavs, Scandinavians and Italians
        And the wheel keeps on turning.
        Mexicans, Asians, Hmong and Africans make up a not insignificant percentage of our population all the while some of us drive pick-ups and shoot ducks, pheasants and deer and fish for walleyes. And yes some of my clients work at Walmart, not what they had in mind. So no it’s not perfect. My home town once was the home of Tonka Toys. Long gone now. But their old building is still in use. Big box stores and the interwebs make it difficult for small towns but most of us adapt.

      • Peter Lang:
        Thanks for that perspective. I agree on an aging population. I am tempted to say nursing homes are one of our higher growth industries. People are living longer perhaps creating a need for younger people. And our Social Security potential problem would probably be helped with more young people. Perhaps the question is, what’s good for everyones older relatives or even ourselves before too long. I will say this about Social Security and Medicare taxes. They are an incredible money vacuum that almost all employees pay into. Excluding the wage base of about $115k, all wages multiplied by 15.3% with some adjustments (pre-tax health insurance for one) gets paid into the government.

      • Peter Lang,

        What we have with the Miles Straude article is a banker arguing his economic interests. A banker for neoliberalism! What a surprise!

        But his argument is disengenuous.

        Why is it that working-class people can’t argue their economic interests without being accused of being racists and xenopobes?

      • Ragnaar,

        Re: Social Security and Medicare taxes

        The cost of running the government has to be paid for by someone. The taxes once collected by means of corporate income taxes are now collected by means of payroll taxes.

        And a greater part of federal spending does indeed go towards social security and health care.

        Despite years of well-funded campaigns by fiscal hawks like Peter G. Peterson to do away Social Security and Medicare, most Americans are still quite happy with the programs:

        Americans, of all ages and political parties, do not support cutting Social Security and Medicare as part of this deficit debate:

        • Voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security benefits with 71% opposed to means-testing and 67% opposed to raising the retirement age

        • 64% strongly oppose cutting Medicare benefits for future retirees and 59% oppose cutting payments to Medicare providers want voters support two Social Security and Medicare reforms by overwhelming margins.

        Our poll also shows Americans support two Medicare and Social Security reforms by wide margins:

        • On Social Security, voters across party lines support lifting the cap on wages above the current level of $110,100. We know from focus groups that voters see this cap as an unfair loophole that they did not even know existed. Sixty-five (65) percent of voters favor gradually lifting this cap for both employees and employers, including 75 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents, and 54 percent of Republicans.

        • On Medicare, overwhelming bi-partisan majorities support allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. Eighty-six (86) percent of voters favor this, including 77 percent who strongly favor it. By party, 91 percent of Democrats favor allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies (81 percent strongly favor), as do 85 percent of Independents (75 percent strongly favor), and 81 percent of Republicans (75 percent strongly favor).

        Lastly, our poll shows that 85% of those surveyed say Social Security and Medicare were important factors in casting their 2012 vote.

        http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/1953/Americans-Don-t-Support-Cutting-Social-Security-Medicare-for-Deficit-Reduction-Even-Wall-Street-backed-Third-Way-Agrees

      • Yes corporate tax collections aren’t what they used to be. The rate should be zero, the same as most partnerships and S corporations pay. How can this be fair you ask? The entity passes through to its owners the income and then they generally pay taxes on it. Why is this idea a good one? It is one less reason for a corporation to consider leaving the U.S. We have about the highest corporate tax rate of any country while we are supposed to be capitalists. Put another way, socialist countries have lower corporate tax rates. What is wrong with us?

    • verytallguy

      Jim

      It’s amazing other coutries control immigration but Ragnaar and VTG inexplicably believe it to be a stupid idea or impossible to do. Politically motivated propaganda, I say

      Read what I actually wrote Jim. Which, to remind you, was

      The outcomes of these negotiations have always been much less favourable terms than current UK membership of the EU.

      Norway and Switzerland are not generally known for their stupidity. Neither as a hotbed of politcal propaganda.

      It would be better to think about why they ended up in the position they are than rail against reality.

      • You’ve written too much pap at this point. No one can figure out what you are talking about.

