Brexit reactions from Twitter

Heard in Baghdad: “I never thought Britain would break up before .”

That was from Ben Wedeman

I’m afraid we are about to find out that most, if not all, the Remain economic warnings were true

That was from John Gapper

CNH at 6.65. Forget Brexit. If PBOC piggybacking on this, this will be the new story

That was from Christopher Balding

worth remembering that no European country has had an election/referendum explicitly pitting national vs EU where EU won. None.

That was from Austan Goolsbee

Weird night for Netflix to drop the first live episode of Black Mirror.

That was from Le Vine

ITV now reporting that Sinn Fein calling for new vote on united Ireland. Brexiters were adamant that this wouldn’t happen.

That was from Simon Nixon

Thank goodness the world economy has the steady hand of the American voter to steer it to calmer waters.

That was from Justin Wolfers

My sympathies with Mexicans out there wondering why their currency has been smashed by 5.6% on a UK election result.

That was from Toby Nangle

No political change was ever postponed because it would freak out traders.

That was from Kristi Culpepper

Though I don’t drink, some nights I need to stay up a little later.

That was from me

Comments

That first one was off base as Britain didn't break up. The EU didn't for that matter. The UK just left the EU.

Sure, but given every country other than England voted "remain", how long do you think the UK has?

As long as they can control immigration (which was what this was all about) and prevent Britain from turning into a modern Lebanon, they will be fine.

It is the European states that have the growing parallel societies which risk breaking apart.

Well, England might do well, but Ireland is likely to be unified in the middle term (that's right, the Irish will likely have to accept a bunch of 'immigrants' with an alien religion and culture in that scenario), while Scotland is even more likely to vote to remain in the EU, after first leaving the UK.

A certain segment of the English voting population will finally be able to live without the burden of not being control. Except for the fact that the UK will likely lose control of two of its elements, which one can assume was an objective of many English Leave voters.

Except for the fact that the UK will likely lose control of two of its elements,

Which ones? If you fancy Ulster will secede, look at the bloody map. The protestant zones in Antrim, Down, and Armagh voted for Brexit, and Ulster protestants are nearly unanimous in their allegiance to Britain. The Catholics in Ulster cannot take the territory into the Irish Republic. The best they could achieve if they wanted to open that can of worms would be to take Derry, sectioins of greater Belfast, and swatches of the southwestern portion of Ulster into the Republic.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028

Wales voted leave, as did 44% of Northern Ireland. So it's hardly like it was just England dragging everybody else along. Only Scotland and inner london voted strongly for Remain.

That Northern Irish number has a certain demographic component - it is unlikely that in a decade, even 40% of the Northern Irish will vote to remain in a Tory paradise.

This is some wild speculation. Who know what things will look like in 10 years? But polls in NI have consistently shown very strong support for remaining in the UK.

Declining support - that was the point about the demographic component. Basically, Northern Irish is becoming more Irish, and this vote is a fairly straightforward affirmation that the English will do whatever they want, as nobody is the boss of them.

Something that a group of Northern Irish citizens has known for generations.

But the picture has all sorts of elements, as this wikipedia link does a nice job encapsulating - 'A 2008 survey found that 57% of Protestants described themselves as British, while 32% identified as Northern Irish, 6% as Ulster and 4% as Irish. Compared to a similar survey carried out in 1998, this shows a fall in the percentage of Protestants identifying as British and Ulster, and a rise in those identifying as Northern Irish. The 2008 survey found that 61% of Catholics described themselves as Irish, with 25% identifying as Northern Irish, 8% as British and 1% as Ulster. These figures were largely unchanged from the 1998 results.[108][109]

People born in Northern Ireland are, with some exceptions, deemed by UK law to be citizens of the United Kingdom. They are also, with similar exceptions, entitled to be citizens of Ireland. This entitlement was reaffirmed in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement between the British and Irish governments, which provides that:

...it is the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly [the two governments] confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

As a result of the Agreement, the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland was amended. The current wording provides that people born in Northern Ireland are entitled to be Irish citizens on the same basis as people from any other part of the island.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland#Citizenship_and_identity

What is truly amusing is that those Northern Irish who are Irish citizens will be able to enjoy all the benefits of being EU citizens (why yes, they can still enjoy living in their Spanish vacation home after retirement, for example) without needing to participate in all the disadvantages of being a citizen of whatever is left of the UK. This identity process will likely only pick up speed in the next few years.

