UK decides to leave the EU
With a huge turnout and in the wake of a controversial killing of a MP the UK people voted to leave the EU. Many cited the control of its' borders as the main reason. A handful of other members are also considering a similar direction. Can the US learn anything from this or are we just terminally ruled by our leaders?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/25/world … .html?_r=0I wish the British people all success in their choice as it is theirs to make.
The BREXIT voters won a majority, lets see if Trump and rightwing proposals from same can win a majority here next fall?I really have to congratulate the people in the UK. A populous uprising is not something that has historically happened there from what I have read. We cannot have global corporations acting as governments, playing god and deciding our fates. This victory is a reflection of what is happening in the US, and makes a Trump presidency more likely. We are a sovereign nation!
We have had a popular uprising - our Civil War (mid seventeenth century). King Charles I was executed and parliament put in control. The monarchy was restored after people found that the alternative suited them even less.
King Charles I, was executed! I don't remember having read that, so thank you for informing me. I read a little about that and was surprised that he was beheaded.
From Magna Carta to today, Britons enjoy a political history that is very different from that of the European continent. I suspect that the majority of natural born Britons don't really think of themselves as European. That is a good thing, as they are their own people and limited monarchy is very old in the British Isles. The idea of "divine right of kings" may have appealed to a few English kings, but I bet it hasn't appealed to any other Briton since the days of Alfred, the Great. The same cannot be said of France or Germany/Prussia/Holy Roman Empire.
Where do you think all this American pigheadedness comes from? The English, Scots and Irish birthed us - intellectually, metaphorically, biologically and economically. Our Revolution was the culmination of 500 years of British political history - a history of independence and stubbornness.
Thanks Great Britain!
rhamson, I think you may have helped me as a Brit to understand something of American politics. When you equate our referendum vote with the question 'are we just terminally ruled by our leaders', I think inadvertently you have highlighted a difference between our two countries that I have never fully understood.
It is fear about our National Government which I have never understood. You see, we have no fears whatsoever about rule by our Goverment. We've never regarded it as tyrannical and we don't have a problem with it. Indeed, the whole point of the Leave vote in this referendum was to give control back to our British Government (leaders)! Not to take it away. We feel that there was too much control in the hands of the European Union.
So I wonder if maybe the reason why so many Americans fear their government is that you view your national federal government in much the same way as we view the European Parliament? And I wonder if maybe you regard your State Legislature in much the way we regard our national government?Your comparison of our (U.S.), government to the British perspective of the EU government may be a very apt one.
As I tried to understand the basic mechanics of the Brexit arguments, it seemed to me to boil down to a sense of national sovereignty and border control for it, vs. economic arguments against it.
I also think this may be analogous to many American's perspective of our national government having too much control, with our citizen's having too little.
GALet me interject, if I may? In this country conservatives say that they loath the idea of Government. Yet, I do not know of any other mechnism as to how we are to conduct the peoples' business.
With conservatives, the national government is an adversary. The say they want it smaller and non-obstrusive, but we cannot go back to the days of knee britches and powdered wigs. This country has over 300 millions in population and to think that we can have a 'Daniel Boone' type of government today is insane.
There are always issues about taxes and collectivism that they say have got out of hand, while letting the wealthy and powerful rape the worker and empty the treasury as the byproduct.
If there is any problem with Government, it is the influence of corporation and private sector sources buying representatives and rigging the system to their advantage, at the expense of everyone else. But conservatives are slow to acknowledge the influence of these sources who they say are the 'job creators and the engine of the American economy. In other words, a sacred cow.
Believe me, your concept of 'conservative' in Britain makes your counterparts here in the states look like mad dogs.
That is just my opinion. I am sure that there will be plenty 'true believers' around that will rebut my statements. Interesting though, your right of center is equivalent to my left of center.
Your questions and imput are most valuable coming from someone on the outside of the fray. I would like to get your take on some of these things more often.
In regard to your recent choice and your future, all my hopes.....I think there is a difference in how the two countries carry on governing themselves. The UK has been around for a very long time as the rest of Europe. You have developed a rapport between your government serving you in a more socialist way and are inextricably tied to it for their support rather than it being tied to you for its' support. Here in the US our government through political wrangling has become a headdress for the lobbying and corporate ownership that ties our hands for the welfare of our people. Nothing gets done without the right people either getting influence or being paid. A capitalist heaven if you will. We the people only get what they deem necessary to continue down this same path.
As a side note the US press is so concerned with carrying the news about the Brexit vote with a emphasis on the monetary impact it will have on the US and the rest of the world including the UK. As I understand it the vote was primarily to address the immigration policies now employed by the EU and how it directly relates to the UK. Here in the US we seem to be focused more on the economic impact and not so much on the so called xenophobic issues. Typical for the US.I get the impression that British leadership is more concerned about the country than about their personal power and money, relative to the "leadership" in the US. I cannot imagine, for example, any sitting president taking the step that Cameron did.
At the same time, though, I expected that the news in the US would center around the effect we might see here. That seems normal and natural - what will the action do to us is of more concern than "Why did they do it?". Not so sure that immigration isn't going to be big this election - I see Trump jumping all over the recent SCOTUS decision and Clintons statement that she not only supported Obama's illegal actions but would expand them.Hi. I'm sure there are significant differences in the relationship which exists (though I disagree with the inference of some of what you say and shy away from the term 'socialist' - accepting that Americans have a very different interpretation of that term than we do). I cannot comment on the aspects of American politics that you mention.
As far as the referendum was concerned, I think it's fair to say that Remain were more concerned with the economy and international stability, whilst Brexit was more concerned with immigration and Sovereignty. Re-immigration, there are obviously extreme right-wingers who are xenophobic, but they are a tiny minority in the UK. And a larger number are concerned about Islamic immigration for the obvious cultural reasons or terrorist fears, though not to the extent of wanting to see it stopped entirely a la Donald Trump. But as they are non-EU countries, immigration from the Middle East is not really affected too much by membership of the EU anyway at this time.
