Not entirely surprising that he shares an article from a guy most famous for writing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11:_The_Big_Lie

At least now we know what kind of media you read.

Don't watch if you haven't seen Game of Thrones S6 yet!

Meh this is lazy meta narrative analysis.

I dont know what counts as the hyperbolic "ruined", but everyone knew there would be some damage, a lot of this was completely reasonable predicated on the uncertainty after a Brexit.

I never imagined this level of uncertainty. It had not even crossed my mind that there was absolutely no formal planning in place for Brexit and we would have domestic political turmoil.

Anyone thinking the present situation will not be damaging both inward investment and expansion planning is away with the cukoos.

People can point to the short term movements of the FTSE but nearly all of that movement is market relative price action, due to low exchange rate and pricing in extra liquidity.

Its like a lettuce, most of the damage is under the surface that you can't see until you cut into it.

The market is fairly neutral now because there is stability that everyone accepts this will be a process measured in years, even though no one knows what the outcome will be. However many major companies are evaluating their position based on where Britain ends up with plans being drawn up to stay in Europe even if Britain doesn't.

If we stay in the single market and keep free movement of people to do so then the economy will be largely unaffected. IE the Norway model.

If we leave the free market the tumble of reaction we got last week will be a treasured childhood memory.

We are in an economic holding pattern and the markets told us exactly what will happen if British exit includes the single market and isn't just an exit from the political union.

You can't say "see all the fears were for nothing" when nothing has actually changed yet and the pound and 250 are both trading significantly lower than the pre British exit announcment values.

I always wondered why there is no conspiracy theory about the independence of the British colonies being a hoax, and the Queen still actually running things. Maybe because that would be actually true?

I dunno about the USA but I will be most disappointed if we don't have a campaign to British exit nato.

This is all about taking back sovereignty, right?

Also we should see the removal of the queen any day now what with this being about stopping unelected officials saying what Britain should do.

Also the appointed lords need to go asap for the same reasons. But everyone seems to agree on that one.

Its time for Britain to leave nato and leave the royal family. Let's convert Buckingham palace into a new Disney Land style resort. With British cartoon characters. Instead of Mickey Mouse we have Danger Mouse. And Bob the Builder can fix it. Bananaman needs to be there too, and you can ride on Thomas the Tank Engine and learn what the royal mail was from Postman Pat back when we had royals and people sent paper emails . So many great British cartoons that kids today would love if immigrant cartoons hadn't stolen their jobs. We'll invent some more to make the list longer than five.

Do we even need to be on the UN I security council? We never elected anyone in the UN so can we leave it?

Yeah, we are medium-long term beyond screwed.

Short term looks not horrific, simply because nothing has happened. Everything bombed, until Cameron sttod at the podium and stated he will not be activating. a.50. There was a small rebound - FTSE 100 back to "normal" due to weak £, 250 not so much.

Let that sink in - the drop in £GBP so far is the result of a non-binding opinion poll, and no actual happenings. No politician appears to be keen on activating a.50 any time soon. Nothing has changed, we're still a full member of the EU with the best deal of everyone - and yet the uncertainty that maybe at some point tin the future we activate a.50 leads to this.

It looks like a real long shot right now, but I am hoping all Con candidates are saying "brexit means brexit" because it's been 1 week, and to say anything else would be to scupper their chances. Not Gove, he's a true believer. If we do push forward with this, the best hope is a "Norway" deal, but that won't be a thing for a decade. We need to buy time, and say "the climate has changed, we remain.". Even then, how will the racists react when they discover "we are out of Europe, but basically all that means is we are in Europe but without out veto and EU immigrants are worse than the deal we sacrificed in 2016". We're now paying £350M/week for worse than we used to have. Hell, we may even have to adopt the Euro!

What on earth is it going to look like when 80% of the City of London leaves, Tata Steel leaves, Nissan leaves, Heathrow expansion is shelved, EDF energy power plant is cancelled, and god knows what else. All the farmer subsidies evaporate. No research grants for universities. UK tax revenues will be what, 50% of current? Osborne has already said "the plan was to be in surplus by 2020, lol at that now". No chance the NHS survives a brexit, especially with Tories in control. +£350M/week? it's a sick sick joke. They'll be lucky if the cuts are half that in the wrong direction.

Boris knows this, you have to think T.May and the others do too.

But the alternative is racist riots, and "disrespect of democracy". We are well and truly f*&^ked

how does nato steal sovereignty or the queen have any political power

didn't know what the UN was a political union.

satire has to make sense

NATO requires countries to go to war.

does the queen have to approve of new PMs?

Well the deal is stupid sure because I dont like to make deals with guys like Erdogan and being blackmailed.

To say that closing the borders would have resolved everything is just ridiculous. How long would that have worked when there are are pics in the news every day about the horrible conditions at the EU borders. The rich EU closed their borders and watched people dying and living in ghetto's. Well you have to have no heart if you like that approach. Or you just dont give a ****. Well so why should the rest of the world give a **** about climate change or other important matters where we really need their help?

Newsflash: There are 7bn people living on that planet and the wealth is concentrated among 1% of them. The majority lives under ****ty conditions, conflict zones or whatever. But you already adopted the favoured style by the rich "Blame the immigrants." Good Job.

Now we've finally wrenched back control of our bananas, there's a rumour David Milliband may be coming back to lead the Labour party.

tax revenues of 50% of current values eh

this is what i mean by leave campaignesque

NATO membership means you can find yourself at war with no decision to do so at all and it can and often does direct the armed forces of member states. Members hand over huge amounts of sovereignty to them.