Northern Irish is becoming more Irish, and this vote is a fairly straightforward affirmation that the English will do whatever they want, as nobody is the boss of them.

Look at the map, knucklehead. 'Remain' carried the Catholic zones which have always been disgruntled. It's just that 'remain' was a more popular option among protestants than 'leave' was among Catholics. The Catholic minority will not be able to take the territory into the Irish republic, Martin McGuinness mouthing off notwithstanding.

It does seem like Scotland could be on the way out on the back of this result--if they are allowed another referendum in the next two years.

Scotland voted against independence because England subsidizes them a lot. Maybe the EU does as well, but isn't it too early to automatically assume election results?

Scotland would have a very tough time fiscally without U.K. support. I think their generosity to immigrants might decline very fast if native scots had to compete with immigrants for scarce funds.

Wales voted for Brexit, as did the protestant sections of Ulster. The 'remain' option carried areas where British patriotism is weak: Scotland, Oxfordshire, the more affluent sections of London, and the Catholic sections of Ulster.

The problem with all of the anti-Brexit arguments are that they all fall to the Meatloaf counter-argument:

So now I'm praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
'Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
I don't think that I can really survive

There's no way to beat an electorate that is praying for the end of time.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; This is just the beginning of the end of the EU. And what has brought this reaction ? Fear of and backlash against Islam. European countries want to preserve their identity. The EU has a different agenda.

And exactly how will that be accomplished by keeping out the Portuguese in favour of the Pakistanis?

There is a vocal minority in Britain motivated by "fear of and backlash against Islam", but not 52% of the population.

The backlash was against Eastern and Southern European immigrants, not Muslim ones. People are upset about all of the Polish, Spanish and Greek immigrants taking their jobs.

People living outside of London are upset about Poles, et al living in London taking jobs in London?

Do all the leavers living in the country really want to live and work in London and have stayed in the country unemployed because if they moved to London they would be working trying to keep up with people born in London to parents who were immigrant Muslims.

I think the "take back England" rhetoric was shaped to complain about the Poles who look English because taking about the British who do not look English because their grandparents came from colonies and now they are well integrated into the British economy would make the Brexiters racist.

Trump has not to my knowledge railed about the illegal trying to shoot him, blaming Obama for failing to build a wall to keep out the illegals from Britain, all of them being rapists, drug dealers, and terrorists. But Trump has spent a lot of time calling a brown skinned American a Mexican, which would require Trump be called German or British.

Those brutes!

This will be a boon for Trump. Looks like people are utterly sick of these milktoast technocrats scheming to bring unwelcome foreigners in under the guise of a Kumbaya political scheme that's just barely warding off World War 3 in Europe, don't you know!

EU is way from perfect or even ideal, but it can be reformed with less costs than leaving it. Typical Brexit supporter is for the union of Britain but they probably made the worst move ever to keep UK together.

Ireland and Scotland emphatically voted Remain, now call for independency will be loud. What about 96% Remain voters in Gibraltar? It's a small place but they've cracked the Union... UK is more at risk than EU

44% of Northern Ireland voted Remain. It's not like there's some kind of supermajority of support for the EU there. Scotland should leave the UK, they stupidly blame the "evil right-wing English" for all their problems. They should leave, it would be better for everyone.

"it can be reformed with less costs than leaving it".