For the majority who supported Brexit immigration mattered more in respect of how it is controlled, rather than precise numbers. Under EU rules there is freedom of movement between member nations. A large number of EU members from East Europe - notably Poles, Rumanians and Bulgarians - have migrated in the hope of better living conditions and better paid jobs. At present, the British Government cannot refuse them entry (though they do have some control over benefits paid) and many worry about loss of jobs to migrants. So more than immigration, the Brexit result was associated with greater sovereignty and the right to determine such matters in our own country.I totally get what you are saying and there is a frame of mind among some Trump supporters with a xenophobic slant yet we are faced with a slightly different problem. While your membership in the EU predicates the acceptance of anybody within the EU we have no such agreement with other countries especially to our north and south. These other countries citizens cannot just legally move here yet there is a large group here that want to pay it no attention. I have to compete for jobs that people who are not US citizens hold. I am a tradesman and self employed. My competition hires illegal immigrants at slave wages and cheats their costs in unfair ways. I can't seem to do a damn thing about it as more legislation is in the works to make permanent the problem. The UK at least has a legal acceptance of the situation I seem to have no recourse with. Our corporations cry foul when we try to raise the wages to keep up with the standards while they reap the rewards of ever increasing profits. I can understand the economic empathy that Trump has raised yet the xenophobes are exasperating the issues.
I think this is a tide that is sweeping most of the western industrial world. It isn't the first time, nor will it be the last. There is a rise in nationalist parties in Europe, the UK and the US. There are increasing numbers of people discontented with the direction the current "powers that be" are taking the West.
The economic crisis persists despite promises that it would abate. The "PTB" have thrown the gates open to a flood of non-western humanity across much of Europe, to the consternation of its citizens - especially its women - and the frustration of countries like Hungary, Romania, Bulgari and Poland that want nothing to do with a flood of aliens - religious,language, culture, mores, education, etc...aliens.
The surge of political "rebels" in the ranks of American candidates - typified but not isolated to Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul - suggests that there is an undercurrent of discontent, disenchantment - perhaps even rebellion - among the American electorate.
I expect the same result as we saw with BREXIT. Hillary has strong allies among the ossified power structure and they are working hard to elect her and oppose Trump. I expect that will continue and they will claim success until the numbers come in on election night.
To quote the great Yogi, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
Just like BREXIT, the powers and their capital have all lined up with Hillary and that is no assurance of victory.
PS, the killing of the MP was wrapped in lies aimed at discrediting Pro-BREXIT by the big money, big government, big media - or as we call their American counterpart - The Democrats.Some of this I can agree with. Most of it I cannot. I look at things objectively from the UK - not with a conservative or liberal agenda or with a conspiracy agenda.
It is true that increasing numbers of people are discontented with the current direction that the EU is taking towards ever closer integration and union. And as you say, there has been increased immigration from 'non-Western humanity' as you put it. However, that is NOT the primary reason for the Brexit vote, because the UK has always had the freedom to determine how many migrants from other parts of the world we accept. Brexit does not significantly alter that. Ironically as far as immigration is concerned, the primary reason for the Brexit vote is the large number of immigrants coming from the very countries you describe as being anti-immigration - Rumania, Bulgaria and Poland! It is unrestricted immigration from these countries - members of the EU - which was the primary reason for the Brexit vote.
Far from being anti-'powers-that-be', Brexit voters are quite happy to see power in the hands of the Government - but they want it to be in the hands of our national Government - not the European Government.
As far as the murder of Jo Cox MP is concerned, let me say this. I voted for Brexit. But I do not recognise all the stuff about big money, big government or big media trying to discredit Brexit with lies about her death. That is complete nonsense. All the national media coverage and political comment on the murder was very fair and impartial in its reporting of what happened.
You should try not to see everything - even reporting of a murder in the UK - from the point of view of pro Republican conservative - anti Democrat liberal bias.What Retief does not get is that the ideological poles in Britain are different than what they are here. What passes for center right in Britain might well be the equivalent of center left here.
It is most reasonable to want to be led by your own elected Government and not the EU. Our conservatives here loath the principal of 'government' at its very foundation. Quite a stark difference I think.Credence, thanks. I do wonder how much support a 'British Donald Trump' would get if he expressed similar sentiments and attitudes as your home-grown version does. Certainly not the 51.9% that Brexit got!
I think he is variously regarded by the large majority in the UK as dangerous, outrageous or comically ridiculous. (But I suspect if he does win the Presidency, nobody will regard him as comical).Trump is a symptom and not the representative of conservatism. He is no more dangerous than the current occupant. It will be interesting to see how well UKIP does in the next election.
Yes, Trump is dangerous and I am sure that he would be ejected from political discourse among those with finer sensibilities. Yes, there is a substantial number here that find Trump dangerous, outrageous or comically ridiculous.
Even though the American electorate is notoriously fickle, I doubt that he can win here.
Another misconception by a liberal about what conservatism means. Read the Federalists if you want to know what conservatives think of government.
"It is most reasonable to want to be led by your own elected Government and not the EU."
Herein may be the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in the US. For conservatives don't want to be "led" by government lackeys or self serving politicians; they want to lead government into doing what the people require in order to live together and very little more. Liberals, on the other hand, DO want to be led by government; led, cared for and supported. They don't want the responsibility of making decisions (or to face the results of their bad decisions); they want government to make decisions FOR them. IMOMisintepretation; I elect my representatives to lead. From the President on down. I was not implying that people are led around like cattle. Led in the sense of what that means in a representative democracy,
Conservatives have the same concept of government that Patrick Henry had, this is the 21st century. But again, there is that difference in what you think people require and what I do.So the mere passage of time is sufficient to invalidate ideas rooted in clear notions about human nature. The idea that the state is automatically vested with superior moral judgement to the individual is, on the face it, absurd. The state is not populated with angels. Oops, sorry that sounds like one of those old dead guys.
It is the conceit of the modern to believe that the present is automatically morally superior to all other times. The modern once was the starvation of the Kulaks and permitting independent farms was an antiquated notion.
Right is timeless.
A state that is empowered to take from the person who worked for property and award it to another who did absolutely nothing to earn it except hold the favor of the state, is not right and not new.
However, it is the model state of the modern liberal l.Nobody says anything about the State having some moral superiority. I elect them to govern, nothing more.
I remind conservatives that their perogatives end where my nose begins. We all have to learn to accomodate one another as anything else is disaster.
So, Retief, what is superior about the past? Let's go back a century or so, would you want to live there? The past is just that, unretrievable, while the future has yet to be attained to.
What do you think taxes do? You have to surrender some of 'your property' so that the trains run on time, that is appropriate while it is not new. That is an unrealistic scenario, 'this state is empowered' stuff.Do liberals understand the difference between taxation for the good of the community and taxation to be given to specific individuals, for their good alone? The old saw about housing for everyone, food for everyone, health care for everyone, phones for everyone etc. is good for the community is tired and threadworn as we "progress" ever further towards cradle to grave total care.
Is the taxation for the military largesse for my benefit or that of defense contractors?