The queen has lots of powers, largely treated as symbolic yet they still exist. In any case she is our head of state despite never once winning an election.

I can't believe anyone can even ask if the UN is a political union.

The UN security council is expressly political and the UN through all its mechanisms has huge amounts of political influence and will.

i can believe bitchibee would ask that.

As a political junkie, an event like this is endlessly fascinating. All the machinations, intrigue, deal making and betrayals makes this look like a real life version of "House of Cards" - the British version of House of Cards.

I'm an American so my knowledge of UK politics is not on a par with chezlaw, BAIDS, Phill, et al. I'm curious about one aspect of this drama which might have been covered in a previous post. After the result of the vote was announced on June 24th, there was an immediate reaction (by some) that was very critical of Prime Minister Cameron. (I recall chezlaw comparing PM Cameron to Neville Chamberlain - a devastating critique.)

What I'm interested in are the political calculations which led David Cameron to believe that calling for a referendum on EU membership was a correct and wise political gambit? Was PM Cameron forced into this decision by certain members of his own party - which seems to be a consistent "explanation" in some circles. Can a legitimate argument be made that if Cameron had not promised a referendum, he would have faced a Vote of No Confidence in fairly short order? (In other words, was this something the PM felt he had to do?)

Alternatively, did the PM decide on this path motivated [primarily] by self interest, figuring that a win (for "Remain") would bolster his own grip on power? Or, was this a sterling example of a politician being so out-of-touch with his own constituency that he was blind to currents roiling the body politic? Was Cameron the "victim" of Boris Johnson's treachery - or did he simply run a terrible campaign?

If "Remain" had won - and the vote was close - PM Cameron would likely be claiming vindication rather than submitting his resignation. Sometimes in poker we get in a race where it can go either way - chit happens. Was Cameron "sucked out on" or the victim of his own self inflicted wound? How much of the condemnation Mr. Cameron is receiving is justified? Is Mr. Cameron being condemned more for the result rather than whether or not it was a correct decision to seek the referendum?

UKIP (a single issue, anti-immigration Brexit party) had been taking votes from the Tories for some time, and agreeing to their demands for a referendum (and winning it comfortably, as they assumed they would) was seen by Cameron etc as a way of resolving both that problem and the problem of the Tory party being split over the EU.

Like most leading Tories, Cameron etc don't know their own country very well.

imo it's explained by the events of john major's time as PM (1990-97)

tories were coming off the huge majorities of the thatcher years. they booted out maggie in 1990. ppl thought the best the tories could hope for in the 1992 election was a small loss but in fact they won a small overall majority.

the 1992-97 parliament was dominated by tory infighting over europe. the party tore itself apart over the issue and the public held its nose. this was especially difficult for the PM because of his small majority - it meant that a fairly small number of tory rebel MPs could wield a lot of power. this, plus the issue of sleaze/hypocrisy (tory ppl caught up in corruption and sex scandals while major was going on about a return to family values*) led to stuff like this:

and in the following general election tony blair took control of govt with such an overwhelming landslide that it kept the tories out of power for 13 years, and this is despite labour taking us into the massively unpopular wars.

the conditions for a similar turn of events were there this time, a large number of agitating euroskeptic tory MPs + small majority in the house of commons. rather than risk the future of his party (and himself), cameron clipped the fuse off of the bomb by calling the refeyendum.

the eurobomb exploded anyway, but unlike last time it appears to have maimed everyone and not just the tories. one of the better possible results of this whole mess if looked at through the supernarrow perspective of tory power

*much later on it emerged that major himself had been conducting an affair with another tory person a few years before becoming pm

jal:

Interesting observation. This reminds me of an interview I saw years ago with Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States. (Bandar was Ambassador during the first President Bush's term in office, circa late 1980's.) Prince Bandar was explaining the difference between politics as practiced in the United States versus politics as practiced in Saudi Arabia. The conversation went something like this.

Prince Bandar: "In your country, if you get out-of-touch with your people, you lose your job. In my country, if you get out-of-touch with your people, you lose your head. That's the difference!"

btw the ukip stealing tory votes theory hasn't been borne out by results imo - in 2015 it was mostly ex-labour voters going ukip and in the refeyendum it was labour heartland voting out. this was internal party politics all the way.

Ted:

I remember watching (and being fascinated) with "House of Cards" when it aired over here on PBS. I had the distinct impression that although it was "fiction," it probably wasn't that far off the mark. Thirty years ago I was involved in local politics, primarily working for Republican candidates as a volunteer. (I have a foster brother who is an elected public official.) I have seen (up close) how petty and vindictive pols can be - they are very capable of holding a grudge. Politics is a blood sport - and many of its practitioners love thrusting the knife.

As an actor, I suspect Ian Richardson loved playing the role of the dastardly (sinister) PM Francis Urquhart. I've always thought British drama is so much better than what Hollywood turns out over here. But that's to be expected from the country that gave us William Shakespeare.

No it won't be necessary to "take it up", I was merely asking a question. Although taken without the sarcasm, the article you cite does actually support your claim that:

Yep, great post.

Yeah you would hope so, we will just have to see who gets in and what they do.

I am hoping the powers in the UK will beg the EU for some concession, no matter how small, anything that they can take back here and paint as a victory for the immigration/racist lot.

Yeah probably a bit extreme, I'm no economist though and did phrase it as a question. What would you think is a sensible number?

Personally I don't think the NHS can survive even much smaller losses.

It will be tragicomedy when the government has to admit that the claimed £350M/day post-Brexit extra to spend on the NHS was invented, and they'll have to sell it off to the private sector because GDP has fallen so much (although of course it won't be phrased in that way).