It's not clear that Britain ever had the leverage to reform it. Even with the threat of the impending referendum, Britain got very little out of the last round of negotiations.

"Ireland and Scotland emphatically voted Remain, now call for independency will be loud."

Polling has consistently shown strong Northern Irish support for staying part of the UK, and NI did not vote overwhelmingly for remaining in the EU (44% leave, with leave winning some counties). I don't think much changes on the basis of this vote.

Scotland is another matter. I think this is likely to push them over the top in a vote for independence, if they get another referendum in the next 1-2 years.

EU is way from perfect or even ideal, but it can be reformed with less costs than leaving it.

It cannot be reformed at all and building and maintaining an affluent country is not dependent on EU membership (see Norway and Switzerland). See Greece for an example of a country immiserated by the EU.

Reform has been touted for decades, to no effect. Oeaving was the only option. Perhaps the REU can get their reform on now, though.

"Can it" or "will it"? I think these questions produce different answers.

They apparently had the odds for a Leave win at 11% at end of voting. Amazing how far off the conventional wisdom was. As Nate Silver pointed out, the polls weren't that far off, but the conventional wisdom was.

It reminds me of comments by Tyler on a bias toward assuming the status quo will continue forever.

Interesting conspiracy theories that some hedge funds manipulated bookies odds to create complacency whilst betting on a fall in the pound. There was no public information disclosed over the course of the day yesterday but the odds fell from 1/3 to less than 10% for Brexit. Apparently betting patterns were also wierd (small number of large bets).

This is why i am taking the conventional wisdom of "OMG-worldwide recession, nay depression, based of a country that is not in the Euro, moving out of the EU."

I swear, the "elites" seem to be acting as badly as "nationalists" - overwrought pantshitting.

Time to buy on the dip? Unless you're a total cynic like me, most likely scenarios are 1) revote or override; 2) many, many years of negotiating before the actual exit - giving everyone plenty of time for everyone to anticipate and fix problems.

In Canada we're about to see what might have happened had the sovereignty referendum passed in 1995.

Or maybe not. Jacques Parizeau had a perfectly dignified victory speech prepared to reassure NON voters whose help he would need to keep a sovereign Quebec's economy running. Farage's victory speech was all gloating and provocation, outdoing "money and the ethnic vote" by a mile in its offensiveness, and Farage wasn't obviously drunk.

While the vote vindicates Farage to some extent, he is still the leader of a minor party and not a holder of any elected office. I think this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Particularly as the Tories no longer even need to pretend to be people interested in anything but finally living in the England they are entitled to - one where no one can tell them how to treat the servants. Wait, peasants. No, serfs. Actually, no need to pretend any longer - lower class scum entitled to nothing.

That makes for a nice story, but this wasn't an issue that split left-right. 40% of Labour voted leave. And David Cameron and other top Conservative leaders led the remain campaign.

I am being very specific when talking about England and the Tories - Labor voters who are unaware that likely forcing Scotland out of the UK ensures Tory dominance of English politics for the foreseeable future are probably the same sort of Labor voter that believed in Blair's marketing of himself, not to mention Blair's marketing of the Iraq War.

Oh, I get it. The Tory supporters of Leave are the evil ones, while the Labour supporters of Leave are just poor ignorant pawns of the Tories.

'The Tory supporters of Leave are the evil ones, while the Labour supporters of Leave are just poor ignorant pawns of the Tories.'

Nope - many Tories voted to remain too. However, it is clear that one faction of the Conservative Party knows how to read electoral maps, and possesses the necessary lust for power (Boris Johnson, Prime Minister in apparent waiting, has such a proper English sounding name, after all).

The issue is many sided, of course, but the idea that a group of Tories is finally hoping to take back control does not seem to be all that hard to see. Especially if the only well organized political opposition to them in London are Scottish nationalists.