Nobody wants this 'total care' scenario you keep talking about. I support the provisions of the New Deal and medicare and medicaid of the LBJ administration. If these interventions were not proposed, particularly the ones in the 1930's there may well have been no America for us to be talking about.
I support the concept of work and earning. Is taking care of the elderly and infirm taxation for the good of the community? Do conservatives debate over that?Nobody wants it...except the people living off of it. You guys pretend that no one is doing that, but I know better. Medicare is not an entitlement; it is paid for (many times over) by the people getting it. Medicaid is, though, but limited to the disabled pretty much. Or at least is supposed to be.
Not much debate over taking care of those that need it, except on how to stop the fraud. A pity as it needs expanded, but all the money goes to those more likely to vote for more freebies for themselves.
Again, personal experience here - my brother-in-law is brain damaged from an accident and can't hold any kind of a job. Yet, after the professionals that watched him for nearly a month testified that he couldn't possibly work, the judge asked him if he could. And the prompt reply was "Sure, I can work hard!". From a man that can't remember where's he's driving to for more than a couple of minutes, as testified to from the people that witnessed it. And the judge refused him any disability, based on a reply from a brain damaged patient. THAT'S what it's come to with rampant fraud - his 82 year old mother works in order to feed him. Yet we can buy cell phones for the "unfortunate". Bah!I have more of my share of horror stories of people who are living in Central America, living off of medicaid/disability. I have heard complaints from others as to the fact it is far to easy to qualify for this program.
Gosh, Wilderness, the standards for access to so many of these programs needs to be properly defined before we can even talk about tightening up enforcement. I also read that the biggest abusers of this program (Medicaid/Disability fraud) are found in West Virginia and Eastern Tennessee. Not exactly the home of the 'so called' welfare queens.
Where are the oversight, watchdogs operators that are to be checking this? It is not just a problem with liberals, it is part of the culture. Waste is always a byproduct of any living organism, and by extension, our society. No one from either party has seriously come forth with solutions, it is just conservatives adamant about protecting their sacred cows, while the progressive do the same with no thought as to the idea of efficiency.
We are all content with throwing money at our sacred cows, instead of focusing on efficiency.
What does a railroad schedule have to do with taxes, except in a liberal paradise where government has taken control of the railroad. Railroad punctuality is often used to illustrate the success of Mussolini's Italy. Yet another paragon of the liberal state.
The purpose of taxation is to fulfill those powers specifically delineated in the Constitution, an inconvenient old document.And yet...the concept and government implementation of time zones came about from an inability to use RR schedules. Every town was on their own time, making the huge RR system very nearly impossible to use and almost guaranteeing train accidents from multiple trains on the same track.
Interesting, yes? I came across that the other day - some guy was charged with making schedules more usable and time zones is what he came up with. Some pushing govt. to force the concept on the country and soon it was world wide.Isn't the enormous nation of China one time zome? I wonder how well that would work without an equally enormous concentration of authority.
"But again, there is that difference in what you think people require and what I do."
Therein lies the basic difference; liberals think everyone requires a nanny to guide them through life; conservatives find that they can, and should, do it themselves. Responsibility, as I said.You're operating on extremes on either pole and that is not accurate, the truth is generally not as drastic. The degree of so called independence conservatives say that they claim for themselves is not necessarily so much greater as to suggest liberals want a nanny state.
i.e. Just because I believe in the concept of a minimum wage does not imply that I support a nanny state,as most of the world's economies have the same provision. Unless, of course, you think the whole world is nanny and only conservatives have got the true nature of life figured out. Well, I doubt it.
The world is bigger than Idaho, enjoy your splendid isolation for as long as you can.You're right of course, that extremist viewpoints are usually used, to make a point if nothing else.
But in this case it seems that the nanny state takes ever more control over providing for everyone. It started with food stamps, then housing, then health care for kids and feeding them beyond food stamps. Then comes free utilities and health care for everyone.
I saw a report the other day that the projected savings over original estimates for Obamacare are now enough to eliminate the deficit. That's just the savings - the remaining cost is still enormous. The nanny state at work, with the largest spending bill in our history being pure charity for those not responsible for their own care. (Of course, those "savings" will be spent elsewhere - there will be no reduction in deficits.)
What's left? Pure, expensive luxuries? We already give everything needed to live a comfortable life - where will the socialists go next?
Here - this is extreme, but is also what we have become as a nation:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … mp;theaterI read your attachment, and I am just as appalled as you are. I've seen the social services net become more of hammock in Hawaii. Even as a left leaning person, I see that. I do not advocate cradle to grave care, I find a happy medium between that and the rugged individualism conservatives speak of, as if there were ever such a thing since Daniel Boone.
Social programs are legitimate as long as they are not abused. If they were not abused, we would not be having all of these problems."If they were not abused, we would not be having all of these problems."
Just so. But they are abused, and always will be. There will always be people, lots of them, that choose to live a slightly simpler life, but one without working for their needs. Our task is to plug all the loopholes we can, while helping those that need it, but the liberal answer is always simply to shovel money at it. Tax the rich to give charity to the poor instead of providing jobs, and it's a failing plan in the long run as it destroys initiative and responsibility. Which we see as more and more people are feeding from the unlimited pockets of Big Government.
Two things come to mind here. The first was when my state exclaimed with pride that they were giving more free food out than the prior year. That's not a good thing - that's a failure! The objective should never be to simply give away as much as possible; it should be to convince (force if necessary) people to provide for themselves. Provide jobs, not free food!
The second was when children got free lunch during the summer and I visited one of the locations. To find that every child there was from a for-profit day care center - the day care's (several of them) were profiting from the generosity and care of the community by loading up the kids for a romp in the park and lunch at taxpayer expense.
This is what happens (both cases) when we no longer care what a program costs and when the entitlement philosophy becomes one without shame. And both have come to pass with a vengeance; we view the rich as having an unlimited supply of the money we would like to "help" with (while chaining the "helped" to us forever) and the entitlement crowd doesn't want what they need - they want the maximum they can squeeze the rest of us for.
(Quite a link, wasn't it? Exaggerated, I hope, but pretty scary as I have known some people doing most if not all of that. Our caring, generous nature is turned against us big time and will ruin our society if we let it.)It is the job of government to provide oversight so that the programs are not abused. Not all progressives are for throwing good money after bad. Conservatives do not believe in the concept of the programs and I do. The entire government is rank with fraud, waste and abuse, and not just by those on social programs. So, when it comes to resources being improperly used, am I after DOD as well as welfare and food stamps and there is no difference for me.
