Brexit! OPEN THREAD

From the BBC:

What has happened?

A referendum – a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part – was held on Thursday 23 June, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union.

Leave won by 52% to 48%.

The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting. It was the highest turnout in a UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election.

[W]ho wanted the UK to leave the EU?

The UK Independence Party, which won the last European elections, and received nearly four million votes – 13% of those cast – in May’s general election, campaigned for Britain’s exit from the EU.

About half of Conservative MPs, including five cabinet ministers, several Labour MPs and the DUP were also in favour of leaving.

What were their reasons for wanting the UK to leave?

They said Britain was being held back by the EU, which they said imposed too many rules on business and charged billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return. They also wanted Britain to take back full control of its borders and reduce the number of people coming here to live and/or work.

One of the main principles of EU membership is “free movement”, which means you don’t need to get a visa to go and live in another EU country. The Leave campaign also objected to the idea of “ever closer union” and what they see as moves towards the creation of a “United States of Europe”.

Although the vote was a stunning defeat for British Prime Minister David Cameron, The Hill reports:

If the vote was a defeat for elites in Great Britain and Europe, it was also a defeat for President Obama.

In a visit to London earlier this year, Obama lobbied voters against exiting the EU, warning they could not guarantee they’d get a new trade agreement with the United States.

That effort, almost certainly done in cooperation with British Prime Minister David Cameron, appeared to backfire given the vote. At the time, “leave” supporters argued that Obama should not have meddled in Britain’s affairs.

And as Newsmax reports:

Obama’s threatening remarks against Britain over Brexit seemed to have ignited a tempest.

Upon leaving the EU, Obama said, Britain should not expect a new trade deal with the U.S., that it would be “in the back of the queue.”

In a subsequent interview with the BBC, Obama suggested that a new trade deal with America’s closest ally “could be five years from now, 10 years from now before we were able to actually get something done.”

Obama’s use of the Briticism “queue” for the word “line” triggered widespread speculation that the President’s comments had, in fact, been written for him at 10 Downing Street.

Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, a staunch opponent of remaining in the EU and allowing unbridled immigration, blasted Obama’s remarks as “paradoxical, inconsistent, and incoherent.”

A Daily Mail editorial was equally brutal of Obama’s anti-Brexit interference, saying Obama had shown “contempt for voters.”

“The tone was patronizing, the language menacing – and the message not only hypocritical but, frankly, insulting,” it added. “… He has no business to come here and preach that submission to Brussels is good for the people of the U.K.

Indeed, polling analysis after Obama’s intervention suggests he increased the resolve of the “Leave” voters:

The ICM polling firm found that 46 percent of British voters surveyed want the UK to leave while 44 per cent want to stay. “The result suggests that Barack Obama’s call for the UK to stay in the EU failed to shift support towards the Remain camp,” reported a story for April 28 in the UK’s Express.

“Interviews for the ICM internet tracker poll were carried out during the US President’s visit to Britain last week during which he claimed Britain would lose global influence by leaving the EU and fall to the back of the queue in negotiations for a US trade deal,” the Express story noted. Further noting the unfavorable Obama impact, the article reported:

Jennifer Bottomley, of ICM, said Mr Obama’s remarks may even have strengthened the resolve of Brexit supporters to vote in the referendum on June 23.

She said: “Interestingly, we do see a hardening of resolve among Leave supporters when it comes to turnout, with 80 per cent saying they are absolutely certain to vote, compared with 75 per cent who said the same in our first April poll, perhaps reflecting a sense of displeasure about Mr Obama’s comments.”

[T]he ICM poll may indicate that the non-stop anti-Brexit fear campaign is failing. The pro-Brexit side appears to be easily winning the debate on the very heated issue of refugees/migration, and is also making a strong case on economic matters as well, despite the anti-Brexit claims that economic calamity would follow a decision to exit the EU.

Obama Arrogant

Disagreeing Without Personal Attacks
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • jim_m

    This is one of the most significant events of our time.

    The EU is becoming increasingly unpopular in Europe. It is a true oligarchy with virtually none of the members being elected directly and with none of them held accountable to the people in any way. This bred a degree of contempt for the people and fostered a culture in the EU of isolation and that they knew better than the people of Europe how those people should be governed.

    Next will be votes in the Netherlands, France and Sweden. While some in the EU are wanting a harsh response toward the UK for leaving I believe that this will only push more nations out of the union. Well over half of the Netherlands wants a referendum and it looks like a dead heat for “Nexit” as of today.

    In UK politics this will probably hurt the UKIP party. Having achieved the Leave vote they lack sufficient mainstream issues to differentiate themselves from the Tories. If the Conservative Party can move to embrace Brexit as they already seem to be doing, they will be able to draw support back away from the nationalists. It also spells trouble for the Labor party, which put everything on the Remain vote. They are badly positioned going forward and most of their policies were predicated on EU membership and in support of EU agenda issues rather than purely domestic ones. Labor can offer no convincing candidate that will manage Brexit and is already looking to dump Jeremy Corbyn from its leadership. They went off the charts socialist in selecting Corbyn and the result is Brexit.

    Panicked leftists are calling for London to secede from England. This just shows how intolerant of democracy the left is. They are all for democracy as long as they get their way. As soon as they lose a vote they want to go to full dictatorship and cram their ideas down every else’s throats. London will go nowhere and talk about it becoming a free city state are just a leftist’s wet dream.