  102. The Christina Grimmie video up thread I have to admit, I’m feelin good tells how I feel about Brexit.

    I feel really good about Brexit and hope for the following:

    UK recognises it’s latest carbon budget – to cut emissions to 57% of 1990 levels – is unachievable, wont make an iota of difference to the climate and and frankly ridiculous.

    UK finds it cannot afford its carbon reduction polices and renewable energy policies

    UK winds these way back, substantially

    The Paris Agreement has to be renegotiated and falls apart.

    Other EU countries threaten to pull out of EU

    The EU Kommissars are forced to resign

    EU makes fundamental changes to reinvent itself as a liberal democracy with free trade, economically rational polices and democratic process at its hart.

    All the Marxists and Communists and given the boot

  103. Norway was raised as a parallel. Norway had a referendum in 1994 that voted No to joining Europe (52 to 48%). Their No campaign mostly was concerned about their natural resources and loss of sovereign independence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_European_Union_membership_referendum,_1994
    Anyway, their government went ahead and joined a trade partnership which entailed open borders, so it is like membership but without any representation or influence inside the EU. Since the UK appears to have voted against open borders, they probably will have to negotiate a different deal with tariffs and lose free movement to Europe by Brits depending how strict they want to become about borders, because it will likely be reciprocated.

    • From the article:

      The head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) told a Swedish security conference on Monday that immigration from Muslim countries will lead to societal conflicts and the rise of far-right groups.

      Minister: Norway won’t have Cologne-like attack (11 Jan 16)
      Norway teaches migrants about respecting women (08 Jan 16)
      Norway: Up to 60,000 asylum seekers in 2016 (07 Jan 16)
      PST head Marie Benedicte Bjørnland warned on Monday of the “unfortunate” consequences that come with large numbers of refugees and migrants from Muslim countries.

      “A strong increase in immigration, particularly from Muslim countries, can cause other long-term challenges. When a large number of asylum seekers come to a local community, it can have unfortunate consequences,” Bjørnland said at a security conference in the Swedish ski resort town of Sälen.

      “One cannot take for granted that new population groups will automatically adapt the norms and rules of the Norwegian society,” she added.

      http://www.thelocal.no/20160112/norway-security-agency-muslim-immigration-brings-problems

      • So we see from this that membership of the EU is completely independent from the refugee problem. Who knew?

  104. It looks like the EU thugs have dug in their heels on the issue of immigration. They’ve got to try to make an example of the UK, since they too all facing working-class rebellions on their own soil.

    Europe’s leaders have dug in their heels over uncontrolled migration in the single market, scotching UK hopes for a favourable deal in a direct snub to prime minister David Cameron’s plea to recognise British voters’ concerns..

    The move to damp Westminster expectations to curb free movement came after the EU’s remaining 27 members met in Brussels for the first time without the UK — a political watershed after 43 years of British membership.

    “There will be no single market à la carte,” said Donald Tusk, the EU Council president, as the group met to set out the terms of engagement for any divorce talks following the Brexit referendum.

    Diplomats said the joint statement was deliberately toughened up after Mr Cameron said he would have avoided Brexit if European leaders had let him control migration.

    With the explicit consent of German chancellor Angela Merkel, a sentence was unexpectedly added to the statement yesterday saying that “access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms”, a reference to EU principles on the free movement of capital, labour, services and goods.

    “That was our response to Cameron,” said one senior EU diplomat….

    FINANCIAL TIMES: EU leaders harden stance against Brexit concessions.
    Cameron’s migration plea rebuffed at first summit without UK after he blamed EU for referendum defeat.

    https://next.ft.com/content/e1e327ec-3dd8-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0

  105. This expresses my feelings about Brexit.

  106. Peter Lang

    Great news from GWPF Newsletter, http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=12da0c7f7f&e=d3ab024ae2

    Brexit Spells End Of Europe’s Climate Obsession

    Britain’s exit dashes the European Union’s leadership ambitions on efforts to slow climate change, leaving the bloc on the sidelines while others endorse the global pact it championed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Britain’s vote to leave the union has disrupted everyday affairs and probably displaced climate concerns as a political priority. It also removes one of the EU’s strongest voices in favour of emissions-cutting policies. –Reuters, 1 July 2016