Hawaii's Big Island is a microcosm in what is going on. There is a lot of unemployment. Where are the jobs and when Obama promoted economic stimulus to spur the economy to produce jobs, where were the conservatives?
The very nature of this economy precludes the idea full employment. What happens to those on the outside? The vaunted private sector was not stepping up.Now it is you that is making unwarranted exaggerations, for conservatives most definitely find a need for a safety net.
It is government's job, but government isn't doing it. Instead they simply throw out more money, tying the poor ever more firmly to the apron strings. And yes, there is vast waste in nearly all govt. programs; it is in the nature of govt. to do just that as there is unlimited money available. At least for things we don't need; somehow the infrastructure is still falling apart after the great stimulus program and nearly a trillion dollars.
"...when the entitlement philosophy becomes one without shame."
I also have the perception that this is the case in today's world. And I think it is the most important message of all. We appear to be doing more harm than good. Debating whether a particular entitlement program is good or bad seems almost beside the point now. The damage is serious.
GAI agree - in far too many cases we are doing more damage than good, and even in the sum total that may be true. All while allowing too many that need our help to fall by the wayside.
And I also agree that the lack of any shame is disturbing - it has become more of a game to work the system for as much as possible and that is not a good thing.
I knew there was hope. Your first paragraph seems to have a purple glow about it doesn't it?
Even your closing was less than the typical cosmic blue of a Progressive. Just add "The concept of... and even it would look a little purplish.
You better pack a Go-Bag, you might have to move to a new box in my neighborhood.
I do think "the rugged individualism... ... of Danial Boone" does still exist. The "individualism" has adapted to the times while maintaining the integrity of the principles Danial Boone represents when used as this type of reference. Our favorite color is purple.
GAGA, Liberal get a bum rap, for being people that want to give everybody else's money away carelessly and without restraint. (BLUE)
So, is there a true blue by that definition, I doubt it.
But we say that the conservatives are the equivalent of Eboneezer Scrooge, who would rather dress up bombs than feed kids. (RED)
So, I also doubt that there is a pure red
Both are exaggerations, but the truth is somewhere in the middle. I lean more one direction than the other. But, the direction that I lean toward, I am not extreme about and for a matter of fact, I consider myself quite reasonable in my expectations."I consider myself quite reasonable in my expectations."
The biggest spending bill in the history of the country is "reasonable"? (I assume you support Obamacare).
But I think everyone considers themselves "reasonable" - it is only the opinions of others, supported or not, that are "unreasonable".That works both ways, Wilderness...
The electorate will either vote in candidates that support their position or vote out those that don't. Isn't that the best way? I will work with it either way...
We should just the voters decide as to what is 'reasonable', what do you think, Yes?
Geez, Conservatives always see America as if Calvin Coolidge were still President.
Would you have voted against the "New Deal" as well?I confess that I'm not real familiar with the Roosevelt's New Deal. It does seem like I remember some additional regulation of failing industries, and a massive projects program to build America while providing jobs.
Either one I would support, although regulating business should be taken with great care. Of course, the proponents then often did not understand that - it had never been done on the scale being proposed. We have hindsight to show us what over-regulation does, they did not.
How about you? Would you favor feeding only those that work for their food (plus the infirm and others truly unable to do so)? If so, what is your comment on Obama's stimulus plan, intentionally set up for only "shovel ready" projects and thus never used at all? It sounded great, but internal limitations made it useless and "forced" far more outright charity than should have been required.I know a bit more about the New Deal as avid student of the period. Again, there are regulations that are merely exercises in bureaucracy and I say, we can do without those. But, there are plenty of others that are there for the protection of the consumer and society at large. When it comes to corporate America, I say, trust, but verify.
Yes, restaurants that are a public accomodation require city, or county food inspectors, for example. Is that too much 'regulation' for you?
There are instances where I would provide funds to feed people outside the parameters that you suggest. What about unemployment benefits and workers compensation, for example.
I like the concept of the stimulus, there are plenty of infrastructure work that needs to be done all over America. The roads here are a disgrace. We have crumbling bridges and the like. Either from the feds or money transfer to the states could make resources available to have these things repaired, putting people back to work with the money earned by people in such programs rippling through the economy.
It makes more sense than handing Thurston Howell III (job creator) large tax cuts so he could put all the money in his pocket and no have any meaningful effect on recovery.
Yes, I supported the stimulus in principle, and without GOP interference and obstruction it could have been even more successful. As it was, it was enough to keep the 2008 meltdown from becoming worse. Any economist will tell you that.I like restaurant regulation. And airport. And credit cards. I like most (but not all) regulation we have in use today (surprise!). But there is some (ADA and OSHA come to mind) that has become little more than a money maker for government. Once very useful (reminds me of unions) they need chopped back to something that is once again useful rather than simply onerous (reminds me of unions).
You missed the point of the stimulus; our infrastructure is crumbling fast and badly. So we make a stimulus that will provide jobs AND fix at least some of it...but without the OK to begin work. So very little of it was spent and very little actually provided jobs.
Instead we extended unemployment insurance from an insurance program paid for by workers/employers to another charity program paid for by taxes, and paid people to be out of work year after year. Because they refused to take lower jobs, refused to relocate, refused to work at anything at all pretty soon. THAT'S what I disagree with - painting a pretty picture, then turning it into just another charity program, throwing money at it without any effect except allowing people to sit at home at their leisure.
(Unemployment is but one of the programs we have that is seriously broken, IMHO. It often pays little more than minimum wage, insufficient to support and keep homes and cars for someone used to and requiring far more. It was paid for far too long as the recession was ending. And in some states it pays way too much - losing your job after being foolish enough to not save anything should be painful.)That is unfortunate that the stimulus program did not take full effect, as I supported it.
I remember extending unemployment insurance to great lenghs. I don't think that immediately after the meltdown people were just sitting around as if there were plentiful jobs for the taking. It cost money to relocate and if you do not have a job.... Continued high unemployment and poor job prospects, unprecedented during the 2008 period put political pressure to continue the unemployment payment.
Being realistic, most people, particularly families, do not have a great deal of savings and live paycheck to paycheck, that is just the nature of things.
I am not accusing the President of not trying to get the program on the right track.
But like you say, the unemployment is not supposed to be a feather bed, and some resources being made available are better than none at all.I supported it, too. But while I'm no economist, no politician, no lawmaker it was immediately obvious that it was almost certainly going to be a massive failure, and it was. Rather than bypassing the normal years of study and working on approval for projects, anything to be done had to have already have gone through the myriad of approval processes. Meaning that the money was already available and did not need an infusion of govt. funds anyway. And jobs that desperately needed doing, but hadn't gone through the process, were ineligible for stimulus funding.