    With Scotland voting 62% Remain, I expect that there will be a call for another secession referendum and I expect it to succeed. This will ultimately be a good thing too. Scotland is highly socialist and its entitlements are largely paid for by taxes from England and they are not self supporting. The EU will find it increasingly difficult to support what is essentially a pauper government like Greece. Scotland will be forced through economic hardship to move right and give up some of their left wing bent.

    In N. Ireland, the Sinn Fein is already agitating for a vote to reunify with Ireland. The problem with this is that while N Ireland voted 56% Remain, that vote was split between Catholics an Protestants. In other words, the IRA lacks a clear constituency for their vote. Also, N Ireland historically has been Euro skeptic so unless there is a vote immediately this may not happen. And finally, if the IRA chooses to return to violence this will destroy any chance of success for a vote. My prediction is that Scotland secedes and N Ireland stays in the UK.

    As for Wales, it was staunchly for Leaving the EU. It will stay with England in the UK. There is no real call for it to secede.

    As for obama:“The tone was patronizing, the language menacing – and the message not only hypocritical but, frankly, insulting,”

    In other words, 0bama spoke to the British people just like he speaks to everyone else. Malignant narcissist is probably a nice way of assessing his personality. 0bama knows better than any of the 7 Billion people currently walking the face of the earth and any who dare claim that he is wrong are sub human in his eyes. It is remarkable that every time he goes internationally to lobby for anything he is soundly rejected. The man who (falsely) criticized his predecessor for not forming alliances has proven utterly incapable of doing so himself or of winning any international support for his ideas.

    • Commander_Chico

      I ended up making a bet that it’s not “one of the most significant events of our time,” in fact that nothing much is going to happen.

      I bought 5000 share BCS (Barclays Bank ADR) on Monday at 6.98, after it had plunged more than 20%. This is a stock that closed at 11.19 on Thursday.

      It closed at 7.30 yesterday, we shall see. I expect a roller-coaster according to political news. I might get out at 9+. That would be a nice 10K payday.

      It was funny watching Juncker and Farage in the European Parliament yesterday. Farage certainly had his day, Juncker was classy.

  • Brucehenry

    Hilarious. The result of a plebiscite IN ANOTHER COUNTRY is Obama’s fault, too.

    Not so hilarious: The reckless behavior of white working class voters may unravel the whole EU, which could ultimately lead to the end of NATO and will almost certainly result in economic dislocation and instability in a Europe that had made miraculous advances in the last 70 years.

    Like Trump voters, these guys will vote for any reckless proposal that purports to “give a middle finger” to those “elites” at whom they are angry. Damn the consequences. A childish, stupid vote, as will be the one that — God forbid — results in a Trump administration.

    • jim_m

      Morons like you think that NATO and the EU are the same thing. They are not.

      Brexit won because people want to have a government that they feel is responsive and accountable. The EU Parliament is not elected by the people and its members are almost entirely appointed by political parties and serve not the people but the parties. This vote has been years in the making and is not the fault of 0bama, although his meddling was probably detrimental, I doubt it moved the needle in any measurable way. If anything, reports are that it made Leave voters more resolved, but that is different than saying he changed any minds.

      No, Brexit won because the EU is a mess. The European Parliament is detached and unaccountable to the people. It makes laws that are deeply unpopular and damaging to small businesses. It is focused solely on global trade and has shown itself unresponsive to local issues and concerns. Because it is unaccountable to the people there is no mechanism for reform. The only solution is to leave. The CIA predicted the dissolution of the EU by 2011. They missed the start by only 5 years.

      The Euro is doomed and the UK was always wise to stay out of that. The Euro cannot provide the flexibility of currency exchange that allows a country with a struggling economy to recover. This is why Greece is stuck in the economic doldrums and why there is already a proposal for splitting the Euro with two currencies, one for the economically troubled south and another for the more financially stable north.

      While short term this will be a negative economically, the reason to vote for Brexit was always sovereignty. Leftists like Bruce do not believe in self rule so Bruce is incapable of understanding why someone would vote to Leave the EU.

      • Brucehenry

        Also hilarious that I had barely touched the “post” button before Jim was furiously typing his reply. He would have objected to whatever I had said.

        I certainly didn’t mean to imply, and never said, that the EU and NATO are the same thing, but this vote could quite conceivably set in motion a chain of events that leads to the end of NATO. One would have to be totally lacking in imagination to suggest that it could not.

        Many of Jim’s other points in the his second comment are quite valid. I think had I been in the UK I would have wanted to negotiate concessions and reforms, not an exit.

        • jim_m

          It seemed as though you were claiming the two were inextricably linked and identical organizations. If not then fine.

          The fact is that NATO is not related to the EU and while the Berlin Plus agreements outline a framework of cooperation and support, it is not necessary for NATO’s survival. People running around like idiots claiming that this is going to be the end of NATO are foolish Chicken Little’s.

          NATO contains many countries that have never been part of the EU , The US, Canada, Norway, Iceland, Albania and Turkey. In fact, as the EU splits up NATO should gain influence as in most cases one of the leading drivers is nationalism and a desire for national integrity and defense.

          • Brucehenry

            I hope you are right about that.

          • jim_m

            I am.

          • Brucehenry

            As always lol.

          • NATO was around before the EU.

            However, the way we’ve treated our allies makes me think they might not see NATO as that great a deal any more…

          • Commander_Chico

            We’ve certainly “treated our allies” by bearing too much of the burden of their defense. Missile batteries in Poland and Romania?

      • Commander_Chico

        I would have given you a +1 if you had abjured the vitiperation and insults.

