(06-25-2016 06:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Basically people under 50 wanted to remain, especially millennials. They basically had this forced on them by a bunch of bitter, resentful old people, and will have to live with it long after the "Leave" voters are gone.

If the result had been the other way, would you say that older people had the result "forced" on them by "selfish, ignorant" (or some other pair of pejoratives) young people?

(06-25-2016 05:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 12:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What is needed is a sliding scale. Give voters 18-29 1.5 votes, 30-39 1.3 votes, 40-49 1.1 votes, 50-59 0.9 votes, and 60+ 0.7 votes. That way the preponderance will be toward those most affected.

You've got the scale exactly backward. Giving preference to the opinions of people in their teens and twenties is about the surest prescription for disaster I've ever read.

This was TIC, a response to the idea that the old folks forced this on the kids, who would have to pay for it all their lives.

I agree, reversing the scale makes more sense.

I also think some sort of knowledge test for voters other than age is needed. I am tired of my vote being cancelled out by somebody who thinks Manitoba is the 57th state. I have proposed that young natural born Americans need to pass the same test that naturalized citizens have to pass. Seems only fair not to discriminate against the immigrants.

(06-25-2016 06:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Basically people under 50 wanted to remain, especially millennials. They basically had this forced on them by a bunch of bitter, resentful old people, and will have to live with it long after the "Leave" voters are gone.

Yes, they will have to live with it. But I'm not at all convinced that it will be that bad. Certainly not as bad as the worst of the "sky is falling" hyperbolic and frenzied projections.

The Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg have clearly overstepped their bounds and started meddling in all sorts of things where they didn't belong. Other factors have also come into play, but I think it would be a fair argument that regardless of Brexit, the future of the EU probably does not look as bright as it did 10 years ago. There is certainly considerable separatist sentiment in several other EU countries. At the end of the day, I think there is a very strong likelihood that the EU needs UK more than UK needs the EU. And UK was never completely in EU--keeping the pound instead of going to the Euro, a bit more stringent border controls than between countries on the continent, as a couple of examples.

I think cooler heads may yet prevail, and what could evolve is a transition of the EU back toward more of a trade zone and less of a supergovernment. And that could be a very good thing.

(06-25-2016 01:36 PM)Antarius Wrote:  IMO, there should be a 3 or so question quiz. Failure to answer questions such as what is the EU or select 3 salient points of the EU invalidates your vote.

Knowing what you are voting for should be a requirement.

Who gets to decide what the "salient points" are, and how to test them?

(06-25-2016 06:20 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 06:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Basically people under 50 wanted to remain, especially millennials. They basically had this forced on them by a bunch of bitter, resentful old people, and will have to live with it long after the "Leave" voters are gone.

If the result had been the other way, would you say that older people had the result "forced" on them by "selfish, ignorant" (or some other pair of pejoratives) young people?

Man, you old people are crotchety! ;-)

I should not have conflated two issues - the age split and its implications and the reasons "Leave" won.

Taking the first one, that age split is pretty severe. That's not unusual in an election, but this not a parliamentary or presidential election where you get another go in a few years, if the UK does leave, it will be very hard for them to return, not to mention the UK itself may be mortally wounded by this result. (You could actually argue it's the young people who made the "small c" conservative vote and the old fogies who are the radicals.) This result takes an existing cleavage, rips it open and rubs salt in the wound.

As to why this vote happened the way it did - there is certainly a long history of Euroscepticism in Britain, based on doubts about the continental statist model, etc. So there are reasonable arguments for England wanting to leave. But by and large those weren't the arguments made in the campaign. UKIP's campaign was based on, at best, xenophobia, and at worst outright bigotry. I've had several friends still living there comment on the shocking degree of anger, bitterness, and resentment from the "leave" voters. And it doesn't really shock me - I used to live in the West Midlands, very much a depressed industrial area and there was a lot of resentment there, toward the EU, toward "asylum seekers", basically a desire to go back to happier times, or at least the perception thereof. Older English would by and large never describe themselves as "European" while younger people would do so proudly.

So, while my inclusion of bitter and resentful in my original statement was not helpful, I don't think it's actually incorrect to say that was the source of a lot of the anti-EU vote...

I think this also shows the limited usefulness of referendums. They sound great on paper but in practice often don't resolve the underlying issue.

I don't think Cameron should have called it unless he was sure Remain would win, and win comfortably. Even if Remain had won, say 51-49, that doesn't change the fact that the country is still split, it just makes it more obvious.

I'm not a huge fan of super-majority requirements, but in this case where voting to leave is a huge, non-reversible action, I think it makes sense. 60%, 70% maybe? Or possibly an additional requirement that all four countries, or at least three of them, must vote to leave.

Never should of been a referendum at all, really.

(06-27-2016 01:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 06:20 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 06:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Basically people under 50 wanted to remain, especially millennials. They basically had this forced on them by a bunch of bitter, resentful old people, and will have to live with it long after the "Leave" voters are gone.

If the result had been the other way, would you say that older people had the result "forced" on them by "selfish, ignorant" (or some other pair of pejoratives) young people?

Man, you old people are crotchety! ;-)

I should not have conflated two issues - the age split and its implications and the reasons "Leave" won.

Taking the first one, that age split is pretty severe. That's not unusual in an election, but this not a parliamentary or presidential election where you get another go in a few years, if the UK does leave, it will be very hard for them to return, not to mention the UK itself may be mortally wounded by this result. (You could actually argue it's the young people who made the "small c" conservative vote and the old fogies who are the radicals.) This result takes an existing cleavage, rips it open and rubs salt in the wound.