Again, I'm not an economist, but even I saw a recession coming. It was all over the news, everywhere, and we stopped any frivolous, entertainment spending. It all went into a savings account for nearly two years, with the result that when both my wife and I lost our jobs we survived without massive losses. It wasn't much fun (understatement!) but we made it through and it's really tough to be real sympathetic to the spenders that never think of the future - that just figure they'll live at the public trough until things improve.
I supported the unemployment extension to a year, but when it went on to two years, as the economy was already improving, it got a thumbs down. Nothing but throwing money out - after a year even in tough times jobs can be found. It might be flipping burgers, it might be shoveling manure, but it all pays...if only one is willing to do such menial labor. But they weren't - too easy to collect unemployment and it paid near as much, or more, than a job would.
I'll tell you something else about unemployment: a great many construction workers know they will be laid off when the current job is finished. It is the way of the trade - most are hired just for the current job and know it. Yet, even with good pay, there is no reason to save as unemployment is always available and many of those workers will stretch it as far as possible, enjoying their paid vacation. It's too easy to "scam" the system, "searching" for work only where it is known to be non-existent. I know - I've had more than a few workers calling me and asking if the company I worked for was hiring, as they wouldn't apply if it was! It's broken, but no one cares.I hear you, Wilderness
Well you are smarter than most people, who could have predicted the 2008 meltdown two years before? I am of the nature that whether good times or bad, I never take things for granted. I have been around long enough to know that what is up will eventually come down. I did not have a crystal ball, but am naturally cautious. I was into computerized technical stock analysis back in the day and the warnings were clear a month or two before the catastrophe for those that knew what to look for.
Have much disposible income does the average family have available?
Why would anyone be content to live on marginal unemployment benefits rather than have a job, the money that you get, as you said before, is hardly adequate? I lot of people were holding out for a better employment situation as they had mortgages and families to support that working at Burger King would not cover.
I am not in disagreement with you, a federal drive the equivalent of the moon shot is probably needed to weed through all of these things. The Government has been slovenly and wasteful in many areas. The will to really address these problems seems to be over the heads of everyone in both parties, because we gotta rock more than a few apple carts.As we are in basic agreement on this matter, I will only say that I am quite happy to live on a fraction of what I made when working. I retired early, knowing it would cut my SS by a considerable amount, and have not been sorry I did, even though what is left out of what I paid in is but a pittance.
Here is an interesting exercise for you: I once took the SS report we get every little while and put all the contributions into a spreadsheet, growing at a yearly "interest" rate I could fiddle with. At 10% (lower than historical stock growth for large mutual funds) I would have been a multi-millionaire, able to now take out more each month than Uncle Sam gives me in a year, and without touching the principle.
Our vaunted leaders completely ignored any fiduciary duty, "borrowing" my contributions at interest rates insufficient to keep up with inflation. BOTH parties did this (gotta pay for the pork somehow), and the inevitable result is that retirees that should have been rich are paupers instead. Try it if you can find one of those reports - the results are revealing.Yes, indeed, you speak of early retirement. I was thinking about early retirement when I was in my 20's. Financial independence was my lure, while working for the Feds, I dabbled in Amway, Herbalife, Juice Plus, Pre-Paid Legal etc. Multilevel marketing was my passion Then in the go-go nineties, I became fascinated with the day trading craze with dreams of wealth beyond all avarice, but I was never was very good at any of them. But, I tried. . I kept my rather mundane civil service job throughout. I am glad that I did. While an early stage federal employee, I heard about the striking of the Air Traffic Controllers in 1984. Reagan fired them and put out notice for the need for replacements. These guys were making $40K per year and they were complaining? That was a lot of money in 1984 and was almost triple what I was dragging down at the time. I was going to become the biggest scab in town. I took the test and passed with an offer to report to Oklahoma City for training, but backed out at the last minute having been spooked by a fellow already in the profession as to its true nature. Lots of pressure, lots of stress, but on the other side, the retirement side, under (CSRS) Civil Service Retirement System which no longer existed for employees hired after 1984, these guys were being 'retired' at 50 with pensions of 100K plus a year. I could have kicked myself. But on that different timelime, I may not survived under the pressure. CSRS included a mandatory deduction of wages 7 percent. Good thing that they took the money as I could have never saved so consistently on my own.
I don't know, I still strongly subscribe to the 'bird in the hand' philosophy. Too many people put their money into these IRA and such without recognizing that you have to monitor your investments frequently and carefully. Over the last few years, I suspect that the return that people routinely expected on long term investment is not as reliable as it had been in the past. Have you ever seen what interest banks pay on passbook savings accounts these days? And then, you have the tsunami, who is prepared to take the losses from years of savings? The IRA maintenance fees and surcharges were intimidating, in of themselves. I stuck with my chosen profession of federal contracting eventually moving into a journeyman level with wages to match. There were many of my peers who left federal service in the nineties, taking contracting and negotiation skill based jobs from the other side of the negotiating table, making considerably more than their federal counterparts,(McDonald/Douglas, Martin Marietta) boasting of tremendous salaries.
But then, there was that 'bird' again. Federal pensions had the benefit of not having 'market risk'. After a few years, I was vested and could not afford to leave money on the table. You do your time, 30 years plus and work your rank/grade up and you get a check, regardless of the market or the economy. The old system was much like military retirement.
I am left with a comfortable retirement, but Man, it is not 100K. Could I have done better over a period of 34 years, maybe? But then, there is that bird again, I would give the 7% percent under the program for a 'sure thing' rather than risk having to work at Walmart to supplement inadequate income later, even though there was the possibility of earning more managing things myself.
I am sure that we could swap several tall tales, over a brew or two. You're ok, as long as we don't delve into politics.LOL - I, too, dabbled in several MLM schemes. All failures, I'm afraid, as I am NOT a salesman. But I tried, and did save what I could over the years.
I disagree on investments, though, if they are long term ones. A good mutual fund, based on a large number of companies has always done well in the long term and some have extremely fees. Of course, short term is another question entirely, and the last few years have severely cut into many retirement plans. One must be prepared to either monitor heavily in the last decade or so before retirement or get out of them for something more safe, but before that it's quite safe to just let it ride out the ups and downs; history supports this as does my own experience.