        • jim_m

          I don’t seek them from you.

          • Commander_Chico

            Harrumph! In that case, I won’t send you an invitation to my club, either.

    • Commander_Chico

      No need to racialize it, Bruce. “Working class” was sufficient. The EU has been an elitist oligarchical organization. I am in favor of it (because I am an EU citizen and it gives me mobility), but it needs to change. The way the EU privatized profits and socialized losses in Spain, Ireland, Greece and elsewhere was outrageous, worse than in the USA. Ordinary citizens had to pay through taxes and “austerity” to bail out bondholders of private banks.

      EU regulations are far removed from any voter input. The European Parliament is mostly impotent.

      There is also a direct line of causation from the chaos and death Bush and Obama unleashed in the Middle East to this result, by way of the refugees pouring out of Iraq, Syria and Libya.

      Euro banking stocks got crushed yesterday – at one point RBS was down 24%. Could be a trade there, but I am waiting til next week.

      • jim_m

        Your first two paragraphs were dead on. EU bureaucracy is unaccountable to the people. The EU Parliament is not impotent, it is busy creating those regulations and expanding the bureaucracy. It is isolated and unresponsive.

        The working class is exactly who rejected the Remain position. The industrial north an center of the UK went in big numbers for Leave.This was cross party affiliation. While the left claims racism as the cause, all they do is accuse their own supporters of that.

        But you depart from reality with the comment on immigration. While it did lend urgency to the vote, the causes of sovereignty and responsive government were sufficient to lead to the Leave vote. Plus, isolated and unassimilated muslim communities have been a problem for several decades. The issues in Rotherham were not related to immigration, they were related to failed Labour ideology that prevented people from addressing problems out of fear that they would be tagged as “racists” an “xenophobes” by ignorant ideologues like Bruce.

        • Commander_Chico

          Maybe you have some pinpoint polling data on voter motivation, but it looked like Farage disagreed:

          http://files.stv.tv/imagebase/449/w768/449946-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-launches-a-new-ukip-eu-referendum-poster-campaign-in-smith-square-london.jpg

          • Brucehenry

            The vote was pretty close. While granting for the sake of argument that concerns over un-accountability and sovereignty were foremost, I think it took fear-mongering like the above image to achieve the margin of victory.

          • jim_m

            Alright. SO that argument sounds like you are OK if 49.9% of the populations feels excluded and unrepresented, without any voice or recourse with their government.

          • Brucehenry

            I can’t help what it sounds like to you. Lots of stuff sounds to you differently than it sounds to regular people.

          • jim_m

            Then you admit that the concerns about sovereignty and a voice in government were legitimate and were on the brink of causing the Leave vote anyway.

            Remember, Cameron chose this timing for the vote. It was meant to be the most advantageous opportunity in order to ensure a Remain victory. That suggests that if this was the most favorable time for a Remain vote, that a Leave victory was inevitable either now or in the near future.

          • Brucehenry

            What part of “granting for the sake of argument” do you not understand?

          • jim_m

            I was making a legitimate point about timing of the vote.

      • How would an EU Citizen be drawing reduced pay for reduced services from the Armed Forces of the United States, pray tell?

        • Commander_Chico

          Dual nationals are allowed in the armed forces. I disclosed on my SF86 way back when.

          • Brucehenry

            He thought he had you there lol.

          • Commander_Chico

            He will always play Elmer Fudd.

          • Brucehenry

            If Elmer wore a stupid fedora

          • jim_m

            Actually, Rodney has a point about the fact that you cannot hold dual citizenship and a commission. That is easily verifiable online. Chico has now claimed both.

          • Commander_Chico

            If it is so “easily verifiable” online, why not provide a link to a rule or law?

            um, um, um

          • jim_m

            What I can find is this memorandum:

            The security concerns underlying this guideline are that the possession
            and use of a foreign passport in preference to a U.S. passport raises
            doubt as to whether the person’s allegiance to the United States is
            paramount and it could also facilitate foreign travel unverifiable by
            the United States. Therefore consistent application of the guideline
            requires that any [DoD] clearance be denied or revoked unless the
            applicant surrenders the foreign passport or obtains official approval
            for its use from the appropriate agency of the United States Government.

            And this:

            Security clearance adjudications posted at the DOHA website
            are replete with cases where the granting or denying of a security
            clearance hinged on an applicant’s decision to renounce foreign
            citizenship and surrender their foreign passport.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well, great. I was interviewed by Defense Security Service and they approved it.

            Also, you don’t even have to be a US citizen to be appointed as a commissioned officer. The requirement of US citizenship can be waived by SecDef.

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/532

          • All Comissioned Combat Arms Officers must hold a Secret Clearance.

          • jim_m
          • Commander_Chico

            86

          • jim_m

            You edited your original post. It said SF87 previously.

          • Commander_Chico

            ya I did, relied on memory then checked it.

          • Commissioned Officers may not hold dual citizenship. You claimed to have been a Naval Officer.

          • Commander_Chico

            Sez who? Show me a rule or law.

          • jim_m

            Everything I can find online says that you are required to renounce your dual citizenship and turn in your passport.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yet somehow you can’t show me one regulation or law.

            https://news.clearancejobs.com/2010/09/29/dual-citizenship-and-security-clearances/

          • jim_m

            Scroll down. It seems unlikely that you received any clearance without having to renounce your citizenship.

          • Commander_Chico

            To you, maybe. Yet I did. I got interviewed back in the 80s, no big issue then. Maybe it’s tougher after that 2000 memo.