    Germany Starts Roll-Back Of Climate Policy

    Six months after the U.N. Climate Change Conference – or COP21 – in Paris, the German government is becoming less and less ambitious about implementing the results. It is caving in, especially in the dispute over the future of coal. –-Handelsblatt, 30 June 2016

    Germany has abandoned plans to set out a timetable to exit coal-fired power production and scrapped C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors, according to the latest draft of an environment ministry document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The new version, which was revised following consultation with the economy and energy ministry, has also deleted specific concrete C02 emissions savings targets for the energy, industry, transport and agriculture sectors. –Reuters, 29 June 2016

  107. Canada takes in Syrian refugees, but they don’t have open borders. They check out each refugee before letting them in. This is a rational and sane policy. As a Canadian citizen, I would have concerns if the refugees will assimilate well, but at least refugees are being screened. From the article:

    The UNHCR, along with private sponsors identifies refugees for resettlement. Even after a refugee is identified to Canada, it takes time to process the cases.

    Under our legislation, all resettlement cases must be carefully screened to ensure that there are no issues related to security, criminality or health. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) works with its security partners such as the Canada Border Services Agency to complete this work as quickly as possible.

    http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/canada.asp

  108. Clip from Canadian gov’t web site in moderation

    @jim2 | July 1, 2016 at 9:20 am

  109. There was a very insightful article in one of the Mexico City daily newspapers a couple of days ago:

    Brexit: el naufragio del neoliberalismo [Brexit: The Shipwreck of Neoliberalism]
    http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/06/29/opinion/024a1eco

    The UK is an economic basket case, even more so than the United States.

    As the author points out, there is quite a double standard at work.

    The sort of profligacy that countries at the heart of the Anglo-American banking system can get away with would not be tolerated by countries in the perifery.

    The UK’s current account deficit is currently a whopping 7%. As Nadal points out, when Mexico’s current account deficit reached this level, it triggered the Peso Crisis of 1994-95.

    The July 2015 Financial Stability Report does acknowledge that the inordinate current account deficit does entail risk:

    Following data revisions, the current account deficit is now estimated to have been 5.1% in 2014, compared with 5.5% at the time of the July 2015 Report. That remains the largest annual deficit since official records began, and is wide by international standards….

    [T]he United Kingdom’s large current account deficit remains a vulnerability. A current account deficit indicates that UK domestic expenditure is higher than its income, leaving a shortfall to be met by net borrowing from abroad. This can be achieved either by UK residents reducing their external assets (by lending less abroad or divesting foreign assets) or increasing their external liabilities. And any increase in external liabilities can only continue for as long as foreign investors are willing to acquire them. If overseas demand for these liabilities were to fall, perhaps because of a change in the risk environment, there could be a sudden slowing of capital inflows. This could lead to financial instability and cause domestic expenditure to fall sharply.

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fsr/2015/fsr37sec3.pdf

    If I understand correctly, it looks like the UK has chosen the route of “reducing their external assets” over “increasing their external liabilities,” since it looks like it’s been able to pay for its current account defict and lower its external liabilities at the same time:

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fsr/2015/dec.pdf

    And as the report points out, the “UK net international investment position
    is not unusually low by international standards”:

  110. Why Dems Try to Break Black Hearts and Only Trump Can Fix It
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/why_dems_try_to_break_black_hearts_and_only_trump_can_fix_it.html#ixzz4DAUVe6YJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    This election cycle is dominated by Democrat race-baiting as usual. Trump’s massively popular nationalist platform to stop illegal immigration and suspend Muslim immigration is labeled racist. What is new are perfidious Republican leaders and pundits rushing to join Democrats in their false accusation against Trump….

    The most recent polls on the Trump-Hillary fight show the crucial importance to Democrats of making blacks and Hispanics feel Trump, and all Republicans, are against them. Without a hurt and angry black and immigrant electorate, there would be no Democrat party, according to this analysis by John Hinderaker of why race relations in our country have deteriorated.

    Trump holds a ten-point lead among white voters, 50%-40% … a near landslide margin among …a majority of the electorate. Not many years ago, that would have assured him of victory.