I find you OK too, Credence. At least for a bleeding heart liberal that would enslave the population to the dictates of the politicians.
Hold on, I didn't go quite that far. I believe there are plenty of Blues and Reds. They are the ones that vote the party line, no matter what. They are the ones that stand tall believing the party talking points no matter what the facts or reality are. They are the ones that will not be swayed from their perspective no matter how flawed it can be proven to be.
As for the Liberals getting a bad rap... I think enough of them, (Left-wingers), have earned it to entitle the whole group to share. Same for the Right-wingers. You frequently start in with, "You Conservatives..." when talking about some Right-winger fiasco. So you are doing the same to them as others do to Liberals.
I too think you are reasonable in your expectations, as you are in our discussions, so it's about time someone told you to let go of that "Progressive" label. You are only holding it to make you feel good that you want and expect progress in our society. "Not like those Right-wingers!"
There is a nice purple rancher just down the street from me. You will love the neighbors. ;-)
GABut, GA, there is no way I can be catagorized as politically conservative in this climate. How else do I define myself. Yes, I am for Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, what good red blooded conservative will tell you that? There is nothing left to define me than 'progressive' or liberal, if you like.
It is getting harder to tell the difference between rat**** and pepper. The GOP party has adopted the way of the rightwing extremists and they have overrun the "moderate" conservative banner.
Of course, progress is desirable over digress, which political philosophy is more in line with that? I am rather opinionated about that one.
No, my relative azur is quite genuine.
The more that the nanny state (or the US government if you wish) takes more control over caring for people, that's the more that it can use as a lever, to control. Conservatives hold this as a doctrine, that what government gives, it can also take. The less that Americans take care of themselves and each other, the more the nanny state (or the US government) takes on. Our society has decayed to a point where increase in the size and power of the nanny state (or US government) is now inevitable because far left policies appeal to more people who've abdicated their individual responsibilities (outside of those who're unable to help themselves - fewer in number than we're led to believe). Sad and sick situation.
This is great news. They were able to take their country back!
The British pound crashed to its lowest levels in 31 years as the country
EU leaders call for UK to leave as soon as possible
Divided Britain
Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favor of staying in the EU, leading to calls for a second referendum on Scottish independence to allow Scots to "remain" even if the rest of the nation leaves.
"Scotland is voting overwhelming to stay; if Scotland cannot be coerced into leaving the EU against its will, you cannot in all decency deny them a second referendum," Schama said.
"If all the leavers are about self-government, and taking back control, why shouldn't Scotland take back control?"
In Northern Ireland, which also voted to "remain" in the EU, the Brexit vote may also have a lasting impact, with some suggesting it may lead to Irish unification.
May be to soon to celebrate...Hmm, I am glad that Cameron allowed a vote. I read that Italy, France and the Netherlands are demanding a vote on the EU and the euro now. I think it would be totally unfair to deny the UK a free trade deal after the people voted on Brexit.
There may well be another referendum in Scotland, and they may choose independence this time, but we should be clear - it is not really about 'taking back control' unless you are talking about the level of control which existed 300 years in the past!
Scotland voluntarily joined with England (albeit under economic pressure) in the Act of Union of 1707. Control was not lost to England, but shared, albeit with England always the dominant partner by virtue of its much greater population size. As a result of devolution to a local Scottish parliament, Scotland has actually had far more 'control' of its own affairs in the past couple of decades than it ever had in the previous couple of centuries. Indeed, in terms of political influence, Scotland would have far more 'control' as part of a United Kingdom outside of the EU, than it would as an independent nation within the EU!
As for Northern Ireland, there is no prospect of Irish unification. The majority of people in Northern Ireland have always wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, and that is more important to them than European Community membership.What is there to celebrate? Little England proving how xenophobic it is? How 'frightened' the little woman is of "those foreigners" coming here, speaking our language, doing our jobs better than us"?
I am mortified today to having been forced to remain in Britain. Thankfully my country voted against this madness.
Scotland has already been cheated out of independence through a rigged referendum.
History will repeat itself, regardless of who is in charge. Ignore MI5 at your peril. Their primary directive is to uphold the British State.
Long live Britannia.The way I understand it, it is a little bit about xenophobia. When Turkey was allowed into the European Union, Turkish people were coming to Britain in droves, and not assimilating. They were overtaking neighborhoods and living under the Turkish laws, even though they were in Britain. They shouldn't have been allowed to overtake areas, not allow police there, and insist the women wear the clothing they wore in Turkey.
And Turkey isn't even in Europe anyway.
I'd be happy if the far right Southern States of the U.S. succeeded, they want the U.S. to go backwards in time before the Civil War. And we have a large contingent of people who want to feel like they are living in the 1950's. You can't go backwards, and that's what Donald Trump's followers want to do, when they say, "Take back our country." It's not that simple.
As the times change, people and their attitudes change. Most of these people are in their 70's and want to see the America they grew up in. It's gone, and people have to adapt to the changes or get out of the way of progress in human rights.Sorry Jean, there's seems to be some confusion here. Turkey is not a member of the European Union, and there has never been mass immigration into the UK by people from Turkey, introducing Turkish laws etc. That just has no basis in truth whatsoever I'm afraid. Some of course have concerns about Muslims from other Middle Eastern countries who have come to the UK, but that is nothing to do with Turkey joining the EU. They are not in the EU.
The only issue over immigration from EU countries has really been associated with the movement of people coming from East European nations like Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria who wish to settle here due to higher living standards. There's no major cultural resentments associated with that, but some people worry about the fact that immigration levels from those countries cannot be restricted by our government.
Turkey was raised in debate, because in the present climate of 'Islamophobia', there is a concern among some that Turkey may sooner rather than later become a member of the European Union. However, that is unlikely to happen in the very near future for a variety of reasons, including that country's recent relatively poor record on democracy.Hi Greensleeves,
I must have understood it wrong. I know Turkey, Albania, and other Muslim countries ARE trying to be part of the EU, going through what the process is, and that's one of the reasons that Britain wanted out. They want the benefits, but don't want to be part of the culture, they want to bring their customs and everything else with them, just to another country.
As you say, I'm sure this process will be very slow because of the human rights actions of some of these countries.Hi Jean. Thanks for your reply. I had to make that reply because the point about Turkey was clearly in error.
But in another comment of yours I notice you say: 'I am going to stop coming on these forums, everyone gets so rude. At least I don't hide behind a screen name'.