      • Brett Buck

        There is also a direct line of causation from the chaos and death Bush and Obama unleashed in the Middle East to this result, by way of the refugees pouring out of Iraq, Syria and Libya.

        That is certainly incorrect. The radical Islamists were and would still be murdering psychopaths with or without US intervention. The reason we started the fight on terrorism in the first place was because they were murdering psychopaths who started attacking externally. The fact that Obama cut and ran from Iraq, and Bush did not continue to clean out the festering boils that comprise most of the Middle East might be a contributing factor, but that was not what you meant. Going to Bagdad, cleaning it out as we did, then turning west to then clear out Syria would have completely prevented the current refugee crisis, for example.

        Euro banking stocks got crushed yesterday – at one point RBS was down 24%. Could be a trade there, but I am waiting til next week.

        Right, and now you know exactly why the Eurocrats/Europhiles were desperate to prevent it. This hurt the behind-the-scenes parasites that run the thing for their own enrichment right where they live, and they deserve to lose out.

        • Commander_Chico

          “Cleaning out (Baghdad) as we did, then turning west to clean out Syria would have completely prevented the refugee crisis.”

          This is utterly delusional. 14 years ago you could get a beer on the banks of the Tigris. 5 years ago in Damascus. The NYT did stories in the Travel section about Damascus.

          Lay off the neocon propaganda pipe.

          • jim_m

            And you know beyond a certainty that the disease that started in Afghanistan would never have spread anywhere except for Bush. You really are a fool.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bush didn’t even get Bin ladin. He suppessed truth about Saudi govt support for 9/11.

            Instead he flailed around Iraq because oil and Israel.

            We needed Michael Corleone. We got Fredo and Sonny. Fuckups.

          • jim_m

            There you go again with your trutherism Next will be how Bush was complicit in 9/11

          • Commander_Chico

            What about 28 pages in 9/11 report Bush suppressed?

    • Brett Buck

      I guess I miss the point. The EU is just another globalist, oligarchical cancer on humanity, and deserves to die. It is grinding down the countries involved, flooding them with radical Islam, also a cancer on humanity.

      Maybe you think that having your life controlled by hordes of faceless, detached, effete, unaccountable bureaucrats is a positive thing but most people do not, and have fought and died to prevent it. One thing for certain – one cannot both think that the EU model of government is a good idea, and also be a good American. Because the country was formed and the constitution exists to PREVENT exactly what the EU has become,

      • Commander_Chico

        Another thing is certain: cops are more polite in Europe than USA and women are thinner.

        Even if Europeans pay more taxes, they get a lot more for them: excellent infrastructure and medical care. Americans get to watch their troops dying in wars and building roads in Afghanistan not Alabama.

        EU unaccountable bureaucracy is bad, but really not much worse than federal and state governments led around by lobbyists. It’s the USA which is pushing WTO, TTP, TTIP and these globalist structures.

        • Brett Buck

          You are mostly wrong, but the last paragraph is essentially correct, and explains Trump. Whether he actually does anything useful, or just leaves that impression, that is why he is the nominee, and Jeb/Marco/random focus group candidate #111 are not.

          You are wrong in the sense that you seem to think that giving up your personal liberty and freedom of action to get some government handouts is a good idea.

          The day the EU is finally put down is a great day for humanity and for personal liberty.

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t think good roads, airports, railroads and bridges are “government handouts.” I don’t think healthcare is, either.

            Americans really aren’t in favor of all this war and interventions, it’s imposed on them by the Beltway Bandits. Why do we have new missile batteries in Poland and Romania now? Was it debated much?

            As far as “personal liberty” goes, Europe mostly gives people more personal freedom in an everyday sense. I was at an outdoor concert in Spain a couple of nights ago. A couple thousand people were drinking, having fun. Some people smoking weed. A few cops on the sidelines.

            Public events in the USA are like fascist lockdowns, with hordes of cops on overtime fucking with everyone. Can’t even bring a cooler with beer into a park without being arrested in most places.

            Business freedom is also pretty good in the USA, with European countries at the top in both the World Bank’s and Heritage Foundation’s business freedom indeces.

            In a lot of ways, everyday life in the USA is a lot less free than in a lot of other places. The two things the USA really has strong rights are in freedom of speech and with guns.

        • jim_m

          women are thinner.

          Not in Northern Europe. Northern Europe will give any Walmart a run for its money.

          • Commander_Chico

            Depends on where you are and the age demographic. I would put your average Dutch or German 40 year old woman against your average American 40 yo. Certainly a Frenchwoman.

          • jim_m

            I find LHR and FRA to be full of Northern Europeans that look astonishingly like Americans (except they don’t bathe as often). Italy and Spain are quite the opposite.

          • Commander_Chico

            Sure, there are many fat Brits. Older women in Germany can pack on the pounds, but nothing like what you see in the USA among younger women.

            http://www.bariatec.com/wp-content/themes/ypo-theme/images/global-obesity-bothsexes1-s.jpg

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            I have to disagree; the local Wal-Mart is where stretch pants go to die a horrible death (of course, I am in the Midwest, it is probably much different in the Western United States). On that note, when did simply being lazy and fat qualify for a mobile cart at the grocery store? Aren’t these the people that should be walking?

          • Brucehenry

            Being fat is not necessarily evidence of being lazy.

          • Vagabond661

            True. Look at Sumo wrestlers.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, yup.

  • jim_m

    The head of BBC Political Research gets it right.