As to why this vote happened the way it did - there is certainly a long history of Euroscepticism in Britain, based on doubts about the continental statist model, etc. So there are reasonable arguments for England wanting to leave. But by and large those weren't the arguments made in the campaign. UKIP's campaign was based on, at best, xenophobia, and at worst outright bigotry. I've had several friends still living there comment on the shocking degree of anger, bitterness, and resentment from the "leave" voters. And it doesn't really shock me - I used to live in the West Midlands, very much a depressed industrial area and there was a lot of resentment there, toward the EU, toward "asylum seekers", basically a desire to go back to happier times, or at least the perception thereof. Older English would by and large never describe themselves as "European" while younger people would do so proudly.

So, while my inclusion of bitter and resentful in my original statement was not helpful, I don't think it's actually incorrect to say that was the source of a lot of the anti-EU vote...

There was also the promise to spend what, 350 million Pounds per day on the NHS since that was how much the Leave campaign said that Britain was sending to the EU per day.

Hey, what happened to that promise now that the Leave side won?

(06-27-2016 01:22 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Man, you old people are crotchety! ;-)

:)

To be fair, I might have been born that way . . .

I just think that maybe more youngsters should have voted...

(06-27-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I just think that maybe more youngsters should have voted...

To paraphrase the great Yogi Berra: If people don't want to go to the polls, how're you gonna stop 'em?

The morons at CNBC just had Tilman Fertitta on to comment on the Brexit. No doubt this will hinder his efforts to expand Bubba Gump's and Landry's to Europe and forever redefine European cuisine!

(06-27-2016 06:44 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The morons at CNBC just had Tilman Fertitta on to comment on the Brexit.

Lobbying for Britain to join the Big 12, or UH to join the EU?

(06-27-2016 08:15 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 06:44 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The morons at CNBC just had Tilman Fertitta on to comment on the Brexit.

Lobbying for Britain to join the Big 12, or UH to join the EU?

I voted out.

I have been villified by the Remainers. Supposedly I am old, uneducated, racially discriminatory, Northern, parochial, insular, etc. I knew there would be financial repercussions. I knew this was asking for an economic and possibly a political cartharsis. This was a vote against the political elite and globalisation. I voted with the "great unwashed" that feel neglected and ignored. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer while the shrinking middle class pays the bill.

The UK youth are generally naive and easily persuaded. They talk about opportunities afforded by the EU without recognizing where the money is coming from. I'm not sure where they think they're moving to in the EU as unemployment is rampant and most have limited language and job skills. None-the-less they're angry and protesting in London today. I guess they must have time on their hands(?).

The political elite in the UK are in turmoil. The Conservatives need to replace the Prime Minister who resigned and Labour, fearing a snap election, are trying to oust their leader who refuses to resign. The Labour party could split. Some have suggested the referendum results might be ignored by Parliament or a deal negotiated with the EU that would maintain the status quo. If that happens I fear there will be civil disorder in many parts of this country.

The EU is desperate to make an example out of the UK for fear other nation states are considering leaving as well. The UK is a net contributor to the EU and has run a trade deficit with same for as long as I can remember. If they kneecap Britain they could easily cripple Europe.

This could get interesting.

And Johnson not running for Tory leader... My guess is Gove becomes favorite? And if Corbyn's still hanging on come fall, I'd guess they call an election and win easily.

Edit: Looks like May is the bookie's favorite. Would be odd to pick another leader who backed Remain.

The EU needs UK more than UK needs the EU. As Mersey notes, UK is a net contributor to EU and runs a negative trade balance with EU. UK can't negotiate trade deals with Commonwealth countries or with the US without EU in the deal. Within UK, Scotland is heavily subsidized by England, and that subsidy will get worse as the Noth Sea oil production declines, so if Scotland bolts that is actually an economic positive. In the end I think England comes out ahead.

One would therefore think that it is in EU's best interest to negotiate as friendly a split as possible. But that doesn't count on the pettiness that is an essential trait of the Eurocrats and the likes of Junckers. Farage has pointed out that few of them ever held a real job. Many of the MEPs are career losers in national elections. So the European Parliament is kind of a second string parliament that is now dictating policy to member nations in a micromanagement mode. It's the equivalent if letting your AAA farm club make decisions for your major league team.

But the Eurocrats crave power and don't want to let any of it go. If Brexit succeeds, there are others lined up to go. To prevent that, the Eurocrats will do everything possible to make it difficult. You've heard of team over country? This will be ME over country.

Crazy times in the UK:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/europe/uk-...index.html

Labour is a mess right now. Could the Lib Dems overtake them as the second largest party? (In England.) Of course that possibility is raised at some point almost every election, though not too long ago, people were asking if they would be overtaking the Tories.

We may see an independent Scotland before too long...

And it's not inconceivable at this point that the French presidential run-off will be between a communist-aligned candidate and a neo-fascist. Almost makes Donald v. Hillary seem quaint...

Great call by May. The Tories will likely have a 150+ majority and solidified power to effect a quick and positive exit from the EU.

Scotland's going nowhere.

"Brexit vote looms in Parliament, but May's plan appears doomed. Then what?"

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit...ed-n942896

Still holding out hope the UK will come to its senses, but it may be too late...

The interesting thing is that while the plan is being voted on may not pass, the default is.... the default (i.e. national borders go into effect, and the parties deal with it as independent parties thereafter as opposed to a pre-negotiated state of affairs)

And, no matter what happens, the Irish issue literally has no solution available as far as I can see. Brexit means tighter borders with the EU; but somehow there will and can be no policed border with Ireland from England's point of view (in other words, open border with one EU member and regulated with others -- flying completely in the face of the definition of the EU). Kind of mutually contradicting aspects at the outset.