I know you wern't talking about me, but leaving aside the bit about usernames I do agree about the rudeness of some Internet comments. Internet forums on controversial issues generally are pretty horrible. Too many people fail to understand that someone can genuinely and for the best of reasons hold different viewpoints. HubPages is tame by comparison with some Internet forums, but nonetheless it can be pretty nasty when people won't accept others' right to a sincerely held opinion. Hope you don't feel too discouraged. AlunSince she was speaking to me on this one, I felt I should respond. I have no problem with 'sincerely held opinions' but when they are not based in fact and they disparage large segments of the population I think they should be addressed. Especially, when sharing an opinion which is not based in fact with someone in another nation.
I believe the person you are conversing with is not an American. Do us all a favor and share facts not biased opinions about the rest of us.
Thanks.I wasn't trying to be biased. I have a friend who is a history and political buff, and he told me that countries not really considered to be in Europe were trying to get into the EU. I wrote based on my understanding of that.
I knew the person I was conversing with was not American, but saw a correlation between countries wanting to leave the EU, and states which behave like they want to leave the U.S.
I am going to stop coming on these forums, everyone gets so rude. At least I don't hide behind a screen name.If asking you to share factual information and not biased opinions is rude, it is news to me. Living in the South, seeing no evidence of your comment; I'd say you are making things up.
And I do chuckle when someone gets upset and then makes the 'hide behind a screen name' comment. How do I know you are the name you are posting under? It's no less a screen name than any other name. These comments usually come up when someone is clearly in the wrong and not big enough to admit it. Thus, they choose to attempt to change the subject.What gives you the impression I am from the South? I live in New Jersey.
I saw a generational correlation in the Brexit, where older people want things to stay the same, and younger ones are more comfortable with changes. That's normal in any country.
There are many other countries besides Britain who are getting deluged with people from other countries, but they don't want to assimilate with the countries when they come to them, they expect to follow the rules and customs of their native countries. I saw on many news stations in the U.S. that Britain was getting fed up with that sort of thing.
In the U.S. now, we have a large difference of opinion about immigration as well, and the Deep South is particularly against it, that's what I was getting at.
I don't have to prove my identity to you. Many people come to forums to learn, I never professed to be an expert of European Politics as you apparently are.
I write on several sites, have my own blog, and am paid to contribute to two sites. My area of expertise is not Europe, that's why I came on here, and just drew a comparison to the fact that the people who wanted the Brexit were older, like the ones in the U.S. who want their countries to be the same as they were when they were young.
There's no need to be so condescending.I was not under the impression you lived in the South. I was under the impression you lived in the north and I assumed it was somewhere like Jersey. And, I wasn't addressing anything you said about older or younger people. I simply commented on your statement about the south. Which was erroneous.
Again, my only comment to you was to ask you to present factual information about the southern portion of the United States. Not spread biased gossipy opinions not based in fact
Interesting. Because Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin al have governors attempting to block it. Notice the inclusion of New Jersey in that list. Your state. Which is not in the Deep South.
But that wasn't the point of my comment and you are perfectly aware of that; thus you are attempting to divert the conversation. You said 'I'd be happy if the far right Southern States of the U.S. succeeded, they want the U.S. to go backwards in time before the Civil War. '
You being happy to see the south succeed is your own business. Saying the south wants to go backward is a falsehood, made up by you. I simply asked you not to spread false information based on your personal bias. I don''t think that was too much to ask.
LOL. Again an attempt to divert from the truth. No one asked you to prove your identity. Nor did I claim to be an expert on European Politics. I simply asked you to not share false information about sections of America. Unless you are not aware that America is not a part of Europe your statement makes little sense.
I don't really care about that. Just don't make up false and negative information about other parts of this country, attempt to pass it off as truth, and I'll be happy to not reply to your posts.
I can truthfully say the same to you.Saying the Eastern Deeper Southern states don't want time to go backwards is not a falsehood. Presidents Lincoln and Johnson both passed Civil Rights legislation, Lincoln when what was the Democratic Party now was Republican, around 1865, and Johnson, during his presidency, passed a Civil Rights Act in 1965.. It made no difference for years, black people just got terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan and other people. Many of those rights are still being squashed, people of color still have problems voting, for instance. I'm not saying things like this don't happen in the North, but it's more veiled. They are all states with Republican Governors. More of them are in the South of the U.S.
It is still my understanding that Turkey, Albania, and several other countries are trying to become members of the European Union. I have heard on the news and read that Britain is concerned that going through these countries may become a route many terrorists may take to get to European countries in the first place. That's why I brought up Turkey.
Can we please end this now? I made no attempt to divert anything, you keep attacking me for so many things I can't keep up.We can certainly end it. I would like to comment that the "more veiled" comment confuses me. Is prejudice then OK as long as it is veiled? The south had its problems. I used to know a guy from a small town in,NY. He said there were no blacks there. They moved in, just never moved out. And chuckled. That was recently. We don't look at things like that kindly here. Backward is backward and can be found in all states. It crosses all borders.
Edit. LOL at the republican governor jab. I guess in your mind all evil can be attributed to republicans. How deep."More Veiled" doesn't make it right. People just think Northern states have no prejudice, and it's there, just covered up. I think it's despicable no matter where it is.
It's a well known fact that Republicans have blocked almost everything the Democrats, particularly President Obama, tried to do in his Presidency. They want to kick out thousands of Latino people, even ones who were born and grew up in the U.S. They want to take away Women's rights to choose. They don't want to raise the minimum wage, although some people work 3 jobs and still can't pay their bills. Nobody can pay off their college bills unless they are in their 40's or have rich parents.
Just stop it. This is getting way off track, and I'm tired of being insulted by you.
How shallow ! Why don't you just say racism ,bigotry of old age ,ignorance and a clinging to bibles and guns is why people want control of their future and country . Why a people want there borders back . Why globalism in politics IS the only good answer .
Remember the old saying , "Good fences make good neighbors"? THAT is what everyone else seems to understand[ the majority ] . Not many of you have mentioned what it costs financially for the U.K. to belong , and how little they get back .New world order aim is to put power into the hands of the few,. Then divide and conquer us into slavery. Since slavery is greater than any other time in history, they doing a good of it.
Good for UK the euro is in danger with the US dollar in this New World Order Scam.
It is awesome and inspiring!
Although living across the Pond, am thrilled my fellow Britons won a massive victory against the establishment. Sure, the market dropped. Certainly the GBP dropped as well. This was expected. The FTSE { Footsie } has nearly recovered completely in a single days trading, while the GBP/EUR is climbing and will probably level off at about 1.40. The real results will be seen, economically, on how its fairs against the USD. If it climbs back to 1.48 -or higher- all should be well and the BOE will not need to inject the already prepared stimulus of 350B.