    • Brucehenry

      The Know-nothingism, xenophobia, and nihilism of Trump/Brexit voters does have to be acknowledged and not ignored, because there are so many of them. But pretending that know-nothingism, xenophobia, and nihilism are worthy of “respect” and should not be “despised” is not the answer either.

      • jim_m

        Yep, because Bruce, like his god, 0bama, believes that people who disagree with him are subhuman and not deserving of respect and self governance.

        Rejection of leftist fascism is evidence in Bruce’s fevered mind that someone is racist, etc.

        The proof that Bruce is projecting is his claim that Brexit supporters are demonstrating “nihilism”. In fact Brexit supporters tend to be people who believe in traditional values and reject relativism and nihilism.

        • Brucehenry

          I can respect the individuals while maintaining that others should work harder to dissuade them from know-nothingism.

          • jim_m

            Please provide links to establish proof of your claims that Brexit and Trump voters (so separate links for both will be necessary) that supporters of these are guilty of:

            1) Know Nothingism: While the Know Nothing Party was base on anti-German, anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry, both modern movements are concerned with muslim immigration and the crime and terrorism associated with it. One can hardly claim that these are not serious problems. Or do you really advocate for the rape of white females and young children?

            2)Xenophobia: Show that concern for immigration, the crime associated with it (because that has been very well documented throughout the EU) is an irrational fear. Show that concern for islamic terrorism is irrational in the US when we have had multiple instances in the last few years and the government refuses to act.

            3) Nihilism: Show how both movements believe that life is meaningless. Their very existence is a demonstration that this is not the case, but I will entertain your arguments on how it is not.

          • Brucehenry

            I shouldn’t have used a capital “K” in know-nothingism, although what I am referring to in Trump/Brexit voters does have certain parallels, it seems to me, to the Know Nothing party of the 19th century, although the targeted groups differ.

            And no, you are correct that there should be concern with the issues you mentioned (crime and terrorism). That doesn’t mean that entire populations should be feared or despised, or used to gin up fear beyond what can reasonably be justified.

          • jim_m

            I believe that the characterization of opposition to immigration because of the demonstrated concern and risk of crime and terrorism, as xenophobia and racism is dishonest in the extreme. You deliberately paint with an over broad brush in an attempt to dishonestly characterize your ideological opponents as something they are not.

            Most people opposing unrestricted immigration (as is the case in the EU and to some extent in the US) are not claiming that every muslim or immigrant is a criminal. It is a bald faced lie to claim that they do. You know that is the case but you make the false claim anyway.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I admit that being lectured to about using an “over broad brush” by Jim Fucking Underscore M is painful but maybe I should use milder language lol.

      • jim_m

        Just as it is foolish to claim that Brexit won because of 0bama’s support of the EU and his threats against the UK if they left, it is equally stupid to claim that the Brexit voters are the same people who support Trump.

        That might work in the retarded, brain damaged minds of the left, but reality is usually far more complex than they are capable of understanding.

        (PS – Bruce, I really think you should look up the definition of nihilism as I don’t think it means what you think it means. While I maintain that Trump support and Brexit support are unrelated, neither group shows nihilistic belief patterns – In fact they show the exact opposite.)

        • Brucehenry

          Perhaps nihilism IS the wrong word — what I am referring to is the “sending of a message” by “sticking a finger in the eye” to those they refer to as “elites” by voting for a man or a policy who may unleash unfathomable damage on themselves and others.

          Not caring about the unintended consequences of, on the one hand, leaving an economic union that has been key to stability, prosperity, and peace in Europe for over half a century, and on the other hand, electing a mendacious, buffoonish, unqualified oaf to hold the nuke codes. If “nihilism” isn’t the correct word I ask pardon, chalk it up to my lack of education.

          • jim_m

            So it is pure evil when people you disagree with support something with potential unintended consequences, but when the left does the same thing, those unintended consequences should be overlooked because you claim your intentions are pure.

            I agree that Trump is a buffoon. But Hillary is a criminal seeking a dictatorship. Not a great choice either but you worship her as the second coming.

          • Brucehenry

            Who said anything is “pure evil?” It is not I who uses such over-the-top language.

            The willingness to allow a visibly, demonstrably unstable kook to possess the nuclear codes is evidence that many people just aren’t thinking with their intellects but their ids this year.

          • jim_m

            And you consider voting for someone known to be a criminal, who has severely compromised the national security of the US and who beyond any reasonable doubt has been compromised by our enemies… voting for that person is an intellectual choice? Perhaps to people with sub 90 IQ’s.

            Neither choice is good, but ignoring the truth of either side is evidence of a lack of cognitive ability.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet a choice must be made and I have made mine.

          • jim_m

            Yes, fascist dictatorship. I understand that.

          • Brucehenry

            And you have made yours — possible nuclear annihilation because of bumbling, paranoia, or petty pissant dick-measuring.

          • jim_m

            The left has gotten us into far more wars than the right (at least in the last century). Go ahead and keep your contra-historical views to the contrary.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t think (and Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan would probably agree) that Trump represents “the right.” I think he represents the know-nothing bird-flipping anger of many resentful white men and little more.

          • Brucehenry

            Wait a minute.

            “Known to be a criminal?” Convicted of what crime?

            “Severely compromised” national security? Says who, Breitbart and Limbaugh and Hannity?

            Beyond any reasonable doubt has been compromised by our enemies?” Again, says who besides internet hacks?

          • jim_m

            Yep. Keep your head in the sand. I’ll bet you still believe that 0bama caused the seas to recede too.