    This is why Democrats are so anxious to “fundamentally transform” the United States through mass immigration from Third World countries. Only by building up the minority population do they have a chance to stay competitive. But that still wouldn’t be enough, (snip) if minorities voted in anything like a normal pattern. In order to win, the Democrats need to roll up ridiculous margins, like the 90%-8% lead that Clinton holds with blacks in the ABC/WaPo poll.

    This is why the Democrats seek every opportunity to stir up racial conflict. They need to keep minority voters constantly riled up and fearful of a phantom “racism.”

    [B]lacks today are taught that most fellow Americans secretly hate them and wish them harm. That their efforts to succeed are doomed, or at best damaged by racism. That every institution in America is against them, even liberal institutions like colleges. They are force-fed self-pity and rage as their heritage and their portion and their due. Most horribly, they are taught to mistake rage and self-pity and paranoia for pride.

    These falsehoods are toxic. They eat up people from within, sabotage their potential and break their hearts.

    They are taught all this by Democrats because Democrats need blacks to be angry, paranoid and dysfunctional in order to monopolize their vote. If any black voter succeeds in thinking things through and becoming conservative, they are vilified and ostracized – a despotic tactic for keeping people in line. Like all despotic movements, Dems need a scapegoat. We are the goat….

    In the face of Holocaust deniers, you do not maintain a dignified silence. Jews have defeated Holocaust deniers because we had zero tolerance for the lies.

    Letting the falsehood stand is not an option. First you attack back and label the Holocaust denier as what they are – haters. Then you flood the public arena with true information.

    The same approach is needed for any malicious libel, like the Democrat accusation that Republicans are racist. You identify their ugly motives and the uglier consequences of their libel, and you fill the public space with the truth.

    If you remain silent in the face of libel, the accusation sticks. If you become defensive, you are judged guilty. You must go on the offensive. You affirm your own positives, and you attack the other person hard for telling hateful lies about you….

    There’s been a lot of nonsense written about Trump’s temperament. Trump is the first Republican candidate we have ever had who has the temperament to fight back against the Dems shameful racial lies and ask blacks and Hispanics for their votes. He has already begun.

    • verytallguy

      I’ve no idea why this is relevant to Brexit Glenn, but it’s certainly funny.

      I’d never heard of “American Thinker” before, but it’s great to know that, judging by your pasted content, it’s cornered the market in oxymoronic titles.

    • Glenn

      Was the newspaper report that white babies are now a minority in America true, If so did it have any impact either side of the debate?

      tonyb

    • It’s always amusing that Republicans fail to understand that this:

      [B]lacks today are taught that most fellow Americans secretly hate them and wish them harm.

      is the exact sort of condescension that will guarantee that Blacks in the U.S. will continue to support Dems.

      The “They are too stupid to know what’s in their own best interests, and to realize that actually Republicans really advocate for policies that will benefit them the most” is truly spectacular in its cluelessness.

      • “As long as black Americans vote monolithically for the Democratic Party, they will always be treated like dirt.”
        “Republicans have absolutely no reason to pursue black voters because no matter what they do, they believe they’re going to be branded as racist, and their opponents will collect 90% of the black vote. Until black Americans start giving some indications that their votes are up for grabs, they will continue to be ignored by both parties.”
        http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/09/13/5_reasons_black_americans_should_give_up_on_the_democratic_party
        What do they have to show for their loyalty? Some very poor living conditions for significant numbers of them.
        “For a lot of black Americans, a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to lose their job to an illegal alien, trap their kids in a lousy school, and get criminals released back into their neighborhood.”
        This election is an opportunity for those who haven’t fared so well for decades under the establishment to change things. Or we can hope the establishment will do better. The black middle class, might not be a lock for Clinton.

  111. Not to say I told you so, but I told you so :) From the article:

    A week after Brexit panic, investors are buying everything

    Apparently the Brexit wasn’t the end of the world after all.

    Just a week after the United Kingdom shook up the world by voting to leave the European Union, market behavior has done a 180-degree turn. Major stock market averages have recouped much if not all of the post-Brexit panic, bond yields are tumbling and even currency markets have settled down.