Again - not all Tories voted leave (there are a lot of extremely worried Tory business owners this morning, after all), not all Labor voted remain. But a certain faction of Tories has finally realized their dream - almost nothing more stands between them and what they deserve.

And there is even a way to see if this is true - if a conservative Prime Minister ('Boris Johnson' still sounds like such a joke of virile English naming) allows Scotland to vote to leave in the next 12-24 months, then it will be hard to say it was just a coincidence.

The elites with the servants all voted to stay.

This is the Guardian trope, yes. That they tried to convince their readers of (or rather, they told easily convinced GROLIES this while being largely ignored). Brexit is merely a Tory plot to eliminate that wholesome European egalitarianism from British life, and return to the perfidious English class system. Naturally...

p.s. in case anyone is interested, here is the full text of Farage's speech: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-nigel-farage-4am-victory-speech-the-text-in-full-a7099156.html

I think everyone is bending over backwards to get offended about it.

Congrats England and Wales! Looks like a vote for common sense. I'd love to see a united Europe, but the EU is fundamentally broken and undemocratic. It was taking on water before, and without English money to bail it out, it is clearly a sinking ship.

The worst part of the whole debate is that Leave is risky, but so is Remain. Remain would be a hefty ball and chain preventing innovation unless (and this is a big if) Britain could reform the EU from within, and the EU is becoming increasingly recalcitrant. The major problem with Leave is dealing with a jilted EU. Nothing HAS to change now. The Schengen can stay. The EEC can stay. Heck, the UK can even adopt the Euro if the ECB could ever make an intelligent decision regarding Greece. None of that can be forced down British throats now - consent should be required. From what I hear, however, the EU will punish itself in order to punish the UK (trade barriers cut both ways). If that is true, then that is simply more proof that the British are right to leave such a dysfunctional organization. (I realize I've given myself an unfalsifiable position here, but hush)

The biggest real problem that cannot be solved by the EU not being rat dicks is the split in vote with Scotland and NoIreland being Remain. You can't ignore that big of a difference in attitude by region and expect stability (see also: America). Also from what I hear, this vote is largely an opinion poll, not binding to UK politicians, and I'm waiting for the EU to say that this election was flawed, undemocratic, and invalid somehow. I'd now start putting odds that this whole Brexit vote was nothing more than peeing in the win.

Britain has never been a part of Schengen, and there is no way they could join the Euro without EU membership.

Also, this vote was for real. It's happening. David Cameron has just resigned. While there was previously speculation that an exit vote would be ignored, nobody is talking about that now. Everyone is focusing on the coming political realignment.

"Nothing HAS to change now" so why bother?

UK, has opted-out of Schengen... keeping everything "the same" mean UK still must implement tons of EU legislation and pay fees, but now they will note have a vote in many issues...

"and there is no way they could join the Euro without EU membership" False! You don't have to control a currency to adopt it. Several countries that are not the US have adopted the US Dollar. There were a few baltic states that were using the Euro without being in the EU as well. As far as Schengen, whatever travel agreement they have between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will become a nightmare. Not because it has to be, but only if the EU insists on it. Given the pettiness of the US Federal Government in the last shutdown, I only expect burrocrats to be asses.

"“Nothing HAS to change now” so why bother?" Because there's a difference between Consent and Compulsion, which I suspect will sit poorly with the EU. The UK now has more control over the laws now - a unilateral veto if they want to ignore them - than they did before. If the EU learns this distinction, we will see a newer, better EU, and a freer, united Europe in our lifetimes. Ain't nothing wrong with a loose confederation of willing partners.

I still suspect that the EU will call out voter fraud, voter suppression, it wasn't a real vote - it's kinda what the EU does when they don't get elections they don't like.

I assumed you meant join the Eurozone (with agreement of the other members). Of course they could unilaterally decide to use the Euro as their currency, but that wouldn't make any sense.