What intrigues most is the civility and preparedness on both sides of this vote.
And yes, another 6 member states have filed formal Referendums in the wake of #Brexit. This is only the beginning. The EU is an old post-war idea. A "United States of Europe" if you will. It worked for a while, because it was necessary, but has since run its course. Same goes for NATO. Now Britain can once more be great. The "California" of Europe, which it essentially is already. This opens the door wide for new relations with the BRICS, EEU, etc. A new frontier has been born.
Today's events prove beyond a doubt what people can achieve if they truly want it. Here in the States it is more apathetic -if not pathetic- than proactive. A lot of noise but when it comes down to it less than 20% of the current 350M people voted for their ruler(s). What we're stuck with is a media tycoon/fanatic and a neocon war hawk. If the American people really want change now's the time to prove it and follow in the footsteps Britain, Iceland, etc.
James"Although living across the Pond, am thrilled my fellow Britons won a massive victory against the establishment."
In my opinion, they haven't won a victory against the establishment. They have won a victory for one part of the establishment over another. That's all. The establishment is still firmly in control.
I think the concerns of the people over immigration and other issues were used by opportunists who would likely never have gotten close to the reins of power otherwise. If that sounds familiar it's because it's exactly the play Trump is trying to make. Sad to say, ordinary British people (the English and Welsh apparently, not the canny Scots and Northern Irish) have been hoodwinked. They're the ones who will likely suffer the economic fallout, however long it lasts.
Are any of the Brexit leaders from working class backgrounds? Is anyone who is likely to replace Cameron from a working class background? I'm guessing they mostly come from upper-class backgrounds. Taking control from one group of Eton and Harrow chums, and giving it to another group of Eton and Harrow chums, is not taking back control. It's just a changing of the guard. It's as bad as wanting the head of an international conglomerate to be president because you think he'll remove corporatism from politics. I take it back. It's not that bad at all.
"What intrigues most is the civility and preparedness on both sides of this vote. "
An MP was murdered. The person charged with her murder stated his name in court as "death to traitors, freedom for Britain". Doesn't sound very civil to me. Sounds like it was poisonous and divisive. A cautionary tale if ever there was one.To be clear, the establishment I spoke of is the European Union - namely Germany and her henchman-influencer: America. Second, I understand an MP was assassinated, yet in spite of it Britons remained typically rational and calm, in both the Remain and Leave camps- given the sheer volume of citizens participating. Compare it to the meager US primary election turnout and events to see the amazing differences. Third, currently this event has nothing to do with the overall leadership, although that will be happening very soon, as the transition unfolds. At this very moment England has more to gain and in a stronger place, regardless of which party emerges to lead the country -and perhaps the world- into the next century. Lastly, the British economy is actually very strong as seen by its effect against the so-called US-led global economy -in all sectors- and further witnessed by her rapid and near complete rebound, in practically the same day without the 300B stand-by injection from the BOE. They knew this was coming and, unlike the American government in '08, took every precaution to avert disaster.
As for the Scotland and Ireland, only time will tell. Right now they are flustered and feathers are flying everywhere. I think once calm settles in and the Exit Deal solidifies their positions will be much different, especially in light of yet another half-dozen countries preparing their exit strategies.
The only two resistant this event are Germany and America. Interestingly, it was because of these two countries the EU formed to begin with and why the world has been in chaos since.
Pax Britannica was not so long ago...
David Cameron is going to step down after the vote to leave Brexit won.
Interesting!Globalist David Cameron has shown that he prefers low level politics in my honest opinion.
Unity is the best foundation we can have on fair trade deals with the UK.
ADDED:
Obama thinks they can go to the end of the line, but he is pushing TPP.Hi folks
This BREXIT is the greater news since Obama declared gay marrage legal. Obama will be best known for this and being half black.
This the best thing for the power of the people and the planet vs Global Tyranny. Or course Central banking will attack them with a great depression . It going to happen with or without these Global corporatism. It's better to reset our future now. There is still world hope yet.
Thank you Credence for the vote of confidence! I have just written a hub on the subject. I'll just write a more detailed post about that.
Hi everyone. In the light of all the correspondence on this subject, I felt I should write a hub all about the Brexit vote, why it was taken, and its implications for the future.
I have included my personal opinion. However, I have made the bulk of the article as objective and neutral as possible, in order to provide a summary of the arguments on both sides and why it ended in a referendum and a Brexit vote. I wrote the article firstly so that those in other countries, who are not aware of all the issues, can understand them better, and secondly because since the vote there has been an atmosphere of divisiveness and panic in the UK.
Many corresponding here of course are American. I do not cover any analogies between Brexit and American politics in my article, and I'm not sure any should be drawn, but you can judge for yourself
The hub of course can be accessed from my profile page - it's called:
'The Exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union'
Related Discussions
- 66
What Do You Expect a Brexit Will Bring ?
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
The government’s bill implementing the withdrawal deal has passed through both Houses of Parliament, meaning the UK will finally be leaving the EU on January 31st, 2020. For the duration of the debate, both sides have made bold predictions about the success of failure of the split. What...
- 36
Odd Facts About European Leaders
by Susie Lehto 5 years ago
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, Great Britain’s Theresa May, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker all have in common?The first is they are all leaders of...
- 33
Brexit is it worth it?
by peterstreep 5 years ago
It's over a two years after the referendum. And the UK is on the brink of Brexit.In those two and a half years a lot has changed. People are much more aware of what the consequences are now then when they voted.It's a complicated issue and you could ask the question if with such complicated issues...
- 14
Now that the UK has "brexited" from the EU, will Ireland and Scotland declare th
by LoliHey 7 years ago
Now that the UK has "brexited" from the EU, will Ireland and Scotland declare their independence?Do you think those countries could try?
- 47
BREXIT - Are you pleased, mortified or bemused?
by Barbara Fitzgerald 7 years ago
Brexit seems to be the UKs answer to the US question: How do we get our mojo back?Donald Trump is our Brexit. A promise to take us back to simpler times, when we could rule our destiny and blah, blah blah. He is currently stumbling around Scotland, congratulating them on voting to take their...
- 56
Religion, Politics, and Government. What do you think?
by Tim Mitchell 2 years ago
What role does religion play in politics today while considering history? Which comes first – God, Religion, Government, or Political Party? Does it matter? How powerful/influential is it? One thing I consider is there is both a liberal view and conservative perspective with both religion and...