    “We’ve worried a lot about the euro zone through this recovery. Whenever the fear peaks, the right thing to do: Buy,” said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management.

    Paulsen considers the Brexit “a wimpy crisis” in that it jangled market nerves but showed little signs of being a fundamental disruption to markets.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/01/a-week-after-brexit-panic-investors-are-buying-everything.html

  112. CNBC article clip in moderation @jim2 | July 1, 2016 at 1:30 pm

  113. Why Are Immigration Advocates So Quick to Play the Race Card?
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437369/immigration-racism-education-less-skilled-mexican-asian-european

    Recently, Adam Ozimek, an economist and immigration advocate, made a provocative claim about the politics of immigration…

    [H]e asserts that if we were to somehow eliminate racism, opposition to immigration would drastically decline (“by more than 50%”), though he allows that the decline could be somewhat smaller.

    What should we make of Ozimek’s contention?

    My guess is that if immigration policy were not viewed through a racial lens, opposition to immigration would in fact increase substantially. Many people who would otherwise be skeptical of the virtues of mass immigration can’t stand the thought of being racist. So when influential voices insist that opposition to immigration is racist, they find plenty of citizens who take those claims at face value….

    Far from being rooted in racism, opposition to immigration in the U.S. seems to be rooted in concerns about the ability of less-skilled immigrants to support themselves without Medicaid, SNAP, the earned-income tax credit, and various other supports. The voters I have in mind might not have a sophisticated grasp of public finance, but they intuitively understand that low-wage workers generally need more public assistance than high-wage workers, hence their apparent preference for a more selective immigration policy. One suspects that these concerns will grow more pronounced as more low-wage jobs grow susceptible to automation and offshoring, and as increases in the minimum wage lead employers to substitute skilled workers for less-skilled workers….

    I can’t that imagine any of this will persuade Ozimek or others who are convinced that immigration skepticism is rooted in racism. Much depends on what exactly we mean by “racism.” The U.S. has a long and tragic history of racial conflict, which is still with us today. Americans are therefore very sensitive to charges of racism, and for good reason. Political entrepreneurs are by and large aware of the power of accusing others of bigotry, and so there is a strong temptation to level this accusation to advance any number of political objectives….

    [I]n the case of the immigration debate…racism plays a far smaller role than they’ve led millions of Americans to believe.

  114. This is one of the faces of racial politics in the United States these days:

    WATCH: Rapper Turns ‘F*ck Donald Trump’ Song Into Political Attack Ad
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/06/30/rapper-turns-fck-donald-trump-song-political-attack-ad/

    The 26-year-old Compton rapper released the death threat-laced “F**k Donald Trump” in March.

    In April, YG led a crowd of 20,000 of his fans in a collective recitation of the song at the Coachella Music Festival in Indio.

    The rapper posted a video of the profanity-filled performance to his Facebook page.

    Since its release, “F**k Donald Trump” has become one of the most popular songs to target the real estate mogul. In it, YG, with the assistance of fellow California rapper Nipsy Hussle, warns Trump to stay out of Los Angeles unless he wants his “sh*t” to get “crashed.”

    “We’re trying to touch the people,” the rapper said. “We’re trying to motivate the young people to vote.”

  115. Even In Crisis, EU Not A Lead Actor In World Oil
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/145422/Even_In_Crisis_EU_Not_A_Lead_Actor_In_World_Oil

    LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) – The European Union’s crisis holds political and economic leaders transfixed, but for the oil market it merely underlines the region’s established role as only a secondary engine to global energy demand.

    Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and strikes that crippled France’s energy industry in May, elicited barely a lasting ripple on global energy markets….

    In oil demand growth, and in refining, the spotlight has for long shifted to developing markets in Asia, the Middle East and even the United States, where drivers hitting the road in record numbers are fuelling a resurgence in demand growth. Oil traders are accustomed to seeing the EU as a market with barely any potential to use more motor fuel….

    Because most European economies are no longer industrially focused, even the slip into recession that some economists warned could hit Britain has failed to create significant oil demand loss fear on the global level.

  116. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #231 | Watts Up With That?