It worked well for some of the Baltic states, and could have worked well for Greece. I'd actually make the argument Greece would be doing much better now if they used a currency they didn't have any control over, issued by countries that didn't give a rat's patooie about them. The Republic of Zimbabwe develops some financial fundamentals if they can't get bailouts, credit, nor inflate their way out of messes. They use the USD.

I think the pound will remain more reliable than the Euro though, in the long haul, and yes the UK would be foolish to adopt it. Still a choice they have on the table, one that cannot be forced upon them. In time, the EU would have the UK to abandon the GBP. I do plan on buying up some british pounds today, maybe start planning a vacation in Wales for this winter! pound pound pound it's no longer a word

Wales is great, you should definitely vacation here. Winter is a dubious choice, though.

Hey now! I work in construction, the winter is my only option to vacation. And Christmas in Iceland is actually wonderful. I camped outside in an igloo one night, glacier climbs are safer and possible, the New Year's Eve fireworks are simply out of this world, and the coastal climate made it milder than Midwest winters.

And now, because it's 530, I need to head out to the job site. Heat's been brutal, try to get as much done before the sun peaks.

I have also been in Iceland around Christmas time, and it was outstanding. Wales, on the other hand, tends to be 40 degrees and rainy all winter. Unlike the summers, which are 50 degrees and rainy. Of course you can still make the most of it and have a good time.

>I still suspect that the EU will call out voter fraud, voter suppression, it wasn’t a real vote – it’s kinda what the EU does when they don’t get elections they don’t like.

Care to provide examples of this claim?

He's probably going to start whining about Crimea.

I know of 2 examples where the eu did shady voting things, will post when home from work

Well, I'm going to lose this one, but here's what I could recover.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/europe/traian-basescu-of-romania-survives-impeachment-vote.html?_r=0 - the long and short of what I understand is that Romania was a complete mess at the time, there was voter intimidation, and a referendum went on for 3 days until they got the numbers they needed. The EU was cool with this.

I swear I heard a (british?) member of Euro Parliament discuss on a YouTube livestream about how the demographics of the upcoming Brexit vote, the youth favored Remain, and they were considering making the voting age 16. And that the Euro Parliament has played around with demographics and voting requirements before "to get a more sensible, reliable result". However, no citation available because I'm sleep deprived and I don't want to wade through 48 hours of youtube livestreams. That was going to be my second citation, sorry... I lose.

I'm from Kansas, and it doesn't take much to de-legitimize an election. I had no problem with Kris Kobach and his voter ID laws, but with our last senator race, it was Roberts (r) vs Orman (i) vs some democrat that wanted to drop out of the race, and Kobach wouldn't let him, trying to split the vote. Courts upheld common sense and struck down Kobach's requirement that an unwilling democrat be forced to run... but it was one quiet news article away from making the election a sham. I do not like playing tricks with democracy, and I have since concluded that Kobach can eat a bowl of dicks.

And I don't think the EU really cares about democracy except as an inspiring word to the masses, much like Kobach. See how laws are drafted by the unelected European Commission, and other ideas they're trying to sneak in the back door, like the common treasury and army. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/03/eu-superstate-would-have-no-democratic-legitimacy-warns-euro-arc/

Well, looks like the EU is preparing for an economic Fort Sumter - let's watch.

About Austan Goolsbee comment, on 1975 Brexit referendum, the "leave" side lost.

But the EU did not exist in 1975. This was really only a vote about the common market, something that still has broad support in Britain now.

'something that still has broad support in Britain now'

Apparently not enough to actually stay in it, because it takes a particular sort of delusion to think that the UK gets to pick and choose what it gets from the EU at this point.

It will essentially get whatever it is given. And it might be a surprise to see for the leave voters to realize what this means in Germany. Germans, for example, are likely to simply reject any suggestion that someone quitting, but still expecting the perks of membership without sharing in any of the burdens, gets anything at all.