          • Commander_Chico

            You and I will disagree on this, but Hillary’s hawkishness, and the hawks who will be around her are more likely to lead to nuclear war than Trump’s personality. Hillary’s people want to bomb Assad, for one thing.

            On the other hand, would you nuke the world if you could go to bed with Melania?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes we will disagree. Hillary has indeed been hawkish but her advisers are no more likely to push us into war than are the ones Trump will surround himself with — the worst kind of kooks like Gaffney and his ilk.

            And no, Melania is beautiful but so what there are many beautiful women in the world. In my youth I have been with many who (as I recall them anyway, lol ) were at least as attractive as she.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, and Trump will continue to have access to Melania and others should he so choose. On the other hand, who knows what bitter demons lurk in Hillary’s head. She might launch just to kill Bill, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski.

          • Brucehenry

            She has demonstrated no such insanity while Trump has been observably loony and oafish.

          • Rdm42

            If the EU was an economic union anymore you might have a point, but the EU has made itself an unelected government instead.

          • Brucehenry

            Then perhaps the EU should be reformed and not abandoned.

          • Rdm42

            Except the EU is run by people who are not accountable to the populations of its member states – so how would you exactly propose accomplishing reform?

          • Brucehenry

            Oh I don’t know by negotiation? What kind of question is that?

          • jim_m

            A simple and direct one. Since most MEP’s are appointed by their political parties they are immune to most voter influences.

            If you had a legislative body composed of political operatives who never had to stand for election how do you think they would vote? They would vote for the extreme of their party’s positions that’s how. So in an EU dominated by left wing parties and centrist conservatives you end up with a body that continually passes radically left policies such as the pending ban on electric tea kettles, toasters and hair dryers (that was so unpalatable in the UK they deliberately postponed it until after the referendum) , and laws that dictate the acceptable curvature of bananas and cucumbers and the diameter of carrots, peaches and plums, making it illegal to sell produce that is non-compliant with the standard.

            It is that sort of stupid, intrusive and all controlling legislation that lead to the demise of the EU in Britain. And there is no way to negotiate with someone who you cannot remove from power.

            What are you going to do? Change parties? You would just as easily remove the Dems and the GOP from the US.

            No. The only answer was to leave the EU. Others will find that out soon enough. The fact is that the EU is a net exporter to the UK. The EU will lose big on the UK leaving. Moreso than the UK will since they will in short order get favorable trade agreements from everywhere (well, obviously they will have to wait for the world’s biggest racist to leave the oval office to conclude one with the US).

          • Rdm42

            How would you propose reforming an institution when one of its salient features is that it is run by unelected individuals who ignore the will of its member constituents? When the eh has sprouted for itself all of the accoutrements of a national government it is not really practicable to claw it back to merely a free economic zone.

          • Brucehenry

            When the governments of its member states have enough pressure applied to them by their respective voters, reform can be accomplished, just like any other organization.

          • jim_m

            The governments do not elect the MEP’s the political parties do. So the EU government is not beholden to the member state’s governments either.

            It is as if you set up a super Congress that was filled with political operatives from the Dems and GOP, who were not answerable to the public and once appointed, not recallable by their political parties.

          • Brucehenry

            Well since the voters in the parliamentary democracies that make up the EU vote for political parties, they can vote for the party that promises to send reformers to the EU parliament.

            Alternatively, at least theoretically the governments could negotiate a whole new agreement that returns the EU closer to its origins as a free-trade zone.

          • jim_m

            As I said, it would be as effective as US voters trying to remove the Dems and GOP. Theory is nice, but reality tells us that your theory is bullshit.

            Yes, governments could work out a new agreement that rolls back much of the EU nonsense, but the reality is that most people at the tops of the parties have already bought into the full program. Even Cameron as head of the Conservatives had bought into the full EU ideal.

            What astonishes me is the left’s revulsion at the idea that the people should have a say in how they are governed. It’s more proof that the left believes that people should be ruled. We are cattle to be herded without rights or individual value other than our ability to support the state.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you seem to have read and thought about this subject a great deal more than I have. Are you telling me that there are NO serious proposals for reform, other than “leave?”

          • jim_m

            I pointed out that France wants to try to reform the EU. I am saying that it is unlikely to happen because no one on the inside is calling for that reform.

            I am saying that because there are a LOT of people (like your bigots from Esquire) that really do want a EU fascist state to cram a far left agenda down Europe’s throat that they will fight reform tooth and nail. Already they are attempting to invalidate the referendum with a bogus petition with fake signatures. No anti-democratic stone will go unturned to find a way to keep their fascist dreams alive.

          • Brucehenry

            The thoughts of two liberal writers who both happen to write for Esquire, one more pessimistic than the other:

            http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46149/what-happens-after-brexit/

            http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a46143/why-brexit-bad-for-britain/

          • jim_m

            Wow. Yeah, I don’t think you could have produced a better pair of examples of left wing condescension, bigotry and fascism.

            White people are evil and their views are evil and they should be suppressed. Totalitarian utopianism is cool and people’s rights need to be suppressed so we can force them into the beautiful future that we have reamed of them. It will be just like the soviet union, but European!

            Yeah, these are the people that call for concentration camps and think they are being just.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL I should have known better you can’t fucking read. Remind me not to giggle the next time you talk to me about “painting with an over broad brush.”

          • jim_m

            Seriously?

            WTF dumbass. What about a title that says “Some of the Oldest, Whitest People on Earth Voted Against Monsters in Their Heads” is telling you that the article is not full of leftist racist tropes?