"Apparently not enough to actually stay in it"

Indeed. But the debate leading up to the vote was all about the benefit of the common market vs. the perceived cost of other aspects of the EU. It's clear that there wouldn't be much support for leaving the common market, if voters were able to vote on that question alone.

I agree that it's not clear what sort of deal Britain will get after this. However, free trade is a mutually beneficial arrangement, not a "perk" for one side. It would be logical (all else being equal) for the EU to let Britain be part of the common market. They might not do it, though, because they will be afraid of who will want to leave next. Or perhaps they won't do it just out of vindictiveness.

p.s. EU should make sure they have access to the British market, because now they can sell all of their cheap cow's milk cheese as feta!

It was mostly about immigration and Poles, wasn't it?

'because now they can sell all of their cheap cow’s milk cheese as feta'

Why? First, the EU is not going to be changing its rules - no German vintner that produces 'Sekt' can legally sell it in the U.S. as 'Champagne,' because the applicable law that applies to the German producer in naming its products is European, not American.

This is what is so amusing - the British are about to discover that the EU is unlikely to change anything in how it deals with non-member nations just to accomodate a former member.

In other words, the UK has already been exempted from a number of EU policies/regulations - they are about to discover what life is like when those exemptions are considered to be worthless in terms of market access.

On the other hand, there are a number of business owners that are thrilled at the prospect that they will no longer need to meet EU water/air/soil quality standards in terms of their pig farms and sewage discharges.

't was mostly about immigration and Poles, wasn’t it?'

Apparently - especially since unlike Commonwealth members like Pakistan, Poland is a real hotbed of Islamic terrorism.

'However, free trade is a mutually beneficial arrangement, not a “perk” for one side.'

Just to emphasize this point - the EU is not about free trade, it is about preventing another major European war (and it will fail in that mission at some point, as all human institutions fail).

Free trade is merely a benefit that EU membership offers, in an attempt to balance out nationalism and to help the process of Europe becoming more integrated in an attempt to stop war (again, at some point, the EU will fail in this). The EU is extremely unlikely to continue its arrangements with a former member, because the benefits of EU membership are considered, in a sense that Americans seem not to grasp, to be measured more in lives not slaughtered (remember Yugoslavia and its break up? - and notice that it was the only part of the former East Bloc that broke out in open warfare as the Soviets fell apart) than in growing bank accounts.

And would you like to guess how much of the former Yugoslavia is now a part of the EU? They weren't seeing their bank accounts as the most important consideration of joining, either.

It is hard to reconcile your claims with the fact that Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein are all part of the free trade area without being part of the EU.

'It is hard to reconcile your claims with the fact that Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein are all part of the free trade area without being part of the EU.'

It is easy when you recognize that none of them have just voted to leave the EU.

Further, until recently, the Swiss did not belong to any international organization. And Liechtenstein is just a banking center that everyone pretends is not essentially Switzerland, thus adding another level of intransparency and legal formalities which can be drawn out over years.

Here is a bit of history - 'The Stockholm Convention, establishing the EFTA, was signed on 4 January 1960 in the Swedish capital by seven countries (known as the "outer seven"). Today only two founding members remain: Norway and Switzerland. The initial Stockholm Convention was superseded by the Vaduz Convention, with the aim of providing a successful framework for continued expansion and liberalization of trade among the organisation's member states and with the rest of the world.

While the EFTA is not a customs union, it does have a co-ordinated trade policy.[1] As a result, its member states have jointly concluded free trade agreements with a number of other countries.[1] To participate in the EU's single market, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are party to the Agreement on a European Economic Area (EEA), with compliance regulated by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court. Switzerland instead has a set of bilateral agreements with the EU.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association

Here is a list of former members - Austria (EU, 1995), Denmark (EC 1973), Finland (EU, 1995), Portugal (EC, 1986), Sweden (EU, 1995), and the United Kingdom (EC, 1973).

@p_a, the point is that the free trade area really is a mutually beneficial economic arrangement, not just a carrot to entice nations into an organization that has other ends. Both its history and the continued presence of non-EU members in the free trade pact show this.

Of course Britain, having just voted to leave, might be treated differently than these historic members. I agree.

'@p_a, the point is that the free trade area really is a mutually beneficial economic arrangement, not just a carrot to entice nations into an organization that has other ends.'

The EU is explicit in its function - 'A peaceful Europe – the beginnings of cooperation

The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founding countries are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The 1950s are dominated by a cold war between east and west. Protests in Hungary against the Communist regime are put down by Soviet tanks in 1956. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market’.

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. Europeans are determined to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening again. Soon after the war, Europe is split into East and West as the 40-year-long Cold War begins. West European nations create the Council of Europe in 1949. It is a first step towards cooperation between them, but six countries want to go further.' http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm

That Americans see much of the EU and its politics mainly in economic terms is an American perspective, one not shared by most Europeans.

dan1111: "It is hard to reconcile your claims with the fact that Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein are all part of the free trade area without being part of the EU."

p_a: "It is easy when you recognize that none of them have just voted to leave the EU."

So, it looks like the claim from p_a, would indicate the EU is petty and vindictive and will ignore a beneficial trade out of spite. I have my doubts about that.

Yes, perks as contracts for UK aerospace industry. I remembered AirBus is an EU thing. I wouldn't be surprised in next AirBus deals go for Pratt and Whitney and GE instead of Rolls Royce.

The "perks" you describe are mostly mutual. That's the point of economics.

The Germany you describe is short-sighted and spiteful. Perhaps so. We shall see. I doubt it.

I like Merkel, but she has been the catalyst for this whole thing. You can't run too far ahead of the people. You'd think fans of democracy would understand and appreciate this.

'The Germany you describe is short-sighted and spiteful.'

Or not a bunch of saps - 'I quit the club, won't pay any dues, will ignore its rules - and expected to be treated the same as any other club member.' Germans don't find such an attitude even faintly amusing, much less have any desire to allow the rules to be so twisted.

The idea that people who vote to leave an organization no longer get the benefits of being in that organization is neither short-sighted and spiteful. And as noted below, the idea that the EU is mainly about a common market is one commonly held by many people who are not actually European.

Merkel blew it. Too bad. Not the end of the world.

Your "club" was always ever about binding France and Germany, thus averting war, in which it has been a spectacular success from the start, even before the 6-nation Inner Sanctum.

All the rest that has accumulated is frippery and the sticky gauze of another layer of busybody bureaucrats.

Trade deals don't depend on political union. They still make sense.

The world turns.

Mr. Donohue, behind Airbus there's much more than economics. http://www.airbus.com/company/worldwide-presence/airbus-in-uk/ Those 100K jobs are a legacy when BAE had 20% participation on Airbus. French and German nationalists would be very happy to get that back. Mr Schäuble said a few days ago "please stay in the EU......or else"

I personally think that the election of a Muslim as Mayor of London was the last straw for many people. I know many of my neighbours see the EU as a multicultural disaster just waiting to happen.

Except the city that elected him voted remain - London still being the place that rules Britannia, even if doesn't rule much in the way of waves.

This just underscores the nationalists' point: immigration is the State electing a new people.

I don't think anyone who wasn't already fervently anti-EU cared about the fact that a Muslim was elected mayor.

Excluding a certain style of reliable UKIP voter, of course.

My point is that these voters were already solidly "Leave". I find it unlikely that any voters who were on the fence thought Sadiq Khan's election was the last straw.

I've heard it said that usually undecideds go for status quo at the ballot, and it was 44/44/9. The main argument I've heard for REMAIN is (valid) threats of petty retribution. Some people would capitulate to that. A Muslim mayor enacting sharia law by piecemeal (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/londons-fat-shaming-ads-banned-from-transit/ ) might embolden some to ignore the threats. Islam has had some real problems adjusting to Britain, and maybe that's what's causing the undecideds to vote for change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

I can't math. I forgot what the estimated polls were before, but my sleep-deprived OCD is making me adjust the numbers to 45/45/10.