            I suppose you saw none of the bullshit involved in the bigoted statement “this is a demonstration of panicky xenophobia”. Yep, call your opponents racists, xenophobes all while pointing out their race as the chief reawson why they should not be allowed to have a say in government.

            Fuck you Bruce. You are even more blind on this than usual. You started with claiming that everyone who voted for Leave was racist and you now conclude with that base on articles from people as sheltered in their echo chambers as you are. Maybe if you ever went to Europe to see the damage that the EU had one you would know.

            Then again, maybe you believe that laws on the curvature of bananas are necessary. That the state must send inspectors into every green grocer in England to make sure they are selling peaches of legal diameter and setting enormous fines if they do not. Or maybe you think it fine to ban electric toasters on the bizarre notion that we will save the planet from global warming by doing so.

            You are a full out supporter of this crap and you buy into the fascist demonization and othering of the opposition painting them as subhuman. Yes, I believe as I have said in the past that you will find excuses for the fascist state right up to shoving the opposition in mass graves.

          • Brucehenry

            I knew you’d find a rationale for a “fuck you.”

          • jim_m

            You post an article that make the blanket statement that all white people are racists.

            You earned it.

          • jim_m

            That is what the French have been proposing, but there is little impetus to do so. Perhaps now that the UK has left there will be some movement, but there are hard feelings in Brussels and some are wanting to do as much as they can to screw over the UK. My suspicion is that how they deal with the UK will have a huge impact on other nations wanting to stay and that perversely, the more harshly the UK is dealt with the more likely other nations will be to leave.

      • jim_m

        Theodore Dalrymple states your problem well:

        For a long time, Britons who wanted their country to leave the
        European Union were regarded almost as mentally ill by those who wanted
        it to stay. The leavers didn’t have an opinion; they had a pathology.
        Since one doesn’t argue with pathology, it wasn’t necessary for the
        remainers to answer the leavers with more than sneers and derision.

        Even after the vote, the attitude persists. Those who voted to leave are described as, ipso facto, small-minded, xenophobic, and fearful of the future. Those who voted to stay are described as, ipso facto, open-minded, cosmopolitan, and forward-looking.

        You simply cannot accept that someone can have a differing opinion from your without calling them a racist, xenophobe, etc. You have already demonstrated that fact.

        You take as a given that anyone who disagrees with you is unworthy of respect. And you wonder why I treat you with contempt? It is how you treat others.

        • Brucehenry

          I really don’t wonder why. I know why. It is because you have “small hands,” like Trump.

          Dalrymple is just again verbalizing the chip-on-the-shoulder resentment of people who resent being looked down upon for their ignorance and bigotry. While it is true that some people are called racist and xenophobe without cause, it is also true that racist and xenophobe are appropriate adjectives to describe many others.

          • jim_m

            But you use them to describe everyone who disagrees with you and have admitted such on this thread.

          • Brucehenry

            I have?

            Oh, you mean when I said I should use milder language? Well, sure, we Southerners like to be polite and feel bad when we call people what they really are without adding “Bless his heart.”

          • jim_m

            When I said that you painted everyone with an overbroad brush. It wasn’t that some people don’t deserve the names you call. It’s that 99% of people do not. You make reactionary responses calling people racists and xenophobes without bothering to even look at what they think or why they take a position.

            To you the taking of a position is evidence of the motive.

          • Brucehenry

            I guess the irony of YOU accusing ME of this behavior is lost on you.

            Please tell me of any who advocate for, say, gun control, or marriage equality, or who oppose “Voter ID” laws, who are not either America-haters, commies, or “SJWs” on the one hand, or “stupid” on the other.

            To you the taking of a position is evidence of a motive, too.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    I spend part of every year in Northern Italy and I have to admit I thought the EU should have been comprised of nothing more than cooperative trade agreements (size matters). It just might be nothing more than that within a few years.

    I am consistently amazed that I can rent a car and drive all over Europe without being scrutinized at any borders; that is preposterous.

    I was there in October and November last year when thousands of Libyans were landing on their shores each and every day. While Italy has had a historically welcoming culture, they do not have the resources to continually absorb refugees.

    The direct parallels to the United States, however, are somewhat specious due to the substantial differences in geography and economic flexibility.

    Europe, as we have known it, is in demographic trouble.

    Free, unfettered, travel throughout Europe is something that needs to be curtailed and I understand there are already movements to that end.

    With all that being said, will this have a significant economic cost to Great Britain? Oh yeah. Could this be the end of the United Kingdom? Sure.

    • jim_m

      I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with you.

    • Commander_Chico

      Why is it “preposterous” that you can drive from Italy to Denmark without checkpoints?

      It does not need to be “curtailed” if the EU secured its external borders and stopped breaking states like Libya and Syria.

      • jim_m

        True, but the EU is not capable of that. Sure, they could do it from a practical standpoint, logistically it might be difficult in some areas, but it is possible. But the real issue that prevents them is that ideologically they are incapable. Merkel and other leaders are completely disinterested in doing so. Labour was already shown to have planned to dilute the vote of native UK people with immigrants. The Eurocrats wanted to engineer an electorate to ensure their continued luxury. That is starting to end.

      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Because Denmark and Italy are separate countries? This is not the same as driving from Michigan to Indiana or any other state.