Khan is a leftist who has taken positions such as voting for same sex marriage. And banning ads that promote unhealthy body image is 100% in line with the left's orthodoxy. The idea that he is trying to implement Sharia law is ludicrous.

Dan... are you telling me the Daily Mail put a spin on things? Ok I'll see myself out!

The four main groups have meltdowns over Brexit (as opposed to just being unhappy about it) are:
(1) Neocons/liberal interventionists
(2) SJWs
(3) East European politicians faced with the prospect of having their welfare payments cut off
(4) Russian liberals

The German and French stock markets are down more than the English one.

UK has leverage in negotiations.

Leverage involving two countries where the stock markets have considerably less influence in terms of political decision making?

They only declined in Euros. In GBP terms, they still look fine...

I guess we will see, won't we? Why no tweets from Nigel Farage? And on the other side, Lindsay Lohan?

Pretty historic night. Not sure what to think. The future looks rockier but more interesting this morning.

Up/down single issue referendums are interesting, particularly in a parliamentary system where party cohesion is ordinarily very important.

I could see a united Ireland come from this.

It will be interesting to watch what happens to the parties, given this result. Will there be a realignment?

I don't see a united Ireland. It seems that more of the Northern Irish support Brexit than support Irish Union.

We'll see. As recently as 1980, the Republic of Ireland was poor, backward, and oppressively Catholic, an odious mix to an Ulsterman.

Today, it is none of those things. It's even part of the EU, the secularist thing ever.

Back in the real world, Ireland in 1980 was less affluent than Britain (with a per capita income about 1/3 lower) but affluent on any international scale and recognized as such by the World Bank. The term 'backward' has no meaning. It was 'oppressively Catholic' only to trash like Fintan O'Toole.

There will be no united Ireland. Brexit won north of 60% of the vote in the northern half of County Antrim and majorities in north Down and central Armagh.

I'm glad they left. Someone needs to stand up to Obama's bullying. Also, there are a bunch of British CDs and magazines I would like to get that, hopefully, will now be affordable with a drop in the pound.

Obama's bullying after Boris Johnson accused him of an "ancestral dislike of the British Empire" because he was "part Kenyan?"

That bullying?

True price revelation is not an economic calamity. It is the cure for it.

By the way, the Not Very Serious Person had something to say about it:

https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/746334122243665921

Justin Wolfers certainly hasn't lost his sense of humor and irony.

This whole scene is a timely narrative on the limits of globalization. Are we TOO interconnected? What are the economic valuations of a heritage, of a culture, of self-rule?

Through a democratic process, a sovereign nation of highly educated people decided it wanted to retain control over who/how non-citizens can come into its borders, and whether a voluntary partnership has a higher cost than benefit.

Can you find fault with that?

That everyone else's economy (I'm American) is meaningfully at-risk by that exercise, I have to ask: is this the economy you really want?

I think the lesson should be to slow down on globalization.

Chew your food, don't gobble it down and get a tummy ache.

Trade and immigration in moderation, not be cause they are "bad" but because humans need time to adjust.

How did you determine the UK is a nation of "highly educated people"?

By comparing the quality of the Brexit debate with anything that happens in the US.

In all seriousness, it's a great day for anyone who believes in diversity. New Europe has a depressing sameness to it.

I've always asked the multi-cultists where they think "diversity" comes from. Never gotten an answer.

"ITV now reporting that Sinn Fein calling for new vote on united Ireland. Brexiters were adamant that this wouldn’t happen"

Huh? Calling for a new vote on a United Ireland is Sinn Fein's *job*. Just like calling for another Scottish Referendum is the SNP's.

Brexit has become a #Pray moment :)

Comments for this post are closed