        I can travel to Canada in about 30 minutes and was always amazed that prior to 911 all I had to do was show a paper birth certificate to cross the border. Both countries now require either a passport or an enhanced driver’s license. Does this make sense? Of course, they are distinct and separate countries. I will offer, however, that when boating on Lake St. Clair or many of the Great Lakes, all one has to do is land on the Canadian shore, call Customs on the phone and wait about half an hour for them to “greet” you. Additionally, while there are some sensors along the long border between the U.S. and Canada, there are also border cities where one can simply walk across the street and find themselves in another country.

        • Commander_Chico

          Countries can choose their border governance. It’s like the Commerce clause and the question of the United States each being sovereign states within a larger structure. If you were moving to a United States of Europe, easing border controls is a necessary step.

          It’s generally better to have more freedom of movement. Certainly, there is little reason to have passport controls within Schengen for air travel.

          • jim_m

            EU members are not allowed to choose for themselves. Border controls within the EU are by EU mandate.

          • Commander_Chico

            Not in the case of removing all border controls within Schengen. Countries did have a choice there. The UK and Ireland are not part of Schengen and kept their border controls. Schengen also included non-EU counties like Norway and Switzerland.

  • Commander_Chico

    A guy said this to me at Mother Jones:

    Your avatar is super creepy and disturbing. Makes people think you are living in a mental asylum but somehow you still have wifi

    • Brucehenry

      Like Jay Tea?

      • Commander_Chico

        Ya, maybe I am Jay Tea but don’t even know it as “Chico.”

  • Commander_Chico

    In other news, “the Pentagon” has decided to lift a ban on transgender troops. Insane.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/us/ban-on-transgender-servicemembers-to-be-repealed-by-july-1.416203

    Unlike gays and lesbians, who were always in the military in the closet until the recent changes, transgenders are a miniscule proportion of the population.

    Trannies will require grossly disportionate expenditures and personnel, medical, and facilities resources.

    This change will also hurt recruiting amongst regular males and females who will not want to be in barracks and latrines/heads, especially with with “transitioning” male-to-females.

    • Vagabond661

      Why, if you really are transitioning, would you join an organization that epitomizes conformity?

    • jim_m

      The goal of the left is to render the military incapable of defending the United States. They have previously stated that they want to make it impossible for the military to conduct a war.

      • Commander_Chico

        They are pandering and have too many political appointees who are sympathetic to this nonsense. The result is to make the armed forces weaker, but it’s not the intent.

        They love wars, too: all of Hillary’s folks on deck want to bomb Assad for Bibi. They don’t care how much chaos and drama this will create in units, though.

        Of course China laughs at this nonsense.

        • jim_m

          China laughs because it has read Hilary’s email for the last 8 years.

  • pennywit

    Since this is an open thread. This disgusts me a bit:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/28/christian-quarterback-tim-tebow-didnt-do-anything-heroic-on-a-delta-flight

    I understand that Hemant and his commenters aren’t religious, but there’s no call for ridiculing Tebow here. Not just that, but I don’t think they get the purely secular effect of not just praying, but praying with somebody. Tebow didn’t just pray. He reached out to a suffering man’s family and reassured that family they weren’t alone. He also stayed with them while they waited for news from the hospital.

    • Scalia

      The author seems chagrined that Tebow was somehow getting “credit” for helping this man. I agree with you that the author’s reaction, although measured, is over-the-top. If Tebow had engaged in some self-promotion after the event, then he would deserve the disdain of others. More nits to pick, I guess.

      • pennywit

        Yeah. This thing kind of set me off, particularly the smarmy “Well, I guess Tebow didn’t pray hard enough!” comments.

        • jim_m

          People hate Tebow because he is genuine and is really a decent person. Thay hate him because he points out how big their own failure is. Plus ther eis a general disdain for anyone professing to be a Christian. The left hates Christianity and believe that religion in general should be something kept hidden from society, unless it is islam and that’s OK because isalm hates America.

          • Scalia

            You’re spot on. The Left doesn’t mind Christianity, so long as it doesn’t believe in the Bible. That’s why they like to portray Christians either as hypocrites or in full support of the liberal agenda.

            I have very little time for modern media, but I heard about a series called Grantchester. It’s about a crime-solving priest. Well, I lost interest rather quickly when I found out that this so-called priest drinks, smokes, fornicates and commits adultery–but he’s a great man because he solves crime. Yeah, that’s the kind of “priest” the Left loves. They can’t portray a preacher who is morally clean because, as you said, it highlights their own moral failings.

          • pennywit

            I can’t comment one way or another on the Grantchester series. But I note parenthetically that it’s very difficult for a 100 percent morally clean character to be an interesting protagonist. I’m fond of the Knights of the Cross from Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            People don’t hate Tebow, they hate that Internet bloggers insist that he is a viable quarterback or suggest that he wasn’t given a chance because he was outwardly devout. He was a failed quarterback because he has one fatal flaw, he can’t throw.

          • Scalia

            Your recollection is different from mine. I recall a lot of mockery because he prayed openly at games. When the Broncos rode that winning streak into the playoffs with Tebow at the helm, he was definitely popular in Denver, and he threw well enough to get critical wins. Yet, for some bizarre reason, people kept focusing on his praying. I don’t have the slightest doubt that were he Muslim, nobody would have said anything. Muhammad Ali prayed with uplifted hands before every fight, but you didn’t see cameras in his face or hear comments about it. It’s the typical liberal double standard.

          • Brucehenry

            Talk about faulty recollection! The mockery and derision Tebow has endured, while of a different character due to the Internet and 24 hour news, pales in comparison to what Ali went through.

            “You didn’t… hear comments about it.” WHAT??!!?